Attention all sinister secret agents we have a problem !

page: 14
15
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by maxella1
Sure I'm focused on proving the debunkers are wrong. You are part of a problem!

How dare you. You believe yourself to have the moral authority to declare who is part of the problem, yet your total contribution to the truth movement so far has been to make wild accusations and fail to back them up substantively. To claim you have no dog in the race then start a vendetta against 'debunkers'.

Clearly the problem here is that the world does not fit your fantasies, and you're angry at those who are pointing it out.


I don't understand why you are so upset about what I think of you. After all you think that everybody questioning 9/11 are morons.

I'm not associated with any movement at all, I speak my mind, I think that's still allowed.

You are correct about one thing and that's that the 9/11 "world" doesn't fit my "fantasy" where actions have consequences and accountability. You see in the fantasy where I live people who cause harm to others are held accountable according to law. That didn't happen in your world for some strange reason.




posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by maxella1
I provided a document which proves that there were good excuse for not sharing info.


That's weird. Because here's what you wrote about it before I corrected you.

"now it turns out that they also shared intelligence"

So which was it?


In the original post I meant to say "I provided a document which proves that there were NO good excuse for not sharing info. "

If you got one I would love to see it.



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 





The position, it seems to me, is that there are pretty much as many theories as there are truthers. The remote controlled planers say the no planers are disinfo and the thermite crew say the dew weapon/ nuclear devices are disinfo and the Bush/Cheney people don't like the Israel?mossad bunch and so on and so on and so on. People who think 19 Al Qaeda linked terrorists hi-jacked 4 planes are actually pretty consistent and have hard facts to back them up. So why you label them as part of the problem when it is the truther world that is all over the place eludes me.


I'm a little confused about what you think happened. Are you one of those that see no problems with official theory and see no reasons to suspect involvement of anybody in the government ?



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
I don't understand why you are so upset about what I think of you. After all you think that everybody questioning 9/11 are morons.

Not at all, I think people who form beliefs without comparing them to the available evidence are morons. The example I gave was young earth creationists, not you.


You are correct about one thing and that's that the 9/11 "world" doesn't fit my "fantasy" where actions have consequences and accountability. You see in the fantasy where I live people who cause harm to others are held accountable according to law. That didn't happen in your world for some strange reason.

I don't know why you think I feel any differently to you about the events of 911. I never supported the Iraq war, I never would have voted for Bush etc, where we disagree is not in this area.



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
When you type complete nonsense, it makes yourself look bad. That's pretty coherent. I report posts that accuse others of being complicit or 'part of the problem' as that breaks rules here.

A truther is someone who presents the idea of an alternate or hidden truth to 911. This is what you're doing, if you are now saying that you have no desire or need to back up your statements, then we can dismiss your opinions without evidence. You clearly want your opinions taken seriously, and so you need to back them up.

Simple.



OK, if you personally think I look bad for something I wrote that is fine by me. One person on a forum who doesn't like what I write is no skin off my nose at all.

The sentence I was referring to was incoherent, and still makes no sense, but it's not worth persuing if it's gobbledygook.

Why would you be concerned about someone saying people are complicit if you have nothing to hide? I just don't get that. You could call me complicit and I wouldn't care less because I know I'm not. Why would you run and tell to a moderator about rule breaking if you are making regular ad hominem remarks? Aren't ad hominem remarks also against rules here? Why would you break rules yourself then report someone else for breaking rules? Isn't that an imabalance of morals? Having your cake and eating it, so to speak?

I thought people that had an alternate idea to 9/11 were call conspiracy theorists? Theorising that a real conspiracy actually happened, whilst presenting various facts to say why they believe there was a conspiracy. I've never heard of people that suspect a conspiracy to be called a truther.

Maybe it's one of those street talk urban dictionary words that have yet to make it into the Oxford Dictionary? I use the Queens English, the real English, and have a rather large Oxford dictionary that is 1 year old, and I do not see the word truther in there. So I curiously looked it up in the online urban dictionary, which is obviously just a slang dictionary, and this is what it said: Truther - "A now stereotypical, thereby ad-hominem label for an individual who is sceptical about world events".

So it would seem you are breaking the ATS house rules by using this generalised slang term because it's ad hominem, and being a stippler for the rules, I assume you know that it's ad hominem? Don't worry, I wont run to the mods to report you, it's only a slang word, but you should be aware that ad hominem is not withing the rules, right?

