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.

 

Top OS contradictions that silence it's proponents

page: 1
23
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+7 more 
posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 07:37 AM
link   
All, I would like to ask that we keep this thread very focused. The large OS contingent on here wish to pull us into rabbit holes by spouting outrageous conspiracy theories on 9/11, confusing the situation, as if it explains all of their OS problems away. Truthers, please add to these or guide me if I am off base.

1. The official story is a conspiracy theory. I have not been able to get them to admit it yet, they seem to ignore the question, as I have asked the directly several times. Is the official 9/11 story a conspiracy theory?

There is no way they can say it's not, as by definition it is a conspiracy theory. A conspiracy theory, which they like to chide anyone who considers one, is simply a nefarious and secretive plan by two or more individuals.

So, the official story is a conspiracy theory. Further, it is also, IMHO, a wacky conspiracy theory. Nineteen middle eastern hijackers overpower passengers and crew, fly unmolested for long periods of time without so much as one fighter intercept, and crash into and knock over three buildings. That is wacky, again IMHO. In any case, it is by anyone's honest definition a conspiracy theory.

2. The members of the 9/11 committee were highly critical of the official story. They called it a "under funded", "a cover up", "a national scandal", "only the first draft in history", "politically motivated", and they said they were lied to.

Yet, OS'ers cling to the story like its gospel, when its own authors ridicule it. Very strange.

3. Significant eyewitness testimony, including that of multiple explosions was left out of the official report. See item 2 above.

4. The Guardian ran an extensive story, several years after 9/11, saying that a number of the 9/11 hijackers were still alive. Some on here claim the story was retracted. I have asked for proof and received none. If you have it, produce it.

5. The FBI said in 2006 they had no evidence against Bin Laden. Very strange, since the OS'ers like to point to the "confession tape" which was 180 degrees off from what Bin Laden said right after 9/11.

Final point for consideration, although not directly part of the official story. The US government and the CIA have a long history of nefarious activities aimed at the American people, and the world at large. Overthrow of democratically elected governments; flase flags, or planned flase flags, to justify war; involvement in global drug distribution; MK Ultra;and so much more. Why is it impossible to believe these same horrid individuals would conspire on 9/11?

If you want to counter the points above then answer all points please. I may be mistaken or wrong on any single point (except for one and two, they are golden). Any of these alone proves, or provides considerable evidence that the official story is a lie.


edit on 21-2-2015 by Jchristopher5 because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-2-2015 by Jchristopher5 because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-2-2015 by Jchristopher5 because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-2-2015 by Jchristopher5 because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-2-2015 by Jchristopher5 because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-2-2015 by Jchristopher5 because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-2-2015 by Jchristopher5 because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-2-2015 by Jchristopher5 because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-2-2015 by Jchristopher5 because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-2-2015 by Jchristopher5 because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-2-2015 by Jchristopher5 because: I pulled the Pentagon point to "stimulate conversation" on all remaining points.

edit on 21-2-2015 by Jchristopher5 because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 08:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Jchristopher5


4. OS'ers cannot deny that the initial reports in on CNN indicated that they saw little to no signs of airplane wreckage at the Pentagon. A 757 crashes into a steel-reinforced building and leaves no signs. Oh, they give is pictures of a piece of skin and an engine later, but the initial CNN report indicated there were no signs of plane wreckage.

"Initial" media reports were from a distance, this link explains that the POV of the camera was obscured, for instance…

Link

You dismiss the "evidence" of plane parts, but can't show any evidence of anything else. Only a statement-- "little to no signs of airplane wreckage", so who's theorizing?

images

Accusing others of not answering your questions when you don't answer theirs is… priceless.

Watch… What about the plane parts found at the pentagon?



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 08:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Jchristopher5


4. OS'ers cannot deny that the initial reports in on CNN indicated that they saw little to no signs of airplane wreckage at the Pentagon. A 757 crashes into a steel-reinforced building and leaves no signs. Oh, they give is pictures of a piece of skin and an engine later, but the initial CNN report indicated there were no signs of plane wreckage.

"Initial" media reports were from a distance, this link explains that the POV of the camera was obscured, for instance…

Link

You dismiss the "evidence" of plane parts, but can't show any evidence of anything else. Only a statement-- "little to no signs of airplane wreckage", so who's theorizing?

images

Accusing others of not answering your questions when you don't answer theirs is… priceless.

Watch… What about the plane parts found at the pentagon?


You ignored all the other points, conveniently.

Is 9/11 a conspiracy theory?

Why do you cling to OS when it's own authors said what I mentioned above?

All the points please? No cherry picking.



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 08:30 AM
link   
You've done a good job crafting an OP that will only get the responses you want it to get.

"Don't bother answering unless you're going to answer what I tell you to answer." Oh okay, so I can articulate one point but not another, so I'm not allowed to partake in discussion because you say so?

Way to stimulate conversation



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 08:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Jchristopher5


Why do you cling to OS when it's own authors said what I mentioned above?

I don't cling to any of your theories about events, so you know.

ETA: Sorry about that.

By the way, what you call "cherry picking" are holes in your "truth" big enough to drive airliners through.
edit on 21-2-2015 by intrptr because: ETA:



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 08:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
You've done a good job crafting an OP that will only get the responses you want it to get.

"Don't bother answering unless you're going to answer what I tell you to answer." Oh okay, so I can articulate one point but not another, so I'm not allowed to partake in discussion because you say so?

Way to stimulate conversation


Stimulate conversation. A tactic of the OS is to cherry pick and obscure the overall message. Care to answer all the points? Yes, I agree is fine.



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 08:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Jchristopher5

A tactic of a person who can speak to one, or some points, but not all, is to speak to those points and not others that they are ill-informed about.



