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.

 

What are your favorite 9/11 debunking tactics?

page: 12
20
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 22 2012 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
Aiding the terrorists in any physical way would leave physical evidence, and the truth movement has found none, so I'm inclined to believe the evidence simply doesn't exist.


watch tv footage from that day. it really is that simple.




posted on May, 22 2012 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Six Sigma
 


Sorry, just being a realist....If you let anybody tell you any of the above is untrue, you need to take into account their motives. If that jet fuel got supposedly hot enough to melt that steel, no lucky SoB passport is gonna survive that heat and just flutter down the ground unscathed.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by The X
I would love to see how clever you really are, this is an opportunity to earn yourself 1million euros, and, my deepest respect.
This is after all your field, is it not?.

Buildings perform their "Duty" even outside of design specifications as a matter of the structural building codes.
Please, show me how clever you are.

An easy 1million euros

My favourite debunking tactic, put your brains/mouth where the money is.


Instead of offering one million Euros for "proof that the top section of a building can crush the botom section of a building" I woudl think they would instead have offered the one million Euros for tangible evidence of these absurd "the building was destroyed by secret controlled demolitions that left no trace" which doesn't rely exclusively on innuendo and accusing everyone of being a sinister secret agent.

After all, the truthers have the blueprints, they have volumes of video footage showing how the towers collapsed, they have eyewitness accounts, they have all these supposed experts on their side, they supposedly have the exact chemical composition of the explosives used, and they certainly have the funds. It would take them about a month to reverse engineer how controlled demolitions would have brought it down and noone would be able to argue against it anymore...but NOPE they have to play these cute little truther games where they insist on a specific scenario that by design cannot be proven and then turn around and demand that others try to disprove it.

You might as well offer a million Euros and demand that others prove the towers weren't destroyed by space aliens.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
I changed nothing. I'm saying that WTC 7 was in danger of collapsing but no firefighter that I'm aware of ever said that it looked like it was going to completely collaps. There is a big difference, and you are pretending like you don't know it.


Good GOD you must be one of those characters who argues solely for the sake of arguing. Are you really acknowledging that the fires were inflicting so much critical and obvious damage to WTC 7 that it would cause the collapse of the building on its own, but just not a *complete* collapse? That sinister secret agents set fire to the building knowing it was enough to destroy it but they thought "yeah, the fires are enough to destroy the building by itself but we want to destroy it completely"?

Is that really what you're saying? You really don't understand just how badly you're painting yourself into a corner with your conspiracy mongoring?



lol, President Bush, Condoleezza Rice for example. You didn't know that they were saying it ?


President Bush is hardly an example for you to use for a competent and intelligent president. All thoughout his administration they were acusing him of being as dumb as a bag of hammers so all you've done is prove my point and disprove yours.



Talk about cherry picking. You are a joke .


How am I the one who's cherry picking by pointing out the details you're consistantly sweeping under the rug becuase it shows you're wrong? It's an established fact that Renee May's mother reported her daughter called out to her from the plane so you can't simply pretend this doesn't exist because it fouls up your arguments.


Where did it come from? Why are we supporting them in Libya or is it Syria? And why oh why did we dump bin ladens body into the ocean?
Bring out the facts


One correction before I continue- the Al Qaida courier wasn't arrested in Austria. He was a man from Austria who was arrested in Germany, so your original question is moot; it's Germany who you're accusing of lying about capturing Al Qaida documents, not Austria. Not that it matters, though; what does Germany's relations with Libya/Syria have anything to do with the 9/11 attack?

I already answered why we dumped Bin Laden's body into the sea.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
I think he's one of the best too.. He doesn't call himself G.O.D for nothing. He and few others here are like the seal team 6 of debunkers. If he's not on the payroll, he should be.


Ah yes, the "sinister secret agent" bit again. The more rational and logical the argument is against these conspiracy stories, the more likely the person posting it is really a sinister secret agent. Why am I not surprised.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



Good GOD you must be one of those characters who argues solely for the sake of arguing. Are you really acknowledging that the fires were inflicting so much critical and obvious damage to WTC 7 that it would cause the collapse of the building on its own, but just not a *complete* collapse? That sinister secret agents set fire to the building knowing it was enough to destroy it but they thought "yeah, the fires are enough to destroy the building by itself but we want to destroy it completely"? Is that really what you're saying? You really don't understand just how badly you're painting yourself into a corner with your conspiracy mongoring?

Why is it so hard for you to understand what I’m saying? Or are you just willfully refusing to think about what I’m saying?

The building was damaged on the south side, there were uncontrolled fires in the same area where the damage was. THAT AREA was unstable and in danger of collapsing. The north side of the building had no reason to collapse completely and in one shot.

