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.

 

911 Truth: Condition-Terminal

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by RockHound757
As usual, CF logic is flawed


Just in the past few months more organizations have come online. Lawyers For 9/11 Truth, Firefighters, Medical Professionals.




I see Captain Bob sent one of his very few supporters. One that has a problem reading as well.

Did I say it was dead champ? No. I SPECIFICALLY stated that it would not "die." Try to keep up.

Yes, you have one stat that increased over the past 3 months... that is The number of unique pages viewed per user per day. That increased 5%. ( 2.6 pages)

Look at Captain Bob's other stats:

Reach for Pilotsfor911truth.org:
Percent of global Internet users who visit this site

DOWN 56%

(this was updated within a week)((EDIT))

Sorry...the data does not show the last update. My bad.

Traffic Rank for Pilotsfor911truth.org:
Alexa traffic rank based on a combined measure of page views and users (reach)

DOWN 469,952



[edit on 16-2-2009 by CameronFox]




posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece




Hijack 'suspects' alive and well
BBC News




There you have it folks. I rest my case.

This guy who claims to have done so much research is posting an article that was corrected by the BBC. You have failed to once again listen to the answers that were provided. extra DIV



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 01:23 PM
link   
ok so there is all this talk about site hits in the last 3 months. and please forgive me for not posting sites to back this up. its 10pm at night and i'm in the middle of iraq. Lets just say its been a very long day and leave it at that. (so if anyone else feels like following up on this and verifying for me please feel free.) Has anyone bothered to look at how many people have lost their jobs in the last 3 months? what was it like 1.5million or so? How would that affect internet traffic on any site if chunk like that couldn't afford internet anymore? Isn't all this arguing over 9.11 in vain? It has been about 40 years since the JFK incident and as far as I know we still don't have all the facts. And that was just a president. You think the Gov't is going to ever be forthcoming with all of the facts when it killed thousands of people? There are more important issues. Such as our economy is screwed, and yet we are still trying to fight multiple wars on multiple fronts. Everyone is arguing over the conspiracy of 9.11. How about the fact that myself and all the other military members that are fighting the pointless war. I've missed half my marriage and half of my children's lives. Lets fix the situation then worry about the conspiracy.

sorry about the rant. didn't intend to start that. but it was a needed vent



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
This guy who claims to have done so much research is posting an article that was corrected by the BBC. You have failed to once again listen to the answers that were provided.


Is this the "correction" you're referring to?

We recently asked the FBI for a statement, and this is, as things stand, the closest thing we have to a definitive view:

"The FBI is confident that it has positively identified the nineteen hijackers responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Also, the 9/11 investigation was thoroughly reviewed by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States and the House and Senate Joint Inquiry. Neither of these reviews ever raised the issue of doubt about the identity of the nineteen hijackers."

OK CF, I'm convinced!



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


Okay Golden.. you go ahead and hold onto the original BBC report that they admitted they made a mistake on. That's what you do. You can't let the facts get in the way of your fantasy.

I understand Golden.

Here is the complete response regarding the BBC report: (lets stay on topic please)


A five-year-old story from our archive has been the subject of some recent editorial discussion here. The story, written in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, was about confusion at the time surrounding the names and identities of some of the hijackers. This confusion was widely reported and was also acknowledged by the FBI.

The story has been cited ever since by some as evidence that the 9/11 attacks were part of a US government conspiracy.

We later reported on the list of hijackers, thereby superseding the earlier report. In the intervening years we have also reported in detail on the investigation into the attacks, the 9/11 commission and its report.

We’ve carried the full report, executive summary and main findings and, as part of the recent fifth anniversary coverage, a detailed guide to what’s known about what happened on the day. But conspiracy theories have persisted. The confusion over names and identities we reported back in 2001 may have arisen because these were common Arabic and Islamic names.

In an effort to make this clearer, we have made one small change to the original story. Under the FBI picture of Waleed al Shehri we have added the words "A man called Waleed Al Shehri..." to make it as clear as possible that there was confusion over the identity. The rest of the story remains as it was in the archive as a record of the situation at the time.

We recently asked the FBI for a statement, and this is, as things stand, the closest thing we have to a definitive view: The FBI is confident that it has positively identified the nineteen hijackers responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Also, the 9/11 investigation was thoroughly reviewed by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States and the House and Senate Joint Inquiry. Neither of these reviews ever raised the issue of doubt about the identity of the nineteen hijackers.

www.bbc.co.uk...

[edit on 16-2-2009 by CameronFox]



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Make Speed Limit 45
The truthers are paranoid...


Another fallacy made by the numerous anonymous "debunkers".

If "truthers" are so paranoid as "debunkers" like CF claim, why is it only "Truthers" put their face and name to their claims and "debunkers" refuse to debate their claims anywhere but from behind their screens... anonymously?

