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.

 

Dangerous Truthers

page: 4
13
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by igigi
Nice find!! I really *should* use the search function more... luckily I found the report and read it myself and got the pertinent information to refute Delft University School of Architecture theory.


To be honest I hadn't read the other posts before I posted that, and I got lucky, I had just looked at thedmans old post in regards to another thread discussion before I came to this thread and read thedmans reply above. (I think unseen forces must be guiding us LOL)

Didn't mean to step on toes and hope it helped the discussion.
edit on 1/12/2011 by ANOK because: 'cause




posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 08:07 PM
link   
The only people who still believe the government's fables about this event are the ones who want to, there's no point trying to convince them, really.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



When all these people said, "they're open to the possibility that it's an inside job" and "it was probably an inside job" they're not approaching it according to what their professional expertise says.


[color=gold]Professional expert?
Why don’t you give us a list of these alleged experts making a complete fool out of themselves in supporting the OS? Boy, oh boy, the excuses you debunkers can cook up.


I can see right away they're simply people who've been suckered by the drivel those damned fool conspiracy web sites are shoveling.


No, simple science, and simple logic dictates the truth and shows us who is lying. Not what some drivel damned fool conspiracy web sites. I believe most of the nonsense many of you debunkers are parroting, are coming from those [color=gold]“drivel damned fool conspiracy web sites” that so few of you cling to.


You're simply mentioning these people because of their impressive sounding credentials.


I think, we all can agree they are credible people, don’t you think?


Please, explain to me, how does being a "military analyst" make someone an informed source on whether or not fires can cause enough thermal expansion to cause a building to collapse?


So, government officials should not be allowed to voice their observation and opinions? What country do you live in again?

So, an unknown blogger on a conspiracy website (ATS) should be more credible such as you?
You put yourself above all Military analyst?

Can you please explain to what all Military analyst know?

edit on 12-1-2011 by impressme because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by igigi

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Dude, stop making stuff up. The fire fighters on site were reporting out of control fires and that there were bulges in the side of the building as well as the building making unnatural creaking sounds, so they knew full flipping well the building was going to come down simply from looking at it and listening to it.
Dude, I think you need to re-watch this video again. If you would of taken the time to watch, listen, pay-attention, and do your own independent research into what I posted instead of blanket painting it as Alex Jones seduction.

In that video you will here audio recorded during the collapse of WTC 7. It is clearly audible as two timed blasts followed by seven equally spaced blasts. I defy you to produce a building collapse that includes precisely timed naturally occurring blasts; any collapse that is not performed by a demolition team should suffice.


No it wasn't. It was one long continuous rumbling with intermittant variations in volume and you...or I should say the damned fool web site that produced this video...are deliberately ignoring the low volume rumbles while picking out separate instances of louder rumbles and claiming they're individual explosions rather than one long noise. Doesn't it strike you as a little odd that out of all the 100,000 people in Manhattan who were watching all this unfold...including all the firefighters standing next to it...the only one who noticed "two timed blasts followed by seven equally spaced blasts" are you conspiracy people?


I sense you're latching onto the prisonplanet link I slapped in there, but again, swallow your pride and check the page out. You'll be pleasantly surprised that it contains other videos that DO NOT SHOW THE PENTHOUSE COLLAPSING; just as you purpose there ARE videos that are edited, the one above is not one of them.


There is no way, shape, or form that I will accept Prison Planet as a legitimate information surce. It is the mouthpiece of Alex Jones, and he is a con artist attempting to foster false paranoia for his own financial gain. As I stated previously, he's the one who told Jesse Ventura on his Conspiracy Theory show paranoid delusions of "they want him dead". Any shadowy force evil enough to murder 3,000 people won't be wringing their hands wondering what to do about Alex Jones predicting the end of the world and Dylan Avery putting out his 30 versions of Loose Change. They're going to send out spooks with silenced pistols to shut them up immediately.

Alex Jones and Dylan Avery are very much alive, I notice.


Of course we should believe the first responders; they were there, we were not! I'm not denying that Saloman Brothers' WTC 7 wasn't in a bad way before collapsing, I'm saying it was pulled; it was a controlled demolition.


