9/11 Conspiracy Debunkers

a reply to: Nothin

Howdy podner

Well we can't deny that opposites do attract in nature and that's electrically, mechanically, biologically and even ideologically to negate each others' extremes and tend toward some sort of neutrality in an ideal situation. Kinda reminiscent of a democratic system of government.

I see the individual small details of conspiracy theories being challenged as they're being presented. I think the frustrating part, for some, is to see the same things being produced over & over as if it's something new. Possibly due to the fact we're getting into a new generation of theorists?

a reply to: Nothin

Ok. I'll play.

First question?

How is bring up Wood and Scientists for 9/11 Truth debunking efforts off top?

originally posted by: dfnj2015
Why are there so many 9/11 conspiracy debunkers? It's really amazing. As soon anything is posted there's always a response saying it's faked data or faked photoshopped image. It's just weird.

Google search

fo·rum
ˈfôrəm/
noun
1.
a place, meeting, or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged.

Why would you post on a forum if you want to avoid debate?

Oh, don't question? Just do what you say?

Not like the same 9-11 conspiracies have been debunked over and over again for fifteen years.

Debunking is needed to reveal the facts hidden by the truth movement and people pushing false narratives. As in denying a large jet hit the pentagon.

And then there are whole sites devoted to 9/11 debunking. You have to admit having a conspiracy theory is one thing. But being passionate about other peoples passion is just weird. I barely have enough motivation to go to work let alone spend hours and hours debunking other people's conspiracy theories. If you feel strongly enough about debunking 9/11 you would think people would just not click on the thread and read anything at all.

And don't forget search engines. The amount of SEO work that must go into this to make sure debunking sites always come up first is astounding. Honestly, you would think 9/11 debunking would just never exist.

What is the motivation behind this? "Gee, I would really hate it if that conspiracy turned out to be true." What is the worst that could happen. What motivates people to say anything at all?

Wood pushing her theory of WTC dustification while debunking other WTC conspiracy collapse theories for self promotion.

The Scientists for 9/11 Truth debunking pentagon missile/bomb theories while proving a large jet hit the pentagon to bring credibility to the truth movement.

How is this off topic intellectually dishonest debaters?

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: PublicOpinion

Thank you for that wonderful link.

It's a shame it will be ignored, as just demonstrated.

How can anyone have a debate with someone who doesnt read the given material.

It's like talking to a brick wall.

That's the most compelling part in a nutshell. NIST withholds data for national security purpurses, the scientific method is a matter of public security by now. WTF?
At this point all ignorant debunkers lost any credibility they might have had at some point. They can still troll the fck out of ATSliens though, which isn't always bad and quite amusing at times. And this thread is a good example on how to deal with that.
Keep fighting the good fight, folks!

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: PublicOpinion

What would you like to see released? Where is AE 9/11 Truth with freedom of information requests if there is anything for NIST to release?

It's actually save to assume the diametrical opposite of everything you say. In this case there was a FOI request, wanna guess why it got denied?
What's up? Did you just lie again or are your research skills handicapped due to all the 'facts in fatigues' around?

a reply to: PublicOpinion

No, but I would like to be educated. Can you link to the information and quote when and by who the freedom of information act was filled by.

Judicial Watch was denied a FOI request, so they went to court to have the video of flight 77 released.

Judicial Watch v. Federal Bureau of Investigation (No.06-1135)
www.judicialwatch.org

Judicial Watch lawsuit to obtain previously unseen footage of Flight 77 striking the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act request on December 15, 2004, seeking all records pertaining to camera recordings from the Sheraton National Hotel, the Nexcomm/Citgo gas station, Pentagon security cameras and the Virginia Department of Transportation.On May 16, 2006, Judicial Watch forced the Department of Defense to release video footage of American Airlines flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon on 9/11. The videos had been kept secret by the DoD until Judicial Watch filed the FOIA request and, eventually, a lawsuit stating that the DoD had “no legal basis” to refuse release of the footage. On September 15, 2006, Judicial Watch released videos from the CITGO gas station near the Pentagon, which was released by the FBI in response to the FOIA request.Judicial Watch is committed to completing the public record of the 9/11 attacks.

So what freedom of information request are you referring to? Who filled it? Did they pursue a lawsuit to have the information released.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

And how is asking a question a lie? Thanks for not knowing what a question mark indicates in what you quoted from me. Like to make more false allegations?

a reply to: neutronflux

Now we're blaming A&E for secret NIST data? Scientific Method, eh? Well. With doing so, you at least seem to be fully aware.

And how is asking a question a lie?

And how is stating 'facts', without any question-marks whatsoever, asking an actual question? Just another weak accusation in the end, that's everything that matters. Adding further to the topic, btw...

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Quote where I accused anyone of secret data?

What are you even talking about?

You quoted two questions of mine then made an accusation lying? Your proof is a quoted question?


And what freedom of information request were you referring to, by who, and did they pursue a lawsuit.

