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.

 

Firefighters For 9/11 Truth Debunk Assange: Irrefutable Evidence of Cover-Up (VIDEO)

page: 2
34
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
What the hell. Of course he is annoyed. I'd be too. He is constantly getting emails etc. asking for 911 information. Wikileaks only publishes material leaked to them. If someone will give them a leak that proves 911 was an inside job then they will publish it. As it stands there is no evidence for 911 being inside job.



I absolutely agree with this quote. I am sure he is annoyed by truthers. Not to mention, we CANNOT forget that this guy is from Australia. He probably gets thousands of emails a day that don't help further the cause but just ask for him to publish info on 9/11. I imagine he gets super annoyed at this people, but honestly HASN'T looked into the movement at all. Why would he? What motive would he ever have had to find out if 9/11 was a cover up? Of course he would want to be TOLD if someone found irrefutable evidence that no one could dispute, but I can't see him putting his own precious time into it when he has other things to do and his government is not going to be implicated if he finds out the truth or not.

So, a combination of irritation from so many people ASKING for information and him having no real motive to look into the truth or not would lead to him saying what he is saying. As for him not running his mouth of without having done his research? Half or more of the posts from ATS do exactly the same thing about a wide variety of subjects, and we forgive others for saying incorrect things without having done their research because we know they are human beings who make mistakes. Julian Assange is just human and he is entitled to make his mistakes and say his non-properly researched things every once in a while.
edit on 12/10/2010 by spacekc929 because: stuff




posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by spacekc929
 


Again, if that was his claim, then then fine, but it wasn't. His claim was that there is no 9/11 conspiracy. Two hugely different things. If he just said that because he is annoyed with "truthers" or rational people who require evidence before buying into a government claim or the official conspiracy theory, then why did he take a different tact with the UFO subject, a subject that he also apparently gets emailed and contacted over.

His exact quote:

"I’m constantly annoyed that people are distracted by false conspiracies such as 9/11, when all around we provide evidence of real conspiracies, for war or mass financial fraud.” --Assange

He didn't make a claim that there is no such things as UFOs or ET life.

Then, it's not just the 9/11 issue that is a red-flag. When you combine the 9/11 issue with the plethora of other red-flags, it becomes apparent Assange and WL is not what he claims. In fact, WL seems to be one of the best things to happen to Israel.

Oh yeah, I might add that he hasn't provided evidence of conspiracies regarding war or financial fraud.

Deny ignorance!

--airspoon
edit on 10-12-2010 by airspoon because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 11:20 AM
link   
It is by definition a false conspiracy untill there is evidence to support otherwise. What part of that you don't get?



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


Irrefutable Evidence of Cover-Up




I'm sorry, but I'd hardly call those videos and link "Irrefutable Evidence" I'd call them interesting or thought provoking but not irrefutable. So now Assange is a patsy. OK. Lets see where that one leads us.


As always on these threads I look forward to people presenting some real facts.



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


There is a whole mountain of evidence to "support otherwise". What part of that don't you get? Where have you been? Assange and Wikileaks has not even provided evidence to what he claims, conspiracies of war and financial fraud, yet he seems to think those are conspiracies.

What part of a consensus of experts finding demolitions in the WTC pile isn;t evidence? What part of eye-wotness testimony isn't evidence? What part of 9/11 commission fraud isn't evidence? Did you even read the OP, or are you so busy drivaling over Assange and WL that you just simply ignore it?

Furthermore, the government conspiracy doesn't have evidence to support it and Assange is essentially backing that official conspiracy theory. Your logic is shot dead and floating in the water.

Again, either deny ignorance or don't, but don't pretend that you do when you don't.

Assange claims there are conspiracies that he is exposing involving war and financial fraud, yet he hasn't exposed anything to the sort. Meanwhile, a conspiracy that does have a mountain of evidence behind it, he is claiming isn't a conspiracy at all. Take the blinders off and crawl off Assange's lap.

What part of that don't you get?

This whole issue reminds me of Animal Farm: "Nepolean is always right!"

People are so blinded by this false idol, that they are no more awake than the sheeple they speak against. They are basically trading one disinfo outlet for another, completely believing that they are getting the truth.


