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.

 

Shanksville Deconstructed - Part One...

page: 7
14
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rewey

It seems that it might shoot your credibility that you continue to lambast my initial comment, whilst continually IGNORING my offer to work with any values you guys provide... I mean, if you guys can't do it...?



Waypastvne has done 2.

They look ok to me.

Use that.




posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 11:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


Joey, you're still unable to supply the crater data about Shanksville?

Why is that? Why is it so difficult for you to educate everyone in this thread with some official government data about the size of the crater?

Like many other threads, your failure in this thread is well and truly noted.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Originally posted by tezzajw

Therefore, like Joey, you both believe the official government story about what happened in Shanksville, but you're both unable to supply any data about the specifics...

Tell me, trebor, who can we ask for the official government data? How can people, like you and Joey, believe what happened there, when you can't produce a single report supporting some simple data?

In your self alleged 25 year career working as 'civil servant' for the government DoD, I find it strange that you'll believe what your government tells you, without having any detailed specifics of the event.

Casual readers, many truthers are called nutjobs for wanting more transparent information about 9/11. trebor and Joey prove that the truthers have a valid point, when they can't produce data that's supposed to support their official government story.

Like Rewey, you both don't believe the official government story about what happened in Shanksville,


FOR THE 10 THOUSANDTH TIME, HOW CAN YOU BITCH AT THEM FOR NOT BELIEVING THE GOVERNMENTS STORY OR OFFICIAL STORY WHEN THE GOVERNMENT AND THOSE MAKING CLAIMS ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED IN SHANKSVILLE HAVEN'T GIVEN A BASIS OR OFFICIAL REFERENCE POINT INCLUDING FACTS AND DETAILS THAT MAKE UP WHAT YOU BELIEVE OR CLAIM THEY'RE INACCURRATELY REPORTING?!?!?!?!?

maybe i'm missing something, but what don't you understand? Or is this another example of how shills and perp payrollee trolls operate on ATS?

You've been repeatedly challenged to state what the official story is at shanksville and the data for the crash site yet you continue to EVADE and IGNORE this simple question while condemning THEM for not kNOWING or BELIEVING the "OFFICIAL STORY" which you don't even KNOW yourself.


Originally posted by Joey Canoli
but you're both unable to supply any data about the specifics...


IF THERE'S NO OFFICIAL DATA ABOUT THE SPECIFICS, HOW CAN YOU COMPLAIN ABOUT WHAT THEY'RE ATTEMPTING TO DO IN ORDER TO FILL IN THE BLANKS?

THE BURDEN ON SUPPLYING DATA AND SPECIFICS LIE WITH THE GOVT PERPS, NOT THEM.... BUT FOR SOME REASON (WHICH IS OBVIOUS) YOU'RE UNABLE TO DO YOURSELF BECAUSE YOU CAN'T... So, why do you accuse them of not believing an official story that has never been shown to exist or have any specifics as you and others claim? And if it doesn't have any specifics, WHY DO YOU A) BELIEVE IT and B) CONDEMN THEM FOR NOT BELIEVING WHAT YOU OR ANYONE ELSE CAN EVEN PROVE EXISTS?


Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Tell me, tezz, who can we ask for the data that support the OP?


GOOD QUESTION! So how can you claim their DATA is WRONG when you don't even know what the ORIGINAL DATA SAYS? And in that case, why and how can you continue BELIEVING in something that HAS NO LOGICAL DATA OR OFFICIAL EXPLANATION to support it?

You continue making yourself look foolish for all to see with each post you write.


Originally posted by Joey Canoli
How can people, like you and Rewey, not believe what happened there, when you can't produce a single analysis supporting the OP?


HOW CAN THEY PRODUCE AN ANALYSIS SUPPORTING THE OP IN THE WAY YOU WANT, WHEN THERE'S NO ANALYSIS AS A FRAME OF REFERENCE TO BEGIN WITH THATS SUPPOSED TO HAVE ORIGINATED FROM THOSE WHO HAVE CREATED THE OFFICIAL STORY INCLUDING GOVERNMENT SPOKESPERSONS, MEDIA AND NIST ETC?



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 07:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw


Joey, you're still unable to supply the crater data about Shanksville?

Why is that? Why is it so difficult for you to educate everyone in this thread with some official government data about the size of the crater?

Like many other threads, your failure in this thread is well and truly noted.


Rewey and Tez, you're still unable to supply the crater analysis about Shanksville?

Why is that? Why is it so difficult for you to educate everyone in this thread with some analysis about the size of the crater?

