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.

 

911 Commission Senior Counsel: Report is a lie

page: 11
68
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by trueforger
 


Yeah, cause you know how often Bush/Cheney were successful at ANYTHING.

If you're entire theory rests of Bush/Cheney's competence, you're entire theory is questionable.




posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by trueforger
 


Not even close.

But that brings up another point, ultimately the truther movement is being controlled by the politicians. The more time you spend chasing down ridiculous theories, the less time you spend working on fixing what is wrong with our country. Which just makes our career politicians very happy.



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 





Sorry but both the FBI and Department of Justice has officially stated many times that there is not enough evidence to charge OBL with being behind 9/11



So that would be why OBL has been named in court as a conspirator in the 9/11 attacks? No evidence.....funny, I figured that if there is no evidence then he couldnt be named as a conspirator......



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
So that would be why OBL has been named in court as a conspirator in the 9/11 attacks? No evidence.....funny, I figured that if there is no evidence then he couldnt be named as a conspirator......


Why don't you address the evidence of whom was actually at the crime scene:

The Five Dancing Israelis



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Majorion
 


Why dont you do some honest to God research on a real website? Instead of parrotting "whatreallydidnthappen"?

The five "dancing israelis" story has been torn apart many times on ATS.



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


Still don't see you addressing it.

You're denying that there were mossad agents at the scene later apprehended then sent back to Israel, then going on local television admitting to documenting the event, you're actually denying this?



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

So that would be why OBL has been named in court as a conspirator in the 9/11 attacks? No evidence.....funny, I figured that if there is no evidence then he couldnt be named as a conspirator......



Then get an education already. You have been saying stupid things every chance you get lately and then being an arrogant ass about it. YOU DO NOT NEED EVIDENCE TO NAME SOMEONE IN COURT. You need evidence to win your case and since OBL is not rotting away in any of our jails.....



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 10:56 AM
link   
Honestly, the 5DI has been debunked over and over... doesn't stop you guys from parroting on about it, but that's typical truther behaviour...

#ignore ANY facts which are inconvenient, lie to prove points, etc. etc.

I mean for Christ's Sake, even the name of this thread is a lie.

Don't see any Truthers admitting their mistakes, just deny, deny, deny...

Sarah Palin would be proud at the faith based work done on this thread....



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 10:58 AM
link   
I would ALSO say to all you Truthers... the hijackers are mostly Saudi... Do the Saudi's like Israel?

Why not explore that rabbit hole for a while...



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


Military courts work a bit differently. But thank you for the personal attack, once again.



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Proof of Dick Cheney Involvement




911research.wtc7.net...


Please give this piece a read. It spells out in detail how insane any OTHER interpretation is of the actions of Cheney on 9-11. it destroys the lies and shows how the coverup was effected by key inside members of the commission.

The lead counsel, Farmer, is saying all he can without being labeled as a truther but to admit that it is all lies is a start.



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Majorion
 


One of the first lines on the website you posted referenced a New York Times story in which it was said they had their camera set up prior to the first impact. What it doesnt mention is that on further research, the lady who called the police to report these guys, said that they did not show up until after the first plane had hit.

Imagine that....five guys stopped what they were doing that day and started videotaping what was going on. Of course from the number of videos on Youtube....i am pretty sure they werent the only ones.



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Lillydale
 


Military courts work a bit differently. But thank you for the personal attack, once again.


Yes, they sure do. Now all you need to do explain to me when exactly OBL was in court? If he was never in that MILITARY court, naming he means JACKS***. They could name me as a co-conspirator too. It does not magically give them some sort of new evidence linking me to it. It means a name was said.

Unless of course you have the evidence of OBL ACTUALLY being a co-conspirator. Do you?

No.

It was not a personal attack. It was a suggestion that you educate yourself before you continue to say things that mean nothing. OBL was named in a military court as opposed to civilian. Cool. Now educate me on how that manufactures evidence that does not exist? You have no idea the process or methods surrounding what you seem to think is proof that the FBI is lying about whether or not they can actually link OBL to 9/11.

Again, go educate yourself and try again...or instead of just calling me wrong, explain why I am wrong right here for everyone to see. That should shut me up for good eh?

[edit on 1/18/10 by Lillydale]



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by richierich
 


Again, using the word proof when you have NO PROOF is completely disingenous.

In order for me to believe what that guys says I have to make huge logical leaps which are unsupported by fact.

Here's an example:

He claims Norman Mineta was not "in on it" based on his actions. Well, that's one interpretation. I can probably find another website that claims he is...

Which is right?

And that underlines one of the central problems with all Truther theories: they contradict each other.

If you put all the Truthers together in a room they couldn't agree on much, except that 9/11 was an inside job.

Well, if you start with a premise and work backwards to make the facts match your premise, you aren't honest, you're Tony Blair.

People stringing together their own interpretations of what they consider crucial evidence isn't really research, its fiction.

I asked earlier why none of you Truthers had ever bothered to call the FBI.... this is because you guys are so self-involved in you paranoia you don't bother doing basic simple research.

A final word on Cheney and the linked theory:

Cheney is a man that is, IMO, almost completely political. Trying to use logic to understand a man who sees no contradictions in contradictory behaviour is really stupid.

Cheney could've had a million political reasons for acting the way he did, nothing in that article PROVES his behaviour indicated his involvement. Instead, as usual, we see a idiotic #wit screwing up... typical Cheney.

