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.

 

Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information

page: 36
215
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


I am not a fella, bud.

I am a red blooded female so careful with your comments, please.



[edit on 18-9-2009 by burntheships]




posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by tezzajw
can you please tell us all who a government is supposed to be accountable to, if it is not 'we, the people'?

This is a typical line that some hard-core official government story believers want you to accept - that the government has the right to withhold information from 'you, the people'.


Great way to twist things so you can cry indignation. Anything you can't accept must be because it's from a government source, not because it's true.


mmichael,

Do you honestly believe that we Americans that feel something "shady" is up with the OS want to believe this about our government; that this is some form of partisan extremism?

Believing that the government was involved means that you believe your government is not only capable of killing you, but is willing to kill many of you to exercise control. That is frightening to believe. It removes all certainty that the fairy tale will end in "happily every after".


I'm not American, for starters. And I don't play the Truther game which has devolved to provide an Internet link or you can't prove something. Why don't you provide me with an Internet link showing there was something other than 64 passenger remains in the wreckage in the Pentagon. Then we will have a point of contention.


If we are cynical about our government, if we ask for proof from them it is because they willfully lied to us to get us and the "coalition of the willing" into Iraq. They lied to their own people and they lied to the UN, and, unfortunately, none of them have been tried for war crimes yet.

There were no WMD. Bush admitted three years after the war started in yet another ridiculous attempt to make a serious subject humorous that there were no WMDs and they were wrong. Wrong. Not horribly wrong and deeply sorry. Wrong.

Then the finger-pointing began. Almost to a letter his underlings all say they were coerced and pushed into saying there were WMD. Colin Powell stands in front of the UN and campaigns that they were absolutely there and then he says, years later mind you, he had major doubts.

Doubts. Sorry.

Libby, Wolfowitz...the head of the CIA!!!--all of them began the who eff'd up hot potato until it lands in Cheney's lap and we find out that...voila! He did have information about WMDs, it came from one highly suspect guy. Yay! They were willing to manufacture evidence.

And it gets better...you want to know why we want real information from them. Here's another reason why.

Cheney admits in 2008 that Saddam Hussein had no ties to the September 11th attacks. First they did, now they didn't.


I said, and I guess must repeat, the US government does not have to provide you or anyone pictures of bodies strapped into passenger seats just because you don't want to believe they were there.


No, not because we want to believe they were there, because when proven liars speak to you evidence is required to confirm that they are telling the truth.


That is a matter of reason and dignity.


If they had dignity they would get down on their hands and knees and apologize for lying to the American people to get us to support their war.



Morbid details and specifics of bodies at the Pentagon exist somewhere I’m sure.


I'm not. They are liars.


It have had no reason to seek them out.


Exactly. You are not an American, therefore you do not feel a personal pain that your country may have once again lied to you.


The names of the passengers are a matter of public record as well. Nothing prevents anyone from contacting their families and asking painful questions. It’s a free country. Go ahead.


If our country was willing to sacrifice the lives of American soldiers and the lives of Iraqi citizens in order to advance an agenda that certain members had prior to entering office then what's to say they aren't willing to sacrifice a few more? That is my point. I don't know what my country is capable of anymore. If I go back and read there are FIOAbles that describe the military planning as far back as the sixties a fake act of war to get us to go to war in Latin America, what about the Gulf of Tonkin? If they have done it before, if they've planned it before, if they did it recently...why not 9-11?

What makes 9-11 special? We know Bin Ladin worked for the CIA, we know they trained him, why do we think he's wasn't working for them then? Blowback, they call it. Suspicious I call it.

The credibility of my government is shot and it is all their own fault.


George Bush and Dick Cheney won the elections in 2000 and 2004. I personally think these elections were fixed.


See my point. If they were unscrupulous enough to fix an election, if they were unscrupulous enough to send our soldiers to war on false pretense, before we were fully ready (remember in the beginning there was water shortage, kevlar shortage, etc), if they were willing to plan a pre-emptive bombing strike against a sovereign nation who had never attempted to invade us or bomb us, killing civilians there, as well...why not off a few of us on 9-11. Obviously human life means that little.



Information was withheld by the govt about 9/11. Most damningly on the levels of prior intelligence that might have prevented the attacks, and giving the Saudis and Pakistanis a pass on their involvement. I rarely see this discussed on this forum.


Because that is what we used to believe before we realized what scumbags we seem to drum up for government office. I used to think it was the Saudis. Note: past tense.


