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.

 

911 truth reaches maturity

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 07:17 AM
link   

Respected Leaders and Families Launch 9/11 Truth Statement Demanding Deeper Investigation into the Events of 9/11

NEW YORK CITY, NY (Oct. 26, 2004) - An alliance of 100 prominent Americans and 40 family members of those killed on 9/11 today announced the release of the 911 Truth Statement, a call for immediate inquiry into evidence that suggests high-level government officials may have deliberately allowed the September 11th attacks to occur. The Statement supports an August 31st Zogby poll that found nearly 50% of New Yorkers believe the government had foreknowledge and "consciously failed to act," with 66% wanting a new 9/11 investigation.

911truth.org


More popular and respected names are joing the truth movement, with some intelligent questions. I wonder if anyone here can answer/debunk these...


1. Why were standard operating procedures for dealing with hijacked airliners not followed that day?
2. Why were the extensive missile batteries and air defenses reportedly deployed around the Pentagon not activated during the attack?
3. Why did the Secret Service allow Bush to complete his elementary school visit, apparently unconcerned about his safety or that of the schoolchildren?
4. Why hasn't a single person been fired, penalized, or reprimanded for the gross incompetence we witnessed that day?
5. Why haven't authorities in the U.S. and abroad published the results of multiple investigations into trading that strongly suggested foreknowledge of specific details of the 9/11 attacks, resulting in tens of millions of dollars of traceable gains?
6. Why has Sibel Edmonds, a former FBI translator who claims to have knowledge of advance warnings, been publicly silenced with a gag order requested by Attorney General Ashcroft and granted by a Bush-appointed judge?
7. How could Flight 77, which reportedly hit the Pentagon, have flown back towards Washington D.C. for 40 minutes without being detected by the FAA's radar or the even superior radar possessed by the US military?
8. How were the FBI and CIA able to release the names and photos of the alleged hijackers within hours, as well as to visit houses, restaurants, and flight schools they were known to frequent?
9. What happened to the over 20 documented warnings given our government by 14 foreign intelligence agencies or heads of state?
10. Why did the Bush administration cover up the fact that the head of the Pakistani intelligence agency was in Washington the week of 9/11 and reportedly had $100,000 wired to Mohamed Atta, considered the ringleader of the hijackers?
11. Why did the 911 Commission fail to address most of the questions posed by the families of the victims, in addition to almost all of the questions posed here?
12. Why was Philip Zelikow chosen to be the Executive Director of the ostensibly independent 911 Commission although he had co-authored a book with Condoleezza Rice?

911truth.org


I like where this is going,
as far away from no-plane, CGI and hologram theories as possible.
No one is going to label the signatories above as conspiracy loony nutcases, because their reasoning makes sense to anyone who bothers to listen.
They are not screaming "Inside Job", just asking why there are so many coverups and what exactly had to be hidden for the public.

If there is some sort of hard evidence that higher ups knew about the attack and let it happen (monitored hijackers? Faked evidence? sabotaged defence?), then the implications will be far-reaching...


Curious if someone high up will bother commenting on these.

peace,
mr.j




posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 07:25 AM
link   
Its actually a 4 yrs old news and as you can see nothing changed....



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 07:39 AM
link   
Uhhh! What missile batteries around the Pentagon? The majority of items on that list have been proven to be pure crap. You want to find out what, if anything, happened? Watch the lawsuits from the families that didn't take the Government offered settlement. They are supposed to start in September.



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
Uhhh! What missile batteries around the Pentagon?


So you submit that the DoD HQ (re: Pentagon) had no anti-aircraft defenses on 9/11/2001?



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pootie

Originally posted by JIMC5499
Uhhh! What missile batteries around the Pentagon?


So you submit that the DoD HQ (re: Pentagon) had no anti-aircraft defenses on 9/11/2001?

He will probably ask you for pictures detailing the exact position of those anti-aircraft batteries. Without it he wont be satisified. Thinking that the Pentagon is not defended by anti-aircraft missiles is just ridicolous.



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by piacenza
He will probably ask you for pictures detailing the exact position of those anti-aircraft batteries. Without it he wont be satisified. Thinking that the Pentagon is not defended by anti-aircraft missiles is just ridicolous.


