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.

 

Charlie Veitch - The 9/11 conspiracy theorist who changed his mind

page: 5
6
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 02:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by RomeByFire
I lied? Where?


Right here?


Originally posted by RomeByFire
ArmChair University.

With a pinch of "Position of Authority" logical fallacies.

That guy is an engineer and so am I.

I said so, therefore, it's true. Matter of fact I'm the smartest engineer in the world.



Also, what does your reply have to do with the thread?

Now you've got me posting off topic. Pretty sure I haven't even made a single word pertaining to my beliefs on 9/11 so it's rather conspicuous you would call me a liar.

So you are an engineer? The best in the world? No.


Youre right, you don't know how I view these events but my viewpoint is surely held by falsehoods and I am a liar.

This is why lying is a bad idea, how can I trust you now you're willing to lie about your credentials to try and discredit someone else? Who does that?




posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 02:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
someone needs to take a logic/philosophy class (i don't intend this to be derogatory, you would honestly benefit as a human being from one). many greats used the method of stating opposing views as their own to demonstrate that they were ludicrous.

what he did was establish logical proofs to demonstrate that being an engineer, or claiming to be one, doesn't make an opinion any more valid.

What he did was show that he's willing to lie to try and discredit an opponent. That is the opposite of good debate technique and if you're reducing engineer qualifications to worthless then you've already thrown away any idea of getting the correct answer.


einstein was a frickin patent clerk, so we should toss out all his theories because they're wrong. is this statement accurate? no.

as for being "deceptive" he clearly explained that his statements WEREN'T true, and were being used as examples.

Should einstein's argument be argued against by saying "I am also a relativistic physicist and your ideas are stupid"?

No, they would present calculations. Something sorely missing in this thread. The poster you're referring to was trying to discredit, not disprove.



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 02:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by FriedBabelBroccoli
reply to post by Sankari
 

Second, can YOU prove that was Osama Bin Laden in any fashion other than the US regime claimed that it was he?

Wow how far can you possibly reach. This is embarassing to read. You might as well just claim that the towers didn't really collapse cause none of us can prove that they did.

You can ignore and deny and pretend that any evidence doesn't exist, the problem is that you're clearly woefully misinformed. Hell you still thought the BBC backed the 'hijackers alive' case when they've produced two documentaries clearly explaining it and interviewing the people responsible.

Do some proper research, not just on 911truth.biz



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 02:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by FriedBabelBroccoli
reply to post by Sankari
 

Second, can YOU prove that was Osama Bin Laden in any fashion other than the US regime claimed that it was he?

Wow how far can you possibly reach. This is embarassing to read. You might as well just claim that the towers didn't really collapse cause none of us can prove that they did.

You can ignore and deny and pretend that any evidence doesn't exist, the problem is that you're clearly woefully misinformed. Hell you still thought the BBC backed the 'hijackers alive' case when they've produced two documentaries clearly explaining it and interviewing the people responsible.

Do some proper research, not just on 911truth.biz


Provide the legal documentation showing that the image was not of the individual who was still alive and claiming his own innocence.

Just trolling a post without posting the actual info which supports your claims does not instill confidence in your claims.

EDIT
The issue is of Whaleed M Alsheri not Wail. All the debunking cites manage to switch to the brother showing that CNN placed the wrong image of Wail after pointing out the FBI photo released of Whaleed was the one to which the Whaleed in Morocco was responding to.

You need to go back and read the actual reporting. One Whaleed Alsheri was shown his own picture released by the FBI as a terror suspect.

Whaleed /= Wail ------------> Debunking fail . . . . That is why the BBC article was forced to change the text of the article to "a man" because it was way too obvious to anyone with an ounce of reading comprehension.
edit on 2-6-2013 by FriedBabelBroccoli because: 101



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 02:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by FriedBabelBroccoli
Provide the legal documentation showing that the image was not of the individual who was still alive and claiming his own innocence.

Hahaha you're willing to state authoritatively what caused huge buildings to collapse but to prove a single person is the notoriously well known Bin Laden requires 'legal documentation'.

You wouldn't even believe it if it was presented. You admit as much.


Just trolling a post without posting the actual info which supports your claims does not instill confidence in your claims.

Nobody is going to prove Bin Laden is Bin Laden to you. The same way as I'm not going to prove that WTC1 was not secretly replaced with one made of cheese.

If your position relies on people somehow finding a complete body double of Bin Laden then it's literally insane.

Please, continue to elucidate this insane theory.



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 02:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by FriedBabelBroccoli
Provide the legal documentation showing that the image was not of the individual who was still alive and claiming his own innocence.

Hahaha you're willing to state authoritatively what caused huge buildings to collapse but to prove a single person is the notoriously well known Bin Laden requires 'legal documentation'.

You wouldn't even believe it if it was presented. You admit as much.


