911 Debunkers Take Beating on ATS.

Originally posted by TrueTruth
good lord man. crank it down a notch.

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

Now you are minimizing the issue of what was causing the explosions.

Who is too confident of their certitude again? Explosions for which you don't know the cause, and can only offer excuses, yet you are so damned confident that you are right anyway. This isn't some little petty issue that's trivial and doesn't deserve investigation. Especially when these same buildings were ALREADY BOMBED in 1993, in the EXACT SANE PLACE witnesses were talking about on 9/11.

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

Why don't you give examples of this?

If you can't prove your beliefs that's your problem, not mine. I am asking for evidence. If you can't give it, again, not my problem. If YOU have that much of a problem with it then move along please. Like I said, not everyone is as comfortable with you simply having faith in their own ignorance and ability to make up whatever excuse pleases them.




Btw I will still be waiting for your positive evidence that these seismic readings are NOT readings of explosives going off, as you claimed to have.

I am saying the possibility is definitely there. If you don't think the possibility is there, show me the science as to why.

[edit on 7-3-2010 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Frankly, I never claimed to be a debunker of anything. But by your own words it seems that to you, a debunker is simply someone who doesn't set of an emotional response in you. To the OP it seems, anyone with an opposing viewpoint sets off an emotional response.

Every one of your posts that I reads, reads out like classic Freudian projection. You take what you are thinking and feeling yourself and project it onto the person/people who made you feel that way, as if it isn't really your problem but someone else's.


Let me run down fallacies from you "debunker" lot I have seen in just the past week.


You, on the "Debunk this 9/11 conspiracy fact and I quit ATS" thread, demonstrated in a post on page 1 that the statement that NIST's WTC7 hypothesis defied the law of conservation of energy went way over your head and you somehow mis-interpreted it as meaning we actually believed laws of physics were violated that day, and then you went on a rant across multiple posts trying to criticize this straw-man position of violations of physics that was obviously rhetorical and was not even being argued in the first place. And then a couple pages later you simply claimed we were all too stupid to understand complex events.

"thedman" is repeatedly posting that the towers were only designed to withstand impacts from a 707 at 200 mph even though John Skilling's structural engineering firm, separately from Les Robertson's, claimed in the 60s that his firm investigated an impact from a 707 at 600 mph and the towers would still be stable after impact. I have brought this to attention before -- sources and all -- and he STILL posts that the buildings were only designed for 200 mph impacts! This kind of stuff should be against board rules, plain and simple. It is a documented fact that Skilling's firm released this information to the general public in the 60s. It's in books, it's online, it's documented. He has no response to his blatantly ignoring what I post about this, either.


I have been asking "pteridine" and "dereks" to provide the positive evidence for the government story, hundreds of times, and I have yet to receive a single straight answer from them, or any other "debunker" on this question. They simply respond every single time with another question that diverts away from them having to prove their own opinions, appeal to some logical fallacy that they don't have to prove anything or just give me some kind of sarcasm. They have no coherent understanding of all the various aspects of 9/11 themselves, they have only picked up from JREF or "debunking911.com" what the rote mantra is for responding to any given "truther" claim, and often it's nothing but a sour attitude and "I don't have to prove anything," or "I have this excuse for this phenomenon, and even though I can't prove it I'll pretend it's a fact anyway," or "make your own theory instead please so I can attack it instead."


And now the rash of Judy Woods posts where I can't even get simple questions regarding basic physics answered. And I have had physics and engineering classes, and I would like these questions answered, but no one seems competent enough to even try them on those threads.


All in all I have to agree with the OP, and on top of that I'd like to ask, if there are any of you reading this who can do a better job "debunking" us, please, please, please, start posting so the people arguing with us now can retire. It's one thing to have a stimulating discussion that leads to learning more information, but it's quite a different thing to have to continually point out basic logical fallacies to people who have no interest in understanding what a logical fallacy is in the first place. The latter is just frustrating and a waste of everyone's time, and is only a slightly more dressed up version of the lowest kinds of internet trolling.

That's priceless.
I don't usually post on 9-11, but I DO FOLLOW them and have seen this over and over and the stars and flags they get is excessive (Or on purpose?)

reply to post by bsbray11


actually, it was at Columbia University - but at least you got the pallisades part right. Here's what they have to say about it:

"There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."

The report issued by Lamont-Doherty includes various graphs showing the seismic readings produced by the planes crashing into the two towers as well as the later collapse of both buildings.

