Why Do You Support The 911 Official Story? , page 7

privacy

Pages: << 4 5 6 7 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 5 times

reply posted on 28-12-2008 @ 02:04 PM by Jailhouserock

I do not accept everything of the official explanation for 9-11. As a matter of fact, I know without any question whatsoever that some of it was and is without merit, and completely false. But I do not exactly know everything that is true about 9-11. Actually, what America got from 9-11 was a wakeup call about their government that many others of us had already gotten in smaller, more personal ways many years ago and ongoing. The question I have is this? How do you like it when your paid protectors fail you completely and willfully to your great detriment, and remain above accountability? It's not too good, is it? Deal with it. I and others have had to for many many years before and since 9-11.

reply posted on 29-12-2008 @ 12:56 AM by Jailhouserock

I am one of the pre 9-11 witnesses. What is it you really want to know? I only know what I know. No unsubstantiated theories, just facts.

Since 1997 I had known EXACTLY where the attacks would be carried out, how they would be executed with commandeered, fuel-laden aircraft, and very close to when; not exactly when but very very close, and I was absolutely right on all counts.

If you believe government functionaries were told in detail about the attacks, and well in advance and repeatedly, I can tell you you are right, and I know this because I told them myself. However, in my particular case, people I told were not at elite levels of government. If you believe there was a cover up before and after 9-11, you are right again. I ought to know.
I have written a manuscript of 90 pages and over 54,000 words detailing the entire matter.

reply posted on 30-12-2008 @ 12:56 AM by rush969

Hey "Jailhouse", very interesting post!!
Can we know where you are, or your nationality?
Are you with some secret service agency?
Are you related in any way to Al Qaeda?
Maybe you can´t answer these questions but you said, "ask me what you want to know".
So I´m asking.

reply posted on 30-12-2008 @ 07:51 AM by Jailhouserock

reply to post by hinky

You got that right hinky. Here here. Applause applause. I really cannot believe these CTs are serious. However, there were screwups which paved the way for 9-11. It is not as though this country did not have it coming. As for the pentagon, that one should have been nuclear.

I had known through Saudi Arabia about the attacks in detail since 1997, but only that they were going to do it. AS for four aircraft and nineteen hijackers, I did not know those details, only that the mission was on, and they were most likely coming to my home state of Florida to get the training, and that because I said they could in 1997, and they agreed to go through with it.

One good point is this. If I could get detailed info on those attacks years prior to their happening, and without really even trying to, how could it be that the US government with all their extraordinary intelligence gathering capabilities did not know about them?

I am quite sure some people in highly placed positions in your government knew, and let them happen anyway.But I don't actually know.

reply posted on 1-1-2009 @ 03:40 AM by Jailhouserock

Originally posted by rush969
Hey "Jailhouse", very interesting post!!
Can we know where you are, or your nationality?
Are you with some secret service agency?
Are you related in any way to Al Qaeda?
Maybe you can´t answer these questions but you said, "ask me what you want to know".
So I´m asking.

1.Thank you.
2.American.
3.No.
4.No.
5. What?

reply posted on 1-1-2009 @ 03:51 AM by Jailhouserock

Originally posted by RFBurns
The thing about all these alledged 9/11 websites with other points of view, is that all of them contain information that seems to be swayed to lean to only one side of the opinion. Why is that? If they are honest, why not do side by side data comparisons and allow the reader/researcher come to their own conclusions?

Who can say for certian than any of them, or even the official conclusion is correct? Thats the part that always seems to be missing, that one piece of evidence, proof, unquestionable part that affirms one is the truth, and the other is merely tabloid tall tale chatter batter.Cheers!!!!

Exactly. They go on ad infinitum with information and noninformation that proves nothing except they are willing to state any conjecture, warranted by the evidence or not warranted by it, as unquestionable fact. It is scary.
I would hate to have to be tried before a jury of such persons if I were an innocent person accused of a crime he did not commit. I am beginning to understand why so many people are being released from prisons and death rows whose false convictions were amendable by evidence provided by analysis of DNA. They might have been sent up the river by the kinds of persons you encounter of 9-11 CT forums. What about all those poor innocent bastards whose cases are not subject to DNA analysis?

