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: 8
3
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 07:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
reply to post by weedwhacker
 

OK Mr. Weedwacker, you win.

It was 19 Arabs with box cutters who didn't appear on any airline passenger manifest or government autopsy report, not the five foreign intelligence dewds arrested on 9/11 with circled maps of the WTC towers and phony passports, driving vans packed with "tons of explosives," who later admitted they were sent to "document the event."

Carry on...


Dont forget. They also "apparently" said they had bombs on the planes too. Not just had some box cutters. Which would change the senario completely.




posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 08:03 AM
link   
Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by Purduegrad05
reply to post by whaaa
 




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.


The evidence against the "official story" is so overwhelming that it laughs in the face of all logic and reason. If I were you, I would watch the documentary called, "9/11: Press for Truth". It gives a more unbiased opinion of what happened that day, staying away from all the different theories about what really happened and focusing more on gov't failures to do anything about it beforehand. But, I'm not you so I can't tell you what to do with your beliefs. There are many documentaries out there and intellectual opinion that go against the official story that you should be able to find the research yourself without my "conspiracy-minded" self. If you want more links to different data, just PM me and I'll be happy to send you more information about the no-plane "theory", which quite obviously is the reason you even replied to my post, leaving nothing in your own words to counter my arguement. Thanks.



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


Were you going somewhere with this one?? Seems you wrote an incomplete sentence and then moved onto something else. In any case, it doesn't take a conspiracy-minded person to know the potential powers of the gov't and the lies they spew out everyday. But, thanks for your half-opinion anyway, greatly appreciated.



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.


Yes, smoking 4 packs a day would be bad....about as bad as paying illegal taxes to fund illegal wars, as bad as believing everything the gov't tells you about anything, etc, etc.
What was the point of you targeting my post on this thread, responding with pointless comments and asking me to provide more evidence for what really happened that day while at the same time providing NONE of your own!!!?? Did you reply to my post because I speak the truth about no planes being used on 9/11, since the evidence for that is overwhelming as well!!! If you're going to reply to my posts asking me for more information, maybe you should provide your own first as I did in my first posting. Also, take your own advice and stop believing "Official 9/11 fairy tales"!!!!

Purduegrad05

[edit on 17-6-2008 by Purduegrad05]

[edit on 17-6-2008 by Purduegrad05]



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


I'd like to see the debunkers debunk that!


It doesn't need 'debunking.'

Watch McIntyre's whole 40-minute report, of which this is a tiny and very carefully edited slice. In the report, McIntyre describes the devastation caused by the plane impact, and the debris is filmed at length.

This tiny selected slice is of McIntyre responding to the studio anchor saying it had been rumoured that the aircraft creashed outside the building and asking him if he could see evidence of that. McIntyre reports that there is no evidence of any aircraft crashing 'anywhere near' the Pentagon, and the wreckage visible outside on the grass is only small pieces of the plane. He goes on to report that because the aircraft smashed through the reinforced outer wall, most of the debris is inside.

Later, when the fires were under control, McIntyre went inside with a film crew and with his still camera and filmed the debris.

You can see some of it here:

rense.com...

In a later interview when challenged about this NPT idea, and his report being selectively misquoted, McIntyre stated:


Having been there on September 11th, having seen the plane wreckage and photographed it myself personally, I can tell you that’s nonsense…I had a camera with me, I took pictures of some of the wreckage, some of the parts of the fuselage of …a part of the cockpit, until they told us we had to move back away from the scene…”


This piece of deliberately selective editing of McIntyre's report has been cited before, and if you don't understand the context then it's time you did. The truth of Mac's report is quite easy to discover with a minimum of research. Just watch the whole thing and you'll understand.

Started by Co-intelpro, or some 9/11 'Truther' determined to give the 'movement' a bad name?




rense.com...



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by bovarcher

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


I'd like to see the debunkers debunk that!


It doesn't need 'debunking.'

Watch McIntyre's whole 40-minute report, of which this is a tiny and very carefully edited slice. In the report, McIntyre describes the devastation caused by the plane impact, and the debris is filmed at length.

This tiny selected slice is of McIntyre responding to the studio anchor saying it had been rumoured that the aircraft creashed outside the building and asking him if he could see evidence of that. McIntyre reports that there is no evidence of any aircraft crashing 'anywhere near' the Pentagon, and the wreckage visible outside on the grass is only small pieces of the plane. He goes on to report that because the aircraft smashed through the reinforced outer wall, most of the debris is inside.

