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: 28
118
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


The "they were just confused" line is classic.

I have one: the only reason people were duped into believing there WEREN'T any bombs is because they were seriously confused.




posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 

As if FDNY firefighters and the FDNY Chief of Safety wouldn't know bombs and secondary explosives devices when they saw and heard them.

Just like when New Jersey police detectives and the FBI were "confused" when they reported that the Dancing Israelis' van was packed with "tons of explosives" and it "contained enough explosives to do great damage to the George Washington Bridge."


[edit on 7-12-2009 by GoldenFleece]



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 
I do agree it's been entertaining it's interesting to see semantics and obfuscation at work I'm waiting for one of our debunkers to start in on any of the fire fighters who talked about explosions and it's funny how they ignore the ones who talk about clearing the area because they were looking for secondary devices or they downplay it and claim it was due to all the confusion and they say we can't keep our story straight.



[edit on 103131p://5726 by mike dangerously]



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 
Fleece,you forgot to add how the authorities claimed that the first responders at OKC were also "mistaken." and "confused." about the secondary devices as well that John Doe.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
Just like when New Jersey police detectives and the FBI were "confused" when they reported that the Dancing Israelis van was packed with "tons of explosives" and "contained enough explosives to do great damage to the George Washington Bridge."


Now THAT was some HUGE "confusion."


They found and reported another van, also filled with explosives, about a block from the WTC and the officer that reported it later reported that it had exploded and that two men were seen running from it beforehand.

Seriously, were cops tripping on something that day? Is that what people mean when they say "confused"? Full-fledged hallucinating? Apparently, if you believe major media and government reports.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 10:59 PM
link   
Notice that even though the claim is that all our questions have been answered, no one touches the questions I raised on page 26. These "debunkers" claim the we questioners ignore anything that doesn't fit into our theories, but doesn't that really show who is ignoring issues that don't fit the agenda? That is a glaring and obvious example of their hypocrisy. Just because you say all the questions have been answered doesn't make it true. The fact of the matter is that there are many questions that haven't been answered and should be answered.

These debunkers will go as far as to attempt to translate what people they don't even know were thinking when they made certain comments. And it just seems odd to me that when they translate and attempt to explain what people were thinking, their translations always fit in with their version. They don't stop there either, they will go on to tell us how we think and why we believe what we believe without knowing any of us personally. I will agree that some "truthers" do the same, but I am just speaking for me and few others on this thread. The things that you "debinkers" accuse of us doing and calling us names over, is the very same thing you are doing but usually in a much more hostile manner. If you don't have any questions regarding 9/11, then I will say that you either just don't want to have any questions, or you haven't really paid attention. If the evidence backs up what you are saying, then why do mind if people ask questions? All the evidence would do is back your story and prove us wrong. What do you fear our questions?



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 11:11 PM
link   
reply to post by RomanMaroni
 


They just say all of our questions have been answered because there is nothing else they know how to say at that point. They seemingly cannot comprehend that the speculation and conjecture they offer to answer our questions (ie what was the source of all the explosions?) is not proof in any way.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by RomanMaroni
Notice that even though the claim is that all our questions have been answered, no one touches the questions I raised on page 26. These "debunkers" claim the we questioners ignore anything that doesn't fit into our theories, but doesn't that really show who is ignoring issues that don't fit the agenda? That is a glaring and obvious example of their hypocrisy. Just because you say all the questions have been answered doesn't make it true. The fact of the matter is that there are many questions that haven't been answered and should be answered.

These debunkers will go as far as to attempt to translate what people they don't even know were thinking when they made certain comments. And it just seems odd to me that when they translate and attempt to explain what people were thinking, their translations always fit in with their version. They don't stop there either, they will go on to tell us how we think and why we believe what we believe without knowing any of us personally. I will agree that some "truthers" do the same, but I am just speaking for me and few others on this thread. The things that you "debinkers" accuse of us doing and calling us names over, is the very same thing you are doing but usually in a much more hostile manner. If you don't have any questions regarding 9/11, then I will say that you either just don't want to have any questions, or you haven't really paid attention. If the evidence backs up what you are saying, then why do mind if people ask questions? All the evidence would do is back your story and prove us wrong. What do you fear our questions?
That was the motive behind me telling our debunkers if they think the first responders were lying then come out and say so as yet all I have gotten is some non answers and a lot of posturing.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 11:46 PM
link   
Personally, I respect Swampfox, as abrasive as he is, he usually has a lot of information and is clearly an intelligent poster. I have learned from him. But I always feel the tone of his responses as being like he is almost repulsed to have to respond. Or just repulsed by even being here. So why does he (and others) continually come here? ... for years even? It just makes me wonder who he is trying to convince ... us or himself?