[edit on 18-1-2010 by seethelight]



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 11:36 AM
link   
What difference does it make whether or not this writer is correct about his assumption concerning Mineta? So what? The basic thrust of it all is what counts, not some irrelevant nitpicking detail.

You do not convince. All you seem to say is that Cheney made political decisions...what? Thats nuts. If Cheney was a part of the 9-11 events and standing down the Pentagon defenses, which adequate proof exists for , then that was in no way some ' political' decision, it was an act of treason and murder.

Your comments lack depth and substance and seem shallow...you do not refute the evidence, but merely label people and ignore that vast mountains of evidence. I bet you didn't even read and digest the whole article, or if you did there is some problem with cognitive functioning that keeps you from correctly assimimlating info and coming to a logical conclusion. Maybe that explains it...



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Lillydale
 


Military courts work a bit differently. But thank you for the personal attack, once again.


Yes, they sure do. Now all you need to do explain to me when exactly OBL was in court? If he was never in that MILITARY court, naming he means JACKS***. They could name me as a co-conspirator too. It does not magically give them some sort of new evidence linking me to it. It means a name was said.

Unless of course you have the evidence of OBL ACTUALLY being a co-conspirator. Do you?

No.

It was not a personal attack. It was a suggestion that you educate yourself before you continue to say things that mean nothing. OBL was named in a military court as opposed to civilian. Cool. Now educate me on how that manufactures evidence that does not exist? You have no idea the process or methods surrounding what you seem to think is proof that the FBI is lying about whether or not they can actually link OBL to 9/11.

Again, go educate yourself and try again...or instead of just calling me wrong, explain why I am wrong right here for everyone to see. That should shut me up for good eh?

[edit on 1/18/10 by Lillydale]


I think you should chill out and have a think about this:

If all the people involved had links to AQ and AQ claims responsibility for 9/11, who does that implicate?

If The State Department calls UBL resposible for 9/11 what does that say about the Gov't believes?

What about when pretty much every single politician alive blames AQ.

And 99.9% of the media...

And every one of out allied countries governments...

And UBL records a video taking credit for it...

BUT

Is that enough to GUARANTEE 100% a court victory?

Can you imagine if the US had a court case against UBL and it fell apart?

What would you Truthers claim then?

The point?

The Justice Department isn't going to put itself in a position to lose the biggest case in its history. That would be stupid.

So instead of acting rashly, it acts reasonably.

And doesn't rush ANYTHING.

That doesn't stop, however, our politicians, the leaders of our intelligence services and our military from blaming the people responsible.. so they do.. publicly and repeatedly.

This tiny little technicality has been used sooooo many times to try and justify logic-less arguments.

Which is ironic considering that the head of the FBI has blamed UBL and AQ, as has the SD, several POTUS and the entire political establishment.

But hey if one page on the FBI website, which hasn't been updated since 2001, says something different, then MOSSAD and The PNAC and Cheney must've done it.

Tortured logic.. and I don't support torture.

[edit on 18-1-2010 by seethelight]



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by richierich
 


You're kidding, right?

This is EXACTLY the kind of piece meal argument that undercuts your entire belief:

I'll take this theory from here, this theory from there...

If he's wrong about one thing, he's just as likely to be wrong about EVERYTHING.

This isn't a fun mix and match game. You guys are claiming the US government murdered thousands of Americans, you say look at this website it PROVES something, but if you get into the details you says, so what if chunk of it are wrong.

Sorry, but that's just fantasy.

Proof isn't partially write when you agree with it, it's based on reality, not just attractive conjecture.

This is why you guys should stop using the word.

You;d put off a lot less people if you said, instead of proof, "here's an interesting theory, based on some conjecture, that I can't prove... but what if..."

At least then you're being vaguely honest.

You also claim the Pentagon had missiles or some other defences to shoot down planes. That's not true.

You can not prove in any way, at all, that what that interview stated was that Cheney told the Pentagon to stand down its missile batteries and that he did it because he was part of an inside plan to murder Americans.

I think he's a sick bastard. I also think you have no proof.

And again, the title of this thread is a lie.



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 12:01 PM
link   
You'll never convince me when your proof contains such huge leaps in logic like:

"we are entitled to believe the same of the Pentagon's defenses on general principles"


Why is he entitled to do that?

Based on what evidence?



That's pure conjecture and again, if you start removing the stuff the author JUST MAKES UP the whole thing falls apart, like all lies.

[edit on 18-1-2010 by seethelight]



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 12:05 PM
link   
More gems:

MR. HAMILTON: Let me see if I understand. The plane that was headed toward the Pentagon and was some miles away, there was an order to shoot that plane down.

MR. MINETA: Well, I don't know that specifically



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 12:08 PM
link   
Here's some more unsubstantiated conjecture:

An essential point to understanding Cheney’s reference is that since the scrambled jets from Langley are 10 minutes away, and the approaching airliner is only 10 miles away (less than 2 minutes), Cheney’s order to shoot or not shoot refers to the White House or the Pentagon’s in situ defenses, not to the scrambled jets.

He offers no proof of what Cheney meant, just his interpretation.



More bull#:

I call this Commission’s failure to mention the Pentagon’s defenses a hoax with some caution. I have not read the report at length, but I have word-and-phrase searched its text in Adobe without results



This is about as shoddy as you can get...




top topics



 
68
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join