Truthers and Debunkers Unite.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by maxella1

 

Yeah.....not so much. When I start seeing people like him being called out by people like you, then I will give more thought to policing both sides.

Well I am the one who started this thread with the purpose of finding out what we can agree on, but as you can see it's not happening. So I am disappointed in both sides. Personally I think we would have a much better discussion if we first figure out what we can agree on and go from there. He feels that it would "dilute the cause"

as a truth seeker I cannot allow you to dilute our cause with inanities.

I strongly disagree. If that was how I feel I wouldn't start this thread in the first place.

The way I see it is that if you think there's a coverup by the government how can you possibly know for sure what they are covering up? The very definition of a cover up is the withholding evidence and/or putting out false information with the purpose to avoid some kind of consequences. I think that innocent people don't need to go out of their way to cover up what they were doing prior to a crime. The fact that they are covering up suggests that they think that it wouldn't be good for them in some way if people knew the whole truth.

And to assume that they are only covering up incompetence is the same as to assume that they are covering up criminal involvement. Both are assumptions do you disagree?

I know that incompetence within the government is real and so is crime.

Originally posted by geobro

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by geobro

 

....thousands of people i have spoken to must all be wrong then even people here at ats all wrong ?

Yeah, pretty much. And no one believes that you have spoken to "thousands" of people and they all agree that the BBC was broadcasting the events unfolding in the US before they actually happened. Sorry.

as i have said before all yoo have to do is ask around or look up faccino . tiger mountain or flying spagetti monster in 9-11 my stories 10 years on but we have been over this for months ???

I've heard this claim made before and I'm not sure I understand it exactly.

Are you saying people in the UK saw 9/11 on TV at 9:30 am when it was like five hours earlier in NYC and still like dark out? I don't get it. Is this what you're saying? That you heard about 9/11 across the pond before dawn even broke in New York? That can't be what you're saying is it? How would such a thing even be possible? Why would an error of that magnitude be allowed to happen?

If you can clarify this for me somehow with witness accounts or links, please do.

I mean what did everyone see on TV at 9:30? That it was well into morning in New York? And there was no one thinking, "Hey, it's morning here and morning there too! Come on this is a joke right?!"

Have you got any videotaped time stamped footage showing the UK got to see 9/11 before NYC?

Because that I would like to see.


Cheers

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by Ilovecatbinlady

 

So, on a thread designed to find some sort of common ground, you refuse to do so. In fact, you try to smear people and when called on it....you take your ball and go home?

I think you are being obtuse because I clearly indicated that I do not wish to be abused by an Official Story Fundamentalist.

reply to post by NWOwned


this has been a major headache but can be proved i have spoken to a LOT of people on this subject & at the moment i am doing a video of this we cannot all be wrong .but some here on ats will still say its rubbish we must all be mistaken . its pretty obvious that the footage has been altered as NO time appears on screen on the footage when it should . i dont bet but on this i would stake MY LIFE the only explanation i can give on this is a set up with a cast of thousands .??? i have a itemised phone bill from that day to prove to me i am not loosing it and have spoken to people all over the planet on the time fxxx up . i know 100% i am right on this too many people say the same most think it was live as it was on a loop .WE WERE CONNED i remember that day like yesterday for other reasons its a mystery /????

reply to post by geobro

its pretty obvious that the footage has been altered as NO time appears on screen on the footage when it should .

Uh, what footage? You realize there were literally hundreds of cameras recording the events of 9/11 - exactly what footage are you refering to? And I am not aware of any requirement that all news footage has a time stamp.

Give it up, this is just silliness.

Originally posted by maxella1

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by maxella1

 

Yeah.....not so much. When I start seeing people like him being called out by people like you, then I will give more thought to policing both sides.

Well I am the one who started this thread with the purpose of finding out what we can agree on, but as you can see it's not happening. So I am disappointed in both sides. Personally I think we would have a much better discussion if we first figure out what we can agree on and go from there. He feels that it would "dilute the cause"

as a truth seeker I cannot allow you to dilute our cause with inanities.

I strongly disagree. If that was how I feel I wouldn't start this thread in the first place.

The way I see it is that if you think there's a coverup by the government how can you possibly know for sure what they are covering up? The very definition of a cover up is the withholding evidence and/or putting out false information with the purpose to avoid some kind of consequences. I think that innocent people don't need to go out of their way to cover up what they were doing prior to a crime. The fact that they are covering up suggests that they think that it wouldn't be good for them in some way if people knew the whole truth.

