|
reply posted on 3-1-2009 @ 01:25 PM by Seymour Butz
|
Originally posted by dalan.
And neither does watching Faux News.
I prefer Al-jazeera.
You know, where OBL admits his group did it, where the hijacker admission videos were released, where the "19 martyrs" video was released........
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 3-1-2009 @ 01:26 PM by Swampfox46_1999
|
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 3-1-2009 @ 01:28 PM by dalan.
|
Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Originally posted by dalan.
And neither does watching Faux News.
I prefer Al-jazeera.
You know, where OBL admits his group did it, where the hijacker admission videos were released, where the "19 martyrs" video was released........
Huh, that's funny.
Did you not notice the CIA standing behind them with guns pointed at their families if they didn't comply.
I sure saw them.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 3-1-2009 @ 01:30 PM by Seymour Butz
|
Originally posted by dalan.
The OP wants to know why, with all of the evidence that supports the fact that the US government carried out 9/11, are people still believing the
false lie of "Islamic terrorism?"
Because you have no facts that support that.
What troofers have is lies, innuendo, mis quotes, misapplication of science, quote mining, and a whooooole lot more of false evidence.
Troofers have nothing. They never have, and they never will, cuz it's all lies, garbage, and junk.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 3-1-2009 @ 01:32 PM by Seymour Butz
|
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 3-1-2009 @ 01:40 PM by dalan.
|
Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Originally posted by dalan.
The OP wants to know why, with all of the evidence that supports the fact that the US government carried out 9/11, are people still believing the
false lie of "Islamic terrorism?"
Because you have no facts that support that.
What troofers have is lies, innuendo, mis quotes, misapplication of science, quote mining, and a whooooole lot more of false evidence.
Troofers have nothing. They never have, and they never will, cuz it's all lies, garbage, and junk.
That is an argument to be saved for another thread.
The US government is not a friend of the people.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 3-1-2009 @ 01:42 PM by dalan.
|
Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Originally posted by dalan.
Huh, that's funny.
Did you not notice the CIA standing behind them with guns pointed at their families if they didn't comply.
I sure saw them.
I'm sure you did.
The delusional often see, hear, and think things that aren't true.
Seek help.
Its not delusional, that is exactly the kind of warfare groups like the CIA, British SIS, KGB, and so on are here for.
Delusional is believing that governments do not lie.
Delusional is believing that conflicts cannot be manipulated, and created.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 3-1-2009 @ 01:44 PM by Seymour Butz
|
Originally posted by dalan.
The US government is not a friend of the people.
I agree totally with you. However, this does NOT mean that 9/11 was an inside jobby job.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 3-1-2009 @ 01:53 PM by Seymour Butz
|
Originally posted by dalan.
I'm sure you did.
The delusional often see, hear, and think things that aren't true.
Seek help.
Its not delusional, that is exactly the kind of warfare groups like the CIA, British SIS, KGB, and so on are here for.
Delusional is believing that governments do not lie.
Delusional is believing that conflicts cannot be manipulated, and created.
So your evidence of them standing behind them with guns to their heads is....... that govt's lie? 
This is your evidence that Muslims had nothing to do with 9/11?
That the fact that they have been doing terror attacks for many years, against many US targets around the world means nothing?
That radical Muslims have taken responsibility for it, and are in fact fighting for their very existance in Afghaniatan means nothing to you?
That the supposedly "alive" hijackers have never been paraded out to disprove that aspect means nothing to you?
Ok then, you're perfectly lucid. 
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 3-1-2009 @ 02:35 PM by dalan.
|
reply to post by Seymour Butz
So your evidence of them standing behind them with guns to their heads is....... that govt's lie?
I wasn't trying to prove that statement.
It was just a tongue and cheek thing that I said to prove a point.
And it goes beyond lying into the field of heavy manipulation.
Which is what the American CIA is for, manipulation.
9/11 was manipulation.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 3-1-2009 @ 04:17 PM by cashlink
|
reply to post by Seymour Butz
Because you have no facts that support that.
What troofers have is lies, innuendo, mis quotes, misapplication of science, quote mining, and a whooooole lot more of false evidence.
Troofers have nothing. They never have, and they never will, cuz it's all lies, garbage, and junk.
