I defy anybody to show me evidence of a terrorist attack .

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 31 2012 @ 03:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by dawnprince
That is a big pile of croc ! Could TPTB make it any harder to view the evidence?
What I did manage to see how ever was totally circumstantial . Nothing there to link anybody to the attacks .
edit on 31-5-2012 by dawnprince because: (no reason given)

You didn't even read the evidence did you. How exactly do you call an in-person confession 'circumstantial'?

Please actually bother to read the whole argument before dismissing it. Once you've done that you can buy Firefight and read that. I'll buy it for you if you like.




posted on May, 31 2012 @ 04:17 AM
link   
I'm sorry folks , but I'm not pursuing this any further .
I have stepped into an area that I know nothing about , nor really want to know about .

My apologies

DP



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by dawnprince
Ok . I'm a Brit and I have been stood on the sidelines for years waiting for a single piece of evidence to be submitted that proves conclusively that 9/11 was an act of foreign terrorism and to this day I have seen absolutely nothing to convince me .
Forget all the close up pictures of engine parts on the pentagon lawn , they could have been taken anywhere.
All I ask is a single solitary piece of evidence.


Before anyone can do that, you're going to need to first specify what you consider to be legitimate evidence. For example, if we cited the numerous airphone calls from the planes to their families reporting the planes were hijacked, would you accept this as evidence or are you going to pull a "truther" and insist the phone calls are faked and the relatives they called are really sinister secret disinformation agents?

If it's the latter then you're no different than those holocaust deniers offering one million dollars for proof that the so-called holocaust actually ever happened, the only catch is that Jewish propaganda doesn't count. Of course, they will brand any and every proof regardless of what it is or where it came from as being Jewish propaganda. This isn't any search for the truth of the events behind the 9/11 attack; it's a self serving marketing stunt meant to give your own reviled political agenda false credibility. It's only from your own naivety that makes you think noone else is catching on to what you're trying to pull.

Hmmm...you don't insist the holocaust was a hoax, too, do you?



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by dawnprince
Ok . I'm a Brit and I have been stood on the sidelines for years waiting for a single piece of evidence to be submitted that proves conclusively that 9/11 was an act of foreign terrorism and to this day I have seen absolutely nothing to convince me .
Forget all the close up pictures of engine parts on the pentagon lawn , they could have been taken anywhere.
All I ask is a single solitary piece of evidence.


Before anyone can do that, you're going to need to first specify what you consider to be legitimate evidence. For example, if we cited the numerous airphone calls from the planes to their families reporting the planes were hijacked, would you accept this as evidence or are you going to pull a "truther" and insist the phone calls are faked and the relatives they called are really sinister secret disinformation agents?

If it's the latter then you're no different than those holocaust deniers offering one million dollars for proof that the so-called holocaust actually ever happened, the only catch is that Jewish propaganda doesn't count. Of course, they will brand any and every proof regardless of what it is or where it came from as being Jewish propaganda. This isn't any search for the truth of the events behind the 9/11 attack; it's a self serving marketing stunt meant to give your own reviled political agenda false credibility. It's only from your own naivety that makes you think noone else is catching on to what you're trying to pull.

Hmmm...you don't insist the holocaust was a hoax, too, do you?


You love to overuse the word sinister dave!

Bin laden being accused but not admitting to 9/11 is a big clue, as is the 3 planes that popped back up on radar after the impacts. How can three planes re-appear if they were supposed to be destroyed?

I'd love to see you debunk that dave!



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


I'm calling you out . You don't have a single shread of evidence to prove that 9/11 was the act of terrorists from outside of the USA.

You can shut me down with just one teeny weeny shread .
Are you up for it ?

I tell you fellow truthers . This guy is a shrill . He hardly ever bothers to post on any other subject . He lives , eats and sleeps 9/11 , but even this guy can't produce a single piece of evidence to back up the official story.

Fancy a tango , Dave ?



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by dawnprince
I'm calling you out . You don't have a single shread of evidence to prove that 9/11 was the act of terrorists from outside of the USA.

You can shut me down with just one teeny weeny shread .
Are you up for it ?

What sort of evidence would you like? It's also worthy of note that you're not permitted to accuse people of being shills here, at least that is the impression I get.

Let me know what sort of evidence you'd accept, and I will see if there's anything I can provide.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 02:54 PM
link   
If there was a thread from an “Oser” asking for proof that it was a false flag, this thread would be awash with people posting links to various alternative media sites with member drooling over the likes of “Tim Osman”. For us who believe the official story, we have so much more than the alternative media we have the mainstream media, books, academia, the victims’ families and the memories of the day itself

For me personally the absolute proof that it was a foreign terrorist attack cannot be found by looking at the day itself but at the history of terrorism in combination with the act of 9/11 itself. I cannot provide you with one link that will explain all of this to you.