With the documentation we now have of the groups who funded, sponsored, co-ordinate the attacks, there is no longer doubt it was executed by Middle Eastern terrorists.


Documentation given to you by whom? Liars, right? From Pennsylvania Ave to Downing St. lies, lies, lies. Why do you believe liars?

Because they wouldn't lie about something this big? Is that what you're saying? They wouldn't kill a few people?


And they have not let up on their organized hostility to the US and the West as we have seen in the last 8 years. One of the groups active in co-ordinating the 9/11 attacks, controls the nuclear arsenal in Pakistan. One would think most Americans would be concerned.
Maybe one of the groups active in coordinating the attacks controls Pakistan, but then where does that bit of info come from? Liars.


But some choose to pursue any possible line of inquiry to avoid coming to terms with certain awful realities.


Do you understand that all that you're suggesting was the first stage of feeling that something was not right? I had your exact line of thinking in 2004, 2005, 2006. Around 2007 when their smugness hit peak, when they realized that they had such a rabid fan base thanks to Faux that they could get away with slipping up from time to time...well, they did. They even admitted and joked about no WMDs. Why? Because the climate is so partisan that they can keep us fighting among ourselves and they know they have a built in cheering section because of it.


That’s where you and your pals come in. Questioning the lack of photos and details of dead bodies in a wreckage is about your speed. Comfort yourself in believing it must be another government cover-up. The alternative is too troubling to deal with.


On the contrary, having lived in the Middle East, being a religious nut myself, radical Islam does not frighten me as much as smiling white guys in suits. At least the radical Muslims let you know they hate you. That makes them easier to deal with.

The problem with liars is you never know when they are telling the truth. That's what's troubling.



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 01:38 AM
link   
reply to post by A Fortiori
 


Awesome post right there....... Mike you just got owned.

You are always backing the government Mike, why???

They have proven themselves to be pathological liars, the OS has been proven to be physically impossible and they have stopped looking for the 'mastermind' who they said they would never stop looking for.

Oh and did you hear? The FBI hasn't got enough evidence to link Osama to 9/11.........

W...................................................T...............................................F



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 02:17 AM
link   
reply to scott3x's post #551
 



Originally posted by scott3x
reply to mmiichael's post #306 in this thread
 



Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by scott3x
Are you aware of the positive evidence that CIT has already presented for the flyover...


Distortion and manipulation of information and witnesses by the corporation operating as Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) has been found.

You really must read this page:


911review.com...

To Con a Movement: Exposing CIT's PentaCon 'Magic Show'

What CIT and many other no-Boeing-impact focused efforts have created is essentially a historical vacuum in which readers and viewers are disconnected from the original larger context of the attack and its aftermath, in favor of the hyped soap opera mystery in which an elderly cab driver's apparent role in the attack is central, rather than officials in Bush Administration who were in charge that day.


I could in theory go over that link in detail, but I think that it would be best to see if CIT has already responded to Victoria Ashley's points. While I myself have been banned from CIT's forum (I won't deny that they can be prickly when faced with disagreement), Craig Ranke posts here, as well as the loose change forum. I'll ask over there, as it's a site that gets considerably less traffic and has a lot of people who I believe know a fair amount on such things.

Update: I just realized that Victoria mentions the DNA. I wonder if she's heard of what SPreston has brought up concerning it.


I've now created a thread over at truthaction.org, where Victoria Ashley posts as Victronix, with counters to some of her points in her critique, which I mention in case anyone wanted more points against her critique.



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 02:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by A Fortiori

Originally posted by mmiichael
Information was withheld by the govt about 9/11. Most damningly on the levels of prior intelligence that might have prevented the attacks, and giving the Saudis and Pakistanis a pass on their involvement. I rarely see this discussed on this forum.


Because that is what we used to believe before we realized what scumbags we seem to drum up for government office. I used to think it was the Saudis. Note: past tense.


I still think the Saudis were involved. This doesn't mean people like Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush weren't. In fact, it seems clear that the Bush administration covered up the Saudis involvement, as can be seen in the following article from Salon:
Sen. Graham: Bush covered up Saudi involvement in 9/11

Here's another interesting article concerning a dead Saudi Major and flying planes by remote control:
Dead Saudi Major Related To 9-11 Terrorists?


