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.

 

Have 9-11 debunkers ever tried to debunk the government's official story? (rant in thread)

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
They have tried to debunk the OS, and have found small holes/questions.... but they understand that the OS hypothesis is the best.
So, according to you, the USA commenced two invasions and is perpetuating wars, based on the best hypothesis.

Thanks for that, Seymour.




posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
If you are going to accuse someone of mass murder. You gotta get your story straight and your ducks in a row.(evidence) The truth movement has not done either.


Sorry, but neither has the government. Or OBL would be on the FBI's most wanted list for 9/11.


NORAD didn't fail. But yes...the rest of them did. I agree.


But, yet they all get promoted. I wish I could screw up and indirectly cause the death of thousands and still maintain my job. Let alone get promoted.



There are no videos that show Flight 77 hitting the pentagon. (besides the security gate through the fisheye lens.


Then why are they still not released yet?




Operation Northwoods was rejected.


Not by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.





It is very possible that someone may have received some intel. Could it have been hand waved? Lost in the bureaucratic BS? Ignored and dismissed by egocentric idiots? Yup. Again, I can't prove it. Even if I could, I would be unable to prove that this would be considered a LIHOP or even criminal negligence.


If a structural evaluation was performed on a building and found to be unstable and someone "hand-waved it away", "lost it in the bureaucratic BS", "ignored and dismissed by egocentric idiots", would these people still have their jobs after the building fell?

Then why do these people not only still have their jobs but most got promoted?



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

If a structural evaluation was performed on a building and found to be unstable and someone "hand-waved it away", "lost it in the bureaucratic BS", "ignored and dismissed by egocentric idiots", would these people still have their jobs after the building fell?

Then why do these people not only still have their jobs but most got promoted?


Wow, way to go there, Mr I-totally-missed-the-context-of-the-post.

He's clearly talking about the intel failures.

How you get from that clear intention to a discussion about a structural evaluation boggles the mind.....



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 05:33 PM
link   
I work in the NSA- there's about a hundred threats a day. Sifting through that is very hard work and figuring out which is a credible threat and which is not is exponentially harder.



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Wow, way to go there, Mr I-totally-missed-the-context-of-the-post.

He's clearly talking about the intel failures.

How you get from that clear intention to a discussion about a structural evaluation boggles the mind.....


It's called relativatey. I'm trying to understand how a person who can totally screw up their job, can get promoted. Maybe you can clue me in?

Yes, and if my job was to discern the "intel failures", the whole lot would be hung by their freeking heels. It is the USA govs admission that they were "caught off gaurd", "didn't know our ass from a hole in the ground" on 9/11. YES. I feel some people should be HELD RESPONSIBLE and NOT covered up by people like you. Period. End of discussion.



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by SuperViking
I work in the NSA- there's about a hundred threats a day. Sifting through that is very hard work and figuring out which is a credible threat and which is not is exponentially harder.


Let me ask. Do you take each threat as serious or just "hand-wave it away"?

BTW, there's so many people unemployed in the USA, why not have 100 people going over 1 threat a day each? Simple mathematics.


Don't give the BS of "we can't afford it" when we are bailing out CEOs to go take a summer spa vacation on our tax payer money either.



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Yes, and if my job was to discern the "intel failures", the whole lot would be hung by their freeking heels. It is the USA govs admission that they were "caught off gaurd", "didn't know our ass from a hole in the ground" on 9/11. YES. I feel some people should be HELD RESPONSIBLE and NOT covered up by people like you. Period. End of discussion.


I'd start with the INS first.

And end with Cheaney and Bush.



And even if you are a 9-11 debunker.... try debuking the fact that the Presidential Administration tried thier hardest to avoid a investigation,

Try debunking the fact that all of the steel at ground zero was removed from the crime scene and sent to China to be melted down. (removing evidence?)

Try debunking the fact that our government and military took full advantage of 9-11. PNAC even said they needed a 'new Pearl Harbor'.

And oh yea,... Operation Northwoods didn't happen because if I'm not mistaken... wasn't JFK in office at the time? Didn't he get assassinated?

Hmmm.... Do you honestly think Bush Jr. would of turned down Operation Northwoods?
He was truthful with Iraq wasn't he?



How can you sit there and not be outraged with the stuff I just mentioned?



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Doomsday 2029
 


Dude, chill. I'm as much a truther as much as a debunker. I don't know what happened. And no one can seriously say they know either. So, let's all chill out and discuss like the adults that we are.



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


I was just speaking to debunkers in general. The ones that are so confident our governmnet didn't have a hand in it.

Or maybe it's not the debunkers I'm speaking to,... it's those people that still believe the 'official' story, and are defending the 9-11 Commision Report like a Christian defends the Bible.



