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: 5
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
reply to post by OrionStars
 


EXACTLY the answer I expected. You have not once offered anything in regards to evidence to support any of your theories.

Typical


Just because you do not recognize or accept bona fide evidence when presented to you, does not translate to it does not exist.

Why the need for barf icon during what should be a civil, reasonable adult discussion? Why don't you leave that for forums where that type of sophomoric behavior is more appreciated?




posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


Orion,

I should not even consider answering you. You continue to dodge every question presented to you. (no only by me)

You know EXACTLY what I'm talking about. If not...lets look at one of the more popular "truther" sites. "Scholars For 911 Truth". Do you know one of those "scholars" is a dermatologist?

Lets look at A/E For 911 Truth... They claim to have "engineers" in their corner that disagree with the offical report. Well... are they all qualified? Hmmm... go to the site (it's been down this afternoon) You will find that many do NOT have the qualifications to dispute the report.

Now, please read the paper I posted above to Val. You will see that this paper has been submitted to peer review and I heard is being published this month.

Enjoy.

C.O.



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Taxi-Driver

Originally posted by OrionStars

Perhaps, people should stop being overwhelming vague and start dealing with specific details instead, particularly pertinent science details.


Troll bait!

It was only vague because you cannot put the post in context--it is a comprehension issue for you--unfortunately, that seems to be your modus operandi.

Look at my latest post and independent investigation video for 'specific details"

And is there a reason you do not use the word "scientific?"


It is vague when details are missing. Webster's online is an easily accessible resource to use, when people fail to grasp the definitions of words.

There is also an easily accessible definition of the term Internet troll. I highly recommend you research it. Because you obviously do not already know the definition.



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


Since you contiune to play dodgeball with every question presented to you, you are now only the 2nd person I have on ignore. If you decide to present your theories with facts and evidence, please U2U me. If not, have a good time.



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 02:23 PM
link   
Ahem

Kindly stop the personal sniping and lets gt back to the topic at hand. Please!

Thanks
FredT, Moderator



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
reply to post by OrionStars
 


Orion,

I should not even consider answering you. You continue to dodge every question presented to you. (no only by me)

You know EXACTLY what I'm talking about. If not...lets look at one of the more popular "truther" sites. "Scholars For 911 Truth". Do you know one of those "scholars" is a dermatologist?


Then grasp this abstract concept and comprehend it. People can anonymously tout themselves to be anything they wish. However, when they project their thoughts they can end up making self-contradicting liars out of themselves.

I am not rude enough to pry into other people's private business. I never have to ask anyone their qualifications. If I read or listen to what write or say, I will know from the context of what they write or. If I even suspect plagiarism , I can easily check it out. People, with no qualifications, eventually give themselves away given time.



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars

Originally posted by jfj123

May I respectfully ask what your background is in building construction and science? Thanks.


If you did not recognize it when you saw it, no explanation is going help at this point in time.


You claim to have the background but you obviously don't or you would have posted it. You make a lot of claims you NEVER support. So once again, let me ask, do you have a credible background in science and construction? If you do, simply tell me what it is. If you fail to post the info. by default, I and everyone else will have no choice but to assume you have no background in these area's.



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
Ahem

Kindly stop the personal sniping and lets gt back to the topic at hand. Please!

Thanks
FredT, Moderator

agreed I made an attempt to do so --twice, yet Orion doggedly wants to derail and bury information with hackneyed pointless posts.. I digress... and will also put Orionstars back on ignore.



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars

Originally posted by jfj123

What abundance of evidence?

A lack of evidence is not in and of itself, evidence.


It would be refreshing if you would keep that in mind, every time you promote the "official" reports as the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Which they definitely are not. You have yet to scientifically prove anything yourself. You merely keep falling back on hearsay from the White House "official" reports.

All you redundantly keep telling us is you question(ed) nothing. You simply accepted what you were told by hearsay at face value and hold firm. You continue to project nothing but blind loyalty for the White House "official" reports. Then you have the pomposity to personally attack others unwilling to become blind loyalists exactly like yourself.


1. Please be specific as to what posts I have made in which I have not also provided supportive evidence?
2. Also please be specific about who I have personally attacked and what I said.

If you can't be specific, then I can safely assume you are lying about my posts to make me look bad (ironically that would be a personal attack) and make yourself feel better.



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars

Originally posted by jfj123

What abundance of evidence?

A lack of evidence is not in and of itself, evidence.


It would be refreshing if you would keep that in mind, every time you promote the "official" reports as the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

As I do not do this, your statement is what is known as a LIE.


Which they definitely are not.

Regardless of who made this statement, it is opinion only.


You have yet to scientifically prove anything yourself.

I have only posted a few items on this thread, referencing another thread where you will find but obviously don't understand MOUNTAINS of evidence.


You merely keep falling back on hearsay from the White House "official" reports.

Show me EXACTLY where I said this. If you can't, it's just another lie you're telling.


All you redundantly keep telling us is you question(ed) nothing. You simply accepted what you were told by hearsay at face value and hold firm.

Show me EXACTLY where I said this. If you can't, it's just another lie you're telling.


You continue to project nothing but blind loyalty for the White House "official" reports.

