911 OS Debate Facts, Bring sources, not Opinions

911 OS Debate Facts, Bring sources, not Opinions.

New members on ATS who have never done any real research on 911 OS and believe in the OS “need” to do some real research.
Having an opinion is one thing, stating a fact is another. Facts need to be supported by sources NOT by opinions.

This is my take on debating any issue not just 911.

If you are going to debate an issues with a person please bring creditable internet sources to back your claim.
Leave out the insults.
Leave out proven disinformation, this is not a game.
If you state an opinion then please state it as your opinion.
Opinions are not facts.
Leave out your emotions when debating your topic, stick to the facts and the topic.


What I find amazing is all the “creditable evidences” that many ATS members have uncovered, that proved the OS is all a fabrication.
Perhaps if these OS believers would spend a little more time researching from creditable websites that have professionals, and creditable experts who have done scientific analysis, mathematics and hear what expert pilots and engineers and firemen have to say, and research the hiding records that have been release from FOIA in all areas of 911.

In my opinion, the OS is pretty much a proven lie.

My advices for newbie, who still believe in the OS is to take your time researching 911 it is painful and an emotional rollercoaster ride, you will gradually see the truth.
For me it took several years before I was able to put all the shocking evidences together that verified 911 was an inside job.

Researching 911 opened many doors to many events for me, several years down the road, after the truth started to sink in. I realized I had been asleep most of my life and I didn’t realize how ignorant I really was, about the Press, government secrecies, military secrecies, propaganda in America, big corporations and the strangle hold they have on congress, and rigged elections, I had no idea how corrupt everything is.

Trust no one, everyone tells lie, “everyone” the government, FBI are no exceptions, the evidences, and truth, speaks for itself and cannot be disputed.

So here is a question should everyone bring sources when debating any issue?

I believe they should, if the posters cannot validate his or her claim then it should be considered unproven, or opinionated.

S & F

I am pleased you started this thread as hopefully it will help others look into the events of 9/11 with an open mind and do a little research for themselves before closing their minds to the possibility that horrific events are not what they always seem and that governments do lie to people.

It was only about a year ago that someone mentioned that 9/11 was an inside job and at the time it sounded too horrific to believe, so I crawled the internet and researched as much material as possible and came to my own conclusion - the more you look into it, the more questions there are, it really is frightening.

I would be interested to know if anybody on ATS personally knew any of the victims on any of those flights and would like to know what your opinion is of what the truth is, that is if it's not too painful for you to talk about?







[edit on 23-1-2010 by findlesticks]

reply to post by impressme


This is truly amusing, coming from the person who routinely waves his hand at the evidence and says that the people who discovered it are lairs.

So, how are we supposed to debate you? Because any facts that are presented to you, you will brush off.

This is one of the reason I started this thread what I found quite disturbing is most OS believers are convinced that the United States government does not tell lies.
In my years of research, I found inconsistencies repeatedly in every government report concerning 911.

Yet, the OS believers refuse to even knowledge this. Either they have never really read all the reports and compared the inconsistencies, or they are ignoring them. If that is the case then one has to realize they are in denial and cannot except the fact that their government is covering something and cannot keep their stories straight.

I am not picking on the OS believers because of their beliefs, when I ask these posters to back their OS topics or claims, most will give you gov.org websites as their proof or they will not give you anything, but the same old ridiculing and insult we see all the time.

In my opinion, most people who have done years of research know 911 was an inside job.
The problem we have here is (We The People) allowed these criminals to investigate themselves, and they were sloppy at covering up some of their mistakes.

Here is a fact...

9/11

They were running drills at the same places that actual terrorist attacks were taking place.

7/7

Read above

Fact

9/11

Rudy Giuliani was in NYC on 9/11 when the attack went down..

7/7

Read above but replace 9/11 with 7/7

Fact..

Bin Laden was been told by us that he was responsible for the attacks of 9/11 yet he is not or has not been on the FBI most wanted for those said attacks..

Fact

Many government agencies told our government that we were going to be attacked somehow via planes and our government did nothing to stop it..

Fact..