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 08:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Jchristopher5


Why do you cling to OS when it's own authors said what I mentioned above?

I don't cling to any of your theories about events, so you know.

ETA: Sorry about that.

By the way, what you call "cherry picking" are holes in your "truth" big enough to drive airliners through.

Fine, the Pentagon point is removed. There are now 5. Care to tackle each one?

The five remaining points prove the official story is a lie. It's own author's said several things which back this up, which is one of my remaining points.



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 08:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Jchristopher5

A tactic of a person who can speak to one, or some points, but not all, is to speak to those points and not others that they are ill-informed about.

I agree. Let's see if any OS'ers will take the challenge and address all of these points. I am guessing no.



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 08:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Jchristopher5

Yea maybe you'll get a bunch of people to abide by the rules you've laid down specifying the only ones allowed to respond to you.

Or maybe somebody will come along and point you to 911myths, which seems to rebut each and every one of your points.

Then again, I don't think it particularly matters what anybody has to say, unless they check in to agree with you and drop off some stars and flags



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 08:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Jchristopher5

Yea maybe you'll get a bunch of people to abide by the rules you've laid down specifying the only ones allowed to respond to you.

Or maybe somebody will come along and point you to 911myths, which seems to rebut each and every one of your points.

Then again, I don't think it particularly matters what anybody has to say, unless they check in to agree with you and drop off some stars and flags


You miss the point Shamrock. Anytime any objection to the OS is brought up, a flurry of posters point out the most ridiculous of the 9/11 conspiracies, and try to pin these beliefs on "truthers" to obscure the message.

I am asking that if you really believe the official story then answer these specific points. Sorry if you find that difficult, or too much of a burden.

I also notice that not one OS'er has taken the challenge yet.

Incidently, I could care less about "stars and flags". I want people to ask questions and you start with the basics. It is easy to poke holes in the OS, but truthers sometimes fall for the traps the OS'ers throw out there. That is the reason for my request to address all points.
edit on 21-2-2015 by Jchristopher5 because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-2-2015 by Jchristopher5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 08:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Jchristopher5


Fine, the Pentagon point is removed. There are now 5. Care to tackle each one?

Since you "answered" me, I'll answer your overall question…

Yes, the government lied to us about 911.



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 09:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Jchristopher5


Fine, the Pentagon point is removed. There are now 5. Care to tackle each one?

Since you "answered" me, I'll answer your overall question…

Yes, the government lied to us about 911.


Can you elaborate, or answer the points in my OP?



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 09:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Jchristopher5

Since he's not an OS'er, why the need to address all your points?

I, for one, am not an OS'er. I buy parts of it, but not all of it. Nor do I buy all of the truthers version of events.

You say it's easy to poke holes in the OS. Well, it's just as easy to poke holes in any number of truther theories also. You're guilty of doing the very same thing you accuse OSers of doing.

"5. The FBI said in 2006 they had no evidence against Bin Laden. " False. The FBI said they had no HARD evidence. And then never explained what that ambiguous statement meant.

See what selective editing of one little word can do?



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 09:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Jchristopher5

Elements within the government used 911 unjustly as an excuse to wage endless aggressive wars against nations faaar from America. They been doing that ever since.

But they always do that. its called a "False Flag".



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 09:27 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

it appears that the OP edited out that contradiction after your post. i guess that's one down.
not only does your links confirm it, they found a piece of landing gear wedged between two buildings and body parts in the debris land fill 12 years later. the landing gear has been traced back to one of the planes.


Home> U.S. Sept. 11 Attack Plane Landing Gear Found in New York
edit on 21-2-2015 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 09:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Jchristopher5

Since he's not an OS'er, why the need to address all your points?

I, for one, am not an OS'er. I buy parts of it, but not all of it. Nor do I buy all of the truthers version of events.

You say it's easy to poke holes in the OS. Well, it's just as easy to poke holes in any number of truther theories also. You're guilty of doing the very same thing you accuse OSers of doing.

"5. The FBI said in 2006 they had no evidence against Bin Laden. " False. The FBI said they had no HARD evidence. And then never explained what that ambiguous statement meant.

See what selective editing of one little word can do?

I am not a lawyer, nor to I play one on TV, but let me ask you this. If they thought the so-called "confession tape" was real, would that not be sufficient evidence?



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 09:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Jchristopher5

Elements within the government used 911 unjustly as an excuse to wage endless aggressive wars against nations faaar from America. They been doing that ever since.

But they always do that. its called a "False Flag".


Okay, so if you believe that, which is horrendous, why are you so critical of posts like my OP? This is confusing to me.

Why not direct your anger to those lying to us, not those interested in the truth?
edit on 21-2-2015 by Jchristopher5 because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-2-2015 by Jchristopher5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 09:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Jchristopher5

As is pointed out on the site I mentioned above, that point is already addressed.

The person who made that statement wasn't an agent, he was a press officer. The FBI does believe they have evidence linking UBL to 9/11.

If I make a tape claiming responsibility for 9/11, should that be accepted as evidence of my involvement? Or should people maybe look for other stuff?



posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 10:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Jchristopher5

As is pointed out on the site I mentioned above, that point is already addressed.

The person who made that statement wasn't an agent, he was a press officer. The FBI does believe they have evidence linking UBL to 9/11.

If I make a tape claiming responsibility for 9/11, should that be accepted as evidence of my involvement? Or should people maybe look for other stuff?


If you were the person suspected of the crime, and you had a video confession tape that was thought to be authentic, then yes, you should be considered the prime suspect.

However, regarding 9/11 we know that you were not considered even a minor suspect, so your question is ridiculous in context.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join