Later, when the fires were under control, McIntyre went inside with a film crew and with his still camera and filmed the debris.

You can see some of it here:

rense.com...

In a later interview when challenged about this NPT idea, and his report being selectively misquoted, McIntyre stated:


Having been there on September 11th, having seen the plane wreckage and photographed it myself personally, I can tell you that’s nonsense…I had a camera with me, I took pictures of some of the wreckage, some of the parts of the fuselage of …a part of the cockpit, until they told us we had to move back away from the scene…”


This piece of deliberately selective editing of McIntyre's report has been cited before, and if you don't understand the context then it's time you did. The truth of Mac's report is quite easy to discover with a minimum of research. Just watch the whole thing and you'll understand.

Started by Co-intelpro, or some 9/11 'Truther' determined to give the 'movement' a bad name?




rense.com...


beautiful piece of information. That was one of my main points. The people who believe it is a consiracy just pick and choose their evidence. Even if it means cutting a video short or taking quote out of context. For example WTC7. The video the conpiracy people show is not the whole video. They edit out the first 5 seconds. Which show the first support beam give (the one that supports the top penhouse) then five seconds later the others give, and the building collapses.



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

If you're a real airline pilot, you'd know how rare it is not to retrieve the black boxes after an accident or find the black box data to be unrecoverable. It's very rare, almost unheard of.

Anyway, it seems you're trying to sucker me into a debate after declaring yourself an expert witness on flight data recorders.

[edit on 17-6-2008 by GoldenFleece]


GF, Weedwhacker is a bona fide professional airline pilot. Really, he is.

He knew the crew of AA77 & reportedly attended the funeral of David Charlebois after Mr. Charlebois' remains were recovered and ID'd from The Pentagon wreckage. Just so you know, and don't start laying into him as if he were some kind of ignorant debunker who doesn't know anything. He's far from that.



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by tide88

beautiful piece of information. That was one of my main points. The people who believe it is a consiracy just pick and choose their evidence...



Well in fact, I suspected some kind of deceptive INTEL involvement from Day One, as I watched the planes hitting the towers and the buildings collapsing. I still do.

However, so far there is little evidence that sticks. Even if the engineering points to the catastrophic collapse of WTC1, 2 & 7 as being improbable/impossible without assistance, this doesn't 'prove' anything, as the essential attack was hijacked aircraft impacts. That would have been enough of a national catastrophe on its own WITHOUT collapsing the buildings. So why take unnecessary risks? Don't make no sense. Never has, from a motive POV.

IMO many (not all) 'Truthers' are looking in the wrong places. By propagandizing NPT and other madnesses they ensure marginalization of the 'Truth Movement' in the MSM & popular consciousness. This is what INTEL perpetrators would work for and desire, IMO.

Stick with what is rock solid and irrefutable, and leave the madness behind. Covert support of the hijackers from a distance is IMO more likely, though far from proven. Certainly there was support from people in the Pakistani regular army. That is irrefutable and openly acknowledged. Ultimately, this was US taxpayers' money transferred to Pakistan as aid.

But this avenue of enquiry is not exciting to those determined to convince themselves GWB & Cheney planned it all in minute detail, despite all evidence to the contrary. So some continue to live in CT Never-Never land and rerfuse to wake up. As long as this attitude continues, it will be easy to keep the 'Truth Movement' marginalized as a bunch of deluded fanatics and crazies, and ensure the real truth about this issue will remain securely hidden.

In short, the 'Truth Movement' is the really big obstacle to the truth about 9/11 being uncovered, and likely to remain so. More is the pity, IMO.



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by bovarcher
As long as this attitude continues, it will be easy to keep the 'Truth Movement' marginalized as a bunch of deluded fanatics and crazies, and ensure the real truth about this issue will remain securely hidden.


Which is why I believe many in the "truth movement" are nothing but disinfo agents. Like physicists who used to work on directed energy weapons in Los Alamos only looking at thermate charges. Cough, cough, Dr. Jones.



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous ATS
 

I read your post 2 times and fail to see why you wanted my attention to your post? Sorry, care to clearify or did you reply to the wrong member?



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by SpaceBits
 


SpaceBits, instead of mocking a member who posted a link, then trying to tear him down, why not research the facts of Air France 358? It 'crashed' in Toronto, Canada in 2001.

I wrote 'crashed' in quotations because in fact it over-ran the runway, and broke up in the ravine as a result. While any 'substantial damage ' qualifies it as an accident, people have problems with the word 'crash'.

That has no real bearing on the on-going discussions however, just background info.

