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.

 

Where Are The Threads Backing The Official Story?

page: 3
17
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 07:58 AM
link   
reply to post by zerozero00
 

Well, I'm more likely to believe terrorist brought down the towers than attribute such dark motives to the Governments such as killing 3,00 people just to start a war in the Middle East and impinge on freedoms. Even at it's darkest, the CIA wouldn't run a fundraiser like that, guns, drugs and a few political assassinations maybe. The compartmentalization and secrecy of such an operation would fall apart as too many people would have to be involved.

The plain ole razzle dazzle would be more than enough for the Governments of the world to confuse the populace and start actions in the Middle East to settle old scores as well as start the war on terror. I don't particularly like that people are still easily duped by shiny objects but that is where we are. Media, games, drugs and other things contribute to our short attention spans and most can't be bothered with long drawn out dry presentations that contradict what is presented in the media.

Finally, don't you think that if there were compelling evidence the media would be all over it just to hammer the previous Administration to make the golden boy look good? The fact that the current Administration is continuing the policies of the previous not withstanding.




posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
You cant defend the indefensible. I tried to head over to www.randi.org... where there seem to be quite a lot of people who do buy in the fairytale of 911. But there isnt a lot of arguing being done. Just the word twoofer is being used a lot and the posters are reinforcing each other in their believes, without adressing any of the points surrounding 911. Part of the problem might be that truthers are not welcome on that site.


Uhh no offence man, but that sounds exactly like here in the 911 threads.

Exactly the same, which is why I avoid them mostly. I read this OP title, and thought it makes a very good point - but then the content of the OP invalidated my initial consideration as it was not a question but a veiled attack on opposing opinion.

I've seen someone ASK a question in relation to this, and be hounded by no less than 5 or 6 people going ballistic on the guy for asking, and to no-ones surprise, he said stuff it, and left the thread...

Sure it goes both ways.

I thought the OP question was quite valid, as I don't recall ever seeing a PRO OS thread, they're all "How can this blow up blah blah" and "Proof that a blah blah did it!!!" which are instantly populated by "Lets see the sheeple answer that then huh! Where are the usual suspects now??" in the first 5 posts.

nah..

why am I even here... OP conned me!!



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bramble Iceshimmer
reply to post by zerozero00
 

Well, I'm more likely to believe terrorist brought down the towers than attribute such dark motives to the Governments such as killing 3,00 people just to start a war in the Middle East and impinge on freedoms. Even at it's darkest, the CIA wouldn't run a fundraiser like that, guns, drugs and a few political assassinations maybe. The compartmentalization and secrecy of such an operation would fall apart as too many people would have to be involved.

The plain ole razzle dazzle would be more than enough for the Governments of the world to confuse the populace and start actions in the Middle East to settle old scores as well as start the war on terror. I don't particularly like that people are still easily duped by shiny objects but that is where we are. Media, games, drugs and other things contribute to our short attention spans and most can't be bothered with long drawn out dry presentations that contradict what is presented in the media.

Finally, don't you think that if there were compelling evidence the media would be all over it just to hammer the previous Administration to make the golden boy look good? The fact that the current Administration is continuing the policies of the previous not withstanding.


Seriously, I would love to say the same as you but I can't

I've researched this subject for many years now and I'm 100% convinced the OS is bunk

The evidence only tells us that it could not of been possible to of been pulled off by these "19 hijackers" that we are lead to believe by the OS.........So......Something else happened that day

Sorry if you don't like it, I didn't like finding out the truth either!

Take a look at this site if you havn't already!

edit on 14-9-2011 by zerozero00 because: to add some more



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by -PLB-
 



* Most of it is explained in extreme detail in the NIST reports or other publications.
The NIST report on the collapse of the Twin Towers, which was thousands of pages long, had half a page explaining how the buildings actually collapsed to the ground. That is not extreme detail.

Because it would be utterly and entirely pointless.

The whole point of such an investigation is not to find out how a collapse went down, but why it went down in the first place. Trying to determine the exact behavior of each and every piece of the structure would be a massive undertaking, one that I doubt could even be calculated with the current generation of super computers.
edit on 14-9-2011 by roboe because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
You cant defend the indefensible. I tried to head over to www.randi.org... where there seem to be quite a lot of people who do buy in the fairytale of 911. But there isnt a lot of arguing being done. Just the word twoofer is being used a lot and the posters are reinforcing each other in their believes, without adressing any of the points surrounding 911. Part of the problem might be that truthers are not welcome on that site.

Because there's notthing left to argue about or debate.

Every 9/11 CT has been covered and nothing new has come out over the past 5 years, so if you go there and start educating people about how Rumsfeld admitted the loss of $2,4 trillion, of course you're going to get flamed, because the usual posters will rightly point out that you haven't bothered to search the forum archives first.

