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.

 

To all Believers of the Official Story:

page: 15
5
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


But they dont want to listen to none of that because it doesnt fit into there conspiracy.

Why would the US government will risk being exposed in 9-11 buy creating this complicated scenario of a conspiracy, if they coud just instead detonate a nuclear bomb in a major city?

What would be more simple, one guy, one nuclear bomb, fake just 1 guy , link him to Bin Laden. They would be able to accomplish the same 9-11 objectives with less chance of getting trutherized.

They say no way that 19 hijackers did it, but yet want to create a scenarion were hundreds or maybe thousands of people would have to be involved.




posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Bunch
 


Bunch, you asked the same question in the other thread, and I answered it. I also presented the the footage of the mayor of Shanksville saying "no plane'.
I presented it to you multiple times, why don't you respond to that, and why do you ask the same question here, and don't respond to my answer in the other thread?



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by enigmania
reply to post by Bunch
 


Bunch, you asked the same question in the other thread, and I answered it. I also presented the the footage of the mayor of Shanksville saying "no plane'.
I presented it to you multiple times, why don't you respond to that, and why do you ask the same question here, and don't respond to my answer in the other thread?


Well we know there was a plane in Shanksville because of all the eyewitnesses who saw all the wreckage and body parts.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


See, you're not even trying to look at the evidence! How can you say that? It's the freaking mayor of the town saying there was no plane, on tv, and you don't even want to watch, or acknowledge that evidence?
Well, what more can I say, you have proven to be an ignoramus.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by enigmania
reply to post by jfj123
 


See, you're not even trying to look at the evidence! How can you say that? It's the freaking mayor of the town saying there was no plane, on tv, and you don't even want to watch, or acknowledge that evidence?
Well, what more can I say, you have proven to be an ignoramus.


Go ahead and post it. I can also show you eyewitness testimony saying they found plane parts and body parts, so who do we believe?



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by enigmania
 


Notice I responded to you without calling you ignorant? I REQUIRE the same respect from you. Thank you.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


I called you that because you were being ignorant, you weren't prepared to acknowledge the evidence I presented, because you had sources claiming the opposite.
Here's the link:

video.google.fr...

Edit; I thought you were Bunch, you responded to my response to him. Not that it changes anything.

[edit on 9/1/08 by enigmania]

[edit on 9/1/08 by enigmania]



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by enigmania
reply to post by jfj123
 


I called you that because you were being ignorant, you weren't prepared to acknowledge the evidence I presented, because you had sources claiming the opposite.
Here's the link:

video.google.fr...

Edit; I thought you were Bunch, you responded to my response to him. Not that it changes anything.

[edit on 9/1/08 by enigmania]

[edit on 9/1/08 by enigmania]


I honestly don't care why you called me ignorant. It was not called for and it's a violation of the TOS. You can disagree with me all you like but I expect you to do it in a civil manor.

Keep in mind you were not prepared to acknowledge the evidence I presented, because you had sources claiming the opposite. See, it goes both ways.

Now my questions for you are:
If that plane never crashed there:
Where is it?
Why would passengers make phone calls talking about the hijacking?
Why was a fan from one of the engines recovered in a catchment basin, downhill from the crash site if no plane crashed there?

Wallace Miller, Somerset County coroner said that body parts were found withiin a 70-acre area directly surrounding the crash site. Paper and tiny scraps of sheetmetal, however, did land in the lake. Is he and all those working with him lying? Are the witnesses who found the debris lying?

Regarding you video
1. It's hard to hear the witnesses talk when some german guy is talking over them so I can't really get a good idea of the inflection and context what they are saying. Do you have a link without the german narrator?
2. The text posted on the screen does not match up with what the witnesses are saying. I would prefer to hear what they are talking about then reading an interpreted text post.



[edit on 9-1-2008 by jfj123]

[edit on 9-1-2008 by jfj123]



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


Could you validate to us in any other documented jetliner crash, under more exacting similar conditions to alleged Flight 93, inclusive of the jetliner being a 757, when bodies or body parts of passengers were spread over 70 acres of land? I live on one acre. I am well aware of the size of 70 acres.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


If an airplane has not crashed where alleged to crash, why are you asking someone else where a non-existant crashed plane went? It is your argument an alleged plane crashed at a certain site. It is up to you to find out where it went. If you have no idea where some alleged crashed plane is, why would anyone else?

If some seasoned astronomer (PhD and all) came running to you. and said the sun turned purple, would believe that person. just because he or she touts a PhD and experience in astronomy? My point is - Why would you take someone's word, regardless of the credentials and expertise he or she touts, which may be false, and not investigate yourself?



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar


Very well written, and I agree with you 100%.



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 01:14 AM
link   
reply to post by enigmania
 


Contrary to what you mainly are here, sometimes when I ask a question I'm not looking for confrontation or an arguement or if I get lucky a serious respectable debate of ideas.

When I pose a question sometimes I just want to analize the rationale that the responder uses to provide the answer. That to me says a lot more than engaging people in meaningless arguements especially in this forum.

