What are your favorite 9/11 debunking tactics?

Originally posted by Alfie1

OK let us think about it a second. There are loads of examples of flimsy documents surviving horrendous crashes.

Have flimsy documents survived in such good condition after craqshing into a building and exploding?

Do you not think it's off that a black box, that is designed to survive intense fire was not recovered from either plane, and yet a passport of a hijacker survived with not so much as one mark on it?

Originally posted by maxella1

I never said that Renee May was lying. I said that according to the FBI Olson’s call lasted zero seconds. I don't know who is lying and who isn’t when it comes to the phone calls. I don't know anything except what is available for me to read, listen or watch on TV. I do know however that the story you are in love with and defend like a warrior doesn’t add up to me and quiet a few other people as you know. I also know that the government is covering up, and history shows that they have no problem lying to, and killing people for something that is in their own interest only.

And yet you ignore this statement by Ted Olson's secretary, Lori Keyton, made to the FBI on 9/11 itself :-

intelfiles.egoplex.com...

Stop pretending you are in pursuit of the truth.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

...and what the heck does that have anything even remotely to do with "favorite debunking tactics"? Stick with the topis of the thread, please.

Let me refresh your memory.

To the "there's no such thing as al Qaida", I point out the courier that was arrested in Vienna with documents showing Al Qaida was responsible for the 7/7 attack...and then I ask "Why is the Austrian government lying?"

You are being really, REALLY fast and loose with your definitions again. According to your own links, a handful of Libyans fought with Al Qaida, and a handful of THOSE are fighting Quadaffi. This isn't "supporting Al Qaida". This is supporting a popular uprising in an area that also has Al Qaida sympethisers so it's disingenuous to say we're "supporting al qaida in Libya". According to Reuters, noone knows how much influence Al Qaida actually has on the popular uprising-

Mission Accomplished ?
Al Qaeda Flags Parade in Gadhafi Hometown?

But the Libyan ambassador to the United Nations, Ibrahim Dabbashi, told ABC News that the video is not what it seems. Libyan brigades have flown similar flags in the past and, when questioned about them, the brigade commanders always said they were simply the "flag of the Prophet Muhammad," Dabbashi said.

Just because they have the same flag doesn’t mean it's Al Qaeda right ?
We must believe the ambassador because they would never lie right?

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by maxella1

I never said that Renee May was lying. I said that according to the FBI Olson’s call lasted zero seconds. I don't know who is lying and who isn’t when it comes to the phone calls. I don't know anything except what is available for me to read, listen or watch on TV. I do know however that the story you are in love with and defend like a warrior doesn’t add up to me and quiet a few other people as you know. I also know that the government is covering up, and history shows that they have no problem lying to, and killing people for something that is in their own interest only.

And yet you ignore this statement by Ted Olson's secretary, Lori Keyton, made to the FBI on 9/11 itself :-

intelfiles.egoplex.com...

Stop pretending you are in pursuit of the truth.

edit on 23-5-2012 by Alfie1 because: (no reason given)

I ignored nothing. We were talking about the FBI report and the zero second phone call. Go back and read it again.

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by secgovwiki

 

I can prove the government story wrong is one simple phrase: the collapse, destruction, storm & inferno of the towers violates The Law of Conservation of Energy.

OK...how. How does that statement resolve 9/11? If it violated a Law of physics, it would have acted in a manner that did not match those laws. It did not. This is simple physics and not complicated.

Gravity won on 9/11. Plain and simple.

It resolves nothing. Only the complete and utter truth of 9/11 will resolve the events and most if not all doubts The People of The World have. But, the current Administration nor any other will provide that now will they not? Only a new Counter-Revolution will. I am very sorry for you and for all "Americans" like you. I am even sorrier for your children.

There will be consequences for your allegiance to men and not to Law, Right, Good and Truth.

Here is what my statement revolves: American society was revolutionized based on a lie. We went to war based on a lie. We are going to wars based on lies. You are helping to destroy the foundation of the nation for a lie. That lie is leading to World War III. A war which will destroy the country. I am glad you are happy with yourself for going along with it all.

