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.

 

Geraldo and Jesse Ventura debunk 9/11!!

page: 7
59
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by GodIsPissed
 


What are you rambling on about? I'm not skeptical of Jesse. Re-read my post.




posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


No sir/madam, please re-read my post. I was talking about drummy.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by GodIsPissed
And 19 Arabs with box cutters is the OS/official story.The Towers collapsed because planes hit them is the official story..Building 7 fell because of fire is the official story.A plane hit the pentagon is the official story..need i go on?


The commonly accepted explanation is in no way an "official story".


What evidence do YOU have to support the official stories?


Tons, though it's nobody's burden to support it. It's up to those presenting an alternative to bring evidence to support their claims. Are you claiming that 9/11 was a conspiracy? Prove it or move along.



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 03:19 AM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


"Tons".

Thank you for sharing that with us.

You say you have tons of evidence but can't provide any so what makes you believe what the government is saying?

And 19 Arabs with box cutters is the official story from the government..why even argue about that?You could argue about why they invaded Afghanistan when none of the hijackers were from there.That sounds like a better argument.Or argue over why they are even in Afghanistan in the first place when Osama had nothing to do with 9/11..even though they blamed him and plastered his face everywhere and invaded the country for it.

Do you have anybody besides Nist that agrees with with the "OS"?Any architects or engineers or firemen or policeman or pilots or demolitions experts anybody that's willing to stick up for the "OS" to back you up?

And anytime you want to show us that "tons" of evidence...just let me know..you know?...I just want to know the truth.

edit on 24-12-2010 by GodIsPissed because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 03:41 AM
link   
reply to post by GodIsPissed
 


Dude it's pointless trying to argue with drumtard. He just keeps saying "show me the evidence" and "it's not my responsibility to claim what I believe". "You have the burden of proving your claims with evidence". The mountainous pile of evidence provided by you fine ATS detectives is what I'd like to bury drummy in til he suffocates.



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by GodIsPissed
 


I guess you missed the two pertinent points I made.

1. There is no "official story".

2. The burden of proof lies with those presenting an alternative to the commonly accepted understanding.

So, either prove your case or move on.



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummerWell now we know that your talking points memo tells you to promote 'conspiracy'. Confuse the issue with a host of perps all in cahoots, thousands of people keeping a secret. That's what they want, but it won't work this time. We're on to you, and the internet was something you forgot you couldn't control, and it will be your undoing.
 



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by WdBASH
 


Sorry wrong person.

I know you said at first you were skeptical at first but I was sure someone else said we should be skeptical of Jesse Ventura.But if not my mistake.

It's just useless to argue over whether the official story is an official story or not.The official story they put out was the 19 Arabs with box cutter theory..yes "theory".But they put it out as what had actually occurred...that makes it official.

But enough about that useless topic on to the real questions..Why do you think all these people believe 9/11 is being covered up?Do you think people believe things without no evidence?
edit on 24-12-2010 by GodIsPissed because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by traditionaldrummerWell now we know that your talking points memo tells you to promote 'conspiracy'. Confuse the issue with a host of perps all in cahoots, thousands of people keeping a secret. That's what they want, but it won't work this time. We're on to you, and the internet was something you forgot you couldn't control, and it will be your undoing.
 




Interesting that whenever an UnTruther is called on to prove his suggested conspiracy they immediately make the implication that the person asking for it is a government agent of some sort. Well, I guess you've got to do something is you believe if things you have no proof of.



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by GodIsPissed
.Why do you think all these people believe 9/11 is being covered up?


Because believing a conspiracy theory is easy and attractive. Finding out the truth about a complex event takes real effort.


Do you think people believe things without no evidence?


Absolutely 100% they do. Religion, aliens, bigfoot, etc. This site is a prime example of a hotbed of people with beliefs unbacked by evidence.



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


"Absolutely 100% they do. Religion, aliens, bigfoot, etc. This site is a prime example of a hotbed of people with beliefs unbacked by evidence."

You are wrong there my friend.To a lot of people there IS evidence of aliens,bigfoot and god.Just because you never seen it doesn't mean someone else hasn't.There are videos of aliens..now whether they are real or not can be debated.All those ufo's caught on tape or high ranking officials testimonies really are convincing.Why would those high ranking well respected people put their careers on the line?

So can you see why people believe in those things?Nobody believes in Santa Clause except little kids because no one has seen Santa or his sleigh.But if there were pics and video of Santa flying around in his sleigh then people would believe it.But the skeptics would think it's a hoax because it doesn't fit their idea of reality.It's okay to be a skeptic but don't act like you know when you don't.



