It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

A Simple Question for 9/11 Truth Seekers.

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on May, 6 2015 @ 09:10 AM

originally posted by: Urantia1111

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

simply....because no one will touch it. No judge in the western world. And you know it...

I do know that there have been legal cases taken against the Saudi state for their alleged involvement.

no there haven't been any. Feel free to show me. There have been I said...Judge threw it out. Same as would be with any such case.

Indeed, but OP is hoping that merely asking the question will make the Official Story believable. Its his "thing". Pay no mind.

Yes and your thing seems to be avoiding my questions.

I am not looking for a "Truther Vs OSer" debate.

I am just looking for some civil discussion, and again I do not fully believe the official story.

posted on May, 6 2015 @ 09:11 AM

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

In order to make a case out of this...a "group" would need to be able to look at evidence...which we know is mostly destroyed. Tapes withheld under "national security" excuse. Able Danger data destroyed. So how can you build a case that would stand up in court ? All we "truthers" have are holes in the "official" story....and admittedly..many assumptions.

Well then again you could argue that there is a case to be answered for the destruction of evidence push through the courts to have all classified information released, even if part of the trial has to be heard behind locked doors. Then you continue to build from their.

but whenever someone tried to obtain evidence..."national security" card comes up. How they justified destruction of Able Danger data...I can't recall...and whether someone can prosecute for that...I'm unsure.

posted on May, 6 2015 @ 09:12 AM
While personally i do not believe most of the "inside job" thing, i would like to see something like that happen because when you accuse such a huge number or people you are bound to find SOME dirt.
especially when it comes to politicians none of them is clean in an absolute sense.
But here is why it won't work.
9/11 has been turned into some kind of almost holy event, when you question it, people accuse you of what seems to be a cardinal sin in america: anti american.
it's kinda like when you say "i do not support the troops, i support people on an individual basis" all the other person hears is you hate america and are an enemy.

So finding legal representation that would be ok with that label is basically impossible.

Then there is the issue that building a consistent and airtight narrative of what happened is impossible since ever single persons "knows what happened", meaning if you put those resources together the same people that gathered the info would fight over what is credible and what is not. you might think some people are to blame, i might think other people are to blame and so forth.

Last but not least, say that the truthers are right, and that the evidence collected is long before all the possible dirt ever is dug up to make those people look like buffoons?

You really can't win, i mean you could try, but let's face it, we only care about truth and justice in abstract terms, but we are too comfy in our houses to get our hands dirty.

posted on May, 6 2015 @ 09:17 AM
We are facing the exact same dilemma in the UK with the child abuse by authority figures.
Now I'll explain it really simply for you(though in reality it's far more complicated and involved).
There is "them" and "us". They are the authorities. To get ANY justice it has to be done through the authorities.
Try to get your congressman to do something. They are them.
Try to get the judiciary to do something. They are them.
Get ANYONE in power to do something. They are them.
The "them" are not going to do anything about it because it's like asking a mass murderer to give himself up, convict himself and execute himself. Not going to happen.
Apart from an actual rebellion this will never, ever see the light of day in a court of law.
You KNOW and I KNOW all of the above to be true so really your post is just a paper exercise.

posted on May, 6 2015 @ 09:23 AM
It's because Americans are largely not concerned with justice. They're concerned with being right, and sometimes justice means being proved wrong. Truthers can say "it would just get dismissed," but I haven't even heard of a single attempt. So it would seem they're more afraid of being proved wrong than pursuing justice.

posted on May, 6 2015 @ 09:24 AM
Of course the players of the day had nothing to gain from 9/11 and those nasty Arabs, after some brief training, were expertly able to guide those planes into the Twin Towers. The plane that hit the Pentagon, was in fact, so expertly piloted that even the best pilots in the World would struggle to replicate the manoeuvres.

Then we need to look at the removal of freedoms in the Western World, particularly the U.S. Sure we are free to travel, but the intrusive manner in which people are now treated, in the name of war on terror, speaks volumes in my opinion.

