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.

 

Engineers Request Permission to Speak Freely Regarding World Trade Building 7

page: 8
23
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2011 @ 11:06 AM
link   
If you begin with the premise that the 9/11 Commission was flawed in some way, and that a better job should have been done, then few sentient people are going to disagree with you.

It's when you start using this as evidence for CDs and no plane at the Pentagon that you part company with rationality. It's abundantly and obviously clear that none of the people quoted in this thread believe in a "false flag", and to pretend that they do is not just bad practice, it's evidence of the weakness of Truther claims. Because if they had much merit you wouldn't have to misrepresent what they're claiming.

It also seems fashionable to suggest that if you're not a "truther" you slavishly support the government line and have no problem with what the quoted sources here say. But actually this is clearly nonsense, and a mischaracterisation not just of the way individuals seem to think, but also the nature of the debate. Almost every debunker seems to understand that the authorities covered up their shortcomings, and that's what these sources are highlighting.

Very few debunkers seem to be cheerleaders for the government, and yet it suits Truthers to pretend that they are. Why? Why is it necessary to misrepresent the nature of your opponents' stance if your argument is self-evidently correct?




posted on May, 28 2011 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
The one thing there is agreement on, is that the investigations done so far sucked total ass and we deserve something better. I don't particularly care if 100 different people coming up with 100 different theories confuses you so much. You're just going to have to keep struggling with that one.


Well here's a surprise for you- I agree the 9/11 commission report is lacking. Lee Hamilton himself admitted that the 9/11 commission report was a first draft and subsequent investigations may turn up infomration the commission didn't know about. My personal position is that it's one of the most critical events in human history so it warrants fiurther investigations even if the commission report was 100% connect and complete. We know what sank the Titanic but numerous expeditions to the wreck are still turning up intereating things even now. Supposedly there's an undocumented form of deep sea life growing on all the mail bags down in the hold. Whatever.

I have no objections to the further investigations. What I do have objections to is the blatant disingenuous behavior of the conspiracy people to embellish their claims and give them false credibility, and when I see characters lying through their teeth and turning everything they touch into a gross embellishment like a conspiracy mongor version of King Midas... like this very "engineers request permssion to speak freely" topic someone or another came up with...it tells me right there there won't be an investigation under the sun that will ever convince you people that your conspiracy claims are untenable, regardless of what they are.


As for me, I don't have 100 different theories. So I don't want to hear your "space beams" garbage. You still don't know what a straw-man is, apparently.


When I say "you" I am referring to you in the plural, as in you conspiracy people as a group, because the English language doesn't have an equivalent to the Spanish "Ustedes". It's undeniable that a number of your fellow conspiracy theorists do in fact subscribe to this space beams garbage and they do in fact refer to themselves as "truthers", because let's face it, none of you are going to call yourself a "falser". Do not object to my pointing out that you (you as in you in the plural") are pushing space beams garbage, as I'm not the one turning the 9/11 event into a three ring circus from every crackpot around for miles gravitating to your conspiracy movement for the antiestablishment outlet it offers.

In truth, I've lost track of which conspiracy theory you yourself subscribe to, as there are too many variations to keep track of.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 07:29 PM
link   

edit on 28-5-2011 by yyyyyyyyyy because: off-tpoic bah!



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by bsbray11
The one thing there is agreement on, is that the investigations done so far sucked total ass and we deserve something better. I don't particularly care if 100 different people coming up with 100 different theories confuses you so much. You're just going to have to keep struggling with that one.


Well here's a surprise for you- I agree the 9/11 commission report is lacking.


What a shock, and next you'll agree that the sky is often blue.




As for me, I don't have 100 different theories. So I don't want to hear your "space beams" garbage. You still don't know what a straw-man is, apparently.


When I say "you" I am referring to you in the plural, as in you conspiracy people as a group


And that's where the illogical straw-man argument comes in. You complain to me about theories I never had anything to do with in the first place. All because you fantasize me as being part of some club that doesn't actually exist.



In truth, I've lost track of which conspiracy theory you yourself subscribe to, as there are too many variations to keep track of.


This is called confusion. At least you are honest about it.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
In late 2009.......hmmmmmmm.... Little bit of a disconnect there.

Oh, come on... is this really how you want to try to explain it? A 'disconnect'?

His job was Senior Counsel to the Commission established to "conduct an investigation that... may include relevant facts and circumstances relating to... the flow of assets to terrorist organizations". Do you really think it's possible such a person in Farmer's position could have been so far out of the loop that he was unware of allegations that General Mahmoud Ahmed "reportedly had $100,000 wired to Mohamed Atta"???

