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.

 

Stand WITH us for 9/11 Truth!

page: 1
15
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 03:43 PM
link   




It is the right stand to take, and it is a powerful stand to take.

Join us, on the right side of history.

Thank you.




posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   
I'm afraid that I can't watch the videos because the kids are in bed and I am .phoneless, but based just on the sentiment I couldn't agree more.

9/11 truth is something that I vehemently believe in and I think that we, as truther - not ''twoofers" - (sorry, couldn't resist), need to take a stand.

In my day to day life, in discussions with people I come across, I offer the situtation as we see it. I offer them the truth. I give evidence. I give facts. I provide them with examples of contradictions and gaping crevasses in the 'official story.'

More often than not they start to question things, whichis a start and which I hope leads them on the path to enlightenment, truth and realisation.

I will watch the videos tomorrow but I applaud the sentiment and encourage others to do the same.

Take care, my friends.

Cado.



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 04:29 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


It's kinda late here and the JD is flowing, but do I detect sarcasm in your reply?

If not please accept my most unreserved apologies.



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 04:57 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 07:47 PM
link   



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
It is the right stand to take, and it is a powerful stand to take.

Join us, on the right side of history.

Thank you.


That's a rather absurd statement to make. First of all, it's blatantly obvious you truthers are joining the fight with preconceived notions of coverups and conspiracies, so you aren't looking for the truth. You're looking to have your own particular conspiracy stories certified as being what actually happened, regardless of what the truth actually is. You *want* these conspiracies of yours to be true.

Second, you can hardly call yourself a movement since there are more theories on what the conspiracy is than there are recipies on how to cook an egg, One person says it's controlled demolitions, another says it's laser beams from outer space, a third says it's nukes in the basement, yet another says there wasn't even any planes at all, and you're all but getting into fistfights with each other over all this crap. I ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY GUARANTEE that if, say, it turned out there really were controlled demolitions, the "Lasers from outer space" people will steadfastly refuse to accept it and continue to protest.

Who here says I'm incorrect, raise your hands.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 01:01 PM
link   

posted by OmegaPoint
It is the right stand to take, and it is a powerful stand to take.

Join us, on the right side of history.

Thank you.


posted by GoodOlDave

That's a rather absurd statement to make. First of all, it's blatantly obvious you truthers are joining the fight with preconceived notions of coverups and conspiracies, so you aren't looking for the truth. You're looking to have your own particular conspiracy stories certified as being what actually happened, regardless of what the truth actually is. You *want* these conspiracies of yours to be true.

Second, you can hardly call yourself a movement since there are more theories on what the conspiracy is than there are recipies on how to cook an egg, One person says it's controlled demolitions, another says it's laser beams from outer space, a third says it's nukes in the basement, yet another says there wasn't even any planes at all, and you're all but getting into fistfights with each other over all this crap. I ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY GUARANTEE that if, say, it turned out there really were controlled demolitions, the "Lasers from outer space" people will steadfastly refuse to accept it and continue to protest.

Who here says I'm incorrect, raise your hands.




Sure Dave; you are incorrect. Since many of the families of the WTC victims are all working tirelessly for a real investigation into 9-11; I will raise my hands.



Since many of the 503 WTC 1st responders who were ignored by the 9-11 Whitewash Commission are still eager to testify under oath to the explosions and demolition they witnessed; I will raise my hands.



Since that would necessarily entail a new real investigation so they could testify; I will raise my hands.



Since actual justice for wrongs committed in some strange way absolutely turns you off; I will raise my hands.



Since absolutely nobody responsible for protecting America and Americans has been punished for incompetence or dereliction of duty or treason; I will raise my hands.



Since many of those responsible for protecting America and Americans have been actually promoted and rewarded for incompetence or dereliction of duty or treason; I will raise my hands.



Since the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY official fantasy tale is self-destructing so wonderfully; I will raise my hands.



Since you just love to regurgitate stupid senseless strawman arguments such as laser beams from outer space again and again and again; I will raise my hands. Does that answer your question Dave?




posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston

Since the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY official fantasy tale is self-destructing so wonderfully; I will raise my hands.


