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.

 

Please allow 911 truth .....PLEASE!!!!!

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



I can be called a No-Planer all day on this forum.

But if I use the term planehugger to describe someone who likes the idea of planes on 911, my post will get banned, deleted or I will get expelled from THIS forum.

Do a search on ATS for planehugger, and you will see it is NOT ALLOWED.

So, there is biased censorship, not just censorship for a purpose of keeping out bad info.


What is the purpose of not allowing the use of the term "planehugger"?

It is very effective propaganda for our side. It sums up the sillyness of the position perfectly. So, since "No-Planer" works, but doesn't work well enough, planehugger is too damn good, and it cannot be allowed, no matter what....to even be spoken on here.




posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by videoworldwide
Then checked and found no Matt Holt or Hill on AE 911 Truth

Oh, I'm there. You just didn't look closely enough.



Originally posted by videoworldwide
Hey....if you are a part of the coverup, Bonez.....then I have every right to investigate you and put the dirt on the internet for the truth seekers to do their own research.

I see you continue the no-planer tradition of attacking the person instead of debating or sticking to evidence.

You can investigate whatever you like. But tread lightly. Almost every single forum on the internet (including this one) has rules prohibiting the posting of someone's personal information without their permission. Why, you ask? I'm pretty sure there are federal privacy laws that cover that.

Then there's the "libel" aspect. First and foremost, there's no "dirt" to be found about me and especially on the internet. That means you will have to make something up (not like no-planers have never done that before). So just know that I have the legal means and the financial means to pursue a libel suit. Everything you type can and will be used against you.

You won't be the first no-planer to attempt this either. One other no-planer posted my personal information on YouTube. After making a complaint to the FBI, I forwarded that information and complaint to YouTube. Within 24 hours, that video was deleted and that person's account was deleted. I haven't seen or heard from that person ever since and that was over 2 years ago.



Originally posted by videoworldwide
That's the way the game works.....player.

There are no games being played on this side of the fence. It's quite obvious the no-planers are playing the games.


Ladies and gentlemen, this is one of the reasons why the 9/11 truth movement has distanced itself from the no-plane "theories". When you back a no-planer into a corner while having debunked everything they try to claim as "evidence", they have nothing left but to attack. Every single thread on this forum, or any other forum for that matter, that deals with no-plane theories has no-planers attacking those who debunk those theories. That's been going on for the past 3+ years.

They have no debate skills, no professionalism, no civility. And then when they get banned from a forum, they make up a new name and come back to do the same things all over again. And they keep getting banned and keep coming back under new names. It's a never-ending cycle.

Anyone can try this: Ask a no-planer to post evidence. They will type a whole bunch of words on the screen, but won't actually post anything tangible. Or the small things they do post are easily debunkable such as this:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


The major research organizations in the 9/11 truth movement have banned the discussion of, or went public against the "no plane theories at the WTC" for a reason. Anyone spending any time in the no-plane threads can easily see why.


*edit to add*
If you're going to "investigate" me, you might as well investigate every single person in the 9/11 truth movement, including all those that operate and are a part of the 9/11 research organizations that have banned the discussion of or went public against the no-plane theories. Good luck.






[edit on 4-8-2009 by _BoneZ_]



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 04:53 PM
link   
Originally posted by Taxi-Driver

This.....




Ps. It ain't Ghandi



PMSL, you sir are responsible for me spitting out coffee all over my monitor
.



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 06:34 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



First off, the only one who's so hyper sensitive that they'd see this as a personal attack here is you. Everyone else sees it as an attack on these websites spreading outright nonsense. Second, this author is admitting the problem IS with these websites, becuase they're attempting to stomp out dissenting opinions like his "no planes" scenario in favor of ther own "controlled demolitions" scenario.


Hyper sensitive… Personal attack… Why is so important to you to express how I should feel, instead of talking about the OP? The OP has not made any claim that ALL truthers web sites are false as you put it.

Tell you what, why don’t you post all the truthers websites that tell all these lies and show with proof with sources and links how they have lied. Furthmore, people who are searching for the truth do not support opinions as facts.


Did you even read anyone's posts, before posting this?


Did you? because, it sure looks like you are to busy concentrating on me instead of what the Topic is really about which is a violation of TC on ATS.


