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.

 

The Proven Government Liars Re: 9/11

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 01:51 PM
link   
In no particular order...

Bush Lied About Seeing the The First Plane (among MANY other things)
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Cheney and Colin Powell Lied about Iraq Evidence
www.pbs.org...

The FEMA and the EPA Lied About the Air Quality At Ground Zero
www.cbsnews.com...
www.nydailynews.com...

The DoD, NORAD and FAA Lied to the 9/11 Comission
www.cbsnews.com...

The 9/11 Comission Lied About the Hijackers
news.bbc.co.uk...

Libby Lied to the FBI to Aid the Coverup
Link

Yet some of you still believe ANYTHING they have told us about 9/11?



[Mod Edit: Link format edited. Please review this post. thank you - Jak]

[edit on 7/9/06 by JAK]




posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 02:56 PM
link   
The CIA Faked Evidence and Lied
www.pbs.org...

Tony Blair Lied
www.downingstreetmemo.com...



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
The CIA Faked Evidence and Lied
www.pbs.org...


Don't forget Condaliar Rice.


In the days after the attacks, the Bush administration considered the involvement of Iraq, but never "pushed anybody to twist the facts."


Source: www.cnn.com...

Shown to be a lie by your source



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 03:07 PM
link   
HUH?
Guess that's it then.....if you said it, must all be true....I do not understand the relevence to 911 of some of your refernences.

Cheney and Colin Powell Lied about Iraq Evidence
www.pbs.org...

The FEMA and the EPA Lied About the Air Quality At Ground Zero
www.cbsnews.com...
www.nydailynews.com...

Libby Lied to the FBI to Aid the Coverup
link

Perhaps I just don't understand...but how are these relevent to 911?

[Mod Edit: Link format edited. Please review this post. thank you - Jak]


[edit on 7/9/06 by JAK]



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by KnowItAll
HUH?
Guess that's it then.....if you said it, must all be true....


I didn't say it... It is all PUBLIC RECORD.

Check the sources. FYI... Iraq and 9/11 were linked by W himself so they all count.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 03:20 PM
link   
SLAPNUTS....Can't let you get away with that one.
Where has President Bush ever DIRECTLY linked Iraq with 911? HMMM?
Let me help you here...NEVER! Yes, GWB has said that Iraq is the central front for the war on terrorism...but NO WHERE has he or his administration linked Irag and 911.
In my humble opinion sir, I think your agenda is getting in the way here.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 03:21 PM
link   
KIA,

I suggest watching the Frontline special "Darkside". It's very informative on how Cheney bullied the CIA into comming to some sort of link between Sadam and 9/11. That's how it is connected.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 03:23 PM
link   
Do you have a source/link? I've learned that I have to observe the actual source of this material before deciding to lend any weight. You understand...I hope.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by KnowItAll
Where has President Bush ever DIRECTLY linked Iraq with 911? HMMM?


When did Hitler ever DIRECTLY kill a Jewish person? HMM?

I know it's an extreme comparison, but really, be sensible about this, please.

Iraq was linked to 9/11 in that Saddam was linked to terrorists and terrorism and supporting terrorists with WMDs. How many times was 9/11 referenced in all those speeches about WMDs and Iraq? How many times was al Qaeda falsely declared as being an ally to Saddam Hussein? How many times did we hear that Saddam that harbored this-or-that terrorist, or that Saddam was having all these meetings with Osama, with the suggestion being that Saddam was helping them all along?

This is psychology. He doesn't have to say something directly to make people think it.

And people DID think it. Way too many of them. So what if he never DIRECTLY said it? Association was still achieved.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 03:32 PM
link   
Here you go.

www.pbs.org...

I definately understand. Take care.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by KnowItAll
HUH?
Guess that's it then.....if you said it, must all be true....


I didn't say it... It is all PUBLIC RECORD.

Check the sources. FYI... Iraq and 9/11 were linked by W himself so they all count.


