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.

 

The Anomalies

page: 8
6
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 03:22 AM
link   
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 


I don't get why you don't see it, yes they tried to use the WMD's to get into the war, they were not able to, so they do 911 as the spark they needed to get in. Now they don't need the WMD's for the war anymore so why fake them? Why do something you don't need to do? The bush think tank PNAC was looking for the "new pearl harbor" and what did bush say about 911 on that morning? I guess that was just one more coincidence that happened that morning

O and about the factories, you seem to forget what you said in the past.... again
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I state "They needed FACTORIES that were MAKING the weapons... that is what they were looking for. We know they had missiles and bombs" In my post and then you section that out with this reply



No they didn't. You just made that up. Any kind of WMD presence would have sufficed. Even some parts would have been better than nothing.


So which is it?

Also i still don't see your breakdown and what your answer was to where they stopped liying and covering things up. So again I ask you, What is/isn't being covered up? What are they lying to us about and what parts are they telling the truth? I have a hard time discrediting something and then turning around and sourcing it at the same time so I am very interested to see how you manage to do it


edit on thSat, 15 Feb 2014 03:32:18 -0600America/Chicago220141880 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Sremmos80


So where do you draw the line on what was lied to you about then? What did they cover up and what did they not cover up? If it was just an innocent mistake that they were not prepared for, but running games for the exact situation the day of, then why cover it up? They are TOLD us what happened, why not SHOW?
I would appreciate it if you don't call me an idiot, I have not personally attacked you in any way, was hoping the same for you.
And for do your self a favor, again, look up when the tech was made available to make cell phone calls in the air. Might shorten your list of "idiots" that think those calls were faked.


I didn't call you an idiot. But when you write sentences like "They are TOLD us what happened, why not SHOW?" then it's hard to assume you're checking what you write. And if you're not checking what you write I doubt you're checking what you read either.




Or really you didn't claim that? Hum must have read and quoted that sentence you posted wrong


You read it wrong, yes. You accused me of saying that they "only" concentrated on muslims. As you'll note from the quoted sentence I in fact said they were "mainly" concentrating on them. It's quite different. Unless of course detail is unimportant to you, which I'm beginning to suspect.






I never made such a claim, I only made a claim that there has been attacks that have been attributed to "terrorist" since. And death toll doesn't matter, if 1 or 100 dies it still carries the same weight. Especially when people are being lied to and dealing with cover ups. That you admit happens


You did claim that the death toll was unimportant. You even do so again the very next sentence!






Care to source that claim?


Not especially.I'm not the one accusing the FBI of complicity in mass murder so it's not up to me to disprove it.






FBI visited adam years before the shooting, he "hacked" their servers and they were dismissed by his mom.


That counts as frequent contact?



They had their eyes on him. Boston was done by Muslims and again previous contact with a drill going on that same day. And check into the BB family tree if you really want to see how deep into gov agencies these boys go. Oh and looks like you admit they are focusing on muslim radicals... again lol


Admit it? I brought that up.

I'm sorry, but you're coming off like you can't follow the argument at all.




It fits into the claim that our agencies can't stop a fly with a bazooka, every time anything happens they can just claim incompetence and blame the "inability" to talk to each other even though they have been in existence for decades....


As I say, you don't know what they have averted. Just saying you think they would talk about it isn't really a good argument. And there have been serious attempts to get them talking, and they didn't use that excuse with Boston. So pretty much everything you're claiming is just hot air.


Where is your breakdown of what happened? I gave you mine and then politely asked for yours... I am very interested to see what was/wasn't covered up. Do you think that can happen with your reply?
edit on thFri, 14 Feb 2014 16:03:50 -0600America/Chicago220145080 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)


I've taken you through it several times.



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 





You did claim that the death toll was unimportant. You even do so again the very next sentence!


And death toll doesn't matter, if 1 or 100 dies it still carries the same weight
I am saying that a high death toll does not make it a more serious attack, as long as one person dies it can still be considered an attack.




Not especially.I'm not the one accusing the FBI of complicity in mass murder so it's not up to me to disprove it.


But you are admitting to a cover up which is the same thing is it not? This was a mass murder and they covered something up. So I guess if you are willing to just look the other way then ya you don't have to prove anything

You claim that the agencies were focusing mainly on muslim radicals and that would be the reason any one outside of that group gets by like the "homegrown shooters" but then when it is muslim radicals that carry it out you are ok with letting them use the incompetence route. Seems I am following things just fine




I've taken you through it several times.


No you have not, you didn't admit to a cover up till much later after breakdowns were done. So unless you want to link me the page where you have a numbered breakdown like I gave to you where you state what was and was not covered up I would appreciate one.
You also still haven't told me how you are able to let some one lie to your face(cover up) and then believe anything else the person or agency has to say..
Where is that line? What does the cover up stop and we get the truth?



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Sremmos80
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 


I don't get why you don't see it, yes they tried to use the WMD's to get into the war, they were not able to, so they do 911 as the spark they needed to get in. Now they don't need the WMD's for the war anymore so why fake them?


Completely wrong. The case using WMDs was being advanced right up to the eve of war, 18 months after 9/11. It was the chief justification.



O and about the factories, you seem to forget what you said in the past.... again
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I state "They needed FACTORIES that were MAKING the weapons... that is what they were looking for. We know they had missiles and bombs" In my post and then you section that out with this reply



No they didn't. You just made that up. Any kind of WMD presence would have sufficed. Even some parts would have been better than nothing.


So which is it?


It's not either/or, which is what I'm trying to get across to you. Yes, they were looking for factories, but they were also looking for any kind of evidence, with increasing desperation. Ultimately any evidence of WMDs - missile parts, chemical agents - would have been better than nothing at all.

As I said, do you really think they would have covered up the discovery of a nuclear missile, say? Because that's the logical conclusion of what you are claiming.

I haven't changed what I've been writing, by the way. You just keep finding new and frankly increasingly bizarre ways of trying to disbelieve it. Your latest, that 9/11 replaced the WMD argument, is so historically ignorant that it's quite extraordinary.


Also i still don't see your breakdown and what your answer was to where they stopped liying and covering things up. So again I ask you, What is/isn't being covered up? What are they lying to us about and what parts are they telling the truth? I have a hard time discrediting something and then turning around and sourcing it at the same time so I am very interested to see how you manage to do it


edit on thSat, 15 Feb 2014 03:32:18 -0600America/Chicago220141880 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)


I've written about this in several posts. Your argument seems to be that because they lied about their culpability they must be lying about their involvement. That's not logical. And given that you need to believe several highly improbable, and some impossible things to force it to make some kind of tortuous sense, I'd think you might reject it.

