Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Invitation to post for lurkers

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wifibrains
reply to post by Alfie1
 



Like ats? Lol. Possibly.

So you are saying the official version is the truth?

Government never knew it was going to happen, and allowed it for their own agenda?

Millitary black ops never propagated terrorism?

I think the powers that be had the means to manipulate people to manifest this event into reality for their own agenda.


I am saying the evidence is, as shown in maxella's post above, that the words on the page the teacher was referring to were " Kite, kit, steal, playing, must ". Somewhere along the line a truther has manipulated that into " plane, hit, steel, must" and others have been suckered into it. I find it hard to believe that this was a genuine misunderstanding because not only have the words been changed but also the order.

Does it not seem very bizarre and improbable to you that conspirators in an atrocious mass murder should want to include a class of kids chanting hints about that very conspiracy which they presumably hoped they would get away with ?




posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 




I would like to offer this thread as a place for informal discussion or Ask A Debunker! style questioning.


I got a few questions for a debunker...

Did Saudi officials provide financial support for the hijackers?

Did Pakistan's ISI support the 9/11 hijackers?

Why did NORAD mislead investigators on why its planes didn't intercept the 9/11 hijackers?

Why did the CIA cover up its advance knowledge of at least two of the 9/11 hijackers?

Who gave the order to shoot down hijacked planes if necessary - Bush or Cheney?

Why didn’t the Secret Service rush Bush to safety?

One more question please-

Did Mossad agents really lived next to the hijackers?
edit on 30-9-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by Wifibrains
reply to post by Alfie1
 



Like ats? Lol. Possibly.

So you are saying the official version is the truth?

Government never knew it was going to happen, and allowed it for their own agenda?

Millitary black ops never propagated terrorism?

I think the powers that be had the means to manipulate people to manifest this event into reality for their own agenda.


I am saying the evidence is, as shown in maxella's post above, that the words on the page the teacher was referring to were " Kite, kit, steal, playing, must ". Somewhere along the line a truther has manipulated that into " plane, hit, steel, must" and others have been suckered into it. I find it hard to believe that this was a genuine misunderstanding because not only have the words been changed but also the order.

Does it not seem very bizarre and improbable to you that conspirators in an atrocious mass murder should want to include a class of kids chanting hints about that very conspiracy which they presumably hoped they would get away with ?


Yes, so the video is erelevant! My distrust in the official story was not hinged on that video, Infact, I only saw this about 2months ago.



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by exponent
 




I would like to offer this thread as a place for informal discussion or Ask A Debunker! style questioning.


I got a few questions for a debunker...

Did Saudi officials provide financial support for the hijackers?

Did Pakistan's ISI support the 9/11 hijackers?

Why did NORAD mislead investigators on why its planes didn't intercept the 9/11 hijackers?

Why did the CIA cover up its advance knowledge of at least two of the 9/11 hijackers?

Who gave the order to shoot down hijacked planes if necessary - Bush or Cheney?

Why didn’t the Secret Service rush Bush to safety?

One more question please-

Did Mossad agents really lived next to the hijackers?
edit on 30-9-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)


Interesting questions. I would say :-

1) Probably, but probably not in their official capacities.

2) Probably.

3) Nobody wants to appear less than 100 % go go go, especially when a lot of people have lost their lives.

4) CIA probably hoped to turn them and use them for their own purposes.

5) I think Cheney probably did but Bush later backed him up and said he gave the order.

6) Confusion reigned. Was Bush a target ? Was Air Force One ? Was it safe to go back to the White House ?

7) I have no idea about Mossad agents supposedly living next door to hi-jackers.



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


Maybe some people will actually try to do a little research to find answers to these questions.

But let me provide some links that I found...

1) The Kingdom and the Towers

2) Confessions of a Terrorist

3) 9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon

4) An Explosive New 9/11 Charge

5) The Shot Heard Round the World

6) Why wouldn't they think Bush was a target? His location was announced publicly.

7) Paste ww1.sundayherald.com/37707 into the Wayback Machine

Just some of the available sources...
edit on 30-9-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by Wifibrains
The video of bush In the classroom was very creepy, the words the kids where reading off the board.

Plane, hit, steel, must.

Just another coincedence to add to the loooooong list.



I am afraid your post exemplifies why I can't be bothered to get back into the 9/11 forum.

What you have stated is quite false, that is not what the children were being taught . It has been shown to be false on so many occasions but still gets trotted out regularly.

All that seems to come from the truther side now are similar allegations which I have seen aptly described as " zombie facts "; that is they just keep on coming however many times they have been shot down.

