It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by GoodOlDave
Dave you sound like a broken record, same old garbage in, same old garbage out.
Originally posted by PersonalChoice
reply to post by Zanti Misfit
To be fair though, the article wasn't about OBL connection to the attacks, nor was the document. That was just one comment of speculation coming from a informants informant, who was getting it from his contacts. Not sure how that all of a sudden qualifies the entire document as disinformation. The document was about a group of terrorist's that were already in the states planning a suicide attack by aircraft on multiple major US cities.
Originally posted by DIDtm
Just so I understand correctly. In November of 2010, your two most glaring questions of 9.11 are the claims the 'truthers' (glad you got it right this time and didnt them 'trusters') make and not one iota of malicious corruption/lack of intelligence protocols in/of our government.
Is this right?
Because now...you seem to be siding on the conspiracy side...although youre not here yet.....youre getting close.
Ever wonder who in the government put the 'hush' on the following up of intelligence and why?
Go ahead and get the last word in, if you want. Your unrepentent zealotry in defending your damned fool conspiracy web sites is getting childish, and I've got better things to do. You have no credibility and I think I will take your fellow conspiracy theorists' advice (I.E. Bonez) to ignore you after all.
Fortunately, I don't need to point this out to others since your own fellow conspiracy people I.E. Bonez are hoping that you'd just go away and stop making them look like crackpots by association. It's one of the few things I agree with them on, because as long as you fringe zealots insist on hijacking the 9/11 truth movement for your own personal gain, the chances there will ever be further investigations will be precisely zero.
b) However, I do question why the 9/11 conspiracy theorists insist on introducing so much outright BAD information into the mix when they're claiming it's the truth they're searching for.
Interceptors were scrambled on 9/11 and they were even seen over NYC only minutes after the attack
yet they claim "there was a military stand down". A NYPA bomb dog by the name of, "Siruis" was killed in the collapse of the WTC and yet they claim "all the bomb dogs were withdrawn just before 9/11". And so on and so forth
I can certainly tell you why people in gov't would be hesitant to admit they were the ones who screwed up and caused 3000+ innocent victims to die.
Can you explain to me the thought process behind a conspiracy theorist claiming, "Sibel Edmonds is lying because Sibel Edmonds said Sibel Edmonds is lying"?edit on 7-2-2011 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)