The Lie Movement?

Originally posted by Griff
*SNIP*

This seems worthy of a warning.
Sorry Griff, you're always concise and cordial but this guy seems to have gotten you off your game.



[edit: removed previously edited comment from quoted content]

[edit on 13-10-2007 by 12m8keall2c]

reply to post by johnlear


Hey, John.


I'll take it back because it is a little extreme and harshly defined. But I will however replace it with "highly unlikely, unfounded, and absolute speculation" in all fairness. That's headway for me to say the least.

Show me the money, John and I'll be right by your side.

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
"highly unlikely, unfounded, and absolute speculation".

Um, kind of sounds like the official story.

[edit on 12-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
"highly unlikely, unfounded, and absolute speculation".

Um, kind of sounds like the official story.

[edit on 12-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Ultima, what kind of adjectives do you think characterize the "truthers" stories?

coudn't have
would't have
should have
looked like
seemed like
never
can't
won't
always
??

How do "official story believers" explain away the streams of molten metal pouring out the sides of the towers? Thats something I havent read about yet. Or the fact that signature traces of thermite (science ) were present in the wreckage of the towers?
I missed that.

[edit on 13-10-2007 by Unplugged]

Originally posted by darkbluesky
Ultima, what kind of adjectives do you think characterize the "truthers" stories?

coudn't have
would't have
should have
looked like
seemed like
never
can't
won't
always
??

Well for me i am trying to find out what happened that day, and i believe most of the so called truthers want that too.

So i guess i will have to go with "should have" because we should have more information then what we were told.

John,

Found some more information for you on Directed Energy Weapons.
www.ndu.edu...





[edit on 13-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Last time. I'm not disputing that there may be "another story." A majority of us see that it's actually pretty likely. But thanks for establishing your agreement through knit-picking again. 3rd time and counting.

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
Last time. I'm not disputing that there may be "another story." A majority of us see that it's actually pretty likely. But thanks for establishing your agreement through knit-picking again. 3rd time and counting.

Well if a majority of you seem to think their might be "another story", then why all the names and insults directed at people trying to find the truth?

reply to post by ULTIMA1





I don't know if this is directed at me. I'm not hurling personal insults at anybody. If anything I'm pointing out how you're agreeing while being argumentative and it's quite confusing. I had withdrawn "lunacy" and replaced it with more defined words that describe the "hologram" theory.

reply to post by darkbluesky


You could be right. I shouldn't let people get to me. I could make excuses and say it's been a bad week and we had to put down my dog wed, but that's no excuse.

Back to the topic.

I could sit here and pick and choose lies by the government. That's no excuse for people in the truth movement to lie to achieve their goal either. I myself try not to lie. It makes it too hard to keep track. Instead of having to remember one thing, you have to remember two. The truth and the lie.





[edit on 10/13/2007 by Griff]

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
. I had withdrawn "lunacy" and replaced it with more defined words that describe the "hologram" theory.

But why use "lunacy" in the first pace? If as you state a majority of people believe their may be another story?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
I was posting some guidelines for a healthy way to conduct yourselves if you're looking to introduce people to your "movement."

I have no movement, i am simply looking for what actually happened that day.

I'll second this. I'm not part of any "movement". I really haven't seen many people on here who are. I did go to a 9/11 meeting here in DC once with Dr. Woods and Dr. Fetzer but I couldn't stay long enough to hear them speak (had to get home to read ATS :lol. But I'm really not part of anything other than trying to figure out what happened. I don't even hold to any theory (well a few thoughts here and there) but I'm pretty much a fence sitter on most of it. Except for the towers of course.

reply to post by Griff



Wow. Did I ever screw up the quoting in that post. Most of that were not my words I believe.

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues

Hey, John.


I'll take it back because it is a little extreme and harshly defined. But I will however replace it with "highly unlikely, unfounded, and absolute speculation" in all fairness. That's headway for me to say the least.

Show me the money, John and I'll be right by your side.

Thank you DFB, you are an honorable man. I'll be gone all day but tonight or tomorrow I will attempt to show you what led me to my "highly unlikely, unfounded and absolute speculation". I won't be able to show you the "money" however. It'll just be a promissory note.

Thanks for meeting me halfway.

John,

Did you see this,

www.ndu.edu...

I know everybody else and their grandma says this but it's WTC 7. That building alone makes me feel like there's more to it than we're led to believe.

Alien technology. Secret weapons. Holograpic Images... I don't know about all that.


But there's definitely something.

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
I know everybody else and their grandma says this but it's WTC 7. That building alone makes me feel like there's more to it than we're led to believe.

Well i believe with the statement from fire chief Hayden about they were worried about the building collapsing on its own and causing more damage and spreading more fires.

Along with fire cheif Nigro's contridiction of Silverstiens statement that "PULL IT" refered to the firemen adds up to the builidng being demo'd.

this thread just shows how well disonformation works.

People are arguing about the melting point of steel to this day. There are good cases for both. However, for the towers to collpse perpendicular to the ground (im not saying @ freefall speed and im not saying into its own footprint, im saying down and not at an angle) there would have to be as little resistance from the underlying floors as there would be in the open air surrounding the towers. There is no evidence nor reason to believe the bottom 80 floors of the building failed. Yet people debate the melting point, and the weakening point of steel feverishly. Did the fires melt the steel on floor 53? then why did it collapse? why did floor 52 not provide resistance?

It doesent have anything to do with steel or at what temperature it melts.

Most of what you hear about 911 is lies or disinformation. remember there are hundreds of theories and only one happened. Why do you think there are @ least 3 'official' (and somehow contradiciting) stories?

reply to post by jprophet420


The OP brought up melting steel so many replied to that.I agree that the fire thing gets stretched and you have good points about other floors.What about floor 22 or 35 etc?
I'm also tiring of the quest for truth being labeled as a movement.I do research on my own and don't belong to a "group".I do like to come here and debate with others and read intelligent opposing views, or views that differ in varying degrees.
You are correct when you say there is only one truth but finding it is almost impossible.
The problem with this event is that it was not dealt with in an appropriate manner by the U.S. government.THIS is why there are the conspiracies.

Plane huggers,no planers,thermate,DEW's,missiles,cell phones etc.Everyone has an area they like to cover so slack should be cut.One person in one area just might find something one day.To dismiss efforts until PROVEN true or false is not in the spirit of seeking the truth.
Just my two coppers.

reply to post by johnlear


John, since it was my posts to you and about you that got me temporarily post banned, I would like to apologize. Please forgive me if I have offended you.

Now, back on topic.

I have never claimed that any of your no plane beliefs are lies. They are your opinions.

That said, I would like you to clarify what you stated about the Shanksville crash site.

It was my understanding that you stated that there were no body parts or plane parts found at Shanksville. If this is your opinion, could you tell me what evidence would be required for you to change your opinion on this?

Or is this simply a religion to you? I.e., your beliefs are based on faith and there is no evidence that can change your beliefs?