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.

 

Americans do you feel comfortable discussing 911 irl?

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



Because what supposedly happened is IMPOSSIBLE!


There you go again! Declaring that something is impossible and then demanding more information!

By the way, search does have its limitations. You should try reading the whole report! You've had years and years and years - if only a few pages a day you probably would have been through the whole thing a couple of times already. Can you imagine some student in an "engineering" school telling their instructor that they didn't bother reading that whole thing on Strength of Materials, that they did a little search to find the important stuff?


It isnt students who came out against the pile of steam NIST produced. They even refuse to defend their own work. And at hominem attacks are still not a valid argument. Also it is not the topic of this thread.




posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
It isnt students who came out against the pile of steam NIST produced. They even refuse to defend their own work. And at hominem attacks are still not a valid argument. Also it is not the topic of this thread.


...Although it does sort of speak to sentiments in the thread. The response of anger and name calling that arises from a desire to discuss the topic is certainly a deterrent for many people. If the goal is to suppress a dialog, it's often effective.



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 



Ive seen some of your "sources" ....its funny how few of them stand up under investigation.


Interesting you couldn’t post one source to back your opinions about me, much less any credible sources that I had used as facts to back up my claims.

Hayden Fry used to refer to that as throwing a bunch of BS at a wall.....at some point..something will stick. And if you are spending your life spreading ignorance....my condolences. We only get one trip on this marble and you are wasting it.


So spreading the truth is spreading ignorance? That’s like saying spreading lies is like spreading intelligent.

If I where you I would stop wasting your time trying to convince everyone that the OS lies are all true because you are wasting your time, most people on ATS are not that ignorant.




So, essentially anyone who doesn’t support the lies of the OS are Truthers and this gives you the right to insult and ridicule them because they refuse to stay ignorant.

Gee, where did I say that in my post?


You didn’t have to; it is very obvious in most of your posts.



You claim: that most Truthers in real life have threatened violence, where do you go to discuss 911, in a bar full drunks? I can assure you that most Truthers are opened minded and do not threaten violence, such as Scientists, Engineers, Firemen, Police officers, Demolition experts, first responders, surviving families and so on… I haven’t heard or read of any of these Truthers threatening any violence towards anyone.

No, I said that the majority of the ones I have talked to in real life, threaten violence. And actually, it was a public library on the one occasion. I could mention that I have several friends who have had to change phone numbers and install security systems in their houses because of harassment from "truthers"...oh wait, I just mentioned that....


The fact is you do not know everyone that is in the truth movement; furthermore you do not speak for the Truth movement. Perhaps you and your friends do not know how to talk to people, because if your approach is anything like your responses here, then I can see why people behave towards you and the company you keep.



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 





Interesting you couldn’t post one source to back your opinions about me, much less any credible sources that I had used as facts to back up my claims.


Umm, no, its a matter of having not taken the time to basically copy the links to your posts.




So spreading the truth is spreading ignorance? That’s like saying spreading lies is like spreading intelligent.


No, spreading the truth is what I do, you tend to spread the smelly fertilizer like what comes from my uncle's cattle ranch.




The fact is you do not know everyone that is in the truth movement


Never claimed I did. If you had bothered to actually read and comprehend my post, you would have seen that I was speaking about Truthers I have dealt with in real life.




furthermore you do not speak for the Truth movement


Posts like the one you made, are a prime reason why people question your reading comprehension. Never once claimed I spoke for the truth movement....would never associate myself with it. I stick with reality.



Perhaps you and your friends do not know how to talk to people, because if your approach is anything like your responses here


My friends, as it were, were men that were on duty at the Pentagon on 9/11/01. Their only dealings with the "truth" movement would be the aliementary canal exit (cant use the word I would prefer) idiots from the truth movement that pestered them with phone calls, with getting in their faces while out with their families, that sort of thing. They try to stay as far away from the lunatics in the truth movement as they can.

And before you type back a hurt reply, I am not saying every Truther is a lunatic. Just the select few that feel the need to badger the men and women who had front row seats to one of the most horrific days in modern American history.



