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.

 

9/11: A Boeing 757 *DID NOT* Strike the Pentagon

page: 20
2
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
Since of course my source is more qualified than your anonymous posters in some flight school internet board you reduce yourself to that.


Still having problems reading I see. I'll spell it out for you to make it easier.

B-i-l-l-y-b-o-b w-a-s t-h-e o-n-e w-h-o p-o-s-t-e-d t-h-e l-i-n-k t-o t-h-e o-t-h-e-r f-o-r-u-m a-s e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e f-o-r y-o-u-r s-i-d-e.

If you look at the post before mine (as I pointed out before) you'll see that


My sources I base my views on are my various flying instructors I've had (who 's full time job outside of instructing were flying cargo/passenger aircraft), the various military personnel I know/have spoken to who fly or are involved in Air Traffic Control and civilian pilots I've met through flying or at various events. You can look around on the forum to see I've met and dined with people such as Buzz Aldrin (high enough for you?) so I think I'm sometimes in some fairly good circles of company.
Who are the people you personally know/have spoken too again?

Any Internet stuff is just additional and as people like to see Internet links around here for verification, saying 'I know someone who...' isn't generally good enough amongst most people who don't know me well, so I don't often try and use it as a major pivotal point. But I do think they are somehow pretty well qualified and I would trust them as people I know or I've met over writing on some blog any day.

And conspiracy sites are useful tools, but when it's the word of several people I've met personally over an individual on a website I know what I'm going to choose, obviously I don't expect you to do the same as you haven't got the same knowledge and experiences.

And how do you know he's not a dis-info agent? You've got to think out of the box, not out of the normal one into the backup box they have planned for people like you
You think you're so free thinking but your just as or more under certain people's thumbs than anyone else


As for the rest of it and my attitude, like I said - I have a small willy so I feel the need to make up for it




posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 07:02 PM
link   
Ok great....got it.


So you have ZERO sources and we are supposed to simply take the word of conspiracy forum poster extraordinaire Agent smitty and all the important people that he has dined with in the past!

Sure buddy.

You literally expect me to assume that you spoke with Buzz Aldrin at length regarding all of the evidence about Hani Hanjour and his miraculous flight and Buzz said.....

"Yep....that's right smitty......it would have been eaaaaaasy for Hani Hanjour to pull it off! Just point and fly. Any pilot, aeronautical engineer, or flight mechanic that doubts it is clearly a disinfo agent. We appreciate having allies of brits like you in this war on terror"



Get real please.

Your braggadocious name dropping isn't the least bit impressive and it proves ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in regards to a 757 hitting the pentagon.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 02:33 AM
link   
I didn't speak to Buzz about 9/11, I spoke to him about the Apollo missions, space travel and alien life funnily enough

I think Royal scandles were mentioned by Mrs Aldrin at one point, 9/11 was mentioned but only in context of conversation.....

No, I don't expect you to take my word for it, but there are plenty of people here that do know I'm telling the truth and know the sort of people I mix with, so it's more for their benefit.

Sorry how many people involved in aerospace do you know personally again? I missed your reply?
Sorry if my unimpressive name dropping hit a nerve, but I guess it smarts when you think you're clever doing it with your internet source copied off a website and it turns out that other people actually do get to speak with far more interesting, real life, individuals.
I guess it's threatening to someone in your position when you build up a carefully crafted set of arguments (sorry in your case copy a carefully crafted set of arguments) based on disinformation and mis-quotes, only to have people come along who either know what they are talking about first hand or actually know people, directly, that do. Your information isn't from the horse's mouth so to speak, it's more like chinese whispers. It's so twisted out of context by the time it's presented it probably bares little resemblance to whatever was meant in the first place.
With the exception of statements lke the one made by your ex Air-Force officer of course

I loved the way for instance, that other forum was good evidence for the conspiracy, until the deception employed by the original poster is pointed out and that it's actually in favour of there being a 757, then suddenly it's disregarded!