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doomsday 2029
reply to post by Griff
 


I was just speaking to debunkers in general. The ones that are so confident our governmnet didn't have a hand in it.

Or maybe it's not the debunkers I'm speaking to,... it's those people that still believe the 'official' story, and are defending the 9-11 Commision Report like a Christian defends the Bible.


I truelly understand what you mean. But, IMO, the debunkers have a pretty good case against some of our theories. I'm not saying any one is correct or not as I'm not going into specifics. But, if it was a conspiracy, don't you think that at least 75-85% of it should be true? As plausible deniability?



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

1-It's called relativatey. I'm trying to understand how a person who can totally screw up their job, can get promoted. Maybe you can clue me in?

Yes, and if my job was to discern the "intel failures", the whole lot would be hung by their freeking heels. It is the USA govs admission that they were "caught off gaurd", "didn't know our ass from a hole in the ground" on 9/11. YES. I feel some people should be HELD RESPONSIBLE

3-and NOT covered up by people like you. Period. End of discussion.


1-Fail. A structural discussion is not relative to intel failures. But nice try with the hand waving away your screwup....


2-We agree here. But like I've posted before, both Dems AND Reps wanted to go into Iraq. And they both wanted the intel failures covered up. Only the politically naive would think otherwise.

3- You're starting to sound delusional here Griff..... better watch out that you don't follow that path I've described elsewhere. . I have absolutely NO POWER to cover up anything. I am not silencing anyone. Nor is any "debunker". To the contrary, every time troofers make a post, they demonstrate their lunacy and prove that they're liars.......



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 05:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
1-Fail. A structural discussion is not relative to intel failures. But nice try with the hand waving away your screwup....


I am corelating between people screwing up their jobs. Not the word "failure". Just because I used the word "structural" doesn't mean I was focusing on the "failure" part. Other than people "failing" at their jobs. I used structural because that is what I'm familiar with. How about we use frying big Macs instead? Maybe you're more familiar with that? As you've skirted around ever confessing what you do for a living, I wouldn't know what you would be more comfortable corelating to.

BTW, I mean no offense to anyone who works at McD's. I've worked there before and it's gruelling, I know. No offense.


I find it interesting whenever you "debunkers" are shown that you took something the wrong way, you resort to telling the other poster that they are "hand waving away your screwup".


Talk about hand waving away screw ups. Let's talk about you and your ilk hand waving away the many screw ups on 9/11 that should be fired, not promoted. Condi Liar Rice is tops on my list.

But, people who "failed" at their job are A-OK with you and your ilk. Or you wouldn't be in here vehemently defending them.


2-We agree here. But like I've posted before, both Dems AND Reps wanted to go into Iraq. And they both wanted the intel failures covered up. Only the politically naive would think otherwise.


Yes, fancy that, both parts that make up the whole are corrupt.


3- You're starting to sound delusional here Griff..... better watch out that you don't follow that path I've described elsewhere. . I have absolutely NO POWER to cover up anything. I am not silencing anyone.


How should I know? You've never stated your profession, even when asked. As far as I know, you could be DICK Cheney himself.

Do the orders still stand trickey dickey?


Nor is any "debunker". To the contrary, every time troofers make a post, they demonstrate their lunacy and prove that they're liars.......


Such broad stroking in here.

[edit on 11/4/2008 by Griff]



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 09:46 AM
link   


Then we truley are a nation full of morons


Gotta love that one!

5. The Pentagon video of Flight 77 is not classified, it's all over the net. You used Youtube for a couple of videos, the Pentagon video is there as well. Kinda makes me wonder exactly what you've been looking for.

4. Why would I not think it's Bin Laden? He's released numerous videos, both before and after 9/11. His facial features remain constant throughout time. His hair does change. Mine has too.

3. There is a ton of evidence that Flight 93 crashed the way it did. Part of it is caught on a cell phone call from the plane itself. The plan was to shoot down any planes that did not obey the order to land. Flight 93 had crashed by that point. So, there is no reason for me to believe it was shot down.

2. Same as the answer for #3. There was an order to shoot down any planes that did not obey the order to land. All the flights that crashed had done so before the fighters could be scrambled. All Mineta's testimony proves is he was not aware of what all was going on, the time frames in relation to the crashes and the orders given to shoot down, or even what was happening in its totality as it happened.

1. The President was informed initially that an accident had occurred. It was not fully understood what was happening until the second Tower was hit. At that time, he was not in the classroom any more. What do you think he should have done when informed a plane had hit a skyscraper probably accidentally?

As far as going on and on, I did that a long time ago.