There's been numerous calls to lock the 9/11 section of the JREF forum and referring any new topics to the existing threads.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur
So basically, nobody will take the time to compile the evidence backing the official story and see how it holds up to scrutiny, got it.


Except they did, and you just ignored it.

Besides, what's the point? There are reams of officially-sanctioned documents where you can find what you call the "OS". Look at those of you're interested. The reason you guys are so prolific in starting threads on websites is because they are the only place where something as comprehensively debunked - and baseless - as 9/11 "Truth" can exist.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


Once you understand that total collapse is inevitable after initiation because energy requirements are met, there isn't much interesting to say about it. The collapse itself is chaotic and quite unpredictable. It is very hard to make a realistic model that is not very abstract. An abstract model is not understood by a layman and it is dismissed as being unrealistic by truthers.

I am not sure what you want to see exactly. It seems you want to see threads about a specific subject concerning 911 and it has to meet specific standards which are set by you. I am totally fine with the position that the exact collapse sequence is unknown and unknowable, since we do know there was enough energy available. Which is basically all you need to know to understand that no explosives are required.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 





Once you understand that total collapse is inevitable after initiation because energy requirements are met, there isn't much interesting to say about it.


"The energy requirements are met" is such a nonsensical statement, considering that one leading idea for the origin of the universe is that it simply random fluctuation in the vacuum. Virtual particle-anti-particle pairs gone on steroids. The "energy requirements" for literally anything "has been met" in terms of the laws of physics. If you don't demonstrate how the energy can be released along the path you postulate you are just talking nonsense.

Take a firecracker, put it in your hand with the palm open. Then repeat with your hand clenched. Can you see that the "energy requirements" to blow your fingers off has been met in both scenarios, yet in only one does this actually happen. If you cannot explain this difference you have not explained anything by citing "energy requirements being met".The "requirements being met" can in no way shape or form lead you to conclude that your fingers has been blown off.

The best you can do with energy requirements is exclude a hypothesis with extremely low probabilities of occurring. There is nothing in this entire universe that you can conclude has happened because the "energy requirements has been met".

The entire notion is anti-scientific in the extreme.
edit on 14-9-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 




Except they did, and you just ignored it.
Huh? Can you point out a thread that matches the description of the one in the OP?


Besides, what's the point?
The point is that official story believers always bash the truthers and the threads they put together, but they never make threads of their own and give the truthers a chance to debunk what they believe.
edit on 14-9-2011 by TupacShakur because: to edit my post



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


They just get attacked mindlessly by the truthers and it becomes a mess.

OS believers can not voice their opinions on a site like ATS for fear of being labelled a multitude of names.

ATS is one of the most un-free sites around. Opinions that matter must be that of the general consensus.

Slowly that view will change....and those brow beaters will succumb to the fact that they had a good run while it lasted but the OS will always stand regardless - through lack of actual hands on hard evidence against it.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Darkwing01
 


These energy requirements were calculated for a scenario optimized for arrest. Any more realistic scenario is less likely to arrest. Your understanding of science isn't good enough to make any judgment of what is or is not scientific.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 05:14 PM
link   
That is because there is no reason for a thread for the official story.

We all saw it, we all lived through it.

There are, unfortunately those that see conspiracy in everything. These are the same people that tell us what an idiot 43 was, but give him and his administration credit for pulling something of this nature off and doing it successfully.

Sometimes, a horrible incident, is just that.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Six6Six
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


They just get attacked mindlessly by the truthers and it becomes a mess.

OS believers can not voice their opinions on a site like ATS for fear of being labelled a multitude of names.


You haven't been here long enough to see the development of this forum over the years.

All the name calling started with the OSers, not the truthers. The OSers have always used ridicule and insults because their arguments always fail when they are forced to actually address certain important points that are missing from the official version of the events, that you so energetically defend with no real basis to defend it on.

Unless you can address the physics, which in this case would be covered by the 3 laws of motion, then you have not explained anything. You only have an argument because someone else has created it for you, if you didn't have 911myths, or such sites, you would not have a clue how to appose the facts that we highlight in these discussions.

Can you explain the laws of motion, better than Hooper, who is, I must give credit, the only person so far to even attempt it, badly, but at least the lad tried, bless 'im...


Originally posted by hooper
The building was at rest, it was acted upon by outside forces, therefore the building stayed in motion until it again was acted upon. The equal action and opposite action was the fracture of connected elements

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Are you going to give it a try, or will you just pretend it doesn't matter?


edit on 9/14/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Submarines

Sometimes, a horrible incident, is just that.


Not when events in that incident defy physics, if you are to believe the NIST report etc.

Unless you actually truly, honestly, research this then you are really failing in your duty as a citizen to keep a careful watch on who is steering the boat...

Never think it couldn't happen to you, to your government, to your country, because if you do it will happen, as it has many times before.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


OP, its because officially there is nothing to argue. Its all laid out in the 9/11 Commission Report and the NIST Report for all to see. These supposedly prove beyond a shadow of a doubt how it went down.

