Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Truthers and Debunkers Unite.

page: 6
5
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by geobro
reply to post by hooper
 

no just run of the mill people no nutters druggies or idiots as you accused me of being for bringing this up before & lots of people has said 9.30 ish in the uk they first heard about it . its a puzzle eh


I don't know why you keep trying to flog this dead horse. I heard nothing about it until the afternoon and this BBC reporter identifies 10 minutes to 2 as the first intimation in London :-

www.guardian.co.uk...




posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



Since a skyscraper must be strong enough at every level to support all of the weight above...

You really just don't understand how structures work, do you? Each level of a structure does not have to act like a building foundation. Thats why there's only one foundation. All the structural elements need only be strong enough to complete the task that the design assigns them. Thats why some walls are "bearing walls" and some are simply partition walls. Some elements have multiple task, like transferring the load of the structure above and adjacent to them to the earth or foundations and may also need to act as supports for architectual elements such as drywall and ceiling tiles. Also note that before a building can "hold itself up" it must first and foremost hold itself together. Separate elements, when cojoined, may act as a unit to acheive a loading task. Individually they may not be capable. In order to make the unit fail you do not need to destroy all the individual elements in a unit separately, you need only overwhelm the connections.


All of the bearing walls or columns on a level must be strong enough in combination to support the combined weights of ALL LEVELS ABOVE.

You are just using semantic details to say the same thing.

psik



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



There can be coverups AS WELL AS the 9/11 attack really was an attack by islamic fundamentalists, it just means the coverups aren't as spooky-scary as the way Alex Jones is making them out to be. If you take a look at all my writings, you will note I'm already standing here at the middle ground waiting for you truthers to show up.

If you are standing at the middle ground already then you must agree that the cover up could be of incompetence, AS WELL AS letting it happen on purpose, AS WELL AS of controlled demolition, AS WELL AS state sponsorship of other countries or terrorists other than Osama Bin Laden, or may be they are covering up something like


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?

Only on 9/11 they couldn't stop their own monster in time? After all they couldn't give them a fake plane so they used real ones and somehow lost control? and when they realized that they lost control they shot down united 93 ?

Just to make sure I didn't misinterpret what you said, i looked up the definition of a cover up...


any action, stratagem, or other means of concealing or preventing investigation or exposure. concealment or attempted concealment of a mistake, crime, etc

A cover-up is an attempt, whether successful or not, to conceal evidence of wrong-doing, error, incompetence or other embarrassing information. In a passive cover-up information is simply not provided; in an active cover-up deception is used. The expression is usually applied to people in positions of authority who abuse their power to avoid or silence criticism or to deflect guilt of wrongdoing. Those who initiate a cover up (or their allies) may be responsible for a misdeed, a breach of trust or duty or a crime. While the terms are often used interchangeably, cover-up involves withholding incriminatory evidence, while whitewash involves releasing misleading evidence.



Or would that be a little too spooky-scary for you?



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



All of the bearing walls or columns on a level must be strong enough in combination to support the combined weights of ALL LEVELS ABOVE.
You are just using semantic details to say the same thing.

Its not "semantics". They're called words. They are very important, particularly in a written medium. And no the bearing walls do not have to be strong enough to support the COMBINED WEIGHT of ALL LEVELS ABOVE. Think about how silly that is. That means any bearing wall on the first floor of a home is sufficient, of and by itself, to support the total weight of all the structure above it. So that means I can take out all but one bearing wall in my house's first floor and nothing would happen because that one wall is strong enough to bear the load of all the structure above.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

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.



I know you are an official story fundamentalist and your ad hominem under lines my case. OS Fundamentalists are singularly dedicated to attacking truth seekers.

While truth seekers would rather discuss the 9/11 and 7/7 false flag operations, OS fundamentalists heap abuse up on us.




posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by geobro
reply to post by hooper
 

no just run of the mill people no nutters druggies or idiots as you accused me of being for bringing this up before & lots of people has said 9.30 ish in the uk they first heard about it . its a puzzle eh


I don't know why you keep trying to flog this dead horse. I heard nothing about it until the afternoon and this BBC reporter identifies 10 minutes to 2 as the first intimation in London :-

www.guardian.co.uk...
.........................thousands of people i have spoken to must all be wrong then even people here at ats all wrong ?



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 06:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ilovecatbinlady


I know you are an official story fundamentalist and your ad hominem under lines my case. OS Fundamentalists are singularly dedicated to attacking truth seekers.


You know very little about me. You are making assumptions.


While truth seekers would rather discuss the 9/11 and 7/7 false flag operations, OS fundamentalists heap abuse up on us.


Again, this is pure arrogance. Painting yourselves as enlightened and humble is a picture I don't recognise at all. Usually I am being threatened with death when the "reckoning" comes, called a traitor and receiving ad hominems myself on this board.

Strictly speaking describing your post as arrpgant is not an ad hominem. So you're wrong about that as well.



