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.

 

Can anyone of you debunk the debunkers?????

page: 5
3
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by jthomas
You missed my post where I made it quite clear that one cannot post "evidence" for something that does not exist, i.e., the so-called "official story."

Are you still confused about that?


The official story is NIST, FEMA, and the Kean Commission. Why are they official? Because they were commissioned by the federal government.


FEMA was an automatic investigation. It's report is not a "story."

NIST, made up of a majority of non-government investigators was instituted at the request and authorization of the government with stipulation that it have an independent review. It's report is not a "story."

The 9/11 Commission was instituted after pressure to understand how the terrorist attacks could happen AND it had a limited mandate. It had 2.5 million documents it reviewed AND despite flaws and difficulties in getting testimony never had reason to dispute WHO caused the attacks nor the evidence from NIST, FEMA, and ASCE. It is also NOT a "story."

Every one of the investigations depended on the massive independent evidence for hundreds of eyewitnesses and thousands of lines of evidence. Evidence is NOT a "story", much less an official one.

The canard that the government had control of the evidence and made up a "story" about it is one of the worst deceits and biggest intellectually dishonest political acts the "9/11 Truth Movement" has foisted on the American people.

We skeptics will continue to point out the reality of that deceit. Why you fall for that canard only shows us that you NEED to think critically and stop falling for "The Official 9/11 Truth Movement Fairy Story."

It's up to you to start thinking for yourselves and realize how much your movement is taking you for a ride.




posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 05:51 PM
link   
jthomas.

I would like you to PROVE that you are more intelligent and more knowledgeable than the people on this site: www.patriotsquestion911.com...

If you can prove to us that you know more about this stuff than all these people here, then we will consider your BS.

Until then your just another person on the internet spouting their uninformed ignorance.

These people can prove their credibility, and until you can, your views are less than theirs.

Thanks.



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 05:54 PM
link   
I think jthomas has too much time and doth protest too much.



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Purduegrad05
reply to post by whaaa
 


I would have to agree with Whaaa.
I would rather believe those people than some BS gov't "report" started 14 month AFTER the "attacks" happened!!


You don't have to believe any government report, even though you can't articulate why we should think they are BS. The evidence of what happened on 9/11 is independent of the government and was known within hours of the attacks. The government neither had the capability nor the ability to control the evidence of what happened.

Unless you are conspiracy-minded and believe they have secret, massive powers, that no one has the slightest clue about.

You ought to stop falling for the "Official 9/11 Truth Movement Fairy Tale." It's as bad for the brain as smoking 4 packs a day is for the lungs.



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 06:11 PM
link   
OK, you want an expert? You got one.

I have been welding for approximately 25 years, I'm an expert in "Metal" & "Gas" and there is no way in hell that an open fire can melt steel, not even "Aluminium". Other wise I wouldn't need to use a MIG welder or acetylene torch's to weld and cut metal.

Also people are saying that it would take tones of explosives to take down these buildings, But yet many believe 2 aluminum planes pulverized 3 Cast Iron buildings re-enforced with concrete? Give me a break and start using your brain!

Can you explain why ground zero was 5 times hotter 3 months after the attack than on the day it happened? I can, It's called thermate/thermite.

If you ask Zorgon nicely he might give you a link I gave him a few months ago with allot of melted vehicles from 911. Now how would all these vehicles have melted in such a manor?
Sorry I had to reformat my PC 2 months ago and can not remember the link off hand.
But here's a link I did find www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpaceBits
OK, you want an expert? You got one.

I have been welding for approximately 25 years, I'm an expert in "Metal" & "Gas" and there is no way in hell that an open fire can melt steel, not even "Aluminium". Other wise I wouldn't need to use a MIG welder or acetylene torch's to weld and cut metal.

You mean there's a reason grates on gas stoves don't melt (or even weaken) when we cook on them?



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 06:20 PM
link   
Actually i still have the U2U i sent Zorgon, heres the link drjudywood.com...

sorry for the short post.



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
I suggest starting with CNN reporter Jamie McIntyre standing in front of the Pentagon and saying, "after my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon." From there, it only gets worse.