I'm not asking you to take anything I say seriously, so no, I do not have to provide evidence for everything I post here. In most posts I just post something that might be of interest to those that do not believe the OS, they can then take that information and look into it further if they so wish. I'm not a debunker, or masquerading as a debunker, so I have no reason to to provide any evidence because it's the OS under scrutiny, and I'm not in court or anything!

Those that disbelieve the OS can take what I post anyway they want, they can ignore it if they so wish, I just hope they might find it useful and will share their thoughts with me, I really don't care if what I post is good for anyone else. The onus is on the people that believe the OS to prove the OS is not a complete lie.




You claim that the existence of questions proves that there's something wrong. I point out that people question the age of the earth, the theory of gravity, the theory of evolution. These are not wrong, but yet the questions exist. Therefore your assertion that questions = issues is defeated.


Again, I really don't quite follow you, this is another incoherent remark. What exactly are you saying here? It's not very clear. I don't ever recall saying the existence of questions proves there is something wrong, however, when the 9/11 OS poses so many questions, it would seem that the OS does have some serious problems that need to be addressed. This is why these forums exist, people are not happy with the OS, and we are here to pick apart the flaws in the OS, and ask telling questions.

Using things like the earth and gravity to make a comparison to 9/11 is not really relevant, I'm sure you could have put across what you meant in a way that wasn't so wacky, but each to their own I guess.

You use the term 'defeated' like you're in some kind of competition, that kind of shone through in your first paragraph too. Do you feel you have to have the upper hand everytime you post at any cost? I'm not here to play games, if it makes you feel better being that way then cool, but I personally will rise above getting sucked into silly 9/11 top trump games.


Sure, young earth creationists are morons.


What do young earth creationists, have to do with me or 9/11? I am not remotely religious, I lean towards science, not religion thank you! If you are somehow being snide and implying I am a 'moron' for reasons unexplained, then do grow some thicker skin because it seems you like to dish out insults, but cannot take any kind of remarks back in return. I wont be running to to mods because words on a forum will not upset me, and I have nothing to hide, but if you wish to run along to the mods becuase you do not like something that is said, then perhaps you should address your own behaviour before you complain about other members. Are you one of those that likes to have their cake and eat it?


Just because you're asking these questions does not mean that you've got any proof though. As I said before, people question the age of the earth. Do you think they have an actual evidence of a young earth? Of course not.


I genrally only post factual information that can be found in the public domain, videos mainly thus far, that obviouslt speak for themselves, and people can make of them what they wish. I'm not here to force my opinions on people like some members, I'm here to exchange ideas and give people the freedom to come to make their own minds up. Again, the earth has nothing to do with 9/11, and quite frankly I'm only interested in 9/11. These kinds of non-related examples are of no interest to me.

Yes, I do ask people questions, this is how we learn from each other, but I'm careful what information I take onboard, I have got the feel for which member's opinions are worth taking on board, and which ones are not. I will listen to those that believe the OS, and those that don't, but generally, it seems that those that disbelieve the 9/11 OS are the ones that have the most common sense, and present the best factual information. I'm not here to learn more about the OS, I've heard that time and time again.


I've yet to see evidence of this. Every authoritative source presented with the counter 911 theory is associated with outlandish or completely illogical claims. I can't think of a single truther source that is well educated and coherent at all times.


So are you saying you have never come across anyone that is reasonably educated disbelieves the OS? Seems a bit of a strange claim when you have pilots, engineers, scientists, and many other respected professionals on 9/11 forums who do not believe the OS.

I don't see how people that disbelieve the OS are outlandish or illogical? The sources that people go off are the ones in the public domain, NIST, FEMA reports, media videos, and such, these are all over the internet and anyone can analyse the data and images. If you are saying the government websites are not valid sources then I find that remarkably peculiar. If you say you believe the OS, then you must also use these sources. These are the very sources that myself and others are deconstructing and analysing. These are the things that have quite a few problem areas, and this is why people just do not completely buy the OS. The reports are astonishingly poor in a lot of areas.


What they have to do with 911 is the belief structure. The belief in an alternate truth is exactly the same as a belief in a religion. It's supported the same way (pseudofacts with personal relevance) and argued the same way (personal assertion).