I tried to find any testimony of any firemen who was on scene and said that the building was in danger of collapse on all four sides (completely) and all the way to the ground. I might have just missed the testimony, so if you know that such testimony exists please show it to me.

What you are doing is making up what the firefighters actually meant. Just like when they say that there were secondary explosions and you start arguing that it was not explosives they were talking about even tho they never clarified that. So stop and show me the testimony. All surrounding buildings at ground zero which were damaged by falling debris were at risk of collapsing, but none of them collapsed completely to the ground floor at one shot. Why do you think that is?


President Bush is hardly an example for you to use for a competent and intelligent president. All thoughout his administration they were acusing him of being as dumb as a bag of hammers so all you've done is prove my point and disprove yours.

First you forgot to make an excuse for Condoleezza Rice .
So you are saying that nobody just told the President about the drills?


How am I the one who's cherry picking by pointing out the details you're consistantly sweeping under the rug becuase it shows you're wrong? It's an established fact that Renee May's mother reported her daughter called out to her from the plane so you can't simply pretend this doesn't exist because it fouls up your arguments.

My question was about Ted Olson. You dismiss the FBI's report based on the testimony of another victims family member. That is cherry picking ! You don't like what the FBI is saying so you dismiss it as false.


One correction before I continue- the Al Qaida courier wasn't arrested in Austria. He was a man from Austria who was arrested in Germany, so your original question is moot; it's Germany who you're accusing of lying about capturing Al Qaida documents, not Austria. Not that it matters, though; what does Germany's relations with Libya/Syria have anything to do with the 9/11 attack? I already answered why we dumped Bin Laden's body into the sea.

Hahahahhahaah, oh my god that made me laugh. Mr. GoodolDave I didn't ask about the courier.

Where did al-Qaeda the global militant Islamist organization come from? And why are we supporting that organization in Libya or is it Syria?

(Play dumb and maybe the questions will go away hah?) lol

edit on 22-5-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-5-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



Ah yes, the "sinister secret agent" bit again. The more rational and logical the argument is against these conspiracy stories, the more likely the person posting it is really a sinister secret agent. Why am I not surprised.

I gave you a compliment, you should say thank you.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by The X
I would love to see how clever you really are, this is an opportunity to earn yourself 1million euros, and, my deepest respect.
This is after all your field, is it not?.

Buildings perform their "Duty" even outside of design specifications as a matter of the structural building codes.
Please, show me how clever you are.

An easy 1million euros

My favourite debunking tactic, put your brains/mouth where the money is.


Instead of offering one million Euros for "proof that the top section of a building can crush the botom section of a building" I woudl think they would instead have offered the one million Euros for tangible evidence of these absurd "the building was destroyed by secret controlled demolitions that left no trace" which doesn't rely exclusively on innuendo and accusing everyone of being a sinister secret agent.


Left no trace? All trace was removed!

Mayor Giuliani took control away from agencies such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Army Corps of Engineers and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, leaving the "largely unknown" city Department of Design and Construction in charge of recovery and cleanup.

Documents indicate that the Giuliani administration never enforced federal requirements requiring the wearing of respirators. Concurrently, the administration threatened companies with dismissal if cleanup work slowed.

In February 2007, the International Association of Fire Fighters issued a letter asserting that Giuliani rushed to conclude the recovery effort once gold and silver had been recovered from World Trade Center vaults and thereby prevented the remains of many victims from being recovered: "Mayor Giuliani's actions meant that fire fighters and citizens who perished would either remain buried at Ground Zero forever, with no closure for families, or be removed like garbage and deposited at the Fresh Kills Landfill", it said, adding: "Hundreds remained entombed in Ground Zero when Giuliani gave up on them. Lawyers for the International Association of Fire Fighters seek to interview Giuliani under oath as part of a federal legal action alleging that New York City negligently dumped body parts and other human remains in the Fresh Kills Landfill.

Bizarre the landfill was called 'fresh kills' but that was it's name before 9/11, and aptly named. They used a department that doesn't normally deal with recovery & Clean up, and pressured workers to removed debris quickly, regardless of the health implications. The scrap was then sorted and sent to India & China to be recycled. This happened outside of normal guidlines, and there are so many faults with the process that there was not much chance of anyone, other than government agencies seeing if there was any trace before it got shipped abroad.


edit on 22-5-2012 by 4hero because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



So Dave, you're another person that will not accept, and cannot complete the 1 Million Euro challenge!!

I thought you had debunked everything?!



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

You might as well offer a million Euros and demand that others prove the towers weren't destroyed by space aliens.


No, all was asked of you was: "You are requested to describe a structure where a small top part can crush the much bigger bottom part from above, when top part is dropped by gravity on bottom part.

Nothing to do with aliens, quite a straight-forward question, and I really do not see how you can divert this onto aliens!?!

