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.
That is what a historian does when accessing historical documents for explanatory scope and power.
One can't be agnostic on Reality.
I said you implied fake planes to which you respond
“No I haven’t”
Then explain your statement:
“I don't believe they used just "real planes" or just "cgi"
“I have not discounted corroborated testimony because corroborated insinuates the testimonies represent the truth. I discount the testimonies of a large audience of people who were duped by a magic trick.”
Self-refuting as I have already shown.
yes, one could do that. Doing so would be perfectly valid.
One could sit there an argue that 9/11 didn't happen by rejecting "testimony" and "video".
One could argue 9/11 itself was a *magic trick!*
This type of skeptical approach refutes itself.
So then you admit the amateur video was real and caught real planes on video?
“Of course, 9-11 is a day, it happened, but what happened on that day is disputable.”
Of course??
No, using your logic, you can't say what you just said.
You think that large amounts of people were duped by a magic trick, that the video testimony was not real.
Now unless you do believe the visuals are real, then you can argue differently.
But one can't be agnostic on the reality of the planes.
“For the sake of this debate we both agree that we exist, and that there is a reality in which the event “9-11” happened. There is no need to digress any further down my VALID “slippery slop”.
No I don't admit to this. One of the key weaknesses in arguing the way your arguing(if that is your argument) is that the skeptical approach and method falls under its own weight and doesn't allow for *reaosnable* conclusions.
Inference to the *best* explanation that is not ad'hoc is what it is about.
if you can explain your position.
Originally posted by Lichter daraus
one question. What is the white dot on the building just in front of the airplane?
www.freedomdomain.com...
I do not need prominent magicians to agree with me for what I am saying to be correct. You are insinuating I do.
how about, a 757 doesn’t fit into the hole created at the pentagon? How about, plane crashes leave wreckage? (shanksville) How about steel skyscrapers don’t collapse from fires? Reflect on those for starters.
there is no proof those people were ever on those flights, in fact, there is more proof that they weren’t.
Nearly all of the footage shot on 9-11 was shot by PROFFESSIONALS. I don’t know where you are getting this “amateur footage” bs.
If you figured out who killed JFK would you really tell anyone? I’m not telling anyone how I think they pulled off 9-11, because I feel like living for a few more years. I’m telling you how to figure it out and the mindset you need to employ.
Why does anyone need to agree with me?? This is an APPEAL TO AUTHORITY/MAJORTY. The amount of people who may disagree/agree with me and their credentials, have absolutely nothing to do with me being right/wrong. Stop bringing it up, it is a fallacious way of thinking.
False dichotomy. (4)
You need to read more carefully, that’s all I’m going to say; it should be very obvious where you are in error.
I’m purposely being ambiguous for my own reasons. You don’t know what position I am holding which is why I find it humorous that you are so sure that I am wrong.
Also, last I checked, 9-11 was under controlled conditions.
This is very different; your situation happened by chance, I’m talking about a ruse that has intent.
That’s some weak inductive reasoning . . . People miss things during situations Therefore: People missed the planes on 9-11
many of them are, what you just said is a blatant lie.
Really? Explain why I should listen to the testimonies of planted individuals in the audience and the actual dupes themselves?
if what is my position???
That’s a blatant lie.
Dude if you live in New York (LIKE I DO) you either have a skewed view of the reality which is the average New Yorker, or you are blatantly lying about this. I have not met one person who claims that they saw the first plane impact the first tower. My cousin worked in WTC 2 I have a friend who was working on the verrazano bridge that day, as well as family that was working in the high rise buildings adjacent to the towers. NONE of them saw the plane impact and they said that NO ONE they were working with or talked afterwards saw it either. My friend Nick said that his wife claimed to have seen the plane hit the tower, but we both agree that based on where she says she was when the tower was hit; she must be lying because she had no view of the tower.
you just agreed with me, but didn’t answer the question of why no one heard a 757 flying at lower than 1000 feet at 500 mph.
As we were at the box, a plane passes us overhead real low. You could hear it; you could feel it. We turned around, and it just impacted the building, building one.
At this moment hearing a coming sound I raised my head. No! This is not happening. A big passenger jet was right above me. It was a blink of an eye. A fraction of second later the airplane disappeared inside WTC tower.
at approximately 8:45 we heard the sound of a plane approaching.
Eye witness testimony is utterly useless.
Well I believe that historians looking back on 9-11 will agree with me. Of course they will be afforded the advantages of hindsight.
Yes you can . . .
Originally posted by talisman
reply to post by JPhish
do you also support:
www.septemberclues.info...
The idea that all the passengers were "vicsims?" That none of the passengers were real?