My recommendation is don’t waste your time reading the 911 commission report because it is a WHITE WASH nothing but lies and unanswered questions that the people in the United States did not get. It was a cover-up at best.

and that is EXACTLY why you lost your last debate wiith me, and badly. From my point of view, a genuine researcher of the events of 9/11 would want to read EVERYTHING being published on it, for a number of reasons-


WHAT? What debate? You and I never had a debate I asked you questions repeatedly. All you did was avoid the facts that I kept posting with sources and links and your only responses was to ridicule with personal attacks and you did nothing but post “opinions” with no sources or links to back up your ridicules claims. Now you are bringing up a Topic from another thread, which no one knows what you are talking about, however between you and I, I recalled asking you over and over to start posting sources and stop with the opinions that you kept claiming as facts. In fact I had to put you on ignore because you wouldn’t stop with the personal attacks on me and you wouldn’t stay on topic. That’s the truth!


1) The more information that one has access to, the more one can weed out the good information from the bad information. It's obvious there are plenty of one-sided opinions out there and it's only from listening to both side that allows us to make an informed opinion. I keep saying this over and over, and it's still true- the truth doesn't have to run and hide from falsehoods. It's falsehoods that have to run and hide from the truth.


We are not interested in opinions; we are only interested in the facts that can be proven.
You see facts that are proven by sciences cannot be debunked.


2) If the 9/11 commission report really IS just a pack of lies, it would be your responsibility to look at the material specifically to identify the lies and expose it for the source of lies that it is. I keep asking over and over for anyone to point out even ONE actual lie in the report. Just why do you think I do this? If it's lying to us then tell me how it's lying to us. It ain't a trick question.


uh, the OP is not about the 911 commission report. And I would be railroading this thread if I answered your questions. I proved to you weeks ago where all the lies where in the 911 commission report. You scoffed at them and hand wave them, then you ridiculed me in your desperation to try to discredit me.


3) Not to mention, it's intellectual dishonesty to accuse someone or something of being a pack of lies without even knowing what the pack of lies even are. You keep accusing your opponents of not wanting to listen to your information, so you can't have double standards like that.


Look here, this topic is not about me do you have ANYTHING constructive to talk about on this thread topic besides me?


This is why you lost your debate with me- not only were you unable to identify even ONE falsehood in the commission report, you kept avoiding having to read it even when it was to answer a question YOU asked. I don't know what kind of game you're playing, but I really don't care- All I'm seeing is that YOU are the one who's hiding from the information in the 9/11 commission report. The information in the report isn't hiding from you. You'll forgive me if I'm not seeing a whole lot of credibility coming from you.


Again, you are focusing on me! I am not the topic of this thread. I never lost any debate with you because you don’t know how to debate period. Furthmore, you are lying I had to put you on ignore as I will have to do so again! Anyone reading your nonsense can see who is playing a game. I already made one mistake today and that was by responding to you.


Now that I think of it, this other guy's problem with censorship from his fellow conspiracy proponents is becoming crystal clear. His "no planes" scenario is every bit as much of a threat to what you "controlled demolitions" people want to believe as the 9/11 commission report is. He's just threatening you from the opposite direction.


Hardly, it truly is amazing how one “ignores science” that proves the WTC just didn’t fall down as the government claims. We are not a bunch of idiots here that cannot distinguish yellow journalism propaganda, pseudo sciences, and disinformationist when we read it. You act as if people, or truthers who do not believe in your fairytales are morons. I do not feel threaten by any sides of the OS. The only thing I don’t like is the constants personal attacks and the rude insults that you continually do to me and others, especially when we have proven you wrong.



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by videoworldwide
 


I have an excellent idea. How about staying on topic to your own topic and not trying to post personal information about one of our contributing ATS members?

I don't subscribe to the no-plane theory, but I'm willing to look at info with an open mind. My BS filter is over 50 years old, and has trapped a LOT of particulate; fortunately, it's back-washable.

so, let's hear it. I have to believe that someone who really wants to know the truth will look at all the variables. Otherwise, we're just late for the show.

edit to remove the edge.

[edit on 4/8/09 by argentus]



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mark_Amy
Believe it or not, but I'm not playing innuendo games. I'm just simple Joe Public trying to reconcile these two things in my mind. Help me out so that I can understand it because I admit I don't know how these things work with grand juries and indictments, civil court and military court etc.