I'm here for me, so I can form my own opinion, unfortunately what I came to find here is that facts and reason have been replace with ego, emotion, loudmouthing, namecalling and less than an honest will to have serious discussion.

The CT's treat those that believe in the official story the same way Bush treat terrorist: "You either with us or with the them" and under that platform the is no space for exchange of ideas.

So as result I just ask a question here and there may be a get lucky enough and get a response and that way I can deduct for myself if that person has any idea what they talking about, if that person is informed on both side of the issue and the many angles involved in this story, or just trying to push for their specific CT agenda, which sadly to say is what many do here.

And to be honest, when I came to this forum just a couple of weeks ago after being a member for a long time in this website, I came with no preconceived notion about 9-11 CT's since I'm a big UFO guy myself and a big believer in many CT in that aile. But the UFO Forum on their worst moment of discourse between skeptics and believer on their worst moment!!, doesn't come close to what I see in these forum on a daily basis.

Some of you guys might be looking for truth, but with the tactics that many 9-11 CT's employ just keep tuning people off. At the end of the day someday you might find that smoking gun but having discredit yourselves (not you specifically), the movement, with the tactics and nonsense, and tuning of so many people, its going to serve you for nothing! That is if your purpose was to inform people, which at this point I don't think these movement could care less. I think is has become a personal race for who can put out the wildest stuff out there.



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 05:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by jfj123
 


Could you validate to us in any other documented jetliner crash, under more exacting similar conditions to alleged Flight 93, inclusive of the jetliner being a 757, when bodies or body parts of passengers were spread over 70 acres of land? I live on one acre. I am well aware of the size of 70 acres.



Can you provide me information about any other crash that happened under similar conditions? To my knowledge that has never happened.



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 05:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by jfj123
 


If an airplane has not crashed where alleged to crash, why are you asking someone else where a non-existant crashed plane went? It is your argument an alleged plane crashed at a certain site. It is up to you to find out where it went. If you have no idea where some alleged crashed plane is, why would anyone else?

If some seasoned astronomer (PhD and all) came running to you. and said the sun turned purple, would believe that person. just because he or she touts a PhD and experience in astronomy? My point is - Why would you take someone's word, regardless of the credentials and expertise he or she touts, which may be false, and not investigate yourself?


So are you saying that the plane NEVER existed?
Are you saying passengers never got on the plane because it never existed?
Where did those real people disappear to?
Who's body parts were scattered all over the area?

I know where the plane went, it crashed into the ground in Shanksville, I was asking where the poster thought the plane went if they didn't believe it crashed in Shanksville.



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 05:49 AM
link   
What I see here is a lot of cherrypicking of observations, public statements quoted out of context and inaccurate press statements taken for fact even though they were retracted/corrected shortly after.

The mayor said there is no plane and I agree that there's nothing resembling an aircraft there but there's an awful lot of pieces of something lying around a smoking hole in the ground where eyewitnesses observed a plane go down at high speed and a subsequent fireball.

The coroner was also correct in saying there weren't any bodies to take back to the morgue. There were a lot of pieces though that took considerable time to collect and identify.

The real conspiracy can't be as big as faking plane crashes & blowing up buildings - the logistics and complications of such an operation would guarantee failure and consequent exposure.



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 06:40 AM
link   
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 


Hi SlightlyAbovePar, thanks for taken the time and your answer.



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 08:38 AM
link   
Has anyone mentioned the fact that to this day NIST has "no explanation for the global collapse of towers 1 and 2" and "no explanation for the cause of collapse of building 7"?

Also, I think it is worth noting the procedure from which conclusions about the "cause of collapse" for towers 1 and 2 were obtained. Since there was no testing done on the steel for traces of explosives (the steel was all sent to China within a week), certain assumptions were made. The NIST essentially gathered these experts and said "assuming controlled demolition was not a possibility, determine the cause for the collapse." They didn't even have to explain why the buildings completely collapsed, only why the collapse started. It is imperative to realize that the "official story" is only a theory as well.

I am new to this site, but have been reading posts on here for some time. I have also done extensive research into 9/11 and will be the first to tell anyone that there is a ton of disinformation out there, but it is up to us open minded people to determine what is the truth.



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


Jeah, I figured you would complain about the German voice over. It was an interview for German tv, so, no other version. Convenient for you, huh? Now you can dismiss it.
If you post evidence that a plane did crash there, I'll be the first to watch it.
After seeing the footage, can you at least admit that the "wild no plane claims" do have a foundation?



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Bunch
 


Funny how you still don't respopnd to my answer, my question and the footage I posted.



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


When I ask you to substantiate your statement, you do not turn around and ask me to substantiate your statements, and then add you do not know. If you are going to do that, admit not knowing, and then ask if the other person knows.

There is no precedent before or after 9/11/2001. That has repeatedly been brought up by myself, johnlear and others.

Do you not find that extremely odd? Because I certainly did. It set off a large number of red flags plowing through the "official" reports. Nothing was normal as it always has been, aside from 9/11/2001 between the hours of 8:46 and 10:03 am. The laws of nature have never hung in suspended animation, because humans decide that is the way their written reports will read and be fed to the general public.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join