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.

 

There's not ONE piece of SOLID evidence that the destruction of the WTC's were terrorist attacks!!

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 10:24 PM
link   
I'll cover for you ProfTom. Some of us are trying to educate those that attempt to propogate the conspiracies. Your message holds more weight then the 1699 other messages on this topic.

Thanks for speaking up!




posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 10:41 PM
link   
Have you ever considered the differences between emotions and objective information? You may have been there, but it's not like you've seen anything we haven't, from more angles and distances than you could have covered by yourself.

The real difference is what you've suffered emotionally, that hasn't so hindered very many of the rest of us. It was a tragedy, but not a series of "scientific" miracles.

There is a difference, and unfortunately one cannot satisfy the other. My two cents.

[edit on 20-9-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 12:06 AM
link   
proftom, my father was there in new york. he saw a plane hit a tower, apparently. says it 'scrambled his brain'. and then both my brothers joined the army, and now one of them will spend his life in a wheelchair because of an afghani bullet through the spine.

that doesn't change the fact that the towers exhibited many similiarities to controlled demolition, and it certainly doesn't change the fact that most people don't even know that wtc7 fell, and they certainly don't see it on television because no television station ever shows it.
it doesn't change the fact that HUNDREDS of witnesses reported hearing explosions, and there are explosions seen coming out the sides of the towers.
it doesn't change the fact that there was molten metal 'flowing' in the debris pile for weeks afterward.
it doesn't change the fact that the government bold-faced LIED about the air being safe to breathe.
it doesn't change the fact that the FEMA guy said they arrived monday night and were ready to go first thing tuesday.
it doesn't change the fact that bushco have used 911 as the poster boy to push through reams of totalitarian policy into law.
it doesn't change the fact that 3000 people is a small fraction of how many have been exterminated by the american and british and canadian and australian forces in 'the war on a word(terror)'.
it also doesn't explain how high grade american military anthrax ended up being sent to some of bushco's most vocal opponents. that was pushed as 'terror', and IT IS 'terror', but then, it just faded away from media attention. there were MURDERS with the stuff, and no one has been charged, despite the FACT that only a small handful of people could have possibly done it.

so, you may be disgusted because you think things are the way they look from up close, but i am disgusted by the way they look when you step back and see the bigger picture.
i never thought i'd live to see the day america made it "okay" to torture people. THAT is disgusting. you can't even do certain tests on animals because it is considered 'cruel'.

that is ridiculous. especially when the tortured one is COMPLETELY INNOCENT!

disgusting. i wish my family would've listened to me. then my brother would still be able to walk and feed himself.
the emotional reprocussions of 911 didn't stop on 911. they are growing by the minute as the rivers flow red with the blood of innocents, and the guilty get FILTHY RICH off of it.



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
when torture is used to gain 'evidence', it is no 'evidence'

Again, what do you consider solid evidence.



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Again, what do you consider solid evidence.


That's actually the real question now isn't it? It's hard to say either way. Especially when "we the people" aren't allowed access to their evidence in the first place. I do want to re-iterate that I think arab terrorists did pull it off....I just feel they had some "help"...either by Mossad or CIA/FBI/Cheney etc. That's just my feelings though.

The U.S. would never attempt anything like this without having "pansies" set up to take the fall. If indead the U.S. had some involvement.



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 10:16 AM
link   
The solid evidence is the trail that AQ gave from 93 to 2001. That is all you need. This was not the CIA, or our own government. 9/11 was the one that we could not stop, and did not expect. Hopefully, it will not happen again and I trust my country enough to hope that it does not.

Bush did not cause Afghanistan either, as we were there prior to 9/11. However, 9/11 was a catalyst for the US to make sure that no one strikes our soil again. I commend your brother billybob and I can empathize as I have friends and relatives who have or are serving right now injured and maimed. War is ugly, and it is a side if our existnece many people want to ignore but sleep well at night, safe. I know people who have died over there too. There is a threat to our way of life, the ability to go to public places and not worry about suicide bombings is coming to a close. Every other civilized nation in the world deals with terrorism everyday, and we are no longer virgins.

Again, where is the poster of this thread, or is his mission accomplished...



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
The solid evidence is the trail that AQ gave from 93 to 2001. That is all you need.


Can you show that to us, maybe?


“On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”

Surprised by the ease in which this FBI spokesman made such an astonishing statement, I asked, “How this was possible?” Tomb continued, “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.” I asked, “How does that work?” Tomb continued, “The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice than decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connected Bin Laden to 9/11.”


