Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

What are your favorite 9/11 debunking tactics?

page: 5
20
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 21 2012 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek

Originally posted by 4hero

That cannot be legitimate, how can 20 floors be on fire? This conflicts with other firemen stating the fire was smaller. If this isn't a piece of disinfo i don't know what is!


Did you even look at a photo of the WTCs burning?

I can see that a majority of "truther" arguments are based off of ignorance. Sheer ignorance. It is stunning.

I can only assume that you are referring to the reports from firefighters that managed to reach the lowest affected floors of the South Tower, and that they had small pockets of fire in this particular area. This part is true. The lowest affected floor had the least amount of fire. However, the floors above, the building was burning furiously as fire likes to climb and spread toward more fuel. Not one firefighter on that day believes the fires were small. Not one. It is typical that you and fellow truthers require to take quotes of context to continue the ignorant assumptions and arguments based solely off ignorance and personal incredulity. So unless you can come up with with factual sources that the fires were small, you are just poorly misinformed.


Wow, you still hugging onto the fuel theory! Judging by your 'assumptions' you know little about the behaviour of jet fuel, and the role it played that day.

You lot are the 'truthers' you are clinging onto what you feel was the true story, but in reality, not many people actually believe that yarn anymore.




posted on May, 21 2012 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 





Did you even look at a photo of the WTCs burning?


Can you provide the pics of the South tower burning and "redding up" on at least 20 floors?

Thank you.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by NormalBates

The bizarre part is that you act like it is "not fair" for that poster to qoute that part of the FEMA report.


Well, the truthers have created a cottage industry of accusing everyone from FEMA to NIST to the FAA to even the New York Fire Department of lying to cover up the conspiracy...and yet they turn around and quote the very people they insist are lying. You don't think it's even a tiny bit contradictory that the truthers are quoting as fact a component of a report they're insisting is a lie? From where I sit, to the conspiracy theorists it seems the difference between the truth and a lie entirely depends on what the conspiracy proponents want to believe, even though it's all coming from the same source.

I think that's the most powerful "9/11 debunking tactic" of all- simply pointing out the unrepentent "do as I say and not as I do" duplicity of the conspiracy proponents. You know, like "We need to steadfastly rely on the integrity of eyewitness accounts at all times, especially when they're reporting they heard explosions in the towers...unless they're saying they saw the plane hit the Pentagon, in which case they're really just secret agents lying to spread disinformation."



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 10:38 AM
link   
comeon Dave tell the truth:

911 CONGRATULATIONS!! - Truthers Force NIST to Change Final Report on WTC7!

www.politicalforum.com...

sure they quote it after it was corrected
there is a good example of a classic Oser technique
lie


edit on 21-5-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-5-2012 by Danbones because: fixed links
edit on 21-5-2012 by Danbones because: added quote and fixed quote box


there is no statute of limitation on murder
not for the people who committed it
not those accessories after the fact that are helping to cover it up
edit on 21-5-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by DIDtm
reply to post by maxella1
 


And then theres the master of all the debunkers.
This guy,
GOOD OL DAVE.
Knows more about 9/11 then NIST and the 9/11 Commissioners.


I've seen some really goofball posts here but yours really takes the cake. In most cases I'm quoting NIST and the 9/11 commissioners in my posts (I.E. how the south side of the WTC 7 buildeing collapsed and who was calling from the hijacked planes) so how do I "know more than NIST and the 9/11 commissioners" when they're the ones I get my info from, exactly? Or is it just the case you're just getting all your information from those damned fool conspiracy websites and you really have no idea what NIST or even the 9/11 commission report actually say?

You really have no credibility.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 





Well, the truthers have created a cottage industry of accusing everyone from FEMA to NIST to the FAA to even the New York Fire Department of lying to cover up the conspiracy...and yet they turn around and quote the very people they insist are lying. You don't think it's even a tiny bit contradictory that the truthers are quoting as fact a component of a report they're insisting is a lie? From where I sit, to the conspiracy theorists it seems the difference between the truth and a lie entirely depends on what the conspiracy proponents want to believe, even though it's all coming from the same source.


Still bizarre logic. If people want to show that the impacts didn't cause critical damage, they can use the evidence from the FEMA report. It doesn't even matter if they believe the whole report. It's a piece of evidence from a official source, no matter how you look at it. Your logic is nothing more than sneaky tactics.




I myself subcribe to the findings of the Purdue study, and both the Purdue study and the NIST study contradict the FEMA study, so it's absurd for the truthers to be accusing everyone of "goosestepping to the official story" when in many cases there really is no "official story" for anyone to be goosestepping to. Not even any of the report authors are insisting their findings are absolute.


