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: 29
118
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 07:58 AM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 





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.


I am responding to posts involving things I have responded to or been accused of. Jthomas has his opinions, I have mine. Unlike many posters on here, we dont team up on things.




posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to
I am responding to posts involving things I have responded to or been accused of. Jthomas has his opinions, I have mine. Unlike many posters on here, we dont team up on things.


LOL. Good thing you admit that. See this all started with the claim that no one had said it. Proof was provided that it had in fact been said. You then responded so as to correct that. So either you also started with saying it was never said or you jumped in for no good reason to defend something that was never said. Perhaps you should go back and read the conversation from the beginning again.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 





Good thing you admit that. See this all started with the claim that no one had said it. Proof was provided that it had in fact been said.


No, actually it started with the assumption that if an explosion was heard, it must be because there was a bomb. Jthomas pointed out that hearing an explosion, does not mean that explosives were involved.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 

So now you're admitting that Chief Turi never said what you claim he did, or that his words were twisted, or that in all the confusion, he was mistaken?

You seem to have a problem with accuracy/honesty.


I would respectfully point out that you seem to have a problem with either short term memory or reading comprehension.

I did not said that Chief Turi did not say anything about a secondary device. I said that FDNY member statements recorded that day were twisted or taken out of context. Chief Turi's was taken out of context. The context being, he was in the middle of an event in which rumors were flying and he was repeating what was later determined to be a rumor. I guess if you want to call that mistaken, so be it.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
I did not said that Chief Turi did not say anything about a secondary device.

What a liar. Here are your exact words:


Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Especially when the same man [Turi], afterwards, says that there were not any bombs.

Oh, what a tangled web we weave...


Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
No, actually it started with the assumption that if an explosion was heard, it must be because there was a bomb. Jthomas pointed out that hearing an explosion, does not mean that explosives were involved.

Yeah, we know. According to you, the secondary explosions that FDNY Chief Turi heard right before the south tower collapsed were exploding "cleaning products".




[edit on 7-12-2009 by GoldenFleece]



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 





Good thing you admit that. See this all started with the claim that no one had said it. Proof was provided that it had in fact been said.


No, actually it started with the assumption that if an explosion was heard, it must be because there was a bomb. Jthomas pointed out that hearing an explosion, does not mean that explosives were involved.


No, actually...you need to go back and actually read but that is beside the point.

YOU ARE STILL WRONG.

You first tried to say it was taken out of context.

You were shown the statement in its context.

Then you tried to dismiss it as heat of the moment confusion.

Which is it?

You then tried to claim it was both by completely changing what it means to take something out of context.

It was not out of context. It was supplied in context. You would not have had to offer two different explanations if the first one was correct.

Trace this back wherever you like but the fact remains that you gave us two excuses and it was not even remotely out of context. Just because you do not understand what it means to take something out of context does not change anything.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


I have clearly posted that yes, Chief Turi did mention a secondary device in the video clip from that day. I have also clearly stated that his after action report does not mention any explosive devices being found. In addition, I have addressed that on days like that rumors and false reports abound, not from malicious intent but from the confusion of the day.

Thank you for confirming my suspicions about your short term memory issues.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


I did go back through all 29 pages and in regards to Jthomas, thats where it started. But from now I will start cut and pasting each old post into each new one I make so as not to confuse you.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 

Swampy, confusion and obfuscation is your specialty. When I mentioned the seven "hijackers" who are still alive, you claimed it was a case of "mistaken identity" between two Saudis. When I proved that both "hijackers" were alive (one an electrical engineer, the other a pilot for Saudi Airlines), you claimed there were actually three men with "mistaken identities".

I swear to God, if I could prove that all three "hijackers" were alive (there are actually only two), you'd claim that there were really FOUR.

Wouldn't it be easier to just be honest, instead of constantly having to fabricate, backtrack and prevaricate?



[edit on 8-12-2009 by GoldenFleece]



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   
Swampy has shown when and if he leaves the service he will have a great career in a PR firm I have not seen someone do so many about faces in one thread!
what I find sad is he really believes that the NIST and FEMA reports were accurate,when it has been proven numerous times that they were far more interested in muddying the waters and keeping the Bush Administration happy.That is why I found these government versions to be laughable not only were they covering up facts but the members of all these commissions and federal agencies were looking to keep their jobs remember if your known for making waves then no one in DC will be willing to hire you.

[edit on 043131p://0226 by mike dangerously]



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


So on what substance were the police hallucinating when they said they had a van full of explosives and a mural of NYC on it? Especially the officer who saw another such van actually explode after he saw two men running from it. That's not just "confusion." What was he hallucinating on, swampfox?