Like many other threads, your failure in this thread is well and truly noted.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Orion7911

FOR THE 10 THOUSANDTH TIME, HOW CAN YOU BITCH AT THEM FOR NOT BELIEVING THE GOVERNMENTS STORY OR OFFICIAL STORY WHEN THE GOVERNMENT AND THOSE MAKING CLAIMS ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED IN SHANKSVILLE HAVEN'T GIVEN A BASIS OR OFFICIAL REFERENCE POINT INCLUDING FACTS AND DETAILS THAT MAKE UP WHAT YOU BELIEVE OR CLAIM THEY'RE INACCURRATELY REPORTING?!?!?!?!?

maybe i'm missing something, but what don't you understand? Or is this another example of how shills and perp payrollee trolls operate on ATS?

You've been repeatedly challenged to state what the official story is at shanksville and the data for the crash site yet you continue to EVADE and IGNORE this simple question while condemning THEM for not kNOWING or BELIEVING the "OFFICIAL STORY" which you don't even KNOW yourself.

IF THERE'S NO OFFICIAL DATA ABOUT THE SPECIFICS, HOW CAN YOU COMPLAIN ABOUT WHAT THEY'RE ATTEMPTING TO DO IN ORDER TO FILL IN THE BLANKS?

THE BURDEN ON SUPPLYING DATA AND SPECIFICS LIE WITH THE GOVT PERPS, NOT THEM.... BUT FOR SOME REASON (WHICH IS OBVIOUS) YOU'RE UNABLE TO DO YOURSELF BECAUSE YOU CAN'T... So, why do you accuse them of not believing an official story that has never been shown to exist or have any specifics as you and others claim? And if it doesn't have any specifics, WHY DO YOU A) BELIEVE IT and B) CONDEMN THEM FOR NOT BELIEVING WHAT YOU OR ANYONE ELSE CAN EVEN PROVE EXISTS?

GOOD QUESTION! So how can you claim their DATA is WRONG when you don't even know what the ORIGINAL DATA SAYS? And in that case, why and how can you continue BELIEVING in something that HAS NO LOGICAL DATA OR OFFICIAL EXPLANATION to support it?

You continue making yourself look foolish for all to see with each post you write.

HOW CAN THEY PRODUCE AN ANALYSIS SUPPORTING THE OP IN THE WAY YOU WANT, WHEN THERE'S NO ANALYSIS AS A FRAME OF REFERENCE TO BEGIN WITH THATS SUPPOSED TO HAVE ORIGINATED FROM THOSE WHO HAVE CREATED THE OFFICIAL STORY INCLUDING GOVERNMENT SPOKESPERSONS, MEDIA AND NIST ETC?



FOR THE 10 THOUSANDTH TIME, HOW CAN YOU BITCH AT ME FOR NOT BELIEVING THE OP WHEN REWEY HASN'T GIVEN A BASIS OR ANALYSIS INCLUDING FACTS AND DETAILS THAT MAKE UP WHAT HE BELIEVES OR CLAIMS THEY'RE ACCURRATELY REPORTING?!?!?!?!?

maybe i'm missing something, but what don't you understand? Or is this another example of how delusional and willfully ignorant troofers operate on ATS?

Rewey's been repeatedly challenged for his analysis of the crater data for the crash site yet he continues to EVADE and IGNORE this simple question.

IF THERE'S NO OFFICIAL DATA ABOUT THE SPECIFICS, HOW CAN YOU ACCEPT WITHOUT A CRITICAL LOOK, AND THENCOMPLAIN WHEN WHAT THEY'RE ATTEMPTING TO DO IN ORDER TO FILL IN THE BLANKS IS SHOWN TO BE WILDLY INACCURATE?

THE BURDEN ON SUPPLYING DATA AND SPECIFICS LIE WITH THE OP, NOT ME.... BUT FOR SOME REASON (WHICH IS OBVIOUS) HE'S UNABLE TO DO IT HIMSELF BECAUSE HE CAN'T... So, why do you berate me for calling into question the OP that has never been shown to have any basis or have any specifics to back any of his claims? And if it doesn't have any specifics, WHY DO YOU A) BELIEVE IT and B) CONDEMN ME FOR NOT BELIEVING WHAT REWEY CAN'T EVEN PROVIDE?

