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.

 

Patriots question 9/11

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 



The burden of proof is on someone claiming a jet caused the "impact" to begin with.


And the burden has been met fully. I think the true "burden" in this case has nothing to do with simply proving that the planes impacted the building, the new "burden" is to not get too bored repeating the same old answers that are routinely ignored.




posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Yankee451
 



The burden of proof is on someone claiming a jet caused the "impact" to begin with.


And the burden has been met fully. I think the true "burden" in this case has nothing to do with simply proving that the planes impacted the building, the new "burden" is to not get too bored repeating the same old answers that are routinely ignored.


My bad that I missed it. I don't mean to ignore answers, I just seem to have missed them...or is it that the questions are being ignored? No matter...

The government claims jets crashed into buildings causing catastrophic collapse...that's an extraordinary claim which requires extraordinary proof. If their transparently absurd story about 19 A-Rabs is proven false (it has), then the most likely suspect is the government...capiche? So it's pretty important to verify their claims.

I mean, when I read stuff like the below, am I being outlandish in asking for more verification of the flight's existence? Seems like a logical progression of inquiry considering the suspect, but then I keep missing posts:

Key No. 8 – AA Flights 11 & 77 Weren’t Scheduled November 2003 For years, the ‘Flight 11’ was the American Airlines' early morning transcontinental flight out of Logan airport in Boston, to LA. It was regular as clockwork. It made however its last-ever flight on Monday, 10th September, 2001. The next day it was not scheduled to depart, and then for the week following it was scheduled but cancelled – because it was grounded, like other passenger planes, in the aftermath. On 9/11, the earliest scheduled flight from Boston to Los Angeles departed that morning at 11.15 am. What then started flying again, as the morning flight from Boston to LA, had a different code (which needn’t concern us). United Airlines’ Flight 175 left from the same airport, for the same destination, as that of the suddenly-cancelled Flight 11, just twenty minutes later, and we may therefore accept ‘Holmgren’s hypothesis’ that passengers expecting to board Flight 11 were simply re-scheduled into Flight 175.


www.scribd.com...




edit on 7-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 



My bad that I missed it. I don't mean to ignore answers, I just seem to have missed them...or is it that the questions are being ignored? No matter...

No, lets not run away from this so quickly. This is really the heart of the whole "truth" movement. You can always claim to be searching for the "truth" if you consistently refuse to open your ears and hear the answers. Just try it once, it may suprise you.

The government claims jets crashed into buildings causing catastrophic collapse...that's an extraordinary claim which requires extraordinary proof.

No, the government makes no "claims". It is simply reporting and compiling what thousands of her citizens have told her. Your issue isn't with the bad old government - its with the thousands of citizens and witnesses, they are your liars, mass murderers and evil conspirators. Take it up with them.

If their transparently absurd story about 19 A-Rabs is proven false (it has), then the most likely suspect is the government...capiche? So it's pretty important to verify their claims.

Uh, no, no capiche. How is it that you can arbitrarily decide that the "A-rabs" didn't do it and then unilateraly declare that the only remaining suspect is the government? And then you want someone else to verify their claims how about you start verifying some of your own?

I mean, when I read stuff like the below, am I being outlandish in asking for more verification of the flight's existence? Seems like a logical progression of inquiry considering the suspect, but then I keep missing posts:

Yep, you are being outlandish. Why don't you ask the author of this little tidbit to verify his/her claim? Or is it just that because this claim satisfy your personal bias that you'll let this guy slide a little?



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
I mean, when I read stuff like the below, am I being outlandish in asking for more verification of the flight's existence? Seems like a logical progression of inquiry considering the suspect, but then I keep missing posts:

Key No. 8 – AA Flights 11 & 77 Weren’t Scheduled November 2003 For years, the ‘Flight 11’ was the American Airlines' early morning transcontinental flight out of Logan airport in Boston, to LA. It was regular as clockwork. It made however its last-ever flight on Monday, 10th September, 2001. The next day it was not scheduled to depart, and then for the week following it was scheduled but cancelled – because it was grounded, like other passenger planes, in the aftermath. On 9/11, the earliest scheduled flight from Boston to Los Angeles departed that morning at 11.15 am. What then started flying again, as the morning flight from Boston to LA, had a different code (which needn’t concern us). United Airlines’ Flight 175 left from the same airport, for the same destination, as that of the suddenly-cancelled Flight 11, just twenty minutes later, and we may therefore accept ‘Holmgren’s hypothesis’ that passengers expecting to board Flight 11 were simply re-scheduled into Flight 175.


