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 What evidence would make you believe in a conspiracy?

page: 46
10
<< 43  44  45    47  48  49 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
No, no..You said earlier that a lack of information (aka evidence) is a sign of guilt.


No, do not becaome Disclosed and misquote me.

I stated lack of evidence is evidnece.. Do i have to go back and show you the exact quote i made?



Yes, I know what you said and I did not misquote you.
Please do go back and repost the EXACT quote. And don't cut portions out as I am going to check.




posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Yes it does.
The act of individuals working together to hide the truth is a conspiracy.

You are saying the official story is wrong.


1. Please show me where i stated the government is hiding the truth.

I stated the agencies arenot releasing the infomration not hiding it. Please do not misquote and twist what i post.

2. I am saying there is no evidence to support the official story. Please read my post befreo posting.



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by jfj123

I am saying there is no evidence to support the official story.


The government says there is evidence to support the official story. So are you lying or is the government? Lets assume you are right and the government is lying. There is only one reason to lie and that is to cover up a truth that someone(s) wants to keep hidden. Since you must assume more then one person is keeping the truth hidden, multiple people are CONSPIRING to hide the truth. You are saying there is a conspiracy to hide the truth.


[edit on 11-4-2008 by jfj123]



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Since you must assume more then one person is keeping the truth hidden, multiple people are CONSPIRING to hide the truth. You are saying there is a conspiracy to hide the truth.


Please try to understand i cannot make it any simpler.

I have not stated the governemt is hidining information, we know they have it they are just not realeasing it.

If your next post does not have a quote where i stated the government is hiding information then it will proof you are wrong.

Also please show me the quote i have posted about any conspiracy ot it will proof you are wrong.



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Since you must assume more then one person is keeping the truth hidden, multiple people are CONSPIRING to hide the truth. You are saying there is a conspiracy to hide the truth.


Please try to understand i cannot make it any simpler.

I have not stated the governemt is hidining information, we know they have it they are just not realeasing it.

If your next post does not have a quote where i stated the government is hiding information then it will proof you are wrong.

Also please show me the quote i have posted about any conspiracy ot it will proof you are wrong.



Obviously you simply didn't read my last post. Logical deduction leads everyone to believe that you believe there is a conspiracy whether you want to admit it or not.

Here is your statement

I am saying there is no evidence to support the official story.

This is the polar opposite of what the government claims.


[edit on 11-4-2008 by jfj123]



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Obviously you simply didn't read my last post.


So you cannot show any of the quotes i asked for.

So you are wrong,, end of story.



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Obviously you simply didn't read my last post.


So you cannot show any of the quotes i asked for.

So you are wrong,, end of story.




reread the above post. You've been wrong since we starting discussing it, apparently you're just not able to understand that.



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
reread the above post. You've been wrong since we starting discussing it, apparently you're just not able to understand that.


No, you cannot post anything where i stated the government was hiding anything or anything about a conspiracy.

No more discussion, everyone can see you are wrong.



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 09:53 PM
link   
"YOUR WRONG"

"No YOU are"

Must it always get down to this?
:shk:

i saw jfj123 mention he would like to see it as a court of law... well lets have a look at what's happening in those courts...


Secret 9/11 case before high court

It's the case that doesn't exist. Even though two different federal courts have conducted hearings and issued rulings, there has been no public record of any action. No documents are available. No files. No lawyer is allowed to speak about it. Period.

Yet this seemingly phantom case does exist - and is now headed to the US Supreme Court in what could produce a significant test of a question as old as the Star Chamber, abolished in 17th-century England: How far should a policy of total secrecy extend into a system of justice?

Secrecy has been a key Bush administration weapon in the war on terrorism. Attorney General John Ashcroft warns that mere tidbits of information that seem innocuous about the massive Sept. 11 investigation could help Al Qaeda carry out new attacks.


www.csmonitor.com...


US District Court Unseals Second 9/11 ‘Inside Job’ Case

Developments regarding Dr Judy Wood, a former Professor of Mechanical Engineering from Clemson University, and Dr Morgan Reynolds, the former Chief Economist of the US Department of Labor. Both Wood and Reynolds are represented by mainstream attorney Jerry Leaphart.

