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.

 

The official story of 9-11 is just a conspiracy theory.

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 09:38 AM
link   

If the "conspiracy" is soo obvious then it should be simple to construct a more legitamite account of events. 8 years in and ..NADA.. just some sophmoric story fragments that paint what could be best described as a deranged Piccasso


You have described the OS to a T.

I would give you a star if thats what you were trying to accomplish.

[edit on 25-7-2009 by jprophet420]




posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
I'm wondering how none of you have pointed this out so far. The official story of 9-11 is just a conspiracy theory perpetrated by our government about an evil-boogy man designed to bring justification for us to go to war with them. I don't see why so many skeptics, or, regular people buy into it. Anyone else see it like this?


I and many others here point it out regularly.



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

If the "conspiracy" is soo obvious then it should be simple to construct a more legitamite account of events. 8 years in and ..NADA.. just some sophmoric story fragments that paint what could be best described as a deranged Piccasso


You have describe the OS to a T.


Really? I don't think so. Look at the Hamburg cell as an example. Four guys trying to come to America to learn how to fly planes. One of them gets their visa denied. The other three move to the US get trained on aircraft systems, and EACH of them just happen to purchase tickets to EACH of the Hijacked aircraft on 9/11. ( excluding flt 77)

Another example: The case of Abul Aziz Alomari. He is on video record stating why he is comming to US to kill Americans. He is on video speaking to an audience with several other hijackers at an Afghani Mujadeen conference.
He is on video record being in PORTLAND, Maine on September 10'th 2001 WITH ATTA!. There is footage of Alomari passing Portland airport security the moring of September 11th. There is an EYE WITNESS that recalls selling ALOMARI and ATTA their tickets at the American Airlines counter to board Flight 11. There is the account of Betty Ong describing the seating location of the perps. and their physical discription.

That is but a tiny portion of evidence those in the truth movement unexplicablly ignore.

This little snippet of evidence DOES build a timeline, a sequence of logical events with names and faces of the perps, backed with money trails, bank, and ticket transactions, coraborrated with eye witnesses placing the accused in the proper place at the proper time, AND a confession from the perpetrator as to motive.

The alternative "theories" cannot even begin to come close to this level of cohesion.



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Taxi-Driver

Originally posted by jprophet420

If the "conspiracy" is soo obvious then it should be simple to construct a more legitamite account of events. 8 years in and ..NADA.. just some sophmoric story fragments that paint what could be best described as a deranged Piccasso


You have describe the OS to a T.


Really? I don't think so. Look at the Hamburg cell as an example. Four guys trying to come to America to learn how to fly planes. One of them gets their visa denied. The other three move to the US get trained on aircraft systems, and EACH of them just happen to purchase tickets to EACH of the Hijacked aircraft on 9/11. ( excluding flt 77)

Another example: The case of Abul Aziz Alomari. He is on video record stating why he is comming to US to kill Americans. He is on video speaking to an audience with several other hijackers at an Afghani Mujadeen conference.
He is on video record being in PORTLAND, Maine on September 10'th 2001 WITH ATTA!. There is footage of Alomari passing Portland airport security the moring of September 11th. There is an EYE WITNESS that recalls selling ALOMARI and ATTA their tickets at the American Airlines counter to board Flight 11. There is the account of Betty Ong describing the seating location of the perps. and their physical discription.

That is but a tiny portion of evidence those in the truth movement unexplicablly ignore.

This little snippet of evidence DOES build a timeline, a sequence of logical events with names and faces of the perps, backed with money trails, bank, and ticket transactions, coraborrated with eye witnesses placing the accused in the proper place at the proper time, AND a confession from the perpetrator as to motive.

The alternative "theories" cannot even begin to come close to this level of cohesion.


Logical fallacy. CT's being false does not mean OS is true.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I cite no CT, simply that the OS is not legit.



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Taxi-Driver

Originally posted by jprophet420

If the "conspiracy" is soo obvious then it should be simple to construct a more legitamite account of events. 8 years in and ..NADA.. just some sophmoric story fragments that paint what could be best described as a deranged Piccasso


You have describe the OS to a T.