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 07:21 AM
link   
reply to post by geobro
 



....thousands of people i have spoken to must all be wrong then even people here at ats all wrong ?


Yeah, pretty much. And no one believes that you have spoken to "thousands" of people and they all agree that the BBC was broadcasting the events unfolding in the US before they actually happened. Sorry.



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by geobro
.........................thousands of people i have spoken to must all be wrong then even people here at ats all wrong ?


Think about how preposterous your idea is. I know of two guys who were in New York on the morning of 9/11, both downtown. One was scheduled for a meeting in the WTC. Both were contacted by their families and friends immediately and both responded. How on earth would you fake this? With actors? Or have they both been bought off? Is everyone who was supposed to be in New York at the time in on it? It makes no sense at all.

A colleague of mine called a guy in the WTC at Cantor. It was a hideous experience and again, one that I feel would be almost impossible to fake.

How do you account for the thousands or hundreds of thousands of people needed to falsify this?



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 

If you are standing at the middle ground already then you must agree that the cover up could be of incompetence, AS WELL AS letting it happen on purpose, AS WELL AS of controlled demolition, AS WELL AS state sponsorship of other countries or terrorists other than Osama Bin Laden, or may be they are covering up something like


That is being rather intellectually dishonest. That's not a middle ground; that's a full acceptance of all the arguments youre making, since the "possibility of controllled demolitions" necessarily includes having to willfully ignore all the evidence that puts the controlled demolitions theory in doubt (I.E. no evidence of sabotage reported by the workers clearing out ground zero).

...but as for "letting it happen on purpose", I can accept that as a possibility, yes. For the "controlled demolitions" theory to be true it necessarily means the conspirators specifically went out of their way to fulfill all these absolutely pointless and convoluted Rube Goldberg conspiracies within plots within coverups that returned little to no benefit, while "letting it happen on purpose" could be achieved by literally doing nothing. Even you have to accept the monumental logical difference between the two.



Only on 9/11 they couldn't stop their own monster in time? After all they couldn't give them a fake plane so they used real ones and somehow lost control? and when they realized that they lost control they shot down united 93 ?


What do you mean, "only on 9/11"? It came out in the news just today that over in Salt Lake City a pilot wanted for murder was actually able to jump a barbed wire fence and steal a 50 passenger plane. Fortunately the guy crashed it into a bunch of cars and he couldn't take off so he killed himself, but the ramifications of what *might* have happened if he was able to take off is obvious. From what I'm seeing there are still gaps in security even twelve years after the 9/11 attack.

I'm not certain what you mean by "giving them fake planes". Are you one of those "no planer" hologram people?


Just to make sure I didn't misinterpret what you said, i looked up the definition of a cover up...
[snip]
Or would that be a little too spooky-scary for you?


No, I accept that definition. Someone attempting to conceal an act of incompetence which may have directly or indirectly led to the deaths of 3000 people is in fact a coverup, and it is most certainly a breach of trust.

There, we have middle ground already...but what's your point with this?



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by Ilovecatbinlady

I know you are an official story fundamentalist and your ad hominem under lines my case. OS Fundamentalists are singularly dedicated to attacking truth seekers.


Again, this is pure arrogance. Painting yourselves as enlightened and humble is a picture I don't recognise at all. Usually I am being threatened with death when the "reckoning" comes, called a traitor and receiving ad hominems myself on this board.

Strictly speaking describing your post as arrpgant is not an ad hominem. So you're wrong about that as well.


I have to agree here. It's become obvious there can never be common ground as long as the truthers zealously rely on fake propaganda such as this. Just like a Sith lord, everything is in absolute values of a "if you're not with us you must be with them" rationale, so in their mind, there can be no difference between someone who debunks their conspiracy claims and someone who defends the "official story", and you can see from the writings of the person you're responding to that they have zero motivation to even correct their mistakes.

Repeating something that's false which we don't know is false is simply a mistake. Repeating something that's false which we DO know is false is a lie.



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 





No, I accept that definition. Someone attempting to conceal an act of incompetence which may have directly or indirectly led to the deaths of 3000 people is in fact a coverup, and it is most certainly a breach of trust.


That is being rather intellectually dishonest dont you think?
In that definition it also states that some one is attempting to conceal evidence of a crime. But you dont accept that part of definition right?

You are not at the middle ground... and that is my point. You will probably forget that you even wrote that. You forget things i noticed. Or maybe you are just a lying piece of ****. Whatever you are is not somebody willing to admit to being wrong .



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by Ilovecatbinlady


I know you are an official story fundamentalist and your ad hominem under lines my case. OS Fundamentalists are singularly dedicated to attacking truth seekers.


You know very little about me. You are making assumptions.


While truth seekers would rather discuss the 9/11 and 7/7 false flag operations, OS fundamentalists heap abuse up on us.


Again, this is pure arrogance. Painting yourselves as enlightened and humble is a picture I don't recognise at all. Usually I am being threatened with death when the "reckoning" comes, called a traitor and receiving ad hominems myself on this board.