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 06:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by HolographicPrincipal

Originally posted by Cassius666
It isnt students who came out against the pile of steam NIST produced. They even refuse to defend their own work. And at hominem attacks are still not a valid argument. Also it is not the topic of this thread.


...Although it does sort of speak to sentiments in the thread. The response of anger and name calling that arises from a desire to discuss the topic is certainly a deterrent for many people. If the goal is to suppress a dialog, it's often effective.


Yes I noticed that too. Its quite telling which side in the debate has to resort to namecalling and acting out angry.
edit on 2-8-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 07:05 AM
link   
Here in England Its not something you can realy talk about without people thinking you wear a tinfoil hat. And even when I have nearly talked people into at least looking into it them selves it fails because people don't realy want to accept anything other than the official story. Think about it, if they do and come to the conclusion its an inside job then they have to think that they played apart in by turning a blind eye and allso funding the people who possibly did it with their taxes.



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666

Yes I noticed that too. Its quite telling which side in the debate has to resort to namecalling and acting out angry.


Yes, it is. Since I've been here, I've seen numerous posts directed at me personally, saying that I was a punk, that I was evil, and that they hoped I died from a disease. One person even said "sooner or later I was going to get what's coming to me". I've even had one guy forge my handle and post pornographic posts in my name in an effort to "get me". Then, there was the guy who uses an avatar of someone wearing an "investigate 9/11" T-shirt...while holding an AK-47. What the heck is *that* supposed to mean?

As for me, I'm an American and I feel perfectly comfortable discussing 9/11...namely, becuase I don't need to resort to accusing anyone of being a secret gov't disinformation agent to rationalize why what I'm saying is true like you conspiracy people do. Just HOW many times did you conspiracy people smear that Taxi cab driver by the Pentagon and accuse him of being "involved in the coverup", exactly?



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThePeopleParty
Here in England Its not something you can realy talk about without people thinking you wear a tinfoil hat. And even when I have nearly talked people into at least looking into it them selves it fails because people don't realy want to accept anything other than the official story. Think about it, if they do and come to the conclusion its an inside job then they have to think that they played apart in by turning a blind eye and allso funding the people who possibly did it with their taxes.


How do people admit to TEN YEARS of stupidity over a grade school physics problem?

How do you seriously discuss skyscrapers without talking about how the steel had to be distributed down the building just so it could hold itself up?

Why didn't the physics profession shoot this nonsense down in 2002? How will they ever explain that?

psikeyhackr.livejournal.com...

So what does this say about how well the perps understood mass psychology?

psik
edit on 2-8-2011 by psikeyhackr because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 





As for me, I'm an American and I feel perfectly comfortable discussing 9/11...namely, becuase I don't need to resort to accusing anyone of being a secret gov't disinformation agent to rationalize why what I'm saying is true like you conspiracy people do


No, you simply resort to calling us damned fool idiot conspiracy mongers.

Still nothing offered to convince we idiots as to why the OFFICIAL STORY is consistent with the available evidence.

I'm not holding my breath.



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThePeopleParty
Here in England Its not something you can realy talk about without people thinking you wear a tinfoil hat. And even when I have nearly talked people into at least looking into it them selves it fails because people don't realy want to accept anything other than the official story. Think about it, if they do and come to the conclusion its an inside job then they have to think that they played apart in by turning a blind eye and allso funding the people who possibly did it with their taxes.



Agreed. It's simply psychology. If someone admits the truth the next step is to do something about it, and most folks find that task too daunting. Who would want to brave being called a damned fool idiot conspiracy monger all the time? We're Pavlov's dog, nothing more.



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



Yes I noticed that too. Its quite telling which side in the debate has to resort to namecalling and acting out angry.

Yes, it is. Since I've been here, I've seen numerous posts directed at me personally, saying that I was a punk, that I was evil, and that they hoped I died from a disease. One person even said "sooner or later I was going to get what's coming to me". I've even had one guy forge my handle and post pornographic posts in my name in an effort to "get me". Then, there was the guy who uses an avatar of someone wearing an "investigate 9/11" T-shirt...while holding an AK-47. What the heck is *that* supposed to mean?


