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.

 

Will 2008 bring a change to the truth movement

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 08:07 AM
link   
If someone fresh like Obama gets in could he reopen this whole mess if compelling evidence is shown to him?




posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 08:24 AM
link   
Thats a possibility,but if he does get in and starts causing a ruckus the powers that be will probably just take him out.



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 10:24 AM
link   
Never. Nobody in their right mind will support 9/11 conspirocy theories in public, especially not the president of the country.

There will never be any reinvestigation of 9/11 on professional level. a 3 year invesigation was done and book was released with it's findings. case closed. there's nothing more to investigate. it's not everyone elses problem that a small group of people with a poor sense of reality, can't accept that book as a good account of the day.

just because a democrat might take office, doesn't mean he'll waste his time and the tax payers money on foolish internet conspirocys.

Actually i'm rather happy, the longer this "911 truth (lie)" movment goes on, the less credit it has! It's funny watching it slow down and never produce any real evidence. Every day people are loosing more and more interest in it, you can even tell by how dead this section of the forum has become capared to even a year ago. Honestly when i first heard about this like 3 or 4 years ago...i listened. it sounded possible, but the more you look at evidence,the more you see that these people are just talking trash. and the more whacky theories that come out, kill the entire thing more. fortunatley in about 10 years nobody will care at all about the "truth (lie)" movement. it'll fade into peoples minds and in another 20 or 30 years it'll be like an old mans conspirocy of the past.

Honestly think about it, if anyone ran for president and won..why would they open a case that has been solved ages ago? Why blow your entire political carrear and have the rest of the nation laugh at you and make a mockery of you? That's why the only famous people that have attatched their name to this crap, are poor B list celebs like charlie sheen, lol. I can honestly say if i ever make it famous i'll trash the CTers as much as i can. I'll use my fame to discredit and destroy the immage of all 911 CTers, and that's my word. I'll make a mockery of everything they stand for, and i'll roll over laughing cause they'll be to poor to do anthing about it lol.

But yes, no politician will ever "reopen the case". It's political suicide. No matter how much "evidence" CTers *think* they have, there will never be a new 911 investigation unless it's like 70 years from now. 911 is like bigfoot or ufos, cult beliefs that have affected a small group of people who don't like to be attatched to society. There will never be a mainstream outbreak of it, because it doesn't have enough evidence, and people simply don't care anymore. We'd rather just mourn the victims and move on. There will however one day be a nice national geographic special on how the WTC was a real attack. They'll break the theories down so hard and humiliate all CTers. IT's gonna be sooooo amazing! I'm gonna buy a tape of it or something so i can laugh at it over and over. i hope it comes out around the 10 year aniversary, that'd be awesome.

well anyway, nice fantasy about the new president reopening the file, but thankfully it'll never happen!



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
If someone fresh like Obama gets in could he reopen this whole mess if compelling evidence is shown to him?




When will people here learn that the "conspiracy" is not only about 9/11. Why do think Obama is presidential candidate. How could a guy like Bill Clinton become President??? They are backed by the same power elite that planned the 9/11 attacks. Obama's wife (Michelle) is on the board of directors of the Chicago Council of Foreign Reltions!!!

www.ccfr.org...

The Council on Foreign Relations Mafia (Maurice Greenberg, Peter G. Peterson, Kissinger, Rockefeller, Robert Zoellick, Jerry Speyer etc) togeter with parts of the military (Joint Chief od Staffs) planned the 9/11 attacks

They want Obama for president to get the "black votes" that's all. Like G.W Bush was the ideal candidate to get the evangelical and christian-fundamentalist votes...



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Spawwwn
Never. Nobody in their right mind will support 9/11 conspirocy theories in public, especially not the president of the country.

There will never be any reinvestigation of 9/11 on professional level. a 3 year invesigation was done and book was released with it's findings. case closed. there's nothing more to investigate. it's not everyone elses problem that a small group of people with a poor sense of reality, can't accept that book as a good account of the day.



Oh, so you buy into the most ridiculous conspiracy theory ever then,huh? You believe that a handful of guys with box cutters
held a plane with over 70 other people on it hostage. WOW
Talking about naivete.



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Spawwwn
Never. Nobody in their right mind will support 9/11 conspirocy theories in public, especially not the president of the country.

There will never be any reinvestigation of 9/11 on professional level. a 3 year invesigation was done and book was released with it's findings. case closed. there's nothing more to investigate. it's not everyone elses problem that a small group of people with a poor sense of reality, can't accept that book as a good account of the day.




