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: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 12:48 PM
link   
the argument that the information contained may be jeopardizing the investigation is invalid....the 9/11 commissions already done an "investigation" and i mean immediately after the attacks Bush and Co. already "knew" it was Osama the Al Qaida, oh and the Taliban of course, and of course Iraq. I mean damn those US intelligence guys are good lol......but seriously....all issues aside lets use logic and our brains for once ladies and gentlemen. The claim is that they know who (including the hijackers names) was behind the attack. They know what was used (the planes and NOTHING ELSE), they have since stopped investigating and have long since started attacked BASED on evidence. The damage was made well aware to the public as the second tower attack and the subsequent building collapse was shown LIVE. Now lets look at further issues. The government is now facing a ever growing truth movement within and beyond their own borders. Pressure is mounting for further inquiry, and since they claim that the evidence they have "CLEARLY SHOWS [insert 757 hitting pentagon, or Iraq-Terrorist connection, etc] the logical thing to do and at no cost to them would be to show this evidence and silence the critics once and for all.....But that isnt happening. Why?clearly this indicates either that they something to gain/ and lose by showing this evidence and/or there is no evidence. Oh im sorry wait...the guys at POPULAR MECHANICs SAW photos that the public isnt allowed to see but clearly prove the official story right? the editor must be undercover high level government since hes the only person in the world whos been allowed to see these photo's.
again let me reiterate, what justification is there to withold evidence that would clearly play to the favor of the federal government not only in silencing the conspiracies but also help rally more support for their war on terror?




posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
"we are not going to release data we are REQUIRED BY LAW to release under the freedom of information act because you will debate it and possibly disagree with it".


This is not what I said. If you can't even quote another poster accurately on a board that practically does it for you, then I don't think there's much hope for you. And by the way, I'm not an apologist.



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
"we are not going to release data we are REQUIRED BY LAW to release under the freedom of information act because you will debate it and possibly disagree with it".


This is not what I said. If you can't even quote another poster accurately on a board that practically does it for you, then I don't think there's much hope for you. And by the way, I'm not an apologist.


I did not quote you... it was me attempting to relate your statement with reality.

There is hope for me. There names are Isabella and Ann Marie they are the reasons I demand this is cleared up by my generation.



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 02:40 PM
link   
As for the 9/11 Commission, it is not an investigative body in the sense of the judicial system. It was a cya comittee, with one member who on it who was instrumental in keeping the FBI and CIA from communicating, and also protected Clinton's butt.

As for the Freedom of Information Act, what not everyone seems to grasp is that this act does not cover everything.

If you want it cleared up, try researching the studies done by thousands of safety personel, engineers, and archetects across the nation. For the conspiracy to have any validity, you must completely discredit the academics and professionals who have been doing the research in favor of a few attention seeking crackpot academics. The government isn't two or three CIA scientists covering things up. This data went out to experts across the country, because the the incident was too vast for a single govt body to sift through. The real information is out there. Texas A&M has an outstanding group that goes around the country teaching critical incident management, now.

But I've said too much. Now, I'm really not going to waste my breath any more.



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by hogtie
As for the Freedom of Information Act, what not everyone seems to grasp is that this act does not cover everything.


It covers almost all of the 9/11 evidence with the exception of that which can be witheld under the GUISE of "NATIONAL SECURITY". Please be SPECIFIC on what they can withold under FOIA and why.


Originally posted by hogtie
For the conspiracy to have any validity, you must completely discredit the academics and professionals who have been doing the research...


Wrong, and you are obviously NOT a scientist... Requirement of TOTAL EVIDENE:


To be credible, a scientific theory must account for all relevant evidence, not just some of it. In science this requirement is known as the "requirement of total evidence" or the "burden of proof." A scientific theory that does not meet its burden of proof or its "requirement of total evidence" is simply not a credible scientific theory—it is an opinion. Though an opinion may be held by many people, and though it may have considerable emotional or political appeal, it simply cannot be considered good science if it ignores evidence, distorts evidence, or contains serious anomalies or contradictions.



Originally posted by hogtie
But I've said too much. Now, I'm really not going to waste my breath any more.


You are done because you do not have a leg to stand on... agian.. nice cop out.

[edit on 15-9-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts


Wrong, and you are obviously NOT a scientist... Requirement of TOTAL EVIDENE:


To be credible, a scientific theory must account for all relevant evidence, not just some of it. In science this requirement is known as the "requirement of total evidence" or the "burden of proof." A scientific theory that does not meet its burden of proof or its "requirement of total evidence" is simply not a credible scientific theory—it is an opinion. Though an opinion may be held by many people, and though it may have considerable emotional or political appeal, it simply cannot be considered good science if it ignores evidence, distorts evidence, or contains serious anomalies or contradictions.




hmm.. I guess that really hurts the conspiracy theorist argument, which has produce about, oh... zero credible evidence.