Hmmm. If memory serves, it was YOU who not only admitted you never read the 9/11 report, you recoiled in horror at even the thought of reading it, with the same dread that vampires run away from sunlight. You are not anyone to be chiding others on regurgitating senseless arguments as you have not shown any ability to actually refute anything in the commission report on your own two feet. You're constantly having to look to some conspiracy web site or another to find out what to say.

I do not have to point out that, out of all the legitimate things in this world we need to be afraid of, from raging fires to armed criminals to being on the wrong end of a drunk driver, being afraid of an *idea* isn't fear, but abject cowardace.


Since you just love to regurgitate stupid senseless strawman arguments such as laser beams from outer space again and again and again; I will raise my hands. Does that answer your question Dave?


What the heck do you mean, "strawman arguments"? Not a day goes by that some truther or another here posts how a cruise missile hit the Pentagon, or how the crash site in Shanksville is fake, or whatever. Your partner in crime, "impressme", here, even admitted that he believes the planes that hit the towers weren't even passenger aircraft, but air force bombers. You need to wake up and look at what your compatriots are posting here, guy. I'm simply repeating what you truthers are trying to convince me of being "the truth", I'm not making anything up on my own.

If you really and truly think that any of these people are goign to admit their fringe conspiracy stories are wrong simply becuase some commission comes along and says they're wrong, you're in for a rude awakening on just how deep these flights of fancy runs in the truther movement...if such a fractured entity can actually be called a movement.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 01:52 PM
link   
You can count me in OP!

The truth shal set us free!

S+F!!!

Spreston:

Great POST!

[edit on 9/29/2009 by ugie1028]



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Only hand i raise is for how on earth 2 of the 3 planes was allowed to hit buildings after 1 flight hitted one?

Someone in your aerial commando must have pretty red ears, to neglect such a threat after one plane already had hitted a buidling.

Best regards

Loke.:.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 02:20 PM
link   
Can we count on fake cops causing trouble so they can bring out the Unlawful Assembly show again with the cops doing their scare tactics thing?

If so, sounds like a party. Bring ear protection.




[edit on 29-9-2009 by Copernicus]



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


The real issue is not with unnecessary theories such as nuclear weapons and space lasers, or even what really hit the pentagon. The real issue is with the things that we don't have to dig hard for to find, the things which are obvious and which we have been given no satisfactory answers for. The things which hundreds witnessed at ground zero, many of which are citizens like any one else, normal people who have nothing invested in any truther movement.

As far as I'm concerned the big three are:

1) Explosions & Flashing Lights at the Twin Towers
2) WTC 7 Collapse
3) Molten Lava

Every explanation we are given for these is insufficient as they either don't stand up to scrutiny or to scientific evidence which points in a completely different direction.

Read: wtc7.net...

In a full scale investigation many independent parties of scientists would all be performing these experiments and doing these calculations to come to a consensus of what happened to WTC 7.

We have photo's, videos, testimony, you can see and hear these things for yourself. You don't need to scrutinize grainy videos for mysterious clues or contemplate the possibilities of vast conspiracies to see that something doesn't add up.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston

Since the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY official fantasy tale is self-destructing so wonderfully; I will raise my hands.




posted by GoodOlDave

Hmmm. If memory serves, it was YOU who not only admitted you never read the 9/11 report, you recoiled in horror at even the thought of reading it, with the same dread that vampires run away from sunlight. You are not anyone to be chiding others on regurgitating senseless arguments as you have not shown any ability to actually refute anything in the commission report on your own two feet. You're constantly having to look to some conspiracy web site or another to find out what to say.



Really Dave? Well as usual, memory serves you wrong.

Do you see some legitimate reason why the 9-11 Whitewash Commission would refuse to interrogate the 503 WTC 1st responders who were eager and perfectly willing to testify under oath as to the explosions and demolition they witnessed in the WTC?

Do you see some legitimate reason why the 9-11 Whitewash Commission would refuse to demand that the NORAD and US Military officers who lied to them under oath be punished as required by US law? That was an official claim from the 9-11 Whitewash Commission wasn't it Dave?