My breakdown is that Al Qaeda hijacked several planes and crashed two into the WTC and one into the Pentagon. The other plane was late to take off and after the passengers were alerted they tried to retake the cockpit, unsuccessfully, and the terrorists caused the aircraft to crash. In the fallout the security agencies and politicians realised that their procedures at all levels had been inadequate, from intelligence gathering to sharing right down to airport security. They tried their best to minimise criticism by obstructing and rigging the reports into the events. Meanwhile the faction of the Republican party that was in power seized on the opportunity to launch a disastrous campaign in the Middle East.

That's it, really.



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 


The whole WMD thing was a farce, it fizzled and held no weight ever. You want then to fake something just to save face, not the same thing as me saying they conducted an inside operation to get the nation behind going to war.
911 was the chief justification for war, WMD was used to go snooping around with UN inspectors every where.
How long after 911 did we invade?

Link they page where I said they would cover up a legit nuke please, don't quote or anything, point me to my post that I wrote.
I am willing to bet it was purely hypothetical that you quoted out of context as you have multiple times

I also never said that 911 replaced WMD, as I said before 911 was to get in and WMD was to occupy. How is that saying one is replacing the other?

How is it not logical to not trust anything a liar says? If you agree they are lying about parts or it then how can you convince your self they are not lying about ALL of it? Again where is that line?
They are investigating a MURDER, they should not be able to cover up their culpability. Why is that ok to you? You are ok with them covering up their criminal negligence? If that is the case then I'd say we can be done here.
To you my beliefs are highly improbable to impossible, which I have to say everything is improbable or impossible until it happens. I have not presented anything that isn't readily available to the US GOV and the alphabet boys.
No DEW or mini nukes or holograms.
The "craziest" part of my theory is the missile. How many different mechanism were able to launch a missile in the area of the pentagon alone. Not to mention our long range missile capabilities. Attach one to a drone ( I hope you call this one crazy
) I am sure you have heard of those right?
Seems just as crazy that our inlet agencies were warned of the exact attacks that happened and still let it happen IMO




My breakdown is that Al Qaeda hijacked several planes and crashed two into the WTC and one into the Pentagon. The other plane was late to take off and after the passengers were alerted they tried to retake the cockpit, unsuccessfully, and the terrorists caused the aircraft to crash. In the fallout the security agencies and politicians realised that their procedures at all levels had been inadequate, from intelligence gathering to sharing right down to airport security. They tried their best to minimise criticism by obstructing and rigging the reports into the events. Meanwhile the faction of the Republican party that was in power seized on the opportunity to launch a disastrous campaign in the Middle East.


That isn't a cover up, that is a crime. You admit they obstructed and rigged the reports and lied to make that happen but you are able to brush them away for the actual event they are lying about...
The investigation that is suppose to tell us about what really happened is obstructed and rigged by your own words but they had nothing, absolutely nothing to do with the actual event.... Ok. Your line is drawn after 93 hit the ground i guess, that is where the truth ends and the lying starts....



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


I can see how we are all getting exhausted talking about this topic. But we must not give up! If the OS were correct, then there would not be so many architects and engineers claiming otherwise. link.

Although I understand the need for it, at times I feel we look to far into things, thus blinding us from what is obvious. Something was not right about that day. Things did not add up. 2 planes cannot bring down 3 skyscrapers. Multiple reports of people saying bombs were going off in the lobby. Firefighters said they saw molten steel in the basement of the WTC towers. All the jet fuel could not have melted that steel, the fuel burned up in the initial explosions. As for Pentagon, it gets a little more complex. But you are telling me, that the most highly secured building in all of the world only had 1 crappy view!?!? Please. There are multiple close up shots and video of what happened somewhere.

Thousands of innocent people died a horrific death. Someone who was on fire had to jump from the roof top of that building.

We owe it to those poor people to never lay down and give up. We must fight for the real truth.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 03:25 AM
link   

Sremmos80
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 


The whole WMD thing was a farce, it fizzled and held no weight ever. You want then to fake something just to save face, not the same thing as me saying they conducted an inside operation to get the nation behind going to war.
911 was the chief justification for war, WMD was used to go snooping around with UN inspectors every where.
How long after 911 did we invade?


18 months, because they were making the case using WMDs. You are precisely wrong that 9/11 was enough - they knew it wasn't, so they massaged poor intelligence on WMDs and that took a long time.

And you are just as wrong in your summation of the WMD issue. It was a farce, but that was a disaster for the US and its allies, a huge loss of face. It's no exaggeration to say that the effects of not finding weapons of that nature are still being felt by the US in terms of its reputation on the global stage. They would have dearly loved to find something, anything, to bear out the intelligence they had received (and manipulated).

The notion that a power that could fake 9/11 would balk at faking some WMD presence in Iraq remains absurd.


Link they page where I said they would cover up a legit nuke please, don't quote or anything, point me to my post that I wrote.
I am willing to bet it was purely hypothetical that you quoted out of context as you have multiple times


You said they were only looking for factories. The logical corollary of that is that they would not bother to showcase a nuclear missile if they found one. Which is crazy.


I also never said that 911 replaced WMD, as I said before 911 was to get in and WMD was to occupy. How is that saying one is replacing the other?


You really need to look at some recent history and not just make assumptions. WMD were absolutely a reason to invade, you even showed that with the article you linked to earlier.


How is it not logical to not trust anything a liar says? If you agree they are lying about parts or it then how can you convince your self they are not lying about ALL of it? Again where is that line?


Because there are other considerations. For them to lie about their effectiveness in preventing the attack requires very little magical thinking. Whereas, as I've said from the start, to believe that the phone calls are an invention (just a tiny part of your fantastical story) you need to believe in either voice morphing technology or passengers landed, forced to act in a grisly drama and then being disappeared by shadowy operatives. You also need missiles launched by the navy, explosives planted, faked DNA and crash investigations and a myriad of other fanciful stuff.


They are investigating a MURDER, they should not be able to cover up their culpability. Why is that ok to you? You are ok with them covering up their criminal negligence? If that is the case then I'd say we can be done here.


Why do you keep saying that? Of course I'm not okay with it.


To you my beliefs are highly improbable to impossible, which I have to say everything is improbable or impossible until it happens. I have not presented anything that isn't readily available to the US GOV and the alphabet boys.
No DEW or mini nukes or holograms.
The "craziest" part of my theory is the missile. How many different mechanism were able to launch a missile in the area of the pentagon alone. Not to mention our long range missile capabilities. Attach one to a drone ( I hope you call this one crazy
) I am sure you have heard of those right?


It is crazy. Clearly you don't know much about the relative sizes of the 'missile' at the Pentagon and drones.

I can't do anything other than illustrate to you how absurd even tiny parts of your story are. That hundreds of personnel would keep this covered up, willingly kill fellow citizens, launch missiles, round up passengers and force them to 'act', blow up buildings... it's not that it's impossible, it's just wildly improbable to the point of unreason.

