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: 19
5
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


If they had any, it would behoove them to share them. Obviously they do not have any, or would share them to bolster the case for the "official" reports.




posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 02:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
If they had any, it would behoove them to share them. Obviously they do not have any, or would share them to bolster the case for the "official" reports.


But not if the FBI and NTSB crime scene reports disagree with the official story.



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 05:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by jfj123
 


Actually, I clearly indicated I was addressing your full context for the second time. However, do not allow that fact to get in the way of deliberately misinterpreting my words once again.


No you didn't. Get over it. You know what I meant, you know what I mean now. Obviously if I see I listened to it, I listened to it. You should at least give that statement the same weight as the other as opposed to negating that statement. Unless of course you simply wanted to misrepresent the context



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Which they would seriously disagree with physical facts of 9/11/01 - if they had any.



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


I am telling you how it came off to me. You are in no position to tell me how your words hit my eyes and interpreted after they hit my eyes. What you thought you meant did not come out that way, in the full context as you presented it. Is that clearer now? That is such a petty issue completely irrelevant to the subject.

If you want people to interpret exactly the way you mean your words to read, then present the words so others can easily do that. Or civilly qualify what you did mean when asked, rather than insisting everyone else is stupid because you badly worded your intent when presenting it to others.

You have a very nasty habit of presuming what other people meant, without asking them what they actually meant and intended. Everyone is not like you in that respect.



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


Actually, they have. You just choose to ignore them because they don't fit your conspiracy.



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
reply to post by OrionStars
 


Actually, they have. You just choose to ignore them because they don't fit your conspiracy.


How would you know any FBI or FAA reports disagree with what actually did occur on 9/11/2001? When did those agencies release them to you? If you saw them, why aren't you questioning all those severe inconsistencies when compared to physical reality, of what we do already know by science and other available physical proof or lack thereof as alleged but not physically presented?



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by jfj123
 


I am telling you how it came off to me. You are in no position to tell me how your words hit my eyes and interpreted after they hit my eyes. What you thought you meant did not come out that way, in the full context as you presented it. Is that clearer now? That is such a petty issue completely irrelevant to the subject.

If you want people to interpret exactly the way you mean your words to read, then present the words so others can easily do that. Or civilly qualify what you did mean when asked, rather than insisting everyone else is stupid because you badly worded your intent when presenting it to others.

You have a very nasty habit of presuming what other people meant, without asking them what they actually meant and intended. Everyone is not like you in that respect.


I'm am not telling you what you interpreted, I'm telling you that because you didn't pay attention, you misinterpreted what I said.

Aside from this little problem, why would you believe I have a "NASTY HABIT" of presuming what other people mean?

Here's a thought...Instead of immediately condemning me because of your misunderstanding, why not simply ask me if I was unclear. Instead, as usual, you started attacking. This is YOUR nasty habit !!!

It's also amazing how you call me responses petty yet you keep responding? Another nasty habit maybe in that you must have the last word???



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


Yes, you did several times. Please do not do it again. The issue has now gasped its last breath.



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


What kind of science are you talking about? Is it the same kind of science that you are referring to in this quote?

I can easily see you missed the entire message of what a pilot was explaining should happen in jetliner crashes, with or without the engines running on nose dive. No airplane comes down perpendicular to the ground. It is impossible to have happen, particularly in commercial jetliners. Physics and quantum mechanics (laws of nature) are why.


Using physics and quantum mechanics (laws of nature), please explain to me why no airplane comes down perpendicularly to the ground, particularly in regards to commercial airliners.

How about 89°? How about 88°? How about 87°? How about 40°? Is that impossible also?



[edit on 12-1-2008 by Boone 870]



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by jfj123
 


Yes, you did several times. Please do not do it again. The issue has now gasped its last breath.



If you pay attention in the future, we'll be fine.



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
Which they would seriously disagree with physical facts of 9/11/01


What physical facts of 9/11 ?

We do not have most of the physical facts.



