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.

 

I Am A 911 Debunker and I Quit!!! No Evidence to Support Offical Story.

page: 3
37
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by adrenochrome
 


That is a very interesting video. I enjoyed it all the way until the end. The end which blatantly calls for a forceful revolution with the "You know what you have to do...." over and over.

However, the video brings up many of the points I, yourself and many others have continually brought up only to be ridiculed and belittled by the skeptics that continue to point to the invalidated 'evidence' presented by NIST and so on.

Like their example of how the fire proofing was knocked off with the shotgun blasts. First off, that proofing that fell off was always going to fall off because it was never surrounding the steel it was attached to. It was only attached on one side. A point that people like NIST that try to dilute evidence or facts know full well but believe that others like the general population will simply go "Wow, they just showed how it can happen. It must be true."

Well, what about WTC 7? What knocked that fire proofing off? Considering the fires were much smaller and scattered in small pockets on only a few floors, it's just amazing that the fire proofing seemed to give out there too. Yup, I can buy that.

Then the skeptics resort to attack Jones and call him looney and so on. It's a joke really. Yes, I have seen truthers (or the belittling term 'troofers' which isn't really a slam but a display of ignorance) attack the skeptics in like manner. It's an impassioned discussion. There are those that don't want to believe that ANY faction of our government could be responsible of an act like this. There are those that will believe that the government is capable of anything. Then there are many like us in the middle that look at the evidence and make logical decisions based off of that evidence.

Is it absolute proof? No. But it's enough evidence to get most people convicted in a court of law. But it will never see that day in court.

We are witnessing more and more the results of the acts of that day. Liberties getting stripped and destroyed. What's funny as hell is that many of the 'skeptics' that would always ask "What liberties were stripped? Show me?" Are now screaming about how Obama has stripped the liberties of people. It's ironic really. Actually, it simply shows who they have given their loyalties to.

Great video that I would recommend to anyone who has any questions either way about the events of that day.




posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by dariousg
 


thank you for viewing!! that is the one video that i recommend the most, and everyone that i know that watches always starts to question 9/11 in the end. if you're interested, another great video is this interview with Aaron Russo, producer of America: Freedom to Fascism and Trading Places (yes, the Eddie Murphy/Dan Aykroyd movie from 1983
), and he talks mainly about A: F t F, but also lots of general items, including his friendship with Nicholas Rockefeller, and 9/11. ...he even elaborates on how Nick Rockefeller told him about a major terrorist event 11 months before it was going to happen, and that they'd be looking for Osama bin Laden in caves and they'd be able to start their endeavors in the Middle East.......

Aaron Russo & Nick Rockefeller


turns out he was referring to 9/11... well, do i believe it?? well Mr. Russo had nothing to lose, as he was dying of cancer anyway, but i'd like to think i can read body language pretty well and can tell a liar/good actor when i see one


here's the interview, and for those interested even further, further down is the link for America: Freedom to Fascism:

Google Video Link


America: Freedom to Fascism
media.abovetopsecret.com...

EDIT:
also, i can't believe i forgot this video, which is just as good as Improbable Collapse!!

9/11 and the BBC Conspiracy
media.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 12-8-2009 by adrenochrome]



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainAmerica2012
 


Given your arguments and logic in previous posts, I think that you do fit better as a truther.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 07:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by CaptainAmerica2012
 


Given your arguments and logic in previous posts, I think that you do fit better as a truther.


Your right, I went from an ignorant official story drone/believer to someone who seeked the truth and now shares the truth.

So I guess being a "Truther" is better that being an IGNORANT LIAR!


[edit on 13-8-2009 by CaptainAmerica2012]



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainAmerica2012

Your right, I went from an ignorant official story drone/believer to someone who seeked the truth and now shares the truth.

So I guess being a "Truther" is better that being an IGNORANT LIAR!




I can see that you are now a true believer and no longer an ignorant drone.
The correct past tense of "seek" is "sought."
The Truther label becomes you.



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by CaptainAmerica2012

Your right, I went from an ignorant official story drone/believer to someone who seeked the truth and now shares the truth.

So I guess being a "Truther" is better that being an IGNORANT LIAR!




I can see that you are now a true believer and no longer an ignorant drone.
The correct past tense of "seek" is "sought."
The Truther label becomes you.


So I guess my grammer is proof that the official 9/11 story is just that, a story or should a say a lie pulled over peoples eyes?

People who know the truth out number the ignorant. It so happens that most of them are not members of jref or ats(this board).



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainAmerica2012
 

I find it amusing that your purported conversion is so transparent.



