It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Concluding that 9/11 is a Government Conspiracy is Grotesque

page: 28
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 10:50 PM
reply to post by bsbray11

i'll back you on that, bsbray. in the same breath, it is hard to let baseless insults and plays on emotion go unchallenged in kind.
only zen masters are good at it.

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 01:29 AM

Originally posted by OldDragger
Why am I so attatched to what? The OFFICIAL STORY? I'm not!

I didn't ask WHY you were, I couldn't care less why someone is attracted to something grotesque so if anyones kidding themselves it is you because you are answering a question that was naver asked.

Posting such emotional things! You MUST be kidding! LOL!
Commenting on the general psycholigical state of any given group would neccessarily require an "emotional" component. Have I called anyone subhuman?

Well not only are you actking like the emotional component using all those exclamation marks but you seem to be the emotional catalyst as well.

Have you called anyone subhuman? You are like a bigot who uses the "N" word all the time but doesn't see himself as one because you didn't specifically use the word "racism"

I spent months reading the 9/11 threads and you know what? Nobody posted ANYTHING that convinced me. I no longer waste my time on them. What caught my eye was this thread that DARES to bring up and question the psychological state of the "truther" movement, something that the "truthers' cannot tolerate for an instant!

I'd think they'd be quite used to being called names by children of your psychological state.

In my view the "movement' has become a cult, a parody of itself.
It has put forth so many silly "theories', changed it's tune so many times, so much of it is based on cherished lies and misinformation that it no longer holds and credibility, nor do the "truthers' involved. Your refrences, your terminolgy, your very state of mind has become a bad cliche.

In YOUR view? You haven't given us YOUR view, you have only criticized those who had a point of view. What you said however is the same thing they say about your side.

That is when they are not busy trying to figure out a crime yourside never botherd to figure out and are too complacent with the piss poor alibi the Government paid for

But of course, I'm just a subhuman, just as bad as a mass murderer.

Are you? you seem to think that's funny yet the only people I could think of that would say how utterly pathetic and stupid a segment of our society is while not missing an opportunity to cajole and taunt, ridicule, derail do everything in their power to dis-credit them mock them even say they are simply out of style, is someone who has a vested interest in their NOT getting anywhere, not getting their curious foot in the door of forensic investigation. The only people I can imagine doing what you are, are those that may have something to lose, otherwise, quit being a hypocrite , don't participate in all that you say is disgusting and grotesque.

[edit on 7-9-2009 by Stylez]

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 01:49 AM
So, let it be clear.


Swampfox. Seriously. Do not try to tell me you have looked at all the information and used your brain and came to the same conclusions as the official story. When even the official story has officially been contradicted.

Pathos. We are done with your games. We stand strong. We have actually done the research. We are immune to your weak attempts at ridicule and ego attack.

It is cool, if you want to keep talking about our psychology. Keep analyzing our intentions and beliefs.

Keep fighting for those who loathe you.

Ever heard of the term, "useful idiot"?

if not, you are one.

There was time the earth was the centre of the universe...


Mod Note: Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 9/7/2009 by semperfortis]

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 01:56 AM

Originally posted by Pathos
Hahaha... Wow! I get blamed for running with the masses, but I was told that I am out numbered. It never stopped me before.

I guess Jesus and I have something in common.

[edit on 6-9-2009 by Pathos]

You just compared yourself with Jesus. No wonder you have it all figured out. Until I reach that stage I will continue to question the official STORY.

another one to ponder:
Why was Building 7 not mentioned in the Commision Report?

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 02:16 AM
Here is the question that NO ONE has answered and no one wants to explore. Not How or why the towers fell down because even if it was a CD that doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. It may implicate many but the question needs to be addressed NOT by truthers, but those who have acted so arrogant and are so sure the OS is what really happened. My question is

WHY DID THEY GET AWAY WITH IT! C'mon all you kitchen chemists, you garage grade engineers and you jail house lawyers fantasy fireman and wannabe cops and mightabeen military and has been bin laden profilers.

Give us your best, WHY did they get away with it, because HOW they got away with will only suggest so many keystone cop killjoys and cluster foul-ups, so many inept military and law enforcement, so much wasted billions in defense technology all having to be accountable for so many lies they had used so they wouldn't be the one to blame for all that I just mentioned, about the most horrific tragedy known as 911.

So the question to you is WHY did they get away with it because either someone or some people, allowed it which would be what the truthers have wanted to figure out OR, our Government is so damn stupid so inept in every branch of law enforcement to the military to our public officials that believing the "official alibi" they bought would make me JUST as dumb or trusting the same bunch of idiots because OBVIOUSLY they can't do shinola right, which would answer the question HOW,

they got away with it.

So why then would the OS be any less a mess?

It woudn't

Or is covering your ass and selling it to a bunch of skeptics the ONLY thing our Government is really good at?

