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.

 

Wikipedia categorizes 9/11 truth as 'denialism'

page: 4
11
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by lambros56
 





You what ?
You're comparing this to the hijackings of 9/11 ?

Too many truthers refuse to believe a bunch of towel heads could put together an cordinated and organized attack.

The big difference between the two is that the first group didn't think of flying the planes into buildings.




posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by wisdomnotemotion
Only primitive monkeys and retards believe there's no demolition planted inside WTC towers.

The Zionist PTB Elites have insulted the intelligence of every human being in the world.


You are invited to use your expertise and postulate placements, charge sizes, and demolitions timing and wiring. If you cannot, merely wave your hands, restate how it just had to be demolitions, how it must be supersecret stuff that left no traces, and continue to validate the Wikipedia statement.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by lambros56

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by Alfie1
 





9/11 wasn't the first time Arabs carried out multiple airliner hijacks on one day :-

www.telegraph.co.uk...


Excellent post!





You what ?
You're comparing this to the hijackings of 9/11 ?


Well the 1970 multiple hi-jackings were more complex to organise as they were of international flights from different countries and not just US internal domestic flights as on 9/11.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


The question was how they possibly knew some hours in advance that the building is going to collapse?



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ICanThink
reply to post by Alfie1
 


The question was how they possibly knew some hours in advance that the building is going to collapse?


FDNY expected it to go and the media expected it because they spoke to the firefighters. Perhaps you had better specify who you mean by "they".



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird

BBC tried to "scoop" everyone else, and they stepped on their wieners in the process....getting it wrong. But NO ONE ELSE did!! NO one else reported it early.....therefore, the allegations that the BBC "knew" ahead of time are ridiculous.

Not true - this one has always stuck in my mind, especially because of the casual reaction when it actually does collapse during this live segment. "There it is. It went down right there."

I feel like I remember at least one more example of an early report (in addition to CNN's Aaron Brown saying that it "has either collapsed, or is collapsing."), but I can't find another video, so I may be wrong.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 
I'm sure you've watched this video:

The anchor describes the Salomon Brothers building as "only a few hundred yards away from where the World Trade Center towers stood." Standley assumes that the building was unoccupied because it would have been evacuated after the collapse of the towers. The chyron on screen describes the building as "the 47 storey Salomon Brothers building." It seems very clear to me that they know what building they're talking about.

I have a hard time seeing your suggestion - that they were referring to the south tower - as anything but the very kind of denial you're criticizing. Unless you simply haven't seen the actual footage, in which case I apologize for my assumption.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by magicrat
I have a hard time seeing your suggestion - that they were referring to the south tower - as anything but the very kind of denial you're criticizing. Unless you simply haven't seen the actual footage, in which case I apologize for my assumption.



I thank you for posting this video and I retract my previous statement, as you have shown it is erroneous. There, see how easy that was?

That said, I would like to know what your explanation for this is, because for me, the idea that a) the BBC was being fed secret information about some conspiracy to destroy the buildings and b) the BBC as conspirators would knowingly announce the impending collapse of WTC 7 and possibly upset the apple cart is stretching reality quite a bit. Without proof that shows otherwise, I will necessarily still have to rely on the BBC's own explanation that they were simply grabbing any news tidbit they came across and they rushed too quickly to throw it on the air.

The BBC Editor's response to the conspiracy theorists

At best, all this means is that I as well as the conspiracy people are both wrong in our positions. I can live with that.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by magicrat
 


If you listen carefully to the news anchors discussing it.....it seems apparent that the BBC report that wrongly announced the collapse had been making the rounds of the news wires. They are discussing it, but unsure as to the accuracy of those reports. The female says as much, asking about the smoke.

She also gives a hint of the time, in her comments about the good chance that nobody will be in the buildings any more, not only due to evacuations, but the time being "around 5:30".

In a very dynamic and "breaking" news story, these sorts of mistakes and assumptions happen all the time. It's in the nature of the modern era of live, usually 24-hour news coverage, combined with the erosion of journalistic standards that used to be the norm, in a bygone age.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 
You're very welcome, and I appreciate the retraction.

Yeah, I don't have a good explanation for that. I can't completely rule out the possibility that super-secret agents were handing out scripts to media outlets, but it seems really unlikely to me, and I agree with you that the logic of it doesn't hold up. The BBC's explanation seems to be pretty logical, but it still seems weird to me.

Since I don't know what really happened, I wouldn't use this as evidence of anything. I was just responding to what I read as certainty and condescension with which you were stating an inaccurate claim. It's frustrating to see truthers labelled as being in denial by people who are themselves ignoring facts that are easy to find.

That said, I'm willing to accept that you were doing it with the best of intentions, and I hope we'll have the opportunity to correct one another more in the future, and help each other sort out facts from assumptions.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 01:52 PM
link   
yes, wikipedia, the greatest encyclopedia to ever walk the earth, sorted and researched by scholars, college essays, treatise



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 
I agree that your theory on this is plausible and logical, and I definitely don't have any way to prove that the BBC "knew" ahead of time, so I won't try to debate that point. I was responding to your definitive statement that no one else reported it early. I didn't want to let that inaccuracy stand, especially in a thread that accuses truthers of being in denial.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by Rafe_
reply to post by binkbonk
 



They also successfully hijacked 4 planes on the same day at the same time (with box-cutters) followed by successfully flying all 3 boeings into restriced air space in different locations and have the world first steel sky scraper collapse because of fire for the first time in human history (as reported 'NIST").