Other than designated sites for Stinger MANPADS launchers there are no fixed anti-aircraft weapons around the Pentagon or Washington DC.



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 11:44 AM
link   
1. Why were standard operating procedures for dealing with hijacked airliners not followed that day?
This is explained in the 9/11 comission report. The delay was caused by the FAA and UAL, not the US gov't or armed forces. Once they had a palne they could take out they did with 93.

2. Why were the extensive missile batteries and air defenses reportedly deployed around the Pentagon not activated during the attack?
Protable Stingers or the Mounted batteries, there are no fixed defenses. We were not at war.

3. Why did the Secret Service allow Bush to complete his elementary school visit, apparently unconcerned about his safety or that of the schoolchildren?

this has nothing to do with 9/11

4. Why hasn't a single person been fired, penalized, or reprimanded for the gross incompetence we witnessed that day?

Who? Did none of these people read or watch the 9/11 comission testimony?

5. Why haven't authorities in the U.S. and abroad published the results of multiple investigations into trading that strongly suggested foreknowledge of specific details of the 9/11 attacks, resulting in tens of millions of dollars of traceable gains?

Gains for who, major corporations. Profit is made everyday and 9/11 had nothing to do with it.

6. Why has Sibel Edmonds, a former FBI translator who claims to have knowledge of advance warnings, been publicly silenced with a gag order requested by Attorney General Ashcroft and granted by a Bush-appointed judge?

Because of this ,aw to protect citizens...en.wikipedia.org...

7. How could Flight 77, which reportedly hit the Pentagon, have flown back towards Washington D.C. for 40 minutes without being detected by the FAA's radar or the even superior radar possessed by the US military?

Remember this flight crashed 30 minutes after the second plane hit the WTC and unitl then it was thought to be pilot error or an accident. It is a miracle that Flight 93 was stuck on the runway.

8. How were the FBI and CIA able to release the names and photos of the alleged hijackers within hours, as well as to visit houses, restaurants, and flight schools they were known to frequent?

Much of this was presented by foriegn intel that matched information on cells we were tacking, this also is in the 9/11 commission report

9. What happened to the over 20 documented warnings given our government by 14 foreign intelligence agencies or heads of state?

Can you show the 20 warnings?

10. Why did the Bush administration cover up the fact that the head of the Pakistani intelligence agency was in Washington the week of 9/11 and reportedly had $100,000 wired to Mohamed Atta, considered the ringleader of the hijackers?

Paki intel has long been a suspicous and precarious route to take.

11. Why did the 911 Commission fail to address most of the questions posed by the families of the victims, in addition to almost all of the questions posed here? The information is there and it is more inforamtive as a whole then these questions

12. Why was Philip Zelikow chosen to be the Executive Director of the ostensibly independent 911 Commission although he had co-authored a book with Condoleezza Rice? He was actually the 2nd person chosen



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
3. Why did the Secret Service allow Bush to complete his elementary school visit, apparently unconcerned about his safety or that of the schoolchildren?

this has nothing to do with 9/11


I'm pretty sure in a real terrorist attack, where you don't know whats going to happen next you tend to hide the president of the united states in a bunker, or atleast get him to a location where he can assess the situation and acts on it.



4. Why hasn't a single person been fired, penalized, or reprimanded for the gross incompetence we witnessed that day?

Who? Did none of these people read or watch the 9/11 comission testimony?


It's well known that the intelligence community of the US, as well as many other countries, were warning about a terrorist attack. Those warnings went to SOMEONE in the government, and those people didn't act. Bush is one of them.



8. How were the FBI and CIA able to release the names and photos of the alleged hijackers within hours, as well as to visit houses, restaurants, and flight schools they were known to frequent?

Much of this was presented by foriegn intel that matched information on cells we were tacking, this also is in the 9/11 commission report


This seems to contradict the stance on pre-knowledge that went uninvestigated. They seemed to have known "too much" to react this quickly, in hours, to not have known what these terrorists were going to do.



9. What happened to the over 20 documented warnings given our government by 14 foreign intelligence agencies or heads of state?