--airspoon
edit on 10-12-2010 by airspoon because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by airspoon
Then, it's not just the 9/11 issue that is a red-flag. When you combine the 9/11 issue with the plethora of other red-flags, it becomes apparent Assange and WL is not what he claims. In fact, WL seems to be one of the best things to happen to Israel.


Lack of evidence isn't evidence in itself.


Oh yeah, I might add that he hasn't provided evidence of conspiracies regarding war or financial fraud.

Deny ignorance!


We haven't seen what information is in all the cables YET

Denying facts?



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 



We haven't seen what information is in all the cables YET


Based on that logic, I haven't yet exposed any evidence that I'm the second coming of Jesus. Does that mean that I'm jesus? If you think so, I have some wonderful beach front property in Arizona for sale and it's something I think you might enjoy, interested?


Lack of evidence isn't evidence in itself


Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but I'll really take any evidence at all. The red-flags surrounding Assange, surely aren't due to "lack of evidence".





--airspoon



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by airspoon
reply to post by SLAYER69
 



We haven't seen what information is in all the cables YET


Based on that logic, I haven't yet exposed any evidence that I'm the second coming of Jesus. Does that mean that I'm jesus? If you think so, I have some wonderful beach front property in Arizona for sale and it's something I think you might enjoy, interested?


I'm sorry you're upset, there is nothing I can do about that. but it's simple logic. We haven't read yet all there may possibly be on these topics. If that's a red flag for you well then there's not much anybody can say to help you with your uncontrollable emotional outbursts.

Prudence dictates a wait and see approach, instead of flying off the handle with psychologically unbalanced claims and delusions of self importance.

We have a real mystery I agree, but let's not muddy the waters with innuendo and internet pop culture voodoo research.



Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,



"Irrefutable Evidence of Cover-Up "
edit on 10-12-2010 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 



We haven't read yet all there may possibly be on these topics. If that's a red flag for you well then there's not much anybody can say to help you with your uncontrollable emotional outbursts.


LOL, emotional outbursts? Are you saying that because of the beach front property remark? That was meant as an underscore to the point. Maybe you shouldn't be so paranoid, as paranoia can often prevent objectivity. Anyway, you are taking my comment out of context, as that comment quoted by you was in reply to another poster and completely out of the context in which you represented it. You can either deny ignorance and reread it in its proper context, or just ignore the context and read into it whatever you want, I have no control on what data you allow your biases to influence or paranoia to subjucate.

The red-flag, one of many, is that Assange is claiming that 9/11 conspiracies are false (keeping within Asange's context), and people are foolish to believe in a such a false conspiracy, considering that Assange has provided evidence of a real conspiracy, to which he hasn't. What he may or may not do in the future is completely irrelevant. This is especially a red-flag, when you combine it with everything else.

Smoke is evidence of a fire, though by itself it isn't evidence that any structures are on fire. However, when you combine the evidence of smoke with the evidence of its location and the people running around with burns, the smoke become stronger evidence that a structure is or was on fire.

It would seem that these leaks coming out of WL either confirm or play to Israel's agenda, or they make Israel out in a good light. Considering that mant people believe Israel to possibly have a part in those attacks, this would be one more thing suggesting that Assange maybe a disinfo outlet. You also have many more red-flags such as Soros, the media, the lack of viable government response, just to name a few. When you add everything up, the picture starts taking shape and it isn;t a picture of some non-profit looking do good for society either.

Assange clearly stated that there is no 9/11 conspiracy and people are basically foolish to believe in those things when he himself is providing evidence of "real conspiracies" such as war and financial fraud. However, he has provided no such evidence, especially back then when he made that claim. So, basically by Assange''s own logic, people would be foolish to believe in his claims and not a 9/11 conspiracy, seeing how there is evidence against the official conspiracy theory in regards to 9/11 and Assange has not yet provided any evidence of his extraordinary claims.


Prudence dictates a wait and see approach, instead of flying off the handle with psychologically unbalanced claims and delusions of self importance.


Well considering that you clearly failed to comprehend just about anything and allowed your biases to rearrange context, I think that applies to you. Maybe you should take your own advice and you may just sound a little credible.

