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.

 

A Challenge for All 9/11 Debunkers

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 02:07 PM
link   
Yes, he did use lies. He used intell that he knew wasn't correct - or at least knew was VERY questionable. He used lies to propagate fear to fuel war.

Concerning your question on where the lies could stop or not stop. This has been my contention on the topic of Flight 93. I believe the largest cover-up surrounding 9/11 is that the government did, in fact, shoot it down. Now, if they did, I believe it was a wise choice. When you do something that you think is a wise decision and do it for the good of the greater body of people, but you don't have the spine and moral fortitude to admit it because you don't want to deal with the percent of the population that couldn't take it - then what will you do when you know darned well you're not doing what is the best for the people? or worse yet what is bad for the people? If you'll lie when you're right, the sky's the limit when you're wrong.




posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
If we know for 100% certainty that an offical from Pakistan was involved with wiring money to fund 911...we attack the entire country to get him? What if Prince Charles wired some $$ to Atta? Should all of England get attacked?


Please explain to me why we are in Afghanistan again. Other than the poppy fields. Thanks


Look, I think Pakistan is filled with terrorists and is a safe heaven for many of them...I can't prove it, nor do I know enough about the politics behind the relationship we have with them. If we were to walk in there with our military, you would see serious reprecussions within the Arab world that we can't even imagine. Occupying two Arabs countires is bad enough. Can you imagine a third?


You forgot fourth. Iran.





Agreed....it's not even as much to do about the money more so than the time it took to get it going. Over 400 days. Bush and Cheney were against it. If not for the families of the victims, there never wold have been an investigation.


If they had just said "those darn arabs don't have the cahones to do that", do you really think they'd try to stall it that bad? I don't. But that is my opinion.



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Valhall
 


Poetic. That's all I have to say on that. Nice post Valhall.



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
reply to post by DrZERO
 


The tapes were confiscated ...i would not say "stolen" . Lets be honest here...it's been almost 6 years. If the tapes were released and showed a plane hitting the Pentagon...most Ct'ers would instantly yell "CGI", "Photoshop", or whatever they would want to call it. That being said, I can't tell you why the tapes are not released. ( i'll refrain from derailing the thread with Pentagon arguments)


Perhaps "confiscated" and "stolen" are a matter of perspective, but once again I do not want to get off track arguing semantics. And you are probably right with your assesment that most CT'ers on their reaction, but this only furthers the point. In the world we live in, where media is piped into us at every angle, why wouldn't they have released the tapes from the very beginning? Like so many pieces to this puzzle, it just doesn't add up.

[edit on 19-8-2007 by DrZERO]



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
If we know for 100% certainty that an offical from Pakistan was involved with wiring money to fund 911...we attack the entire country to get him? What if Prince Charles wired some $$ to Atta? Should all of England get attacked?


Please explain to me why we are in Afghanistan again. Other than the poppy fields. Thanks


Captain, Griff makes a good point here. Just to spell it out, did we not invade Afgahanistan basicly in search of one man, Bin Laden?



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious

Did Bush ignore the threats (along with the rest) in order for this to happen? If so, then YES it is indeed an inside job.



Originally posted by Valhall
Yes, he did use lies. He used intell that he knew wasn't correct - or at least knew was VERY questionable. He used lies to propagate fear to fuel war.


This is exactly the kind of dialogue I am looking for here!

We need to focus on what we can prove. These are the types of arguments that will make the ordinary person raise their eyebrow and take notice. If I were to walk up to Joe Blow on the street and say, "Hey, did you know there is evidence that the US government intentionally demolished the World Trade Center?" he will most likely look at me as if I had nine heads. But if I say to Joe, "Did you know that the government was warned several times about attacks in the US and had prior knowledge of terrorists using planes as missiles, even though they told us they didn't?" or "Did you know that the FBI has video tapes that might show what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11 but won't show them to us?” Joe might listen and actually think about these things instead of automatically dismissing them. And he might start asking more questions.

If we can all agree on these simple, easily understood concepts we can form a foundation to build on and move forward from there.



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 10:02 PM
link   

1) The fact that the Government had prior knowledge that these types of attacks were possible, and even probable. Though in the days after the event, we were LIED to by every government spokes-hole in the Bush administration that there was no knowledge, no way that anyone could have imagined something like this happening.


Here are a few things which people have taken for granted.

1. The US was warned of a possible imminent attack or invasion of US soil.

Lets just analyze that, how credible, does it sound? What real evidence does it say? Not much

Security would be warned, but not many would take it seriously, because of laxity in your own limelight and the unsure nature of the nature of the attack.

2. There was a total of 1 thing the US could have done to avert 9/11, and that is catch the terrorists at the Airport. They got through, and thus lives were ended.

This is true simply because of one reason. Once the planes in the air, what could you do?

You had no idea where they were headed, going towards New York still presents quite a large amount of targets. If anyone had time to analyze it you probably could have guessed the target. Personally i think after the WTC they would have either picked the Empire State Building, or the Statue of Liberty. Destroying symbols of America, the statue would be more damaging psychologically, but would do nothing really economically, etc, etc.