If you're going to concur with the first responders then you will need to concede WTC 7 collapsed from fire induced thermal expansion. WTC 6 was pulled.




At any rate, to get back to the OP: there's an overwhelming amount of suspect "evidence" in the case of 9/11. Enough, I think, to warrant a truth based investigation into the happenings on, before, and after 9/11.


...and I will ask you the same question I ask everyone else. What do you consider to be a "truth based investigation"? All the investigations up until now are based upon eyewitness testimony, expert opinions from professionals in relevent fields, and analysis of the physical evidence....and yet the truthers insist the eyewitnesses are disinformation agents, the physical evidence is manufactured, expert opinuons are are all cover ups, etc. What investigation could there possibly be that you'd find credible?

If you people even refuse to believe a firefighter reporting he saw the side of WTC 7 bulging out from the fires then I doubt you're going to believe anything else that contradicts your conspiracy stories.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
 
No it wasn't. It was one long continuous rumbling with intermittant variations in volume and you...or I should say the damned fool web site that produced this video...are deliberately ignoring the low volume rumbles while picking out separate instances of louder rumbles and claiming they're individual explosions rather than one long noise. Doesn't it strike you as a little odd that out of all the 100,000 people in Manhattan who were watching all this unfold...including all the firefighters standing next to it...the only one who noticed "two timed blasts followed by seven equally spaced blasts" are you conspiracy people?
Again, you fail to realize what this video shows us. Timed blasts. If you're not even going to consider the evidence I present here, then you're clearly just out to antagonize and just generally be a nay-sayer.

What YOU fail to realize is that in video files there is a range of frequencies, some of which humans cannot hear clearly, unless they are isolated, filtered and boosted (in layman terms). You're choosing to ignore *actual audio evidence* simply because of conflicting stories??? There *were* explosions; man made explosions along with natural ones.

You're going to tell me those where NOT timed explosives? Burden of PROOF is on YOU at the moment. Please tell me how the above video presents false/misleading analysis; please, because then I'll be able to tell whether or not you're really checked out the sources I link, or just blanket vomiting on my posts.

Again I challenge you to:

...produce a building collapse that includes precisely timed naturally occurring blasts; any collapse that is not performed by a demolition team should suffice.

Moving on..

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
 
There is no way, shape, or form that I will accept Prison Planet as a legitimate information surce. It is the mouthpiece of Alex Jones, and he is a con artist attempting to foster false paranoia for his own financial gain. As I stated previously, he's the one who told Jesse Ventura on his Conspiracy Theory show paranoid delusions of "they want him dead". Any shadowy force evil enough to murder 3,000 people won't be wringing their hands wondering what to do about Alex Jones predicting the end of the world and Dylan Avery putting out his 30 versions of Loose Change. They're going to send out spooks with silenced pistols to shut them up immediately.

Alex Jones and Dylan Avery are very much alive, I notice.
Careful with that FIERY rhetoric, 3ra.. er...Dave; all "shoot them in the head!" and no logic; and why? Because YOU don't agree with them? Sure, let TPTB just murder anyone that challenges the OS. I mean, really?? Really?.

The beauty of this situation is that "They" don't have to do anything about them! TPTB have trained attack mongrels like you; ready and willing to throw yourself head first into an argument, half-cocked and underpowered. Again, you should check out the prisonplanet link (I know, your mouse might burn you from just being forced to view that content..)

AGAIN, what you will find is videos that do not show the penthouse collapse (JUST as you said we'd find..) BUT (waiiiit for iiit!!) they are all videos showing how the penthouse collapse was being edited out for MSM distribution. Don't read the words on that page; I fear you might go blind. On second thought, read them.


Originally posted by GoodOlDave
 
If you're going to concur with the first responders then you will need to concede WTC 7 collapsed from fire induced thermal expansion. WTC 6 was pulled.
Broken record time: I don't need to concede any such thing. WTC 7 was brought down by demolition, my video above proves that.


Originally posted by GoodOlDave
 
...and I will ask you the same question I ask everyone else. What do you consider to be a "truth based investigation"? All the investigations up until now are based upon eyewitness testimony, expert opinions from professionals in relevent fields, and analysis of the physical evidence....and yet the truthers insist the eyewitnesses are disinformation agents, the physical evidence is manufactured, expert opinuons are are all cover ups, etc. What investigation could there possibly be that you'd find credible?