9/11 and 7/7 rushed in PA I and PA II

Fact

The reason people believe steel burns at 1500F is because some idiot read that wrong.. instead of it being 1500C he read it as 1500F.. I saw this recently with rock salt on the local news.. They stated it can stand -15F when in fact it is suppost to be -15C.

There was nobody who investigated the rubble of WTC 1 2 and 7 in a correct fashion, it was all shipped and melted down to make warships out of it..

Fact..

Since 9/11 We have shaved so many of our rights that it is not funny.

I can add more but this is a start...

::EDIT::

Fact
No steel structure made of steel has ever fallen since 9/11 before and after that day.


::Edit again..::

There is a sig on here by Billybob that says this..

PROBABILITY OF DRILL AND TERROR ATTACK COINCIDING BY CHANCE(london bombing) (10yr mean):
One chance in 3,715,592,613,265,750,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

Just imagine the probability if you added 9/11 into that mix. I wonder if we have anymore sand for that on earth.

[edit on 1/23/2010 by ThichHeaded]

[edit on 1/23/2010 by ThichHeaded]

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

This is truly amusing, coming from the person who routinely waves his hand at the evidence and says that the people who discovered it are lairs.

So, how are we supposed to debate you? Because any facts that are presented to you, you will brush off.

That is untrue and I only hand wave proven disinformation that some of you OS believer present from proven disinformation websites such as “911Myths.” Yet you know that, you posted as if I hand wave ALL evidences which I do not.


Discovered what evidences? And if it is creditable from a creditable source I will not hand wave it, then what is the point of looking for the truth if all I ever do is hand wave everything? Where is the logic in that?

I have challenged you in a debate in the past, and you bailed out, because you would have to provide creditable sources, which you have a history of not doing.

All I ask for are “creditable sources.”




[edit on 23-1-2010 by impressme]

reply to post by impressme


You have hand waved the FBI, the FDNY, the NYPD, the PAPD, the U.S. Air Force, CIA, New York Times, CBS, ABC, NIST, Cleveland Plain Dealer....


Anyone/anything that doesnt support your beliefs, you routinely declare a 'lie' or misinformation.

On this site we have over 200 military personal, Generals, majors Colonels.

First scroll down to Major General Albert Stubblebine.

This man was in charge of Intelligence and Security.

Interviewer "OK , so on Sept 11 2001 , what hit the Pentagon"?

Stubblebine "I don't know exactly what hit it,but I do know from the photographs

that I have analyzed and looked at very, very carefully , it was not a

airplane".

There is more to this interview, plus 200 more credible military personal.

The evidence is there , just look. patriotsquestion911.com...



[edit on 23-1-2010 by Sean48]

reply to post by Sean48


And again, another example of someone who hasnt been on active duty in a long time. In the case of Stumbledown, he absolutely no experience with aircraft or accident investigation. YOU have seen as much of Flight 77's crash site as he has.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

Anyone/anything that doesnt support your beliefs, you routinely declare a 'lie' or misinformation.

Thats funny we can say the same thing about you and others who still believe the OS even though its been proven to be full of holes.





[edit on 23-1-2010 by REMISNE]

Hello,
I have an opinion on the matter. And no, I'm not an expert. And even before I became internet savvy, (which I'm not) I knew that those buildings had to have fallen toward the side that the structural integrity would be the weakest- if it were to fall at all. But instead, they both toppled straight down, all the way down. And building 7? Maybe you can explain to me the physics of that occuring?
OK. So that got my attention...Iraq has weapons of mass destruction? "Let's roll." Only, there were no WMD's. Did you see in Saddam's eyes the way he held his beard? Yes, he was to answer for his crimes against his own people, but what I saw in his eyes was; "He was being made to pay for a crime he was actually innocent of." He had nothing to do with the toppling of our towers, for he was hanged before he could be tried, if Dubya was gonna even pursue it. I didn't follow the MSM as closely... Isn't it obvious we are occupying an oil-rich nation? What is the key-word in that sentence? Isn't or wasn't Dubya an oil magnate? Or, maybe he wanted to get some licks-in on behalf of his Father?
You know? The only reason why, in my opinion this has become so trivial is because not all of us are governed by our US Constitution alone, some of us have the capacity to look beyond what our instructors teach us. All signs on the road are saying this is a koleptocracy we are up against. Is not the writing on the wall? I see the elephant, don't you?
My point is that in my opinion, if it wasn't so trivial, I'd have the answer as to why my money is being spent to wage war-like operations I simply do not believe in. I don't believe the MSM. Because of the trivia. I'm not being informed, I'm being played for a fool, and I don't appreciate it. Peace and love to all.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Sean48

