The Official Story is a Conspiracy Theory, page 1

privacy

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times

Topic started on 12-9-2011 @ 08:22 PM by ErtaiNaGia

OR

con·spir·a·cy Noun: A secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.

You have all seen it.

A new thread opens up, debating the authenticity of the Official Story.... it may have some valid points, maybe it's about something obscure, and hilarious....

But, like clockwork, come the debunkers.... one after the other, claiming this and that..... Debunking as if these debunking attempts prove their own Crazy Conspiracy Theory of 19 hijackers with box-cutters.

And I assure you, Forensics does not work this way.

Positive claims require positive proof.

Which means that it doesn't matter how many so called "Conspiracy Theories" they debunk, they still have to prove their OWN Conspiracy theory, that is the official story... otherwise it's all hot air.

And this is the main weakness with the debunkers, they never deliver proof of their own Official Conspiracy Theory.... hoping against hope that merely by debunking others, their theory will be accepted as correct without question.

And so, this is the part where it turns around, where they have to defend themselves, instead of Truthers defending their position.

So.... if you are a Debunker... Kindly deliver Actual Proof that what the official story claims about WTC 7 Happened as the Official Conspiracy Theory Dictates.

PROVE that it collapsed due to fire.

I'll be waiting.

reply posted on 12-9-2011 @ 08:33 PM by filosophia

It's the "Official Conspiracy Theory"

Just think, if it was just one plane, they could have said it was a "lone wolf" (anyone remember Joe Stack? Amazing how we forget that guy).

I think they overstepped their bounds because with 4 planes they can't possibly say it was just one person (unless they admitted remote controlled airplanes).

Lee Harvey Oswald
John Wilks Booth
Jared Lee Loughner
Norway killer

All "lone wolves"

But you can't have a lone wolf hijacking 4 airplanes. That was their flaw, they gave up their bread and butter "lone nutter" and they were forced to admit a conspiracy. Which then makes the argument that conspiracies don't exist self-contradictory.

reply posted on 12-9-2011 @ 08:33 PM by Heartisblack

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia

And nobody likes it. The big thing was the fact that a man in a cave, managed to send his crazy people for a terrorist attack.

edit on 12-9-2011 by Heartisblack because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 12-9-2011 @ 09:17 PM by ErtaiNaGia

reply to post by Heartisblack

The big thing was the fact that a man in a cave, managed to send his crazy people for a terrorist attack.

And that is not a Fact, because it has not been proven, which is my point.

(Second Line)

reply posted on 12-9-2011 @ 09:18 PM by Varemia

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia

Let me ask you a similar question. How would you prove, as a Devil's Advocate, that the official story were true?

You are a layman at a computer (I assume). You have access to forensic reports of the towers, countless papers describing the mechanics of the collapse and the effect of the fires.

You present these to people in the hopes that they will read them and either disagree with their science or agree with it, maybe even disprove parts of it and show that it is only partially accurate.

Instead, ALL evidence that supports the Official Story is completely tossed. It is literally assumed to be wrong because it does not postulate the Controlled Demolition theory.

So, should I have to keep finding more and more evidence? Months back I had amassed a large collection of links pertaining to the physics and explanations for everything, all of it supporting the official story. You know what happened? It was completely ignored. After a while, it becomes pointless to continue doing the work. I'm not being paid a dime for this, and if I do work too hard, you know what happens? I get accused of being paid to do it!

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

reply posted on 12-9-2011 @ 09:20 PM by Heartisblack

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia

Let me ask you a similar question. How would you prove, as a Devil's Advocate, that the official story were true?

You are a layman at a computer (I assume). You have access to forensic reports of the towers, countless papers describing the mechanics of the collapse and the effect of the fires.

You present these to people in the hopes that they will read them and either disagree with their science or agree with it, maybe even disprove parts of it and show that it is only partially accurate.

Instead, ALL evidence that supports the Official Story is completely tossed. It is literally assumed to be wrong because it does not postulate the Controlled Demolition theory.

So, should I have to keep finding more and more evidence? Months back I had amassed a large collection of links pertaining to the physics and explanations for everything, all of it supporting the official story. You know what happened? It was completely ignored. After a while, it becomes pointless to continue doing the work. I'm not being paid a dime for this, and if I do work too hard, you know what happens? I get accused of being paid to do it!

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Dude, it's called physics. Google them, towers just don't fall like the twin towers did.

reply posted on 12-9-2011 @ 09:22 PM by Varemia

Originally posted by Heartisblack
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia

And nobody likes it. The big thing was the fact that a man in a cave, managed to send his crazy people for a terrorist attack.
edit on 12-9-2011 by Heartisblack because: (no reason given)

"A man in a cave" means a man who was trained by our government in military strategy and warfare. "Crazy people" means passionate men who spent months preparing by taking flight classes and steeling themselves with religion in order to pull it off.

One of the reasons people find the official story hard to believe is because they are only seeing the fairy tale version of it. There are facts and reality that make a lot more sense than the rhetoric that is used to describe it.

reply posted on 12-9-2011 @ 09:23 PM by Varemia

Originally posted by Heartisblack
Dude, it's called physics. Google them, towers just don't fall like the twin towers did.

Prove it? I've seen the physics and the math. It has shown that it is possible for the towers to fall.

Yes, there are no previous collapses, because there has been no situation in the past like 9/11. Yes, there has been fire, but there hasn't been a single example of structural damage coupled with fire in a skyscraper.