Source


That's not to say there isn't enough damage to find Osama guilty. That's to say there's not even enough evidence to indict him.


The only evidence allegedly left by ANYONE allegedly in al Qaeda, was an uncharred passport that miraculously survived a WTC impact and collapse and was delivered by an anonymous person that just happened to find it on the street, and a suitcase that was also conveniently left behind somewhere.

That is the ONLY evidence linking any alleged terrorist to the events of 9/11, and that stuff would be so ridiculously easy to plant that it's no wonder nobody tries to build a real case off of it.



Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by billybob
when torture is used to gain 'evidence', it is no 'evidence'

Again, what do you consider solid evidence.


What do you consider solid evidence? In this context, are you suggesting that by torturing someone that hasn't even been charged with anything, and they eventually start saying things, you get solid evidence of something from them? You would have to be stupid to NOT talk, and especially to lie, even if you did nothing.


In the context of 9/11 in general, "solid evidence" should at least mean something besides a magic passport and a suitcase.

The minute you start reaching for smaller circumstantial things is the minute you must also consider loads of circumstantial evidences implicating other factions, such as NORAD's wargames confusing radar operators, FEMA being in Manhattan on the night of 9/10 setting up command for a terrorist "exercise", the NRO running a sim of a plane crashing into their building not far from the Pentagon that morning, reports of WTC power-downs just before the attacks, removal of bomb-sniffing dogs just prior to the same, many reports of major, lethal explosions and series of explosions leading up until each collapse from many floors, scientists and engineers increasingly asserting that the WTC Towers and WTC7 could not have fallen as they did without additional energy sources, reports that some of the alleged hijackers had received training on military bases, that some are still alive and yet the FBI has not changed its suspect list or voiced concerns of ID forgeries, reports of SOCOM preventing the arrest of Atta prior to 9/11, other "coincidences" like the announcement of unprecedented losses of money at the Pentagon the night before 9/11 that was soon forgotten, Port Authority handing the WTC complex over to private ownership for the first time just weeks before the attacks, chain-of-command for shoot-downs being changed prior to 9/11 to allow Cheney and others more authority, Cheney allegedly giving stand-down orders from a bunker on 9/11, etc.


What evidence is there against foreign terrorists, Nygdan, that can best the above? An uncharred passport, a suitcase, and commonly-held opinions?



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by billybob
when torture is used to gain 'evidence', it is no 'evidence'

Again, what do you consider solid evidence.


something that can be corroberated, for one. like a picture or video of the same thing from two different angles. that is MUCH harder to 'photoshop' than a single image.
i do not consider it solid evidence to see a grainy video of someone sitting in a cave, 'confessing', when that person looks only vaguely similiar to the person it's SUPPOSED to be, and the thing they are saying completely contradicts what they said on multiple other media channels, and the wife of said person said "that's not him". (although you don't have to be married to him to know it's not him)
what this video IS evidence of, is heinous orwellian propoganda.
i do not consider it solid evidence that devout muslim martyrs are whooping it up at a strip club, and party so hard, they forget (another) koran, the holiest possession of a muslim, lying on a bar stool.
this is evidence of staged false flag propoganda.
i do not consider it solid evidence when someone who confesses in court, has a great bulge around their waist. this bulge was allegedly a high voltage belt. say the wrong thing, and lose your manhood.
this is evidence of coercion by fear.
torture is evidence of coercion by fear.

let me put it to you this way. an analogy i heard:
there are two tomato vendors. one has poor tomatoes and high prices, the other lovely tomatos for cheap. i go to the expensive guy, thinking high price means high quality. he tells me to go across the street, because it's cheaper and better. i believe him.
if i now walk across the street, and the vendor with the cheap tomatoes tells me the expensive tomatoes are better, i will call him a liar(and then buy his tomatoes). i would not know his motive for lying, but i would know he was lying. (don't forget, i can see and smell the tomatoes, so even without the advice of thesse vendors, i have a referential database which helps clarify the mud)

in other, other words, if some drunk muslim, nuzzled up against a stripper, said to me, "tomorrow i martyr myself for allah!!!", i wouldn't believe him.

and if a family, which is INFAMOUS for intrigue and shady dealing, told me that they have TONS of evidence, but that no one can see it for 'national security' reasons, i would know they were hiding something.
and if a commission hired to investigate something, left out testimony and facts that were 'odd', i would say, that was a piss poor investigation, and i would know they are hiding something.
and if people were murdered, and terrorised with US military grade anthrax mailings, and no one was arrested out of the HANDFUL of people that could have done it, i would know that someone was being protected.
if the 'anthrax terrorists' decided to only terrorise the people who oppose bush, i would know that they had the opposite goals of 'al queda', because, you attack those in power, not their opponents.