And another from the well known historycommons, regarding Saudi Prince Ahmed Bin Salman, who died mysteriously of a heart attack at 43:
www.historycommons.org...

[edit on 19-9-2009 by scott3x]



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by vehemes terra eternus
reply to post by A Fortiori
 


Awesome post right there....... Mike you just got owned.

You are always backing the government Mike, why???

They have proven themselves to be pathological liars, the OS has been proven to be physically impossible and they have stopped looking for the 'mastermind' who they said they would never stop looking for.

Oh and did you hear? The FBI hasn't got enough evidence to link Osama to 9/11.........

W...................................................T...............................................F


Mike "got owned?" Ah, high school vocabulary.

Fortieri's arguments are rife with speculation and the imaginations of many posters on conspiracy sites. In case no one has noted, in their rush to paint everyone with the same broad brush, many who are accused of being Government agents and backing the "official story" do no such thing. I agree with Mike that any coverup has to do with the intelligence that was ignored by or not disseminated in a timely manner by high-level managers in the competing intelligence agencies. All the rest of these conspiracy theories are so full of misinterpretations, lack of understanding of physics and chemistry, and charlatans with financial or egomaniacial agendas that they have no credibility amongst anyone but "true believers."

I would suggest that the government disinformation agents are those with unsupported theories of controlled demolitions that swamp these boards and distract attention from the actual coverup of Government infighting, turf battles, and incompetence of Bush Administration political appointees.



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by jthomas
Your beliefs are irrelevant to the facts and evidence


This is why I don't want to discuss what you think, I want to discuss the lack of evidence for what you think...


Originally posted by jthomas
FALSE. "Negative proof" only applies if there is no evidence and no way to demonstrate proof, like" Prove no fairies exist."

You're stuck because there is evidence, you've been pointed to it, and you refuse to refute it.



I'm glad you finally comprehend the issue of negative proof...


But you have no clue what "negative proof" means as I demonstrated.


You keep claiming you have pointed us towards evidence but all you do is point to the official story...

Again...the fact that everyone accepts the official story is not proof.


Irrelevant. The evidence still exists which means it is falsifiable and "negative proof" does not apply. When do you intend to admit that fact, Jezus? You know I'm right.

There is a PERFECT example of how you 9/11 Truthers hide behind the canard of the "official story." Don't like the evidence? Find it inconvenient to your desired conclusions? Simple. Just call it the "official story" and wipe your hands of any responsibility!


Proof is actual evidence; photos, videos, eyewitness statements...


But you just called that evidence the "official story" rather than refute the evidence.

Now, when do you intend to refute the evidence, Jezus, rather than continue to demonstrate why you are a classic 9/11 Denier?



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheAntiHero420
reply to post by jthomas
 


Alright Jthomas tell me what the "truth" movement is all about, since its not financial gain (otherwise you would have said so in your post).


I asked you as a member to tell us what the purpose of the "9/11 Truth Movement" is. Can't you write an short, concise sentence or two? Right now, you're just indicating that you don't know.

Seriously, what is its purpose?



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by TheAntiHero420
reply to post by jthomas
 


So your implying that the "truth" movement is for a financial gain.


Where?

Do you know what the purpose of the 9/11 Truth Movement is? Tell us. I don't think you have a clue.


The purpose of the 9-11 Truth Movement would be to uncover the truth about who was really behind 9-11 and all of the parties that assisted them in making it happen...if it was even possible to do so. The fact is that all the "Truth Movement" can do is to make an argument that will in turn have others research the facts, and hopefully make people more fearful of the government's intentions towards its citizens and not troddle blithely along, allowing them to usurp more and more power.

The movement can demand evidence all they want, but the fact is that the people they are demanding it from have no qualms about manufacturing evidence and lying with a straight face. Any evidence they get would be tampered with so what's the point of demanding it.

All I intend to do is remind people that our government is filled top to bottom with corrupt liars and warn people to "be afraid". Fear keeps you on your toes.

POWELL: My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence.

Later, after deciding it was "smart" to appear duped he starts to backpedal.

HUSSEINI: You cited Hussein Kamel in your U.N. testimony. Did you know he said there were no WMDs?

POWELL: I only knew what the intelligence community told me.

HUSSEINI: But did you know that fact?

POWELL: Of course not!

HUSSEINI: You didn't know that, even though it was reported?

POWELL: I've answered your question!


So the Secretary of State did not know what occurred in a testimony that appeared on CNN, BBC, etc? He didn't have the transcripts from the UN testimony?

