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: 3
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 09:48 AM
link   
The morning it happened I clearly remember thinking that Bin Ladin did it long before his name was attached to it. I didn't follow the news much then so I remember it struck me as odd that I would think of his name. Then I remembered that in the weeks prior to 911 his name had been coming up a lot on TV in regards to his terrorist actions and Clinton's attempts to assassinate him. In retrospect it seems that the media was propagandizing him long before 911. My gut feeling is that he was being set up to take the fall.




posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 



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

Finally!

Have you heard the one about 19 anorexic A-Rabs

Link or reference for "anorexic"? Just made up?

armed with some box-cutters taking out combat veteran jet pilots,

Noted: Per Yankee451 "A-rabs" are not capable of violence. Link or reference to support that contention?

hijacking their planes while the pilots huddled in fear with the passengers,

Link or reference for "huddling with 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?

Link or reference to support "most heavily defended air space"? By the way, which area is more "heavily defended" Pittsburgh, PA or Manville, NJ?

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.

Link or reference to support jet fuel volume?

Who writes this stuff?



I'm with you, these stupid conspiracy theorists need to shut the hell up.

No, no, we could use the laughs! Got any more? How about some super nano thermite?

I can't believe the gall of some people.

Yeah, I'll tell ya - you know there are some monsters out there that will insist the victims of 9/11 never existed!!



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 10:44 AM
link   

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...but from what I'm seeing, he's claiming flight 11 was cancelled because no flight 11 ever flew after 9/11, which is a dishonest manipulation because the whole reason no flight 11 flew after 9/11 was specifically because of 9/11. What he's leaving out is that they didn't cancel the flight- they retired the flight number and changed it to something else (it looks to be AA25 but I don't care enough to look it up again).

It's all well and good for "patriots to question 9/11". It's when they don't like the answer they've been given and they make up some stupid horse [censored] that suits their purposes which I object to.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 11:08 AM
link   

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.


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.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 11:25 AM
link   

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.


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.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 11:48 AM
link   

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...


He does list it, and by your reasoning all your other points are worthless now, because you're WRONG. Sheesh, see how childish that crap is? Wait...let me guess, now you're going to make me provide a link proving it's "childish", or demand a link proving its "crap". Come now. It is an old article, so the links are old, but the information can be verified and you know it, or you wouldn't be so intent on distracting from that point.


8. Until October 2004, one could go into the database www.bts.gov... ics/ to check out these flight schedules.

www.scribd.com...

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.
edit on 9-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 11:57 AM
link   

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.


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.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 12:11 PM
link   

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.


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? Can any of them counter the OP, which is:


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)


The government's claims are impossible; there is ample evidence to support a real investigation.
edit on 9-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   
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.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 01:15 PM
link   

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.


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.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


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.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by dillweed
 



That's jibberish.

Yes, to some out there I'm sure it looks that way. I'll try and make it a little simpler next time.

The government's position on events that took place on 9/11 is indefensible

Yet it still stands. Hmm. How could that be?

There was a time when I believed you guys had credibility, now I know otherwise.

How did you come to this "knowing"?

It seems that the likelihood of meeting one of you at a Mensa meeting is rather small.

Yeah, well, sorry about that. But you know you can't belong to every club!

You're on a sinking ship

And your evidence to support this....?



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 01:39 PM
link   

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


It's resolved. Truther are people who think that the US government/Bilderbergs, Cheney, Halliburton blew up the buildings to bring some false flag/ NWO change and like war/make money from the results.

All of you tin foil hat wearing truthers could have GOD himself say "19 warmongering terrorists did it" and you would accuse God of being a NWO plant.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 01:59 PM
link   

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.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 02:20 PM
link   
Why would the hijackers have to be big muscle men?

Put a blade to a stewardess neck and back into a corner. Back then hijackers only wanted money or prisoners. Right?

But then again taking hostages with a blade is too simple to work. It doesn’t lend itself too much of a conspiracy.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   

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?


You mean such as claiming that you're a doctor and then posting cartoons?


The government's claims are impossible; there is ample evidence to support a real investigation.


Conspiracy websites and a handful of so-called doctors making unscientific claims doesn't qualify as ample evidence.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 06:07 PM
link   

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.



We'll let the readers use their own judgment to decide who best fits your description.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 07:15 PM
link   

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.


Good, so now we're getting to the government's claims, as we should be...it is incumbent upon the government to provide evidence to back up these claims. To avoid confusion, let's take flight 11 as an example.

I don't believe the government has ever provided forensic evidence the flight ever left BOS.

Provide forensic evidence the same plane that left BOS was what struck the WTC.

I don't believe a plane could cause the hole it was alleged to cause. Provide forensic evidence it did. In fact, there is evidence to the contrary (which I've showed you before) but since we're not talking about what I believe happened, we're talking about what the government CLAIMS HAPPENED, it's not my job to prove anything.

With the existence of the jets in doubt, discussion of the alleged hijackers is probably premature, but while we're at it, please provide forensic evidence of their existence, and please provide same that the "muscule men" as you wrote, were the ones whose remains were found at the crime scene.

If the government uses photographic evidence as proof, if any single image can be proven to have been altered, staged or impossible, the veracity of their claims should be questioned.

These are just a few of the reasons why these so called Patriots are requesting a transparent investigation.

We can take the government's claims one at a time if you prefer.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 07:21 PM
link   

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.


I'm not claiming flight 11 existed, the government is claiming so.

What is their proof? I'm not a teacher...I'm a student. I'm asking...what is their proof that flight 11 existed, because even barnyard animals know that a lightweight aluminum jet wing cannot slice structural steel like a hot knife through butter, so they''d better not be pointing to the TV show we all saw as evidence. We have killed a few hundred thousand women and children because of this claim, so pardon me if I would like some proof.

The government claims flight 11 demolished a skyscraper...a tall tale for which I'm dying to see some forensic evidence.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 



What is their proof? I'm not a teacher...I'm a student. I'm asking...what is their proof that flight 11 existed....


What proof would you like and most importantly, explain why.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join