It gets tedious addressing the same old same old and I think 9/11 "truth" has had its day anyway.



I agree that the teacher and kids didn't say what has been implied.
But I totally disagree with you saying " 9/11 truth has had it's day" .

I certainly will continue looking for the truth of the events of that day.
The official story ,in my view is total nonsense and should be reinvestigated.

As for Bush in the classroom.......
I think he gives a lot away in his posture, facial expressions and staying put.



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by maxella1
 



Did Saudi officials provide financial support for the hijackers?

Did Pakistan's ISI support the 9/11 hijackers?

Why did NORAD mislead investigators on why its planes didn't intercept the 9/11 hijackers?

Why did the CIA cover up its advance knowledge of at least two of the 9/11 hijackers?

Who gave the order to shoot down hijacked planes if necessary - Bush or Cheney?

Why didn’t the Secret Service rush Bush to safety


Some answers to the questions

Saudi contacts to Bin Laden and 9/11 hijackers have been covered

Anthony Summers / Robyn Swan in their book THE ELEVENTH DAY exposed many links between Saudi
officals and the 9/11 hijackers. Also the financial support given Bin Laden by various Saudi citizens and
"charities"

Following 9/11 Bush supposedly sent secret message to Saudi king telling them to deal with the problem or
we (the US) would

3 members of Saudi royal family shortly afterwards meet with sudden deaths under bizzare conditions

The CIA did not cover up the discovery of hijackers prior to 9/11 - they had tracked the pair from a terrorist
conference in Malaysia to San Diego. Once on US soil became a domestic intelligence matter under
control of FBI. Under rules in place at that time there was a wall of separation between CIA and FBI
which prevented from sharing information . FBI was also reluctant to get involved in terrorism

Order to shoot down planes was given by Bush to Cheney who pasted it to the Air Force. Bush was traveling
and thus lacked much of the information as it was coming in .. Cheney at the White House Situation Room,
was in better location to receive and analyze information as it came in. Air Force One was also
experiencing communication problems with White House - this was rectified after 9/11

As for Secret Service rushing Bush immediately out of the school - been covered before . The School was
secured, it had been presurveyed for any threats. Once on the move Bush would have been viulnerable

Best to stay put and gather information to get handle on situation unless believe Bin Laden had recruited a
team of midgets and disguised them as school kids....



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 07:53 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


I admire your measured and polite approach to this, as well as your methodical way of dealing with the issues, but I won't be posting again.

The principal reason why I ever discussed 9/11 was because it annoyed me that "Truthers" monopolised an important debate about government transparency and turned it into a search for the boogeyman, usually based on the flimsiest evidence imaginable. I felt that a real investigation into why 9/11 happened and the culpability and arrogance of intelligence agencies and politicians was being sidetracked by people who for whatever reason preferred to believe in magic, junk science and superstition.

I now realise that this isn't really happening. Truthers aren't ever going to be interested in the more quotidian (but far more important) debate that surrounds these issues and they aren't really even obfuscating it. They are indulging in a comforting, exciting world view that never reaches the mainstream.

They never (or very rarely) do anything about their phantom beliefs anyway, and as such the "sidetracking" is far more minor than I had thought. They are people who are not and would never be involved with the real issues anyway. Most of them are just here to argue with debunkers - they become upset when they don't receive responses from the "paid disinfo agents" who - I assume they think - validate their posts and skewed worldview.

Really the whole thing is a monstrous (possibly unconscious) trolling operation by people who may regularly be sincere in their beliefs but - and I apologise for being blunt - are generally naive, superstitious, frightened, desperate for sophistication, and quite often a little bit thick.

So since the responses are unlikely to alter their belief, and their beliefs are basically immaterial anyway, it seems pointless to continue responding to them.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by maxella1
 



Did Saudi officials provide financial support for the hijackers?

Did Pakistan's ISI support the 9/11 hijackers?

Why did NORAD mislead investigators on why its planes didn't intercept the 9/11 hijackers?

Why did the CIA cover up its advance knowledge of at least two of the 9/11 hijackers?

Who gave the order to shoot down hijacked planes if necessary - Bush or Cheney?

