It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by NewWorldOver
the 9/11 truth movement does not need to satisfy skeptics, we should stop wasting time on them altogether and recognize denial and skepticism as a legitimate roadblock that we can overcome - by MOVING ON. Moving past it.
Originally posted by Conundrum04
I not sure how any of what you just posted has anything to do with my questions posted above.
I'm not even going to entertain your little scernario because it doesn't have any relevance in what we are discussing.
So was it as simple as 19-20 hijackers acting alone in the US(micro level)? Or was it complex, did they have help in the US by some other source that we don't know about(macro level)?
Remember. It's simple and complex right????? Just like you told me.
so far, the only skeptic argument has been to regurgitate the current, unacceptable official explanation. I mean, anything other than the official explanation is just another Conspiracy Theory by definition, right?
NO evidence exists, that we have been shown, that proves the Official Lie to be true: None. All allegations, and suppositions of the most absurd sorts..assumptions not based on fact but to make the lie work. How could anyone read David Ray Griffen's well documented books and come away thinking that all is peachy in Bushie land? HOW? ONLY denial..chronic, pronounced and ever present, could account for believing the lies that the government has told about these events.
The facts are that most scientists/investigators don't subscribe to the 9/11 Truth theories.
Originally posted by NewWorldOver
Originally posted by intrepid
reply to post by NewWorldOver
Cool, I still think I know what "truth movement" you're talking about. Been there before. That being said, you WILL treat other members with courtesy or you can go back to your website and tell them that YOU got banned here as well. Another merit badge.
Consider the T&C which you agreed to when you registered.
If you say so. The condescending nature in which StudioGuy and others speak on these message boards leads me to wonder where the line is drawn. Telling me to 'leave the hard stuff to the grown ups' etc. I have not retaliated and I won't attempt to from now on.
[edit on 11-12-2007 by NewWorldOver]
Originally posted by ProfTom
Not one. Even with the lure of fame and fortune and a chance to go down in history as The Guy Who Saved American Democracy
Originally posted by NewWorldOver
As I said - the skeptics are emotionally and mentally incapable of discussing the 9/11 truth subject WITHOUT clinging desperately to the official story.
Originally posted by AshleyD
What I mainly have to go on are the phone conversations from flight 93. It pretty much disproves
the theory of remote-controlled planes and other ideas.
Originally posted by Aim64C
And you claim to be so adept at 'connecting the dots'.... I'm the second coming - just so you know.
If you can't understand a simple conundrum such as that, or the concept of individual perception, insight, and mental occlusion - then I suggest you spend less time here and more time at a library or reading scientific theories, as opposed to conspiracy theories (although, I got into conspiracy theories by studying scientific theories...)
Originally posted by Operation AJAX
Note: If this recipe does not take, simply serve Ad Hominem attacks untill anybody with a contrary opinion leaves the thread.
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
If this type of focus on personalities rather than issues continues here in the 9/11 forum, we'll simply have to resort to terminating the accounts of those who can't alter their style.
Originally posted by AshleyD
If there was a controlled demolition to completely bring down the towers, Occam's Razor would dictate the ones who performed the attacks were the same ones who planted the necessary bombs.
Scientific hypothesis
People refer to a trial solution to a problem as a hypothesis — often called an "educated guess" — because it provides a suggested solution based on the evidence. Experimenters may test and reject several hypotheses before solving the problem.
According to Schick and Vaughn,[2] researchers weighing up alternative hypotheses may take into consideration:
Testability (compare falsifiability as discussed above)
Simplicity (as in the application of "Occam's Razor", discouraging the postulation of excessive numbers of entities)
Scope - the apparent application of the hypothesis to multiple cases of phenomena
Fruitfulness - the prospect that a hypothesis may explain further phenomena in the future
Conservatism - the degree of "fit" with existing recognised knowledge-systems
Originally posted by adjay
They seem to serve one purpose - to derail and deconstruct any attempts to find truth, or deny ignorance. It is my opinion that these are the skeptics that need to be left behind, and don't seem to fit within the scope of the site.
...
nobody needs people that just argue aimlessly for the sake of being right, or for the sake of defending a conclusion that isn't even theirs (the "official" story). These people embrace ignorance, not deny it.
Originally posted by DocMoreau
Before 9-11 I never knew that the Bushes like to perform mock sacrifices with their friends. I never knew that The President's grandfather was a Nazi sympathizer who tried to foment a coup to install a Nazi government. I could go on and on. There is quite a lot of circumstancial 'evidence', and I recommend all "Official Story" supporters to really take a look at.
Originally posted by Majic
As a moderator, I see such allegations as worthy of consideration, but I'm far more concerned with disruption.
Disruption doesn't involve having a different opinion, but deliberately acting in such a way as to prevent others from expressing theirs.
But attacks against members simply for holding different views are a sure sign of an intent to disrupt discussion and thus work against the purpose of our forums.
Such behavior has no legitimate place on ATS and will be dealt with accordingly.
Originally posted by NewWorldOver
Meanwhile, the rest of us find it deadly serious, and we are not laughing. We are also getting TIRED of entertaining the endlessly circular logic of skeptics who want nothing more than to step into a verbal debate on a topic they have no interest in educating themselves on...
Originally posted by Majic
Rather than rail against people for being honest in their opinions and asserting their right to have them, why not focus on presenting a convincing case to support your beliefs?