If you start telling me HOW they did, then you already are as guilty as any truther for making excuses for thousands of experts having billions in defense budgets and law enforcement technology that couldn't handle 18 guys with box cutters and that my friends deserves another answer because if they gave you the right one you wouldn't have to tell me HOW so tell me, WHY did they get away with it.

You of all people must know pathos? Share with us how you came to trust such an honest and proessional bunch of bureuacrats ? Was it the precision in finding all four of the voice recorders ? Or was it the ineptitude of trained crash site proessionals that could only come up with one that had anything on it. Was it just stupid and dumb luck that has never happened before or was it perhaps our governement selling a coverup?

Is it that hard foro you to believe that it was a CD because all the training and many months of planning and man hours by expertly trained individuals in explosives and demolition that are required to bring a building of that size down on its own foundations footprint, that makes it so hard for you to believe it was a CD

Or was it just one HELL of a miscalculation by those same super smart engineers that us dumb truthers should believe that what YOU say takes all that technology manhours and many months of planning can be done simply and easily by using kerosene setting several floors on fire.

Oh but surely this was a fluke that you truthers believe!

Was it? Never happened before? Lets see if it could happen again on building two.

Lo n behold! WHO NEEDS CONTROL DEMOLITION ladies and gentleman ! WE GOT KEROSENE and all the skeptics said? Amen. Twoofers want us to believe, *Snip*

No we don't and to prove it, it was done again on another building that stands as a memory in most Americans eyes as the moment the truth hit them. That this was no accident, this was not hit by a plane and was fortified as a bunker. That was building 7 which was the third time in history such a freak destruction of a steel framed and bunker style fortified building could have come down like that. Rare as that is and considering the special ops it takes and all the man hours to do it the right way, what are the odds someone could get the same effect as all that know how all that man power and expertise using only deisel fuel setting s few floors a fire? If you think that is nuts, WHAT would you say if someone could get that freak a nature not once , not twice but three times! If you think that is crazy what if I told you that is you buy this BS now you get THREE yes THREE buildings on the same day !


If you buy the official alibi, you get to believe it happened THREE OUT OF TWO TRYS ! Yes ladies and gentleman if you buy now you get the third steel frame freak of fire for the price of two because that one they are throwing in without a plausible explanation!

You think we're done here? *Snip*

ya see we got some aircraft accidents that day that require the same leak in logic and rationale so be a skeptic won't you and tell us WHY oh WHY did they get away with it? Because if you put it the way I just did NONE of you would believe it so why should we

But then again you know our Government and how crappy they make military defense systems all those idiotic bunker buster bombs, WHO NEEDS EM Pathos says USE DEISEL FUEL!

I can keep putting the entire timeline of the events of 911 in perspective like that and you would see that is exactly how ridiculous the official alibi is when you put it in context they would have you believe and you wouldn't believe it.

That's why WE don't

Mod Note: 9/11 Conspiracies Forum Posting Conduct – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 7-9-2009 by Stylez]

[edit on 9/7/2009 by semperfortis]

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 02:51 AM

Originally posted by Pathos
I have answered all of your questions in prior pages. Please feel free to shift through them.

Hi Pathos, I assume you overlooked this question, so I give it another bump.

Originally posted by spacevisitor

Originally posted by Pathos
Here is your missing plane for Flight 77:

Pentagon Camera I
(Frame - 1:27) Visible plane nose.

Pentagon Camera II
(Frames - 0:25 to 0:26) Plane skimming the ground.

Its Pentagon surveillance footage.

Like I previously said. Its grotesque to think that people believe this was a conspiracy.

[edit on 5-9-2009 by Pathos]

You posted the above footage twice, so you are obviously convinced that it was really a Boeing 757 that crashed into the pentagon.
I would really appreciate it if you are willing to tell me your view or version about how that enormous plane could have slashed completely thru the pentagon wall.

Because there are more the one theories about it all.

I am especially interested in your view or version on how and where the wings, engines and tail slashed thru the wall before they entered the building, because I cannot find even one picture that clearly shows the damage for that.

Thanks in advance.

[edit on 7/9/09 by spacevisitor]

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 02:54 AM

Yea baby, that's what I'm talking about! Good show! This is why I love coming here.

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 03:04 AM

Originally posted by Pathos

It would be like saying Egypt attacked us, but we are going to attack Canada. Its not logical.

[edit on 4-9-2009 by Pathos]

It's 1 am now, I could indulge you with fountains of information. I'm tired, plus I'm sure it has already been said in the 28 pages or so.

Let me leave you with this quote:

If it doesn't make sense, then its probably a lie.
-Judge freakin Judy

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 03:58 AM
dude watch zeitgiest on google video and secrets of cia also on google video././ learn a thing or two about politics.. and what people who run this country will do for power and to stay in power. its caled a black flag policy.. i can go for days proving 911 was not an inside job by the president he is merely a puppet but by those who run this country

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 04:06 AM
I posted a couple times at the very beginning of this thread, then switched to my usual silent observer mode.

