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.

 

are HERE any non-american 9/11 Official Story Believers?

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 
You got me. I finally mis-spelled a word. But, you are right about one thing, you are stupid. So let's make a deal, you keep fighting to correct the spelling of all of us truthers, and we'll get to the bottom of the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on the American public. Oh, one more thing. Go blank yourself.




posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Acetradamus
 


I would never say I believe the official story but I don’t believe any of the conspiracy theories either. I think so far the official story offers the best explanation of what happened that day and as such I suppose on some level you could say that I do believe it but still have some questions.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by dillweed
 


Get to the bottom? Can you name a single accomplishment of the truth movement in the past 10 years?



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 
Well for one, you seem to be all in a huff about us, so that's something. What's your motive for joining this discussion, empathy?



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   
(In the UK) I was 15 when # went down. I had just got in from school, and my ma was watching it on TV, you couldn't escape it, it was on every single channel. I believed everything for a while. I can't remember exactly when I first started to doubt the OS, probably when I was about 18 and had moved out and more time to sit on the internet researching things etc
Now, I bay for hard evidence for everything that ANY Govt ever announces, in regards to political wars, terrorist 'executions/deaths', etc, and even then its met with scrutiny.
Way to raise a generation of bitter skeptics



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by roboe
reply to post by Acetradamus
 

I live in Europe (no reason to get any more specific than that, given some of the stuff I've read).

And from what I've been able to read and study, and relying on what experts have said so far, I know that on 9/11/2001, 19 Arab hijackers, supported by Osama bin Ladens Al Qaeda "think tank" (for the lack of a better word, it's too losely knit to be a proper group), hijacked 4 commercial airliners, utilized the weakness in the NORAD procedures, and crashed them into the WTC towers, the Pentagon, and a field near Shanksville, PA.

Subsequently, the WTC collapsed because of the fire and impact damages, sending debris flying in a variety of directions, starting fires and damageing nearby buildings. Part of the Pentagon also collapsed from the fire and impact damages there.

That's the overall gist of it. The extreme details will be discussed, and most of them will probably never been known in its entirety.

I used to be a truther, which I now recognise as being a sympton of BDS. I've seen the films, read the interviews, etc. but slowly I started to see the errors, lies, and leaps of logic in the arguments used by Truthers. And I now do my damn hardest in trying to open the eyes of other people, though I realise that a vast majority do not want to open them.


I'm Canadian and I'm with you. I bought into the truther version for a couple of years when it first started. I watched all the films, read all the documents, believed it for a while, but as time went by the arguments and "evidence" fell apart upon being challenged by real science. I really do feel quite silly for have been taken in for as long as I was, but I can admit when I've been wrong.

I thought the whole truther thing had pretty much died out to be honest, but I guess there are still people who think we never landed on the moon too.

I'd imagine that as long as Alex Jones has gold to hawk, he'll keep the narrative running lol



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by shaneR
 


I myself can not wait for every nasty tongued Australian to be living on a glass sheet. I have heard rumors or maybe it was my prayers, where I heard that Australia was a hot target...

Are there any Aussies that don't say really retarded things about America?



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by -PLB-
 
Well for one, you seem to be all in a huff about us, so that's something. What's your motive for joining this discussion, empathy?



I'm in here for a mixture of entertainment and learn about human psyche. Are you really suggesting that my attention is an accomplishment? But I agree, the attention of a random by passer is probably the greatest accomplishment this whole truth movement has ever achieved.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 03:52 PM
link   
2 Planes flown by terrorists crashed into the WTC.... A Plane with terrorists flew into the pentagon... Flight 93 is the only conspiracy.. We shot it down, but didn't want to tell the people that we shot it down.

Anything above and beyond that is nothing more than delusional fantasies, made up by profiteers, on fear mongering web sites.

I heard someone say the "truther" version was backed by scientists... Ok, so is the OS.. There are many scientists that agree with the OS and many that don't.. It sounds like almost any topic you bring up.

