What would prove to you that 9/11 was not a conspiracy?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Thats funny, you are one of the biggest casues of misinformation on these forums.

casues?

If casues means "person who corrects lies spread by truthers"...then you are correct.

Originally posted by Disclosed
I was asking about why you dont have a website dedicated to bringing your views to the public.

But you continued it here.

Just because you violated the rules at those forums, and in the most recent banning, called the forum moderators stupid, doesnt make them biased.

[edit on 24-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by Disclosed
If casues means "person who corrects lies spread by truthers"...then you are correct.

No, it means you spread more lies then any "truther" ever could.

reply to post by Disclosed


The main reason I'm here is to just correct any blatent mis-information that may confuse some newcomers to these types of threads.

What mis-information?
I thought this was a debate forum about WHAT WOULD PROVE TO YOU THAT 911 WAS NOT A CONSPIRACY?
The only thing would proved to me its not a Conspiracy is for the Goverment to come clean. and WE THE PEOPLE know that will never happened and you know why
Because they LIED to us all about everything.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
No, it means you spread more lies then any "truther" ever could.

If posting facts and information from the NIST, 911commission reports, FEMA reports, and quotes from professionals (pilots, fireman, etc) is spreading lies...then i'm guilty as charged.

Example: When a professional pilot on another forum posted photographs from inside his cockpit, showing no "emergency button" on the transponder on the exact model of aircraft used in the 9/11 attacks. You continues to call him a liar, even though he had photographic evidence, plus a link to the actual transponder information from the flight manual of those aircraft.

How much more proof do you need? It is so much easier to just post the truth, than to scramble to remember what lies have been posted.

Originally posted by Disclosed
If posting facts and information from the NIST, 911commission reports, FEMA reports, .

But some of the facts and information from those sources has been debunked.

And talking about emergency buttons i have proven many times that people do call the button on the transponder an emergency button. And i did not call him a liar, stop twisting words it only makse you look bad.

Do you want me to prove it again so others on here can see?




[edit on 24-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
And talking about emergency buttons i have proven many times that people do call the button on the transponder an emergency button. And i did not call him a liar, stop twisting words it only makse you look bad.

Do you want me to prove it again so others on here can see?

Let me contact the pilot that posted all his information proving you wrong. I'll let him post all his pictures, facts, etc.

Originally posted by Disclosed
Let me contact the pilot that posted all his information proving you wrong. I'll let him post all his pictures, facts, etc.

Go for it, i will post the evidnece again that proves people do call the buttons on the transponders that changes the code an emergencty button.

I can also show pictures of emergency buttons on other transponders, thats why people refer to them as emergecy buttons.


[edit on 24-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

I can also show pictures of emergency buttons on other transponders, thats why people refer to them as emergecy buttons.

on aircraft not used in 9/11?

Why post those pictures?

That would be like us discussing indy racing cars, and you posting pictures of dragsters. Those other planes werent involved in 9/11....so you could call their transponders "pickles"....it wouldnt matter.

Why not show us the "emergency buttons" on the planes used in the 9/11 attacks?

Originally posted by Disclosed
Why post those pictures?

To prove my point that people call buttons on transponders (even those used on 9/11) emergency buttons becasue there are transponders that have emergency buttons.

Is that too hard to understand ?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
To prove my point that people call buttons on transponders (even those used on 9/11) emergency buttons becasue there are transponders that have emergency buttons.

Is that too hard to understand ?

It is hard to understand, since the transponsers on the aircraft used on 9/11 didnt have buttons. A proven fact, confirmed by current professional pilots who fly the exact same model of planes used in the 9/11 attacks.

I'll post pictures of trombones too. Even though the aircraft didnt have trombones, that apparently doesnt matter to you. Maybe post pictures of kittens, and quilting patterns. They all make as much sense as posting pics of things not used in the 9/11 planes.

Originally posted by Disclosed
It is hard to understand, since the transponsers on the aircraft used on 9/11 didnt have buttons.

Actually yes they have buttons to change the code on the transponder, which people do call emergency buttons.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Actually yes they have buttons to change the code on the transponder, which people do call emergency buttons.

those people, of course, are not professional pilots, or anyone in the airlines business. From the whole discussion on another forum on this issue, apparently the only people that called them "emergency buttons" were truthers.

Originally posted by cashlink
There are 100s of web sites all over the internet about 911. If you dont beleive in any of the Conspiracy theorys, then you should show how they are all false!

That part is easy. Which one do you want to start with?


The "official" reports may be incomplete or contain errors (as I stated earlier, the will never be a report that could possibly cover everything or 100% correct until we invent a time machine), but it's nothing compared to the alternate theories put forth.
So, which theory do you want to start with?

