Many questions loom about Sept. 11, 2001

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Sep, 5 2003 @ 07:20 PM
link   
We can keep asking these questions but I doubt they'll ever be answered, well not at least until it doesn't matter anymore. It's like JFK, they wait until the generations that wanted to know the truth have passed and then release to a public to which it means nothing to. What do you lot think?

www.tmnews.com...

As the second anniversary of the alledged attacks on the World Trade Centers and Pentagon approach, why have so many relevant questions been stonewalled or lied about?

Why was the air defense system (NORAD) so unresponsive to four hijacked jetliners?

Why did top U.S. officials deny after the fact that this type of event could happen when before the fact there are numerous official records of the government preparing for and anticipating just such an event?




posted on Sep, 5 2003 @ 07:26 PM
link   
John

I disagree with your assertion that information will not be obtained for 30 years.

There is a citizen-led Truth Commission that will work unrelentingly to secure all knowledge not made available through partisan Congressional Enquiries. Amongst that group is the "Four Moms" - an interesting little marketing brand for an astute group of 9/11 widows who have been quite remarkable in their dogged determination.

I also believe many answers may well be uncovered by our own ATS Research Forum team on select issues emanating out of 9/11 unanswered questions. The Research team will include people who believe they can find answers.

[Edited on 6-9-2003 by MaskedAvatar]



posted on Sep, 5 2003 @ 07:32 PM
link   
Yes, many questions remain unanswered and many will also remain unanswered for decades to come.
Here's that link to the "Contingency Planning" by the government called MASCAL:
www.mdw.army.mil...

*Ok, I editted this...I forgot about the Truth Commission and ATS's own "Truth Commission." *smile*

regards
seekerof



[Edited on 6-9-2003 by Seekerof]



posted on Sep, 5 2003 @ 07:36 PM
link   
What i find interesting is the BBC coverage of 9/11 conspiracies. Every major new media network in the US either ignores them as if non existant, or simply laughs at them, not even allowing the conspiracy theorist to voice his opinion. While our own media will never point out the answers, nor will voice the truth about those who seek, other medias no doubt will.

There are plenty of people investigating 9/11, as MA pointed out. They keep getting stonewalled, shut down, blocked out, ect. This in itself is damning to those who try and surpress the truth. Why so much hassle to simply give access to govornment records of an incedent that was hardly classified.or was it?

The massive stonewalling and snubbing of people demanding answers and access to the ebvents of 9/11 is making the govornmets story look less and less credible, and making those "nutty conspiracy tinheads" look more and more worth noticing. If they keep this ruse up, eventually everyone once blind and believing is gonna end up suspcious and mad.

This sint the 1960's JFK era, where information was easier to hide, and people watched the news or read papers to learn what happened.

We now have the internet. Cell phones. email. The transmittal of information has never before in history been this braod, this quick. Its alot ahrder now to hide the truth than it was back then.



posted on Sep, 5 2003 @ 07:39 PM
link   
Skadi

Agreed.

And there is exactly the reason why citizens need to feel that they have voice, and also the importance of being able to establish, distill and communicate FACTS as opposed to staying on the disinformation treadmill.



posted on Sep, 5 2003 @ 08:01 PM
link   
Very true MA and thats where I see the problem..in "facts."

Just 'what' is "facts?"

1) Is it that, actually, facts are not facts. That facts are in the eye of the beholder. That what the facts are depends on what 'spin' you or anyone else puts on them. Is this not what they teach at Press School?

2) "Facts are meaningless. You could use "facts" to prove anything thats even remorely true." ---- Homer Simpson

3) That 'a' fact is only a fact when it can be tested and proven. That in far too many cases, opinions and/or conclusions are incorrectly assumed as facts?

4) Aren't conclusions facts? If they are valid conclusions from true premises, then they are "proven." Are there any false facts?

5) Is a "fact" a fact because one may feel it is? It's a fact-to-you? That's all there is really is: facts-for-me and facts-for-you. Is this true?

regards
seekerof



posted on Sep, 5 2003 @ 08:07 PM
link   
Well if you've got video evidence of a man shooting his wife it's a "fact" he shot her regardless of what spin is put on it. She may have been having an affair but it doesn't matter, he still shot her. When you have hard evidence there is no spinning the "fact"



posted on Sep, 5 2003 @ 08:09 PM
link   
I actually have my mom convinced that the gov was behind sep 11. Showed her some stuff, gave her my analysis. But most people laugh at me and wont even let me talk when i try.

Thus, the ball falls onto large groups of inquisitive minds to bombard the media. I wrote a letter to the Seattle times once, criticizing them for not giving fair coverage of a conspiracy theorist Who wanted to state his case and his information, they shut him up. But when more and more people start sending those letters in, and calling up and demanding the answers, they cant ignore it anymore. The challenge and problem then, lies in convincing the people that something is wrong, and doing it in a way where they will have to look. How do you do this?