So all you are doing is using the sources that are convenient for you. Isn't that the same sort of thing?

If you admit that none of these findings are absolute, then why should anything you claim be true? You sure seem to be conviced that you are always right, but now you say there really is no way of knowing for sure.

The fact that there still is no "official story" is telling.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

Originally posted by maxella1

LOL. So your claim is that the firefighters on the scene suspected it would collapse, but not like that. somehow, you just know that the firefighters were expecting that it might collapse in some other unspecified way that you find more plausible. But then the building fell down "all at once". Which did not conform to your post-hoc preconceptions, which somehow proves bombs. THAT is a fabrication. Your story that the firefighters obviously expected some other type of collapse is just a made up story. See, that's how you point our that truther's claims are lies and fabrications. This one was obvious though. Whenever someone claims to know the thoughts of another without citing any evidence, they're just blowing smoke 95% of the time.




"I turned to Tommy and I said,Tommy, this building is in danger of collapse. In my opinion, I didn't think there was going to be a catastrophic collapse, but from the fire load, there was no way.”


FIREFIGHTER RICHARD CARLETTI

Try again.



it was probably about 9:15 at this time, there was a good 20 floors of fire in the south tower. I mean, it was pushing red on at least 20 floors from what we could see. I turned to Tommy and I said, Tommy, this building is in danger of collapse.


He was clearly not talking about building 7, but the south tower. You dishonestly quoted the fireman to support your opinion on building 7. Just a flat out lie.

Yes you right, this firemen is not talking about WTC 7. I posted the wrong link. Tell you what.. If you go
HERE and read for yourself you will learn that none of the Firemen or EMS ever said that they expected the building to completely collapse. They knew that it was unstable and in danger of collapsing. Big difference there.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by liejunkie01
 





Does the weight of the debris not fall on other connections on the lower floors? Each floor is not a solid foundation within itself. It is held up with truss and beam connections. All of these connection you are reffering to below the impact zone try to absorb the load from the stresses either falling, or the added stresses on these connections brought on by the failure of other important load bearing connections.


The core and the outer wall columns were load bearing, I see no reason for them to fail below the impact point.

I could believe it if the section above the impact zone would've crumbled and fallen sideways in the direction of the impact zone. Pancake theory is just ridiculous.




It is simple really, if connections above fail then all of the stress that those connections were properly withstanding are spread out over the other connections, this could lead to joints or connections that are over stressed and are trying to operate outside of their design specfications, which in most cases this causes fatigue and eventiually failure.


If this is what happened, then the existing structural parts that were intact sure didn't give much resistance to the collapse, since it went down without slowing down at a high speed.

You are suggesting the Pancake theory that NIST dismissed.





I once was hanging some duct work for a building, I was told to cut a couple of x braces connecting the floor joists above. After I cut the last one an Iron worker came over and started raising hell. I only cut out a couple of braces but they called in the engineer and the architect to make sure this would be structurally sound.


Ah, the mandatory personal anecdote, good for you.




I hve beat this dead horse until there is literally nothing left of the carcass.


You mean the Pancake theory that was dismissed by official sources years ago? A dead horse indeed.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by maxella1
 


Doesn't seem to be much doubt in this firefighter's mind :-

www.youtube.com...



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1

Saying that the building is unstable and in danger of collapsing does not mean that it will collapse entirely to the ground at once. And you know it. And that's why it's irrelevant in your mind. Again you lie and say that the firefighters were expecting what happened to the WTC 7. but the truth is they only said that it was unstable and in danger of collapse. Not that the way it did collapse was normal and expected. Stop making things up !


Ahem...

"There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse."

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden interview, Firehouse magazine, April 2002

Then of course there's the best debunking tactic of all- provoke the conspiracy theorists to be all high and mighty and come out and "prove" their theories, and then post evidence that proves it's nothing but comic book fantasia. Let me know what crow tastes like, will ya?


My question is why was it allowed to hit the Pentagon in the first place. You do remember that in 1994 a guy crashed into the White House on purpose right? So the argument that nobody could of imagine it is out the _ They not only imagined it but they also had drills with this scenario.


You do realize you're criticizing them based upon 20/20 hindsight here, right?



So in this case the FBI is incorrect because you say so? OK !


So what are you saying, that Ted Olson has ESP? OK!


Are you ignoring the first two questions on purpose?


No, I'm not. I can only answer so many questions and post so many things in the 5000 character limit that ATS imposes on us. Why the heck does everything just have to be some sinister secret plot to you truthers?