And then to say that the agencies that did that would not be able or willing to plant some WMD is Iraq? That really is nuts.






That isn't a cover up, that is a crime. You admit they obstructed and rigged the reports and lied to make that happen but you are able to brush them away for the actual event they are lying about...
The investigation that is suppose to tell us about what really happened is obstructed and rigged by your own words but they had nothing, absolutely nothing to do with the actual event.... Ok. Your line is drawn after 93 hit the ground i guess, that is where the truth ends and the lying starts....


That is indeed my contention.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 


They had more reasoning with 911 to go in then with the WMD, look at afghan.
In no way would the WMD thing get us over there. If they did not have 911 to fall back while the WMD played it's self out then it would have been 10 fold worse for them. I don't know if you live in the US but the coverage for 911 never stopped. You couldn't hear about iraq with out 911 being tied to the coverage. 911 sparked the "investigation" into the WMD in iraq, as well as them saying sadaam may have had something to do with 911, another complete farce.
I can't tell you why they didn't fake something, maybe they couldn't get to the U. Maybe the Saudis didn't want to help them on that. Again I don't think they ever planned on finding anything. That was jut the excuse to keep the troops occupying while they were "looking"
I still stand with the idea they would of had to fake an entire factory. Like if the UN found your fake nuke that bob found, wouldn't they want to also see where that was created? Where was the uranium enriched? Again it is more then just a missile with a few extra parts

Yes I do continue to say that they needed to find factories and that they wouldn't take a nuke and place it in another country that we were not positive even had the capability to create the bomb.
That is no way is me saying that if they did find a legit nuke that they would not report it.... Have fun doing some more fake logical corollary up in your head
911 was the new pearl harbor used to fall back on anytime they need to invade a new country that is now harboring the AQ and OBL. The same can not be said for WMD, that is why one happened and one did not. WMD would just be a save of face, 911 has been the ace in hole when needed to get he US mass behind them for the past 10 years+ and will continue as long as we believe that all our US lied about was how incompetent they all are at doing their jobs.

Those phone calls could not have been made from the air, it was impossible from that time to do so from a cell phone, I don't know how they did what they did, what I do know is that the tech that would have been able to make was not available in 01. It makes you the crazy one to believe that it did happen IMO, if the tech did exist how did it happen? Can you answer me that?
What cutting edge tech did those planes have in them that no other plane had?

They are investigating a MURDER, they should not be able to cover up their culpability. Why is that ok to you? You are ok with them covering up their criminal negligence? If that is the case then I'd say we can be done here.



Why do you keep saying that? Of course I'm not okay with it.


Because you let them off the hook for that part and then take their word for everything else they have to say. The same guys covering up this murder and the criminal negligence, that you admit is happening, are the same people that are telling us what exactly happened that day.... They are the guys that collected all the evidence and deciding what the commission was able to and not able to look at.
So when the liars help the liars to do an investigation, i have a hard time believing much of what they say.

You are ok with being lied to and then are able to take other parts of what the liars have to say as truth, I can't logically do that so I guess that is the bridge we can not pass to see the other persons side.


Just keep believing what the liars that you know are lying to you have to say.


I doubt you will but take a look at this video, www.youtube.com...
Just to see how "incompetent" these people really were. Shows the art of planned incompetence
edit on thTue, 18 Feb 2014 15:22:23 -0600America/Chicago220142380 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 06:59 AM
link   

Sremmos80
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 


They had more reasoning with 911 to go in then with the WMD, look at afghan.


I'm sorry, but you're twisting the facts to fit your view.

Bush would have attacked Iraq straight away if he could, but he needed international acquiescence - at least tacitly - and that's why the WMD intel was pursued. And why it was hung onto so desperately. The fact that they didn't just attack Iraq immediately shows that on its own 9/11 was not sufficient.

Look at the link you yourself put up. Why were they formulating and fabricating the evidence that you showed if they could have just done it off the back of 9/11?


In no way would the WMD thing get us over there. If they did not have 911 to fall back while the WMD played it's self out then it would have been 10 fold worse for them.


I didn't say it would, on it's own. But that's not the same as it being unnecessary.



I can't tell you why they didn't fake something, maybe they couldn't get to the U. Maybe the Saudis didn't want to help them on that. Again I don't think they ever planned on finding anything. That was jut the excuse to keep the troops occupying while they were "looking"
I still stand with the idea they would of had to fake an entire factory. Like if the UN found your fake nuke that bob found, wouldn't they want to also see where that was created? Where was the uranium enriched? Again it is more then just a missile with a few extra parts


There are something like 70 missing ex-Soviet nuclear missiles. They are easy to purchase if you know the right people. And in your world the CIA are powerful and evil enough to do that easily.

I know you can't tell me why they didn't fake anything. That's the point. It doesn't make sense that an administration evil and capable enough to pull off 9/11 couldn't do the same thing in an anarchic half-empty country that they had absolute military control over.


Yes I do continue to say that they needed to find factories and that they wouldn't take a nuke and place it in another country that we were not positive even had the capability to create the bomb.


They didn't need to be able to create it. Just buy it. You need to grasp that the fact they were looking for factories doesn't negate that by the end they were looking for any evidence of WMDs they could get their hands on. Anything would have been better than nothing.

Also I'm not sure why they couldn't create a factory if they really needed to. As your evidence says, the factories were in many cases just mobile trucks. Why not make one of them? Or are they suddenly powerless once they've done all the amazing 9/11 fabrication?


That is no way is me saying that if they did find a legit nuke that they would not report it.... Have fun doing some more fake logical corollary up in your head


You said that a nuke was unsuitable, so presumably they wouldn't report it?


911 was the new pearl harbor used to fall back on anytime they need to invade a new country that is now harboring the AQ and OBL. The same can not be said for WMD, that is why one happened and one did not. WMD would just be a save of face, 911 has been the ace in hole when needed to get he US mass behind them for the past 10 years+ and will continue as long as we believe that all our US lied about was how incompetent they all are at doing their jobs.


You're half right. But then why didn't they attack Iraq immediately?

And you think face isn't important to them? Reputation and prestige were vital.


Those phone calls could not have been made from the air, it was impossible from that time to do so from a cell phone, I don't know how they did what they did, what I do know is that the tech that would have been able to make was not available in 01. It makes you the crazy one to believe that it did happen IMO, if the tech did exist how did it happen? Can you answer me that?
What cutting edge tech did those planes have in them that no other plane had?


Mainly the calls were made from airphones, which were not cutting edge. And actually cellphones could make limited connections for brief periods then.

Either that or they forced the passengers off the planes, convinced them to call loved ones and lie, and then made them all disappear. which do you think is really more likely? That you are wrong about the technology or that they did the latter, but then couldn't even come up with a fake WMD?






Because you let them off the hook for that part and then take their word for everything else they have to say.


You let them off the hook as well. So don't get angry at me - they are your countrymen, not mine.


