If Someone Proved one point Would Accept the rest?

a reply to: Informer1958

Now you are the one making up garbage.

Apparently, the videos and photos proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are incorrect.

a reply to: Informer1958

BS! I been in the military, so was my father you are full of it!

So, you are implying that you and your father would have taken part in the killing thousands of your own citizens if ordered to do so.

I got your number.

a reply to: skyeagle409

BS! I been in the military, so was my father you are full of it!

So, you are implying that you and your father would have taken part in the killing thousands of your own citizens if ordered to do so.

I got your number.

Stop making up lies. I never implied that! Your just trying to bait me. I call it TROLLING. I am done talking with you.

a reply to: Informer1958

Let me put it this way. You have absolutely no evidence of explosives, thermite nor evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.

a reply to: Informer1958

Whoa, hold up there Informer1958, i was being sarcastic and giving skyeagle409 the business for refusing to address anything i presented to him. I'm not really sure how you thought that was serious since i had been giving him a hard time for my previous several posts. And just in case all that escaped anyone, I even said I was being sarcastic at the end of my post. So in the future don't ever compare me to skyeagle409 or insinuate he and I think along the same lines.

As for you skyeagle409, you said ..."Now, the challenge for you is to prove a government 9/11 cover-up and provide the evidence"

I just provided you numerous ... pages of evidence showing instances of coverups to which you refused to respond or even acknowledge. I put it right in your face in response to an assertion you had previously made. Just because you refuse to read it or acknowledge it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

But to both of you, why do you guys continue to argue of the WTC's collapse? It's been 14 years and everyone is still in the same spot they were when the argument began. You aren't going to change anyone's mind. Why not concentrate your energy on provable things? Informer1958 you can continue to argue with skyeagle409 for the next 5 years and neither of you will get anywhere. Just know what you know and move on. Every thread in this forum eventually ends up talking about the WTC collapse. It never fails. Guys, you aren't making any progress.

a reply to: RomanMaroni

I had to go back and read your post again and I surly do owe you an apology.
There is no excuse for my action towards you and I hope you accept my apology.

Your are correct about me and skyeagle409 over this 911 issue. I have already made it clear skyeagle409 that I know longer want to discuss this issue with him any longer.

I have had enough of the name calling and his Juvenal behavior. It is unprofessional to say the lease.

Thank you for bringing this to my attention I had misread your original post.

Any real good conspiracy theorist would be lookin at something else, of greater importance, that occured elsewhere around the same time. While all eyes are on the bank robbery the thief steals the whole town.

a reply to: Informer1958

No problem. We've all misread things or misunderstood things and responded incorrectly before. I did it earlier in this thread to samkent and had to do the same. My responses to skyeagle were a little out of my character as well because I was trying to show him how irrational he was being by sarcastically being just as irrational, but as you can see I failed as well.

I didn't jump in to this thread to try to argue any points or tell anyone they are wrong, I just jumped in because skyeagle409 had posted some impressive credentials about is airline experience. I just had a question about how navigation works, and i figured this guy can answer it, and I will take his word for it. Instead of responding to my question, he starts telling me about Hani Hanjour and what all conspiracy theorists claim, some mechanics stealing jets and how you fly into a target by looking at it through the windshield. I had to reread my post thinking that I had worded it poorly, but no, I was simply just asking about how navigation works on a jet. If you look back at the postings, you will see that skyeagle never really answered anything I asked him. But I thanked him and told him he had settled my suspicions and explained why i was asking.

He then started making assertions about what I think and what I believe. He attempted to correct me by assuming what my questions are and telling me I am wrong. I showed him in fact he was wrong, and he just acted like that never happened and continued on with his debunking of conspiracies he says I believe in, when in fact I don't and told him I don't. So he just kept on rolling along debunking anything he could throw out and tell me that is what I believe. Then I again show him where he is wrong with another assertion and he just kept on rolling along as if that, too, didn't happen. And the bad thing about all that is, he thinks he schooled me. He thinks he dropped knowledge all over the place and debunked all the conspiracies he pinned on me despite me telling him I don't believe in those things he is mentioning.