Can you show the 20 warnings?


I can't show 20, but I can show some:


In late July 2001, Afghanistan’s Foreign Minister Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil learned that Osama bin Laden was planning a “huge attack” on targets inside America. The attack was imminent, and would kill thousands, he learned from the leader of the rebel Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, which was closely allied with al-Qaeda at the time. Muttawakil sent an emissary to pass this information on to the US Consul General, and another US official, “possibly from the intelligence services.” Sources confirmed that this message was received, but supposedly not taken very seriously, because of “warning fatigue” arising from too many terror warnings.[Independent, 9/7/02, Reuters, 9/7/02]



Also in late July 2001, the US was given a “concrete warning” from Argentina’s Jewish community. “An attack of major proportions” was planned against either the US, Argentina, or France. The information came from an unidentified intelligence agency. [Forward, 5/31/02]



An undercover agent from Morocco successfully penetrated al-Qaeda. He learned that bin Laden was “very disappointed” that the 1993 bombing had not toppled the World Trade Center, and was planning “large scale operations in New York in the summer or fall of 2001.” He provided this information to the US in August 2001. [Agence France Presse, 11/22/01, International Herald Tribune, 5/21/02, London Times, 6/12/02]



Hasni Mubarak, President of Egypt, maintains that in the beginning of September 2001 Egyptian intelligence warned American officials that al-Qaeda was in the advanced stages of executing a significant operation against an American target, probably within the US. [AP, 12/7/01, New York Times, 6/4/02] He learned this information from an agent working inside al-Qaeda. [ABC News, 6/4/02]


All of that information, plus numerous other warnings from our OWN government, should have been warning enough to do something or atleast not tell the american public they had no knowledge what so ever.



10. Why did the Bush administration cover up the fact that the head of the Pakistani intelligence agency was in Washington the week of 9/11 and reportedly had $100,000 wired to Mohamed Atta, considered the ringleader of the hijackers?

Paki intel has long been a suspicous and precarious route to take.


You seem to love the commission report, so lets ask YOU why the commission said that the funding behind 9/11 "wasn't of importance". Even though they know who funded it.



11. Why did the 911 Commission fail to address most of the questions posed by the families of the victims, in addition to almost all of the questions posed here?

The information is there and it is more inforamtive as a whole then these questions


Not at all.



12. Why was Philip Zelikow chosen to be the Executive Director of the ostensibly independent 911 Commission although he had co-authored a book with Condoleezza Rice?

He was actually the 2nd person chosen


I suggest you read up on him and what he's done for the bush administration. As well as you should see how the commission functioned. If he said "I don't agree" then it wasn't in the commission. I'm tired of looking up everything and replying to you, so do it yourself, if you want to. If not, I'm not surprised.

Good day.



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
Other than designated sites for Stinger MANPADS launchers there are no fixed anti-aircraft weapons around the Pentagon or Washington DC.


Source? Do you have clearances that allow you access to the defense plans for an attack on the Pentagon or surrounding D.C.?

[edit on 20-7-2007 by Pootie]



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 12:16 PM
link   
I know the head of the commissions history but he and his co-chair also published a book that wanted to extend the commission report and tore it apart.

The commission report was created to find out the logistics behind it and who it was. It told you who funded it, who created the idea (not Bin Laden, he just approved it) and showed exactly where the failures were. They then created a list of things to implement that have not been completed.

The commission report is not a bible but a fanatastic point of reference. It was not a Bush funded white paper on bs.

The questions that are being asked may be vaild but some cannot be answered. The safest place for the president before he could be transported was in that school, barricaded by USSS before removing him.

Bottom line is now that the truth movement has reached maturity, maybe it is time to find a final resting place and retire. We need to be concerned nad spend funds on current threats and making sure that the suggestions of the commission are implemented.



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
Bottom line is now that the truth movement has reached maturity, maybe it is time to find a final resting place and retire. We need to be concerned nad spend funds on current threats and making sure that the suggestions of the commission are implemented.




Since you are an adamant defender of the Official Stories of course you would like to see this put to rest.

"Current Threats"? Who? The Boogeyman? The current threat is the Neocon Cabal... let's spend some funds investigating them.

