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.

 

Why do you NOT agree that ALL of the evidence should be released?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 08:48 AM
link   
Why do you think it is OK for the FBI, NIST and FEMA to withold the photos, videos, computer models and physical evidence regarding WTC 1, 2, 7 and the Pentagon in violation of the Freedom of Information Act?

Given the fact that they supposedly used this supressed evidence as the basis for their investigations, how can their investigations be considered valid by anyone if they do not reveal the supporting evidence and allow scrutiny of said evidence?

I will conceede that any evidence showing bodys or body pars should be censored prior to release.

[edit on 14-9-2006 by Slap Nuts]




posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 08:52 AM
link   
Well, to the extent that the evidence could not prejudice security, safety or any future legal action I couldn't agree more.

However, if anyone thinks that the retained evidence is going to stop all the arguments even if it is released I fear they would be severely disappointed.



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by timeless test
Well, to the extent that the evidence could not prejudice security, safety or any future legal action I couldn't agree more.

However, if anyone thinks that the retained evidence is going to stop all the arguments even if it is released I fear they would be severely disappointed.


What reason could they have for not releasing things like the Pentagon footage?

This would definitely clear up one BIG question that many people have & get the government off the hook? So Why? Are they waiting for the proper moment? I don't think so. Are they waiting for the movie to come out & don't want to spoil the ending? I don't think so. There are only three reasons I can think of that make sense;

1) They don't want us to see what's on the videos.

2) They like all the speculation on secrecy because it is serving some purpose, and therefore they don't want us to see what's on the videos.

3) They don't want us to see what's on the videos. . .



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 10:08 AM
link   
This post is intended for Esdad, Howardroark, Leftbehind, snoopy, mr. pointy, vushta, Lomillialor, Astygia, zuccy, JIMC, Zaphod, ETC. Those who stand unmovably behind the governments official conspiracy theory.

Please tell me the answer to these questions.



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 10:15 AM
link   
Weren't you just talking about baiting in another thread?

I personally believe that they let it happen on purpose, so I don't know where you get off with this back up the government unmovably bs.

I think that yes they should probably release the tapes, if in fact there are tapes with better images of the plane.

Do I think it really matters?

No, because the vast majority of the evidence points to a Boing Jet hitting the pentagon, and practically zero evidence exists that points to anything else.

I think this is a non issue that takes precedence over what I think are the real conspiracies of that day. I imagine that a few people on top allowed the attacks to happen without realizing the scale of damage. I think that all this nonsense about bombs and uavs hitting the pentagon distracts from what might be the actual conspiracy that happened that day.

And the saddest part is, that even my mildly conspiratorial stance will be swept under the rug with holographic planes, and a flying nun hit the pentagon theories.

BTW, before you mock people for having the courage to debate their stance, no matter how unpopular it might be here, you should look into actually taking a stance on any of these issues.

How brave of you to mock us when you won't even say what your stance is so that others can discuss it.

[edit on 14-9-2006 by LeftBehind]



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Weren't you just talking about baiting in another thread?

I personally believe that they let it happen on purpose, so I don't know where you get off with this back up the government unmovably bs.

I think that yes they should probably release the tapes, if in fact there are tapes with better images of the plane.

Do I think it really matters?

No, because the vast majority of the evidence points to a Boing Jet hitting the pentagon, and practically zero evidence exists that points to anything else.

I think this is a non issue that takes precedence over what I think are the real conspiracies of that day. I imagine that a few people on top allowed the attacks to happen without realizing the scale of damage. I think that all this nonsense about bombs and uavs hitting the pentagon distracts from what might be the actual conspiracy that happened that day.

And the saddest part is, that even my mildly conspiratorial stance will be swept under the rug with holographic planes, and a flying nun hit the pentagon theories.

BTW, before you mock people for having the courage to debate their stance, no matter how unpopular it might be here, you should look into actually taking a stance on any of these issues.

How brave of you to mock us when you won't even say what your stance is so that others can discuss it.

[edit on 14-9-2006 by LeftBehind]


I agree that a lot the evidence points to a plane. Can't refute that. . .

But I'm curious- What's your take on this specific issue about the vids? I know you stated that you think they should release them, which tells me that you don't think there's any reason not to either. If they're just gonna show AA flight 77 - Boeing B-757-223 flying into the Pentagon, then what's with all the secrecy?