Why didn’t the Secret Service rush Bush to safety


Some answers to the questions

Saudi contacts to Bin Laden and 9/11 hijackers have been covered

Anthony Summers / Robyn Swan in their book THE ELEVENTH DAY exposed many links between Saudi
officals and the 9/11 hijackers. Also the financial support given Bin Laden by various Saudi citizens and
"charities"

Following 9/11 Bush supposedly sent secret message to Saudi king telling them to deal with the problem or
we (the US) would

3 members of Saudi royal family shortly afterwards meet with sudden deaths under bizzare conditions

The CIA did not cover up the discovery of hijackers prior to 9/11 - they had tracked the pair from a terrorist
conference in Malaysia to San Diego. Once on US soil became a domestic intelligence matter under
control of FBI. Under rules in place at that time there was a wall of separation between CIA and FBI
which prevented from sharing information . FBI was also reluctant to get involved in terrorism

Order to shoot down planes was given by Bush to Cheney who pasted it to the Air Force. Bush was traveling
and thus lacked much of the information as it was coming in .. Cheney at the White House Situation Room,
was in better location to receive and analyze information as it came in. Air Force One was also
experiencing communication problems with White House - this was rectified after 9/11

As for Secret Service rushing Bush immediately out of the school - been covered before . The School was
secured, it had been presurveyed for any threats. Once on the move Bush would have been viulnerable

Best to stay put and gather information to get handle on situation unless believe Bin Laden had recruited a
team of midgets and disguised them as school kids....


Thank you for the summery of the 9/11 Commission report.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by exponent
 




I would like to offer this thread as a place for informal discussion or Ask A Debunker! style questioning.


I got a few questions for a debunker...

Did Saudi officials provide financial support for the hijackers?

Did Pakistan's ISI support the 9/11 hijackers?

Why did NORAD mislead investigators on why its planes didn't intercept the 9/11 hijackers?

Why did the CIA cover up its advance knowledge of at least two of the 9/11 hijackers?

Who gave the order to shoot down hijacked planes if necessary - Bush or Cheney?

Why didn’t the Secret Service rush Bush to safety?

One more question please-

Did Mossad agents really lived next to the hijackers?


The answers in no particular order are-

a) Yes there was almost certainly support from Saudi or Pakistani officials somewhere along the line, but they are almost certainly doing it on their own accord. Osama Bin Laden was sentenced to death in absentia for trying to verthrow the Saudi royal family, so anyone openly supporting his would not have been looked well upon by a family that has absolutely monopoly on political power. I do know one member of the Pakistani ISI filtered money to Al Qaida, but it was the FBI that discoevred that. Once the FBI informed the Pakistani authorities that ISI official ran off.

b) There's been much talk about "covering up this" or "hiding details about that" but the fact remains that the gov't fouled up in its responsibility to stop the 9/11 attack. The 9/11 commission report reveals some of the issues they had- airport security didn't have access to the FBI's terrorist watch list- and a few tidbits are beginning to leak about even more foul ups- interceptors being sent to chase nonexistant planes-, but there almost certainly has to be more they don't want to admit to. If Apple wouldhide its dropping the ball on faulty antennas by inventing excuses like "users aren't holding it correctly" then the gov't would certainly hide how it dropped the ball by inventing excuses like "Al Qaida knew how to cover its tracks".

c) be aware that there is a LOT of outright bad conspiracy information being passed off as fact, to such a widespread degree that people will accept it to be fact simply becuase they hear it from multiple sources. Case in point "'Pull it' is lingo for controlled dmeolitions", which was completely fabricated by Alex Jones. So, when apparent signs of impropriety comes out like "Mossad agents lived next door to the terrorists, look for confirmation to see whether the statement is even true, as you are doing now.
edit on 1-10-2012 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
I got a few questions for a debunker...

Awesome. Sorry it took me so long to respond but I've had to deal with some work related failures



Did Saudi officials provide financial support for the hijackers?

Almost certainly based on the rumours and relationships I am aware of, but I wouldn't say I could prove it.


Did Pakistan's ISI support the 9/11 hijackers?

I doubt in any substantial fashion, but it seems clear that Bin Laden was somewhat sheltered for example.


Why did NORAD mislead investigators on why its planes didn't intercept the 9/11 hijackers?

Why did the CIA cover up its advance knowledge of at least two of the 9/11 hijackers?

I'm not sure the CIA did cover this up, but in the same way a child will cover a mess with a piece of paper I think they were 'covering their arses'.


Who gave the order to shoot down hijacked planes if necessary - Bush or Cheney?

The only evidence we have is for Cheney.


Why didn’t the Secret Service rush Bush to safety?

There was no evidence he was in danger? I have no clue of their internal motivations but that is my speculation.


Did Mossad agents really lived next to the hijackers?
edit on 30-9-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)

I thought it was an FBI informer but intelligence agencies have a wide reach so I wouldn't be surprised to find it was both.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by exponent
 


I admire your measured and polite approach to this, as well as your methodical way of dealing with the issues, but I won't be posting again.
...
So since the responses are unlikely to alter their belief, and their beliefs are basically immaterial anyway, it seems pointless to continue responding to them.