The suggestions from the 9/11 Commission are, for the most part, laughable, quasi-legal and simply wasteful.

"You are doing a fine job Brownie..." err... Dad.



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 12:39 PM
link   
esdad71:

I'm arguing from a perspective that isn't mine, I'm arguing from the "I believe it was Bin Laden and terrorists on 9/11" stance, I know you already hate me for NOT beleiving it was terrorists, but atleast we can agree to disagree and discuss other things, like...

Wouldn't part of being able to protect ourselves and our nation, be to know how/who/when/why they did it on 9/11? It's general psychological knowledge that criminals (by our definition) operate in patterns. Paticularly criminal organisations.

Part of the above question, is highly relevant to our own government as well as terrorist groups. Our government knew it was going to happen, and they didn't act on it. And now that they know who funded it, they don't do anything. Shouldn't we fire those people because they're dangerous for our security?

And lastly, (I'm sure you and I could have a lot of great discussion on this) with the stated knowledge of how they did it, when, who, and where they got the money, etc. we should be acting on it somehow, rather than targeting people who weren't involved at all. (Hussein). Acting on it wouldn't be taking away rights of citizens, because (sorry if I misquote, I'm doing this off the top of my head) "If you take away freedom for security, you deserve neither freedom nor security" (Franklin). That doesn't involve MY email, MY mail, MY phone lines, MY whereabouts, MY anything. We know WHO and HOW and WHY. So why am I being affected? I'm clearly not a terrorist.

And about that "it doesn't affect you" stance, it does. My city (San Jose) had a whole bunch of stuff that went wrong because of the NSA wiretaps. (Buisinsses and schools had some issues).

So now...

We know who did it, and we're targeting innocent people. (Yes they're innocent, the fact they're retaliating to an outside party coming into their country and saying their lifestyle is wrong doesn't make them "terrorists".)

We know who funded it, we don't do anything.

We know that the goverment knew that it was going to happen, they didn't do anything. And we should atleast call people out on their mistakes and take action to show anybody else that we should take these threats with more than a passive glance.

All in all:

The truth movement is slowly developing into something that the government should be afraid of. I'm part of it, I do my parts, I talk to people I don't know, I tell my friends, I tell my family, I've informed many. It's not time for us to die because part of our message is, we wont stand to be lied to. We wont stand to be thought of as stupid sheeple. Anyway, that's my Abbie Hoffman moment for the day
.



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pootie
Source? Do you have clearances that allow you access to the defense plans for an attack on the Pentagon or surrounding D.C.?

[edit on 20-7-2007 by Pootie]


My source is common sense. The area around the Pentagon is highly populated and Patriot, Rapier or Goalkeeper systems are too big to hide easily. You put an air defence system around the Pentagon and I guarentee it will be on CNN before the radar antennae rotates 100 times.



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 01:12 PM
link   
I don't hate anyone, sorry. I just feel that with the research that I have done there is no reason to hate or call out my government on 9/11. It was an intelligence failure that led to the creation of the 9/11 commission to make sure it does not happen again. We need DHS and the JTTF and the FBI and the other 10 agencies to all be able to share resources and then memos or warnings will not go unheaded.

Our government let nothing happen, we aimply got caught with our pants down. I am not against the truth movement, I am against those who want to spread disinfo and cause more strife in a coutnry already wallowing in self abosorbtion and fear.

The questions that are posed where as I feel that they do not apply should be answered if they can but nothing in that list can implicate or change what happened.

As far as the Pat Act and civil liberties, are we not all still alowed to post to this board. Can we walk down the street with a F*CK Bush shirt? Can we have protest? Yes, we can.

I want it to go away so that people will realize that it is flight 93 we should all be looking at and not the towers.



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 01:23 PM
link   
I think all in all we should be looking at everything, but yes. Flight 93 has a lot of compelling arguments against the official story.



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Esdad, yes, you still have the right to that opinion, and I still have the right to feel sorry for you and people like you, but since we're all in the same boat anyway, I'm comfortable with the knowledge that whatever happens to me is going to happen to you too.