HOW CAN THEY NOT PRODUCE AN ANALYSIS SUPPORTING THE OP IN THE WAY I WANT, WHEN Waypastvne HAS PROVIDED 2 PERFECTLY FINE EXAMPLES? THERE'S NO ANALYSIS AS A FRAME OF REFERENCE FROM REWEY TO BEGIN WITH THATS SUPPOSED TO HAVE ORIGINATED IN THE OP.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 08:00 AM
link   
Take another airplane and crash it just the way the OS claims.Load it with crash dummies.Film it for pay per view to pay for it.Let's see how much grass burns inside a real crater.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 08:10 AM
link   
Sounds like a great idea.

So go hit up Charlie Sheen to get the ball rolling.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
The SO is a lie. It is your choice to be ignorant if you choose.


Ummm, so I'm supposed to believe in these conspiracy stories entirely becuase some anonymous guy I've never met insists the Pentagon was hit by a cruise missile, the towers were hit by remote controlled air force bombers, the gov't faked a crash site in the middle of nowhere for no reason, and there are 100,000 disinformation agents planted throughout all walks of life with the single minded mission to trick me into believing we were attacked by terrorists so that we could invade that toilet of a country of Afghanistan whose only natural resource is camel dung, and if I don't believe what you tell me you're going to (gasp) call me ignorant...?

What are you, 15 years old, or something?



Here is a question that will show all of us what you are really up to and I dare you to answer it because, I don’t think you can, which will prove to me you are trolling for a fight with anyone who doesn’t believe in the OS , or if you really have some real proof of something very important, perhaps inside information from the WH.
Here is the question:

Why do you believe in the OS?


(sigh) Do you even bother to read the answers we post? Here is my response...AGAIN:

if you think the SO is wrong then it's you responsibility to give us an alternative scenario which better fits the facts, and that's ALL the facts, not just those one or two that you cherry pick, but so far, the only thing you've ever given us is innuendo, quotations taken out of context, bait and switch, and outright falsehoods, and I'll give you all the examples of that, that you'd want. That's not even counting the mountains of unsubstanciated accusations you make up off the tops of your heads to justify why your conspiracy stories are true,and I'll give you all the examples of THAT that you'd want, too. Heck, how the hell are we supposed to believe you when you're all but getting into fistfights amongst yourselves over what this secret conspiracy actually is supposed to be?

Then of course, is the REAL coup de gras- you conspiracy people really don't know diddly squat about the material you're posting here. You people seem to fancy yourselves that you're all advanced physicists, structural engineers, demolitions specialists, photo analysts, *and* crash site forensics experts, all without even getting out of your chairs. Heck, I haven't met a single one of you that even read the 9/11 commission report, and I'd have thought it would be your obligation to know what the report actually says before you tried to claim it's a lie.

Now that I recall, I specifically remember that YOU recoiled in horror at any attempt I made to get you to read a particular page in the 9/11 report, with the same dread that vampires run away from sunlight, telling me right there you're a BS artist. If even 1/100th of what you said was true, you'd be saying "bring it on!", not "Wahhh! Keep it away from me!"

Do you get it now?



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by impressme
The SO is a lie. It is your choice to be ignorant if you choose.


Ummm, so I'm supposed to believe in these conspiracy stories entirely becuase some anonymous guy I've never met insists the Pentagon was hit by a cruise missile, the towers were hit by remote controlled air force bombers, the gov't faked a crash site in the middle of nowhere for no reason, and there are 100,000 disinformation agents planted throughout all walks of life with the single minded mission to trick me into believing we were attacked by terrorists so that we could invade that toilet of a country of Afghanistan whose only natural resource is camel dung, and if I don't believe what you tell me you're going to (gasp) call me ignorant...?



Hey ignorant. Where do you get 100,000 from???? You think you can make a valid point by fabricating something rediculous and then shooting it down? There only needed to be a few people involved. All the disinfo agents are just ignorant right wingers that believe everything their government tells them - unless it is a black democrat.

Either way, you are incredibly ignorant. We did not invade Afghanistan. We sent a few troops there for show but to accomplish NOTHING. We invaded Iraq. I am not sure what war you have been watching but you got your facts wrong.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
FOR THE 10 THOUSANDTH TIME, HOW CAN YOU BITCH AT ME FOR NOT BELIEVING THE OP



Originally posted by Joey Canoli
IF THERE'S NO OFFICIAL DATA ABOUT THE SPECIFICS, HOW CAN YOU ACCEPT WITHOUT A CRITICAL LOOK,




Originally posted by Joey Canoli
THE BURDEN ON SUPPLYING DATA AND SPECIFICS LIE WITH THE OP, NOT ME....


Exactly.

The burden of proof is definitely on the Official Story believers.







