It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

This guy admits something big, but falls short, why?

page: 12
37
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 08:23 AM
link   
a reply to: lexyghot

The Official Story that you support here failed many years ago. It cannot withstand even the most superficial scrutiny.




posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 01:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: lexyghot

The Official Story that you support here failed many years ago. It cannot withstand even the most superficial scrutiny.



We're talking about whether or not the FDNY secretly demolished 7 or not.

You seem to think that not only they did, but kept it secret cuz some of the ranking guys are inonit.

When asked for extraordinary evidence for such an outlandish claim, you supply NOTHING to back your fantasy.

Your claim fails miserably.

Therefore, you're falling back on a Gish Gallop. An all inclusive claim that the OS fails to distract from the fact that you've got nothing. This might work on some, but Gish Gallops do not work on me. Stay on point. Provide evidence that the FDNY demolishes buildings. Cuz this is what I'm hearing from you:

7's fall doesn't look "right", therefore CD>Larry told the FDNY to demolish it>FDNY demolishes buildings>Proof that 7's fall was due to CD>Proof that Larry told the FDNY to demolish it>proof that the FDNY demolishes buildings.

That's a circular argument to those of us that don't fall for fantasies.



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 04:19 PM
link   
a reply to: lexyghot

Gish Gallop? I've never heard of that, but I guess I'm happy for you that it "doesn't work" on you.

What does seem to work on you is government propaganda asserted without any sort of proof at all. I don't see how anybody today can actually believe that nonsensical story after all we've learned in the last few years. Whatever blows one's skirt, I suppose.



posted on Sep, 30 2014 @ 09:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: lexyghot

Gish Gallop? I've never heard of that, but I guess I'm happy for you that it "doesn't work" on you.

What does seem to work on you is government propaganda asserted without any sort of proof at all. I don't see how anybody today can actually believe that nonsensical story after all we've learned in the last few years. Whatever blows one's skirt, I suppose.



I notice that you have provided, yet again, zero evidence that the FDNY demolishes buildings.

We all know why. Cuz you can't.



posted on Oct, 1 2014 @ 08:32 AM
link   
a reply to: lexyghot

I guess that makes us even, eh?

I cannot prove (and never asserted) that the FDNY demolishes buildings, and you cannot prove any element of the official story to be true.




posted on Oct, 1 2014 @ 10:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander

I cannot prove (and never asserted) that the FDNY demolishes buildings,


Ah that pesky internet:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Me:
I'll ask you the same question.

Why doesn't the FDNY admit that they pulled it for safety reasons?

Nobody would fault them for that.
You:
Are you serious? FDNY won't admit that for the same reason that the Pentagon won't admit there was no 757 in their front yard--it would formally acknowledge the hoax.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You:
It seems likely that ELEMENTS of FDNY were in on it. That is, certain high ranking individuals.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You:

Certain individuals, not all individuals.

Somebody within the command structure had to know, because they were announcing its imminent collapse for perhaps several hours.


You accuse the FDNY, or certain members, of being inonit.

You bring absolutely zero evidence, other than circular and personal distrust of anything gubmint, to back this claim.

So, not only do you lie about you NOT claiming the FDNY blew the building, you now realize that you have made it up with zero evidence.

Is this the type of bilge that passes for intelligent discussion in your view?



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 08:59 AM
link   
a reply to: lexyghot

Are you that desperate?

Understanding and stating that it is likely (judging from the historical record) that certain individuals in the FDNY is not the same as saying that FDNY "demolishes buildings".

That's like saying that an individual or 2 in the FAA would destroy certain ATC tapes means that the FAA "conducts false flag operations."

Yes, given your chosen position, I suppose you are that desperate....



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 09:52 AM
link   
The photos were given to Luke of We Are Change and released on their website here -- wearechange.org...

Like many of you, I saw the video first and sought out the images only to find there was really nothing new to see.

A lot of hype and hoopla over nothing. I assume Luke felt the same since he didn't make a new video discussing all of the new revelations from these images.

The truth is out there somewhere, and I'm starting to doubt that we will ever see any of it.



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 05:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: lexyghot

Are you that desperate?

Understanding and stating that it is likely (judging from the historical record) that certain individuals in the FDNY is not the same as saying that FDNY "demolishes buildings".

That's like saying that an individual or 2 in the FAA would destroy certain ATC tapes means that the FAA "conducts false flag operations."

Yes, given your chosen position, I suppose you are that desperate....



Not a good analogy.

It would be better to say that the FDNY doesn't conduct internal investigations cuz only a few higher ups actually do it.

But it's good to see that you admit that it is indeed your contention that there is a secret faction in the FDNY that blows up buildings, even when there's gonna obviously be a continual rotation of guys that do this job, and nobody has ever come out to admit it.

And this doesn't even broach the subject of your claim the claim that there was preplanted explosives in 7.

To put it simply, yours is an outrageous claim. You need extraordinarily strong evidence to be believeable.

You got nothing.

Your claim is rubbish.



posted on Oct, 3 2014 @ 08:18 AM
link   
a reply to: lexyghot

Your beliefs demonstrate a strong naivete.