That makes him either stupid or a liar.

Then last year he tries to say that the he and even Bush didn't want the Iraq war:

“My role has been very, very straightforward,” he said. “I wanted to avoid a war. The President agreed with me. We tried to do that and couldn’t get it to the U.N.”

Couldn't get what to the UN? This wasn't the UN going to war with Iraq, this was the US and the UK and a ten other soldiers from various "willing" countries.

But--OH! Now He's sorry.

"...It's a blot. I'm the one who presented it on behalf od the United States to the world, and it will always be a part of my record. It was painful." Powell to Barbara Walters

Yes, Colin, terribly painful. To all of the people that died, that is.

Aug. 26, 2002
Dick Cheney, Vice President
"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."


Sep. 12, 2002
George W. Bush, Speech to UN General Assembly
"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."


And then...when they realized that there were, in fact, no WMDs...we get this slap in the face...

A slide showed Mr Bush in the Oval office, leaning to look under a piece of furniture. "Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be here somewhere," he told the audience, drawing applause.

Another slide showed him peering into another part of the office, "Nope, no weapons over there," he said, laughing. "Maybe under here," he said, as a third slide was shown.
from article by David Tether.

Hahahahah! Oh that Bush! *wipes tears from eyes* He's such a kidder.

"The original intelligence was wrong, no question about it," Cheney said on Meet the Press

Wrong? But I thought you were so certain? How can that be? From certainty (meaning no doubt) to "wrong, no question about it" (meaning no doubt). And who's the flip floppers?

I could keep quoting all day, but I'm tired of this. They are either the most inept group of yo-yo's in the world or they are pathological liars. I will be kind and call Bush a "yo-yo". Cheney, Powell...no, no. *shakes head* they didn't get where they were going on Daddy's money. They are highly intelligent, and in Cheney's case, ruthlessly methodical. They are also permanent Washington staples.

They lied to get not just our nation, but other nations to go to war, and in doing so their friends and family have made even more stinking wealth off the backs of misery. What do we get in return? "We made a mistake." We get admission of a "mistake" with no tears for the lives lost, no emotion, nothing. Just a "mistake".

Ooops! I dropped a bomb! Wow. My bad.

If they got on television and appeared gravely throated and apologized to the American people and appeared at all unhappy or remorseful that their "mistake" cost lives I might not think they are the sociopathic liars that I think they are.

No, they are smug and arrogant and in the face of their mistake they have the unbridled audacity to ask for our support and bully us with claims of not wanting the United States to succeed.

Here is my response: Bite me.

They made me lose faith in the country that I grew up in. Good guys don't ruin people's lives remorselessly. Good guys repent and atone. These are not good guys.

If they are not good guys, if they are known liars, then they deserve what comes with it--to be questioned about every little thing they've ever done. That is their punishment. I question 9-11 because I question their honor, their integrity, and their respect for human life. I can't speak for other Truthers, only myself, but it would not surprise me if they orchestrated the entire thing.

If they didn't, okay, its a bunch of extremists who didn't even knock off one hundred and one thousandth of a percent of our population. Pneumonia kills more people each year and we didn't start an entire agency to prevent it, nor did we dismantle the Constitution for it.

Can you tell I'm bitter?








[edit on 19-9-2009 by A Fortiori]

[edit on 19-9-2009 by A Fortiori]

[edit on 19-9-2009 by A Fortiori]



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
But you have no clue what "negative proof" means as I demonstrated.


"Show me that no passenger bodies were recovered." - jthomas
"Show me that no passenger bodies were recovered." - jthomas
"Show me that no passenger bodies were recovered." - jthomas



Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by jthomas
How do you know there is no evidence that AA77's passengers' bodies weren't recovered? What is the source for your assertion?

Show me that no passenger bodies were recovered.


"You can't prove I have no evidence!"

Negative Proof

"X is true because there is no proof that X is false."

en.wikipedia.org...



Originally posted by jthomas
But you just called that evidence the "official story" rather than refute the evidence.

Now, when do you intend to refute the evidence, Jezus, rather than continue to demonstrate why you are a classic 9/11 Denier?


You repeatedly talk about all this evidence that exists to support the official story but you have never actually posted any evidence...

Your entire participation in this thread boils down to two very simple points...

1. Everyone knows there is tons of evidence
2. You can't prove there isn't tons of evidence

You have never posted any evidence...







