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.

 

9-11 Conspiracy Theorist Challenge

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 22 2004 @ 10:48 PM
link   
I've been reading a lot of posts and threads lately about a conspiracy involving 9-11. Many people can support their claims by citing sources, others cannot, but these sources tend to be suspect as extreme sites who don't back up their information.

Now I wish to issue a challenge.

Most newspapers and magazines have an online version. Use these as bullet points to support your story, they're widly accepted as being legit. Don't use someone else's theory as "fact". Here is an example of what I mean, using very generic terms:

In "Respectable Magazine" on 1-1-11, they said that x happened:



x happened at this time on this date


link

And "Respectable Newspaper" on 2-2-22 reported that y happened at the same time



y happened at this time on this date


link

Clearly we can see that x was a direct result of y, as a result of the z agency doing w. "Respectable Magazine" had an interview with Mr. q, who was quoted as saying:



We were doing a


link

Yet in "Respectable Magazeeeen" they had Mr. k, who worked with Mr. q, say:



We were doing b


link

Clearly there is a contradiction, one that would lead us to believe x and y were not really what had happened, but rather pq was really the case.

Put in such a format, it would allow for educated discussion and a fairly rock solid case. All of you have to be getting your info from somewhere, and they have to be getting it from somewhere else, and so on until you get to the top, where that person took the time to connect the dots. Present the dots to us in a way we can varify them, and then connect them.

I would be very interested to read the thread that did that. As it is now, I read the 9-11 threads for the same reason I read the Weekly World News. It's funny. Prove me wrong, please.




posted on Apr, 23 2004 @ 12:18 AM
link   
Come on jake, nice try. If something was printed in three mainstream(respectable) papers or magazines, Would it still be considered conspiracy? The reason they are conspiracies is because they haven't been accepted as fact yet. In time some will though. Especially regarding 911.

Remember the three stages of truth.


Its kind of strange you read the 911 stuff because you think its funny(sure).

I dont read the bible because I think its funny.



posted on Apr, 23 2004 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by ashley
Come on jake, nice try. If something was printed in three mainstream(respectable) papers or magazines, Would it still be considered conspiracy? The reason they are conspiracies is because they haven't been accepted as fact yet. In time some will though. Especially regarding 911.

Remember the three stages of truth.


Its kind of strange you read the 911 stuff because you think its funny(sure).

I dont read the bible because I think its funny.



lol there ya go, attack my religion. I'm not saying find 3 sources. I'm saying find a source that confirms what you're saying. Then find another source that contradicts what you're saying. And explain your theory on this.

Or are all the "facts" about this 9-11 conspiracy theory only provable if you read conspiracy sites' ideas? You know, many of them are smart enough to quote sources. You can still use the conspiracy sites to get the jump on the info and investigate it yourself.

But no, let's just state crap without any substansiating evidence, and attack the faith or ideology of whoever doesn't accept your word as fact


And by the way, I don't read it because I find it funny, but I do find the lack of evidence in most of the 9-11 posts to be funny. Aware has talked to me via U2U and given me legitiamte sources for this conspiracy. I am reading those too. I don't run from the truth, dear, I look into what someone contends to be truth. Enjoy your ignorance.



posted on Apr, 23 2004 @ 12:34 AM
link   
JJ, what your asking for has been done one about 10 sites i can think of off the top of my head.
Im not going to go and re-state, re-link, and re-hash their work.
First there are the 2 links in my sig, then there are links from there to other sites. Check out whatreallyhappened.com, or infowars.com, or so on and so forth. There is plenty of info out there.
If you cant find the kind of 'breakdown' your looking for U2 me and i will help if i can.



posted on Apr, 23 2004 @ 12:41 AM
link   
I have been looking into the info you sent me, Aware. I'm just wondering why no ATSer has done this. We claim to deny ignorance, but many refuse to support their claims. They use sensationalistic news instead or presenting the facts, and why those indicate conspiracy.

To say a conspiracy is always done very well, and you can't find any verifyable clues is like saying:

Look in the skies! You see anything? That's PROOF that the US has cloaking technology!

A friend of mine might be doing a sociological study into conspiracy sites, and she sent me a link. This person was honestly claiming, judging by arial photos, that there was evidence that the US had invisibility technology because he couldn't see any airplanes on a satelite picture of Area 51's runways.

I don't want that to happen to ATS, and that's where I'm seeing it going with some of these people stating theories (not only about 9-11) without any substansiating evidence.