And to assume that they are only covering up incompetence is the same as to assume that they are covering up criminal involvement. Both are assumptions do you disagree?

I know that incompetence within the government is real and so is crime.

If what we've been dealing with was truly incompetence, both parties would occasionally do things that would inadvertently be of benefit the people and the country. But that's not how it goes.

So one can only conclude that what we really have is ONE Party of INTENT playing a nasty game to make us believe there are two parties with opposite intentions. People have been intentionally divided on the political game board and that's the only coverup necessary in order to cover up all the other crimes they intentionally commit as ONE UNITED party.

Unless and until that original coverup is exposed and we become the One Party of the People against ALL graft, misfeasance and malfeasance, nothing will ever change. Unless and until we finally acknowledge the INTENT of both parties to drive the people apart over petty issues, nothing will ever change.

That's why I posted this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by hooper

what like the front of planes protruding through the towers ? im talking about the news stations in the uk sky /bbc not cameras at scene . dont know much or anything about thermite etc but i do know what time i heard about 9/11 and THATS THE SMOCKING GUN
l:

reply to post by geobro

.....dont know much or anything about thermite etc but i do know what time i heard about 9/11 and THATS THE SMOCKING GUN

Yeah.

I suspect you may be incorrect about your smocking gun. And everything else.

But

Just out of curiosity - what time are you claiming you saw the events on 9/11 and exactly what was the first thing you saw / heard and how did you see / hear it?

Originally posted by Ilovecatbinlady

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by Ilovecatbinlady

 

So, on a thread designed to find some sort of common ground, you refuse to do so. In fact, you try to smear people and when called on it....you take your ball and go home?

I think you are being obtuse because I clearly indicated that I do not wish to be abused by an Official Story Fundamentalist.

But since I'm not one, except in your head, does that leave me free to talk to you? Or are you still arrogantly refusing to discuss stuff with those you consider beneath you?

reply to post by hooper

arrived home tv on in the house for dog who watched tv . picked up phone to make call then took dog for quick walk as i was leaving flat the shutters of the bar /diner were going up 11.25/30 am 5 min walk with mutt .put down some food for mutt . picked up wallet in livingroom i wondered what stupid film was on tv walked across street to bar for food . time on entering bar 11.43 am barman told me cook not into midday ordered drink i told barman to turn tv onto sports channel as it was a sports bar . he flicked through tv saying that it was on all the channels . that was the day i decided to ditch the bird i was living with as i had been on a shopfit in england for 4 weeks & wanted a bit of rumpy pumpy .she had left for work at 11 am .she did not smoke eat meat or use phone or watch tv & was about as much fun as watching paint dry which i do for a living . at 5.10 the next morning 12/9 or 9/12 whatever .some yound dude with no badges was shoved in front of speakers desk to say yes we did shoot planes out of sky thats the bit i found weird not some 4 star general saying that . 13/9 /2001 daily mirror publishes a tiny piece on page 2 that a van had gone missing with enough weapons grade material to make 2 bombs ? over the years i have worked on a lot of construction sites & spoken to a lot of people on this 9.30 ish is a time that comes up a lot . the news was on a loop as the bbc news still is people turning on tv later thought that it was live i have seen tea huts near go in the air when i have asked the time that they heard of 9/11 . one day i phoned the uk sun newspaper on speaker phone to ask a reporter what time they heard about event the reporter was in an office with a lot of journalists he shouted out to his pals the question of time & reply was 9. 30 zz i informed him that new york was 5 hrs behind uk the penny / cent dropped & phone went dead tea hut went a bit quiet to . before 9/11 i thought all conspiracy theorists were nut jobs but now i know better

Originally posted by frazzle
If what we've been dealing with was truly incompetence, both parties would occasionally do things that would inadvertently be of benefit the people and the country. But that's not how it goes.

Are you seriously saying that government has never done anything at all to benefit people?

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by frazzle
If what we've been dealing with was truly incompetence, both parties would occasionally do things that would inadvertently be of benefit the people and the country. But that's not how it goes.

Are you seriously saying that government has never done anything at all to benefit people?

I suppose we would have to get a little more specific. What do you think government has done to benefit the people?