The problem I have is these 9/11 conspiracy theories come from all kinds of angles, all expect people to ignore the totality of what was happening when it happened and to focus on obscure events that had nothing to do with what happened. I have family that saw the plane crash into the Pentagon. They work in positions of National Security. They had no clue what was happening when it happened. They knew Bin Laden was a threat. What they didn't know was how well he had researched a major weakness in our transportation system. It was just too easy to hijack an airplane and even easier to find people stupid enough to kill themselves. That does not mean squat in the power of the US. Try doing that today. Hell, try even getting a toy grenade on a plane. I double-dog dare ya to even try.

The second problem I have is when I respond to these theories, especially the rather pointed ones, I have to research Normen Menetta, when it's Norman Mineta, we are not truley a nation of morons, but we do truly have some. You get the picture. In other cases we've been told the conspiracy is true because fire does not melt steel. This is the amount of thought that's been tossed out there. At the same time, scientists have concluded fire does melt steel, the buildings fell at the expected rate, the unclassified film of the Pentagon hit was actual, etc. etc. etc.. To convince me that college scientists are in cahoots with Dubya in a plot conceived forty years ago is real because the Transportation Secretary basically stated he wasn't in on military actions is just a hard one to buy. But, that is what I'm expected to believe in order to believe this is real.



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Moonage
1. The President was informed initially that an accident had occurred. It was not fully understood what was happening until the second Tower was hit. At that time, he was not in the classroom any more. What do you think he should have done when informed a plane had hit a skyscraper probably accidentally?


How do you feel about your President deciding to read in a class room full of Children, When the first plane hit the building.

Let's review his story...





I'll assume that he was saying that he just meant he saw the first building on fire....

EVEN with knowledge... you see the WTC on fire the way it was... You are the President of the US.... You still decide to go read a book, because you think it was just a terrible pilot?... Oh yea... Bush even supposedly had knowledge of attacks that were supposedly going to happen in the US... remember that report?

LMAO!!!

Wow... Do you think you go into the classroom after seeing the WTC on fire?

No,.... none of us would.

[edit on 4-11-2008 by Doomsday 2029]



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 05:40 PM
link   
we can only speculate as to what that guy told bush while he was sitting there...the reporter assumes it was about the 2nd plane but how can we really know????



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doomsday 2029
Wow... Do you think you go into the classroom after seeing the WTC on fire?

No,.... none of us would.

it is impossible to say what any of us would do as president in that situation...

he was probably just doing what he was told....STAY PUT....but who knows???

maybe he is just dumb???

if it was an inside job staged by him then he sure as hell didn't have an act prepared...



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doomsday 2029Wow... Do you think you go into the classroom after seeing the WTC on fire?

No,.... none of us would.


Wouldn't the conspiracy have went over that before hand and made sure to tell Bush, since he was on TV, to act as people like you would expect?

Or no, the conspiracy was good enough to take down a couple skyscrapers, kill thousands, attack the Pentagon and serve as the groundwork for two wars, but not good enough to cover that area.

Ooookay.



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 06:22 PM
link   

posted by Moonage
1. The President was informed initially that an accident had occurred. It was not fully understood what was happening until the second Tower was hit. At that time, he was not in the classroom any more. What do you think he should have done when informed a plane had hit a skyscraper probably accidentally?


posted by Doomsday 2029
How do you feel about your President deciding to read in a class room full of Children, When the first plane hit the building.

I'll assume that he was saying that he just meant he saw the first building on fire....

EVEN with knowledge... you see the WTC on fire the way it was... You are the President of the US.... You still decide to go read a book, because you think it was just a terrible pilot?... Oh yea... Bush even supposedly had knowledge of attacks that were supposedly going to happen in the US... remember that report?

LMAO!!!

Wow... Do you think you go into the classroom after seeing the WTC on fire?

No,.... none of us would.

Come on guys. OUR pResident does not lie every time . . . . . Well . . . . . maybe this is the only time he ever told the truth, but he saw that aircraft hit WTC1. He is the pResident; Commander in Chief of OUR armed forces. The CIC has every right to order a closed circuit video feed of WTC1 into his armored limousine command center. After he watched the alleged Flight 11 (all right - remote piloted tanker for maximum Shock & Awe effect) smash into the North Tower, Dubya was satisfied he could go into that little school and successfully hide behind those little children and nobody would notice. How was he to know that the smart alecky school principal was going to videotape his incompetence and treachery?

Moonage did you just tell a lie? Dubya stayed in the classroom for over 8 minutes after Andrew Card crept forward and told him at 9:03 that an aircraft had hit the 2nd Tower. But then Dubya did not leave the school, but gave a press conference, and left for the airport after 9:30. Then he did a bunch of very important photo ops at the Air Force One stairway before he took off without fighter escort, while Americans were dying by the thousands.

Perhaps this will refresh your memory.



And another version of the Booker Elementary School video



pResident Dubya did NOTHING to defend America on 9-11. He gave no instructions. He asked no questions. He did absolutely NOTHING.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join