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.

 

Wikipedia categorizes 9/11 truth as 'denialism'

page: 5
11
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by intelligenthoodlum33

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by intelligenthoodlum33

9/11 Commissioners say "Official Story" a Lie



Hey Anok!

Great post and link. I noticed how the naysayers refused to even acknowledge your link to quotes from actual commission members.....Yet they say WE are in denial. I bet these same naysayers actually believe Iranians are sitting at their kitchen tables, hating our freedoom Opps! I meant freedom

edit on 25-1-2012 by intelligenthoodlum33 because: nada



WRONG!
What you mean to say is that this stuff from a scam conspiracy site are "quote mines" and half truths perhaps caused by reading comprehension problem or even perhaps because of intention lies to misinterpret what was said.and why. How many commission member or staff on the commission are "truthers"? Name them by name and show the proof not some crap from "truther" sites...



Your pointless drivel aside. Did you actually go to the site? Did you click on the quotes provided (they are in red)? Of course you didn't, because if you had, you would be lead to the sources of each one of those quotes. Sources include CNN and Washington Post to name a couple.

I refuse to do any work for you and get in the way of your quest for ignorance...your doing too good of a job all by yourself.

Have a good one.


Speaking of ignorance, yours is vividly on display...

I know the source of the quotes and I also know what they mean and you don't. In some cases your "conspiracy site" only quotes part of what was said and then misinterprets (likely intentionally) the meaning of what was said drawing the wrong conclusions. None of those Commission felt that they failed to produce a very successful analysis and conclusion. In the final analysis, ALL OF THEM BELIEVE THE REPORT WAS SUCCESSFUL.

What ANOK posted was one of his typical LIES and you've supported it, with nothing more than I agree. *NONE* of the Commissioners and *NONE* of the staff that did the research support the conclusion that you are making... *PERIOD* That's precisely why you won't list any of them that are "truthers" or support "truthers" in any shape or form... So, all your beloved referenced "truther" site and what's been posted by you is known as QUOTE MINING without specifics and without any understanding of what was quoted and why it was said at the time...

Good job of continuing to prove the WiKi article conclusion that the "truth" garbage that you support is anything but the truth, it is DENIALISM personified.
edit on 25-1-2012 by Reheat because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 


Your getting desperate. Just give up and go along to get along, like you've been doing.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by intelligenthoodlum33
reply to post by Reheat
 


Your getting desperate. Just give up and go along to get along, like you've been doing.


Since you didn't contest anything that was said, it's only fair of us to assume that you can't. You just got PWNED.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer
 


I am happy to share info with anyone, whether we agree or disagree. However, when you absolutely demand to be ignorant, what can I do? Am I supposed to waste my time with you? I think not. Maybe you should go back and actually read our posts instead of simply yapping.

You believe the report from the same people who say it's bogus. Why would you absorb anything I have to say? You two just like to get your kicks by arguing nonsense...have at it...their are plenty here like you to go around.

Have a good one.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 03:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
FDNY expected it to go and the media expected it because they spoke to the firefighters. Perhaps you had better specify who you mean by "they".


In this case "they" are FDNY. Basing on what data did they expect it? Please take note that at that time a steel building collapse due to some fire was highly unexpected. Fire happens all the time and it would be a huge problem if it may lead to a building collapse. So when they build building, they make sure it will not collapse due to fire, a steel one especially. So what was that exceptional data that made FDNY think that the building is going to collapse?



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 05:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by ICanThink

Originally posted by Alfie1
FDNY expected it to go and the media expected it because they spoke to the firefighters. Perhaps you had better specify who you mean by "they".


In this case "they" are FDNY. Basing on what data did they expect it? Please take note that at that time a steel building collapse due to some fire was highly unexpected. Fire happens all the time and it would be a huge problem if it may lead to a building collapse. So when they build building, they make sure it will not collapse due to fire, a steel one especially. So what was that exceptional data that made FDNY think that the building is going to collapse?


I thought the firefighter in the clip I posted on page 3 described the situation pretty eloquently. However, here is some more from senior officers :-

www.oocities.org...

You don't need to be clairvoyant to consider that a building clobbered by a falling skyscraper, with uncontrolled fires and the sprinkler system out, which is bulging and leaning is likely to collapse. Would be pretty poor fire officers and a danger to their men if they couldn't make that sort of assessment.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 06:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
You don't need to be clairvoyant to consider that a building clobbered by a falling skyscraper, with uncontrolled fires and the sprinkler system out, which is bulging and leaning is likely to collapse. Would be pretty poor fire officers and a danger to their men if they couldn't make that sort of assessment.