However, many 9-11 CTs raise some very good points, and it is a very good point not to just accept the official story of 9-11 as fully and completely honest, for I know it is not. Examine every part of it. Put it under a microscope. Tear it apart and put it back together. In their efforts to do this, many have done an admirable job, and their details and descriptions are far more extensive than any analysis I might have tried to achieve. But, with all their assertions and accusations, how is it that nobody has been arrested or even taken to court, and why has nobody struck back against government if what they say is true?

If government has become as rapacious as you say against its own citizens, did it ever occur to you that 9-11 was that striling back against government? As for civilians whose lives were lost, it was a tragedy and a great loss to our country, but the horrific fact is that in modern warfare those killed in the noncombatant civilian populations can and does far outnumber the casualty rates of enemy combatants. With the way societies are organized these days, it is kind of hard to launch large-scale, effective attacks against bully government institutions and their main supporters without killing some civilians too.

I remind you that no mattrer how unlikely it might seem to you, I warned many persons about the coming attacks, including law enforcement, and not only did they not cooperate and follow the law as they were required to do, it appears that they may have actively blocked the information I gave them from any other persons who might have been able to investigate, and do something to prevent those attacks. The attiudes in general were deplorable.

[edit on 1-1-2009 by Jailhouserock]

[edit on 1-1-2009 by Jailhouserock]

[edit on 1-1-2009 by Jailhouserock]

reply posted on 1-1-2009 @ 04:26 AM by Jailhouserock

Originally posted by rush969

Well cashlink. I give up!! I don´t think there´s any point in continuing this discussion. You will not accept any of my references however trustworthy they may seem to anyone, and you insist on disqualifying and mocking any idea that I present. So I guess we are only wasting each other´s time.
If I give you a reference to CNN, CBS, Wikipedia, BBC, FBI, FAA, NTSB, UN, etc... You consider them unacceptable and liars. Witnesses, reporters, NIST, FEMA, are ALL part of the “inside job”, so there´s no trustworthy source that you will accept any information from!! It´s obvious I will not convince you of anything and neither will you, so carry on and enjoy your research.
The websites that you give references to are all respectable but you have to consider they represent a small minority of the professionals on those fields anyway.

I don't know how many 9-11 forums you have been on. I have been on many. What you are observing about cashlink is true about such forums in general. It really is a waste of time discussing the matter with them.

On one forum I entered an ongoing discussion and debate. As matters progressed, it was proven without quetion I was the only one who was right, and the others were wrong. I had done research on the subject, and all they had done was listen to mainstream media. After I proved they were just a bunch of know nothings running their mouths on subjects they knew nothing about, they deleted my posts, insisted I had never made the statements I had made, and banned me from the forum. Then they went on insisting they were right even though the facts proved they were wrong.

Do not waste you time in argument. They are intractible. State your facts.
Let it go.

[edit on 1-1-2009 by Jailhouserock]

reply posted on 1-1-2009 @ 04:42 AM by cashlink

reply to post by Jailhouserock

You really are something, you are off topic do you have anything to contribute to this forum beside your rants and ridiculing snide remarks! How pathetic. for a new poster, you are already starting out on the wrong foot!

[edit on 1/1/2009 by cashlink]

reply posted on 1-1-2009 @ 09:09 AM by jthomas

Originally posted by cashlinkDo “you” have proof that is man on this tape is Bin Laden?
Do “you” have proof that this is so call tape is real, and not made up, in some CIA or FBI back room with phony actors? I can hire a man to read a script and record it and give it to the Press and tell them HEY THIS IS BIN LADEN, HE SAID HE DID THE ATTACKS ON 911! Please! Where is your proof

Do you have proof you are who you say you are, cashlink? You could be a CIA agent typing a disinfo script for all we know.

Prove who you are. Right here.

reply posted on 3-1-2009 @ 01:38 AM by Jailhouserock

Originally posted by mmiichael

To clarify my position, I've read books, articles, endless discussion online questioning the Official version of 9/11. I read what the self-proclaimed debunkers have to say, many linked to here

www.debunking911.com...

I also discuss the reporting phenomenon with people still active in publishing, some of whom I've known for decades.

