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.

 

Don't be fooled by ATS' professional debunkers

page: 26
118
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
If you want to continue in history, I can point out that we trained/supplied Ho Chi Minh during World War II (and he was responsible for far more American deaths than Saddam Hussien)

While you're at it, you could point out the phony Gulf of Tonkin incident that never happened, which led to the deaths of 50,000 American troops and millions of Vietnamese.

Sound familiar to any current situations?


I don't remember any torpedo boats being sunk recently. And if you knew your history it wasn't a us ship that sunk. So no i don't see any thing similar going on now care to elaborate?




posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 06:26 PM
link   
I consider Swampfox46_1999 to be a prime example of what this thread is all about.

How is the pay these days, in tough economic times I can't say I blame you.

But then again Judas made some good coin too, back in the day.

[edit on 5-12-2009 by Blue_Jay33]



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Lillydale
 


You used my quote to impressme as start of your post. Try and keep up.


That is not how pronouns work in the English language. I typed in English and you typed in English so I was under the impression that was the language we were both using.

If the pronoun "him" or he or his is actually defined as referring to the first person referenced in a list then by all means correct me and show me how I was wrong.

Until then, you might try actually debating the facts and reality of 9/11 instead of trying so hard to deflect and run away.

I believe you were asked quite clearly if you lied. I think this is important in light of all the lies flying around from the OS team lately.

Now, I can ask again but I am afraid that my use of the English language seems to be throwing you off. I will try anyway.

Did impressme say what you claim he said or are you wrong (lying) about that?

[edit on 12/6/09 by Lillydale]



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Umm, no it doesnt matter how old they are. Just because they are only potent to kill 100 people as opposed to 10,000, is irrelevant.


LOL. Thank you so much. What language is your native toungue? Maybe if we both try that one, you will make sense as well as understand others. Can you define the word "Mass?" It is actually extremely relevant whether or not a chemical actually qualifies as WMD.

Let me try this one more time...

if it is not a weapon or capable of mass destruction, it is not a WMD. Please get some English tutoring or tell me what language to speak to you.



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 



I should have known, you think the entire US military was in on it...........


I never made any such quote that the “ENTIRE” US military was in on it.

I asked you to show me my post where I said “the entire US military was in on it”?

Where is it???

Stop telling lies.

If the government said it is so, I will have to believe them, because I know they would never lie don’t you agree? I will gladly bow out of this thread with my head down now that I know that Saddam was going to blow up America with muster gas.


Now, you have already started a thread about the USAF being responsible for 9/11. Then you post the above after it is pointed out to you that the US Army found quite a few chemical weapons and all the stuff needed to make more, and you question that as well.


Now you are going to make up metaphors to fit your lie.

In your game of twisted lies & spin, where is this title, “the entire US military was in to it”?

My thread that I created is named:


Did the USAF Help pull off 911?


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Even in my thread I clearly make it clear that I believe a “ HANDFUL ” of military experts.

Why are you never held accountable for your behavior?
Telling lies about other posters is being disrespectful. In addition, it is a violation of T&C. Shame on you.


You need to apologize.








[edit on 5-12-2009 by impressme]



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 
No, you did not once more Swampy are the first responders lying yes or no?



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 01:22 AM
link   
I admit I didn't read all 26 pages of responses, but I will respond to the OP and what I have read thus far.

One does have to wonder why someone who thinks 9/11 conspiracies and those who believe them are laughable and ignorant would even come to a 9/11 conspiracy forum. Let alone, continue to go there and post for years. I don't watch American Idol but do I go to an American Idol forum and insult them? No. I have no interest in it. So why do "debunkers" (hate the term because I don't like to make a blanket statement for a variety of people) continually come here? If it is so ridiculous and laughable, what do you find interesting here? Have you nothing else to do other than argue and insult people who you deem as less intelligent than yourself? What if you win your argument? What have you proven? You don't gain anything by proving your more intelligent than someone you assumed you were smarter than in the first place. So what is there to be accomplished by coming here?