**

Are you suggesting the FEMA report interprets the data otherwise? That it concludes the data proves bombs went off? Don't you think maybe the seismologists at Columbia might be in a better position to comment?

Unless you're a seismologist, mr 'you know nothing of science'

and this from a guy who doesn't know the value of getting a source of data.


***

you can google their full report if you give a crap.

Originally posted by TrueTruth
"There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."

I knew it. I asked for scientific evidence, instead you give me an authority simply asserting that there is no evidence. That is blatant appeal to authority, a logical fallacy. Appeal to the actual science on which they base this assessment, not simply their word for it. Do you hear me saying, bahhhh, baahhhh? No, you do not. Give me science.

Are you suggesting the FEMA report interprets the data otherwise?

They do not explain the "further collapse" data whatsoever. They leave it to the naive and inherently ignorant readers' imagination to supplement whatever excuse they can muster.

Unless you're a seismologist, mr 'you know nothing of science'

and this from a guy who doesn't know the value of getting a source of data.

The source itself is not proof of anything. Are you telling me that you now believe LDEO is infallible, FEMA is infallible, etc.? That these are basically holy agencies to you and their word is golden and does not need further explanation or consideration?

If you believe they base their conclusions on scientific data, show me that data from which they made their determinations. Or else admit you are doing nothing but appealing to an authority as if the authority itself is the data.

[edit on 7-3-2010 by bsbray11]

reply to post by bsbray11


That's the word of the man who recorded the data, and who is - as opposed to you or any other 'truther' - an actual seismologist.

Much more, including the graphs, here:

911review.com...


Now, who but an authority can interpret the data correctly? You? Dylan Avery?

The data you're talking about is THEIR DATA, and they are infinitely more qualified to analyze than you are. Sometimes, you really do need an expert to interpret the data - which again, is right there for all to see.

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
These debunkers or blind believers have gone to new lows in name calling, flaming, trolling, insulting, derailing and attempting to ruin the ATS experience but all became a failure on their part as most people identified them by their tactics, lack of maturity and rationale.Their debunking = Epic Fail.

I dont come on this forum that much, but from what Ive seen, the name calling and childish behaviour comes from both sides.

Good that you feel stongly about your point of view, but maybe you should step back and look at both sides first

Originally posted by TrueTruth
That's the word of the man who recorded the data, and who is - as opposed to you or any other 'truther' - an actual seismologist.

Out of thousands of "truthers" of various professions, what gives you the authority to say none of them are seismologists? Have you looked through the long lists at the scholars organizations or AE911?

The professions themselves are irrelevant anyway for the reason I have been explaining to you through all of these last posts. The science is what matters.

It's not my word against his because I haven't made any claims. He has, and YOU have, specifically that this is NOT evidence of explosives. I asked you to prove it, you just gave me another opinion stating the same. That is not proof. Please reconsider what the word "proof" means and actually post it in your next post, not just more ranting about who believes what. I want to see why, which means the actual science. I can and will keep repeating this in every response to you until it goes through your thick head what the words "evidence" or "proof" actually mean so you can either post them or admit you don't have them.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Frankly, I never claimed to be a debunker of anything. But by your own words it seems that to you, a debunker is simply someone who doesn't set of an emotional response in you. To the OP it seems, anyone with an opposing viewpoint sets off an emotional response.

sorry. as soon as you use the label "truther" with derision, you are a "debunker".
simple math.

I think the solution to this would be to keep compiling evidence for the already overflowing mound. With or with out them we will get to the bottom of what really happened. The sooner we ignore their derailing interjections the sooner we will find truth.
I see threads where OS believers will leave comments, after which the whole thread will be swept up in discussing these comments rather than the OP and evidence/theory therein.

If the OS is true or not, every man woman and child in America deserves an explanation for the questions that still go unanswered.
The governments withholding of the pentagon attack surveillance tapes and tapes from surrounding businesses alone tells me they have something to hide. If i were in their ranks i would be sweating by now; We're getting close.

Originally posted by Sean48
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.

Ok, so over 2000 dead. Like I stated.

Yes, over a million massacred in response to the attacks.

Israel has our support and that's why we were attacked.

And where did the Tonkin attack come into play here? lol. I guess you can compare it to 9/11 if 9/11 was a false flag, but yeah.

I appreciate the reply. Thanks.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by TrueTruth
That's the word of the man who recorded the data, and who is - as opposed to you or any other 'truther' - an actual seismologist.