Those following developments in 9/11 “inside job” legal proceedings are aware that the US District Court in Southern New York unsealed a complaint filed by Dr Morgan Reynolds against private contractors hired by the government. This lawsuit alleges that the contractors supplied bogus analyses for the NIST Report of an aluminum airplane with a plastic nosecone gliding through a steel and concrete building . Information pertaining to this lawsuit, including a PDF of the unsealed complaint, can be found on Reynolds website:
Morgan Reynolds - No More Games • Net

More recently however, September 12, 2007 to be exact, the Southern New York District Court unsealed a second “inside job” case. This second complaint was filed by Dr Judy Wood against the same private contractors, alleging the World Trade Center was destroyed by Directed Energy Weapons (DEW), and not airplane strikes, jet fuel fires, or gravity. Wood’s unsealed complaint is available here (in the Qui Tam section): Wood-Qui Tam Complaint


SOURCE

QUI TAM COMPLAINT

Good enough for the Supreme Court to take notice... good enough for me...



[edit on 12-4-2008 by zorgon]



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
Must it always get doen to this?..


If we go by jfj123's logic then the official story is a conspiracy theory since it is based on a conspiracy



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by zorgon
Must it always get doen to this?..


If we go by jfj123's logic then the official story is a conspiracy theory since it is based on a conspiracy


I've already explained my position MANY, MANY times. Your FAILURE to understand my position is not my fault but yours as I cannot understand things for you, you must take on the responsibility of learning and understanding for yourself.

Actually the official story would explain the conspiracy of Al Queda and wouldn't be part of the conspiracy.

Please don't put words in my mouth, you're having a hard enough time with your own.



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


What was the determination regarding the complaints? Has the suit been resolved?

Keep in mind that anyone can sue anyone else for anything even if the suit is completely without merit. They're called frivolous lawsuits.



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 



"YOUR WRONG"

"No YOU are"

Must it always get down to this?

The problem is that ultima doesn't know his own position with regards to the discussion. Obviously there's no point in keep telling him he's wrong even though he is as he simply can't see the logic of his position.



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
What was the determination regarding the complaints? Has the suit been resolved?


No it has not... it is in due process...



Keep in mind that anyone can sue anyone else for anything even if the suit is completely without merit. They're called frivolous lawsuits.


Do you honestly believe that this would have gotten this far if it was frivolous? Considering what's involved if there wasn't enough evidence it would never have been allowed to get this far... and those involved would be looking at serious jail time..

I also believe the title of your thread is not sincere... I do not see much evidence that you truly seek evidence... you merely want a convenient list of others evidence so you can knock it down... IMO

On this page alone I seek a whole page of back and forth bickering that contribute nothing... This is why I rarely come to 911 threads

My research has shown me that there is a lot of merit to the no plane/beam weapon theory... but nothing I have shown or have yet to show will convince you... not even the youtube video that shows the remaining steel frame just disintegrate into dust

You guys are all so sure that one little airplane that burnt all its fuel in a matter of minutes could cause fire hot enough to melt steel beams in a building built to take 5 or more of such hits... especially when immediately after the 'crash' there us a woman waving for help in the hole left by the 'plane'

I guess she must be Wonder Woman to survive heat strong enough to melt steel girders



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by jfj123
What was the determination regarding the complaints? Has the suit been resolved?


No it has not... it is in due process...



Keep in mind that anyone can sue anyone else for anything even if the suit is completely without merit. They're called frivolous lawsuits.


Do you honestly believe that this would have gotten this far if it was frivolous?

Yes, it happens all the time. Frivolous lawsuits are a HUGE problem in American courts.


Considering what's involved if there wasn't enough evidence it would never have been allowed to get this far... and those involved would be looking at serious jail time..

Again, frivolous lawsuits are very common and do get heard in courts.


I also believe the title of your thread is not sincere...

Your belief is incorrect.


I do not see much evidence that you truly seek evidence...

That's why I keep coming here and asking for real evidence. DUH.


you merely want a convenient list of others evidence so you can knock it down... IMO

I can't knock down any evidence without providing a rational counter argument which I have.


On this page alone I seek a whole page of back and forth bickering that contribute nothing... This is why I rarely come to 911 threads

And if you'll notice, 9 times out of 10, it's the supposed "truthers" who start the bickering because it's easier then actually providing evidence to support their allegations.


My research has shown me that there is a lot of merit to the no plane/beam weapon theory...