Peace




[edit on 20-7-2007 by Dr Love]


BPI

posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 03:22 PM
link   
Esdad has said 2x why the Commission was created and both times he was incorrect. The 9/11 Commission was created because of the outrage and questions brought by the victims families. It was not created to prevent another 9/11 or investigate an intelligence failure. If they investigated an intelligence failure, who did they find was responsible? Just saying a whole department failed isn't an answer.

The fact that Bush stayed in the school is an important detail. The original explination was He didn't want to alarm the children. However, he shortly after made the annoucement we were under attack in front of the whole school population. He had announced he was going to the school 1 week in advance. If they wanted him, they knew where he was.

The transponder on Flight 11 stopped at 8:21 at the latest. Flight contol commander Glenn Michael states, "We considered it at that time to be a possible hijack." Also at 8:21 Betty Ong make the calls stating they are being hijacked. To say they though it was pilot error until the 2nd crash is incorrect. F-15's were scrambled at 8:52, 9 minutes before Flight 175 crashed. 45 minutes later the Pentagon is struck.

9:03 Flight 175 hits WTC. 9:37 Flight 77 hits The Pentagon. First of all its 34 minutes after 175 crashed, but more importantly its 1 hr 17 min after the first suspected hijack. 10:06 Flight 93 crashes, a full 1 hr 45 min after the first suspected hijack.

The 9/11 Commission is basically saying that up to 9/11/01 anyone with a plane and no transponder could've done anything they wanted for over 2 hours. So if we were attacked by an outside air force, hopefully they would have left their transponders on so we would know where they were, because if they turned those transponders off, they could have 2 hours to destroy and do whatever they wish.



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
My source is common sense. The area around the Pentagon is highly populated and Patriot, Rapier or Goalkeeper systems are too big to hide easily. You put an air defence system around the Pentagon and I guarentee it will be on CNN before the radar antennae rotates 100 times.


Common sense dictates that there are PAC-3 missiles, concealed, guarding the HQ of the world' most powerful military. All it takes is an unmarked tractor trailer in the parking lot.

Hmmm... a white semi trailer... that would be REALLY hard to "hide".

There is already radar all over DC and I am sure the ECS could be just as easily "hidden" in plane view.

Your logic is odd... Leave DC totally unprotected...


[edit on 20-7-2007 by Pootie]



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 03:45 PM
link   
The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, also known as the 9/11 Commission, was set up on November 27, 2002 "to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 attacks", including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks.

The Commission was also mandated to provide recommendations designed to guard against future attacks. Given its significant importance in investigating one of the most important events in American history and providing recommendations to defend the U.S. against future terrorist attacks.

That is the mission statement so please do not tell me that I do not know what I am talking about. Please do not feel sorry for me because I am fine, living each day to the fullest and not looking for AQ over my shoulder. However, it will happen again whether we find out the WTC was demoed or not.

What you need to understand is WHY the 9/11 report was created and not be deluded in your thinking. I am not telling you that you are incorrect, I jsut want to make sure you know what you are dismissing.

Do you have any idea how much testimony went into the comission and it's research or do you only hawk the fact that Bush wanted to testify behind cosed doors. Who cares!!! Obviously since most people think he is so stupid, why do you care what he testified too?

You had the heads of every intel agency that basically said, we screwed up, it was there and it was not recognized by the correct people at the correct time.



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pootie
Common sense dictates that there are PAC-3 missiles, concealed, guarding the HQ of the world' most powerful military. All it takes is an unmarked tractor trailer in the parking lot.

Hmmm... a white semi trailer... that would be REALLY hard to "hide".

There is already radar all over DC and I am sure the ECS could be just as easily "hidden" in plane view.

Your logic is odd... Leave DC totally unprotected...



Considering that the radar system for the PAC-3 is highly specilized and the size of a small billboard it would be very difficult to hide it in your "white" truck trailer. One of the problems with using fixed SAM systems is that the coverage area for the radar must be mapped. If there was a PAC-3 system at the Pentagon, every television and radio in the area would need replaced as soon as it's radar was fired up. Given the number of airbases within 150 miles of the Pentagon it doesn't need a SAM system for protection. AWACS aircraft and interceptors would do a much better job.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join