What a surprise...
I also like the way that the various people involved in aerospace I know are 'ZERO' sources, but I guess that's because it's not 10th hand information seemingly backing up your claims?

Son, you have to remember that not everyone on here is like you, there are a lot of people here that either have relevant jobs, hold positions of great responsibility, often come into contact with some pretty high up and well educated people, or any combination of the above. Now you can either learn from these people and their experiences that they share, or you can carry on spouting off like you think you know what you're talking about because you read everything off some website.

I think that's the best bit of all of this, you seem to rely 100% on what you read on Conspiracy sites and have no background off the computer as an additional source of information, yet you criticise those that do? How does that work? How are your dubious internet sources more reliable than face-to-face conversations with those directly involved in the industry?

You probably wonder why I and others are hostile towards you and your mate, but the problem is that when you strode on into ATS with your head the size of a planet, giving the attitude and laying down the law like you're the biggest authority on 9/11 and the science behind it, what you failed to realise is that there are a lot of people here who either have a great deal of first hand knowledge or know people personally, in real life, that do know what they are talking about.
So excuse me if you don't like my attitude and certain other people's, but maybe you should cast your mind back to when you arrived with your chum and the behaviour we have all learned to associate with you, then maybe ask yourself why you get the response you do. Don't be too disappointed either when people put you back in your place.

So now we've finished comparing willies, if it's all the same to you and with your kind permission, perhaps we can get back to the topic?
I'd be interested in why you think it's impossible that your source is a dis-info seed? Seeing as his ex-military and we were warned of it? How's that impossible again?
That's your lone source in a minority out of the huge majority of qualified people that don't have a problem with it of course?
Does it not strike you odd that out of the thousands of qualified people they arn't getting up in arms about it? Does it not strike you odd that you have to search pretty hard to find the odd one that does have a problem with what happened? Or are you saying that the majority are incompetent?

Actually, don't bother. Speaking to you is nothing more than a combined amusement and embarrasment that leaves a nasty taste in the mouth. I waste far too much time arguing with people like you for the sake of it and I've been trying to do something about it, though I seem to have lapsed into it the last few days which has left me once again with the feeling of communicating with the inhabitants of a kindergarten.

You are free to have your last word, as I'm sure you feel obliged to do

I'm going to be busy having a more intellectual conversation with my wall, while I watch the paint dry.

[edit on 16-3-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 06:37 PM
link   
I never said it was "impossible" for him to be a disinformationalist.

I just find it funny that this is your only defense against his statements.

That and " I talk to a lot of smart people".

Well most "smart people" have done ZERO research on 9/11.

Most are simply brainwashed like the rest of the public and choose to simply accept what they were told.

Russ Wittenberg is FAR from the only person with credentials to speak out about the absurdity of the official story.

I am a part of a growing community of NON-conspiracy theorists that understand we have been lied to.

These people are professors, engineers, physicists, intellectuals, and scholars that took it amongst themselves to actually look into the evidence and inspire people to question the official lie.

It's quite rare that I find somebody that has actually looked at the evidence and still believes the official story. You are in a lonely bunch.

That's why the movement is GROWING and growing fast.

Did Merc and I come to this site with attitude? Yep. But it was anger as opposed to ego that was fueling us.

I've ALWAYS been leary of "conspiracy sites" which is exactly why I am leary of this place.

catherders post was damaging to the truth movement and I resent this site for exploiting it. I have never hid that fact.

Bottom line; regardless of the 757/no 757 split in the movement.........our common ground is that we ALL have common sense enough to know we have been lied to in regards to what happened on 9/11.

The fact that you lack this common sense speaks volumes.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 07:28 PM
link   
Well if you ask me, Smitty was asking Buzz how he managed to keep a hoax secret for so long.




posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 11:23 PM
link   
yea no way. A 757 cannot make a hole of thise dimensions.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 11:32 PM
link   
AgentSmith:

are you a mod at this site or one of the owners? the reason I ask is the last link in your signature, sure looks official to me? Why would a mere member be so concerned with the rules/regulations of this site like you obviously are?



