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.

 

Iriefusable Proof That 911 Was An Inside Job,

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
So you even admit that your own assertion that all of those people would be "in on it", is unfounded.


Huh. Okay here it is real plain:

That chart is an absolute joke.
I made to illustrate the fact that 9/11 conspiracy theories are preposterous.
I don't believe that all those people were involved.
I don't believe all those people "knew everything."

What I believe is that any movement with the [SNIP] to refer to itself as the "Truth Movement" while inferring that the frickin' FDNY, FAA, and Fox News had a hand in orchestrating 9/11 deserves to be poked at for the comical farce and caricature of paranoia that it is.


...you keep refusing to back yourself up.


It was satire. There's nothing to back up.
Mark Twain did it better than me, but he also had readers that were smarter than you...so, you know, I'm down 0-2.


Why would someone continue to refuse to back up their claims?


Because they are ISI or Mossad.



...but don't want to look like a fool, or especially to have to go through the trouble of possibly changing an opinion.


I don't have a problem with changing my mind because I'm being a fool. Take, for example, how I used to think you were a level-headed and thoughtful poster.



You take way too many words to say nothing.


In school we called it "rhetoric." It's fun, huh?
Check this out:

"Twas brillig and the slithy toves did gyre and gymble in the wabe."

OH [SNIP] YES!!! AWESOME!
Nobody brings words like Carroll...NOBODY!!


Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.




[edit on 7-9-2007 by elevatedone]




posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essedarius
What I believe is that any movement with the balls to refer to itself as the "Truth Movement" while inferring that the frickin' FDNY, FAA, and Fox News had a hand in orchestrating 9/11 deserves to be poked at for the comical farce and caricature of paranoia that it is.


So will we ever get around to talking facts and realistic assumptions, or is your role here only to play the clown?



I don't have a problem with changing my mind because I'm being a fool. Take, for example, how I used to think you were a level-headed and thoughtful poster.


I still am, I'm just not as artificial anymore, and I post what I really think more often. Don't take it as arrogance or me thinking I'm any better than anyone else, just because I'm beating on your ego harder with more brash comments.




You take way too many words to say nothing.

In school we called it "rhetoric." It's fun, huh?


No. lol



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 02:58 PM
link   
Do you guys even know what the topic is? Check out the top of the page and let's get back to it. Thanks.



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
Do you guys even know what the topic is?


I think Essedarius is trained in statistical analysis but I may be remembering the wrong person. If not then that'd be interesting, because the original poster was off talking about probabilities in the first paragraph. I don't really care for statistics because there's about a 1:1 chance that an extremely unusual set of events culminated on 9/11/01 regardless. That's why we remember that day in particular.

And I did read the rest of that post, I just don't personally have anything to add about flight 97 being a controlled demolition.


[edit on 6-9-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
So will we ever get around to talking facts and realistic assumptions, or is your role here only to play the clown?


Are you serious?

Might I remind you that this discussion is taking place in a thread titled Iriefusable Proof That 911 Was An Inside Job, and that the thread supports this bold iriefusability by referencing statistics about the ability of terrified civilians to land a plane in rural Pennsylvania.

You chose to enter the big top, son. Don't hate the clowns...hate the circus.

The percentage of people who take 9/11 conspiracies seriously is dropping faster than the President's approval rating and...guess what...that's not the fault of the debunkers. It's the fault of every half-baked no-plane David Lynch crack addict iriefusable theory that gets posted on boards just like this.

You can blame it on me if you like, but it's not my fault.
The Movement is its own worst enemy.
It's completely removed the need for debunkers altogether.



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 08:59 AM
link   
I HAVE SEEN THE RELEASED VIDEO OF THE PENTAGON CRASH..

IT WAS A MISSILE!!!!

WHY WAS THERE NO PLANE WRECKAGE??

WHY WAS THE AREA CLEARED.....THEN GRASSED OVER VERY VERY QUICKLY?

WHERE WAS THE BIG INVESTIGATION IN TO THE PENTAGON CRASH?

WHERE WERE THE FORENSIC TEAM??


THE U.S.A HAS SOME OF THE MOST ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY BUT IT DIDNT SEE THIS COMING??

W.T.C............DID ANYONE SEE THE FOOTAGE OF THE PLANE/JET FLYING PAST??

OR THE HELICOPTERS LIFTING OFF FROM THE ROOF AND DISSAPEARING WITH THE SMOKE....

WHY DID SILVERSTEIN INCREASE HIS INSURANCE IN WTC7 WEEKS BEFORE ??


THERE ARE TOO MANY QUESTIONS AND NOT ENOUGH ANSWERS

EVEN IF IT WASNT AN INSIDE JOB ...........