Again you believe they should let us see them, so why do you think they are NOT letting us see them. Thanx LeftBehind-



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 10:36 AM
link   
Slap Nuts-

Not unmovably, man. My only thing is that poking holes in the official story doesn't automatically make another story true by default. And, truth be told, it's not the technical aspect of things that sways me, because unlike you or Griff, I don't know enough about physics or SE to look at a chunk of data and recognize it as faulty. I reject the hologram theory only because the official story is about 100x more likely to have occurred than the hologram/blue screen thing.

No, for me, it's the human element that I can't dismiss. I posted something like this a while ago. There would be hundreds of people, maybe even thousands, who participated in a cover-up of this magnitude. Some police and firemen would have to be in the know, plus all the government officials, the family members, and the "witnesses". The NSA couldn't keep their wiretapping thing under wraps for what, five years? And this (9/11) would involve a whole hell of a lot more participation, which greatly increases the likelyhood of leaked information.

So it's not that I'm behind the official story 100%, just I haven't seen someone make use of the holes to posit something that makes sense. Alex Jones probably does the best job I've seen in a documentary, showing the inconsistancies without going off the deep end.

Anyway, regarding releasing everything to the public, there is absolutely no reason why this shouldn't be done, I totally agree with you there. It has been five years, the 'investigation' is over. Exterior camera angles showing the plane hit would in no way compromise security. Photos of the aftermath, with casualties censored as you mentioned, need to be released. I can only think of three reasons why they have not done this: one, the administration is just stupid in its secrecy, which is likely given Bush's nature; two, there is absolutely nothing of significance on the tape, and they just haven't gotten around to telling anyone (again, stupid); or three; there's something else on the tapes that conflicts with the official story, which is likely. But I'm of the opinion, and it's been said by a few others recently, that all these open-ended questions and theories probably serve the administration by giving them an excuse to dismiss any and all questions to the official story.

If I tend to come off as hard.ed, that's not my intention. But I'm not hopping aboard Theory B only because Theory A doesn't make sense; that would be just as foolish as accepting Theory A.

[edit on 14-9-2006 by Astygia]



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 10:38 AM
link   
Another funny thing is, how many days was it before the gov finally did an investigation?? 100 somthing right?

Point is, never before has the governemnt waited so long to form an internal investigation.

[edit on 14-9-2006 by Techsnow]



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Weren't you just talking about baiting in another thread?


This is not baiting... as a matter of fact, I did not intened on raplying to any of the posts here. I just want to know what others feel the impetus for withoulding the evidence is.


Originally posted by LeftBehind
I think that yes they should probably release the tapes, if in fact there are tapes with better images of the plane.


I am talking about a lot more than the Pentagon tapes. The NIST holds 7,000+ unreleased photos wof the WTC disaster, 6,000+ video clips and all of the remaining physical evidence along with FEMA.

The FBI and DoD hold all of the Penagon evidence.

All of these groups have willfully defied the freedom of information act to continue concealing the evidence from the public.

I did not ask for your opinion of who did what in this thread so let's stay on topic and avoid your theories here in accordance with ATS guidelines.


Originally posted by LeftBehind
And the saddest part is, that even my mildly conspiratorial stance will be swept under the rug with holographic planes, and a flying nun hit the pentagon theories.


Off topic, but when have I ever claimed I knew what did or did not hit the Pentagon? Stop inserting your desires into my keystrokes please.


Originally posted by LeftBehind
BTW, before you mock people for having the courage to debate their stance, no matter how unpopular it might be here, you should look into actually taking a stance on any of these issues.


I have mocked no one. Taking a "stance" without proper eviddence is close minded and unscientific so no thanks on the "I BELIEVE X AND ONLY X NO MATTER WHAT ELSE IS PRESENTED" stance you suggest.


Originally posted by LeftBehind
How brave of you to mock us when you won't even say what your stance is so that others can discuss it.


I have told you my stance 100 times... The gov't is full of it. They are on record LYING about this. Their reports are full of omissions, errors, magic, lies, pseudo science, etc. They even call eachother out. NIST says FEMA mishandeled the evidence... 9/11 Comission says DoD, NORAD and EPA lied... 9/11 Victims Panel says 9/11 comission lied... Bush lied... NIST is dodgy at best...

All I want is to beat up their BS until athe EVIDENCE IS RELEASED and a new investigation can occur with FACTS and EVIDENCE. ANYONE who disagrees with the release of the evidence PLEASE tell me WHY as I believe it is a NO BRAINER.