I have a serious question for you Golden Fleece. Where did you get that Jamie McIntyre quote and what does the quote actually tell you?


CNN Pentagon Correspondent Jamie McIntyre's report is well known (even though it only aired once.) He goes on to say, "there are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around which would indicate that the plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon."


Really? Are you sure?


What does that quote tell me? Exactly what he said -- there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.


Are you really sure about that, GF? Do you always believe what your 9/11 "Truth" Movement leaders want you to believe? Especially in a clip promoting a "truther" film? Have you ever considered being a skeptic of what anyone tells you?

Let's look at the whole story and why the 9/11 Truth Movement counts on you not questioning them. Watch the whole thing:

youtube.com...

Now this was broadcast live on 9/11 and the transcript has been available on CNN's website since 9/11:

transcripts.cnn.com...

What we skeptics want to know is how the actual information can be available since 9/11 but 9/11 Truthers can believe a misrepresentation so blatantly dishonest.

Can anyone here tell we skeptics how it is possible for many of you to fall for the 9/11 Truth Movement lie about Jamie McIntyre's CNN report?



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 06:31 PM
link   
Here is the best picture of a melted vehicle from 911. Some say something fell on it and crushed it.

But i will tell you this, as an automotive vehicle repair person for 25 years, I can ell you this about this vehicle.

1) the suspension is still in tack.
2) the tires are still full of air.
3) look at the melted metal.

Had something heavy fell on this vehicle then the suspension would have collapsed and the tires would have blown out.
drjudywood.com...



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpaceBits
OK, you want an expert? You got one.

there is no way in hell that an open fire can melt steel, not even "Aluminium".

3 Cast Iron buildings


You're no expert if you're saying this.

Aluminum cans melt just fine in camp fires.

The buildings weren't made from cast iron. Try hot-rolled steel.



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Let's look at the whole story and why the 9/11 Truth Movement counts on you not questioning them.


sounds like a spin to me. the official story is the one that counts on us not questioning.



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz

You're no expert if you're saying this.

Aluminum cans melt just fine in camp fires.

The buildings weren't made from cast iron. Try hot-rolled steel.


Aluminum cans melt just fine in camp fires.
Umm no they don't melt they just soften and flatten out, can you provide me with a picture of a pop can that has melted in a camp fire? You do know what melted steel or Aluminum looks like right?

OK so I'm no Building expert..... your point?

[edit on 16-6-2008 by SpaceBits]



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


I suppose you believe in the official 'story' regarding JFK assassination too?

LOL!



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 07:02 PM
link   
Well judging by his tone in his replies, I think jthomas works for the Government and is fishing out the people who question authority.

Sorry but thats just how it seems to me.



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by nexusmagazine
reply to post by jthomas
 


I suppose you believe in the official 'story' regarding JFK assassination too?

LOL!


just because one thing is a conspiracy doesnt mean everthing is. That is why sometimes I get such a laugh when I come to this site. No matter what happens it is a conspiracy. Hell, when Tim Russert died it was a conspiracy because the news stations were covering up some other news stories. Of course, this is a consiracy site. The problem is, i think some of you are too intelligent for your own good. I read some of these post and some of you guys must be geniuses. And I am not kidding. However, sometimes being that smart can be a problem, cause you never will agree with the simplist explanation. You ever see the movie A Beautiful Mind. There always has to be some other more detailed, evil explaination. When in fact 85% of the time the official story is probably the true one. As far as the twin towers being in a free fall, there are pictures and video of debris from the building falling faster then the building itself. So that would eliminate the free fall theory. Of course then you are going to claim that the building started to fall then they set off the explosives. I can see it now some guy standing near by with a detonator waiting for the building to start to fall before he detonate the bombs to demo the building. The whole thought is rediculous.



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
I suggest starting with CNN reporter Jamie McIntyre standing in front of the Pentagon and saying, "after my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon." From there, it only gets worse.

I have a serious question for you Golden Fleece. Where did you get that Jamie McIntyre quote and what does the quote actually tell you?


CNN Pentagon Correspondent Jamie McIntyre's report is well known (even though it only aired once.) He goes on to say, "there are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around which would indicate that the plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon."