i consider corpses to be solid evidence.
i consider court records and unaltered official documents to be solid.
i consider recordings of live television and radio broadcasts to be solid evidence of what was broadcast (but not that what was broadcast was 'true').

it's all about cross correlation, corroberation, and chain of custody.

when the 'secret service' says, 'trust us', and hands over some physical 'evidence', and CLIAMS it is what they say it is, is no proof of anything. when the people who are presenting 'confessions' are GUILTY of torturing 'suspects', there is NO PROOF of anything from them.



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 12:54 PM
link   
To those who believe in the alleged tape of Muslim celebrating the United States being attacked on 9/11, please re-review the tape and see where the sun is located in that footage.


www.bible.ca... .htm


Afterwards, get a hand on a world clock and get the time of the location in our time(Eastern standard) and the time of where these suppose Muslims celebrated.

Then you will see if the footage, that was only shown on 9/11, is authentic or not.





[edit on 21-9-2006 by 2smooth4ya]

[edit on 21-9-2006 by 2smooth4ya]



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by 2smooth4ya
To those who believe in the alleged tape of Muslim celebrating the United States being attacked on 9/11, please re-review the tape and see where the sun is located in that footage.


www.bible.ca... .htm


Afterwards, get a hand on a world clock and get the time of the location in our time(Eastern standard) and the time of where these suppose Muslims celebrated.

Then you will see if the footage, that was only shown on 9/11, is authentic or not.


Thank you for bringing this up, but uh... I'm too lazy to go through all that! [grin] What's the answer?

[edit on 21-9-2006 by Amaterasu]



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 09:31 PM
link   
“There's not ONE piece of SOLID evidence that the destruction of the WTC's were terrorist attacks!!”

Actually, there isn’t one piecve of solid evidence that the destruction of the WTCs (or anything else on 9/11) were anything but terrorist attacks.

Among other things the “terrorist theory” is supported by written proof, video proof, public & private records, personal admissions by the terrorists, 1000s of witnesses, pretty much everything. It seems like the CTers theory is to throw enough crap at the wall hoping that anything sticks.

Occum’s Razor.



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 01:05 AM
link   
Well, here's what we have (simplest form).

US civilian airliners hijacked by Middle Eastern men (descriptions from actual victims on board) and crashed into buildings, which later collapsed, or as with 93 crashed by passengers attempting to stop them.

The men's names were connected with Al-Quaeda and they were terrorists. Finally, Osama Bin Ladin claimed responsibility.

Anything else?


[edit on 22-9-2006 by Ace McCloud]



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 01:11 AM
link   


There's not ONE piece of SOLID evidence that the destruction of the WTC's were terrorist attacks!!


Yes there is, it's the day in and of it's self. It happened that is evidence alone.



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 04:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by ADVISOR


There's not ONE piece of SOLID evidence that the destruction of the WTC's were terrorist attacks!!


Yes there is, it's the day in and of it's self. It happened that is evidence alone.


well, i personally thought it was implied that the original poster meant 'arab' terrorists, as opposed to black ops, false flag terrorism.
that's how i read it, anyway.



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ace McCloud
Well, here's what we have (simplest form).

US civilian airliners hijacked by Middle Eastern men (descriptions from actual victims on board) and crashed into buildings, which later collapsed, or as with 93 crashed by passengers attempting to stop them.


We are told that actual victims said this. None of them are alive to verify that it was them... Where is the EVIDENCE?


The men's names were connected with Al-Quaeda and they were terrorists.


Again, this is what we are being told. No such names were on the passenger lists... And we have no footage of all these individuals getting on board. Where is the EVIDENCE?


Finally, Osama Bin Ladin claimed responsibility.


Again, we are told he said this and are shown a video of someone purportedly ObL but with a different nose and cheek structure - AND we have him denying it as well. Where is the EVIDENCE?



[edit on 24-9-2006 by Amaterasu]


XP

posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 03:14 PM
link   
just going to drop into this thread and put my humble two penneth in.
i was reading through this thread and i came across this from nygdan


Again, what do you consider solid evidence.

this is in no way a slur on any one person or sides to be taken it is simply my view on this particular question, and i would have to reply with this.
THE FAMOUS PASSPORT something so small to be found so soon after that collapse and in tact, and then to find it's a terrorists to boot.
come on even......you got to admit after all what happened that's totally fishy.



posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amaterasu
We are told that actual victims said this. None of them are alive to verify that it was them... Where is the EVIDENCE?


