Don't be fooled by ATS' professional debunkers

reply to post by bsbray11


Not to mention, all of the eyewitness must have been hallucinating when they heard and saw explosions in all three WTC.

LOL, household cleaners blowing out steel beams hundred of feet in the air. LOL

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by GoldenFleece

 

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

How many of these things were reported by people on the scene that would know? (i.e. firefighter identifying secondary device.) Thanks in advance.

reply to post by bsbray11


After your "murdering hypocrite" remark to another poster, yep, Im pretty much not paying attention to you.

[edit on 8-12-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by bsbray11

 

Then start a new thread about it. Because if I reply to your ravings, then goldie or lilly or Gundy will get confused and think I am talking about Chief Turi or FDNY as a whole.

So now you are confusing me are you? Why are you debunkers so gung ho on just making all this crap up about people you do not agree with? If it not quotes, it is ideas, if it is not ideas, it is baseless insults. Don't you worry about confusing me. The only confusion is how you can manage to spew the crap you do, shifting your goal posts and then still say things so condescending.

How about you wait until you actually confuse me, catch me lying, or catch me shifting my goal posts before you try to lash back. I am not the one who has to stoop to that level.

reply to post by K J Gunderson

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.

First and foremost, on a day like that, the events going on around the individual are part of the context. I havent changed anything, you (and others) are making assumptions based on what you think I mean.

reply to post by Lillydale

How about you wait until you actually confuse me, catch me lying, or catch me shifting my goal posts before you try to lash back. I am not the one who has to stoop to that level.

I have a bunch of messages in my inbox from other posters speaking about the subject. So if other posters are commenting to me about confusing you...........

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Lillydale

 

I have a bunch of messages in my inbox from other posters speaking about the subject. So if other posters are commenting to me about confusing you...........

Awwwe man really? Shucks. You know, at recess it kinda felt like they were giving me the business but I thought they were just funnin'. They are all really telling you in secret how confused I seem? Damn. Well, that is way more hurtful than actually showing me any time that you confused me...if you are a 10 year old girl. Bravo. Somehow I feel that I should be giving a speech about sticks and stones but I want to think I am talking to other adults here. I will have to wait for one then.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
First and foremost, on a day like that, the events going on around the individual are part of the context. I havent changed anything, you (and others) are making assumptions based on what you think I mean.

You are still changing it. Now it is all part of the context? I thought you said it was out of context? But then it was in context so you said it was something else. Which is it? Did you not change anything or am I going to quote you here and prove you wrong...


again...

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

I am sorry but you will have to go ahead and call me confused because I do not understand how something is both in context and out of context at the same time but those are your words.

going on around the individual are part of the context.

taken out of context or twisted

and then

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

Let me see if I have the score so far,

out of context
heat of the moment confusion
part of the context

Interesting. I must be so stupid because I need that explained to me very slowly.

[edit on 12/8/09 by Lillydale]

Poor Swampfox. Everyone's picking on him. It's about time honest Americans stood up and expressed their objections to false-flag government terrorism, which has been going on for over a century, starting with the mysterious sinking of the USS Maine. The Maine's sinking in a Cuban harbor led directly to the Spanish-American war. Spain was officially exonerated, but the explosion that caused the Maine's destruction remains unresolved. How many people know that the USS Maine was a jinxed ship that had many design and mechanical flaws which severely limited it's usefulness as a battleship? Probably just a coincidence that it's sinking started a war. As the jingoist yellow journalist William Randolph Hearst told a newspaper photog who reported that Havana was calm, "you furnish the photos -- I'll furnish the war." 100 years later, the Hearst publication Popular Mechanics remains one of the strongest official story defenders.

Yesterday's anniversary of Pearl Harbor is another example of an "attack" that was allowed -- even provoked through FDR's 8-step McCollom Memo. It's now been conclusively proven that FDR and his White House war advisors had absolute foreknowledge of the Japanese attack plans -- time, date and location -- weeks in advance. That's why the aircraft carriers were sent out to sea and FDR dismissed an admiral who objected to the Pacific Fleet being based in Pearl Harbor.

Then we have the Gulf of Tonkin, Operation Northwoods, Oklahoma City, WMDs in Iraq and 9/11. The list goes on and on.

Thanks to everyone who's stood with me in this thread. Professional debunkers formerly dominated most 9/11 discussions. But people are waking up and the tide is finally turning. Perhaps this time, we won't have to wait 50 years before the next unpleasant truth becomes widely known.


[edit on 8-12-2009 by GoldenFleece]

reply to post by Lillydale


As I have stated more than one time on this thread and more than one time on ATS...

During any major event rumors and false stories abound. Understanding this, I am going to be fully aware that comments made in the heat of the moment are not necessarily going to be accurate. (research ''fog of war"). So, when someone mentions to a fire chief in the middle of a traumatic, exceptionally stressful period that someone said there might be a secondary device in the building, when in reality there isnt and then eight years later, you quote them to say there was a bomb..YOU are taking it out of context.

No wiring found, no bomb residue found, no explosive residues of any kind found, no evidence of bombs found period. Your only "proof" of a bomb that day is an inaccurate statement made by an individual in the moment, and who, in the aftermath says that there were not any bombs.

[edit on 8-12-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


You can try to explain your way out of this all you want. It has been more than enough pages now that all I smell is desperation. The only respectable things to do would have been to just admit that at one point, you misspoke. Pride gets in the way, doesn't it.

Babble all you want about why you think this or why this and that might go like this. The fact remains that you said two contradictory statements. You presented one as fact and when shown you were wrong, you CHANGED IT. How many times do we need to repost your exact quotes together before you can just give this up.

