I KNEW this was going to happen, sooner or later!!!

reply to post by traditionaldrummer

I see the “tag team” is getting desperate. The real conspiracy is the OS, it is chuck full of proven lies, why do you support it?

Conversely, none of the proposed conspiracy theories regarding 911 are backed by any facts or evidence. Why support them?

Twisting my words does not get to the truth, but any casual ATS reader can see what you are doing.
The OS has no facts, or evidence to support itself, and we all know that is a fact.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

I see the “tag team” is getting desperate. The real conspiracy is the OS, it is chuck full of proven lies, why do you support it?

Mostly, becuase all the conspiracy theorists who say it's chuck full of proven lies are themselves chuck full of proven lies.

Dave, face it. Below is evidence proving the 911 Commission Report was chuck full of lies. That’s not my opinion that is a fact. If you want to call Kean and Farmer liars, that’s up to you but remember Thomas Kean was the head of the 911 commission and John Farmer was the Senior Counsel. Whichever way you look at it, you are wrong and need to stop spreading your disinformation.

[color=gold]The 9/11 Commission Rejects own Report as Based on Government Lies
(CINCINNATI, Ohio) - In John Farmer’s book: “[color=gold]The Ground Truth: The Story Behind America’s Defense on 9/11″, the author builds the inescapably convincing case that the official version... [color=gold]is almost entirely untrue...
The 9/11 Commission now tells us that the official version of 9/11 was based on [color=gold]false testimony and documents and is almost entirely untrue. The details of this massive cover-up are carefully outlined in a book by John Farmer, who was the Senior Counsel for the 9/11 Commission.

Farmer states...“[color=gold]at some level of the government, at some point in time…[color=gold]there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened... [color=gold]I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The [Norad air defense] tapes [color=gold]told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years. This is not spin.”

The 9/11 Commission head, Thomas Kean, was the Republican governor of New Jersey. He had the following to say... “We to this day don’t know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us, [color=gold]it was just so far from the truth. . . " When Bush's own handpicked commission failed to go along with the cover up and requested a criminal investigation, [color=gold]why was nothing done?

www.salem-news.com...

Who is the liar Dave?

[edit on 26-5-2010 by impressme]

reply to post by impressme


Have you read John Farmer's book? I'm guessing not.

He doesn't agree with you on any significant point. He would, I'm certain, consider your opinions worthless and your science junk.

It's plainly obvious that there was a monumental bureaucratic and intelligence failure in the run up to 9/11. But to suggest that this endorses your crackpot theories about the USAF, or the Pentagon no plane, or anything really, is fanciful nonsense.

This isn't an opinion, btw. It's plain fact.

Originally posted by seethelight


This thread has Truthers justifying it.

How many times do you need to be asked to supply the post where a truther justified before you at least try?

Originally posted by impressme

Twisting my words does not get to the truth

Neither does a unilateral declaration that what we know happened on 911 is "lies" and has "no facts".

Still though, one has to ask that if the gov't allegedly pulled off the greatest conspiracy at all time why they totally fumbled in front of the 911 commission. I noticed you hve avoided addressing this incongruency a few times now.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer

Neither does a unilateral declaration that what we know happened on 911 is "lies" and has "no facts".

Kind of like the ATS bunkers that run rampant through here saying the same thing over an over.

Now 911 defied physics, defied chemistry, defied the most elaborate defence system in the entireworld. Managing to reduce the United states to a pile of jello in terms of ability to deal with issues in this country.

Now you want me to believe all that bull$%%& was mastermind in a cave, the attacks, planes intitated from a cave, from a man who was sicker than can be, with kidney faliure.
And like you have declared Tradiontionaldrummer all your basis and foundation violate some form of standard, Physics, Chemistry, Engineering, all that otherwise has never failed, except on 911.

Were is those facts again? How do you sideline the fundamentals of natural world workings for your theory and call it sound?

Now what about your unilateral declaration that always is reemed towards the community, you say you have all the answers already.

Wow I'd sure like a post of your to present some basis for your position instead the normal rhetoric of ad hominem argument that is literally all the post I see from the 911 debunkers.

So old post saying the other side is wrong, Yet never a source to a fact, always just wild speculation.

reply to post by theability


No.

Now 911 defied physics, defied chemistry, defied the most elaborate defence system in the entireworld.]

No fundamentals of physics were 'broken'.

No fundamentals of chemistry were 'broken'.

And, the "most elaborate defence system"? That is pretty weak attempt at "proving" anything.

What you have, there, is a compilation of the same nonsense from the vast majority of the "9/11 inside jobby-job" whacko websites that infest the Internet.

They are laughably devoid of most basic logic and reason skills, and rampant with misunderstandings, misconception, wild theories based on wildly inaccurate guesses and misinformation...really, it is stunning in its ineptitude.