This isn't the first time this question has been asked, and time has done all it can to prevent a full investigation, due to most of the evidence being destroyed.

I used to be passionate about this particular subject, but the Truther movement, along with claims of no planes etc, has done all it can to destroy much of its credence.

So no, no one will challenge the findings of the investigation through the courts, what's the point when really all it can ever now be is supposition?

posted on May, 6 2015 @ 09:27 AM
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

What physical evidence ties a person to a crime?
If there were hijackers who really took over planes.. They would be the suspects, and anyone who helped them plan or execute any part of this. But what would actually prove you personally took over a plane?

I wonder if people think about this? You got camera video of the cockpit? You have fingerprints on the stick??? What actual physical evidence ties someone to the actual control of a plane?

You seehow I would do this is the Sauds would get their terrorism plot all in a row, with help from in the FBI.. The FBI is good at setting up patsies.. So obviously these guys would not know of the other over arching plot.. And if they didn't gain control of the planes, or if they never even tried to.. You still just grab the controls of the plane through the air..

The reason the Saudi connection is being withheld isn't so much that it proves the Sauds are the main culprit as it shows that the Sauds came into dealings with the US, and part of the deal is that they don't get blamed for their small part.. They obviously share many similar goals to the US in the middle East.. Israel and the Sauds also share common enemies..

Back to the actual hijacking..
How can you tell who was flying a plane? What evidence could you gather now that would show this? Like lets say they call me a terrorist. You will know I was a terrorist because I leave my passport next to my koran, and my laptop with google searches on bomb making... (in real life I am no terrorist).. But you would know I was because they told you this.. And then so obviously...

Then I was the one flying the plane.. They can prove it was me, because they have video of me getting on the plane.. And since all the other people are not terrorists just me.. Well obviously I was on the plane, and the plane flew into a tower.. It HAD TO BE ME right? Gawd wouldn't it be weird if all the passengers were knocked out? Flown into the tower coded flight path. That's what I would have done.. And obviously I would know Osama bin Laden did it? How?? Even he might think he did it.. That's how. They let it happen, and MADE sure it happened, and then went oh yea it was these guys, and these guys (almost all Sauds).. These guys think they did it, because they did plan to, but little did they know they were the sheep being led to slaughter.

The reason for drills and other similar things is that you can get all of the planning done and have all the people in positions already.. So then they are not in on the game.. They don't know they helped plan 9/11.. Besides they already know it was terrorists from Saudi Arabia.

It's also another psychological control.. Imagine realizing you were part of 9/11 and in so proving you know who the bad guys are, you also show your own guilt.

Nah man... Just let it be terrorists far away... That's already complicated enough...
And I'll let that be...

On to the next one.
edit on 6-5-2015 by KnightLight because: (no reason given)

+2 more 
posted on May, 6 2015 @ 09:35 AM
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Simple answer:

Just like 23 Dec 1913 and the deceptive passing of the Fed Reserve Act, just like the deceptive entry into the 2nd world war, just like the deceptive Modus Operandi of operation paperclip, just like the deceptive entry into the Vietnam war, just like the assassination of JFK, just like the usurping and relentless wanton desire to erode the US constitution by Dynastic bloodlines, just like Colin Powells evidence put forth at the UN that Saddam is bad bad man and the dodgy death of Dr David Kelly the UN weapons inspector who tried to tell the world Saddam had none, the immediate blaming of OBL within an hour, the invasion of Afghanistan 26 days later, the rolling out of the Patriot Act 45 days later, the poppy fields and Haliburton and the gas pipeline.......

So I don't need no stinkin ass lying gang of lawyers, backed by the propaganda machine to tell me otherwise.

911 was an inside job

The OS is BS.......

Thank-you for taking the time to read my opinion, chew slowly, it might be hard to swallow.


edit on 6-5-2015 by Sublimecraft because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 6 2015 @ 09:59 AM
Another pointless thread but I'll add on what's already been said.

