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.

 

What are you afraid of?

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


1. You obviously disregarded or did not hear his testimony, however medical records and other witnesses confirm it. You should watch his testimony before you quote on it.

2. The news archives clearly show that the police suspected bombs. You don't stop suspecting that until you investigate it, no investigation took place.


He himself admits that someone else (who he never identifies) told him that the second explosion he heard was from the plane strike, which THAT person couldn't know because that person had to have been outside the building and wouldn't know what was happening inside. More likely, the first explosion he heard was from the plane strike and the second was a followup explosion caused by the plane strike.


Its likely that an explosion that came from the floor underneath was a plane strike? Where did you get that notion? He said the third explosion was the plane strike in his testimony. It is 100% certain that protocol was NOT followed in this scenario, so again, what are you afraid of? I have only heard one answer so far, even though so many vehemenently oppose.




posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
1. You obviously disregarded or did not hear his testimony, however medical records and other witnesses confirm it. You should watch his testimony before you quote on it.


All right, I'll bite- how do medical records confirm William Rodriguez' testimony that there was an explosion before the plane struck his building? That's a new one on me.


2. The news archives clearly show that the police suspected bombs. You don't stop suspecting that until you investigate it, no investigation took place.


That's right, they did suspect bombs..mainly becuase there were bombs planted back in 1993 so of course that's the firct thing they would suspect. That doesn't mean that's what they were.

...and who told you that no investigation took place? Lee Hamilton of the 9/11 commission report specifically said they had engineers look at the remains and they found no evidence of explosives. The problem isn't that there weren't investigations. The problem is that you don't want to agree with their findings.


Its likely that an explosion that came from the floor underneath was a plane strike? Where did you get that notion? He said the third explosion was the plane strike in his testimony. It is 100% certain that protocol was NOT followed in this scenario, so again, what are you afraid of? I have only heard one answer so far, even though so many vehemenently oppose.


I can't really tell you what I'm afraid of since you haven't mentioned what it is I'm supposed to be afraid of. I'm certainly not afraid of having more investigations, if that's what you're referring to. My motto is that it's fallacy, not the truth, that need fear critique, so have as many investigations as you want, as far as I'm concerned. My beef is that if these mysterious explosions turns out to be something ordinary and non-conspiracy in nature...and they will...the conspiracy people will refuse to believe it becuase they're NOT out to learn the truth. They're out to promote these conspiracy stories regardless of what the truth is.

I don't have to tell you that the conspiracy people can't even agree amongst themselves as to what the secret conspiracy even is. Even if the investigation did show controlled demolitons I guarantee that the "laser beams from outer space" people will refuse to believe it on principle.

Do you disagree?



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 05:00 PM
link   
Originally posted by GoodOlDave



You are contradicting yourself. If the building was "designed to absorb energy" as you say then there shouldn't have been *any* seismic activity reported, aircraft impact OR demolitions. The building would either absorb the shock or it wouldn't. Besides, every video footage in existence shows the initial structural failure was up at the ninety-somethingth floor, at the point of impact, and this cannot be refuted. Planting explosives below ground would have had no effect on the chain reaction of structural collapse above ground, and thus, would have been pointless.
[edit on 10-9-2009 by GoodOlDave]


Dave my whole point with the seismic data is thus... It registers through the ground, this is why they cannot be 100% sure that the two recorded seismic data activities where caused by planes, these were both before times of impact 14 and 17 seconds respectively, there was a lot of evidence evolving around ground floor explosions, we know exactly to the second the time of both impacts, any agency that puts forward time with any report have obtained that time using the U.T.C. We know that the Pentagon impact did not register seismic data and that was near the ground, so does it not stand to reason that planes hitting a target 800 - 1000 feet higher have less chance of registering, especially when the target absorbs energy.

I am not trying to ridicule you Dave but I simply think you do not fully understand this part or you would not state I am contradicting myself, here.....



It clearly shows time of data, and times of impacts, and pretty much conclusive proof that the two data recordings were not caused by planes, they cannot be, everyone uses the same time source.