Again, it might be wise to not run with something before understanding the context or at the very least, not allowing your biases to distort the context. It is clear you picked apart certain statements to fit a pre-concieved notion and then ran with it in an attempt to hike up your own percieved intelligence on the subject matter.

It's generally not wise to stifle otherwise intellectual debate with such subjective drival.


--airspoon
edit on 10-12-2010 by airspoon because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by airspoon
LOL, emotional outbursts? Are you saying that because of the beach front property remark? That was meant as an underscore to the point.


Weakly. Proceed....


Maybe you shouldn't be so paranoid, though I certainly understand that you are. Anyway,


Yeah I'm shaking in my boots. Moving along....


you are taking my coomment out of context, as that comment quoted by you was in reply to another poster and completely out of the context in which you represented it. You can either deny ignorance and reread it in its proper context, or just ignore the context and read into it whatever you want, I have no control on what data you allow your biases to influences.


Your statement and replies.



The red-flag, one out of many, is that Assange is claiming that 9/11 conspiracies are false (keeping within Asange's context), as if he would know better than anyone else. This is especially a red-flag, when you combine it with everything else.


Suggestive, assumptive and biased.....


Smoke is evidence of a fire, though by itself it isn't evidence that any structures are on fire.


Thanks for the tip.



However, when you combine the evidence of smoke with the evidence of its location and the people running around with burns, the smoke become stronger evidence that a structure is or was on fire.


OK. Good safety tip. Don't play with matches & Stop, Drop and Roll



It would seem that these leaks coming out of WL either confirm or play to Israel's agenda, or they make Israel out in a good light.


Assumptive on your part. This paints them in a good light? Isn't that your biased perception about Israel bleeding through? NOTE: I'm not a fanboy of Israel but your argument holds no water. I'm sorry but what has been released THUS far has very little if ANY info on Israel. Again Lack of evidence is not evidence in itself.


Considering that mant people believe Israel to possibly have a part in those attacks, this would be one more thing suggesting that Assange maybe a disinfo outlet.


Ahh so I get it now. Here let me reread it back to you so you can see what I'm talking about....

that mant people "Believe" Israel to "Possibly" have a part in those attacks, this would be one more thing "suggesting" that Assange "maybe" a disinfo outlet.

That's not even circumstantial evidence.



You also have many more red-flags such as Soros, the media, the lack of viable government response, just to name a few. When you add everything up, the picture starts taking shape and it isn;t a picture of some non-profit looking do good for society either.


Interesting but again not proof in itself. Good try though.


Simce you missed the context, I'll recap it for you:

Assange clearly stated that there is no 9/11 conspiracy and people are basically foolish to believe in those things when he himself is providing evidence of "real conspiracies" such as war and financial fraud. However, he has provided no such evidence,


What part of YET don't you get?

We haven't seen or read the bulk or about 90% of the cables. But you are dead sure you're right even though we haven't been presented with all of them yet right? Never seeing them yet you know for sure what's in them, right?

That's called contempt prior to investigation. The breakdown of the word prejudice is to Pre-Judge



Well considering that you clearly failed to comprehend just about anything and allowed your biases to rearrange context, I think that applies to you. Maybe you should take your own advice and you may just sound a little credible.


Yeah I know, tell me about it. Trying to work out the details of a real conspiracy with your finger paintings and water coloring presentation is rough to follow that I'll admit.



Again, it might be wise to not run with something before understanding the context or at the very least, not allowing your biases to distort the context.


Exactly. Maybe you should change this threads title then.



It is clear you picked apart certain statements to fit a pre-concieved notion and then ran with it in an attempt to hike up your own percieved intelligence on the subject matter.


I simply replied to the obvious biased and opinionated stance of the OP. Simply put. That while trying to present facts to support ones case one does so with actual FACTS.

Not run around screaming

OMG......Assange is a CIA PATSY!!!! Here's some Youtube videos as Irrefutable Evidence of Cover-Up



It's generally not wise to stifle otherwise intellectual debate with such subjective drival.


Well, if and when this intellectual debate starts send me a U2U.