Another excellent post, this topic is turning out almost exactly as I hoped so I am very happy about that.

I don't labour under the delusion that I will convince large numbers of truthers to abandon their cause and join the consensus, but I don't really consider that my main motivation for posting here. I post here because it interests me, and when eventually I reach the point where I am just getting annoyed and 'burning out' I go take a break for a few months.

It can be intensely frustrating debating with people who not only have made their mind up, but they are confident that their decision making is far superior to yours and act as if they are more intelligent. Having said that though, from their perspective I am sure 'debunkers' come off in much the same way.

There's merit in debate, and now the rules have changed I'm sure the more egregious of the posters will be banned, although it looks like one has come back from the dead



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
Since the 911 forum has reopened, we've seen participation drop dramatically and already some of the more prolific posters have been banned. This seems to be driving casual posters off, either with the WATS score requirements or the fear of being accidentally banned.

While I can do nothing about the rules, I would like to offer this thread as a place for informal discussion or Ask A Debunker! style questioning.

I think that the most aggressive posters on either side here have now been banned and the remaining people are fairly careful and polite, so I hope that we can make this a thread without the requirement to solidly prove any statement. I ask any debunkers and any 'truthers' or '911 sceptics' or whichever term you would prefer to take it easy here without the need to criticise or doubt every piece of evidence from either side.

If you think something is suspicious about 911, post what you think and why. I promise that I will not jump down your throat screaming about how you cannot prove it, and I hope others will follow suit. There's nothing wrong with speculation, just that it normally does not have a direct place in threads talking about proof. That's what this thread is for.

As I've mentioned in many other threads, I am very suspicious about the motives of Bush when testifying, and I would be very interested to know if anyone has any more solid information on potential involvement in anything dubious. I doubt very much that Bush is involved with an 'inside job', but I would not be shocked at all to find out that there were political pressures in place that prevented a proper investigation.

What are your thoughts?




You know I never seen the sniping in here as too bad and there was policing, every time some content went too far there would be one of those '9/11 Madness' stamps put on the odd post. Mostly I found that amusing. So there was policing in place etc. but what I don't understand is why not just extend that to outright ban of the offending individuals based on their offensive postings? Right?

Look we get stars internally for reasoning and debate, the WATS index (which I don't know how is calculated) is also a rating. Why not have an offensive post star like rating. When you hit 20 or whatever - bang, you get banned.

Take me for example, I have been a member for 2 years with 201 posts, in NONE of my posts have I crossed any line. None of my posts, not a single one, was ever stamped with "9/11 Madness" or any such stamping. But the rules get changed presumably because of a few bad apples and now look, because my WATS index is only 1 (after 2 years and 201 posts) I am not able to start a single thread. I just by accident clicked on the New Thread button by mistake thinking it was the New Topics button and I am met with an annoying screen informing me that though it may not be my fault the new rules say I need a WATS of 10 to open a thread.

Now I been here off and on posting for 2 years and only rate a 1. How can we expect any new people or current "lurkers" to be any better off in this regard? If I were new and signed up today just to participate in 9/11 discussion, how long would it be before I could even author a single thread?

The offenders should've been taken out individually and left everything else alone.

Now I can't contribute the content I wanted to post in the way I wanted to post it because of some rule change imposed on ME, a member and contributor with not a single "9/11 Madness" or ANY stamp against him.

So ATS loses, not me. I don't need ATS but ATS needs members and posters of CONTENT. I can just see and hear the rustle of tumbleweeds just rolling down the main street of the dusty 9/11 forum... look, there goes one now lol

I was building a hefty thread around the Naudet clip and even made an entire wicked movie to lead it off with, also, I had ideas for half a dozen other threads that would've added content and debate and research to the ATS 9/11 forum and kept things lively and not tumbleweedish, but NOW I can't post them.

So the whole changes thing, I'm not sure it was thought through at all really.

Oh look! There goes another one...

Btw, I made the above graphic last week, when I was, what was it? Oh ya, feeling naive, superstitious, frightened, desperate and a little bit thick in the head...


And if you believe that, then I got a few stories to sell you about steel frame towers falling due to fire and airplane impacts and one about a Boeing airliner crashing into the Pentagon.

It's real easy money for me because some people will buy just about anything it seems.


Cheers



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by Wifibrains
 


Perhaps you have been scammed by a manipulated video on some conspiracy site.


I see this claim all the time from OS supporters.