Would someone mind terribly explain what the hell any of this actually means? Flight numbers are assigned to flight routes and the times of the flight, rather than aircraft, so flight 11 was always the flight from Logan to LA regardless of the actual aircraft assigned to the flight. After 9/11 all the flights were renamed to something else (for flight 11 I think it was to AA25. Whatever). It sounds like the author is claiming there's evidence of conspiracy entirely from American Airline's flight being renamed quicker than United Airline's flight was, in which case, this runaway conspiracy mongoring is getting pretty mental, even for the conspiracy mongers.
edit on 7-3-2011 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Would someone mind terribly explain what the hell any of this actually means? Flight numbers are assigned to flight routes and the times of the flight, rather than aircraft, so flight 11 was always the flight from Logan to LA regardless of the actual aircraft assigned to the flight. After 9/11 all the flights were renamed to something else (for flight 11 I think it was to AA25. Whatever). It sounds like the author is claiming there's evidence of conspiracy entirely from American Airline's flight being renamed quicker than United Airline's flight was, in which case, this runaway conspiracy mongoring is getting pretty mental, even for the conspiracy mongers.
edit on 7-3-2011 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)


It means Flight 11 was not scheduled to fly; not that it flew using a different plane. Without a flight scheduled, there can be no "flight from Logan to LA regardless of the actual aircraft assigned to the flight"



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 





No, lets not run away from this so quickly. This is really the heart of the whole "truth" movement. You can always claim to be searching for the "truth" if you consistently refuse to open your ears and hear the answers. Just try it once, it may suprise you.


Irony.



No, the government makes no "claims". It is simply reporting and compiling what thousands of her citizens have told her. Your issue isn't with the bad old government - its with the thousands of citizens and witnesses, they are your liars, mass murderers and evil conspirators. Take it up with them.


Cough...you're killing me here. Thousands of citizens reported Osama bin Laden was the 911 mastermind operating from his dialysis machine in Pipelinistan? Do tell.

Are you referring to the thousands of citizens who didn't photograph or describe jets?

Citizens like this guy?
www.youtube.com...



Uh, no, no capiche. How is it that you can arbitrarily decide that the "A-rabs" didn't do it and then unilateraly declare that the only remaining suspect is the government? And then you want someone else to verify their claims how about you start verifying some of your own?


Sorry, my Italian's bad, I know. I didn't unilaterally shed this doubt on the government's story, they are the most likely suspects because they've given false information and few other suspects, including "Dialysis Dude" had the means motive and opportunity of the "government" (whoever that is these days). 6 of the 19 are arguably fake identities, as posted by the Guardian (not unilaterally decided by me, just for the record), so that should shed ample doubt on the government's story. Any honest investigator would consider them a prime suspect even at that point.

They lied. They are the only ones who could accomplish it. The militarycongressionalindustrialbanking complex are the only ones who have benefited from it. They lied. They were the only ones who had the opportunity.

And they lied.
guardian.150m.com...

What claim would you like me to verify? You want me to prove the government's story is a lie, or are you going to tell me it's not their story again?

edit on 7-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: added is



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451

It means Flight 11 was not scheduled to fly; not that it flew using a different plane. Without a flight scheduled, there can be no "flight from Logan to LA regardless of the actual aircraft assigned to the flight"


Where does the author get his information that flight 11 wasn't scheduled to fly on Sept 11th? Seeing that flight 11 did in fact fly, the statement is by definition false.



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Yankee451

It means Flight 11 was not scheduled to fly; not that it flew using a different plane. Without a flight scheduled, there can be no "flight from Logan to LA regardless of the actual aircraft assigned to the flight"


Where does the author get his information that flight 11 wasn't scheduled to fly on Sept 11th? Seeing that flight 11 did in fact fly, the statement is by definition false.