[edit on 14-9-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astygia
No, for me, it's the human element that I can't dismiss. I posted something like this a while ago. There would be hundreds of people, maybe even thousands, who participated in a cover-up of this magnitude. Some police and firemen would have to be in the know, plus all the government officials, the family members, and the "witnesses". The NSA couldn't keep their wiretapping thing under wraps for what, five years? And this (9/11) would involve a whole hell of a lot more participation, which greatly increases the likelyhood of leaked information.


A very small faction could have carried out the 9/11 attacks, in fact the official story states that a small faction of terrorists carried out the attacks. What makes you think that large numbers of people are involved?
People, in general, will believe what they are told and if they are not on a 'need to know basis', then they don't need to know.
The NSA exists to wiretap, it is no surprise that they do so without warrants.
The hidden information surrounding 9/11 is leaking out.


Originally posted by Slap Nuts
Why do you think it is OK for the FBI, NIST and FEMA to withold the photos, videos, computer models and physical evidence regarding WTC 1, 2, 7 and the Pentagon in violation of the Freedom of Information Act?


It is not ok, but when war can be initiated from false information in plain sight of the world's people and noone blinks an eye, we are clearly in a time of propaganda and manipulation on an unprecedented scale.

People simply refuse to believe that the people charged with protecting our interests would have a hand in the horrors of 9/11; regardless of the insurmountable coincidences and circumstantial evidence that surrounds every single aspect of 9/11.



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astygia
poking holes in the official story doesn't automatically make another story true by default.


Correct, but what it does do is demand a new investigation be carried out.


Originally posted by Astygia
Anyway, regarding releasing everything to the public, there is absolutely no reason why this shouldn't be done


This is something I was hoping we could ALL agree on. There should not be TWO sides to this (gov't vs "CTers")... ONE UNITED FRONT DEMANDING THE RELEASE OF THE EVIDENCE.



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 12:05 PM
link   
I for one think all the evidence should be released to the Public. So we can clear this up once and for all.

Withholding evidence in the interests of public safety is absolute b/c.

If they are not going to give it to thepublic to go over. Then the conspiracies and the speculation will continue.

But will we get to see any of it?

I don think we will, well not in my lifetime we will not.



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 02:45 PM
link   
Perhaps the reason the evidence has not been released is that it has already been destroyed.



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by shanti23

A very small faction could have carried out the 9/11 attacks, in fact the official story states that a small faction of terrorists carried out the attacks. What makes you think that large numbers of people are involved?
People, in general, will believe what they are told and if they are not on a 'need to know basis', then they don't need to know.


The bold part is exactly why I believe that. It only takes a handful of people to hijack 4 planes, but it takes a lot more than a handful to:

plant bombs in buildings
swap passengers from real planes to wherever
air traffic controllers, administration personnel (to corroborate the existance of these passengers, whether they actually existed or not)
remote control planes into buildings
detonate the bombs in time with airline impact
plant evidence (passports, etc; would require agency, police, FD corroboration)
corroborate evidence that's not really at the scene but claimed to be (would also require agency, police, FD corroboration)
rig crime scene (telephone poles, debris, etc;, again, government corroboration)
witnesses, whether legitimate or fake, needed to corroborate (there's a lot of witnesses)
family of airline passengers (whether passengers existed or not)
calls made to airline passengers (whether passengers existed or not, calls were made by someone to someone)
supervisors and oversight of entire operation

The list goes on. That's more than a handful of people.


The NSA exists to wiretap, it is no surprise that they do so without warrants.


I'm not surprised that they wiretap, you missed the point. Maybe fifty people at the most knew about the program, and it leaked. This issue is not nearly as controversial as the planned death of thousands, and involved only a fraction of the people necessary to pull off an inside job of 9/11.



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astygia
The bold part is exactly why I believe that. It only takes a handful of people to hijack 4 planes. . .


All very good points Astygia, but. . .

Why are they withholding evidence from the public?
Why did they destroy all the evidence at ground zero?
Where is the security camera footage from the pentagon?
Why the NORAD stand down?
Why the simultaneous tactical simulations at the time of the attack?
Why wasn't the president taken to a safe location?
Why were there molten pools of iron in the ruins of the WTC?
Why did all three buildings fall at free-fall speed into their own footprint from random fires?
Why have the security cameras from the Sheraton Hotel and the Citgo gas station been removed?
Why was the Bin Laden family flown to safety on the day after the attack?
Why has Bin Laden not been brought to justice?
Why was George Herbert Walker Bush meeting with Bin Laden's brother on the morning of 9/11?
Why was there insider trading immediately prior to the attack?

The list just goes on and on and it keeps on growing.

I cannot explain how they have done it or why there has been no leak, but there is sufficient evidence to call for an independant investigation into the events of that day and I am not alone in thinking that.