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


We have precedent setting records of events, both staged in labs for testing and actual unplanned events. Science used in determining cause and effect of events state no planes or jet fuel brought down WTC 1, 2, and 7 the way they fell.

We have documented physical evidence when plane crashes take place at ground level on soil, that most, if not all, of the plane parts will be no further than approximately a couple of hundred yards in radius from a crashed plane.

We have documented evidence no fire ever collapsed any steel and concrete buildings throughout the history of steel and concrete buildings.

The "official" report is refuted by science and documented events throughout history of high rises and aviation. That is our physical evidence. The most odd, of recorded events physical reality, cannot equal the surrealism of what the "official" reports force fed to the general public, regarding 9/11/2001.

One thing about nature, she is highly consistant in what can and cannot happen during any and all physical events in spite of what the force fed "official" report contends.



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


I have an idea. I am stating I know planes do not come down at those type of angles. That is my debate challenge to you. I do not have to prove/validate anything - yet.

Now you have to prove they do. You cannot do that with hypothetical math to suit your biased opinion. Math is never validation unless those figures have a basis in proved physical reality of actual events.

If all Einstein had done was write E=MC2, and someone had not actually used part of that formula to build the atomic bomb, the special theory of relativity would still be the special hypothesis of relativity, and every iota of hypothetical math would be completely meaningless for any validity.



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
We have precedent setting records of events, both staged in labs for testing and actual unplanned events. Science used in determining cause and effect of events state no planes or jet fuel brought down WTC 1, 2, and 7 the way they fell.

We have documented physical evidence when plane crashes take place at ground level on soil, that most, if not all, of the plane parts will be no further than approximately a couple of hundred yards in radius from a crashed plane.

We have documented evidence no fire ever collapsed any steel and concrete buildings throughout the history of steel and concrete buildings.

The "official" report is refuted by science and documented events throughout history of high rises and aviation. That is our physical evidence. The most odd, of recorded events physical reality, cannot equal the surrealism of what the "official" reports force fed to the general public, regarding 9/11/2001.


Hey, your stating the obvious to someone who does not believe the official story and is doing research.

I have posted evidence about the planes and fires not bringing down the towers.

I have a background in aviation and have posted evidence about the crash scenes.

I have posted lots of facts and evidence to to refute the official story.


But most of the offical reports and physical evidence has not been released from the FBI and NTSB.



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 12:40 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Pilots for 9/11 truth did manage to receive some reports from NTSB through the FOIA. When they pointed out how incorrect those reports were compared to reality, and made it public over the Internet, it is quite possible the NTSB will not release any further written reports to anyone else, regardless of being mandated by law to do so. The Bush administration suspended all laws, including those of nature, they day W took office - twice - by blatantly cheating.

If people actually want them, they are going to be forced to go to court and demand them. Then hope they get a judge who isn't inclined to block the laws, according to what the Bush administration mandates, so that appeals have to be done to find any judge complying with federal laws and constitutional rights of US citizens.

People will never know how many rights they have lost, until they encounter just trying to use the laws, without court battles, to obtain that to which they are entitled by law.



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 06:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
Pilots for 9/11 truth did manage to receive some reports from NTSB through the FOIA. When they pointed out how incorrect those reports were compared to reality, and made it public over the Internet, it is quite possible the NTSB will not release any further written reports to anyone else, regardless of being mandated by law to do so. .


I have my own FOIA requests in to several agencies including an internal FOIA request to NSA.



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 



I have an idea. I am stating I know planes do not come down at those type of angles. That is my debate challenge to you. I do not have to prove/validate anything - yet.


Nice dodge. It would be a lot easier if you would just admit that you are completely wrong and you have no idea of what you're talking about. Everyone makes mistakes Orion, most people will admit it. Why won't you?

NYFD? Remember that one?



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


That is the way debate works. Either you want to actually debate. Or you want to argue for the sake of argument. Which is it?



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


No a real debate is when counterpoints are accepted.
A meeting of minds.
Not a preach-athon.
Which is obviously what you want.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join