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 02:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by CaptainAmerica2012
 

I find it amusing that your purported conversion is so transparent.



One only needs to research a little bit to find the official story is bogus


What has to happen next is to start charging people and holding people accountable for the deaths that accumulated not only from 911 but from the wars the progressed from them.



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainAmerica2012

One only needs to research a little bit to find the official story is bogus

What has to happen next is to start charging people and holding people accountable for the deaths that accumulated not only from 911 but from the wars the progressed from them.


The problem you have with "charging people and holding people accountable for the deaths" is that you need what we call "evidence" for this sort of thing. You need to show that the people you wish to charge did something. Do you have any evidence of demolition? Do you have detonators, wires, unexploded charges, caps, det cord, blasting machines, etc. that can be traced to individuals? Do you have a confession from a perpetrator? Do you have secret plans, orders, drawings or witnesses to people setting charges, cutting columns, or wiring devices?
No, of course you don't.
You and all the other youtube sleuths have only opinions and gut feelings of how you feel the buildings should have collapsed based on watching Hollywood disaster movies. These deep seated feelings are not what we call "evidence." Remember, evidence is that which you need to do all the charging and holding accountable. Superimposing astrological diagrams on video stills will not cut it.



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


The only thing worse than ignorance is biased ignorance. Each person being biased is not productive.

[edit on 15-8-2009 by jprophet420]



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by pteridine
 


The only thing worse than ignorance is biased ignorance. Each person being biased is not productive.


Everyone is biased and ignorant to some degree or another. Based on your statement, no one is productive.
In this case, where criminals are to be held accountable, my bias leans toward evidence. There is no evidence of demolition, just a lot of hand waving by people who want to appear to be important and have "inside knowledge." Perhaps this is an example of biased ignorance.



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by pteridine
 


The only thing worse than ignorance is biased ignorance. Each person being biased is not productive.


Everyone is biased and ignorant to some degree or another. Based on your statement, no one is productive.
In this case, where criminals are to be held accountable, my bias leans toward evidence. There is no evidence of demolition, just a lot of hand waving by people who want to appear to be important and have "inside knowledge." Perhaps this is an example of biased ignorance.


No, when you apply your false logic to my statement no-one is productive.

And while you hold the guilty parties to the evidence, there is not enough evidence to prosecute the taliban either, yet we took them to war. So yeah your standard is crap.



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

No, when you apply your false logic to my statement no-one is productive.

And while you hold the guilty parties to the evidence, there is not enough evidence to prosecute the taliban either, yet we took them to war. So yeah your standard is crap.


My logic is not false. It is based on your statement. Maybe the probem is with your bombastic statement.
You probably missed this trivial point, but a war is not a prosecution in a US court of law. Since you are an astute student of the internet, you will have no difficulty in reading a few sites about the US legal system. Read about evidence, burden of proof, presumed innocence, and the other nuances. Then compare my standards with yours and show me my errors.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by shinjiikari2839
You want some real key evidence? How about this. The pentagon is surrounded by cameras right? They must have more cameras than a Walmart supercenter on that building. If they do, how come they only released ONE angle of film? And in that one angle there is only a few frames that shows what might be a plane hitting the pentagon. Why? And then there are the stories of the FBI rounding up the video film of nearby gas stations etc etc... Nice avatar by the way.


This is a VERY good question to ask, and ironically, a question that really nobody outside of those that work in the high ranks of the American government can truly answer.

The Pentagon is supposed to be the most guarded and secure place in the United States, yet there is little to no convincing photo/video evidence clearly showing that the Pentagon was hit by an airplane. You would think that with the large amount of media coverage and eyewitness video footage showing the planes hitting both towers, there would also be a considerable amount of Pentagon provided photos/video footage showing a plane hitting it, no? If you were to say otherwise, then on what grounds of justification would anybody have that this is NOT the case? Most people would in turn bring up that there are first hand witness accounts of Pentagon employees stating that they saw an airplane crash directly into the building, and leaving it at that. Now, with that in mind, the people on this forum that are trying to immediately disprove the ones who are questioning the official 9/11 story would say that these Pentagon employee personal accounts indicating there was a plane, is enough concrete evidence in order to believe that a plane DID hit the Pentagon. OK, thats fine, but I find that rather funny, considering that when anybody on the opposite side of the argument gives an eyewitness account, theory and/or Internet source in relation to other valid areas in question to the attacks, they are automatically doubted and are told something along the lines of ''please give us some concrete evidence that this occurred, not just some story that somebody could have just made up."
...shocking.