If you people even refuse to believe a firefighter reporting he saw the side of WTC 7 bulging out from the fires then I doubt you're going to believe anything else that contradicts your conspiracy stories.
Because military-grade "super" nano-thermite found in all of the WTC dust collection samples and audio evidence of timed explosions *isn't* enough evidence to consider the OS as wrong???


Dave, you're one for the books.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 10:43 AM
link   
Here's another *oh so dangerous" Truther. April Gallup, I'll let her story speak for itself.

Google Video Link



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
Why don’t you give us a list of these alleged experts making a complete fool out of themselves in supporting the OS? Boy, oh boy, the excuses you debunkers can cook up.


I don't understand why you're even askign this, or indeed why you're even here. You've explicitely said there is nothign anyone can possibly tell you that would sway you from your beloved conspiracy stories so I daresay that anything I post to answer this question will be a waste of my time. If, for example, I posted a link to a report from MIT materials engineer Thomas Eagar that explains how the towers probably collapsed from fire induced thermal expansion:

A report on the WTC collapse from MIT materials engineer Thomas Eagar

You will instinctively accuse him in knee jerk reaction of being a secret gov't disinformation agent, won't you?


No, simple science, and simple logic dictates the truth and shows us who is lying. Not what some drivel damned fool conspiracy web sites. I believe most of the nonsense many of you debunkers are parroting, are coming from those [color=gold]“drivel damned fool conspiracy web sites” that so few of you cling to.


I have no idea what you're saying here, so I'll presume you're referring to the material coming from said damned fool conspiracy web sites you're quoting that we use as examples of disingenuous behavior on your part. It's been proven time after time that your claims of "no interceptors were scrambled", "Cheney was in charge of NORAD", "No fires in WTC 7", "all the WTC bomb dogs were withdrawn", etc are outright lies and fabrications, and not even you can deny all of these have been mentioned time and again as being supposed "proof" of a conspiracy.

Are you acknowledging that a large chunk of material coming from those web sites is false information? If so then why are you arguing when I state this is a dangerous practice?


I think, we all can agree they are credible people, don’t you think?


Credible for what? Sure, a military analyst has great expertise on how, say, North Korea would fare in a 21st century conflict using their 1950's outlook on life, but what would they know about thermal expansion on steel? Yeah, I know why YOU'RE subscribing to their opinions- becuase they happen to agree with you- but why should *I* subscribe to their opinions?


So, government officials should not be allowed to voice their observation and opinions? What country do you live in again?


That's not the point and you know it. If you're admitting they're only "voicing their opinions and observations" then they're no more or less credible than the rest of you truthers are. It's their own personal opinion, not a professional opinion based upon their expertise in the industry as the web site is falsely implying they are.

...which gets back to the OP all over again. Are you saying it ISN'T dangerous for truthers to be presenting unsubstanciated personal opinions as fact? You're still artificially inflating the relevence of their backgrounds to give your conspiracy stories false credibility, regardless of whatever pretty looking way you want to present this.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 
Since when is standing up for the truth a bad thing? it takes a lot of courage and a true patriot to stand for truth no matter what the consequences.Are the osers reduced to name calling? is this what it has come to?



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by igigi
What YOU fail to realize is that in video files there is a range of frequencies, some of which humans cannot hear clearly, unless they are isolated, filtered and boosted (in layman terms). You're choosing to ignore *actual audio evidence* simply because of conflicting stories??? There *were* explosions; man made explosions along with natural ones.


Huh??? I said no such thing. I SAID the collapse was one long continuous noise maker and Alex Jones is picking individual instances out of the continuous noise where he perceives he's hearing controlled demolitions. The hypothesis they were man made vs part of the overall stream of noise...or that they were even made by one single souce vs several separate sources running together...is entirely Alex Jones' own invention.


You're going to tell me those where NOT timed explosives? Burden of PROOF is on YOU at the moment. Please tell me how the above video presents false/misleading analysis; please, because then I'll be able to tell whether or not you're really checked out the sources I link, or just blanket vomiting on my posts.


