911 Debunkers Take Beating on ATS.

reply to post by Sean48


Have you ever worked for the government or a big corporation. It is not like one guy gets that information. Info must be filtered so that those on top get the really important stuff. That means info like this passes thru the hands of scores of people before it ever get to the top to get a decision made.

Plus, add in that a whole wing of government above the FBI would have had to want the attack to happen and so it stilll goes back to a massive conspiracy for even that to happen.

You know people do make mistakes and the dots don't always get connected in real time situation. That doesn't usually translate to it was intentional. It usually translates to somebody screwed up.

reply to post by Mr Sunchine


NIST admitted free fall occured. Free fall is free fall, it requires absolutely no resistance from lower supports. You can measure it yourself from the video - it simultaneously collapses on all four corners and falls at gravitational constant 9.8ms^2 for more than 4 seconds, leaving no energy to do work - creating dust, displacing beams, bending beams, crushing concrete, destroying enron records etc.

[edit on 7/3/10 by GhostR1der]

reply to post by Mr Sunchine


Well considering no one was charged with criminal charges for the events.

No one was fired, demoted , or resigned from these events for ineptness.

But a lot of key people , military were Promoted shortly after .

What does that tell you?

Well hell, I'll throw in my 2 cents on the attacks since everyone else is:

Rundown:

The World Trade Center was bombed but what exactly did we do in response? Not very much.
The US embassies in Africa were bombed but we didn't pay that much attention.
The USS Cole was bombed, but we didn't really care that much.
The attempted Millennium attack almost happened, but the relief of Y2K not being the end of the world was a great distraction.
Bush was warned of an attack (9/11) but failed to do anything about it. Instead, he enjoyed his vacation time.

The result: over 2000 innocent people dead.

Reason for attack: Presence of troops in the Middle East and the support of Israel.

I really don't care or expect the truthers to believe that's what happened. But that's ok, it's a conspiracy theory website. You're allowed to have your stories and opinions.

Originally posted by Snarf

So you acknowledge these holes exist, and that you just simply paint them another color.

No, i don't acknowledge that they exist.

Yes, you did, by calling them "scapegoats." Are you going to say now that you weren't really calling anything scapegoats?

I said you call it a hole, i call it a scapegoat.

But then above, in this same post, you suggest these "holes" do not exist at all! How can something be called two different things and have attention drawn to itself, if it doesn't exist in the first place? Do you not see your denial in action here? It doesn't get much more blatant than saying we are using something to further an agenda but that it simultaneously does not really exist. You are basically trying to deny the existence of any anomalies at all, and thus trying to say you already know EVERYTHING about 9/11. Which is ridiculous. So for this reason I say you are not really thinking about what you are posting, but you are posting emotionally, trying to find an impossible way out of your cage.

The unexplained explosions are one of these "holes" that you call "scapegoats" while simultaneously trying to argue they don't even exist. You are obviously extremely deluded and beyond biased in your thinking. The existence of explosions from all 3 buildings that day is documented, in hundreds of witness testimonies both written and on live TV or video interviews, in seismic records, even in actual video recordings. They exist. If you want to say they're a part of some agenda, that agenda must have been born the very second those explosions occurred. We still do not KNOW what caused them, we only have excuses with no evidence. And you are happy with that, because you are happy to have faith in your ignorance. Please respect the fact that not everyone is as happy being ignorant as you are.

Who has the hidden agenda? You do. And it is hidden because it is subconscious, literally below your conscious threshold of thinking. You project adjectives like "shaky" but there is nothing "shaky" about what was reported and recorded that day that demonstrates unexplained events such as numerous explosions. It is obvious they happened. It is equally obvious we do not have answers to what caused them. So naturally we ask for evidence to show what was causing all of these explosions and why. YOU interpret this to be an "agenda," good for you. It IS an agenda, against the LIES you have permanently branded into your own mind when you closed it shut in an ignorant state and refused to further probe these unaddressed issues. That is the only agenda here, the agenda against your literal ignorance.

