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.

 

40 'Smoking Guns' Collectively Proving That 9/11 Was An Inside Job

page: 6
14
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by re22666
i believe i already addressed this. anyone who has even a fundamental understanding of physics knows this answer is FAAAAAAAAAAAAAR from complete in any way. clearly the fires were the cause of the collapse???? ok how? how is that clear?



My origianl statemnet and point i was making was the NIST was the only agency stating that the casue of the collapse was the combination of plane impacts and the fires. (even though their original model concluded that neither plane impacts or fires casued the collapse).

This is just 1 statment from a reliable source that disagrees with NIST about the casue of the collapse. Thats the point i was proving and i proved it.




posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 02:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by re22666
i believe i already addressed this. anyone who has even a fundamental understanding of physics knows this answer is FAAAAAAAAAAAAAR from complete in any way. clearly the fires were the cause of the collapse???? ok how? how is that clear?



My origianl statemnet and point i was making was the NIST was the only agency stating that the casue of the collapse was the combination of plane impacts and the fires. (even though their original model concluded that neither plane impacts or fires casued the collapse).

This is just 1 statment from a reliable source that disagrees with NIST about the casue of the collapse. Thats the point i was proving and i proved it.






ok dude, between your last message to me and this one. either you are on both sides of the fence or arguing with me for no reason. seems from this post you agree with me so i do not know what you were addressing me for with your last post.



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by re22666
ok dude, between your last message to me and this one. either you are on both sides of the fence or arguing with me for no reason. seems from this post you agree with me so i do not know what you were addressing me for with your last post.


You asked me to clearify my statement so i did.



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by re22666
ok dude, between your last message to me and this one. either you are on both sides of the fence or arguing with me for no reason. seems from this post you agree with me so i do not know what you were addressing me for with your last post.


You asked me to clearify my statement so i did.


try reading the posts. i cannot find where i addressed you at all. at first we were both responding to throat yogurt and then you were coming at me. i dont know what you think i originally said to you but you are arguing stuff with me that i am not arguing about so go find who you meant to reply to and clear it up with them



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
reply to post by re22666
 


Let's start with #1 shall we?


[edit on 13-7-2008 by Boone 870]


that is so funny. so i said that all 40 smoking guns can NOT be debunked. ALL 40. and you prove me wrong by putting up one? i believe in my very statement it is inherently understood that up to 39 of them can be debunked if you like. just not all 40. so giving 1 example hardly makes any case at all in the face of what i have said.



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by re22666
 

that is so funny.
Yes, that is hilarious.


so i said that all 40 smoking guns can NOT be debunked. ALL 40. and you prove me wrong by putting up one? i believe in my very statement it is inherently understood that up to 39 of them can be debunked if you like. just not all 40.
I'm sorry, I just reread all of your posts and you mentioned nothing of the sort. Will you please point it out for me?


so giving 1 example hardly makes any case at all in the face of what i have said.


Earlier, you said, and I quote, ''where is the dubunking of all 40 smoking guns? where? and please, dont bother if your answer is going to be 'look over here, there, in that stuff, these things, some other stuff, and all those places.' thanks for nothing hannity''. I offered to link you to more information that backs up my argument if you would like.

Would you like to discuss point #1? Or do you concede that I am right?



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 09:38 PM
link   
Hey....Haven't posted here in a bit.
To be honest, as sick as it all is, I believe that there was a fraud in this whole attack...
This evidence, being only 40 reasons, is only 40 out of the hundreds if not even thousands of bits of evidence that point to prior-knowledge and planning by our own country in this matter...
Keep in mind, this event made many politicians rich



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
reply to post by re22666
 

that is so funny.
Yes, that is hilarious.


so i said that all 40 smoking guns can NOT be debunked. ALL 40. and you prove me wrong by putting up one?


i believe in my very statement it is inherently understood that up to 39 of them can be debunked if you like. just not all 40.



I'm sorry, I just reread all of your posts and you mentioned nothing of the sort. Will you please point it out for me?


so giving 1 example hardly makes any case at all in the face of what i have said.


Earlier, you said, and I quote,

''where is the dubunking of all 40 smoking guns? where? and please, dont bother if your answer is going to be 'look over here, there, in that stuff, these things, some other stuff, and all those places.' thanks for nothing hannity''. I offered to link you to more information that backs up my argument if you would like.