The official story which you defend is so full of holes it's not funny. 13 years of research have shown the official story to be simply unbelievable. You and I do not share the same illusions.




posted on Oct, 5 2014 @ 08:10 AM
link   
Want an explanation?

Better read fast.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Oct, 5 2014 @ 05:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: lexyghot

Your beliefs demonstrate a strong naivete.

The official story which you defend is so full of holes it's not funny. 13 years of research have shown the official story to be simply unbelievable. You and I do not share the same illusions.



More bluster.

And still no strong evidence that the FDNY demolishes buildings. Nor anything about "certain higher ranking members."

Nothing.

And yet you expect a sane person to take you seriously? Why should they?



posted on Oct, 5 2014 @ 05:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Agent_USA_Supporter


You would think after you see a mess airliner flying over head like that in NY city at such low street level you would see people and tourists would react to it.

They did. They got out their cameras and everyone saw the second strike. Thats why they staggered them… for effect.

To make absolutely sure the second one was on everyones camera.



posted on Oct, 5 2014 @ 09:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Agent_USA_Supporter


You would think after you see a mess airliner flying over head like that in NY city at such low street level you would see people and tourists would react to it.

. Thats why they staggered them… for effect.

To make absolutely sure the second one was on everyones camera.



Because otherwise these rookie pilots would have hit both towers simultaneously.

Uhrm, no.



posted on Oct, 5 2014 @ 09:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Psynic

aww, come on it was a four plane event, not one.

Lets see they didn't want there to be any news footage, got it.



posted on Oct, 11 2014 @ 06:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: lexyghot

Your beliefs demonstrate a strong naivete.

The official story which you defend is so full of holes it's not funny. 13 years of research have shown the official story to be simply unbelievable. You and I do not share the same illusions.



Well, I've given you a week to come up with some strong evidence that certain members in the FDNY blew up 7.

I see you still have none. I'm not surprised.

I have zero illusions about 9/11. I understand what happened.

You appear to have zero illusions either. DElusions are another matter.



posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 09:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Psynic

originally posted by: Divin3F3nrus
a reply to: SLAYER69


On the 13th anniversary of 9/11, I got together with a mutual friend who shared his pieces of the puzzle.

















edit on -05:00041410242014-10-28T09:24:04-05:00 by Psynic because: (no reason given)

edit on -05:00301410272014-10-28T09:27:30-05:00 by Psynic because: Where does the "There, is that better" message that just flashed on my screen come from?



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 04:49 AM
link   
I have to agree that it's hard to prove that FDNY blows up buildings, with the most probable reason being that it doesn't happen. In the debate about WTC 7 though, no matter what side you're on it's probably a moot point. The one argument I can never accept and which is commonly used as a final dagger for the OS side is that sooo many people would always have to be in on it. This is simply not true for most of the more plausible conspiracy scenarios, much like it's possible that only 19 men and a handful other supporting cast members carried out the original plan. For example, If the official story was that there were no planes and "conspiracy theorists" were trying to prove the hijackers were real they'd have evidence to show they got in the country with questionably awarded visas, trained for a year or more on US soil in US schools and didn't care if they learned how to land or takeoff, and evidence that the CIA, FBI, knew about them but for some reason didn't stop them. I guarantee the fall back argument would be "too many people would have had to be in on that, there's no way every single person would have gone along with that or kept quiet about it. Someone would have stopped these guys." Yet this is possibly exactly what happened. I'm not saying which side I'm on at the moment, but I'm inclined to believe it would take at least a couple of days to prep the building, and Silverstein's explanation about pulling the men, not the explosives, seems very reasonable. Even though I believe this aspect, it doesn't make me any more convinced that it's not at least a possibility that in the controlled demolition theory whoever rigged WTC 1 and 2 also pre rigged WTC 7 and both Silverstein and all members of the FDNY had no idea and wouldn't have had to be in on it.


reply to: lexyghot



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 09:43 AM
link   
a reply to: lexyghot

I never claimed FDNY demolishes buildings, and I never claimed that they did so on 11 September.

In your dishonest style of posting, you must use innuendo to suggest that I did. You must employ deception to make it sound like I did.

I understand your frustration.

The official story is a bright & shining lie, embraced only by the gullible amongst us.



posted on Nov, 1 2014 @ 08:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: lexyghot

It seems likely that ELEMENTS of FDNY were in on it. That is, certain high ranking individuals.



You say that elements are in on it.

Since you're being coy, I'll just surmise that this means that you believe that while the FDNY doesn't plant charges to demo buildings, "elements" inside the FDNY were aware that there were demo charges in 7 and have stayed silent about this knowledge.

At any rate, no matter what you claim, you STILL haven't brought any extraordinarily strong evidence to show how you've laid your foundation in order for you to believe such a ridiculous thing.

Therefore, it is proven that you cannot think for yourself and are only capable of repeating outlandish lies. I have no idea how you figured that repeating unsubstantiated lies would do here. It is a mystery why truthers repeat such stupid lies.

The only way to show me to be wrong is to bring your evidence. But we both know you can't....



new topics




 
37
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join