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.

 

Proof of 9/11 and who was responsible

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob

the part that is so difficult and so expensive?

how about lining the towers with explosives?


OK, tell us all about it. Which explosives, how much, how many people, method of placement, when .... you know, lay out how it could possibly have been done.

You'd be the first to do so.




posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by billybob

the part that is so difficult and so expensive?

how about lining the towers with explosives?


OK, tell us all about it. Which explosives, how much, how many people, method of placement, when .... you know, lay out how it could possibly have been done.

You'd be the first to do so.


i don't need to provide those specifics.
there were many vacant floors, security was controlled by bush insiders, security was shut down, bomb-sniffing dogs pulled, there were ONE HUNDRED 'elevator maintenance' who BOLTED when they were most needed, and the explosions were reported AND RECORDED.

there's that, and half-melted cars, perfectly cylindrical storeys deep holes in wtc6, molten metal that cannot be explained by collapse or fire.

let the handwaving commence!!



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomasYou are doing the same thing Ultima1 did and whom I reported for trolling.

Then report me. Do it. Do it immediately and add an accusation of intellectual dishonesty aimed by me at you personally for your relentless obfuscation in this thread. If your complaint is upheld, I'll be staggered.

  • You entered this thread with a link to a piece in the jref forum.
  • You used that piece to help clarify your position.
  • You have failed to acknowledge what must be clear to anyone - that the jref piece is intellectually dishonest, flawed and lop-sided. That the author starts with a conclusion and constructs a grossly misrepresentative argument to support it.
  • You have failed to answer my questions about the extent to which you stand by such a piece, despite my giving very clear examples of why I think it's flawed.
  • You want to move beyond the jref piece itself and discuss its conclusions - something I am happy to do once you admit this piece itself is flawed - during which you will no doubt expect intellectual honesty from me.
  • Yet you have ducked and dived and wriggled away from having to accept the obvious about the jref piece, showing all the time a complete lack of intellectual honesty on your part.


So go ahead, report me and make your case.

[edit on 8-12-2007 by coughymachine]



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomasNow, coughyman, are you going to keep avoiding answering the questions? Please address the questions with evidence to support your case. You are doing the same thing Ultima1 did and whom I reported for trolling.

I'm going to give you another opportunity to report me.

It has become clear to me, as this 'discussion' has developed, that not only are you intellectually dishonest, but that I have come across the same techniques before.

I believe you are seanm.

He similarly stuck some rubbish out there then refused to substantiate it, instead preferring to play games with other contributors.

My suspicions were pretty much confirmed when I read this, which was posted in a thread entitled CNN airs story about the Mystery Jet over Washington on 911 today 12/1/07 (bolding mine):


Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by eyewitness86
It staggers the sound mind to believe that some people still insist that a huge passenger jet hit the Pentagon on 9-11.


Do you believe AA77 existed as a regularly scheduled flight on 9/11/2001?


How remarkable that 'you' and 'seanm' should have the same fixation with 'regularly scheduled' flights and a similar way of expressing it.

In this post, which appeares in a thread entitled If 9/11 was a inside job, How many people were involved?, you - posting as seanm - asked:


Did AA11 exist as a regularly scheduled Boeing 757 flight on 9/11 or not?


You also ended up calling me 'coughyman' as you have in this thread.

So, jthomas, I suspect you are seanm. My only regret is it took so long to figure out.

Our exchange is definitely over.

ETA: clarification

[edit on 8-12-2007 by coughymachine]



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob

i don't need to provide those specifics.


I know you are unable to.


there were many vacant floors, security was controlled by bush insiders, security was shut down, bomb-sniffing dogs pulled, there were ONE HUNDRED 'elevator maintenance' who BOLTED when they were most needed, and the explosions were reported AND RECORDED.

there's that, and half-melted cars, perfectly cylindrical storeys deep holes in wtc6, molten metal that cannot be explained by collapse or fire.


Those are merely assertions and claims for which you have not provided any evidence or sources. It's just another example of the 9/11 Truth Movement being unable to support any of its claims with evidence.



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by coughymachine

Our exchange is definitely over.


What exchange? You consistently refuse to address the the JREF post!

Not only are you avoiding supporting your claims and answering the questions JREF asked you, you've become rather desperate in your evasion.

Yes, this exchange is over as I know you cannot possibly support your claims that any version of your OTMCT is not implausible as we know they all are. I think everyone here sees how silly you've become in your evasions.

Cheers.



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomasI think everyone here sees how silly you've become in your evasions.

As has always been the case with you, seanm, quite the opposite is true.

I'm not surprised you changed your screen name. Even you must have realised your credibility was in tatters. To have continued to post under seanm would have been to extend an open invitation to everyone here to ignore you.

How long will it take you to set up another sn in the hope that you can once again, even if only briefly, disguise your lack of integrity?

As with your other sn, you are forthwith ignored.



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Coughymachine,

You've really gone loony on us. Tomorrow you'll believe I'm Napolean, I'm sure. Just because you cannot support your claims about the OTMCT doesn't mean you have to evade it. Just retract your claims and admit it, or support them with evidence. It's really that simple.

So far you have claimed that the JREF post's point that all the variations of the OTMCT are immensely difficult and implausible cannot be true but you adamantly refuse to support you claims. That really makes no sense of you.

So run away if you must. It just further shows that 9/11 Truthers can never support anything with evidence.

Cheers and good luck.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join