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.

 

Hunt the Boeing II - Shanksville edition

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
You I'm afraid. I've noticed that you have been propogating (what I consider to be, I hasten to add) are some of the weakest, most outlandish and inaccurate theories regarding 9/11.


Such as?




posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 04:49 PM
link   
I'm not interested in engaging you in communications (I'm sick of debating the same things nearly 5 years on), I just felt like adding a bit to the thread - you know Friday night and all that...
Really carry on, it's a good read - you're doing fine, just pretend I'm not here (actually after this I won't be, gotta get some shut eye)


EDIT TO ADD:

Sorry I noticed it may seem I was being sarcastic, I really wasn't - it's a good read and I just wanted to add a conclusion I've come to observe over the years coupled with various discussions...
Night!

[edit on 2-6-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
I'm not interested in engaging you in communications (I'm sick of debating the same things nearly 5 years on), I just felt like adding a bit to the thread - you know Friday night and all that...
Really carry on, it's a good read - you're doing fine, just pretend I'm not here (actually after this I won't be, gotta get some shut eye)

Oh, so you ACCUSE me of propagating "some of the weakest, most outlandish and inaccurate theories regarding 9/11", yet you are "not interested in engaging me in communications" to back up YOUR accussations.

Coward



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 04:59 PM
link   
Browse the board dude, I've been involved in discussions involving most of the topics I've seen you post in my numerous posts over the last few years, let me know when you've read them (I'm sure you can understand I can't be bothered to repeat myself yet again).



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Browse the board dude, I've been involved in discussions involving most of the topics I've seen you post in my numerous posts over the last few years, let me know when you've read them (I'm sure you can understand I can't be bothered to repeat myself yet again).

Oh, so you accuse me and NOW you want ME to go dig up YOUR old posts?

What ev coward.



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 05:06 PM
link   
That's right, from now on you can call me Marty McFly..

As I said, keep up the good work anyway - people up top are smiling on you



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
That's right, from now on you can call me Marty McFly..

As I said, keep up the good work anyway - people up top are smiling on you


I'll call you something else.

Btw, feel free to answer the questions from the challenge I posted at the start to disprove this "outlandish" theory. So far, no has been able to disprove it that I've seen.



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 05:11 PM
link   
God damn it your right, you win. Game over.. No plane crashed in Shanksville, sorry mate - I was wrong, you were right all along.
What you going to do about it?



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
God damn it your right, you win. Game over.. No plane crashed in Shanksville, sorry mate - I was wrong, you were right all along.
What you going to do about it?


Are all ATS moderators this immature?



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 05:15 PM
link   
Eh? I agreed with you, that's what you wanted. Can't I ever say anythign right? I agree, I cannot see direct evidence of a plane crashing, therefore no plane hit. Now we've come to the conclusion, what are you going to do about it? Simple question!
What do you want me do do? Argue? Get nasty? I don't understand.

I'll admit it's Friday night so I'm a bit happy, hopefully it's not imparing my judgement, but I've decided to swallow my pride and admit you're right, so now what? What are you going to do now?



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Eh? I agreed with you, that's what you wanted. Can't I ever say anythign right? I agree, I cannot see direct evidence of a plane crashing, therefore no plane hit. Now we've come to the conclusion, what are you going to do about it? Simple question!
What do you want me do do? Argue? Get nasty? I don't understand.

I'll admit it's Friday night so I'm a bit happy, hopefully it's not imparing my judgement, but I've decided to swallow my pride and admit you're right, so now what? What are you going to do now?

Ok, if you agree UA 93 didn't crash there, what should we do about? I don't have any good ideas what to do at the moment. What are your ideas?



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 05:22 PM
link   
I don't care to be honest, if no plane hit then no-one died, so nothing to be upset about in that case apart from the deception designed to construct a situation where your rights can be taken away. I empathise that this is not a good thing, but there is little I can do and I'm not American either, so the police state in your country doesn't really affect me.



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
I don't care to be honest, if no plane hit then no-one died


Sounds like you're back-tracking now. You weren't LYING about agreeing no 757 crashed in P.A. now where you?

Also, who said they did kill them somewhere else?



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by diggs

Yawn. I've heard all this tripe before. Some of you so called "9/11 researchers" just seem afraid to turn over every stone. [quote/]

>>>Bigger Yawn



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
...two bit tin head theorists that have not a single shred of proof, evidence, or data to back them up.

...It might cure you of willfull ignorance.

...And since you cannot produce any viable, solid evidence, or anythign remotely resembling credibility to back up your claim, it is a non issue.

Who did you expect most of the witnesses to be, Bon Jovi fans, the Sierra Club, and Hare krishnas?

...its no wonder you rely on fiction and perpetrated nonsense for your supposed theories. You would never make it in any sort of investigative field. You are a lousy researcher.

Wow, if you only read this, it sounds EXACTLY how a lot of the official story believers/Bush Cabal supporters sound!

I've read where schills/COINTELPRO has infiltrated the 9/11 truth movement and what kind of people do you think those people would be, Bush cabal supporters perhaps? I'm sure it's just a "coincidence" you sound like them.