Because trying to read through your verbal excrement is a bit taxing but hey, I'm off work today and have already been to the Gym. I'm all yours sweet cheeks


---SLAYER69
edit on 10-12-2010 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by airspoon
reply to post by Whereweheaded
 



Apparently, the only flight data recorder recovered, according to authorities, was flight 93, while they claim that the other flight recorders were either never recovered or too damaged to read. So yes, one box was recovered and admitted too. I also don't believe that these flight data recorders were never recovered.

I find it odd how "evidence" of the hijackers just happen to be recovered from the pile almost completely unscathed, yet the one thing that is supposed to survive such an incident, didn't. I'm not buying that one bit.


--airspoon


Actually, 4 " black " boxes were recovered. The flight data recorders and the cockpit voice recorders for both UA 93 and AA 77. However, the cockpit voice recorder for AA 77 was too badly damaged to retrieve anything from.

The boxes not recovered at all were the WTC flights which is not altogether surprising when you consider that they were exposed to not only the initial impacts with the Towers but the subsequent collapses.



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Okay, I see what's happening here, though I'll go ahead and respond for the reader's sake.

A red-flag is subjective and based on opinion. However, when someone makes an extraordinary claim, it is wise for posters to point out any flaws surrounding that claim. Or, we can simply run along buying into whatever anyone tells us. Furthermore, a "red-flag" to one person, is a coincidence to another. What's your point other than to troll or backpeddle? In fact, what are you getting at? What is your point? You seem to have taken my reply to another poster (which was in context to that poster's point), putting it into the context of the OP and then trying to pass that off as the reason that the OP is incorrect, then disguising it all with some baseless accusations of subverting objectivity. Are you serious? Do you not see what is wrong with such a tactic? Your subjugating tactic is noted.


What has been released THUS far has very little if ANY info on Israel. Again Lack of evidense is not evidence in itself.


It's not just the state of Israel, but Israel's alleged agenda in the region. Such as Iran's nuclear energy program (just for one small instance).

Just because the cables don't have the word "Israel" in them, doesn't mean that they do or don't favor Israel. As I said before, the jist of the dump is either putting good light on Israel or an agenda that would favor Israel (again, no that doesn;t mean that it has to particularly involve the country Israel in it's body).

However, getting back to the OP Assange clearly tried to say that there isn't a 9/11 conspiracy and people who would believe otherwise, are foolish for doing so because WL provides evidence of "real" conspiracies, such as war and financial fraud, eventhough WL doesn't provide such evidence. Again, what WL may or may not leak in the future, is completely irrelevant, no matter how much you wish it was.


Ahh so I get it now. Here let me reread it back to you so you can see what I'm talking about....

that mant people "Believe" Israel to "Possibly" have a part in those attacks, this would be one more thing "suggesting" that Assange "maybe" a disinfo outlet.

That's not even circumstantial evidence.


You seem to be implying that I am stating WL to be a disinfo outlet as a fact, when I have never, ever said or implied such a thing. You have the wrong person and as anyone is who familiar with my posting history knows, I don't accept anything as fact without the evidence to clearly define it as such. I have never even stated that any particular 9/11 conspiracy is a fact. Again, your own biases and pre-concieved notions are influencing the data, making your assumptions entirely false.

I don't know about you, but myself an many others don't use the term "red-flag" to mean fact. A red-flag is a red-flag, meaning something seems a little fishy or doesn't seem right. While I believe that WL and Assange has a very high probability of being a disinfo campaign, I have never implied that I know this as a fact, I believe it could be true and these red-flags are what I base that belief on.

With that being said, I do clearly believe that there is a cover up in regards to 9/11 and I do state that as fact. It is a fact that authorities claim they won't even consider controlled demos and it is a fact that the MSM ignores a mountain of evidence that goes against the official conspiracy theory. It is a fact that the authorities tried to pass of the 9/11 commission as independent and impartial. It is a fact that the Bush Admin tried to subvert the commission. It is a fact that the commission ignored a lot of evidence, thus it is a fact that some kind of cover-up involving 9/11 took place.