We're not talking about some underground conspiracy mumble here... Condoleeza Rice was quizzed publicly about the allegations during a press conference on 16th May 2002. And, the Commission itself was asked about it in questions submitted by the Family Steering Committee in July, 2003!!!


22) On the issue of state sponsored terrorism:

· Why did Mahmood Ahmed, Director of Pakistan's secret service, the (ISI) order Saeed Sheikh to wire $100,000 to hijacker Mohamed Atta?


Seriously, how could Farmer possibly not know about these allegations?


Originally posted by vipertech0596
I have never claimed that there was not some whitewashing going on to hide the incompetence shown by many members of the US Government. However, the issue would be malicious intent....of which there wasn't any

From my point of view, when a key piece of the puzzle is missing, and when people like Farmer plead ignorance, it's impossible to judge whether there was malicious intent or not.



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 12:04 AM
link   
reply to post by coughymachine
 





Oh, come on... is this really how you want to try to explain it? A 'disconnect'?


No, its more of a statement on your confusion of timelines.

I am not sure why so many people seem to get their teats in a wringer over the ISI. It has plenty of corruption, always has, always will. Not to mention we aren't always all that popular in Pakistan to begin with.

I guess my question is, why do you think you are entitled to classified information? Do you really want our intelligence agencies to tell all they know about everything?



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 05:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
I am not sure why so many people seem to get their teats in a wringer over the ISI. It has plenty of corruption, always has, always will.

First, this has nothing to do with MY confusion over timelines. Farmer was charged with the responsibility of investigating the most devastating terrorist attacks in human history... including how the terrorists were funded. That he claims not to have know about the allegations surrounding Mahmoud is, frankly, difficult to swallow. The allegations were public knowledge and questions about them were submitted to the Commission. If you want to believe this man forgot about this critical issue in the five years between the submission of the Commission's final report and the date of the interview in which he cliams ignorance, then that's up to you. I find this very difficult to believe.

I'll explain why people are curious about the ISI:

  • Because the ISI have had a long association of 'partnering' with the US, including acting as a conduit for the flow of funds and arms from the US to the mujahideen during the Afghan-Soviet war.

  • Because the head of the ISI was reported to have been in Washington meeting officials from the White House, the Pentagon and the head of the CIA, during the week of 9/11.

  • Because this same man is alleged to have arranged for $100,000 to be transfered to Atta.

  • Because this man was reported to have been having breakfast on the morning of 9/11 with Senator Graham and Representative Goss... who went on to co-chair the congressional Joint Inquiry into the 9/11 attacks, published in February 2002.

All these reports, with the exception of the US-ISI cooperation during the Afghan-Soviet war, may prove to be false or simply coincidental. But, until they are explained, you can surely understand why they are a cause for suspicion amongst some of us... can't you?



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
What a shock, and next you'll agree that the sky is often blue.


Yes, I imagine it would be a shock to many, if not you specifically. Up until now the conspiracy people here have uniformly clung to the security blanket that everyone who disagrees with them are either Bush sheeple mindlesly loyal to the OS or gov't disinformation agents sent here to spread disinformation. The reason why they do this is obvious- their belief in these conspiracy claims is a few rungs below outright religious dogma and in their us vs them outlook they cannot comprehend someone can mistrust the gov't AND mistrust these absurd conspiracy claims.

You can tell when someone has such a mindset as it's a very easy thing to short circut. Simply mention the facts and watch them slowly and surely gravitate toward "everyone is a secret agent" tenet.


And that's where the illogical straw-man argument comes in. You complain to me about theories I never had anything to do with in the first place. All because you fantasize me as being part of some club that doesn't actually exist.


There are in fact people within the 9/11 community pushing lasers from outer space claims, hologram planes claims, missiles at the Pentagon claims, faked crash sites in Shanksville claims, and others, regardless of whether you appreciate my pointing this out or not. If you're acknowledging that you conspircy theorists are at odds with each other then you're openly abmitting you're NOT a community- you're simply a bunch of rabid dogs snarling and biting anything that gets close including each other, in which case I might as well brush you all off as having no credibility right now.

Is this really the position you want to take?


This is called confusion. At least you are honest about it.


Of course I'm honest about it. I have the truth and the facts on my side so I have nothing to hide.



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by coughymachine
 


And yet again, you are hung up on a two-faced blankety-blank working for another country. Why do you IMMEADIATELY jump to the conclusion that someone in the US Government must have known about his deeds beforehand?



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


So you're trying to convince people that to argue against the OS is to support all and every crackpot theory anyone decides to come up with associated with 911?


