Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Sincere help for 9/11 debunkers

page: 3
34
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by soulwaxer


No, that is an uninformed question. I have seen both David Ray Griffin and Richard Gage (Do you know who they are?) speak to an audience of a few hundred here in Brussels several years ago. Many people attending resolved their conflict right there.

No need to answer dumb questions is there?


David Ray Griffin: Claimed the calls from the planes were fake using voice morphing technology

Richard Gage: Used cardboard boxes during a debate in attempt to compare the collapsing towers.

I have met Gage and had a lengthy discussion with him. He went back on his word on two things we discussed, and was unable to answer some pretty tough questions from me. His response: "That's why we need a new investigation."

Your thread serves no purpose and adds nothing to 9/11 conspiracies.


This thread is not about Griffin or Gage. All you need to do is open your mind to what you see. Nobody else can do that for you.




posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by anoncoholic
reply to post by Alfie1
 


How come you refuse to believe when the facts had been presented over and over?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

... maybe because you are too caught up in yourself to discern truth from excuses?


Please give me a verifiable hard fact tending to prove that WTC 1,2 & 7 were controlled demolitions as the OP alleges.


Google is your friend... sort of.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by soulwaxer
 


Why didn't you just post "people disagree with me, therefore I'm going to try and ridicule them, because they don't see things my way"?

Would have saved you an awful lot of time.

This is ATS. We discuss. People have differing viewpoints. Not everyone sees things the same way.

If you want to dictate, get a blog, disable comments and do it there maybe?

I'm a fully qualified Civil Engineer. I don't see things your way and I don't believe any Engineer worth their salt would see it that way because of this simple logic.

9/11 is the rule, not the exception to the rule, because until 9/11 no one had deliberately flown two heavily laden 180tonne + airliners at speed into the side of buildings constructed like WTC1 and 2. Any comparisons made are completely invalid, because they don't match the circumstances at all. Its a unique event that hopefully we'll never see again.

Yes, planes have hit buildings before, and yes, most steel frame buildings don't collapse through fire. WTC 1 and 2 weren't most steel frame buildings, they had a fairly unique construction and although there have been fires in others steel frames, none of them were constructed in the same way, and none of them had been hit by a 180tonne + airliner doing in excess of 300mph

Does that line of reasoning make me mentall ill?

No.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by plube
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Hello PLB did you look at the youtube vid by Jonathan Cole and your experts....Why not, rather than listen to experts and just believe...this is a option...why not do your very own work...and believe in yourself....I know it might be a novel idea...but i think it is a good one.....What do you think?


I personally think that that would be an excellent idea.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by anoncoholic
reply to post by Alfie1
 


How come you refuse to believe when the facts had been presented over and over?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

... maybe because you are too caught up in yourself to discern truth from excuses?


Please give me a verifiable hard fact tending to prove that WTC 1,2 & 7 were controlled demolitions as the OP alleges.


verifiable proof? I suppose proving lies to promote the OS doesn't put a dent in truth at all does it?

www.youtube.com...

if it was as told then why the need to lie?

On that thread link I posted people still denied hearing explosions. 9 seconds away from Hoboken as sound travels you can hear explosions before the towers fell and after and yet it is denied being explosions... funny that, I grew up in a mining town and heard the deep underground rumbles all my life. The basement explosions blew out elevator doors and yet I was told it was from fuel that went down the elevator shafts and yet the elevator banks were sectioned (the building was hermetically sealed to prevent fire from spreading via the elevators) and didn't connect all the way down other than the service elevator but that wasn't the elevator that had its doors blown out was it? I ask because I don't know this for fact but it isn't beyond my reasoning to comprehend you can't have it both ways... either the fuel burned up top weakening the columns or it blew up in the basement so which is it?

Further, fuel won't detonate unless it is compressed so it is a moot point whether it was fuel flowing down the shaft or not.

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck it is duck.

