It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

50 Facts Concerning 9/11 that Point Away from the OS (The Facts Speak For Themselves)

page: 11
268
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


No, a troll is someone who says, "you're wrong, though I won't go into why" and then continues to post drival that is either irrelevant, misleading, illogical or completely non-sensical, in an apparent attempt to distract or stifle intellectual debate.

That seems to be the theme with many official conspiracy theorists, where avoidence of the logic and/or evidence is at all costs, because clearly it can't be refuted. That's what happens when you have one side whose whole argument is based on faith and the other side who refutes that faith. Generally, any evidence that may go against their faith is heavily, though unviably disputed in an effort to preserve that faith. Since the argument is based on faith, you can't really argue that faith against the evidence.


--airspoon




posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by VonDoomen
 


Why does the video you posted have the date Sept. 12, 2001? I'm just curious



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


Odd.....you have just quite succinctly described the majority tactics employed by people who proclaim themselves a "truth seeker".

Those who "believe" in various and sundry flavors of "inside job" paranoid delusions, merely because they've read it on certain Internet sites....and naively fell for it, rather than applying even a modicum of logic and reason, first. AND, shutting out any attempts by reasonable people to point out the fallacies and errors that are the basis for their "beliefs" in the first place!:


No, a troll is someone who says, "you're wrong, though I won't go into why" and then continues to post drival that is either irrelevant, misleading, illogical or completely non-sensical, in an apparent attempt to distract or stifle intellectual debate.


"....post drival [sic] that is either irrelevant..."
  • Check! ("truthers")

    "....misleading...."
  • Check! ("truthers")

    "....illogical...."
  • Check! ("truthers")

    "....completely non-sensical...."
  • Check! ("truthers")

    And, to "....stifle or distract intellectual debate."??? Yup, you guessed it!!
  • Check! (again...)


    A careful perusal, with open mind, of nearly every thread in the ATS "9/11" Forum will confirm this trend, on behalf of those people who profess to "believe" in the myriad (and, quite often, contradictory) "conspiracies" that have infested this topic, for the last nine+ years.........


    edit on 11 December 2010 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



  • posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 09:08 AM
    link   
    reply to post by weedwhacker
     


    well you again failed to prove your point..
    an ad hominem set of commentaries like that just proves Airspoon's point

    but hey the TSA gets to photo and grope children now so every lie has been worth it
    yes I Know we were told the machines couldn't save the pictures....

    I understand that even though the underwear bomber has been proven a COMPLETE HOAX...
    the debunkers are still telling us how we need these porn machines and kiddie gropes
    which won't even detect the type of explosive the fake bomber had...
    I wonder who they share the kiddie porn with?



    posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 09:44 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by weedwhacker
    the myriad (and, quite often, contradictory) "conspiracies"


    Here's a contradictory conspiracy for you.

    The hijackers were radical extremist Muslim.

    Some of the hijackers are known to have been in a strip club drinking alcohol the night before.

    Kinda contradictory when if you are so radical to kill yourself for your religion to be doing multiple sins (that will leave you in hell) the night before, eh?



    posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 09:54 AM
    link   
    reply to post by Danbones
     



    LOL!


    ....an ad hominem set of commentaries....


    Do you mean, as you did in the rest of our post? (Along with irrelevance....which is what I pointed out as a distraction tactic used constantly, by so-called "truthers"....):


    ....but hey the TSA gets to photo and grope children now so every lie has been worth it
    yes I Know we were told the machines couldn't save the pictures....


    Distraction.

    AND, an intellectually lazy assertion, since it is easily proven false. BUT, most people don't bother to actually research for themselves, do they???

    Then, distraction #2:


    I understand that even though the underwear bomber has been proven a COMPLETE HOAX...


    Yet another unfounded claim, fueled and given ALL of its "legs" from the virulent distortions of the Internet community, and the twisting of "facts" to suit their agendas....

    ...and, this nonsense persists WHY? Because, as I said above...."most people don't bother to actually research for themselves...."

    Distraction tactic, subset #1A:


    ...the debunkers are still telling us how we need these porn machines and kiddie gropes
    which won't even detect the type of explosive the fake bomber had...


    See above.