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 12:09 AM
link   
Probably because he's a councillor, which you would know if you bothered to look at his avatar, where it says "ATS Councillor".



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 02:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
Bottom line; regardless of the 757/no 757 split in the movement.........our common ground is that we ALL have common sense enough to know we have been lied to in regards to what happened on 9/11.

The fact that you lack this common sense speaks volumes.


Oh I don't believe the entire official story at all! You're just jumping to assumptions. I wouldn't share what I believe/know with you though for all the tea in China, sorry!


---------

Yes, the reason I have official ATS links in my sig is because I'm a councillor, as Zaphod said it says so in my Mini-profile. Councillors are elected members of the board, the electors being the normal membership. (So yes, the members of the board elected me).



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
(So yes, the members of the board elected me).


Oh and that makes you feel so important doesn't it?


What part of the story don't you believe? I'd love to know, cause so far all I've heard from you is defence of the 'official story'.

I've heard this from a couple of you 'official' defenders, but you never actualy say what is you don't believe.

[edit on 17/3/2006 by ANOK]



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by AgentSmith
(So yes, the members of the board elected me).


Oh and that makes you feel so important doesn't it?



Not really, but knowing how some people like to whisper rumours about ATS being a government op and such, I though I'd point out that it was the member's decision and out of the control of the board owners that I gained this position. I don't want anyone to hold the owners liable for my attitude in some way, and I think we all know that's exactly what some people try and do. That is the full extent of my motives behind saying it regardless of what you want to believe.



What part of the story don't you believe? I'd love to know, cause so far all I've heard from you is defence of the 'official story'.


I suggest reading all my posts then, though the majority of what I say going down that avenue is either in private or off the publically viewable forums as I refuse to share with certain people, like you for instance. The thought that some of my research, knowledge and ideas could help certain people is something I just can't bring myself to do.



I've heard this from a couple of you 'official' defenders, but you never actualy say what is you don't believe.


As I said, search my posts, not that I have to justify myself anyway - I answer to myself, not Simon, not SO, not the Government, not the tooth fairy and certainly not you.



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 10:45 AM
link   

The thought that some of my research, knowledge and ideas could help certain people is something I just can't bring myself to do.


You are way more twisted than I ever thought.

You claim you "don't believe the official story at all" but yet you consistently post in this forum on a daily basis arguing in favor of the official story because you want to horde your research?????


Wow.

That sure makes a lot of sense.

Trying to throw the rest of the world off so you can emerge as our ultimate savior here smitty?

I have not yet met one person in the truth movement that is concerned about "credit" over the future of the world.


For shame.

You have always come off as an egotistical loathsome individual but after this revelation you have proven that you are far more demented than I could have ever imagined.



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 11:18 AM
link   
Not believing the official story, and believeing a 757 hit the pentagon are not mutually exclusive.

I personally think there was foreknowledge to some extent. That the administration either let it happen by design or through incompetence. Either way makes them guilty in my opinion.

That being said, I do not believe that anything other than a passenger jet hit the pentagon. I do not believe the towers were demolished with explosives. I don't think any one moved the damn taxi.

Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean that they buy every aspect of the "official story", not does it make them a government agent.



[edit on 17-3-2006 by LeftBehind]



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 11:33 AM
link   
I defend the elements that I believe are accurate, as everything has to be in perspective to see the truth. As for my psychological state, I'm a complete lunatic and don't like people much, I frankly don't care about the majority as I believe they get and will get what they deserve anyway, people like you for instance. As I said, I look out for myself and a select few I choose. People on the whole are dumb and don't want to know the truth, they are only interested in what they want to hear and Big Brother the TV show. There are people like you who are more questioning and intelligent, but you are so rude, obnoxious and unpleasant I'd rather not be associated with you. There's only room for one rude, obnoxious, unpleasant person in my gang. Me.

[edit on 17-3-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
You are way more twisted than I ever thought.

You claim you "don't believe the official story at all" but yet you consistently post in this forum on a daily basis arguing in favor of the official story because you want to horde your research?????