Originally posted by frazzle

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by frazzle
If what we've been dealing with was truly incompetence, both parties would occasionally do things that would inadvertently be of benefit the people and the country. But that's not how it goes.

Are you seriously saying that government has never done anything at all to benefit people?

I suppose we would have to get a little more specific. What do you think government has done to benefit the people?

Everything

Originally posted by frazzle


I suppose we would have to get a little more specific. What do you think government has done to benefit the people?

Your proof for the guiding hand behind all this was that neither party ever did anything good. Your logic seems to be that if this was mere incompetence they would occasionally do something that benefited people, but that since they never do we can be certain that they are driven by intentional wickedness.

What would you call roads, schools and street lighting if not a benefit? What about increased suffrage and laws based on equality? Food standards and safety? Fire departments and police? Just a few examples of stuff that government provides and that both parties have accomplished.

Bear in mind that the efficacy of these things has nothing to do with your argument. You are claiming - absurdly I think - that you know the parties are evil because they have never done one single good thing. In order to disprove this all I have to do is show you a working highway, or even one that was intended to work. Since the landscape and day to day life is full of examples of the government at least attempting to improve stuff I find it relatively simple.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


Well that’s a lot of territory to cover, so let’s start with roads. You are assuming roads could not have been built unless the federal government had stepped in to make it happen, yet up until the 1950’s the states were mainly in charge of building roads and people somehow managed to get from hither to yon.

During the second world war, the main thrust of federal road building was limited to those needed by the military.

But lets just figure out how the government gets its money to pay for building and maintaining “our” roads. It costs every driver in America approximately 18 ½ cents per gallon of gas and 24 ½ cents per gallon of diesel, all of which is designated for road building. The average mileage per vehicle is 11,218 miles, so with those numbers a 2 car family pays approximately 200.00 dollars a year in gas tax. You can figure out the number of cars on the road and extrapolate the government’s total take on gas taxes paid in by the people.

The government builds nothing, they simply take our tax money and delegate no-bid, cost-plus contracts to whomever they choose to build roads wherever they choose and land is regularly taken from land owners through eminent domain to cut them through, while those preferential contractors make huge profits from taxpayer money building those roads.

But roads and bridges throughout the US today are decaying and crumbling for lack of maintenance ~ for which Americans continue to pay ~ while hundreds of billions of U.S. tax dollars flow to a handful of large, well-connected U.S. companies, not to repair and improve America's communication, transportation, education or energy infrastructure, but those in Iraq and Afghanistan. See, once they have your money, they control who gets it and if you don’t like how its spent? Well, tough luck buddy. www.thirdworldtraveler.com...

Schools. If you want to control a population you must first gain control the access of young people to information. You do that through centralized public school text book production and by reducing or eliminating unfavorable reading material from libraries and book stores. During and following the 2nd world war, thousands of books were removed from the bookshelves of America and bookplates were even melted down that contained inconvenient truths. I found one of those books tucked away in my Gramma’s attic called “Iron Curtain Over America” and just from the title you might understand why “somebody” would not want that kind of documented information in hands of impressionable children. But as luck would have it, my copy wasn’t the only one rescued from the trash heap as it has been reprinted and is again available for inquiring minds: iamthewitness.com...

We can even thank our access to computers to war as they also were first developed for the use of the military just prior to and during the second world war. www.computerhistory.org...

Firefighters: all voluntary. Law enforcement: Sheriff’s departments. The voting franchise is a fraud and a sop.

However, going all the way back to George Washington, several federal offices were created by the Judiciary Act of 1789 Four days after he signed the Act into law Washington wrote a letter to Edmond Randolph, the first US attorney general, saying, "I have considered the first arrangement of the Judicial department as essential to the happiness of our Country, and to the stability of its political system … and enforce the growing body of federal laws. www.usmarshals.gov...

… which put the states on notice that the Bill of Rights, which was signed into law in that same year, only went so far and no further. Nowadays it goes nowhere at all. But the federalists hated the Bill of Rights before it had even been penned, but they had been forced by the states to add it to the Constitution before any would adopt it, so the federalists simply went around the BoR with the first Judicial Act.

And now you’re dependent on the federal government. Totally. For everything they said the “people could not have done on their own” by simply using their money on a local level to fulfill those needs. Instead they gave their funds to the federal government to provide those services ~ and nowhere does it say that by lawthe federal government must provide those services once they've got your money. Especially if there's an expensive war to wage somewhere in the world.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Bilk22

 

Is it just a coincidence you only post threads to the 911 forum? Or is that too conspiratorial for you?