Just trolling a post without posting the actual info which supports your claims does not instill confidence in your claims.

Nobody is going to prove Bin Laden is Bin Laden to you. The same way as I'm not going to prove that WTC1 was not secretly replaced with one made of cheese.

If your position relies on people somehow finding a complete body double of Bin Laden then it's literally insane.

Please, continue to elucidate this insane theory.


So you have nothing to support your claim?

EDIT
Where did I "state authoritatively what caused huge buildings to collapse"?

You are just making things up now. Please just stop before you are forced back to elementary school for lessons in reading comp.
edit on 2-6-2013 by FriedBabelBroccoli because: 101



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 03:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by FriedBabelBroccoli
So you have nothing to support your claim?

On the contrary, we have video of Bin Laden. You have no evidence that it's somehow a body double and so this discussion ends there until you find some evidence.



Where did I "state authoritatively what caused huge buildings to collapse"?

My mistake, I read the wrong post! It turns out you're just willing to deny and deny until someone who's literally delusional is presented, then you will trust them.

That is just funny.



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 03:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by FriedBabelBroccoli
So you have nothing to support your claim?

On the contrary, we have video of Bin Laden. You have no evidence that it's somehow a body double and so this discussion ends there until you find some evidence.



Where did I "state authoritatively what caused huge buildings to collapse"?

My mistake, I read the wrong post! It turns out you're just willing to deny and deny until someone who's literally delusional is presented, then you will trust them.

That is just funny.


So now you are going to completely dodge the issue of Whaleed?

At least you were responsible enough to realize you are just making things up.



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 03:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by FriedBabelBroccoli
So now you are going to completely dodge the issue of Whaleed?

What issue? You were willing to link someone completely delusional as evidence. Your standards have been met.


At least you were responsible enough to realize you are just making things up.

An honest mistake, anyone can make them. I hope you are more reasonable than the poster I misread as you.



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 03:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by FriedBabelBroccoli
So now you are going to completely dodge the issue of Whaleed?

What issue? You were willing to link someone completely delusional as evidence. Your standards have been met.


At least you were responsible enough to realize you are just making things up.

An honest mistake, anyone can make them. I hope you are more reasonable than the poster I misread as you.


So you are in fact going to dodge the issue of Whaleed by jumping back to your mistaken idea that I was speaking as an "authoritatively what caused huge buildings to collapse." Attack the woman all you want as it has nothing to do with the BBC story which you ridiculed earlier.

This is a clear cut classic case of dodging the question.

You are the one saying it is absurd that I support the idea that Whaleed Alsheri as shown in the photo released by the FBI and listed in the NIST report as a hijacker is still alive.

I then point out that the individual in Morocco confirms it was his image used and that the "debunking" does not address his image but the CNN images of his "brother."

You brought this issue up so I suggest you address it, otherwise we can have a trolling competition.

EDIT
Its okay if you just want to rely on ad hominem attacks and derogatory language aimed at reducing the credibility of others.

I am a big boy, I can handle it.

edit on 2-6-2013 by FriedBabelBroccoli because: 101



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 04:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by FriedBabelBroccoli
reply to post by Sankari
 


First of all the man in Casablanca


*snip*

We've been through this already. The facts aren't going to change just because you don't like them.


Second, can YOU prove that was Osama Bin Laden in any fashion other than the US regime claimed that it was he?


No, but I don't need to because logic comes in handy here:

* If the video was not authentic, bin Laden would have released a statement denying it
* If the video was not authentic, Al Qaeda would have released a statement denying it
* If the video was not authentic, we need to explain its origins and the fact that it is perfectly consistent with all of bin Laden's videos in every way, including the mode of delivery (it was handed in to an Arabic media station in Pakistan)

When you see a guy on tv for the third or fourth time, saying the same kind of stuff he's said previously, and you know the source of the video is the same as all the other times, it takes a very special kind of... person to deny the obvious truth.


EDIT
From the article I linked to earlier to verify


*snip*

We've been through this too. Read the previous posts. You're still wrong.


What do you have to say about that?


I say you're obviously not reading people's posts properly. If at all.
edit on 2/6/13 by Sankari because: typo...



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 04:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigyin
reply to post by Sankari
 


Hmm, well you can believe what you like of course, but youtube has thousands of examples of buildings collapsing from controlled demolitions.


...and they all look completely different from the WTC collapse. Thanks for reminding us all.



Good compilation here

In every single one there is not a single large piece of material ejected sideways, and in every one of these examples there are explosives used and still there is no lateral movement.


Correct. You have just demonstrated that a controlled demolition looks completely different to the collapse of the WTC. That is because the explosives are at the bottom of the building—not the top—and they are placed in such a way as to ensure a controlled demolition which pulls the building down into its own footprint.

