Truthers and Debunkers Unite.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Bilk22

 

Is it just a coincidence you only post threads to the 911 forum? Or is that too conspiratorial for you?

Its not a coincidence - its the only forum on this website that I am interested in. You do realize, of course, that there are forums beyond this website, right? So to say that I only post threads to the 911 forum is a tyical truther half-truth. I post threads on other forums, just none on this website.

Ah I see. Just a coincidence then. LOL

Originally posted by Bilk22

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Bilk22

 

Is it just a coincidence you only post threads to the 911 forum? Or is that too conspiratorial for you?

Its not a coincidence - its the only forum on this website that I am interested in. You do realize, of course, that there are forums beyond this website, right? So to say that I only post threads to the 911 forum is a tyical truther half-truth. I post threads on other forums, just none on this website.

Ah I see. Just a coincidence then. LOL

Uh....no. Its not a coincidence. Its quite on purpose. This is the only forum on this website I have an interest in, therefore it is the only forum, on this website, where I post. Do you know what "coincidence" means?

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by maxella1

 

"Definitely secondary explosions" What does that mean?

The primary explosion was the explosion casued by the plane impact. The secondary explosions are anything exploding as a result of the primary explosion. Why do you need this explained?

I need explonation because it wasnt given by the firemen who witnessed it. Since the explosions they heard were in the lobby where nothing was burning. Ant it was a terrorist attack, not just a regular structure fire, and the witnesses of these explosions are professional fireman... Secondary explosions mean exactly what it sounds like. Unless the witnesses clarify that there were other things in the lobby that exploded.

Really? Well, go ahead and ask an actual question. I'll try and answer it if its a genuine question. Not just stating some pseudo-fact with a question mark at the end. Like "Reichstag fire"?

I got no more questions for you hooper. I have read all that i needed to see what you are doing here.

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by Bilk22

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Bilk22

 

Is it just a coincidence you only post threads to the 911 forum? Or is that too conspiratorial for you?

Its not a coincidence - its the only forum on this website that I am interested in. You do realize, of course, that there are forums beyond this website, right? So to say that I only post threads to the 911 forum is a tyical truther half-truth. I post threads on other forums, just none on this website.

Ah I see. Just a coincidence then. LOL

Uh....no. Its not a coincidence. Its quite on purpose. This is the only forum on this website I have an interest in, therefore it is the only forum, on this website, where I post. Do you know what "coincidence" means?

Yeah I can google it LOL So admittedly you troll the 911 forum. OK thanks for being honest.

reply to post by maxella1

Since the explosions they heard were in the lobby where nothing was burning.

Actually, without going back and checking, I think you'll find that they were talking about something they heard when they were in or near the lobby, not necessarily meaning that the explosions were in the lobby. Besides, the lobbies in those buildings were huge, you really couldn't see every square inch of the whole thing from any one point. So you can be standing in position A and hear something like an explosion and only be guessing that the sound was coming from the lobby. Could have just as easily been outside the lobby or in the mezanine above the lobby.

Sorry, as a truth seeker I cannot allow you to dilute our cause with inanities.

Debunkers are official story fundamentalists who object to people who challenge the government's official story.

We truth seekers have an inherent and inalienable right to dissent yet debunkers get on our cases because we do not trust the government.

Truth seekers like us want the truth while debunkers are purely focused on us and harangue. They are unproductive while truth seekers engage in a searching discourse.

We truth seekers can talk amongst ourselves, while debunkers are dependent on us for discourse and their existence.

Truth seekers are not accountable to debunkers but the government is accountable to us. If debunkers are so fervent about their convictions, then they should go a head and march on the streets in favour of the government's official story and stay the hell away from us.

reply to post by Bilk22

Yeah I can google it LOL So admittedly you troll the 911 forum. OK thanks for being honest.

Troll? I post and correspond and engage.

Originally posted by Ilovecatbinlady
Sorry, as a truth seeker I cannot allow you to dilute our cause with inanities.

Debunkers are official story fundamentalists who object to people who challenge the government's official story.

We truth seekers have an inherent and inalienable right to dissent yet debunkers get on our cases because we do not trust the government.

Truth seekers like us want the truth while debunkers are purely focused on us and harangue. They are unproductive while truth seekers engage in a searching discourse.

We truth seekers can talk amongst ourselves, while debunkers are dependent on us for discourse and their existence.

Truth seekers are not accountable to debunkers but the government is accountable to us. If debunkers are so fervent about their convictions, then they should go a head and march on the streets in favour of the government's official story and stay the hell away from us.

edit on 16-7-2012 by Ilovecatbinlady because: (no reason given)

The OSers often claim truthers and UFO enthusiasts are "in need of help" or "delusional". One wonders what frame of mind one needs to be in to register to a web site dedicated to alternate view points and conspiracies, just to post opposing opinions of said conspiracies and alternate view points, ALL DAY LONG. No that must take a certain, special type of individual.

reply to post by hooper

Actually, without going back and checking

You should go back and check. Then get back to me.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by crawdad1914

 

Lots of opinion in your response, and that is fine. But that is all it is, opinion.

So that's your "out"? If you see something that contradicts your bias -declare it "opinion" and move on?

Care to address specifically "Gulf of Tonkin" and what McNamara had to say on the subject?
Ever see "Fog of War"

No.