The fact of the matter is that most of us who question the official story, were once believers in it. It was what happened after 9/11 that started the questions for me. Such as Condoleezza Rice and George Bush saying no one could have ever even imagined people using planes as weapons. Or Dick Cheney not knowing where he was when a plane hit the Pentagon. Or giving up on hunting Bin Laden to pursue Saddam Hussein by selling a variety of lies to get into that pursuit ... For me, seeing those and other glaring lies being forced on me made me wonder why. What are we really doing in response to 9/11. So then I began trying to understand the 9/11 event itself. And when I first came across information that suggested a conspiracy, my first reaction was to find the answers that prove no conspiracy other than the hijackers and Bin Laden. But in my attempt at understanding, I realized that I was getting more questions than answers. The people that know the answers weren't talking and were preventing others from getting to those answers. So for some people to just made ridiculous statements like "You believe whatever you are told" or "you only look at info that supports your theories" or "circular logic" .. etc these statements are what's laughable to me. Unlike the official story, I ,and I think most of us questioners, didn't work backwards. We didn't assume a conspiracy and then set out to prove it. I think most of us assumed no conspiracy, but only found our questions remained unanswered and became more and more.

These theories are just people trying to answer questions that the people who are supposed to answer, refused to answer. And these are the people most of these "debunkers" are defending. I don't know if any of you are "professional" debunkers, but I do have to wonder why you don't demand that the people in charge of supplying the information we are seeking don't stand with us in demanding this information.

[edit on 6-12-2009 by RomanMaroni]



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by RomanMaroni

These theories are just people trying to answer questions that the people who are supposed to answer, refused to answer.


Except when the questions are answered, with facts, the "truthers" ignore them as it does not fit their mindset that it is a conspiracy. The truthers ask why no aircraft parts were seen at the Pentagon, pictures showing damage caused by a 757 hitting the Pentagon are shown, aircraft parts from a 757 inside the Pentagon are shown, but the truthers refuse to accept reality.


but I do have to wonder why you don't demand that the people in charge of supplying the information we are seeking


Because when they answer your questions you just ignore the answer as it destroys your conspiracy theory!



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 02:46 AM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 


Your problem is you think we'd give two cents for your opinion, but when you say you've answered our questions you're just full of yourself. Just because you think it's been answered satisfactorily doesn't mean it actually has, it just means you're too apathetic or brainwashed to get a real answer.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 02:46 AM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 



Except when the questions are answered, with facts, the "truthers" ignore them as it does not fit their mindset that it is a conspiracy. The truthers ask why no aircraft parts were seen at the Pentagon, pictures showing damage caused by a 757 hitting the Pentagon are shown, aircraft parts from a 757 inside the Pentagon are shown, but the truthers refuse to accept reality.


No the Truthers do not ignore the TRUTH that is why we are called“TRUTHERS
You are not a psychiatrist and YOU do not know how people think.

The fact is, the early photos taken immediately after the explosion at the pentagon shows no aircraft debris on the pentagon lawn.

The “reality” is, Truthers are not fooled by photos that can be taken anywhere shoved in our faces with out showing the chain of evidences of who, what, when, where, how, dates, and so on… Furthermore we want to see the actual serial numbers to the crash debris to verified crash debris belong to said airplane. This is the kind of evidences that will stand up in a court of law and we expect nothing less.


but I do have to wonder why you don't demand that the people in charge of supplying the information we are seeking

Because when they answer your questions you just ignore the answer as it destroys your conspiracy theory!


The problem with your insult is THEY have not answered our questions so how can one ignore it, when it has NEVER been answered yet?



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 03:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme


No the Truthers do not ignore the TRUTH that is why we are called“TRUTHERS”


They re called truthers as the truth is the last thing they believe, prefering conspiracy theories not backed with any facts at all over the truth!