If you are looking for proof, I would direct you to read the likes of Jason Burke, Steve Coll, Lawrence Wright, and the 9/11 commission, there are many more but that’s probably a good start.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by dawnprince
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


I'm calling you out . You don't have a single shread of evidence to prove that 9/11 was the act of terrorists from outside of the USA.


Now that's a pretty silly assertion. There's a whole trail of components from Mohammed Atta being a Saudi citizen, to his friends, classmates, and coworkers in Germany reporting Atta was a religious zealot, to German intelligence reporting Mohammed Atta was in contact with Al Qaida agents while in Hamburg, to Atta coming to the US, to Atta taking flight training in Florida, to Atta being aboard flight AA11, to flight attendant Betty Ong calling out and reporting AA11 had been hijacked, to AA11 slamming into the north tower.

Then there's the same trail concerning Hani Hanjour, from eyewitnesses reporting he was visited by Mohammed Atta to to his own flight training to flight attendent Renee May calling out from flight 77 reporting the plane had been hijacked to the recovery of the black box from the Pentagon identifying the craft that hit it was flight 77.

The problem isn't that there's no evidence to show it was a terrorist attack. There's an enormous amount of evdence showing it was an attack by foreign terrorists. The problem is that you don't want to believe it was a terrorist attack so you invent these excuses involving this "sinister secret agent" boogeyman as a defense mechanism for why you shouldn't have to accept the evidence. What you don't realize is that this isn't disproving the evidence. You're just using circular logic in that you're just repeating the original claim in different terms in order to justify itself.


I tell you fellow truthers . This guy is a shrill . He hardly ever bothers to post on any other subject . He lives , eats and sleeps 9/11 , but even this guy can't produce a single piece of evidence to back up the official story.


...and we're back to the "sinister secret agents" bit all over again. Wow, what a surprise.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by dawnprince
I'm calling you out . You don't have a single shread of evidence to prove that 9/11 was the act of terrorists from outside of the USA.

You can shut me down with just one teeny weeny shread .
Are you up for it ?

What sort of evidence would you like? It's also worthy of note that you're not permitted to accuse people of being shills here, at least that is the impression I get.

Let me know what sort of evidence you'd accept, and I will see if there's anything I can provide.



So you dont like the term Sh*ll, but it's ok to call people all manner of other things? Why would you be bothered if someone called you that if you weren't one? They definitely exist here, people aren't stupid!



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by dawnprince
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


I'm calling you out . You don't have a single shread of evidence to prove that 9/11 was the act of terrorists from outside of the USA.


Now that's a pretty silly assertion. There's a whole trail of components from Mohammed Atta being a Saudi citizen, to his friends, classmates, and coworkers in Germany reporting Atta was a religious zealot, to German intelligence reporting Mohammed Atta was in contact with Al Qaida agents while in Hamburg, to Atta coming to the US, to Atta taking flight training in Florida, to Atta being aboard flight AA11, to flight attendant Betty Ong calling out and reporting AA11 had been hijacked, to AA11 slamming into the north tower.

Then there's the same trail concerning Hani Hanjour, from eyewitnesses reporting he was visited by Mohammed Atta to to his own flight training to flight attendent Renee May calling out from flight 77 reporting the plane had been hijacked to the recovery of the black box from the Pentagon identifying the craft that hit it was flight 77.

The problem isn't that there's no evidence to show it was a terrorist attack. There's an enormous amount of evdence showing it was an attack by foreign terrorists. The problem is that you don't want to believe it was a terrorist attack so you invent these excuses involving this "sinister secret agent" boogeyman as a defense mechanism for why you shouldn't have to accept the evidence. What you don't realize is that this isn't disproving the evidence. You're just using circular logic in that you're just repeating the original claim in different terms in order to justify itself.


I tell you fellow truthers . This guy is a shrill . He hardly ever bothers to post on any other subject . He lives , eats and sleeps 9/11 , but even this guy can't produce a single piece of evidence to back up the official story.


...and we're back to the "sinister secret agents" bit all over again. Wow, what a surprise.


Secret agents are on a higher level to sh*lls in the ranking system, they are at opposite ends of the spectrum and are not remoptely similar. Not all secret agents are sinister either!



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
If there was a thread from an “Oser” asking for proof that it was a false flag, this thread would be awash with people posting links to various alternative media sites with member drooling over the likes of “Tim Osman”. For us who believe the official story, we have so much more than the alternative media we have the mainstream media, books, academia, the victims’ families and the memories of the day itself

For me personally the absolute proof that it was a foreign terrorist attack cannot be found by looking at the day itself but at the history of terrorism in combination with the act of 9/11 itself. I cannot provide you with one link that will explain all of this to you.