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by diggs
Wow, if you only read this, it sounds EXACTLY how a lot of the official story believers/Bush Cabal supporters sound!

I've read where schills/COINTELPRO has infiltrated the 9/11 truth movement and what kind of people do you think those people would be, Bush cabal supporters perhaps? I'm sure it's just a "coincidence" you sound like them.


I've read about it too. In fact, you are basically spreading the disinformation that they are quite well known for. And you are quite agressive in trying to hammer it home. Interesting indeed.

The key here is what you THINK they would sound like. the truth is, you have absolutely no clue what a real spook would do. Or what they would say.

But thats your answer. Because your arguements are weak and couldn't stand up if you had a hoist supporting them, when people show just how much BS is involved in your supposed theories, they automatically become government agents.

Your behavior is actually more in line with Bush and Co. Anyone who disagrees with you is a spook. Anyone who disagrees with Bush is a terrorist or criminal.

VERY similar lines of thinking.

If you think I care at all what you think about me, you should get out more. Ive been called far worse than COINTELLIPRO on this board. Hell, half the newbies on this board constantly think the government is watching them. As if the feds have nothing better to do.

Rant on. Its actually becoming amusing.




posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_ElfWe simply find it a waste of time to entertain theroies put out by two bit tin head theorists that have not a single shred of proof, evidence, or data to back them up.

The link I post at the start of this tread has more than a single shred of evidence. Try taking the challenge.


I don't need glasses. I read what you said. And you were implying that plane wreckage is easily recognizable.

Yes, the plane wreckage is easily recongnizable, not the plane is always recongnizable.


And yes, I did know someone near the Pentagon. An old army buddy. he wasn't at the Pentagon. he worked near by, and was about a block away when it happened.

I knew it!!! If I had a dime for everytime this happens!




No you didn't. YOU are a liar.


Now we are name calling. Oh, Im so hurt. Am I a liar because I dont buy your "theories"?

No, I asked you to answer question 7 and you said you did. I couldn't find where you did, so either I owe you an apology for not being able to find your answer, or you are a liar for saying you did.


No, like the hundreds of ground witnesses in DC who saw a big passenger jet screaming past.

Now you are spreading misinformation with your mixed up facts. Most witnesses say they saw an object or a plane, but couldn't/didn't describe the size/type. Very few actually described the size/model.



The papers at the PA site werent cremated, nor was some of the luggage. That stuff more than likely was sucked out of the plane after the pursuing airforce jet blew a hole into the plane's fuselage before it crashed. Why don't YOU actually try a little reading yourself? It might cure you of willfull ignorance.

I used to think it was shot down, but if it was, I really doubt it could still keep the same speed and crash without littering visible plane debris in and around the crater. Funny all debris found outside the crater was found in the woods, huh?


And since you cannot produce any viable, solid evidence, or anythign remotely resembling credibility to back up your claim, it is a non issue.

Yes we do, stop lying. You might not accept our evidence, but don't lie and say we don't provide any credible evidence.


Since the planes did crash where they were reported to have crashed.

And your evidence of this is?


Yes. There have been a number of photos on some of these so called 9/11 conspiracy sites have been altered.

Such as?


And of course most of the witnesses at the Pentagon were military or civilians working for the military.

And what kind of people would be most likely be in on it, military and big media types, or civilians not working for the military?


But of course, you seem to forget that thousands of non military related people could see the plane as it approached the beltway. Thousands of people in their cars on the freeway, many city residents from other parts of the city who all saw........gasp............A PLANE!!!!!!!!!!!!

And yet there are only less than 150 or so witness accounts total, I haven't seen ONE witness saying they saw the 757 circle the Pentagon, and not ONE photo taken of a 757 around the Pentagon. Amazing.


If you think eyewitness testimony is the worst form of evidence, its no wonder you rely on fiction and perpetrated nonsense for your supposed theories. You would never make it in any sort of investigative field. You are a lousy researcher.

Liars, people who spread misinformation, and ones that talk very immature like you make "lousy" researchers too.

You're vile and vicious just like most Bush cabal supporters.



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf


Btw, I'd like to keep this thread about UA 93, not AA 77, so why don't you go to this 77 thread and answer the simple question to change my mind that 77 didn't crash there:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by diggs

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf


Btw, I'd like to keep this thread about UA 93, not AA 77, so why don't you go to this 77 thread and answer the simple question to change my mind that 77 didn't crash there:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Because this very same thing already has about a gazillion other threads started on it, and on those threads, I have already stated my views and provided my evidence about the whole thing.

In case you havent looked, youre not being original in you "there was no Boeing" thread. the biggest threads on this site are just about that, and since Ive already answered on damn enar all of them, Im not going to bother repeating myself.



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_ElfBecause this very same thing already has about a gazillion other threads started on it, and on those threads, I have already stated my views and provided my evidence about the whole thing.

In case you havent looked, youre not being original in you "there was no Boeing" thread. the biggest threads on this site are just about that, and since Ive already answered on damn enar all of them, Im not going to bother repeating myself.

IE: You can't explain why the tail left no mark on the masonry after is susposedly got obliterated off of it.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join