So c'mon, mr I have debunked everything, let's see you answer this, in concise detail. I bet you cannot, and will not answer this as requested. I expect you to either ignore it, or move the topic onto aliens or similar!



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1

My question was about Ted Olson. You dismiss the FBI's report based on the testimony of another victims family member. That is cherry picking ! You don't like what the FBI is saying so you dismiss it as false.


There is no problem with the FBI report. They were talking about Barbara Olson's cell phone but there were other calls from AA77 by back of seat airfone.

As you would expect of the Solicitor General he didn't pick up the phone himself; it was fielded by a secretary. On the morning of 9/11 that was Lori Lynn Keyton and she gave this statement to the FBI that very day :-

intelfiles.egoplex.com...



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 12:01 PM
link   
It took months to remove all traces. You make it sound like it was gone in 3 days. Also, the DDC is hardly unknown. Where do you guys get this stuff or do you just keeping making it up. AS if it was some mystery agency created to come take it away. They manage civic construction projects in NY.

Fresh KIlls comes from a 'lake' nearby. Nothing nefarious here...

As far Guialani and the NYFD unions you talk about, a copy and paste from a wiki gives no proof. They were upset because they had men who were still lost and not found and Guilaini wanted to stop rescue efforts. This is a letter from A union representative and has nothing to do with 9/11.

Nothing happened outside of guidelines. If you look, China is the LARGEST consumer of steel and oil. Must be the 8 billion Chinese people. Where else would it go...oh, I know...some warships and also lots of buildings in the US but that does not make for good conspiracy.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by 4hero


Left no trace? All trace was removed!

.


What's this lot then ? Get testing :-

www.dailymail.co.uk...



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 



As far Guialani and the NYFD unions you talk about, a copy and paste from a wiki gives no proof. They were upset because they had men who were still lost and not found and Guilaini wanted to stop rescue efforts. This is a letter from A union representative and has nothing to do with 9/11.


Yeah the FDNY were upset about a lot of things Rudy Giuliani did and said about 9/11.

rudy-urbanlegend.com



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
Why is it so hard for you to understand what I’m saying? Or are you just willfully refusing to think about what I’m saying?

The building was damaged on the south side, there were uncontrolled fires in the same area where the damage was. THAT AREA was unstable and in danger of collapsing. The north side of the building had no reason to collapse completely and in one shot.


Every video of the collapse (that is, every video that Richard Gage doesn't fool with to make it look the way he wants it to look) shows the penthouse collapsed six seconds before the north side of the building did. NIST theorizes this is when the south side folded in on itself and collapsed. If this is correct then there isn't anything mysterious or even sinister about the north wall collapsing after everything holding it up to that point was gone.


I tried to find any testimony of any firemen who was on scene and said that the building was in danger of collapse on all four sides (completely) and all the way to the ground. I might have just missed the testimony, so if you know that such testimony exists please show it to me.


Are you seriously suggesting the firemen needed to grab a calculator right in the middle of the 9/11 attack to calculate out exactly how much of the building was going to collapse for the benefit of you "inside job" conspiracy theorists?

You're grasping at straws in desperation here to avoid admitting you're wrong and we both know it.



First you forgot to make an excuse for Condoleezza Rice .
So you are saying that nobody just told the President about the drills?


Since the drills on 9/11 were to practice intercepting incoming bombers from abroad rather than intercepting hijacked passenger craft, I'm going to say no, they didn't tell him about any drills to intercept hijacked passenger craft. I'm sure they didn't tell him about any plan to invade the moon for the same reason.



My question was about Ted Olson. You dismiss the FBI's report based on the testimony of another victims family member. That is cherry picking ! You don't like what the FBI is saying so you dismiss it as false.


It's not cherry picking because I gave you an answer. What you're claiming the FBI said is logically and physically impossible, and I gave you the reason why it's logically and physically impossible- Renee May also phoned out from the plane, and Ted Olson, his secretary, AND the AT&T operator confirmed Barbara Olson talked to them. What's chery picking is your running and hiding under the bed from all of this in order to cling to what the FBI said, and we both know you're only doing this in order to cling to your conspiracy stories.

I answered your question about Barbara Olson. Now answer my question about Renee May.



Where did al-Qaeda the global militant Islamist organization come from? And why are we supporting that organization in Libya or is it Syria?


From what I've been told "al-qaida" simply means "base", and refers to a camp Bin Laden's bunch occupied during the war against the Russians and the name for the group simply stuck. As for the other, you're going to need to back that claim up with a link, my friend- where has it ever been shown we're "supporting Al -Qaida in Libya or is it Syria"?