I still do not understand how one can come to a conclusion that a building is going to collapse just because of some fires. It was not like all the building was on fire, there were some local fires.
Also, since after 9/1 it become clear that a steel building may nicely collapse after being on fire, and not a steel even more likely, I wonder if anyone still uses demolition companies service. They all may have become bankrupt.
At least I would give a try to bring down a building with fire, then, if failed, paid to a demolition company.
Why we do not see attempts to bring building down with fire, virtually for free?


FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) had issued a report in May of 2002 – ‘World Trade Center Building Performance Study’ -- which noted that the diesel fuel storage containers in Building 7 might have been a source that could have fed fires in that building for quite a long time. However, the report also indicated that such a possibility had a very low order of probability and finally concluded that the reasons for the fall of Building 7 were something of an unsolved mystery.

Yet for firemen it was obvious that the building is going to collapse hours before it happen...
Never thought that it is so easy to bring down a building with fire... I hope these special 3 cases on 9/11 remain exceptions.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 06:27 AM
link   
NESARA



According to Goodwin's website, the NESARA bill languished in Congress before finally being passed by a secret session in March 2000 and signed by President Bill Clinton. It is claimed that the new law was to be implemented at 10 am on September 11, 2001, but that the computers, and data (of the beneficiaries of the trillions of dollars of "Prosperity funds") were destroyed on the second floor of one of the World Trade Center towers in New York City during the terrorist attacks. Supposedly an earlier gag order issued by the Supreme Court had prohibited any official or private source from discussing it, under penalty of death.[3][4][5] Goodwin refers to "White Knights," most of them high-ranking military officials, who have since been struggling to have the law implemented despite opposition by President George W. Bush. Goodwin allegedly believes and purports that Bush orchestrated the September 11, 2001 attacks and the Iraq War as distractions from NESARA.[6][7] Goodwin's description of NESARA goes far beyond Barnard's proposal by cancelling all personal debts, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, declaring world peace, and requiring new presidential and congressional elections. Goodwin often claims that Bush officials are attempting to hack into and bring down her web site to prevent her from publicizing the law


And while i am at it i may as well share this too
World Trade Center Tenants

possible piece overlooked
Floor 38 link
Also this


Manhattan Projectthe administration of community facilities was outsourced to Turner Construction Company through a subsidiary known as the Roane-Anderson




The Manhattan Project was a research and development program, led by the United States with participation from the United Kingdom and Canada, that produced the first atomic bomb during World War II. From 1942 to 1946, the project was under the direction of Major General Leslie Groves of the US Army Corps of Engineers. The Army component of the project was designated the Manhattan District; "Manhattan" gradually superseded the official codename, "Development of Substitute Materials", for the entire project. Along the way, the Manhattan Project absorbed its earlier British counterpart


So Far Conspiracy theorists have failed to really delve into actually finding the truth, however the company named Turner Construction sets my conspiracy theory alarm bells ringing.

Doubt me if you want, but do a bit research and you will see what i am talking about. Good luck.
(pointing as i leave the room)


PROVE ME WRONG
edit on 26-1-2012 by Lee78 because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-1-2012 by Lee78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 06:54 AM
link   
reply to post by ICanThink
 


Well, with respect, whether you can "understand" how senior firefighters came to the conclusion that WTC 7 was going to collapse is neither here nor there. Fact is they did and I think it is reasonable to assume they have more experience of burning buildings than you do.

And lo and behold they were proved right in pulling their men back. WTC 7 did indeed collapse. So, unless you are going to accuse the FDNY of being "in on it", despite losing over 300 men you are really stuck with their assessment which proved right.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 07:16 AM
link   


So when they build building, they make sure it will not collapse due to fire, a steel one especially.

No where do any specs on a building state they will not collapse due to fire or any other reason.
You are making this up. Or you have an 'entitled' feelings about your safety.
The specs state they will 'resist' fire for a 'prescribed' amount of time given 'specific' conditions. ie sprinklers




I still do not understand how one can come to a conclusion that a building is going to collapse just because of some fires. It was not like all the building was on fire, there were some local fires

Perhaps because it had uncontroled fires and was leaning.
Perhaps because all the water pipes had been severed from the collapse of the other building.
Perhaps because 340 of their own fire fighters were now crushed and not responding to radio calls.

It's not a stretch to figure out its gonna come down.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 07:23 AM
link   
reply to post by ICanThink
 


With regard to your reference to "some local fires" at WTC 7 you might be interested in this clip showing the south side. This is the side cd enthusiasts would prefer not to be shown. You will note dense smoke pouring from virtually every floor :-


www.youtube.com...



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by intelligenthoodlum33
You believe the report from the same people who say it's bogus.


But that's a lie which you have supported by quoting people out of context. When this is pointed out, you tried to change the subject.

If you have info that any of the 9/11 commission members believes any aspect of '9/11 truth'. Please go ahead and post it.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

Originally posted by intelligenthoodlum33
You believe the report from the same people who say it's bogus.


