It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Who Should Come Forward, And Expose the "Cover-Up" ??

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 05:10 PM
link   
Many claim only a small group of individuals would have to be involved in the conspiracy in order to pull off 9/11, but these are only the people who would need to see the "Big Picture" many hundreds or thousands of others would have to know something isn't right.


CD Experts: Why do they not agree that the WTC towers came down in a manner consistant with controlled demolition?


Structural Engineers: Why don't they claim the towers should not have fallen from the damage they sustained?


FAA/NORAD/NEADS/Airline Employees: Why do none of them claim the response to the 9/11 hijackings was not normal?


Military Personel: Any not high enough up the chain of command to be in on the "Big Picture" must realize the military repsonse to 9/11 was unusual. Why don't they say there was an unusually large number of wargames planned for the day? Or that there were too few fighters on alert?


Pentagon Responders: Why do none of the first responders here mention a 16 foot hole? Or that damage was inconsistant with a 757?


Pentagon Witnesses: Why do so many people say they saw a large commercial airliner? (please don't bother with the 2 or 3 who say they saw a smaller plane, tell me why dozens if not hundreds saw a large jetliner)


Shanksville Responders: Why do none of them say the debris was inconsistant with a plane crash?


Shanksville Investigators: Why don't they tell us the Flight 93 site was unlike any other airliner crash?


Cleveland-Hopkins Employees: Why does no one support the idea that Flight 93 landed there?


WTC Insurers: Why are they not pursuing fraud charges?


FDNY: Why do no firemen come forward saying the sounds they heard inside the WTC towers were unlike any other fire ? Meaning explosives,or thermate, or little green men,etc....




Why do they not come forward?



It can't be complicity: These people are not involved in the conspiracy, so they would have no motivation to protect it.


It can't be money: There's too many people to assume they have all be "bought off" or are all afraid of losing their jobs.


It can't be fear: Again, there are too many people to assume they fear physical reprisal, and FDNY particularly, they risk their lives every day for total strangers, they would certainly risk their lives to uncover the murder of over 300 of their Brothers.

Let the Spin Begin! Drum Roll Please...................!




posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 05:19 PM
link   
Unless you have been living under a rock there are many who are coming forward about 9/11.

People who have worked hand in hand with Bush himself. That leaves a lot to be said about the administration running the US.

It may have taken a few years to do it properly but this 5th anniversary big things will happen for the truth movement.

1/3 of all americans believe the government had a hand in 9/11 and this is just from the people who have looked into 9/11.

What happens when the rest of the population looks into 9/11 and wake up? You still going to spam these boards with your nonsense?



posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 10:58 PM
link   


Unless you have been living under a rock there are many who are coming forward about 9/11.

but why none of those listed? why no one directly involved?




People who have worked hand in hand with Bush himself. That leaves a lot to be said about the administration running the US.

i assume you are referring to morgan reynolds, IIRC correctly he was an economist and never worked "directly" with bush, no was he involved in anythign 9/11 related




It may have taken a few years to do it properly but this 5th anniversary big things will happen for the truth movement.

yes yes its going to be a good year for the "truth" we know



1/3 of all americans believe the government had a hand in 9/11 and this is just from the people who have looked into 9/11.

1/3 of ALL americans? but just those who have looked into 9/11....ok then

actually the poll was of about 1000 people, and 1/3 believe the govt was either involved, OR took no action to prevent it, not quite the same thing there



What happens when the rest of the population looks into 9/11 and wake up? You still going to spam these boards with your nonsense?

yes yes, they are allll waking up, same thing creationists have been saying for decades....evolution will be widely rejected VERY SOON!


....still waiting....



posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Duhh
Many claim only a small group of individuals would have to be involved in the conspiracy in order to pull off 9/11, but these are only the people who would need to see the "Big Picture"...


Well isn't that the real problem. No one wants to take reponsibility for anything anymore. Everyone is afraid of possible repercusions.


[Mod Edit: Removed entire quote of first post. Please read this post - Jak]

[edit on 6/8/06 by JAK]



posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 09:01 PM
link   
Good Post. I don't think you will get many serious responses though, because the people who want to believe it the most listen to facts the least. I have seen similar lists to yours and yours is much "nicer".

I'll be watching this thread to see if anything even attempted to be disputed...



posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 10:33 PM
link   
The recent admission by the 9/11 commission appears to show that a number of government/military employees were knowingly lying.

I'm not sure any of them fear personal physical reprisal. I imagine the fear of reprisal against family members and friends keeps them silent.

[edit on 5-8-2006 by Frith]



posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Duhh
CD Experts: Why do they not agree that the WTC towers came down in a manner consistant with controlled demolition?


Erm, who are those experts you say don't agree?
And don't come on with the company Controlled Demolitions Inc, they are most likely the ones that did the CD and are a huge goverment contractor(strangely even more after 9/11)


Originally posted by Duhh
Structural Engineers: Why don't they claim the towers should not have fallen from the damage they sustained?


