Top OS contradictions that silence it's proponents

a reply to: Jchristopher5

To me personally

Anyone who shows up to debunk 9/11 inside job on ATS, i am no longer interested in anything they post on any subject

It is so obvious with building 7

You would have to be blind

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Jchristopher5

Sure, just as soon as you provide that Guardian retraction, on the story about several of

And then ask yourself how such a flimsy theory could be accepted by such a large group of people. Google "confirmation bias" for one possible explanation, but in the meantime the reality is the "still alive" stories have very little support, certainly not enough to be reported as definitive fact. In our view a "mistaken identity" explanation makes far more sense for most of these cases, once you look at all evidence involved.

From Here

not a Guardian retraction. But, I think you know that.

originally posted by: DanielJacksonKree
a reply to: Jchristopher5

To me personally

Anyone who shows up to debunk 9/11 inside job on ATS, i am no longer interested in anything they post on any subject

That's because your religious beliefs forbid you to gather facts from other websites than youtube and truther sites.

originally posted by: Ivar_Karlsen

originally posted by: DanielJacksonKree
a reply to: Jchristopher5

To me personally

Anyone who shows up to debunk 9/11 inside job on ATS, i am no longer interested in anything they post on any subject

That's because your religious beliefs forbid you to gather facts from other websites than youtube and truther sites.

Lol, another one of those cheap wimpy reactions. Is that all you've got to throw into the discussion?

The truth has nothing to do with religion... on the contrary.

I've been watching your ilk on here for years, and the more time goes by the more people are seeing through your repetitive silly grade-school tactics. Thats all the hand-full of you have got.

soulwaxer

originally posted by: DanielJacksonKree
a reply to: Jchristopher5

To me personally

Anyone who shows up to debunk 9/11 inside job on ATS, i am no longer interested in anything they post on any subject

It is so obvious with building 7

You would have to be blind

Agreed 100 percent.

a reply to: Jchristopher5

Well, still haven't actually seen the Guardian story you keep prattling on about. Link?

a reply to: DanielJacksonKree

To me personally

Anyone who shows up to debunk 9/11 inside job on ATS, i am no longer interested in anything they post on any subject

It is so obvious with building 7

You would have to be blind

Sounds like someone believes Youtube and for profit websites above facts.

Have you seen the tag line at the bottom of ae911 ?

We Exist Only with Your Support — Become a Member Today and be Proud of Taking a Stand.

So Richard Gage has a vested interest in continuing the conspiracy myth.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Jchristopher5

Well, still haven't actually seen the Guardian story you keep prattling on about. Link?

You mean the story you told everyone two days ago was "retracted", now you want me to provide you a link to the original story? If you knew a story was was retracted (which it wasn't), it seems like you could find it yourself. You are too much. How about admitting you lied with your statement?

But, as you request.

Guardian Story on some hijackers being alive

I know how this works now. You counter that it's bad reporting, and provide a link to MSM site that debunks it. Even though the MSM media reporting on 9/11 is based exclusively on the same government lies. The media is controlled by the CIA (don't even try to say it isn't, but I am sure you will) , and you fall in line with all of the official lies.

You are as predictable as the sun rising. And apparently just as incapable of seeing the truth about 9/11.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: DanielJacksonKree

To me personally

Anyone who shows up to debunk 9/11 inside job on ATS, i am no longer interested in anything they post on any subject

It is so obvious with building 7

You would have to be blind

Sounds like someone believes Youtube and for profit websites above facts.

Have you seen the tag line at the bottom of ae911 ?

We Exist Only with Your Support — Become a Member Today and be Proud of Taking a Stand.

So Richard Gage has a vested interest in continuing the conspiracy myth.

The sad fact is that the resistance is quite strong (as evidenced by the existence of hordes of people like you) and the government otherwise has deep pockets, and control of the MSM, to counter truth with lies, like you and others pump on this forum.

Money is needed to fight the cause. Getting any coverage, with a MSM blockade, is difficult and expensive.

There are few, if any, truthers getting rich from this cause. In fact, it's quite the opposite. It's career suicide to resist the official story.

Congrats on taking the easy path. But easy is not always right, and it's certainly not right in this case.

a reply to: Jchristopher5

You did not even read the article did you? Your site, is not "The Guardian" newspaper site. It is a compilation of conspiracy theories. AND, the article was directly from the BBC story that they corrected long ago.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Jchristopher5

You did not even read the article did you? Your site, is not "The Guardian" newspaper site. It is a compilation of conspiracy theories. AND, the article was directly from the BBC story that they corrected long ago.

So, all the other world's media lies, and only you have the truth?

I will admit my error in saying it was the Guardian. I was fooled by the web title.

However, the BBC pulling a story is not proof that it isn't true. It's proof that the CIA/M16 influence is very strong and overarching.

You win, okay? Just keep doing what your doing. You are doing a poor service to future generations on here with your treatment of the truth. As for me, I need a break for today.

originally posted by: samkent
So Richard Gage has a vested interest in continuing the conspiracy myth.

Have you ever met Richard Gage? I have. Went to one of his presentations 7 years ago in Brussels and also to a presentation by David Ray Griffin. These men have integrity you could only dream of. While you were busy selling your soul, they've been fighting for justice like there's no tomorrow. And if they succeed, you'll be begging for mercy.

soulwaxer

a reply to: Jchristopher5

Yes, you have been fooled. By many different "sources".

a reply to: soulwaxer

The most charming con men, are those who make you think they are dripping with integrity. Like Mr. Gage and Mr. Griffin.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: soulwaxer

The most charming con men, are those who make you think they are dripping with integrity. Like Mr. Gage and Mr. Griffin.