Followed by a second one shortly after which makes that the second example in human history,Then have one of the other planes crash and disapear into the ground burying itself and one other boeing nose diving to the ground ,pulling up and flying a couple of feet above the ground into the pentagon (recorded by more then 80 $20K security cameras and yet never shown.)

All in one day


...no ,nothing strange going on there.
The U.S ,A force security ,Airforce,Police,FBI,CIA just made few mistakes







edit on 25-1-2012 by Rafe_ because: (no reason given)


9/11 wasn't the first time Arabs carried out multiple airliner hijacks on one day :-

www.telegraph.co.uk...


Out of all that ,that is the best you can come up with ?

The 9/11 highjackings were all conducted AND boarded on U.S soil by a group that suposedly had been doing there thing for more then a year ,on U.S soil.


Out of all those points you can only come up with that?


The dawson highjackings were done/boarded in :

Amsterdam,zurich and frankfurt.

If you do not see the different implications in there then you are simply in denial.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Panic2k11
reply to post by Starchild23
 





None of you have any conclusive, irrefutable proof that 9/11 was anything other than what the officials say.


That fact alone, makes me believe that something smells. The fact that normal and standard procedures in place to study the event have been discarded and the most of the evidence destroyed speaks volumes by itself. Heck it is like the magic bullet that killed JFK.


Government is the topmost institution of any nation and a fundamental part of the state, that is to say, a state is not defined only by its government and a nation is not indistinct from the state.

The thing about any institution that one needs to always keep in mind is that their biggest and most important asset, is trust. The trust that people place on institutions is what enables them to function and is what prevents them from being substituted. A government, like any other institution, is also dependent on this rule.

Trust is a characteristic of social relations, there may be trust between people (or animals) but trust can not mean the same when used in context of a relation with a entity that does not share a sense of self, since the implications and requirements would not be the same. Thrust is a two way relationship, you may respect an institution but you should not trust it. If we look around the world we can safely state that all citizens are in a submissive situation in regards to their government, whatever type of government they have. This simple fact arises for the imparity in the relation, a citizen is a person while the government is not only several persons, but a collective formed around the purpose of guaranteeing the implementation of policies and laws, and so most of the governmental structures tend to form a hierarchy.

Due to our level of interconnection of knowledge, news and economic resources any significant event that seems random or unpredictable is no longer incidental but circumstantial and so predictable to a certain degree, if not outrightly planed to occur by some players on the power networks.

From a projected Wikibook "Should we trust Government"


edit on 25-1-2012 by Panic2k11 because: (no reason given)


Excellent post !!



,,


And very true.9/11 is such a freagin mess and full of holes they weren't even capable of keeping their own story straight.Much as in the case of the JFK asassination story which basicly got called a lie in court.


I mentioned it before myself ,Got to love that 'magic bullet' story that is in the official report.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by magicrat
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 
You're very welcome, and I appreciate the retraction.

Yeah, I don't have a good explanation for that. I can't completely rule out the possibility that super-secret agents were handing out scripts to media outlets, but it seems really unlikely to me, and I agree with you that the logic of it doesn't hold up. The BBC's explanation seems to be pretty logical, but it still seems weird to me.

Since I don't know what really happened, I wouldn't use this as evidence of anything. I was just responding to what I read as certainty and condescension with which you were stating an inaccurate claim. It's frustrating to see truthers labelled as being in denial by people who are themselves ignoring facts that are easy to find.


Well said and kudos




That said, I'm willing to accept that you were doing it with the best of intentions, and I hope we'll have the opportunity to correct one another more in the future, and help each other sort out facts from assumptions.
You have no idea who you just said that to.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 07:56 PM
link   
www.bbc.co.uk...


We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down.


Part of the BBC's defence about their 'cock'up' as they call it.

So ok they were not told it was going to come down as by their own admission.They did prematurly report that it went down and minutes before it actually did their broadcast was interupted.One year later they tell us that they lost the tapes which show all of this and they once again say 'sorry we messed up , again ,about 9/11 ,again...coincidentally '

There are hundreds of BBC viewers responding below the arcticle in the link.




edit on 25-1-2012 by Rafe_ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by intelligenthoodlum33

9/11 Commissioners say "Official Story" a Lie



Hey Anok!

Great post and link. I noticed how the naysayers refused to even acknowledge your link to quotes from actual commission members.....Yet they say WE are in denial. I bet these same naysayers actually believe Iranians are sitting at their kitchen tables, hating our freedoom Opps! I meant freedom

edit on 25-1-2012 by intelligenthoodlum33 because: nada



WRONG!
What you mean to say is that this stuff from a scam conspiracy site are "quote mines" and half truths perhaps caused by reading comprehension problem or even perhaps because of intention lies to misinterpret what was said.and why. How many commission member or staff on the commission are "truthers"? Name them by name and show the proof not some crap from "truther" sites...



Your pointless drivel aside. Did you actually go to the site? Did you click on the quotes provided (they are in red)? Of course you didn't, because if you had, you would be lead to the sources of each one of those quotes. Sources include CNN and Washington Post to name a couple.

I refuse to do any work for you and get in the way of your quest for ignorance...your doing too good of a job all by yourself.

Have a good one.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by intelligenthoodlum33
 



Of course he did.
He just did not want it mentioned here that is all.






edit on 25-1-2012 by Rafe_ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
At best, all this means is that I as well as the conspiracy people are both wrong in our positions. I can live with that.


Thank you for that.
This says so very very much about you.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rafe_

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
At best, all this means is that I as well as the conspiracy people are both wrong in our positions. I can live with that.


Thank you for that.
This says so very very much about you.


It's quite pathetic that you haven't done the same in the Pentagon Witness thread where your delusions got smeared all over your face....



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join