Out of thousands of "truthers" of various professions, what gives you the authority to say none of them are seismologists? Have you looked through the long lists at the scholars organizations or AE911?

The professions themselves are irrelevant anyway for the reason I have been explaining to you through all of these last posts. The science is what matters.

It's not my word against his because I haven't made any claims. He has, and YOU have, specifically that this is NOT evidence of explosives. I asked you to prove it, you just gave me another opinion stating the same. That is not proof. Please reconsider what the word "proof" means and actually post it in your next post, not just more ranting about who believes what. I want to see why, which means the actual science. I can and will keep repeating this in every response to you until it goes through your thick head what the words "evidence" or "proof" actually mean so you can either post them or admit you don't have them.

I've looked at the scholars for 9.11 truth site. Hop on over there yourself and try a search for any permutation of the word 'seismology'. Plenty of hits for things like engineer or chemistry.... but not ONE, for seismologist, or any form of the word. Wonder why?

And if you really think it doesn't matter what kind of scientist interprets data, then once again, you have proven how little you know about the sciences - which is ironic considering you accused me of the same. I mean, even two doctors aren't qualified to interpret the same medical test data, depending on their specialty - but if you are comfortable with a podiatrist interpreting your biopsy results, by all means, do. But somehow, I'm betting that if you suddenly show elevated liver enzymes at your next physical, you won't be asking a foot doctor for a consult.

Quit pretending to understand science or how data is used. You obviously lack education in both.

And now you're flipping the argument on its head, which is dishonest, and absurd. It's the Truthers who trotted out the seismic data as 'proof' of explosives. All I've done is trot out the actual seismologists, who clearly refute any such interpretation. You put it out there as a claim, and I debunked it.

What you are asking for is impossible. IE, if I do a blood test for liver enzymes and it comes back negative for cancer, this does NOT mean you do NOT have cancer - no test can definitively prove you do not have cancer. It's always possible you do but doctors did the wrong test, or that the test wasn't sensitive enough, or that it isn't developed enough yet to show up on the radar, so to speak.

Think about it. And be honest about the fact that it was YOU who said we have seismographic data to support the explosives hypothesis. All I need to do is demonstrate that said data does NOT support what you think it does. Period.

Learn the rules of logic. Learn how data is really used. Learn about the scientific method.

This is silly.

And here. This is what you said:

"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."

That was you making a claim - a declarative statement of certainty. So stop shifting the burden of evidence off of where it belongs - at your feet - with the maker of the claim that seismic records document explosions.

No such evidence is in the data. Period.

No more of these silly games about me having to prove a negative, which any student of logic will tell you is literally impossible.

Own your words. Own your claims. Be a grown up, dammit.

Originally posted by bsbray11

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]

This is the post in which you said what I quoted above - which i now reply to so that you can not go back and alter it.

Now then..... who is it that made a claim again?

That's right.

You did.

reply to post by bsbray11


Since this thread, like so many others, has been derailed, let me ask the question that NO truther can answer.

Where is the evidence of explosives used on the WTC 1, 2 or 7 on 9/11?

Take a beating...LOL..that title still makes me laugh a bit.

Originally posted by TrueTruth
And if you really think it doesn't matter what kind of scientist interprets data, then once again, you have proven how little you know about the sciences

No, you are just continuing to demonstrate your own ignorance. People can be versed in fields of study that are not their professional fields. That is because what is important in science is not the name of your profession but the information inherent to the field of study itself. Which goes back to actual science and data, not suits and lab coats being the final evidence.

I asked you for the actual proof these scientists used to arrive at their conclusions, and you gave me a massive rant.

Come off your horse, you don't have anything to base your opinions on but somebody's unsupported word, scientist or not, I am not seeing the scientific basis on which they are making their claims. All REAL scientists demonstrate the science that validates their claims. Science is not dictated like priests dictate religion, it is subject to continued research, repetition, peer review and all that.


I will ask once again for the actual evidence. This makes what, 4 or 5 posts in a row you have offered me logical fallacies and rants instead? Still waiting for it to go through your head what "evidence" and "proof" actually mean. Thanks.

Originally posted by Sean48

If you think 19 men from a cave did this.

We know who the sheep is.

My investigations suggest most of the highjackers were well educated and some even trained at US military bases. Please stop using this argument, it's inaccurate.

'From a cave'? Can you supply you source for this 'information'?

