What are your favorite 9/11 debunking tactics?

Excellent post maxella1 This made me laugh a lot, but at the same time you have a very valid point as all of those reasons that the 'debunkers' give are not based on empirical evidence, but just on belief. When you lay all of these beliefs out together it helps to show how flawed the logic of the debunkers really is.

S&F

Originally posted by maxella1
Mine are;

*The government is so incompetent that they cannot do anything right.
* It's impossible that they could keep it a secret because so many people had to be involved, somebody would blow the whistle.
* So what if they lied to the people about almost everything they do?
*The only evidence truthers have is YouTube videos.
*They are covering up their incompetents not crimes.

And my favorite of them all is

*Truthers make things up because it's so much more fun to think that it's a government conspiracy.

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by maxella1

 

If 9/11 was a conspiracy to start wars for oil, how come we didn’t go in Saudi Arabia? Most of the hijackers were Saudi.

So what if Bush did business with the Saudis ?

Another great example there maxella1

That example would show that the 'debunker' has no idea that the US is already higly satisfied with the oil deal they have with the Saudi's.

reply to post by maxella1


And then theres the master of all the debunkers.
This guy,
GOOD OL DAVE.
Knows more about 9/11 then NIST and the 9/11 Commissioners.

From G.o.D. himself:

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"?

This is how you debunk people.

(mentions vans and trucks packed with explosives)
debunkers: (silence)

"Urban Moving Systems, the known Mossad front, had a truck that was reported by police to have a mural of the twin towers with a plane flying into them"
debunkers: (silence)

"Israelis were caught by witnesses celebrating and high-fiving each other while videotaping the twin towers. after being caught (in a van full of explosives), one of their comments was 'our purpose was to document the event'"
debunkers: "that doesn't mean they had foreknowledge"

Originally posted by maxella1

Irrelevant hah?

Saying that the building is unstable and in danger of collapsing does not mean that it will collapse entirely to the ground at once. And you know it. And that's why it's irrelevant in your mind. Again you lie and say that the firefighters were expecting what happened to the WTC 7. but the truth is they only said that it was unstable and in danger of collapse. Not that the way it did collapse was normal and expected. Stop making things up !

LOL. So your claim is that the firefighters on the scene suspected it would collapse, but not like that. somehow, you just know that the firefighters were expecting that it might collapse in some other unspecified way that you find more plausible. But then the building fell down "all at once". Which did not conform to your post-hoc preconceptions, which somehow proves bombs.

THAT is a fabrication. Your story that the firefighters obviously expected some other type of collapse is just a made up story.

See, that's how you point our that truther's claims are lies and fabrications. This one was obvious though. Whenever someone claims to know the thoughts of another without citing any evidence, they're just blowing smoke 95% of the time.

reply to post by jlm912


Umm, no, any debunker worth their salt is going to point out that less than ten minutes after the radio call went out about the dog hitting on explosives, there was another radio call saying it was negative for explosives on second inspection.

Then, you are confused about the Israelis and their actions.....that's not hard to debunk

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
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"?

Sorry but the government is just a bunch of known liars. That's the fact. That's the way it is.

Conspiracies that were true.

Yeah the Truthers may have been wrong about some of the weirder conspiracies, but in the end they were right about enough stuff to prove the government's story didn't make any sense either.

At least they are trying to find out what happened instead of just buying hook, line, and sinker the story given to us by known liars.

Especially known liars that do this.
www.youtube.com...

and this
en.wikipedia.org...

and this
seattletimes.nwsource.com...

and this
en.wikipedia.org...

and this
en.wikipedia.org...

And well the list goes on and on!

So even if we're wrong, you can't really get on anyone's case for not believing known liars. They're known liars which means we have no way of knowing when to trust their stories and when not to trust their stories. They're known liars and when it comes to KNOWN PROVEN LIARS it's best not to trust what they tell you even if you're wrong every now and then.

reply to post by vipertech0596


Umm, no. They reported the van (with the mural) exploding between 6th and 7th on King st.

the van report starts ~4:40.


The van that the "dancing Israelis" were stopped in, as you are writing of and I made a mistake, was only reported to have traces of explosives.

reply to post by jlm912


...silence?

c'mon, you can come up with something to debunk this, can't you?

I sure can't....

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
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"?

No need to accuse anyone of lying. I choose to believe the 1000's of architects and engineers who DO NOT work for the government and are on the record stating that the only way the 3 buildings that fell on that day could have done so at free fall speed and into there own footprint is through the use of EXPLOSIVES.

I choose to believe the 1000's of pilots who DO NOT work for the government who state on the record that the maneuver the pentagon plane was reported to have made in order to fit the OS was PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to pull off, even for the best pilot. I also believe all the people who claim there was little to no debris outside the building to suggest a large plane had hit it.

I choose to believe the multitude of experts who say in no uncertain terms that cell phone calls from a moving airplane in 2001 were NOT POSSIBLE.

I choose to believe the insiders who have come forward and admitted that Al Qaida is a CIA fabrication used to help combat the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 80's. Al Qaida is a ghost, a pre-fabricated boogeyman. COME ON, MAN!

