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.

 

9-11 lets lay it on the table....please provide evidence

page: 13
7
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 03:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Same here.
But does it give you a right to do it to me?
Like I said bad on BOTH supposed sides.

Oh and photocopies (otherwords scans of original documents) please.


Well i am on forums that i am 1 of the few people who does not believe the official story, so i get ganged up on by everyone else in the forum.

The military transcript has watermarks when scanned or copied to prove its real. I also have police training certificate.

Military transcript.

i114.photobucket.com...

NCS transcript.

i114.photobucket.com...

i114.photobucket.com...



[edit on 29-1-2008 by ULTIMA1]




posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 03:38 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


And you gang up on those that disagree with you.
Vicious little cycle that gets us NO WHERE.



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 03:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
And you gang up on those that disagree with you.
Vicious little cycle that gets us NO WHERE.


How do i gang up on others ?



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 03:47 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Your going to make me dig all that up?
But I myself have experienced you joining in a session of condescention aimed at myself.
But that is neither here nor there.
I can forgive. Especially considering the state of things. And how counter-productive the whole damn mess is. And the fact I see it playing into certain force's hands.
I am trying to bring an understanding here man.
Both sides get attacked by the other.
Both sides are digging in and not moving one inch.
Throwing objectivity out the window.
Defending ideas that could be wrong because they feel attacked.
And I am talking about BOTH sides.
I know psychology and I know people well.
Though I am not a shrink so I can't give credentials.



As for your credentials. Seem legit.
Please don't take that wrong.
I am just a natural skeptic on most things net based.
Particullarly with net people claiming to be something.

[edit on 29-1-2008 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 03:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
I am trying to bring an understanding here man.
Both sides get attacked by the other.


Well sometimes its hard to see how people can still believe the official story when its been proven there are a lot of things missing or left out of the official story.

Also with all the evidence still not being released there is not much to support the official story.

Sorry but thats how i feel from all the research i have done.



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 04:03 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


And that is kewl.
COMPLETELY kewl.
But we are ALL soldiers for the truth.
But instead of joining together INTO ONE VOICE we fracture and fight and bicker amongst ourselves. We both want the truth.
And I will tell you now.

All the evidence I have had chucked at me in condescention when I dare to disagree all I can see is possible interptetations.
NOT incontrivertable truths.
It COULD mean this. But it COULD also mean this.
Basically said I don't see things as you see them.
I can see where you come up with that. But I look at something and see a spectrum of possibilities ALL viable to varying extents.

The devil is in the details.
But WE BOTH want the whole truth and don't think we're getting it.
Why do we have to be enemies?
Especially when it like I said in my thread, BENEFITS THEM that we be enemies and attacking and bickering with each other?





And I might add it scares alot of people away from the whole thing this fighting and bickering.

[edit on 29-1-2008 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 04:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
All the evidence I have had chucked at me in condescention when I dare to disagree all I can see is possible interptetations.
NOT incontrivertable truths.
It COULD mean this. But it COULD also mean this.


Well there is evidence that is very straight forward.

Like NIST not recovering any steel from building7 for testing. There is no "could mean this could mean that".



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 04:14 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


You just don't get what I am trying to say do you?

And yes there are any number of reasons why they didn't do that.
Perhaps it was anticipated it would be questioned and help lead to the LOVELY mess we have now in the 9/11 forums (just being an example)?


[edit on 29-1-2008 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 04:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
reply to post by Valhall
 


Val,

Please explain how I am lying.

Thank you


Does he have to? Saying 99.999... something percent with a serious tone sounds like a very cheap lie - or strong belief. It is either, but I'm not sure which - only you can answer that.

I personally don't exactly know what happened back in 11.9.2001, and I consider myself as OOB as well, and after studying the matter for various years, I am pretty convinced that it was inside job in sense, that inside US government there were people helping the attack taking place.

It appears, that the "terrorists" knew about the excessive military exercises were taking place back then. The US intelligence officers definitely had all the evidence pointing out that attack was coming - but somehow this information failed to affect their actions. And again, when the attacks were taking place, the emergency actions had been deliberately hindered, so that the defensive system couldn't reply to the threat.

I don't want to make claims how the towers actually collapsed and what hit pentagon and was it plane that crashed in pennsylvania. But what I'm sure is that WTC7 was the first steel-frame concrete building ever to collapse due the fires.

Well, this is interesting thread and I'm going to skim it over before further replies; I want to see what prove can the "truthers" and the "believers" provide



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 04:38 AM
link   
reply to post by v01i0
 


Please read my thread A simple and Elegant Plan (9/11)
I talk about exactly that.
Basically they had the door left open for them, or more actually MADE for them to operate.



[edit on 29-1-2008 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 04:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
You just don't get what I am trying to say do you?


Yes i do. I am just stating there are obvious things that do not have a "could have meant this or could have meant that"

The point is they did not recover any steel from building 7 for testing (period)



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 05:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars

Originally posted by Midav
Popular Mechanics has a great article on debunking the 9-11 myth.

However, there will always be those that will want to believe otherwise...

[edit on 28-1-2008 by Midav]


Are you not aware Thomas Eagar's "Popular Mechanics" article became the Bush adminstration's original "official" report? That is the what is causing all the dissention, between those not agreeing with the original Bush administration presentation vs. the plural you agreeing with it. So much for your concept of debunking.

Debunking would come after the "official" White House report, not before it came out.


That's really interesting info.
Can you back this statement up?
Obviously at this point I need to state that I'm not trying to be sarcastic, I'd really like to know if this is true or not. I've never heard this so I'd be really interested to see the facts. Thanks a lot !



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 05:26 AM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


Okay, I'm looking at the pics on this website you provided the link for:

www.geocities.com...

