Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

"Flight 93" Eyewitnesses Prove No Boeing 757 Crashed In Shanksville on 911.

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 1 2010 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
So, exactly what is it you're doing to achieve this goal of showing "reasonable doubt"?


Well i actually do research, file FOIA request and send e-mails to find the truth.

What have you done to find the truth?


Dont beat about the bush man, id love to see evidence to support your idea off the official story! alright lets be having it I want a good laugh




posted on Mar, 1 2010 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
And exactly how does all that relate to showing doubt in a court of law, which is what you are contending and what I responded in reference to.

And where is your collection of this much vaunted "research"? And what was the result of your FOIA request?

Nada, nothing or zilch?


Roger e-mailed a company that was working at Ground Zero. They told him to buzz off.

He filed a FOIA for the FDR from the NSTB. He received it, but has no idea what to do with it.

He also filed a FOIA with the NSA for an alleged critic that talks of a military shoot down of flight 93. This was over a year ago.



posted on Mar, 2 2010 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by DCDAVECLARKE
Dont beat about the bush man, id love to see evidence to support your idea off the official story! alright lets be having it I want a good laugh


I do not support the official story.

I have facts and evidence that show reasonable doubt in the official story.



posted on Mar, 2 2010 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImAPepper
Roger e-mailed a company that was working at Ground Zero. They told him to buzz off.


Why are you lying? They stated they could not answer my questions due to the 9/11 lawsuits. I can post the e-mail.


He filed a FOIA for the FDR from the NSTB. He received it, but has no idea what to do with it.


Lying again?


He also filed a FOIA with the NSA for an alleged critic that talks of a military shoot down of flight 93. This was over a year ago.


I showed a response from the NSA. Still waiting for it to be declassified.

PLEASE BE ADULT ENOUGH TO STOP THE LYING.



posted on Mar, 2 2010 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 



Still waiting for it to be declassified.


I saw what you claim to be a response to your FOIA and I don't recall any mention of the material needing to be "declassified"?

Is that something you are just throwing into the mix?



posted on Mar, 2 2010 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
I saw what you claim to be a response to your FOIA and I don't recall any mention of the material needing to be "declassified"?

Is that something you are just throwing into the mix?


No, you just did not read the response. I requested a declassified copy of the Critic, the original is classified.



posted on Mar, 2 2010 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
I saw what you claim to be a response to your FOIA and I don't recall any mention of the material needing to be "declassified"?

Is that something you are just throwing into the mix?


No, you just did not read the response. I requested a declassified copy of the Critic, the original is classified.



Assuming, of course it exist and it is classified. Did they respond that it was classified? Or am I to just take your word that is classified? You requesting a "classified" document proves neither that it exist or is classified. Just trying to maintain your high standards of "proof".



posted on Mar, 3 2010 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Assuming, of course it exist and it is classified.


I have access to the orignal document and it is classified.

Thats why I requested a declassified copy to post.



posted on Mar, 3 2010 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
Assuming, of course it exist and it is classified.


I have access to the orignal document and it is classified.

Thats why I requested a declassified copy to post.


So we are just taking your word that it exist and that it is classified and that it says what you say it says, right?

Just want to make sure we are all working on the same baseline of the definition of "proof'.



posted on Mar, 4 2010 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Just want to make sure we are all working on the same baseline of the definition of "proof'.


The response from the NSA states i requested a declassified copy of the document.

i114.photobucket.com...



posted on Mar, 4 2010 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE
I have facts and evidence that show reasonable doubt in the official story.


Why not post them here then, instead of keeping them to yourself - we have not seen any facts or evidence from you yet.



posted on Mar, 4 2010 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by dereks
Why not post them here then, instead of keeping them to yourself - we have not seen any facts or evidence from you yet.


I have posted facts, its just that most people will not accect or admit to them becasue then they would have to admit something other then what the media told them happened.



posted on Mar, 4 2010 @ 02:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by DCDAVECLARKE
Dont beat about the bush man, id love to see evidence to support your idea off the official story! alright lets be having it I want a good laugh


I do not support the official story.

I have facts and evidence that show reasonable doubt in the official story.


Soo sorry!



posted on Mar, 4 2010 @ 06:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
Just want to make sure we are all working on the same baseline of the definition of "proof'.


The response from the NSA states i requested a declassified copy of the document.

i114.photobucket.com...


Yeah, you clearly used the word "declassified". They're quoting you.

Anyway, how's it going with the proof? When's it coming? Or have you given up?



posted on Mar, 4 2010 @ 06:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
Just want to make sure we are all working on the same baseline of the definition of "proof'.


The response from the NSA states i requested a declassified copy of the document.

i114.photobucket.com...


Ok, that letter posted on photobucket is quoting you calling for a "declassified" document. They are not saying it is classified.

Are you really not getting that?

ONLY YOU are describing the alleged document as classified. NOBODY except YOU has stated that the document exist and is classified.



posted on Mar, 4 2010 @ 06:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
Just want to make sure we are all working on the same baseline of the definition of "proof'.


The response from the NSA states i requested a declassified copy of the document.

i114.photobucket.com...


Ok, that letter posted on photobucket is quoting you calling for a "declassified" document. They are not saying it is classified.

Are you really not getting that?

ONLY YOU are describing the alleged document as classified. NOBODY except YOU has stated that the document exist and is classified.



posted on Mar, 4 2010 @ 07:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Ok, that letter posted on photobucket is quoting you calling for a "declassified" document. They are not saying it is classified.


I requested a declassified copy of the documment because the original is classified. What is so hard to understand about that?

Why would i request a declassified copy if the original was not classified?



posted on Mar, 4 2010 @ 07:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
Ok, that letter posted on photobucket is quoting you calling for a "declassified" document. They are not saying it is classified.


I requested a declassified copy of the documment because the original is classified. What is so hard to understand about that?

Why would i request a declassified copy if the original was not classified?




Can you prove that the original document is classified?

Obviously that proof would have to be strong enough to stand up in court.



posted on Mar, 4 2010 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Can you prove that the original document is classified?


Why would i request a declassified copy if the original was not classified?

Are you really that immature that you cannot understand that?





[edit on 4-3-2010 by REMISNE]



posted on Mar, 4 2010 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
Ok, that letter posted on photobucket is quoting you calling for a "declassified" document. They are not saying it is classified.


I requested a declassified copy of the documment because the original is classified. What is so hard to understand about that?

Why would i request a declassified copy if the original was not classified?




So what is your proof that:

a) The document exist
b) The document is classified

The alleged response letter is quoting your alleged FOIA request, so it is just a repitition of your request. So far the only proof to a) and b) above is your word and that falls well below your own threshold of proof.

Unless, of course, you lower the bar for yourself and raise it for others. Which would be definte proof that you are not engaged in a search for the "truth" but engaged in an effort to demote the truth and promote your own personal agenda.






top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join