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.

 

So You Want *PROOF* of a Conspiracy?

page: 4
30
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by NegativeBeef
Why do you keep bringing up remote control planes and panes materializing from space and missiles hitting the pentagon? Those theories are stated again and again to be untrue. Why don't you focus on the REAL conspiracy theories.


The professional debunkers all follow the same pattern.

* First, if you question any part of the "official" story they'll put the CT blanket over you.

* Then they claim that you believe every absurd CT argument that they've ever read.

* Then they'll put up their straw man arguments just to be able to shoot something down.

* Then they'll conclude that your valid question or point isn't valid because any idiot knows that those were real planes and not holograms in NY.

* Then, when they get frustrated and can't argue based on facts or logic, they'll insult you and call you bad names.

It's all pretty predictable at this point. Radio and TV hosts are really good at this pattern. Just watch YouTube videos of O'Reily or Hannity when they talk to anybody who questions even the smallest part of the official story.




posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 02:00 PM
link   
Wait are you trying to say the holographic plane theory is valid or invalid? Even I think that theory is a little absurd and was probably created by debunkers in order to ridicule the conspirators.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by NegativeBeef
Wait are you trying to say the holographic plane theory is valid or invalid? Even I think that theory is a little absurd and was probably created by debunkers in order to ridicule the conspirators.


LOL...

It's crazy that you even have to ask me that question! But the reason you do is exactly what you said. The debunkers have repeated the hologram foolishness so much that you'd think it's a requirement of any CT.

The debunkers would rather set up straw man arguments than to actually read the articles on Sandy Berger and Lee Hamilton, and comment on what's really going on with Stonebridge.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by nick7261

Originally posted by NegativeBeef
Why do you keep bringing up remote control planes and panes materializing from space and missiles hitting the pentagon? Those theories are stated again and again to be untrue. Why don't you focus on the REAL conspiracy theories.


The professional debunkers all follow the same pattern.

* First, if you question any part of the "official" story they'll put the CT blanket over you.

* Then they claim that you believe every absurd CT argument that they've ever read.

* Then they'll put up their straw man arguments just to be able to shoot something down.

* Then they'll conclude that your valid question or point isn't valid because any idiot knows that those were real planes and not holograms in NY.

* Then, when they get frustrated and can't argue based on facts or logic, they'll insult you and call you bad names.

It's all pretty predictable at this point. Radio and TV hosts are really good at this pattern. Just watch YouTube videos of O'Reily or Hannity when they talk to anybody who questions even the smallest part of the official story.


Well put Nick.
Also I would add to your list:
* They will also champion and put forward Dylan Avery, Alex Jones and often Prof.Fetzer as the leaders behind the 'truth movement' and then
of course associate each of us who believes that there are discrepancies in the official report with these people.(who I am not discrediting).

A good example of the determined effort to undermine the 'truthers' was one which I believe the holograph theory followed on from
was the whole 'something on the undercarriage' of the planes which struck the WTC story whish was soon rubbished.
I agree with NegativeBeef, it's time we sought clarity on the stand out
issues surrounding 9/11 which cannot be ridiculed or indeed debunked.



[edit on 28-2-2007 by pmexplorer]



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by pmexplorer

Well put Nick.


Thanks!




I agree with NegativeBeef, it's time we sought clarity on the stand out
issues surrounding 9/11 which cannot be ridiculed or indeed debunked.


I think it's wishful thinking to hope anything will be beyond "ridicule"...

And I agree too... we need to summarize the stand out issues that have no reasonable explanation, and summarize these. Maybe we present a concise summary to our congressmen and senators and get them to open up a new investigation.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 09:41 PM
link   
On the subject of ridicule, one of my favourite quotes about truth. Many here are probably familiar with it:

All truth passes through three stages. First it is ridiculed. Secondly, it is violently opposed. Thirdly, it is accepted as self evident.

I've paraphrased, and I can't remember (or pronounce) the name of the German philosopher who originally said it, but I'm sure you can all see the aptness.

Let's just hope we can skip the second stage on this one as too much life has already been lost over this. It's very difficult because, while I believe that many of the more outrageous claims by 9/11 truthers are coming from plants intended to discredit the movement, there are also many outrageous claims being made by well-intentioned but deluded individuals. Very hard to sort the wheat from the chaff on this one unfortunately.

And thanks for the kind words Nick and Caustic - very high praise indeed coming from you guys.