I can’t blame any of these people who went after you, look how you attack everyone on the 911 threads.
The fact is your attitude and name calling against all Truthers says enough


As for me, I'm an American and I feel perfectly comfortable discussing 9/11...namely, becuase I don't need to resort to accusing anyone of being a secret gov't disinformation agent to rationalize why what I'm saying is true like you conspiracy people do. Just HOW many times did you conspiracy people smear that Taxi cab driver by the Pentagon and accuse him of being "involved in the coverup", exactly?


The fact is the Taxi driver was proven a liar; it is not our fault if you deny all the evidence.
No, some of you did not have to resort to say that all Truthers are not secret gov't disinformation agent. No, some of you just resorted to say that ALL Truthers are disinformation agents who get their information only from those dame fools conspiracy websites.


edit on 2-8-2011 by impressme because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 12:51 PM
link   
Go to any college campus and you'd be surprised at how many people know the flaws in the OS and speak out against it, exactly as we do here with their friends and in the classroom. Now go to any office place, where they work, and you'll find its almost taboo to discuss while working.

Job Security > Truth

And that is the only reason why some people do not feel comfortable.



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
No, you simply resort to calling us damned fool idiot conspiracy mongers.

Still nothing offered to convince we idiots as to why the OFFICIAL STORY is consistent with the available evidence.

I'm not holding my breath.


This is a disingenuous statement, as I don't think a single one of you can even agree among each other as to what "the official story" even is. To some it's simply the claim that we were attacked by Islamic fundamentalists, while others are so hard core into their alternative theories that they even refuse to believe that any plane even hit the towers and the Pentagon. Wasn't it you who thought the WTC wasn't even a building but just an empty hollow box?

Let me ask YOU something...the Purdue university report contradicts the NIST and FEMA gov't reports by stating the fluids aboard the planes did more damage to the towers than what NIST and FEMA take into account. Plus, Fire expert Dr. James Quintiere states the towers collapsed becusse there wasn't sufficient fireproofing to begin with. Is the Purdue report and the Quintiere's report "part of the OS" because they acknowledge that planes actually hit the towers, or are they not "part of the OS" because they don't mindlessly accept what the NIST and FEMA reports state?

This is another reason why discussing the 9/11 attack is comfortable with me- I'm not the one who needs to cling to cute little buzz words as a fundamental tenet to rationalize what I subscribe to. I can say I mistrust the gov't AS WELL AS say your conspiracy claims have no merit.



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


There you go again with the holografic planes. I have been on A&Efor911truth, Pilotsfortruth firefightersfortruth veteransfortruth Buildingwhat.org and neithier talks about holografic planes.


Originally posted by tooo many pills
Go to any college campus and you'd be surprised at how many people know the flaws in the OS and speak out against it, exactly as we do here with their friends and in the classroom. Now go to any office place, where they work, and you'll find its almost taboo to discuss while working.

Job Security > Truth

And that is the only reason why some people do not feel comfortable.


That seems to be a pretty good reason. However others have cited other reasons as well, but I think we can argue job security is one of the dominant factors.

edit on 2-8-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 



There you go again with the holografic planes. I have been on A&Efor911truth, Pilotsfortruth firefightersfortruth veteransfortruth Buildingwhat.org and neithier talks about holografic planes.


I believe, in this instance, GoodOldDave is responding to Yankee451 who happens to be a proponent of the particular fantasy that proposes that the planes that hit the World Trade Center buildings did not, in fact, exist and that the videos were CGI products and persons on the ground were fooled by holographic projections.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 03:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Cassius666
 



There you go again with the holografic planes. I have been on A&Efor911truth, Pilotsfortruth firefightersfortruth veteransfortruth Buildingwhat.org and neithier talks about holografic planes.


I believe, in this instance, GoodOldDave is responding to Yankee451 who happens to be a proponent of the particular fantasy that proposes that the planes that hit the World Trade Center buildings did not, in fact, exist and that the videos were CGI products and persons on the ground were fooled by holographic projections.


I have provided plenty of detailed proof as to why it was impossible for planes to be used. I have only heard holographic projections being claimed by operatives in an effort to smear my work. If you have anything of substance to say about my work, I'm happy to discuss it.