The idea that Simon Shack is now supporting?
Do you not see where the logic of denial leads?
[edit on 28-10-2009 by talisman]
Originally posted by talisman
reply to post by nwodeath
Do you not see how ludicrous this is?
Every single piece of evidence you deny, is the same evidence that supports 9/11 as a real event.
You would also have a conspiracy so large and wide that it would be very difficult to keep the thing quiet.
I do not believe you or anyone else.
Originally posted by talisman
reply to post by Nola213
I agree with you, but if you look at the people I have been arguing with, I honestly think they are just young and gullible and have been influenced by the garbage that is No Planes. Its a sad commentary on our youth to so Naïve.
Its akin to "Urban Legends" that teenagers love to chat about.
Originally posted by talisman
reply to post by Nola213
I agree 100%. My take is Its damned if you do and damned if you don't. Do we engage them or just ignore them? I think we must engage them. I took a couple of years off from engaging them at all, I just started to ignore any thread they had and just recently I had enough, it was like swatting at gnats
It definitely is a distraction from the real work at hand. That is for sure.
Originally posted by nwodeath
Real work? You mean you're disinfo tactics and paid propaganda?
Originally posted by talisman
reply to post by JPhish
I agree with you. That is not what I am talking about. I am talking about the idea that there were No Planes regarding the Twin Towers over New York City, which is a different ball of wax.
The Pentagon hole, you have my agreement.
Shanksville, no disagreement from me.
Steel Skyscrapers especially Bldg-7, there is no disagreement from myself.
I have to disagree here. There are at least Two people who were confirmed to be travelling to Los Angeles that morning.
Nearly all of the footage shot on 9-11 was shot by PROFFESSIONALS. I don’t know where you are getting this “amateur footage” bs.
I disagree with you. Jennifer Spell's video is as amateur as one can get.
Moreover, this does NOT ADDRESS THE POINT I HAVE BEEN MAKING THROUGHOUT THIS THREAD.
THE MILITARY WOULD NOT KNOW WHO IS GOING TO AT ANY MOMENT PULL OUT A CAMERA!
That doesn't say anything. Earlier you implied you weren't really sure, now your saying you feel like "living" a few more years?
I really don't understand where you are coming from.
This is incorrect. We consult with experts in certain fields to build upon reasonable conclusions.
If there is an accident, we consult with accident experts. Does this in and of itself mean they are correct? No, but it moves the evidence in a certain direction and gives us good reasons to argue a case if we are employing reason.
That’s a horrible way of going about things. If I’ve ever wanted to learn something, I’ve always taught myself. It’s the only way to do things.
When we do history, we check with historians. When we do construction, we deal with people who build.
I choose option C. Since option C exists and is reasonable, what you are saying is a false dichotomy.
Not it isn't. Either the planes were Real on 9/11 or they weren't. There is NO *out* here. It can't be and not be as I have showed with the law of contradiction.
I’m not advocating my position, I’m questioning yours.
I think it is fair and charitiable for someone to offer what it is they are defending when debating! What your doing is only right in your own mind.
what cameras?
How could anyone control all of the camera's in New York? Let's be real here for a moment.
But for the people that saw the first plane, it seemed to be an accident. At that point the result is the same.
Also, let us focus on the Point. The point is not what is the intent. For example, How do I know? Perhaps, the Car's driver had the intention of going through the rail. If he did or didn't, it wouldn't change the fact that I saw what I saw, and others saw what they saw.
It is the nature of eyewitness testimony that is being discussed.
Really? Eyewitness testimony is always filled with people who have "missed" things, so your first premise is faulty. Its not just that People Miss Things, but one EXPECTS people to miss things given the nature of Eyewitness Testimony.
I never said that there weren’t any planes. It’s not as simple as that.
I don't see a long list of people coming forward and saying...."hey there were No planes!" You say there is, but how many years later?
Really? Its interesting, where were they when it was fresh in their memories?
Where were they on NEW YORK's Talk Radio Stations that night?
there is no un-doctored, untainted evidence that two 757s crashed into the twin towers. Absolutely none.
Eyewitness testimony that appears years after is always suspect, especially if there is no evidence to back it up.
Those are all loaded questions Simply because someone is not telling the truth does not mean they are lying.
So all the firemen that risked their lives and said they saw a plane are lying?
I didn’t say that.
All the police that claimed they saw a plane are liars as well?
All the people that came forward are just liars eh?
thanks for answering your own loaded questions for me.
I think with all those LIARS you have a Conspiracy to big that I already am starting to see your skeptical approach break.
except that isn’t my approach at all, nice straw man.