Plenty of structural and other types of engineers have said it makes no sence.
Do you even read threads on ATS and others sites or do you just come here to rebute and debunk everything?


Originally posted by Duhh
FAA/NORAD/NEADS/Airline Employees: Why do none of them claim the response to the 9/11 hijackings was not normal?


Read the 9/11 commision report, the recent reports on the subject and the published research by newspapers on the released FAA and NORAD tapes.
The people involved and the "official" people researching and investigating all this say that things went completely and totaly against established operational procedures, people have been lying about what happend, people have changed their stories more often, before and during the investigation, that its starting to be rediculous.


Originally posted by Duhh
Military Personel: Any not high enough up the chain of command to be in on the "Big Picture" must realize the military repsonse to 9/11 was unusual. Why don't they say there was an unusually large number of wargames planned for the day? Or that there were too few fighters on alert?


Read previous, things weren't normal in any concievable way as established by even the commision.


Originally posted by Duhh
Pentagon Responders: Why do none of the first responders here mention a 16 foot hole? Or that damage was inconsistant with a 757?


They actualy did ...


Originally posted by Duhh
Pentagon Witnesses: Why do so many people say they saw a large commercial airliner? (please don't bother with the 2 or 3 who say they saw a smaller plane, tell me why dozens if not hundreds saw a large jetliner)


There are more withnesses that were interviewed right after the facts that said it wasn't a large passenger plane, all this changed when the media started hammering that it was a 757.

Eye witnesses to traumatic events are nutoriously unreliable, especialy if an "official story" is being hammered into everyones brains, this makes them start doubt themselves and adopt the "official" story, because people are so naive they think the goverment doesn't tell lies.

There's another report published recently by the House of Representatives that shows how much the goverment actualy DOES lie, about everything. Including the reasons for going to Iraq, the fact they DID illegaly wiretap people, while officialy they said they didn't without a warant and so on.


Originally posted by Duhh
Shanksville Responders: Why do none of them say the debris was inconsistant with a plane crash?


They did ...


Originally posted by Duhh
Shanksville Investigators: Why don't they tell us the Flight 93 site was unlike any other airliner crash?


The camera crews and first feds on scene(the investigators) actualy did say on camera the impact crater was way smaller then expected and there was surprisingly little fire/smoke comming from the crash.


Originally posted by Duhh
Cleveland-Hopkins Employees: Why does no one support the idea that Flight 93 landed there?


No clue. First I hear of anything landing there, not up to date with all of the "sub" theory's.


Originally posted by Duhh
WTC Insurers: Why are they not pursuing fraud charges?


Well, they first have to find out the truth, and there are outstanding fraud complaints about the put suspicious put options, that to date still haven't bene claimed.


Originally posted by Duhh
FDNY: Why do no firemen come forward saying the sounds they heard inside the WTC towers were unlike any other fire ? Meaning explosives,or thermate, or little green men,etc....


They actualy did, ON CAMERA, when it was actualy happening. Everyone, including the reporters on scene said they heard explosions.



Only thing I can conclude is what I said above, you seem to be asking alot of questions without being interested in the least about the answers, even if they have been all over the place, even if the answers we can give you are the exact same as have been given from day one, aside the "official story", did you even watch tele when this all was happening? If you did, you would actualy have known that the answer to half of your questions was "THEY DID SPEAK OUT".
All this implies to me that the only thing you care about is debunking and rebuting, with no regard to the truth thats in your face and has been all along.

[edit on 5/8/06 by thematrix]



posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 12:44 AM
link   


Erm, who are those experts you say don't agree?

any who are keeping quiet, why remain silent on the issue?




And don't come on with the company Controlled Demolitions Inc, they are most likely the ones that did the CD and are a huge goverment contractor

logical fallacy: poisoning the well




Plenty of structural and other types of engineers have said it makes no sence.

sources? and internet posts dont count




Read the 9/11 commision report, the recent reports on the subject and the published research by newspapers on the released FAA and NORAD tapes.

once again, sources? why arent these people flocking the "truth" movement in droves?




Read previous, things weren't normal in any concievable way as established by even the commision.

the commission stated things didnt go as smoothly as planners had hoped (what ever does?) but no one seems to be coming forward stating there was anything sinister, just that reaction was confused at best




They actualy did ...

referring to the outer wall or inner courtyard? and of course, sources?




There are more withnesses that were interviewed right after the facts that said it wasn't a large passenger plane, all this changed when the media started hammering that it was a 757.

sources for the interviews? ive only seen 2




They did ...

its all past tense with you, why are they not still claiming this?




The camera crews and first feds on scene(the investigators) actualy did say on camera the impact crater was way smaller then expected and there was surprisingly little fire/smoke comming from the crash.

but that doesnt mean it wasnt a plane crash, just that its not what the camera crew expected (whats their experience with plane crashes?)