Really? I don't think so. Look at the Hamburg cell as an example. Four guys trying to come to America to learn how to fly planes. One of them gets their visa denied. The other three move to the US get trained on aircraft systems, and EACH of them just happen to purchase tickets to EACH of the Hijacked aircraft on 9/11. ( excluding flt 77)

Another example: The case of Abul Aziz Alomari. He is on video record stating why he is comming to US to kill Americans. He is on video speaking to an audience with several other hijackers at an Afghani Mujadeen conference.
He is on video record being in PORTLAND, Maine on September 10'th 2001 WITH ATTA!. There is footage of Alomari passing Portland airport security the moring of September 11th. There is an EYE WITNESS that recalls selling ALOMARI and ATTA their tickets at the American Airlines counter to board Flight 11. There is the account of Betty Ong describing the seating location of the perps. and their physical discription.

That is but a tiny portion of evidence those in the truth movement unexplicablly ignore.

This little snippet of evidence DOES build a timeline, a sequence of logical events with names and faces of the perps, backed with money trails, bank, and ticket transactions, coraborrated with eye witnesses placing the accused in the proper place at the proper time, AND a confession from the perpetrator as to motive.

The alternative "theories" cannot even begin to come close to this level of cohesion.


The whole credit card trail thing would be slightly believable if most of the terrorists were not using aliases, and ofc the early releases of all 4 flight manifests did not have one passenger of Arabic descent in them.

One aspect you can always rely on is the good old tried and tested FOIA...

ahmedismailibrahim.wordpress.com...

Explain that, or discredit and character defamation approach, the choice is yours.



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

Logical fallacy. CT's being false does not mean OS is true.


No, the preponderance of congruent evidence is what lends credibility to the most widely accepted account of events on 9/11.

The lack thereof is what hinders CT's.



I cite no CT, simply that the OS is not legit.


I know. And that is quite convienent to perpetually be in wonder.



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seventh

The whole credit card trail thing would be slightly believable if most of the terrorists were not using aliases,


To refresh my memory:
What alias was Mohammed Atta using again? Jarrad? Alsherri? Hanjour? Alomari? Wail and Wahleed Alshehi?



and ofc the early releases of all 4 flight manifests did not have one passenger of Arabic descent in them.


DUDE! How many times does this need to be explained to you!!!!!!

You are citing the VICTIMS LISTS! The perpetrators ARE NOT VICTIMS.

ALL of the HIJACKERS ARE ON THE FLIGHT MANIFESTS! ALL OF THEIR TICKET TRANSACTIONS ARE RECORDED IN THEIR NAMES. Many of the hijackers were even identified by AA ticketing personnel as having sold them their tickets to their corresponding flights!



One aspect you can always rely on is the good old tried and tested FOIA...

ahmedismailibrahim.wordpress.com...

Explain that, or discredit and character defamation approach, the choice is yours.


All I get are a bunch of dead links and by looking at the web addy.. the dead links are back to the CNN VICTIMS list. Which would be incorrect as we have discussed above.

See: http:/www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA77.victims.html

Broken link bolded for your convienence.



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Taxi-Driver
 


Right, again, let`s go through the whole terrorist fiasco.

Some of the alleged terrorists are alive and well today... fact.

This is due to them using aliases...... ?????

They all left a clumsy and visible paper trail all using their own names...?????

As quoted from one site....

Paper Highway
Rental Car, Koran, Arabic Flight Manuals, Credit Cards, Luggage, -- Thanks Atta!

Mohammed Atta, we were told, attempted to check not one but two suitcases on his final suicide trip. One of the bags was said to contain flight training videos and a copy of the Koran. His rental car, seized in a Logan parking garage on September 11th, was said to contain Arabic-language flight training manuals. 1 The terrorists, we were told, used their own credit cards to purchase their tickets.

Why would people who were so clever at evading the authorities for years, suddenly start leaving an obvious trail? Why would they behave so as to reveal all manner of operational details while the supposed parent organization would not even take responsibility for the attack?

Just another part of the OS that does not balance the books correctly.

EDIT: P.S.

P.S.

Bearing in mind we are talking airports here, heavily secure conscious amongst many CCTV`s, there is surely some CCTV evidence available somewhere... yes?, 3 from 4 black box flight recorders were found, there must be huge amounts of audio evidence on those also....

Where is it all?.



[edit on 16/07/2009 by Seventh]



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Frankidealist35
 


Your right, there are alot of unanswered questions.. And if I may be so bold.. I would like to link this thread from here..

