Truthers and Debunkers Unite.

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by crawdad1914
 


I added a video and a link to another thread after you replied. Check it out.


I have seen that Vid before, but thank you. I will check out the link.




posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 





The problem with that statement is that the truthers are reinterpreting what the eyewitnesses are actually saying according to their own outlook.


Will you ever show the Firemen some respect for what they do? Firemen say they heard "Definitely secondary explosions" What does that mean? Spray cans blowing up, or firecrackers, or something falling down? Three explosions in the lobby and then the building started coming down, Interpret that for me please, because the firefighters never clarified what they meant. Maybe you know better? FDNY professional firefighters never enter a burning building before 9/11 and that's why they were confused?


Now that's ironic, seeing that I frequently mention that Deputy Fire chief Peter Hayden specifically reported the fires in WTC 7 were burning out of control and were causing massive deformations in the structure, so by 2:00 he knew right away the building was going to collapse. Every time I mention that, yep, you guessed it- the truthers say he's a sinister secret agent.

Now, i will admit that people may misidentify what they're seeing at the moment they encounter things they haven't experienced before. For example, someone who has never seen a zebra before, upon seeing a zebra for the first time, will probably think they're seeing a horse that someone painted black striped on, so I can acknowledge that at the very moment they first witnesses these events, someone may have incorrectly associated loud noises with explosions just as someone seeing bulges in the side of a burning structure will incorrectly presume they were the result of the fires. The difference is, Deputy Hayden continues to believe to this day, even after twelve years of being able to recollect his experiences with new information he didn't have at the time, that the fires were causing the deformations in the structure. On the other hand, after twelve years of being able to recollect their experiences with new information they didn't have at the time, all the firefighters you're quoting as having seen secondary explosions acknowledge it was the fires that brought the towers down, not any hidden demolitions. We know this to be the case because if there was, they'd be flaunted all over creation by those damned fool conspiracy web sites you're getting your information from. You know that and so do I.

You are quoting them out of context and if any of these firefighters knew you were milking their testimony twelve years after the fact to push your spooky-scary conspiracy stories, they'd break your jaw for you. You also know that and so do I.



I see people demand evidence which can only be obtained by investigating the crime. You said few times that you don't think it was investigated enough. So why do you expect people to have evidence?


I agree the attack has not been investigated enough. It's when people deliberately ignore the evidence we do have in order to fulfull their own antiestablishment political agenda that intellectual dishonesty comes into play. Let's face it, noone watching what transpired on that day instinctively believed the towers were being destroyed by lasers from outer space or the planes were really holograms.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


thanks, good ol dave.....so tell me, how long have you been in the government?....do they pay you for trolling sites like this?



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 





Now that's ironic, seeing that I frequently mention that Deputy Fire chief Peter Hayden specifically reported the fires in WTC 7 were burning out of control and were causing massive deformations in the structure, so by 2:00 he knew right away the building was going to collapse. Every time I mention that, yep, you guessed it- the truthers say he's a sinister secret agent.


I wonder is there more than one GoodolDave or do you have a serious memory problem?




You are quoting them out of context and if any of these firefighters knew you were milking their testimony twelve years after the fact to push your spooky-scary conspiracy stories, they'd break your jaw for you. You also know that and so do I.


LOL, You will never guess where I'm sitting right now.




I agree the attack has not been investigated enough. It's when people deliberately ignore the evidence we do have in order to fulfull their own antiestablishment political agenda that intellectual dishonesty comes into play. Let's face it, noone watching what transpired on that day instinctively believed the towers were being destroyed by lasers from outer space or the planes were really holograms.


This I will have to compare to the guy in the subway.. Do you remember the story I posted about the guy in the subway ?



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 

did I miss your response to this ?



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 06:17 PM
link   
same old same old & all you have to do is ask people outside of the u.s.a what TIME they first heard of the attack ........ i mean they would not have made a mistake on the bbc nuff said



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by maxella1
 



I'm just trying to see if you think false flag operations were ever done by any government in the past.. That's all.


Actually, I don't think so. Its a nice fantasy - big old mean "government" wrangles up some destruction then blames some convenient enemy - but in general most persons that occupy governments are smart enough to know that there are better and much less risky ways to get the governed to agree on a course of action. In fact, I think the biggest "false flag" is the idea of governments committing "false flag" operations. Its a good way to get your enemies population to distrust its own government.


Actually that the Nazis pulled off a false flag operations is a known fact. But it isnt the Reichstagsfire, it is strongly suspected that the arson was done by people under the command of the Nazis, so they can justify action against whomever they liked, but nobody was able to prove it. There was no proof, although it is generally accepted by Historians that it were probably the Nazis who committed Arson.

en.wikipedia.org...

