Let’s Agree to Put an End to the Petty 9/11 Argument’s

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 04:09 PM
link   




posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 04:28 PM
link   
I'd like to see all the people who do not believe the OS flood the 911 forum with their views, and drown out the OS supporters who seem to think silence indicates victory for the OS.



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 04:34 PM
link   
even thou i do not believe the official story...too many wealthy and powerful people do not want an independant investigation. thus, it will not happen. this is going to stay swept under the rug, because the wealthy and powerful own and control the rug, you do not..... 9/11 accomplished what it was set up to do, regardless of the death toll and the evisceration of several individual privacy protections granted by the bill of rights.
edit on 30-11-2012 by jimmyx because: changes



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
The facts are the Israeli agencies


I was wondering when the "blame the jews" for everything story would come along.

One of the problems with events like 9/11 is conspiracy theorists are not interested in the actual facts, they just want to blame the government (and the jews). They ignore the evidence of what happened, for some reason prefering stories about silent explosives, mini nuclear weapons, paint on nano thermite, holographic planes, beam weapons from space, missile firing planes etc. and the FDNY demolishing buildings. They like to embellish their stories of missing gold, fake passengers and it was all done by the jews!



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
Just show them the videos of WTC towers 1, 2 and 7 falling at free fall speed


Very funny, as no video's show WTC 1 and 2 falling at free fall speed, as just by watching the video's you can clearly see the debris that falls from the buildings (which is falling at free fall speed) is falling faster than the buildings are collapsing!



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 05:08 PM
link   
When i first started looking into 911, i tried everything to believe the official story, i looked into both arguments equally and Fairly

eventually I found it impossible to buy into the official story way to many anomalies for me.

its true what everyone says, do your own research! so i did and i discovered that there is a huge coverup going on



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkuzzleButt
When i first started looking into 911, i tried everything to believe the official story, i looked into both arguments equally and Fairly

eventually I found it impossible to buy into the official story way to many anomalies for me.


So you dont think 4 planes were hijacked and 3 of them were crashed into buildings....

just what do you believe happened then?



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce

Very funny, as no video's show WTC 1 and 2 falling at free fall speed, as just by watching the video's you can clearly see the debris that falls from the buildings (which is falling at free fall speed) is falling faster than the buildings are collapsing!


It is true they didn't fall at free-fall speed.

But the collapses did accelerate through increasing resistance without any sign of slowing. That is a big problem as the official explanation doesn't cover that fact. In fact the NIST report doesn't cover the collapse at all, they only offered an hypothesis for collapse initiation. The NIST report is not even a testable theory, let alone fact.

How do sagging trusses put a pulling force on the more massive steel columns all braced together? Not only that but the 1" and 5/8" bolts didn't fail first? How do you explain that?



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


If you choose to believe the OS and are tired of debating it.

MOVE ON

Don't try to tell other people who think the OS is bs to stop asking questions and giving their opinions.

The only reason you think it's become an argument is because people don't agree with you.

I do not believe the OS is the truth and I think there is a cover-up.

I will continue to express my opinion on this for as long as I live.



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Give up on 9/11 truth and it is fait accompli.

The greatest fabrication of truth of the 21st century.

What you know as truth has become a sideline.

Lose that and you will lose everything.



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


911 Was an Inside Job ..

People Who Believe 911 was an Inside Job are Mentally Disturbed Because in " Our World " OSer's are Right ! the U.S. Goverment N-E-V-E-R LIES to Us...........


Whatever.............Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.


The Entire History of Mankind is a LIE , If You Really want TRUTH , Seek it Within YOURSELF...........



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
I'd like to see all the people who do not believe the OS flood the 911 forum with their views, and drown out the OS supporters who seem to think silence indicates victory for the OS.



What makes you think they're not already posting here?

What difference would it make anyway, whether there are 1,000 or 10,000 uninformed posters clogging every thread?



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

How do sagging trusses put a pulling force on the more massive steel columns all braced together? Not only that but the 1" and 5/8" bolts didn't fail first? How do you explain that?


How do sagging chains put a pulling force on the hands of massive people holding their ends in place?

How can a truck weighing tons be towed by means of a flimsy strap made out of flexible plastic threads?

Such mysteries will never be answered.



