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.

 

Attention all sinister secret agents we have a problem !

page: 7
15
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 06:57 AM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


What on earth are you on about? Have you actually read the thing the OP cited? My observations about it are sourced and correct - and he is flat-out wrong.

You can pretend I'm wasting his time, or obfuscating, or indulge your baseless fantasy that I've been paid to be here. But what you can't do is say that I'm incorrect. The document itself proves that I'm right.


Edit to add - SixSigma is correct above. Your notion that the thread has been spun out by debunkers is laughable. If Maxella had just accepted that he made an error it would be over. But that's not your agenda is it? You'd rather have false information that props up your story than factual stuff that doesn't. And you have the gall to accuse others of being unethical.
edit on 28-6-2012 by TrickoftheShade because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 07:31 AM
link   
Some of you can keep defending this sham of a system all you want, it'll only make the shock bigger for you when the truth comes out.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by robhines
Some of you can keep defending this sham of a system all you want, it'll only make the shock bigger for you when the truth comes out.


A lot of them won't be shocked, just unemployed.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 07:57 AM
link   
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 


Yeah yeah, attack the poster, not the argument. Same old same old from you. As soon as an argument contains any specifics you run away and throw around accusations.

reply to post by robhines
 


Who is defending a system? Personally I'm taking issue with a specific factual point made in the OP? Do you endorse his point? Because if you do you're incorrect, for the reasons shown above.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by robhines
Some of you can keep defending this sham of a system all you want, it'll only make the shock bigger for you when the truth comes out.


Will you be able to add something of substance to this thread, or will you be posturing about the time the "truth" comes out?

This is another truther tactic... "You government loyalists just wait... it's coming!"
edit on 28-6-2012 by Six Sigma because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 08:12 AM
link   
I like how all the debunkers think this document actually proves what they were saying. In reality it proves the opposite. They worked together on casses just not this one... It also proves what Richard Clarke, Michael Scheuer, and Anthony Shaffer were saying since the very beginning... The threats were ignored! And it wasn't the policys fault..... Somebody actually decided that it wasn't important and IGNORED it ! And then they had the 9/11 Commission cover it up. I don't give a fuc* what you clowns call me... You are on the wrong side of history.

It's really fuc**** hilarious how some ask -- so where's your evidence that they shared this information?----- I'm a private citizen of the US. I don't have resources, skills or ability to provide you with evidence if it's not publicly available . Some of you are not even American, why should I care about what you are saying at all? I lived through 9/11, I have friends that lived through 9/11 , and I am telling you that real people with real brains think that those who believe the OS are nuts.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
I like how all the debunkers think this document actually proves what they were saying. In reality it proves the opposite. They worked together on casses just not this one... It also proves what Richard Clarke, Michael Scheuer, and Anthony Shaffer were saying since the very beginning... The threats were ignored! And it wasn't the policys fault..... Somebody actually decided that it wasn't important and IGNORED it ! And then they had the 9/11 Commission cover it up. I don't give a fuc* what you clowns call me... You are on the wrong side of history.

It's really fuc**** hilarious how some ask -- so where's your evidence that they shared this information?----- I'm a private citizen of the US. I don't have resources, skills or ability to provide you with evidence if it's not publicly available . Some of you are not even American, why should I care about what you are saying at all? I lived through 9/11, I have friends that lived through 9/11 , and I am telling you that real people with real brains think that those who believe the OS are nuts.


You're angry and I can see why. You've been made to look foolish. Unfortunately the document says the opposite of what you claimed it did.

Let's rewind to the start of the thread. You quoted the document and then said

"Information sharing problem can no longer be used."

You then edited your post to say

"I didn't read the whole thing yet, so if anybody already read it and found something that would confirm that they did not share information, please correct me."

I think you did this after I corrected you, but nonetheless, at least you're showing a readiness to be wrong. And the fact remains that I have corrected you. The document does not prove that "Information sharing problem can no longer be used". It shows that in fact the information sharing problem was real and pronounced.

The document does indeed prove what debunkers have been saying. And the intervention of your friends calling me a shill or accusing me of defending something immoral won't change that.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by robhines
Some of you can keep defending this sham of a system all you want, it'll only make the shock bigger for you when the truth comes out.


Will you be able to add something of substance to this thread, or will you be posturing about the time the "truth" comes out?

This is another truther tactic... "You government loyalists just wait... it's coming!"
edit on 28-6-2012 by Six Sigma because: (no reason given)


After reading all the excuses you are willing to make up for the government, and attack those who can see that the Government was responsible in one way or another for 3000 people dying you begin to look like the enemy!



