Truther throws in the towel, admits it's all B.S.

Originally posted by IvanZana
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar

 

Covering up for 911 will land you in prison or worse. 100,000 + people haved died since 911 and the lies there after. Do you think this is a joke Slightlybovepar? Do you actually believe you are making any progress?You should be ashamed of yourself for what you do but make no mistake about it. Justice will be served.


Lie all you want on ATS and other forums. Its is not convincing anyone. What your doing is making people realize that the shill-disinformationalists have infiltrated ever dark ,dank crack on the internet, trolling forums and derailing threads making sure people dont learn the truth.


This is only the begining. You will see. You will remember the words I speak when I say. THe JiG is Up. Just a matter of time.

Would be nice if debunkers can put there names where their mouths are so just incase justice is served and the official story get debunked in court, then they can be held accountable as war criminals.

Due time, due time. God Bless.

Ok, so anyone with a different opinion to you is a liar and a war criminal???

give your head a shake you muppet and pack in the absurd self important and self righteous crap. Who exactly appointed you judge jury and executioner for the whole world? People like you need locking up as you obviously have messaniac delusions. War criminal my arse

I now eagerly await the accusations that im a disinfo agent or a troll just because i have a different viewpoint. Numbty.

Originally posted by dariousg

Originally posted by expatwhite
Watching the videos, i can understand peoples concerns about WTC7, however many of them dont realise the massive fires that were raging there AND the damage caused to it when the tower collapsed

Okay, I understand your points. But to this very point, please, and I'm being serious because this is one of the HUGE sticking points to this debate, explain to me WHY the building came straight down. Why didn't it collapse to one side first? Why didn't it just collapse down to the intact floors and then tumble? Why?

The fires weren't spread equally among all of the support features of the building and burning equally hot and equally as long in order to institute an EQUAL collapse.

The same goes for the two towers. Sorry my friend, but that has NEVER been presented in a truly convincing manner. It makes no sense at all.

I do understand your point but i can only comment as to what i have seen and that was the building coming down in the distance. Now if the centre supporting pillars had melted and given way then that would make sense to me

Plus i have never seen a building collapse sideways, they always look to go straight down to me ? I admit i havent seen that much footage of the collapse and there may be some closer stuff i havent seen. Im also not an expert in demolitions so i could be miles off on this one

Its a fair point you raise and to keep this on the OP, i may be converted if i see reasonable enough proof that a CD took place! Its just that what ive seen doesnt really convince enough to change my mind. I appreciate the courtesy though mate, at least you didnt call me a war criminal

reply to post by dariousg


Dariousq:
If this one question was answered would you consider the case "closed" on WTC7? If not, which question (or questions) would put this to rest for you?

Be honest, if these questions were answered, would you be satisfied, or would you go further down the rabbit hole? That's not a slam, that's an honest and (I think) valid question.

I didn't say all of 9-11, just WTC7.

I wonder what the OP had in mind by creating this thread.

In all honsety it does not change anything at all.
It does not prove anything for debunkers or truthers.
So thats why Im wondering what the point in posting this was or if the OP had some kind of agenda and what it was.

Social experiment?..Prove truthers wrong?...Spead the news that the original story given by the government about 9/11 was true?
Start an argument with a truther?

If in the end nothing will be changed then whats the point of posting this unless the OP is a debunker and wants to prove a truther wrong?

The reasons for not believing the offical story are quite sound and just because someone has researched information pertaining to it doesnt make them irrational it makes them informed. Debunker or truther the same tactics are usesd on both sides of the line for defense.

If a person said that that there was more evidence to support foul play where 9/11 was concerned than a legitimate answer, then naturally a person would lean in the direction of foul play.

However if someone says such a thing then likewise a debunker will automatically request proof that there is such evidence.
My question is why should a truther spoon feed a debunker?
Every truther was once a debunker and came to fruition by searching for somthing deeper by themselves.
If a debunker wishes not to search for anything deeper thats up to them.
The problem with truthers is not in what they believe but rather in their presentation. Grassroots information gathering is not an exact science and as such causes many communication problems both within and outside the group.

