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 diversionary tactics

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 25 2010 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


I am not making any wild accusations at all, nor claiming victory, therefore what you have to say is baseless. Confusion is in the eye of the beholder.




posted on May, 26 2010 @ 03:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


I am not making any wild accusations at all, nor claiming victory


I'm glad that's cleared that up. For a moment I thought you actually believed what you were saying. But now I know that you admit you can't prove anything that you claim I suppose I can safely ignore your opinions.

Look, it comes down to this. The Truth Movement refuses to see its opponents in a nuanced light. That's understandable because it chimes with the paranoid fantasy that everyone who is uninitiated is either a spook or a sheep, and also because it allows the "movement" to present itself as larger than it actually is. But it is a false dichotomy to claim that those who don't believe the towers were brought down by explosives are also Bush/NWO loyalists.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 10:35 AM
link   

I'm glad that's cleared that up. For a moment I thought you actually believed what you were saying. But now I know that you admit you can't prove anything that you claim I suppose I can safely ignore your opinions.


What I am saying is spot on. What you did was changed what I said, then when I said I didn't say it you said you were glad I acknowledged what YOU said was wrong. You completely fail.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


And yet you're unable to show that.

Admittedly, I may have picked you up wrong, but your writing style - and some of your spelling and grammar - is, to be charitable, hard to fathom.

Perhaps you could explain why being unable to support your theories - but unconvinced of other people's - makes you a voice worth listening to?



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by theability
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 



Do you think that there are whole agencies which are dedicated to 9/11 being covered up? Whole departments, with office space, cleaners, a vending machine? How on earth are they keeping them all quiet?


Why yes, there is and are!

Like when those who stand out and speak the truth against TPTB and low and behold they end up dead rather quickly.

Like Barry Jennings who spoke about explosions in WTC 7 on floor 8 to reporters and died soon after.

Anyway.... How do you keep a vending machine quiet btw? rotf



Barry Jennings spoke about his experiences in WTC 7 on 9/11 on 9/11 and many times subsequently. He actually died in August 2008, nearly 7 years later. He was an overweight middle-aged man.

Must have been silenced, heh ?



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by iamcpc
 



Very strange! what about the other 928375987 people who heard explosions just like he did who didn't mysteriously die? There must be a reason for that.


Berry Jennings was speaking out about WTC7 and explosions inside that building which is obviously a HUGE issues regarding 911.

I guess deductive reasoning couldn't help you out on that one?

There was only a hand full of individuals that spoke out about WTC 7 and being trapped by explosions, now one is dead.

How is that iampc? Ar you able to see that now?



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by theability

I guess deductive reasoning couldn't help you out on that one?


You wouldn't be referring to that same deductive reasoning that caused you to believe that the laws of physics could be broken, would you?



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 



You wouldn't be referring to that same deductive reasoning that caused you to believe that the laws of physics could be broken, would you?


Actually again, your mis-directions lead us astray.

My deductive reasoning, showed me the fable of the OS is a fraud.

Due to the Facts: three steel framed buildings collapsed on 911, and 911 only. Well so far its not happeend again, nor will it.

Since As the world of engineer and structures standing have shown, its never happened before and if it was so easy to have happend again, then all the buildings across the planet would be DEEMED UNSAFE TO OCCUPY!

But agian, the premise of reality and the production of observational study of engineering buildings for throusands of years couldn't have anything to do with science, especially debunkers and trolls like yourself you perpetrate the lies of the OS, claiming all of this to be fact, and history of ME and SE to be a facre.

Trolling is traditional drummers tactics!

Never offering credit to a source.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by theability
reply to post by iamcpc
 



Very strange! what about the other 928375987 people who heard explosions just like he did who didn't mysteriously die? There must be a reason for that.


Berry Jennings was speaking out about WTC7 and explosions inside that building which is obviously a HUGE issues regarding 911.

I guess deductive reasoning couldn't help you out on that one?

There was only a hand full of individuals that spoke out about WTC 7 and being trapped by explosions, now one is dead.

How is that iampc? Ar you able to see that now?




You haven't addressed the fact that Barry Jennings was an overweight middle-aged man who survived 9/11 by nearly 7 years.

Eventually, every eyewitness of 9/11 will die. All to be murdered by Bush?Cheney ?



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by theability

Due to the Facts: three steel framed buildings collapsed on 911, and 911 only. Well so far its not happeend again, nor will it.


For that matter, two 100+ story skyscrapers had never been hit with jets flying at full speed, then burned for an hour either. And the third 50+ story building had never before had its front face ripped off by flying chunks of flaming debris. Indeed, it was a day of firsts.

The big problem here is the belief you express that the laws of physics were broken on 911. I guess you never really applied critical thinking skills to the claim that the laws of physics ever could be broken. Apparently your reasoning skills haven't been in tip top shape since you've been making this argument.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 



The big problem here is the belief you express that the laws of physics were broken on 911.



I didn't say that, I stated that to believe the "offical story" you need to accept that law of physics and ME, SE just cease to exist on this day.


That is what I said.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 




Apparently your reasoning skills haven't been in tip top shape since you've been making this argument.


Another perfect example at traditional drummers trolling tactics.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 



the is really simple TD...

In debate, or dicsussion this is how it works.


you offer your side

Then I offer my side and then we go from there.

Yet you never offer aside you just ramble words, with no source, ever.

That is like inciting revolt.

Here is a great link for you tranditionaldrummer

what is a troll



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by theability
reply to post by iamcpc
 



Very strange! what about the other 928375987 people who heard explosions just like he did who didn't mysteriously die? There must be a reason for that.


Berry Jennings was speaking out about WTC7 and explosions inside that building which is obviously a HUGE issues regarding 911.

I guess deductive reasoning couldn't help you out on that one?

There was only a hand full of individuals that spoke out about WTC 7 and being trapped by explosions, now one is dead.

How is that iampc? Ar you able to see that now?




That seems pretty logical.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by theability

I didn't say that, I stated that to believe the "offical story" you need to accept that law of physics and ME, SE just cease to exist on this day.


That is what I said.


That's even better. The laws of physics "ceased to exist" that day. When did they resume existence again? What caused them to cease existing? The government?



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 05:10 PM
link   
And we have the prrof of 911 diversonary tactics once again!






posted on May, 27 2010 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


Wow you really cannot follow or are uwilling to.

traditionaldrummer, no matter which slight of hand you try to pull, it will not ever change the fact about 911 that day.

You can spew scripts out at me all day.

THE OS is a fairytale.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by theability
And we have the prrof of 911 diversonary tactics once again!





I believe I am being topical. Someone points out that the laws of physics ceased to exist on 911, I ask some questions about this claim, then the distractions and avoidance begin. Why do you suppose this is?



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by theability
THE OS is a fairytale.


I can accept that claim at face value. No problem.
I'm interested in how and why the laws of physics ceased to exist that day.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by jprophet420
 


And yet you're unable to show that.

Admittedly, I may have picked you up wrong, but your writing style - and some of your spelling and grammar - is, to be charitable, hard to fathom.

Perhaps you could explain why being unable to support your theories - but unconvinced of other people's - makes you a voice worth listening to?


What theory am I unable to support? What have I said that is incorrect or "hard to fathom"?

After all not citing what you are posting about when you can quote it in a few seconds is rather ignorant.




top topics



 
7
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join