What are your favorite 9/11 debunking tactics?

page: 9
20
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 21 2012 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by CallYourBluff

So they couldn't find the massive orange black boxes but they found two passports.
Go away you coward.


Exactly! These apparent 'debunkers' lack some serious logic!




posted on May, 21 2012 @ 06:06 PM
link   
"You are assuming from the start that there is NO POSSIBILITY that there could be any explosives in any of these buildings. Let me ask you this. If you, or anyone else, were able to view video of these 3 buildings coming down without the burden of the OS involved, what would you, or anyone else, think or say?"

The above quote is from scully222

This above quote from another member says is it all to me.
Without being told what to think what would you think?
To the OP great thread and it leaves lots of room for debate and thinking.

S&F
Regards, Iwinder
edit on 21-5-2012 by Iwinder because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 06:32 PM
link   
There is some good stuff from the mainstream media, before failsafe mode, that someone put together here, (the now dreaded youtube video... that's debunker's parlance BTW) 'Nothing informations' cracks me up, who is he? well obviously he was sent in by the UN, wasn't he? He doesn't like cameras though, or talking too much


Then there is the plethera of media comments about the way the buildings fell, and WTC7. Did it blow up, or fall down? it's all there.





posted on May, 21 2012 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 





You think identification documents can never survive horrendous crashes ? Have a look at this video :-


Now look at the 911 one.







And even if it did survive, what are the odds of the hyjacker's passport being found so quickly and in such perfect condition? Of all people?



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by maxella1
 





Originally posted by maxella1

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

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.


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.


Nice. Classic truther tactic... linking to a page of links of pdfs. Sure, the evidence is in there... SOMEWHERE... sheesh.

First you lied, saying that firefighters didn't expect a "complete" collapse. Called out on your lie, you quote a firefighter talking about a different building... Called out on that, you link to a vast sea of words, claiming that there's evidence in there somewhere... Got anything at all?



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
reply to post by maxella1
 





Originally posted by maxella1

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

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.


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.


Nice. Classic truther tactic... linking to a page of links of pdfs. Sure, the evidence is in there... SOMEWHERE... sheesh.

First you lied, saying that firefighters didn't expect a "complete" collapse. Called out on your lie, you quote a firefighter talking about a different building... Called out on that, you link to a vast sea of words, claiming that there's evidence in there somewhere... Got anything at all?


Classic scumbag tactic... Accuse somebody of lying, but don't provide any proof that this person is actually lying. Even when a link is provided by the accused.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer
 

If taking the time to read a PDF is bothersome to you then perhaps you would be better off just getting a new TV so they can feed you the information you chose not to indulge in eh?

Regards, Iwinder
edit on 21-5-2012 by Iwinder because: (no reason given)
edit on 21-5-2012 by Iwinder because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
Nice. Classic truther tactic... linking to a page of links of pdfs. Sure, the evidence is in there... SOMEWHERE... sheesh.


Oh the irony, you should try reading some of the posts from your side of the argument.


First you lied, saying that firefighters didn't expect a "complete" collapse.


Please show evidence that anyone made the claim that any of the building would completely collapse.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
[

Nice. Classic truther tactic... linking to a page of links of pdfs. Sure, the evidence is in there... SOMEWHERE... sheesh.


Surely being such a prolific 9/11 poster that you are you would want to leave no stone unturned?

You do realise that proper 9/11 research takes a lot of hard work sifting though info etc, and if you cannot be bothered to do the homework how can anyone take you seriously?!



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by robbo961
 


Debunk a misinformed post? You are kidding right?



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 07:33 PM
link   
When someone tries to tell me the truth about anything and thus take me away from my mind numbing alternate universe that is "entertainment", I usually stick my fingers in my ears, close my eyes and scream "no no no no no" as loud as I can until they stop. This is how I debunk, how about you?



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by robbo961
 


Debunk a misinformed post? You are kidding right?


What is misinformed about it?

I take it you don't find it odd that the buildings fells at near freefall speed?
edit on 21-5-2012 by 4hero because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by 4hero
 


Symmetry....footprints....both inaccurate. And typical.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by 4hero
 


Symmetry....footprints....both inaccurate. And typical.


What was not symmetrical about the 'collapses'

Where did they fall if not onto their footprints?

Typical? More like obvious!



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by 4hero
 


Footprint,,,,isn't over 600 feet from the perimeter of the building. Symmetery isn't the cap of the building tipping over



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by 4hero
 


Anything that's not in the government fairy tail is misinformed as far as the debunkers are concerned.

The government had done everything they could of possibly do to keep us safe before 9/11, the terrorists are just too clever for them. And the government had explained everything that happened that day to the best of their ability. And all of the perps had been identified and ponished.

If you disagreed with any of it , you are simply misinformed liar.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Oh, I almost forgot- to the "no other steel building fell from fires" crowd, I point out the towers had a completely different design that no other skyscraper did, and then I ask "Why shouldn't they have fallen the way they did, especially after being hit by a passenger jet?"

Plus, to the ones who bring up the FEMA report observation that says the plane impacts didn't cause critical damage to the towers.. I ask "if you don't believe the findings of the FEMA report then why are you accepting their finding that the plane impacts didn't cause critical damage?"


This one right here is my favorite. Actually, this guy in general is my favorite 9/11 debunker. You'd think he was on payroll.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by maxella1
 


Wrong again. The Government had not done everything to protect us. We had over 40 years of Gov decisions for money savings....."civil" rights protection...and various other reasons that left us very vulnerable. The thing is, those decisions were made in good faith.....and arrogance.....but not criminal.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by scully222
You are assuming from the start that there is NO POSSIBILITY that there could be any explosives in any of these buildings.


Are you so blind that you really don't see your hypocrisy here? You say his elimination of explosives as likely is bad, yet you automatically assume there must be explosives.

You are the ultimate, ignorant hypocrite in this instance.

My favorite debunking tactic is to use facts and correct all the misinformation spread by conspiracy videos and ignorant masses who flock to ATS to circle-jerk with other conspiracy believers. However, facts work on conspiracy believers about as well as they work on young-earth creationists. They think every fact is just a government/satanic lie meant to obscure their truth.

You can't argue with these people. They're helplessly ignorant.


Read the whole post again slowly. The point I was making (and you obviously missed) was that without the baggage of the Official Story most people would agree these buildings were brought down with explosives. I am talking about the 3 collapses themselves, no other "facts" involved. Any person watching these collapses on video would assume explosives. Tell these same people that admitting explosives were in these buildings would implicate their government in a horrible crime and suddenly the explosives become "impossible". People just refuse to even consider the fact that their government could do such a thing. They will believe any story to make it not true. My whole point concerns perception. Someones perception of the exact same event can vary so drastically based on preconceived notions and beliefs. It really amazes me that people can lose the use of their critical thinking skills so easily. Anyway, your post is way off base and a little offensive. Try to tone it down with the name calling and start with presenting some of these facts you claim to possess. How's that sound?



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeadSeraph

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Oh, I almost forgot- to the "no other steel building fell from fires" crowd, I point out the towers had a completely different design that no other skyscraper did, and then I ask "Why shouldn't they have fallen the way they did, especially after being hit by a passenger jet?"

Plus, to the ones who bring up the FEMA report observation that says the plane impacts didn't cause critical damage to the towers.. I ask "if you don't believe the findings of the FEMA report then why are you accepting their finding that the plane impacts didn't cause critical damage?"


This one right here is my favorite. Actually, this guy in general is my favorite 9/11 debunker. You'd think he was on payroll.


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.





new topics
top topics
 
20
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join