So the explosions were low enough to the ground to register, also the various films and eye witness accounts verify this, there is even a fireman related film where you can see this event happening.

Please do not make me explain this again lol.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 05:20 PM
link   

...and who told you that no investigation took place?

The NIST report.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 06:38 PM
link   
There is nothing of which to be afraid so it's silly to ask a question that way. But that's the nature of the beast.

There could be another investigation but it wouldn't be what 9/11 "Truthers" would want.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 07:06 PM
link   
1. You obviously disregarded or did not hear his testimony, however medical records and other witnesses confirm it. You should watch his testimony before you quote on it.

All right, I'll bite- how do medical records confirm William Rodriguez' testimony that there was an explosion before the plane struck his building? That's a new one on me.

Becasue you didn't watch the news archives at the top of the page. I've mentioned it several times but you aren't interested.

2. The news archives clearly show that the police suspected bombs. You don't stop suspecting that until you investigate it, no investigation took place.


That's right, they did suspect bombs..mainly becuase there were bombs planted back in 1993 so of course that's the firct thing they would suspect. That doesn't mean that's what they were.

That is 100% inference on your part.

...and who told you that no investigation took place? Lee Hamilton of the 9/11 commission report specifically said they had engineers look at the remains and they found no evidence of explosives. The problem isn't that there weren't investigations. The problem is that you don't want to agree with their findings.


Its likely that an explosion that came from the floor underneath was a plane strike? Where did you get that notion? He said the third explosion was the plane strike in his testimony. It is 100% certain that protocol was NOT followed in this scenario, so again, what are you afraid of? I have only heard one answer so far, even though so many vehemenently oppose.


I can't really tell you what I'm afraid of since you haven't mentioned what it is I'm supposed to be afraid of.
Then you should just say "nothing" instead of spending the following pearagraph defending something you haven't said. You cant have a beef with something before it happens in the real world
I'm certainly not afraid of having more investigations, if that's what you're referring to. My motto is that it's fallacy, not the truth, that need fear critique, so have as many investigations as you want, as far as I'm concerned. My beef is that if these mysterious explosions turns out to be something ordinary and non-conspiracy in nature...and they will...the conspiracy people will refuse to believe it becuase they're NOT out to learn the truth. They're out to promote these conspiracy stories regardless of what the truth is.

I don't have to tell you that the conspiracy people can't even agree amongst themselves as to what the secret conspiracy even is. Even if the investigation did show controlled demolitons I guarantee that the "laser beams from outer space" people will refuse to believe it on principle.

Do you disagree?

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, and therefore dont care.



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 02:06 PM
link   
I don't think any reasonable person has ever objected to a second inquiry.

Those who have looked at the results of the first one and seen the Truther community's response are reconciled to the results. An enhanced understanding of what went on, hopefully with a lot of corrections of incorrect initial assumptions.

The Truthers will cry foul without a doubt. They will say they were deprived of access to every steel beam in the WTC, one and a half million tons of debris, hidden Pentagon photos, and on and on.

Myself I'd love to see an adjunct investigation into an area that so far has eluded scrutiny. The indiscriminate presentation to the public of willfully incorrect information and selected data to give people the impression that the investigations and results they've been shown are a pack of lies. That firefighters and medical crews, some of whom lost their lives, and members of the general public as witnesses, are perpetuating a massive conspiracy against their fellow citizens.

There is a whole new generation of kids curious about the biggest event in their lifetime, scouring the Net and hitting on the first pages or Youtube sources telling them things like the US admininstartion engineered the murder of 3000 Americans, and with the help of the Israeli government.

No one complains about this. There are very liberal tolerant laws regarding freedom of expression in the US. But some would interpret this as outright sedition along with the promotion of hatred.

I'd love to see an investigation of the hundreds of sites and video providers comprising the sub-industry that feeds off 9/11.

Some very interesting revelations there, I'm sure.

Mike



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
The Truthers will cry foul without a doubt. They will say they were deprived of access to every steel beam in the WTC, one and a half million tons of debris, hidden Pentagon photos, and on and on.