I choose to look at the events of that day with NO PRECONCEIVED NOTIONS about what transpired. The ONLY WAY anyone can believe any of the crap in the OS is if you approach it with one absolute truth taken on 100% faith from your government:

18 DIP#S WITH NO TRAINING, APPARENTLY NO MONEY, AND NO WEAPONS OTHER THAN RAZOR BLADES WERE ABLE TO CRACK THE BEST NATIONAL DEFENSE IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD AND BRING DOWN 3 BUILDINGS, DAMAGE ANOTHER AND KILL ALMOST 4,000 PEOPLE.

How can you read that and not start laughing? The whole idea is just ridiculous. It really requires a concentrated suspension of belief. Once you believe that turd, it's just a matter filling in all the details so they don't sound completely absurd, and getting a few paid experts to back up all the made up stories. The sad part is the number of people who have fallen for this tripe. Try looking up COGNITIVE DISSONANCE. I believe this is your affliction.

Originally posted by liejunkie01

Originally posted by NormalBates
reply to post by liejunkie01

 

It really is simple that a structure consists of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of connections that all have a job to do within their operating specifications. If the piece or part is subjected to any stresses or forces outside of their specifications the piece or part can fail. A building is not a magical entity, they have certain guidlines that must be followed to be structurally sound and perform it's duty without any problems.

Are you suggesting that piece A at the height of the impact zone was somehow responsible for holding up the complete structure, floors and colomns well below that section?

I don't think so, buddy. There is no reason whatsoever for the collapse of the structure, below the impact zone anyways.

This is exactly the type of repy I was referring to.

Does the weight of the debris not fall on other connections on the lower floors? Each floor is not a solid foundation within itself. It is held up with truss and beam connections. All of these connection you are reffering to below the impact zone try to absorb the load from the stresses either falling, or the added stresses on these connections brought on by the failure of other important load bearing connections.

It is simple really, if connections above fail then all of the stress that those connections were properly withstanding are spread out over the other connections, this could lead to joints or connections that are over stressed and are trying to operate outside of their design specfications, which in most cases this causes fatigue and eventiually failure.

You have to take into consideration, the weight of the above floors, and when this weight is in motion(falling down) the other floors below it are trying to absorb the impacts at multiple connections or areas and these connections are not designed for this purpose. The weight of the falling debris will not be distributed equal in all parts of the floor structure, thus adding more streeses to certain connections than other connections.

I once was hanging some duct work for a building, I was told to cut a couple of x braces connecting the floor joists above. After I cut the last one an Iron worker came over and started raising hell. I only cut out a couple of braces but they called in the engineer and the architect to make sure this would be structurally sound.

Now take that and multiply the results by a factor of whatever and you have the twin towers. Certain key areas were affected to the point where the structure was unable to operate to the designed specs. This resulted in the failure that we all know of today. We are talking about a super heavy structure that is sticking almost a quarter of a mile in the air. Everything has to work in unison to remain structurally sound.

I hve beat this dead horse until there is literally nothing left of the carcass.

LIE JUNKIE huh? Funny.

You are assuming from the start that there is NO POSSIBILITY that there could be any explosives in any of these buildings. Let me ask you this. If you, or anyone else, were able to view video of these 3 buildings coming down without the burden of the OS involved, what would you, or anyone else, think or say? EVERYONE would say "It looks like those demolition guys brought down an old building(controlled demolition)" If you deny this you are just in denial. It is self evident, and everyone can agree on it. Now you add this story about how the buildings supposedly came down and most people say that explosives in the buildings is impossible. WHY?? Without the OS attached a controlled demolition is the logical conclusion and almost everyone would agree. Add the OS and the explosives are an impossibility. Then we get these hair-brained theories about buildings falling into there footprints at free fall speed while pancaking floors all the way down. Free fall means free from resistance, falling through air. You add ANY resistance and the fall rate is reduced DRAMATICALLY. No explanation that you can give to support your sacred OS will convince a non-brainwashed person like myself that these 3 buildings defied the Laws of Physics. Even if you say that this was a special event and the laws of physics don't apply(heard that one more than once). So, what do you say? Am I just spouting more lies?

LOL. So your claim is that the firefighters on the scene suspected it would collapse, but not like that. somehow, you just know that the firefighters were expecting that it might collapse in some other unspecified way that you find more plausible. But then the building fell down "all at once". Which did not conform to your post-hoc preconceptions, which somehow proves bombs. THAT is a fabrication. Your story that the firefighters obviously expected some other type of collapse is just a made up story. See, that's how you point our that truther's claims are lies and fabrications. This one was obvious though. Whenever someone claims to know the thoughts of another without citing any evidence, they're just blowing smoke 95% of the time.

"I turned to Tommy and I said,Tommy, this building is in danger of collapse. In my opinion, I didn't think there was going to be a catastrophic collapse, but from the fire load, there was no way.”

FIREFIGHTER RICHARD CARLETTI

Try again.

reply to post by DrEugeneFixer

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
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"?