Oh, but wait. I forgot - these personal accounts and stories of Pentagon employees and officials is apparently more than enough concrete evidence, simply because they work for the government...so I guess we just have to take their word with 100% certainty that it's 100% truth. My bad, I must have 'overlooked' this minor detail.

The truth of the matter is that we won't get these answers, as long as there is an intelligent, yet highly corrupt government working with a very hidden agenda, keeping the general public in the dark while creating the illusion that ''Everything is okay, nothing to see here, don't question our official story because we are the government, and we protect you and expect you to take our official word as concrete evidence. Anybody who questions us or our official story is either paranoid, clinically insane, or has no real counter-evidence to back up their claims".

...Well, that's the impression that I personally get out of the whole thing, and not just on the events of 9/11, either. Anytime something comes up that primarily involves the government, most people take their word for it, and don't question a single thing. This isn't really a *bad* thing, if you would rather be left in the dark and further humor their continuing illusion that everything they say and do is exactly as it appears to the public eye. In my personal opinion, this is truly not the case, but don't take my word for it. Take the millions of others who have asked the same question that shinjiikari2839 did, and got s#!t on for asking it. For those who think that 9/11 happened the way that the American government said it did, great - all the power to you, and it's not my nor anybody else's duty nor obligation to try and change your minds.

But hey, this is just MY opinion.



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 07:27 AM
link   
reply to post by CaptainAmerica2012
 


Captain ~

Do me a favor? Please point out to me where and when you were a "debunker." All your posts on this forum are the same old recycled truth movement drivel.

thank you



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
reply to post by CaptainAmerica2012
 


Captain ~

Do me a favor? Please point out to me where and when you were a "debunker." All your posts on this forum are the same old recycled truth movement drivel.

thank you


Favours are for friends.


Truther = Someone who seeks the truth and shares it.

Opposite of that would be a LIAR that spreads Lies.


Quite simple really, these old tactics and what you call drivel has becoming from the group of self professed debunkers who havent changed their lame song even tho they have been debunked here and on other forums.

There is also a reason why you and others are on many ignore lists.

Like I said, I debunk wild conspiracy theories. Many of these no plane theories or holograms were started by the debunkers themsleves. Talk about COINTELPRO.



[edit on 18-8-2009 by CaptainAmerica2012]



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainAmerica2012

Like I said, I debunk wild conspiracy theories. Many of these no plane theories or holograms were started by the debunkers themsleves. Talk about COINTELPRO.

[edit on 18-8-2009 by CaptainAmerica2012]


Being one of those No Planers myself I can tell you that I am no dis info agent. More then that I can tell you that those of us active in the no plane theory are not dis info agents. We get the worst crap of both sides of the fence. Why would we put up with that if we did not see something true?

Their is a good thread on ATS called Truth Gone Wild It is about the different appraoch angles of the planes and not all can be explained away by camera angles.

I am no debunker of truth nor would I lie to spread my message like some other debunkers might.

Are you sure you left debunking in your past or is this just some kind of new ploy to get truthers trust so you can riddicule the No plane explination?



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainAmerica2012


Favours are for friends.


Truther = Someone who seeks the truth and shares it.

Opposite of that would be a LIAR that spreads Lies.


Quite simple really, these old tactics and what you call drivel has becoming from the group of self professed debunkers who havent changed their lame song even tho they have been debunked here and on other forums.

There is also a reason why you and others are on many ignore lists.

Like I said, I debunk wild conspiracy theories. Many of these no plane theories or holograms were started by the debunkers themsleves. Talk about COINTELPRO.


So, I shall forget being a nice NWO Agent and cut to the chase?

Back up your OP with some proof. You are accusing people of lying, yet you have not offered ANY proof that you debunked 911 CT's OR that you were a supporter of the official story.

I am calling you on this. You are not being honest. I don't know what your agenda is.. a truther looking for stars & flags, or a debunker setting some bait.

Either way, time for you to step up and show us what you debunked.

[edit on 18-8-2009 by CameronFox]



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox




Mabey it was your lack luster research skills that have left you without answers for if you were to use proper reading skills and research material you would not be he regurgitating main stream lies.

As far a proof as a debunker. I will no reveal my alter ego. I like to play both sides of the fence. To defeat the enemy I work from the inside.

Did you know that a couple of debunkers come on this forum and post under new user names promoting the No plane theories and holograms?

Now what would you call that?



[edit on 19-8-2009 by CaptainAmerica2012]



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainAmerica2012

Did you know that a couple of debunkers come on this forum and post under new user names promoting the No plane theories and holograms?

Now what would you call that?



A lie.

Unless you care to back it up?




top topics



 
37
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join