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


No, I merely used one of the names. When I have more time, I will go ahead and demolish the rest of your theory that there are "alive" hijackers.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 
Starred & Flagged.

Now here is another hook up to the conspiracy in your thread.

Some of these "debunkers" could even be what is commonly referred to as "mind controlled" and not even be aware they are.

I suspect the vast majority of people are now "being conditioned". How, start researching on mind control technology.

salonesoterica.wordpress.com...

“A handful of us determine what will be on the evening news broadcasts, or, for that matter, in the New York Times or Washington Post or Wall Street Journal…. Indeed it is a handful of us with this awesome power….And those [news stories] available to us already have been culled and re-culled by persons far outside our control.” - Walter Cronkite

“If, however, the public does not receive all the information it needs to make informed decisions,’ Jensen claims, “then some form of news blackout is taking place… some issues are overlooked (what we call ‘censored’) and other issues are over-covered (what we call ‘junk food news’).’Why does a boxer’s bitten ear receive local and nationwide coverage, but we are never told about presidential Executive Orders that affect the entire nation?” - Carl Jensen

“The media’s the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that’s power. Because they control the minds of the masses.” - Malcolm X

“We need a program of psychosurgery and political control of our society. The purpose is physical control of the mind. Everyone who deviates from the given norm can be surgically mutilated. The individual may think that the most important reality is his own existence, but this is only his personal point of view. This lacks historical perspective. Man does not have the right to develop his own mind. This kind of liberal orientation has great appeal. We must electrically control the brain. Some day armies and generals will be controlled by electrical stimulation of the brain.”
- Dr. Jose Delgado, MKULTRA



[edit on 7-12-2009 by ofhumandescent]



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


So you ignoring me now?

We have at least two independent police reports from that day of a commercial truck/van with a mural of NYC on the side. In one case, according to police, such a vehicle was stopped and found to contain a lot of explosives. In the other case, an officer saw two men run from the vehicle and it subsequently exploded. You say they were "confused." What in the hell kind of "confusion" is that? They must have been hallucinating according to you. So what were the police tripping on, Swampfox?



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 
Never happened,bsbray according to many reports the NYPD were mistaken and yet we have all these eyewitnesses saying they saw the van.The Kean/Zelikow commission just ignored this and went about it's business.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by mike dangerously
Never happened,bsbray according to many reports the NYPD were mistaken and yet we have all these eyewitnesses saying they saw the van.


What "many reports" even said the NYPD were "mistaken"? As far as I can discern, there has only been a total media black-out, and nobody's like Swampfox telling me this line that they were "confused," which frankly I don't even understand. You don't "confuse" yourself into seeing vans and explosives that aren't there. That is called hallucinating.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 06:50 PM
link   

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


Swampfox46_1999, I am still waiting for my apology or for you to retract your lie. One way or the other, you need to make this right.

Where do you get off talking to people like that and think you are not accountable for your actions. Boy, if I made up a vicious lie about you, you would not let it go. So do the right thing and apologize and we can move on.


Well, I should have figured you would run away, typical.

Do not ever ask me to retract anything I say, and you have lost all creditability in all the 911 forums including with me.


This is exactly what this thread topic is basically about and YOU fit the bill.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 
The downplayed it on MSNBC,and then on the other networks as well.Never saw it in print after that.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


I did go back through all 29 pages and in regards to Jthomas, thats where it started. But from now I will start cut and pasting each old post into each new one I make so as not to confuse you.


You must not be paying attention.

Please do try and follow with me this time.

It does not even matter where it started or with who. You contradicted yourself to shift the goal post just fine.

You said it was out of context.

You were shown that it was indeed in context.

You then decided that it was in the heat of the moment instead.

It cannot be both but since you have no problem stating both as fact, obviously you are just guessing at crap and hoping people will just not challenge it.

Forget Jthomas. Pay attention to your own words.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
obviously you are just guessing at crap and hoping people will just not challenge it.


Exactly. Just like he has no idea what is causing the explosions, he just makes stuff up and pretends it makes sense, and covers his ears with his hands when you explain all this. Like bottles of household cleaners "exploding." Yeah, right, and I guess it blows out lobby windows or destroys 300-lb doors when it goes, too? No, he has no response to that.

I'm still waiting for him to tell me what he thinks the cops were tripping on. He apparently also believes the police were hallucinating those vans filled with explosives, and reported their hallucinations over radio, and these same hallucinations even made it onto live TV that day. They were understandably "confused" by their extreme hallucinations.



new topics

top topics



 
118
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join