911 facts even Alex Jones doesn't discuss...

Originally posted by mepatriot Prove me wrong...

We have... several times. When it happens, you grow angry and claim we don't believe in conspiracies, just because we dislike your errors.

Originally posted by mepatriot


MANY, MANY witnesses/survivors describe hearing bombs going off well before the collapses. My mention of John O'Neill and the Dick E. story on Alan Greenspan is admittedly just an attempt to understand (possibly) the motive for those bombs.


I can not accept that CNN leased only 200SF based on two sites (at least on of which was a government-controlled, or at least "affected/influenced" whatever weaker word you want to use) that were created after 911....not with the way I've seen evidence shift/disappera on my multiple other 9/11/ related links.
vehemently protest to get this thread ever to stick.

we're back on the CNN and thier space in the towers now ? I thought you conceded that one... if they had more space, show it to us, we've asked, begged and pleaded with you for this.

I don't think there were bombs going off... explosions maybe, but planned / planted bombs, I don't think so. These were two very large buildings full of all sorts of cleaning chemicals / equipment, anything and everything could have been causing these explosions... if they're really were any.

Who's to say that the person interviewed isn't lying ? He's on tv, getting attention and maybe just maybe he ebellished his story a little... it could happen.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by mepatriot
Prove me wrong...

We have... several times.
When it happens, you grow angry and claim we don't believe in conspiracies, just because we dislike your errors.

got to agree with SkepticOverlord on that one sorry. Your theories are interesting but lack evidence

everytime someone disagrees with you and or actually does have something they can show you that goes against what you are saying, you change the subject or tell them that you'll just not talk to them anymore...

I'm sorry, but the Mods are right on this one.


I'm still asking for information too, just to let you know.

Looking forward to Monday !

Originally posted by mepatriot
Wow...I'm really getting worried about this website if that's the best a mod can do...

Done talking to you pal, unless I see a change of heart/understanding later.

So rather than possibly consider that there could have been secondary explosions in the building (which could be described as sounding like "bombs") caused by any other means, you would rather attack me personally and let your "logical" thinking just direct you to believing there were planted munition charges?

Further than that, when a discussion takes place...you wish me to follow your points to the letter while you concede none, and state "unless I see a change of heart/understanding". So once again, I need to believe blindly in order to:
1) be taken off your mod check-list
2) or before you'll discuss with me further

You are quite handy with your rude attutude of dismissal.

MANY, MANY witnesses/survivors describe hearing bombs going off well before the collapses.

well i have no idea where you got that from. I don't recall that ever being said. No witnesses/survivors describe hearing bombs going off at all,but feel free to prove me wrong

For a broad range of reasons, I think this thread is floundering in several directions, and accomplishing nothing but angst on several levels in several ways. In the interest of continued discussion and community continuity, I think it might be best to close this thread, and encourage the creation of new threads, one for each specific new topic brought forth in this thread. (not repeats of the original, now debunked topics) MP has indicated he'll be scanning documents, and when he does, I'll provide him an easy means to upload and store them. But the continued back-and-forth on perhaps seven or eight distinct topics is causing this thread to grow at a pace where it's nearly impossible to follow unless you're constantly online. This would discourage potential new participants from jumping in. So unless there's a massive uproar from everyone (I'll give it a few minutes), I'll close this thread, and urge those involved (mainly MP) to initiate new threads in the War on Terrorism forum, one for each of the distinct topics.

when i think of this thread, this comes to mind

1.) You will not post any material that is knowingly false, misleading, or inaccurate.

what do you think SO?

Originally posted by infinite what do you think SO?

Well, on occasion, we take into account immaturity, stupidity, laziness, or honest accidents. In this case, take your pick.

Originally posted by mepatriot
As for my theories on 9/11...did I ever say...HEY I'VE GOT ALL THE ANSWERS, YOU MUST BELIEVE ME OR YOU ARE STUPID?? I'm sorry if that's how I come off, but it is/has not been my intention. My intention is to get some information to this board that people might not have thought seriously about before. I'll let the interest in this thread be a piece of evidence that I may, perhaps, have accomplished that to a degree.

Dang, meatpatriot.
I do believe you did say you had all the answers! In fact, did you not say at the beginning of this here 17-page missive that you have all sorts of information that the plebes of ATS just have no idea about?
And I do believe you have insinuated more than once that the fine members and moderators who make ATS such a divine place are indeed stupid for not believing what you say. Do you recall saying "checked off" to many? This certainly isn't a very polite thing to do.
It pains me to see someone bring all this hellfire & brimstone down on themselves when they obviously ain't got two licks of sense about things.
Let me help you with some of those research techniques there sweetheart, okay?

1) Generally, one doesn't want to try to link their Juno email inbox as a source of information. That's just in poor taste, as we obviously cannot look at the information you are trying to impart!
2) NEVER wear white after Labor Day.
3) Have irrefutable proof at hand when trying to convince others of an unpopular and otherwise disproven opinion.
4) Ensure you have the proper tools at hand to prove your point with the evidence you have collected. Doing otherwise is, like many other things, in poor form.
5) Learn to use the research tools you have readily available to you. They're not difficult to figure out. Even a backwoods belle like myself can do it!

You'll do fine, my dear meatpatriot. All you need to do is educate yourself before trying to educate everyone else.

Ta-ta,
Tater

I have an Idea... How about everyone quit posting in this thread and maybe, just maybe it will go BYE BYE
This has to be the thread from HELL

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Well, on occasion, we take into account immaturity, stupidity, laziness, or honest accidents.

In this case, take your pick.

Can i pick all of them expect "honest accidents" pretty please *puppy eyes*

I vote to close it and wait until Monday.

I doubt I will have to, but I will be the first one to apologize if Mega can back up his claims.



.

Originally posted by Facefirst
I vote to close it and wait until Monday.

I doubt I will have to, but I will be the first one to apologize if Mega can back up his claims.

.

i think this should close, this topic has split into many.

Originally posted by Kano
Are you going to provide facts and statistics to back that up or just leave it as your opinion?

At the same time this guys was posting this, he was sending me a 'one line post' warning, and took 50 points.
I seem to be noticing a trend here....let me jot down some notes and i will get right back to you.

Okay, no uproar. Thread Closed As new topics appear in the War on Terrorism forum, I'll update this final post in this thread with pointers to the new, singular-topic threads