Looking back, is it worth it? Rushing off to find and fight unknown enemies abroad when the greatest threat to Liberty is here at home?

Have ten years of the GWOT been fruitful?

No, the tree is barren. It is dying. Will you mourn for it?

“We have seen their kind before. They are the heirs of all the
murderous ideologies of the 20th century. By sacrificing
human life to serve their radical visions—by abandoning
every value except the will to power—they follow
in the path of fascism, and Nazism, and totalitarianism.
And they will follow that path all the way, to where it ends:
in history’s unmarked grave of discarded lies.”

reply to post by GoodOlDave

...and how do YOU know the passport wasn't left behind at the hijacker's apartment because they obviously didn't care about luggage? After the attack the FBI obviously traced the appartment from the hijacker's name so they could have stormed the apartment without a warrant and siezed the passport. They can't keep anything found during a warrantless search and siezure so they could have come up with a phony "they found it in the street" story to keep it as evidence. If you don't require any actual proof to back up your hypothetical claims then neither do I. Of course, we both know you won't accept THIS conspiracy theory because it simply isn't fashionably sinister sounding enough for you.

I don't know and never said that i do.

this is what i said'

I'm wondering if they found anybody else's passports at ground zero. How did they know that it belonged to one of the hijackers so fast? I'm not saying that it's impossible, just very extraordinary in my personal opinion.

You know actually what you're saying makes sense. But we'll never know right?

Originally posted by 4hero

Originally posted by Alfie1

OK let us think about it a second. There are loads of examples of flimsy documents surviving horrendous crashes.

Have flimsy documents survived in such good condition after craqshing into a building and exploding?

Do you not think it's off that a black box, that is designed to survive intense fire was not recovered from either plane, and yet a passport of a hijacker survived with not so much as one mark on it?

As live worms survived the explosion of Space Shuttle Columbia 40 miles above the earth nothing much would surprise me.

These are the personal effects of flight attendant Cee Cee Lyles, recovered from the crash site of UA 93 and put in evidence at the Moussaoui trial :-

www.vaed.uscourts.gov...

Black boxes are secured in the aircraft and it is not remarkable that they did not survive both the initial crash and then the collapse of the Towers.

Originally posted by maxella1

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by maxella1

I never said that Renee May was lying. I said that according to the FBI Olson’s call lasted zero seconds. I don't know who is lying and who isn’t when it comes to the phone calls. I don't know anything except what is available for me to read, listen or watch on TV. I do know however that the story you are in love with and defend like a warrior doesn’t add up to me and quiet a few other people as you know. I also know that the government is covering up, and history shows that they have no problem lying to, and killing people for something that is in their own interest only.

And yet you ignore this statement by Ted Olson's secretary, Lori Keyton, made to the FBI on 9/11 itself :-

intelfiles.egoplex.com...

Stop pretending you are in pursuit of the truth.

edit on 23-5-2012 by Alfie1 because: (no reason given)

I ignored nothing. We were talking about the FBI report and the zero second phone call. Go back and read it again.

And why do you keep harping on about an FBI report relating to a zero second call ( cell phone ) when there is other FBI evidence of connected AT&T calls from Barbara Olson to the DoJ ?

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by maxella1

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by maxella1

I never said that Renee May was lying. I said that according to the FBI Olson’s call lasted zero seconds. I don't know who is lying and who isn’t when it comes to the phone calls. I don't know anything except what is available for me to read, listen or watch on TV. I do know however that the story you are in love with and defend like a warrior doesn’t add up to me and quiet a few other people as you know. I also know that the government is covering up, and history shows that they have no problem lying to, and killing people for something that is in their own interest only.

And yet you ignore this statement by Ted Olson's secretary, Lori Keyton, made to the FBI on 9/11 itself :-

intelfiles.egoplex.com...

Stop pretending you are in pursuit of the truth.

edit on 23-5-2012 by Alfie1 because: (no reason given)

I ignored nothing. We were talking about the FBI report and the zero second phone call. Go back and read it again.

