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.

 

Pennsylvania crash site coincidence?

page: 6
8
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 07:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
On the contrary, the world posited by non-CTers is far more frightening than the easily-soluble Truth Movement fantasy.


But the probelm is that it is the non-CTers that will not accept or admit to facts and evidence shown, they only beleive what they have been told to stay in thier safe fantasy world.

They do not want to think that thier governemt could do anythign bad, but history has shown what the government is capable of doing.



[edit on 1-2-2010 by REMISNE]




posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE
But the probelm is that it is the non-CTers that will not accept or admit to facts and evidence shown, they only beleive what they have been told to stay in thier safe fantasy world.
They do not want to think that thier governemt could do anythign bad, but history has shown what the government is capable of doing.

The questions and speculations brought forth by the CTer's are just that; questions and speculations. Facts seem hard to come by. What facts have been posted? Some people think that they intrinsically know how airplanes and buildings should interact and how buildings should collapse. They speculate that explosives were used. There is no evdence of explosives. Steven Jones thinks he found ten tons of unburned thermitic paint. His science was poorly done and his own energetic calculations proved him wrong. There is no evidence of thermite.
Your claim that all those who disagree with you only believe what they are told can also be leveled at many CTer's who read and parrot previously debunked material without question.



posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
Your claim that all those who disagree with you only believe what they are told can also be leveled at many CTer's who read and parrot previously debunked material without question.


CT's Parrot, surely you jest?

100's of military people, people you trust with the security of this country, say it was a LIE.
You OS parrot the company line.

Members of the 911 Commision say it was "fixed""set up to fail" " A 30 year conspiracy"
You OS parrot the company line.

Countless professional people's (military, FBI, investigator's ) are silenced with
Gag order's
You OS parrot the company line.



posted on Feb, 3 2010 @ 03:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
The questions and speculations brought forth by the CTer's are just that; questions and speculations. Facts seem hard to come by. What facts have been posted?


There has been enough evidence to show that there is resonable doubt in the official story but yet people like you keep believing in the official story.

Why are you so afraid of facts and evidence that do not agree with what you think happened?



[edit on 3-2-2010 by REMISNE]



posted on Feb, 3 2010 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Why are you so afraid of facts and evidence that do not agree with what you think happened?



[edit on 3-2-2010 by REMISNE]


I'm not. It's just nobody has ever shown me any.

And I love the way you guys are all so Few Good Men about this - "YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH". As I've written before, I think the TM versions are much more comforting than what most likely happened. An incompetent government fails to save you from a handful of organised fanatics. When will they strike again? Will it be a dirty bomb? Why do they hate you? And your leaders are scuttling over each other, deflecting the blame powerless, avaricious.

Or it's just a nasty group of powerful men who one day you can put on trial and hang.

I know which version scares me more.

Go on, post your FOI letter again. It could just bring down the government.



posted on Feb, 3 2010 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Go on, post your FOI letter again. It could just bring down the government.


I can see you are afraid of this document i requested.



posted on Feb, 3 2010 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

There has been enough evidence to show that there is resonable doubt in the official story but yet people like you keep believing in the official story.
Why are you so afraid of facts and evidence that do not agree with what you think happened?


Actually, there has been no evidence at all. If you have any, I'd sure like to see it. I have no qualms about seeing evidence. If the Government shot down 93, I think I could handle it. I just see no evidence for a shoot down.

Now there are many theories; shoot down, no plane, different plane, etc. Yours seems to be shoot down, so would it be safe to assume that you concede that there was a plane in the crater and that it was 93?

If so, why don't you start with laying out what you call evidence and facts. Do one at a time, starting with your most convincing.

Good luck.



posted on Feb, 3 2010 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
Actually, there has been no evidence at all. If you have any, I'd sure like to see it. I have no qualms about seeing evidence. If the Government shot down 93, I think I could handle it. I just see no evidence for a shoot down.