Would you like to discuss point #1? Or do you concede that I am right?




you can discuss #1 all you want as soon as you address what credibility i should give to someone that claims in a post to have never read where i said something...and then post a quote of me saying that very thing in the next paragraph.
seriusly, did you read what you wrote? you dont know where i said all 40 cant be debunked? you dont see that anywhere in the posts? not one time can you find where i said that my issue is that all 40 cannot be debunked? did you try looking where you pulled my quote about not all 40 being debunkable that you JUST reposted back to me?
you want to argue point by point, fine, have fun. i havent time to do that with you. all 40, go. you have the floor. it was stated that ALL 40 of these smoking guns have been debunked. I asked someone, anyone, to show this debunking of ALL 40. so when you have 40, you have something i want. until then, sorry but you cannot even read what you write and what you quote from so you might ought not say anything at all.



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by re22666
 


ummmm.....yeah......okay.....

You said, earlier, that 39 of the claims could be debunked, but not 40. Could you please point out where you posted that?



[edit on 16-7-2008 by Boone 870]



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
reply to post by re22666
 


ummmm.....yeah......okay.....

You said, earlier, that 39 of the claims could be debunked, but not 40. Could you please point out where you posted that?



[edit on 16-7-2008 by Boone 870]


lol oh that is soooo funny. can you read? do you understand context? please let me try and slow it down.

i said all 40 cannot be debunked

then i said, -given that statement, this means you have up to 39 of them that you can debunk before you prove me wrong.

ill try a couple times here

all 40 can not be debunked. ALL 40.

debunk 1
debunk 4
debunk 25
debunk 39 of them, i dont care. i want to see all 40 debunked as was stated. if you really did not understand that was what i said, apparently the number 39 really threw you off somwhere, then you have no business arguing anything to anyone. please let me know if you are still confused as to my statement. it has been consistent and repeated.

boy i wish more people would completely misunderstand perfectly clear english statements and then try to attack me from some point of intellectual authority.



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
reply to post by re22666
 


ummmm.....yeah......okay.....

You said, earlier, that 39 of the claims could be debunked, but not 40. Could you please point out where you posted that?



[edit on 16-7-2008 by Boone 870]


in fact, how about you go up there, find my original sentence with "39" in it. read it, copy it, paste it, read it again. and put it up there for us all to ssee once more what it is that i said. it is all there, in ONE sentence. very clear.



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 11:22 PM
link   
This is all great and everything....

I personally believed it was an inside job shortly after it happen. They were so stupid about it. The pentagon footage gave them away big time. However what is this thread are anything else (videos, online evidence, documents etc., etc) going to do about bringing them down? Nothing, they got away with it and that's, that.

Is there a march on Washington.... no
Is there anyone in congress behind us....no
Were they allowed to give their statements under their terms.... yes
on and on......

The second part of their plan has been put into action and is rapping up.
(The war on Terror)...lol

If anything folks we should worry a lot less about 9/11 and try to figure out what their next move is. So maybe we can stop them. They will need to get Iran out of the way. Looks like, if they cant buy them, they will get Israel to do the dirty work.

(I shouldn't say this on a public/watched forum but what the hell.)
I say we start a carefully planed civil war against the powerful few and the US government. So that there's not a huge amount of bloodshed. Put this country back in the hands of the people. You can start by boycotting this phony election. Picketing the polls...

However so many of the masses are brain washed and this just ain't gonna happen.....

It's sad....

And for God sakes turn off the TV!!! If you want to watch a movie that's fine but other then that it has no value other then to brain wash you.

Wake Up!!!

Read this
external link

If you haven't already. Watch this... It's 2hrs
external link

*Mods* I am in no way connected to these sites. I just think they are very important and every American and folks abroad should see them.

(I will not respond to any flamers) It gets us nowhere!

Thanks for letting me share!



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by re22666
try reading the posts. i cannot find where i addressed you at all. at first we were both responding to throat yogurt and then you were coming at me.



Hers is your quote to me.


Originally posted by re22666
i believe i already addressed this. anyone who has even a fundamental understanding of physics knows this answer is FAAAAAAAAAAAAAR from complete in any way. clearly the fires were the cause of the collapse????



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by re22666
 


Here is your entire statement:

that is so funny. so i said that all 40 smoking guns can NOT be debunked. ALL 40. and you prove me wrong by putting up one? i believe in my very statement it is inherently understood that up to 39 of them can be debunked if you like. just not all 40. so giving 1 example hardly makes any case at all in the face of what i have said.


I bolded the relevant part. Which "very statement" are you talking about? You did not post 39 anywhere in this thread before the post I copied, as you are claiming.

Instead of being condescending and claiming intellectual authority, why not just point it out?



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
reply to post by re22666
 


Here is your entire statement:

that is so funny. so i said that all 40 smoking guns can NOT be debunked. ALL 40. and you prove me wrong by putting up one? i believe in my very statement it is inherently understood that up to 39 of them can be debunked if you like. just not all 40. so giving 1 example hardly makes any case at all in the face of what i have said.