[edit on 13-10-2009 by Jezus]



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus

Exactly.

The burden of proof is definitely on the Official Story believers.



No. the rational have already won. In the public's eye, the TM is insane.

In order to gain traction to get your new investigation, you must deconstruct the "os" in such a way as to convince the general public.

This would require evidence, having papers written and published in respected journals in the relevant field by respected professionals in their respective fields that refute the "os", and so on.

8 years later.... nothing but whining from the TM that no one listens to them.




posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by Orion7911

FOR THE 10 THOUSANDTH TIME, HOW CAN YOU BITCH AT THEM FOR NOT BELIEVING THE GOVERNMENTS STORY OR OFFICIAL STORY WHEN THE GOVERNMENT AND THOSE MAKING CLAIMS ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED IN SHANKSVILLE HAVEN'T GIVEN A BASIS OR OFFICIAL REFERENCE POINT INCLUDING FACTS AND DETAILS THAT MAKE UP WHAT YOU BELIEVE OR CLAIM THEY'RE INACCURRATELY REPORTING?!?!?!?!?



FOR THE 10 THOUSANDTH TIME, HOW CAN YOU BITCH AT ME FOR NOT BELIEVING THE OP WHEN REWEY HASN'T GIVEN A BASIS OR ANALYSIS INCLUDING FACTS AND DETAILS THAT MAKE UP WHAT HE BELIEVES OR CLAIMS THEY'RE ACCURRATELY REPORTING?!?!?!?!?


IF THERE'S NO OFFICIAL DATA ABOUT THE SPECIFICS, HOW CAN YOU ACCEPT WITHOUT A CRITICAL LOOK, AND THENCOMPLAIN WHEN WHAT THEY'RE ATTEMPTING TO DO IN ORDER TO FILL IN THE BLANKS IS SHOWN TO BE WILDLY INACCURATE?

THE BURDEN ON SUPPLYING DATA AND SPECIFICS LIE WITH THE OP, NOT ME....

HOW CAN THEY NOT PRODUCE AN ANALYSIS SUPPORTING THE OP IN THE WAY I WANT, WHEN Waypastvne HAS PROVIDED 2 PERFECTLY FINE EXAMPLES? THERE'S NO ANALYSIS AS A FRAME OF REFERENCE FROM REWEY TO BEGIN WITH THATS SUPPOSED TO HAVE ORIGINATED IN THE OP.


the BURDEN to PROVE what happened at Shanksville and provide EVIDENCE or DATA IS FIRST upon those making the CLAIMS about what the ORIGINAL STORY is there.

Before you can claim Rewey is wrong, you have to FIRST show what the OFFICIAL STORY and DATA says let alone even EXISTS.

You continue to evade the simple challenge to show where the OFFICIAL STORY explains and offers OFFICIAL DATA at Shanksville.

The reason you is because you can't... THERE IS NO OFFICIAL DATA to support the OFFICIAL STORY yet you and other debunkers BLINDLY BELIEVE what the Official story claims.

How can you claim REWEY is wrong, but agree the OFFICIAL STORY is right when there's no frame of reference or data to support the official story that you blindly accept is true?

Why don't you tell us what you think happened at shanksville?

If you can't, then how can you judge REWEY as wrong without also first judging what the OFFICIAL STORY CLAIMS??????!



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Orion7911

How can you claim REWEY is wrong,


Regarding the crater, it's pretty easy. He himself admits he's wrong about the 50' claim.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale
Hey ignorant. Where do you get 100,000 from???? You think you can make a valid point by fabricating something rediculous and then shooting it down? There only needed to be a few people involved.


"A few people involved"?!? What cartoon world are YOU living in? I'm going by the statements you conspiracy people are making, and the statements you're making are-

-the towers were rigged by controlled demolitions- That would not only require technicians, support personnel, truck drivers, etc, it would also include fourth columnists planted in NYPA security to open the door for them so that noone notices what they were doing in the first place.

-The aircraft that hit the towers were under remote control. I don't know how many people it would take to put a large aircraft into the air (air controllers, remote pilots, ground support, fuellers, etc, AND cover up their existence, but it has to be in the hundreds. And there were at least TWO of them. Oh, and how many hundreds of agents were there masquerading as passengers on these aircraft, again?

-a cruise missile hit the Pentagon. Same deal as the remote aircraft, but THis time it also includes the people who manufactured the fake wreckage, pre-broken light poles, etc to plant at the Pentagon site, as well as the guys who ran out onto the lawn to physically plant it AND the people who were out there pickign it all up.