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by GodIsPissed
 


Videos are not testable evidence. Neither is anecdotal evidence. If the existence of the things one believes in cannot be established by evidence, then people believe in things without evidence. Any of the various 911 conspiracy theories are more of those things.



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


Drumtard left, too much heat?



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by lamonster99
reply to post by Josephus23
 


Wasn't Marvin appointed to that position just weeks prior if my memory serves me? I definitely think the whole 9/11 story stinks to high heaven. I have convinced my wife as well. The pentagon fiasco is really what got me to digging deeper. Amazing how 3 well engineered structures suffered collapse from fire when previous high rises suffering fires have suffered no such fate to my knowledge.
I smell something and its not roses.


You might want to get your memory checked then. Marvin Bush was on the board of directors of a company that had been contracted to install security systems at the WTC, not to be in charge of security. Does not really matter though, because 1. The company was excused from the contract for not being able to do the work and 2. Marvin Bush left that company in June of 2000.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 02:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596

Originally posted by lamonster99
reply to post by Josephus23
 


Wasn't Marvin appointed to that position just weeks prior if my memory serves me? I definitely think the whole 9/11 story stinks to high heaven. I have convinced my wife as well. The pentagon fiasco is really what got me to digging deeper. Amazing how 3 well engineered structures suffered collapse from fire when previous high rises suffering fires have suffered no such fate to my knowledge.
I smell something and its not roses.


You might want to get your memory checked then. Marvin Bush was on the board of directors of a company that had been contracted to install security systems at the WTC, not to be in charge of security. Does not really matter though, because 1. The company was excused from the contract for not being able to do the work and 2. Marvin Bush left that company in June of 2000.


Being on the borad of directors defenitely gave him a say conceringing the goings and doings of the compay he lead, and on top, the entire outfit being excused JUST prior to 9/11 after all of the "upgrades" were finally complete... sound fishy to say the least.

We need an impartial investigation with civilian oversight. Period.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 02:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 


I hope this is on topic!

I have a few links I've been looking at;

TruthOrg

USAF George Nelson

Truth Attack

Poll vote @ bottom of page

Thank you for your OP Josephus23 I appreciate you.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 03:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596

Originally posted by lamonster99
reply to post by Josephus23
 


Wasn't Marvin appointed to that position just weeks prior if my memory serves me? I definitely think the whole 9/11 story stinks to high heaven. I have convinced my wife as well. The pentagon fiasco is really what got me to digging deeper. Amazing how 3 well engineered structures suffered collapse from fire when previous high rises suffering fires have suffered no such fate to my knowledge.
I smell something and its not roses.


You might want to get your memory checked then. Marvin Bush was on the board of directors of a company that had been contracted to install security systems at the WTC, not to be in charge of security. Does not really matter though, because 1. The company was excused from the contract for not being able to do the work and 2. Marvin Bush left that company in June of 2000.


Yeah, I remember, you were working under Rumsfeld in the Pentagon during the 2.3 trillion dollar fiasco...

Here.

Still, how about some corroborating evidence to that statement about Marvin?



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 03:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
reply to post by GodIsPissed
 


Videos are not testable evidence. Neither is anecdotal evidence. If the existence of the things one believes in cannot be established by evidence, then people believe in things without evidence. Any of the various 911 conspiracy theories are more of those things.


So, because you aren't there to hear it in the forest, the tree that fell never made a sound? Is that your logic?

Check your signature please. If that many are born-again that fast, nobody would be killing innocents in neighboring Countries. Unless born-again types are the ones committing crimes against humanity!!!???
edit on (12/26/1010 by loveguy because: Oh my it's getting late!



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by loveguy
 


I am total agreement with you and the Pentagon. Something is not right.
I have not seen enough evidence to convince me that a plane did not hit the Pentagon, but nothing has been released that makes me think that a plane did in fact hit the Pentagon.

The video has been heavily doctored and it is sooooooooo blatantly obvious that it appears purposeful for deceipt. And the real videos are being held for obvious purposes.
Always remember the way that Israel does war.

War by deceit.

edit on 12/26/2010 by Josephus23 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by loveguy
 


This is the site that really hit home with me.

link to Physics 911

What happened that day was a crime scene without proportions and EVERY crime scene protocol had been breeched due to everyone's shock, I suppose.


Now in defense of testable material, the entire "chain of command" is being used.

It is rather intelligent, but that is what makes the difference between a revolutionary and a reactionary.

A reactionary tucks tail and runs, And a revolutionary.....

Well, ask the French.



new topics




 
59
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join