No clue. First I hear of anything landing there, not up to date with all of the "sub" theory's.

its in Loose Change, probably better you dont know about it




Well, they first have to find out the truth, and there are outstanding fraud complaints about the put suspicious put options, that to date still haven't bene claimed.

in order to find the truth they need to call for an investigation, so if they suspect fraud they shoul dbe calling for an invesitigation

put options still unclaimed, eh? well that plan went smashingly didnt it, lots of money made? ...but never claimed




They actualy did, ON CAMERA, when it was actualy happening. Everyone, including the reporters on scene said they heard explosions.

but explosions are normal in a fire, why dont they say these werent normal?

[edit on 6-8-2006 by defaultdotxbe]



posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 05:33 AM
link   
I don't need to supply sources, you and everyone needs to start reading whats out there before asking questions like this, its not my or anyone else fault that your asking questions to answers that are readely available, not just out there but on ATS itself, heck, half of the questions are answered if you just read the threads in the "newPosts" page.

Saying internet doesn't count equals to what you said about poisening the well.

Commision members actualy published a book (a rep and dem in unison even) saying things didn't only go smoothly but were hijacked, stonewalled, lied and so on.

Explosions are normal in fire, yeah, I give ya that. A pitty that the explosions heard and seen originated from places like the basement and nowhere near where there was fire.

I refuse to give any links and sources as long as the thread starter doesn't give any sources and links to support his claims, because most of the questions he asks are answered even here on ATS.



posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 10:31 AM
link   
Yeah, thats right, no sources. I am sure you don't wanna give sources. It is hard when you have none. ATS is a large body of work. There are no answers to these questions from any of the above in question. You have used out of context , and simili, to provide yours at best. The questions seem to bother people that can't really come up with credible verified answers. That would be you!
I do think I have an understanding as to why Cters buy into this so much. As the new Scripps pole sugests, Ctist tend to be young, under educated, and less well off, than most. It makes them feel superior in ways they normally would not. They have this strange sense that they are smarter than others, because only they, and their kind, know something other people don't.Or to them, things others could not understand. Well the "truth' is they are less than average smarts, and don't do their home work. That is a FACT!!!!!Happy Hunting!

[edit on 6-8-2006 by Duhh]



posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 11:27 AM
link   
Hrm, Duhh, when you start a thread making assumptions, its up to you to provide the links and sources to backup your claims, not mine, when you provide information in that way, then I and the rest of the people start pointing out whats wrong.

Its up to you to actualy read the boards instead of just posting unsupported, patently false and flamebait threads.

Next to that, I'm comming up to 30, am educated, am constantly undergoing training going from IT related things to weapons, combat, SWAT style traing, Intel gathering techniques and technology, interogation techniques and technology and psychology.
I also am subjected to both medical and psychological tests every few months as a part of my job.

I don't need to feel superior, in general I actualy wish to be left alone and that people treat eachother like I tend to treat them and wish to be treated myself, which is helping others when needed and not interfering with their lives, even if I don't agree with their lifestyle.

The truth as you like saying is that your conduct makes it look to everyone that you are what you wish people to believe others in this community are.

In all of the threads you posted up to now, and everyone can check that by just clicking on the link that shows all the threads by a certain poster, all you do is attack the persons of whoever you don't agree with and make unsupported partisan remarks about everything.

Like I said, you post evidence, links and sources for your claims, you are the starter of this thread.

Then when you do that, me and others can show you the evidence, info and sources that show otherwise.

And ps, like I said earlyer, you don't need to go look troughout all of ATS, the answer and proof to half of your questions is in threads in the "newPosts" page alone.

[edit on 6/8/06 by thematrix]



posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Duhh
Ctist tend to be young, under educated, and less well off, than most. It makes them feel superior in ways they normally would not. They have this strange sense that they are smarter than others, because only they, and their kind, know something other people don't.Or to them, things others could not understand. Well the "truth' is they are less than average smarts, and don't do their home work. That is a FACT!!!!!Happy Hunting!

If believing that little bit of verbal pabulum makes you feel better, then wonderful. However, you are directed to stop these contrived blanket insults towards many members of this website. If you're not able, your account will be terminated.



posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 12:02 PM
link   
Sadly most of us are imprisoned by our own debt.

You have to keep in mind that legislation was just passed greatly weakening the protections
of whistle blowers working in public office.

The most effective way to silence someone is to threaten their livelihood, their home and their family's
security.
Many who wish to come forward would also be putting their security clearance at risk, so the harsh reality is that even those with the best intentions are held in check by fear of reprisals.



posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 04:53 PM
link   


Saying internet doesn't count equals to what you said about poisening the well.

no, it doesnt, you claim sources close to the govt cant be trusted only because they are close to the govt, if you arent predisposed to believing the govt did then why would you have any reason not to trust said sources?

in the case of CDI, we know for a fact they are experts in the field of controlled demolition

on the internet, however, credentials are foggy if existant at all, i can tell you i was in th emilitary for 15 years, or i can tell you im a CD expert with over 10 years experience, i coudl claim to be a structural engineer or an airline pilot or anything i want to be and you have no way to confirm or deny im telling the truth, same goes for anyone on the internet

if an expert wants to posit a theory on a topic, he would certainly have a better vehicle than an internet forum



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join