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.
Originally posted by snoopy
That's funny because a court of law did accept the DNA as evidence.
And the problem with Craig's argument is that he is making an argument stating that the "government" is guilty, with no proof.
Originally posted by Waitingsolong
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
What baffles me is this:
If a plane did hit, where is the wreckage. Planes have crashed before this happened and there was always wreckage of the plane. Why not here?
[edit on 7-4-2008 by Waitingsolong]
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Originally posted by snoopy
That's funny because a court of law did accept the DNA as evidence.
Not in the context of a trial where the government is the defendant which is what I was hypothetically referring to.
And the problem with Craig's argument is that he is making an argument stating that the "government" is guilty, with no proof.
I didn't even read the rest of your convoluted post because this premise is false and certainly not the case.
The very premise of this forum and for those who choose to look at the events of 9/11 critically and objectively is that the government story is not to be accepted as the default truth.
There are more than enough anomalies and suspicious circumstances surrounding the event to warrant an investigation into government involvement.
THAT Mr. Charlie Brown sidekick is the context of this discussion and ALL discussions in this forum.
If you wish to participate in these discussions the least you could do is hypothetically accept this context.
After making it over this mental hurdle you will realize that information or data that has been completely controlled and provided for by the government is not valid evidence in support of government innocence concerning the crimes of 9/11.
Originally posted by Q Level
You know, I had a friend on Flight 77.
I know what was returned to her parents.
You can argue angles and flight paths all you want. There remains no doubt that the flight, an American Airlines 757, hit the Pentagon.
To argue anything else is just foolish.
While there are certainly some interesting questions regarding the entire 9/11 event, this isn't one of them.
Originally posted by snoopy
Ah but Craig, you don't even have anything to even suggest the government (again notice your use of vague terms which would never work in court) was guilty of anything to begin with. Maybe you could find a defendant who wears a big tall hat and has a red/white/blue flag outfit on with the long white beard named uncle sam?
And no the premise of this forum is ABSOLUTELY NOT people who disagree with the government. That is 100% BS. Please do not tarnish the reputation of this forum. It is indeed for critical thinkers and for critical debate. it is NOT a forum for people who all agree to have the same opinion as you. What makes this forum so great is that there are critical thinkers on every side and not people like you who simply want their opinion to be seen as factual and everyone else removed. Go start your own forum for that.
You didn't read the rest of my post because you know I am right. We all know that the unavoidable outcome of your theories are absolutely and insanely absurd. If you were forced to explain what happened as the result of your claims, you would be a laughing stock. So hence your attempt to try and draw attention away from that and instead poison the well. And of course doing so goes against your very own witnesses. Again, it's laughable. Your claim is that your witnesses are infallible because they all agree with each other. Yet when they all agree on points that disproves your claims, you dismiss them. That's not research, that's fraud.
Take your conjecture somewhere else and leave this forum to critical thinkers. So long as their is critical thinking on this forum, your theories are never going to fly. Start your own forum where you can get rid of critical thiners and you might be happy.
Originally posted by snoopy
The woman from AA who helped identify the plane from the wreckage at the scene on that day is a big conspiracy theorist. But she lost a lot of friends on that flight and personally identified some of them as well as the parts of the plane to confirm beyond doubt it was flight 77.
She feels the same way as you. One of the workers at the Pentagon had a son on that flight who was identified at the site as well. If I were these people I would be extremely upset at the accusations made by people like Craig and the insult to everyones intelligence they display. I just think it takes a really low person to use someone else's tragedy for their personal gain.
I don't care what you want to call it. If you want to be anal and call it "secret cabal at the highest levels of the government" go right ahead.
The point still stands because if you at least hypothetically consider the notion that the 9/11 official story has been proven false that can ONLY mean that very powerful individuals with all the resources, control, and access of the U.S. covert intelligence operations had to be who pulled it off.
I've never heard anyone suggest otherwise. Are you?
I've never claimed to know exactly who to indict.
This is the 9/11 Conspiracy Theory forum at ATS.
What about that do you NOT understand?
How could it be put any more simply for you?
I never said the premise of this forum is "people who disagree with the government" or that you have to believe in 9/11 conspiracies or what I believe to post here. You are completely twisting my statements to be something I never said so you can act indignant and attack me. Please try to comprehend English sentences accurately.
Here is my actual statement...read it real slow:
"The very premise of this forum and for those who choose to look at the events of 9/11 critically and objectively is that the government story is not to be accepted as the default truth. "
In other words the premise of this forum is to consider ALTERNATIVE theories regarding 9/11. So yes the premise of this form most certainly IS to at least hypothetically consider the notion that a"secret cabal at the highest levels of the government" or "the government" for short was involved.
CIT has simply taken it a step further than most by obtaining and providing the evidence that proves it.
What is this vague nonsense?
You are stringing together a bunch of sweeping generalized hollow accusatory sentences without referencing or sourcing ANYTHING specific.
You have no right to accuse me as being a "fraud" for no reason and frankly it's blowing my mind that they keep allowing these personal attacks.
This forum used to be real good at not allowing them.
I don't know what's going on.
What conjecture?
Who are you to tell me where to post?
I am one of the few who actually backs up my claims with personally obtained evidence just like you acknowledged in that attack thread by megaman while gushing about how much you have learned from me.
Way to flip flop.
Go start your own forum for that.