I am in no way qualified to explain how the justice system works, but here's a good place to start-

How military tribunals work

The gov't obviously wants to charge Bin Laden in a military court becuase a) he's a foreign enemy combatant so US criminal laws really don't apply, b) it allows them to keep the court proceedings secret, becuase c) charging him via a federal grand jury necessarily meant it'd be public. They're shoving all of Bin Laden's buddies into the military prison at Guantanamo, and to be at Guantanamo it means they'd have to be sent there by military tribunal.

Now, *I* see the gov't wants to keep the proceedings secret becuase they'd necessarily have to reveal top secret things (I.E. the informants on the CIA payroll), while the conspiracy proponents will obviously believe it's yet another part of the secret conspiracy, but either way, it's a given the gov't wants to keep things secret, and to do that, keeping it all a secret, trying him in a military court, and keeping him away from a federal grand jury (and the FBI) are all one and the same.


Even if there was mention of him being wanted in connection for 9/11 or for being a suspect in 9/11 etc that would be something, but it's the way there is no mention of it that makes it look like there is something fishy going on.


The only reason it sounds like there's somethign fishy going on is becuase these damned fool conspiracy websites are deliberately engineering the information they put out in order to get you to think something fishy is going on. Case in point- you are NEVER going to hear explanations like the differences between federal grand juries and military tribunals from any of them, even though anyone can find all this out in a 30 second google search. All they're ever goign to give you is innuendo like "the FBI isn't charging Bin Laden for 9/11! Isn't THAT interesting (wink wink)", and let it go at that. They don't even care how many contradictions it churns up.

Exposing the self serving duplicitious behavior of these conspiracy websites is the whole reason I'm here. If I even get one person to start thinking, "hey, something doesn't sound right with what they're telling me" I'll be happy.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
Tell you what, why don’t you post all the truthers websites that tell all these lies and show with proof with sources and links how they have lied. Furthmore, people who are searching for the truth do not support opinions as facts.


I tried to post that very information for you in another thread, and you specifically said you didn't want to hear it. As for "people who are searching for the truth do not support opinions as facts" would you please explain YOUR OWN comment you posted in another thread, namely-

"I don’t care what anyone thinks and I don’t even care to prove what I have to say either. In my opinion this was the work of the Bush administration, not the work of 19 phantom hijackers. In my opinion there were bombs planted in all the WTC.
In my opinion, two of the planes that hit the WTC were military Boeing 767 painted in United and American airlines colors. The other two targets were never hit by any planes; there was never any proof to scientifically prove it."


Now, I asked you at least FIVE times if you genuinely believe this, becuase if you do, it necessarily means that you're lying about simply wanting to learn the truth, and it necessarily means you're lying now about not accepting opinions over facts. Moreover, it necessarily means you're being deceptive about asking me all these questions becuase you openly admit you don't care what anyone tells you. So far, getting a straight answer out of you is akin to nailing jam to the wall, so how about giving me an answer now- do you genuinely believe this statement of yours is true, or don't you?

Jeez, no wonder people like this other fellow feel that there's widespread censorship. There are people out there in the truther movement with blatantly obvious agendas to force their own particular scenarios down other people's throats at the expense of other people's scenarios, and they honestly think using censorship to protect what they themselves want to believe is a good thing. If that guy was sandblasted by 5,000 posts explaining why his scenario is wrong every time he opened his mouth, that'd be one thing, but forbidding him to even say what he wants to say, that's just wrong. Censorship is still censorship, regardless of who is doing it.


Again, you are focusing on me! I am not the topic of this thread. I never lost any debate with you because you don’t know how to debate period. Furthmore, you are lying I had to put you on ignore as I will have to do so again! Anyone reading your nonsense can see who is playing a game. I already made one mistake today and that was by responding to you.


Of *course* I'm goign to focus on you. You're saying I'm lying, so it should be obvious I'm going to call you out on it. Name ONE lie I ever posted here. ONE.



[edit on 5-8-2009 by GoodOlDave]



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Taxi-Driver

Originally posted by Mark_Amy
Wow! Truthers attacking other truthers. No wonder the debunkers have such a field day with this forum!


yep...Bonez had good points on this issue. I just wish he could see where the ridiculous stops and reality starts.

I wish that for many on this forum.


Amen, Taxi!

What's ridiculous is the bizarre logic in pinpointing a single fraction of one piece of evidence to debate this? I don't care which side of it your on, please, look at the entire picture! Lose all the "debunk", "shestunk", "truther", "planer", "stainer" bull#, and find some sagacity!