What you are doing is making up what the firefighters actually meant. Just like when they say that there were secondary explosions and you start arguing that it was not explosives they were talking about even tho they never clarified that. So stop and show me the testimony. All surrounding buildings at ground zero which were damaged by falling debris were at risk of collapsing, but none of them collapsed completely to the ground floor at one shot. Why do you think that is?


It's because of sinister secret agents plotting to take over the world, apparently.

I'm sorry, but I'm finding it harder and harder to take you seriously anymore.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by maxella1
 


This goes back to 93 and they should have had something that worked then, it is lobbyists, unions and contracts that gave those men and women on 9/11 #ty equipment, not just Rudy on 9/11. NYC should have done in 93 what they did after 9/11 with a better task force and making sure everyone could communicate. It didn't. Why, because this guy hates this guy and this guy hates this guy and before you know it the human element is gone.

The US was caught with its pants down on 9/11 and we only have ourselves to blame. Once you start to look at it like that and not "20 camel jockeys with pez dispensers take down airplanes" it takes on a different perspective. We knew 9/11 was coming, just not when. T



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by 4hero

Left no trace? All trace was removed!


Of course that statement pretends that hundreds of people from steel workers to operators of heavy construction equipment weren't at ground zero looking at all this "obvious evidence of sabotage" and noone noticed even so much as an inch of det cord. Photojournalist Joel Meyerowitz snuck into ground zero and took copious photographs of what ground zero looked like and this is likewise pretending that not one of his photos didn't show any signs of sabotage either.


Bizarre the landfill was called 'fresh kills' but that was it's name before 9/11, and aptly named. They used a department that doesn't normally deal with recovery & Clean up, and pressured workers to removed debris quickly, regardless of the health implications. The scrap was then sorted and sent to India & China to be recycled. This happened outside of normal guidlines, and there are so many faults with the process that there was not much chance of anyone, other than government agencies seeing if there was any trace before it got shipped abroad.


Of course, THAT pretends that many important specimens of the WTC structual steel and other artifacts weren't kept in that hanger at JFK for years after the attack, either.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by 4hero
No, all was asked of you was: "You are requested to describe a structure where a small top part can crush the much bigger bottom part from above, when top part is dropped by gravity on bottom part.

Nothing to do with aliens, quite a straight-forward question, and I really do not see how you can divert this onto aliens!?!

So c'mon, mr I have debunked everything, let's see you answer this, in concise detail. I bet you cannot, and will not answer this as requested. I expect you to either ignore it, or move the topic onto aliens or similar!


All right, then, turn the experiment on its side and you have a set of dominoes set up on a line, where a single one ounce domino is able to knock over twenty pounds of dominos. This is because in both the case of dominos and the collapsing floors of the WTC, a falling object is assisted by gravity in overcoming the resistance of a stationary object, and that stationary object in turn becomes the falling object that overcomes the resistance of the next object in line in a chain reaction. In both the case of dominos and the floors of the WTC, all the objects are exactly the same so if the resistance of one object can be overcome, then the resistance of all objects can be overcome in the exact same way. This floor by floor chain reaction of failure is exactly how the towers fell as proven by every video in existance of the collapse.

So when can I expect my million Euros?



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by 4hero

Originally posted by NormalBates
This is ATS, my thread put in HOAX within 5 mins, while the vid it is based last 40 min is entirely based on facts that can't be debunked.

Deny ignorance.....

www.abovetopsecret.com...


maybe because the admin & some mods are OS'ers?



They are if they actually stick to the forum motto of deny ignorance.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by 4hero

Left no trace? All trace was removed!


Of course that statement pretends that hundreds of people from steel workers to operators of heavy construction equipment weren't at ground zero looking at all this "obvious evidence of sabotage" and noone noticed even so much as an inch of det cord. Photojournalist Joel Meyerowitz snuck into ground zero and took copious photographs of what ground zero looked like and this is likewise pretending that not one of his photos didn't show any signs of sabotage either.


Bizarre the landfill was called 'fresh kills' but that was it's name before 9/11, and aptly named. They used a department that doesn't normally deal with recovery & Clean up, and pressured workers to removed debris quickly, regardless of the health implications. The scrap was then sorted and sent to India & China to be recycled. This happened outside of normal guidlines, and there are so many faults with the process that there was not much chance of anyone, other than government agencies seeing if there was any trace before it got shipped abroad.


Of course, THAT pretends that many important specimens of the WTC structual steel and other artifacts weren't kept in that hanger at JFK for years after the attack, either.


You're making assumptions that they used det cord, and that det cord survived. You could be wrong on both accounts, especially as the black boxes never made it, supposedly.

It pretends nothing, it states clearly the facts that they got shot, as quickly as possible.

You didnt address the fact that they broke normal guidlines during the clean up procedure. But then you seem to avoid all the important questions! Call yourself a debunker?!



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join