By contrast the WTC collapsed form the top down, pushing upper floors onto lower floors in a pancake fashion which resulted in lateral movement, lateral ejection of debris, and bursts of pressurised air.

You are now proving my point, not yours. Well done. Well done you.


So what you are proposing is that air can move heavy objects better than explosives.


No. Please read what I just wrote. Then go and learn about controlled demolitions. And air pressure. And... well, perhaps you'd better just start with high school level physics.



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 04:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sankari

Originally posted by FriedBabelBroccoli
reply to post by Sankari
 


First of all the man in Casablanca


*snip*

We've been through this already. The facts aren't going to change just because you don't like them.


That is right the facts are not going to change because you don't like them.

He confirmed it was his picture and yet all you can do is link me to a wikipedia article . . . .



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 04:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by spooky24
Lawrence Wright's work "The Looming Towers" coincides with Soufan book in chapters 18-21 ending with the same interrogation of plotter Abu Jandal's confessions and identification of the hijackers whom he trained and lived with in Afghanistan.


This is an excellent book, which I own and have read. Highly recommended.

You can add these to the list:

* Against All Enemies
* Ghost Wars: the Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001
* Al Qaeda: the True Story of Radical Islam
edit on 2/6/13 by Sankari because: typo...

edit on 2/6/13 by Sankari because: typo...



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 04:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sankari
Correct. You have just demonstrated that a controlled demolition looks completely different to the collapse of the WTC. That is because the explosives are at the bottom of the building—not the top—and they are placed in such a way as to ensure a controlled demolition which pulls the building down into its own footprint.


A controlled demolition simply means people made the building collapse where they wanted it to. The term does not describe the method. Pulling a building down with chains is a controlled demolition.

So it doesn't matter whether the building is set to collapse from the bottom, or the top. It's a none argument. Trying to claim they were not controlled collapses because they don't look exactly like conventional controlled collapses is silly, because they look far more like controlled collapses than collapses from fire and damage.

A collapse that brings a building down into its footprint is an "implosion demolition", like WTC 7. Watch the collapse, and look at the post collapse pics, for an example of a classic implosion demolition.

The towers were too tall and skinny for implosion demolition. They collapsed in the only way they could have been controlled in order to look like the collapses initiated at the plane impacts. Not that hard to do.



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 04:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by FriedBabelBroccoli
He confirmed it was his picture


That's right, because it was his photo (Walid al-Shri), and not a photo of the hijacker (Waleed M. al-Shehr). CNN used the wrong photo. Simple:


ASAA: What are your thoughts about your photograph in the FBI list?
Waleed: I said before that I was astonished when I saw my picture on the CNN channel. I believe the photo was taken from the "Flight Safety" (= Flight CFT?) school when I was being trained there for two months. The photo looks like one taken at that time.


(Source).


Furthermore another article explains that the pilot who lives in Casablanca was named Walid al-Shri (not Waleed M. al-Shehri) and that much of the BBC information regarding "alive" hijackers was incorrect according to the same sources used by BBC.

In September 2007, a video recording of his last testament was released to mark the 6th anniversary of the attacks.


(Source).



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 04:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
A controlled demolition simply means people made the building collapse where they wanted it to.

The term does not describe the method. Pulling a building down with chains is a controlled demolition.

So it doesn't matter whether the building is set to collapse from the bottom, or the top. It's a none argument.


In this case it is not a non-argument, because Truthers claim the WTC was taken down with a controlled demolition using explosives, and they claim the collapse of the WTC looks like a controlled demolition of that sort. This is used as evidence for the 'controlled demolition' argument.

So no, it's not a non-argument.


Trying to claim they were not controlled collapses because they don't look exactly like conventional controlled collapses is silly, because they look far more like controlled collapses than collapses from fire and damage.


No. They don't.


The towers were too tall and skinny for implosion demolition.


Proof please.

The WTC towers were designed to pancake, which they would have done with remarkable precision if they had been destroyed with a controlled implosion demolition using explosives.


They collapsed in the only way they could have been controlled in order to look like the collapses initiated at the plane impacts.


So you are now saying they didn't look like a controlled demolition? You are completely abandoning that line of argument?

The new argument seems to be 'I know it was a controlled demolition because it didn't look like one'!



Not that hard to do.


Oh really? Please provide a detailed professional explanation. I have a friend who works in the mining industry as an explosives expert. He'll be very interested to see your... efforts.
edit on 2/6/13 by Sankari because: typo...



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 05:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Sankari
 


Clearly you didn't watch the video, because not all the demolitions had charges at the bottom of the building, lots of them had multiple charges placed at multiple levels.

And many of the collapses looked exactly like the wtc, especially wtc 7

And high school physics, if you understood them would tell you the wtc 1 and 2 could not fall at free fall without the aid of explosives.

If that was the case your friend would be out of a job.