When Assange plays into this cover-up by also stating that a 9/11 conspiracy theory doesn;t exist and then chides those who would believe in such a thing, on the erronious claims that he has provided evidence of so-called real conspiracies, then yes, that is evidence that Assange is aiding in the cover-up. This does not mean that it is an accepted fact, only that it is evidence. Then, when you combine all of the red-flags (mentioned here and elsewhere) with this piece of evidence, the picture becomes even more clear.

What Assange was basically saying when he made that comment chiding those seeking the truth about 9/11, is that 9/11 wasn't a conspiracy. That is being debunked by the firefighter in the video, along with a whole mountain of other evidence. He then claims that we are foolish for beleiving in such things because he himself has provided a bunch of evidence on "real" conspiracies, to which he has not. So again, Assange was wrong and his intent must be questioned with a level of scrutiny that we would give anyone else making extraordinary claims, to include government.

Again, nowhere have I made a claim that it is a fact that WL is a disinfo campaign, only that I believe this to be a strong possibility and then I state the red-flags and evidence to which I'm basing that belief. Anything else you read into it, is your own pre-concieved notion, based on your own biases.

So, if you want to debate the OP, I'd be more than happy to. If you want to debate my post to the other poster, then I'd be more than happy to do that as well, so long as you keep each one in its own context, as opposed to mixing the contexts and applying them to each other, as if that context had anything to do with the statements made in the OP.

--airspoon


reply to post by Alfie1
 


As I have said, only one flight data recorder was recoevered, while the others were either missing or too damaged to be recovered.


Apparently, the only flight data recorder recovered, according to authorities, was flight 93, while they claim that the other flight recorders were either never recovered or too damaged to read.


When a flight data recorder is too badly damaged, the data is apparently unrecoverable.

With that, I find it a little odd that a pass-port can make it through relatively unscathed, though some how the most solid part of the plane, the part most indestructable, does not survive.

Can this happen? Sure, it's a possibility, I guess, though the probability is something else and then when you add it to everything else, it makes this issue all the more important. Is that enough proof? Of course not, however that with a mountain of other questins and evidence should be enough to warrant a real investigation. The issue of the black boxes is certainly a queation that needs to be addressed.

One has to ask him or herself, how a piece of paper (basically) can make it relatively unscathed, but not the supposedly indestructable black-blox?

Of course, if this was the only question lingering, it would be no big deal, but it really is only a question at the bottom of a whole host of unanswered questions. By itself, it can easily be overlooked or explained away through a freak occurence, though added to everything else and it just becomes another clue pointing away from the official conspiracy theory.


--airspoon
edit on 10-12-2010 by airspoon because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by airspoon
Okay, I see what's happening here, though I'll go ahead and respond for the reader's sake.

A red-flag is subjective and based on opinion.


I'm a reader. Thank you. I agree whole heartily with that admission.



However, when someone makes an extraordinary claim, it is wise for posters to point out any flaws surrounding that claim.


Again I agree and I have------> "Irrefutable Evidence of Cover-Up"


Furthermore, a "red-flag" to one person, is a coincidence to another. What's your point other than to troll or backpeddle?


I'm sorry Airsoft I mean Airspoon but pointing out the flaws in your op and the title may be irritating, annoying and inconvenient but it's not trolling.



In fact, what are you getting at? What is your point? You seem to have taken my reply to another poster (which was in context to that poster's point)putting it into the context of the OP and then trying to pass that off as the reason that the OP is incorrect


It is. It's not "Irrefutable"


then disguising it all with some baseless accusations of subverting objectivity. Are you serious? Do you not see what is wrong with such a tactic? Your subjugating tactic is noted.


Good
Now get over your over evaluated half assed analysis of my replies and admit your title is Over-Sensationalized to simply draw in a crowd.


It's not just the state of Israel, but Israel's alleged agenda in the region. Such as Iran's nuclear energy program


That's just further proof you have an AGENDA Admit it, Iran and Israel are not on topic. Remember?

It's 9/11 and Assange showing irrefutable Youtube sourced Evidence of a Cover-Up



Just because the cables don't have the word "Israel" in them, doesn't mean that they do or don't favor Israel.


SIGH.
They don't mention them or favor them. That's the point. You're pulling a red herring out of your backside to simply attack Israel.

Admit it.