[edit on 19-9-2009 by Jezus]



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by vehemes terra eternus
reply to post by A Fortiori
 


Awesome post right there....... Mike you just got owned.

You are always backing the government Mike, why???

They have proven themselves to be pathological liars, the OS has been proven to be physically impossible and they have stopped looking for the 'mastermind' who they said they would never stop looking for.

Oh and did you hear? The FBI hasn't got enough evidence to link Osama to 9/11.........

W...................................................T...............................................F


Mike "got owned?" Ah, high school vocabulary.

Fortieri's arguments are rife with speculation and the imaginations of many posters on conspiracy sites.


Speculation that the Bush administration lied about Iraq? They did lie about Iraq. They said they were absolutely certain that their were WMDs. Later they said they were not certain. That is a lie. For you to paint it otherwise clearly shows either a willingness yourself to be deceptive by spinning their lies through the rinse cycle of necessity, or your inability to define "certain" correctly.


In case no one has noted, in their rush to paint everyone with the same broad brush, many who are accused of being Government agents and backing the "official story" do no such thing.


When you "paint" me with the people on this board who would call ATS posters "disinformation agents" you are doing the exact thing you just accused "us" of, which is to "paint everyone" associated with the movement with "the same broad brush".


I agree with Mike that any coverup has to do with the intelligence that was ignored by or not disseminated in a timely manner by high-level managers in the competing intelligence agencies.


Good for you. That's your choice.


All the rest of these conspiracy theories are so full of misinterpretations


I'm misinterpreting nothing when I echo back our previous administrations own admittance that they had poor intelligence and should not have stated without equivocation a certainty before the UN. Telling the world you are "certain" in the efforts to bring the world community into combat, nay, a preemptive invasion means you a) lied about "certain", and b) you deceived people in order to get them to do as you wish.

If I told you that I had good intelligence from someone in the FDA that all dairy cows were going to be put down because of mad cow disease so stock up on milk when I really only heard this from one person who hadn't actually worked there in five years and you actually did stock up on the milk...how would you feel three months later if you found out that not only was it not true, but that my uncles and family all were dairy cow producers and I would some day come into a dividend from it?

You would feel deceived.


lack of understanding of physics and chemistry


That's a fallacy. You cannot know what anonymous posters have an understanding of. Unless you are a PhD in both physics and chemistry you cannot speak as though you are a subject matter expert in both, nor can you complain about the lack of understanding that anonymous posters may or may not have.


and charlatans with financial or egomaniacial agendas


Ahh, so you agree with me about Bush and Cheney then? Yes, charlatans they most certainly are.


I would suggest that the government disinformation agents are those with unsupported theories of controlled demolitions that swamp these boards


Yes, because there has been zero dissent by any PhD's on this subject. All PhDs are in agreement. I've never met a PhD or read any writings at all from a PhD that would possibly show any lack of agreement with the official story.

*eye roll*

Human nature is, according to Maslow, very self-preserving. Knowing that you are labeled the equivalent of a Holocaust denier if you disagree with the OS very few notable published PhDs would stick their own neck out to do anything but support the OS as it would mean ridicule and quite possibly a blot to their careers. It is the rare human being that would go against the grain.

You want studies? I can send studies upon studies of herd mentality in humans to support this.


and distract attention from the actual coverup of Government infighting, turf battles, and incompetence of Bush Administration political appointees.


Who is distracted from that? I believe that happened, too.

I am very loudly stating that when people lie so unrepentantly then you can no longer trust them or their words. You must question everything they say or do at that point. Perhaps, I will come to the conclusion that, as you say, they were inept, but...I am not going to set aside the dangling loose ends any longer. I will explore everything because I no longer trust them.

Sir, this was not the equivalent of them lying about "no new taxes" or "not having sex with that woman". This was lying for the purpose of waging war. War kills people. Ergo they lied so that they could kill people--perhaps the killing of people was a collateral affect and what they wanted was a US friendly government in Iraq, but they knew it would kill people in the process of getting their desires accomplished.

Do you see what this now means? You must.

It means that they were willing to have people die so that they could get what they want.

That is terrible. It is horrific. It means that they could have killed a few thousand people, or let a few thousand people die so that they could get what they wanted.

So you can call us all loonies, nuts, whatever you want. I could care less. If I cared about your opinion or anyone else's I'd be crying right now. I don't.