If you are looking for proof, I would direct you to read the likes of Jason Burke, Steve Coll, Lawrence Wright, and the 9/11 commission, there are many more but that’s probably a good start.


You have the MSN on your side, however, they documented the day and provided the world with lots of clues and evidence in their recordings that this was an inside job, hence NIST FOIA!



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by dawnprince
Ok . I'm a Brit and I have been stood on the sidelines for years waiting for a single piece of evidence to be submitted that proves conclusively that 9/11 was an act of foreign terrorism and to this day I have seen absolutely nothing to convince me .
Forget all the close up pictures of engine parts on the pentagon lawn , they could have been taken anywhere.
All I ask is a single solitary piece of evidence.

Like it or not folks , it looks to everybody else in the world that 9/11 was staged to cover a multitude of wrong doings , including the missing 2.3 trillion dollars from the defence budget .

80% of murder victims are killed by people known to them . Was this the case for the 2751 people who died in the 2 towers ? ...Probably

Check mate
edit on 30-5-2012 by dawnprince because: (no reason given)
edit on 30-5-2012 by dawnprince because: (no reason given)
edit on 30-5-2012 by dawnprince because: (no reason given)


you probably never will see the evidence, as 9/11 was the result of failed subatomic terror attack.

be assured, the evidence does exist, as do witnesses.

and no scenario exists where the official story will be altered.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by kidtwist
 





You have the MSN on your side, however, they documented the day and provided the world with lots of clues and evidence in their recordings that this was an inside job, hence NIST FOIA!


Well of course the MSN who provided the commentary of the day did make some mistakes and they also contradicted each other at times. On a day filled with confusion like 9/11 this means nothing and it is not evidence of any conspiracy pointing to a false flag.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by kidtwist
So you dont like the term Sh*ll, but it's ok to call people all manner of other things?

No, it's not ok to call people all manner of other personal insults. I address people on their arguments. If they say stupid things I will say that those things are stupid, but I won't accuse them of being paid off.


Why would you be bothered if someone called you that if you weren't one?

Why would I be bothered that someone accuses me of being complicit in the murder of 3000+ people? Why would I be bothered that they do this to attempt to discredit me on a debate forum?

Gee, I wonder.


They definitely exist here, people aren't stupid!

They don't exist here, nobody has ever provided the tiniest scrap of evidence. It's just fantasy. People who are incapable of understanding another viewpoint obviously feel that anyone disagreeing with them is not doing so from a position of logic, but a position of dishonesty.

It's a very very common fallacy, prior to joining loose change + here, my main 'debunking' experience is with creationists. I've been accused of exactly the same thing there, which I always found funny because there isn't even anyone to pay me off in that scenario lol.

Anyhow, you didn't answer my question. What sort of evidence would you like of a terrorist attack? Would a videotape of killings do? Would an in-person confession do? Would video wills of martyrs do? Would suicide notes do?

All of these exist, but the normal tactic is to try and view them in isolation and cast doubt upon them. If you can set up a reasonable standard of evidence I will do what I can to meet it.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 02:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by dawnprince
 
I think the proper question to be asking is: Who are the actual terrorists?

9/11 was DEFINITELY terrorism, of the most theatrical sort...many political purposes were achieved, states of fear and submission induced, and a terroristic method of governing revealed -

ter·ror·ism
noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

Take care.


“We have seen their kind before. They are the heirs of all the
murderous ideologies of the 20th century. By sacrificing
human life to serve their radical visions—by abandoning
every value except the will to power—they follow
in the path of fascism, and Nazism, and totalitarianism.
And they will follow that path all the way, to where it ends:
in history’s unmarked grave of discarded lies.”

...

Thus the events of 9/11 could be seen as an act of violence in the style of guerrilla warfare (and an application of the military doctrine: shock & awe: “...in Rapid Dominance, the principal mechanism for affecting the adversary’s will is through the imposition of a regime of Shock and Awe sufficient to achieve the aims of policy.”) to create the conditions required for the revolution, meaning it was coup d’état, change by force, a stroke of state in the classic sense to install a small group of people into power and grant them control over the nation’s institutions. The act of violence was the launch of the perpetual warfare state; a crumbling republic has become a new empire.

...