You said it was taken out of context - implying that someone with an agenda was trying to give an alternate meaning to words through selective editing. That is a pretty nasty accusation and it was wrong. You have been shown that it was wrong.

Now you are saying a few different things but this newest thing about it all being part of the context is awesome.

Sorry swampy but it cannot be both taken out of context as well as invalid because it was all part of the context.

It speaks for itself. Any more trying to explain it away just makes you look that much worse. Unless you can change your exact words that I will keep quoting over and over again, you got this one wrong.

[edit on 8-12-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]

I wonder how many miles of wiring they did find? How were they able to determine that all the wire was legitimately in the building? According to this article, old.911digitalarchive.org... , there was "enough electrical wire to stretch from here to Los Angeles." Did they reconstruct the electrical layout of the buildings and identify the type, grade and location in the building of all the wire? That's a lot of wire to go through and determine it's legitimacy.

Just a thought to ponder.

Edited to add: Then there's all the wiring from the planes too. Must not forget that.....

[edit on 8-12-2009 by NIcon]

[edit on 8-12-2009 by NIcon]

It is obvious there are those who do not want people posting about 911. Everything there is to be said about this has already been said for the most part.

However, this one thing that keeps coming up from time to time really makes me chuckle, and that is this notion that one cannot post any ideas, questions, or theories about 9-11 without having proof, because "truthers" as we are called, have the burden of proof upon us.

BS!

First off, I don't believe the OS has been proven. The vast majority of Bsbray11's 20 twenty questions are unanswered. Once the govt answers these questions and provides proof to back up their answers, I'll believe them.

Truthers do not control the evidence or conduct investigations. The govt does that. We have no access to the evidence, the govt controls that. And we are supposed to give proof on demand of anything we say or be silent.

It's analogous to a lawyer being asked to defend a client without the right of discovery....the prosecution has all of the state's evidence and doesn't turn it over to the defendant so his lawyer can formulate a defense. It's ludicrous and many defendants have walked over a discovery violation.

Even the 9-11 commission chairman himself said he felt that NORAD, the FAA and the CIA misled him, and that the commission was set up to fail.

I don't know what the hell happened that day, but no amount of ridicule or condescending posts will discourage me from asking questions when they arise or putting forth ideas when I get them. In such collaborative ways are puzzles often solved.

The fact is that there is an extreme amount of effort put into to defending the OS has rekindled my interest in this subject in a big way. I think the govt is nervous about all of the questions being asked and they are fighting back in many ways.

[edit on 8-12-2009 by Aircow]

[edit on 8-12-2009 by Aircow] I was sleepy when I originally posted this, all edits are for missing words.

[edit on 8-12-2009 by Aircow]

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
After your "murdering hypocrite" remark to another poster, yep, Im pretty much not paying attention to you.

Aww, did I hurt your great sense of self-worth? If I don't fawn on you with words of praise for contributing to the deaths of Iraqis who did nothing wrong, you won't even talk to me?

It's awfully convenient you start ignoring me when I start probing what kind of "confusion" you think these officers were suffering from, that they were reporting in real-time something that you apparently think did not exist. Is that how they teach you to "think" in the military? Because I would not at all be surprised. You know they shave all your heads and break you down and give you uniforms so you will all do whatever you're told when you're told, no questions asked, right? It's a group mentality of basic conformity that they're enforcing. But whatever, it was your choice to do it.

[edit on 8-12-2009 by bsbray11]

You would think by now that Swampy would change his tune about 911 after all he has been here for years. Most people do not believe the OS nonsense, and more and more people are going to stop defending the OS lie. The only one that will be left to defend the OS lie, will be the government paid disinformationist. Eventually, we will just put them on ignore.

I have yet to see any proof the OS is true the only thing the OS defenders have proved is how good they are at ridiculing and insulting the truth and we all know that is a fact.

Hum,seems that most of the debunkers who populate the forum and try and derail threads have left swampy to fend for himself which having read his many denials and condescending posts makes me think they feel they can't trust his word on anything not a good quality for anyone who is looked to as any kind of leader.As for 9/11 more people are beginning to question just what the Commission and FEMA and NIST were doing when they claimed to be "investigating."

reply to post by mike dangerously


Thats okay, I dont need back up to deal with you guys.

The more people that start believing the kooky theories that you guys espouse, the happier TPTB will be.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by mike dangerously

 

The more people that start believing the kooky theories that you guys espouse, the happier TPTB will be.

Yes, TPTB are all ready satisfied with their drunk, out of control, congenital liars and taxi drivers. If the truth movement had any smarts they would all grab a fifth of Wild Turkey and become Travis Bickles en masse. Then their theories may have a chance to get heard.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


"TPTB" are the whole reason you dismiss this stuff as "kooky" even though all the bull you're trying to scramble to cover your ass doesn't make any sense at all. Police officers do not hallucinate vans full of explosives, or exploding vans, and it isn't just "confusion" when they are looking at it with their own eyes and reporting it over radio. You don't have a logical response to that. Nor do you know what you're talking about when you try to explain all the destructive explosions by saying it was bottles of exploding household cleaners and random BS like that. You just cover your ears and say you're not listening anymore because I poo-poo'd your job helping kill people in Iraq who have done nothing wrong.

I'm wondering, if you are being repeatedly shown that what you are doing is wrong, that the whole military operation is founded on deceit from your administrators, yet all you do is willingly plug your ears, does that make you a candidate for being charged with complicity in war crimes later down the road, or some kind of gross negligence or total personal irresponsibility in the international community? Something worth considering imo. Whatever happened to all the German soldiers who fought for the Nazis and were aware of what they were doing?