Do you suffer from NADS?, page 3

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 6 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 13 times

reply posted on 13-9-2009 @ 05:10 PM by 2PacSade

NADS is generic, and on both sides of any argument. The topic is irrelevant.

It has to do with the human emotional response, not 911.

Some people make up their minds and that's it. Nothing else gets in. We will only allow what fits, and disregard all that doesn't. I have done it myself in the past. . .

The best "therapy" possible I think is to be proven wrong. Then and only then can we take a step back & realize we're only human, and quite fallible at best.

2PacSade-

reply posted on 13-9-2009 @ 06:26 PM by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

reply to post by 2PacSade

The problem with proving people wrong like you said is that they disregard contrary information also like you said.

reply posted on 13-9-2009 @ 06:28 PM by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

reply to post by impressme

Too bad eyewitness testimony is inherently faulty and not all that reliable.

reply posted on 13-9-2009 @ 06:36 PM by esdad71

Originally posted by 2PacSade
NADS is generic, and on both sides of any argument. The topic is irrelevant.

It has to do with the human emotional response, not 911.

Some people make up their minds and that's it. Nothing else gets in. We will only allow what fits, and disregard all that doesn't. I have done it myself in the past. . .

The best "therapy" possible I think is to be proven wrong. Then and only then can we take a step back & realize we're only human, and quite fallible at best.

2PacSade-

You are pretty close here but it is not therapy but it is a mindset. Blockers. However, there are also those who know the truth that are so terrified that it is real that they do not want to believe it. Denial.

If you take denial out of it, and look into 9/11, we can go farther back than stock market gains after 9/11 and big oil deals. These were in the pipeline already but it was hoped that with the attack the US infrastrcuture and financial district would take a bigger hit but it did not.

They tried in 93 folks. We should have killed them all then but it was not seen as something we should do according to the administration. I am not laying blame just stating that they would have been killed if Bush had won in 92.

reply posted on 13-9-2009 @ 07:15 PM by 2PacSade

reply to post by esdad71

Then there's the irony of being too open-minded and never making a decision!

READY-

AIM - AIM - AIM. . .

2PacSade-

[edit on 13-9-2009 by 2PacSade]

reply posted on 13-9-2009 @ 07:24 PM by nixie_nox

pancake, free fall, NIST,nano,thermite,thermate, Jones, never before, coincidence and cabal

That is kinda like going to the UFO board and chastising them for using the words, ship, alien, sighting, cover-up, and cigar shaped.

It kinda goes with the territory.

reply posted on 13-9-2009 @ 08:37 PM by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

reply to post by nixie_nox

Not really. There are other aspects that can be discused but those tired arguements are always dragged in. Seemingly cut and pasted at times.

reply posted on 13-9-2009 @ 08:43 PM by Tomis_Nexis

reply posted on 14-9-2009 @ 07:09 PM by impressme

reply to post by esdad71

United 93 Still Airborne After Alleged Crash

- According To ATC/Radar

04/28/09 (PilotsFor911Truth.org) - Recently it has been brought to our attention that Air Traffic Control (ATC) transcripts reveal United 93 as being airborne after it's alleged crash. Similar scenarios have been offered with regard to American 77 and American 11 showing an aircraft target continuing past its alleged crash point in the case of American 11, or past the turn-around point in the case of American 77. However, both these issues can be easily explained by "Coast Mode" radar tracking. This is not the case with United 93.
Radar Coast Mode activates when a transponder is inoperative (or turned off) and primary radar tracking is lost, which enables ATC to have some sort of reference of the flight after losing radar coverage of the physical aircraft. When an aircraft target enters "Coast Mode", ATC is alerted in the form of a blue tag on the target as well as the tag letters switching to CST. ATC will readily recognize when an aircraft enters "Coast Mode".
According to National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Flight Path Study, United 93 allegedly impacted the ground at 10:03am, September 11, 2001. The following transcript excerpts are provided by the Federal Aviation Administration. It is a conversation between Air Traffic Control System Command Center - East, Management Officers (ntmo-e) and other various facilities. The conversation is as follows in real time:
pilotsfor911truth.org...

It was alleged that it was past that point because it was not known at that time that it was bought down.

Now you are being a disinformationist. It was not alleged it is fact! Read the information above go to the web site and show me where in this report the statement said allegedly.

UNITED 93 WAS STILL AIRBORN AFTER CRASH

SITE!

[edit on 14-9-2009 by impressme]

reply posted on 14-9-2009 @ 07:12 PM by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

reply to post by impressme

Thank you for illustrating. Now, any information from a unbiased source?

reply posted on 14-9-2009 @ 07:17 PM by impressme

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

Thank you for illustrating. Now, any information from a unbiased source?

