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.

 

I Was A Deluded 9/11 OS'er

page: 6
73
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by GrinchNoMore
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


You are just mad that Alex has had a part in exposing the delusions you love so much.... Oh it is good to see you back Dave...your rants are just as funny as Alex's.

Back on topic, your delusion is crumbling all around, so you can only stab at people who get mad at things, speculate openly, and expose information ANY way possible, face it you LOVE ALEX.


Sheesh, talk about delusion. All I can say is DON'T CHANGE A THING. When/if, someday, you get an independent 9/11 investigation and the people behind the big desks ask you why you think there's a conspiracy, and you start quoting some lunatic who dresses up like the joker and throws papers around giggling, you'll sink that leaky tramp steamer you call a "truther movement" quicker than anything the rest of us could possibly say or do. Little wonder why there was a truther protest here in Connecticut recently, and only THREE people showed up for it.

What concerns me is that those of us who want a serious inquiry into the failures and incompetence behind the 9/11 attack are going to look like laughing stocks by association. Heck, we can't even discuss how NORAD responded to the first request for assistance before some dope hijacks the thread and insists it's all the fault of the Jews. Where the heck did you truthers get this Jew hating kick, from, anyway?


1- You repeatedly say "dam fool conspiracy sites" and I point out that your a member/poster on a "dam fool conspiracy site" you say, "no, its alternative subject matter" (you probably phrased it differently, but I think I got the just of it right) so now I'm gonna tell you this- This is a conspiracy website!!! Its the first thing it says in my browser history Above Top Secret.com CONSPIRACY THEORIES, UFOS, Paranormal, Political..... not to mention the fact that most of the subject matter on here IS dealing with, debating with, speculating on, CONSPIRACY THEORY sir. So please,please, please, stop.calling the kettle black on that one. If your gonna lump conspiracy theorists together, don't forget to add yourself to the fools mmmkay? Its really just....asinine how you can't admit that to yourself.

2- Ok, ya that was crazy for AJ to do. Can't disagree with you on that one, don't hurt the cause too much, just a scratch. But, can you sit there and tell me you've never looked stupid or crazy on camera before? Shoot, I have lol, that the fun thing about cameras :-) I just wasn't stupid enough to broadcast it lol.




posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 01:29 AM
link   
Why then do we need conspiracy theories to dislike our governments? I believe this in essence is discrediting to the good intention. You cannot change anything on the fringe of the mainstream you must work within the closed system. To sit out here and put so much thought and effort into an elaborate conspiracy by TPTB even if true will only devalue your pursuit. The fact of the matter to curse the closed system we live in dose nothing to change its course, you have to find a solution and work within the realms of practicality and then maybe you’ll achieve a lasting footprint of real change.

All else is just argument and conjecture, only helpful at least in this circumstance for acquiring carpel tunnel syndrome little sooner..
edit on 16-9-2011 by TechniXcality because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by JibbyJedi

Originally posted by cripmeister

Originally posted by JibbyJedi
Check out how structurally sound building 7 was minutes before it collapsed...



What about the other side? The side that took the all the damage from the collapse of the towers?


Hmmmm, did it look anything like this?




I don't remember that one free falling into it's own footprint.


First cherry-picking of evidence then deflection. This is what happens when you spend too much time listening to David Icke and Alex Jones - you become indoctrinated and incapable of having a meaningful discussion.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 02:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by cripmeisterFirst cherry-picking of evidence then deflection. This is what happens when you spend too much time listening to David Icke and Alex Jones - you become indoctrinated and incapable of having a meaningful discussion.


No. You made a point, which was that the building suffered damage which caused the collapse. Then the other poster made a point, which was that suffering damage does not mean a building should collapse. Moreover, it shouldn't collapse neatly into it's own footprint. Therefore your point has been refuted.

Who is deflecting? Who is using straw-man arguments?



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by GrinchNoMore
reply to post by Varemia
 


I have heard those too, and they made no mention of blocked stairs, though they likely could have been,, just how many floors do you think were damaged ?? You make it sound like 15-20.

Sorry but you cherry pick garbage as much as anyone,, and all of the video evidence speaks against the OS,,, ALL OF IT.

WOW did i just say VIDEO EVIDENCE ?? BUT THE NIST SAID OTHERWISE ,, OH NOES...