The false flag operation, done by the Nazis, that is recorded and proven to have been done by the Nazis is the Gleiwitz incident.

en.wikipedia.org...

which of course kicked off the war against Poland.
edit on 16-7-2012 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 



The false flag operation, done by the Nazis, that is recorded and proven to have been done by the Nazis is the Gleiwitz incident.

And?

Nazis.

Keep that in mind. Just because the Nazis did something 60 years ago.....well never mind.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by doryinaz
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


thanks, good ol dave.....so tell me, how long have you been in the government?....do they pay you for trolling sites like this?


Ah yes, back to the "I'm a sinister secret agent sent to spy on you" ploy again. Why am I not surprised.

Seriously, dude, is there absolutely nothing in your universe that can't be explained with the liberal application of sinister secret agents? Two plus two equalling five, wood being a liquid, and Paris Hilton being able to read, are all possible as long as you keep throwing more and more sinister secret agents at it to figure out how to do it. Does that about sum things up?



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Dave - don't take it personally, it has nothing to do with you. Its about their egos. They want to believe that their obsessions are sooooo dangerous that the government has no choice but to assign top shelf agents to rebutt their brilliant arguments. And now in about three posts there will be some link to some news article about someone in the government that may have been on the internet.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1

LOL, You will never guess where I'm sitting right now.


Unless you're sitting with a firefighter who was at ground zero who after 12 years still believes there were explosives in the buildings and the NYFD is actively covering up the murder of 343 of their fellow firefighters, then wherever it is you're sitting is moot.




This I will have to compare to the guy in the subway.. Do you remember the story I posted about the guy in the subway ?


Yes I do. How many people trying to pass on warnings fron mermaids ever filed lawsuits against the government stating they were covering up a conspiracy that involved lasers from outer space, as Judy Wood has done?



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 

did I miss your response to this ?


No, I didn't respond becuase that was a pretty large posting and I couldn't answer every portion of it...but if you're asking for examples of mistakes that terrorists have committed that the conspiracy theorists are ignoring, the failed attack on the USS The Sullivans in Yemen comes to mind. The attack on the USS Cole was actually the sequel- the attack on The Sullivans was supposed to be the original attack but Al Qaida overloaded the boat they intended with so much explosives that it sank.

USS The Sullivans

We have a) a terrorist organization actively trying to attack US assets over and over, b) a concrete example of a failed attack against a US warship followed by a concrete example of a successful attack against a US warship, c) a concrete example of a failed attack against the WTC in 1993 followed by a successful attack against the WTC in 2001, plus an example where they can make mistakes just like any other human, so all the oddities during the 9/11 attack like the hijackers using the wrong frequency to broadcast their message to the passengers doesn't have to be some masterfully crafted hidden detail you need to wrack your heads trying to figure out the secret meaning of. The hijackers simply goofed and told controllers to settle down and behave themselves rather than the passengers.

Does that answer your question?



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Cassius666
 



The false flag operation, done by the Nazis, that is recorded and proven to have been done by the Nazis is the Gleiwitz incident.

And?

Nazis.

Keep that in mind. Just because the Nazis did something 60 years ago.....well never mind.


Okay fine.

en.wikipedia.org...

the point is false flag operations arent a once a century occurrence. But we are going offtopic.
edit on 16-7-2012 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 07:26 AM
link   
I don't often post in 9/11 threads, however this thread has touched on two things that have continued to bother me since I first registered here.

Regarding the OP -- "Truthers and Debunkers Unite" -- while I appreciate the intent of finding common ground, does anyone else believe that use of the labels themselves contribute toward disrupting discussions? That the labels are part of the problem? I believe so. Many times I read 9/11 threads, and it seems like categorizing a member with a label presumes to know the totality of their beliefs. I realize that frequently people use the labels to characterize themselves, but what that seems to do is to take the discussion away from events and studies and refocuses the discussion on ATS members. 'Truther', 'Debunker', 'OS'er' -- depending on context -- are sometimes used as a pejorative.

I think there IS common ground, if only that here, both, for the most part, are seeking the truth of what happened. Sometimes both "sides" seem entrenched in their views, and there's nothing wrong with that, as long as differing dialogue isn't attacked simply for its difference.

The other thing that bothers me is stating an opinion as a fact. I'm not endorsing everyone adding a byline to all their posts -- "the foregoing is my opinion" or any other unnecessary verbage. It occurs to me that when a person expresses their opinion, another can offer a different opinion, however it seems kind of silly to call an opinion "wrong". It's like arguing over which is better, red or blue....... no correct answer, because it's subjective.

If there is a common ground, perhaps it is in the manner of our discourse and the way we speak to each other. Are we discussing facets of 9/11, measurable criteria, or have we shifted to a discussion of each other?

Anyway, this isn't a mod note, just a contribution, and may read like a rant, but that's not my intent. So many times I read and think that we're about to get to some interesting or well-constructed viewpoint, and ziiiing! off it goes.

Maybe it is a rant after all.
Hopefully an on-topic one.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 



the point is false flag operations arent a once a century occurrence. But we are going offtopic.