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 08:18 AM
link   
I think the point that I was trying to make has already been lost looking over the last page of this thread. In hindsight I probably should not have even bothered to mention that I believed the OS because it actually has very little to do with the fundamental point I am trying to make.

This is not a thread about was 9/11 a false flag or are conspiracy theorists just a bunch of geeks who need to stay off the internet one week out the month.

This is a thread calling for some debating etiquette.

I start a thread about the nature of the 9/11 debate and because I say I believe in the OS, I get a bunch of members trying to twist this very simple thread into a thread about how OSers are trying to silence truthers. Then I get other’s trying to persuade me that it was the Israeli’s with a bunch of video clips. If you think about it is actually very arrogant to assume that by posting a video like that it’s going to persuade anyone to change their minds on 9/11. I would be a very foolish man to watch a 15 minute video clip and then turn around and change my opinion in the face of all the evidence that has persuaded me that the OS is pretty much correct.

In addition to this it’s off topic, 9/11 is a massive topic if I start a thread say about why NORAD lied to the 9/11 commission or intelligence blunders in the run up to 9/11 about 2 pages in it will turn into a thread about building 7. This inevitable means that every truther posts the same video showing the building collapse as we see on every other 9/11 thread and every OSer spouting off the usual scripted responses. By the fourth page the thread has gone totally off topic and all discussion about why NORAD lied is gone. Again it comes back to debate etiquette why can’t we keep on topic, we can debate possible Israeli involvement on another thread on that topic or we can debate “OSer tactics” on another thread on that topic. However unless we can start to show some basic debating skills and stop with these petty arguments that are created form a basic lack of debating etiquette then we are never going to go anywhere and we will still be having the same arguments in 40 years.

Why can we not all agree to enter into a 9/11 debate with mutual respect for each other and appreciation that each side believes their truth just as much as the other and then stay on topic without all these petty arguments.



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 




I think the point that I was trying to make has already been lost looking over the last page of this thread. In hindsight I probably should not have even bothered to mention that I believed the OS


You didn't need mention what story you believed because when you made this statement below in the OP it became blatantly obvious which side of the fence you landed on.




we have people who believe the official story banging their heads against an impenetrable wall as they desperately try to show the conspiracy theorists how very wrong they are. And on the opposite side of that wall we have those who believe that there is some kind of conspiracy or cover up behind 9/11 on some kind of odd crusade to force their own brand of “truth” down everyone else throats.


I see what you did there.




This is a thread calling for some debating etiquette.


That's some pretty blatant hypocrisy there. Your comment in the OP is insulting, biased and just plain wrong.

You express your sympathy for the poor OS'ers trying so hard to teach us nut jobs the truth.

What a joke. SMH



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by MagicWand67
 


Yes but I do go on to say that



Both sides have their “evidence” and openly mock there opposite’s in this argument because they don’t accept their evidence be it the 9/11 commission or evidence of a controlled demolition. This inevitably turns into two groups of people frustrated at each other because neither can understand why the other cannot subscribe to their believes on the basis of their evidence and in the end we get a school yard argument.


If you are going to quote me please put it into context,

If you look at the entire paragraph I am not insulting just the truther, in the interest of balance I have also said that OSers are constantly trying to prove truthers as being wrong without respecting their views. In that paragraph I am talking about how each side of the argument is in the wrong both sides are trying to force the other to submit to their way of thinking and the result is we end up with silly arguments that do nothing to further the debate.

There is no need for you to be defensive of the Truthers, I am saying that we (myself included) are all in the wrong. You cannot deny that in the course of many of the “debates” on 9/11 on the ATS boards Truther’s resort to these pointless arguments calling for instance there opposite a “shill”. Likewise, I cannot say that me and my fellow Osers are not guilty of calling trutehrs “paranoid” or at times basically “stupid”. We are all guilty of these breaching of debating etiquette and I think it is about times that such petty arguing stops.

We should enter into a 9/11 thread with mutual respect, understand that we both believe in our views just as strongly as our opposite’s in the debate and stay on topic. I don’t understand why anyone would be against this.



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 03:47 PM
link   
Very well said.


We should enter into a 9/11 thread with mutual respect, understand that we both believe in our views just as strongly as our opposites in the debate and stay on topic. I don’t understand why anyone would be against this.