The fact is, the early photos taken immediately after the explosion at the pentagon shows no aircraft debris on the pentagon lawn.


See what I mean - the photo's DO show 757 aircraft parts, but the "truthers" refuse to accept that fact as it destroys their silly conspiracy theory!


The problem with your insult is THEY have not answered our questions


They have, but as the answer destroys your conspiracy theory you ignore it



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 04:08 AM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 



No the Truthers do not ignore the TRUTH that is why we are called“TRUTHERS”

They re called truthers as the truth is the last thing they believe, prefering conspiracy theories not backed with any facts at all over the truth!


That is wrong, boy, you are desperate! .


Truth

Truth is a commodity and can have a variety of meanings, from the state of being the case, being in accord with a particular fact or reality, being in accord with the body of real things, events, actuality, or fidelity to an original or to a standard. In archaic usage it could be fidelity, constancy or sincerity in action, character, and utterance.[1] The term has no single definition about which a majority of professional philosophers and scholars agree, and various theories and views of truth continue to be debated. There are differing claims on such questions as what constitutes truth; what things are truthbearers capable of being true or false; how to define and identify truth; the roles that revealed and acquired knowledge play; and whether truth is subjective, relative, objective, or absolute. This article introduces the various perspectives and claims, both today and throughout history.


en.wikipedia.org...





9/11 Truth movement

9/11 Truth movement is the collective name of loosely affiliated organizations and individuals who question the mainstream account of the September 11, 2001 attacks.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] Adherents of the movement discuss different hypotheses about how the attacks happened and call for a new investigation into the attacks.[8][9][10][11][12][13] Some of the organizations state that there is evidence that the United States government may have been either responsible for or knowingly complicit in the September 11 attacks. Motives given include the use of the attacks to initiate the launch of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and in creating the opportunities to curtail civil liberties.[2] Members of the movement are often referred to by opponents as "truthers,"[14] "conspiracy theorists,"[1][15][16] occasionally as "9/11 deniers,"[17][18] and by neutral and sympathetic writers as "9/11 skeptics."[19][20] Members of the movement hold diverse views on other political issues.


en.wikipedia.org...


The fact is, the early photos taken immediately after the explosion at the pentagon shows no aircraft debris on the pentagon lawn.
See what I mean - the photo's DO show 757 aircraft parts, but the "truthers" refuse to accept that fact as it destroys their silly conspiracy theory!


Again you are sadly wrong.


No 757 Hit the Pentagon on 9/11


911review.org...

The Pentagon Attack:
What the Physical Evidence Shows
/ex]


Pentagon Aircraft Debris
Paucity of Aircraft Crash Debris Raises Doubts About Flight 77 Crash


911research.wtc7.net...


Pentagon
Hunt the Boeing! And test your perceptions!


www.asile.org...



911research.wtc7.net...



Pentagon Crash?

www.freedomfiles.org...


The problem with your insult is THEY have not answered our questions

They have, but as the answer destroys your conspiracy theory you ignore it

They have? LOL No, they did not. We just want the truth. It is you that is making “false assumptions” in here against people who are seeking the truth, and asking question. Keep it up and you can go on ignore as well, you don’t need to be so nasty and disrespectful.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 05:21 AM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 


I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume these "truther" questions have been answered. Perhaps my research is lacking a bit. Can you help me to understand a couple things?

Norman Mineta states he enters the PEOC bunker at 9:20am. He says the VP Cheney and his wife are already there when he arrives. There are some accounts that verify this by saying Rice and Cheney went to the bunker at 9:10am. A White House employee and Karl Rove both say this to be true. Rove says Bush tried to call Cheney at 9:16a and couldn't reach him because Cheney was being forced into the bunker by Secret Service agents. Other accounts say Cheney was nearly picked up off his feet and carried into the bunker around 9:30a, and Rice followed soon after. The 9/11 Commission states he arrived in the bunker around 9:58a. Mineta arrives at the White House around 9:15a and is briefed by Richard Clarke. He is told to go to the PEOC bunker to be with Cheney. Mineta has verified his statement by saying, "VP Cheney was absolutely there when I arrived." Mineta says Cheney and Lynn Cheney are both there when he gets there at 9:20a. The 9/11 Commission, however, states Cheney gets to the PEOC at 9:58a and Lynn Cheney doesn't arrived to the White House until around 9:52a.