The same guys covering up this murder and the criminal negligence, that you admit is happening, are the same people that are telling us what exactly happened that day.... They are the guys that collected all the evidence and deciding what the commission was able to and not able to look at.
So when the liars help the liars to do an investigation, i have a hard time believing much of what they say.


But no problem at all believing that they can rig buildings to explode, make fake phone calls, launch missiles, disappear people and planes, magically make people believe they see planes when they didn't, plant DNA, corrupt air crash investigators etc etc.

Your stance is like disbelieving that 2+2 equals four because George Bush tells you it is. He's obviously a slippery liar,but that doesn't mean he can or will lie about everything, or that in the absence of any other evidence you should think he is just because he lies about some things.


You are ok with being lied to and then are able to take other parts of what the liars have to say as truth, I can't logically do that so I guess that is the bridge we can not pass to see the other persons side.


Why do you keep saying I'm ok with being lied to? How have you done anything differently to me wrt to doing something about this?



Just keep believing what the liars that you know are lying to you have to say.


So now I believe someone that I know is lying to me? How does that work? Your logic is twisted again.

edit on 20-2-2014 by JuniorDisco because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 





Look at the link you yourself put up. Why were they formulating and fabricating the evidence that you showed if they could have just done it off the back of 9/11?

IDK why they tried this fiasco with WMD's... they never found anything so in the end we did go over there because of 911 right? When it came time to go over there after finding nothing 911 came back out and now iraq was harboring AQ as well as the weapons they can not find.
That is where I get the idea that they used 911 to get over there and then continued the WMD search to occupy longer and have less heat as to why we are in iraq in the first place.
thinkprogress.org...#
Sure after the war he back tracks and said sadaam really didn't have anything to do with it, but in the heat of things they went together like white on rice. I imagine you didn't get the same coverage we did here in the states so I think that is why you don;t see what I see, or saw. 911 and iraq were constantly linked and forced fed to us over the boob tube




I didn't say it would, on it's own. But that's not the same as it being unnecessary.


So it was the chief justification, your words, but would not have been enough by itself to go over there.... You walk very fine lies sir




There are something like 70 missing ex-Soviet nuclear missiles. They are easy to purchase if you know the right people. And in your world the CIA are powerful and evil enough to do that easily.

I know you can't tell me why they didn't fake anything. That's the point. It doesn't make sense that an administration evil and capable enough to pull off 9/11 couldn't do the same thing in an anarchic half-empty country that they had absolute military control over.


I am not sure you know how "easy" the accusation of an nuclear missile is... In my word the CIA used it's own toys. They didn't go borrow some one else's to do their dirty work.
if they faked WMD that would be isolated to Iraq, that would be the only gain out of it.
911 gave us a key to any ME country that we say was holding or helping AQ, that is why that event happened and the WMD did not. We did not NEED the WMD, we had 911 in the back pocket the whole time.
And it makes complete sense that if they are going to pull off an event to lead a country into a decade+ worth of war and invading any country that may have "helped" the terrorist along in the US where you have COMPLETE control, not just military control.
911 was the new pearl harbor, WMD would not have the same effect, that is why one happened and the other did not

It was not up to the US to find anything though, it was the UN. Now I am not going to be the one to go around and say how great the UN is but apparently they couldn't be bought at this particular time to fake the WMD, bout the only reasoning I can give you as yo why they didn't fake something.
To say that just because the didn't fake WMD means there is no way they hand their hand in the worst attack since, well you know since when by now, is highly illogical to me. They are no where near each other in what the aftermath of each event did/would bring.

911 will be used for the next decade easy
WMD would have been a one and done thing... see the difference?




You said that a nuke was unsuitable, so presumably they wouldn't report it?


I asked you to please link me as you have repeatedly taken my words out of context. If you are so sure I said that then it should not be hard for you to find




You're half right. But then why didn't they attack Iraq immediately?

We were busy in afgan, we had to wait for OBL to run over to iraq, duhhh




Mainly the calls were made from airphones, which were not cutting edge. And actually cellphones could make limited connections for brief periods then.

This came out after the fact, after it was almost proven calls could not be made for times that they stayed connected.
Air phones require operators to connect the call and all of that would be recorded. Who connected all those calls
And the famous lets roll call, it stayed connected for AFTER the plane crashed
www.consensus911.org...
Now the plane obliterated, what would be powering that phone?
They make no distinction in the reports if the calls were made from a cell or the air phone. The air phone idea came after the fact. So no, many of the calls were not done from the air phones




Either that or they forced the passengers off the planes, convinced them to call loved ones and lie, and then made them all disappear. which do you think is really more likely? That you are wrong about the technology or that they did the latter, but then couldn't even come up with a fake WMD?


I think they forced the passengers to make the calls from their cell phones from the ground and then either put them in WP or sent them to meet their maker. I am not wrong about the tech, cell phone calls could not stay connected, the signal can not be transferred at the speed the plane was going. IF they did connect the call would be dropped since the plane would now be going into a new zone and would not remain in the overlap of signals long enough for the signal to xfered. So the call would drop and they would have to call again.
So yes either there was a break through in how the cell signal works in relation to an object at 30k feet going 400 mph or the calls were made from the ground




You let them off the hook as well. So don't get angry at me - they are your countrymen, not mine.

Then why is there 5 pages of you defending them?




But no problem at all believing that they can rig buildings to explode, make fake phone calls, launch missiles, disappear people and planes, magically make people believe they see planes when they didn't, plant DNA, corrupt air crash investigators etc etc.


None what so ever, and people saw planes, i never said they didn't. Now if they were 77 and 93, that is a different story. Outside of us being told those were the planes, there isn't a whole lot of hard evidence to prove that.
The FBI did the air crash investigation, so ya the are either corrupt or in your eyes MASSIVELY incompetent.
Who said they had to plant dna? It wasn't the scientist that is testing that found it, he doesn't know where the FBI got it, they just gave it to him.
How many gov employees were in the seats of the respected flights?





Your stance is like disbelieving that 2+2 equals four because George Bush tells you it is. He's obviously a slippery liar,but that doesn't mean he can or will lie about everything, or that in the absence of any other evidence you should think he is just because he lies about some things.


If the FBI was teaching me math in the first grade then your analogy would make sense. Maybe try a different one next time.
Since when does 911 equate to simple 2+2 math?




Why do you keep saying I'm ok with being lied to? How have you done anything differently to me wrt to doing something about this?




So now I believe someone that I know is lying to me? How does that work? Your logic is twisted again.


You admit to a cover up but still take the OS for its word... That is being ok with being lied too, you are admitting they lied about parts of it but then you are able to say they didn't lie about other parts of it....I am sorry you don't see how that makes you ok with being lied to. And I am the one using twisted logic
Either there was a cover up which means the investigators are liars, and liars cannot be trusted, or there wasn't a cover up, which is it?