Weighing it all in, I'll give some points to those who question the Official version. Not usually discussed, one of the biggest holes is the project funding sources the US avoids discussing. And some things are not quite right about the flight training school scenario.

But the destruction of the WTC Towers due to airlines filled with fuel flying into them, falls completely in line with the laws of physics and thermodynamics as demonstrated by experts in the field, most with no apparent agenda either way,

I'm sorry I don't have the time and resources to gather all the contrary to Truther version data that is out there, but those who maintain debunker sites have, and I strongly suggest contacting them. If this really is to be an open forum, I'd expect to see the debunking information put side by side with the Truther claims and compared rigorously.

I understand where Truthers are coming from, and I'm there in spirit. Many so-called debunkers were listwning to the naysayers early on. I think they're going after technical inconsistencies in the incomplete video and photographic record, with it's inevitable errors, while the bigger story, the complex US love-hate relationship with Saudi Arabia, is given short shift.

They also do not address the painful reality that tens of thousands, some estimate as many as a quarter million Americans, would have had to be complicit in keeping their foreknowledge a secret. In an era where blabbing to the press is a way to get rich quick, it's tough to swallow hundreds not coming out and cashing in on what they know, after all
these years.

Mike F

In my opinion, what Mike F says is very very reasonable. In fact, the conspiracy as asserted by many CTs would have been far too large for everyone to have kept their big mouths shut all this time. It just isn't possible. It just could not be.

If CTs are saying some persons in high positions knew about the attacks or were at least told, and did not take appropriate measures to do what they were supposed to do, or dropped the ball as it is sometimes called, okay. Not only possible but very very likely. I knew about the attacks myself and told people in law enforcement, and many others besides. So there. Case closed on that point. I am aware that perhaps nobody believes me, but I know the facts, and I am not going to say facts are not facts just because nobody believes it.

If CTs are saying that some persons in government might have manipulated or suppressed incoming info. about the attacks for the express purpose of allowing them to happen, well, maybe, but where is the evidence, and why is it that nobody has been taken into court under such accusations and convicted? I know people get away with crime, but what to hell. It is possible that a small number of persons in highly placed positions may have allowed for the attacks to go through. But the magnitude of conspiracy that many CTs imply by their accusations simply is not possible. Pigs could fly before such a large-scale conspiracy could be pulled off without someone coming to the fore to tell the story.

Look at my own case as an example. I had known since 1997. Told 130 people before 9-11. Was ignored. Came with my story on internet forums. Was accused and denied. Told newspapers. Was ignored. Spoke on radio about it. Was ignored. Got part of the story into some newspapers. Was maligned.

[edit on 3-1-2009 by Jailhouserock]

reply posted on 3-1-2009 @ 02:56 AM by cashlink

reply to post by jthomas

Do you have proof you are who you say you are, cashlink? You could be a CIA agent typing a disinfo script for all we know.

Prove who you are. Right here.

Why don’t you stop your ridiculing rants, and answer the questions? I do not have to prove who I am, however, this topic is not about me I am the last person who would be typing disinfo, and everyone who reads my post knows that. Only you and two other in the 911 forums have done everything in your power to railroad my threads, with rants, and ridiculing.

reply posted on 3-1-2009 @ 08:27 AM by jthomas

Originally posted by cashlink
reply to post by jthomas

Do you have proof you are who you say you are, cashlink? You could be a CIA agent typing a disinfo script for all we know.

Prove who you are. Right here.

Why don’t you stop your ridiculing rants, and answer the questions? I do not have to prove who I am, however, this topic is not about me I am the last person who would be typing disinfo, and everyone who reads my post knows that. Only you and two other in the 911 forums have done everything in your power to railroad my threads, with rants, and ridiculing.

It's certainly not about you, even though you have absolutely no way of proving to us you are who you say you are--by your own standards. It's about your illogical statement and demands.

To illustrate the nature of your illogical statement, try to prove to us that the Moon exists.

I guarantee you can't do it by your standards.

reply posted on 3-1-2009 @ 11:27 AM by bsbray11

Originally posted by jthomas
To illustrate the nature of your illogical statement, try to prove to us that the Moon exists.