And why do you keep harping on about an FBI report relating to a zero second call ( cell phone ) when there is other FBI evidence of connected AT&T calls from Barbara Olson to the DoJ ?

You are something else. Lol. You're the one that keeps bringing it up. I never had a problem with any phone calls. I was only pointing out how you people cherry picking your "evidence".

reply to post by esdad71

backed into a corner? You just deflected by asking me why was a plane allowed to hit the Pentagon...again, if you read the 911CR you would know that one of the planes was delayed, 93, or else it would have hit the around the same time as the Pentagon. It was on its way to the White House and/or Capitol.

I deflected? You asked me the stupidest question I was ever asked regarding 9/11. Why would the mafia allow explosives to be placed in the towers?!
At leased I asked you something relevant.
And besides I answered your stupid question. When are you going to start answering my questions?
And telling me to read the commission report again is not going to change anything. You need to read the book I suggested earlier, no conspiracy theories in that book don't worry. That book shows a lot of behind the scene business of the commission. It changed my view of 9/11. give it a try.

Originally posted by maxella1

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by maxella1

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by maxella1

I never said that Renee May was lying. I said that according to the FBI Olson’s call lasted zero seconds. I don't know who is lying and who isn’t when it comes to the phone calls. I don't know anything except what is available for me to read, listen or watch on TV. I do know however that the story you are in love with and defend like a warrior doesn’t add up to me and quiet a few other people as you know. I also know that the government is covering up, and history shows that they have no problem lying to, and killing people for something that is in their own interest only.

And yet you ignore this statement by Ted Olson's secretary, Lori Keyton, made to the FBI on 9/11 itself :-

intelfiles.egoplex.com...

Stop pretending you are in pursuit of the truth.

edit on 23-5-2012 by Alfie1 because: (no reason given)

I ignored nothing. We were talking about the FBI report and the zero second phone call. Go back and read it again.

And why do you keep harping on about an FBI report relating to a zero second call ( cell phone ) when there is other FBI evidence of connected AT&T calls from Barbara Olson to the DoJ ?

You are something else. Lol. You're the one that keeps bringing it up. I never had a problem with any phone calls. I was only pointing out how you people cherry picking your "evidence".

Give me a break ! Didn't you post on page 2, in response to G O D, "But isn't it true that in the Zacarias Moussaoui trial in 2006, the FBI showed that there was only one phone call from Barbara Olson, and that it was an unconnected call lasting zero seconds. Why is Ted Olson lying ? "

So on page 2 Ted Olson is lying and now you "never had a problem with any phone calls ". Are you really surprised I don't actually believe you are interested in ascertaining the truth ?

reply to post by maxella1


I always found a rather good and some what amusing guide in the tactical art of debunking:

vigilantcitizen.com...

reply to post by Alfie1

Give me a break ! Didn't you post on page 2, in response to G O D, "But isn't it true that in the Zacarias Moussaoui trial in 2006, the FBI showed that there was only one phone call from Barbara Olson, and that it was an unconnected call lasting zero seconds. Why is Ted Olson lying ? " So on page 2 Ted Olson is lying and now you "never had a problem with any phone calls ". Are you really surprised I don't actually believe you are interested in ascertaining the truth ?

This was a reply to G O D's questions.. look...

To the "WTC 7 fell mysteriously" crowd, I like to use the eyewitness accounts of people who were physically there, like Deputy Chief Peter Hayden who reported the fires in WTC 7 were burning out of control and were causing massive deformations in the structure...and then I ask them "why is he lying?" To the "no plane hit the Pentagon" crown, I mention the numerous people who were physically there from immigrants from El Salvador watering the lawn to programmers packign to move who saw the plane hit the Pentagon..and then I ask "why are they lying?" To the "phone calls can't be made from the planes" I like to point out how flight attendent Renee May called her parents to report the plane was hijacked...and then ask "why are her parents lying?" To the "there's no such thing as al Qaida", I point out the courier that was arrested in Vienna with documents showing Al Qaida was responsible for the 7/7 attack...and then I ask "Why is the Austrian government lying?" More to the point, I ask "why is it that the only way the truthers can justify their conspiracy theories is by accusing everyone and their grandmother of lying"?