So, lets say somehow someone realises the planes are heading towards the WTC in time...what then?

Shoot the planes down? What kind of image would that present to the world?

Who would have the guts to pull the trigger?

Keep in mind we are getting phone calls from the people in these planes. Who would tell them that they are going be shot down by a fellow countryman?

So, in answer to your first question. Prior Knowledge does not mean they knew everything. A possible attack may have been imminent, which hardly means nothing because it says nothing about the mode of attack. There was nothing security could do.

beyond that, the only defence you had was in the effectiveness of your airport security. That failed, The WTC fates were now sealed.



2) The fact that the 9/11 Commission deemed the financing of the attacks was, “ . . . of little practical consequence,” and ,” . . . we have seen no evidence that any foreign government-or foreign government official-supplied any funding.”


Im no 9/11 Expert, i dont claim to know anything of this. Well the first quote is wrong, seeing who financed the attacks would be highly important, but incredibly difficult to trace. the second is true due to a technicality. At the point in time that that quote was said they probably didnt have any evidence that it was financed by a government.

They had traces of finances changing hands, these would easily be time stamped differently, through dummy names or companies, and had multiple payments in seperate directions to make tracing it harder.

I have no idea what did happen, but i know if i was trying to cover my tracks, that is what i would do.

although, you seemed to have discovered that Afghanistan was involved. At enough of a level to invade it, it seems. That was not just.




3) The fact that the only video footage we have of Flight 77 hitting the pentagon is from the security booth, and even that footage wasn’t released for 6 months! Additional footage from better angles exists and has been confiscated by the FBI.


Analysis takes time. You dont just stare at the footage and look for clues, there is oh so much more. Timing to be corrolated, images to be enhanced, etc.

Also, i agree with one poster, many other images may seem to show nothing because of the weakness of the cameras and the speed of the collision. Doesnt mean you cant release them too quickly. You need to keep them there and continue to analyse.

...wait.

The Fruit stand guy wasnt there?!

THAT CHANGES EVERYTHING!

*dum dum dum*

Alright, those are my answers.



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 01:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Octavius Maximus
 



Hello Octavius, thanks for taking the time to post. I think you are missing the point in regards to prior knowledge of the government. I understand no one is perfect. I also understand that even with the best intellegence the enemy can still succeed in their plans to attack. The point is that from the second those planes or whatever hit their targets we have heard nothing but lies and discrepancies from the Bush administration. Bottom line, they said there was no way they could have known this could happen, when the reality of the situtaion is they did. So once again, if they are going to lie about something as basic as "prior knowledge," then how can we beleive anything they say?

In regards to the quotes from the 9/11 Commission, they were taken directly from the 9/11 Commission's report so they are accurate (check the source). The report was finished and released in July of 2004. The sources I have quoted tying Pakistan to 9/11 are from 2001 and 2003.

In regards to the Pentagon Videos, I know it takes time to analize video, but 6 years?? Those tapes have still not been released, and for some reason I doubt they ever will. This should be the biggest red flag of the entire 9/11 debockle, but I gurantee most Americans have no idea they even exist. And why can't the FBI release copies why the original ones are "analized?"


Originally posted by Octavius Maximus
Im no 9/11 Expert, i dont claim to know anything of this.


You said it, not me.

[edit on 20-8-2007 by DrZERO]



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 02:11 AM
link   
good questions. there are many more.

why didn't they stop the multiple hijacking drills when they realized they had a real multiple hijacking? why was there response so poor, when they were in the act of training for exactly that?

why does no-one(in the MSM) seem to care that devout muslim 'martyrs' who were behaving like hedonistic party animals the evening before their 'sacrifice'?



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
Yes, he did use lies. He used intell that he knew wasn't correct - or at least knew was VERY questionable. He used lies to propagate fear to fuel war.

Concerning your question on where the lies could stop or not stop. This has been my contention on the topic of Flight 93. I believe the largest cover-up surrounding 9/11 is that the government did, in fact, shoot it down. ..................


Do I think he used false intell? Hell yeah...can I PROVE it? No. What I think, does not hold water. As a skeptic, I need proof to make up my mind 100%.

I disagree with your opinion as to the shoot down of flight 93. Of all the evidence I have read, and witnessness statements, I don't beleive it was shot down. (I suggest starting another thread if you want to chat about evidence)

I also have to disagree with your statement as to why Bush would not claim shooting down the airplane. The reason why he wold NOT admit to it is not that he doesnt have the spine or moral fortitude, Christ, he has killed over 3,000 American soilders so far. The man has no morals. If 93 was in fact shot down...the "Let's Roll" story was one they used so Americans can find some good out of what happened. The highjackers didn't succeed 100%...we have a hero story about how the Americans fought the terrorists.



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob

why does no-one(in the MSM) seem to care that devout muslim 'martyrs' who were behaving like hedonistic party animals the evening before their 'sacrifice'?



I heard this was not true.... Source Billy?



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

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
I heard this was not true.... Source Billy?


