Are you a "Debunker" that denies the existence of an Official Story? Here's your sign

reply to post by SeventhSeal


I see what you're saying, but I have to respectfully disagree.

Here on ATS, people can discuss 9/11 or the documents which Assange leaks, more or less with impunity.

Assange is a threat because he is the vehicle through which these leaks are channeled.

Likewise, some 'mysterious deaths' of 9/11 witnesses have also been observed.

On ATS we are not a direct threat, so we have the (relative) luxury of discussing these issues, whilst the likes of Assange or witnesses of all kinds with information which is not 'acceptable', literally put their lives at risk by speaking out and then, too often mysteriously die or disappear.

In itself that speaks volumes about the type of 'Government' which exists.

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
reply to post by okbmd

 

I couldn't have asked for a more perfect example of the "logic" being used by these falsers.

See what I mean, people??


okbmd, whose burden was it to write the NIST report? (The Feds)

Whose burden was it to write the FEMA report? (The Feds)

Whose burden was it to write the Kean Commission report? (The Feds)


WHOSE BURDEN WAS IT TO PROVE SOMETHING IN THESE REPORTS??


Drum roll............

The Feds.


If the burden of investigating 9/11 was EVER on the general public, why were these reports done by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT instead???

You missed the entire point of his post.

Of course, you "accidentally" left out the key parts so you wouldn't have to address them:

You and yours are accusing the government of lies and cover-ups and crimes . As I have already told one of your bedfellows , it is YOU and YOURS that are bringing the case against the government , therefore , the burden of proof is YOUR responsibility .

Misinformation doesn't work when the full comment is located RIGHT ABOVE YOURS.

[edit on 8/26/10 by mothershipzeta]

Originally posted by 54v!0r531f

Originally posted by Judge_Holden
reply to post by okbmd

 

Thanks for bringing common sense to this thread.

Being a Minarchist Libertarian, I would say that there are VERY few people who mistrust the government as much as I do. I think that the government fails at so many things (schooling, social security, market regulation, Medicare and Medicaid, the postal service, etc, etc, etc), it's not even funny. However, what the American government sucks at the most is covering things up.

As evidence, take a look at the failed "cover ups" of Watergate, the Iran Contra Affair, NSA warrantless surveillance, the Whitewater Scandal, just to name a few. Heck, Clinton couldn't even get a blowjob in the Oval Office without everyone finding out, and you're going to tell me the Bush Administration (quite possibly the worst administration in the last sixty years) can cover up a it's involvement in September 11?

This whole "truther" thing has run its course, and the followers are starting to notice. Maybe that's why so many of them are starting to pull at strings in the hopes that they can grab a hold of something.

I don't know, maybe I should just stay away from these 9/11 threads. I'm relatively new to this board, and I saw a truther actually challenge an individual who claimed that a close friend (or family member, I can't remember) died in the attacks to show him or her proof. I mean, come on. This is just getting sad... And offensive... But mostly sad.

have you ever heard of the Manhattan Project?

please take a look into that, and realize the enormity of successful secrecy that took place there.

The secrecy of the Manhattan Project failed very swiftly. Thanks to spies such as the Rosenburgs and Klaus Fuchs the Soviet Union was soon in possession of all the technical details and was able to detonate its own bomb 4 years after the A-bombs on Japan.

How far are we from 9/11/01 ?

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
reply to post by okbmd

 

Before anyone can refute these reports, they have to read and understand the "evidence" presented in them first.

So, is that why you haven't presented any evidence to the contrary?

So if you have read and understand these reports, show me the "evidence" these reports provide, and I will happily refute it!!!!

This is the most pathetic attempt I've ever seen at dodging, misdirecting and moving the goalposts.

Are you truly that dense, or just being intentionally obtuse? YOU are the one making the charges. If you have read and understood the evidence from the reports, then why should someone else have to present them AGAIN?

I'm starting to understand why the "Ignore" feature is there. It's to deny the ignorant.

Originally posted by kalisdad

Originally posted by rick1
reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain

 

You are done with him because he beat you. You can't admit it and so you are running. Anyone who doesn't know the basics about the burden of proof,and you obviously don't,should not start a thread like this. Grow up and do some reading on burden of proof.

again, I would like to point out that the purden of proof is on the side of the accuser(the OS of the US governemt)

we(the jury) have found reasonable doubt...

you are not thinking about this in the correct perspective

Yes, exactly, the burden of proof lies with the accuser (in this case the OS of the Government) which has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

I do not believe the Government case has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that a) Al-Qaeda exists, b) that Al-Qaeda carried out the attacks.

Irrespective of whether the planes in the videos are real, etc, the Government's was OBLIGATED to prove beyond ANY reasonable doubt that it was indeed AQ who carried out the attacks, and especially so before they invaded Afghanistand and Iraq and caused the deaths of millions of innocent people.