Now please don't lump me in with the 'Trusters' as I'm quite convinced we've been lied to about 911.

And one more thing, who exactly is the 'sheep' you 'know' of?

Originally posted by TrueTruth
And here. This is what you said:

"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."

That was you making a claim - a declarative statement of certainty.

Are you disputing the fact that there were explosions coming from all 3 buildings that day?

You said earlier that explosions could be caused by different things. That's right, but even YOU are admitting there were explosions then. So we are in agreement. And I have already explained you have NO EVIDENCE as to what exactly was causing them, only excuses.


Tell me if this still confuses you so I can go over it again.

Explosions are proven beyond any reasonable doubt, period.

What caused them is NOT proven.


Again, tell me if this still boggles your mind. I thought it was pretty simple but apparently not?


And I am STILL waiting for your positive evidence that these could not be explosives/bombs. Not somebody's word, even if they're a professional, they should know better than to just expect people to take their word for something. They are employed as scientists for a reason. Science is not religion. Show me the freaking proof. That's what it's all about.

[edit on 7-3-2010 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by baboo
Would you supply some specific instances where you 'chased' the truther's claims and found not tangible evidence?

All of them. Every theory to date.

No tangible evidence in any instance.

I could go through them all I suppose but in the end... all of them.

"I could go through them all I suppose but in the end... all of them" ...Well, if you give me one that is representative that would suffice.

[edit on 7-3-2010 by baboo]

Originally posted by bsbray11
Science is not dictated like priests dictate religion, it is subject to continued research, repetition, peer review and all that.

Funny how they are the very things the "truthers" avoid.... can they post one peer reviewed paper that goes against the OS...... And remember, Jones paper on finding thermite has not been peer reviewed!

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by TrueTruth
And if you really think it doesn't matter what kind of scientist interprets data, then once again, you have proven how little you know about the sciences

No, you are just continuing to demonstrate your own ignorance. People can be versed in fields of study that are not their professional fields. That is because what is important in science is not the name of your profession but the information inherent to the field of study itself. Which goes back to actual science and data, not suits and lab coats being the final evidence.

I asked you for the actual proof these scientists used to arrive at their conclusions, and you gave me a massive rant.

Come off your horse, you don't have anything to base your opinions on but somebody's unsupported word, scientist or not, I am not seeing the scientific basis on which they are making their claims. All REAL scientists demonstrate the science that validates their claims. Science is not dictated like priests dictate religion, it is subject to continued research, repetition, peer review and all that.


I will ask once again for the actual evidence. This makes what, 4 or 5 posts in a row you have offered me logical fallacies and rants instead? Still waiting for it to go through your head what "evidence" and "proof" actually mean. Thanks.

dude - the graph you posted is THEIRS. And I gave you a link to more. And again - you can not prove a negative. You made a claim of fact. I rebutted this claim by the best available testimony, including a link to a discussion of the very same data you were trying to misrepresent. The data is inconsistent with your hypothesis. End of story.

This is not a logical fallacy - this is how logic and science work. And no, not all scientists are qualified to interpret all the data of all other fields. This is simply not true. Follow my example - ask a podiatrist to interpret lab results for a metabolic disorder of some kind. Better yet, ask a behaviorist - after all, behaviorism is a science too! Or even simpler - ask a mechanical engineer how easy it is for him to comment on the work of an electrical engineer. You have no idea how false what you claiming really is.

I'll say this a third time, since it is so crucial: the seismologists in question can not prove what did not happen - and this is the very same lab and data that crackpots like Alex Jones tried to use as the original source of this story. It's the very same data you are trying to use, only you aren't qualified to read the graph, and you snub such things as, qualifications. No scientist I know is that arrogant - just, you.

The only one who made a claim is YOU - and YOU have to prove it. YOU have to tell me what in that data constitutes proof of what you think it does.

Honestly man. This is very, very basic stuff in terms of the rules of arguments and the scientific method - which indeed I have studied up through the graduate level - so quit pretending I don't know how it works. You don't have a CLUE how it works - this stuff I'm telling you is ELEMENTARY - you'd learn it in any freshman class on logic or philosophy.

No more talking to you. My dog has a better grasp of science and logic, and he's sitting there licking his nuts - which is a better use of time than this attempt at me tutoring you on crap you should have learned in school.

But hey - if you're happy with your 'proof', fabulous. Just quit expecting anyone to take you seriously.

have a nice life.

[edit on 7-3-2010 by TrueTruth]