If you think you are ever going to get through to a person like that, you are wrong. So I wanted to tell you that so you didn't get all frustrated and let it get to you. I'm glad you realized it. I wanted to expand on some of the incidents I had posted, but why? He didn't even read my original post. I would be ignorant to think he would read another one.

a reply to: Informer1958

I had to go back and read your post again and I surly do owe you an apology.
There is no excuse for my action towards you and I hope you accept my apology.

The is the way a typical Truther does business when it comes to a debate. Fire off in any direction without doing any homework to clear the surrounding area.

If you are going to debate, cease with posting bogus references that were debunked years ago and do some real homework for a change.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Just stop skyeagle409. He already said he is done talking to you about this. You could, however, learn something from him. Notice how he read my post, did his research, saw he was incorrect and apologized. Instead of seeing this as how a man should act and carry himself, you try to pile on him over it. I don't agree with him on some things he was saying, but I have so much more respect for someone like that than someone who carries himself the way you have in this thread. Instead of responding to him, why don't you respond to me?

I'm a "truther" and have only fired off in one direction. You, in response, fired off in every direction except the one that was the topic. A topic you brought up. You try to tell how to debate, but it's you that seems to lack in this area.

a reply to: RomanMaroni

Just stop skyeagle409. He already said he is done talking to you about this.

I wanted to let him know that it is time for him to start doing some homework for a change, and do it right when he does.

You could, however, learn something from him. Notice how he read my post, did his research, saw he was incorrect and apologized.

If he had done some real homework, he would have no reason to argue with me. Over the years, I cannot tell you how many times I have had to correct the CT folks because they were posting what I knew, were hoaxed and bogus videos and photos and disinformation. Case in point, posting that the 9/11 airliners were flown under remote control. Did they really think the airlines would have grounded their aircraft for many months in order to have their aircraft illegally modified to fly under remote control?

Just the other day, I posted a hoaxed video of WTC 7 in order to make my point very clear that the CT folks were posting hoax and bogus videos and photos, thinking the videos and photos supported their cases. Well lo and behold, it didn't take very long before one of the CT folks posted that same hoaxed video during his argument with me claiming, that the video was proof that explosives were used to bring down WTC 7. He failed to notice the flying saucer that was added and the fact the video depicted WTC 7 in reversed imagery. Simply amazing!!

One more unfounded conspiracy theory of many, was the passport from one of the 9/11 hijackers. The CT folks claimed that since no passport could have survived a plane crash, the passport was planted by the government. No matter how many times I told them that such documents can, and do, survive airplane crashes, but they were undeterred, so I let the debate go on for some time before I pulled out a photo of a passport and a dollar bill that survived a fiery airplane crash in Nepal. It was case-closed after that, but the questions are, why did I have to post photos of recovered documents from other crash sites to make my point very clear to them?

Relying on hoaxed and bogus videos, photos and disinformation from conspiracy websites is typical of the way they do business on a regular basis.

Instead of seeing this as how a man should act and carry himself, you try to pile on him over it. I don't agree with him on some things he was saying, but I have so much more respect for someone like that than someone who carries himself the way you have in this thread. Instead of responding to him,...

All too often, I find myself repeatedly posting the same references time after time. For an example, the argument over free fall speed. I have posted videos and photos proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that none of the WTC buildings collapsed at free fall speed, which was clearly evident by the fact that dust plumes and debris, which are falling at free fall speed, are outpacing the collapse and striking the ground while the collapse is still in progress many stories above the ground. With the evidence in hand, why are they arguing against the evidence? it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out.

...why don't you respond to me?

Go right ahead and fire away!

a reply to: RomanMaroni

Thank you RomanMaroni, I see what you mean, he just came back baiting for a fight.

I cant stand dealing with irrational ignorance. I always let them have the last word so they will go away.

There are those that love to embrace ignorance and then there are those who continue to search for truth.

I know what you mean about the question you ask him. Never got a proper response, neither have I.

a reply to: Informer1958

Best part is he seems to be unaware I have even posted prior in this thread. I told him to respond to me and he tells me to "fire away." As if I haven't already fired. He is responding to my reply saying that he is refusing to address the points i made in regards to a topic he brought up. So he's like "fire away" as if I haven't brought anything up yet.