I cut disbelievers slack all the time since I know many live in fear of being recognized but it doesn't do victims any justice. Maybe they can live with their choices but in the end, God knows all hearts and minds and while you can beat the laws of man, God is the judge you should be more concerned of being prosecuted by.

How can anyone reconcile within their soul when people, everyday ordinary people, were still being found 10 years later as tiny bone fragments on rooftops. Explain how a collapse can disintegrate not only steel buildings pulverizing everything into dust but humans as well. A pancake collapse doesn't cut it as you still need that projectile force that also launched steel beams weighing tons into surrounding buildings like arrows. If it collapsed then they would have merely bent not been "cut" and hurled the length of football fields and there is ample evidence of those beams being cut if you care to look. Lava from diesel fuel fire... how do my pots not melt? Or warp? Or my stove for that matter? Only time in history steel framed buildings collapsed due to fire and we still build steel frame buildings.

Anything goes for a buck right? The end justifies the means right? Even Bush stated that in the future their actions would be deemed as correct. Maybe in evil minds...

You keep asking for proof yet the proof has been in front of your eyes all along and all you need to do is open them and pay attention

... or disregard it all as I intend to do since I am not even American but live here with no right to even vote.

The question is why do I take it more seriously than the American minds who must be too consumed with American idol?

Listen to that Davin Coburn interview. The first five minutes he spends spouting his credentials, the last five he spends trying to backtrack on his own words. The middle is where he got caught lying. Maybe you can whitewash his lies for him?

nothing to see here, move along... move along



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by soulwaxer
I work in a very scientific environment with front runners in their field. I can assure you that they are not as reliable as you believe. On the contrary. Science is the new religion. I have much more confidence in my instincts.

But thank you for your post, especially the rest of it.


So, you are saying that your instincts are more reliable than the scientific model?

And you think the debunkers need help??


edit on 23-6-2012 by Six Sigma because: (no reason given)


No, I was implying the scientific community. There is a huge difference.

And my instincts are very reliable. So are yours, when they aren't being controlled. Mine have been controlled just like yours have. I got past that. So no, I don't need any help. Thank you.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by kwakakev
This is an excellent thread and does get to the point on a serious and complex issue. The trauma that is involved with facing the facts is huge in itself. I watched the whole event live go down and did not move off the couch for three days, it did change my life and the direction I took. A few years ago I had some time on my hands and just surfing around the internet and came across the 9/11 conspiracy theories. I did not want to believe such stuff, but I could remember a few moments in the live broadcast that made you go hmm. Anyway I had a bit of a look into the situation just to review what actually happened and was not liking what I saw.

When I came across the video of the collapse of WTC7 my whole world fell down with it. I was faced with either believing in the laws of physics or the laws of man. I know people can lie, I know buildings cannot. But what does this mean? Our government, our media, our military, our banks, our corporations, our society - it is all a lie... WTF

For three days I was in a total daze as all of my trust in society was ripped out of me in an instant. My brain basically had a melt down as I had to reassess everything, am I a lie? The issue of trust has taken a long time to rebuild and even still I have a lot of doubts and caution when it comes to the government and corporate world. I can understand people are hesitant in accepting the facts as they do not want to shatter their trust. What I have come to learn is that trust is about understanding, you can trust a snake to bite you.


I hear you 100 procent brother!
The daze lasted several weeks for me. Then you wake up in a different world.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by soulwaxer
I work in a very scientific environment with front runners in their field. I can assure you that they are not as reliable as you believe. On the contrary. Science is the new religion. I have much more confidence in my instincts.

But thank you for your post, especially the rest of it.


It is not so much the people, it is the method they use. Claiming it is a religion is just silly, given all the technological progress we have. Its a form of denial. The fact that you can communicate your opinion via a network of computers is the undeniable proof that is isn't anything like religion.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by soulwaxer
No, I was implying the scientific community. There is a huge difference.

And my instincts are very reliable. So are yours, when they aren't being controlled. Mine have been controlled just like yours have. I got past that. So no, I don't need any help. Thank you.


