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.
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.
Originally posted by Yankee451
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".
Originally posted by Yankee451
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.
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Ahhh, they have anorexia now?
And jets run on straight kerosene now instead of kerosene based fuels?
Well, there's no possible way it could be a radical terrorist attack because that never happens. It must be conspiracy by the government who kept it a successful secret even though they can't even keep Watergate or sexual favors from interns a secret.
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Originally posted by Yankee451
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".
Easy. It crashed into the north tower.
Now how about answering my question? The guy you're quoting doesn't state where he's getting this bit from. He just makes the statement without backing it up...
8. Until October 2004, one could go into the database www.bts.gov... ics/ to check out these flight schedules.
Originally posted by Yankee451
The term "anorexic" was used to illustrate the slight frames of the the alleged hijackers depicted in their photos. It was used to illustrate how silly the argument is that these guys forced their way into the cockpits which were occupied by arguably stockier, heavier pilots, some of whom were combat veterans.
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Great! So it's not a confirmed medical diagnosis. It's just exaggerated B.S. in order to make a conspiracy theory seem somehow more plausible. Thanks for freely admitting to the hyperbole so often present in 911 conspiracy lore.
Originally posted by gladtobehere
]Patriots Question 9/11
For the sake of those who died on 9/11, their families, the American people, and for the sake of peace in the world, please continue to seek the truth about 9/11. Demand a thorough and impartial reinvestigation of 9/11.edit on 5-3-2011 by gladtobehere because: (no reason given)
To the readers of this thread, do you see the continual pattern of distraction? Can any of them counter the OP, which is:
Originally posted by Yankee451
You guys are all reading from the same handbook, aren't you? I suppose you want me to supply a link that they were anorexic, right? It'd be funny if your arguments weren't so pathetic.
I'll explain for any laypeople reading this:
The term "anorexic" was used to illustrate the slight frames of the the alleged hijackers depicted in their photos. It was used to illustrate how silly the argument is that these guys forced their way into the cockpits which were occupied by arguably stockier, heavier pilots, some of whom were combat veterans.
Since none of these guys have a leg to stand on, they ignore valid points and focus on a word...any word, phrase, intimation, or misspelling will do...just as long as they deflect the argument away from their missing leg.
It's called a "staw man" argument, and it is as disingenuous as it is dishonest.
That's jibberish.
The government's position on events that took place on 9/11 is indefensible
There was a time when I believed you guys had credibility, now I know otherwise.
It seems that the likelihood of meeting one of you at a Mensa meeting is rather small.
You're on a sinking ship
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
The Laws of Physics are incapable of caring about patriotism or nationalism or religion or the human race.
But the nation that put men on the Moon should be laughed at for the next 1000 years for not resolving this issue within a year. I wonder what kind of sense of humor Isaac Newton had.
psik
Originally posted by Yankee451
If you were genuinely interested in learning something, or providing information from which readers could learn something, you wouldn't behave like you're trying to win a high school debate. No one "wins" this argument...I'm trying to provide information to support a hypothesis, while you seem to be focused on derailing the conversation
Originally posted by Yankee451
Yes, I'm a doctor. They were anorexic and here's my proof:
To the readers of this thread, do you see the continual pattern of distraction?
The government's claims are impossible; there is ample evidence to support a real investigation.
Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Yankee451
To the readers of this thread, do you see the continual pattern of distraction? Can any of them counter the OP, which is:
To the readers of this (and other threads as well), do you see a pattern emerging here? Someone wants to use inflammatory, misleading or deceptive language in order to, well, mislead, decieve and inflame and when the user is called out they feign a defensive posture and accuse the exposer of "nit picking" or distracting from the subject at hand, all the time pretending that language is somehow irrelevant in a written medium.
Originally posted by FDNY343
And that my fellow poster, is called "poisoning the well" and is a logical fallacy.
All of the hijackers had what they termed "muscule men" that did the hard work. These guys were trained in hand-to-hand combat, and easily could have overtaken a stewardess and a pilot strapped into a seat facing forward.
But hey, nice try at the logical fallacy.
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Originally posted by Yankee451
If you were genuinely interested in learning something, or providing information from which readers could learn something, you wouldn't behave like you're trying to win a high school debate. No one "wins" this argument...I'm trying to provide information to support a hypothesis, while you seem to be focused on derailing the conversation
All right, look, guy, it's really very simple. This guy is making a claim. He's using a link to a web site that no longer exists to back up the claim. Ergo the claim isn't being backed up. He's not here for me to ask that he back the claim up with a live link, but since you are, and since you're propagating this guy's statement as being factual, I'm asking you.
I'm not trying to derail anything. I'm asking you to back up an outrageous accusation, and despite your feigned bluster, even you are required to admit the claim that "flight 11 never existed" is an outrageous accusation, so yes, I really do need something more than an extinct link to accept the claim as anything other than crackpot conspiracy mongoring. For one thing, if this guy's statement was remotely true it would have been picked up and repeated by every OTHER conspiracy web site from infowars to tomflocco.
What is their proof? I'm not a teacher...I'm a student. I'm asking...what is their proof that flight 11 existed....