I care that they world that I will bring my children into is a safer environment than I have, so I will continue to question, to scold, and to suggest others do the same.



[edit on 19-9-2009 by A Fortiori]



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by A Fortiori

Originally posted by jthomas

Do you know what the purpose of the 9/11 Truth Movement is? Tell us. I don't think you have a clue.


The purpose of the 9-11 Truth Movement would be to uncover the truth about who was really behind 9-11 and all of the parties that assisted them in making it happen...if it was even possible to do so. The fact is that all the "Truth Movement" can do is to make an argument that will in turn have others research the facts, and hopefully make people more fearful of the government's intentions towards its citizens and not troddle blithely along, allowing them to usurp more and more power.

The movement can demand evidence all they want, but the fact is that the people they are demanding it from have no qualms about manufacturing evidence and lying with a straight face. Any evidence they get would be tampered with so what's the point of demanding it.

All I intend to do is remind people that our government is filled top to bottom with corrupt liars and warn people to "be afraid". Fear keeps you on your toes.


Actually, all you have done is to make a claim based on assumptions. Your assumptions are based on your take of events post 9/11 - yes, 9/11 was used as a justification - but applied as a blanket fact covering pre-9/11, and then claiming it demonstrates the government was lying about 9/11.

But that's a claim that has to be demonstrated, not assumed. And it hasn't been.



Can you tell I'm bitter?


I suggest questioning your own assumptions.



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


I love how the claims of inside job on 9/11 is justification for going to war in Afghanistan and Iraq. But wait, The so called "OS" says that there were Saudis on board. So wait, the truthers are claiming that the govt is behind 9/11 by blowing up the WTC and the Pentagon with (insert favorite claim here), and then claim it was Saudi hijackers, then they invade Afghanistan and Iraq?
That makes no sense whatsoever. Is this another example of the illogical reasoning and irrational thinking of the "truthers"?

And heck, they still cant come up with the proper script for what happened to the Pentagon. No plane, some plane, decoys, fly overs, geeze, is all of this part of the illogical way of the "truthers"? At least the so called "OS" is 100x more consistent than the "truthers" version.



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by A Fortiori

Originally posted by jthomas

Do you know what the purpose of the 9/11 Truth Movement is? Tell us. I don't think you have a clue.


The purpose of the 9-11 Truth Movement would be to uncover the truth about who was really behind 9-11 and all of the parties that assisted them in making it happen...if it was even possible to do so. The fact is that all the "Truth Movement" can do is to make an argument that will in turn have others research the facts, and hopefully make people more fearful of the government's intentions towards its citizens and not troddle blithely along, allowing them to usurp more and more power.

The movement can demand evidence all they want, but the fact is that the people they are demanding it from have no qualms about manufacturing evidence and lying with a straight face. Any evidence they get would be tampered with so what's the point of demanding it.

All I intend to do is remind people that our government is filled top to bottom with corrupt liars and warn people to "be afraid". Fear keeps you on your toes.


Actually, all you have done is to make a claim based on assumptions. Your assumptions are based on your take of events post 9/11 - yes, 9/11 was used as a justification - but applied as a blanket fact covering pre-9/11, and then claiming it demonstrates the government was lying about 9/11.


And yet I spoke of WMD...hmmmm?

I was using a very pragmatic, time-tested, approach that even the ancients could agree with and that is: Liars are liars. Never believe liars. Test the words of liars. Question liars.

They proved themselves to be liars, they proved that they will stab each other in the back, they proved that they consider people collateral damage in the goal of getting what they want; that they are ends justifies the means types, so...

why wouldn't I question everything that they told me was "true"?

I would be stupid if I accepted their words face value.

I haven't gotten on here and argued point by point. I just ask questions and point out what I see as holes in arguments. Quite frankly, the OS could be true, but I will question it, I will lean against it because of who told it to me.

Lost credibility is a terrible thing this is why your parents tell you to always be honest.


But that's a claim that has to be demonstrated, not assumed. And it hasn't been.


They demonstrated they are willing to lie if it achieves their aims. They demonstrated that people are collateral damage in their aims. That's no longer an assumption.

It is up to the one lacking in credibility to prove himself.



Can you tell I'm bitter?


I suggest questioning your own assumptions. My assumptions? I assume nothing. I question everything, and I question it more when the person telling it to me is a known and reputed, unrepentant liar.

Tell me why I should trust a liar?

Don't deflect, either. Don't bring in 9-11. This is a general question.