[edit on 28-2-2007 by TheStev]


kix

posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 09:49 PM
link   
You have voted nick7261 for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

Excelent info! this is what makes ATS a worthy place....

The cracks in the glass are now quite evident, what will be the info that will shatter the whole 9/11 inside job tragedy coverup?



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by pesky george
[


And you don't see anything at the very least unethical about this?

I didn’t say that. I was just wondering what conspiracy you were referring to.

I see you had trouble with quoting, so just to be clear these are my words you were quoting.


Originally posted by pesky george
The definition of conspiracy is when 2 or more people plan an activity that breaks the laws of this country. The Supreme Court has ruled that an overt act is not necessary to convict for conspiracy, just talking about breaking the law is enough to imprison anyone for conspiracy.

The preponderance of evidence shows that there is some question regarding the timing of Hamilton's hiring. The fact that Hamilton is now a paid employee of Berger's, shows the appearance of impropriety.

This is enough to indict any other citizen.

You are right about the definition of a conspiracy, but my question was conspiracy of what? What crime other than Berger stealing the documents and recieving a light sentence has been committed? Was Hamilton the judge or on the jury in this case? That is why I asked if there was a larger conspiracy involved, and Nick cleared it up. His posts do show collaboration and obvious conflict of interests, but I don’t see it as proof that the 9/11 Commission deliberately committed a crime, but I am also not saying they are innocent. In my opinion, there is far more easier territory to show the commission got it wrong.


Originally posted by pesky george
I am tiring of those who dismiss government conspiracies as ridiculous,

That was not my intention and if you go back and read my posts, you will see that I explained that is not what I meant. Like you, I am trying to find the truth, but I don’t automatically believe every theory that is put forward.

I apologize for the confusion, and welcome to ATS.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by kix
You have voted nick7261 for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

Excelent info! this is what makes ATS a worthy place....


Thanks!!



The cracks in the glass are now quite evident, what will be the info that will shatter the whole 9/11 inside job tragedy coverup?




I'm not sure if this will be what shatters the whole cover-up, but I'm pretty sure that before the year is over it's going to become public knowledge that the Val McClatchey photo of Flight 93 was faked. Where this leads to, who knows...



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by nick7261
I'm not sure if this will be what shatters the whole cover-up, but I'm pretty sure that before the year is over it's going to become public knowledge that the Val McClatchey photo of Flight 93 was faked. Where this leads to, who knows...

Excuse me, because I don't understand what this photo has to do with the current discussion, but even if it is proven fake, how will it "shatter the whole cover-up"? What does it matter whether Flight 93 was shot down or not as far as "who" was behind 9/11?

Just because you prove the official story is not true, doesn’t mean you have proved a conspiracy. My intention is not to disprove any CT, but to show you that you are not going in the right direction if you are trying to "prove" 9/11 was an inside job.

Take it as constructive criticism only.

Carry on.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hal9000

Excuse me, because I don't understand what this photo has to do with the current discussion,


The Val McClatchey photo was what came to mind when I was asked what might be the first thing that cracks open the "official" story. Since the FBI authenticated the photo as real, if this photo is proven to be fake, it might be the first thing that cracks through at least the first level -that there was fraud and a cover-up by the FBI to further the "official" story.


but even if it is proven fake, how will it "shatter the whole cover-up"? What does it matter whether Flight 93 was shot down or not as far as "who" was behind 9/11?


No, the fake photo won't show that Flight 93 was shot down either. All it will show is that the FBI was complicit in perpetuating what they had to know was a fake photo. This won't tell us anything about the "who" other than what can be inferred by the FBI authenticating a fake photo.



Just because you prove the official story is not true, doesn’t mean you have proved a conspiracy. My intention is not to disprove any CT, but to show you that you are not going in the right direction if you are trying to "prove" 9/11 was an inside job.


I'm not trying to prove 9/11 was an inside job. I have no idea whether it was an inside job. In fact, I think many CTers go off in the wrong direction by being too narrowly focused on proving it was an inside job.

What I'm interested in is exposing the government's cover-up of what really happened. Maybe it was an inside job, or maybe the government is just covering up their incompetence. I don't know. Whatever the case, I'm 99.9% sure that something is being hidden from the public, and it's not for our own good.




Take it as constructive criticism only.

Carry on.


Thanks! I will!



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 05:15 PM
link   
Leave it to some to stoop to name calling rather than face the facts of an arguement.

Evidence provided by either side of the arguement is evidence. False evidence can be easily dismissed, no matter which side provides falisfied documents or video.