You assume way too much and your ignorance seems to grow daily. People like me simply want a real investigation. It would be nice if things were actually looked into and the hard parts to explain were not simply omitted. I would not cry foul at all if a real investigation took place and ended up confirming the OS. I just highly doubt that it would. Why else would so much be ignored, overlooked, left out if there was not some intent to promote a particular narrative.

Why is it that you cannot deal with facts? The present and the past would be good starting points. Talking about what 'truthers' may or may not do or say as a result of a second investigation.

You and your kind seem to love this little line. Telling us that we will not believe you anyway and that we will refuse to look at real evidence. Well, if the story you believe in is true, then why haven't you already provided this evidence that we can we can react to the way you predict we would? Where is it? Let's see.



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale

You assume way too much and your ignorance seems to grow daily. People like me simply want a real investigation. It would be nice if things were actually looked into and the hard parts to explain were not simply omitted. I would not cry foul at all if a real investigation took place and ended up confirming the OS. I just highly doubt that it would. Why else would so much be ignored, overlooked, left out if there was not some intent to promote a particular narrative.

Why is it that you cannot deal with facts? The present and the past would be good starting points. Talking about what 'truthers' may or may not do or say as a result of a second investigation.

You and your kind seem to love this little line. Telling us that we will not believe you anyway and that we will refuse to look at real evidence. Well, if the story you believe in is true, then why haven't you already provided this evidence that we can we can react to the way you predict we would? Where is it? Let's see.


We know what Truthers believe. There are hundreds of sources where they put their beliefs in clear unambiguous language. We also see clearly how they ignore facts in favour of selected snippets of information, dot connecting distortions, often even outright lies.

There is no bloody OFFICIAL STORY except in the deluded minds of those unwilling to acknowledge attacks on the US by foreign enemies. They have even told us so.

Details and back story of US prior knowledge and concealment are coming out. Mistakes and culpability will hopefully be acknowledged. Those criminally liable will hopefully be successfully prosecuted.

But the people who continually choose to push forward their ignorant, misguided, often deceitful theories and commercial agendas are given a free pass.

Like yourself they love to act outraged, indignant, betrayed. Well maybe someone should be pointing a finger at those who flagrantly distort and misrepresent in the name of Truth.

We know pretty clearly who attacked the US 8 years ago. We know their names, their methods, their means, even their sources of funding. Deflection from these vital concerns comes in an obsession of finding the US admin at the time responsible for these attacks. That admin and others in private enterprise are guilty of any number of self-serving crimes and negligence. That is where the focus needs to lay.

There were many questions about what exactly happened in the aftermath of 9/11. It took considerable time before answers were made available. The physics, chemistry, thermodynamics, demolition aspects the attacks have been examined and analyzed by professional experts in a dozens of countries. Their conclusions on the whole are consistent.

On US direct involvement, there’s is no tangible evidence or credible testimony showing planted explosives in the WTC complex, a faked plane attack on the Pentagon, Flight 93 being shot down, and other shared theories and outright delusions being put forth.

Many may not like this assessment. But they have not presented alternative scenarios with anything resembling proper documentation. Endless talk and theories, not much else.

After 8 years, with thousands seeking contrary evidence, and nothing convincingly solid emerging, one takes that as an indicator of the strength of their case.

Where is the UNOFFICIAL STORY. The whole world is waiting?

Mike



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


Mike, are you aware that those foreign enemies were practically invited into thge US, that many of them trained on US bases, and that some were actually housed by FBI agents?

You don't know the facts - you just assume.



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
reply to post by mmiichael
 


Mike, are you aware that those foreign enemies were practically invited into thge US, that many of them trained on US bases, and that some were actually housed by FBI agents?

You don't know the facts - you just assume.



The bigger picture is complex, involving a lot of people, agencies, businesses, in many countries.

I have been an independent journalist. I'm in contact with a lot of people in a lot of countries, with many political dispositions. A pretty clear picture has emerged for those wanting to know what happened.