A couple problems though. Saying Bush lied about the first plane is a matter of translation. This is not a legitimate claim since the accusation is taking is words literally instead of what he actually meant.

Also, The hijackers lie is not a lie, it's simply taking an outdated article that no longer applies and using it in the wrong cronilogical context. It's from a few days after 9/11 and doesn't take into account the corrections made due to further investigations. Not to mention it was never a lie to begin with.

Also, while I agree Powell lied, it was not in context of 9/11, it was a whole seperate issue (Iraq).



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 04:44 PM
link   
And then we must take into account all of the lies and deceptions on part of the truth movment as well. The same logic can apply. If the people behind Prison Planet and Loose change have lied about so many things, who's to know what they are being honest about?



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 12:05 AM
link   
Nice way to turn it around Snoopy. You are very good at what you do.

First, the truth movement consists of many people....so obviously we (they) will have many different theories.

But, the official lines that you believe have done the exact same thing. First it was...BBC (solid concrete core....by structural engineers BTW). Second it was "the steel melted" (also by a bunch of Structural engineers BTW). next it was "pancake theory" (also by a bunch of engineers BTW). Now, the NIST comes out with "we don't follow pancake theory" (also by a bunch of engineers). Would YOU GUYS make up YOUR minds?



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 12:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Nice way to turn it around Snoopy. You are very good at what you do.

First, the truth movement consists of many people....so obviously we (they) will have many different theories.

But, the official lines that you believe have done the exact same thing. First it was...BBC (solid concrete core....by structural engineers BTW). Second it was "the steel melted" (also by a bunch of Structural engineers BTW). next it was "pancake theory" (also by a bunch of engineers BTW). Now, the NIST comes out with "we don't follow pancake theory" (also by a bunch of engineers). Would YOU GUYS make up YOUR minds?


No one is turning anything around, some of us just aren't kidding ourselves. People tend to have sides and don't realize that they both are capable of the same thing. For example, people think that the CT side is incapable of propaganda or lying, while that's all the government does. And vice versa.

Those are all independant sources you sited which have no involvement with each other. However the melted steel was only supported by CTers, not structural engineers. You are confusing softened steel with melted. And all of them work together to support each other. NSIT doesn'[t feel a pancake theory started the collapse, but that does not mean it wasn't a pancake collapse. As anyone can see from the footage that floors only collapse as the floor above hits it and until hit they remain intact, hence pancacking. This isn't in debate as even the most skeptical Cter can clearly see this. However this wasn't the cause of initiation. It was the steel heating up which caused it to expand, then cooling which caused it to contract which pulled the inner and outer cores inward and outward to weekend them. That combined with trusses which pulled away form the cores, which further reduced their stability which depended on the spanning trusses.

So form the scientific side, there has only been one accepted theory.

But that aside, it wasn't my point. Many on the CT site have been caught lying and misleading people. So you can see my point in how when a CTer implies that because people in the government have lied, then they must be behind 9/11, it works both ways. One could argue that because CTers have been caught lying, they could be behind 9/11.



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 02:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by snoopy
It was the steel heating up which caused it to expand, then cooling which caused it to contract which pulled the inner and outer cores inward and outward to weekend them. That combined with trusses which pulled away form the cores, which further reduced their stability which depended on the spanning trusses.


Sorry to say but this is rediculus. the steel heated up then cooled down? Do you know that steel when heated does loose some integrity but when cooloed down it regains it's strenght? If you had just 1 year of engineering...you'd know this. Sorry to call you out, but what school did you go to again? Podunck University? Pulled columns inward and outward?


So form the scientific side, there has only been one accepted theory.


Sorry, but you are NOT using science.


But that aside, it wasn't my point. Many on the CT site have been caught lying and misleading people.