Well the biggest thing is the NSA document that states at least 1 of the planes on 9/11 was intercepted. Which contridicts the 9/11 commission report.

The other thing is the cash site with the 2 distinct debris fields and small crater.



posted on Feb, 3 2010 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 



Well the biggest thing is the NSA document that states at least 1 of the planes on 9/11 was intercepted. Which contridicts the 9/11 commission report.


Well, in as much as there is no report let's just put this aside for now.


The other thing is the cash site with the 2 distinct debris fields and small crater.


2 distinct debris fields? This sounds like your opinion, which is fine, as long as you recognize it as such. What does the size of the crater have to do with it? Also, just for the sake of argument, lets say Flight 93 was shot down - why is it necessary that the crater be small and there be 2 "distinct" fields? I am no expert in this area, but I would think a plane like a commercial jetliner could be disabled and caused to crash out of control without actually being torn apart by air to air missles or cannon fire.



posted on Feb, 3 2010 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
2 distinct debris fields? This sounds like your opinion, which is fine, as long as you recognize it as such.


Not an opinion, it is fact. You should do some reserch.

911research.wtc7.net...


I am no expert in this area,


At least you admit you do not know what you are talking about.

[edit on 3-2-2010 by REMISNE]



posted on Feb, 3 2010 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 



At least you admit you do not know what you are talking about.


At least I have the requried maturity and ethical background to admit when I am simply speaking from my common knowledge, not from any expertise. For you to take this indicator of common civility in discourse and turn it into an insult tells a lot more about you than me.



posted on Feb, 3 2010 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE
Well the biggest thing is the NSA document that states at least 1 of the planes on 9/11 was intercepted. Which contridicts the 9/11 commission report.
The other thing is the cash site with the 2 distinct debris fields and small crater.

I will read the NSA document in detail. Remember that an intercept is not a shoot down, it is an intercept.
The two debris fields are quite different. One was the crater and surrounding area where the plane hit. The other was some distance downwind and down track and contained only light weight pieces carried by the wind. A shootdown event would have left evidence up track between the missile or gunfire strike and the impact crater. The FDR would have shown the damage to engines, hydraulics, control surfaces, cabin pressure, etc.



posted on Feb, 3 2010 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 


Roger,
I can't find the document on the internet. Would this be the FOIA document that you are still awaiting? As far as I know it has not been released so we will have to wait and see if there was any intercept.



posted on Feb, 4 2010 @ 04:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Go on, post your FOI letter again. It could just bring down the government.


I can see you are afraid of this document i requested.


I was joking. And I see you failed to address my point.

Do you sincerely believe that your ideas (ludicrous as they are) amount to a more frightening view of the world than mine?



posted on Feb, 4 2010 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Do you sincerely believe that your ideas (ludicrous as they are) amount to a more frightening view of the world than mine?


My ideas come from facts and evidence that would hold up in court.

Facts and evidence that show resonable doubt in the official story.



posted on Feb, 4 2010 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 


Your evidence would no more stand up in court than Ironside.

But there's a pretty obvious way to prove it: go to court.



posted on Feb, 4 2010 @ 12:40 PM
link   
[edit on 4-2-2010 by REMISNE]



posted on Feb, 4 2010 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
But there's a pretty obvious way to prove it: go to court.


I will when i get all the documents asked for.

Its just to bad the official story will not hold up in court.





[edit on 4-2-2010 by REMISNE]



posted on Feb, 4 2010 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE
i will when i get all the documents asked for.

Its just to bad the official story will not hold up in court.


They already did. Zacharias Moussaoui. Done. Guilty.

And they will hold up again in US vs. KSM.



posted on Feb, 4 2010 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
They already did. Zacharias Moussaoui. Done. Guilty.


Too bad that so alled evidence was only for being used against him and not good enough to charge OBL with being behind 9/11.

If that same evidence was to be used again it would be torn apart by any half decent lawyer.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join