I don't know which 9/11 theory you think is as solid as the fact that the Moon is floating in the sky, but somewhere along the way you have confused what the word "theory" really means.

[edit on 3-1-2009 by bsbray11]

reply posted on 3-1-2009 @ 11:55 AM by jthomas

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by jthomas
To illustrate the nature of your illogical statement, try to prove to us that the Moon exists.

I don't know which 9/11 theory you think is as solid as the fact that the Moon is floating in the sky, but somewhere along the way you have confused what the word "theory" really means.

[edit on 3-1-2009 by bsbray11]

You are confused about what I responded to. Try again, read carefully.

And please review cashlink's statements of "FACT."

reply posted on 3-1-2009 @ 05:12 PM by bsbray11

reply to post by jthomas

I don't think even you know what you are talking about, jthomas. You told me the exact same thing on another thread not too long ago, but you were wrong, and I was responding to exactly what I thought I was. So I'll wait and give you the opportunity to not be quite so extremely vague before I go through two pages of posts trying to validate potentially senile thoughts again.

What really bugs me about your posts is how condescending they come across. Either you are habitually too lazy to put much more than two sentences worth of thought into a post, or you honestly think it isn't even worth really trying to explain anything you believe to us because we wouldn't understand it anyway. Neither are very respectful obviously. I could easily imagine you posting a lot of this stuff on the can. You know a lot of the people you disagree with here have (or will soon have) degrees in fields of engineering, right? How incredibly stupid can we be after all, on a fact-by-fact-by-fact basis? I wonder if you have ever considered that your intellectual laziness is what really can't be breached? Like when I asked you repeatedly to post the tests where NIST "proves" their hypothesis, and you never do and just keep implying they (or some equivalent) must exist somewhere anyway? Should I call that laziness, or just being a fool? You literally have faith in things that don't exist, to support your case.

Now that that's off my chest, hopefully if anything else appears here that is even worth replying to, it won't come across so half-"hearted." I can only hope I guess.

[edit on 3-1-2009 by bsbray11]

reply posted on 3-1-2009 @ 05:13 PM by ArcAngel

Ummmmm ....

Because it's true?

reply posted on 3-1-2009 @ 05:40 PM by jthomas

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by jthomas

I don't think even you know what you are talking about, jthomas.

Let me correct you. I know exactly what I wrote and I know exactly what I was responding to. Don't presume to tell me otherwise.

What really bugs me about your posts is how condescending they come across.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Either you are habitually too lazy to put much more than two sentences worth of thought into a post, or you honestly think it isn't even worth really trying to explain anything you believe to us because we wouldn't understand it anyway.

I am waiting for cashlink to answer my question concerning his claims.

Now that that's off my chest, hopefully if anything else appears here that is even worth replying to, it won't come across so half-"hearted." I can only hope I guess.

You need not reply to my question that was not directed to you to begin with and which you don't understand anyway. Instead of your condescending reply to begin with and now, you could have asked me for clarification of why my question to cashlink of proving he is who he says he is or prove the Moon exists is relevant to his "demands" for "proof".

Happy New Year.

reply posted on 3-1-2009 @ 06:03 PM by bsbray11

Originally posted by jthomas
Let me correct you. I know exactly what I wrote and I know exactly what I was responding to.

Great to hear. But it still doesn't help me when you are so vague.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

More like a mirror over here. I don't always look this way.

You need not reply to my question that was not directed to you to begin with and which you don't understand anyway.

This is the second time you've said this but I'm still thinking the senile thing. Like I said, you said the same thing in another thread and you were completely out of line, you just didn't want my response to what you were saying.

I may have an attitude but at least if I were to say you were mistaken about something I would tell you what it was.

reply posted on 3-1-2009 @ 06:14 PM by jthomas

You missed your opportunity to ask a question by not really wanting to.

Tell you what. Let's make each other happy by putting the other on ignore. That should solve it, no?

Here goes..... POOOFFFFFF!

reply posted on 4-1-2009 @ 01:06 AM by bsbray11

reply to post by jthomas

Aw come on, now you're just making me suspect that I was right from the start.

Guess I'll never be seeing your links to NIST's "proof," but I'd already been asking for months anyway. What's new?

Pages: << 4 5 6 7 >> ^^TOP^^