Please stop with the crazy claims!

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 11:50 PM
link   
reply to post by KaiBosh
 





at this point we will never know what really happened that day so it is all a moot point regardless.


So I guess we can all curl up on the porch and lay by our dish now.Many people died that day as everyone is aware of so I do NOT consider this point moot in any sense of the meaning.Have we become cattle?

Effective military?Which military was that?I get what you're saying,just had to chime in on that gem.


[edit on 10-11-2007 by citizen truth]




posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 

You think four Arabs who have never flown 7X7's before flew them so accurately into the towers and the Pentagon without any "electronic assistance" by the military?



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
It has to do with facts and evidence. If you state that planes hit the towers you have to show evidence to support what planes hit the towers.

** SIGH **
This is like debating a rock. Are you reading my posts?
Again, the proof is the video of the planes flying into the towers and the reports of the people inside and outside of the building who saw the planes with their own eyes. Lets also not forget all the people who were on board the flights. If there were no planes then what happened to them? When their loved ones waived goodbye to them when they boarded the plane, was that a hologram also? How much more proof do you need?



So where are the videos of Flight 77 hitting the Penatagon, can you show them or not?

Why are you ignoring the video of the planes hitting the towers?
So you are saying because their is no video of the plane hitting the pentagon that the entire 9/11 event was fraud. Is this what you are saying? I hope not. You do realize that there is not always a camera around right?

BTW, I'm sure you have seen the video from the parking lot or something like that which showed a plane flying into the pentagon.



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


But the government made little effort to cover up the warnings, a totally different situation than many of the other pieces of the 9/11 puzzle. Therefore, they probably made these bogus reports to be discovered later to support the "UBL did it" official story.



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 11:53 PM
link   
yes yes refute with
its not in my field therefore it exists.
nice logic trap.

reply to post by johnlear
 



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


And, furthermore, NO ONE TOOK RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ATTACKS! (except for allegedly bin Laden in a highly spurious tape). You mean to tell me that a terrorist organization pulls off the deadliest terror attack in history and no one's bragging about it? Doesn't make sense unless you subscribe to either the false flag or the Abu Nidal-for-hire theory.



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by citizen truth

My comment is ludicrous???

Yes


You can claim hoax without having to provide a single shred of evidence to the contrary?

Umm....I am not claiming a hoax.

The 'no plane' or 'hologram' theories is the hoax.


If you are a proponent of the official story then prove it's correct.

I already did.

Didn't you see the video of the planes flying into the towers?
I'm sure who have heard the reports of the people inside and outside of the building who saw the planes hit the towers with their own eyes. Again, how much more proof do you need?



I'm sorry but I'm going to find it hard to take you seriously in the future.

Darn, I'm not going to get any sleep now.

Sorry, but I really don't care whether you take me seriously or not.



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by antsi
 


Could've been elites from the Abu Nidal Organization, see my post above.



posted on Nov, 11 2007 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by mentalempire
But the government made little effort to cover up the warnings, a totally different situation than many of the other pieces of the 9/11 puzzle. .


Not really true. Some warnings were not released, and you have some warnings that were classified.

www.ctstudies.com...

Early '01 Memo Warned of Al Qaeda Threat
….The memo, from former counterterrorism chief Richard A. Clarke to then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, had been described during the hearings, but its full contents had not been disclosed…..(Reuters, 12 Feb 05)

Bush team tried to suppress pre-9/11 report into al-Qa'ida
Federal officials were repeatedly warned in the months before the 11 September 2001 terror attacks that Osama bin Laden and al-Qa'ida were planning aircraft hijackings and suicide attacks, according to a new report that the Bush administration has been suppressing….(Belfast Telegraph, 11 Feb 05)

Memo warned Bush of al Qaeda threat
A newly released memo warned the White House at the start of the Bush
administration that al Qaeda represented a threat throughout the Islamic world, a warning that critics said went unheeded by President George W. Bush until the September 11, 2001, attacks….(Reuters, 11 Feb 05)

Sept 11 warnings ignored: report
United States aviation officials failed to respond to dozens of warnings of a possible terrorist threat months before September 11, 2001, according to a previously undisclosed report by the panel that probed the attacks….(Reuters, 11 Feb 05)

FAA ignored pre-9/11 terror alerts
In the months before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, federal aviation officials reviewed dozens of intelligence reports that warned about Osama bin Laden and al- Qaeda, some of which specifically discussed airline hijackings and suicide operations, according to a previously undisclosed report from the 9/11 commission…..(New York Times, 10 Feb 05)

9/11 Commission: FAA Was Alerted to Potential Attacks
Federal Aviation Administration officials received 52 warnings ….(AP, 10 Feb 05)



posted on Nov, 11 2007 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by antsi
You think four Arabs who have never flown 7X7's before flew them so accurately into the towers and the Pentagon without any "electronic assistance" by the military?

Umm....Yes!
You do realize the arabs went to flight school right?
And you don't need to be an expert to fly into the tallest buildings in NYC.



posted on Nov, 11 2007 @ 12:02 AM
link   
Wow, Jon Lear seems so serious about this theory i'm like ... shocked.

We're talking about 3 dimensional imagery projection, don't we?

To the best of my knowledge this is not possible at this time, i mean we're at the early stage for this technology.I heard about promising results achieved by a few enterprises working in the field but making a 3d plane,in broad day light, looking like a real plane such as the one filmed & seen by countless cameras that day, i don't know man...

But i guess there is people who will tell me the militaries have 20 years of advance in this field.

To me and until further evidence, i consider this theory to be a sci-fi oriented one.