I really can't tell what your talking about. What issue do you have with how the steel looks?



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 05:44 AM
link   
reply to post by WraothAscendant
 


I just read it. It was interesting and certainly plausible theory.

It just crossed my thoughts, but didn't the guy that hacked pentagon 2000 - 2001 said that it was blank password to admin account there in pentagon. If I regard that as a fact, I can't help myself thinking that the door was purposely left open to someone's to learn about defenses, practices and other crucial info about america?

This is just speculation of course, but I regard it as a possibility. That would nicely fit your scenario also.



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 05:46 AM
link   
I thank all of those that replied. In the end, you backed up what I already said previously: Some people will believe what they want to believe.

In my experience,debates such as these just go in circles and have slowly become a waste of time. That there was a huge conspiracy... well, I don't believe that. I don't have any proof whatsoever to back up that it wasn't a conspiracy. Then again, neither do those that believe it was a conspiracy.


We're just going to believe what we want to believe.

Seriously.... how many people here have tried to debate 9-11 only to come to a standstill over the years?

Be honest with your answer. I have at least a good 2-3 dozen times. Hours were literally spent. It seems like there are three categories of people.... The ones that think like I do. The ones that have a good dose of scepticism. Then you have the Rosie O'Donnell crew (which seems to be the funniest yet most frustrating lol).

Anyway, am off to work.



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 05:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Midav
 


Well, I don't know about you, but my view of 9/11 has evolved with every conversation I had, and I've had some.

But alas you have point there, most people have locked their opinions about how things went and are not willing to change their grounds even when it becomes unstable. And some people just debunk for the sake of debunking even their own perception of the event might be similar. Let me clarify: Even on this thread there are people debating their views, even both agree that events require more investigation, and both admits that it was likely an inside job, but they bash each others perception with which they have reached their conclusions. That is interesting


[edit on 29-1-2008 by v01i0]



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 06:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by v01i0
reply to post by Midav
 


Well, I don't know about you, but my view of 9/11 has evolved with every conversation I had, and I've had some.

But alas you have point there, most people have locked their opinions about how things went and are not willing to change their grounds even when it becomes unstable.


Perfectly and succinctly stated. And those people exist on both sides. They are married to their obsession over a theory and no matter how much the sand shifts under their feet they will reject data if it doesn't match their theory.

Let's take an example right in this thread. This example just happens to be from the "no plane" crowd, but it could have been any of the various truth theories or it could have been the "the official story is it" crowd.

The video posted in this thread about the inconsistencies in the news footage. It's a very interesting video. I enjoyed it and found they made some points that are worth keeping in the "bucket of consideration"...but then they step over the line every damned one of these religions step over. They take the photographic evidence that is data AGAINST their theory and the only thing they could do with this conflicting DATA was make sarcastic remarks in attempts to cast doubt on whether those photographs are real. The dude laments how many years it took him to get to where he could take good photographs of high-speed race cars and then insinuates that because it takes years of practice to get consistently good pics of high-speed objects there couldn't possibly be the chance that amateur photographers on the streets of Manhattan could get photos of the second plane plowing into WTC 2.

Well. see. that attempt to reject the data that is AGAINST your pet theory is called being disingenuous. It's called being intellectually dishonest - and more so to yourself than to the people you are trying to convince. It's an actual psychological attempt to MAKE YOUR THEORY RIGHT even in the face of conflicting data. An honest person trying to gather all the data of that day would simply include those data points and not go through the mental masturbation involved in creating the ludicrous idea that multiple Mr. Joe Blows on the street were willing to be complicit in some grand far-reaching lie to produce fake photographic and videographic evidence of the planes that day.

Simply put - which is more important Mr. Truther? Finding the truth (which lies within the facts we can gather) or making damned sure your theory wins?



[edit on 1-29-2008 by Valhall]



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 06:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
Simply put - which is more important Mr. Truther? Finding the truth (which lies within the facts we can gather) or making damned sure your theory wins?


How abot Mr. Official Story Believer, how can they believe in something without evidence and state they know what happened that day?

Then on top of that state they do not need to post evidence.



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 06:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Valhall
Simply put - which is more important Mr. Truther? Finding the truth (which lies within the facts we can gather) or making damned sure your theory wins?


How abot Mr. Official Story Believer, how can they believe in something without evidence and state they know what happened that day?

Then on top of that state they do not need to post evidence.


What part of my post threw you - the fact that I spoke directly to the Mr. Truther in the video I was referencing?

I stated clearly up front that BOTH SIDES do this. Good gawd you've got a real insecurity issue, you know.

I'm not going to apply the he/she truther/os politically correct language to every freaking statement I make just make sure you don't get confused. You'll have to assume when I state upfront "both sides" that any statement past that applies to "both sides".

Jesus H. Christ.



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 07:46 AM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 



In regard to the NIST report, I have looked into many of the claims made by engineers here and at other sites. I have taken these claims and asked others [professionals] if they hold water. So far not one person has proven the NIST report wrong. There have been MANY independant papers written that support the findings with NIST.

Again, NIST and their findings are supported by 99.999% of the professional community.



Yep, I've carried out a similar investigation, and I concur completely as far as the professional and scientific community are concerned.

I have brought up the subject of 911 building failure and simply allowed them to make their own observations with 1. A structural engineer (x2) 2. An aircraft engineer 3. A university lecturer in Physics 4. A demolitions expert 5. An architect (x2)

In each case, they have quickly got to the point: "You better believe it buildings like those towers can fail, and collapse the way they did, at the speed they did, under the impact of just one plane."

None of them said they were at all surprised when they saw those towers going down.





[edit on 29-1-2008 by undermind]

[edit on 29-1-2008 by undermind]



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join