I predicted this in my post and now we can see the results of the type of thinking I mentioned. Soulwaxer believes that he has achieved a goal 'above' the debunkers. This can't help but have an ego effect.

This is not the case, and hopefully thread viewers can see how soulwaxer is deluding himself.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ajay59
Let me rephrase! IMHO, there is insurmountable evidence that 9/11 was an inside job. I disagree with the OP in that if there are people out there who are truly that emotionally and mentally weak, I fear more than ever for us all! It is my considered opinion that anyone who props the "official" story is complicit in the crime!


Thanks for your reply. I used to see it like you do, but now I see the weakness in most of us. Because I looked at it in myself. This is the key!



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by plube
 

Thanks for the video! I just had a short look and will finish it later.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by soulwaxer
 


Just a question, how did discovering and overcoming this shortcoming you discovered in yourself make you feel? And do you think that this feeling can make you somewhat biased?

I must say that it is typical that someone who believes in controlled demolition at the WTC is so much relying on instinct and feelings and so little on science. In fact, science is seen as inferior. I am glad we no longer live in that age.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 

Just a thought?... Maybe you are a bit more traumatized than you may realize.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 12:36 PM
link   


For people with eyes that see, it is obvious that the destruction of WTC 1, 2 and 7 was controlled demolition.


What is obvious is,

Most of what gets regurgitated on the net comes from people that have no idea about the construction industry.

Controlled demolition is not needed to bring down a building that stands almost a quarter of a mile in the air.

It would be obvious to anyone with any knowledge in building construction, that failures in critical areas of the components of a building is all that is needed to bring such a huge amount of weight down.

You can keep subscribing to what eveyone else says on the net. I will keep using my knowledge in the construction field.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by soulwaxer
 


Kind of ironic that you would write such a post, and then refuse to reply to the members who provided the best responses to your little rant about these people.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

That post in particular. It's very telling when you choose to respond, it's even more telling when you choose not to.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by soulwaxer
 


Just a thought, I lead a happy full life and am respected by my peers and in a position of power due to my hard work.

If that's emotionally damaged, I'd love to hear about your life because it must be truly amazing!



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by anoncoholic
 


I'm sorry but your post was just your speculation about the destruction of the Towers and you did not provide the verifiable hard fact I asked for.

It was plain from your post that your speculation is very faulty. For example, you said "fuel wont detonate unless it is compressed ". You could not be more more wrong. Are you unaware of fuel/air weapons where a dispersed cloud of fuel is detonated with deadly effect ?

www.youtube.com...



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by soulwaxer

Originally posted by BBobb

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by soulwaxer
 

So why does the 911 conspiracy only exist in cyberspace?



That, sir, is a veeeery good question, one that deserves an answer. Why aren't these issues raised elsewhere with veracity and seriousness? Are they not serious questions raised by serious people?


No, that is an uninformed question. I have seen both David Ray Griffin and Richard Gage (Do you know who they are?) speak to an audience of a few hundred here in Brussels several years ago. Many people attending resolved their conflict right there.

No need to answer dumb questions is there?


Hmmm...you seem very angry. Firstly, I completely agree, I think that the inability to see the obviousness of a 9/11 cover-up is to me, a great mystery, so where coming from the same page here. Yes, I know quite well who both those gentleman are by the way. Don't get so defensive that you end up attacking those agreeing with you. All I was saying was that it's a mystery that it only seems to exist in cyberspace, that it's in no way being covered in any mainstream outlets.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by soulwaxer
 


S&F
indeed the psychological circle-jerk involved often leads the
cognitively dissonant to make all sorts of projections and Freudian slips

take the "pejorative" label/insult "Truther"
you just know that gov-shills didn't come up with that term

as that would imply that the person applying the term is a "Falsifier" or a "Liar"



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 04:46 PM
link   
this vid shows what the OP is talking about...the sell...then the emotional betrayal...







top topics



 
34
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join