The point of my post is to draw a parallel between the two, so you can see that just having questions does not equate in any way to flaws in a theory. Millions of people question the age of the earth, yet it remains an undeniable fact.

Myself and others I have come across that do not buy the OS do not base our views on a belief, as you call it. As I said above, we have analysed a lot of the data/videos/photos etc, that are in the public domain, put out there by the government and the media, and withing all that these are a lot of problems tha traise serious questions to people that are experts in certain fields. Maybe the average Joe that watches TV all the time, will not think past what they saw on television, but there are others, that have certain skills and expertise, who can use that expertise to spot serious problems with 9/11. This is why a lot of professionals in various fields have done a lot of research into the official reports, and have drawn upon their expertise to come to the conclusion that the OS is not exactly what the government want people to think it is. Not every one can spot those problems, and again, this is why these forums exist, so people can explore the issues surrounding the OS, and share their expertise on certain matters.

So making any comparison to religion is sheer ignorance in my book. scientists shoot down religion, and experts shoot down the OS. There will be some kooks who claim this and that about 9/11, and not all 9/11 ideas are worth pursuing, but there are many serious 9/11 contributers that bring a lot of detailed research to the table.

The same could be said for anyone that believe the OS, all the peopel that buy the OS have to go off are the same set of government reports, and the same media images, and fully believing everything a government presents could be seen as taking a leap of faith, but I'll not use the religion card like you, because I feel religion and 9/11 are two opposite ends of the spectrum, and should be kept in separate forums, which they are. I have no interest in religion, and have no interest in discussing it, it has no place in this forum.

You are making remarks about the earth again, I dont see how that is has any serious merit in the 9/11 forum either. I'm sure there is an astronomy section if you care to debate planets with other members. I am only interested in 9/11.





You don't know what an ad hominem is, so perhaps look that up. What I am bothered by is the straight up assertions that someone like me, who is only interested in the truth, is somehow perpetuating some vast undefined conspiracy.

That is wrong, it's immoral to claim so, it's against the rules of this site, and it shows you up as a 'believer'. QED.


It was a good while ago that I studied Latin, but I do understand what ad hominem is, why would I need to look it up? It appears you are here for some kind of tit for tat game? I have seen ad hominem used here by quite a few members, and it's futile behaviour that makes anyone that does it come across as rather desperate. Like they will try any tactic to come out on top. If that makes you feel good, then fine, it really is not sweat to me, I just think ad hominem is lowering the tone, and you are less likely to find members that will engage with you when you resort to belittling behaviour.

You seem quite touchy, if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about, I have said this already. If you are not prepared to honour the rules yourself, you cannot take the moral high ground and accuse other members of rule breaking. I think you have a religious fixation, do you go to church on Sunday? You're not a Baptist by any chance are you?



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by thegameisup

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 





You haven't proved that at all.


It's up to you now to prove that there is a good reason for not holding them accountable for not telling eachother what they knew about the hijackers.

As far as everything else in your reply .... I think you now understand what I'm talking about so I don't care if you think that I changed my position as long as you know what my position is. And it's that there should be accountability for failure to share information which would have prevented the attacks.


You might find this interesting.
www.fromthewilderness.com...



Thanks for the link. It is no longer a secret that all the agencies responsible for preventing what happened on 9/11 knew more than enough to prevent the mass murder of innocent people.

The most common explanation they give us is that they had a policy which stopped them from passing over information to each other. So with this logic you can't really blame the field agents and their superiors for that.

But anybody who cares enough to look into it can see that it's just not true.. For some other reason somebody decided not to share intel.

And we have new documents coming out more and more which destroys the only excuse they had for not demanding accountability.



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 





I don't know why you think I feel any differently to you about the events of 911. I never supported the Iraq war, I never would have voted for Bush etc, where we disagree is not in this area.


It looks like we also disagree with what we disagree about.
Because
I'm aware of what we disagree about. And it's not wether you would vote for a president of another country, or the Iraq war...



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by thegameisup

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by thegameisup


Trickoftheshade even admits in this thread that they have not read the NIST report, how can they be an expert on 9/11 without even looking at what they are defending?


Oh man. Another person who just makes stuff up.

Just what the Truth Movement needs.


Yeah, I'm just 'making it up' you obviously have a short memory!