Can you cite a source on what freedom of information request you were referring to?

a reply to: PublicOpinion

You do realize I stated a thread titled: "Legal Action Taken by 9/11 Truth Groups?"
www.abovetopsecret.com...

With this closing statement.

"Please keep on topic with only discussing the legal battles fought by the 9/11 truth movement! I will ask everyone to police this thread and prevent topic drift. I under stand that 9/11 is emotional, but I know little of the legal action fought by the truth movement. Found little information while searching the internet. Thank you."

If you had information, I wish you would have added to the thread.

The two questions you quoted by me were real questions.

What was the lie you think I made? Please quote me if you would?

a reply to: Informer1958

You can disagree with reality all you want, it will not change it.

As for the OP...

The internet has made it easier for people to communicate.....and opened the door to seeing just how many misinformed individuals are out there.

As to why, "debunkers" step in on every new thread.....we dislike the constantly repeated falsehoods from the truth movement and fully believe the motto Deny Ignorance. So, we post the evidence that shows the reality versus the falsehoods.

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

The internet has made it easier for people to communicate.....and opened the door to seeing just how many misinformed individuals are out there.

And you're here to set the record straight that the OS of 911 is the holy grail of truth.

You're right about the internet, some of us are very wise, we don't have to resort to ad hominem attacks to get the truth out, only persons hiding behind known lies has to do that. It is well demonstrated in many posts in this website, and on every 911 thread on ATS.

The fact is, most "911 conspiracy theorist" that I have talk with, are not condescending, as the 911 conspiracy debunkers are.

a reply to: Informer1958

The fact is, most "911 conspiracy theorist" that I have talk with, are not condescending, as the 911 conspiracy debunkers are.

Why do you think you get challenged so often?

You don't know the difference between fact and opinion, therefore you use the words interchangeably.

When members see you stating opinion as fact, as you have just done, they will have something to say.

a reply to: Informer1958

No, I am here to set the record straight that there are a lot of misinformed individuals out there. Primarily anyone that follows groups with "4 911 truth" in their name.

This is how it normally goes...

Truth Group: " Four jetliners flew off course for two hours and none of the 2,000 combat ready fighters of the US Air Force intercepted them"

Me: "Um, well, actually we were not sure that we were under attack until the second airliner hit, 17 minutes after the first one and thirty three (ish) minutes until the Pentagon was hit and thirty (ish) minutes before Flight 93 slammed into the ground, making it about one hour that we knew we were under attack. And while yes, the US Air Force may have 2,000 fighters, only 14 of them were armed and available for intercept duties that day, making Flight 93 the only realistic opportunity to be intercepted"

Truth Group " And you are here to tell us the OS is the Holy Grail"

Me: "No, just pointing out reality. Alert fighters were taking off when Flight 11 hit, were nowhere near close enough to do anything about Flight 175, the same with Flight 77. And, F-16s of the DCANG were over the skies of Washington, waiting for their chance to launch a suicidal attempt to stop Flight 93."


Truth Group "The World Trade Center was an asbestos filled, empty White Elephant"

Me: "No, actually the asbestos abatement plan was set to take place over ten years for a total of $200 million on a property that was generating, conservatively, $1 Billion a year and at last check with the Port Authority was at 97% occupancy"

Truth Group "Again with the OS being the Holy Grail"

Me: "No, just pointing out the facts again"



Truth Group "The underground fires and temperatures for weeks at the WTC is proof of thermite"

Me " Actually to burn for those temps, for that long, you would need several hundred tons of thermite to maintain. Thermite burns, and then it is done. To maintain a constant fire, you would need a large supply"

Truth Group "THE OS IS NOT THE HOLY GRAIL"

Me " Whatever. The properties of thermite do not allow for your ideas about the underground fire, unless there is an underground mountain of thermite being shoveled into the fire to keep it burning"

Truth Group " You must be one of those gubmint paid disinformation specialists we hear about"

Me: "Sigh....you are right I am a GS-1000 government agent and my office is underneath the Apollo 11 lunar lander on the Moon"




That is how it goes normally.

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

Ok, I get it, so anyone that you disagree with, is in the truth movement.

So only people who believe and support the OS narratives are the only one's well informed, ok I get it.

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: cardinalfan0596

Ok, I get it, so anyone that you disagree with, is in the truth movement.

So only people who believe and support the OS narratives are the only one's well informed, ok I get it.

Um, no, not what I said. I said that there are a lot of misinformed individuals out there, primarily those that listen to groups with "4 911 truth" in the name. There are a couple of posters that disagree with me on minor points about the "official" story....I do not lump them into the truth movement because we disagree.

As for your last statement, there are plenty of people who accept the official story that have not done any research, so, I would not call them well informed.

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

I said that there are a lot of misinformed individuals out there, primarily those that listen to groups with "4 911 truth" in the name

And what about the people that don't listen to the group with "4 911 Truth, are they all misinformed as well?