I could take your approach and say everyone is lying including you. 9/11 never happend.
With such reasoning you have just abandonned reasonable discourse and opted for "EVERYONE IS LYING"
loaded questions straw man
Do you think All the People that were Chatting Live on the Net were liars to?
Known users on forums etc?
Yeah, the same question. Do you even know what it is you believe?
Now don't just assert.
You are trying to use testimony of some who only saw an explosion. Some of those were on the Media on the day of 9/11 to which I explained.
So, if YOU THINK THAT IS going to prove there wasn't any planes because of that testimony and YOU GOT THE INFO FROM THE MEDIA????
Guess what?
The Media wasn't hiding that Testimony!
Now I am talking in the context of the VISUALS THAT DAY.
No one was hiding the reports of explosives. I heard that all over the Media.
"THE HIDING" came later.
I have a friend who used to work in the WTC who saw the plane that day. Luckily for him he was on the ground near the building, but had a very good view of it. I don't use that as evidence, because it can't convince anyone.
why would they say anything?
Besides if there truly were NO PLANES== 600 thousand Muslim LIVE and WORK in New York they are a vocal bunch, they didn't even say "
BOO!"
especially something that isn’t there.
That people might "miss" seeing something is perfectly explainable as I have already stated.
Also important:
The events would have been seen by the Russian Diplomats and Chinese Diplomats.
Why would The Chinese lie?
The Chinese had their Embassy Bombed in Serbia just 2 years prior to 9/11.
No-one heard it??
Thomas Spinard - FDNY
As we were at the box, a plane passes us overhead real low. You could hear it; you could feel it. We turned around, and it just impacted the building, building one.
www.swulinski.com...
Maciej Swulinski
When I looked above at 1 WTC I saw a little smoke. Like in everyone’s mind at this moment I had the simple explanation: unlucky pilot, probably small plane line Cessna hit the tower.
I noticed shoes and other passengers' belongings, wires and electrical equipment probably from the airplane.
perhaps she meant ASH or even pulverized concrete. Human FLESH being anywhere let alone everywhere is impossible.
Human flash was everywhere. Standing in the middle of the street, right at the entrance to the Tower Two I was beginning to understand what a tragedy took place here. It could not be a small plane.
He says that he raised his head and saw the plane directly above him, but doesn’t say that he saw the plane impact the WTC.
At this moment hearing a coming sound I raised my head. No! This is not happening. A big passenger jet was right above me. It was a blink of an eye. A fraction of second later the airplane disappeared inside WTC tower.
I was standing at the base of the building that was the target of terrorist attack.
Parts of the airplane that purportedly went completely into the trade center on every video?
Parts of the building and from the airplane were falling on the street around me.
John Albanese
at approximately 8:45 we heard the sound of a plane approaching.
Well you saw it fit to try and use your own!
That’s a testament to nothing considering the U.S. court system is horrid.
What you just said is ridiculous. Our court system is based on corroborated eyewitness testimony.
Sometimes that is all we have.
Yes, there are serious problems with it, but we weed through it then we see what keeps occuring and what is consistent. We also like to get early sourced material, the earlier the better.
Site examples please . . . you can not merely assert that a TREMENDIOUS amount of people saw something.
Your claim about "tainting" is also ludicrous.
A tremendous amount of people were reporting the plane! That isn't "tainting"
straw man
Again, your own skepticsm means you have no position. Your logic is self-refuting.
straw man
What you have done is set the standard.
Your logic leads to 9/11 never happening!
And believe what? Your failing to really offer a position. Are you talking to yoruself at this point?
You can't be Agnostic on Reality. Do you "really" exist or not?
no it doesn’t you failed to properly define what you meant by “reality”. Reality is not you, reality is reality, everything you perceive outside of yourself. You can question everything within reality including your own existence. But the moment you question your own existence, you affirm to yourself that you exist. It is apriori.
Also what you just said contradicts what you said earlier.
"LOGIC is never wrong"
That is what you said, and I agree. Reality operates under the framework
Originally posted by talisman
reply to post by JPhish
do you also support:
www.septemberclues.info...
The idea that all the passengers were "vicsims?" That none of the passengers were real?
The idea that Simon Shack is now supporting?
Do you not see where the logic of denial leads?
I have a friend who used to work in the WTC who saw the plane that day. Luckily for him he was on the ground near the building, but had a very good view of it. I don't use that as evidence, because it can't convince anyone.
And he’s probably full of $#!^. It is nearly psychically impossible for anyone directly under the towers to have seen the first plane hit. Your friend is either superman, was staring up at the impact zone the whole time, or is lying.