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.

 

Information for a speech

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 1 2006 @ 01:13 PM
link   
I will be doing a persuasion speech next wednesday on the conspiracy theory about 9/11. There is way too much information for me to decipher so could anyone just give me some basic ground information with 9/11 and some facts that could persuade people that this was a possible government coverup. Also could you include why the government would do this. Thanks to who ever can help me.




posted on Nov, 1 2006 @ 01:17 PM
link   
I would personally say it is wrong to try and persuade people that it is a goverment cover up. What you must do is show them both sides of the story equally then let them make their own minds up. By trying to persuade people you are showing ignorance to the other side of the story which in itself has some valuable points.

I for one my friend believe in some sort of cover up surrounding 9/11 but am unsure as to what motive or in which way it was done however my beliefs have been made as to reading both sides of the story in eqaul amounts

Good luck in your speech



posted on Nov, 1 2006 @ 01:21 PM
link   
That is what I am going to do. That is a graded point in our class that you show both sides of a theory. I was just looking for some basic information to get me started. Not the crazy parts of the theory that have no backup facts. I just need some evidence that this was a basic government plan. I will show that this might be a real attack or a government cover up.



posted on Nov, 1 2006 @ 01:26 PM
link   
There are a million places on ATS where members have shown some very valid points. The amount of material posted here on ATS is immense so im sure by completing a search you will find bucket loads of material very easily



posted on Nov, 1 2006 @ 01:28 PM
link   
You're in the right forum. At the top of this forum is an index for several highly technical and informative threads about the subject. Here's the link to the thread. Additionally, you should check out the 9/11 Timeline tinWiki.

There's a lot of information here, but only you know your presentation and audience, so it will be up to you to take the information you want and put it in the proper format.

And as thesaint suggested, don't attempt to convince anyone of a government conspiracy; our own personal beliefs aside, there really isn't any proof of it. Better to just present the information as is.

Good luck.



posted on Nov, 1 2006 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by thesaint
I would personally say it is wrong to try and persuade people that it is a goverment cover up. What you must do is show them both sides of the story equally then let them make their own minds up.


Yeah, and don't be aggressive either. If someone has heard vague stuff and thinks this is all crazy, then pushing information on them can bring a lot of ego and etc. out, and just make them defensive and hard-.ed. My two cents anyway.

You have to be gentle, and slowly and surely build a case. Tamer angles would work best, maybe don't even mention anything about the Pentagon or WTC in particular. The other info may be more obscure, like all the foreknowledge stuff, but it's easier to swallow.

[edit on 1-11-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Nov, 1 2006 @ 04:21 PM
link   
I would only mention the best known indications/ proofs for government complicity in 9/11...

WTC Building 7
Not hit by an airplane but imploded the same way the wtc towers did.
www.wtc7.net...


Drills / exercises before 9/11


Pentagon conducted an emergency drill simulating an attack with a plane in 2000!
en.wikipedia.org...


Before September 11, 2001: NORAD Plans a Mock Simultaneous Hijacking Threat from Inside the US
link


National Reconaissance Office in Virginia simulated the impact of an airplane on 9/11 !
www.thememoryhole.org...


Pentagon medical personnel trained for exactly the 9/11 scenario in May 2001
www.usmedicine.com...

(mod edit to reduce long url to short link)


[edit on 2-11-2006 by pantha]



posted on Nov, 1 2006 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ephrin
I would only mention the best known indications/ proofs for government complicity in 9/11...


But you would also mention these facts. That's if you are a true truth seeker.



WTC Building 7
Not hit by an airplane but imploded the same way the wtc towers did.
www.wtc7.net...


www.911myths.com...
www.debunking911.com...


Pentagon conducted an emergency drill simulating an attack with a plane in 2000!
en.wikipedia.org...


This drill simulated a hi-hacked jet failing an attempted landing at nearby Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. It had also been conducted a few times before this test as it had been conducted at pretty much every building with a proximity to an airport within the US.


Before September 11, 2001: NORAD Plans a Mock Simultaneous Hijacking Threat from Inside the US
link




NORAD plans for the Amalgam Virgo 2 exercise. The exercise, scheduled for June 2002, involves two simultaneous commercial aircraft hijackings. One, a Delta 757, with actual Delta pilots and actors posing as passengers, will fly from Salt Lake City, Utah, to Honolulu, Hawaii. It will be “hijacked” by FBI agents posing as terrorists. The other will be a DC-9 hijacked by Canadian police near Vancouver, British Columbia. US and Canadian fighters are to respond and attempt to escort the hijacked planes to airfields in British Columbia and Alaska. But they possibly could “mock” shoot down the aircraft. [USA Today, 4/18/2004; CNN, 6/4/2002; American Forces Press Service, 6/4/2002] USA Today will note that this is an exception to NORAD’s claim that the agency focused only on external threats to the US and did not consider the possibility of threats arising from within the US. [USA Today, 4/18/2004] 9/11 Commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste will similarly comment that this planned exercise shows that despite frequent comments to the contrary, the military considered simultaneous hijackings before 9/11. [9/11 Commission, 5/23/2003]


Note the fact that the drill had nothing to do with planes being flown into buildings. This was preperation for a conventional hi-jacking. Something which is done very frequently even before 9/11 all across the world.