I see plenty of stories which were put out by the Government stating that AQ was responsible, but to state something is the case doesn't make it so. To prove something beyond reasonable doubt, the thesis has to be be based on LEGAL evidence. I have not seen or heard legal evidence which proves beyond any reasonable doubt that AQ attacked WTC, and the burden of proof lies squarely with the Government, in fact with Bush, on this.

reply to post by mothershipzeta


I think the question seems to be whether the reports provide

- irrefutable evidence which proves beyond reasonable doubt that the Government's thesis is true.

As I said in an earlier post, to prove something 'beyond reasonable doubt' the thesis has to be proven on legal evidence, not just statements or assumptions or circumstancial theories.

So, I guess I am asking whether you believe that the reports provide enough hard, legal evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Al-Qaeda attacked WTC, and if so, whether there is legal evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Al-Qaeda carried out the attacks in the manner described?

I must also ask whether you believe that all the counter arguments to the Government's thesis were given full and adequate examination and scrutiny, because, to prove beyond reasonable doubt, it is not only the assertion which has to be proven, but all the counter arguments have to be examined and their significance taken into account.

It is only when this process is undertaken that a reasonable conclusion, based on a deliberation and assessment of all the facts available, can possibly be reached.

9/11 is something that everyone is going to argue about for the rest of our lives. No matter what facts come to light, no matter what happens in the future, people will still believe the official story, because once you have set beliefs in someone they are almost impossible to change. It's like trying to say the sky isn't blue, it's red. People will forever argue about it. 9/11 was a sad day in this worlds history, and whoever was responsible was clever enough to get away with it and thats that. There will be no justice, there will be no revenge. You can spend all your time trying to debunk the original story, but even if you were to find out the truth, that truth will apply only to you, and you alone. The story of 9/11 is so confused now, that it NO LONGER HAS A TRUTH.

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
reply to post by pteridine
In other words, the "official story" (as the phrase is defined by the dictionary) contradicts itself variously. I'm aware.

Are the "Truthers" any better?

Just 3 contradictory "Truths" I've seen:

1. The aircraft were replaced by drones.
2. The aircraft launched missiles into the towers
3. There were no aircraft - only holograms

How many revisions did "Loose Change" go through as they took out ridiculous claims that had no basis in reality? And yet they're still the closest thing the "Truth Movement" has to an "OS" of their own.

Even after the "Final Cut," they had to fix it AGAIN.

Here are just some of the lies and deceptions from the early versions:

screwloosechange.blogspot.com...

screwloosechange.blogspot.com...

screwloosechange.blogspot.com...

screwloosechange.blogspot.com...

Oh, I'm sure we'll hear the denials that "Loose Change" is legitimate. We'll even see posts that say it's misinformation. But it's the closest thing to a cohesive narrative than any of you have managed thus far. And the fact that you're arguing among yourselves shows after 9 years you still have no comprehensive theory. You are still poking holes in whatever evidence you can - exactly as Creationists pick out weak bits of Evolutionary Theory and claim that they've disproven it.

Unfortunately, reality does not work like Jenga. Even if you find some small part of the OS that you can cast aspersions upon, there are many, MANY others that have solid basis in fact and are backed up by experts. Picking a few thousand engineers and architects (protip: not all engineers are structural engineers, and architects are not experts on structural engineering) that back you up means you have to accept the fact that there are tenfold more that agree with the OS.

When you guys get your stories straight, get back to us and we'll hear you out. Just screaming your own pet theories isn't going to work.

To say that this is going to be argued for the rest of our lives and we'll never know the truth is to passively accept that the Government has the right to deny access to its evidence on such a crucial matter as this.

What risk could there be to national security in publishing the evidence based on which US asserted that Al-Qaeda attacked the WTC, and then that the Taliban in Afghanistan were protecting OBL, the leader of AQ? Surely, if such evidence existed, it would be in the Government's interest to make it public so that the US citizens were confident the Gov acted truthfully?

The UK has pressed for an investigation into the Iraq war, and it is underway.

Please don't tell me you think that a nation of almost 400million people can't demand an investigation and make it happen.

I am just listening to the father of the person who died in the collapse of building seven being interviewed on AJ.
He considers his son to have been murdered, and not by a plane load of Muslims.
He just mentioned all the police and firemen who reported that the fires were almost out, and how they heard explosions all over the place just prior to the building's collapse, and he wonders what ever happened to thier testionomy in the OS investigation.

He also mentioned that the BBC, who reported the building's collapse before it happened, were given their script by Rueters even before that report was issued.
He is just saying that he wished Glen Beck who said there is no one he hates more than the families of the victims who rightly question the OS, would come to his door and say that...

I wonder if he would extend that sentiment to the debunkers here too...?

Now he is talking about the proven lies that they have been told, and how the victims families are being demonized in the Main stream press, and how the emergency workers are also being demonized, lied to and about, and having the aid they need for conditions resulting from their rescue effort withheld.

He is saying he just wants the truth and he sure isn't getting that from the OS.

reply to post by Danbones


Coincidentally I've just been reading another ATS thread with a video in which the mother of a young, pregnant woman who was killed in WTC makes a statement in which she lists some of the unanswered questions about the events before, during and after 9/11, and the way in which she and her other children are denied a voice on MSM, and are often shunned as 'conspiracy theorists' - NOT because they are proselytising an alternative version of events, but because they are demanding answers to unanswered questions.