Alright, I just did some fact checking (I never just assume I was correct), and it appears that I was mistaken about the stairs being blocked physically. Stairway B was blocked by fire, and the firefighters there couldn't make it past floor 78. For some reason this didn't appear on the transcripts online, only in the wmv excerpt, which I got here.

And yes, floor 78 was the lowest of the floors that were damaged. If we're talking fire-based collapse, the worst fires would be in the upper portion of the damaged areas, which went up to the 84th floor. Just think about that for a while, ok?



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 07:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cecilofs
Honestly, if the US Govt came out and gave us a version of events that made sense to me and seemed to be them genuinely making themselves vulnerable and accepting responsibility, then I might change my mind.

As an example:

- We actually did shoot that plane down we just lied about it because we didn't think people would accept it.
- We actually did demo those buildings, but only because we knew they would fall over and cause even more wide spread damage. We lied about it because we didn't think you'd accept us doing that.
- We actually did just capitalise on 9/11 and used it to go to war. That was a mistake. Now we need to pull the troops home and start fixing our country and economy.
- Our intelligence agencies were compromised and that led to the attacks happening during our war games. That was a big #up on our behalf.
- Turns out our foreign policy has been terribly flawed for decades. We need to pull out the troops and send in civilian aid to those countries we've destroyed. This will reduce the threat of terrorism.

Anything even remotely like that would make me strongly reconsider my opinion.

So then we need to turn the question on you and ask what would make you change your mind. Ignore if that's already been asked/answered.


So, what you're saying is that you are absolutely certain that your perceived version of events is correct, and the only way you would accept an official story is if it conformed to those views?

Afraid that's not very scientific of you, friend. A scientific mind is willing to look at all evidence and judge it objectively with as little bias as is manageable. Your bias appears to be heavily in the direction of the stated conspiracies you listed.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 07:18 AM
link   
reply to post by JibbyJedi
 


I have a similar story to yours, differing a little obviously.

But yeah, at the time of the attacks I was questioning why the other jets weren't intercepted as many people were, but I bought the "hate the muslims" stuff hook line and sinker, "bomb the middle east and be done with it" I repeated many many times.

I was never a fan of Bush, and when Michael Moore started talking about the possible Saudi connections I got interested in what actually happened. We all knew about the attack, but no one was really talking about where it came from.

This eventually, on a completely non-conspiracy related website, led me to groups of people talking about loose change and the inside job angle. I was pestered and pestered to watch it, and finally gave in and did. I found it made some good points, but also some horrible horrible mistakes. This gave me ammunition, so I started really debating these stupid truthers (don't even think they were calling themselves that yet). Someone pointed me towards Alex Jones.

Once I saw the library of movies for download I thought "great, more amunition to prove them wrong".

I was wrong



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cecilofs

Originally posted by cripmeisterFirst cherry-picking of evidence then deflection. This is what happens when you spend too much time listening to David Icke and Alex Jones - you become indoctrinated and incapable of having a meaningful discussion.


No. You made a point, which was that the building suffered damage which caused the collapse. Then the other poster made a point, which was that suffering damage does not mean a building should collapse. Moreover, it shouldn't collapse neatly into it's own footprint. Therefore your point has been refuted.

Who is deflecting? Who is using straw-man arguments?


Thank you for making my point clearer to them Cecilofs, went to sleep before seeing my awesome rebuttal post got no stars and the one asking me about building 7 damage gets 6 stars, probably from the mods because they were fast. Interesting how many believe building 7 was so weakened it could collapse in uniform fashion.

Jenga pieces, legos, blocks, all these things wouldn't just collapse even if hit with a plastic plane never mind just debris. I'm not trying to compare them, just saying that I'm sure the WTC complex was built much sturdier and stronger than a lego 40 story tower, yet legos are locked in pretty good and at worst, would just fall over like Humpty Dumpty vs a straight down collapse....



or...



That's what it SHOULD have done if it were so badly damaged in those areas.
Oklahoma city, not as feeble and weak it seems, that one had to be demo'd professionally....



If you can watch those videos and still believe building 7 was a totally normal collapse considering it's damaged areas, then I'm afraid there's no way of getting you to see the reality of the situation.
edit on 16-9-2011 by JibbyJedi because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 10:32 AM
link   
I have a few questions for "truthers".