I have not gotten the due amount of attention that I feel is needed on here by skeptics and debunkers..
I had one brave one come in to speak freely with me, but I have not heard back from him since..

So anyone that would like a challenge.. I invite you to my thread here.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 25-7-2009 by zysin5]



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seventh


Right, again, let`s go through the whole terrorist fiasco.

Some of the alleged terrorists are alive and well today... fact.


FALSE! Your only source (BBC) is non-conteporaneous and has been abridged. A second source "CNN report" clearly states "SUSPECTS." The mistaken idenities were cleared up rather quickly, and they were due to name similarities.

If what I state is wrong then produce a living hijacker.


This is due to them using aliases...... ?????
Not aliases, similar names! Like if someone is named (in english) John R. Smith...and someone else is John P. Smith. One guilty one NEVER guilty.


They all left a clumsy and visible paper trail all using their own names...?????


Yep.


As quoted from one site....

Paper Highway
Rental Car, Koran, Arabic Flight Manuals, Credit Cards, Luggage, -- Thanks Atta!

Mohammed Atta, we were told, attempted to check not one but two suitcases on his final suicide trip. One of the bags was said to contain flight training videos and a copy of the Koran. His rental car, seized in a Logan parking garage on September 11th, was said to contain Arabic-language flight training manuals. 1 The terrorists, we were told, used their own credit cards to purchase their tickets.


Yep.


Why would people who were so clever at evading the authorities for years, suddenly start leaving an obvious trail?


For what reason were they evading authorities? They were not.

What would the authorities have to implicate them in any type of crime?

Brain surgery? To read their future plans?



Why would they behave so as to reveal all manner of operational details while the supposed parent organization would not even take responsibility for the attack?


They took responsibility for the attack, they praised the 19 brave warriors, loudly and often.


Just another part of the OS that does not balance the books correctly.


No, you seem to think that the information about these people was common knowledge BEFORE they commited a crime.

A FEW were on CIA/FBI terrorist lists as having ties with Al-Queda, but most were not.



Bearing in mind we are talking airports here, heavily secure conscious amongst many CCTV`s, there is surely some CCTV evidence available somewhere... yes?


You have to remember this was before airport security was ramped up (DUE TO 9/11), BUT the information is out there. It is your job to do proper research.



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 05:39 PM
link   
I beg to differ. Reports of bombs at the WTC complex, videos available all over the internet, no mention in the "OS". Helicopter reported at the pentagon seconds prior to the explosion, no mention in OS. Videos of flight 77 confiscated and with held from FOIA due to ongoing trial after trial is over. Senior enlisted men reporting NO PLANE at the pentagon. No charges filed against the co-conspirators of KSM. According to a scientific poll by NYT and CBS, the OS is NOT the "most widely accepted accounts of events on 911".



I know. And that is quite convienent to perpetually be in wonder


Or denial.



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Taxi-Driver
 



FALSE! Your only source (BBC) is non-conteporaneous and has been abridged. A second source "CNN report" clearly states "SUSPECTS." The mistaken idenities were cleared up rather quickly, and they were due to name similarities.


[color=gold]Sources please? Oh, that right this is your opinion and NOT a fact.



If what I state is wrong then produce a living hijacker.




9/11 Hijackers ALIVE!

www.youtube.com...


At Least 7 of the 9/11
Hijackers are Still Alive

whatreallyhappened.com...


Hijack 'suspects' alive and well


news.bbc.co.uk...


MANY 9-11 "HIJACKERS" ARE STILL ALIVE.


guardian.150m.com...


Hijackers Alive And Well


911review.org...


7 Of 19 'Hijackers' Alive After
911 - New OBL Video A Phoney


www.rense.com...


9/11 Hijackers Still Alive


www.wanttoknow.info...


[color=gold]I spent five min on Google to pull this information up Why cant you?



For what reason were they evading authorities? They were not.

What would the authorities have to implicate them in any type of crime?

Brain surgery? To read their future plans?


[color=gold]Save the sarcasms, if you want people to listen to you!



