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.

 

New full feature presentation from CIT now realeased!

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
If 9/11 Truthers were around when the Titanic sank, they would have claimed the Titanic was sunk by a US submarine torpedo, that NO ship could be sunk by an iceberg, that all the survivors were forced to lie about the sinking, and the victims who died of hypothermia and drowning were actually shot because they wouldn't lie.


I have to wonder. Why do 100% of the 9/11 debunkers devolve to talking about the titanic? Even though it has nothing to do with 9/11.

Does Mark Roberts teach you that on his site or something?

Yet we aren't allowed to compare other steel framed building fires to the WTC.



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 06:12 PM
link   
Viewpoint from a moderate on the whole 9/11 event:

What I see in these postings is long time rivalies, a group of people that present something and a group that ask questions and recieve no solid answers. Many posts are spiteful and have direct attacks to fellow memebers and that goes for both sides.

The TV Fakery threads which lead to the nice yellow warning in the header and footer of the 9/11 forum were determined to be the work of a "forum gang". The Pentacon special area has been removed from ATS for reasons I do not know (nor honestly care as it is not my business).

I often wonder about the people that allow the events of 9/11 to dominate their life. Will they one day suddenly say "I have wasted so much time and recieved little to know validation" or will they say "I did my best, but no one listened"? Both comments are a downer sure, but in the end I feel that nothing and I mean absolutely nothing will change unless you have a valid video of the mysterious government planners laying out their plans and each and everyone in that video admits it was indeed them.

To me, if it was a subversive gov't plot to upsurpt the power from the people then it was a moderate sucess in that they got away with doing it yet so long as the masses are happy there is no real change. If the people revolt over the belief of this theory of conspiracy then many people will die and to the victors go the spoils. In otherwords, if you do not defeat these evil doers then your punishment will be harsh and liberty will be taken to prevent such a revolt again regaurdless of cause.

As for the point of Craig being a hardcore journalist, I agree. Journalist devise their opinion of a story and present what they can to support their view. As far as a determined researcher, no. I do not see objective research in presentations. Don't take that as a dig because I don't mean it as such. Walter Cronkite was a hell of a journalist and was greatly resepcted and trusted...but he was hardly objective in his reports.

And a note to future film makers: If you ever use the collapse of the Towers as a backdrop to sell a crappy love story that is utter tripe (since # on a stick is how I really feel, but censors) like Titanic then I will gather my old dry bones and give you what is my best try of a kick in the jimmy.



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
If 9/11 Truthers were around when the Titanic sank, they would have claimed the Titanic was sunk by a US submarine torpedo, that NO ship could be sunk by an iceberg, that all the survivors were forced to lie about the sinking, and the victims who died of hypothermia and drowning were actually shot because they wouldn't lie.


Nope what 'truthers' would do is some research and find the truth. The Titanic sunk because inferior rivets were used and they snapped.

What the de-bunkers would do is claim the iceberg severed the ships central columns and the water that melted off the iceberg ran down hatches and flooded the lower levels causing explosions in the bilge.
The ensuing flood would cause the ship to globally collapse on itself due to the cooling of bulkheads and the force of gravity. What they don't realise though is the iceberg was a hologram and the rivets were loosened before hand...



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 



My Titanic reference was completely different. But I think you will agree was totally warrented.

Back to the topic.



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Ahabstar
 


Actually, I posted that before I read your post. But, yes. I can agree with you.



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


And realists would point at the large gapping hole in the side of the ship and say yep, it sank.

But you got a star for making me laugh.



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 06:26 PM
link   
Wow, another one. It's not so strange however, that just about every 9/11 thread comes down to he said she said, which is precisely why I usually avoid getting involved in these topics. I will say though, that the demeanor of the supporters of the official story is downright offensive.

Some aspects of the explanation of the events that led to a big hole in the Pentagon just don't add up, and aren't explained away by the official report. Therefore, some have posed legitimate questions, and offered possible explanations of their own. Instead of assisting in finding a concrete resolution though, supporters of the official claims simply bark and howl at those that question.

Personally, I'd like to know how the glass in the windows on either side of the hole, supposedly made by the fuselage remained intact. Tough glass I guess, as it was supposedly strong enough to "fold" the wings of the aircraft back, allowing them to follow the fuselage in through the hole, which was just barely larger in diameter than the fuselage itself.

The most important question I pose to those that subscribe to the official story however, is about the video. Yes, I require a video of a 757 impacting the building if I am to believe it was a 757 that hit it. Given the planes dimensions, it is not possible for this particular aircraft to travel fast enough to not be caught by a single frame in the video. So if there's nothing shady going on, why can't we all jump on YouTube and watch a 757 fly into the Pentagon.