Is G O D saying that Deputy Chief Peter Hayden was lying?

My point was that G O D dismissed the FBI report based on another victims family members testimony. ( Cherry picking ). isn’t that what you accuse truthers of doing? Dismissing one testimony based on another ?


Chill out.

Originally posted by Insolubrious
reply to post by maxella1

 

I always found a rather good and some what amusing guide in the tactical art of debunking:

vigilantcitizen.com...

That's disinformation, not debunking. Debunking is revealing the flaws and disinformation spread by liars (or ignorant believers). It's that simple.

Originally posted by Insolubrious
reply to post by maxella1

 

I always found a rather good and some what amusing guide in the tactical art of debunking:

vigilantcitizen.com...

Lol

I think you found their training manual.

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by Alfie1

 

Give me a break ! Didn't you post on page 2, in response to G O D, "But isn't it true that in the Zacarias Moussaoui trial in 2006, the FBI showed that there was only one phone call from Barbara Olson, and that it was an unconnected call lasting zero seconds. Why is Ted Olson lying ? " So on page 2 Ted Olson is lying and now you "never had a problem with any phone calls ". Are you really surprised I don't actually believe you are interested in ascertaining the truth ?

This was a reply to G O D's questions.. look...

To the "WTC 7 fell mysteriously" crowd, I like to use the eyewitness accounts of people who were physically there, like Deputy Chief Peter Hayden who reported the fires in WTC 7 were burning out of control and were causing massive deformations in the structure...and then I ask them "why is he lying?" To the "no plane hit the Pentagon" crown, I mention the numerous people who were physically there from immigrants from El Salvador watering the lawn to programmers packign to move who saw the plane hit the Pentagon..and then I ask "why are they lying?" To the "phone calls can't be made from the planes" I like to point out how flight attendent Renee May called her parents to report the plane was hijacked...and then ask "why are her parents lying?" To the "there's no such thing as al Qaida", I point out the courier that was arrested in Vienna with documents showing Al Qaida was responsible for the 7/7 attack...and then I ask "Why is the Austrian government lying?" More to the point, I ask "why is it that the only way the truthers can justify their conspiracy theories is by accusing everyone and their grandmother of lying"?

Is G O D saying that Deputy Chief Peter Hayden was lying?

My point was that G O D dismissed the FBI report based on another victims family members testimony. ( Cherry picking ). isn’t that what you accuse truthers of doing? Dismissing one testimony based on another ?


Chill out.

I don't think G O D was dismissing anything but was pointing out other information, as I have done, but that is for him to argue.

Can I take it then that you accept the calls from 9/11 planes as genuine ?

reply to post by Varemia

That's disinformation, not debunking. Debunking is revealing the flaws and disinformation spread by liars (or ignorant believers). It's that simple.

Yes. It's exactly what the 9/11 debunkers do. You cannot debunk reality without lies.

reply to post by Alfie1

I don't think G O D was dismissing anything but was pointing out other information, as I have done, but that is for him to argue.

Just like I and other people with functioning brain cells point out other information.

Can I take it then that you accept the calls from 9/11 planes as genuine ?

I couldn’t care less about the calls. They do not change the fact that the governments 9/11 conspiracy theory is a lie.

reply to post by maxella1



Ha, that's just old news

(Rule 10. Associate opponent charges with old news.)


That's just sweet, innocent lil' air puffs coming out those special yet troublesome corridors that only exist on a handful of unique floors as the building compresses itself under it's own weight.

(Rule 13. Alice in Wonderland Logic.)

reply to post by maxella1


I really don't see how explosives down the tower would even help with the collapse. Internal collapse as an explanation for the ejections makes more sense.

I believe the firefighters who were there, and the physics of weight, damage, and fire. You believe conspiracy theorist videos and websites. That's your call, but it's not a crime to disbelieve people who are clearly lacking somewhere in the mental faculties.

Hell, I find it amusing that you feel better rejecting respected physicists, engineers, and pilots than you do conspiracy theorists. I guess everyone but you is in on it, eh?