Have you even read my signature or looked at my avatar? I've stated quite a few times I blame the government for 9/11 but my charge is that it happened due to massive incompetence which is not even included in the official report.

My suggestion is that you stop posting lies about myself and other posters and try and start posting factual statements.



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
reply to post by OrionStars
 


EXACTLY the answer I expected. You have not once offered anything in regards to evidence to support any of your theories.

Typical


He never does on any of his posts. This is his style in every thread he visits for whatever reason



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

1. Please be specific as to what posts I have made in which I have not also provided supportive evidence?
2. Also please be specific about who I have personally attacked and what I said.

If you can't be specific, then I can safely assume you are lying about my posts to make me look bad (ironically that would be a personal attack) and make yourself feel better.


The moderators would edit out all the citations I would have to make in order to validate. All people have to do is read what you write, and no validation from me is necessary. All you do is rely on "official" reports citations, red herring and ad hominem. The proof is self-evident in your posts. You are not going to see it that way, but you are not on the receiving end of your own posts. We recipients are left with interpreting what you meant and intended not you.



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars

Originally posted by jfj123

1. Please be specific as to what posts I have made in which I have not also provided supportive evidence?
2. Also please be specific about who I have personally attacked and what I said.

If you can't be specific, then I can safely assume you are lying about my posts to make me look bad (ironically that would be a personal attack) and make yourself feel better.


The moderators would edit out all the citations I would have to make in order to validate. All people have to do is read what you write, and no validation from me is necessary. All you do is rely on "official" reports citations, red herring and ad hominem. The proof is self-evident in your posts. You are not going to see it that way, but you are not on the receiving end of your own posts. We recipients are left with interpreting what you meant and intended not you.


Let's make this easy. Cite 2 examples. Only 2, no more, no less. Show me how wrong I am. Pretty Please



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 02:50 PM
link   
I posted the following in a recent post:

Then grasp this abstract concept and comprehend it. People can anonymously tout themselves to be anything they wish. However, when they project their thoughts they can end up making self-contradicting liars out of themselves.

I am not rude enough to pry into other people's private business. I never have to ask anyone their qualifications. If I read or listen to what write or say, I will know from the context of what they write or say. If I even suspect plagiarism , I can easily check it out. People, with no qualifications, eventually give themselves away given time.

Exactly which words above don't some people comprehend in the context of what I posted? I have no problem with being politely asked to qualify words I post. If comprehension is not problem, then some people should make the effort to attempt to behave as if possessing relative reasonable adult mentality, and drop the red herrings and personal attacks against myself and others.



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 03:22 PM
link   



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
reply to post by OrionStars
 


LoL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


What exactly is the RIGHT way to ask you to back up your statements there friend? One gentleman actually put "I respectfully ask you".
So what does it take? A steak, a BJ, or just kowtowing and pretending we actually believe you?


You continue to give the strongest implications that you do not comprehend the term comprehension of words. Otherwise, you would not have made the snide retort you did continuing to confirm that. What of my words did you not comprehend? All? Some? If so, exactly which words in context were they?

Please stop deflecting with personality conflict and stay on topic. I do not owe anyone any personal information on myself, and neither does anyone else. What about that can't some people comprehend?



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 03:35 PM
link   
Moderator note: Post removed due to violation of the site's rules.


1f.) Relevant Content: You will not post messages that are clearly outside of the stated topic of any forums nor disrupt a forum by deliberately posting repeated irrelevant messages or copies of identical messages (also known as "flooding").



[edit on 27-1-2008 by dbates]



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
reply to post by OrionStars
 


LoL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


What exactly is the RIGHT way to ask you to back up your statements there friend? One gentleman actually put "I respectfully ask you".
So what does it take? A steak, a BJ, or just kowtowing and pretending we actually believe you?


Very well put !!!!



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 03:37 PM
link   
This thread is the prime example of what is wrong with CT's.

The OP ask for evidence to be laid out and all I have seen is the trollish attitude that reigns on this forum.

Great job you guys really know how to step up to a challenge.

IMHO this forum has already live its usefull purpose.

[edit on 27-1-2008 by Bunch]



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ItsHumanNature
Hi fellow Truthers and also hello to you OfficialConspiracyTheoryBelievers. Th Discovery channel show MythBusters has issued an invitation to submit "myths" for them to explore. There are obviously enough myths pertaining to the events of Black Tuesday to provide enough material for a whole season. I suggest that everyone interested in this topic to submit one or two well defined myths from that day to them for testing. Truthers- heres your chance to prove whether concrete turns into dust in a building collapse etc- and OTC Believers quit griping about the impossibilities of daylight Holographic projections etc. and submit it to the crew at Mythbusters.

Here is the thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Please be civil and happy MythBusting


I think this is a FANTASTIC idea !!!! One of the best ideas I've heard on this thread.
How would you suggest we do this? What specific myths should we present?

A previous myth busters show proved that someone with zero piloting experience can pilot a commercial jetliner and land a plane with the help of someone on the ground. OBVIOUSLY this was in a simulator but simulators are used for training for a reason.

[edit on 27-1-2008 by jfj123]



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join