So why did George Bush and Dick Cheney have to testify together? And place all those stipulations on their questioning? I mean seriously guys, does that really not concern you? Are you really comfortable with that? Does that sound like two men who have nothing to hide and are willing to be forthcoming to help understand and prevent another 9/11? Is this acceptable behavior for democratically elected officials? And these are the same people who were against an investigation in the first place. Even the "hand picked" 9/11 Commissioners complained about being stonewalled at nearly every turn. Seriously guys? Seriously?

[edit on 6-12-2009 by RomanMaroni]



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 01:22 AM
link   



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 02:19 AM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


Good video
GoldenFleece, If our government has become so corrupt why wouldn’t they have provocateurs and disinfo agents, they need to make sure that We The People do not rise up or tell the truth, or expose their corruptions. The internet is yet another tool for these disinfo trolls to try and control the flow of information their goal is one thing only STOP the TRUTH at any cost.

In my opinion, there are members on ATS who I believe have spent years trying to successfully railroad all these 911 thread as quickly as possible and steer the casual readers away or even post because, of fear of being attack.

It is so easy to figure who falls in that category.

1.Only supports every government word as the gospel.
2.Will not listen to reason.
3.Will never look at scientific evidences the prove the OS is a lie.
4.Most of their responsive are insults and ridicule.
5.Always post negatively.
6.Must have the last negative word against any Truthers in every 911 thread.
7.Will never answer your questions.
8.Will not give sources to back their claims.
9.They always ask questions of wanting proof of the impossible.
10.Always want you to prove a negative.


Here just 10 things to look for in a disinfo artist or gov agent. Some of these guys are not professional debunkers , by all means they are professional disinfo agents. I would think it is very likely they are here on ATS and why not?



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 05:04 AM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 





FDNY Chief of Safety


The same chief of safety that does not once mention any bombs or secondary devices in his after action report? That Chief of Safety?

Several posters have gotten themselves all bound up over things I have posted in this thread. I have neglected to FULLY express myself in responses to some of them, and typical of them, they have picked up on the various statements as some sort of "changing". I was asked if first responders had been lying on the clips that were taped while the events of 9/11 were going on. I said that no, they were not lying, but that their statements were being twisted or taken out of context. In the mess of that day, numerous inaccurate/false statements were made, not because of any one person "lying" but because in the chaos of that day, rumors spread like wildfire. And it isnt until the aftermath, when it is figured out that some of the stories of that day were false. I am not going to call the Chief of Safety (FDNY) a liar because on the day in question, someone thought there might have been a secondary device when there wasn't. Especially when the same man, afterwards, says that there were not any bombs. That happens during EVERY major event, there are always statements made that aren't true, but then, aren't malicious acts either.

For my "fan" club, I know the above statement will mean nothing to you. Because in your worlds, in a crisis, everyone is perfect and accurate in their statements and actions. Those of you who live in the real world, will understand it.

Items falsely reported on 9/11:

1. Eight airliners hijacked.
2. Car bombs exploding at the State Department
3. Car bombs defused at the State Department
4. Car bomb near the Capitol
5. Flight 93 lands in Cleveland
6. Bombs found at various airports
7. Oil/gas refineries and pipelines shutting down
8. Road blocks being set up on I-80/I-35 interchange for fears of massive bomb designed to sever only border to border, coast to coast interstate exchanges (that one was a hoot, since that would have been my hometown)
9. WTC 7 had collapsed



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 05:15 AM
link   
reply to post by The_Zomar
 





Why couldn't they hurt us? Better question... Why would they? Because they hate freedom like George Bush says? Give me a break.


The history of radical Islam goes back farther than the United States has been a nation. Unlike radical Catholicism/Christianity, it is still stuck in the Middle Ages. So to answer your question, yes they do hate the freedom we have. They hate that females are allowed a voice in public, they hate that men dont force their women to cover themselves from head to toe, they hate that we value diversity....so many things that they would like to see gone from the world......



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 06:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Items falsely reported on 9/11:

1. Eight airliners hijacked.
2. Car bombs exploding at the State Department
3. Car bombs defused at the State Department
4. Car bomb near the Capitol
5. Flight 93 lands in Cleveland
6. Bombs found at various airports
7. Oil/gas refineries and pipelines shutting down
8. Road blocks being set up on I-80/I-35 interchange for fears of massive bomb designed to sever only border to border, coast to coast interstate exchanges (that one was a hoot, since that would have been my hometown)
9. WTC 7 had collapsed




My favourite was a news anchor here (the UK) who said that the whole Eastern seaboard of the United States was under attack. I think she even suggested that the entire coast was "in flames".