-the crash site in Shanksville was faked. I have no idea how many people it would take to dig a giant hole to resemble a crash site, but it also includes the people who were pawing over the site "supposedly" picking up wreckage, bodies, etc and they were definitely in the hundreds. Don't forget that woman who took that photo of the rising smoke.

-all the witnesses, researchers, comission members, media, etc, etc are disinformation agents. Every single witness who saw that it was an airplane that hit the Pentagon, every researcher I.E. FAA, FEMA, NIST, MIT, Perdue, etc who calculated out the fires destroyign the towers, the people living near Shanksville, have to all be specifically be lying to you, not to mention the people over at NORAD. Don't forget that guy who driving the taxi by the Pentagon, either.

-That's not even counting the international organizations I.E. Germany, France, England, Saudi Arabia, Al Jazeera, etc who either gave us intelligence, or who we gave our intelligence to, showing it was a terrorist attack, and who obviously have to be going along with the conspiracy becuase they're in Afghanistan with us. Totalling all these people, factions, and organizations up, 100,000 people would be an extremely low figure for how many people it would take to pull off and keep it going.

This is what happens when you conspiracy people start mass producing conspiracies within conspiracies on top of conspiracies the same thoughtless way Hersheys makes chocolate kisses. Your stories and accusations grow to such gargantuously bloated proportions that you start losing track of your own claims and your own words inevitably come back to haunt you.


Either way, you are incredibly ignorant. We did not invade Afghanistan. We sent a few troops there for show but to accomplish NOTHING. We invaded Iraq. I am not sure what war you have been watching but you got your facts wrong.


50,000 troops from 37 countries in Afghanistan and you don't think it was an invasion. Good grief, where DO you characters come from, anyway?



[edit on 13-10-2009 by GoodOlDave]



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus
Exactly.

The burden of proof is definitely on the Official Story believers.


Oh really. I unscrewed tezz on this once before, so I guess you are next.

Look up the definition of "status quo". The way things are currently.

If you or someone else (tezz, for example) do not like the status quo, or if they do not like the way things are currently, *they* can work to change it. The burden of proof is on *them* if they do not like the status quo.

The burden of proof is on *you* to sell enough snake oil and create enough "50' craters" and make up enough stories recite the same old worn out phrases and claim the same old accusations that have been proven false a thousand times over to change peoples minds.

The burden of proof is on *you*, my friend.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Rewey and Tez, you're still unable to supply the crater analysis about Shanksville?

Guess what, Joey? I don't need to supply crater analysis... you know why? I'm not making any claims about the crater!

You believe that the alleged Flight UA93 made that crater, so you should supply me with all of the crater analysis to support your official government story.

So far, you've failed miserably.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451
Oh really. I unscrewed tezz on this once before, so I guess you are next.

Each and every time I have posted in a thread with you, trebor, I have shown your blatant failures in logic.

In this thread, you have still not shown any official government data about the crater. That's a failure on your part to support your story.


Originally posted by trebor451
Look up the definition of "status quo". The way things are currently.

Like other people who incorrectly fall back to the 'staus-quo' argument, trebor is showing his ignorance and his inability to supply some basic investigative data.

As a self alleged 25 year 'civil servant' with the government DoD, trebor wants all of you to believe that there is nothing to see here, so move along. He has not and will not supply any official government data about the crater.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Guess what, Joey? I don't need to supply crater analysis... you know why? I'm not making any claims about the crater!

You believe that the alleged Flight UA93 made that crater, so you should supply me with all of the crater analysis to support your official government story.

So far, you've failed miserably.


Guess what, Tezz? I don't need to supply crater analysis... you know why? I'm not the OP!

rewey doesn't believe that Flight UA93 made that crater, so he should supply me with all of the crater analysis to support his OP.

So far, he's failed miserably.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Guess what, Tezz? I don't need to supply crater analysis... you know why? I'm not the OP!

Guess what, Joey - you believe that the alleged Flight UA93 made that crater.

Therefore, you should be able to supply all of the government data about that crater.

Why can't you do that, Joey? You've failed again.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 06:09 PM
link   
OK Back on topic please.
If fuel went into the ground upon impact,it would not really burn untill there was enough oxygen to support combustion.I would expect a smouldering smoky fire that burned awhile.To see those guys walking around with no smoke says there was a fireball that consumed the fuel upon impact.So that grass would for sure have been FLATTENED away from the point of the center of the fireball.Or no plane.Wonder if it even smelled of kerosene.Or what it smelled like.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join