But that's a lie which you have supported by quoting people out of context. When this is pointed out, you tried to change the subject.

If you have info that any of the 9/11 commission members believes any aspect of '9/11 truth'. Please go ahead and post it.


Of course, it's all a "truther" lie. The responses to my complete DESTRUCTION of ANOK's and his suppositions are truly pathetic. All he can do is attempt a subtle attack on me, so as to avoid the T & C here. It's a pathetic attempt at denialism; very obvious and lame...lutz

Every single response they attempt reconfirms that the Wiki article is correct when it categorizes "truther" garbage as denialism. It is obvious that lying is acceptable to them to perpetuate their lunatic conspiracy garbage generally known as an "inside job".

There has been no attempt by any of them to refute anything I've said with substance. All they can do is distort what was said out of context and without specifics in order to call what they refer to as "The Official Story" a lie. That simply is the furtherest from the truth as one can get and it illustrates the depths they will go to perpetuate the conspiracy myth they all dearly love...

NONE of the Commissioners and NONE of the staff support "truther" BS, NONE of it... Of course, there were politically related obstacles placed upon the commission. It's known as "covering you ass" and all politicians do it even their messiah, Ron Paul.

Most of the comments by Commissioners and staff (specifically John Farmer's Book) were related to the initial incorrect reports of what happened by NORAD and the FAA. In the final analysis what actually happened was MUCH BETTER than that initially portrayed by both NORAD and the FAA. It was simply unfortunate that the NEADS tape recordings were not reviewed in detail by the ANG because of the enormous manpower requirements of Noble Eagle. Once the tapes were analyzed the true story was much rosier than the earlier testimony by both NORAD and the FAA. "Truthers" seem to think they were intentionally making themselves look BAD. In the end, it's obvious that was not the truth, but merely statements made because even they didn't yet know the full story...

If "truthers" in general were honorable and truly looking for the truth, they would acknowledge the obvious as opposed to changing the subject, moving goal posts, or disappearing for a few days hoping everyone would forget. Instead they keep arguing with silly and stupid arguments while reinforcing the validity of the Wiki categorization of "truthers" as examples of DENIALISM.

Keep it up, please and reinforce the accuracy of the title of the thread. Great job, so far....



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Starchild23
All you have is circumstantial evidence, LACK of evidence supporting their theory, and some crappy footage.

At the very best, you can prove that it didn't happen the way they say it did; but the more important part, what really DID happen...you can't prove. You can't prove any of your theories of exactly what happened.


Can you tell us what you think the official story is?

Official in this sense means relating to a public body. The body in question is government. The official story is the government funded investigation. The technical explanation regarding the destruction of WTCs 1 and 2 is the investigation carried out by NIST. The construction and destruction of these towers is the most extensively documented part of the story. The entire story is extremely complex. It makes sense to begin by isolating this part of the story otherwise you could go on forever just trying to establish the bare details. If you know what the official story is regarding the destruction of WTCs 1 and 2 then you can compare this story to the evidence. If you can tell us what you think this story is we know how seriously to take you. Not meaning to be rude in any way but it is standard for people who doubt the value of the questions about this subject to have a very hazy idea about what the official story is. Perhaps another ATS member can simplify what I'm trying to say.

I can give you a clue by telling you the official story doesn't analyse the destruction of the buildings, merely the impacts and fires. Supporters of the official story commonly say it would be a "waste of time" to analyse the destruction. Studying the process of destruction with a view to identifying the destructive processes is something the government agencies have not publicly admitted to attempting. Private individuals studying this process on limited private resources are doing what the government apparently haven't. There is no comparison.

I'm having difficulty making this clear. It's really very simple but it's difficult to accept that the government have not taken the obvious step of studying the destructive process. Because it's obvious that this study is essential to understanding the destructive methods, which will clearly help lead to the perpetrators, it is commonly thought that this process has been explained. From there it is assumed that those who are studying the process have refused to accept the government explanation. The government has no technical explanation for the destruction of the buildings, just the impacts and fires. Are you one of those who mistakenly think the government have investigated the destruction of WTCs 1 and 2?

To sum it up, while many of us are attempting to understand the destructive process the government have not made that attempt. Simple asserting the destruction we saw was inevitable does not in any way explain how it could be inevitable. No model has behaved in a remotely similar way. I hope this post helps explain to someone why the debate has the form we see.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rafe_

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
At best, all this means is that I as well as the conspiracy people are both wrong in our positions. I can live with that.


Thank you for that.
This says so very very much about you.


Not a problem. I hope that what it says about me is that the only agenda I have is to the facts, and that I have the intellectual honesty to know I can't be pointing out the lies those damned fool conspiracy web sites are churning out if I'm knowingly spreading them the same way they do.

