Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Hard Truth Of September Eleventh.

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 02:42 AM
link   
Recently I've been involved in some "discussions" on here pertaining to 9/11 conpiricies. I, myself, am skepitcal. For this I've been labled and idiot, sheep and everything else. I used to scream and yell about it but as of late, I just read the posts and move on.

When I first joined here I believed that our own government was responsible for the attacks. I followed all the threads that agreed with that theory and I felt validated. All of the things I'd read about were all right there. I fought venemously to defend them. Then something happened that changed everything. I began reading posts of people who didnt subscribe to the conspiricy theory. People who began posting fact after after verifible fact. What I saw of my side brought up alot of questions, but very few facts. Mostly what I found is that the conspiricy arguement didnt quite hold up.

Well, I've figured it out. I have been sitting on the fence for a while now, but suddenly, its all become clear. Both sides are right! Yes there is a HUGE cover up, concerning 9/11 and yes, our country was attacked that morning and we didnt have a clue. Not a single person in this country (other than those involved) knew what that day had in store for them.

How? The blame for this lies as follows:

1: The Republicans.
2: The Democrats.

The Republicans have themselves to blame on this. For the better part of the 1990s they had their heads so far up Clintons rear it was sick. The whole party was out to destroy him. While this nation had real problems and security issues to deal with, we we're bombarded with "Whitewater" or "filegate" or whatever the "gate" of the week was.

The Republicans made it nearly impossible to get anything done for those 8 years. This was done intentionaly. Although they tried to get em, he always got away. Then..they hit the jackpot. Monica. All hell breaks loose. Theres hearings, investigations, and in the end, impeachment. The FBI even investigated the Blue dress. 200 agents assigned to the case. All to see if they could prove a BJ..how sad..

Now think about this. If just one of the 200 agents assigned to investigating white stains on blue dresses was in the office, returning those unanswered phone calls from flight schools in Florida, how many dead Americans would there be in the bottom of Manhatten now? Thanks guys.

***********
2: The Democrats

All of this can be summed up easily. KEEP IT IN YOUR PANTS !!!
And, if your are caught, fess up! Save us all alot of time and money. Might not get so many people killed !

****************************

So heres my theory. Both parties were and are responsible for this. Instead of getting past their petty squables and power struggles, they chose to ignore us. When we got hit, they didnt see it coming. Sure, now their running around telling us every fact we want to know. They will welcome investigations. Why? Because they want us to forget how they failed us. Let the conspiricy theories run rampant. You'll never prove them, because they arent there.

Noone "inside" planned this. Noone had a clue. They were to busy nit-picking each other to care about what was going on. And now they know that if the Americans ever put this together, it will spell the end of both of their parties. So in a way, these conspiricy theories are helping them. Instead of anyone holding them accountable for their neglect, we are all out looking at 1000s of photshoped images forever. In a few years time we will have moved on, and life goes on.

To me, it looks like they've almost won.




posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 03:04 AM
link   
You might want to check this out, it is a post I made in another thread, its about a documentary made by the CBC. It goes into why there are legitimate reasons for conspiracy theories surrounding 911, while it does not point a finger at anyone it is very enlightening. I do agree with you that both republicans and democrats are responsible but no one wanted to open an investigation, don't you recall the families had to fight to even get an investigation going?

I found a link to the actual show that goes into it all much better than I can, it is a very well done documentary and it looks like this webpage is also well done and gives the same info. Let me know what you think.
www.cbc.ca...

In a special investigation the fifth estate's Bob McKeown
finds that even the most outlandish conspiracy theory may have its basis in a legitimate question.
In the course of separating fact from fiction, Bob delves into the labyrinthine and surprising ties
between the Bushes and the Bin Ladens.
What he finds out may startle you as much as any conspiracy theory.

Also wanted to add this website, I think you can actually download the show from here, it has links to a lot of stuff as well. www.freedocumentaries.org...



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 03:10 AM
link   
fifth estate always makes good stuff.



and then bill oreilly steps in...........



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 10:04 AM
link   
Brother what took you so long?

I for one was a Republican but it took this whole Teri Schiavo thing for me to reach the breaking point. Like Mark Twain said "If Jesus were alive today he wouldn't be a Christian" ....well if Reagan were alive today he would not be a Republican.

So join the the Dems??? God no that's a cure worse than the problem!

We need a party for people who aren't zealots and/or control freaks who will govern in the name of the people not in spite of them.






Originally posted by spliff4020
Recently I've been involved in some "discussions" on here pertaining to 9/11 conpiricies. I, myself, am skepitcal. For this I've been labled and idiot, sheep and everything else. I used to scream and yell about it but as of late, I just read the posts and move on.