When someone comes to knoweldge over somthing important a typical response is to spill the beans so to speak.
In doing this the truther who is not trained in deliberation actually complicates things by flooding the populous with every single detail of what they have aquired through legitimate research and investigation.
This then makes a truther come off as having all the answers and some times a few truthers will use the as momentum in furthering thier agenda and spreading the word.

When a debunker sees this they automatically shoot down ALL truthers as quacks, or unstable conspiracy theorists based on the way the truther presented the information. The debunker then responds in the same manner exactly by offering up counter explanations and playing them off as the FULL STORY.

In actuality it is highly probable that both sides are misinformed to some degree.
There is indeed strong evidence that points to foul play on the part of the government to what degree however is clearly speculation until someone responsible actually admits to it. unfortunatly for a debunker going against such evidence usually gets them bulldozed over and it's painfully obvious when seen.
but If a truther starts spouting off on mere conjecture then a debunker is going to tear the individual apart as expected.

So really whats the deal here, is the OP trying to debunk the scenario or convince his/herself of somthing that may or may not have been?
Sometimes things really aren't what they seem and if one can say "Yes that is a little fishy." With out getting swept up in the whole conspiracy theorists web of confusion real knowledge can be obtained.
Also just because somthing is suspicious doesnt mean every theory is possible.

I just want to know who the OP is trying to convince by posting this and if it is no one then what was the point?

If it was simply for sharing information it was rather trivial.

reply to post by expatwhite


Worse than that, he's threatening me personally. Have you noticed the amount of anger he displays? He (basically) says he hopes I, and those like me, will be killed for my thoughts.

Again, this is the classic final step in the Inflationary Model. Basically, the conspiracy grows and grows and grows until it encompasses anyone who dares critique the conspiracy itself. That is, anyone who questions is one of "them".

reply to post by snowen20


I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. The reactions to the post are what people like me find fascinating. Very little was actually said in the OP but yet, a whole lot was assumed.

The intent was clearly stated within the OP. Read the blog, if you so choose, and evaluate if his experiences resonate with you. If not, that's fine. If so, that's fine too. Share your thoughts.

That's it. Not complicated.

What's complicated is what comes out of Ct'ers mouths with virtually no provocation of any kind. Your post, like some others, gives real insight into how you think and how you filter information.

As is evident is many posts, CT'ers bring a huge amount of baggage into their thought process. My belief is this baggage renders most CT'er unable to objectively evaluate what we do know about 9-11.

All I asked for was opinions on this one guy and his experience. What I got in return is extremely illuminating.

reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar


Well i believe there ismore to this 9/11 event that meets the eye, but I consider myself one who carefully examines ALL possabilities.
There has been much I have seen that has changed my mind about the conspiracy and other things that illuminated me to it.

I am not sure that this was a reasonable way of showing how truthers filter information for the simple fact that they are down range of ridicule to begin with. You cant expect someone who is allways in the line of ire to not be defensive and fired up over what they belive.
How then could you or anyone else determine that what they say is unreasonable reaction? If both parties involved worked together to accomplish the same goal then perhaps they the truthers wouldnt feel so defensive.
I guess part of that is upon thier realization as they see it that suddenly everyone is against them they become combative because in a truthers mind suddenly it's them VS the world.

But like I said I personally don't know the whole story so spouting off hypothesis would be illogical. Instead I find that if a person just takes in all the nformation and filters it like you say then by that means they can aquire alot of useful info.
Its for that reason that I admire your strategy for gathering ideas.

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
reply to post by snowen20

 

What's complicated is what comes out of Ct'ers mouths with virtually no provocation of any kind. Your post, like some others, gives real insight into how you think and how you filter information.

One other thing, when you say " Your post and some others" then refer to how "you" think, do you mean to say I am being suspicious?
I may have misread that which has alot to do with my signature at the bottom of each of my posts.