A rubbish statement. There is zero physical evidence of any controlled demolitions as well as zero capability for controlled demolitions to have been placed in the building without anyone noticing so the burden of proof is on you truthers. You cannot present controlled demolitions as fact and demand that others disprove it any more than I can present heat rays from invisible Martian war machines as fact and demand that you disprove it.



Again, you should check out the prisonplanet link (I know, your mouse might burn you from just being forced to view that content..)


Before we continue with this thread, let me ask you- are you really suggesting that the only person on the planet who can "prove" there were controlled demolitions is Alex Jones? None of the five million OTHER videos of the collapse show anything, none of the 100,000 eyewitnesses who were physically there saw anything, and I'm supposed to believe this drivel entirely becuase Alex Jones says so?


Because military-grade "super" nano-thermite found in all of the WTC dust collection samples and audio evidence of timed explosions *isn't* enough evidence to consider the OS as wrong???


No, because a report from a guy who has zero experience with explosives claiming he found evidence of explosives is ludicrous, expecially when noone else on the planet can confirm his report and particularly when thermite couldn't possibly create the pattern of collapse that we all saw.


Dave, you're one for the books.


Nope, all I'm doing is illustrating how those damned fool conspiracy web sites are shoveling out rubbish to get people all paranoid over shadows. Every OTHER major event in world history from Pearl Harbor to the moon landing to the JFK assassination to Katrina to crop circles to Princess Di getting killed have their share of crackpot conspiracy mongors, so why wouldn't the 9/11 attack have its share of crackpot conspiracy mongors?



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by igigi
 



Careful with that FIERY rhetoric, 3ra.. er...Dave; all "shoot them in the head!"


That has to be THE most tasteless thing I have ever seen in any thread here on ATS . It's a pitiful shame that you have stooped to such a level of base emotions .

Of all the replies I have seen from truthers on this site , that is the absolute lowest of low .

I have NEVER seen a truther , or anyone else , stoop as low as you just did .



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by igigi
 



Careful with that FIERY rhetoric, 3ra.. er...Dave; all "shoot them in the head!"


That has to be THE most tasteless thing I have ever seen in any thread here on ATS . It's a pitiful shame that you have stooped to such a level of base emotions .

Of all the replies I have seen from truthers on this site , that is the absolute lowest of low .

I have NEVER seen a truther , or anyone else , stoop as low as you just did .


It's tasteless, but I don't know about being *the* most tasteless...the truthers claiming NYC deputy fire chief Peter Hayden is lying to cover up the murder of 343 of his fellow firefighters is pretty tasteless too. Accusing Ted Olson of lying to cover up the murder of his wife Barbara isn't exactly a mark of honor either.

Not that it matters, I suppose, since they all show the OP's discussion of "dangerous truthers" is a legitimate point. When truthers are so fanatically in love with their conspiracy stories that they think nothing of slandering innocent people and accusing them of being accomplices to murder, that certainly strikes me as being on a dangerous level of zealotry to me.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by igigi
Calm down a bit and let's have a civil discussion.


Let's see, I guess by civil you mean "only what I agree with". Because then you go and make a post like:



Careful with that FIERY rhetoric, 3ra.. er...Dave; all "shoot them in the head!" and no logic; and why?


Utterly disgusting.

You rabid truthers just keep digging yourselves in deeper and are being exposed. There is no science, no logic or reason, nothing in 10 years that has even come close to proving one of these truther "theories" true. It's all twisting and fabricating and this is one of the (predictable) new lows on this forum.

Enjoy the bottom rung with the others, it's right where you belong.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 





So , once again , why haven't those people in your link suffered or died as a result of their views and opinions ?

do you know how controled your press is?

Q: were do you expect these views to surface?

A: hm....i wonder... omfg the internet...

kx
edit on 13-1-2011 by purplemer because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 01:59 PM
link   

I want appologize to the ATS community for invoking the 3rad meme. I realize the hypocrisy in my calling for civility and then lashing out in that way. Again, I emphatically apologize.