Many on the "official" side have been caught in out and out lies also.....so is there a difference? I think there is.....if you, err...snoopy [esdad] sorry not paying attention...err...snoopy, are willing to concede that you yourself are a CTer and just join us in questioning. It doesn't mean you have to believe in pods, missles, no terrists etc. It just means you are trying to find TRUTH with the rest of us. You seam like a very intellegent guy.....why if you believe there is a conspiracy to cover up flight 93 (BTW..if you believe what you post here...that is a conspiracy) you don't thin anything else that day could be covered up?


So you can see my point in how when a CTer implies that because people in the government have lied, then they must be behind 9/11, it works both ways. One could argue that because CTers have been caught lying, they could be behind 9/11.


Yes...it definately works boths ways....sorry to confuse you with esdad....my bad.


[edit on


9/8/2006 by Griff]

[edit on 9/8/2006 by Griff]



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 02:15 AM
link   
Sorry all...I got confused. I was answering to snoopy but thought it was esdad....back to your regularly scheduled brainwashing...err I mean channel.



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 03:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Sorry to say but this is rediculus. the steel heated up then cooled down? Do you know that steel when heated does loose some integrity but when cooloed down it regains it's strenght? If you had just 1 year of engineering...you'd know this. Sorry to call you out, but what school did you go to again? Podunck University? Pulled columns inward and outward?


Sorry, but you are NOT using science.

Many on the "official" side have been caught in out and out lies also.....so is there a difference? I think there is.....if you, err...snoopy [esdad] sorry not paying attention...err...snoopy, are willing to concede that you yourself are a CTer and just join us in questioning. It doesn't mean you have to believe in pods, missles, no terrists etc. It just means you are trying to find TRUTH with the rest of us. You seam like a very intellegent guy.....why if you believe there is a conspiracy to cover up flight 93 (BTW..if you believe what you post here...that is a conspiracy) you don't thin anything else that day could be covered up?
Yes...it definately works boths ways....sorry to confuse you with esdad....my bad.


Maybe you need to go back and re-read the NIST report. The steel cooling down and then contracting caused the core columns to bend. You see heat makes it expand, cooling makes it contract, and all the while it's connected to the core columns. Well what do you think is going to happen to the core? it's going to be pulled out and in as the trusses change shape.

but of course you are an engineering expert and would know that right?

I am not using science? Tell that to the hundreds of engineers who worked on the NISt report then, it's their theory, not mine. Perhaps you can teach them something?

I am not arguing if government people have lied or not. I am pointing out the fallacy in the logic being used and how hypocritical it is. You don't hold the same standards twards the CT side as you do the government side. Why is that? If it was about truth then there would be no difference between the two. but if one is biased then there is. You do the math.



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 07:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by snoopy
Saying Bush lied about the first plane is a matter of translation. This is not a legitimate claim since the accusation is taking is words literally instead of what he actually meant.


He told an entire story twice. You go ahead to the reference thread, quote him and tell me how I am wrong... wait... I'll do it for you...


I was sitting outside the -- the classroom, waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower of a -- of a -- you know, the TV was obviously on, and I -- I used to fly myself, and I said, "Well, there's one terrible pilot." And I said it must have been a horrible accident.



How am I misinterpreting this?



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by snoopy
Maybe you need to go back and re-read the NIST report. The steel cooling down and then contracting caused the core columns to bend.


How could they contract to a size SMALLER than their original room temp size? This is a dumb argument.



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 10:04 AM
link   
He told an entire story twice. You go ahead to the reference thread, quote him and tell me how I am wrong... wait... I'll do it for you...


I was sitting outside the -- the classroom, waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower of a -- of a -- you know, the TV was obviously on, and I -- I used to fly myself, and I said, "Well, there's one terrible pilot." And I said it must have been a horrible accident.



How am I misinterpreting this?


Perhaps I've just always missed the point with this particular "lie". I'd like for someone to specifically tell me the motivation and the point to bringing this out. I've heard this time and again, and simply don't see the relevence of this "lie" to the entire 911 CT.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join