Why does the burden of proof lie with the Truth movement. Truthers are asked to prove, unequivocally, any claim they make. Yet the same people that blast the Truth movement for unsubstantiated claims, take the official story at face value, no questions asked, even when, according to the official story, 2 + 2 = 51.



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 06:29 PM
link   
Lets face it, we more or less always knew it was an inside job ordered by who is a good question...
And also why was it ordered?
I believe not for oil or anything like that I think it was just a prelude to the facade that is the war on terror.
The second of their targets in the war was Iraq, a few people believe it to be a war for oil this is possible but I doubt it as they know that hemp oil is just as effective however it could be a desperate bid to hold onto their monopoly's.

I however believe it is war of information, with planet x getting closer, they may be after any information that may assist in the coming months, as Iraq is where babylon and sumer was.
And since planet X passed around every 3600 years it would be obvious that one of these civilizations was around at the time of the last passing and we're not wiped out are we?

Anyway not to go off topic.
Maybe 9/11 was a necessary evil...
Why they couldn't be more open I do not know...
But I am not totally ready to give up faith on the human race completely.



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomasAs we all know, one does not need any video or photos to know that AA 77 hit the Pentagon. Why you think we would is a measure of your ignorance.

Way to speak for everyone. I need a video of AA 77 hitting the Pentagon. Why you wouldn't, is a measure of your ignorance.

If you held the government, and the official story, to the same standards and requirements for proof, that you do the Truth Movement, then you'd be a "truther" too, my friend.

The only reason the Truth Movement exists at all, is because neither the government, nor people like you, can prove that AA 77, or any 757 for that matter, hit the pentagon.

Plane parts at the scene? So what? I have some old Cadillac parts in my garage, doesn't mean one crashed into my house.



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Keep up the good work!


I will. Why do you refuse to present the evidence of what wreckage over 1,000 people saw and/or recovered at the Pentagon?

Do you really still think that you are living in a fantasy world where you don't have to deal with ALL of the evidence at the Pentagon, Craig Ranke?

Now, tell us what the wreckage recovered from the Pentagon was, Craig. The TRUTH demands it.



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unit541

Originally posted by jthomasAs we all know, one does not need any video or photos to know that AA 77 hit the Pentagon. Why you think we would is a measure of your ignorance.

Way to speak for everyone. I need a video of AA 77 hitting the Pentagon. Why you wouldn't, is a measure of your ignorance.

If you held the government, and the official story, to the same standards and requirements for proof, that you do the Truth Movement, then you'd be a "truther" too, my friend.

The only reason the Truth Movement exists at all, is because neither the government, nor people like you, can prove that AA 77, or any 757 for that matter, hit the pentagon.

Plane parts at the scene? So what? I have some old Cadillac parts in my garage, doesn't mean one crashed into my house.


Your post is a good example of why the 9/11 Truth Movement cannot deal with physical reality. I'm good at eliciting the real truth about your sick movement from your own mouths.

Kids are like that. They need a video. To hell with the wreckage of a Boeing 757 and the innocent lives lost. It's just a video game, after all.



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by jthomas
If 9/11 Truthers were around when the Titanic sank, they would have claimed the Titanic was sunk by a US submarine torpedo, that NO ship could be sunk by an iceberg, that all the survivors were forced to lie about the sinking, and the victims who died of hypothermia and drowning were actually shot because they wouldn't lie.


I have to wonder. Why do 100% of the 9/11 debunkers devolve to talking about the titanic? Even though it has nothing to do with 9/11.


Do you really think you can dodge from the 9/11 Truther belief that one "needs" a video to "prove" AA77 hit the Pentagon?

Gosh. And you signed onto that belief.

Time to watch your debunking, Griff. I look forward to your phone call:

www.briconline.org...



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


So, in your opinion, there are no unanswered questions about the Pentagon?



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unit541
reply to post by jthomas
 


So, in your opinion, there are no unanswered questions about the Pentagon?


There is one major unanswered question that Truthers have avoided answering since I first asked it in March 2002. You'll note that is almost six years ago.

Would you like to answer it, Unit54?

Dick Eastman couldn't. Gerard Holmgren couldn't answer it. James Fetzer wouldn't answer it. Muhammad Columbo DENIED it was a question for six months before disappearing from the scene like the others before him.

Untold numbers on alt.conspiracy refused to answer it. Ditto on the Loose Change Form, ATS Forum, BautForum, Physorg Forum, and Jref Forum. ALL of them have fallen by the wayside, defeated.