It is hard to discern precisely what the intention of this thread was, but my intuition tells me that on some level this thread has done nothing but further divide people into neat little boxes. I feel as though this was one of the primary goals of 9/11, not the only one however. It's done a great job unfortunately.

Pathos, I hope you meant well with this thread when all programming and negativity is stripped away, but its gotten harder and harder to see that and this turned into a complete mess. We should be focusing on that which unites us, not breaks us apart. In all truth I hope you can see the value of this and how unproductive and fruitless this turned out to be. Nobody changed anybodies beliefs, nobody came out on top, nobody won, for there is nothing to win in this.

Please stop pointing your fingers at each other.

Unless that was your intention all along Pathos, I do not know for certain.. I remain hopeful.

Be In Peace

[edit on 7-9-2009 by Asmus]

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 05:52 AM
I am not going to get into a debate about whether evil politicians or box wielding towel heads were behind 911.

I will say this though, I haven't had a BBQ at my place since 911 because after seeing what a small fire did to WTC7 I'm scared my house may collapse into it's own footprint!

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 08:39 AM

reply to post by spacevisitor

Here is your answer:
(You will find a picture of the wreckage and a blast expert's testimony who was on the scene.)

Popular Mechanics:
Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report

[edit on 7-9-2009 by Pathos]

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 08:41 AM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 08:56 AM
What ultimately happened is that everyone got me to search for evidence. After stumbling upon the Popular Mechanics article, also seeing the wreckage photo from the Pentagon, my beliefs were reinforced even more.

See my signature for full 9/11 myth debunking. It explains what everyone is asking about. Eye witness testimonials, experts who were on site, etc... More importantly photos.

Its nine pages long. Page 4, 5, and 6 are rather interesting.

Some of you guys were too busy mocking me, and you didn't see that I posted your answers. *Facepalm*

There was NO 9/11 conspiracy. See my signature.

[edit on 7-9-2009 by Pathos]

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 09:12 AM
reply to post by corusso

Why was Building 7 not mentioned in the Commision Report?

Because it wasnt in the Commission's charter...

The Commission was set up to examine the events of the day and the background behind them....and to gloss over the negligence of our elected officials dating back to the early 70s.

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 09:15 AM
So pointing out that his nick means "deceiving people" calls 4 censorship?

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 09:17 AM

Originally posted by C4Truth
So pointing out that his nick means "deceiving people" calls 4 censorship?

Off topic. I will entertain your question. It was the name of a friend who got killed in a car accident. We nicked named him Pathos. He was a good friend.

Back on topic please.

[edit on 7-9-2009 by Pathos]

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 11:53 AM

Originally posted by Pathos

reply to post by spacevisitor

Here is your answer:
(You will find a picture of the wreckage and a blast expert's testimony who was on the scene.)

Popular Mechanics:
Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report

[edit on 7-9-2009 by Pathos]

One photo? I looked at the site and all they can show is one measly photo of what appears to be small light weight debris. Where are the wings? And don't tell me they disintegrated. Quote from your article:

" A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns"

Truly, you can't be that naive. You don't ask any questions. Show me pictures of the wings.

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 11:59 AM
reply to post by FlySolo

Show me pictures of the wings.

You asked if the OP was naive. Surely YOU can't so naive as to expect the wings would have remained intact as they struck the building??

Simultaneously sheared/crushed/shredded/exploded totally destroyed.

WHY is that so hard to understand??

Confetti. Pieces. Little. ALL with the same forward momentum, BTW. Objects at those speeds don't just hit a building, and rebound backwards.


posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 12:06 PM
reply to post by Pathos

The Popular Mechanics article sounds credible in the beginning, and would make people forget all the 9/11 conspiracy theories out there.

I'd be glad if the article were correct. In that case I can continue living in a world of believing the government supports the people.

It's too bad though that most of the article is based on data provided by the NIST. The NIST is well known for fabricating proof to show that 9/11 happens as almost everyone believes. I wish!

The buildings were designed to survive plane crashes and jet fuel fires thus contradicting NIST’s predetermined theory.

Building designer John Skilling states that “our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel [from a plane impact] would dump into the building. [But] the building structure would still be there.”

NIST was aware of this statement and ignored it—outrageously claiming that it was an anonymous view!

Credible individuals thought that controlled demolition was a reasonable hypothesis and that the building should have survived a plane crash and its jet fuel fires; among them the building designers —so why weren’t alternative hypothesis such as controlled demolition examined as part of the NIST study as even a remote possibility?

Why was NIST so confident of their conclusions when the building designers stated that the buildings would survive exactly this kind of an event?

NIST ignored the controlled demolition hypothesis and the claims of the building designers.

How can we explain similar major fires such as the fires in Beijing and Madrid? Those building's structures were still standing after being burnt down.

The World Trade Center also did not have enough time to collapse naturally. Much less time than the buildings in Beijing and Madrid (many many hours of fire). I have mentioned this already in another thread with sources.

new topics

top topics

<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in