Strictly speaking describing your post as arrpgant is not an ad hominem. So you're wrong about that as well.



OK then. I would kindly ask you not address me on 9/11 related matters.

I have nothing to say to you.



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by maxella1
 



And these terrorists are winning because they divided the first group of people into 2 groups, Debunkers vs Truthers. These two groups should not exist at all because they are the same.

This is probably the funniest of all the conspiracy delusions. There are not two groups. There is all of humanity and within that group there is a microscopic subset of conspiracy cultist who like to think that they are onto some big truth wherein some megaconglomerate super evil pact of power hungry uber villians is out to control the world but all the brave truthers are on to them and the game would only be up if it weren't for the dastardly henchmen of the uber villians, the debunkers. This pretty much applies to all conspiracies, but mostly to the 9/11 conspiracies.


Well look at that.. A perfect example right here.. You cant even admit that they have divided conscious people. By conscious i mean those that are aware of current affairs around the world and not the playstation playing zombies.

Is there anything at all that you agree about with "truthers"?






Hey com'on now. I use my playstation to read ats, i dont have constant access to a computer.


On topic: Its pretty obvious they have divided us, i believe that was the whole point really, but thats just my opinion...


Peace



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
That is being rather intellectually dishonest dont you think?
In that definition it also states that some one is attempting to conceal evidence of a crime. But you dont accept that part of definition right?

You are not at the middle ground... and that is my point. You will probably forget that you even wrote that. You forget things i noticed. Or maybe you are just a lying piece of ****. Whatever you are is not somebody willing to admit to being wrong .


Don't be an idiot. Of course that's part of the definition. Coverup includes many definitions up to and including concealing the selling out of the human race to space aliens, too. Agreeing that coverup includes concealing the selling out of the human race to space aliens doesn't mean I believe anyone actually sold out the human race to space aliens. You're being argumentative for argument's sake here.

...and what exactly am I wrong at? You said, and I quote:

"If you are standing at the middle ground already then you must agree that the cover up could be of incompetence, AS WELL AS letting it happen on purpose, AS WELL AS of controlled demolition, AS WELL AS state sponsorship of other countries or terrorists other than Osama Bin Laden, or may be they are covering up something like "

...to which I stated that "agreeing the coverup could be over controlled demolitions" isn't a middle ground- it's the full and complete acceptance of all the spooky-scary stories you're spinning as well as completely ignoring all the evidence that refutes it. What is even remotely incorrect about that? I took the time to answer your questions and all I get for my efforts is more of your blind, servile devotion to your conspiracy religion.

You really have no credibility.
edit on 18-7-2012 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 





Don't be an idiot. Of course that's part of the definition. Coverup includes many definitions up to and including concealing the selling out of the human race to space aliens, too. Agreeing that coverup includes concealing the selling out of the human race to space aliens doesn't mean I believe anyone actually sold out the human race to space aliens. You're being argumentative for argument's sake here.


Space Aliens............. How could G.O.D. Not inject a dose of crap into 9/11 thread.....




...to which I stated that "agreeing the coverup could be over controlled demolitions" isn't a middle ground- it's the full and complete acceptance of all the spooky-scary stories you're spinning as well as completely ignoring all the evidence that refutes it. What is even remotely incorrect about that? I took the time to answer your questions and all I get for my efforts is more of your blind, servile devotion to your conspiracy religion.


So let me get this straight.....

You agree that there is s cover up?

You agree that a definition of a cover up includes removing / destroying evidence of wrongdoing ?

But you dont agree that they might be covering up criminal involvement including allowing the buildings to be blown up with some kind of explosives ?

Are you sure you understand what a cover up means?




You really have no credibility.


Now this is just wrong Dave.... I look up to you and say something like this.... Lol.
I'm not concerned with having credibility on a anonymous internet forum. Especially Credibility with GoodolDave and company....
edit on 18-7-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Ilovecatbinlady
 


So, on a thread designed to find some sort of common ground, you refuse to do so. In fact, you try to smear people and when called on it....you take your ball and go home?



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by geobro
 



....thousands of people i have spoken to must all be wrong then even people here at ats all wrong ?


Yeah, pretty much. And no one believes that you have spoken to "thousands" of people and they all agree that the BBC was broadcasting the events unfolding in the US before they actually happened. Sorry.
as i have said before all yoo have to do is ask around or look up faccino . tiger mountain or flying spagetti monster in 9-11 my stories 10 years on but we have been over this for months ???



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by Ilovecatbinlady
 


So, on a thread designed to find some sort of common ground, you refuse to do so. In fact, you try to smear people and when called on it....you take your ball and go home?


That's what it looked like he did to me also... But I understand how he feels because this 'TrickoftheShade ' character annoys the crap out of me as well.

But to be fair you should also comment on 'hoppers' post on page one. He came in to this thread with no intention of trying to find common ground at all.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by maxella1
 


Yeah.....not so much. When I start seeing people like him being called out by people like you, then I will give more thought to policing both sides.






top topics



 
5
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join