It is well-documented, despite attempt at suppression, that members of the Saudi royal family, their bankers and private sympathizers were the primary funding source for the 9/11 project. We know how top members of the Pakistani military intelligence, ISI, were involved in training and co-ordination. There's a long list of other perpetrators in countries like Turkey, Egypt, Yemen, elsewhere.

Governments are complex with divisions often autonomous, secretive, sometimes in collusion with malign forces. But the questions who did what and why is critical in appropriating guilt. One simply cannot call a government Evil because of the participation of individuals or even whole branches within.

In the case of 9/11, in fact the President, George Bush, was directly complicit in withholding vital security information after, and likely before the attacks. That needs to be addressed through the legal system and hopefully will be.

But debating how many seconds it took WTC7 to collapse, how big the hole is in the Pentagon wall does not move this process forward. As Chomsky astutely pointed out, the entire activist power in America has been hijacked by the Truther movement. Instead of redressing economic disparities, corruption, abuse of power – the quest has become deflected into conspiracy trivial pursuits.

9/11 investigation need to be more than playing Youtube Sherlock Holmes. Stump the debunkers. It started as serious enquiry into deceit and corruption at the highest levels. It's become a form of entertaiment, almost a videogame. Tragically.

One might think the guilty parties involved in 9/11 are pushing this diversion from themselves.

Trust me, there are people working on that one as I type.

Mike



[edit on 13-9-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
We know what Truthers believe. There are hundreds of sources where they put their beliefs in clear unambiguous language. We also see clearly how they ignore facts in favour of selected snippets of information, dot connecting distortions, often even outright lies.


Really? So the noplaners, hologram folks, flyover people, and the people the just think something is not right are all saying the same thing?????????????????????????????????

Can you please clear that up????


There is no bloody OFFICIAL STORY except in the deluded minds of those unwilling to acknowledge attacks on the US by foreign enemies. They have even told us so.


Then let me ask you the same question Jthomas refuses to answer.

If there is no official story, what would you like to call the narrative put forth to us by the president, vice president, and secretary of defenseDetails and back story of US prior knowledge and concealment are coming out. Mistakes and culpability will hopefully be acknowledged. Those criminally liable will hopefully be successfully prosecuted.




posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale
Then let me ask you the same question Jthomas refuses to answer.

If there is no official story, what would you like to call the narrative put forth to us by the president, vice president, and secretary of defense.


The Bush admin deferred to press releases by government sources on the events of 9/11, the perpetrators, the military and intelligence. The broadcast media used these as a primary source. I guess that is what some think of as the Official Story. No one with a critical mind takes it all seriously. It’s just a starting point.

There is far more out there. Independent journalists, authors worldwide have researched, expanded, critiqued US government provided information with their own investigations. These appear in books, better magazines, professional journals, upscale newspapers.

A wealth of reasearch and firsthand gathered information from top political reporters and analysts is out there. They often condemn the Bush administration and are aware of the realpolitik, international collusions, deceptions and self-serving lobbyist manipulations.

These works are freely available. They do not try to simplify extremely complex fact gathering and analysis to fit onto a web page or Youtube.

Now much of the material is available online. There are many political, scientific, historical forums where data and views are exchanged by highly knowledgeable people. Blogs abound with fascinating insights from professionals and pundits.

Selectively choosing from the wealth of material is how serious research is done.

If you find bias and shortcomings with what you read, it means you’re reading the wrong material. It’s all out there if you want to look.

M



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


Wow that is stretching it. What a load of babbling nonsense.

There is a story about 9/11. This story is that 19 middle eastern Muslim extremists hijacked 4 planes and crashed them into NY, PA, and the Pentagon.

This is the story we were told. This is the story that everyone is expected to repeat and believe. This is the story officials told us.

Of course there is more, there is always more. Why do you suppose there is a truth movement to begin with? Because people believe there is more. There is always more to any story but you know exactly what people mean when they say "official story." Thomas just thinks he sounds more educated when he uses the word "canard." Unfortunately, when you use it 30 times in 4 threads it loses is punch as an intelligent use of language. You know this story and I know this story. Why is it that we both know this story? Oh, because it is the Official Story.