If we are supposed to take everything said on the day as gospel, then perhaps it was.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
I am not going to call the Chief of Safety (FDNY) a liar because on the day in question, someone thought there might have been a secondary device when there wasn't. Especially when the same man, afterwards, says that there were not any bombs.

Oh really? When did Chief Turi say that "there were not any bombs?"


Statement recorded by FDNY 12/10/01: Chief Turi arrived at the WTC just prior to and witnessed the second airplane impact. He entered the North Tower lobby shortly after the second impact, where a temporary command post was located.

Q: Let me stop you there for a second, chief. When you were in the lobby of 1 World Trade, can you describe the interior and the condition of the lobby?

Chief Turi: Yes. I was surprised that all the glass was mostly out. I wasn't sure how it got out. I didn't think we took it out. I just assumed that it was the vibration of the aircraft hitting it. And I did notice some pieces of marble that looked like it was dislodged from the core area. ... [Editor's note: At this point, Chief Turi was in the lobby of the North Tower, approximately 1,100 feet below the airplane's impact point at floors 93 to 98.]

And as my eyes traveled up the building, and I was looking at the south tower, somewhere about halfway up, my initial reaction was there was a secondary explosion, and the entire floor area, a ring right around the building blew out. I later realized that the building had started to collapse already and this was the air being compressed and that is the floor that let go. And as my eyes traveled further up the building, I realized that this building was collapsing ..." graphics8.nytimes.com...

patriotsquestion911.com...

Original NBC News quote:


"Just moments ago, I spoke to the Chief of Safety for the NYC fire department, Chief Albert Turrey. He received word of a secondary device -- that is another bomb going off. He tried to get his men out as quickly as he could, but he said there was another explosion which took place and then an hour after the first crash that took place, he said there was another explosion in one of the towers here. He thinks that there were actually devices that were planted in the building. The second device, he thinks, he speculates was planted in the building..."

BTW, Swampy has attempted on numerous occasions to attribute these secondary explosions - including the explosion that occurred just as Chief Turi says the south tower began to collapse - to "cleaning products".



[edit on 7-12-2009 by GoldenFleece]



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 07:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Several posters have gotten themselves all bound up over things I have posted in this thread. I have neglected to FULLY express myself in responses to some of them, and typical of them, they have picked up on the various statements as some sort of "changing".



Ahem.


Those statements have been taken out of context or twisted to fit the needs of those with other motives


You claim these statements were taken out of context or twisted. You were shown one such statement in its full context and it was not twisted at all. It was as it claimed - a firefighter stating that secondary devices were in the building.

Am I correct so far in quoting you above? Those are your words so what has been altered about them? You do go on to then say -


And again, all those were statements made in the heat of the moment, when lots of things were said that were not accurate.


Hmmm. This is a completely different statement. What has been changed to make it look like you have said two different things? I have read the posts these come from and they are direct quotes and it is hard to see how any context could change what they actually say. I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


Show me where he says ANYTHING about bombs (outside the brief clip from Fox recorded in the midst of the events that day). He mentions seeing what he thought was an explosion, but then he states




I later realized that the building had started to collapse already and this was the air being compressed and that is the floor that let go.


[edit on 7-12-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 07:49 AM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 





You claim these statements were taken out of context or twisted. You were shown one such statement in its full context and it was not twisted at all. It was as it claimed - a firefighter stating that secondary devices were in the building.


No, the full context would be to take into account the events going on around him that day. Back to the belief that in a crisis, everyone is perfect and accurate in their actions and words. I refer you to earlier post. In the middle of ANY major event, there are going to be rumors and false reports. That is a prime example of a rumor from that day. If someone had actually found a bomb, then the NYPD bomb squad would have been dispatched....where are the transcripts of that call dispatching them to defuse a bomb found? I mean, since you assume that everyone was perfect and accurate that day, then they would have called for the bomb squad....



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to

No, the full context would be to take into account the events going on around him that day.


Sigh.

And in that context, he still claimed that there were secondary devices. You can try to shift this anyway you like but the fact of the matter is that it was clearly stated that NO ONE EVER THOUGHT OR CLAIMED that there were secondary devices. Proof has been given that that is not true. If you do not like the argument, take it up with Jthomas.

If you were following along, he claimed that no one had ever claimed there were secondary devices. NO ONE. We have footage that proves that wrong. Cry about context all you like. The argument was that it was never said. It was in fact said. You are just trying to minimize that with your shifting goal posts.



[edit on 7-12-2009 by K J Gunderson]



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 07:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 

So now you're admitting that Chief Turi never said "there were not any bombs" or that his words weren't twisted or taken out of context, but that in all the confusion, he was mistaken?

You seem to have a serious problem with accuracy and honesty.


[edit on 7-12-2009 by GoldenFleece]



new topics

top topics



 
118
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join