Hereis the thread link again that proves you have said you have not read the NIST report.

Trickoftheshade states they have not read the NIST report.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Now who is making stuff up?!



That's over a year old. How are you so certain I haven't read it since?



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1


It's up to you now to prove that there is a good reason for not holding them accountable for not telling eachother what they knew about the hijackers.


It's really not. Because I do think they should be held accountable. I just found your absolute certainty that they should be prosecuted amusing, given that you weren't sure what law they had broken.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1


In the original post I meant to say "I provided a document which proves that there were NO good excuse for not sharing info. "



That doesn't make any difference to what I wrote. Earlier you calimed that they were sharing information.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 01:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
You see in the fantasy where I live people who cause harm to others are held accountable according to law.


You're just not sure which law you're so certain they should be held accountable under.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 07:23 AM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 






It's really not. Because I do think they should be held accountable. I just found your absolute certainty that they should be prosecuted amusing, given that you weren't sure what law they had broken.


So what should they be held accountable for? You agree with me but you argue about it...?



That doesn't make any difference to what I wrote. Earlier you calimed that they were sharing information.


Okay, and you are saying that they didn't share intel but you don't really care why they didn't and you don't think that they did anything wrong......? And at the same time you think they should be held accountable for it?




You're just not sure which law you're so certain they should be held accountable under.


That's right, I'm not a lawyer......

But aren't you saying the same thing ?


edit on 6-7-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 07:26 AM
link   
Double post
edit on 6-7-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1


So what should they be held accountable for? You agree with me but you argue about it...?


I don't agree with you. You think they should be prosecuted under a law you cannot name. I think they should have been investigated and their failures, where culpable - should have seen them censured. I imagine careers were ended or curtailed, but I don't feel that this happened in the open environment in which it should.





Okay, and you are saying that they didn't share intel but you don't really care why they didn't and you don't think that they did anything wrong......? And at the same time you think they should be held accountable for it?


Where did I say I didn't care? It doesn't keep me awake at night and I'm not American, but I do have some compassion for people who died or suffered as a result. I think they should have been given a better explanation of why their security forces failed them.

As a truther you obviously have a predilection for legal solutions, for "heads rolling" and vengeance. I always find the legalistic certainty of professed mavericks amusing. On the one hand you're upset about the Patriot Act, and on the other you're calling for legal action for people you don't know under a law you can't name.

I think the likelihood of holding people accountable is vanishingly small. That people were failed by the cover-up of others' mistakes. And I think there is no evidence that someone helped the attacks or caused them from within the American secret service. My opinion on this has not changed and it is one shared by most debunkers.





That's right, I'm not a lawyer......

But aren't you saying the same thing ?


No. I have what I consider to be a rather more nuanced view of the situation. I think perhaps you have just never bothered to find out what it is.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

I don't agree with you. You think they should be prosecuted under a law you cannot name. I think they should have been investigated and their failures, where culpable - should have seen them censured. I imagine careers were ended or curtailed, but I don't feel that this happened in the open environment in which it should.


If the 911 Commission testimonies were not thrown out due to "State Secret Privilege" and "National Security", they would all be hanging from the light poles.

End of story.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by thegameisup

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by thegameisup


Trickoftheshade even admits in this thread that they have not read the NIST report, how can they be an expert on 9/11 without even looking at what they are defending?


Oh man. Another person who just makes stuff up.

Just what the Truth Movement needs.


Yeah, I'm just 'making it up' you obviously have a short memory!

Hereis the thread link again that proves you have said you have not read the NIST report.

Trickoftheshade states they have not read the NIST report.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Now who is making stuff up?!



That's over a year old. How are you so certain I haven't read it since?


Well when I first posted the link to that thread you said I was making it up that you had said you had not read the NIST report. I was just providing the link again to say that you could not deny you had said that.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by thegameisup
Why would you be concerned about someone saying people are complicit if you have nothing to hide? I just don't get that. You could call me complicit and I wouldn't care less because I know I'm not.

Are you really asking why I would be concerned that people try and slander me by saying that I'm part of the problem? That i'm in some way culpable? I don't think that even needs an answer.


Why would you run and tell to a moderator about rule breaking if you are making regular ad hominem remarks? Aren't ad hominem remarks also against rules here? Why would you break rules yourself then report someone else for breaking rules? Isn't that an imabalance of morals? Having your cake and eating it, so to speak?