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale
reply to post by mmiichael
 


Wow that is stretching it. What a load of babbling nonsense.

There is a story about 9/11. This story is that 19 middle eastern Muslim extremists hijacked 4 planes and crashed them into NY, PA, and the Pentagon.

This is the story we were told. This is the story that everyone is expected to repeat and believe. This is the story officials told us.


You really can't read. Anything you can't comprehend is nonsense.

A few thousand investigative reporters from all over the world, conclude the plot was hatched, co-ordinated, executed by Muslim extremists.

Noam Chomsky the most prominent vocal critic of the US government, thinks Muslim extremist did it.

Muslim extremists, some captured and testifying, say Muslim extremists did it.

Muslim extremist websites say Muslim extremists did it.

Of course that's all part of the big cover-up? Right?

Santa Claus did it. Reindeer seen flying over the Pentagon. They won't relese the pictures.

M



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 01:00 AM
link   
It's not going to matter.

lives were lost, either way. it's a horrible shame. but, an investigation would just be covered up and buried, most likely.



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
You really can't read. Anything you can't comprehend is nonsense.


Please read the underlined sentence and then tell me again how poor my reading comprehension is. When did I say I had trouble understanding something? When did I call anything nonsense?

Just what is it that I have not read that has been put forward? If you are going to claim I have a problem reading, please explain what it is I was supposed to be reading? I read all of your posts and responded to them as there are. Where is there a reading problem?

That's right, I forgot that when OSers get cornered, they resort to personal attacks. Does mocking my ability to read make your case about 9/11?


A few thousand investigative reporters from all over the world, conclude the plot was hatched, co-ordinated, executed by Muslim extremists.

Noam Chomsky the most prominent vocal critic of the US government, thinks Muslim extremist did it.

Muslim extremists, some captured and testifying, say Muslim extremists did it.

Muslim extremist websites say Muslim extremists did it.

Of course that's all part of the big cover-up? Right?

Santa Claus did it. Reindeer seen flying over the Pentagon. They won't relese the pictures.

M



Well, then I guess it would be pretty easy to prove then, right? Talk about reading comprehension problems. Why are you shifting the topic? This is a usual tactic of your kind. Keep responding a little more off topic until we have completely abandoned the questions you could not answer. I keep asking you to prove stuff, back stuff up and all you have done is rant.

[edit on 14-9-2009 by Lillydale]

[edit on 14-9-2009 by Lillydale]



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 03:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by mmiichael
You really can't read. Anything you can't comprehend is nonsense.


Please read the underlined sentence and then tell me again how poor my reading comprehension is. When did I say I had trouble understanding something? When did I call anything nonsense?


Well thanks for demonstrating what I didn't want to say. Your brain is fried.

Your exact words in this message:



posted on 13-9-2009 @ 11:41 PM

Originally posted by Lillydale

reply to post by mmiichael

Wow that is stretching it. What a load of babbling nonsense.


Commenting further would be a waste of time.

Hey! They found reindeer droppings on the Pentagon lawn.

Proof! It was Santa Claus.


M



[edit on 14-9-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by mmiichael
You really can't read. Anything you can't comprehend is nonsense.


Please read the underlined sentence and then tell me again how poor my reading comprehension is. When did I say I had trouble understanding something? When did I call anything nonsense?


Well thanks for demonstrating what I didn't want to say. Your brain is fried.

Your exact words in this message:



posted on 13-9-2009 @ 11:41 PM

Originally posted by Lillydale

reply to post by mmiichael

Wow that is stretching it. What a load of babbling nonsense.


Commenting further would be a waste of time.

Hey! They found reindeer droppings on the Pentagon lawn.

Proof! It was Santa Claus.


LOL. Ok, you got me. You are absolutely right. I did call your postings nonsense. How about that. You win. You do post some complete nonsense.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 01:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale
Ok, you got me. You are absolutely right. I did call your postings nonsense. How about that. You win. You do post some complete nonsense.


Yeah, I actually even say a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon.
Wish I was as smart as you.

M




top topics



 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join