Most recently, Craig Ranke has avoided answering the question for well over a year. (Hint: he knows the answer but it would decimate his Pentacon con video, so he pretends I never ask it.)

Would you like to answer the number one unanswered question about the Pentagon, Unit54?

Just give me the word, Unit54.



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unit541

The most important question I pose to those that subscribe to the official story however, is about the video. Yes, I require a video of a 757 impacting the building if I am to believe it was a 757 that hit it.


You've just entered boot camp. Pay attention, Unit54.

You have no clue why that is an irrational statement? Do you actually think a "video" takes the place of ALL the evidence? Do you actually want us to believe your fantastic claim that the multiple, independent, disconnect eyewitnesses imagined that a twin engine passenger jet hit the Pentagon? Do you think that the 1,000+ people who saw and/or recovered the wreckage and bodies from the Pentagon had no clue what they were handling, or, as Craig Ranke claims, never existed to begin with? Do you really think that ALL of those people would not say a word against the reports that the wreckage was from a 757 if the wreckage was from something else?

Do you want us to suspend our rational minds, Unit54?

Do you really want to believe that everything to be known is available on the internet?

Do you want us to believe that families of passengers dropped them off at the airport and within a short period of time were killed and their bodies planted - some of them in airline seats - along with wreckage of a 757? Are you really so callous to insult those families, Unit54?

We do NOT live in your fantasy world of 9/11 Truth where whatever you imagine is true by definition. We do not live in a world where 9/11 Truthers are "special", where you do not have to live by the rules of evidence like the rest of us.

If you do not believe that AA 77 hit the Pentagon against ALL of the evidence that it did, you are required to tell us what happened to us. The families of the victims DEMAND that of you.

Do you GET it, Unit54?


Why does the burden of proof lie with the Truth movement. Truthers are asked to prove, unequivocally, any claim they make.


Because you are making the unsubstantiated claims.


Yet the same people that blast the Truth movement for unsubstantiated claims, take the official story at face value, no questions asked, even when, according to the official story, 2 + 2 = 51.


You were duped by your masters to think there is some "official story" instead of the evidence from thousands of sources. The fact that you would continue to use that debunked canard means that you accept WITHOUT thinking the claims made by a relative handful of Truth Movement "leaders" and the hundreds of websites that repeat the exact same claims and assertions. You have no clue that they know you are gullible and won't think for yourself and actually examine all of the evidence yourself. You are their willing victim, willing to surrender your precious brain to a bunch of charlatans.

But you have a choice, Unit54. You can decide without interference or derision to start thinking for yourself, thinking critically and logically, examining the claims and evidence yourself. If you do and you are honest about it, you'll realize you've been used by the 9/11 Truth Movement and that they really have NO respect for you.

The choice is yours, Unit54.



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
You have no clue that they know you are gullible and won't think for yourself and actually examine all of the evidence yourself.


One last thing I'd like to say to you. How are you privy to "actually examine all of the evidence yourself."? You got secret clearance that we don't or something? For you to sit there and bold faced lie and say that we can view all of the evidence ourselves is really stretching it.



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by jthomas
You have no clue that they know you are gullible and won't think for yourself and actually examine all of the evidence yourself.


One last thing I'd like to say to you. How are you privy to "actually examine all of the evidence yourself."? You got secret clearance that we don't or something? For you to sit there and bold faced lie and say that we can view all of the evidence ourselves is really stretching it.


I could have been clearer. I should have said "examine all the claims and evidence available to us." And point out that Craig Ranke, for instance, refuses to.



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by johndoex
You have the full decode of the raw file? Great, please post a link for download. As far as i know, you claim to be an "FDR Expert", have worked for the US Govt, and you couldnt even decode the raw file, we did. And we didnt get 24 hours of decode Mr Strawman. Please show us that "24 hours of data that looks just like 77 for days before 9/11". Its rhetorical of course, because we know you cant provide such decoded data to back up your claims. You are caught in more lies.


For your fantasy to work you need to prove the FDR was planted in the Pentagon (group 5 of secret people who planted the FDR)


Can The Govt Get Their Story Straight? - Location of FDR

Lies, Conflicting Reports, Cover-Up's - Location of FDR Part II
Regards,
Rob
The p4t have the complete raw data, it shows all the flight of Flight for 24 hours. That alone verifies the FDR is from Flight 77. You guys have it all, why are you denying you have access to all the data from 77's FDR which shows previous flight correctly as flown by the 77 airframe? So you guys can not decode the raw data you have to show the fights are from 77, or you guys are not going to tell everyone the data shows it was 77's previous flights?