Back to the issue.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
 
Huh??? I said no such thing. I SAID the collapse was one long continuous noise maker and Alex Jones is picking individual instances out of the continuous noise where he perceives he's hearing controlled demolitions. The hypothesis they were man made vs part of the overall stream of noise...or that they were even made by one single souce vs several separate sources running together...is entirely Alex Jones' own invention.
Again, you are deflecting from the point I was making: there IS proof of timed explosions, and I even gave it to you in a friendly non-Alex Jones pill; should I stroke your throat and force you to swallow it? Where we go:

The evidence I present isn't even from Alex Jones, it's from David Chandler (link to berkeley.edu), another one of those dangerous Truthers. David Chandler is currently Bruce Mahan Professor of Chemistry at the University of California, Berkeley.

I originally included the prisonplanet link and you baselessly attacked it, say:

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
 
It's patently obvious you've become so seduced by these damed fool conspiracy web sites...namely, that lunatic Alex Jones and his Prison Planet site... That's the whole reason those con artists always snip off the part of the video showing the penthouse collapse- they don't want anyone to know there's an altternative reason for what people heard.
Except what you fail to realize is that Alex Jones' (the "con-artist") page that I have linked several times, that you still refuse to acknowledge. Alex's page shows the penthouse falling and also shows MSM clips that have that part snipped out, as you claim Alex Jones does to his clip, which is a outright

LIE.


Moving on (yet again.)

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
 
A rubbish statement. There is zero physical evidence of any controlled demolitions as well as zero capability for controlled demolitions to have been placed in the building without anyone noticing so the burden of proof is on you truthers. You cannot present controlled demolitions as fact and demand that others disprove it any more than I can present heat rays from invisible Martian war machines as fact and demand that you disprove it.
Really? You're really going to sit there and tell me that "there is zero physical evidence of any controlled demolitions as well as zero capability for controlled demolitions" when you've had this proof staring at you in my avatar and in this peer-reviewed and accepted scientific analysis of multiple dust samples taken from several locations at the site of 9/11. All the samples (by the way) had "super"-thermite in them. Come at me with your

baseless accusations;

spewn out like so much vomit.



Originally posted by GoodOlDave
 
Before we continue with this thread, let me ask you- are you really suggesting that the only person on the planet who can "prove" there were controlled demolitions is Alex Jones?
Before I continue to repeatedly shred your blanket ramblings, I think I should say that I am NOT "really suggesting that the only person on the planet who can "prove" there were controlled demolitions is Alex Jones?"

You are suggesting that; you have repeated suggested that as if it was scripture that has flown from MY mouth. That's a train-of-thought that you alone are waiting to come in. I'm presenting David Chandler as another analyst in the proof that explosions happened at WTC 7!

The point I'm getting at is you need to look past the simple words "Alex Jones" on that website and look at the truth based content presented in that article.


Originally posted by GoodOlDave
 
No, because a report from a guy who has zero experience with explosives claiming he found evidence of explosives is ludicrous, expecially when noone else on the planet can confirm his report and particularly when thermite couldn't possibly create the pattern of collapse that we all saw.
How to approach this... I need you to look at a picture:

Again, we see that Dave did not (repeatedly) review the evidence I have presented several times in this thread, and again here in pictorial form. If you had even bothered to read the report you would of been treated with a wonderfully done, scientific, report that shows:

distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center.
You could read columns about:

  • How Much of the Energetic Red Material Survived During the WTC Destruction?
  • Is the Red Material Thermitic in Nature?
  • Could the Red Material Be Unreacted “SuperThermite”?
  • Did the Technology to Make Highly Exothermic Nanocomposites Exist Prior to 9/11/2001?
  • Can Super-Thermite be Handled Safely?
  • What is the Energy Release of Super-Thermite Compared to Conventional Explosives
  • Could the Red Chip Material be Ordinary Paint?

    Don't let me spoil the joy of reading the report *yourself*; because it's "patently obvious" you haven't reviewed it. I am suggesting that these scientists have done their due diligence in obtaining the Truth, and you cannot even summon up the fortitude to simply *look at the material*. They have the right credentials to investigate the issue, and their findings are shocking, to say the least.

    I accept that the reception of this report by the MSM/Public is outlying; yet I think your blatant ignorance on even the matter contained in the study only illuminates one issue that blocks real discussion on the Truth.