Well, what you got is maybe the nazis sixty years ago and some half baked plan from 40 years ago that went nowhere. I think even once a century is pushing it.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ilovecatbinlady
Sorry, as a truth seeker I cannot allow you to dilute our cause with inanities.

Debunkers are official story fundamentalists who object to people who challenge the government's official story.

We truth seekers have an inherent and inalienable right to dissent yet debunkers get on our cases because we do not trust the government.

Truth seekers like us want the truth while debunkers are purely focused on us and harangue. They are unproductive while truth seekers engage in a searching discourse.

We truth seekers can talk amongst ourselves, while debunkers are dependent on us for discourse and their existence.

Truth seekers are not accountable to debunkers but the government is accountable to us. If debunkers are so fervent about their convictions, then they should go a head and march on the streets in favour of the government's official story and stay the hell away from us.
edit on 16-7-2012 by Ilovecatbinlady because: (no reason given)


What a weird, arrogant post.

And why would anyone bother to march in favour of the "official story"? It's widely accepted and there's no sign of that changing. Really it's truthers who ought to be marching but oddly enough they can rarely be bothered. What heroes.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by argentus
 

I don't often post in 9/11 threads, however this thread has touched on two things that have continued to bother me since I first registered here.

Regarding the OP -- "Truthers and Debunkers Unite" -- while I appreciate the intent of finding common ground, does anyone else believe that use of the labels themselves contribute toward disrupting discussions? That the labels are part of the problem? I believe so. Many times I read 9/11 threads, and it seems like categorizing a member with a label presumes to know the totality of their beliefs. I realize that frequently people use the labels to characterize themselves, but what that seems to do is to take the discussion away from events and studies and refocuses the discussion on ATS members. 'Truther', 'Debunker', 'OS'er' -- depending on context -- are sometimes used as a pejorative.

I think there IS common ground, if only that here, both, for the most part, are seeking the truth of what happened. Sometimes both "sides" seem entrenched in their views, and there's nothing wrong with that, as long as differing dialogue isn't attacked simply for its difference.


Ah, so what you're saying is that for the conspiracy theorists to find a better common ground with their opposites, that necessarily means they need to stop using the pajorative that they're all "sinister secret agents spreading government disinformation" and acknowledge they're just people posting opposing viewpoints?

If that's the case then doesn't that necessarily mean they'll need to stop accusing everyone ELSE of being "sinister secret agents spreading government disinformation" simply because they're saying things they don't want to be true (I.E. Ted Olsen reporting he received a phone call from his wife Barbara from flight 77)? Wouldn't that remove a major pillar that the conspiracy theorists need to prop up their conspiracy claims?



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 09:04 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 

what about 7/7 london 9/11 2 in 4 years i think the film of the 7/7 bombing was called the ripple effect is that enough gulf of tonkin ???



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 09:05 AM
link   
The whole thing is absurd.

Resistance to Fiziks is Futile.

Some people are being stupid about this and some people are lying about this.

Since a skyscraper must be strong enough at every level to support all of the weight above, then to not agree that we should have accurate data about the amount of steel and concrete at every level is pretty ridiculous.

So if the collapse really was physically impossible due to plane and fire then that says some rather peculiar things about the people arguing for collapse for 11 years. It even says peculiar things about Richard Gage and his buddies for not emphasizing the lack of that important information. It relates to Potential Energy and the Conservation of Momentum under static and dynamic conditions. As though they want to make things unnecessarily complicated to show their own importance.

psik



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 

did I miss your response to this ?


Oh, and there's my personal favorite- truthers ignoring any news stories the moment the clock struck midnight on Sept 11, 2001. Case in point- The Christmas bomber in Utah and the Capitol bomber in Washington were terrorists planning to murder innocent people in public places. They contacted their fellow terrorists to obtain explosives, set them up to do the most damage (in Utah it was to kill people via remote switch during a Christmas tree lighting, and in DC it was to kill people at the Capitol in a suicide bombing), and when they flipped the switch, nothing happened- it turned out the explosives were fake and the people who supplied the fake explosives to them were really undercover FBI agents so they could catch the terrorists in the act. After all, you can't use the excuse you've been set up when you're wearing an explosive vest and you flip the switch and expect a bomb to go off in a public area. So, WHY do the truthers deliberately ignore things like this? So they can claim the 1993 bombing attack against the WTC was really a secret gov't plot because "reports revealed undercover FBI agents wanted to give the terrorists the explosives". We both know you're not going to get any milage out of your conspiracy claims by admitting they were going to be fake explosives.

How is this relevent to the OP's thread? It's nigh impossible to find common ground with the truthers when they're deliberately forcing everyone else to search through their feces of lies, cherry picking, quotes taken out of context, and embellishments to find the occasional undigested corn kernal of truth.





new topics
top topics
 
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join