Just about any Tom, Dick or Harry with a computer will put up a YouTube video, or a website, and say just about anything they want to....because there's almost ALWAYS some other paranoid addle-brained acolyte willing to go for the most outrageous "theory" --- just BECAUSE they are already prone to the 'conspiracy' mindset in the first place.

Insanity rules, in a minority of "9/11 Truth" believers and advocates. Other, sane but misguided individuals get swept along, without fully contemplating the ridiculousness of many of the "scenarios" that are put forward.


This same pattern is common in just about every 'conspiracy theory' that ever existed....because only a very, very small portion of those initial "theories" ever pan out to be actually true....

[edit on 27 May 2010 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by impressme
Who is the liar Dave?

-SNIP-

Farmer in no way supports your "cruise missile hit the Pentagon" stories, nor does he support your "faked crash site at shanksville" stories, and he most certainly does NOT support your "controlled demolitions in the WTC" stories. All he's saying is that the gov't sevrely misrepresented its defense capabilities during 9/11 and you're dishonestly cherry picking his words and tacking your own "it's all a secret plot" stories onto his claims to give your conspriacy stories false credibility. Either that, or you're mindlessly cutting and pasting some sexy sounding rubbish you found on some damned fool conspriacy web site, which means you're lyign AGAIN when you deny you ever do such things.

Thank you for posting this, Impressme, becuase you just proved everythign I've been saying since day one-

a) the gov't is conducting a coverup campaign to conceal just how badly they were slipping on banana peels and stumbling into walls on 9/11

b) These damned fool conspiray web sites are deliberately manipulating everythign they touch and perverting it into appearing the way they want it to appear, all to get people all paranoid over shadows.

c) The conspiracy people are NOT basing their opinions upon any serious review of the facts, but rather upon their own abject paranoia and antiestablishment outlook on life, and will grasp at any straw however ridiculous sounding that will help them keep their beloved conspiracy stories alive.

Please bear in mind I'm not here to insult you, or to attack you. I'm here to expose the outright disingenuous behavior of the conspiracy movement. You're simply the victim in their con and you've invested so much emotional attachment into these conspiracy stories that you're not yet willing to admit you're being conned. I have no illusions that this post is going to convince you to abandon them, either.

Mod Edit - Civility And Decorum Are Required on AboveTopSecret.com


[edit on Thu, 27 May 2010 14:52:44 -0500 by MemoryShock]

Originally posted by theability
Now 911 defied physics

Oh. It did?

I suppose you have an explanation as to how some conspiracy allowed for the impossile task of defying physics?

The fact is that if you believe that the laws of physics were violated by any event that day, not only do you not understand the laws of physics, but you've been hornswaggled into basing an argument on something that is not possible anywhere in the known universe. I'm sorry, sir. You've defeated yourself in your opening statement.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


Now after looking throught your posting history, Have you ever cited a reference or source on ATS yet to date?

Well after looking HERE

I sure cannot finmd you using source ever about 911. NEVER!

So, try not the slight of hand to evade the question again, why don't you offer somethings about your story of 911 that includes something factualy.

Instead of your half-wit attempt of making illogical assumptions the the people must beleive the OS blindly crud.

Serious a troll is someone who always says they are right, when never offering a shread of proof in support of their view.

Now before you say I don't state or cite references. Go visit my posting history, I quote cite and reference material; all the time.

Here is my Posting history just so we are clear about that: theability Posts

Now again, besides the disregard for having to support yourside, where is your side? Your words, or do you actually have something to say besides the script I see from you every day?

I'll wait for those sources that support what you say, but again, I consider you a troll nothing more.

Originally posted by theability
Now again, besides the disregard for having to support yourside, where is your side?

Oh, sorry. I was talking about your mistaken claim that the laws of physics were broken. Then you made a lengthy post about sources.

I think we should focus on how you were fooled into believing that the laws of physics were broken on 911. Seriously, because once you eliminate that from your argument base you will end up appearing far less foolish than you do at the moment.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Hello WW.

Now let me make short quote and lets go from then ok?

And, the "most elaborate defence system"? That is pretty weak attempt at "proving" anything.

Wel both know that the AirDense system in the USA is wonderful things to have. It supplies us with an ability to defend against unknown air born threats, plus monitor the thousands of flights in our airspace at any given time.

As I belive we agree, we need that system to make sure planes don't fall out of the sky, which can cause death and destruction. And these people to a great job at making sure they skies are safe.

No on 911 what the heck happened? 14 terror drills that day had our defense system so rattles they couldn't tell which way was up. I am sorry but I personally cannot see how the Hijackers had anything to do with the terror drill that day. The ones that destroyed our trillion dollard air defense net, into a pile of inability to respond.