Do you have an explanation for all of these explosives that demonstrates evidence? No, you have a bunch of ranting to get off your chest by how troubled you are with people even asking these questions. Grow up. There are people who were filmed on hospital beds talking about how these explosions severely injured themselves, and families that were affected by these things. And you somehow try to claim, simultaneously, that these facts don't exist and only serve some vague shadowy agenda. That shadowy agenda is your own denial, that creeps in your subconscious and keeps you in blissful ignorance of how truly messed up global politics are today, just as they always have been.


Unless you can answer questions like this yourself, why do you even bother to respond?

Are you hoping to satisfy my desire for an answer to such a question, by insulting me and accusing me of having an agenda for asking the question in the first place?

If you really think that is going to shut us up, keep at it, and see what success you have.

[edit on 7-3-2010 by bsbray11]

reply to post by GorehoundLarry


Not trying to change your mind, jus tweaking your answers .

Close to 3000 dead . on 911

Over 1,200,000 dead as a result of retalliation.

Liberty attacked by Israel, US did nothing.

Gulf of Tonkin Attack, didn't happen , False Flag to involve the US in a War.

reply to post by GorehoundLarry


But your claim doesn't address the collapses of the three buildings, sorry but the attack on the towers could have been motivated by pixies jealous of tall Americans, it doesn't make the NIST report on the towers collapses suddenly the truth.

One irrelevant point does not make the official story all suddenly make sense, so why would you expect 'truthers' to 'not believe that's what happened', or why it would make any difference if they did or not?

Everything other than the collapses might be the gospel truth, but it still leaves the question, that can never go away as long as we still have video of the collapses, why did the buildings collapse the way they did and why did NIST not produce a complete report? (They omitted explaining the actual collapse, instead tried to claim it was inevitable once local sections started failing, with no real evidence or president for such a claim).

reply to post by bsbray11


"The existence of explosions from all 3 buildings that day is documented, in hundreds of witness testimonies both written and on live TV or video interviews, in seismic records"


oye vey.

witnesses described things they heard as being 'like' bombs - lots of things besides bombs can blow up - such as the fuel stored in WTC 7, transformers, etc.

seismic proof? this has been debunked already by the very folks whose data the 'truthers' have taken and misrepresented. what got caught on the graphs, was the plane impacts, and later, the collapse of the buildings.


and you act like you are SOOOO sure of yourself. SOOOO right.

and yet.....


i hope someday you come to see the folly of your certitude.






[edit on 7-3-2010 by TrueTruth]

[edit on 7-3-2010 by TrueTruth]

reply to post by TheLoony

I doubt I will read all of this thread as I have trouble getting past the 5th page on other 9/11 threads yet to me the message has always remained very clear. I just wanted to say that I agree with your summary of this whole debacle of a debate pertaining to this horrific event. Not only do I agree with you but I also think I can feel your pain. I refrain from these thoughts of pain as it can be very distracting and hence dis-informative. your post reminds me of Jimi Hendrix
If 6 was 9- "I've got my own world to live through and I ain't going to copy you."



Due to these 9/11 threads I have, for the first time, put some members on ignore for a very specific reason. Not because I think they are incorrect and not because they might be against my own "beliefs" but because I can not stand their blatant ignorance anymore. I did not put these members on ignore to protect any "beliefs" I may or may not have but rather to protect my sanity.
I do not deny ignorance, I loath it and I detest the willful use of ignorance especially in such important matters. Ignorance is the lack of knowledge hence we are all ignorant of many things but stupidity is the willful use of ignorance in the face of personal knowledge.

There are a couple members, whom I think are trolls, that show at least some intelligence within their replies and this makes for an interesting debate in my opinion. I am not against "debunkers", "trusters" or "truthers" but rather I am against the use of these derogatory words that have no real meaning.