But this video is very quote mining good for making up stories but you have to have bad data from the RADAR guys and someone faked the FDR? How many bad guys does this add! When I was in the Air Force we kicked out the guys who made up stories, and put people in jail for fraud as this video implies has happen. You are accusing my fellow soldiers of killing Americans on 9/11, and changing data to kill people. So this video implies the terrorist get a free pass; UBL can relax now, he wanted to kill Americans as he said in the 90s, but we just give up and kill ourselves; THE truth is 19 terrorist boarded 4 jets cut pilot's throats and killed Americans.

The video is not very good at connecting the dots.

Originally posted by johndoexBeachy, you been repeating the same strawman's for months now. Time to come up with something better as perhaps some "critical thinkers" may think you arent too critical. Try not to remove your post content again in order to "save space"... its quoted.

Regards,
Rob
Great, but what do you think about the advertised video and the impossible turn by the plane?

[edit on 26-2-2008 by beachnut]

[edit on 26-2-2008 by beachnut]



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by beachnut
Tell us the vehicle, tell us the speed.


Nobody can know these values that's why you can NOT conclude that the estimated flight path is "impossible".



No decoy plane! Sorry, you have no witnesses for the flyover. But Steve saw the C-130, good job.


Chaconas could not have seen the C-130.

Know why?

Chaconas describes seeing the plane BANK around to what he thought was the airport.


There is no possible way he could have seen ANY bank AT ALL in the C-130 flight path from the RADES data.



Plus the flight path Chaconas describes is irreconcilable with where the C-130 pilot himself says he flew:

He says he flew "NORTH" and "WEST" from Andrews to the south side of The Mall, not Reagan airport:


So in order to suggest that Steve Chaconas saw the C-130 you have to admit that the C-130 pilot himself lied about where he flew and also admit that the RADES data shows something completely different from what Chaconas saw.
Yes we have the speed from RADAR, and FDR. Plus we have the wreckage of 77 at the Pentagon and a very good estimate of the speed can be made using physics. It was done, you have ignored that evidence also. You have yet to prove the parts of people and the parts of plane are not of 77. People saw a plane speeding along, it is impossible to make the turns you drew with the bank angles confirmed by witnesses. Physics proves this to be true. So unless you can say your "plane" was going 58 to 66 mph (not what witnesses saw, they said fast!), you have a problem with PHYSICS; math/physics people check it out!

He did see the C-130, it went right over him at 2700 to 3500 feet and did what he saw. RADAR data proves and confirms what he saw, and you presented the facts to prove your assumptions wrong in your own video. It is the classic error of logic the video makes. It is cool as you provide proof of the RADAR data and the C-130. Cool.

The pilot did take off to the North and he did Fly west! You need to talk to a pilot who has flown for years! Oops that is me, 35 years of flying and not a thing in your video makes sense to support your conclusion. At least you made a conclusion! Bravo,!

No, the C-130 pilot did not lie, the things he said do not make the RADAR data wrong. North is anything from 271 to 91 degrees, West is 181 to 359. Pilots talk in general and specific. Sorry, if he wanted to be specific he would have said a specific heading. You drew a fake flight path to the Mall. The Mall is TWO MILES long! A big beautiful landmark illuminated by the sun from behind on a clear day, Beautiful! TWO MILES of MALL! Wow, he saw it after he took off in his constant turn to the west (181 thru 359 increased your westward way). Pretty hard to say the exact heading when you are taking off to the north and turning to the west! It sure looks like he took off to the north and headed west on the RADAR data. You are taking what was said and making up a story. Anyone can see from the data you supplied the statements from the C-130 crew match the real RADAR data, and the FDR from 77. You warped all the quotes to match your made up story, yet you included all that is needed to prove what happen on 9/11 as seen did happen.

Took off North, and headed West, as seen on the RADAR data, and all the talk about clock positions from the crew and where 77 was are a good fit proving 77 hit the Pentagon along the flight path you are trying to prove wrong.



posted on Feb, 27 2008 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


I am not "investigating" AA77. Craig Ranke is. Get your facts straight there, sonny.

But Daddy, you said there were a thousand witnesses who collected airplane parts from the Pentagon. Are you making this up? What about Officer Brooks? He said people were running out of the building saying, "what plane, where is the plane?"

I'm confused Daddy, why are you and Officer Brooks saying two different things? Were you in a patrol car that day too, Daddy?






[edit on 27-2-2008 by ipsedixit]




top topics



 
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join