If the first book was such a great account of the day then why do they feel the need to come out with a second book that claims NORAD, the FAA, House Republicans, and the White House, were not fourthcoming with information & actual events. That they were underfunded. That they had to resort to subpeona of witnesses & classified documents?


Doesn't seem to me that they even believe the first book to be " a good account of the day ".

I do believe that you are right about the fact that there will never be another investigation. Otherwise we would have seen one already for the JFK assasination. Jim Garrison tried and was squashed.

The people in the know will never allow the whole truth to be revealed.

Spawn- You are entitled to your opinions, but there's nothing wrong with my sense of reality thank you. . . Have a nice day.


2PacSade-



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 12:04 PM
link   
[edit on 13-12-2006 by Think About IT]



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 01:41 PM
link   
You can look to a host of other events, like TWA 800, or the recent shuttle explosion, and they received many times the funds and forensic evidence that NIST, etc. were allowed for the WTC investigation.

But no, I don't think you will get anywhere with democrats in this regard than you did with republicans.



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 01:57 PM
link   
I've always said the true conspiracy is the way the 911 Commission did their investigation. There was cover up BIG time ( IMO ) But not in what role the US played in the attack....but what role we played in avoiding the warning signs.

There is a reason why Bush REFUSED to be questioned UNLESS Dick Cheney was there.



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 02:14 PM
link   
Or that Jamie Gorlick was the head of the comission; the individual responsible for the CIA & FBI being unable to communicate.

If anything this issue will come back up during the '08 pres. elections especially if Hillary...........if a 'conspiracy' was formed it would of had to happen either during Clintons 8 years or prior. Even if it was prior, Clinton was responsible for the 'excution' of the 'conspiracy'.



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
I've always said the true conspiracy is the way the 911 Commission did their investigation. There was cover up BIG time ( IMO ) But not in what role the US played in the attack....but what role we played in avoiding the warning signs.

There is a reason why Bush REFUSED to be questioned UNLESS Dick Cheney was there.


How is willful ignorance or misdirection by our leaders ANY WORSE than complicity in this case? If you ask me they are two in the same. This hits at the heart of my personal theory, that the US probably wanted this to happen and planned for it to happen but kept their mouths shut and their hands clean as best they could while still making sure the towers fell.



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Oh, so you buy into the most ridiculous conspiracy theory ever then,huh? You believe that a handful of guys with box cutters
held a plane with over 70 other people on it hostage. WOW
Talking about naivete.


uhh yeah beacuse they weren't the first ones to do it. part of the reason that their plan was so ingenious, was that generally plane hyjackings don't end in that type of tradegy. yes some do, but ususally people just get hijacked and they take the plane somewhere...never in history did people think if they got hjicjaked, that they'd be used as a bomb. come on planes were hijacked before 911, but the 911 hijackings made the threat real. 911 made people really scared of hyjackings. usually ppl think they end peacefully, but those terrorists made people know that they might die if they don't fight back.

and what u think americans are that smart or brave to fight back? i'm sorry but americans are punks. there were women and children on that plane, they would all have been useless due to their weak bodies. the older men might have felt to feeble. some others were just scared, so when u get down to it..there weren't many young able bodied men to fight these guys. and they were cutting ppls throughts as well, so obviously the passengars thought they was dangerous, and might have been to overcome with fear. see u can act all high and mighty when u in u chair can't u? but i wanna see someone pull a gun on u and see how tough u really are. actually it didn't work 100%, because 1 of the planes got brought down by passengears. so 3/4 of planes worked, that makes a lot of sense to me. so if u say that those 4 planes represented america as a whole, then 1/4 of the regular civil population is brave, and courageous under fire...which sounds right on the money to me.

see i dont disagree that the gov ignored warning signs. they didn't take the info they had seriously, they thought it wasn't a big threat and they goofed up. but to go as so far as to say they planned the attack is straight ridiculous.

they are guilty of not doing they job, nothing more.



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 03:57 PM
link   
Spawwnn, I tell you what, you go ahead and believe the "official" story if you want, but I'm not buying it. There has been too much obfuscation of the whole issue since,by the government, to believe much of anything they say in my opinion.



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 04:26 PM
link   
I'm not 100% positive of anything, but out of all of this I have the most trouble with the following;

* How WTC 7 collapsed from debris impact & fire.

* That an unknown aircraft & possible threat, was able to fly, ( even remotely ), into Pentagon airspace.

There are many other things I question, but these two are most puzzling to me. . . I find them hard to believe.