Lol...

I don't need to think about it. My soul connects with theirs and then I know. You should try it sometime.

soulwaxer

OP, its good to see you creating another topic of debate on this forum I only hope that you take the time to recognise the contribution of those who disagree with you rather than dismissing them as “ignorant”.

Like your previous thread on this subject I will take each of your points one by one and address them and demonstrate to you why they do not all point to some kind of 9/11 false flag.

1. The official story is a conspiracy theory. I have not been able to get them to admit it yet, they seem to ignore the question, as I have asked the directly several times. Is the official 9/11 story a conspiracy theory?

This all depends on how one defines “conspiracy theory”, there are loads of definitions out there and I am sure that some of those definitions would say that the official story is also a “conspiracy theory”. I personally think that calling it a “conspiracy fact” would be more accurate, there is a widespread historical and scientific consensus that 9/11 was perpetrated by 19 hijackers belonging to a group called “Al-Qa’ida” and there was no direct involvement of any western governments or intelligence agencies. Now with in that “conspiracy fact” there is much room for debate, I personally deviate from the official story quite drastically in several respects, principally in that I believe there is a strong bases on which to argue that the Saudi Government had a hand in the attacks.
I do not think it can be called a “conspiracy theory”, it’s a significant historical event, that actually happened and will for ever be the subject of the imagination of “conspiracy theories” but the difference between a conspiracy theory and a historical fact is quite obviously a area of ambiguity.

If it helps facilitate a more fluid debate then you can call it a “conspiracy theory” and I will not argue too much with you on that because it does not take any real credibility away from the official story.

2. The members of the 9/11 committee were highly critical of the official story. They called it a "under funded", "a cover up", "a national scandal", "only the first draft in history", "politically motivated", and they said they were lied to.

Very true but that does not mean that there is some nefarious false flag behind the attacks, much of their complaints were regarding the removal of the 28 pages, poor information being given over by the intelligence services and the report itself does not go into enough depth on a number of issues. Yet this does not prove a conspiracy, its just how thing on Washington work, no member of the intelligence services is going to say something that might land them and their alphabet agency in trouble. I also think that the authors of the report should have had more legal powers and the report should have went into much more depth on the intelligence failures. I would however point out that there are several books on the subject that explore these failings in more depth.

Yet, OS'ers cling to the story like its gospel, when its own authors ridicule it. Very strange.

Guess what?

I am not a OSer and as you can probably gather from above I do not regard the report as “gospel”. In fact I am a truther, I am an individual who seeks out the truth of 9/11, I have no allegiance to either the conspiracy theories or the official narrative my only allegiance in this debate is to the truth. I have invested years in studying this topic and it just so happens that my interpretation of all the facts I have at my disposal leads me to believe there was no false flag.

3. Significant eyewitness testimony, including that of multiple explosions was left out of the official report. See item 2 above.

Hearing explosives is not the same as saying explosives were used, besides there was no evidence of any explosives having being used uncovered.

This point is mute.

5. The FBI said in 2006 they had no evidence against Bin Laden. Very strange, since the OS'ers like to point to the "confession tape" which was 180 degrees off from what Bin Laden said right after 9/11.

There is a reason for that, if you read the commission report and the FBI indictments you would see that it was KSM who was the mastermind of the attacks. Bin Laden is mentioned server times in his indictment and was also himself wanted for the embassy bombings in the ‘90’s.

You will notice I skipped point 4, that requires a longer post to explain and this one is already very long.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

You can fool some people sometimes.
But you can't fool all the people all the time.

soulwaxer

originally posted by: soulwaxer
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

You can fool some people sometimes.
But you can't fool all the people all the time.

soulwaxer

And you can't seem to provide a articulate rebuttal of my post.

every time....

a reply to: Jchristopher5

and the government otherwise has deep pockets, and control of the MSM, to counter truth with lies, like you and others pump on this forum.

So far no one has explained how the US government has hushed the media in other countries.

Just how has the US quieted the Iranian government and their media?
Is Bush and Obama all buddy buddy with Ahmadinejad ?

It's one thing to think the US can quash 911 on US soil.
But it's not believable to think they quash everyone on the entire planet.

Don't forget the part in your "conspiracy theory" about a plane flown into the Pentagon, the building that represents the most powerful military force on Earth, unchallenged by said most powerful military force on Earth...

It just seems strange to me, how everything played out, and how all the Trillions of tax dollars we throw at the Military were unable to be put to their proper use that day, the defense of our country. I would like an explanation of that.

peace,
AB

1. The official story is a conspiracy theory. I have not been able to get them to admit it yet, they seem to ignore the question, as I have asked the directly several times. Is the official 9/11 story a conspiracy theory?

There is no way they can say it's not, as by definition it is a conspiracy theory. A conspiracy theory, which they like to chide anyone who considers one, is simply a nefarious and secretive plan by two or more individuals.

So, the official story is a conspiracy theory. Further, it is also, IMHO, a wacky conspiracy theory. Nineteen middle eastern hijackers overpower passengers and crew, fly unmolested for long periods of time without so much as one fighter intercept, and crash into and knock over three buildings. That is wacky, again IMHO. In any case, it is by anyone's honest definition a conspiracy theory.