This folks is what is done through the media everyday, this is how the truth is hidden in plane sight. Demonize people by creating a stereotype that can be ridiculed, and associating anyone who questions the OS with that stereotype. The stereotype of course is nonsense, some people will fall into that stereotype though because they know no better. This IS what is happening, and Dave here is not doing anything but enforcing that form of social control.

Not the action of your average poster Dave, hmmmm?



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 09:48 PM
link   
why would u need permissions to speak freely?

just do it

damn



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

And that's where the illogical straw-man argument comes in. You complain to me about theories I never had anything to do with in the first place. All because you fantasize me as being part of some club that doesn't actually exist.


There are in fact people within the 9/11 community pushing lasers from outer space claims, hologram planes claims


Okay "Dave."

Have I said any of those things?

I'll answer for you since I would know better: no.

But you keep bringing them up to me and many others here anyway, who also have not even mentioned these things. Why?


Maybe I should start insinuating that you think Saddam Hussein destroyed the Towers? I mean after all, there are people like you who believe that. So where's the proof that Saddam Hussein destroyed the Towers "Dave"? I can't believe you people believe this crazy nonsense.



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 10:16 PM
link   
Didn't take GoodolDave to pop up, did it? Don't fall for the arguments against physics, common sense, and reason.

Follow the money.

a.) Did anyone make huge amounts of money out of 9/11 and the following actions?
b.) Who were they?
c.) What links do they have to the administration of the time?
d.) What happened to those people who made this connection at the time?
e.) How many people who could have scientifically proven that the attacks, as reported, were improbable were on the plane that supposedly hit the pentagon?

Easy.
There's 9/11 in a nutshell. It was about money. Not for you. Not for me.
Strangely, the people who made money - and HUGE money - are still protected.



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Badgered1
 


Its always so easy to tell when someone has done nothing but read conspiracy sites. Your post shows that, quite frankly, you are ill-informed about the subject matter. A, B, C and D, show that......E, however, lol...wow............



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 03:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
And yet again, you are hung up on a two-faced blankety-blank working for another country. Why do you IMMEADIATELY jump to the conclusion that someone in the US Government must have known about his deeds beforehand?

Sheesh.. haven't you read a word I posted??? My argument is, Farmer really should have known about the allegations surrounding Mahmoud, because it was his job to investigate the 9/11 terrorists' funding; because the allegations were widely reported; and because questions about them were presented to the Commission directly by the Family Steering Group!!!

I don't think this is an unreasonable assumption to jump to, given the circumstances.

If you are satisfied that someone in Farmer's position knew so little about such a key piece of the puzzle, yet played such an important part in the development of a report that was supposed to explain, not only what happened on 9/11, but also the events that led to the attacks, then good for you. I completely disagree. Respectfully.
edit on 31-5-2011 by coughymachine because: tags



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


So you're trying to convince people that to argue against the OS is to support all and every crackpot theory anyone decides to come up with associated with 911?


No, in truth, I'm trying to convince you conspiracy people to grow up and actually get together and come up with a viable alternative scenario that better fits the facts than the 9/11 commission report does. This necessarily means fitting ALL the facts, including the inconvenient ones the conspiracy people don't want to deal with (I.E. Deputy fire chief Peter Hayden and flight attendant Renee May, eyewitnesses around the Pentagon, etc).

You know as well as I do why the conspiracy people will never be able to do this- conspiracy proponents always come up with their theories first and then accept or dismiss the facts according to whether it conforms to what they want to believe, so person A who thinks the Jewish World Order is secretly controlling the world will naturally "connect the dots" and to noone's surprise find out that 9/11 is a MOSSAD operation, while person B who has a hangup against the gov't will naturally "connect the dots" and to noone's surprise find out all these side conspiracy theories are CIA disinformation. Every single one of you has an agenda to mold reality to your own individual liking and you're finding out the hard way that not everyone wants to mold reality into the same shape.

Look at the title of this thread- "Engineers request permission to speak freely". Someone or another is trying to mold reality to their liking and make it look like engineers can't speak freely unless they have permission, which is something that none of you seem to have any problem with.


This folks is what is done through the media everyday, this is how the truth is hidden in plane sight. Demonize people by creating a stereotype that can be ridiculed, and associating anyone who questions the OS with that stereotype. The stereotype of course is nonsense, some people will fall into that stereotype though because they know no better. This IS what is happening, and Dave here is not doing anything but enforcing that form of social control.


