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.


20 Reasons to Question the Official Story of 9/11

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 10:21 PM
This in my opinion, is quite a substantial gain in the 9-11 field of exploration for truth. It is my hope that the following information by these individuals will open a new pathway for those of us who know something just stinks about 9-11.

If you go to the website and scroll down after the 20 questions, links are provided to these points of interest:

(1) The 9-11 Commission refused to examine the vast majority of evidence about 9/11, and even the former director of the FBI says there was a cover up by the 9/11 Commission

(2) The tape of interviews of air traffic controllers on-duty on 9/11 was intentionally destroyed by crushing the cassette by hand, cutting the tape into little pieces, and then dropping the pieces in different trash cans around the building

(3) Investigators for the Congressional Joint Inquiry discovered that an FBI informant had hosted and rented a room to two hijackers in 2000 and that, when the Inquiry sought to interview the informant, the FBI refused outright, and then hid him in an unknown location, and that a high-level FBI official stated these blocking maneuvers were undertaken under orders from the White House

Mod Edit: No Quote/Plagiarism – Please Review This Link.

Mod Edit: New External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

Mod Note (This Appears On Every New Thread/Post Reply Page): MEMBERS: Do not simply post news articles in the forums without comment. If you feel inclined to make the board aware of current events, please post the first paragraph, a link to the entire story, AND your opinion, twist or take on the news item.

Please include your own content when posting.

[edit on 29/1/2006 by Mirthful Me]

[edit on 29-1-2006 by XenonCodex]

posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 10:28 PM

There are certain points in your post that I actually agree need to be investigated further. BUT, could you please start populating this thread with links to where the original statements were made. (And please don't link back to because that would be a secondary source.

If you'll please do that, this thread has a good possibility of becoming a great conversation on some of the anomalies surrounding 9/11.

Also, there's some points in your post I absolutely don't agree with, but if you'll find the original statements, I might change my mind.

Thanks for the post!

posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 11:09 PM
If you could be more specific about those that you do not agree with, perhaps I can dig up some links and/or sources for you.

This has the potential of becoming a very powerful conduit which could cascade towards an explosion in the faces of the true perpetraitors!

new topics

log in