    You outright, without examining the evidence provided, come at me with baseless accusations. If this isn't ...

    Originally posted by GoodOlDave
     
    ... patently obvious you've become so seduced by ...
    ... you're own bias, I don't know what amount of empirical scientific evidence will convince you.


    Originally posted by igigi
     
    Dave, you're one for the books.

    Originally posted by igigi
     
    The beauty of this situation is that "They" don't have to do anything about them! TPTB have trained attack mongrels like you; ready and willing to throw yourself head first into an argument, half-cocked and underpowered.

    I stand by these statements.


    edit on 13-1-2011 by igigi because: .



  • posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 02:31 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by GoodOlDave
     
    The penthouse collapsed into the interior of WTC some ten seconds before the rest of the building fell (which is what all those "mysterious" explosions were) so unless you intend to cheat and start the clock only when the outer section began to fall, it wasn't freefall.

    Now, I think the video I linked earlier can clear up and confusion you may have on when and how the collapse is defined as "falling" or beginning, whatever. I'm not suggesting I'm intending to "cheat and start the clock"; if anyone is cheating us with their timings, it's NIST.

    I provide this series of clips for your consideration (links to part 2, part 3) NIST admits freefall. Again, this is David Chandler, current Bruce Mahan Professor of Chemistry at the University of California, Berkeley.

    Now, how do you suggest we clock how WTC 7 collapsed? Clearly, NIST is skewing their data to find a suitable answer for the OS. Heck, NIST *is* the source of the official "story".
    edit on 13-1-2011 by igigi because: .



    posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 11:31 PM
    link   
    reply to post by GoodOlDave
     



    Originally posted by GoodOlDave
    Originally posted by impressme
    Why don’t you give us a list of these alleged experts making a complete fool out of themselves in supporting the OS? Boy, oh boy, the excuses you debunkers can cook up.

    I don't understand why you're even askign this, or indeed why you're even here.


    You are the one who made the claim, I only asked you to back up your opinion with some evidence. Your claim was:

    ”they're not approaching it according to what their professional expertise says.”


    I asked you to provide a list of these alleged experts? Where is it?
    You asked me why am I here? I am here because ATS is for anyone and everyone who wishes to read learn and discuss many topics, I am a supporter of “Truth” I question everything. When debunkers come into a heated debate making claims, people in the Truth movement want to see evidence, like credible sources, as proof in debunking 911 OS.
    Opinions are not the facts, so please don’t be so livid when Truthers call you out on your opinions and ask for credible sources.


    You've explicitely said there is nothign anyone can possibly tell you that would sway you from your beloved conspiracy stories


    That is completely untrue, care to post any thread to where I made such a ridiculous claim?


    I daresay that anything I post to answer this question will be a waste of my time.


    Perhaps, you dare not answer, because your opinion is not true?


    If, for example, I posted a link to a report from MIT materials engineer Thomas Eagar that explains how the towers [color=gold]probably collapsed from fire induced thermal expansion:


    I am not here to support someone’s theories; most people who are researching the truth are looking for facts, again supported by real evidence, credible sources, and science.
    Thomas Eager MIT materials are his “opinions” and lacks little to no real science furthermore; I do not see the scientific community backing his article.


    It's been proven time after time that your claims of "no interceptors were scrambled",


    That is untrue and you know that.
    I have been on ATS for some time now, and I have not seen many of these question solved with any credible evidence, much less credible sources. The fact is, had the interceptors been deployed in the normal “proper protocol” none of the alleged hijacked planes would have hit their targets.


    "Cheney was in charge of NORAD",


    The fact is, Cheney was in charge, Donald Rumsfeld changed [color=gold]Directive CJCSI 3610.01A of NORAD procedures and took the orders away from NORAD officials in dispatching interceptors when planes fly off their given course and placed those orders on Vice president Dick Cheney.
    June, 2001. The Department of Defense initiates new instructions for military intervention in the case of a hijacking. It states that for all non-immediate responses, the Department of Defense must get permission directly from the Secretary of Defense.


    [color=gold]CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT
    CHIEFS OF STAFF
    INSTRUCTION


    www.dtic.mil...