I don't follow your point. Who is is that's trying to "demonize people by creating a stereotype that can be ridiculed" exactly? Dr Wood and Jesse Ventura have taken it entirely upon themselves to promote the "lasers from outer space" claims while that French guy (forgot his name) took it upon himself to promote that whole "cruise missile at the Pentagon" claim so it's hardly a stereotype. I'm not sure who first invented the "secret hushaboom controlled demolitions" claims or the "hologram planes" claims but it really doesn't matter- it is undeniable that peope do in fact believe "lasers from outer space", "cruise missile at the Pentagon", "secret hushaboom controlled demolitions", "hologram planes", and I forget what else, and it's absurd to say this is just a stereotype when people are arguing over these claims right here every day. This whole "engineers request permission to speak freely" thread was itself almost certainly over the "secret hushaboom controlled demolitions" claims.



Not the action of your average poster Dave, hmmmm?


There is nothing average about the posts being made here on ATS.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

And that's where the illogical straw-man argument comes in. You complain to me about theories I never had anything to do with in the first place. All because you fantasize me as being part of some club that doesn't actually exist.


There are in fact people within the 9/11 community pushing lasers from outer space claims, hologram planes claims


Okay "Dave."

Have I said any of those things?

I'll answer for you since I would know better: no.

But you keep bringing them up to me and many others here anyway, who also have not even mentioned these things. Why?


Easy- I view the "secret hushaboom controlled demolitions" claims and "cruise missile at the Pentagon" claims with exactly the same rolling of the eyes as the "lasers from outer space" claims and "hologram planes" claims, mainly because I know full well you're all getting it from the exact same source- some damned fool conspiracy web site or another. The only difference is the particular web site it is you're all going to, so to me, all your conspiracy claims are synonymous. At the end of the day what difference does it really make if you're listening to Dr. Judy Wood, Alex Jones, Dylan Avery or that kook who thinks 9/11 was staged by shape shifting alien lizards?



Maybe I should start insinuating that you think Saddam Hussein destroyed the Towers? I mean after all, there are people like you who believe that. So where's the proof that Saddam Hussein destroyed the Towers "Dave"? I can't believe you people believe this crazy nonsense.


That whole thing started from the discovery of a mural in a gov't office in Iraq depicting a plane crashing into a building, which, if created before the attack, would necessarily show foreknowledge within the Iraqi gov't. Most people (including myself) acknowledge this was a mural to celebrate the attack after the fact rather than any sign of collusion. It's proof they didn't like us, but it' not proof they had anything to do with the attack.

Isn;t it interesting that despite the fact that Saddam Hussein had no connection to the 9/11 attack, there's still more tangible evidence to support that claim than you have to back up your own conspiracy claims?



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Easy- I view the "secret hushaboom controlled demolitions" claims


Already another straw-man.

There were no freaking "hushabooms" when you have scores of witnesses testifying to numerous explosions throughout the day from all 3 buildings, from various locations in each of them.

Just another lie you constantly perpetuate.

So where is your evidence that Saddam Hussein destroyed the Twin Towers?



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Easy- I view the "secret hushaboom controlled demolitions" claims


Already another straw-man.

There were no freaking "hushabooms" when you have scores of witnesses testifying to numerous explosions throughout the day from all 3 buildings, from various locations in each of them.

Just another lie you constantly perpetuate.

So where is your evidence that Saddam Hussein destroyed the Twin Towers?


So are you now going into the tried an true "truther" mantra of "if it sounded like an explosion, then it most certainly is, 100% proof of explosives used and it demoed"? Or are you into the idea that any and all mentions of explosions heard at the WTC on 9/11 are most certainly 100% proof of explosives being used for demolition, but then again there is that small .000001% chance that it could have been something innocuous like debris crashing or something non-explosive related, but that is preposterous because everyone knows that explosives were used and there is no possible way that there could have been other sources of explosion sounds other than explosives? Because every time its brought up the fact that there are numerous sources of things that go "boom" besides explosives, but any mention of that and you and everyone else in the truther camp barely bats an eye in acknowledgement, and then proceeds to quickly brush off any thought of it. Because it seems like any time I or others mention how things sound like "boom" and rattle off a laundry list of items or situations that may cause a "boom" sound, you and others seem to just barely give any thought to it, but then go off in the direction of saying, "Well since you dont know for sure if that is what really caused it either, therefore you have no proof of it", and that somehow automatically defaults back to "PRROOOOOFFFF!!!!!!" of secret demolition charges. It amazes me everytime.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by coughymachine
 


And for all you know, those issues were discussed in the closed door sessions and not placed into the report for security reasons. For which, you do not have a need to know.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join