Right? I am sure we would agree that the hijackers didn't authorize the drills, so again, someone else had the hand in a cookie jar.

Your a pilot WW know you rely on that system every time you enter the cockpit unit the plane is secured on the other end of the flight and the plane is secured and the system powered down.

How many resposes does this system provide fail safed, never missing a beat over an over, time and again, with out fail?
hundreds a year? Then again, on 911, no body had a clue what was going on.

But today right you still trust that system and fly. And how many time since 911 have they had the system work perfectly again without fail?


My point being, a system that has be so overwhelmingly accurate failed on one day, never to fail again?

SABATOGE is the only answer.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer

Oh, sorry. I was talking about your mistaken claim that the laws of physics were broken. Then you made a lengthy post about sources.

I think we should focus on how you were fooled into believing that the laws of physics were broken on 911. Seriously, because once you eliminate that from your argument base you will end up appearing far less foolish than you do at the moment.

No you are using misdirection like I have learned from you posting history that you do, never have you actually addressed something wish substantiated material, its always some form of redirect trying to use logical arguments to "sound intelligent" they by avoiding the fact you haven't used science or fact in any subject on ATS.

Again a TROLL! Nothing more.



[edit on 27-5-2010 by theability]

Originally posted by impressme
truth, but any casual ATS reader can see what you are doing.
The OS has no facts, or evidence to support itself, and we all know that is a fact.

Evidence the OS has to support itself:

experts saying the WTC towers were not demolished:

John E. Fernandez
Assistant professor of archiecture building tech program MIT

Eduardo Kausel
Professor of civil & environmental engineering MIT

Tomasz Wierzbicki
professor of applied mechanics MIT

Liang Xue
Ph.D. Candidate of Ocean Engineering MIT

Meg Hendry-Brogan
Undergraduate stuid of ocean engineering MIT

Ahmed Ghoniem
professor of mechanical engineering MIT

Oral Buyukozturk
Professor of civil & environmental engineering MIT

franz-josef ulm, esther and harold edgerton
associate professor of civil & environmental engineering MIT

Yossi sheffi
Professor of civil & environmental engineering MIT

SOURCE: web.mit.edu...

Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California

David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers

Van Romero, an explosives expert and vice president of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology

Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University:
Won-Young Kim, senior research scientist
Arthur Lerner-Lam, associate director
Mary Tobin, senior science writer

source www.popularmechanics.com...

Thomas Eagar, an engineering professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology

source www.scientificamerican.com...

Tim Wilkinson, Lecturer in Civil Engineering

source
sydney.edu.au...

Civil engineer S. Shyam Sunder

source:
www.pbs.org...

Christoph Hoffmann, a professor of computer science and director of Purdue's Rosen Center for Advanced Computing
Mete Sozen, Purdue's Kettlehut Distinguished Professor of Structural Engineering
civil engineering assistant professor Ayhan Irfanoglu
civil engineering assistant professor Santiago Puiol
civil engineering doctoral student Oscar Ardila
civil engineering doctoral student Ingo Brachmann

SOURCE:
www.purdue.edu...

Brent blanchard Senior editor for implosionworld.com and director of field operations at protec documentation services

Protec employees:
earl garder
gary mcgeever
michael golden
john golden

Source: www.implosionworld.com...


ramon gilsanz Structural Engineer
Willa Ng civil engineer

SOURCE:
www.structuremag.org...

Dr Keith Seffen a Cambridge University engineer

SOURCE:
news.bbc.co.uk...

McCormick Institute Professor and Walter P. Murphy Professor of Civil Engineering and Materials Science.

mathieu verdure from ecole polytechnique

SOURCE:
www.civil.northwestern.edu...

Gene corley Vice president construction technology laboratories
ronald strum senior petrographer
charles thornton engineer
paul mlakar concrete tech division US corps of engineers

SOURCE:
terrorisminfo.mipt.org...

Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl professor of Structural Egineering University of California

graduate student Qiuhong Zhao
Undergrad student Mark thomas

SOURCE:
www.nistreview.org...


Dan Daley (spelling may be incorrect) the retired fire chief from the fire station closest to the twin towers. He was there on 9/11 when the towers collapsed.

Glen korban assitant fire chief and assistant professor of fire science and technical editor of fire engineering magazine.

SOURCE:

www.youtube.com...


[edit on 27-5-2010 by iamcpc]

[edit on 27-5-2010 by iamcpc]

Originally posted by theability
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

Oh, sorry. I was talking about your mistaken claim that the laws of physics were broken. Then you made a lengthy post about sources.