Really? Are you sure?

I'm really sure.


Originally posted by jthomas

What does that quote tell me? Exactly what he said -- there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.


Are you really sure about that, GF? Do you always believe what your 9/11 "Truth" Movement leaders want you to believe? Especially in a clip promoting a "truther" film? Have you ever considered being a skeptic of what anyone tells you?


Yes, since 9/11 I've become a firm skeptic of what the government and corporate media tell me (except at the very beginning when the media sometimes unwittingly tells the truth, like Jamie McIntyre did.) Oh yeah, I'm also skeptical of what government shills on the internet tell me.

BTW, who are these "9/11 Truth Movement" leaders that you keep talking about? I don't know of any. My conclusions are based solely on 6 months of extensive personal research and examining a wide variety of sources and information.


Originally posted by jthomas Let's look at the whole story and why the 9/11 Truth Movement counts on you not questioning them. Watch the whole thing:

youtube.com...

Now this was broadcast live on 9/11 and the transcript has been available on CNN's website since 9/11:

transcripts.cnn.com...

What we skeptics want to know is how the actual information can be available since 9/11 but 9/11 Truthers can believe a misrepresentation so blatantly dishonest.

I watched the whole thing. What makes you think an extended version of the exact same clip I posted will lead anyone to a different conclusion? McIntyre repeatedly said there were no pieces of wreckage larger than what he could hold in his hand and he saw nothing that was identifiable from an American Airlines jetliner. Your rhetoric is much ado about nothing.


Originally posted by jthomas
Can anyone here tell we skeptics how it is possible for many of you to fall for the 9/11 Truth Movement lie about Jamie McIntyre's CNN report?

So much phony righteous indignation over nothing, as anyone can plainly see and hear for themselves.

And so many silly accusations about there being some kind of mastermind "9/11 Truth Movement" leaders controlling what people believe. The only brainwashed sheep falling for lies are those who believe the official government/MSM version of the 9/11 Lying, Thieving, Murderous Neocon Movement.



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by tide88
 


Actually they timed it and they said "They fell at almost/near free fall speed". You really need to pay attention to detail.
It's the little things that confuse people.



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpaceBits
reply to post by tide88
 


Actually they timed it and they said "They fell at almost/near free fall speed". You really need to pay attention to detail.
It's the little things that confuse people.


Anyway if it was a demo. The whole building would fall at the same rate. The top would not fall faster than the middle. Right?



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by tide88
 


Not true, since the explosive were timed from top to bottom and not the hole building at once. Have you noticed that the first building started to lean over it's side... as it should have and it should have fell over like a tree. But no... all of the sudden the top straitened out then began to fall into it's foot print.

Do you know why? I do... because they didn't want to destroy the banks surrounding WTC.



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 08:13 PM
link   
9/11 was a false flag operation to rally the people into supporting an endless war against and invisible enemy that doesn't exists except for the ones that the money powers of the world support and send money too.

I'm not going to waste much time debating with dis-info guys that no matter what anyone says they always just quote popular mechanics.

The biggest issue people have with believing 9/11 was a false flag black op is that they can't fathom the notion that anyone in our government could ever possibly think of doing such a horrible thing and for that i will just post the most incriminating portion of OPERATION NORTHWOODS.

OPERATION NORTHWOODS-Wikipedia




3. A "Remember the Maine" incident could be arranged in several forms: a. We could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba. b. We could blow up a drone (unmanned) vessel anywhere in the Cuban waters. We could arrange to cause such incident in the vicinity of Havana or Santiago as a spectacular result of Cuban attack from the air or sea, or both. The presence of Cuban planes or ships merely investigating the intent of the vessel could be fairly compelling evidence that the ship was taken under attack. The nearness to Havana or Santiago would add credibility especially to those people that might have heard the blast or have seen the fire. The US could follow up with an air/sea rescue operation covered by US fighters to "evacuate" remaining members of the non-existent crew. Casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation.


There we have it people they thought of it before and they planned it out. Add Building 7, put options, Cheney's stand down order(see Norm Mineta testimony

Game set match



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join