Go on, Google it. Towers just don't have planes ramming into them every day (or have towers collapse debris onto them, in the case of WTC 7).

reply posted on 12-9-2011 @ 09:25 PM by ErtaiNaGia

reply to post by Varemia

Let me ask you a similar question. How would you prove, as a Devil's Advocate, that the official story were true?

By allowing independent investigations instead of "Classifying" "Evidence"

So, should I have to keep finding more and more evidence?

You haven't posted any yet.

You present these to people in the hopes that they will read them and either disagree with their science or agree with it, maybe even disprove parts of it and show that it is only partially accurate.

You haven't proven anything, THEY haven't proved anything.

They merely assert that they are correct, based on "Evidence" and "Proof" that they immediately classify so that no-one can check up on their investigation or determinations.

They like to pretend that attacking the Truthers somehow proves their own story by default... and this is not the case, because they actually have to PROVE their story first....

And they have not done so.

And You have not done so.

reply posted on 12-9-2011 @ 09:26 PM by Heartisblack

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by Heartisblack
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia

And nobody likes it. The big thing was the fact that a man in a cave, managed to send his crazy people for a terrorist attack.
edit on 12-9-2011 by Heartisblack because: (no reason given)

"A man in a cave" means a man who was trained by our government in military strategy and warfare. "Crazy people" means passionate men who spent months preparing by taking flight classes and steeling themselves with religion in order to pull it off.

One of the reasons people find the official story hard to believe is because they are only seeing the fairy tale version of it. There are facts and reality that make a lot more sense than the rhetoric that is used to describe it.

Osama died before the 11/9 attacks. It was our government. It is simple to understand.

edit on 12-9-2011 by Heartisblack because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 12-9-2011 @ 09:27 PM by ErtaiNaGia

reply to post by Varemia

Prove it? I've seen the physics and the math. It has shown that it is possible for the towers to fall.

Then you should have absolutely no problem proving your case.

Stop whining.... if you are so sure of yourself, then Lay down your cards.

I'm Calling, Hombre.

One of the reasons people find the official story hard to believe is because they are only seeing the fairy tale version of it.

Yeah....

You are right about that one...

The fairy tale version put out by the Government, that is.

edit on 12-9-2011 by ErtaiNaGia because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 12-9-2011 @ 09:27 PM by Varemia

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia

Are you new? Or have you simply not seen the years of discussion and proof traded between CD'ers and OS'ers?

What makes one proof better than another? Personal bias on what constitutes a proper investigation/report?

You keep talking about classified information, but you aren't explaining what exactly was classified. I'm interested, because I'm not aware of this, and please don't cop out.

edit on 12-9-2011 by Varemia because: typo

reply posted on 12-9-2011 @ 09:29 PM by Varemia

Originally posted by Heartisblack
Osama died before the 11/9 attacks. It was our government.
edit on 12-9-2011 by Heartisblack because: (no reason given)

Prove it. Seriously, this is becoming a circle-jerk over here.

reply posted on 12-9-2011 @ 09:38 PM by Heartisblack

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by Heartisblack
Osama died before the 11/9 attacks. It was our government.
edit on 12-9-2011 by Heartisblack because: (no reason given)

Prove it. Seriously, this is becoming a circle-jerk over here.

Why do you think Bhetto was killed ? She said Osama has been dead since 2001 and then she just happened to "Get shot" ?

reply posted on 12-9-2011 @ 09:38 PM by ErtaiNaGia

reply to post by Varemia

Are you new? Or have you simply not seen the years of discussion and proof traded between CD'ers and OS'ers?

Sure, Why not....

Prove it to me as if I just woke up from a nap in a cave.

Go on... Do it.

What makes one proof better than another?

Already chickening out, aren't ya?

You keep talking about classified information, but you aren't explaining what exactly was classified. I'm interested, because I'm not aware of this, and please don't cop out.

"Most of 9/11 commission Report still classified"
theuglytruth.wordpress.com...

"NIST Computer Model Classified"
www.youtube.com...

NIST "Black Box" Computer Model of WTC 7

"FBI Report on Dancing Israelies Classified"

YouTube Link

edit on 12-9-2011 by ErtaiNaGia because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 12-9-2011 @ 09:40 PM by downunderET

Originally posted by Heartisblack

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia

Let me ask you a similar question. How would you prove, as a Devil's Advocate, that the official story were true?

You are a layman at a computer (I assume). You have access to forensic reports of the towers, countless papers describing the mechanics of the collapse and the effect of the fires.

You present these to people in the hopes that they will read them and either disagree with their science or agree with it, maybe even disprove parts of it and show that it is only partially accurate.

Instead, ALL evidence that supports the Official Story is completely tossed. It is literally assumed to be wrong because it does not postulate the Controlled Demolition theory.

So, should I have to keep finding more and more evidence? Months back I had amassed a large collection of links pertaining to the physics and explanations for everything, all of it supporting the official story. You know what happened? It was completely ignored. After a while, it becomes pointless to continue doing the work. I'm not being paid a dime for this, and if I do work too hard, you know what happens? I get accused of being paid to do it!

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Dude, it's called physics. Google them, towers just don't fall like the twin towers did.

No, towers just dont fall down, just ask Dr. Judy Wood

And BTW, she has the scientific education to back it up.

reply posted on 13-9-2011 @ 07:38 AM by Cassius666

Thats why people who question the 911 story are skeptics. Its hilarious how those who believe in the wild fabrications with the governmental stamp call the skeptics conspiracy theorists. I admit to being a hypocrite though. I still put gas in my car.

Pages: ^^TOP^^