[edit on 3/7/2010 by Devino]

Originally posted by TrueTruth
witnesses described things they heard as being 'like' bombs - lots of things besides bombs can blow up - such as the fuel stored in WTC 7, transformers, etc.

Oye vey, another person who loves their ignorance.

You do not have answers, you have guesses, no better than my own, except for the fact that you are not even willing to consider that they were actually caused by bombs or explosives, despite all the testimonies suggesting just that. It is the last thing you would consider.

seismic proof? this has been debunked already by the very folks whose data the 'truthers' have taken and misrepresented.

You don't know what you are even talking about. You take excuses for truth, so what do you know of science? My guess would be nothing.

You can believe what you want, but I am asking for answers that do NOT depend on blind faith, like your explanations of exploding transformers and etc. do, since there is absolutely no evidence to demonstrate these things. If you can't even recognize that you have no evidence for these things, and can't even recognize that this is unacceptable for explosions being heard, such that even FBI agents told the MSM live on TV that they suspected another car bomb that coincided with the planes, yet with no follow up there whatsoever... What can I say? You are obviously very satisfied having no real answers, but I am not.

i hope someday you come to see the folly of your certitude.

Do you think this only goes one way? Or are you a victim yourself of the thing you fear in me?

If anything I am admitting I don't know what caused these explosions. You think your guesses are equivalent to facts. You are ignorant.

reply to post by HappilyEverAfter


I don't think that is exactly true. I think that a lot of people believe the OS because they have never had any good exposure to some of the intricate and complex parts of the conspiracy theories. You have to work at it. If you are the average American sitting at home, your only real exposure to the conspiracy theory as of late is that the President of Iran thinks it is an inside job. Not very convincing stuff. That in conjunction with the way the conspiracy theories are given short shrift in the MSM. Call them sheeple if you like, but most Americans are just trying to keep the bills paid and a job. 9/11 is the past. It is done. I don't blame the average American or feel they are stupid or ignorant or what have you. I think most are focused on more day-to-day stuff in a recession. Although I basically buy the overall theme of the OS, I am here reading about it because I have time and interest in it and a lot of unresolved questions. A lot of people do not have this kind of free time when it was settled in their minds a long time ago. My first exposure to any conspiracy theory was when I was at a gun show. This dude was wandering around handing out leaflets on how the Jews did 9/11. It was not a very well-put together pamphlet that he had. No conclusions, just stating that no Jews died on 9/11. It was a homemade job with lots of propoganda and little else. You know what they say about first impressions.

As for the other part about blindly believing the government, I really think that is not indicative of most Americans. I would say most Americans distrust the government and politicians. Bush was the public face of the OS and he is about as unpopular and distrusted a politician in the modern day that comes to my mind. Cheney's approval ratings were awful.

Originally posted by intrepid

The point is VERY well made. Anyone looking at this without bias will see the point clearly.

Yep.

You're so emotionally invested in wanting to believe in secret conspiracy groups (PTB), that you have eliminated critical thinking.

Congratulations on that accomplishment....

Originally posted by Sean48
reply to post by Mr Sunchine

 

Well considering no one was charged with criminal charges for the events.

No one was fired, demoted , or resigned from these events for ineptness.

But a lot of key people , military were Promoted shortly after .

What does that tell you?

It tells you that the problem was not so much one person but that the problem was systemic, meaning the problem was caused by the way they had structured the agencies. It doesn't mean the gov did 911.

reply to post by bsbray11


i know what i'm talking about. i've read an interview with the lab that took the data in question, explaining it.

i can't prove that what was reported as explosions was in fact transformers - that's just one plausible hypothesis. but at least we know for sure there WERE transformers and that in fires, they DO explode. and we know for certain also WTC 7 had fuel stored in it. these things we know for a fact, do exist, and can happen. evidence for bombs? none. and don't feed me the nanothermite nonsense. even if it existed, and was used in the WTC, it wouldn't go "BOOOM".

but let's pick one thing, easier to weigh.

the seismic crap.

but go ahead. trot it out. name the source, and the lab who recorded the data, just so i can make sure i post the correct rebuttal.

trust me. i've spent thousands of hours, literally, going over this stuff. eventually, if you keep inviting more data, you will arrive at the conclusion that you were too certain, too soon.