EXAMPLE OF A POST USING EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT A HYPOTHESIS



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
I have provided plenty of detailed proof as to why it was impossible for planes to be used. I have only heard holographic projections being claimed by operatives in an effort to smear my work. If you have anything of substance to say about my work, I'm happy to discuss it.


I do have to thank you, as every time someone swears that I'm posting falsehoods about what the conspiracy theorists are claiming, someone...in this case, you...comes along and posts something that completely proves what I've been saying all along.

Let me ask you this- after the first plane hit, every video camera and every pair of eyes in Manhattan was watching what was going on at the WTC when the second plane came along, so there were 100,000 witnesses who were physically there and a million more riveted to their televisions who specifically saw the plane hit the south tower. Since you're saying it wasn't really a plane that hit the towers, then how do you truthers explain this phenomena?

For ease of conversation...and since I can't talk to 5,000 people at once...I'll presume you're speaking for the truther movement as a whole in your answer.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave





I do have to thank you, as every time someone swears that I'm posting falsehoods about what the conspiracy theorists are claiming, someone...in this case, you...comes along and posts something that completely proves what I've been saying all along.


Interesting story. See, I'm here to try to dig out the truth, but you're here to win arguments. I continue to beat my head against the brick wall of your intellect because I hope readers are following the thread, and are able to decide for themselves who is genuine and who is belligerent.




Let me ask you this- after the first plane hit, every video camera and every pair of eyes in Manhattan was watching what was going on at the WTC when the second plane came along, so there were 100,000 witnesses who were physically there and a million more riveted to their televisions who specifically saw the plane hit the south tower. Since you're saying it wasn't really a plane that hit the towers, then how do you truthers explain this phenomena?


Again? How many times will you ignore it?

The evidence doesn't support the official story. Considering jets could not possibly have caused the damage to the towers, there must be another explanation. It is consistent with the corruption revealed In the context of the Black Eagle Trust, Operation Brownstone and Operation Code Angel, to have the mainstream media involved.

The damage is provably impossible to have been caused by jets, but videos can be tampered with, and it has been repeatedly demonstrated on other forums that the videos were faked. I find it much easier to believe our government and all their paid experts are lying, than I can believe an aluminum wingtip can slice structural steel columns.

letsrollforums.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">Evidence of no planes



For ease of conversation...and since I can't talk to 5,000 people at once...I'll presume you're speaking for the truther movement as a whole in your answer.


I do not need to rely on the work of others to prove planes were not used, so please stop lumping me in with other "truthers. I only speak for myself and I have made this clear several times. I can understand how you keep making this mistake, as you seem to speak for so many millions of others, but I am still happy to discuss in detail exactly why you think I'm a damned fool idiot conspiracy monger, however do try to understand I only represent myself.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 12:15 PM
link   
Generalizing people into groups defeats the purpose of a discussion. Asking questions or wanting answers to questions does not equate to being a conspiracy theorist. So it's unfair to say all people who doubt the official story are "truthers" (which is actually a label that I believe cheapens a sincere inquiry). It takes the focus off the issues and redirects it to specific people.

So again, a good example as to why there is discomfort surrounding discussing the events of 9/11. No one wants to be called out and lumped together under a label that has negative connotations, and deters many from speaking their minds or pushing for answers.
edit on 8/3/2011 by HolographicPrincipal because: add additional text


Edit to add: I agree with the concept that silence = job security. It happens every day for myriad reasons. Objectively, people can think, well, screw my job. My beliefs are more important. But in practice, that rarely happens. If you are more concerned about feeding your family and/or can't afford losing benefits, etc., other priorities will fly out the window.
edit on 8/3/2011 by HolographicPrincipal because: add even more text!

edit on 8/3/2011 by HolographicPrincipal because: being a spaz



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


The issue isnt what people say. A lot of things by a lot of people have been said, from terrorists with boxcutters organized out of an hydro powered cave have done it, to Sattelites have done it. Thank god we have you to keep track of each and every post on the topic on the world wide web. Dont get caught at work.

The issue is, what of what is been said, can hold up to scrutinity?




top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join