Its not a coincidence - its the only forum on this website that I am interested in. You do realize, of course, that there are forums beyond this website, right? So to say that I only post threads to the 911 forum is a tyical truther half-truth. I post threads on other forums, just none on this website.

I guess this is true that you post also on other forums on the topic of 9/11 and maybe other topics, protecting the recent wars or Israel.
I just wonder, really, why you do not even pretend to be a normal ATSer, by posting 5-10% of your post in some other forums. A person, spending a lot of time on a conspiracy site and protecting the lie of one of the most obvious conspiracy theories, can hardly exist in the real life.
There are so many interesting events these days. Well, I understand why you personally do not do it, but why they do not ask you to mimic a normal member? This is a rhetorical question of course. My guess is that your job is aimed to keep some doubts alive in the forum lurkers and newcomers, who do not check a user history. It is impossible to convince me or the OP or any other long term 9/11 researcher anyway that CT in the event of 9/11 is all fantasy and there are no facts.

Originally posted by maxella1
So to me it seems that there is no debunkers and no truthers. All of us are people helping each other to find answers to our questions.

I divide people in regards of 9/1 in the following groups.

1. OS, inside job or something else - simply do not care. They do not see an impact of the event on their lives.
2. Think that it was inside job but do no care, have no interest in politics at all.
3. Think that it was inside job and consider it more or less normal. Very powerful people do very big events to reach their big goals. Many do the same just in much smaller scale, of course. That's the life, survival of the fittest.
4. Think that it was inside job and like to go deeper, make some investigations, tell people about it, "open their eyes"
5. Think that OS is true. Usually believe everything official. Deep inside do not care, just select the most safe conformist behavior
6. Think that it was inside job, but support the OS. Reasons: do it as a job, less obvious: think that people are herds that must be leaded and telling them truth just does damage and nothing else(including "bad" Jews i.e. zionists)

I personally know just a few from group 5 in RL. The vast majority is 1-3 groups. I was in group 4, but after I learned the event and came to the conclusion the "opening eyes" serve nothing, lost interest. Some of interest left in the psychological aspect, how is it possible that such obvious lie still alive and those, who realize that it is a lie, cannot solve it.

"Truthers and Debunkers Unite" is a joke.

Internet Debunkers cannot trust the OS having learned so much about the event. They are quite smart usually and the evidences are overwhelming.
OS reigns because the group 4 is very small, most people do not care including those who know that OS is a lie.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by geobro

 

.....dont know much or anything about thermite etc but i do know what time i heard about 9/11 and THATS THE SMOCKING GUN

Yeah.

I suspect you may be incorrect about your smocking gun. And everything else.

But

Just out of curiosity - what time are you claiming you saw the events on 9/11 and exactly what was the first thing you saw / heard and how did you see / hear it?

still waiting

Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

Well that’s a lot of territory to cover, so let’s start with roads. You are assuming roads could not have been built unless the federal government had stepped in to make it happen, yet up until the 1950’s the states were mainly in charge of building roads and people somehow managed to get from hither to yon.

...

And now you’re dependent on the federal government. Totally. For everything they said the “people could not have done on their own” by simply using their money on a local level to fulfill those needs. Instead they gave their funds to the federal government to provide those services ~ and nowhere does it say that by lawthe federal government must provide those services once they've got your money. Especially if there's an expensive war to wage somewhere in the world.

Local government is partisan also, no?

You're missing the point. Your contention was that all activities of "the parties" were calculatedly damaging. But you seem to think roads are a good thing.

The point is this: you were using the notion that government never does anything good to infer the animus behind their activities. But it's plain that central government often does stuff - even if inadvertently - that helps people.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by Ilovecatbinlady

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by Ilovecatbinlady

 

So, on a thread designed to find some sort of common ground, you refuse to do so. In fact, you try to smear people and when called on it....you take your ball and go home?

I think you are being obtuse because I clearly indicated that I do not wish to be abused by an Official Story Fundamentalist.

But since I'm not one, except in your head, does that leave me free to talk to you? Or are you still arrogantly refusing to discuss stuff with those you consider beneath you?

I think it is better that you don't bother with me. I am just not that important and I am sure you do not wish to be despised. Just move a long you know.