Now, SB, you had the temerity to say that the site noted by tide88 'could have been two different airplanes'....please do the research, do the 'Google', and show us the two different Air France A-340s that 'crashed' in Toronto, Canada!!

Thanks, we're waiting.

[edit on 6/16/0808 by weedwhacker]


First, I don't believe I was mocking anyone.

Second, Why would I waist valuable time and possibly day's even weeks getting involved in Air france crash? Just because it crashed here in Canada? I don't care.

Third, The poster asked me to explain why that Air france plane melted and I replied that I didn't know enough about the accident to say anything about it, and from the picture's I cant see for sure that the plane did in fact melt, it's looks like it may have but then again it looks like all the aluminum lost it's structural integrity.

1) If I had a 5 foot Aluminum rod and heated it up till it started to weaken and bend would you say it melted? Or would you say it lost structural integrity?

2) Now if I take the same rod and put a torch to it and the aluminum rod started dripping like water, would you say that it melted or would you say it lost it's structural integrity?

The answer to #1 is "it lost structural integrity". Though most people would say it had melted.

The answer to #2 is "it lost structural integrity and melted".



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by bovarcher

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


I'd like to see the debunkers debunk that!


It doesn't need 'debunking.'

Watch McIntyre's whole 40-minute report, of which this is a tiny and very carefully edited slice. In the report, McIntyre describes the devastation caused by the plane impact, and the debris is filmed at length.

This tiny selected slice is of McIntyre responding to the studio anchor saying it had been rumoured that the aircraft creashed outside the building and asking him if he could see evidence of that. McIntyre reports that there is no evidence of any aircraft crashing 'anywhere near' the Pentagon, and the wreckage visible outside on the grass is only small pieces of the plane. He goes on to report that because the aircraft smashed through the reinforced outer wall, most of the debris is inside.

Later, when the fires were under control, McIntyre went inside with a film crew and with his still camera and filmed the debris.

You can see some of it here:

rense.com...

Some of what are where?

There was nothing "tiny" or "carefully edited" about the Jamie McIntyre stand-up. I watched the entire segment and it's very clear what he's saying: there were no large pieces of wreckage or anything recognizable from where a 757 supposedly crashed. You make a lot of claims, but only provide a single Rense link, which also has nothing that looks like a crashed AA 757. Where are the photos of this "debris" that McIntyre supposedly shot inside the Pentagon? .


Originally posted by bovarcher
In a later interview when challenged about this NPT idea, and his report being selectively misquoted, McIntyre stated:


Having been there on September 11th, having seen the plane wreckage and photographed it myself personally, I can tell you that’s nonsense…I had a camera with me, I took pictures of some of the wreckage, some of the parts of the fuselage of …a part of the cockpit, until they told us we had to move back away from the scene…”

Yeah, I'll bet he caught some real heat for not finding something that resembled a crashed 757, somewhere near the Pentagon.

Now you're both claiming that he took pictures of the wreckage. So where are they? Still classified like those 80-odd CCTV videos that the FBI confiscated minutes after something that didn't resemble a 757 crashed through a smaller hole than a 757 could fit through, before simultaneously disintegrating and punching through multiple rings at the Pentagon?



Originally posted by bovarcher This piece of deliberately selective editing of McIntyre's report has been cited before, and if you don't understand the context then it's time you did. The truth of Mac's report is quite easy to discover with a minimum of research. Just watch the whole thing and you'll understand.

More false claims of "selective editing." Why don't you tell us this "truth" that's so easy to discover? I guess it's so easy that you can't even mention it. I watched the entire segment and his overall context was exactly the same. McIntyre saw no wings, no fuselage, no engines, no large pieces of wreckage, nothing that would indicate a plane had crashed. BTW, after deciphering your convoluted explanation, you should know that in standard English lexicon, "anywhere near" includes "inside."


Originally posted by bovarcher
Started by Co-intelpro, or some 9/11 'Truther' determined to give the 'movement' a bad name?

Heard of Co-intelpro, have you?



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 07:29 PM
link   



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by tide88
rense.com...