This is like an argument that gas chambers are a myth because not a single person gassed in them didn't speak up after the war.
When someone's dead, you can hardly convince him to talk.



Again, this is what we are being told. No such names were on the passenger lists... And we have no footage of all these individuals getting on board. Where is the EVIDENCE?

Are you sure you aren't confusing passanger and victim lists?

Btw where is the evidence Titanic hit an iceberg? Or that the nuke was dropped on Hiroshima? Or that you yourself are real?



posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by tuccy

Originally posted by Amaterasu
We are told that actual victims said this. None of them are alive to verify that it was them... Where is the EVIDENCE?


This is like an argument that gas chambers are a myth because not a single person gassed in them didn't speak up after the war.
When someone's dead, you can hardly convince him to talk.


My point is that there is demonstrable technology today that can emmulate anyone. Some of the family members were a bit disconcerted by the WAY they were communicated with (what was said, how it was said...). So we cannot discount the possibility that the calls were faked. There is no evidence either way.




Again, this is what we are being told. No such names were on the passenger lists... And we have no footage of all these individuals getting on board. Where is the EVIDENCE?

Are you sure you aren't confusing passanger and victim lists?


Well... It is conceivable, but I do thing it's odd that, in searching around, no on has suggested there is a distinction that I could find. And, in fact, there does not seem to be any release listed specifically as the "passenger" list (that does not link back to the victim list). So now I wonder why the passenger list was never released, or is the one the same as the other?

On that point, from: home.pacbell.net...


The FBI now claims that the hijackers used gas to subdue the passengers and crew. If they used gas they would have been affected themselves - unless they had masks. The story gets better all the time. They somehow got on board with masks, gas, guns, knives and electronic guidance systems, in spite of being searched, didn't show up on the airport security cameras, and were not on the passenger lists. They left flight manuals in Arabic in rented cars outside the airport (last minute brushing up on the way there, about how to fly the things!) and then crashed the planes in breathtaking displays of skilled piloting. Just to make sure we knew who they were, their passports were conveniently found in spite of fiery crashes which incinerated the planes and occupants. So they got on board with false IDs but used their real passports?



Btw where is the evidence Titanic hit an iceberg? Or that the nuke was dropped on Hiroshima? Or that you yourself are real?


Lessee... The debris at the bottom of the ocean; the footage and the radiation count; my thinking.

[edit on 25-9-2006 by Amaterasu]



posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 02:37 PM
link   
I agree with everything bsbray has brought up, however getting back to the title of the thread....

There's not ONE piece of SOLID evidence that the destruction of the WTC's were terrorist attacks!!

Whoever did these attacks are terrorist's whether its the U.S Goverment, Mossad or AQ. This is where people are going wrong in labbeling terrorists, if you belive the U.S Goverment did this they are terrorists! they suddenly don't become terrorists because its a goverment.

What ever way you look at it CIA knew something the public didn't whether it was a good motive or a evil one they certainly were planning for such a attack.

NORAD drills for hijacked planes that hit the WTC

F.B.I Warned 70 Times of a attack!

The British also knew what was going on even before September 11th they were all geared up and ready to attack Afghanistan before the event even took place? how can the military be ready to attack a country before the crime has been commited!

Operation Swift Sword

There seems to be more evidance pointing that the major goverments of this world had prior knowledge and what was going on than the evidance that was pointed at Al'Qaeda. If there was nothing to hide all the evidance would be released and the conspiracies ended, looks like we will just have to wait 30 years for the Freedom of Information Act if there is one by then...

Also im usually a observer of everything that goes on here and rarely post but whats with the influx of people who spam disinformation without even reading what people have posted and spout stupid information like "if you believe the goverment did this ur on crack" ect? seems ATS is under attack by properganda spammers at this moment in time!



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 06:05 AM
link   
There is not one solid piece of evidence that the 9/11 attacks were not terrorist attacks either. Whats your point? You don't know what happened in it's entirety - very very few do. This entire subject area is pure guess work based on facts, that in the main can be construed to mean more than one thing.

This thread has achieved one thing for me - it's made me forget those who died and associate the whole event with the childish arguments and insults that most of these threads seem to debase to.

Shame really.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join