This is all a lie! It is funny how “you” make such ridiculous claims, why don’t you back up your statements with some proof? (Oh that’s
right you can’t!) Lies cannot be supported by more lies! Since you want to label good people who are asking questions and in search of the truth,
how about we label “you”! I am amazes the Mod have not thrown you off ATS due to your disgusting conduct!
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 3-1-2009 @ 04:19 PM by Seymour Butz
|
Originally posted by dalan.
I wasn't trying to prove that statement.
I hope not.
So, how are all the things I listed manipulation?
Note that I'm only listing some of the acts against the US, and haven't even begun listing the incidents against other countries, some of them in
fact Muslim, like in Indonesia.
Let's review:
1- they have a history of this
2-OBL made statement/s prior to 9/11 that it was open season on Americans
3- after the fact, they admit it
vs
1- govt lies to us
2- therefore they lied this time too
3- but we'll ignore that there's no proof that'll convince anyone but the already CT minded
How does one delude themselves like CTerz do to believe that this makes sense?
i
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 3-1-2009 @ 04:22 PM by cashlink
|
reply to post by Seymour Butz
I agree totally with you. However, this does NOT mean that 9/11 was an inside jobby job.
911 Was an inside job! PROVE it was not? (Oh that’s right you can’t)
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 3-1-2009 @ 04:33 PM by dalan.
|
Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Originally posted by dalan.
I wasn't trying to prove that statement.
I hope not.
So, how are all the things I listed manipulation?
Note that I'm only listing some of the acts against the US, and haven't even begun listing the incidents against other countries, some of them in
fact Muslim, like in Indonesia.
Let's review:
1- they have a history of this
2-OBL made statement/s prior to 9/11 that it was open season on Americans
3- after the fact, they admit it
vs
1- govt lies to us
2- therefore they lied this time too
3- but we'll ignore that there's no proof that'll convince anyone but the already CT minded
How does one delude themselves like CTerz do to believe that this makes sense?
i
You only get to see one side of the conflict.
If someone says in the Middle East "Death to America!"
Its probably because their are agents from Great Britain and the US harassing civilians in the background.
But we wouldn't see that because the News Medias are only allowed to report what they are told to report.
Proof of anything like this is available to you if you just researched 9/11.
Or have a conversation with an ex-CIA Officer who doesn't care anymore.
And you can't use what I said as proof that 9/11 was an inside job.
The statements that I made are because stuff like that happens.
Watch any video of the WTC towers going down and you can see the bombs going off.
NIST put out false information regarding the collapse of the towers and free fall speed.
The US has the technology to fly jet airliners with remote controls.
The FBI has a full video that is suppose to show the plane that hit the Pentagon but they refuse to release it, because it wasn't a plane that hit
the Pentagon, it was shot with a cruise missile.
There is evidence that 9/11 was an inside job, you just have to look past the "9/11 Commission Report."
It has nothing to do with being a "conspiracy theorist" I love how the media portrays people who think.
But of course it is done on purpose, to give the world a biased opinion about anyone who questions the government.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 3-1-2009 @ 04:38 PM by cashlink
|
reply to post by Seymour Butz
That the fact that they have been doing terror attacks for many years, against many US targets around the world means nothing?
Care to show proof of this, please site your sources, and stop the ridiculing, you are behaving like a child! How do you expect any one to respond to
you when you behave like this.
That radical Muslims have taken responsibility for it, and are in fact fighting for their very existance in Afghaniatan means nothing to you?
Pleas show proof of this and site your sources?
Ok then, you're perfectly lucid.
I think he understand everything perfectly well, so save your sarcastic comments for your self!
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 3-1-2009 @ 04:42 PM by Badge01
|
Mod Note:
Come on guys, this discussion is starting to devolve.
OTs are starting, we're only on page three
If we're now starting to "talk about what we're talking about" and not so much the topic, are we really making progress?
Maybe we 'reload' this topic and think, or give facts, or find studies, or give an original opinion?
It's all too easy to 'play one's tapes' as they call it in EST training.
There are some smart people on this thread, so I'm sure we talk about this in a more original or interesting way? Even if we're not on the same page
philosophically we can complement and maybe brainstorm, right?
Just some thoughts, hoping to move this discussion forwards and not backwards or sideways.
To people getting hit with OT. Remember if you're talking about each other, you're not talking about the topic and again, we're getting nowhere,
right? 
Thanks and happy posting.
-Badge01
Forum Moderator
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 3-1-2009 @ 04:53 PM by cashlink
|
reply to post by Seymour Butz
1- they have a history of this
Who has a history of this?