Besides, isn't continuing to support a known fallacy simply for the sake of avoiding having to admit an error the very denialism the OP is referring to?



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kester
(snip)
To sum it up, while many of us are attempting to understand the destructive process the government have not made that attempt. Simple asserting the destruction we saw was inevitable does not in any way explain how it could be inevitable.


Bwhahaha!

So you think the Government should spent my Tax $ to investigate gravity?


Most reasonably educated folks understand it already, why don't "truthers"?

Gravity has essentially been basically understood since the period B.C. Isaac Newton published his most definitive book in 1686. Further refinements of the theory have continued since that time. Go ahead and investigate it if you want, but don't use my Tax $ to do so...

www-scf.usc.edu...



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by Kester
(snip)
To sum it up, while many of us are attempting to understand the destructive process the government have not made that attempt. Simple asserting the destruction we saw was inevitable does not in any way explain how it could be inevitable.


Most reasonably educated folks understand it already....


And yet no model has ever behaved in a remotely similar manner.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kester

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by Kester
(snip)
To sum it up, while many of us are attempting to understand the destructive process the government have not made that attempt. Simple asserting the destruction we saw was inevitable does not in any way explain how it could be inevitable.


Most reasonably educated folks understand it already....


And yet no model has ever behaved in a remotely similar manner.


I'm not surprised. Do you have a model for an over 150 ton aircraft slamming into a building at over 500 mph producing unfought fires for over an hour? Nah, thought so...

ETA: OH, and so you don't accuse me of moving the goal posts, it needs to be of the same construction type as the WTC....
edit on 26-1-2012 by Reheat because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 11:54 PM
link   
Anyone who continues to informedly support the Official version of 9/11 events
must now catagorically be labelled paid disinformation agents. The number of
anomalies, co-incidences and chance occurances associated with 9/11 they would
have us swallow is asking far too much of human rationality and reason, and those
who continue to extol the virtues of such an obviously and provably concocted fairytale
OS narrative must have extraordinarily good reasons for doing so.

9/11 was a mass Hoax, and these sold-out entities know it!

www.cluesforum.info



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 12:51 AM
link   
My take on this.

To me, it's pretty much undeniable that a lot of situations from 911 are strange to say the least. Of course a single fact alone does not prove anything, but if you add them up it appears that the official story is smelly at the very least.

To put it in mathematical terms: imagine we could calculate the following probabilities (based on the official story).

#1 Prob(wtc7 falling like it did due to fire)
#2 Prob(BBC reporting it before it happened, but it just being a coincidence or a mistake)
#3 Prob(them finding the terrorists passports among the debris)
#4 Prob(the first official report having forgotten about wt7 just because of distraction)
#5 Prob(the larry silverstein "pull it" quote being just a coincidence)
#6 Prob(the "new pearl harbour" quote from PNAC being just another coincidence)
etc, etc, etc...

there are so many weird details as you know, it's impossible to post them all. Now multiply all the probabilities, because the OS says that it all happened like that:

P(#1)*P(#2)*P(#3)*.......*P(#n) = x

Let's just say that the number x would most likely tell us something along the lines of "PROBABLY, it did NOT happen like this". It wouldn't say "Bush administration did it!", rather that the OS is not a very good explanation. And, if it's not a very good explanation, the question is: why would they lie? Why would they try to hide certain details? This is the point where alternative theories start, not before this point. Which means not everyone who doubts the OS is a "conspiracy theorist" or a "delusional nutbag". Most people who doubt the OS are just normal people with average intelligence, who demand answers for unanswered questions. These people being ridiculed is just another hint...

Now let's consider this: through the 90's until 2001, USA did need a new "global enemy" to justify it's military-industrial complex. America NEEDS excuses for it's military interventions. US foreign policy is based on war and more war since the 1950's, and a lot of times the justifications for war have been proved wrong. To deny this is to be either totally ignorant or totally naive.
So it actually makes sense that the bush administration (or whoever was/is in charge) would fake the 9-11 attacks in order to start the War on Terror. If you think they would never do it... then you really have a poor understanding of human nature.

Finally, always remember Operation Northwoods. There HAVE been proposals to fake an attack on US soil in order to start a war.


So the way i see it we have the following:
- details about 9-11 that suggest there could possibly be a cover-up of some sort (and why would they cover-up something if they're innocent?).
- 9-11 being the justification for major wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (so far).
-Operation Northwoods

Anyone who doesn't think these are enough reasons to question the official story... Now THAT'S denial.

PS: it doesn't matter how much discussion there is around this subject, believers will allways believe, doubters will allways doubt... this is all about trust. If you trust your government and you trust your news, you will believe them. If you doubt the US gov and the major news corporations (which we all have reasons to), you will doubt everything they say.






edit on 27-1-2012 by Prokofiev because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-1-2012 by Prokofiev because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join