You are done because you do not have a leg to stand on... agian.. nice cop out.

You've got your signals crossed. The majority of the scientific, military, law enforcement, academic, domestic, and political community supports the current view of events. So that is my leg to stand on. The burden of proof now lies squarely on the nay-sayers, and you/they are not carrying the day, except in the tin hat world.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by hogtie
hmm.. I guess that really hurts the conspiracy theorist argument, which has produce about, oh... zero credible evidence.


The evidecne is hidden from us by those you support. You are FAILING to understand where the purden of PROOF falls.. not on us. IT is on the governemtn to provide 100% scientifically accurate, irrefutable, un-impeachable reports. Theonly purden we have is to shot that ANY part of it is wrong, fabricated, exxagerated or part of a coverup.


Originally posted by hogtie The majority of the scientific, military, law enforcement, academic, domestic, and political community supports the current view of events.


Where is your soucre that a maojrity of these people agree with you.. SILENCE does not=agreement. Going on PUBLIC RECORD does. So, who are these millions of people?

You see, you are just throwing around assumptions and failing to see and underdstand the burden of proof.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

provide 100% scientifically accurate, irrefutable, un-impeachable reports.

Good luck if that is your expectation for anything. Even Stephen Hawking has been wrong before. Me thinks you is naive.



Where is your soucre that a maojrity of these people agree with you.. SILENCE does not=agreement. Going on PUBLIC RECORD does. So, who are these millions of people?


They are all busy working the results into academia so that the next generation of archetects, civil engineers, public safety personel, doctors, nurses, basically everyone that this has a practical effect upon, can be better prepared for the next catastrophe. I'm sorry if they don't have the time to personally adress your little club, but they are busy learning from what really happened, and applying it to the real world.

If you want answers take some college level courses in structrual engineering.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 11:41 AM
link   
GOOD JOB! You dodged the whole burden of proof issue after you failed in trying to turn it around on me... SOLID DEBATE SKILLS! SOLID!


Originally posted by hogtie
Good luck if that is your expectation for anything. Even Stephen Hawking has been wrong before. Me thinks you is naive.


"ME THINKS" that they are presenting their story as FACT so "ME ALSO THINKS" they need to be 100% accurate. Remeber the Shuttle Challenger disaster? They could prove EXACTLY which O-ring on which booster failed, how and when...

The NIST can't even decide on the mode of collapse for WTC 1, 2 or 7 yet present their "theories" as fact to the American people... "Me Thinks" you are being decieved and should study a little psychology.


Originally posted by hogtie
They are all busy working the results into academia so that the next generation of archetects, civil engineers, public safety personel, doctors, nurses, basically everyone that this has a practical effect upon, can be better prepared for the next catastrophe.


Where is your evidence of this and stiil wo TF are the "they" you are reffering to?

All you have done here is make baseless generalizations, then when pressed for FACTS, you continue to cite nothing and produce nothing to back your silly claims.


Originally posted by hogtie
I'm sorry if they don't have the time to personally adress your little club, but they are busy learning from what really happened, and applying it to the real world.


Cute insult. My "little club" includes > 60% of those living outside the US and > 30% of those within the US. They have had five years of TAXPAYER PAID salary to produce a semi-believable story and FAILED. It is time for the release of the evidence and a new investigation.

Again, where is your evidence that the NIST "learned smething" from this and are out preaching the gospel and saving lives? They aren't. They do not address anyone on anything in violation of the federal Freedom of Information Act.

You are obviously not vey cultured if you think the sentiment of the throngs of idiot Americans that believe this tripe are echoed ANYWHERE in the world.


Originally posted by hogtie
If you want answers take some college level courses in structrual engineering.


First of all... what are your qualifications? You write like a middle school aged child.

Secondly, I think my BS in ME from a top ten school allows me to understand engineering, physics, mathematics, materials and stats quite well.

YOu are petty and bring nothing to the table except "they all disagree...". For the last time, WHO is THEY?

[edit on 18-9-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 12:00 PM
link   
Well, I am 8th grader at Tom Landry Middle School, and my drafting teacher says that you can't even get a job flipping burgers with BS in mechanical engineering.

But on my own, I've gone through 7 different towns in 4 different states, and asked passers-by an unbiased and non-leading question: Do you believe that the US government had anything to do with the attacks on the world trade center?

The results were %87 no, %8 unsure, %5 yes, and 4 pats on the head. That last %5 may not have been straight with me. It looked like they were in a hurry to get to their D&D tournament.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by hogtie
Well, I am 8th grader at Tom Landry Middle School,....


Good. I will stop feeding the troll then.

Zogby, MSNBC, CNN and BBC polls do not agree with your highly accurate polling mechanism.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Zogby, MSNBC, CNN and BBC polls do not agree with your highly accurate polling mechanism.