Google Video Link


Do you see some legitimate reason why many members of the 9-11 Whitewash Commission would insist that they were set up to fail?





Are you afraid they are going to hang somebody Dave?




posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seventhdoor

As far as I'm concerned the big three are:

1) Explosions & Flashing Lights at the Twin Towers
2) WTC 7 Collapse
3) Molten Lava


Ah, so you've finally come out from behind that wall you're hiding behind. Excellent.

A) It is not for debate that there were fires burning within the towers, and it's not for debate that the towers were chock full of flammable items that would naturally go BOOM when they catch on fire (Electrical transformers, pressurized pipes, fire extinguishers, etc). The very fact that the explosions were completely random, *and* that the towers were still standing after the explosions...which crosses off demolitions right there...they were almost certainly the flammable objects that were exploding as the fires reached them in turn, mainly becuase we definitely would have heards them exploding, the longer the fires burned.

B) It is likewise not up for debate that wreckage from WTC 1 fell on and smashed up WTC 7. After that happened, all bets are off and you don't need to add any secret plots to justify what may have caused it to collapse.

C) It is likewise not up for debate that after the collapse, fires had been burning underground for weeks. All these "molten steel" quotes are referring to steel that had been exposed to these underground fires for lengthy periods of time, so you don't need any secret plots to justify *that*, either.



Every explanation we are given for these is insufficient as they either don't stand up to scrutiny or to scientific evidence which points in a completely different direction.


...but that does NOT give you the license to attempt to substitute any of these half baked claims which are even *more* insufficient (I.E. controlled demolitions and faked crash sites)particularly when they are based 100% on speculation. Besides, the main reason why you consider the answers to be insufficient is becuase you get all your information from these damned fool conspiracy web sites, who have as much expertise of examining thermal expansion of structural steel as I do of brain surgury.

If one more indoctrinated dope tells me to "watch Loose Change" or "listen to Alex Jones", I think I'm going to hit someone.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 04:27 PM
link   
The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie



by Dr. David Ray Griffin



In discussing my second 9/11 book, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, I have often said, only half in jest, that a better title might have been "a 571-page lie." (Actually, I was saying "a 567-page lie," because I was forgetting to count the four pages of the Preface.) In making this statement, one of my points has been that the entire Report is constructed in support of one big lie: that the official story about 9/11 is true.

Another point, however, is that in the process of telling this overall lie, The 9/11 Commission Report tells many lies about particular issues. This point is implied by my critique's subtitle, "Omissions and Distortions." It might be thought, to be sure, that of the two types of problems signaled by those two terms, only those designated "distortions" can be considered lies.

It is better, however, to understand the two terms as referring to two types of lies: implicit and explicit. We have an explicit lie when the Report claims that the core of each of the Twin Towers consisted of a hollow steel shaft or when it claims that Vice President Cheney did not give the shoot-down order until after 10:10 that morning. But we have an implicit lie when the Commission, in its discussion of the 19 alleged suicide hijackers, omits the fact that at least six of them have credibly been reported to be still alive, or when it fails to mention the fact that Building 7 of the World Trade Center collapsed. Such omissions are implicit lies partly because they show that the Commission did not honor its stated intention "to provide the fullest possible account of the events surrounding 9/11." They are also lies insofar as the Commission could avoid telling an explicit lie about the issue in question only by not mentioning it, which, I believe, was the case in at least most instances.







www.911truth.org...






posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Loke.

Only hand i raise is for how on earth 2 of the 3 planes was allowed to hit buildings after 1 flight hitted one?

Someone in your aerial commando must have pretty red ears, to neglect such a threat after one plane already had hitted a buidling.

Best regards

Loke.:.


They weren't *allowed* to hit the buildings. After the first plane hit and the remaining planes had been identified as being hijacked, orders on how to handle them were jumbled and passed down through the chain of command poorly. The planes had shut off their transponders so air traffic controllers didn't even know where they were .ing.

All this was explained in the 9/11 commission report. You may not agree with the answers the report gives us, but you would at least have had an answer.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by OmegaPoint




It is the right stand to take, and it is a powerful stand to take.