I guess if your ok with piecing together opinions and theories, to make facts, truthers are for you.. If you deal stricly with logic and verifiable facts... Truthers are not for you!



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 
You got me. I finally mis-spelled a word. But, you are right about one thing, you are stupid. So let's make a deal, you keep fighting to correct the spelling of all of us truthers, and we'll get to the bottom of the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on the American public.


You didn't misspell a word. You used the wrong syntax. Doesn't matter particularly, but be careful when accusing others of basic stupidity.

Good luck with getting to the bottom of the "fraud". It's been ten years and you've got precisely nowhere.


Oh, one more thing. Go blank yourself.


You seem upset. I would be if I was involved in something as thwarted and pointless as the Truth Movement. But if you're going to "get to the bottom" of all this and change a few minds - and not look like a frustrated cultist - you'd be better off coming over more relaxed. It's just better PR.




posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


Really?

I am getting grammar lessons now from someone who doesn't understand that elements of logical arguments are empty symbols?

Oh great.



Here is a newsflash: Formal argument works like this - If I can take the form of your argument and PROVE something that is nonsense then your argument is INVALID. It doesn't matter what facts you may or may not believe, invalid arguments are a priori useless.

So this...


Did planes impact with the buildings YES Did that cause damage YES Could the fuel explosion cause damage YES Could the fires have caused further damage YES So could what we saw happening actually happen YES!!!!!!!

...is just as worthless as every other OS argument, because by the same reasoning it could have been the Queen of England wot did it:
Is the Queen in England? YES
Does the Queen have helpers? YES
Could the Queen have ordered those helpers to blow up the building? YES!!!!!

So what we saw could have been caused by the Queen? YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (but what's your point?)

And grammar shammer, sometimes I think faster than I type, plus I can also claim the English as second language defense, since technically it is.
edit on 27-6-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
Can you name a single accomplishment of the truth movement in the past 10 years?


Well, some of them have made money from selling books, DVD's and doing speaking tours.

oh, some have also highlighted to the world their ignorance of physics and how things actually work, but apart from that I do not know anything that they have accomplished.



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 02:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Darkwing01
 


So in other words it's impossible to know what happened. Very Socratean, and also very useless. If all narartives carry an equal probability for you then why are you here? What's the point?



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 03:59 AM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


From a technical point of view it IS impossible to know exactly what happened. Until you accept that none of your opinions are worth considering in my view.

But that doesn't stop us from making educated guesses.

Fortunately there are rules set out historically which allow us to make very well-informed guesses of this type with a very good chance of guessing correctly.

First among these are the rules of formal logic: These allow us to avoid simple elementary mistakes like trying to argue that just because it could have happened means that it did happen (which is nonsense for I would hope are fairly obvious reasons).

The second line of defense is the injunction against informal fallacies such as putting a great deal of weight behind the the ideas put forward by people with known vested interests and a record of lying on the subject ONLY ON THE BASIS OF THEIR AUTHORITY, whatever the provenance of their authority. It also means that grammar and spelling are not tests of the veracity of a statement.

The final line is the scientific method. I am not talking about a list of things you need to do like you would see in a Wikipedia article, nor about editorial practices used in the field of science (here's looking at you peer-review). I am talking about fundamental rules of thumb which underlies scientific praxis as we understand it. These rules are things like applying BOTH parts of Occam's razor instead of just one, that data that is not reproducible is not data, that he who claims that it was 19 hijackers wot did it must provide positive evidence of the fact. Other rules include the fact that testimony elicited from torture is worth as much as output of computer models without source code and input parameters (i.e. nothing).

If you were to simply apply these easy steps all derived from time honored traditions of separating reality from the balderdash that people want you believe is reality you would find that there is no "could have happened" when it applies to the OS. It is not a case of some elements of it being unclear or possibly mistaken.

We don't know for certain what happened, you are right. But we do for certain what COULD NOT under any circumstances have happened: That would be the OS.
edit on 28-6-2011 by Darkwing01 because: grammar



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 04:06 AM
link   
I am one who needs proof for me to be persuaded.