As someone already pointed out, it isn't as simple as made out in the OP and the point I've always found, 9/11 was used as a pretext for war (hundreds of thousands killed & countries destroyed), it was used to justify more surveillance and infringments on personal freedom, a lot of reasons, all of which benefitted the U.S. government. Now with so much at stake we should at least expect a stonewall, closed & shut case with undeniable evidence.

The official version is anything but and there is so much reasonable doubt that it's no wonder so many people don't believe it.

posted on May, 6 2015 @ 10:43 AM
Well wouldn't the system have to put a value on justice and not just us ? I think Corbett's latest asks the same question but doesn't restrict it to the 9/11 date . "DEA Agents Caught in Drug Money Prostitute Scandal...Guess What Happens?"

posted on May, 6 2015 @ 10:46 AM
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

From what I understand the only conspiracy I see was that it wasn't allowed to happen, but there was a major flaw in communications and someone must have known this.
The lack of security from NORAD only having two fighters on stand by, to the fumbling around with air traffic controls and poor decision making.

Even if this did go to court most of the resources and evidence would be swept aside by the people directly involved while all this was happening, and people from the FBI, CIA, etc have come forward saying they made mistakes on intelligence, or what they knew fell on deaf ears, people just ignore those facts. So the conspiracy goes deep, beyond any judges power.

posted on May, 6 2015 @ 10:53 AM

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

Are you kidding me? Any judge with favours on the Right would have jumped on the opportunity to criticize the Left administration.

Yes, an ideal judge is impartial, but then, do we live in an ideal world?

If no judge touched it, there must have been some other reason. Something perhaps like, Lack of Strong Evidences?

After all, remember that Russia too has an advantage at proving that 9/11 would have been carried out from the inside. Yet even Russia herself did not go through with it. She went through with Snowden and the NSA, but not with 9/11.

Logic dictates that the case was simply not strong enough.

I believe the OP has a very good point indeed.

Are you serious? You do realize that 9/11 occurred under a Right Wing government, right? You know, this 2 time elected Republican named George W. Bush, with his staunchly Zionist and Neo-Conservative administration. So you're completely wrong with your statement.

Also, most Democrats on the national level don't care either. In fact, they helped cover things up, just as they covered up the Bush Administration's illegal torture program. So both the Left & the Right's political leaders are involved in keeping the 9/11 discussion as it currently is: out of sight & out of mind.

posted on May, 6 2015 @ 11:04 AM
a reply to: KnightLight

For me I can be reasonably be sure Cheney was involved, but I havn't found anything proving whether he would be an idea man, a straight actor who commited a crime, or maybe he was blackmailed..

I just don't have enough data. I can't act on it.

You mean all your data comes from conspiracy sites.
That's the main reason legal action will never get any traction.

Remember how sure many people on here were that Nibiru was coming in 2012?
All with out a shred of proof.

posted on May, 6 2015 @ 11:21 AM

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: KnightLight

You mean all your data comes from conspiracy sites.

No. I mean I have no actionable intelligence.
All of my data I rely on comes from only data I can rely on.
I don't read conspiracy sites. I talk on ATS, but I don't read conspiracy sites and think of them as what I would call data.

You popped into my head an image of a NAZI ufo, and an interview with a reptillian alien, so thanks for that..

Been a long time since I learned how to think. It all comes down to not trusting or distrusting sources. And then just keep comparing data. Keep taking it all in. Data being defined as something with known sources to back it up.. As far as my thoughts on 9/11, I havn't ever gone on any sites to get info.. I read government reports, I watched it all LIVE when I was in school.. I watched all the camera footage. I studied physics and I did some pretty complex equations trying to conserve that momentum... Based it all on NIST.

Go read a Scientific American article that can't even do a potential energy equation correctly.. They put the entire mass of the building at the height of the very top.. Multiply by the Force of the Acceleration of Gravity.. And get stupid numbers for the kinetic energy of the collapse..