And on top of that, everyone should enter a debate with an open and flexible mind.
When your opponent brings a strong and convincing argument to the table, don't be afraid to admit it.

And find out immediately how to fit that new insight in your line of arguments. And when you can't, you HAVE to admit to your self that there must be a problem with your part of the argumentation.



A good example of such an insight was my debate with three JREF members who came to this board frequently too.
They managed to convince me (at that time a strong believer in the possibility of a fly-over at the Pentagon) that Roosevelt Roberts words were totally twisted by Pilots for Truth and CIT members, and that they based their fly-over theory for a big part on his -by them- twisted words.

So I confronted them at their forum with my new insight, and told them -with arguments- that their fly-over theory was not very likely. And gave them my arguments that showed them that a plane that came flying low from over the Navy Annex, then passed just north of the CITGO gas station, still could impact at the second floor slab of the Pentagon's west wall. At a lower speed than the official one. And that fitted all those NoC witnesses from CIT.

That debate quickly ended with my banning from their forums, the same fate as a few other old timers from ATS experienced also there.
They are not flexible enough to adept new insights in their thought patterns.

Which is a pity, since they unearthed a heap of very helpful aeronautical details regarding the 9/11 flights.
The problem is, that they also came to a few very wrong conclusions, such as the real departure gate of flight 77 at Dulles Int. Airport the morning of 9/11/2001. It was in fact the same gate as it always left from. And I proved it to them in my thread about it here, but they still can't bring themselves to correct their front pages for the right gate.

Another website and some bloggers proved them wrong too on their ACARS messages subject, but they also can't bring themselves to correct their pages about that too. They still have their page and posts up, where they say that the planes were still in the air after the moments they crashed, because they found ACARS messages send to those planes after the crash times. Their arguments were clearly refuted, and still they stubbornly keep that misinformation up at their site.

A site many fresh researchers see as a professional pilots gathering, where they expect professional answers from. Sadly, that's not true for a few very important pieces of the 9/11 planes and flightpaths puzzle.
Thus they show a great deal of bad science for everyone to see.


That's why I don't mind what their opinion of me is, I still can read and use their other correct arguments in my own thought processes, and am grateful for their part of the puzzle that they have offered, and hopefully still offer.

Without their website, we would undoubtedly miss a big aeronautical information chunk of that 9/11 puzzle.
Sadly enough, their owner has a very strange interpretation of how to lead such a site.

And I still firmly belief that the NoC witnesses interviewed by CIT, were obviously telling the truth as they saw it.
Too many of them are there, to question the overall picture which can be extracted from all their statements.
They all saw A 77 come low from over the Annex roofs center, and passed at just a bit more than treetop level just north of that gas station, to end up in the west wall at the Pentagon.

Which contradicts the officially pushed theory of a south of that gas station flying A 77 strongly, and was the main reason for many 9/11 researchers to start checking up on the official theories for all 9/11 flights.



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 05:31 PM
link   
people who believe the official story should watch this, its a bit long though at 24mins, but if u manage the first 10mins i am sure you will be interested to see the rest.

Some people refuse to even look at the evidence because they are too happy believing everything the government says.

all i can say is don't be close minded, keep your mind open to all possibility's, its the only way to get to the truth





posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkuzzleButt
people who believe the official story should watch this, its a bit long though at 24mins, but if u manage the first 10mins i am sure you will be interested to see the rest.


not really, just where is this "videotape" of the trucks arriving? Who saw this videotape?

I could make a speech, post it on youtube claiming videotape showed ufo's landing at the wtc and aliens taking stuff inside, amd according to truthers that means aliens blew up the yowers!

Also there were no power outs, and the bomb sniffing dogs were NOT removed.... one was even killed due to the collapse.

So just another truther video full of lies.
edit on 1-12-2012 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkuzzleButt
people who believe the official story should watch this, its a bit long though at 24mins, but if u manage the first 10mins i am sure you will be interested to see the rest.

Some people refuse to even look at the evidence because they are too happy believing everything the government says.

all i can say is don't be close minded, keep your mind open to all possibility's, its the only way to get to the truth






Great Video there , it Speaks for Itself . All those People in the Towers MURDERED , When will the Real Culprits be Identified and tried in a Court Of Law ? Arab Terrorists my Arse !.............





new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join