National Reconaissance Office in Virginia simulated the impact of an airplane on 9/11 !
www.thememoryhole.org...




WASHINGTON -- In what the government describes as a bizarre coincidence, one U.S. intelligence agency was planning an exercise last Sept. 11 in which an errant aircraft crashed into one of its buildings. But the cause wasn't terrorism -- it was to be a simulated accident.

Officials at the Chantilly, Va.-based National Reconnaissance Office had scheduled an exercise that morning in which a small corporate jet crashed into one of the four towers at the agency's .quarters building after experiencing a mechanical failure.

The agency is about four miles from the runways of Washington Dulles International Airport.

Agency chiefs came up with the scenario to test employees' ability to respond to a disaster, said spokesman Art Haubold. To simulate the damage from the plane, some stairwells and exits were to be closed off, forcing employees to find other ways to evacuate the building.

"It was just an incredible coincidence that this happened to involve an aircraft crashing into our facility," Haubold said. "As soon as the real world events began, we canceled the exercise."

Terrorism was to play no role in the exercise, which had been planned for several months, he said.


Once again - Nothing like the events of 9/11. The drill was preperation for an aircraft on landing approach suffering mechanical failure and crashing into the building.



Pentagon medical personnel trained for exactly the 9/11 scenario in May 2001
www.usmedicine.com...


This article is confusing at best. They mention a plane being used as a missile hitting the pentagon at the start of the page. They fail to detail the training and in the end just trail off to talk about the events of 9/11. Which means they fail to link the training to 9/11.

In all seriousness the training could have simply been basic first aid from what I can gather from this article. All it was... was training that helped these guys on 9/11. If you could get more details on the exercise only then would it be accepted as decent evidence.

So Pentagon medical staff trained for an attack. That doesn't suprise me one bit my friend.

(mod edit to reduce long url to short link)

[edit on 2-11-2006 by pantha]



posted on Nov, 1 2006 @ 07:22 PM
link   
Why do you think the drills would have had to have mirrored the attacks EXACTLY? What would the POINT of that be?

You're missing the point!

The purpose for having NORAD drills and NRO drills was to CONFUSE people. NORAD operators were making calls, asking if what they were seeing on TV and hearing from their operators was real life or simulation. There are testimonies to intercepts being sent up for planes that didn't even exist -- because of the wargames. Why would they have say they were flying planes into buildings to confuse these guys? We're talking military exercises. These guys were literally stunned by this amazing "coincidence", this debilitating "coincidence", despite it not mirroring the attacks exactly. The drills didn't have to! We have testimony that their RADARs were filled with blips for planes that weren't even really out there. They didn't know what to do.

And as sick as that is, you know what was effective about it? That's a few hundred less people that had to be "in on it", since they were rendered useless anyway.


FEMA was in New York on 9/10 for a scheduled bio-terror exercise called "Tripod II". They arrived Monday and set up a command post. I shouldn't even have to tell you what the point of this was. But it doesn't count because they weren't practicing securing the site and confiscating cameras, right?



You guys constantly argue these things into trivial details that have nothing to do with the underlying points being made. You know what that means? You aren't debunking a freaking thing. You're avoiding discussions and wasting time.

[edit on 1-11-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 03:05 PM
link   
absolutely correct, bsbray.

Why should thy be so stupid and train 100 exactly the scenario pf 9/11 itself ?

the main purpose of these drills was:

- to reduce victims by training medical and emergency personnel

- to confuse and distract people on 9/11

- to execute the attacks on 9/11 under the guise of a wargame / drill. Maybe some people involved in the attacks didn't even know that they were part of this evil operation.



posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 03:24 PM
link   
How about mentioning that Condaleeza Rice lied to the 9/11 commission. While under oath I might add.


KEAN: Thank you.

Dr. Rice, would you please rise and raise your right hand?

Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

RICE: I do.


Source: www.washingtonpost.com...


And I said, at one point, that this was a historical memo, that it was -- it was not based on new threat information. And I said, "No one could have imagined them taking a plane, slamming it into the Pentagon" -- I'm paraphrasing now -- "into the World Trade Center, using planes as a missile."

As I said to you in the private session, I probably should have said, "I could not have imagined," because within two days, people started to come to me and say, "Oh, but there were these reports in 1998 and 1999. The intelligence community did look at information about this."

To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Chairman, this kind of analysis about the use of airplanes as weapons actually was never briefed to us.


So, nobody had thought of using planes as missles by a terrorist Ms. Rice? Let's see what happened on Sept 11-12, 1994

en.wikipedia.org...

But no one could think someone could use a plane as a missle? Come on. Do they think we are stupid?




top topics



 
0

log in

join