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
I like how all the debunkers think this document actually proves what they were saying. In reality it proves the opposite. They worked together on casses just not this one... It also proves what Richard Clarke, Michael Scheuer, and Anthony Shaffer were saying since the very beginning... The threats were ignored! And it wasn't the policys fault..... Somebody actually decided that it wasn't important and IGNORED it ! And then they had the 9/11 Commission cover it up. I don't give a fuc* what you clowns call me... You are on the wrong side of history.

It's really fuc**** hilarious how some ask -- so where's your evidence that they shared this information?----- I'm a private citizen of the US. I don't have resources, skills or ability to provide you with evidence if it's not publicly available . Some of you are not even American, why should I care about what you are saying at all? I lived through 9/11, I have friends that lived through 9/11 , and I am telling you that real people with real brains think that those who believe the OS are nuts.


Max,

Dude, you need to chill. Your F-Bomb rant is not conducive to a structured debate regarding the document in your OP.

You have been showed on many occasions in this thread, that your document shows that there continued to be issues with inter agency communications. There are many resources you can take advantage of that will show you the f-ups prior to 9/11.

I think most of us are in agreement that some heads should have rolled after the multitude of mistakes made. However, in order to charge someone with criminal negligence, you have yo have your facts to back the charges. I am not a lawyer, but I believe to do this, you have to prove intent.


It doesn't matter who is or isn't American when you are discussing history. - just saying.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by maxella1
I like how all the debunkers think this document actually proves what they were saying. In reality it proves the opposite. They worked together on casses just not this one... It also proves what Richard Clarke, Michael Scheuer, and Anthony Shaffer were saying since the very beginning... The threats were ignored! And it wasn't the policys fault..... Somebody actually decided that it wasn't important and IGNORED it ! And then they had the 9/11 Commission cover it up. I don't give a fuc* what you clowns call me... You are on the wrong side of history.

It's really fuc**** hilarious how some ask -- so where's your evidence that they shared this information?----- I'm a private citizen of the US. I don't have resources, skills or ability to provide you with evidence if it's not publicly available . Some of you are not even American, why should I care about what you are saying at all? I lived through 9/11, I have friends that lived through 9/11 , and I am telling you that real people with real brains think that those who believe the OS are nuts.


You're angry and I can see why. You've been made to look foolish. Unfortunately the document says the opposite of what you claimed it did.

Let's rewind to the start of the thread. You quoted the document and then said

"Information sharing problem can no longer be used."

You then edited your post to say

"I didn't read the whole thing yet, so if anybody already read it and found something that would confirm that they did not share information, please correct me."

I think you did this after I corrected you, but nonetheless, at least you're showing a readiness to be wrong. And the fact remains that I have corrected you. The document does not prove that "Information sharing problem can no longer be used". It shows that in fact the information sharing problem was real and pronounced.

The document does indeed prove what debunkers have been saying. And the intervention of your friends calling me a shill or accusing me of defending something immoral won't change that.



Information sharing problem cannot be used because all the agencies knew more than enough to prevent it.
I got nothing to prove, I paid my dues! I accept no excuses ! Especially from you!



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1


Information sharing problem cannot be used because all the agencies knew more than enough to prevent it.
I got nothing to prove, I paid my dues! I accept no excuses ! Especially from you!



But I'm not making excuses. You are.

You claimed that this document proved that all the information was being shared, when in fact it expresses concerns that vital intel was NOT being shared.

You may think that "all the agencies knew more than enough to prevent it" - indeed I would agree with you - but to pretend that this document proves that point, or proves that information sharing was not a problem, is patently impossible. Once again, I think you should have the good grace to admit this,or you will continue to lack credibility.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 08:57 AM
link   


3,000 American's died that day
reply to post by 911files
 


No, about 2600 Americans were killed, and 400 other nationals.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


And somehow you believe that with the fact that these agencies have a built-in distaste for each other, that somehow parts of these agencies played on this fact and it makes it VERY easy to pull off the inside job ??

I would think that the agencies are PURPOSELY vetted against each other to give just these kinds of opportunities, makes it simple to do all kinds of jobs, really.

I bet they are STILL angry at each other for this...blaming each other, while the REAL perps are laughing there heads off.

Nice trick, hiding in the shade.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1

And that is what I been saying since the beginning.. It wasn't the policy that allowed the attack it was negligence. People are dead as the result of that negligence therefor it is a crime anyway you look at it.


I agree. So then should we be looking into an investigation whether some dope supervisor in the FBI allowed his incompetence to get in the way of national security or should we, as some truthers have demanded, launch an investigation into the towers being attacked because they look like a giant number eleven and eleven just happens to be a sacred number to satan worshippers.