Not a "Single Piece of Paper" Links Alleged Hijackers to Plot
Most of these facts are never acknowledged by government agencies or mainstream media. However, FBI director Robert Mueller did admit that his agency failed to find "a single piece of paper" linking the alleged hijackers to the 9/11/01 plot.
e x c e r p t
title: Robert S. Mueller, III, Director, FBI, Commonwealth Club of California


The hijackers also left no paper trail. In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper either here in the U.S. or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere that mentioned any aspect of the September 11th plot. The hijackers had no computers, no laptops, no storage media of any kind. They used hundreds of different pay phones and cell phones, often with prepaid calling cards that are extremely difficult to trace. And they made sure that all the money sent to them to fund their attacks was wired in small amounts to avoid detection


911review.com...


Revealed: the men with stolen identities
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. The FBI released the list of 19 suicide terrorists three days after the attacks.
The statement said that the 19 "have been identified as hijackers aboard the four airliners". Photographs and personal details were published around the world with an appeal for "information about these individuals, even though they are presumed dead".

www.telegraph.co.uk...



Tracking the 19 Hijackers
What are they up to now?
At least 9 of them survived 9/11
A former high-level intelligence official told me, "Whatever trail was left
was left deliberately--for the F.B.I. to chase." New Yorker 10/1/01 by Seymour Hersh


www.welfarestate.com...


FBI Director Mueller acknowledged in 2002 there was no legal proof to prove the identities of the hijackers. Yet the bureau insists it correctly has identified them.

The stunning news prompted FBI Director Robert Mueller to admit that some of the hijackers may have stolen identities of innocent citizens. In September 2002, Mueller told CNN twice that there is "no legal proof to prove the identities of the suicidal hijackers." After that admission a strange thing happened - nothing. No follow-up stories. No follow-up questions. There was dead silence and the story disappeared. It was almost as if no one wanted to know what had happened. In fact, the FBI didn't bother to change the names, backgrounds or photographs of the alleged 19 hijackers. It didn't even deny the news reports suggesting that the names and identities of at least six of the hijackers may be unknown. Mueller just left the door open.


www.prisonplanet.com...


They took responsibility for the attack, they praised the 19 brave warriors, loudly and often.


[color=gold]Who did? Do you have a source for this?



A FEW were on CIA/FBI terrorist lists as having ties with Al-Queda, but most were not.


[color=gold]Really, show us, and remember, before 911.



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by zysin5
 




So anyone that would like a challenge.. I invite you to my thread here.

Bail outs for THEM, But 9/11 Rescue Workers Can Fend for Themselves!!


The duhbunkers don't want a challenge. They want to hit homeruns.

The duhbunkers totally avoid a thread like that if it endangers their religious fanatacism.



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 12:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by Taxi-Driver
 



FALSE! Your only source (BBC) is non-conteporaneous and has been abridged. A second source "CNN report" clearly states "SUSPECTS." The mistaken idenities were cleared up rather quickly, and they were due to name similarities.


[color=gold]Sources please? Oh, that right this is your opinion and NOT a fact.


heh...you found the sources for me. In your own post. It only took you five minutes to do a google search and pull up several different websites THAT ALL CITE THE SAME ARTICLES THAT I MENTIONED ABOVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



9/11 Hijackers ALIVE!

www.youtube.com...


At Least 7 of the 9/11
Hijackers are Still Alive

whatreallyhappened.com...


Hijack 'suspects' alive and well


news.bbc.co.uk...


MANY 9-11 "HIJACKERS" ARE STILL ALIVE.


guardian.150m.com...


Hijackers Alive And Well


911review.org...


7 Of 19 'Hijackers' Alive After
911 - New OBL Video A Phoney


www.rense.com...


9/11 Hijackers Still Alive


www.wanttoknow.info...


[color=gold]I spent five min on Google to pull this information up Why cant you?

I CAN AND DID, THREE YEARS AGO. But I actually read the articles, and checked the sources. I actually investigated the claims made on those sites to, ya know, check and see if I was getting duped by web-hoaxers.

Perhaps you should do the same, before smarmly blasting out what you believe to be truth.. when IRONICALLY proving my point about NON-CONTEMPORANEOUS INFORMATION and CIRCULAR REFERENCING. Namely the abridged BBC article and erronious CNN "Suspect" telecast.





[color=gold]Save the sarcasms, if you want people to listen to you!


Seriously? It isn't really sarcasm. You cannot arrest somebody if they haven't yet committed a crime.





They took responsibility for the attack, they praised the 19 brave warriors, loudly and often.