MAYBE AMERICANS ARE BLIND OR THEY CANNOT SEE THRU THIS FACADE?

I AM NOT HAVING A GO AT USA CITIZENS....BUT YOU GUYS ARE LETTING THAT ADMINISTRATION GET AWAY WITH MURDER!!

[edit on 7-9-2007 by sonik _74]

Mod Edit: All Caps – Please Review This Link.


Mod Note: You Have An Urgent U2U- Click Here.


[edit on 7-9-2007 by elevatedone]



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Essedarius
The percentage of people who take 9/11 conspiracies seriously is dropping faster than the President's approval rating


All the polls I've seen over the past few years completely contradict this, but I doubt you really care about that.


and...guess what...that's not the fault of the debunkers. It's the fault of every half-baked no-plane David Lynch crack addict iriefusable theory that gets posted on boards just like this.


More worthless commentary, not responding to it, just pointing it out for reference. Same with the rest of the post.



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 09:34 AM
link   


The percentage of people who take 9/11 conspiracies seriously is dropping faster than the President's approval rating and...guess what...that's not the fault of the debunkers. It's the fault of every half-baked no-plane David Lynch crack addict iriefusable theory that gets posted on boards just like this.
.




I did not want to believe that thier were no planes. But I have watched the september clues videos of you tube and live leak. I have compared what they brought up to my own vhs tape I recorded that day. You should check out the points brought up in that september clue video and compare them to your own videos.


Cia project mockingbird and the Stratigic Communications Labortory Inc. are very real. The planes not quite so real. Thier is a reason why the airports only have records for two of the four planes taking off.



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
All the polls I've seen over the past few years completely contradict this, but I doubt you really care about that.


Now are you referring to the ATS polls, the PrisonPlanet polls, the 9/11Truth polls, or the 9/11wasaninsidejobandifyoubelieveotherwisewebanyou.com polls?

Never mind...you got me...I don't really care about that.
Poll results are easier to engineer than holographic 747s and massive urban controlled demolitions of skyscrapers.



More worthless commentary, not responding to it, just pointing it out for reference.


Did you read the posts above and below yours? Did you?



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essedarius
Now are you referring to the ATS polls, the PrisonPlanet polls, the 9/11Truth polls, or the 9/11wasaninsidejobandifyoubelieveotherwisewebanyou.com polls?


Two Zogby polls. I think one was national, one was for NY. Some university, seems like it was around Michigan, also did a survey. And tons of non-scientific ones, like online MSNBC and etc. polls, not that anyone thinks they mean anything at all. You could pull them up from Google if you ran a search. I know you really don't care. You probably still think the exact same way, too, don't you? And not wanting to bother changing an opinion can be good motivation to "not care".



Did you read the posts above and below yours? Did you?


And I'm not responding to them, am I? I'm only trying to have an intelligent discussion with you. I don't even know what we're talking about anymore now, lol.

[edit on 7-9-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 



Please keep in mind that when the Loose Change Forum gets wind of any online polls, they start a thread and "flood" the votes.



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Please keep in mind


Please keep in mind the Zogby polls and the university study I mentioned. Why did I say in my last post that other polls are worthless? Because I know how you like to ignore legitimate information and focus all your attention on moot points.



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


how about this, when the civilians breached the cockpit, the TERRORIST crashed the plane not the civilians!!



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 02:25 PM
link   



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
I'm only trying to have an intelligent discussion with you.


Well there's your problem.
Anybody can tell you that's a road to nowheresville.


I don't even know what we're talking about anymore now, lol.


The integrity of online polls and their ability to affect statistics on holographic pilots in rural hijackings.



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by traderonwallst
I was at the base of towers when the first plane watching Ron Insana give a morning briefing from that locale. Did not see the first plane hit, but did see the second plane hit. YES it was a plane.

Other than that....nice job on the flow chart!!!!!!!!! Must hagve taken some time.


finally somone else from NYC here, as a voice of reason. Why is it that I believe that 90 % of these arm chair QB live several states away and watched it on TV.

As somone at the base tell me about those "huge" explosions coming from the controlled demolition in the basement of the WTC :rolleyes: ;-)


[edit on 7-9-2007 by Torlough]



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Essedarius
The integrity of online polls and their ability to affect statistics on holographic pilots in rural hijackings.


See that's funny because I was talking about scientific Zogby surveys. Somehow, when I communicate these to you, the idea (to you) becomes "the integrity of online polls"? Zogby didn't use the internet. This may be a good example of a kind of "debunker" logic, though. You lessen every point that is made to you as soon as the idea enters your head.