That would imply that holographic planes were used and this is an impossibility so there can be no meritt to at least that portion of the argument. The holographic plane "idea" has been thoroughly DEBUNKED.


but nothing I have shown or have yet to show will convince you...

If you provide actual evidence, I would be more then happy to evaluate it. For example, can you show evidence that a DEW exists that could cause this damage? Can you explain how the DEW targeted the buildings? Can you show how the buildings themselves were damaged by the DEW?
The first thing you must understand however, is that I have a good understanding of lasers, holograms, etc... so if you're going to provide evidence, I will know whether it's legit or not. Put your money where your mouth is.


You guys are all so sure that one little airplane that burnt all its fuel in a matter of minutes could cause fire hot enough to melt steel beams in a building built to take 5 or more of such hits...

According to the building specs, it could THEORETICALLY, on paper, take damage from a slightly smaller plane then what actually hit. I've never seen anything in the actual specs that said the building would survive 5 plane strikes at high speed.


especially when immediately after the 'crash' there us a woman waving for help in the hole left by the 'plane'

I guess she must be Wonder Woman to survive heat strong enough to melt steel girders



We don't know when the steel actually softened to the point of being maluable.



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Here's a few examples of frivolous lawsuits and some of them actually received awards


In September 1988, two Akron, Ohio-based carpet layers named Gordon Falker and Gregory Roach were severely burned when a three and a half gallon container of carpet adhesive ignited when the hot water heater it was sitting next to kicked on. Both men felt the warning label on the back of the can was insufficient. Words like “flammable” and “keep away from heat” didn’t prepare them for the explosion. They filed suit against the adhesive manufacturers, Para-Chem. A jury obviously agreed since the men were awarded $8 million for their troubles.



In 1997, Larry Harris of Illinois broke into a bar owned by Jessie Ingram. Ingram, the victim of several break-ins, had recently set a trap around his windows to deter potential burglars. Harris, 37, who was under the influence of both alcohol and drugs, must have missed the warning sign prominently displayed in the window. He set off the trap as he entered the window, electrocuting himself. The police refused to file murder charges. Harris’s family saw it differently, however, and filed a civil suit against Ingram. A jury originally awarded the Harris family $150,000. Later, the award was reduced to $75,000 when it was decided Harris should share at least half of the blame.



The California Supreme Court in August of 2002 made it more difficult for bystanders to sue physicians for emotional distress.

The case, Bird v. Saenz, stemmed from a Nov. 30, 1994, incident in Los Angeles County hospital.

On that day, Janice Bird, the adult daughter of Nita Bird, brought her mother to the hospital for outpatient surgery.

About an hour to 90 minutes into the surgery, something went wrong with the procedure. About that same time, one of Bird's sisters arrived at the hospital. The two daughters then witnessed doctors rushing their mother to emergency surgery.

According to court papers, Janice Bird saw her mother "being rushed down the hallway." Nita Bird was bright blue and her bed was on an angle so that her head was almost touching the ground.

The daughters sued, NOT for malpractice, but because they had to witness the incident. These women sued the doctors and the hospital -- the same doctors who were rushing to assist their mother -- for causing emotional distress to THEM.

The case went all the way to the California Supreme Court, where the court ruled against the girls.


These are just a few examples. There are 10's of thousands more that are even more silly. So yes, you can sue for just about anything and get court time.

[edit on 12-4-2008 by jfj123]



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


I've been wondering how those cases are going and I hope you'll keep us updated on the progress.

Will the proceedings be reported publicly?



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Actually the official story would explain the conspiracy of Al Queda and wouldn't be part of the conspiracy.


So if the ofrficial story is based on a conspiracy then it is a conspiracy theory, if we go by your logic.



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
The problem is that ultima doesn't know his own position with regards to the discussion..


I do know my position, it seems like i am the only 1 who actually does research and post facts and evidence and have yet to see evidence to support the official story.



Originally posted by jfj123
Here's a few examples of frivolous lawsuits and some of them actually received award.


But the 9/11 suits must not be too frivolous if the couts have stated there is enough evidence for them to go forward.




[edit on 12-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by jfj123

But the 9/11 suits must not be too frivolous if the couts have stated there is enough evidence for them to go forward.

[edit on 12-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]


Then you obviously didn't read my examples. The last one made it to the state SUPREME COURT.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 43  44  45    47  48  49 >>

log in

join