Ive thought of many things, from fliers, to email spams, ect. But then i realized, Jyst posing the questions themselves might get people to call and demand answers.

We need an agitated and paranoid public. But that agitation and paranoia must be directed properly: at the govornment. paranoia makes people demand answers, if those answers dont come, agitation and rage will ensue.

Ive written the paper, i even called in the local media to ask them why they have given no coverage ont he constant efforts of the administration to block people investigating 9/11, yet got no response, got blown off.

But if more people start calling, something will give.

Youre Americans for christ sake, start acting like it: stop trusting the govornment and demanding explainations. No more "well look into it". DEMAND answers now or else.



posted on Sep, 5 2003 @ 08:12 PM
link   
I view facts as black and white.

The only websites that I have used to review any assumptions about 9/11 are those that have tested, retested and verified what can be substantiated from the public record and from actual documented events.

Therefore I don't ascribe any "factual" value to theories about the demolition of the WTCs or exactly who was piloting the four hijacked aircraft, but I can ascribe factual value to the movements of the 'president' and certain key officials on and around the date, and to which companies were involved in such things as airport security and advising on the cleanup effort at Ground Zero, and why. Most of the facts are, for obvious reasons, yet to come out.

I have been involved in the research for 15 months or more, and am connected with one of the people reported to have brought down the flight in Pennsylvania.

I have no problem whatsoever distinguishing facts from opinions.



posted on Sep, 5 2003 @ 08:15 PM
link   
Thats pretty definitive evidence John, I agree, but perhpas we ought to ask the prosecuting and the defense attorney's in the OJ. Simpson trial what their definition of "facts" are. They had no 'video' but I hope you understand the point I am making. Irregardless of "facts," in whatever the form, "facts" to an individual is what exactly? What one may see as "facts," another may see as not being "facts."

Skadi....demanding answers also leaves the door wide open for "tampering," wouldn't it. Just look at how the government gave "their answers" to Roswell, etc.

regards
seekerof



posted on Sep, 5 2003 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
I view facts as black and white.

The only websites that I have used to review any assumptions about 9/11 are those that have tested, retested and verified what can be substantiated from the public record and from actual documented events.

Therefore I don't ascribe any "factual" value to theories about the demolition of the WTCs or exactly who was piloting the four hijacked aircraft, but I can ascribe factual value to the movements of the 'president' and certain key officials on and around the date, and to which companies were involved in such things as airport security and advising on the cleanup effort at Ground Zero, and why. Most of the facts are, for obvious reasons, yet to come out.

I have been involved in the research for 15 months or more, and am connected with one of the people reported to have brought down the flight in Pennsylvania.

I have no problem whatsoever distinguishing facts from opinions.



And I agree with what you are saying MA. I have, of late anyhow, contended that you have a analytical way of thinking. Many of us don't. So when a "fact" is given, some or many will interpret them/it differently. With the media dishing so much BS all over, "facts" are very undiscernable to the eye of the everyday individual. Agreed?

regards
seekerof



posted on Sep, 5 2003 @ 08:23 PM
link   
And like Roswell, people havent bought the whole story on that either. the more suspicion we paint the govornment with, the more and more shadows will be cast on it.

Opinions and theories are simply potential facts that havent been born yet. never disregard them.

Demand answers. Youll never get the whole story from them, but you will cast the shadow of doubt and distrust. Thats a step in the right direction.

Planting and fostering suspicion.



posted on Sep, 5 2003 @ 08:25 PM
link   
There are a few people with a fine level of discernment at ATS.



There are others that can be forgiven for clinging tenaciously to pre-established beliefs as well. It is very hard to get rid of heavily engrained stuff that has been with you from the age of 2 or 3.



posted on Sep, 6 2003 @ 07:39 AM
link   
Paradigms decide what is factuall, we have to have a basis.

As for 9/11, i don't believe we will ever know the whole truth, unsurprisingly. I think any chance of finding out the truth was destroyed inside the Pentagon on 9/11. I doubt we will know any more in 10 years than we do now. The internet generation however are not easily fooled and i for one will go to my grave asking the unanswered questions about 9/11. If the truth did start to come out, it would come in drips, and i think every question answered would pose five new questions, the search is perpetual.

9/11 was a turning point in history, it will shape the world we live in, in the future, it will be talked about till the end of time, i feel that myself and others who think alike have a responsability to ensure that history remembers all of the 9/11 debate, the PNAC reports, the Bush-Bin Laden connection, the Israeli spy ring, Bush's suspicios moves on the day, the ignored warnings, the reports that some hijackers were trained at US military bases, the fact that the black boxes on the planes were destroyed but Atta's passport escaped in perfect condition, the fact that Bin-Laden denied involvement in the attacks he had been so proud of days earlier.

Michael Meacher proved today in his article that those of us with our eyes open are being heard, and must not stop looking, future generations would never forgive us for taking our eyes off the ball.





new topics




 
0

log in

join