The fifth example is named after the Chinese philosopher-warrior, Sun
Tzu. The "Sun Tzu" example is based on selective, instant decapitation
of military or societal targets to achieve Shock and Awe. This
discrete or precise nature of applying force differentiates this from
Hiroshima and Massive Destruction examples. Sun Tzu was brought before
Ho Lu, the King of Wu, who had read all of Sun Tzu's thirteen chapters
on war and proposed a test of Sun's military skills. Ho asked if the
rules applied to women. When the answer was yes, the king challenged
Sun Tzu to turn the royal concubines into a marching troop. The
concubines merely laughed at Sun Tzu until he had the head cut off the
head concubine. The ladies still could not bring themselves to take
the master's orders seriously. So, Sun Tzu had the head cut off a
second concubine. From that point on, so the story goes, the ladies
learned to march with the precision of a drill team.
edit on 1-6-2012 by secgovwiki because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by kidtwist
Secret agents are on a higher level to sh*lls in the ranking system, they are at opposite ends of the spectrum and are not remoptely similar. Not all secret agents are sinister either!


You are missing the point. Despite the nonstop fire hose of conspiracies within coverups within secret plots the conspiracy theorists are spraying, there is one common theme- armies of concealed confederates have either worked to sabotage the buildings, or are working to cover up the plot, or are manufacturing fake evidence, or are posting disinformation in these forums. WHY did eyewitnesses claim they saw a plane hit the Pentagon? They're secret agents. WHY did NIST put out a report claiming the collapse was caused by the fires? They're secret agents. WHERE did the aircraft parts at the Pentagon come from? They're planted by secret agents. WHY are people coming onto ATS to discuss 9/11 conspiracies? They're secret agents. Just how is this conspiracy supposed to be a secret when there are all these armies of secret agents working to perpetuate this conspiracy?

Let's face it, this "armies of secret agents" ploy is nothing but a childish excuse used to fill in the glaring holes left behind by the sheer unworkable nature of these conspiracy claims, and is likewise used as a ready made excuse to brush off anyone's information they cannot address otherwise. Claiming the planes that hit the towers were actually holograms is a pretty hard sell regardless of how you slice it so inventing claims of "everyone in Manhattan was a secret agent" is the only way they can get it to work. It's a kissing cousin to the bible thumpers explaining everything from the creation of man to helping someone find a lost set of keys on the beach as being the work of some invisible magic guy living up in the clouds. Swap "secret agents" with "demons" or even "leprechauns" and you will find it still completes the scenarios in the exact same context.

The point is, if the answer only creates more questions than anything it actually answers, then it's not much of an answer.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by kidtwist
So you dont like the term Sh*ll, but it's ok to call people all manner of other things?

No, it's not ok to call people all manner of other personal insults. I address people on their arguments. If they say stupid things I will say that those things are stupid, but I won't accuse them of being paid off.



OS'ers are the worst for hurling insults, maybe it's deliberate, maybe they don't like being shown up?

What is strange is the amount of years some have you have devoted to backing the OS, surely if it's true, then you would not be wasting your time on it, it's not like you have anything personally to gain from devoting years to defending the OS?

Can you and your buddies explain why you devote years of your life to it? Could you not be doing something better if the OS stand ups? Maybe charity work or something?

Don't you think you are wasting a lot of time and energy on something that does not need supporting if the OS is as clear cut as you seem to say it is?



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by kidtwist
What is strange is the amount of years some have you have devoted to backing the OS, surely if it's true, then you would not be wasting your time on it, it's not like you have anything personally to gain from devoting years to defending the OS?

Devoting? I post a few times a day on an internet forum with links to information anyone could find if they cared to search hard enough.

It's really not 'devoting'.


Don't you think you are wasting a lot of time and energy on something that does not need supporting if the OS is as clear cut as you seem to say it is?

I've learned an awful lot by researching and if I didn't find that interesting I wouldn't bother. I also find the psychology of truthers truly fascinating. I have considered writing a book a few times but I am probably going to try and build a house first!

(I won't be hiring any truther engineers)



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 10:11 AM
link   
I myself think watching this short film teaches alot about what we are dealing with. Its what it is.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by theconspirator
In my opinion, wikipedia knows everything. en.wikipedia.org...




was able to identify the 19 hijackers within days, as they made little effort to conceal their names on flight, credit card, and other records.[6] By checking flight manifests and comparing them with other information, like watch lists, customs officials were able to quickly find the names of all 19 hijackers



from your link...good to see that these guys were on the watch list all along, and used their real names, credit cards and other records...still managed to bypass your super duper extra massive advanced security. Guess it's incompetence on a national level. Good thing nobody is paying any money to these jokers. But the important thing is....that they were quick afterwards. All 19...check, and check. That's what I call earning your keep.

edit:

To be fair, they did made a mistake with the names at first. Apparently some guys at the FBI were having fun with some random arab name generator, and struck a few live and well suicide terrorists. Fortunately, that was corrected after being confronted by real list of passengers. Luckily, those dumb terr'ists were using their real names.

edit on 1-6-2012 by MarioOnTheFly because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join