[edit on 11-11-2007 by themaster1]



posted on Nov, 11 2007 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan
You do realize the arabs went to flight school right?
And you don't need to be an expert to fly into the tallest buildings in NYC.


You do have to be a good pilot to hit the center of a building doing 500mph.

And you have to be a great pilot to make a turn and line up directly onto the building the size of the Pentagon doing 500mph.



posted on Nov, 11 2007 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by themaster1
 


You shouldn't be shocked. John Lear, by his own admission, has a long history of doing covert ops for the government. John Lear's unswerving adherence to the least credible of theories 100% of the time supports a theory that he is just being paid by the gov't to make us all look bad.



posted on Nov, 11 2007 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


DUDE, this was stuff the 9/11 whitewash commission uncovered. They ignored CD data. They poo-pooed the insider trading. But they "found" this. Why?



posted on Nov, 11 2007 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFanYou do realize the arabs went to flight school right?
And you don't need to be an expert to fly into the tallest buildings in NYC.

Didn't some of them flunk? Oh wait, they made up for it by practicing a cardboard cockpits.

If it's so easy, I challenge you to rent a flight simulator and try it with one try and to help simulate the fear of dying, hire someone to stand behind you while you attempt to hit the building dead-on who will shot you in the head if you miss on the first try. Think you could? Good luck.



posted on Nov, 11 2007 @ 12:12 AM
link   

Why are you ignoring the video of the planes hitting the towers?


Also let us not forget the Millions that watched it live that fateful day...

My many brother and sister officers that were there, in person...

If we are going to start saying that all of them are lying, then we might as well accept that Elvis is in Panama having tea with Princess Diana and John Kennedy while watching Jim Morrison play guitar...

The way that I see it is if we begin to simply discount "eyewitness" account, than most of history can be discounted.

There is no real proof that it is ME here typing this post to ATS, except my wife sitting next to me. If the eyewitness's are lying about 9/11, maybe my wife is lying too and I am not really here...

As silly as that sounds, it is as applicable as believing no planes hit the towers.

How is it scientific in any way to pick and choose what eye witness accounts you are going to believe and which you are not? Is it scientific to believe only the ones that fit what ever conspiracy theory we make up in our minds and disbelieve all others?

The actually hilarious thing is when the "discounters" demand factual evidence... When did it become necessary for someone supporting the factual side of a debate to provide proof to someone supporting an alternate theory?
Would it not be more appropriate for the "non believers" to provide said proof?
The supporters of the facts have numerous film accounts, plane parts and destroyed buildings as well as hundreds of eyewitness accounts, yet the "nonbelievers" still "demand" proof.. That is rich...

Maybe JFK was not shot...
Maybe Pearl Harbor was never attacked...
Maybe the Oklahoma bombing never took place...
I've watched the Shuttle go up, but maybe it only goes behind a cloud and comes back down...
And just because I say I have watched it, maybe I have not....

If one is going to think it is scientific to disbelieve eye witness testimony, then where do you draw the line on believable? Pearl Harbor? JFK? Elvis?

Semper



posted on Nov, 11 2007 @ 12:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
You do have to be a good pilot to hit the center of a building doing 500mph.
And you have to be a great pilot to make a turn and line up directly onto the building the size of the Pentagon doing 500mph.

No, actually you don't have to be a great pilot especially given the enormous size of the buildings. Also, the 500mph speed seems a bit fast. I don't believe the planes were going that fast at the time of impact.



posted on Nov, 11 2007 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by mentalempire
DUDE, this was stuff the 9/11 whitewash commission uncovered.


My post was not from the 9/11 commision.



posted on Nov, 11 2007 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan

Originally posted by antsi
You think four Arabs who have never flown 7X7's before flew them so accurately into the towers and the Pentagon without any "electronic assistance" by the military?

Umm....Yes!
You do realize the arabs went to flight school right?
And you don't need to be an expert to fly into the tallest buildings in NYC.


Yeah, because taking flight training on a Cessna is EXACTLY like steering a jet airliner in a perfect arc into a building at 550mph...

Look into flight instructers who asked their students to attempt the same feats on simulators (real ones, not your dad's C64). Not only were the students unsucessful, but the instructers were unable to pull it off as well.



posted on Nov, 11 2007 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by 4thDoctorWhoFan
 





Umm....I am not claiming a hoax.The 'no plane' or 'hologram' theories is the hoax.


Can you for one minute read what you write and lay off the emoties.You quote me and say you are NOT claiming a hoax and in the next breath claim that the no plane theory is a hoax.

I don't recall ever saying that planes did not fly into the WTC.If I did please find the quote.



If you are a proponent of the official story then prove it's correct.I already did.
Didn't you see the video of the planes flying into the towers?
I'm sure who have heard the reports of the people inside and outside of the building who saw the planes hit the towers with their own eyes. Again, how much more proof do you need?

You're cracking me up.Just because planes hit the towers PROVES the Official story is true???That's a very shallow argument.




BTW, I'm sure you have seen the video from the parking lot or something like that which showed a plane flying into the pentagon.


You saw a plane?Can you screen grab that for me and show the Boeing please.I've done so and mine doesn't show a Boeing.It shows an alleged aircraft but it looks more like a Global Hawk or an F-16.




So you are saying because their is no video of the plane hitting the pentagon that the entire 9/11 event was fraud. Is this what you are saying? I hope not. You do realize that there is not always a camera around right?


Do you have any idea how many cameras were on and around the Pentagon?One of the most protected sites on American soil and some schlep forgot to turn on the cameras?I can't buy that.

I'd suggest you do some more research.





top topics
 
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join