I bolded the relevant part. Which "very statement" are you talking about? You did not post 39 anywhere in this thread before the post I copied, as you are claiming.

Instead of being condescending and claiming intellectual authority, why not just point it out?


' SNIP ' as i have said. no, i never did mention 39 before that post because if you can read english you would understand, it does not say that i ever said it before that post. it says the my statement the all 40 could not be debunked - and pay attention now, this is the clincher - that statement alone, in and of itself - inherently means that you have up to 39 that can be debunked and still not denounce my point. i cannot believe you are still going on about this. read it again and again.

i believe in my very statement it is inherently understood that up to 39 of them can be debunked if you like

in my statement - " that all 40 cannot be debunked" that is the statement i made. that one there. thats it. but if you can understand english, then you would understand that the above statement, as in my original - MEANS that 39 could be debunked and it wont mean a damn thing. Please tell me you get it now. My statement - all 40 cannot be debunked.
what i meant in the above quote you reposted was that THAT statement inherently implies up to and including 39 debunkings to not correct the OP's premise nor prove anything.


 


MOD EDIT: to remove derogatory remark ... sometimes in the heat of a discussion, we lose ourselves. We forget that we are discussing issues with real people, with real feelings. A good discussion does not rely upon derogatory remarks or personal slights. If anything, statements of that kind detract from ones' post and serve to disrupt the entire thread. As a reminder, I would ask that everyone take a moment to read this quote from Majic


Originally posted by Majic
Our forums are here for people to be able to share opinions they cannot share with anyone else.

Confiding in people you've never met and trusting them with information you would otherwise never discuss is a step which takes courage.

When members are rude, they not only discourage those whom they intend to hurt, but offend everyone who reads their rude posts, and make the discussion environment less pleasant for everyone.

To engage in stimulating, topical discussion we must minimize the disruption caused by off-topic digressions, and insults or other forms of personal commentary are always off-topic.

Thus the AboveTopSecret.com Terms And Conditions Of Use require us to be civil:


2) Behavior: You will not behave in an abusive and/or hateful manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack anyone.

This is not a request, this is a requirement for membership.

As a member of the senior staff, I want to attract the highest quality of members possible (in other words, you), and make your visits to our forums as pleasant as possible.

Rudeness is contrary to that goal.

So please, be respectful of other members and the goals of the community to deny ignorance, apathy and boredom.

Success depends on it.










[edit on 7/18/2008 by benevolent tyrant]



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by re22666
 



so i said that all 40 smoking guns can NOT be debunked.


Where did you say that ''all 40 smoking guns can not be debunked'' before the post I copied that sentence from?

I can only find where you said that all 40 smoking guns ''had not'' been debunked.


You do understand the difference between could not and had not, correct?



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 02:59 PM
link   
It seems like i amy have to take you by the hand and show you some more NORAD infomraiton.

More NORAD rules about aircraft being intercepted and escorted that are off cource and can not be contacted at the following sites.

www.faa.gov...

www.dtic.mil...

www.9-11commission.gov...



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 08:34 PM
link   
TOOOOOOOOOO much evidence. Simple.
It's obvious that someone knew.
The detonation charges really strike a nerve.



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
It seems like i amy have to take you by the hand and show you some more NORAD infomraiton.

More NORAD rules about aircraft being intercepted and escorted that are off cource and can not be contacted at the following sites.

www.faa.gov...

www.dtic.mil...

www.9-11commission.gov...


lol, you got me on one thing, kind of. could not, had not, i dont care. pick either. i stand behind both. they cannot be and were not so what difference does that make. you are just trying to cover up for not getting what i said the first two times we went over it. thats ok. you are stupid. i dont mind.
now before you take my hand to show me anything, let me reiterate (that means im gonna say it again) i dont care what 1 says. i dont care what proof you have of just one thing. I did not say you cannot debunk any one thing you care to choose. maybe you are right and 1 can be checked off. cool. 39 to go. 40-1=39 you see. that is why when i said all 40 could not/ had not been debunked, what i said later was that this is the same thing as saying 39 can but ..... BUT.

I SAID ALL 40
ALLLLLL 40
ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL 40
hear me yet?
when you have the debunking of all 40, then i promise, i am not like that or anything but, just for you, i will let you hold my hand.



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by re22666
lol, you got me on one thing, kind of. could not, had not, i dont care. pick either.


Just like a believer. When you show them evindece they show how immature they are and try to change the subject.

I have shown evidence that proves that point i was making about NORAD was correct. Why can't you be adult enough to admit it?



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join