[edit on 10-9-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 09:54 AM
link   



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
This may be a good example of a kind of "debunker" logic, though. You lessen every point that is made to you as soon as the idea enters your head.


And you said you didn't think rhetoric was fun.
Tsk tsk.


See that's funny because I was talking about scientific Zogby surveys...


Let the record show that I tried to let you off the hook and drop the whole conversation about the "scientific" surveys but you just wouldn't leave it alone.

August,2004 Zogby Survey of NY, NY
Sponsored by 9/11truth.org, 9/11citiizenswatch.org, and walden3.org.

For those of you unfamiliar with Walden Three, here are a couple quotes about that organization's main man, Jimmy Walter:


James (Jimmy) W. Walter, Junior is an American venture capitalist, author, and conspiracy theorist involved in the 9/11 Truth Movement. ... He has been called "the Truth Movement’s most prominent promoter".
Source


Now would you let me get away with presenting a "scientific" 9/11 Was Terrorists in Planes poll that was sponsored by George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, and Bill O'Reilly?

The correct answer is no...no you wouldn't.

September, 2007 Zogby Survey:

Straight from the Zogby site:


The Zogby poll was conceived and commissioned by 911truth.org and paid for with generous assistance from individual project donors and Visibility911.com. 911truth.org is a national information clearing house and grassroots resource center for the US 9/11 truth movement. The group is dedicated to investigation, education, organizing, and accountability regarding the recent criminal misuse of government to promote fear, repression and endless war.


Read that last sentence again (the one I bolded for you). Science, or rhetoric?...detecting this stuff is your forte, bs...be honest now...

If the poll questions and administration had even a QUARTER of the bias contained in the delivery of the results, then the tests don't have an important thing called ecological validity...or is it external validity...hell I can't remember, one of the validities...the participants are not acting how they actually would...they would try to please the interviewer by telling them what they feel they want to hear (it's called the Hawthorne Effect...but I was hung over in class that day, so PLEASE look into these terms...I'd HATE to unintentionally mislead anyone.)

In short, and again I don't want to get too technical, but that pretty much means these polls are...for lack of a better term...bs.

They blinded us...with SCIENCE!!
(From my heart and from my hands...why don't people understand....)



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essedarius
Let the record show that I tried to let you off the hook and drop the whole conversation about the "scientific" surveys but you just wouldn't leave it alone.

August,2004 Zogby Survey of NY, NY
Sponsored by 9/11truth.org, 9/11citiizenswatch.org, and walden3.org.


They paid for the survey. Zogby International is the organization that actually conducted it. What's your point? Something against Zogby?


Now would you let me get away with presenting a "scientific" 9/11 Was Terrorists in Planes poll that was sponsored by George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, and Bill O'Reilly?


I would if they simply provided the funds for a Zogby poll or any other professionally done survey, and there were no other conflicts of interest (ie having Zogby staffed in their favor
).



Read that last sentence again (the one I bolded for you). Science, or rhetoric?...detecting this stuff is your forte, bs...be honest now...


Not contesting the sponsors' bias. But they only paid for the survey.

And I was making references to all of your posting garbage earlier because you kept changing the subject every time I asked you to explain your reasoning, not because all of your biased nonsense was changing my opinion of anything.




If the poll questions and administration


Well, do you have any evidence that Zogby is now biased and distorting their results on 9/11 polls?


Here's more from Zogby's website:


Survey Methodology: Zogby America, 5/12/06 through 5/16/06

This is a telephone survey of adults nationwide conducted by Zogby
International. The target sample is 1,200 interviews with
approximately 81 questions asked. Samples are randomly drawn from
telephone Cd's of national listed sample. Zogby International surveys
employ sampling strategies in which selection probabilities are
proportional to population size within area codes and exchanges. As
many as six calls are made to reach a sampled phone number.
Cooperation rates are calculated using one of AAPOR's approved
methodologies1 and are comparable to other professional public-
opinion surveys conducted using similar sampling strategies.2
Weighting by region, party, age, race, religion, and gender is used
to adjust for non-response. The margin of error is +/- 2.9 percentage
points. Margins of error are higher in su b-groups.

Zogby International's sampling and weighting procedures also have
been validated through its political polling: more than 95% of the
firm's polls have come within 1% of actual election-day outcomes.



So are they lying when they say the margin of error is +/- 2.9% on this poll?


Why does it even matter if so many people responded in such a way on this poll? Does it mean that 9/11 was an inside job? No. It's totally unrelated. So what's the problem, Essedarius? Why does what all of these other people think bother you?

[edit on 10-9-2007 by bsbray11]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join