BTW, forgot to thank you for the link. I enjoyed some of the posts:


Geoff, I too came across the French web site several days ago and was intrigued. I had also just viewed CNN's report showing the video from the Pentagon's security camera. Considering the whole thing a hoax, I did a Google search for every image online associated with the Pentagon crash. I viewed hundreds of photos, from the military sites, photo journalists, and citizens. In NONE of the photos, could ANY debris recognizable as an airliner be seen! Some of the photographs were taken within hours of the crash. I am also perplexed over this issue. While the French web site was the starting point, I found it hard to understand why there were no pictures published showing ruined aircraft parts, or even body bags from the Pentagon. Someone needs to be talking to the waste handlers to see what was removed from that site, and examine the garbage dumps where Pentagon debris was sent.  By the way, I did a careful frame by frame examination of the CNN video that someone put on the web and also failed to see an object large enough for an airliner.  We don't need mysteries like this. 

Keith Burton


Dear Geoff:

Thank you, thank you, thank you!!!

I have been wondering why I have been unable to see the plane for 6 months!! I don't obsess on it, but everytime I see the pictures, there is NO PLANE!!!

When the latest 'security film'  was just released and a frame shown with a script that says in effect, "Here you can plainly (no pun intended) the plane in the upper right corner just before it hits."

Now I'm 55, and my eyes are definitely NOT what they used to be, but I can not see any plane. I saw the one that hit the North Tower, the one that hit the South Tower and the hole in PA (though I haven't seen that one, but maybe I missed it). BUT, I have never seen the plane that hit the Pentagon!

I brought it up with my 18 year old son who dismissed it with, "Oh, it was melted right down." I want to believe that with all my heart, but when I can't see it flying in  to the building and right after where there was NO TAIL showing... I just can't buy it.

I know this is a silly question considering where it hit, but why haven't any witnesses stated such "I saw the front end as it lay there is the wreckage."

Do you remember the Sioux City commercial plane crash? Granted it didn't hit a building and it had dumped as much fuel as possible; but it hit very hard (no hydraulics) and rolled and crashed and crashed. It was a horrific sight.

Again, where is the plane?

Sincerely, 
Mrs. Pam Lamker 
Angola, NY


Mr. Metcalf,
David Copperfield, the magician, could not do a 
better job of making a 757 disappear. Though, he 
could make it reappear. Given the pictures in the 
news brief, there is NO plane visible. Makes you 
wonder, doesn't it????
Shalom. Rachel




[edit on 17-6-2008 by GoldenFleece]



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by SpaceBits
 


I used to carry around a chunk of (formerly) molten aluminum from a cessna 150 that crashed on the runway in Hawthorne, California, USA in the late 1970s. It MELTED after it caught on fire. On the runway....in plain view of everyone.

Yes, it was a light airplane, but it was made of aluminum, though maybe not the exact alloy that Airbus uses today in its fuselages, I cannot say because I am not a metalurgist.

I kept that chunk of melted aluminum as a reminder, since I was a new pilot then, not only of what fire could do, but because I had spent many, many hours in that little Cessna 150. I learned to fly in it. It was originally built in 1966, and we had just re-painted it when an idiot hack low-time renter pilot sheared off the nose gear and started the fire. The registration number was N8282F.

There may be another airplane, somewhere now, with that Registration Number...think I'll go look it up.......



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


GF.....you quote an outside source that uses David Copperfield.....DAVID COPPERFIELD??!!



Oh, you do have a sense of humor, after all!!

thanks



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


GF, if you persist in believing in NPT please realize you are isolating yourself and are always going to have an uphill struggle convincing the open-minded majoriy of this blatantly mistaken and misguided nonsense. Most people are smarter than that, and serious investigators discount NPT because the evidence of AA77 Pentagon impact is so strong.

If you have a spare few hours sometime then review Catherder's famous thread

www.abovetopsecret.com...'

if you're not already familiar with it.

The extensive and identifiable 757 debris, the hundreds of eyewitnesses who saw the 757 and the 40 or 50 who are known to have witnessed the impact, the remains of personal effects of AA77 passengers and crew IDd by the families and returned to them and dozens of other issues are all examined in great detail and I won't bother repeating it all here. Go research it and you'll realize why NPT is now only believed by a tiny number of people either misinformed or wilfully deceiving themselves. You're not going to convince any serious investigator of this now, not even A 'TRUTHSEEKER.'

Not least to be considered is the size of the hole in the reinforced outer wall following the impact. It's slightly oval, 16ft across and 13ft high. No known 'missile' in any arsenel of any nation on Earth, at any time in history, has ever had dimensions anything like that. Strangely, these are EXACTLY the dimensions of the fuselage of a Boeing 757. And one was hijacked, then seen by several hundred people screaming low over Arlington immediately prior to the impact.