It's against the law to dump garbage into the oceans.
MARPOL 73/78
Why couldn’t they cremate him? And more importantly why didn't they take him alive like Saddam Hussein? He wasn’t armed, or was he?


You can't even remotely compare Bin Laden to Saddam Hussein. Hussein was little more than a hit man for the local Baath party who rose up through the ranks by his brutality, and his spending billions in oil money on palaces all over Iraq while his people were going hungry showed the only thing Saddam Hussein cared about was Saddam Hussein. With a personality like that it's little surprise that when the barrel of the gun is aimed at him instead he'd fold without a struggle. He's the classic bully who picks on people weaker than he is but runs away from a real fight. That last sentence essentially explains the first gulf war in a nutshell.

Bin Laden on the other hand was a religious zealot who went to Afghanistan to fight the Russians on his own dime. In his mind he's doing God's bidding and he doesn't mind getting dirty from sitting down on the dirt. He's built his whole career on picking fights with giants so there's no way someone like that would surrender willingly. I wouldn't put it past the feds to specifically have him earmarked for death to make sure Pakistan couldn't gripe about illegally extraditing him either.

Besides, what difference does it make whether they dumped him in the ocean, creamted him, or mounted him on a board to hang on the wall like a fish? There is simply no way, shape, or form, the conspiracy theorists are going to ever believe he's really the one behind the 9/11 attack, and you can't be so naive as to think otherwise. Heck, there are people here who think the towers were fake buildings despite their standing in NYC for almost 30 years.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by maxella1
 


Doesn't seem to be much doubt in this firefighter's mind :-

www.youtube.com...



When did he say that it was going to completely collapse?



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


Seems he is saying that they can't put out the fire cause they can't reach those floors because of structural damage.

No word was spoken about collapse. If that is the best you can do....



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by maxella1
 


More confirmation that complete collapse of WTC 7 anticipated :-

www.youtube.com...



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


Hmm... interesting. I wasn't vouching for the picture. I was merely putting up the radio transmission. As far as the whole thing being a fake, one report with no sources on the subject doesn't prove anything, but I'll take my discussion the relevant thread.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by maxella1
 


Doesn't seem to be much doubt in this firefighter's mind :-

www.youtube.com...



When did he say that it was going to completely collapse?


You think he is being upbeat about WTC 7's prospects ??

Doesn't he say at 0.11 " it's definitely going down ". Not entirely clear I grant you but there is no doubt from the rest of what he says that he doesn't give the building any hope of survival.

www.youtube.com...



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 




Ahem... "There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse." Deputy Chief Peter Hayden interview, Firehouse magazine, April 2002 Then of course there's the best debunking tactic of all- provoke the conspiracy theorists to be all high and mighty and come out and "prove" their theories, and then post evidence that proves it's nothing but comic book fantasia. Let me know what crow tastes like, will ya?

I keep trying to find where in that article he ever said that they were expecting a complete collapse.

When buildings are damaged and on fire they are at risk of collapsing, but a complete collapse of a 47st skyscraper is not something that normally happens due to damage and fire only. Buildings collapse partially in most cases unless they are imploded. So find any FDNY Firemen that specifically state that what happened to WTC 7 was expected and I will believe him or them.


You do realize you're criticizing them based upon 20/20 hindsight here, right?

So you agree that “nobody could imagine jets used as weapons” excuse is a lie?


So what are you saying, that Ted Olson has ESP? OK!

So what are you saying The FBI is incorrect because you say so?


No, I'm not. I can only answer so many questions and post so many things in the 5000 character limit that ATS imposes on us. Why the heck does everything just have to be some sinister secret plot to you truthers?

So answer the questions .



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 11:49 AM
link   


By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse." Deputy Chief Peter Hayden interview, Firehouse magazine, April 2002


If it collapsed due to that damage, then why did it fall straight down?



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by maxella1
 


More confirmation that complete collapse of WTC 7 anticipated :-

www.youtube.com...


lol, BBC also anticipated the collapse.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by maxella1
 


More confirmation that complete collapse of WTC 7 anticipated :-

www.youtube.com...


lol, BBC also anticipated the collapse.


lol all you want but she is not expressing her opinion. She says she has been told by " several different officers " that WTC 7 is "going down next ".



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by maxella1

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by maxella1
 


More confirmation that complete collapse of WTC 7 anticipated :-

www.youtube.com...


lol, BBC also anticipated the collapse.


lol all you want but she is not expressing her opinion. She says she has been told by " several different officers " that WTC 7 is "going down next ".


But she didn't say it was going to completely collapse. Stop lying !





new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join