How can you prove hearsay to begin with? What do you want, a video of Atta at the bar? How about a video of the highjackers boarding the planes first?



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


Griff? WTF? I have read that it was a myth. I was ASKING if there was a source. You know I like to verify stories when people post them. Should we all start believing that there are alligators in the sewers??? Thats hersay!



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
How about a video of the highjackers boarding the planes first?


well here is a picture of him at a security check point in Portland.....

www.rcfp.org...

Let me know if video cameras were in place at the ramps where you boarded the planes. I'm not sure.



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 12:47 PM
link   
few random thoughts (do i have many other kinds? lol)

valhall, GREAT to see you posting again, you were missed.

two thoughts on the tapes. first is that they could still be holding them to use as evidence in any possible further trials that may or may not ever happen. we all know they dont release evidence from ongoing investigations or prosecutions. i know thats weak but its the truth. also, if the FBI was done with said tapes, they arent theirs to release or not, they belong to the businesses they were confiscated from. if they are ever returned to said businesses it is up to them whether they will ever be released or not. fbi hasnt released them simply cuz its not their right to.

ok so martyrs were acting like party animals, and? "devout" is subjective. anyone here know any hard core born again christians that go to strip clubs? i have, strip club sat night, church sunday morning. human is human. if you were about to die wouldnt you live it up a bit regardless of your religion?

great thread



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
reply to post by Griff
 


Griff? WTF? I have read that it was a myth. I was ASKING if there was a source. You know I like to verify stories when people post them. Should we all start believing that there are alligators in the sewers??? Thats hersay!



That was my point. I wasn't arguing with you.



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious

Originally posted by Griff
How about a video of the highjackers boarding the planes first?


well here is a picture of him at a security check point in Portland.....

www.rcfp.org...

Let me know if video cameras were in place at the ramps where you boarded the planes. I'm not sure.


I wasn't aware they boarded the planes in Portland, but thanks. I would imagine (even pre-9/11) that all egresses to airports would be under surveilence. But, that's just my paranoid mind I guess because there have never been highjackings or bomb threats at airports before 9/11. Just ask this administration.

[edit on 8/20/2007 by Griff]



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Crakeur
 



Thanks Crakeur


After checking the sources. I found a couple things:

The USA today article has nothing to do with the highjackers. IF the story is in fact true, they obvioulsy knew what was going on. What I find interesting though, is that they used credit cards to pay. Kind of stupid if you ask me.


I followed a link to the Boston Herald. This shows that a driver for an escort and the escort were both interviewed because the hooker bangged them a couple times. I will look a little deeper into this.

Again, what is the credibilty of these stories. (This story was from 10/01/01) Further in the article it states that Atta was at a strip joint in Florida "days before the attack" when in fact it was not Atta. The USA Today story actually tells a different story than the Herald and the cooperative search pages:


MIAMI (AP) — The night before terrorists struck New York and Washington, three men spewed anti-American sentiments in a bar and talked of impending bloodshed, according to a strip club manager interviewed by the FBI. John Kap, manager of the Pink Pony and Red Eyed Jack's Sports Bar in Daytona Beach, said the men made the claims to a bartender and a patron. "They were talking about what a bad place America is. They said 'Wait 'til tomorrow. America is going to see bloodshed,"' Kap said.

www.usatoday.com...

Boston Herald:


In Florida, several of the hijackers - including reputed ringleader Mohamed Atta - spent $200 to $300 each on lap dances in the Pink Pony strip club.

The group ran up drink tabs, spewed anti-American sentiments and talked of impending bloodshed a few days before the attacks, according to published reports. The group left behind a copy of the Koran - the Muslim holy book - at the Florida bar.


web.archive.org...://www.bostonherald.com/attack/investigation/ausprob10102001.htm



On September 10, three hijacker associates spend $200 to $300 apiece on lap dances and drinks in the Pink Pony, a Daytona Beach, Florida strip club. While the hijackers had left Florida by this time, Mohamed Atta is reported to have visited the same strip club, and these men appear to have had foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks (see September 10, 2001). [Boston Herald, 10/10/2001]

www.cooperativeresearch.org...

Cooperative research uses a refrence to the Boston Herald story that states that one of the people that were running up a tab was Atta, yet as you see what I have bolded...Cooperative Research states it wasn't the highjackers.



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 04:13 PM
link   
some seem to be missing the disconnect, here.

the alleged hijackers are proven to be devout if they sacrifice their lives for allah. the rewards of this are well known. virgins in a big mansion.
however, if these alleged martyrs were that faithful, there is NO WAY they would behave so opposite to the way REAL devout muslims act. if they did, NO VIRGINS and NO MANSION.

and, let's not forget our korans. korans were found ALL OVER THE PLACE! it'slike, a 'muslim terrorist' couldn't do anything without leaving a koran behind.
to a true devout muslim, the koran is a SACRED OBJECT, and devout martyrs would not leave them lying around ANYWHERE, nevermind everywhere.

[edit on 20-8-2007 by billybob]



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join