It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Why is that.......

page: 6
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in


posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 01:43 AM
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.

posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 01:51 AM

Originally posted by Varemia
I'm not really feeling like doing a ton of research when I know that you people won't even consider a variable possibility. If you cannot even consider a second side to a story, then you are a bad scientist.

Do you always cop out like that. We consider everything if you hadn't noticed. A rebuttal to your points is considering your points. If I'm ignoring something let me know and I will address it.

You seem to expect people just to accept what you say?

Plus, I'm a full time college student who's here because he got sick and was so bored, this was the best place to go. Apologies for not being "up on my facts" like people who currently have theirs stored in recent memory. But, I will not guarantee that I will return to my active debating like before. I just don't see the point. You are a believer, and like a believer, you will shun the non-believers, as it were.

If you are not 'up on your facts', then you are being intellectually dishonest. I'm tired of trying to debate people who don't understand what they are debating. It's easy to debunk when you have script to follow, use your own brain and learn something about debate. If you're not sure of something research it, before you make false claims.

A believer in what? Known physics? No, it's not about belief, it's about facts and evidence. Try reading some of my posts sometime with an open mind, instead of just looking for points to try to debunk. This is not a game to ease your boredom. If you have valid points they will be discussed. If you are not interested enough to learn anything then why are you wasting peoples time by replying to them? It's a bit frustrating when I put a lot of work into a reply, and you come along with your causal debunking. and then act all pissy when people don't agree with you. You just keep making excuses to not bother addressing my points when your arguments fail.

If you don't see the point then neither do I, what ever happened to that ignore button?

BTW good luck in college, whatever you're studying. Maybe one day when you have had a few more years life experience you may gain a difference perspective on all this.

edit on 9/2/2011 by ANOK because: typo

posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 06:29 AM
reply to post by ANOK

I can understand how an engine works without knowing all the details about the amount of fuel it needs and the number of pistons required to move at different speeds. Not having all the minute details fresh in memory anymore does not make my understanding any less. It just makes it a little bit harder to talk about when you want to know the number of molecules in a glass jar half the time. (So you know, that last sentence was a metaphor. I know that recently people have been getting confused over my diction recently.)
edit on 2-9-2011 by Varemia because: removed "usage of" before diction. seemed unnecessary.

posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 06:33 AM
reply to post by benoni

Just so you know, personal attacks are not favored here (at least, that's how it was before. I don't know if those rules have changed.). Stop calling him an idiot and saying he's a child and saying he's using crappy methodology, and actually... I dunno, respond to his post?
edit on 2-9-2011 by Varemia because: fixed an "and" to an "an"

posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 06:38 AM

Originally posted by ANOK
How do two different news agencies make the same 'mistake'? They obvioulsy both had the same press release.
The event happened, afterwords, just as they reported it, that is one hell of a 'mistake'.

But I have taken note how desperate you all seem to dispel this fact.

But they weren't using Press Releases. Everything that day was live as the breaking news came in. Each news station was naturally clambering to get the best news fastest. If some wires got crossed and someone said that WTC 7 collapsed, then that had the potential to spread like wildfire. Some agencies would look at their feeds and say, "Nope, still standing," and ignore the info, and then other news agencies wouldn't think about it and feed it directly to the reporter in order to be saying it first, possibly because people weren't familiar with which building WTC 7 was (hence their crappy knowledge of the building that was smoking in the one).

I mean, you have to admit that it's a possibility, right?

posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 07:35 AM
The reason certain news spread like "wildfire" is that they were probably on the reuters feed and all the newsstations get the same feed.

posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 07:54 AM
reply to post by benoni

You made false assumptions about me and my beliefs when it comes to the NIST report, so I corrected you. You mentioned the list of professionals who believe in cockamamie conspiracy theories, and I pointed out that most of them are just as ill-informed as the people who have placed their faith in them. If you feel that is rambling, don't try to engage me in discussion.

As for the crack about my age, old enough to remember wondering why we didn't carpet bomb Beirut after Col Higgins was executed.

new topics

<< 3  4  5   >>

log in