I do NOT believe the full account of the OS but neither do I believe all the conspiracy hype surrounding it.

I would hazard a guess that the REAL truth is somewhere mixed in with both the OS and the Conspiracy Theories.


edit on 28-6-2011 by TheButcher23 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 04:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01
that he who claims that it was 19 hijackers wot did it must provide positive evidence of the fact.


There is plenty of positive evidence for hijackers. Video footage, passenger lists, telephone calls. But here is the major problem. Our main source of information is from government agencies. And anything that comes from government agencies is not to be trusted so should be discarded as evidence. And whenever a non-governmental agency comes with evidence they are government shills.

So how are you to obtain evidence when you discard anything that does not agree with your presupposition?


But we do for certain what COULD NOT under any circumstances have happened: That would be the OS.


Show your logical line of reasoning why it COULD NOT under any circumstances have happened.



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 06:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Darkwing01
 


Okay, thanks for all your help.


One thing sticks out though - the reproducibility of results. Dr Jones struggles a bit with that one, doesn't he?



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 07:51 AM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 





One thing sticks out though - the reproducibility of results. Dr Jones struggles a bit with that one, doesn't he?


You can reproducibly make thermite can you not?
You can reproducibly cut vertical columns with it can you not?
You reproducibly produce a demolition by cutting vertical columns can you not?
You can reproducibly find at least the products of thermitic reaction in the WTC dust (remember that Jones was not the first to report this, FEMA was) can you not?
You can reproducibly make molten iron look like the stuff that was pouring out that window can you not?

Every step is A) logical B) falsifiable and C) reproducible.

Again, that doesn't mean it is true, it just means that there is solid scientific evidence for it.

Contrast that to the OS where not a single elements meets this criteria, it is special pleading all the way.




Show your logical line of reasoning why it COULD NOT under any circumstances have happened.


Because the OS defies the laws of physics. We have strong grounds for asserting that because no one has been able to produce a sensible physical model that can reproducibly do what NIST requires.

Unless you want to argue that the laws of physics COULD under some circumstances have been circumvented the real question is why OS'ers cannot reproduce their findings in physical experiments.




There is plenty of positive evidence for hijackers. Video footage, passenger lists, telephone calls. But here is the major problem. Our main source of information is from government agencies.


There is evidence that some of the people who were claimed to have been hijackers were videotaped and had some documents, true. The provenance of this information is suspect, but I don't doubt that such people existed.

The MAJOR problem is the members of the 19 who turned out to be alive afterwards. There was a good story told about how that came about and if the hijackers were NOT those people, who they in fact were.

The OS seems to be that they were Ay-rabs. Sorry if that doesn't cut it for me.


edit on 28-6-2011 by Darkwing01 because: grammar

edit on 28-6-2011 by Darkwing01 because: parts

edit on 28-6-2011 by Darkwing01 because: parts

edit on 28-6-2011 by Darkwing01 because: iron

edit on 28-6-2011 by Darkwing01 because: touches



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 07:51 AM
link   
double post
edit on 28-6-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01
Because the OS defies the laws of physics. We have strong grounds for asserting that because no one has been able to produce a sensible physical model that can reproducibly do what NIST requires.

Unless you want to argue that the laws of physics COULD under some circumstances have been circumvented the real question is why OS'ers cannot reproduce their findings in physical experiments.


So at the hearth of your logical line of reasoning is a fallacy, an argument from ignorance. There is a physical model that reproduces NIST's theory, which is that planes and fires initiated the collapse.



The MAJOR problem is the members of the 19 who turned out to be alive afterwards. There was a good story told about how that came about and if the hijackers were NOT those people, who they in fact were.


This is a bunch of nonsense. People with the same names exist. I do not know your story but I am not interested either. I care about facts not stories.


The OS seems to be that they were Ay-rabs. Sorry if that doesn't cut it for me.


And the funny thing is, it doesn't make any sense for conspiracies either. The conspirators want to attack Afghanistan, and blame Saudis.
edit on 28-6-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join