I linked the source.

Your turn:

Prove that "flight 11 did in fact fly".



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
You want Pullitzer quality? Leslie Raphael has compiled a work that makes Tolstoy look like light reading.

frankresearch.info...


.... most folk are a lot stupider and more gullible than they like to think,....


You call that Pullitzer quality? Using the word "stupider" is NOT Pullitzer Prize quality.

It's 3rd grade quality at best.



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 07:42 PM
link   

edit on 7-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: dkuplicate post



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by FDNY343
 


Anything, anything at all to avoid the subject? Is that your only shtick? Good grief, your arguments are juvenile.

Pulitzer prizes have been awarded to folks using less than stellar grammar. Care to address any of the nagging questions I've presented you with on this an other threads?



Cormac McCarthy wins a Pulitzer with bad grammar Cormac McCarthy, ace American writer of The Road and No Country for Old Men, doesn’t follow grammatical rules. In The Road, reviewed here, McCarthy avoids using apostrophes for words such as cant, wouldnt and didnt, where he is contacting a word with not. He does include apostrophes in words like He’d and I’ll. Apart from the fact that ‘I’ll’ becomes ‘ill’ if he leaves out the apostrophe, I can’t (cant) understand his reasoning. He won a Pulitzer Prize for The Road, despite the grammar. I had a few thoughts on why McCarthy subverts the rules on grammar. 1) It’s a symptom of the great confidence McCarthy has in his writing, and the confidence his publisher, Picador, has in him as a great writer. 2) It’s supposed to be a verbal tic from the characters, and the reader is supposed to imagine the characters saying the words in a single, quick breath. 3) In a desolate, post-apocalyptic world, apostrophes are as rare as fresh food. 4) It’s part of his minimalist style. This is the reason his publishers gave when I asked earlier this week. McCarthy commits himself to criticism from book reviewers and readers, but


www.jungla.co.uk...



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 



Cough...you're killing me here. Thousands of citizens reported Osama bin Laden was the 911 mastermind operating from his dialysis machine in Pipelinistan? Do tell.

Well now we're getting somewhere. You accept all other aspects of 9/11 just not sure that OBL was behind it? Fine. Welcome aboard, at least you're no longer suffering under the delusions that there were no planes, planted explosives, etc. That wasn't so hard was it?


They lied. They are the only ones who could accomplish it. The militarycongressionalindustrialbanking complex are the only ones who have benefited from it. They lied. They were the only ones who had the opportunity.

Thats easy, isn't it? Hear something you don't like? Easy - its a lie. Can't go wrong there, huh.
Except now you've made an affirmative statement - they lied - now you are burdened with proving your claim.
Good luck with that. And please understand what that means - first you must prove what they are saying is wrong - again the burden is yours - then you must prove that they knew it was wrong and stated otherwise with the purpose to decieve. That is what a lie is, by the way.



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Yankee451
 



Cough...you're killing me here. Thousands of citizens reported Osama bin Laden was the 911 mastermind operating from his dialysis machine in Pipelinistan? Do tell.

Well now we're getting somewhere. You accept all other aspects of 9/11 just not sure that OBL was behind it? Fine. Welcome aboard, at least you're no longer suffering under the delusions that there were no planes, planted explosives, etc. That wasn't so hard was it?


They lied. They are the only ones who could accomplish it. The militarycongressionalindustrialbanking complex are the only ones who have benefited from it. They lied. They were the only ones who had the opportunity.

Thats easy, isn't it? Hear something you don't like? Easy - its a lie. Can't go wrong there, huh.
Except now you've made an affirmative statement - they lied - now you are burdened with proving your claim.
Good luck with that. And please understand what that means - first you must prove what they are saying is wrong - again the burden is yours - then you must prove that they knew it was wrong and stated otherwise with the purpose to decieve. That is what a lie is, by the way.


Oh. My mistake, I thought this was the grownup section.


edit on 7-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: changed "adult" to "grownup" for obvious reasons.