As I said before, the jist of the dump is either putting good light on Israel or an agenda that would favor Israel (again, no that doesn;t mean that it has to particularly involve the country Israel in it's body).


The jist of the Dump is to get info out. You can make all the claims you want day and night but without real proof it goes nowhere. AGAIN. Now pay close attention.

We do not know whats in the remainder to be released. Israel may still be in there and the cables may YET show all the nasty things they have done or were planning to do but as of YET there is no info. One way or another other than whats going on in your head.


However, getting back to the OP


Thank you. Finally....


Assange clearly tried to say that there isn't a 9/11 conspiracy and people who would believe otherwise, are foolish for doing so because WL provides evidence of "real" conspiracies, such as war and financial fraud, eventhough WL doesn't provide such evidence. Again, what WL may or may not leak in the future, is completely irrelevant, no matter how much you wish it was.


He gave his opinion on the topic of 9/11. Does that discredit all that he has brought to lite? Hell, China did not deny that they were fed up with North Korea nor did Irans neighbors deny that they had pressed the US to take out Irans nuke program like what was mentioned in the leaks.

BUT with regards to some "Non Existent" "Non Evidence" about Israel That proves they are guilty of whats going on based on fabrications between your ears in your head. right?



You seem to be implying that I am stating WL to be a disinfo outlet as a fact, when I have never, ever said or implied such a thing. You have the wrong person and as anyone is who familiar with my posting history knows, I don't accept anything as fact without the evidence to clearly define it as such.


Oh brother.


'Irrefutable Evidence of Cover-Up'


I have never even stated that any particular 9/11 conspiracy is a fact. Again, your own biases and pre-concieved notions are influencing the data, making your assumptions entirely false.


I'm not making any assumptions here. Just trying to get you to clarify your stance and avoid all your dancing around the question about the validity of the claim of "Irrefutable Evidence of a Cover-Up"

Well It's time to grab some lunch.


PEACE


---SLAYER69
edit on 10-12-2010 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


And THIS, ladies and gentlemen, is Exhibit "A" as to why the so-called "truth movement" people are just spinning their wheels. IN every case, when they think they have a grip on a "fact", it is wrong on some level...either because it is just parroted from somewhere else (without fully checking,and digging the details), or is just "off-the-cuff" toss away...guess they're pretty much the same thing, really....


Apparently, the only flight data recorder recovered, according to authorities, was flight 93, while they claim that the other flight recorders were either never recovered or too damaged to read. So yes, one box was recovered and admitted too.


I see that Alfie1 beat me to the punch, on clearing up the details. Still, this is just ONE example of the red herrings, and "false flags" that get thrown around by the folks involved in this farce called the "truth movement".



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Alfie beat you to what? Do you think that more than one flight data recorder was recovered on 9/11? If so, which one and why hasn't anyone else heard of it? If it was too damaged to be of any use or to extract data, then it wasn't recovered. Are you ignoring the other part of the statement, which clearly states that the others were either not found or too damaged to recover the data?


while they claim that the other flight recorders were either never recovered or too damaged to read.


So are you saying that the authorities have recovered the data from the other planes, besides flight 93? Source please???

Typical official conspiracy theorist drival, whereby you post a bunch of non-sense in an effort to skirt the issues and distract from the subject matter. No, don't address the fact that a piece of paper made it through the impact and subsequent fires and chaos, while the supposed indestructable flight-data recorders apparently didn't. Instead, post a bunch of non-sense in hopes that the reader will be distracted or become disinterested. Again, typical.

--airspoon
edit on 10-12-2010 by airspoon because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by airspoon
If it was too damaged to be of any use or to extract data, then it wasn't recovered.




Recover \Re*cov"er\ (r?*k?v"?r), v. t. [imp. & p. p. [Recovered]
(-?rd); p. pr. & vb. n. [Recovering]. ] [OE. recoveren, OF.
recovrer, F. recouvrer, from L. recuperare; pref. re- re + a
word of unknown origin. Cf.[Recuperate].]

[1913 Webster]


1. To get or obtain again; to get renewed possession of; to
win back; to regain.



Trying to redefine words and twist their meaning instead of just admitting you made a mistake is classic truther fail logic at it's finest.