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Sankari
 


Are you daft mate?! Honestly now . . . The image shown by CNN was of Wail Alsheri not Whaleed Alsheri, those are two different people.



Clearly the picture you are talking about is of Wail . . .



However they get confused in thinking Wail is Whaleed while debunking as can clearly be seen by the names used under the photos.


^This is the guy who was protesting his image being used.

Every "debunking" website admits that the image is Whaleed as produced by the FBI and that is the individual protesting his innocence because he is still alive.

They then move on to say the other images used were wrong and forget all about this man.

Do you understand the issue here now? That is why they said a man claiming to be Whaleed saw his picture identified as a terrorist and not a man named Wail or any of those others.
edit on 2-6-2013 by FriedBabelBroccoli because: 101


EDIT

This is the text from your own source;



The first observation is that CNN were using the FBI image of Waleed Alshehri, even as early as the 16th of September. That surprised us, as previously we’d speculated they used the wrong photo (hands up, we were wrong), and alone will be taken by some as proof that this is a picture of the pilot.

However, we would also note that CNN definitely use the wrong pictures of Abdulaziz Alomari and Saeed Alghamdi in this clip. And does the CNN Wail Alshehri really look like his FBI photo image? The resolution above is poor, but we resized it, mirrored the image so it faced the same direction as the FBI shot, and came up with this (FBI shot left, CNN image right):

There’s certainly a sign of confusion when the CNN newsreader lists the names for their four hijacker photos, describing them as “Mohammed Atta, Waleed Alshehri, Abdulaziz Alomari and Waleed M Ali Shehri [sic]”.


Obviously there will be a problem when some idiot can't even read Wail and types Whaleed anyways. They then continue pushing the idea that Wail is the Whaleed in question when the photos and man himself afterwards clearly demonstrate the issue was with Whaleed Alsheri not Wail.

Even your wikipedia switches to between Whalid, Wail, Whaleed, pick one and stick to it. Tactics like this are called baffle them with bull-s. The article clearly states it is the image of Whaleed and then the debunkers begin talking about Wail.

Why bother?

I should probably just stick to finding creative ways to insinuate you are mentally challenged at least that would involve some intelligence in having to dodge some of the more effective mods.

Hell I think I will go bang my head against various metallic and dense objects for a few years so I can get on your level and understand your thought process.
edit on 2-6-2013 by FriedBabelBroccoli because: zoom zoom zoom capoeira mata um



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sankari
In this case it is not a non-argument, because Truthers claim the WTC was taken down with a controlled demolition using explosives, and they claim the collapse of the WTC looks like a controlled demolition of that sort. This is used as evidence for the 'controlled demolition' argument.


It did look like a collapse done with explosives, but not because it looks like all other collapses, because it didn't.

The reason it had to be a controlled demo is because steel framed building do no collapse to their foundation from fire and asymmetrical damage. I'm not going to waste my time explaining it to you because will just ignore it anyway.


So no, it's not a non-argument.


Yes it is.


No. They don't.


Yes they do. You can't find one single collapse that happened like the towers from fires. I know you can't, because it can't happen.


Proof please.




If you don't understand why those towers could not be "imploded", then you don't know what it means.


The WTC towers were designed to pancake, which they would have done with remarkable precision if they had been destroyed with a controlled implosion demolition using explosives.


Proof please?

If they had been planted with explosives then yes they could have got the building to pancake, but not "implode".
Again you should really familiarise yourself with the process of controlled demolition, because you are making a lot of uneducated assumptions here.

But even NIST rejects pancake collapse.


So you are now saying they didn't look like a controlled demolition? You are completely abandoning that line of argument?


Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

I said it doesn't matter if it doesn't look like other controlled collapses, that is not an argument. Then I said it looks much more like other controlled demolition, than other building that collapsed from fire. Is that so hard to understand?


The new argument seems to be 'I know it was a controlled demolition because it didn't look like one'!




It's a controlled demolition because the evidence points in that direction. Like a lot of people who just want to argue you take it too literally.


Oh really? Please provide a detailed professional explanation. I have a friend who works in the mining industry as an explosives expert. He'll be very interested to see your... efforts.


So that makes him an expert in physics problems?

So do you think he could explain how sagging trusses can put a pull on the columns? Can he also explain how the connections didn't fail first? Can you? Do you even know what I'm talking about?

Can you really look at this with a straight face?...



So lightweight trusses managed to snap box columns? And you seriously buy this? Ignoring the fact that the truss is many times less mass than the column, and the connections many times less mass then truss, and yet the columns failed first? Where did you go to school? Or maybe you haven't taken physics yet?

You don't need an expert for common sense. Stop appealing to authority because that don't fly with me boss. I did take physics for my C&G engineering fundamentals degree.



edit on 6/2/2013 by ANOK because: miss-read something




top topics



 
6
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join