Do you really expect any government of the United States to admit that the Bush administration orchestrated the attacks on WTC and Pentagon, assuming that is the case?

Do you really expect the any government of the United States to admit that the Bush administration knowingly allowed the attacks to take place while they had several opportunities for stopping them, assuming that is the case?

Please consider the international consequences the US will face with such an admission before answering the questions. For an outsider admitting the latter is no different from admitting the first.

If your answer is a no, what exactly is the point of the "truth movement" ?

If your answer is an yes, what international ramifications do you foresee for such an admission and how exactly do you think the US government will address them?



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Observor
 


They will never admit mistakes or guilt.
The point is to expose them for what they are and what they did/allowed to happen that day. So much changed after that day because of 3000 people dying. It's selective focusing, because things like auto accidents, alcohol abuse, cigarettes, cancer, the Flu, all kill more people per year and nothing is done really to "fight a war" against those casualties. There's no profit in it for them.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cecilofs

Originally posted by cripmeisterFirst cherry-picking of evidence then deflection. This is what happens when you spend too much time listening to David Icke and Alex Jones - you become indoctrinated and incapable of having a meaningful discussion.


No. You made a point, which was that the building suffered damage which caused the collapse. Then the other poster made a point, which was that suffering damage does not mean a building should collapse. Moreover, it shouldn't collapse neatly into it's own footprint. Therefore your point has been refuted.

Who is deflecting? Who is using straw-man arguments?


The discussion was not about the Oklahoma bombing but WTC 7. The Oklahoma example doesn't refute anything. Sooner or later you too will come to the conclusion that reality is much more complex than the Truthers make it out to be.

reply to post by JibbyJedi
 



Thank you for making my point clearer to them Cecilofs, went to sleep before seeing my awesome rebuttal post got no stars and the one asking me about building 7 damage gets 6 stars, probably from the mods because they were fast.


Cherry-picking of evidence, deflection and now appeal to pity. Keep going, soon you will have exhausted every fallacy there is

edit on 16-9-2011 by cripmeister because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by cripmeister
 


Did you even watch the 3 videos posted above? They are prime examples of buildings that reacted normally under the circumstances and were not as well build as "the mayor's bunker" building 7 was.
Watch them, your eyes will see something that makes sense, then watching building 7 do what it did, that makes little to no sense.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by JibbyJedi
 


Well written, JibbyJedi - I've been on a very similar journey over the last ten years, and you've done a great job describing it. This is one of the things that drew me to ATS - being able to see that smart, rational, open-minded people are hanging out way down this rabbit hole with me and trying to figure out what might be real ...

Looking forward to reading the responses in the thread.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by JibbyJedi
 


You deserve standing ovations for this brilliant retaliation strike upon .. well, we all know who, don't we ?

Starred, Flagged, keep'em coming ol' Jedi.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by JibbyJedi
reply to post by Observor
 


They will never admit mistakes or guilt.

OK. So we are on the same page.

The point is to expose them for what they are and what they did/allowed to happen that day.

Expose who? Do you have names and concrete evidence that you connect to them? If not, how do you expect to convince any person who is not already a conspiracy theorist?

The one thing many Americans pretend to believe (I say 'pretend to' because I don't think they actually believe it) is that the American government would never conspire to kill Americans. "Truthers" quote many incidents that would appeal to other conspiracists, but I am yet to meet a "truther" who raised the anthrax attacks which are a definite proof that the US government would conspire to kill its own citizens and did. Wonder why that is so?

Is it because the "truthers" themselves always want it so that there is never convincing evidence?



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Observor

Originally posted by JibbyJedi
reply to post by Observor
 


They will never admit mistakes or guilt.

OK. So we are on the same page.

The point is to expose them for what they are and what they did/allowed to happen that day.

Expose who? Do you have names and concrete evidence that you connect to them? If not, how do you expect to convince any person who is not already a conspiracy theorist?

The one thing many Americans pretend to believe (I say 'pretend to' because I don't think they actually believe it) is that the American government would never conspire to kill Americans. "Truthers" quote many incidents that would appeal to other conspiracists, but I am yet to meet a "truther" who raised the anthrax attacks which are a definite proof that the US government would conspire to kill its own citizens and did. Wonder why that is so?

Is it because the "truthers" themselves always want it so that there is never convincing evidence?


