Top OS contradictions that silence it's proponents

a reply to: Jchristopher5

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.

there you go,

Black and white.

How is it proof of what you claim?

Could you explain that in a manner where it shows how even either the 2 agencies are involved without any speculating on how and what they might have done in the past?

What if it was pulled because it wasn't true the hijackers were still alive but because people identities were stolen?

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

I have the best reply written by another poster, hold on it was written by yourself, let me quote

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

and then this to top it of

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.

BRAVO,

This is comedy central.

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: Jchristopher5

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.

there you go,

Black and white.

How is it proof of what you claim?

Could you explain that in a manner where it shows how even either the 2 agencies are involved without any speculating on how and what they might have done in the past?

What if it was pulled because it wasn't true the hijackers were still alive but because people identities were stolen?

I will restate. Along with our knowledge of Operation Mockingbird, I believe it is evidence (not proof) of manipulation by those organizations. If you study history this is a solid claim and theory. It is, however, not proof. Merely another piece of evidence to add to the mountain of evidence regarding government manipulation of the MSM.

a reply to: Jchristopher5

I am quite tired of you calling me a liar, and I am calling you out on it.

So stop lying or repeating known lies.

Why not address the other points, rather than Cherry pick? Do you have answers for the rest?

why not stop this line of reasoning every time someone chooses to expose one thing you post that is untrue or changed to fit some truther agenda?

Research like the good researcher you say you are about the way way more than 2.3 trillion that is unaccountable in Pentagon spending over the few years before and stop parroting things you read and simply believe.

Then if you want you can speculate and ramble about why its unaccountable and what the money might have been spent on.

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: Jchristopher5

I am quite tired of you calling me a liar, and I am calling you out on it.

So stop lying or repeating known lies.

Why not address the other points, rather than Cherry pick? Do you have answers for the rest?

why not stop this line of reasoning every time someone chooses to expose one thing you post that is untrue or changed to fit some truther agenda?

Research like the good researcher you say you are about the way way more than 2.3 trillion that is unaccountable in Pentagon spending over the few years before and stop parroting things you read and simply believe.

Then if you want you can speculate and ramble about why its unaccountable and what the money might have been spent on.

Thank you again for your unsolicited opinion. This post was not to you. It was to Bruce.

I could care less what you think of me or my research skills. I don't think much of you butting into a conversation with someone else, it was intended for him. I will try to respond to your pertinent comments, as I have done above.

a reply to: Jchristopher5

This post was not to you. It was to Bruce.

I could care less what you think of me or my research skills. I don't think much of you butting into a conversation with someone else, it was intended for him.

that is what the PM function is for if you want something to be directed at one poster and not have any others respond when you post in a public forum.

I don't know you so I have no opinion of who or what you are, I just have your words on a screen to go of which leads to my opinion or belief that you have not researched like you claimed to have, that is all. If you need to post that you don't care then you certainly do as you are taking in what is said and replying to things unsaid.

Thank you again for your unsolicited opinion.

evidenced opinion by what you post, delete and or edit.

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
I think you are just ignorant and just want to fight over the net and not something worse where you get training and have a similar tactics in posting on the net (whatever you were implying there), Look at what people post and research into more things than you claim to have.

You have a passion for 9/11 truth but I believe you have only glanced at a few youtube videos and sites and have your mind made up because it all sound too right, sorry but that is a joke. Why because its what happened to most when they first watch anything that want to expose the truth to them. Its real easy to manipulate a person mind with images, videos and a good soundtrack to suite the mood of what its pushing.

If its clear as crystal like another said why is there debate and why haven't you and the crystal clear poster exposed what is crystal clear?

You are welcome to your opinion about my intelligence. You are also welcome to your opinion about the nature of my research. But, I really don't care.

Everyone needs to STOP discussing each other.

Address the Topic and dispense with the Sniping.

A REMINDER:

All Members: 9/11 Conspiracies Forum Update and Informationl

(3) Your Account Will Be Terminated for Any Infraction:

You will receive an immediate account termination for all T&C infractions other than large quotes and off-topic posts. Unless, of course, in the opinion of our staff, your repeated off-topic (or large quotes) are an attempt at disrupting the forum.

Example: calling any ATS member a shill will result in an account termination.