The answer: scroll down, look in your sig...

signature:
"Nine-eleven was NOT an inside job, it was an Osama Bin Laden job with 19 people from Saudi Arabia, they murdered 3000 Americans and others foreigners including Muslims and we look like idiots, to deny that the people who murdered our fellow citizens did it, when they are continuing to murder other people around the world." - Pres. William Jefferson Clinton

Bill Clinton is a confirmed liar who has proven he will say and do anything to win and to stay out of trouble. He lied to the nation and he lied under oath. My question is WHY would anyone quote a known pathological liar to defend a bunch of other notorious pathological killers? If there were ever a man to be considered guilty of lying to coverup 911, Clinton would be THAT man. To me, that quote in your sig says it ALL...



Clinton's whitehouse crime syndicate blinded the country and prevented us from stopping the 9-11 attack with the "Gorelick wall". How anyone can trust anything this man has to say with such a history of deception is beyond me.

"9/11 wasn’t the first attack on the World Trade Center. The first one occurred under Bill Clinton in 1993"

You may recall that the lack of interagency communication was identified by the 9/11 Commission as being the direct result of an official policy of the Clinton White House. That policy was most closely identified with Jamie Gorelick. Called the “Gorelick wall,” the policy is widely referred to as the biggest reason 19 Islamic terrorists were able to attack us on 9/11. The policy mandated a separation of criminal investigators and intelligence agents. No sharing of info. Source

And your asking us to take YOU seriously?

The facts of 9 / 11, as presented, the application of common sense and logic on my part, tell me that this series of events was nothing more than it appeared to be. The only mystery here is why we are still obssessing over the matter, going round and round in circles, ad finitum.....

Originally posted by scully222
You are assuming from the start that there is NO POSSIBILITY that there could be any explosives in any of these buildings.

Are you so blind that you really don't see your hypocrisy here? You say his elimination of explosives as likely is bad, yet you automatically assume there must be explosives.

You are the ultimate, ignorant hypocrite in this instance.

My favorite debunking tactic is to use facts and correct all the misinformation spread by conspiracy videos and ignorant masses who flock to ATS to circle-jerk with other conspiracy believers. However, facts work on conspiracy believers about as well as they work on young-earth creationists. They think every fact is just a government/satanic lie meant to obscure their truth.

You can't argue with these people. They're helplessly ignorant.

Human beings tend to be unthinking conformists and can't imagine that society has been thoroughly corrupted. Monkey see; monkey do. And most of what monkey sees is degrading and often disgusting. Link

Originally posted by jlm912
reply to post by vipertech0596

 

Umm, no. They reported the van (with the mural) exploding between 6th and 7th on King st.

the van report starts ~4:40.


The van that the "dancing Israelis" were stopped in, as you are writing of and I made a mistake, was only reported to have traces of explosives.

edit on 20-5-2012 by jlm912 because: (no reason given)

Your van is a fake; as was this one discussed back along :-

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by scully222
You are assuming from the start that there is NO POSSIBILITY that there could be any explosives in any of these buildings.

Are you so blind that you really don't see your hypocrisy here? You say his elimination of explosives as likely is bad, yet you automatically assume there must be explosives.

You are the ultimate, ignorant hypocrite in this instance.

My favorite debunking tactic is to use facts and correct all the misinformation spread by conspiracy videos and ignorant masses who flock to ATS to circle-jerk with other conspiracy believers. However, facts work on conspiracy believers about as well as they work on young-earth creationists. They think every fact is just a government/satanic lie meant to obscure their truth.

You can't argue with these people. They're helplessly ignorant.

Oh my !! You sir are the hopeless one, identifying a building that resembles a nuclear warhead mushroom cloud as being caused by ANYTHING OTHER than explosives.

A perfectly good building getting BLOWN TO SMITHEREENS by the rest of itself should not be even a remote DREAM in the mind of an idiot...but then this is 9/11 Debunkers we are talking about.

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

Originally posted by maxella1

Irrelevant hah?

Saying that the building is unstable and in danger of collapsing does not mean that it will collapse entirely to the ground at once. And you know it. And that's why it's irrelevant in your mind. Again you lie and say that the firefighters were expecting what happened to the WTC 7. but the truth is they only said that it was unstable and in danger of collapse. Not that the way it did collapse was normal and expected. Stop making things up !

LOL. So your claim is that the firefighters on the scene suspected it would collapse, but not like that. somehow, you just know that the firefighters were expecting that it might collapse in some other unspecified way that you find more plausible. But then the building fell down "all at once". Which did not conform to your post-hoc preconceptions, which somehow proves bombs.

THAT is a fabrication. Your story that the firefighters obviously expected some other type of collapse is just a made up story.

See, that's how you point our that truther's claims are lies and fabrications. This one was obvious though. Whenever someone claims to know the thoughts of another without citing any evidence, they're just blowing smoke 95% of the time.

edit on 5/20/2012 by DrEugeneFixer because: formatting

i'm personally far less curious about what people said about their opinion on how likely it was to collapse at the time
and a little more interested in how and why it collapsed at all
not having been hit by planes or anything.
sympathy collapse?