They don't feel they need to prove anything because they believe those two documents do it all already.

Of course they also don't believe any evidence about those 2 reports being compromised from the ground up and barely worth the paper they are printed on.

Furthermore we exist in a hypocritical society. The burden of proof is always on the believers - so "truthers" have to prove their story, which is of course impossible due to all the evidence never being tested and being destroyed. Meanwhile the OS relies on the afore mentioned reports as their proof. The hypocrisy is because when the official reports are questioned, its once again the burden of the "Truther" to prove they are wrong, rather than people who believe the reports to prove they are right. Massive double standard!

Basically, any evidence that truthers put forward now can be "debunked" because it hasn't been peer reviewed by top scientists - which is, of course, impossible because no top scientists would risk their career doing that and again, all the evidence has been destroyed.

Lastly, all of the evidence put forward is considered debunked once one person puts forward even a remotely plausible defence against it and/or they can just use the burden of proof/official report defences against it. From then on, even if there is no consensus that the evidence has been debunked, they can just say it has been and that's the end of the story as far as they are concerned.

Quite a messy situation we are in!



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 02:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cecilofs
Of course they also don't believe any evidence about those 2 reports being compromised from the ground up and barely worth the paper they are printed on.


What evidence exactly?


Furthermore we exist in a hypocritical society. The burden of proof is always on the believers - so "truthers" have to prove their story, which is of course impossible due to all the evidence never being tested and being destroyed.


First truthers will have to come with a theory in the first place. But if as you say the evidence is destroyed, how can you be sure that you are right? If your position is not based on evidence, then what is it based on?


Meanwhile the OS relies on the afore mentioned reports as their proof. The hypocrisy is because when the official reports are questioned, its once again the burden of the "Truther" to prove they are wrong, rather than people who believe the reports to prove they are right. Massive double standard!


That is basically how science works. There is a generally accepted consensus, and anyone who claims to have a better theory will have to convince others.


Basically, any evidence that truthers put forward now can be "debunked" because it hasn't been peer reviewed by top scientists - which is, of course, impossible because no top scientists would risk their career doing that and again, all the evidence has been destroyed.


I must say I haven't seen this argument yet. The reason I reject "evidence" from truthers is because it isn't evidence in most cases. It is conjecture and ignorance. Besides, you are describing scientists as immoral, selfish beings, who are ok with their government killing thousands of citizens. Truthers do that often.


Lastly, all of the evidence put forward is considered debunked once one person puts forward even a remotely plausible defence against it and/or they can just use the burden of proof/official report defences against it. From then on, even if there is no consensus that the evidence has been debunked, they can just say it has been and that's the end of the story as far as they are concerned.

Quite a messy situation we are in!


I require a better explanation than the one put forward by truthers. If that explanation is only remotely plausible, then this tells a lot about the explanation put forward by truthers.
edit on 15-9-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 03:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Six6Six
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


They just get attacked mindlessly by the truthers and it becomes a mess.

OS believers can not voice their opinions on a site like ATS for fear of being labelled a multitude of names.

ATS is one of the most un-free sites around. Opinions that matter must be that of the general consensus.

Slowly that view will change....and those brow beaters will succumb to the fact that they had a good run while it lasted but the OS will always stand regardless - through lack of actual hands on hard evidence against it.



Ok, People tend to forget that ATS is a Conspiracy site!!

What are people doing here if they don't like/understand Conspiracies??

I have had one post ever...I think...that ATS deemed unsuitable....This is a great site for Free Speech!

The OS will never stand up here!!....This is a Conspiracy site and not a MSM outlet!

Hope you sleep well at night, maybe you will Wake up one morning



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur

Huh? Can you point out a thread that matches the description of the one in the OP?


Try post six on the first page.


The point is that official story believers always bash the truthers and the threads they put together, but they never make threads of their own and give the truthers a chance to debunk what they believe.
edit on 14-9-2011 by TupacShakur because: to edit my post


Except when they do.

That's my point. There's no sense arguing with people who just disqualify evidence they don't like and are then able to completely ignore it like it never existed.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Unless you can address the physics, which in this case would be covered by the 3 laws of motion, then you have not explained anything. You only have an argument because someone else has created it for you, if you didn't have 911myths, or such sites, you would not have a clue how to appose the facts that we highlight in these discussions.


What you mean is - you've been backed into a corner where all your previous arguments have been thoroughly debunked, so all you have left is a stubborn refusal to debate based on what you define as the parameters of a discussion based on "physics".

For a group so certain that all of this stuff is self-evident and obvious, and that there is evil at work behind the events of 9/11, you are frighteningly ineffective.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 



Try post six on the first page.
I was referring primarily to the collapse of WTC7 and the Twin Towers in the OP. I really can't remember seeing one that tries to explain the collapse and prove how it's completely possible according to the airplane impact/falling debris and fire damage.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join