This is significant because Flight 77 impacts The Pentagon at 9:37a. Mineta goes on to tell story about the guy who was advising Cheney about the plane being 30 miles out, 20 miles out, 10 miles out ..... do the orders still stand? According to the 9/11 Commission this conversation couldn't have taken place, because Cheney didn't get to the bunker until 21 minutes after the Pentagon impact.

Now my questions that you allege have been answered are as follows: Why doesn't Cheney remember where he was when the Pentagon gets hit? What are the "still stand" orders that the guy advising Cheney was asking about? Why was Norman Mineta's testimony not included in the Report? Isn't Mineta's testimony a little to specific to be irrelevant? How did not one camera at the Pentagon, or surrounding area, capture the plane? Why was there molten material underneath the 3 collapsed WTC buildings for so long? Why did the 9/11 Commision take the position of "not to place blame" from the outset? Why did they deem who financed the attacks "of little significance"? Why did the Commission fail to answer 75% of the victim's families questions?

I have so many more, but let's start with those. You know I am just a tin foil truther, so my research skills are severely lacking. Please help me to answer these initial questions.

[edit on 6-12-2009 by RomanMaroni]



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 07:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


A sarin warhead is considered a WMD, it does not matter how old it is or if is has lost some of its potency. Just as a 30 year old nuclear bomb that has the detonation mechanism disconnected, is still considered a WMD.



[edit on 6-12-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 07:25 AM
link   
reply to post by mike dangerously
 


One more time, the first responders made their statements. Those statements have been taken out of context or twisted to fit the needs of those with other motives. I have yet to speak (in person) to a first responder who was there that day that thinks there were bombs in the buildings.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Lillydale
 


A sarin warhead is considered a WMD, it does not matter how old it is or if is has lost some of its potency.



Why is it that you are not doing something about this?!?!?!?!?!

Do you realize what you are saying?

You know more about what is considered a threat to the US than the Pentagon, Chief Weapons inspector, and ISG. Why are you not DOING SOMETHING ABOUT THIS?????



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 07:28 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


Then you might want to either read all the posts or pay attention to what you post. It was clearly stated that quite a few different Army commands found WMDs in Iraq, and you think they were all lying.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by mike dangerously
 


One more time, the first responders made their statements. Those statements have been taken out of context or twisted to fit the needs of those with other motives. I have yet to speak (in person) to a first responder who was there that day that thinks there were bombs in the buildings.


and again....

"There's a bomb in the building - start clearing out"..."We got a secondary device in the building"
VIDEO



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Lillydale
 


A sarin warhead is considered a WMD, it does not matter how old it is or if is has lost some of its potency.



Why is it that you are not doing something about this?!?!?!?!?!

Do you realize what you are saying?

You know more about what is considered a threat to the US than the Pentagon, Chief Weapons inspector, and ISG. Why are you not DOING SOMETHING ABOUT THIS?????


Are you sure English is your primary language? All the items listed, were items recovered by the US military and its Allies and taken for proper disposal. If I were you, I would ask why the ISG played so fast and loose with the truth.

Honest question here for you (or anyone else that would like to answer), if you were searching the house of a bomb maker and you found a hidden room in which you found ten pounds of plastic explosive and a detonator, would you consider that something innocent?



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 07:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


And again, all those were statements made in the heat of the moment, when lots of things were said that were not accurate. I am not going to call someone going through something like that a liar.



new topics

top topics



 
118
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join