[color=gold]Who did? Do you have a source for this?


Muhammed Al-Harbi
Ayman Al-Zawaihiri
Suleiman Abu Gaith
Kalid Sheik Mohammed
Osama Bin Laden

Just to name a few.

vids.myspace.com...





A FEW were on CIA/FBI terrorist lists as having ties with Al-Queda, but most were not.


[color=gold]Really, show us, and remember, before 911.

video.google.com...

I recommend you watch this, I hope you don't think National Geographic is in on it too.

Now to easily debunk some of the hackeneyed claims echoed from site to site to site that you posted as to the identity of some of the hijackers...AGAIN ~sigh~

Hijacker Abdul Aziz Alomari:


Hijacker Abdul Aziz Alomari's martyrdom video where he lays out why he is comming to America to kill people:

Hijacker Abul Aziz Alomari at an ATM in Portand Maine on 9/10/2001 with Mohammed Atta:


SAME DUDE ALL THREE TIMES.

OK The Abdul aziz Alomari the pilot in Morrocco NOT a HIJACKER just had the same name:


The Dude with the porn stash SEE NOT THE SAME GUY! This is from the CNN SUSPECTS telecast that was WRONG but soonafter CORRECTED.

Abdel Aziz Al Omari the pilot for Saudi-Air:


NOT THE SAME GUY, NEVER A HIJACKER , STILL ALIVE.

So you see there are three DIFFERENT PEOPLE. But the Abdul Aziz Alomari that we are interested in IS the hijacker.. Not everyone else in the world with the same/ similar name.

I could keep going with the Waleed and Wail Alshehhi corrections ect.ect. But quite frankly, I am getting tired of re-posting this information. Anyone with a lick of sense could figure this out. And if you were paying attention in 2001 it would be PLAIN AS DAY. But, alas the propagandists don't include the corrections in their biased websites these days..now do they. Why do you think that is?



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston

The duhbunkers don't want a challenge. They want to hit homeruns.

The duhbunkers totally avoid a thread like that if it endangers their religious fanatacism.



This explains why whenever somebody ask you a very simple, concise question you run away like a little girl.

Why do you refuse to reply to very simple questions Sarge?



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 03:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Taxi-Driver
 



Muhammed Al-Harbi
Ayman Al-Zawaihiri
Suleiman Abu Gaith
Kalid Sheik Mohammed
Osama Bin Laden

Just to name a few.


vids.myspace.com...

All you have is a myspace video LOL come on you can do better that that!
You call that evidences LOL WOW! Lets see some real FBI documents to support your fairytale? Anyone can make a video and put it on “myspace”.



I recommend you watch this, I hope you don't think National Geographic is in on it too.


Yes I do, furthermore National Geographic did their documentary on what our government TOLD them what evidences is, however, when we really start looking there really isn’t any facts to prove any of the information is true infact it is all HEARSAY from the FBI. Oh and again do you think Robert Muller LIED when he said that we may never know who the real hijackers are because they didn’t leave any paper trail to ANY COUNTRY? So, you think your ridiculous “myspace video is proof enough but the head director of the FBI public statement is truly “ignored”, why is that Taxi-Driver?


[color=gold]Sources please? Oh, that right this is your opinion and NOT a fact.
heh...you found the sources for me. In your own post. It only took you five minutes to do a google search and pull up several different websites THAT ALL CITE THE SAME ARTICLES THAT I MENTIONED ABOVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I should have known not to ask you any questions because you will not answer them as you have just demonstrated. But, we all know that when a debunkers ship is sinking the only thing left is to ridicule and insult, nothing new here.


I CAN AND DID, THREE YEARS AGO. But I actually read the articles, and checked the sources. I actually investigated the claims made on those sites to, ya know, check and see if I was getting duped by web-hoaxers


It truly amazes me When YOU cant stand the truth staring you in the face the only thing you can do is call names like all my information are “web-hoaxers” if you feel that any of the information that I have put in my above post please demonstrate to all of us that it is all a hoaxes! I bet you cant.


Perhaps you should do the same, before smarmly blasting out what you believe to be truth.. when IRONICALLY proving my point about NON-CONTEMPORANEOUS INFORMATION and CIRCULAR REFERENCING. Namely the abridged BBC article and erronious CNN "Suspect" telecast.


