Is 9/11 proveable?

Let’s start with the assumption that 9/11 was an inside job, planned and executed by someone or some people within one or more US government agencies, with or without the involvement of non-US elements.

Now let’s suppose that WTC-1, WTC-2 and WTC-7 were brought down in a controlled manner; that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon; and that Flight 93 was shot down. I don’t want to appear defeatists, but is it actually possible to prove any of these suppositions?

Six years worth of analysis, debate and argument have not, in my view, taken us much closer to being able to establish that this was an inside job, despite what we ‘know’. Those who believe it was (and I include myself among them), excitedly latch onto media mis-reporting and label it a ‘smoking gun’, when in truth, it’s probably no such thing. We get all triumphant when one anonymous person is reported by Prison Planet to have heard a 20 second count-down to the WTC-7 collapse, when really, we need so many more corroborating witnesses to come forward before we can make such a claim stick. We trembled with anticipation when analysis conducted on its FDR and eyewitness testimony revealed Flight 77 flew north of the Citgo station, not south as the official story would have us believe, only to find that even the so-called ‘truth’ community cannot agree on the provenance of the source data and its interpretation.

Some of the contributions I’ve seen here at ATS have been simply breathtaking. There are so many researchers, analysts and thinkers doing some extraordinary work in this field and yet I’m beginning to fear that it’s all in vain. I’m beginning to fear that we’ll be told when ‘they’ are good and ready to let us know; that 50 years from now a McCollum or Northwoods style document will find its way into the public domain, courtesy of the FOIA. And by then, of course, our grandchildren will be embroiled in another ‘inside’ job and, in any event, too dislocated from 9/11 to really appreciate the significance.

So, my question is, is our current strategy one that will ultimately enable us to prove our case? If not, what should we be doing differently?

I know exactly what you're saying, and to an extent it seems like you're right. We certainly haven't come particularly far in the time since 911, and it's easy to get disheartened. But on the other hand, I see the 911 truth movement or whatever the hell you want to call it as being similar to research into faster-than-light travel. It's not the kind of thing where you gradually chip away and chip away until you get it right - it's something that can only be achieved by a breakthrough.

I think it's quite possible that in 50 years time, 911 will just be another JFK. But at the same time, it's not something we can judge based on the progress so far. All it takes is one piece of incontrovertible evidence to convince the masses, and it's all over from there.

My worry is that for all our chipping, we're only going to unearth more of the same or, if anything, increasingly exotic and easily de-bunkable explanations.

I think we need a new focus; there is only so much video and photgraphic analysis we can do. In my opinion, we need people to start talking. I would like to see us identify and then put pressure upon the people who likely know something about the way this was planned and/or executed, whether they were personally complicit or not. This is too big, too important for Prison Planet, for example, to afford anonimity to the person who claimed there was a 20 second count-down to the WTC-7 collapse. We have to balance the need to preserve their personal well-being with the need to get some momentum going here. If the 'truth' movement is as big as those of us within it think it is, we should be able to find a way to offer people sanctuary in exchange for attributed information. Only then, when people start putting their names to their claims, will others who may have been associated with them and be in possession of similar information feel bold enough to speak out, or through fear they will be exposed anyway, come forward on their own terms.

My favorate mis-report on 9/11 came from WHIO channel 7 in Dayton, OH. A boom had been heard earlier that day and later it was noted that thick black smoke was coming from the VA hospital so obviously another unaccounted plane had targeted Dayton's VA hospital since it had missed Wright-Patterson Air Force Base.

After nearly 25 minutes live speculation and a confused telephone call to the VA, a news crew discovered the smoke was from a tire fire several blocks past the VA. 10 more minutes of interviews with eyewitnesses to the boom later. They reported the off air call from Wright-Pat confirming that 2 fighters went supersonic to intercept and escourt Air Force One.

Of course this did not stop the next 5 minutes of explaining while breaking the sound barrier is not an accepted policy over the country the military reserves the right to do so in times of war or emergency situations or any time a higher up grants permission.

Almost 45 minutes of non stop live coverage of a non-event. But then again, they had stopped NY coverage by 11 am and even tried airing the soap operas by then.

[edit on 21-3-2007 by Ahabstar]

china could have conducted secret tests on the steel from 9/11 before it was melted down

if america and china start butting heads then china might reveal its findings.

i have no evidance for this and its highly unlickely there is any truth in ths but you never know.

it would be a very good weapon to use against America if the evidence was damning to the government.


who knows.