    "No fires in WTC 7"


    Fact: No Truther supports this nonsense, video and photo evidence supports fires in WTC 7


    "all the WTC bomb dogs were withdrawn",


    There is no evidence about the bombs sniffing dogs being pulled from the WTC or if they were there. Just because we haven’t found any evidence it doesn’t mean it is a lie. Do you have evidence that bomb sniffing dogs were at the WTC on the weekend before 911?


    etc are outright lies and fabrications, and not even you can deny all of these have been mentioned time and again as being supposed "proof" of a conspiracy.


    Proof of a conspiracy? That depends on what you want to call a conspiracy?

    I just proved two of the claims you just made, are false.


    Are you acknowledging that a large chunk of material coming from those web sites is false information? If so then why are you arguing when I state this is a dangerous practice?


    The material that I support from any Truthers website must have credible sources or scientific evidence and the likes… You are assuming I am gullible and that I accept hearsay information as holy facts.


    You're simply mentioning these people because of their impressive sounding credentials.

    I think, we all can agree they are credible people, don’t you think?



    Credible for what? Sure, a military analyst has great expertise on how, say, North Korea would fare in a 21st century conflict using their 1950's outlook on life, but what would they know about thermal expansion on steel? Yeah, I know why YOU'RE subscribing to their opinions- becuase they happen to agree with you- but why should *I* subscribe to their opinions?


    These credible people spoke out against the OS, they feel the truth has not been told, some of these officials hold high ranking positions and know what proper protocols should have taken place on 911.


    So, government officials should not be allowed to voice their observation and opinions? What country do you live in again?

    That's not the point and you know it. If you're admitting they're only "voicing their opinions and observations" then they're no more or less credible than the rest of you truthers are.


    That is untrue and you know that. These officials may not tell the rest of the world what they do know, because it might destroy their professional careers. These men are from our military and again, they know what protocols that were not followed on 911. Why would these professionals speak out against the OS?


    It's their own personal opinion, not a professional opinion based upon their expertise in the industry as the web site is falsely implying they are.


    How do you know if these officials are not giving their professional opinions?
    Do you have any proof that the given website is “falsely implying” anything?


    ...which gets back to the OP all over again. Are you saying it ISN'T dangerous for truthers to be presenting unsubstanciated personal opinions as fact?


    I agree “unsubstanciated” personal opinions are not facts, however these professionals are not stating their opinions are true or untrue and they certainly are not making any outrages claims.

    This is interesting coming from you, since you defend the OS. The OS is “unsubstanciated” yet you support it, can I ask why?


    You're still artificially inflating the relevence of their backgrounds to give your conspiracy stories false credibility, regardless of whatever pretty looking way you want to present this.


    I have not, nor ever “artificially inflated” anyone background and don’t need to.

    The Truth is something that does not need “artificially inflated”
    The Truth does not need “false credibility” as you put it.
    The Truth stands on it own true merit. Meaning real Truthers do not have to lie to defend the Truth.

    Dave, do you think these Truthers that the OP presented in his article pose a threat to America, do you think they are dangerous?
    www.globalresearch.ca...

    The reason I asked, because they are now known as Truthers.

    edit on 13-1-2011 by impressme because: (no reason given)



    posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 11:42 PM
    link   
    reply to post by impressme
     


    Solid rebuke. Keep Truthing it up!

    It seems the accuser has his "facts" twisted..



    posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 04:35 AM
    link   
    reply to post by Cassius666
     


    Man, it's really weird. If I'm signed-in, these new 9-11 threads are buried pretty deep, but not signed-in- they're a key-stroke away. What am I doing wrong?!

    I was expecting to see my name on that list!!! Whew!!!

    You believers/debunkers crack me up.


    I bet if my name was on that list, you'd have some real ammo in your arguments?



    posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 06:13 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by loveguy
    reply to wrong side of the fencers
     



    I was expecting to see my name on that list!!! Whew!!!

    You believers/debunkers crack me up.


    I bet if my name was on that list, you'd have some real ammo in your arguments?


    My previous post-reply was in error to the wrong addressee. Sorry about that Cassius666



    posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 03:44 PM
    link   
    reply to post by loveguy
     


    No problem there.




    top topics



     
    13
    << 1  2  3    5 >>

    log in

    join