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by FDNY343
 


Anything, anything at all to avoid the subject? Is that your only shtick? Good grief, your arguments are juvenile.

Pulitzer prizes have been awarded to folks using less than stellar grammar. Care to address any of the nagging questions I've presented you with on this an other threads?



Cormac McCarthy wins a Pulitzer with bad grammar Cormac McCarthy, ace American writer of The Road and No Country for Old Men, doesn’t follow grammatical rules. In The Road, reviewed here, McCarthy avoids using apostrophes for words such as cant, wouldnt and didnt, where he is contacting a word with not. He does include apostrophes in words like He’d and I’ll. Apart from the fact that ‘I’ll’ becomes ‘ill’ if he leaves out the apostrophe, I can’t (cant) understand his reasoning. He won a Pulitzer Prize for The Road, despite the grammar. I had a few thoughts on why McCarthy subverts the rules on grammar. 1) It’s a symptom of the great confidence McCarthy has in his writing, and the confidence his publisher, Picador, has in him as a great writer. 2) It’s supposed to be a verbal tic from the characters, and the reader is supposed to imagine the characters saying the words in a single, quick breath. 3) In a desolate, post-apocalyptic world, apostrophes are as rare as fresh food. 4) It’s part of his minimalist style. This is the reason his publishers gave when I asked earlier this week. McCarthy commits himself to criticism from book reviewers and readers, but


www.jungla.co.uk...


Um, this entire thread is a logical fallacy. It's retarded from the OP on. Nothing really to discuss.



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 09:01 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 09:41 PM
link   
i think what has happened is that people that could force another investigation have been threatened with their life or the lives of their family members. that's the only reason i can conclude about 9/11...people have been threatened with death.



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Yankee451

It means Flight 11 was not scheduled to fly; not that it flew using a different plane. Without a flight scheduled, there can be no "flight from Logan to LA regardless of the actual aircraft assigned to the flight"


Where does the author get his information that flight 11 wasn't scheduled to fly on Sept 11th? Seeing that flight 11 did in fact fly, the statement is by definition false.

From what I could tell, through a quick scan, is that it's the old "BTS doesn't show the flights, ergo they weren't scheduled" angle.


I liked Key 7, apparently the hijackers are still alive!

edit on 7-3-2011 by roboe because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by roboe
 


Don't you just hate unreliable information...like the BTS database and anything from the New York Times which gave us Judith Miller. As far as I know, there is no forensic proof of flight 11, but I'm all for being corrected. If you've got some forensic evidence that places alleged flight 11 at BOS for wheels-off, and then some more at the crime scene, I for one would like to see it.

The living hijackers are a side show to the point that the alleged hijackers were using false passports, which means we're reduced again to taking the word of the next most likely suspect. With objective forensic proof lacking for the existence of the planes, not to mention the hijackers, other explanations need to be considered...namely, did they even exist.


edit on 8-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: removed if



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 11:55 AM
link   
I'm tired of people's "questions" about 911.

If you believe a conspiracy occurred you need to bring forth answers and evidence to support your conspiracy claims.

To walk around 10 years after the fact pretending that the unanswered "questions" you still have is patriotic, it isn't. It's idiotic.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
I'm tired of people's "questions" about 911.

If you believe a conspiracy occurred you need to bring forth answers and evidence to support your conspiracy claims.

To walk around 10 years after the fact pretending that the unanswered "questions" you still have is patriotic, it isn't. It's idiotic.


I couldn't agree more! Conspiracy theorists need to prove their theory or shut up.

Have you heard the one about 19 anorexic A-Rabs armed with some box-cutters taking out combat veteran jet pilots, hijacking their planes while the pilots huddled in fear with the passengers, and then scored direct hits on 75% of their targets, after flying unhindered for an hour through the world's most heavily defended air space? In this theory it is said two jets carrying enough kerosene to fill two 9ft above ground pools wiped out a half dozen or so steel and concrete skyscrapers and buildings in Manhattan. Who writes this stuff? I'm with you, these stupid conspiracy theorists need to shut the hell up.

I can't believe the gall of some people.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join