If so then you should know I wanst suspicious I was simply asking a question for general purposes nothing more nothing less.
Just getting a feel for where the thread was going.
My ability to filter information is no different than anyone else, it seemed a little cutting.
If it wasnt meant to be a cutting remark then forget I said anything either way Ill survive.

Overcoming the 9/11 Disinformation

Concentrate! Focus like a LASER on the pieces of unassailable evidence. For me that is the controlled demolition of WTC7. There is absolutely no question that WTC7 was brought down with explosives in a controlled way. It was witnessed by thousands of people, video recorded from a dozen different angles complete with sound recordings of the explosions. Even the building's owner, Silverstein, says on camera in a documentary that the building was "pulled". It takes WEEKS at a minimum, to plan and implement a controlled demolition of skyscraper. That means the explosives in WTC7 were installed well in advance of 9/11. That is a fact. There is no way around it and the implication which follows from that fact is inescapable: 9/11 was an inside job.
Everything else is just details.

The perpetrators of 911 are obviously well financed and organized. They have gone to great lengths and expense to pull off this crime. Why would we expect their efforts to cease with the destruction of the towers. Their efforts continue in the form of a massive and coordinated disinformation campaign.

So whenever you start to get confused or discouraged come back to your bedrock fact. For me it's WTC7. For you it may be the lack of a NORAD response, or the way the towers exploded. Whatever it is that convinced you beyond any doubt, that is your bedrock. Build on that.

Peace, Matt.

9eleven.info...

[edit on 15-7-2008 by IvanZana]

[edit on 15-7-2008 by IvanZana]

reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar



Hoax-Promoting Videos
Of all the media used to disseminate misinformation and disinformation videos are perhaps the most effective. Whereas websites with disinformation can be critiqued by other websites which are easily located using the Web's search capabilities, a video is unlikely to occupy a shelf with another video critiquing it. This page reviews three of the '9/11 videos' that have received some of the most extensive promotion.

In Plane Site
Loose Change
9/11 Eyewitness
PentaCon
911review.com...

3 DEBUNKERS here have used this next tactic on my threads recently.

Holocaust Denial Versus 9/11 Truth
The association of challenges to the official myth of 9/11 with deniers of the Nazi Holocaust of Jews is one of the more potent weapons in the arsenal of the apologists for the official myth, although its use so far has been limited. In a column in Scientific American attacking the 9/11 "conspiracy theories" Michael Shermer states:

The mistaken belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking (as well as creationism, Holocaust denial and the various crank theories of physics).

Following this, Shermer launches into a straw-man attack against 9-11 Research implying that the website embraces the same "conspiratorial thinking" as Holocaust denial, despite the fact that 9-11 Research does not endorse Holocaust denial or Holocaust revisionism, and avoids uncritically linking to websites that do. It is easy to find writers and websites that openly mix 9/11 skepticism with Holocaust denial or revisionism. Some of the more prominent ones are:

Christoper Bollyn, writer for The American Free Press
The American Free Press , part of a parent organization that includes the Hitler-praising Barnes Review
Eric Hufschmid, the author of influential books and videos about the 9/11 attack.
Public-Action.com , a site that highlights the Waco massacre, speculates about 9/11 conspiracies, and promotes neo-Nazi websites
Serendipity.li , a site with extensive links to AmericanFreePress.net and public-action.com

911review.com...



NOTE:
In Plane Site - Phil Jayhan
Loose Change - Phil Jayhan , Dylan Avery
9/11 Eyewitness - Forums run by Jayhan
PentaCon - Promoted by Jayhan

Are all Letsroll911's products. Pods, Holograms, Webfairy, Wingt tv, Arctic Beacon, windowless tankers, etc...
Oh jayhan, it was never over.

[edit on 15-7-2008 by IvanZana]

[edit on 15-7-2008 by IvanZana]

"They" sprayed nanothemate all over the structural beams.

They did this under cover of fireproofing as nanothermite can be made to look like many things and will even burn through asbestos - which was the primary fire insulation used on the WTC.

The company that manufactures the nano-thermate employed several people who are now part of the NIST investigation team. These people were involved in the development of the incendiary and aided in the development of stealth application processes.