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Sremmos80

IDK why they tried this fiasco with WMD's... they never found anything so in the end we did go over there because of 911 right?


No, we went because they said they had intel that Saddam had WMDs. 9/11 provided the initial catalyst but the WMD story was created to allow us to invade. Which, once again, was why it took so long to pull the trigger.




That is where I get the idea that they used 911 to get over there and then continued the WMD search to occupy longer and have less heat as to why we are in iraq in the first place.


Your "idea' is absurd. Even evidence that you yourself introduced into this thread refutes it.


thinkprogress.org...#
Sure after the war he back tracks and said sadaam really didn't have anything to do with it, but in the heat of things they went together like white on rice. I imagine you didn't get the same coverage we did here in the states so I think that is why you don;t see what I see, or saw. 911 and iraq were constantly linked and forced fed to us over the boob tube


That was helpful to maintain popular support. But the WMD issue was what was required to actually get the invasion on.

If 9/11 was enough, why didn't they invade straight after it? You claim this was because they were "busy" in afghanistan, but that war continued after Iraq, so it can't have been that.





So it was the chief justification, your words, but would not have been enough by itself to go over there.... You walk very fine lies sir


I can't believe you can't don't understand the difference between a primary reason and a sole reason. A quarterback might be the primary reason a team win a game, but he wouldn't be much good on his own. Likewise 9/11 was insufficient on its own, which was why the WMD stuff was cooked up.

This is a matter of historical record. You may not like it, and it may not fit your world view, but it's stone cold fact.






I am not sure you know how "easy" the accusation of an nuclear missile is... In my word the CIA used it's own toys. They didn't go borrow some one else's to do their dirty work.


So the CIA can disappear planes, fire "their" missiles from navy ships and fill buildings with explosives, but they can't get their hands on a nuclear missile.

Ookay.



911 gave us a key to any ME country that we say was holding or helping AQ, that is why that event happened and the WMD did not. We did not NEED the WMD, we had 911 in the back pocket the whole time.
And it makes complete sense that if they are going to pull off an event to lead a country into a decade+ worth of war and invading any country that may have "helped" the terrorist along in the US where you have COMPLETE control, not just military control.
911 was the new pearl harbor, WMD would not have the same effect, that is why one happened and the other did not


You're hopelessly confused. 9/11 happened because terrorists attacked America. WMDs weren't found because there weren't any in Iraq.

Or, as you have it, an administration attacked its own people, fired missiles at its military HQ, disappeared planes and people, blew up the WTC, and then spent 18 months creating a story about WMDs but didn't even bother to plant any.

9/11 gave the US a shot at Iraq. Had t found WMDs its war, and its position in the region, would have been justified in the eyes of the world. As it is America can't even invade Libya or Syria any more because its power is woefully eroded, almost entirely because of the missing WMDs. You think that is a situation TPTB wanted to create?



To say that just because the didn't fake WMD means there is no way they hand their hand in the worst attack since, well you know since when by now, is highly illogical to me. They are no where near each other in what the aftermath of each event did/would bring.


So they wanted to be embarrassed and have their power in the ME, indeed in the world, radically curtailed? Why?


911 will be used for the next decade easy
WMD would have been a one and done thing... see the difference?


Not really.





I asked you to please link me as you have repeatedly taken my words out of context. If you are so sure I said that then it should not be hard for you to find


You didn't say it. But it's the logical conclusion of what you write. Something you seem to have trouble envisaging.





We were busy in afgan, we had to wait for OBL to run over to iraq, duhhh


So when the Iraq war started the Afghan war ended?




This came out after the fact, after it was almost proven calls could not be made for times that they stayed connected.
Air phones require operators to connect the call and all of that would be recorded. Who connected all those calls
And the famous lets roll call, it stayed connected for AFTER the plane crashed
www.consensus911.org...
Now the plane obliterated, what would be powering that phone?
They make no distinction in the reports if the calls were made from a cell or the air phone. The air phone idea came after the fact. So no, many of the calls were not done from the air phones


This is simple nonsense, retailed to you by conspiracy sites. Better research will disabuse you of many of these notions.





I think they forced the passengers to make the calls from their cell phones from the ground and then either put them in WP or sent them to meet their maker. I am not wrong about the tech, cell phone calls could not stay connected, the signal can not be transferred at the speed the plane was going. IF they did connect the call would be dropped since the plane would now be going into a new zone and would not remain in the overlap of signals long enough for the signal to xfered. So the call would drop and they would have to call again.
So yes either there was a break through in how the cell signal works in relation to an object at 30k feet going 400 mph or the calls were made from the ground


They convinced people to convincingly fake this? Non actors were somehow able to create the illusion of this? Why would they do it? How many people would be required to make that work? And then they killed them and planted their DNA (very quickly)?

If you believe that I have a bridge to sell you.





Then why is there 5 pages of you defending them?


There isn't.






If the FBI was teaching me math in the first grade then your analogy would make sense. Maybe try a different one next time.
Since when does 911 equate to simple 2+2 math?


I didn't say it did. I said that you are claiming that because someone lies about something they must be lying about everything. This is ridiculous.





You admit to a cover up but still take the OS for its word... That is being ok with being lied too, you are admitting they lied about parts of it but then you are able to say they didn't lie about other parts of it....I am sorry you don't see how that makes you ok with being lied to. And I am the one using twisted logic


Yes. I am saying they lied about some parts but not about others. Why do you find that hard to believe? And why does it mean I'm okay with it? That's even more ridiculous.

Even you presumably think they told the truth about some things. Do you think they invented the passengers perhaps, or that the Pentagon was never hit, or that the footage of Bush at the school is fake? Because by your logic they must be lying about all of that too.


Either there was a cover up which means the investigators are liars, and liars cannot be trusted, or there wasn't a cover up, which is it?



There was a cover up and they cannot be trusted. But that doesn't mean that you just get to make up your own story based on disbelieving theirs.



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 01:39 PM
link   
JuniorDisco




There was a cover up and they cannot be trusted. But that doesn't mean that you just get to make up your own story based on disbelieving theirs.





We can use their own scientific findings to disbelieve the official claims pushed...

NIST was the only entity bestowed by an Act of Congress to scientifically find out how and why three buildings fell on 9-11

Basically, with the help of over 200 professional volunteers from different organizations, the 2005 NIST scientific investigation did not find any reason why these three buildings failed on 9-11...