I'm just not buying it I guess. . . And if WTC 7 was a known event, then I just don't know what to believe after that. It seems like a house of cards, IMHO.


But what do I know. . . 2PacSade-

edit name

[edit on 13-12-2006 by 2PacSade]



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 05:10 PM
link   


see u can act all high and mighty when u in u chair can't u? but i wanna see someone pull a gun on u and see how tough u really are



haha yea..because you can really compare a box cutter to a gun. Infact i use my box cutter to scratch my back sometimes hehe. So dont compare the two..because if someone was holding a box cutter to my face im pretty sure i can whip out something simple too like a pen, and stab them.

And..there might be a truth movement? But dont expect it to be nothing more then the Kennedy assasination..unless you find a way to get rid of the CIA, destroy the Federal Reserve, and take control of the media, I dont think theres a way the truth will be known..



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 05:23 PM
link   
I'll explain why you have these questions. You beleive we live in a militaristic nation where the military has the all-seeing eye and capable of reading your thoughts and killing you with some bizzare psycho-deathray. The Pentagon is more or less in the middle of a giant metropolis. Planes fly by it all the time. A giant lazer doesn't pop out of the courtyard and start lighting things up if a plane so much as THINKS of flying towards it.

If I heat up a steel building - and pelt it with tons of steel and concrete (not to mention the gust of wind and other debris) - I'm sure it would colapse, evenutally. I've already gone through a physics explaination of this before, and don't care to, again - but it involves the behavior of a mesh support frame and the type of colapse we see in the WTC.

The truth is that this arguement is ignorant. It's the product of minds that refuse to accept reality and will do anything to shield their insecurities.

I also like your attempts at 'scaring' people into beleiving. "Oh! If something doesn't change, soon, and get more support... then the truth will be lost forever!" Spare us the drama and reality show bullcrap, please.



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth

Oh, so you buy into the most ridiculous conspiracy theory ever then,huh? You believe that a handful of guys with box cutters
held a plane with over 70 other people on it hostage. WOW
Talking about naivete.


Box cutters and bomb threats as well as past history of hijacking planes pretty much lead to 9/11 attacks with ease. After all, this was unprecedented as to ramming planes into buildings. Remember that flight 93 was the first resistance to the hijackers. Had the passengers knew what was going on, then the attacks would have failed. Usually passengers tend to stay quiet and hope the situation could lead to peaceful solution during the negotiations as in the past.



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Spawwwn

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Oh, so you buy into the most ridiculous conspiracy theory ever then,huh? You believe that a handful of guys with box cutters
held a plane with over 70 other people on it hostage. WOW
Talking about naivete.


uhh yeah beacuse they weren't the first ones to do it. part of the reason that their plan was so ingenious, was that generally plane hyjackings don't end in that type of tradegy. yes some do, but ususally people just get hijacked and they take the plane somewhere...never in history did people think if they got hjicjaked, that they'd be used as a bomb. come on planes were hijacked before 911, but the 911 hijackings made the threat real. 911 made people really scared of hyjackings. usually ppl think they end peacefully, but those terrorists made people know that they might die if they don't fight back.

and what u think americans are that smart or brave to fight back? i'm sorry but americans are punks. there were women and children on that plane, they would all have been useless due to their weak bodies. the older men might have felt to feeble. some others were just scared, so when u get down to it..there weren't many young able bodied men to fight these guys. and they were cutting ppls throughts as well, so obviously the passengars thought they was dangerous, and might have been to overcome with fear. see u can act all high and mighty when u in u chair can't u? but i wanna see someone pull a gun on u and see how tough u really are. actually it didn't work 100%, because 1 of the planes got brought down by passengears. so 3/4 of planes worked, that makes a lot of sense to me. so if u say that those 4 planes represented america as a whole, then 1/4 of the regular civil population is brave, and courageous under fire...which sounds right on the money to me.

see i dont disagree that the gov ignored warning signs. they didn't take the info they had seriously, they thought it wasn't a big threat and they goofed up. but to go as so far as to say they planned the attack is straight ridiculous.

they are guilty of not doing they job, nothing more.


Spawn, you are an uber-troll if I ever read one. There are more holes in the 9-11 commission report than Swiss cheese. However, I agree that nothing should be investigated by the obviously corrupt and inept Federal and
Congressional investigations committees again because they'll just try to sell the US and world public the same pack of lies that the first report spewed out which would be a huge waste of taxpayer money. And if anyone's a punk, it'd you for denegrating the victims of a well organized terrorist attack.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join