The official conspiracy theory does not fully explain what happened that day and this is why we are still wondering what really happened five years later; not because we wear tin-foil hats, but because there is a lot of evidence that tells a different story than the one we have been told to believe.



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by timeless test
Well, to the extent that the evidence could not prejudice security, safety or any future legal action I couldn't agree more.

However, if anyone thinks that the retained evidence is going to stop all the arguments even if it is released I fear they would be severely disappointed.


Ditto that. National security can't be compromised to appease the public and even if every bit of evidence was released, there would still be those who would not accept that that would be all the evidence.



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
...even if every bit of evidence was released, there would still be those who would not accept that that would be all the evidence.


Great logic! So let's not demand they release any evidence, because we might not believe it anyway


I think the 'official story' believers realy don't want any more evidence released, the 'official story' is crumbling around them everytime something new is dicovered.

There is so obviously a coverup, no matter what actual theory you believe, if you are awake you have to agree on that also.

If there is nothing to hide, then why are they hiding?



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
...even if every bit of evidence was released, there would still be those who would not accept that that would be all the evidence.


Great logic! So let's not demand they release any evidence, because we might not believe it anyway


I think the 'official story' believers realy don't want any more evidence released, the 'official story' is crumbling around them everytime something new is dicovered.

There is so obviously a coverup, no matter what actual theory you believe, if you are awake you have to agree on that also.

If there is nothing to hide, then why are they hiding?


I wrestled with this issue of the gov being involved for a long time. Why would they do that, and how could they do that. Then one day it dawned on me. . . No matter what I believed yay or nay about any conspiracy theories regarding any part of 911. . . The first time I saw WTC 7 fall, ( almost months afterwards did I finally pay attention enough to what I was seeing ), I believed whole heartedly that the building was planned to fall that way. . . After more thought I realized that if the building came down because someone planned it, then everything preceding that known event would have to be planned also. . .

The plane hits, the fires, & the collapses of the towers?

Possibly allowing AA flight 77 to hit the Pentagon?

I hope that Mr. Beamer & co took out the terrorists, but could the flight have been shot down because it wasn't needed anymore?

Hold on one moment & let me grab my hard hat cuz I'm expecting a nuclear strike! Yikes!!!



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by shanti23

All very good points Astygia, but. . .

Why are they withholding evidence from the public?

Because there still may be trials in the off chance we capture Osama (or decide to try Sheikh Khalid Muhammed) Of course there is also the other issue about the tons (literally) of evidence that will take YEARS to catalog, let alone search for FOIA requests.

Why did they destroy all the evidence at ground zero?

Sorry, but the evidence of ground zero wasnt destroyed. Unless you are speaking of some of the steel of the WTC. Of course three separate agencies tested the steel before any of it was allowed to be recycled.

Where is the security camera footage from the pentagon?

You've seen it. Why do you assume that there is more evidence that actually shows anything?

Why the NORAD stand down?

Sorry, but NORAD wasnt "stood down" that day.

Why the simultaneous tactical simulations at the time of the attack?

We run drills every flipping week in the military somewhere...

Why wasn't the president taken to a safe location?

He was in a safe location at the school. That neighborhood and the school had been searched by the Secret Service and were known safe zones at the moment. So why not let the man have a chance to make some calls before you move him?

Why were there molten pools of iron in the ruins of the WTC?

Nope, never proven. Based on a statement made by someone who wasnt even there.

Why did all three buildings fall at free-fall speed into their own footprint from random fires?

Nope, they didnt fall into their own footprints from random fires. They fell over a relatively large area after suffering massive fires and damage.

Why have the security cameras from the Sheraton Hotel and the Citgo gas station been removed?

Security cameras have been updated, but are still there.

Why was the Bin Laden family flown to safety on the day after the attack?

The Bin Laden family was gathered in one place and the FBI was allowed to interview each member they felt the need to talk to....and they left the US AFTER airline flights resumed.

Why has Bin Laden not been brought to justice?

Because we havent captured him yet.

Why was George Herbert Walker Bush meeting with Bin Laden's brother on the morning of 9/11?

Because they were both part of the Carlyle Group at the time. Of course, if George Bush was meeting with the brother in New York.....why was he stranded in CLEVELAND that day?



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Great logic! So let's not demand they release any evidence, because we might not believe it


It's your logic that's flawed. You're creating the straw man argument. I never said that none of the evidence should be released, only that what is released should not compromise national security and that any release of information, including all the available information, would never satisfy everyone.




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join