"No conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were sever enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure." NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, p. 235

no evidence the type of joining methods, materials, or welding procedures used was improper NIST 1-3 p.99

recovered bolts were stronger than typical. NIST 1-2 p.133

"no core column examined showed temp. above 250C" NIST 1-3 6.6.2

NCSTAR1-3 7.7.2 "because no steel was recovered from WTC7,it is not possable to make any statements about it's quality"


"NIST did not test for the residue from explosives or accelerants" wtc. nist. gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006. htm

and then add on top the findings of WTC7 which I have never had anyone touting the official claims whom could tell me how fire alone removes the required 105 vertical feet of structural support, 8 floors of truss assemblies with carrier beams, lateral, cross, and diagonal bracing, tens of thousands of bolts and welds, interior partitions, utilities, office contents and any other resistance, globally in WTC7, *BEFORE* 1.74 seconds, when we see the kink form, so acceleration EQUAL to Gravity can ensue, GLOBALLY and UNIFIED IMMEDIATELY following at 1.75 seconds to 4.0 seconds......

NCSTAR 1A 3.6] "This free fall drop continues for approximately 8 stories, the distance traveled between t=1.75s and t=4.0s...constant, downward acceleration during this time interval. This acceleration was *9.8m/s^2*, equivalent to the acceleration of gravity."

NICSTAR 1A 4.3.4] Global Collapse..."The entire building above the buckled column region moved downward in a single unit, as observed, completing the global collapse"

NCSTAR1A p.39/130
"the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7."


The NIST WTC7 Fig 3-15 shows the graph with the regression line yielding acceleration of 32.196ft/s^2. SEE the time interval between 1.75 and 4 is 2.25 sec. the interval where WTC7 does achieve a period of free-fall ACCELERATION.

what does SCIENCE say about the 2.3 second interval, "Indistinguishable from FREEFALL". that NONE of the gravitational energy is available to destroy the supporting structures, ALL converted to MOTION!

meaning, any bending, crushing, breaking of connections, REMOVAL of structural RESISTANCE, below the mass accelerating, is occurring WITHOUT the assistance of energy from the mass accelerating. Zero resistance.

now where else do we see those SAME numbers, 9.8m/s^2, as seen in the rate of acceleration seen is a 47 story steel frame????
open ANY science/physics text...."rate of acceleration seen by ALL mass REGARDLESS of weight toward the earth, at sea level, *~**WITHIN a VACUUM**` is 9.8m/s^2.

hmm.....somehow the SAME numbers we see under 'CONTROLLED conditions, WE SEE occurring globally and UNIFIED in a 47 story steel frame @ 1.75 SECONDS, when kink forms, to 4.0s of the collapse....2.5 seconds later, it's done....6.5 second building collapse from FIRE we can't really see from the windows.

NCSTAR1A-3.2]"It is likely that much of the burning took place beyond the views of the windows"


So, the bulk of the scientists go home and for three years, a 'select' NIST crew still lingers over WTC7....and SOMEHOW, 2008 NIST is allowed to ignore their own 2005 scientific investigation, and claim fire not only caused collapse, but did so as no other building has done before, stated by Shyam Sunder at NIST technical briefing
vimeo.com...

Shyam Sunder, all through the Q&A section of the video stating, ....."brand new event"..."new phenomenon"..."there has NEVER been a collapse like WTC7".

and the only supporting evidence they have are computer models which they refuse to release the data that tells the models what to do...WHY?...in my opinion...ONE, that will show them the fraud they are, and two, because they have a Presidential Executive Order stating they don't have to prove what ever they claim.

here is a copy of my refusal-to-prove letter...


NIST is withholding sixty-eight thousand, two hundred and forty-six (68,246) file. These records are currently exempt from disclosure under section (b)(3) of the FOlA., 5 .S.C § 552 (b)(3). Exemption (b)(3) permits an agency to withhold records in an agency's possession which are records that are "specifically exempted from disclosure by statute


'1. All input and results files of the ANSYS 16 story collapse initiation model with detailed connection models that were used to analyze the structural response to thermal loads, break element source code, ANSYS script files for the break element s, custom executable ANSYS file, and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities.


2. All input files with connection material properties and all results flies of the LS-DYNA 47-story global collapse model that were used to simulate sequential structural failures leading to collapse and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities."

so, ya see it for what it is......there is as select group in Gov. we must get OUT!

they can't do it....the people must do it.



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 





No, we went because they said they had intel that Saddam had WMDs. 9/11 provided the initial catalyst but the WMD story was created to allow us to invade. Which, once again, was why it took so long to pull the trigger.

WMD and the fact they were allowing the AQ and OBL,911!, to reside in Iraq. They used that in conjunction with the WMD, 911 to spearhead and wmd to occupy. We def went over there on the basis of AQ and OBL being there as well tho, again you could not listen to anything about Iraq with out the tie in of 911, you may have not seen, you say you are not american so you prob don't watch our media.
Bush used 911 to get into iraq, WMD could not stand on its own and get us in



f 9/11 was enough, why didn't they invade straight after it? You claim this was because they were "busy" in afghanistan, but that war continued after Iraq, so it can't have been that.

We are still in both places....
They did what they needed in afgahn. They had to "look" for OBL for so long and they wait for him to hop on over to iraq.
Once he was in iraq, guess where we went?




can't believe you can't don't understand the difference between a primary reason and a sole reason. A quarterback might be the primary reason a team win a game, but he wouldn't be much good on his own. Likewise 9/11 was insufficient on its own, which was why the WMD stuff was cooked up.

This is a matter of historical record. You may not like it, and it may not fit your world view, but it's stone cold fact.


So it is not a cheif justification anymore? Is it he primary or sole?
911 got us in, wmd kept us there




So the CIA can disappear planes, fire "their" missiles from navy ships and fill buildings with explosives, but they can't get their hands on a nuclear missile.
Ookay.

Ya all of those things are less then having an a random nuke that you can just frame somebody else with..?
Again those are all of their toys and their methods.
If you were to say we used one of america's nukes to do it then I would give the theory some merit.
That would be crazy since the UN would be able to trace where ever the nuke they used came from.
How do you prove that it was Iraq's nuke?



You're hopelessly confused. 9/11 happened because terrorists attacked America.

I am confused about that one? Did you mean to say terrorist attacked america on 9-11?



Or, as you have it, an administration attacked its own people, fired missiles at its military HQ, disappeared planes and people, blew up the WTC, and then spent 18 months creating a story about WMDs but didn't even bother to plant any.

Everything but the 18 months and not bothering to plant anything. This whole plant weapons in iraq is your thing. Everything else you got right. Oh and it would just be 1 missile, no need for the S



9/11 gave the US a shot at Iraq.

It gave us more then a shot, we went in there and took it. They got everything they wanted accomplished




So they wanted to be embarrassed and have their power in the ME, indeed in the world, radically curtailed? Why?

They got iraq and afganh, they got the oil and opium they wanted.
When the other countries provide a need for the US I am sure they will have no prob getting into them

911 will be used for the next decade easy
WMD would have been a one and done thing... see the difference?


Not really.