Doing your usual 9/11 Lies movement twisting of quotes again I see.
I actually said:


Oh I don't believe the entire official story at all!


Emphasis added. Is this the basis for your arguments? Lying? Seems like it.



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 11:38 AM
link   
the details of the story actually do matter here is why I think it does:

- indicates who is likey involved in this charade and why
- hints and what may be to come
- hints at what lies, deceptions and game we have had played on us in past

all significant in my opinion.

but it is easy to get lost in the forest and not see any of the individual trees and vice versa, looking for one kind of tree and not seeing all the trees.



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
You are way more twisted than I ever thought.

You claim you "don't believe the official story at all" but yet you consistently post in this forum on a daily basis arguing in favor of the official story because you want to horde your research?????



Doing your usual 9/11 Lies movement twisting of quotes again I see.
I actually said:


Oh I don't believe the entire official story at all!


Emphasis added. Is this the basis for your arguments? Lying? Seems like it.


who are you man??

it says ATS councillor but you are one of the most abrasive people that seem to hang around here?? who would make you a councillor?



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 11:44 AM
link   
I asked myself the same question, I guess some people must like it because I had the majority vote by a decent margin. I'm a pretty good guy when people are OK, I just don't stand for nonsense from jumped up idiots. I don't bother posting much conspiracy stuff on the main board because no-ones interested unless it's wild and extravagant. When I started out in this scene I was into all the wilder stuff, but being a good researcher and learning to look at things with a critical eye I've discovered that many theories are based on lies, deception or misunderstanding. I was angry too because I felt like a silly sausage when I had to admit to my mates that some of the stuff I'd got excited about and kept going on about was all bollucks, but there you go.
I think the biggest disappointment though is that the majority of people are just not interested, regardless of proof they just want to hear what they want and as long as their little life isn't altered then they don't care.
Then you get a a decent number of people with a chip on their shoulder who will look for a conspiracy in anything to satisy their ideals of finding something bad in every aspect of authority, then you get gullible people, then you get people who make money out of those people and finally you get people who do care and have a genuine interest in finding the truth.
I think the biggest turning point in the past was when I learnt the hard way that you can't help people who don't want to be helped and there are also a lot of people out there in which the greatest travesty was that they were ever allowed near a computer keyboard.
Did it occur to some of you that maybe I have a funny attitude towards you because of the way you started off? Maybe if some of you didn't come on with predefined opinions then you would find I'm a little more friendly. I do get along with some people who are on the demolition/no 757/etc side, so it's not down to a set of beliefs. Nope, it's because I don't like you


Denythestatusquo - Don't know where I upset you personally, but I'm sure I have due to your repeated snipes. I see you have this thing where you feel the need to dig at me for no apparant reason but other than that I haven't really noticed you around. Maybe you should think about that when wondering why I am rude and abrasive.

[edit on 17-3-2006 by AgentSmith]

[edit on 17/3/06 by JAK]



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind

Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean that they buy every aspect of the "official story", not does it make them a government agent.



I never said he was a government agent. IMO he is quite obviously nothing but a smarmy egotist.

I also never said he has to believe in the no 757 argument. I know plenty of rational people in the truth movement that are 757 huggers. The difference is that they still work towards 9/11 truth. Agent smitty has ONLY argued in favor of the official story in ALL aspects from what I have seen and the fact that he won't even share his true beliefs despite being quite active in this debate on a daily basis is flabbergasting.

To believe that 9/11 was the result of incompetance absolutely IS the official story.

This is the conclusion that we paid the 9/11 commission 15 million dollars for.

To say they "let it happen on purpose" is an entirely different conclusion from incompetence and is pretty much only based on a hunch as opposed to evidence other than perhaps believing some of the obstruction reports like "Able Danger".



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith

Emphasis added. Is this the basis for your arguments? Lying? Seems like it.


Oh come off it.

I misread your quote.

Since you refuse to elaborate on your position your proclamation is quite hollow.

This is multiplied by the fact that you exclusively argue in favor of the official story.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join