You mean when you don’t like what the truth is even sometimes it slips threw on CNN or BBC So, in your opinion it is (NON-CONTEMPORANEOUS INFORMATION and CIRCULAR REFERENCING.) How about doing some real research on 911, maybe you might find a way to do a real debate on the real information that I have provided instead of spewing your ridiculous opinions of why you think every one on the 911 threads that opposes your views, and all information that does not consist with the OS are “web hoaxers” and “NON-CONTEMPORANEOUS”.


Seriously? It isn't really sarcasm. You cannot arrest somebody if they haven't yet committed a crime.


Walk like a dog, barks like a dog it is sarcasm. Who said anyone committed a crime?


Now to easily debunk some of the hackeneyed claims echoed from site to site to site that you posted as to the identity of some of the hijackers...AGAIN ~sigh~


Ok start debunking lets see what you got. Lets see some “REAL sources”.


I could keep going with the Waleed and Wail Alshehhi corrections ect.ect. But quite frankly, I am getting tired of re-posting this information. Anyone with a lick of sense could figure this out. And if you were paying attention in 2001 it would be PLAIN AS DAY. But, alas the propagandists don't include the corrections in their biased websites these days..now do they. Why do you think that is?


I have yet to see any real sources that backs up your fairytale. If you want to convinces me that everyone got it all wrong but YOU then lets see this crediable evidences that you are sitting on. I am sure you have sources of the FBI investigation that proves all the truthers are in fact lairs and all the web sites on the internet that does not support the OS are all lairs and I am sure you have all the evidences that proves everyone including the families and victims who do not agree with the OS are all lairs correct.



You have been around long enough on ATS to know there is a problem with the OS in every event that happened on 911, yet you continue to ignore the evidences, the facts, the sciences. Everything that I put up in the above thread you just ignore and it shows.







[edit on 26-7-2009 by impressme]



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Taxi-Driver

Originally posted by hgfbob

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
A ton of evidence contradicts it though.

This is just not true. I have been researching 911 now for a fairly long period of time, years in fact, and I have come across virtually nothing I would consider to be strong evidence against the 'official story'.



how about some 'PHYSICAL' evidence to BACK-UP the 'official story'


The problem isn't the evidence supporting the investigations. The problem is your willingness to accept the evidence produce from those investigations. Further, it is also about the complete lack of evidence to support any alternate theory, and ones ability to discern credible material.



WHAT EVIDENCE???

WHAT evidence does the 'OFFICIAL' story have, BESIDES the WEIGHT of the GOV. behind it...there is NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE

there is NO "top block" pushing the towers down....'proven' that Bazant miscalculated the force of the jolt that HE describes as to what initiates the collapses

there is NO steel that backs the HYPOTHESIS

NO floors collapsed from the heat or fires that were present

ignores BASIC physics

There were NO TESTING for explosives or accelerants....NFPA 921: "Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations" is the national fire code published by The National Fire Protection Association.
This is standard for fire and explosion investigations.

It clearly states that if there is a crime scene that involves fire, tests must be conducted to determine whether residues from any pyrotechnic or incendiary material can be found....and NIST states they didn't test, so they could "SAVE TAXPAYERS money"......VERY scientific approach to elimination...SOMEONE'S personal opinion


Shall we get into WTC7?



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme


All you have is a myspace video LOL come on you can do better that that!
You call that evidences LOL WOW!


Ah the source raised a red flag for you did it? Good! You are making progress. Now for part two: What claims that were proposed in the video did you disagree with?

Ya see not ALL potentally unreliable sources are uniformly incorrect; such as Wiki, Google vid, YouTube, and yes, even myspace. What makes them incorrect are the erronious claims made within the material itself.



Lets see some real FBI documents to support your fairytale? Anyone can make a video and put it on “myspace”.


Would you accept them as factual?


Yes I do, furthermore National Geographic did their documentary on what our government TOLD them what evidences is,however, when we really start looking there really isn’t any facts to prove any of the information is true infact it is all HEARSAY from the FBI.


I guess that answers my last question.



Oh and again do you think Robert Muller LIED when he said that we may never know who the real hijackers are because they didn’t leave any paper trail to ANY COUNTRY?


No, I think your reading comprehension is poor, coupled with the rhetorical device "cherrypicking" to bend your perception of his speech.