Good counter point lol.
You keep asking why they didn't fake wmd's, that is why. They did not need it, they had 911. They can continue to use that as a catalyst and then chaulk up some "good intel" on some bs reason, like wmd.
They did not NEED to fake them. The UN let us be there with no proof for a very long time, seems like they did not care either.



You didn't say it. But it's the logical conclusion of what you write. Something you seem to have trouble envisaging.

No what I have continued to say was that they could not just take a random nuke and pin it on Iraq.
Not that if they found a legit iraqie nuke that they would brush it under the rug, that is ludicrous and you made that assumption.



This is simple nonsense, retailed to you by conspiracy sites. Better research will disabuse you of many of these notions.

Well then you must have seen it and know exactly where to find it. This would have been a PERFECT time for a link to a source, do you know how to do that? There is tutorials in case you don't.
Show me proof the calls were made by cell phone or show me the records of the air phone agents connecting the call.
We were lied to about the calls and they avoid the topic completely in the commission. They do no say what the call was made from in all the reports, it just says a call and how long it was, not what made the call unlike the initial reports. It actually contradicts a lot of them




They convinced people to convincingly fake this? Non actors were somehow able to create the illusion of this? Why would they do it? How many people would be required to make that work? And then they killed them and planted their DNA (very quickly)?

If you believe that I have a bridge to sell you.

The people were under distress in the calls, how hard is that to recreate lol? Don't need to be an actor to sound scared if a gun is to your head. Example not a fact of how it happened. If the DNA was planted it was done before hand, again most passengers were gov officials, they have your DNA on file. Also DNA is not tested on site, it is tested in a lab. Could be collected from anywhere.



Yes. I am saying they lied about some parts but not about others. Why do you find that hard to believe? And why does it mean I'm okay with it? That's even more ridiculous.

Because if they lied about one thing what is stopping them from lying about the others? Why is that hard to believe?
You sound very ok with it... you think it is hard to believe I am not...




Even you presumably think they told the truth about some things. Do you think they invented the passengers perhaps, or that the Pentagon was never hit, or that the footage of Bush at the school is fake? Because by your logic they must be lying about all of that too.

Not sure on the passengers but I won't say there is just because the FBI tells me there was. I don't think the pentagon was hit by a plane, we have been over this.
And no the footage is not fake... What does that have to do with the investigation? Now if the only footage around was in the FBI vault, no I would not believe it.



There was a cover up and they cannot be trusted. But that doesn't mean that you just get to make up your own story based on disbelieving theirs.

But your trust that everything they say about the attack, even though all the "evidence" is top secret and we are forced to take their word for it... and you admit that lied and cannot be trusted... but I am the crazy one
ooooooookkkkkkaaayyy



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Sremmos80

WMD and the fact they were allowing the AQ and OBL,911!, to reside in Iraq. They used that in conjunction with the WMD, 911 to spearhead and wmd to occupy. We def went over there on the basis of AQ and OBL being there as well tho, again you could not listen to anything about Iraq with out the tie in of 911, you may have not seen, you say you are not american so you prob don't watch our media.
Bush used 911 to get into iraq, WMD could not stand on its own and get us in


Wait a minute, you think OBL was in Iraq?




We are still in both places....
They did what they needed in afgahn. They had to "look" for OBL for so long and they wait for him to hop on over to iraq.
Once he was in iraq, guess where we went?


Oh, you actually do think that. Wow.

Look, Osama bin Ladin never went to Iraq and that was never the reason given for invading there. the reasoning was that Saddam probably gave assistance to AQ (debatable) and that he had WMD (false). Your attempt to retro engineer WMD as insignificant are simply ahistorical. If indeed that's what you are trying to do, since you seem unable to admit that they were irrelevant.






So it is not a cheif justification anymore? Is it he primary or sole?
911 got us in, wmd kept us there


Chief means the same as primary. Which you mistook for "sole".

Once again, WMD were the chief reason for going to Iraq. Why do you think Colin Powell gave that talk to the world where he focused on Saddam's WMD as the main necessity for war? Why did all that intel come out before we invaded? Intel you posted in a previous answer.





Ya all of those things are less then having an a random nuke that you can just frame somebody else with..?
Again those are all of their toys and their methods.


The CIA owns the navy?


If you were to say we used one of america's nukes to do it then I would give the theory some merit.
That would be crazy since the UN would be able to trace where ever the nuke they used came from.
How do you prove that it was Iraq's nuke?


Okay. They could have used one of America's nukes. Or bought one of the black market ones.

Not sure why people powerful and evil enough to kill fellow citizens, launch missiles, fake passenger voices and blow up buildings can't go and buy a black-market nuclear bomb. What would stop them?




Everything but the 18 months and not bothering to plant anything. This whole plant weapons in iraq is your thing. Everything else you got right. Oh and it would just be 1 missile, no need for the S


I'm not saying they planted anything! I'm saying they didn't, but could have done easily, especially given the near-magical powers you say they have. My question is why they accepted huge humiliation and loss of global power when they could have faked some WMDs quite easily.

Your argument, such as it is, seems to be

- planting WMDs is hard
- they didn't care about the loss of face and power
- WMDs weren't the reason for going to Iraq anyway

Two of those are manifestly false and the third is very hard to believe.




They got iraq and afganh, they got the oil and opium they wanted.
When the other countries provide a need for the US I am sure they will have no prob getting into them


You obviously don't follow the news. The US's attempts at gunboat diplomacy with Iran have been heavily curtailed by the failings in Iraq. Boots on the ground in Syria and Libya were impossible. Egypt also. If you think the US enjoys operating from a position of weakness I'd ask you why. But I don't think you realy understand the situation anyway.



You keep asking why they didn't fake wmd's, that is why. They did not need it, they had 911. They can continue to use that as a catalyst and then chaulk up some "good intel" on some bs reason, like wmd.
They did not NEED to fake them. The UN let us be there with no proof for a very long time, seems like they did not care either.


That's completely insane. The UN didn't "let" the US into Iraq, the US went in explicitly without a UN mandate. So when the intel that they said allowed for that turned out to be rubbish the US looked administration looked like idiots.



No what I have continued to say was that they could not just take a random nuke and pin it on Iraq.
Not that if they found a legit iraqie nuke that they would brush it under the rug, that is ludicrous and you made that assumption.


You said that a nuclear missile would not have counted as a WMD. I'm just showing you how absurd that is.




Well then you must have seen it and know exactly where to find it. This would have been a PERFECT time for a link to a source, do you know how to do that? There is tutorials in case you don't.
Show me proof the calls were made by cell phone or show me the records of the air phone agents connecting the call.
We were lied to about the calls and they avoid the topic completely in the commission. They do no say what the call was made from in all the reports, it just says a call and how long it was, not what made the call unlike the initial reports. It actually contradicts a lot of them


Incorrect. The FBI documentation in the trial of KSM shows the call sources. The vast majority are from airphones and the vast majority of cellphone ones did not connect. From memory only two did.