Do you believe that credible firmen that went on historic record as eyewitness said they saw and heard explosions in the WTC?

Or do you believe in the NIST report?

a reply to: neutronflux

Let me put it this way then: who kept what kind of data secret, why did they do that and how is that fact alone proof for pseudoscience in action? Maybe it's time to agree on some basics with regards to the scientific method? Looking into the stuff I linked would help a lot to get the point across, just saying...

Yes, I saw your thread. And no, changing the focus on "Dem Truthers" doesn't really help your cause. Frankly? I'm talking "methods of debunking" and you're coming up with another deflection instead. Yay! Works like a charm, we're obviously in perfect sync.

Have some irony iron, you've earned it the hard way:

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Informer1958

No, I am here to set the record straight that there are a lot of misinformed individuals out there. Primarily anyone that follows groups with "4 911 truth" in their name.

This is how it normally goes...

Truth Group: " Four jetliners flew off course for two hours and none of the 2,000 combat ready fighters of the US Air Force intercepted them"

Me: "Um, well, actually we were not sure that we were under attack until the second airliner hit, 17 minutes after the first one and thirty three (ish) minutes until the Pentagon was hit and thirty (ish) minutes before Flight 93 slammed into the ground, making it about one hour that we knew we were under attack. And while yes, the US Air Force may have 2,000 fighters, only 14 of them were armed and available for intercept duties that day, making Flight 93 the only realistic opportunity to be intercepted"

Truth Group " And you are here to tell us the OS is the Holy Grail"

Me: "No, just pointing out reality. Alert fighters were taking off when Flight 11 hit, were nowhere near close enough to do anything about Flight 175, the same with Flight 77. And, F-16s of the DCANG were over the skies of Washington, waiting for their chance to launch a suicidal attempt to stop Flight 93."


Truth Group "The World Trade Center was an asbestos filled, empty White Elephant"

Me: "No, actually the asbestos abatement plan was set to take place over ten years for a total of $200 million on a property that was generating, conservatively, $1 Billion a year and at last check with the Port Authority was at 97% occupancy"

Truth Group "Again with the OS being the Holy Grail"

Me: "No, just pointing out the facts again"



Truth Group "The underground fires and temperatures for weeks at the WTC is proof of thermite"

Me " Actually to burn for those temps, for that long, you would need several hundred tons of thermite to maintain. Thermite burns, and then it is done. To maintain a constant fire, you would need a large supply"

Truth Group "THE OS IS NOT THE HOLY GRAIL"

Me " Whatever. The properties of thermite do not allow for your ideas about the underground fire, unless there is an underground mountain of thermite being shoveled into the fire to keep it burning"

Truth Group " You must be one of those gubmint paid disinformation specialists we hear about"

Me: "Sigh....you are right I am a GS-1000 government agent and my office is underneath the Apollo 11 lunar lander on the Moon"




That is how it goes normally.

You called it.

Thats exactly how those conversations go.

Misinformed individuals who think they are wise with poor research skills and an overwhelming desire to always be right.

This is a good forum to find the truth, posters will provide evidence and links and answer questions, I've learned a lot from some of the truly wise posters here.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

And I addressed the failure and stated any engineer not understanding the concept is a hack. To ignore I have addressed the issue is disingenuous.

Vertical columns get there strength from their material, shape, and straightness. For lack of a better term, the vertical column supports the load and transfers the load to the foundation. If a vertical column that is designed to be straight starts to bow or bend, then the load is no longer fully transferred to the foundation. The load creates a critical stress point in the bend or bow. Once the bows in the vertical columns became large enough, the load was not transferred to the foundation, but the bows. Once the slowly bending vertical columns reached critical points, they buckled and failed.

Pretty much basic strucal design. Thanks for using false authority to act that a bowed column will buckel once the bow becomes great enough is unfathomable.

You shared arguments that explained why the elephant would sit down.


NONE of those arguments say ANYTHING about how the elephant would fall 3 meters first, before landing.

I have a bit of a background in physics. That's why I am so interested in this. NIST never addressed the 3 meter fall, other than to point out they believe it happened.

a reply to: D8Tee

Misinformed individuals who think they are wise with poor research skills and an overwhelming desire to always be right.

Ah, yes and that would be everyone that you disagree with.

This is a good forum to find the truth, posters will provide evidence and links and answer questions, I've learned a lot from some of the truly wise posters here.

The OS Truths, fact is everything outside of that, is rejected, ignored, ridiculed, mostly by "opinions". What sources that are used only support the OS narratives, yet we are told we are biased.

Parts of the NIST report is hidden from the public and have been declared secrete, yet somehow has all been Peer Reviewed without the secrete parts ever being examined.

That's the problem with bought and paid for science, it's junks science or pseudoscience. NIST has yet to show their models. Those that defend this kind of science in my "opinion" are not interested into the Truth.