The construction workers who applied the "Fireproofing" likely did not know what they were spraying on to those beams.

But at least we no know there is a clear conflict of interest. No conspiracy, just a Conflict of Interests.

Once again, the criminals are investigating themselves. At least they didn't appoint Kissinger to head that investigation....

[edit on 15-7-2008 by TruthTellist]

reply to post by TruthTellist


where did you come by this information?

reply to post by snowen20


Google: Nano-thermite nano-thermate, NIST compromised nano-thermite, nano-thermite developers

There is an abundance of resources on teh interweb.

Originally posted by IvanZana
Overcoming the 9/11 Disinformation

There is absolutely no question that WTC7 was brought down with explosives in a controlled way. It was witnessed by thousands of people, video recorded from a dozen different angles complete with sound recordings of the explosions.

Peace, Matt.

9eleven.info...

Not to be nitpicky or anything, but I'd like to see these videos with sound of the explosions. Thanks.

I too would like to see these videos with the sound of explosions.

reply to post by snowen20


Do a Youtube search: 9/11 explosions, 9/11 bombs audio, 9/11 explosion with sound

There are dozens of hits. I just watched a few. Of course, those crazy Trufers could have edited the explosion sounds in afterward (probably from a controlled demolition), which I think they must have done. They make their delusions fit their reality.

reply to post by TruthTellist

I can use a search engine. Please link to what you are talking about directly as google typically returns millions of search results and you tube tyicaly returns thousands. Thanks from 'both sides'.

reply to post by jprophet420



You Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best for items qualifying for rule 10.

Thanks Umbrax

Originally posted by IvanZana
Overcoming the 9/11 Disinformation

Concentrate! Focus like a LASER on the pieces of unassailable evidence. For me that is the controlled demolition of WTC7. There is absolutely no question that WTC7 was brought down with explosives in a controlled way. It was witnessed by thousands of people, video recorded from a dozen different angles complete with sound recordings of the explosions. Even the building's owner, Silverstein, says on camera in a documentary that the building was "pulled". It takes WEEKS at a minimum, to plan and implement a controlled demolition of skyscraper. That means the explosives in WTC7 were installed well in advance of 9/11. That is a fact. There is no way around it and the implication which follows from that fact is inescapable: 9/11 was an inside job.
Everything else is just details.

The perpetrators of 911 are obviously well financed and organized. They have gone to great lengths and expense to pull off this crime. Why would we expect their efforts to cease with the destruction of the towers. Their efforts continue in the form of a massive and coordinated disinformation campaign.

So whenever you start to get confused or discouraged come back to your bedrock fact. For me it's WTC7. For you it may be the lack of a NORAD response, or the way the towers exploded. Whatever it is that convinced you beyond any doubt, that is your bedrock. Build on that.

Peace, Matt.

9eleven.info...

[edit on 15-7-2008 by IvanZana]

[edit on 15-7-2008 by IvanZana]

This post is condescending garbage. Repeatedly stating that WTC7 was brought down by explosives, backing it up with sketchy "evidence", and forcing the idea that it's a fact doesn't get you anywhere. People like this are the ones that give conspiracy theorists a bad name. Yes, the official story is full of holes, but assuming that your opinion is 100% correct without any hard proof just makes you look like a nutjob. Now go ahead and call me a disinfo agent and a hoaxer.

reply to post by Grambler


Thanks for the sanity.
My reasoning is that on both sides of the story people confuse what they "know" with what they "think they know". It all becomes mixed together and becomes what they know. Now it's too late to back down.

Arguments begin and the truth (facts) is buried and lost in the confusion of ill will. After that the real truth can't be discussed anymore because to each side, the others sides facts are now automatically BS and no one will listen to the other again. Very rarely do people argue over something that is provable, unless one side or the other doesn't want to face it.

I think the guy in the story the thread is posted about got caught up in the emotional frenzy of the topic (9/11) and is angry at himself for being taken in by the "false facts" he swallowed as truth.