Why should I trust a liar?





posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by jthomas
But you have no clue what "negative proof" means as I demonstrated.


"Show me that no passenger bodies were recovered." - jthomas


That's a claim you can demonstrate or falsify therefore it does not fall under the definition of "negative proof." You know that, so why persist in misrepresenting it?

We have mountains of evidence that AA77 existed, that it had passengers, that it flew on 9/11, that it was hijacked, that it hit the Pentagon, that over a thousand people saw, recovered, and sorted the wreckage, that bodies were recovered.

You can provide no reason whatsoever why anyone should think the passengers' bodies did not exist. You can provide no reason to claim that the passenger bodies were not located and identified. None. Zero. Nada.

That's why Lillydale was asked to support her claim that "no passenger bodies were recovered from the Pentagon." Neither she nor you can support that claim. All you can do is whine that evidence is not evidence and refuse to debunk it.

So, as has been true for the 8 full years since 9/11, you have absolutely nothing to convince anyone of anything.



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by jthomas
 


I love how the claims of inside job on 9/11 is justification for going to war in Afghanistan and Iraq.


Who said said 9-11 was the justification of--Oh, wait. That was Cheney.


"There clearly was a relationship. It's been testified to. The evidence is overwhelming," Cheney said in an interview with CNBC's "Capitol Report."


Overwhelming evidence, he says. Bush concurred.


Bush, who has said himself that there is no evidence Iraq was involved in 9/11, sought to explain the distinction Thursday, saying that while the administration never "said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated" with Iraqi help, "we did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda."

"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda [is] because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," the president said.


Woops! No, he didn't. I wonder why Cheney said there was?

Cheney's the smart one, he's probably right. There was a tie. Someone tell the CIA.


Instead, the report said, the CIA had concluded in June 2002 that there were few substantiated contacts between al-Qaeda operatives and Iraqi officials and had said that it lacked evidence of a long-term relationship like the ones Iraq had forged with other terrorist groups.

"Overall, the reporting provides no conclusive signs of cooperation on specific terrorist operations," that CIA report said, adding that discussions on the issue were "necessarily speculative."


Oh! No you meant something different and I was just using this as an excuse to wax on about more of their cow manure.


But wait, The so called "OS" says that there were Saudis on board. So wait, the truthers are claiming that the govt is behind 9/11 by blowing up the WTC and the Pentagon with (insert favorite claim here), and then claim it was Saudi hijackers, then they invade Afghanistan and Iraq?


*does double take*

Who the heck said that? I certainly didn't.


That makes no sense whatsoever. Is this another example of the illogical reasoning and irrational thinking of the "truthers"?


No, this is another example of a poorly put together paragraph and straw men arguments.

My argument is that I don't believe liars. They are proven liars. Maybe the OS is true, but liars will have to prove it to me beyond a reasonable doubt. They've yet to do that to my satisfaction. Instead they limit the scope of the investigation and if you complain you're a Holocaust denier or a "birther".

No, I'm someone you've lied to before and now your credibility is shot.


And heck, they still cant come up with the proper script for what happened to the Pentagon. No plane, some plane, decoys, fly overs, geeze, is all of this part of the illogical way of the "truthers"? At least the so called "OS" is 100x more consistent than the "truthers" version.


Perhaps because every "truther" is different and the official story is the "Official Story"? That would explain why they have no "script" because they all have different theories.








[edit on 19-9-2009 by A Fortiori]



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by A Fortiori
 


That was an inspirational and emotional response. Certainly, at some point, we will see the a fortieri argument.

I do agree with you on certain points, i.e., the Bush administration was one of the worst the country has seen. Dick Cheney manipulated the lesser Bush for his own purposes; had he tried that with Daddy Bush, he would have been cut off at the knees.
Dubya wanted to get Saddam from day one for planning to clip Daddy Bush and he is a sorry human being for starting a war in Iraq while we were in Afghanistan. Everyone suffered for his arrogance and vengefulness. The Iraq war was not the direct result of 9/11. Perhaps a Constitutional amendment is in order that will not allow any more presidents from Texas or California until all the other states have had a turn.