No eyewitness saw a 'missile.' They ALL saw an airliner. NPT is disinfo invented by CIA co-intelpro like John Lear. If you don't want to make the 'Truth Movement' more of a laughing stock than it already is in the popular consciousness, PLEASE leave this rubbish behind and stop promoting it. You'll do everyone a favor.

Cheers.

(edited for one typo)




[edit on 17/6/2008 by bovarcher]



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 11:13 PM
link   
The fact that there are such a vast number of paths, with sufficient evidence (that we hold up in court and would all likely have influence on a judgement i.e stupid amounts of witness evidence and cover-ups) and which point to a shared outcome of an inside job goes way beyond enough truth in the matter. Probability of all these series of impacts happening and just being 'misleading' in the exact same way is absurd. Dealing with the how, entirely, is difficult to understand due to the evidence destruction and cover, but the truth of the powers involved is clear as the day's blue sky.

The truth can always be stretched from one side of the argument to the other, but it will always remain self-evident and it's expression varies on an person by person basis. The arguments are interesting and expansive in nature but endless until the collective norm standard changes to fit those that are directly dependent on it and the ones questioning it together. Then the argument would have too few in the minority. Right now it's playing it's role as a on going division perfectly since it's still preventing any sort of threat to the continuation of the imposed power.

Clearly we are headed for a giant division if I can witness this much blindness.

[edit on 17-6-2008 by 1nelove]



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 04:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


GF.....you quote an outside source that uses David Copperfield.....DAVID COPPERFIELD??!!



Oh, you do have a sense of humor, after all!!

thanks

Yep, David Copperfield's got competition. Have you heard about the Amazing Rummy and his magical 757? It leaps into tall buildings with a single bound from three feet off the ground, then disappears into impossibly small openings and disintegrates into tiny pieces, all while punching it's way through multiple 2-feet thick concrete and brick walls!

BTW, you didn't even laugh when I related Rumsfeld's story about not being able to stop terrorists who have "plastic knives on an American Airlines flight filled with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building..." Oh, that Rummy's a card!

Anyway, your Golden Buddha friend assures me you're a bona fide, real deal professional airline pilot. This makes a nice second career. I also learned on a Cessna 150, back when you could get a license for about a grand. Yep, long time ago. Not sure I could've executed Atta's 7500 ft, 270 degree spiral that lined up perfectly to a grass-kissing final. Hey, what ground effect?! I'm sure you were equally impressed.

So whaddaya think about all four of those DFDRs and CVRs being destroyed at the WTC? Ever heard of that before? I was thinking, maybe they should start making them out of hijacker passport material to ensure that they're easily found.

Hey, one more question. You seem to be a trusting type. Are you rated for 747s? After looking into TWA 800, I'm wondering if they ever corrected those spontaneous ignition center fuel tank issues.



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 05:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by bovarcher
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


GF, if you persist in believing in NPT please realize you are isolating yourself and are always going to have an uphill struggle convincing the open-minded majoriy of this blatantly mistaken and misguided nonsense. Most people are smarter than that, and serious investigators discount NPT because the evidence of AA77 Pentagon impact is so strong.

If you have a spare few hours sometime then review Catherder's famous thread.

I appreciate the thoughtful advice. I've always been concerned how I'm perceived by the debunking community. Wouldn't want to sound too crazy! Especially since I've discovered that me and the flying weedwhacker guy have some things in common.

I'll make you a deal -- I promise to limit my silly NPT thoughts to the Pentagon if you promise not to make fun of me behind my back.

And thanks but no thanks on the famous 'catherder'. I've seen him herd enough cats with those Pentagon pix that suddenly appeared out of nowhere.



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 06:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
BTW jthomas, I'm still waiting for an answer to debate me head-to-head in the debate forum.


That shows your claims' weakness. Facts are not debatable. Until you get them right, there is no reason anyone would give your side credibility by agreeing to a "debate." Try to make a case here.



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 06:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by illuminist
jthomas.

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

www.patriotsquestion911.com...

That's easy:

screwloosechange.blogspot.com...

and:


'Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice' and 'patriotsquestion911.com' were only too happy to add me to their lists of scholars who support the 9/11 troof movement. They asked for no evidence that I was a real Professor, such as a CV, publications list, or faculty web page link. They obviously didn't check a citation index or even any online book sellers, because if they did they would have found no results for 'Michael Rotch'. No articles, no books, no mention on academic websites, no mention on academic discussion forums, no evidence 'Michael Rotch' exists at all. He doesn't, I made him up, with a name taken straight from a Bart Simpson prank call ('Mike Rotch' = 'My Crotch').

Edmund Standing
www.youtube.com...



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join