I think we should focus on how you were fooled into believing that the laws of physics were broken on 911. Seriously, because once you eliminate that from your argument base you will end up appearing far less foolish than you do at the moment.

No you are using misdirection like I have learned from you posting history that you do, never have you actually addressed something wish substantiated material, its always some form of redirect trying to use logical arguments to "sound intelligent" they by avoiding the fact you haven't used science or fact in any subject on ATS.

Again a TROLL! Nothing more.



[edit on 27-5-2010 by theability]

There's some projection for you. Sorry, but you abruptly switching the topic from my point onto my posting habits is misdirection. I have consistently maintained the topic I brought up.

Again, the laws of physics were not broken on 911 because, quite frankly, they cannot be broken. Also, there's nothing that could be involved with conspiracy theory which could possibly violate the laws of physics.

So you see, your argument is inherently and immediately flawed. Discuss.



[edit on 27-5-2010 by traditionaldrummer]

reply to post by traditionaldrummer

There's some projection for you. Sorry, but you abruptly switching the topic from my point onto my posting habits is misdirection. I have consistently maintained the topic I brought up.

I am addressing you and you inability to offcer sources for your questions or your stance.

You like the other debunkers never answer questions, ignoring them and like nothing happend only to move on like nothing happened.

Show me some substance to your argument please I have looked through all your posts in your profile and can't seem to find ONE!

Now redirect all you want. You still haven't said a thing on ATS yet.

Keep writing those scripts!

OK here I will give you a chance again, give me some support in references to the claims your say are substantiated about 911.

Another offer to provide your side....

I'll wait again, but not holding my breath.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer



Here you go, I have numerous threads in which you can go read and learn about my stance regarding 911.

MY Profile. If you wish to see my stance, be logicial and read!

I have read your profle and pages, and all of your posts.

Really to find what I support is only on mouse click away!

Now again, waiting for some substance regarding your stance.

This isn't hard.

Originally posted by theability
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

Here you go, I have numerous threads in which you can go read and learn about my stance regarding 911.

MY Profile. If you wish to see my stance, be logicial and read!

I have read your profle and pages, and all of your posts.

Really to find what I support is only on mouse click away!

Now again, waiting for some substance regarding your stance.

This isn't hard.

So, what about this claim of yours that the laws of physics were broken on 911?

We really should discuss that, because of course, the laws of physics are never broken. The fact that someone managed to convince you of this should alarm you, wouldn't you think?

If we conclude that the laws of physics were broken on 911, this implies one of two things:

1. The government has a Laws Of Physics Breaking Machine.

2. This is a seriously bad argument because it's impossible.

Repeat as necessary until you choose #2.



[edit on 27-5-2010 by traditionaldrummer]

reply to post by theability


You have a vital misunderstanding re: NORAD, its focus pree-9/11 and its capabilities. Also, forgetting the human factor as well....early confusion.

It supplies us with an ability to defend against unknown air born threats, plus monitor the thousands of flights in our airspace at any given time.

No, not really. The "monitor thousands of flights" within the national boundaries...not pre-9/11, not in the way you imagine.

As I belive we agree, we need that system to make sure planes don't fall out of the sky...

No, not agree at all. That is not NORAD's responsibility -- mostly falls on pilots' shoulders, that.

Now, this is straight out of "9/11 conspiracy" imaginationland:

14 terror drills that day had our defense system so rattles they couldn't tell which way was up.

It is an urban myth, perpetuated by those same hysterical "9/11 conspiracy" websites...that NORAD would 'instantly' respond to every lost comm situation involving civilian flights within our boundaries. Even when the airplanes were seen turning 'off' the transponders, and deviating from assigned routes and altitudes, there was a time element to get that information through channels...and the ATC personnel didn't jump the gun, they didn't immediately 'alert' the military. They were confused, an trying to figure it out.

Listen to the ATC tapes...read the personal accounts.

Your a pilot WW know you rely on that system every time you enter the cockpit unit the plane is secured on the other end of the flight and the plane is secured and the system powered down.

I have no idea what you're tolking about, in that sentence. What 'system'? NORAD? It just isn't set up, nor does it work, in the way you seem to think.

My point being, a system that has be so overwhelmingly accurate failed on one day, never to fail again?

Again, you say 'system'...so you must be referring to the air defense system.

Remember, the primary focus was outside the borders. Post-Cold War too...not much was considered a threat, in terms of hostile warplanes or bombers approaching!! The ADIZs on the coasts are monitored, mostly for illicit flights, drug trafficker inderdiction, and so on.

Even during the Cold War focus, and more perceived threat, was from MISSILES. Which would be spotted on launch, by satellite networks.

I think the "conspiracy movement" is blowing a great deal of smoke and hoo-hah by continuing to beat the drum on this dead issue.