See what I mean. He's on some different level stuff.

a reply to: skyeagle409

ok skyeagle409, I will bring up an issue that counters the Commission report and your preexisting belief. Earlier in this thread you told me about Hani (Hanjour) flying Flight 77. In my list of "blunders'" that you claim to already be familiar with and have no questions about, there is reference to a November 25 2007 London Times article. The article is about Luai Sakra, an al-Qaeda leader imprisoned in Turkey who allegedly was also a CIA informant before 9/11. The Times says, “According to Sakra, Nawaf Alhazmi was a veteran operative who went on to pilot Flight 77. Although this is at odds with the official account, which says the plane was flown by another hijacker, it is plausible and might answer one of the mysteries of 9/11,” namely, why the FBI claims Hani Hanjour was the pilot of that plane, when many reports suggest Hanjour was a bad pilot. Although none of the official accounts such as the 9/11 Commission report claim that Alhazmi was a pilot, there is considerable evidence to suggest that he was:
*In December 1999, Alhazmi was taught how to use a computer flight simulator program while in an al-Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan.
*On April 4, 2000, Alhazmi took one day’s worth of flying lessons, and his instructor later claims he did quite well and was already almost capable of taking off and landing on his own.
*Near the end of 2000, he told two unconnected associates that he was in Arizona and learning to fly with Hanjour.
*On March 19, 2001, he bought flight deck videos for Boeing 747s and a Boeing 777.
*On March 23, 2001, he bought an aeronautical chart covering the northeastern US.
*In July 2001, he and Hanjour appear to have rented an aircraft together in New Jersey. Alhazmi’s credit card was used to pay for the aircraft rental, as well as fuel in Maryland.
*Neighbors will later claim that just days before the 9/11 attacks, Alhazmi was practicing flying on a computer flight simulator program.
*In 2002, al-Qaeda associate Ramzi bin al-Shibh will claim in an interview several months before his arrest that Alhazmi was one of the 9/11 pilots.

What information did you come up with to counter this article to make you know Hanjour was the pilot?

a reply to: RomanMaroni

ok skyeagle409, I will bring up an issue that counters the Commission report and your preexisting belief. Earlier in this thread you told me about Hani (Hanjour) flying Flight 77. In my list of "blunders'" that you claim to already be familiar with and have no questions about, there is reference to a November 25 2007 London Times article. The article is about Luai Sakra, an al-Qaeda leader imprisoned in Turkey who allegedly was also a CIA informant before 9/11. The Times says, “According to Sakra, Nawaf Alhazmi was a veteran operative who went on to pilot Flight 77. Although this is at odds with the official account, which says the plane was flown by another hijacker, it is plausible and might answer one of the mysteries of 9/11,” namely, why the FBI claims Hani Hanjour was the pilot of that plane, when many reports suggest Hanjour was a bad pilot.

He couldn't have been that bad considering that Hani held a commercial pilots license, which requires a skill level far about that of a private pilot. The FAA issued Commercial Pilot certificate #2576802 to Hani on April 15, 1999.

Although none of the official accounts such as the 9/11 Commission report claim that Alhazmi was a pilot, there is considerable evidence to suggest that he was:
*In December 1999, Alhazmi was taught how to use a computer flight simulator program while in an al-Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan.
*On April 4, 2000, Alhazmi took one day’s worth of flying lessons, and his instructor later claims he did quite well and was already almost capable of taking off and landing on his own.
*Near the end of 2000, he told two unconnected associates that he was in Arizona and learning to fly with Hanjour.
*On March 19, 2001, he bought flight deck videos for Boeing 747s and a Boeing 777.
*On March 23, 2001, he bought an aeronautical chart covering the northeastern US.
*In July 2001, he and Hanjour appear to have rented an aircraft together in New Jersey. Alhazmi’s credit card was used to pay for the aircraft rental, as well as fuel in Maryland.
*Neighbors will later claim that just days before the 9/11 attacks, Alhazmi was practicing flying on a computer flight simulator program.
*In 2002, al-Qaeda associate Ramzi bin al-Shibh will claim in an interview several months before his arrest that Alhazmi was one of the 9/11 pilots.