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


It is people like you who have proved that 911 was an inside job and I thank you.
When I saw how much evidences you debunkers continue to ignore I realized some of you had another agenda, and getting to the truth was not part of that agenda. So all I can say Dave, is thanks.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
It is people like you who have proved that 911 was an inside job and I thank you.


I don't know what kind of children's game you're trying to play, but to be frank, I really don't care. The purpose of this forum is for the exchange of information and the debate of the myriad conspiracy scenarios being passed around. I ask you questions and you give me an answer (if you can), and you ask me questions and I'll give you an answer (if I can).

However, when you...yes, YOU...post blatantly prejudicial things like...

"I don’t care what anyone thinks and I don’t even care to prove what I have to say either. In my opinion this was the work of the Bush administration, not the work of 19 phantom hijackers. In my opinion there were bombs planted in all the WTC.

In my opinion, two of the planes that hit the WTC were military Boeing 767 painted in United and American airlines colors. The other two targets were never hit by any planes; there was never any proof to scientifically prove it."


...it's glaringly obvious you're not here for any honest discussion. You're here to bludgeon others until they submit to what you yourself want to believe, which I find ironic becuase that is the very behavior the fellow who started this thread was complaining about to begin with. If that's what floats your boat, fine, it's a free country, but don't insult my intelligence by pretending to be something you're not. At the end of the day, YOU are still the one who's avoiding ME. I'm not the one who's avoiding you.

You have no credibility. Have a nice day.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


There is no evidence that any planes hit the twin towers. Yet alone, a specific type of plane.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by videoworldwide
There is no evidence that any planes hit the twin towers. Yet alone, a specific type of plane.

You keep giving us that line of disinfo, but you don't actually show any evidence. Why do you keep playing games and saying things you can't back up? Stop playing around and post some actual evidence of no planes already. It can't be that hard since there's such "overwhelming proof" according to the NPT disinfo cult.

You're starting to show the characteristics of a spammer. This forum doesn't like spammers. Please post evidence of no planes and stop spamming "there were no planes" BS. Put up or shut up. We're still waiting...



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by videoworldwide
 



There is no evidence that any planes hit the twin towers. Yet alone, a specific type of plane.


Do you really believe this videoWW, or is this just a hook to snare people like me into responding? C'mon. There is a wealth of evidence that planes hit the twin towers. Imagine the scope of a conspiracy that included common folk shooting video that captured the second strike. It boggles the mind to imagine how all those people could be part of the conspiracy.

Still...... I always try to keep my mind open a crack, at least. If you are willing to lay our your case for no planes at the twin towers, I will listen. If you want to retract that statement, that's fine too. No harm. Either way. I'm here for the truth regardless of where it falls.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by argentus
 


I have no problem discussing stuff with people who are not baiting me, like BoneZ.

Please answer this question.
Have you actually watched september clues? or 911 Amateur or 911 Taboo?



[edit on 6-8-2009 by videoworldwide]



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 05:17 PM
link   
[edit on 6-8-2009 by videoworldwide]



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by videoworldwide
 


I have watched September Clues; I'm aware of four parts. No to the other two.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by argentus
reply to post by videoworldwide
 


I have watched September Clues; I'm aware of four parts. No to the other two.


I will post some great links in about an hour, o.k.
I have to do some work first, but i'll return with some good info links, and we can discuss what you think of them.

In the meantime, can you tell me why you don't agree with september clues?
Thanks.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by argentus
I have watched September Clues; I'm aware of four parts. No to the other two.

There were 9 parts, I believe. To have both sides of the story, check out the debunking of September Clues. I'll post the links below:

September Clues Busted!


Google Video Link





The Great Nose-in/Nose out Hoax:





Debunking September Clues - A Point-By-Point analysis:
truthaction.org...



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by videoworldwide
 


It seems to me that much of the first four parts (I'm now aware there are more) begged the question -- making a big deal out of excited reporters not mentioning planes initially but rather focusing on the flames. It strikes of selective editing to me. The second part of SC cuts away a lot........ seems to grab a sound bite from this or that person. It seems like crafting the presentation to fit a theory, which I feel is contrary to the scientific process.

You know what's interesting, at least to me? When I kept the sound off and watched them, I came away with a completely different impression of the "plane slicing through the tower". I think Simon spends too much time trying to tell us what we are seeing.

Just off the cuff impressions. I haven't watched it in a while.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join