Who is being unbiased I have only presented the facts nothing else.
If anyone wants to disprove these facts then, I want to see some sources and links not someone’s opinions.

reply posted on 14-9-2009 @ 07:21 PM by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

reply to post by impressme

Main Entry: un·bi·ased
Pronunciation: \ˌən-ˈbī-əst\
Function: adjective
Date: 1607
1 : free from bias; especially : free from all prejudice and favoritism : eminently fair n unbiased opinion>
2 : having an expected value equal to a population parameter being estimated n unbiased estimate of the population mean>

synonyms see fair

— un·bi·ased·ness \-əs(t)-nəs\ noun

SOURCE:www.merriam-webster.com...

Pilots4truth is not a unbiased site. And you are after all by post their opinions making a claim based off them. It stands to you to prove. Not me.

[edit on 14-9-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

reply posted on 14-9-2009 @ 07:36 PM by impressme

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

Pilots4truth is not a unbiased site. And you are after all by post their opinions making a claim based off them. It stands to you to prove. Not me.

In you desperation to try and discredit me lets get back to the FACTS ok.
The facts that I have presented is copied and pasted from pilots4truth.

Were dose Pilots4truth say this information is just their opinion? They do not these are facts and you know it.

Now you can call me anything you like, but it dose not hamper the TRUTH!

If you think, its all an opinion then I would like you to demonstrated it and post your sources.

reply posted on 14-9-2009 @ 07:45 PM by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

reply to post by impressme

You do a fair job of descrediting yourself. Not that I am all in a tizzy to discredit you as you obviously think. That would imply more emotional resources then I am applying to this argument realistically. Your source is biased and that is that. You as the claimant by proxy *you ARE offering up their information as fact after all* are by that act making a claim. A claim you must support, not complain about those that are asking you to back it up.

reply posted on 14-9-2009 @ 08:07 PM by impressme

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

You do a fair job of descrediting yourself. Not that I am all in a tizzy to discredit you as you obviously think. That would imply more emotional resources then I am applying to this argument realistically. Your source is biased and that is that. You as the claimant by proxy *you ARE offering up their information as fact after all* are by that act making a claim. A claim you must support, not complain about those that are asking you to back it up.

You can spin your dribble anyway you like however, there is nothing emotional about the facts that I have presented.

Any reader can click on the links that I have given for my sources and they can judge for them selves, and there is nothing you can do to sway them away from the truth.

You can claim anything you like but, any reader reading your little personal attacks tells them to stay clear from you.

reply posted on 14-9-2009 @ 08:18 PM by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

reply to post by impressme

When did I say anything about facts being emotional?

I did mention something about emotional resources when you alleged I am in a hurry to discredit you but that had nothing to do with what you apparently got.

reply posted on 14-9-2009 @ 08:34 PM by impressme

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

When did I say anything about facts being emotional? I did mention something about emotional resources when you alleged I am in a hurry to discredit you but that had nothing to do with what you apparently got.

I do not care to get in an emotional debate over your immature comments. Do you have any proof that this information is not true, if not then move along.

United 93 Still Airborne After Alleged Crash

- According To ATC/Radar

pilotsfor911truth.org...

UNITED 93 WAS STILL AIRBORN AFTER CRASH

SITE!

reply posted on 14-9-2009 @ 08:50 PM by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

reply to post by impressme

And we come full circle to the original question. I guess I shall attempt to reword it. Where is your proof that it is true?

[edit on 14-9-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

reply posted on 14-9-2009 @ 08:54 PM by esdad71

There is also a report by your ATC guys that 93 hit Camp David at 10:40. Seems they really do not know what is going on do they?

You are looking at phone transcripts not official ATC communications. Did you even read the full report ?Right there is shows that they are posting things that are not correctly represented.

Here it is.... Link'

this is why I get so upset with the garbage that is posted and people read it as truth.

reply posted on 14-9-2009 @ 09:07 PM by impressme

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by impressme

And we come full circle to the original question. I guess I shall attempt to reword it. Where is your proof that it is true?

Let the readers decide! I do not need to disprove this information it has been verified by P4T.

Originally posted by esdad71
There is also a report by your ATC guys that 93 hit Camp David at 10:40. Seems they really do not know what is going on do they?

You are looking at phone transcripts not official ATC communications. Did you even read the full report ?Right there is shows that they are posting things that are not correctly represented.

Here it is.... Link'

this is why I get so upset with the garbage that is posted and people read it as truth.

Your source is not creditable period. Pilots for 911 truth are very creditable and are known around the world. You are showing nothing but pure disinformation and you are trying your best to keep people from reading the truth. What kind of garbage are you speading?
www.scribd.com...

You got to be kidding no one is going to buy this, nice try!