I don't understand how they can be different, since we have the same far-left, anti-war, anti-Bush agenda. We should both be right on the money. I love how they ask their questions:

Question: If there was undenyable proof that the US govt had a hand in the 9/11 attacks, would you support an investigation?

Results: %97 of Americans believe US govt should be investigated over 9/11 attacks!!!



Well, I'm going back to class and design me a building that the government can blow up. I'm using technology I stole from the greys.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by hogtie
Question: If there was undenyable proof that the US govt had a hand in the 9/11 attacks, would you support an investigation?


This is where you continue to show your true fascist colors.

How can proof be obtained when the evidence is being witheld?

First comes evidence... then comes proof. If the gov't controls the evidence... Wll, I think even you are smart enough to see where I am going with this.

They have the evidence and cannot prove ANYTHING.
We have little evidence and can disprove much of their reports and stories.

SO, simpy put...

Why do you argee with the witholding of evidence in this matter?

For example: Give Steven Jones a "certified" sample of steel with the slag still attached. Better yet, let him go to the NIST/FEMA warehouse, choose a piece, certify it and certify his testing?

What woould this cost? $2K?

What about the photos of WTC 1, 2 and 7? What does it cost to give the public ACCESS to the photos? A server and some bandwidth? Hardly an expensive undertaking.

Why do you so VEHEMENTLY INSIST we are wrong, BUT that the evidence should be witheld? If you were so SURE of the GOv'ts conspiracy theory, you would SHOUT GIVE THEM THE EVIDENCE and SHUT THEM UP. Yet, you do not...

Only the guilty hide the evidence. Ask any cop.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Why do you argee with the witholding of evidence in this matter?




Because our town has a big freakin' slab of metal from the WTC as a memorial. The stuff is everywhere! You're just mad because there aren't any pieces with traces of explosives on them. I wonder why that is...

I know a cop or two. I'll give them a shout and see what they think.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by hogtie
Because our town has a big freakin' slab of metal from the WTC as a memorial. The stuff is everywhere!


Wrong... Stevn Jones has done very sophisticated testing on slag from memorials... the results are very telling, you can find them in another thread here.

The only thing the Gov't supporters can come up with to refute Jones' findings is...

Chain of Custody. So they write off his entire examination of the material by claiming it is not WTC steel even though it came from a memorial.

Hence, the need for direct access with a gov't approved chain of custody.

So, why not allow a group of professors access to "certified" samples of their choosing from the warehouse? Ther only need a piece the size of your pinky...

Nice job dodging all of my other points and questions. You are truly a scholar and master of debate.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 01:02 PM
link   
Chain of custody is everything in an investigation. Especially if you have a self-promoter like Jones tinkering with it. If I want unbiased analysis, I think I will look somewhere other than ATS 9/11 sections.

As for debating your arguments, I do not debate what I do not even consider.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by hogtie
Chain of custody is everything in an investigation.


OK. So, you agree then.

Release a certified sample so that Jones and the THREE OTHER UNIVERSITIES that have tested the slag can be proven to be the frauds that they are!

WE ARE finally in agreement.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 01:28 PM
link   
Damn it! You got me. I walked right into it, too.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999


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.



No Swampfox, they did not leave AFTER flights resumed,...they left BEFORE the flights resumed.

Bin Laden Family's US exit approved

THE United States allowed members of Osama bin Laden’s family to jet out of the US in the immediate aftermath of September 11, even as American airspace was closed.

Former White House counter-terrorism tsar Richard Clarke said the Bush administration sanctioned the repatriation of about 140 high-ranking Saudi Arabians, including relatives of the al-Qaida chief.

"Somebody brought to us for approval the decision to let an aeroplane filled with Saudis, including members of the Bin Laden family, leave the country," he said...

The plane is believed to have landed in ten US cities picking up passengers, including Los Angeles, Washington DC, Boston and Houston. At the time, access to US airspace was restricted and required special government approval.

Who let Saudis flee after 9/11?

In the days immediately following Sept. 11, 2001, while the airways were still closed to all other flights, Americans couldn't fly into the country but relatives of bin Laden were able to fly out. The Justice Department and the FBI inspector general should investigate why these obvious "persons of interest" were permitted to leave the country without being seriously interrogated.

Who let Bin Laden's leave U.S.?

Democrats suspect President Bush, who met privately with the Saudi Arabian ambassador, Prince Bandar bin Sultan bin Abdul Aziz, on the morning of Sept. 13, 2001, may have personally authorized the controversial flights, several of which took place when all other U.S. commercial air travel had been halted.
.



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 07:53 AM
link   
Still looking for answers as to why anoyone agrees with supressing evidence in the crime of the century...

Patiently waiting.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join