The video is heartwrenching, I challenge all 'debunkers' to watch this.

Link: www.abovetopsecret.com...



[edit on 26-8-2010 by wcitizen]

A question to all debunkers.

Do you believe that the questions which the victims' families are demanding answers to are rubbish, and that they don't have a right to have those questions answered?

reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain


53 flags on a non-post that is nothing but a personal attack on anyone who does not agree with the OP? No substance. No new information. Adds nothing to the topic whatsoever.

The Mod's must be asleep at the wheel if this is considered a valid post or topic. I thought this thread was under special scrutiny? Seems like that is not true.

How does a thread like this make front page? Mod's?

reply to post by and14263


They're not derailing anything.They've been at it for years and where has it got them?
I actually swallowed the whole MSM story on 911, much to my shame.Loose Change didn't convince me of anything really.But what swung it for me was Popular Mechanics absolutely embarrassing attempt at debunkery.They should really stick to product placement and outdated reports.

The debunkers convinced me and they still are convincing me more every day
that any official or MSM line on 911 is a pack of lies.

I use threads like this one (a gem btw Virginiarises) to convince friends and family that they are being deceived.It works pretty well, though some people are beyond conversion unfortunately.Hopefully they might become debunkers themselves

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain

 

53 flags on a non-post that is nothing but a personal attack on anyone who does not agree with the OP? ...

I thought he was complaining about the debunkers who claim that there is no official story, not about everyone who disagrees, as the title of this thread states.
Personal attack? Please.

Originally posted by Danbones
completely on fire?
WTF?
there was two small fires that the fireman expected to have out shortley

What what what?????? Where did you dig this little gem from???

Proof this way or that. Look at things from before the act took place.

Assume you were given the task of getting us into some war. You had to keep it from the public for decades. How would you do it?

Would you need to attack four buildings?
Would you wire three buildings with explosives?
Would disembark passengers in Cleveland and dispose of the bodies?
Would you rig four panes with remote controls?
Would you rig fake phone calls from airplanes?
Would you blackmail all the investigators?
Would you blackmail all the commissions?
And all the other minutia needed.

OR

Would you pay a few radicals with petty cash and give them butter knives?

I ask you which way stands a better chance of being secret?

If you side with the second then why is the OS so far fetched?

reply to post by jprophet420


" Your reading comprehension is the only thing that is pathetic my friend. He mentions nothing of those things in the OP. Simply defines what an official story is. "

More desperation ...

I'm no stranger to the 9/11 threads nor am I a stranger to the author of this thread , so don't try to play silly little games with me .

And , be careful what you type , as I may interpret it to be a personal attack or insult towards me .

My reading comprehension is better than average , thank you .

And don't call me friend .

Originally posted by mothershipzeta

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
reply to post by pteridine
In other words, the "official story" (as the phrase is defined by the dictionary) contradicts itself variously. I'm aware.

Are the "Truthers" any better?

#1: Notice that you don't deny that the official story contradicts itself.

#2: As I have said, it was never "truthers'" responsibility to conduct an investigation. We are not even an organization. It's just a slang word used to describe anyone who doesn't believe we do have the truth yet, and there are literally millions of us. But we are not an organization, and most importantly never had the authority to investigate 9/11. Only to complain about the stupidity of the reports released by the government. And the people who actually believe those reports.

The only reason this "movement" exists in the first place is because of the lack of basic sense in the official story, and its supporters.

Originally posted by mothershipzeta

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
reply to post by okbmd

 

Before anyone can refute these reports, they have to read and understand the "evidence" presented in them first.

So, is that why you haven't presented any evidence to the contrary?

I swear the concept of "burden of proof" is completely incomprehensible to you people.

Burden of proof does not mean "since I'm automatically right you have to prove everything to me."

The burden of proof... belongs to those who had the burden of proving something to begin with. That was the government. They took the investigation.

When a murder occurs is it my responsibility to prove who the murderer was? No, the police do it.

When a "terrorist attack" like this occurs is it my responsibility to prove what happened? Hell no. The federal government took it.

The fact that you can't comprehend something so basic only tells me that you are AFRAID of the burden of proof because you already KNOW that you can't rationalize what you believe to other people, because there is no reason to it at all.

[edit on 26-8-2010 by VirginiaRisesYetAgain]

Originally posted by samkent
OR

Would you pay a few radicals with petty cash and give them butter knives?

As Einstein once said, make things as simple as possible, but no simpler.

A few radicals with butter knives don't explain even a tiny fraction of all the suspicious activity surrounding 9/11.



And since the excellent staff at ATS decided that disproving a common 9/11 fallacy with basic dictionary definitions is a "rant," I'm done with this thread. I didn't post it in BTS and I have no wish to post here.

[edit on 26-8-2010 by VirginiaRisesYetAgain]