    Your (FALSE) premise to allege #1 means that #1A subset is equally inane, and unsupportable in fact.

    Then, in typical over-the-top hyperbole and hysteria, the coup de grace:


    I wonder who they share the kiddie porn with?


    Wow!! Just, amazing, how the patterns repeat themselves, from this side of the failed logic and false "facts" arena...


    ....well you again failed to prove your point..


    Au, contraire!!! I think you've just proven it FOR ME!!!


    And, BTW....before tossing the phrase "ad hominem" around so blithely, may wish to review its definition:


    An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.


    More here.

    Oh, and this is even better, as it seems more pertinent, here:


    –adjective
    1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
    2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.


    dictionary.reference.com...

    Note that definition #1, there? Seems reminiscent of the diatribe and false claims about the TSA and body scanners (facts that can be easily researched, if some effort is expended) in a certain post, in a FALSE assertion to "support" an alleged "ad hom" committed by yours truly!!


    In case you cannot yet see it, the fallacy of the connections made, by mentioning TSA, in THIS thread?? Think on it, for a while. Think hard. But, IF you can somehow show a causal relationship between the so-called "pre-planned 9/11 tragedy", and the current TSA situation, as it is today....AS IF it were all a "part of the Grand Scheme" from the start?? Well, present the evidence......



    posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 10:08 AM
    link   
    reply to post by Nutter
     


    Your definition of "contradictory" is specious, at best.

    Chew on this fact:


    A verse in the fourth chapter of the Quran, An-Nisaa (The Women) instructs; "And do not kill yourselves, surely God is most Merciful to you." (4:29)

    Most Muslim scholars and clerics consider suicide forbidden, including suicide bombings, and often cite the aforementioned verse in the Qur'an as a clear commandment forbidding suicide. Some Shafii scholars even classify suicide as an unpardonable sin, the equivalent of eternal sin in Christianity.
    From Wiki: Religious views on suicide.


    It is TRUE, is it not, that many, many, many allegedly "devout" Muslims have committed suicide, as part of their acts of terror and destruction??

    NOW....in just about any religion, is every so-called "sin" on equal footing? Is it not relative, in some ways....don't people RATIONALIZE, in order to "categorize" their so-called "sins"?? Sheesh...in Catholicism, supposedly, a "confession" will clean your slate!! (Seems silly to me, but again...that's me...)

    Do you suppose, maybe, that those hijackers on 9/11 had EQUAL "rationalizations" in mind??? To diminish the seemingly 'minor sin' of booze and loose women, compared to their (twisted views) of the 'greater good' of the acts they were planning to commit???

    THIS is why religion is so dangerous, ugly, and to my mind, the WORST invention of mankind. It can be re-interpreted in almost infinite ways, to suit the bias and goals of anyone, whether to commit good, or evil....

    BTW....you DID see the reports, from WikiLeaks, about the Saudis...right?

    It certainly should come as NO SURPRISE that hypocrisy is prevalent in ALL religions, no matter who claims to adhere to them....when they are free to act behind closed doors. Human nature CANNOT be dominated by something as ridiculous as a "religious belief", in the long run.......



    posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 10:10 AM
    link   
    reply to post by Nutter
     


    I'm not sure about the strip club and the alcohol the night before. Have you got a reliable source for that ?

    Plainly they were not going out of their way to advertise their religious views ( no full beards for example ) so to what degree were they just infiltrating the infidels which I guess is probably eminently forgiveable ?

    I cannot see any reason for them to embark on suicide flights other than religous extremism . Especially given all the Allah is the Greatest shouts to be heard on UA 93's cockpit voice recorder.



    posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 10:14 AM
    link   
    This is one of the better 911 threads, thanks Airspoon!

    Here I link an appropriate essay about dealing with "trolls", and how the game is played.

    www.bukisa.com...

    One thing I noticed, a true troll has to have the last comment, so keep that in mind. It always annoys me because the discussion rarely rises above the "troll" level, and I suppose that is the purpose. If we ever learn to just stop playing the trolls, we can move to more specific analysis of who specifically are coordinating the assaults on innocent people, and why. We could get more proactive. The troll doesn't seem to want that.