When I first joined here I believed that our own government was responsible for the attacks. I followed all the threads that agreed with that theory and I felt validated. All of the things I'd read about were all right there. I fought venemously to defend them. Then something happened that changed everything. I began reading posts of people who didnt subscribe to the conspiricy theory. People who began posting fact after after verifible fact. What I saw of my side brought up alot of questions, but very few facts. Mostly what I found is that the conspiricy arguement didnt quite hold up.



edited to shorten quote

[edit on 14-4-2005 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 10:34 AM
link   
I'd love to hear the "hard truth" involving conclusive evidence explaining why WTC-7 collapsed, a sequence to an almost perfect implosion of a modern fireproofed building that day..

Please feel free to offer reasonable theories as to why WTC-7 collapsed, so far it has been determined that fire
brought down this modern building. For this building to collapse in this fashion, ALL of the load bearing supports would have had to fail (or be cut) at EXACTLY THE SAME TIME.



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 10:48 AM
link   
Syntaxer......the wtc's fireproofing foam was burned off during the impact and subsiquent fire. Although the buildings were designed to withstand the impact, they mistakenly didnt figure the immence heat from the enormous amount of jet fuel(also the combustibles in the building adding to the intensity of the fire). Without the protective foam the welds broke loose under the extreme temperatures. PBS didnt a very imformative documentary, I believe it was called "Why the towers fell" hope that helps.



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 10:53 AM
link   
so four years down the road your are barely coming to your senses? ha it seems to me like your pysce wont allow the truth to be assimilated due to an unusually fragile emotional state--four years is a long time--had it been as clear as you are trying to make it you would have realized a long time ago--the truth is the facts remain that wtc7 showed signs of "squibs" as well as an obvious "crimp" --two well know features of demolition--to think that silversteins purchase of wtc1 and 2 two months prior to 9/11 and re-insuring them with a special terrorist clause that allowed him to turm his 200 million dollar insu. investment into a whopping 7 billion is nothing unusual then you sir are indeed a sheep and everything else you just subconsciously called yourself--the fact that the pentagon was even the victim of an attack 48 min "after" the second plane hit was no "accident" nor was it the result of an absent minded air traffic controller--the fact that the taliban opposed the transit of an oil pipeline across their country is undeniable as well as the fact that the construction of the pipeline started immediatly upon occupation should also be a clue--from kevin ryan to bill manning to general benton k partin to louie caccihioli the list of credible witnesses and expert testimony denying the official story is overwhelming and higher in caliber that a list of government propagandists flooding the main stream media--remember just because a lie is trumpeted over and over again it doesnt make it true--open your eyes or dont it really doesnt matter but when you start feeding the propaganda machine you better be ready to deal with the names as they are the result of simple observation and common sense --for a synopsis of the names i mentioned please see this ats thread---anyone claiming to have expertise or engineering background still cannot hold a candle to the people included in this thread
www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 14-4-2005 by Sunofone]

[edit on 14-4-2005 by Sunofone]



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 10:55 AM
link   
So...The Republicans were vindictive and evil, and the democrats were horney. And because of that, Clinton never called the Sudanese back about getting Bin Laden, huge cuts were made to the inteligence budget and military budget, and a shadow country (Al' Queda) declared war on us.

I think your take may be a little too clean cut and biased, but that could just be me.



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by syntaxer
I'd love to hear the "hard truth" involving conclusive evidence explaining why WTC-7 collapsed, a sequence to an almost perfect implosion of a modern fireproofed building that day..

Please feel free to offer reasonable theories as to why WTC-7 collapsed, so far it has been determined that fire
brought down this modern building. For this building to collapse in this fashion, ALL of the load bearing supports would have had to fail (or be cut) at EXACTLY THE SAME TIME.


You say that you do, but you dont. You'd rather watch Alex Jones or some other hack in 5 minute web-clips. If you serious, then read this..www.tms.org...

Or theres this. Of course, I dont want this to turn in to a copy and paste war. I've read both sides. You might find this
interesting though...If you READ it, feel free to reply. If your going to post some Alex Jones crap, save the web-space.

[edit on 14-4-2005 by spliff4020]

[edit on 14-4-2005 by spliff4020]

[edit on 14-4-2005 by spliff4020]



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
So...The Republicans were vindictive and evil, and the democrats were horney. And because of that, Clinton never called the Sudanese back about getting Bin Laden, huge cuts were made to the inteligence budget and military budget, and a shadow country (Al' Queda) declared war on us.