2-OBL made statement/s prior to 9/11 that it was open season on Americans
Prove it?
3- after the fact, they admit it
Prove they admitted it? Stop making statements with out posting some evidences “YOU” are not Debating anything here yet!
vs
1- govt lies to us
2- therefore they lied this time too
3- but we'll ignore that there's no proof that'll convince anyone but the already CT minded
YOU got to be “JOKING” RIGHT! Or are you playing a kiddy game of how can I get the poster mad, by making insane comments.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 3-1-2009 @ 05:41 PM by cashlink
|
1. Were Mohamed Atta and the Other Hijackers Devout Muslims?
In spite of the fact that these activities were reported by mainstream newspapers and even the Wall Street Journal editorial page,6 the 9/11
Commission wrote as if these reports did not exist, saying: "we have seen no credible evidence explaining why, on [some occasions], the operatives
flew to or met in Las Vegas."7
2. Do Authorities Have Hard Evidence of Osama bin Laden's Responsibility for 9/11?
What about the 9/11 Commission? I mentioned earlier that it gave the impression of having had solid evidence of bin Laden's guilt. But Thomas Kean
and Lee Hamilton, the Commission's co-chairs, undermined this impression in their follow-up book subtitled "the inside story of the 9/11
Commission."20
The note for each of these statements says "interrogation of KSM."22
Accordingly, neither the White House, the British government, the FBI, nor the 9/11 Commission has provided solid evidence that Osama bin Laden was
behind 9/11.
3. Was Evidence of Muslim Hijackers Provided by Phone Calls from the Airliners?
Multiple lines of evidence, therefore, imply that the cell phone calls were faked. This fact has vast implications, because it implies that all the
reported calls from the planes, including those from onboard phones, were faked. Why? Because if the planes had really been taken over in surprise
hijackings, no one would have been ready to make fake cell phone calls.
Moreover, the FBI, besides implying, most clearly in the case of Deena Burnett, that the phone calls reporting the hijackings had been faked, comes
right out and says, in its report about calls from Flight 77, that no calls from Barbara Olson occurred. It does mention her. But besides attributing
only one call to her, not two, the FBI report refers to it as an "unconnected call," which (of course) lasted "0 seconds."48 In 2006, in other
words, the FBI, which is part of the Department of Justice, implied that the story told by the DOJ's former solicitor general was untrue. Although
not mentioned by the press, this was an astounding development.
This FBI report leaves only two possible explanations for Ted Olson's story: Either he made it up or else he, like Deena Burnett and several others,
was duped. In either case, the story about Barbara Olson's calls, with their reports of hijackers taking over Flight 77, was based on deception.
The opening section of The 9/11 Commission Report is entitled "Inside the Four Flights." The information contained in this section is based almost
entirely on the reported phone calls. But if the reported calls were faked, we have no idea what happened inside these planes. Insofar as the idea
that the planes were taken over by hijackers who looked "Middle Eastern," even "Islamic," has been based on the reported calls, this idea is
groundless.
4. Was the Presence of Hijackers Proved by a Radio Transmission "from American 11"?
It might provide such proof if we knew that, as the Commission claimed, the "transmission came from American 11."50 But we do not. According to the
FAA's "Summary of Air Traffic Hijack Events," published September 17, 2001, the transmission was "from an unknown origin."51 Bill Peacock, the
FAA's air traffic director, said: "We didn't know where the transmission came from."52 The Commission's claim that it came from American 11 was
merely an inference. The transmission could have come from the same room from which the calls to Deena Burnett originated.
Therefore, the alleged radio transmission from Flight 11, like the alleged phone calls from the planes, provides no evidence that the planes were
taken over by al-Qaeda hijackers.
