lets get to the point: So what is debunking?

[scubadiver]

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread231285/pg2

Interesting comment on the above link:

Revelmonk: I am for one tired of hearing people say that the 9/11 theories have been debunked when all that has been offered is an alternative opinion that has serious flaws in the facts.

I think I would agree with this.

[Jay Ref]

[Mr-Bridger]

scubadiver wrote:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread231285/pg2

Interesting comment on the above link:

Revelmonk: I am for one tired of hearing people say that the 9/11 theories have been debunked when all that has been offered is an alternative opinion that has serious flaws in the facts.

I think I would agree with this.

Yes i agree it too, its nothing more than theory against theory

[chipmunk stew]

[Jay Ref]

[marky 54]

debunked should surely mean something has been proven wrong with evidence and no matter how much you pick at it, it still stands up. anything other than that isnt debunked however i see the word used in a way that is as simple as, i answered your question there you go its debunked move on, regardless of anything that can be picked apart. while ever there are doubts over something it isnt debunked. but when it comes to a debate like 9/11 its all a matter of what you believe, if your on the critics side you will firmly believe that something is debunked because thats what you believe from what you know, and the same for truther's thinking that something isnt debunked. ive asked loads of questions before to try to get a clearer picture as to whats what but still aint able to be sure on anything 100% one way or the other regardless of what i think. which is why i have'nt posted much recently. so i think that in each others minds(critics/truthers)we will never agree on anything or come to the same conclusions, even on issues like losing our civil liberties and becoming more like slaves rather than citizens. the only thing im certain on is we aint being told the whole truth about stuff and that dosnt mean 9/11 on its own i mean the wider picture. i cannot believe critics have'nt picked up on some of the issues today that need answers presuming we still live in a democratic society with freedoms ect, again i dont just mean 9/11. it just seems like at times that anything a truther says will be strongly oppossed regardless of the signs or evidence because they have convinced themselves people are just out to start theory's and cause trouble. when infact its just millions of people growing concerned and trying to find the answers. think ive gone of track so ill end this post.

[Bushwacker]

[aggle-rithm]

[chek]

And here again -we have the situation nicely laid out in just a few posts.

In September 2001, the Bush Theory of Perpetual War, justified by the evil attack on 911 comes along.

The 911Truth movement says wait a minute, there is so much that is wrong/ incorrect/ unscientific and politically dumb here - everything from Able Danger to Global Pancakes to Natural Dusty Blast Furnace Theory to WMD - how could they expect anyone with half a brain believe ANY of it?

And the 'critics' say. No no no. All these things are 'explainable'.
And boy, do they 'explain'.
They can drown you in their 'explanations'.

But the funny thing is, that for all their science talk, and no matter with how much detail they 'explain' about photon reflection and absorption, refraction and dispersion, black refuses to become white.
Until you believe it does.

Oh, and yes, yes you're right - Bush is a bad man.
But really, not that bad.
And probably too stupid to front for some murderous cabal.
Really the very idea!
And after all he is a War President, so don't rock any boats.

Just put your fingers in your ears and repeat after me: la la la la la la la.
And everthing will be fine.
There's a good serf.

[Bushwacker]

[chek]

Aw, don't take it personally BW, but you're only one ickle biddy cog in a much larger strategy.

[Bushwacker]

[chek]

[Bushwacker]

[chek]

[Bushwacker]

[SHERITON HOTEL]

The critics are in trouble when they start contradicting each other, there is this resident arch 9/11 inside job denyer on the Channel4 news forum who rationalised the apparent (impossible) vapour trail, photographed from whatever hit the Pentagon as shutter speed blur, then, out came this official looking video of the "757 engine" swallowing one of the lamp poles lamps and then giving off a trail of thick white smoke.

has anyone ever followed the money and really found out where the critics are coming from?

[chek]

[John White]

[Bushwacker]

[Bushwacker]

[John White]

[chipmunk stew]

[John White]

[catfish]

from http://www.tfd.com/debunk

Word History: One can readily see that debunk is constructed from the prefix de-, meaning "to remove," and the word bunk. But what is the origin of the word bunk, denoting the nonsense that is to be removed? Bunk came from a place where much bunk has originated, the United States Congress. During the 16th Congress (1819-1821) Felix Walker, a representative from western North Carolina whose district included Buncombe County, carried on with a dull speech in the face of protests by his colleagues. Walker later explained he had felt obligated "to make a speech for Buncombe." Such a masterful symbol for empty talk could not be ignored by the speakers of the language, and Buncombe, spelled Bunkum in its first recorded appearance in 1828 and later shortened to bunk, became synonymous with claptrap. The response to all this bunk seems to have been delayed, for debunk is not recorded until 1923.