For some reason they can't get it through their heads that some of us can actually think for ourselves, and do not need other people to tell us how to think, or what to think.

Perhaps you have been scammed by a manipulated official story from your government.


edit on 10/2/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
I see this claim all the time from OS supporters.

For some reason they can't get it through their heads that some of us can actually think for ourselves, and do not need other people to tell us how to think, or what to think.


Your "thinking for yourselves" isn't the problem. The problem is that you're deliberately being lied to by the conspiracy mongors in order to manipulate your thinking. People don't have any built in BS meter that warns them when they're being lied to- yes, bizarre claims like "the towers were destroyed by lasers from otuer space" pretty much stand out on their own as being implausible but more low to the ground lies like "'Pull it' is industry lingo for controlled demolitions" is completely plausible on the surface. It's only when we do our own independent research and discover this was completely made up by Alex Jones that we discover we've been had. Seeing how many people are stil circulating that "pull it" internet meme it's self evident people aren't holding their own claims up to the same stringent level of critical analysis that they do "the official story".

Case in point- there is no such thing as "the official story". The government didn't get together in some closed off room to invent a response. They sat down on an open conference and listened to many, many eyewitness accounts. You're not accusing the government of lying when they say the planes were hijacked; you're accusing people like flight 77 airline stewardess Renee May of lying when she called out to her mother and told her the plane was hijacked. Let's face it, you even learned that "official story" phrase from those very same hucksters who are pushing the "pull it" baloney.


Perhaps you have been scammed by a manipulated official story from your government.


Quite possibly...but then the two possibilities don't cancel each other out, as we could have been lied to by both the conspiracy mongors AND the government, yes?



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


My suggestion to Wifibrains that perhaps he had been misled by a manipulated video was specific to the false information he had obviously taken on board about the words the teacher was indicating to the children while Bush sat in that classroom on the morning of 9/11.

Didn't take me long to find such a false video :-

www.youtube.com...

It is a pathetic attempt to mislead because the false captions that have been added contradict what can be seen on the page.



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Wifibrains
 



Originally posted by Wifibrains

Like ats? Lol. Possibly.

So you are saying the official version is the truth?

Government never knew it was going to happen, and allowed it for their own agenda?

Millitary black ops never propagated terrorism?

I think the powers that be had the means to manipulate people to manifest this event into reality for their own agenda.


This is where these subject begin to become muddy and start to generate false "truths". Possibility is not probability - and probability is not fact.

The human mind wants to find connections. This is how we are wired. Logic allows us to discern which patterns make sense, or add up, and which don't. When strong emotions are introduced, this process begins to fail and we begin to engage in conformation bias.

This is why we're taught, as kids, that all sneeps may be snarks, but that does not mean all snarks are sneeps. Or, put another way, if you hear approaching hoof beats it might be a zebra, but it is most likely a horse.

Thinking is a great thing and is always encouraged and applauded by others. But leaping from thinking to believing without strong supporting evidence. Well? That is the literal definition of being gullible.

Sadly, 9-11 is one of the areas where these astounding leaps from thinking to blindly believing happens. And you end up with folks who talk themselves into some really wacky ideas. Some are true believers. Others make a pretty good living at selling their DVD's and books and doing lectures.

Take it all with a grain of salt, analyze it as best you can, discern, and come to your own conclusions. It's unfortunate, but many simply watch a video or read an article and take it as fact - when it is not so.

My .02 cents.

~Heff



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


Hi heff, I here what your saying, but believe was never mentioned,




Thinking is a great thing and is always encouraged and applauded by others. But leaping from thinking to believing without strong supporting evidence. Well? That is the literal definition of being gullible.


I said,


I "think" the powers that be had the means to manipulate people to manifest this event into reality for their own agenda.


The vid I found creepy, and I'm glad it's now cleared up. Doesn't change what I say above


I believe we are not told the truth.



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Your "thinking for yourselves" isn't the problem. The problem is that you're deliberately being lied to by the conspiracy mongors in order to manipulate your thinking.


Who is lying to me?

No one tells me what to think Dave. My own background and education is enough for me to understand.

The only people lying is the government. All governments lie.

edit on 10/3/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 06:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Your "thinking for yourselves" isn't the problem. The problem is that you're deliberately being lied to by the conspiracy mongors in order to manipulate your thinking.


Who is lying to me?

No one tells me what to think Dave. My own background and education is enough for me to understand.

The only people lying is the government. All governments lie.

edit on 10/3/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)


You are fortunate in being immune to being duped but there are people out there lying, other than the government, and some are taken in.

This video I posted just above proves it :-

www.youtube.com...





new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join