5. Did Passports and a Headband Provide Evidence that al-Qaeda Operatives Were on the Flights?
By 2004, when the 9/11 Commission was discussing the alleged discovery of this passport, the story had been modified to say that "a passer-by picked
it up and gave it to a NYPD detective shortly before the World Trade Center towers collapsed."55 So, rather than needing to survive the collapse of
the North Tower, the passport merely needed to escape from the plane's cabin, avoid being destroyed or even singed by the instantaneous jet-fuel
fire, and then escape from the building so that it could fall to the ground! Equally absurd is the claim that the passport of Ziad Jarrah, the alleged
pilot of Flight 93, was found at this plane's crash site in Pennsylvania.56 This passport was reportedly found on the ground even though there was
virtually nothing at the site to indicate that an airliner had crashed there. The reason for this absence of wreckage, we were told, was that the
plane had been headed downward at 580 miles per hour and, when it hit the spongy Pennsylvania soil, buried itself deep in the ground. New York Times
journalist Jere Longman, surely repeating what he had been told by authorities, wrote: "The fuselage accordioned on itself more than thirty feet into
the porous, backfilled ground. It was as if a marble had been dropped into water."57 So, we are to believe, just before the plane buried itself in
the earth, Jarrah's passport escaped from the cockpit and landed on the ground. Did Jarrah, going 580 miles per hour, have the window open?58 Also
found on the ground, according to the government's evidence presented to the Moussaoui trial, was a red headband.59 This was considered evidence that
al-Qaeda hijackers were on Flight 93 because they were, according to some of the phone calls, wearing red headbands. But besides being absurd for the
same reason as was the claim about Jarrah's passport, this claim about the headband was problematic for another reason. Former CIA agent Milt
Bearden, who helped train the Mujahideen fighters in Afghanistan, has pointed out that it would have been very unlikely that members of al-Qaeda would
have worn such headbands:
We learned shortly after the invasion of Iraq that some people in the US government did not know the difference between Shi'a and Sunni Muslims. Did
such people decide that the hijackers would be described as wearing red headbands?
6. Did the Information in Atta's Luggage Prove the Responsibility of al-Qaeda Operatives?
The next day, September 14, an Associated Press story said that it was Atta and a companion who had driven the blue Nissan to Portland, stayed
overnight, and then taken the commuter flight back to Boston. The incriminating materials, however, were still said to have been found in a car in the
Boston airport, which was now said to have been rented by "additional suspects."68 Finally, on September 16, a Washington Post story, besides saying
that the Nissan had been taken to Portland by Atta and al-Omari, specified that the incriminating material had been found in Atta's luggage inside
the Boston airport.69
Given this history of the Atta-to-Portland story, how can we avoid the conclusion that it was a fabrication?
7. Were al-Qaeda Operatives Captured on Airport Security Videos?
Still another type of evidence for the claim that al-Qaeda operatives were on the planes consisted of frames from videos, purportedly taken by airport
security cameras, said to show hijackers checking into airports. Shortly after the attacks, for example, photos showing Atta and al-Omari at an
airport "were flashed round the world."70 However, although it was widely assumed that these photos were from the airport at Boston, they were
really from the airport at Portland. No photos showing Atta or any of the other alleged hijackers at Boston's Logan Airport were ever produced. We at
best have photographic evidence that Atta and al-Omari were at the Portland airport.
Moreover, in light of the fact that the story of Atta and al-Omari going to Portland was apparently a late invention, we might expect the photographic
evidence that they were at the Portland Jetport on the morning of September 11 to be problematic. And indeed it is. It shows Atta and Omari without
either jackets or ties on, whereas the Portland ticket agent said that they had been wearing jackets and ties.71 Also, a photo showing Atta and
al-Omari passing through the security checkpoint is marked both 05:45 and 05:53.72
Another airport video was distributed on the day in 2004 that The 9/11 Commission Report was published. The Associated Press, using a frame from it as
corroboration of the official story, provided this caption:
Hijacker Khalid al-Mihdhar . . . passes through the security checkpoint at Dulles International Airport in Chantilly, Va., Sept. 11 2001, just hours
before American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon in this image from a surveillance video.73
www.globalresearch.ca...
Was America Attacked by Muslims on 9/11?
www.informationclearinghouse.info...
I think this show how “weak” the Government story is of accusing Muslims extremis of carrying out 911, there really is little proof only what the
media tells you. Probably, Orders from the Bush administration. My opinion, Muslims did not do the highjacking, there’s no evidences to support the
Government claims.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 3-1-2009 @ 05:47 PM by jthomas
|
Originally posted by cashlink
This is all a lie!...
Above post reported.
[edit on 3-1-2009 by jthomas]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 3-1-2009 @ 05:48 PM by cashlink
|
Muslims Did Not Do 911 Proof Part 4. Is This A BBC Undercover Mosad Agent Lying
www.youtube.com...
This is more proof of Muslims not guilty.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
<< 1 2 3 4 5 6 >>
|
|
|