The people were under distress in the calls, how hard is that to recreate lol? Don't need to be an actor to sound scared if a gun is to your head. Example not a fact of how it happened. If the DNA was planted it was done before hand, again most passengers were gov officials, they have your DNA on file. Also DNA is not tested on site, it is tested in a lab. Could be collected from anywhere.


Okay. If you think it likely that this genuinely happened then we'll have to agree to differ.




Because if they lied about one thing what is stopping them from lying about the others? Why is that hard to believe?
You sound very ok with it... you think it is hard to believe I am not...


I don't sound okay with it at all. I think it's a terrible scandal.

If they lied about one thing there is nothing stopping them lying about others, but it does not mean that because they lied about some things they definitely lied about others. It means the person is untrustworthy, but you still need evidence beyond "well they are liars" to show that there were bombs, a missile launch, coerced passengers, plane disposals. Otherwise as I say you must logically disbelieve literally everything they say. Which you do not.





Not sure on the passengers but I won't say there is just because the FBI tells me there was. I don't think the pentagon was hit by a plane, we have been over this.
And no the footage is not fake... What does that have to do with the investigation? Now if the only footage around was in the FBI vault, no I would not believe it.


You said that because they lied about some things they must have lied about everything. And yet you agree with their story where it suits you. This is logically inconsistent.




But your trust that everything they say about the attack, even though all the "evidence" is top secret and we are forced to take their word for it... and you admit that lied and cannot be trusted... but I am the crazy one
ooooooookkkkkkaaayyy


I don't trust everything they say, I'm not sure how often I have to repeat that. All the "evidence" isn't top secret. And what evidence there is agrees largely with what I'm saying. Which is why the world continues to act as though I'm right and you are wrong.



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 02:50 AM
link   
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 





I don't trust everything they say, I'm not sure how often I have to repeat that.


uhm....NO ONE DOES....but ya really wanna know what I think???....that yer full of crap!

probably the reason you chose NOT to respond to my post to you showing you the lying, manipulative 2008 NIST and the claims pushed. You are the "PRETENDER", sitting on the fence never quite going either way......here for the game.

look at the last reply you wrote.....SAME crap as the post before that......same irrelevant NONSENSE tasking the light off of something else....FACTS and SCIENCE..

OMG!!!.....we can't have ACTUAL FACTS and science enter the picture of 9-11......do we bunkie.


WMD's are NOT "The Anomalies".....Anomalies occur when the 2008 NIST IGNORES the 2005 NIST scientific investigation...or the MANY FDNY witnessing explosions NOT consistent with office firesn whom were ignored....or the "BRAND NEW NEVER BEFORE SEEN science phenomenon" claimed by 2008 NIST that trumps ACTUAL known taught science they do not have to prove, that is PUSHED as our official story.

but no, you focus on distraction. Ya know one other group that does this tactic? Shills do that ya know......They come here and DISTRACT and LIE and try to take the ones looking for answers, in some other direction. like taking the FOCUS off actual science and FACTS to render your pathetic version of 101 Arabian Nights...


so tell me bout the DAY of 9-11 and CONVINCE me with the official claims pushed.



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 03:38 AM
link   
reply to post by hgfbob
 


I'm responding to a specific point made (very poorly and inconsistently) by the above poster. I don't care about your second-hand, second -rate notions about "science" or "engineering". It's all been done to death elsewhere and your side lost. Time to start dealing with it.



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 03:58 AM
link   
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 





I'm responding to a specific point made (very poorly and inconsistently) by the above poster. I don't care about your second-hand, second -rate notions about "science" or "engineering". It's all been done to death elsewhere and your side lost. Time to start dealing with it.



lmao.....yes it is time huh bunkie!

you focus on what you do because THAT is ALL you have!





econd-hand, second -rate notions about "science" or "engineering"


well since YOU seem to RECOGNIZE something is wrong with what I post......go ahead and point out what this is so you can further mock me.....don't PATHETICALLY just throw a 'blanket' over it...have the balls to follow through!





I don't care about your


it's NOT MINE...I am the messenger....




It's all been done to death



lmao...again....the ole shill tactic of.."
I already did that".....or..."it's been done before"...or.."your too stupid to realize"....ANY of these sound familiar to ya???

you did speak one line of truth...."your side lost. Time to start dealing with it."



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 05:15 AM
link   
reply to post by hgfbob
 


Well, when are you going to start dealing with it?

At this point you have basically two choices. Get better, more persuasive arguments, or give up. Because almost nobody has bought what the "Truth Movement" has retailed for a dozen years, and as I say, the world continues to operate as though I'm right and you're wrong.

Which means that I don't have to do anything. The ball is firmly in your court.



posted on Feb, 28 2014 @ 03:28 AM
link   
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 





Well, when are you going to start dealing with it?


...I am...as we speak.





At this point you have basically two choices. Get better, more persuasive arguments, or give up.


uhm......it shut you up and stopped you in your tracks...seems to me I am not the one whom needs "better arguments"....I am not arguing...I am the messenger!




Because almost nobody has bought what the "Truth Movement" has retailed for a dozen years


wrong again bunkie..you mean no one buys what idiots like you, 'sell', as the 'truth' movement....I am not selling, truth is free.





and as I say, the world continues to operate as though I'm right and you're wrong.


oh, so what you are really saying here is YOU will continue to operate here regardless......ya know, there are people whom 'TROLL' forum sites 'DISRUPTING', lying, pushing FALSE claims.......are YOU one of these people???





Which means that I don't have to do anything. The ball is firmly in your court


besides PROVIDED the supporting EVIDENCE of the claims PUSHED as truth.....'truthers' do NOT have to prove there are false shilly one..YOU MUST prove they are true.

and the "WORLD" as you call it relies on the people WE PUT in charge will do the RIGHT THING!
That is why we PUT THEM THERE.....to do the JOB WE HIRED them to do.

what do you think is going to happen when the 'trusting' American Citizen realizes that, ALL ALONG, the Main Stream Median has been LAUGHING about the questions of 9-11 and relate them all to nothing more than sighting 'BigFoot. LocNess...UFO'S!...and HIDING the facts and PUSHING the LIES....as they are TOLD to do by 'you-know-who'.

....so, no peanut....the "ball" is in your court.......and there are NO strings in your racket.



posted on Feb, 28 2014 @ 06:58 AM
link   
reply to post by hgfbob
 


So what you're saying is that pretty soon everyone's going to come round to your way of thinking. Despite showing no signs of doing that in the last 12 years.

I think that's pretty unlikely. And, as I say, I don't need to do anything. The world largely accepts my opinion of 9/11 and operates as though it's true. Whether I'm right or not, it's you who needs to make efforts to change opinions, not me.

From the character of your posts I'd say you lack both the charisma and ability to do that.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join