 

And again, another example of someone who hasnt been on active duty in a long time. In the case of Stumbledown, he absolutely no experience with aircraft or accident investigation. YOU have seen as much of Flight 77's crash site as he has.

Gonna give you a big NO on that sir.

He knows what he is looking at in the pics.

I value his opinion over a horde of OS people.

So should you, I believe you claimed to be ex-military.

reply to post by loveguy


To use your words .

There is a elephant in the room.

The OS people want to talk about the carpet and the drapes.

Truthers want to talk facts , science , odds, common sense.

Hello there Swampfox46_1999, I would like to ask you what your logical answer to the following video of Donald Rumsfeld saying that a plane was "shot down over Pennsylvania"?

Or this one

I would also like to ask you if you are really Andre18 in disguise?

Mods removed a post of mine on the last 9/11 thread I posted on, although I can't figure out how I broke the rules.

[edit on 1/24/2010 by budaruskie]

[edit on 1/24/2010 by budaruskie]

OK, got a question here. I firmly believe flight 93 was shot down. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence to support it without a doubt. In short what seems like "evidence" to some really isn't in reality and to others who just don't believe and that needs to be clarified up front. So if we cited & posted pics, docs etc to support CE is that opinion, speculation or theory in the context of this thread's proposals?

Circumstantial evidence is not direct evidence from a witness who saw or heard something. Circumstantial evidence is a fact that can be used to infer another fact.

Indirect evidence that implies something occurred but doesn't directly prove it, proof of one or more facts from which one can find another fact, proof of a chain of facts and circumstances indicating that the person is either guilty or not guilty.

The law makes no distinction between the weight given to either direct or circumstantial evidence. I think some on ATS needs to understand this.

Here's a video, I found a week ago on ATS.



Delusional-ism is bad.

[edit on 24-1-2010 by GrandKitaro777]

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

You have hand waved the FBI, the FDNY, the NYPD, the PAPD, the U.S. Air Force, CIA, New York Times, CBS, ABC, NIST, Cleveland Plain Dealer....

Anyone/anything that doesnt support your beliefs, you routinely declare a 'lie' or misinformation.

Can you say “exaggeration?”

You still do not get it Swampfox46_1999, it is not about the beliefs, it is about supporting the creditable facts.

You want to call it beliefs and I disagree with you.

If there are no creditable sources to a story being presented by anyone, then it is most likely untrue, don’t you agree?

Originally posted by impressme
If there are no creditable sources to a story being presented by anyone, then it is most likely untrue, don’t you agree?

Problem is that people like swampfox do not even know what credable sources are.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


Swampy, you have been defending the OS for six years, so I feel I have a right to ask you, why do you believe in the OS so strongly?
What “creditable evidences” has convinced you that NIST, 911-commission report, is one hundred percent true?

Oh, and swampy save the “just read all my thousands of posts… you will eventually find it”… or “I don’t have to answer your questions”… or “I don’t have to prove anything to you or anyone else”… etc. Give me some honest answers.

OS believers think that fire can cause a demolition

www.nytimes.com...

The investigators determined that the fire that day was fed mainly by office paper and furnishings.

Dr. Sunder said there were no apparent flaws in 7 World Trade Center’s design that contributed to its collapse and that it met New York City codes. But there are some important lessons for other skyscrapers, he said, as engineers and architects should consider how the heat from fires can weaken structural elements, potentially causing a so-called progressive collapse.

[edit on 24-1-2010 by conar]