"Debunkers" use the excuse they remain anonymous because they think "truthers" will come and kill them. "Debunkers" are the "paranoid and delusional". Not the "Truthers".

(disclaimer: "debunkers" in quotes since its clear they arent real debunkers. "Truthers" in quotes since they are really patriots.)



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 01:48 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox

I see Captain Bob sent one of his very few supporters.


You may want to look at the stars per post on this thread regarding "supporters".

Someone here has a problem reading, but i dont think its me.



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by RockHound757
 


So, you are here counting stars? How noble of you. I am a skeptic in a conspiracy theory site. Hmmm... I would tend to think I would not be very popular around here.



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 01:58 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 02:10 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by CameronFox
 

Where did the BBC say they made a mistake? About four different hijackers, including statements from them and their families? What about the Saudi Airlines pilot "hijacker" who walked into a U.S. embassy and asked why he was wanted for murdering 3000 people?

I don't get it. When you publicly accuse people of mass murder and release their photos, birth dates and personal information, where is the confusion? Are you saying there was more than one hijacker with the same photo, passport and date of birth?

The UK Telegraph never retracted or explained anything when they reported:


Their names were flashed around the world as suicide hijackers who carried out the attacks on America. But yesterday four innocent men told how their identities had been stolen. The men - all from Saudi Arabia - spoke of their shock at being mistakenly named by the FBI as suicide terrorists. None of the four was in the United States on September 11 and all are alive in their home country. The Telegraph obtained the first interviews with the men since they learnt that they were on the FBI's list of hijackers who died in the crashes in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. All four said that they were "outraged" to be identified as terrorists. One has never been to America and another is a Saudi Airlines pilot who was on a training course in Tunisia at the time of the attacks. Saudi Airlines said it was considering legal action against the FBI for seriously damaging its reputation and that of its pilots.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

The story of these identity thefts was also briefly reported by ABC. The FBI does not deny this. Nobody denies this fact because it is easily verifiable. Instead, the U.S. media and government just ignore this inconvenient little fact and keeps on repeating the monstrous lie that the hijacker identities are known and that 15 of them were Saudis.

CNN revealed that FBI director Robert Mueller openly admitted that some of the identities of the 9/11 hijackers are in question due to identity theft. Here's what CNN reported on September 21:


FBI Director Robert Mueller has acknowledged that some of those behind last week's terror attacks may have stolen the identification of other people, and, according to at least one security expert, it may have been "relatively easy" based on their level of sophistication.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Cameron, can you explain this mess? Does the FBI even know the identity of these so-called "hijackers"? Did they even exist? Why does the FBI now say "there's not enough hard evidence against Osama bin Laden to send to a Grand Jury?"



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
Although maybe not "death threats" in the legal sense.


Yes, they are only "death threats" from the lying, paranoid delusional "debunkers" sense. We know.



Oh... and good luck with all those starts champ!


I dont need to count the stars. But it seems you do since you think there are "very few supporters". Was just pointing it out to you to since it appears your fallacies (and perhaps ignorance) are getting worse.

Once again. enjoy your day off (and nights, and working days) fighting a "movement" you think is "terminal".



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


Make a thread regarding the hijackers. I will be more than happy to answer your questions there. This thread is about the 911 truth movement.

Thank you for not derailing any further.

Rockhound... I would appreciate the same consideration from you.



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
reply to post by RockHound757
 


So, you are here counting stars? How noble of you. I am a skeptic in a conspiracy theory site. Hmmm... I would tend to think I would not be very popular around here.

As far as I know sceptics are welcome around ATS - they actually perform a useful service...

They don't usually go around starting lame threads like this though


[edit on 16/2/2009 by alienanderson]



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by RockHound757


Evasions noted.

Thank you for adding nothing to this thread. "rockhound"



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by alienanderson


As far as I know sceptics are welcome around ATS - they actually perform a useful service...

They don't usually go around starting lame threads like this though




Why would you bother responding if it is lame? What's wrong? Truth hurt?




posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox

Originally posted by alienanderson


As far as I know sceptics are welcome around ATS - they actually perform a useful service...

They don't usually go around starting lame threads like this though




Why would you bother responding if it is lame? What's wrong? Truth hurt?




I just don't like trolls is all

2nd line



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by RockHound757
"Truthers" put their face and name to their claims and "debunkers" refuse to debate their claims anywhere but from behind their screens... anonymously?


Back on topic.

This: patriotsquestion911.com...

Yeah...this site is screaming with success.

Percent of global Internet users who visit this site down 27%

Traffic rank based on a combined measure of page views and users (reach):

down 126,728

RockHound? I didn't see you "real name" on there? Or did I? OR are you too "hiding behind your screen?"



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by alienanderson
 


If I were trolling, I would have received a warning.

I started a thread and presented data to back it up.

Sorry if it bothers you.



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join