Originally posted by Disclosed
those people, of course, are not professional pilots, or anyone in the airlines business.

Wrong yet again. How many quotes do i have to show you before you can admit something. I guess i will let people on here decide.


propagandamatrix.com...

Their transponder blips on the radar screen. If there's an emergency, then they hit the emergency button. I find it hard to believe that all 4 flights didn't hit the emergency button for the transponder to notify ATC.

I'll decide right now that your argument, Ultima1 and Disclose, belongs in it's own thread or between U2U's because it's off-topic and frankly...BORING. Let all of us be spared the REST of your discussion.


Take it elsewhere.


Anything relating to your current go will be hit with Off-topic warnings.



Do we all understand?

Thank you.

Cuhail

reply to post by ThatsJustWeird

So, which theory do you want to start with?


The conspiracy theory I personally find most curious is the one that postulates that 19 Arab hijackers, who didn't know what they were going to do until the morning they boarded the planes on Sept. 11, managed to totally defeat StratCom with commercial airliners, directed by an "ex" CIA asset in an Afghan cave with a cell phone and a laptop, and to fly 3 of them into the Pentagon and the Twin Towers, causing the complete destruction of both the latter, along with another 47 story skyscraper not even hit.

With all the trimmings, please--you know, dancing Israelis, put options, FBI impeding its own field officers, ISI payments, $2.4 trillion on Sept. 10, "No one ever imagined hijackers would fly planes into buildings," molten steel, pulverized concrete, FEMA on Sept. 10, near freefall speed, invading Iraq as the topic of the first NSA meeting in the Bush WH... the works.

Any site that manages to lay out certain proof of all that I'd be fascinated to see.

[edit on 24-3-2008 by gottago]

Originally posted by Cuhail

I'll decide right now that your argument, Ultima1 and Disclose, belongs in it's own thread or between U2U's because it's off-topic and frankly...BORING. Let all of us be spared the REST of your discussion.

Sure no problem. i do not know why Disclosed brought it up to begin with.

Originally posted by Dmantex
What would it take to prove it to you?

If the government were transparent enough to prove that it's non-complicity was remotely credible

Originally posted by gottago
The conspiracy theory I personally find most curious is the one that postulates that 19 Arab hijackers, who didn't know what they were going to do until the morning they boarded the planes on Sept. 11, managed to totally defeat StratCom with commercial airliners, directed by an "ex" CIA asset in an Afghan cave with a cell phone and a laptop, and to fly 3 of them into the Pentagon and the Twin Towers, causing the complete destruction of both the latter, along with another 47 story skyscraper not even hit.

I think that's what people call the "official" story, but...whatever.

1. The hijackers. Seeing as this was at least 6+ years in some sort of planning stage, I seriously doubt the hijackers didn't know what they were doing. As some began taking flight classes in the mid '90s I'm pretty sure they knew what they were getting themselves into. And note, they were in the U.S. by that time. Do you think they were here on vacation? While some may not have been on watchlists, they were being monitored (by different countries as well - why is that?). Unlike now though, I guess then they didn't just take people off the street and send them off to Gitmo.
It wasn't until after the embassy bombings that the NSA and CIA began to get a bit more serious. They bugged some phones and were able to monitor some of the people who had connections with the hijackers (though at the time, besides maybe Atta and a couple others, I don't think the connections were that clear). They (the intel. agencies) actually did a pretty good job during that time, stopping a couple bombings and a hijacking. They found about the USS Cole too, but it was too late.
Shared information between the agencies however was for the most part limited. With other countries as well. We knew stuff, they knew stuff. Had everyone been working together, some of the pieces of the puzzle probably could have been put in place to see what was up. There were also territorial battles that took place between the FBI and CIA (FBI deals with homeland, CIA with international and as these people traversed both, arguments erupted on who should be doing what and again, lack of info shared.) And the Saudis... they gave some of the visas to get into the U.S. then (claims) they warn us a couple have been put on their watchlist...wtf. But, the Saudis are our "friends," otherwise, we should be there like we're in Afghanistan.
Anyway, so these people have been attending flight schools (here and abroad) since the '90s so, again, they weren't unaware of what was going to happen. Bin al-Shibh, who was supposed to be one of the hijackers, but was denied access to the U.S., claims they met in '99 to discuss the attack. The Malaysian summit though is when real details began to be hashed out it's believed. CIA screwed up again with the summit. Had a real opportunity to take them out (but again, politics were different then) and then lost track of a couple after.

I gotta run in a bit so more later...
Including the links and stuff. Many of this comes from various news sources (here and abroad) and even the 9/11 commission report (detailing some of the intel communities screw ups. I thought the report was supposed to be bias trash, according to some here?)

Noticed I haven't mentioned Bin Laden?




...brb...