Oh, and ashley, if you're going to try to reverse my statement above against my religion, bring it. I'm very well equiped to defend against any arguement you might bring up.



posted on Apr, 23 2004 @ 04:45 AM
link   
dude, u obviously haven't read alot about the physical evidence of 911. of course 'time' or newsweek' isn't going to ask why the rest of the world saw something 'straped' to the bottom on the plane that hit wt2. that would be 'un-patriotic'.



posted on Apr, 23 2004 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Which rest of the world would that be? Because other than a very few new yorkers who managed to see that plane on its deadly flight path at that exact moment all of you who "claim" to have seen interesting things are relying on PICTURES that you can offer me no guarantee are authentic and undoctored.

Give me one rock solid proof that the claims you refer to of something "strapped to the bottom of the plane" are more authentic than anything else. If all you have is a photo, I have many more. I also have photoshop 7 and could probably strap the statue of liberty to the bottom of that plane and make it look just as real. Case in point the picture of the jackass on top of one of the towers with the plane flying at him. Remember that? "The camera was found, but the man was not". Weeks later the same picture was edited AGAIN to show godzilla and all sorts of other funny #.

Sorry but doctored photos of things strapped to a plane that had zero eyewitness corroboration does not equal "physical evidence" as you put it.



posted on Apr, 23 2004 @ 10:58 AM
link   
I've noticed a lot of people telling me that I'm not looking for the info and the like. I, personally, have been doing my own research. Aware set me on the path, and now I'm following my own.

But like I said in my first post, provide evidence. So far all of the people posting saying I'm wrong haven't addressed the challenge. I'm not saying you need to use Time or Newsweek. Foreign newspapers and magazines will probably take a more objective look at the event. "Reputable News source" does NOT mean American media, it means Reputable media. Don't assume it makes...

EDIT: Just an idea...Vote on the content, not on how you feel about the issue. Just an idea, I've voted high for threads that I disagree with, because they were well done. But, do as you wish, it's a free web


[Edited on 4-23-2004 by junglejake]



posted on Apr, 23 2004 @ 12:14 PM
link   
Hey JJ, my fellow Chicagoan!

I have to disagree with you though, too many indiscrepancies:




And This:


Coleen Rowley's Memo to FBI Director Robert Mueller
An edited version of the agent's 13-page letter

Time Magazine Article

There are many more examples of 'funny' business before the attacks.

More to come........



posted on Apr, 23 2004 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by nathraq

More to come........


Fantastic! I'm looking forward to it, and thanks for supplying info!



posted on Apr, 23 2004 @ 12:29 PM
link   


9-11 Conspiracy Theorist Challenge


I dont mean to but in on this thread but I need some of you peoples help on a website Im making regarding the (OCCULT) numerology etc surrounding 911.


Look at the site and see if there is anything you can add to the anomalies of 911. I know about the demon images in the smoke on 911 and the ufos. What Im looking for is how a form of occultism(patterns) is being played out in this whole thing. I will eventually merge the website to a site that shows the occultism seen in government, corporations (national and International)

www.geocities.com...

Please u2u me with anything you might be able to add.
Thanks

PP



posted on Apr, 24 2004 @ 06:34 PM
link   
Jake, Ill not rehash my own work as well, so Ill give u a link.www.unansweredquestions.net...

This site gives not only the timeline, but major news and offical sources on where they get thier info.

Please click link, then answer questions.

I think Im gonna put this link in my sig, i post it so goddamn much!



posted on Apr, 26 2004 @ 09:19 PM
link   
Cool, elf, I'm going there as we speak. I'll go through it, and answer any of the questions to the best of my knowlege. It might take a couple of days, however, there's a lot of info there!

And the best part about it is that you seem to have already done what I requested! Other then the Pravda link, they all look to be legitimate, non-tabloid sources! Thanks!



posted on Apr, 26 2004 @ 11:12 PM
link   
Conspiracy theory is called that because evidence is lacking to call it proof or otherwise conspiracy fact.

I would love for you, Junglejake, to provide proof that anything you have quoted in your signature is factual at all. That entire book is based upon blind faith, which may or may not be half as based in reality as some of the conspiracy theories here.



posted on Apr, 26 2004 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by heelstone
Conspiracy theory is called that because evidence is lacking to call it proof or otherwise conspiracy fact.

I would love for you, Junglejake, to provide proof that anything you have quoted in your signature is factual at all. That entire book is based upon blind faith, which may or may not be half as based in reality as some of the conspiracy theories here.


Should have seen this coming. Faith? Yes. Blind? No. I would be happy to defend my religion, and show it to be more then blind faith, but this isn't the forum. U2U me or start another thread, and I'll be on it like flies on fly paper.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join