I think your take may be a little too clean cut and biased, but that could just be me.


You got it! Hit the nail on the head. Sure it sounds nice and neat, but Im afraid thats all it is. The rest of the world sees us for the self centered fools we are. While we all had our eyes glued to the TV, noone was watching the backdoor.

We here in America like to think that theres noway someone could have manipulated our system that easily, but look at the facts. They did. We aren't as big and bad as we think we are. We are very vunerable! I hope we dont fall asleep again.



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 11:19 AM
link   
Spliff, I hope you figure your explanation to be a bit simplistic. You see the Republicans' problem as wanting to destroy Clinton? You see no reason why Clinton was a target?
Your whole blame for the Democrats was not keeping "it" in their pants?

The rest of the 9/11 explanation is also overly simplistic and at the same time, too broad in scope.

Interesting thing is, after not seeing my incompetent government could have had a thing to do with it, I am beginning to wonder.

By the way, Spliff, while you are factoring in Clinton's good ol' boy problem of pants-down syndrom, remember that the Patriot Act was created during his watch; there was just no reason to implement it at the time. Under Bush, a reason finally came around.

Do not be so naive as to think the two parties are not partnered. The rivalry is just for politics sports enthusiasts citizenry, so that we might think we have a hand in the outcome. We do not.



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Spliff, I hope you figure your explanation to be a bit simplistic. You see the Republicans' problem as wanting to destroy Clinton? You see no reason why Clinton was a target?
Your whole blame for the Democrats was not keeping "it" in their pants?

The rest of the 9/11 explanation is also overly simplistic and at the same time, too broad in scope.

Interesting thing is, after not seeing my incompetent government could have had a thing to do with it, I am beginning to wonder.

By the way, Spliff, while you are factoring in Clinton's good ol' boy problem of pants-down syndrom, remember that the Patriot Act was created during his watch; there was just no reason to implement it at the time. Under Bush, a reason finally came around.

Do not be so naive as to think the two parties are not partnered. The rivalry is just for politics sports enthusiasts citizenry, so that we might think we have a hand in the outcome. We do not.


Don't get me wrong. I blame the Dems to. They are both equally guilty to me, though I do lean towards blaming the republicans a little more. But I do agree that they are both in cahoots with each other.

Its just that its not cahoots about covering up an inside job. Its cahoots about them falling asleep at the wheel and thinking that we were untouchable.



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 11:40 AM
link   


Oh my god everyone stand back, building 7 is about to perfectly imploded due to raging 1000c fires! Aaaargh run for your lives!


"NIST is an agency of the U.S. Commerce Department's Technology Administration."

If the government was responsible for an inside 9/11 job, wouldn't NIST provide conclusive "evidence" to support their objectives? I would think so, wouldn't you?



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 11:51 AM
link   
The temperature of the fires was not the problem. The buildings were designed and could have well handeled the heat. The impact and explosion which blew the protective foam off the supporting steel were the reason for the collapse. I have to admit im a little confused is the "idea" that the planes were a diversion for a demolitons explosion which brought the towers down?



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Spliff, if that is your beef, then you'd better amend your position. Many a Republican screamed about Clinton not being concerned about security from anyhting else but Christianity, but the Clinton administration turned a deaf ear.

Not in cahoots?

The Bush administration rebuilds the military, but is he using it for the good of national defence? Even the most ardent Bush supporter (hard to find nowadays) is a bit confused when it comes to the Bush foreign policy of today.



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 12:32 PM
link   
No one here, including me, is a structural engineer (although I am an engineer). As a matter of fact, based on what I'ver read here, there are very few (if any) folks on this board who even have the basic backgound in statics and dynamics, strength of materials, heat transfer, and the ability to use math through diffie-Q's to pencil-whip the information themselves.

The NIST report seems fairly well put-together and certainly has a lot of factual stuff in it that answers most if not all of the questions that the conpiracists bring up. Anyone who says that you can't buy the NIST data because it's part of the government doesn't understand basic engineering and is not interested in looking at anything except wishful thinking.

And if you go to the CBC site ( www.cbc.ca... ) that was mentioned earlier by Goose, take a look at its contents:

"THE INDUSTRY OF CONSPIRACY
On September 11, 2001, pilotless airplanes were guided into the World Trade Center by homing beacons. It wasn't a plane that hit the Pentagon, but a missile. U.S. Air Force planes weren't scrambled to intercept the hijacked planes that morning because the White House was behind the events of that tragic day. Incredible? Definitely. Outlandish? Absolutely. But, there are lots of people who believe that at least some parts of these stories are true."