But please. Drag our the seismic proof. Let's get this over with.

[edit on 7-3-2010 by TrueTruth]

Originally posted by TrueTruth
but go ahead. trot it out. name the source, and the lab who recorded the data, just so i can make sure i post the correct rebuttal.

The seismic data I specifically had in mind while posting was FEMA's, specifically this:



After both towers collapse they have "further collapse" several times in intervals of 15-20 minutes that match witnesses' reports of additional explosions occurring every 15-20 minutes. Thus a direct correlation between these "further collapses" and the sounds of explosions.


Again, making up excuses is not the same as giving evidence. You can say they were caused by anything under the sun, whatever in the hell you WANT to say they were caused by. But what makes the difference is posting THE EVIDENCE that supports that claim. Keep that in mind while you are "rebutting" this data.

trust me. i've spent thousands of hours, literally, going over this stuff.

So have I.

eventually, if you keep inviting more data, you will arrive at the conclusion that you were too certain, too soon.

Kind of like you are when you say these explosions were caused by transformers, etc., when you have no evidence to support that, right? You completely ignored that part of my post. YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE. Pulling an excuse out of your ass and claiming that's "probably" what it was (according to what?) is not evidence.

But please. Drag our the seismic proof. Let's get this over with.

Yeah, I'll be waiting for what exact proof you will be offering here to close this debate. Remember I did not claim what was causing these. I said it should be subject to further investigation just like everything else to do with the explosions, again, which you have offered nothing to resolve but your own personal conjecture. And you are apparently too ignorant to realize your own conjecture when you post it, as quick as you might be to point it out for anyone else.

reply to post by bsbray11


o ya. when did i ever say i had evidence for what i said as being definitive? (i didnt). are you capable of a discussion without stuffing words in my mouth? i doubt it.

the point i was making is that reports of hearing things is not PROOF.

period. end of story.

reply to post by bsbray11


Tell me where FEMA have seismographs?

Can you please do as I asked, and tell me precisely who recorded the data? Whose seismographs, where they were located, and the analysis of the lab who did so?

thanks.

Originally posted by TrueTruth
o ya. when did i ever say i had evidence for what i said as being definitive? (i didnt). are you capable of a discussion without stuffing words in my mouth? i doubt it.

Haha!

When did I say I had any definitive proof either?? Yet you attacked me for what I said anyway! And sounds, seismic recordings and witness testimonies ARE evidences of explosions. The fact that explosions occurred IS definitely proven and beyond debate. What was causing them is the issue. Either you have proof to settle the issue, or you are just making up excuses and wasting everyone's time who wants real answers.

Originally posted by TrueTruth
Tell me where FEMA have seismographs?

I posted the image above from their report. Figure 1-8 from the introduction of their report.

Can you please do as I asked, and tell me precisely who recorded the data? Whose seismographs, where they were located, and the analysis of the lab who did so?

thanks.

Can you tell me why you seem to be suggesting that the lab who records the data has the final authoritative say on what that data implies? It was recorded by LDEO.

[edit on 7-3-2010 by bsbray11]

reply to post by bsbray11


good lord man. crank it down a notch.

you can raise all the 'questions' you like. there's no end to questioning.

you can't seem to have this discussion without lying about what I said - or perhaps simply hallucinating.

as of yet, there is no forensic evidence to support the 'bombs in buildings' theory. period.

it doesn't even make sense as a plot.

and the insistence by guys like you that people take it seriously, is a large part of what killed this movement years ago. guys like you, assure we remain a joke.