What information did you come up with to counter this article to make you know Hanjour was the pilot?

HANI HANJOUR

911myths.com...

a reply to: skyeagle409

Once again, you fail to answer the question. The question wasn't whether Hanjour was a good or bad pilot, or if he had a commercial pilot's license, the question was ... What information did you come up with to counter this article to make you know Hanjour was the pilot?

The link your provided doesn't say if he piloted the plane or not. It just says "9/11/2001 ... HANJOUR boarded American Airlines Flight 77 at Dulles International Airport, Washington, DC, seat IB. [American Airlines manifest; Dulles security video tapes]"

How does that answer my question?

In case you missed the question, I will even post it again. What information did you come up with to counter this article to make you know Hanjour was the pilot?

a reply to: RomanMaroni

What information did you come up with to counter this article to make you know Hanjour was the pilot?

Since Hani possessed a commercial pilots license and went on to train for a B-737-type rating, he would have been the better pilot to fly American 77 into the Pentagon. We can also place Hani in the cockpit because he was the hijacker who announced that American 77 was hijacked.

govinfo.library.unt.edu...

In addition, al-Qaeda has Hani as head of the American 77 hijackers.

9/11 Hijackers

a reply to: skyeagle409

So you're not really sure. You are just assuming. And remember you accused others earlier of assuming and that makes them wrong.

You posted a link the 9/11 Commission Report which is what that post was questioning. You can't prove the Commission Report with the Commission Report. For example, "hey I think the Commission Report is wrong about this." Response, "Well the Commission Report says it isn't." See that's a bad way to debate.

You apparently didn't read my previous post very carefully. I told you the article states, "...Luai Sakra, an al-Qaeda leader ... says, "Nawaf Alhazmi was a veteran operative who went on to pilot Flight 77" ... so how can you claim al-Qaeda says Hanjour was the pilot? I actually quoted "al-Qaeda" as saying different. You just posted your opinion. And even if he was the "head", does head also mean pilot? He's not the only one who says Alhazmi was the pilot either.

And the only reason they say its Hanjour on the speaker is because they are working on the assumption that Hanjour was the pilot. So again, that doesn't prove anything.

a reply to: RomanMaroni

What skyeagle409 is saying is he believes every word the government said in the 911 Commission Report as a fact govinfo.library.unt.edu...


9/11 Commissioners say "Official Story" a Lie

The co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission (Thomas Keane and Lee Hamilton) said that the CIA (and likely the White House) “obstructed our investigation”.

The co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission also said that the 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials misrepresented the facts to the Commission, and the Commission considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements, yet didn’t bother to tell the American people (free subscription required).

Indeed, the co-chairs of the Commission now admit that the Commission largely operated based upon political considerations.

9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says “I don’t believe for a minute we got everything right”, that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, that the 9/11 debate should continue, and that the 9/11 Commission report was only “the first draft” of history.

9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that “There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn’t have access . . . .”

9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said “We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting”

Former 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: “It is a national scandal”; “This investigation is now compromised”; and “One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up”.

9/11 Commissioner John Lehman said that “We purposely put together a staff that had - in a way - conflicts of interest“.

The Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) who led the 9/11 staff’s inquiry, said “I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years…. This is not spin. This is not true.”

beyondleftright.com...

These are the facts about the 911 Commission Report, and this is why most researcher stay away from that Report. So when OS supporters post 911 Commission Report as all truth, they are pushing a well known fallacy. But like I always said the only way one can prove the OS true, one have to create fallacies to support it. This is why I refuse to have a debate with people who chose to be ignorant, and spam ATS thread with regurgitated debunked information and still screaming it's all truth, see. When all fails for a few of them, we are called lairs.

a reply to: Informer1958

It is funny since you list Mr. Farmer's quote. You should read his book. Maybe listen to his interviews. He says that the final report is an accurate account of the events surrounding that day. The part about the "I was shocked at how different the truth was....." deals with the fact that in the days/weeks/months the DoD, FAA etc..portrayed our response that day as well-oiled, yet tardy, and the reality was (the tapes he is referring to) was that our response that day was a confused cluster.