If you continue reading that, you will see that the CBC documentary doesn't accept it, it just reports that a lot of conspiracy perople have built up an hysteria about it.

"The fifth estate found NO credible evidence in the public domain to prove the U.S. government had any specific advance knowledge of exactly what would happen on September 11, 2001."

"And many conspiracy theories seem like a waste of time. They depend on questionable characters like Mike Vreeland or involve wild allegations like those of Thierry Meyssan."


Was there a connection between the Bushes and the bin Ladens? Absolutely. But then, both Bush father and son were in the oil busines, and the bin Ladens were very wealthy Saudis with ties to the Saudi thug-ocracy; it would've been even more ridiculous had the Bushes not had dealings with the bin Ladens.

And remember, Usama rejectd everything his family stood for, just as his family disowned him. Trying to form a c onnection between the overall bin laden clan and the attacks on the WTC is like calling the Hearst newspaper chain a bunch of radical revolutionaries because of Patty Hearst!

In summary, I think Goose is on the right track with his link; the Fifth Estate wrieeup does a pretty good job in debunking the conspiracy theorists, even if it's not what you want to hear.

[edit on 14-4-2005 by Off_The_Street]



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 12:34 PM
link   
First of all Al-Queada is not a "Country" - it is a World Wide Network of Islamic Jihadi Extremists. Secondly our Country has even More Enemies than just Al-Queada! Third - Republicans PLEASE stop constantly Blaming Clinton for the Poor Economy & Terrorism that has taken place *during the BUSH Administrations watch*! When Clinton tried to Blow Up Bin Laden you called it "Monica Missiles"!

Yes "Spliff4020" - I think that you are right! I think that the *MASS INCOMPENTENCE* & Political Partisan Bickering Waste of Time is more to Blame for us Not having a Clue about the 9/11 Attack coming than the Conspiracy Theories (actually I believe that they knew Something was coming & that Planes & the WTC have been Targets before - they just couldn't piece it together in time) - which is still pretty SAD if you think about it!



[edit on 14-4-2005 by Seraphim_Serpente]

[edit on 14-4-2005 by Seraphim_Serpente]

[edit on 14-4-2005 by Seraphim_Serpente]

[edit on 14-4-2005 by Seraphim_Serpente]



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by spliff4020
I dont want this to turn in to a copy and paste war. I've read both sides. You might find this
interesting though...If you READ it, feel free to reply.


of course you dont because there is nothing on the web that will lend credence to the preposterous notion that the govt proposes--that link spent 42pgs on wtc7 without giving a rational theory on "how" the fire caused the main supprt column to fail--there is a small paragraph calling the failure the initiate cause then spends the rest of the 41 and 3/4 pages how everything is due to this initiation without explaining "how or why" the "initiate" defies all laws of physics--
just for posterity let me demonstrate,visually, the absurdity of the govt's theory--here is an image of wtc7 only 2hr prior to its collapse



here is the windsor tower in madrid after burning for 18+ hrs yet still standing-notice the crane still pearched on top--




posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 01:49 PM
link   
There are a few things I'd like to post here but don't have the time. (I started another thread on this as some of you probably know already, "Could the "truth" about 911 start a civil war?" One thing I will say quickly here is how can ANYONE believe that building 7 fell on its own accord? I mean come on guys, how can you buy into that? Do your home work: The building WAS NOT directly hit by anything and the fires were MINIMAL. ALSO, there were large fuel storage tanks in the basement that were found INTACT, even AFTER the building imploded. DUH folks.. WAKE UP! Think about it.. If building 7 was brought down with explosives then foreknowledge of people "very close to home" is UNAVOIDABLE and how can you then expect to believe that buildings 1 and 2 fell "on their own"??? Self evident common sense dictates this and can not be rationalized away. (Sorry all you engineers) Like I said.. WAKE UP!!



[edit on 14-4-2005 by TxSecret]



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 02:07 PM
link   
Well let us not forget four facts:
1. Jet fuel will not heat to a temperature hot enough to melt steel.
2. No steel building before 911 or 911 since has imploded or fallen from heat.
3. Firemen inside the building that day reported back that there were very few fires inside the builidings except for the floors impacted by the planes, this is on tape recorded by the fire depatment or the 911 operators as the firemen inside reported back.
4. About a moment before each building collapsed the seismograph that detects earthquakes detected just enough of a movement to move the needle slightly, now remember this is before the building imploded, the impact of the building hitting the ground did not move the needle at all.






top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join