Do you honestly believe governments including ours do not, and have not lied and deceived and manipulated events to push forward agendas?

You keep using the word "governments" as if the government was just one person. Government consist of millions of persons, elected, appointed and employed. Just because one person in government may have told a lie does not give a rational person carte blanche to hold everything as a lie. At least not a rational person. However, if in order to satisfy your bias you need a contradicting fact to be false I guess you can just unilateraly declare all facts as false if you can manage to create some link between the sources.

Jeepers! Iran Contra? MK-Ultra, to name a very small few.

Don't see the connection. Ever hear of the Tennesse Valley Authority? Or the Interstate Highway System? Are those lies?

So what I get out of all this is that you are not aware of Sec-Def Mcnamara's basic admittance that one of the pivotal events that pushed us into the Vietnam conflict was an admitted sham. May I suggest you read his Memoir's, or simply watch the 2 hour documentary I referenced?
You also cant digest the link I made on 2 well documented cases in history showing evidence of our governments corruption and conspiracy. Both of these examples are well documented and both were investigated and shut down by the senate, after the damage was done. Would you have been a denier of those events back in the day? I would have to assume you would have been. But with the 20/20 vision looking back on History there simply is not the excuse for ignorance if you sincerly are interested in the truth.

I could go on and on with examples of conspiracy "theory" that becomes conspiracy fact after the dust settles, I am sure many others on these boards could as well. But what is the point?

Peace out Bro.

reply to post by Ilovecatbinlady

Debunkers are official story fundamentalists who object to people who challenge the government's official story.

No we object to lies being accepted as fact.
Remember the thermite thing? We don't hear much about it anymore.

Im new to this forum, and I am certain this has been discussed before, But if someone could relay to me the ATS Debunkers version, of how the BBC was able to report on the Collapse of the WT-7 building prior to it falling I would very much apreciate it. Im curious how that debate went down on this forum.

Thank you!

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by Ilovecatbinlady

 

Debunkers are official story fundamentalists who object to people who challenge the government's official story.

No we object to lies being accepted as fact.
Remember the thermite thing? We don't hear much about it anymore.

Why are you saying its a lie? Or its only a lie because you dont believe it? As far as i know nobody admitted that they made it up.

Originally posted by crawdad1914
Im new to this forum, and I am certain this has been discussed before, But if someone could relay to me the ATS Debunkers version, of how the BBC was able to report on the Collapse of the WT-7 building prior to it falling I would very much apreciate it. Im curious how that debate went down on this forum.

Thank you!

edit on 16-7-2012 by crawdad1914 because: SPELLING ERROR

Everybody was very confused on 9/11, and BBC just made an honest mistake. You see the psychic they consulted predicted that it was going to collapse, but BBC reported that it already collapsed. There was only one guy who wasnt confused that day his name is Mark Walsh aka psycho Mark, he figured out the exact cause of the collase right there At ground zero on 9/11.



www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by maxella1

Yes I do.

Do you think that actual false flags were ever used by governments in the past?

Yes I do, although the Reichstag fire isn't technically a false flag operation. A better example would be the staged attack on the German radio station on the Polish frontier, which was engineered to give Germany the excuse to attack Poland.

Although there is little legitimate reason whatsoever for Polish soldiers to ever want to attack a German radio station, the Communists of 1930's Germany definitely would have the actual desire to attempt to destroy the Reichstag to show the weakness of the Weimar Republic. It was simply their horrid mistake that they didn't understand it wasn't the Weimar Republic anymore.

What is your point?

Its not a coincidence - its the only forum on this website that I am interested in. You do realize, of course, that there are forums beyond this website, right? So to say that I only post threads to the 911 forum is a tyical truther half-truth. I post threads on other forums, just none on this website.

Out of all of the interesting topics on ATS, your only interest here is the 911 forum, specifically arguing against all but the official account? sorry if this is incorrect, I can only see your most recent 800 posts out of 5400 or so since 2009. But do you see how some could be skeptical of your motive? I would be interested in your posts on other forums. I'm just curious because all i know about you is what you write here. Of course, you are welcome to write anything you want

Originally posted by maxella1

Originally posted by crawdad1914
Im new to this forum, and I am certain this has been discussed before, But if someone could relay to me the ATS Debunkers version, of how the BBC was able to report on the Collapse of the WT-7 building prior to it falling I would very much apreciate it. Im curious how that debate went down on this forum.

Thank you!

edit on 16-7-2012 by crawdad1914 because: SPELLING ERROR

Everybody was very confused on 9/11, and BBC just made an honest mistake. You see the psychic they consulted predicted that it was going to collapse, but BBC reported that it already collapsed. There was only one guy who wasnt confused that day his name is Mark Walsh aka psycho Mark, he figured out the exact cause of the collase right there At ground zero on 9/11.

Yes, that sounds right in line with, and makes as much sense as the OS.
Thanks!

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by Ilovecatbinlady

 

Debunkers are official story fundamentalists who object to people who challenge the government's official story.

No we object to lies being accepted as fact.
Remember the thermite thing? We don't hear much about it anymore.

It is not our job to explain how it was done. What of thermite and what has that got to do with me? It wasn't me that "pulled" the towers down so you can shove your fake indignation and crocodile tears.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

What is your point?

No point.. Just curious....

reply to post by crawdad1914


I added a video and a link to another thread after you replied. Check it out.