If we knew who exactly "they" were, they would be lynched. Follow the money, interrogate the people in charge of security for the Pentagon & WTC and the skies over NYC from rogue planes.

Instead, we have Bush and Cheney testifying behind closed doors and not under oath, and no one has lost their jobs because of incompetence of handling the threat in the air on 9/11.
That's how it goes in America.

Have you ever tried calling people by their names instead of by the stereotype classification you lump them into, like "truthers" and "conspiracy theorists"?
I don't belong to any group, just an American who has seen corruption first hand from medical to corporate laws, and I know the corruption always comes from the top down.

Always follow the money. How much money did the terrorists make from 9/11? How much did the military industrial complex make after 9/11? Private investors/contractors?
Have you ever heard of the "revolving door" metaphor? That's when these corrupt individuals go from gov't jobs to head of corporations and back to gov't jobs, while deregulating and merging corporate/government agendas. Look into it, and ask the right questions.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by JibbyJedi
I figured the official story was the truth because people a lot smarter than me were on the case!

...and, that is not why the official public story of 9/11 is true.
...and, that is not why the official public story of 9/11 is flawed.

Can something flawed be true? Yes. Since the event killed a small group of individuals, compared to the overall population, the majority of the world was not physically on scene. As a result of not being in the buildings, during the event, the majority can not definitively say what occurred inside of them. All those flaws in the 9/11 Commission Report are there due to the lack of first-hand accounts. Anyone who could have shed light onto the subject is dead. Unless you have some sort of time machine, we will never know what it was like inside the collapsing buildings.

Second, I do not put my trust in anyone outside of my family and friends. "Loose Change" is a propaganda piece that was made by a complete stranger. Dylan Avery created "Loose Change" as a fictional thriller, which he later turned into a propaganda piece. While he was making his thriller, Dylan saw an opportunity to make some cash. Dylan feed off of anti-Bush rhetoric, so he can exploit the dead to gain wealth and notoriety. Outside of this one propaganda piece, we know nothing else about Dylan Avery.

Third, can anyone tie George Bush or Dick Cheney to a specific 9/11 conspiracy? Definitively? When you go into a court room to prosecute someone, you must bring rock-solid-evidence to support a claim. If you walk into court with a theoretical analysis, the people whom are being prosecuted will win. You can bring in experts in the field of science, demolitions, and architecture; however, you need something that specifically proves Bush and Cheney were physically involved. None of these 9/11 conspiracy theories prove any type of connection. Its all based upon circumstantial evidence.

Fourth, terrorists have attacked New York City every year between 1980 and 2001. Regardless about what part of the middle-east they came from, terrorists have been working hard to perfect their tactics. Each attack was a test of our defenses. As a result of someone keeping notes, one group of terrorists developed an affective plan. United States is a wide open society, so the plan was bound to be something simple. Osama exploited a loop hole in our freedoms. I am not shocked that it happened.

Fifth, everyone exhibited a genuine emotional response. Bush's sudden pause after being told about the second crash was based upon uncertainty. Even though he will tell you the government was ready to respond, Bush will never admit that they did not have control. Bush's moment of hesitation was fueled by fear. Our executive branch of government ceased to exist for a long but brief period of time. Bush's facial expressions showed a man stuck in time.

September 11, 2001 was carried out by foreign born terrorists. 9/11 Conspiracy theories were created by those who want to regain a sense of control. Since our government stopped working for a brief period, people do not want to believe their lives are vulnerable. Welcome to an open society that has no borders.

That is life.

edit on 9/16/2011 by Section31 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by JibbyJedi
 

wow....I will take the time this weekend to peruse your offerings....(the ones I haven't seen yet)...thankyou for collecting them all...and welcome to the ranks of the "looney toons"....funny how looney people end up being the wise ones...after the fact.. (think flat vs. round earth.....etc).....hang in there



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 01:26 PM
link   
thats eerily similar to my timeline jj.

waltham mass was where I lived in 2008 when i came out of my 'hibernation'

mass is a tough place to wake up you're right, i got the hell out of there and fast.

s&f



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Section31
 


so....you're NOT really a "dead man's advocate" at all, then are you?.....did you get paid for this?.....and if you feel that way, why are you on ATS and reading any of our "looney" stories?.....shouldn't you be reading huffington post or something?



new topics

top topics



 
73
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join