If you think I am making Ad Hominems. Please report them.


I thought people that had an alternate idea to 9/11 were call conspiracy theorists? Theorising that a real conspiracy actually happened, whilst presenting various facts to say why they believe there was a conspiracy. I've never heard of people that suspect a conspiracy to be called a truther.

You've researched 911 but never come across the phrase 'truther'? Such a thing is not possible, and either means you're trying to play some silly word game, or you're straight up lying. Well I suppose there's a third option, you didn't research it at all.


I'm not asking you to take anything I say seriously, so no, I do not have to provide evidence for everything I post here.

Here's the part I like most about your post, where you admit that you don't really have anything to back up what you're saying.


I don't ever recall saying the existence of questions proves there is something wrong, however, when the 9/11 OS poses so many questions, it would seem that the OS does have some serious problems that need to be addressed.

This is the funniest part of your post, the part where you literally contradict yourself within a sentence. How are you not able to see the blatent contradiction here?


Using things like the earth and gravity to make a comparison to 9/11 is not really relevant, I'm sure you could have put across what you meant in a way that wasn't so wacky, but each to their own I guess.

These people exist. It's not wacky, it's sad. It's sad that I'm having to explain to you how I'm comparing the logical leaps and methods of belief used.


What do young earth creationists, have to do with me or 9/11? I am not remotely religious, I lean towards science, not religion thank you! If you are somehow being snide and implying I am a 'moron' for reasons unexplained, then do grow some thicker skin because it seems you like to dish out insults, but cannot take any kind of remarks back in return.

You're using the same belief structure. The same arrogant position that no evidence needs to be shown, the same dismissal without cause of alternate explanations.

There is no quantifiable difference between your belief structures. That's why I am invoking them. I debated creationists for many many years, and the exact same arguments are advanced there. Including the "I have no need to back up my statements" nonsense.


So are you saying you have never come across anyone that is reasonably educated disbelieves the OS? Seems a bit of a strange claim when you have pilots, engineers, scientists, and many other respected professionals on 9/11 forums who do not believe the OS.

No, that's not what I said. I can't think of a single group or organisation that puts across a consistent and coherent alternate hypothesis. AE911Truth for example, have members who claim micro-nukes were used. Even their front page list of evidence is inconsistent.

If you think there is a group with a coherent and consistent alternate hypothesis, I'd love to see it. I doubt they exist.


Myself and others I have come across that do not buy the OS do not base our views on a belief, as you call it. As I said above, we have analysed a lot of the data/videos/photos etc, that are in the public domain, put out there by the government and the media, and withing all that these are a lot of problems tha traise serious questions to people that are experts in certain fields

Except that's nonsense, and the experts in those fields have almost universally decried these theories. Of course there's a few people who believe in anything, but that's not a huge shock. Can you name a single major issue that hasn't been addressed by the community of experts in that field?


So making any comparison to religion is sheer ignorance in my book. scientists shoot down religion, and experts shoot down the OS.

Actually no, some scientists uphold religious arguments (Michael Behe). Some scientists uphold the conspiracy theories. The rest don't believe in either.

I was a methodist by the way, but I left that nonsense a long time ago.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 11:07 AM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

I don't agree with you. You think they should be prosecuted under a law you cannot name. I think they should have been investigated and their failures, where culpable - should have seen them censured. I imagine careers were ended or curtailed, but I don't feel that this happened in the open environment in which it should.


If the 911 Commission testimonies were not thrown out due to "State Secret Privilege" and "National Security", they would all be hanging from the light poles.

End of story.


Yeah yeah, I know what gets you off. Lots of killing and hangings and so on. Perhaps you should peruse what I wrote above and have a think about why you're so keen to see people die? It doesn't seem very... ascended of you.

"As a truther you obviously have a predilection for legal solutions, for "heads rolling" and vengeance. I always find the legalistic certainty of professed mavericks amusing. On the one hand you're upset about the Patriot Act, and on the other you're calling for legal action for people you don't know under a law you can't name."



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 11:47 AM
link   




Nope. Look above. I said you were making up that I had said in this thread that I hadn't read the NIST report.

And indeed you were.





new topics
top topics
 
15
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join