Best solution: Read the whole speech, use your newfound faith in Robert Muller to accept all that he is saying as credible ( since you are championing his words and all) Then use your reading comprehension to put your favorite snippit into context.


So, you think your ridiculous “myspace video is proof enough but the head director of the FBI public statement is truly “ignored”, why is that Taxi-Driver?


Gee, ya got me.. ~ Explained Above~


It truly amazes me When YOU cant stand the truth staring you in the face the only thing you can do is call names like all my information are “web-hoaxers” if you feel that any of the information that I have put in my above post please demonstrate to all of us that it is all a hoaxes! I bet you cant.


I have named the rhetorical devices. Rhetoric is used to bend the perception of a reader/viewer to manipulate an emotion. If it is facts you seek, there is really no need for rhetoric.

In your sources above all cite the BBC report from days after 9/11 or the CNN report from about the same time (roughly 9/21/2001)

If your sources were "contemporaneous" they would have included the abridgments, corrections, and retractions.

If your sources regarding Robert Muller were not "Cherry-Picked" you would see that he was talking about how the terrorists in America were very careful not to slip-up BEFORE their plot was executed.

If your sources were not "circularly referenced" there would be more follow-up on the story. The reason the BBC and CNN information was parroted and sourced repeatedly is because the news story died in 2001 when the corrections were made.

Having a bevy of different sites all reciting the same old information might look impressive to the naked eye, but upon further review it is a consorted effort to deceive...through rhetoric.


You mean when you don’t like what the truth is even sometimes it slips threw on CNN or BBC So, in your opinion it is (NON-CONTEMPORANEOUS INFORMATION and CIRCULAR REFERENCING.)


No, what makes it non-contemporaneous is the fact that the investigation was still in progress, as new information surfaced it was reported, subsequently leaving the old erronious information defunked and abandoned. Most understand this simple concept.


How about doing some real research on 911, maybe you might find a way to do a real debate on the real information that I have provided instead of spewing your ridiculous opinions of why you think every one on the 911 threads that opposes your views, and all information that does not consist with the OS are “web hoaxers” and “NON-CONTEMPORANEOUS”.


I have done "real" research on 9/11, my eyes are open, too open, and have been since well before 9/11/2001.




Ok start debunking lets see what you got. Lets see some “REAL sources”.


Ok.. The BBC article you are so fond of... Here is the BBC rebuttal to their non-contemporaneous information proliferating the intrweb in the form of a conspiracy theory:

www.bbc.co.uk...

Not real favorable for you is it? It kinda says what I have been telling you all along, doesn't it?

Bin Laden Interview:
archives.cnn.com...

Story about the first Hijacker martyr video released (and the first hijacker martyr video in the compilation video I posted, the one that you have such a problem with)
www.guardian.co.uk...

Another Bin Laden admission:
www.worldpress.org...

KSM Confesses:
english.aljazeera.net...

Articles about the Hijackers:
www.911myths.com...

Here is that papertrail that the cherrypicked Muller article caused you to lose sight of.

www.washingtonpost.com...

www.9-11commission.gov...

Official Court Documents:
www.vaed.uscourts.gov...

www.vaed.uscourts.gov...

FBI Press releases:
www.fbi.gov...

www.washingtonpost.com...


I have yet to see any real sources that backs up your fairytale. If you want to convinces me that everyone got it all wrong but YOU then lets see this crediable evidences that you are sitting on.

Erm, what? Surely you cannot be that naive.






[edit on 26-7-2009 by Taxi-Driver]



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 01:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Taxi-Driver
 


Save your emotional uninformed rants and opinions, and ridiculing for yourself. I will not waste another min of my time arguing with an emotional, uninformed person. Now I know why I had put you on ignore. I can get just as good of a responds, if I had talk to a brick wall, at lease it is not rude. You Sir have a nice day!

[edit on 27-7-2009 by impressme]



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 03:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme


Save your emotional uninformed rants and opinions, and ridiculing for yourself. I will not waste another min of my time arguing with an emotional, uninformed person. Now I know why I had put you on ignore. I can get just as good of a responds, if I had talk to a brick wall, at lease it is not rude. You Sir have a nice day!

[edit on 27-7-2009 by impressme]


Tell me self proclaimed "truthers", does the above quote correlate with an open minded person?

I say NO!

[edit on 7/27/09 by QweeQwa]



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join