    Anyway, thanks Airspoon for another great thread!



    posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 10:26 AM
    link   
    reply to post by airspoon
     



    You're hard-working in bringing the facts into the spotlight. God bless you for being on the path of truth. Because truth is bigger than life itself. Thank you very much.


    edit on 12 11 2010 by wisdomnotemotion because: better remarks



    posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 10:29 AM
    link   
    reply to post by weedwhacker
     


    I ment every word of it WEEDWACKER
    as it says in the OP
    "50"
    and
    "the facts speak for them selves."

    have a nice day...
    .

    edit on 11-12-2010 by Danbones because: as I said above...EVERY LIE WAS WORTH IT



    posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 10:29 AM
    link   

    Attention!!!




    For those who have forgotten:
    This forum is dedicated to the discussion and speculation of cover-ups, scandals, and other conspiracies surrounding the events of 9/11/2001. Participants should be aware that this forum is under close staff scrutiny due to general rudeness by some. Discussion topics and follow-up responses in this forum will likely tend to lean in favor of conspiracies, scandals, and cover-ups. Members who would seek to refute such theories should be mindful of AboveTopSecret.com's tradition of focusing on conspiracy theory, cover-ups, and scandals.

    There will be an immediate end to bickering, personal attacks and off-topic posts.
    If continued, these posts can and will be warned and removed.

    Mod Note: Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link.

    Courtesy Is Mandatory

    Ad Hominem Attacks And You

    Posting Jokes, Ridiculing, Making Fun of Others in Threads...



    posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 11:18 AM
    link   
    reply to post by Brotherman
     

    I was wondering if anyone would notice that, thanks for pointing it out.

    unfortunately, that is THE video released by the government. Why it has that date is unknown to me.
    I have always been curious too.

    either the pentagon is lax with their IT and security infrastructure, or something fishy went on.
    you pick!


    Its also interesting that the trolling arguement continued, but no one offered to argue the facts I brought up!

    edit on 12/11/2010 by VonDoomen because: (no reason given)



    posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 12:39 PM
    link   
    reply to post by VonDoomen
     


    The timestamp was for when it was released. The original didnt have a time stamp. I'm pretty sure this has been address many times on ATS. A search through the databanks will be most helpful. It's not an automatic "aha! somethins suspicious here!" pass to conjure up another conspiracy.



    posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 01:15 PM
    link   
    reply to post by GenRadek
     


    yeaaa, except the release date of the footage is march 2002.
    not 9/12/01 one day after the attacks.



    posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 01:25 PM
    link   
    reply to post by VonDoomen
     


    I was just curious I dont really have the time all the time to meticulously search for the reason why when usually you get a million pages of argument lol that tends to not say much when you dont have the time to read it so figured Id ask. I just thought it was strange but I could deduce that there is/was a reason for the date being that way.



    posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 01:29 PM
    link   
    reply to post by VonDoomen
     


    I don't remember the exact reasoning why that happened, but it has been explained before here on ATS multiple times. I know it will take some digging through the threads to find it but, if you have some time on your hands, it wouldnt hurt. From what I can recall it was either a mistake, or just the date it was taken out and edited to add in the "plane" "impact" "impact zoomed" to show what is what. and to zoom in on the impact. It was never an original part of the video footage.
    It kinda clears it up here:
    www.abovetopsecret.com...

    I hope it helps you out!



    posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 01:50 PM
    link   
    reply to post by GenRadek
     


    yes ive read about the date a couple times in the past. and im not even arguing about the date, b/c I think there is better information to debate.

    And im like 99% sure that the security cams were probly just not set right.
    I honestly dont think there is anything to nefarious tied to this. However, the truth is still unknown!

    And no worries to the above poster. I knew you were just curious



    posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 06:06 PM
    link   
    With an incredible amount of information that does not coincide with the official story it amazes me how so many people are content to believe what they hear on the mainstream media. If this truly was a terrorist attack, why are there so many incongruities with the official story?



    posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 06:49 PM
    link   
    reply to post by tobyxero
     


    It is unfortunate that I posted 2 issues I would be willing to debate.

    And the arguement continued to be he said she said


    weedwhacker how come you havent addressed my questions?




    top topics



     
    268
    << 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

    log in

    join