Join us, on the right side of history.

Thank you.


love the rush of energy from this vid



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston
Do you see some legitimate reason why the 9-11 Whitewash Commission would refuse to interrogate the 503 WTC 1st responders who were eager and perfectly willing to testify under oath as to the explosions and demolition they witnessed in the WTC?


Yes I do, actually- the commission had to investigate hundreds and hundreds of people, from FAA controllers to NORAD officials to William Rodriguez to even the former girlfriend of Mohammed Atta, many of them already giving the same information the responders did. They simply weren't able to interview all 500,000 people inb Manhattan who were in the vicinity of the WTC complex. They'd still be working the investigation even today.

Your problem is that you get all your information from those damned fool conspiracy web sites, which is no doubt the same place you got the incorrect idea that anyone is actually refuting there were explosions. It's you truthers who got the idea they were actually explosive devices, rather than any of the flammable items already in the building going BOOM as the fires reached them.


Do you see some legitimate reason why the 9-11 Whitewash Commission would refuse to demand that the NORAD and US Military officers who lied to them under oath be punished as required by US law? That was an official claim from the 9-11 Whitewash Commission wasn't it Dave?


Now, WHY do you have to resort to pulling these misrepresentation games, spreston? I've been following this too, and they all but admit they've been covering up and misrepresenting their incompetence in their response to the hijackings, which only supports MY suspicion- that the gov't was stumbling into walls and slipping on banana peels more that they were telling us- and completely refutes YOURS- that the gov't was able to perform such an insanely detailed, intricate plot with the sheer perfection of an act of God in the first time in recorded human history.

This is how I know your conspiracy stories are absurd right off the bat- there's no way the gov't *could* pull off anything so inticately complex without stumbling into walls and slipping on banana peels.


Do you see some legitimate reason why many members of the 9-11 Whitewash Commission would insist that they were set up to fail?


You continue to omit the fact that these same members (namely, Lee Hamilton) ALSO says that so far, his report is still holding up on its own and has more credibility than its critics.

When I say these damned fool conspiracy web sites you're getting all your information from are deliberately misrepresenting the material they're giving you in order to instigate false public unrest, you're NOT exactly proving me wrong, guy.



Are you afraid they are going to hang somebody Dave?


No, I'm not. The thing is, if they're really going to hang someone I want them to be hanged becuase they really are legitimately responsible for the attack, rather than over some ridiculous story being circulated around the Internet. Besides, if these gov't spooks that planted the controlled demolitions in the towers are so secret that even Pres. Obama doesn't know who they are, who the heck are you going to hang, anyway?

OR, is Pres. Obama in on the secret plot, too? To tell you the truth, the wild claims of you truthers have spun so badly out of control, I've lost track of what you conspiracy people believe.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
It is the right stand to take, and it is a powerful stand to take.

Join us, on the right side of history.

Thank you.


That's a rather absurd statement to make. First of all, it's blatantly obvious you truthers are joining the fight with preconceived notions of coverups and conspiracies, so you aren't looking for the truth. You're looking to have your own particular conspiracy stories certified as being what actually happened, regardless of what the truth actually is. You *want* these conspiracies of yours to be true.

Second, you can hardly call yourself a movement since there are more theories on what the conspiracy is than there are recipies on how to cook an egg, One person says it's controlled demolitions, another says it's laser beams from outer space, a third says it's nukes in the basement, yet another says there wasn't even any planes at all, and you're all but getting into fistfights with each other over all this crap. I ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY GUARANTEE that if, say, it turned out there really were controlled demolitions, the "Lasers from outer space" people will steadfastly refuse to accept it and continue to protest.

Who here says I'm incorrect, raise your hands.


HAND UP!!!!!!

While I agree on the second part, the first part is way off. Are you honestly claiming that all of these people you also say are not a movement or cohesive group are all also part of a cohesive group that all agree together that before any of this happened they already thought there was a conspiracy? You mean that "truthers" knew it was a conspiracy on September 10th?



new topics

top topics



 
15
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join