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.

 

For all you DEBUNKERS!!!!!!!!

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 09:19 AM
link   
Hope that got your attention, as I see a a few threads here that you guys appear to miss (normally a thread not involving maths where six becomes a seven, science cannot be stretched, or the camera never lies, etcetera, etcetera), well here is one such thread, with a 115 points to discuss........

www.abovetopsecret.com...

We could go for the throat and deal with all 115 points in a fatal character defamation head shot, or actually face these glaring 115 omissions and explain to us why they were deemed not important to assessing the TRUTH (you guys do remember the true meaning of truth don`t you?), see you all there.




posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 


Always good for a laugh I must admit. DRG's 115..statements...are a mixture of lies and irrelevant statements, but when I have some time, I will go ahead and shoot some of them full of holes probably tonight.



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Always good for a laugh I must admit. DRG's 115..statements...are a mixture of lies and irrelevant statements, but when I have some time, I will go ahead and shoot some of them full of holes probably tonight.


LOL yep. I always have to roll my eyes at the David Ray Griffin crap. All you need to do is read the list to see it's either unsubstanciated he said-she said crap he got off some conspiracy web site (I.E. Bin Laden being at a US hospital in Dubai, missiles hitting the Pentagon) or it's crap that the commission report was never set up to investigate to begin with (I.E. why Bush stayed at the elementary school for as long as he did, Operation Northwoods). Then there's THIS comment-

24. The failure to explore why the Secret Service did not summon fighter jets to provide air cover for Air Force One

Just how the heck does the Secret Service not summoning fighter jet air cover prove *anything*, one way or the other? It's nothign but fluff to drop innuendo that somethign is suspicious is goign on, despite there being no worthwhile explanation for what that suspicion actually is.

Of course, these conspiracy people mindlessly swallow all this becuase I haven't encountered even ONE truther that ever actually read the 9/11 commission report. Only to the truthers does it make perfect sense to actively avoid looking at material relevent to the 9/11 attack. Please, Seventh, prove me wrong- did *you* read the 9/11 commission report?

[edit on 28-9-2009 by GoodOlDave]



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 01:57 PM
link   
Q24 - Is the one question that seems to be a little light. Air Force One usually does not have an escort, has undisclosed protective measures, and it was quite clear that no military style planes were involved directly in the crashes. Also, by the time Shrub was on it, the rest of the country was grounded.

However, that leaves 114 questions dismissed as irrelevant and lies. No actual argument or logic applied.
So for the 'debunkers' - Is there nothing that you question? Does nothing 'just sit wrong' for you?
You scream about the wack-job 'truthers' and their hair-brained ideas. If you are 100% behind the OS, then great. You are a good patriot.
Nothing just feels weird to you? Nothing?
Wow.



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seventh
Hope that got your attention, as I see a a few threads here that you guys appear to miss (normally a thread not involving maths where six becomes a seven, science cannot be stretched, or the camera never lies, etcetera, etcetera), well here is one such thread, with a 115 points to discuss........

www.abovetopsecret.com...

We could go for the throat and deal with all 115 points in a fatal character defamation head shot, or actually face these glaring 115 omissions and explain to us why they were deemed not important to assessing the TRUTH (you guys do remember the true meaning of truth don`t you?), see you all there.


I think you must first address the issue of context. You call these ommisions, however, they have not, in fact been ever declared valid or factual. Just because you ask why something has been omitted does not establish it as fact. First prove they are factual then discuss why they have been ommitted.



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 02:18 PM
link   
Please add further comments, questions or concerns to the ongoing discussion.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Thank you





-thread closed-




top topics
 
2

log in

join