Back to the topic at hand. Controlled demolition theories have no evidence. They have what some people think is evidence. Many assume that they know how the towers should have collapsed because of Hollywood disaster movies and because they didn't collapse that way, this must be evidence.
The only physical evidence that is being investigated are what appear to be paint chips and that are claimed to be highly engineered thermite. The experiments were completely botched and logic was dispensed with but the overwhelming desire to find a conspiracy, anywhere, has led true believers to accept this without question. These are the same true believers who insist that the NIST report was a put up job. They accept the words of those who failed to use the scientfic method, failed to properly analyze the materials, and provided a paper rife with speculation. Amusingly, when it suits those who want conspiracies, they apply their selective reasoning in the same fashion that they accuse others of doing.

As to the Pentagon and the "alarming information" that has generally failed to alarm anyone:

Witnesses saw the plane hit the Pentagon. What do you think happened?

Witnesses saw fires started from the impact. What do you think happened?

Witnesses recovered bodies from the plane. What do you think happened?




[edit on 9/19/2009 by pteridine]



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by A Fortiori

And yet I spoke of WMD...hmmmm?

I was using a very pragmatic, time-tested, approach that even the ancients could agree with and that is: Liars are liars. Never believe liars. Test the words of liars. Question liars.


But one cannot operate on assumptions. (In fact your claims about post 9/11 can be argued to be wrong in many respects. You can read the U.N. debates, for instance.) But to operate on the assumption that the "government" lied about 9/11 itself, as is the 9/11 Truth Movement's claim embodied in it's favorite religious chant, "9/11 was an inside job", and therefore the government has to "prove" it's innocence, is bassackwards, faulty reasoning and amounts to nothing more than an unsupported claim.


They proved themselves to be liars, they proved that they will stab each other in the back, they proved that they consider people collateral damage in the goal of getting what they want; that they are ends justifies the means types, so...

why wouldn't I question everything that they told me was "true"?

I would be stupid if I accepted their words face value.


But you operate on the faulty premise that all information is controlled by, and comes from, the government.


Quite frankly, the OS could be true, but I will question it, I will lean against it because of who told it to me.


As long as you operate under the 9/11 Truth Movement's fallacious claim that it's all an "official story" and that there is NOT evidence from thousands of different independent sources which informs us about what happened on 9/11 no matter what anyone claims about it, you'll remain stuck trying to cut down an Oak tree with a Weed-Whacker. As long as you delude yourself into thinking the "government" as a monolith organization with complete control of everything and everybody, capable of pulling off anything and successfully concealing it, even with the massive unknowns it would have to deal with, you'll never do what you need to do: provide positive evidence.


My assumptions? I assume nothing.


You're pretty clear about your assumptions.


I question everything, and I question it more when the person telling it to me is a known and reputed, unrepentant liar.


There's the assumption on which you operate but haven't demonstrated about 9/11 itself. In the end, YOU have to demonstrate it.


Tell me why I should trust a liar?


If you can demonstrate they lied about 9/11 - the subject matter of this forum and thread - then I will accept the evidence. But I do not rely on unsupported claims.


Don't deflect, either. Don't bring in 9-11. This is a general question.


It applies to the subject matter at hand: 9/11


Why should I trust a liar?


It's irrelevant whether you trust them or not. We all still require evidence. If we don't get the 9/11 Truth Movement's evidence for its claims, or that "9/11 was an inside job," none of us have any reason to believe 9/11 Truthers.

So, guess what the 9/11 Truth Movement has to do? And guess why it won't.



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 12:20 PM
link   
I'm not a firm believer in the official story and I admit to having seen just about all the documentaries on the subject. Here's one question I've never heard an explanation for...
Could someone plz answer me this; If a missile hit the pentagon and somehow managed to punch a hole through the walls of the 3rd ring, what is exploding at the outer ring? The thing is, I can't understand how a missile would be capable of doing damage to the 3rd ring of the building if it exploded on impact with the outer ring....Plz help me out here. Is there something I'm not getting?

I've seen anti tank weapons and such that in effect are hard metal rods accelerated by missiles. These weapons punch holes through a tank like it was made of paper, also there are bunker buster weapons with the capability to do the same to buildings(though these carry explosives). Anyways, are the 'any one' weapon that can account for this strange(at least to me)damage pattern?



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
You can provide no reason whatsoever why anyone should think the passengers' bodies did not exist. You can provide no reason to claim that the passenger bodies were not located and identified. None. Zero. Nada.


"no reason anyone...should think...passenger bodies were not located..."

= Negative Proof

It isn't really that complicated...

You haven't provided any evidence...



new topics

top topics



 
215
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join