The sad truth is when one spends time with an open mind, and takes in all the FACTS and evidence, there is only one logical, albiet terrifying, conclusion.

Admitiing that some in our goverment is complicit is hard, but ignoring this fact is cowardly.



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 11:11 PM
link   
I am old and retarted. My apologies for stepping on my manhood.
I am new to this and posted on the wrong thread.

Please have mercy on the elderly. And the 70's children.

Had the opportunity to buy into AOL in '91 for 5g's.

Landscaper now.



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 12:11 PM
link   
Anyone with common sense would look at all the evidence and see it was all an inside job to start a war with Iraq.

Bin Laden and Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11. It's even been admitted by Cheney himself they had nothing to do with it.

This is the whole point behind conspiracies. Purposely do something that's soo unbelievable that when most people hear it, they won't believe it.

More and more people are starting to wake up and see all the BS though.



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by nightmare_david
Anyone with common sense would look at all the evidence and see it was all an inside job to start a war with Iraq.


Don't forget the war in afganistan is going on even longer than in Iraq. The american admin had planned the war with afganistan before 9/11 also. And the taliban had even agreed to hand over Bin Laden if they showed proof he was involved in 9/11. The americans said they had the proof but they wouln't show and dropped bombs on them. And it has later emerged that the USA doesn't have any proof that Bin Laden was involved, he was even removed from the FBI 9/11 wanted list because admit they don't have any evidence that he was involved, so now it is clear that the US lied to go to war with Iraq, they didn't have WMD's and they lied to go to war with Afganistan, they didn't have proof Bin Laden was involved.
Now the US control the heroin industry from afganistan that had reached record production, heroin being more freely available from there now than under the taliban.
And american and british troops are still out there, and they sure ain't looking for Bin Laden
911review.org...
www.milligazette.com...

www.msnbc.msn.com...



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by nick7261
Well, this isn't a smoking gun or a bloody glove, but it's is about as close as you're going to get. Take time to read this and connect the dots.


Can I say the I word, the R word and mention KFC in the same sentence.

I won't do that to KFC, I love chicken. Mom would pan fry in the skillet
with special ...

Looks like we have a band of Illuminati Rat Finks in operation.

But it does not make them bad people. After all he was excused.



(edit to remove massive quote of the entire first post)

[edit on 7-3-2007 by SkepticOverlord]



posted on Mar, 20 2007 @ 02:32 AM
link   
Im glad someone has posted something on this. Everyone is running around yelling about a 9/11 conspiracy, but they ignore the one thats happening right under there noses.



posted on May, 15 2007 @ 11:02 PM
link   
Interestingly, FOX just did an hour long special on the Sandy Berger incident and totally left out the part about Berger hiring Lee Hamilton to work for his consulting company. Instead, FOX focused on the Dept. of Justice letting Berger off the hook.



posted on May, 17 2007 @ 07:36 PM
link   
Just to put a spin on things: what if 9/11 wasn't an inside job, but was just good timing for Bush et al. to use as an excuse for Bush Jr. to have a war in Iraq like Bush Snr. did 10 years earlier?

As was highlighted on The Daily Show about a year ago:


Bush Snr has war in Iraq - ratings go up, Bush Jr. has war in Iraq, ratings go down



[edit on 17-5-2007 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on May, 17 2007 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
Just to put a spin on things: what if 9/11 wasn't an inside job, but was just good timing for Bush et al. to use as an excuse for Bush Jr. to have a war in Iraq like Bush Snr. did 10 years earlier?


A good thing to keep in mind for the CTers. Keep all possibilities open. IMO, even if AQ did the deed stem to stern as alleged the internal defense failures could not have failed so uniformly without some intent somewhere. Hard proof be damned, I know an inside job when I see one.


As was highlighted on The Daily Show about a year ago:


Bush Snr has war in Iraq - ratings go up, Bush Jr. has war in Iraq, ratings go down


[edit on 17-5-2007 by mirageofdeceit]


Sleight of hand IMO. Popularity plummett = war was a mistake = they didn't do it for gain, didn't lie on purpose, etc. Why struggle so hard to take the popularity hit?
Solution: GW can only serve two terms anyway - he's expendable. With some Skull-n-Bones and Diebold help, he made the re-election, the war is now fact and will have to be actively reversed, and will likely continue in some form no matter who becomes President. This was not about Bush' popularity but about empire. It WAS for gain. 9/11 Was the necessary backdrop, as it is for everything else.



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join