I'm stubborn. I don't trust anyone or anything anyone says. In fact all of my free time which is almost all the time.. I spend ALL my time learning things. It's almost all I do.

I did some backflips and spent years trying to not come to the truth.
I didn't want the world to be that dark.

What you want me to do now?
I still have no actionable intelligence, and no authority would protect me in any actions. Legally I can't prove anything.

posted on May, 6 2015 @ 11:36 AM
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Would it be an idea for crowdfunding to underwrite a political platform?
There are enough giddy radicals (ME! ME!) around to chip in a twenty to have a national movement to expose this. As a joint venture it might be like herding cats. The folks who are willing to step beyond the police tape are not conformity driven. So the focus will have to be tight and unrelenting.
The other items that would tempt conspiratists must be avoided in order that the edge not be blunted.
Assuming this would take off, it could become a force to make divulging other 'mysteries' part for a long term reversal of the secrecy state.
It won't necessarily be pretty.
As a f'rinstance: Richard Dolan (UFOs) told a story that Jimmy Carter was supposedly introduced to the facts concerning UFOs in June of 1977 (best I can recall). Carter went to the Oval Office and just put his head in his hands and was emotionally distraught for some time but never spoke of what he learned.
So apparently some of this stuff will cause upheaval that we 'commoners' (Like his opinions or not, Carter is smart and informed and stable enough to get elected.) may rue learning.
Imagining how bad it can be considering how bad it is, I don't know how much I could stand and I'm a bit of 'd!@#'.

posted on May, 6 2015 @ 11:48 AM
a reply to: KnightLight

If I may encourage you to go to the sites you feel are not worthy of exploration.
You may not obtain clinical and forensic details that will overwhelm (You also MAY.), but you will find resources that would not be posted in MSM/Conventional sources. This is how I discovered that cell phones would not perform as the 'recordings' supposedly substantiates.
It was all a set up.
Even the Far Sight Institute (remote viewing-personal experience tells me that this works) has indicated that their study completely undermines the cover-up.

I usually measure conspiracies' worth by duration, growth of opposition, examination of evidence and plausibility.
This one has 'legs'.

posted on May, 6 2015 @ 11:59 AM
a reply to: swanne

No judge would ever go after a former or sitting president.

Any judge with favours on the Right would have jumped on the opportunity to criticize the Left administration.

Do you remember who was in office when the towers were attacked?

posted on May, 6 2015 @ 12:07 PM
You can't file a class action lawsuit just because you want to do so. There has to be a "class" of people who were all damaged by the same product, action, etc. The point of the class action is not to condense evidence, it's to condense people. It's simply easier to try one case than 15,000 cases all on the same issue.

Class action lawsuits are long, drawn out affairs, often taking years to reach a conclusion and involving multiple firms. So the question becomes, what law firm has the time and can afford that kind of effort when the class can't really demonstrate any damages to themselves? The appeal of a class action suit is the percentage of the damages awarded which the firm gets to keep. Here there would be no damages awarded.

I'm not even sure you could find jurisdiction for the suit in the first place, but there is no incentive for a law firm to take it on.

posted on May, 6 2015 @ 02:30 PM
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Let me see,a country that would kill its own.Check
Now we shall go to that same country and it will let us prosecute it.Check(NOT)
Same country that has kept the whole JFK bit under wraps all these years.Check
So how far is anyone gonna get with this?

posted on May, 6 2015 @ 04:03 PM
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Your original question OP was why don't a bunch of different groups who strive for the same end put their heads and assets together in a combined effort to pursue a challenge to the US government and its agenda. At the risk of answering a question with a question, why doesn't the rest of the World where we are invading, occupying, sanctioning and resource raping put their heads together and do the same thing? You have a good question and a good point but it is not often that anyone has the courage to stand up against a Big Bad Bully, even if there are multiple victims. Catch my drift?

new topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in