Perhaps this already came up because I haven't read all 19 pages here. I want to say this before I forget though I'd like to actually hear that whole report instead of reading it because if you remove a comma then you have him confirming that there was "nothing like that around which would indicate the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon..." Add a comma after the word around though like you did and it would be possible to interpret the meaning your way. However, everything else you said just repeats everything we know. He saw small pieces of plane, none of them had any identifiable markings, etc. There is no way I read that, even with the comma, that "clearly told me a plane crashed into the side of the pentagon." Nothing definitive.
a reply to: cardinalfan0596

Yet we're supposed to use our Today glasses to accept that bin laden was named as a suspect virtually immediately. It's pretty obvious with our Today glasses and all the warnings and intelligence and surveillance reports that these guys were planning something so of course in the wee hours they had their man. However, with 9/11 as it was happening glasses in all the confusion this seems unlikely only for the very reason you mentioned. No one apparently could imagine ANYONE planning this kind of attack and there was zero preparation, yet they somehow knew that if someone were to pull this off, we know just the guy.... That seems to be a contradiction. a reply to: samkent

They also essentially say that the intention of the report was never to point individual fingers and only give an overview of the events, and they also say it is in no way meant to be the final word on the events. This is all in the introduction which I assume you read. a reply to: cardinalfan0596

TextAs for Hani Hanjour, he held a commercial pilot rating from the FAA. That means he successfully completed over a thousand hours of flight time. Part of his problem was language, which he didn't need. The other part was landing, which he didn't care about.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I agree that the simulation is shaky and appears as though there is some inexperience at the helm. That partially agrees with the official story but also kind of counters one of the biggest arguments. As you said, he had an FAA issued licence. Shouldn't he be better at flying? He needed language, and a solid grasp of English, to pass that exam. Even if he had ok enough English I'm sure the FAA cares about landing when issuing commercial piloting licenses. To me if you wanted to use all this information (which I'll not say is fact)the alleged lack of language and lack of landing ability, and the apparent shakiness of the pilot during the flight 77 simulation, leads me to believe that someone helped him get a licence he didn't earn in order to facilitate his mission or set him up. Is that what I believe? Not necessarily, but the information does sort of support this.

a reply to: TheBolt

His license was suspended at one point due to failing to show up for a required physical. Which means he didn't fly for awhile. Like anything else the less you use it, the worse you are at it when you do use it again.

Excellent bit of information. Thanks. Info have one question. Do you know when his licence was originally issued? I used to know but forget. Thanks. a reply to: Zaphod58

a reply to: TheBolt

He got his Private in 1997 and Commercial in 1999. He couldn't train for multiengine aircraft because of his language issues. Then in early 2001 he started the 737 simulator training.

Thanks again. Throwing something out there even if just to eliminate it. A patient reasonable answer with supportive facts is rare on here and greatly appreciated. a reply to: Zaphod58

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: peacefulpete
How about the engine they found in NYC that was from the wrong plane?

care to show a source for that silly claim?

because we all know there was a TINY BIT of debris found on 9-11.

tiny bit? why lie, when fuselage parts, engines, wheels, seats, undercarriage etc were found at the Pentagon

But the problem is that the tiny bit of wreckage, is inconsistent with real plane crashes, as the world knows them. They leave tons of debris, not tiny pieces.

tonnes were found at the Pentagon....

For example, the hole in PA was an empty hole AFAIK. Nothing was dug up, it was a hole.

you really do not know much about 9/11, do you! have you even looked?
/nofgkrp

Man what are you going on about. Yes the engine in NYC was the wrong engine. No I don't care to look up sources for the "silly claim" as the world already knows the truth of it.

I don't lie, there was almost no wreckage at all 4 sites of 9-11. The world knows this.

And yeah I know about 9-11. I've been looking into it for 14 years.

Do I want to look for sources of what the whole Earth already knows? Not really. I'm here to discuss topics with real people who are likewise interested. I'm not here to look up sources for phony debates with phony site members. Y'all know that everything I said is true, and the whole world knows it too.

originally posted by: peacefulpete
Man what are you going on about. Yes the engine in NYC was the wrong engine.

What engine found in NYC? You really do not make much sense, and provide no csources for your claims.

I don't lie, there was almost no wreckage at all 4 sites of 9-11.

Still a lie....

And yeah I know about 9-11. I've been looking into it for 14 years.

Actually, from your posts here you do not know much about it at all!