We see through this deception.



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by SpaDe_
 


Wrong, Assange is losing credibility because he believes in a conspiracy theory - the one put forward by the 9/11 Commission.
While it is highly doubtful that WL has gotten any leaks about 9/11, Assange's pedagogical attitude towards 9/11 truth is a real problem. People who understand that the system is chock full of lies and manipulation done by governments with no concern for human rights or lives put faith in this man and what he says. That makes him a shill in my book, working for the same people that Bush and Cheney work for.
The extradition laws of Paraguay are one reason the Bush family bought land there, because they will not extradite anyone to the US for justice.
Anyone still buying into the WL myth and Julian Assange needs to go back to conspiracy basics 101.
What's his history? Where does he get his funding? Why is the MSM talking him up like there's no tomorrow?
The media work hand in glove with the banks and big corporations. Why in God's name would they use the MSM to attack their own masters?
The answer is they wouldn't, of course. That leaves only the possibility that this is an intentional campaign of disinformation designed to achieve certain goals.
What are those goals? That is the most important question we have to ask. Is it so that the government can control the net? To further foreign policy goals and swing support for attacking Iran and North Korea?
If you don't care about freedom or war or justice for people in general then don't ask.
Just believe whatever comfortable myths fit your world view.
It will only be through your apathy and that of millions of others that evil people are allowed to call the shots in the world.
Go back to sleep.Julian Assange is a hero hacker bent of bringing down unjust governments and institutions. No conspiracy here.


It's great to see members of the NYFD standing up and asking what happened on 9/11.They know better than anyone what happened that day and paid a higher price.
Thanks for posting that video Airspoon, Eric Lawyer looks like a great representative for 9/11 truth. And BTW, so are you Sir Airspoon!


SpaDe: I had only read your first post. Sorry if I came off like I was attacking you. I could have worded things differently and should have. My apologies to you.
edit on 10-12-2010 by Asktheanimals because: to add material



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


You keep repeating your same mistake. The flight data recorders for both UA 93 and AA 77 were recovered and their data could be read. In addition the cockpit voice recorder from UA 93 was recovered and the voice recording heard ( there are transcripts all over the internet ).

I don't share your incredulity about flimsy documents such as a passport surviving. Plenty of other lightweight items survived too ; as did these identity documents at this Iran crash site ;-

news.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
I don't share your incredulity about flimsy documents such as a passport surviving. Plenty of other lightweight items survived too ; as did these identity documents at this Iran crash site ;-

news.bbc.co.uk...




Wheres the plane? I mean the bodies?


All 168 passengers and crew have died in a Caspian Airlines
plane crash in northern Iran, officials say.





Looks familiar. hmmm.




edit on 10-12-2010 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


Look you can argue about semantics all you want, black boxes or the data on those black boxes wasn't recovered. If I'm talking about a word file on my laptop and I drop it into the toilet then pull out my laptop and that world file is inaccessable, that word file has not been recovered and it's even arguable that my laptop has not been recovered.

However, I'll admit that I was mistaken about flight 77's flight data recorder, as it was the flight voice recorder data that wasn't recovered and the flight data recorder was "charred". However, the premise still stands. To date, the only black boxes that have not been recovered from plane crashes, are those that have crashed in inaccessable areas, such as mountains or the ocean (with many ocean and mountain crashes still resulting in their black-boxes being recovered). Source: list of all plane crashes that have resulted in non-recovered "black-boxes"

The "black-boxes" of both flight 11 and flight 175 were never found (and the voice data of 77 was never recovered), which is unprecedented. This is also in spite of the fact that two recovery workers claim that they witnessed the black boxes being recovered from 11 and 175. This is also in spite of the fact that apparently a piece of paper could come out unscathed (a piece of paper that supports the official conspiracy theory), yet the supposedly indestructable black-boxes were obliterated. I think that Occam's old sharp Razor comes into play here.

With all of that being said, this has nothing to do with the OP. The OP is about Assange's unfounded claim regarding his own "leaked" evidence and 9/11 conspiracies, which is a huge red-flag as to Assange's intent, imo.


--airspoon
edit on 10-12-2010 by airspoon because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join