I said it before and I'll say it again- you above all other people here should be sharing in my umbrage about all the crackpots and conspiracy running those damned fool conspiracy web sites spewing out all this abject paranoia, 'cause it's instigating all these ridiculous arguments over lasers from outer space and hologram planes.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by GrinchNoMore
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


And somehow you believe that with the fact that these agencies have a built-in distaste for each other, that somehow parts of these agencies played on this fact and it makes it VERY easy to pull off the inside job ??

I would think that the agencies are PURPOSELY vetted against each other to give just these kinds of opportunities, makes it simple to do all kinds of jobs, really.

I bet they are STILL angry at each other for this...blaming each other, while the REAL perps are laughing there heads off.

Nice trick, hiding in the shade.


What's that got to do with this thread? A document was produced that doesn't prove what the OP said it did. That's all.

And now you're here accusing me of... what? I don't really know. If you want to start a thread about agencies being purposely vetted (sic) against each other then get some evidence and do so.

But don't just come steaming into a thread firing cheap shots at me because you don't like that I disproved something that seemed helpful to your "movement". It makes you look like an extremist.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1


After reading all the excuses you are willing to make up for the government, and attack those who can see that the Government was responsible in one way or another for 3000 people dying you begin to look like the enemy!


Hold on now. I am not making excuses. If the FBI, CIA, NSA, ect, were all on the same page, I believe that 9/11 could have possibly been prevented. Richard Clark who was the chair of Counterterrorism Security Group in 2001 outlines all the mistakes that were made. So, "in one way or another" they are somewhat responsible. This, as told to you earlier is why the Homeland Security Department was created.

edit on 28-6-2012 by Six Sigma because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
Can you show us, GoodOlDave, any evidence of any Arabs boarding any of the four flights that were allegedly hijacked on the morning of 9/11/01?


If you're about to say what I THINK you're about to say, you need to know that whole "no Arab names on the passenger lists" bit was a hoax invented by David Ray Griffin. He used a list of victims provided by CNN and then falsely passed it off as a complete list of passengers.

9/11 myths has a better writeup (as well as links to the actual passenger manifests) than anything I can write...

Debunking the whole "no Arab names on the passenger lists" hoax



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by NorEaster
 


What on earth are you on about? Have you actually read the thing the OP cited? My observations about it are sourced and correct - and he is flat-out wrong.

You can pretend I'm wasting his time, or obfuscating, or indulge your baseless fantasy that I've been paid to be here. But what you can't do is say that I'm incorrect. The document itself proves that I'm right.


Edit to add - SixSigma is correct above. Your notion that the thread has been spun out by debunkers is laughable. If Maxella had just accepted that he made an error it would be over. But that's not your agenda is it? You'd rather have false information that props up your story than factual stuff that doesn't. And you have the gall to accuse others of being unethical.
edit on 28-6-2012 by TrickoftheShade because: (no reason given)


It's pretty evident that this thread has been avalanched by 'debunkers' obviously something here you want to defend vigorously! You lot tried steer this thread onto another subject a few pages in, going off topic is something you like doing, deliberately to derail the thread.

It's no surprise that a 'debunker' would back up another debunker like you have in your comment, you've got each other's backs alright! There is nothing wrong with the OP, it's your agenda that is the problem.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 





I said it before and I'll say it again- you above all other people here should be sharing in my umbrage about all the crackpots and conspiracy running those damned fool conspiracy web sites spewing out all this abject paranoia, 'cause it's instigating all these ridiculous arguments over lasers from outer space and hologram planes.


I don't care about lasers from space and hologram planes. There's a big difference between you and me. I don't buy the "we're too stupid to pull this off" excuse".



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by kidtwist

It's pretty evident that this thread has been avalanched by 'debunkers' obviously something here you want to defend vigorously! You lot tried steer this thread onto another subject a few pages in, going off topic is something you like doing, deliberately to derail the thread.

It's no surprise that a 'debunker' would back up another debunker like you have in your comment, you've got each other's backs alright! There is nothing wrong with the OP, it's your agenda that is the problem.


I'm sorry, but that's a series of flat-out lies.

- The OP purports to prove something which is disproved by the document he introduced. He claimed it showed that agencies shared all their information, but didn't read it properly. Actually it posits that the agencies were not sharing information. This is what the OS claims

- No debunker has tried to steer this off topic. I have rigorously stayed on-topic and discussed only the document. Truthers have moved the topic to Shanksville, to ad hominems ('shill' accusations) or have, like you, simply asserted they are correct and refused to discuss the details.

I'll offer you the opportunity to correct what may be a mistake. Tell me why the OP's assertion is backed up by the document.



new topics




 
15
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join