Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

If 9/11 was a inside job, How many people were involved?

page: 15
3
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 9 2007 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
whay didn't the families bring forward lawsuits ? You don't think they use the internet ?


You must not be keeping up on things. Several families have filed lawsuits.




posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 05:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by eyewitness86
In order to convict someone for an alleged offense, three things MUST be proven beyond a REASONABLE DOUBT. That is, a certainty to the extent that a reasonable person would judge it to be given the evidence at hand. Those things are : MOTIVE , METHOD and OPPORTUNITY. MEANS is another category but I am including it under METHOD for simplicity.

It is easy, disgustingly easy, to prove in all categories the guilt of the Bush regime in the 9-11 events.


No. You are wrong. Obviously, you are not acquainted with the law, nor with legal process.

In order to convict someone for 'an alleged offense', the only indispensable and essential requirement is that EVIDENCE must be presented to a jury.

Motive, method, opportunity, means and other factors are meaningless and of absolutely ZERO value in a court of law, if there is no evidence. Without evidence, there is no case to answer.

This is The Elephant In The Room for 9/11 'truthers'. All the allegations about Al Qaida having no involvement, about laser-guided and automatically piloted phantom aircraft, about holograms and no-planes, about explosives and thermite and controlled demolitions and endless permutations of fantasy, and every determination to ignore obvious facts and clear evidence - all this does not amount to a small hill of beans. No evidence of any kind is ever presented to support any of these ridiculous fantasies, just propagandizing MIHOP BS which can easily be demonstrated to be bunk by any researcher who bothers to look at the evidence which is clearly available for all to see.

After 6 years, we are still waiting for EVEN ONE SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE which might support any of the MIHOP agenda. None appears to exist.

Just because you don't like the Bush Administration, and see their incompetence and uselessness as evidence of some kind of evil conspiracy, does not make it so. What you have is a BELIEF-SYSTEM, like Christian or Islamic fundamentalists. You're all the same. Force everything into your BELIEF-SYSTEM, ignore facts, sideline all the evidence which contradicts the MIHOP BELIEF-SYSTEM, and endlessly proclaim and propagandize the tenets of the BELIEF SYSTEM in the hope that shouting this BS even louder is going to convince people who know better.

It won't. It hasn't for 6 years, and so long as no evidence to support this BELIEF SYSTEM is produced, it never will.

If any real evidence, rather than opinion, innuendo and fantasy, is ever produced in support of this gigantic conspiracy, well then we have a different ball game.



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 05:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by bovarcher
After 6 years, we are still waiting for EVEN ONE SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE which might support any of the MIHOP agenda. None appears to exist.

For crying out loud!! I have shown you real evidence but you just ignored it and you will continue to ignore it some more. But here it is again anyway:
WTC-7 Video Compilation



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 07:35 AM
link   
reply to post by PepeLapew
 


I've done some research into CDs, Pepi. It's not a CD, or at least it doesn't look like one to me now. If it did, then I might be on the road to buying into the MIHOP agenda.

It looks like a building collapsing, after extensive structural weakening from impact damage and fire. I know you can quote that Dutch bloke who says he thinks it looks like a CD, but he does seem to be in a very small minority of explosive and demolition experts, most of whom do not share his view. It seems his opinion is almost certainly a misjudgment.

I remain open-minded, but am not going to accept the conspiracy agenda just because it might support my political prejudices.

In all my travels in the Arab world in recent years, I never met anyone who believes that 9/11 was not carried out by Al Qaida. They have too much direct experience of AQ operations in Saudi, Egypt, Jordan and Iraq to think that the US Govt or agencies within would possibly be capable of it. They live cheek-by-jowel with militant Islamic sympathizers and lifelong, pathological America-haters on a daily basis. So many westerners have been murdered by these people in Egypt, Saudi, Indonesia and other places. They KNOW 9/11 was an AQ op, and I don't see anyone convincing them otherwise. Some of them are proud of it, and look forward to 'the next time soon, when the Moslems will teach America another lesson'. Really.

Conspiracy-theorists in the west live in a kind of bubble, insulated from reality. They can afford the luxury of generating conspiracy theories about their own government planning & carrying out terrorist attacks and blaming them on the Arabs because they just don't understand enough about militant jihadist Wahabism and their murderous, uncompromising agenda.

The key about 'controlled demolitions' is evidence, not what something 'looks like'. As you know, I am no expert. If any evidence is produced for the presence of any explosive charges, or any witness who can claim any knowledge of same ever emerges, then we might have something. But in six years, there is no evidence.

I find it frankly not credible that if demo charges had been used, there would be no evidence AT ALL. Rescue workers were in the building in considerable numbers, and cleared up the debris afterwards. Apparently, not one of them noticed any demo charges, explosives or wires. Are they all in some kind of huge conspiracy? Makes no sense to me. That the building collapse 'looks like' a CD to the uninformed does not mean that's what it is.

I remain with the evidence, my close personal experience of militant Islamic jihadists and with gut instinct. I will not be swayed by fantasy, because some kind of evil conspiracy can be manufactured to support a dubious political agenda.

I also have to say that watching '9/11 Mysteries' convinced me beyond doubt that the conspiracy movement contains elements (like the film makers) who have absolutely no interest in truth. They are pushing their own political agenda, and will lie, distort and misrepresent the facts ruthlessly in order to push their own propaganda. Shame on them.







[edit on 10/11/2007 by bovarcher]



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by bovarcher
After 6 years, we are still waiting for EVEN ONE SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE which might support any of the MIHOP agenda. None appears to exist.


Kind of like the fact that after 6 years i have not seen any physical evidence or official reports that support the official story.

It has been proven time and time again how many holes are in the official story and how much information is missing or left out of the official story.

Maybe you can tell me why more and more first responders are speaking out against the official story.

[edit on 10-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 10:47 AM
link   
double post

[edit on 10-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by bovarcher
I've done some research into CDs, Pepi. It's not a CD, or at least it doesn't look like one to me now. If it did, then I might be on the road to buying into the MIHOP agenda.


Problem is we have fire chief Nigro's statement that contridicts Siverstein saying that PULL IT meant to pull out the firemen.

Chief Nigro stated he evacuated the firemen early in the day without talking to anyone. So that could only mean that when the fire chief decided to PULL IT he meant the building.

We also have the statement by chief Hayden that they were worried if the builidng collapsed it would spread more fires and cause more damage.

[edit on 10-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by eyewitness86
In order to convict someone for an alleged offense, three things MUST be proven beyond a REASONABLE DOUBT. That is, a certainty to the extent that a reasonable person would judge it to be given the evidence at hand. Those things are : MOTIVE , METHOD and OPPORTUNITY. MEANS is another category but I am including it under METHOD for simplicity.
This is patently false. A crime is defined in a statute, and it is the elements of that statute that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt for conviction. But that is a mere technicality.

Can you provide me evidence to back up the claims that have been made in your post? I am interested to read them.



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


I understand what you are saying, but his comment about peer reviewed articles is compelling. Has there been anything in that vein?



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Maybe you can tell me why more and more first responders are speaking out against the official story.

[edit on 10-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]
I understand your point, but I have trouble believing that they would have the technical expertise necessary to weigh in on these sorts of issues.



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 11:08 AM
link   
Hi, ULTIMA1.

Nice avatar, by the way. I've been trying to get mine to load, apparently without success.



So that could only mean that when the fire chief decided to PULL IT he meant the building.

We also have the statement by chief Hayden that they were worried if the builidng collapsed it would spread more fires and cause more damage.

[edit on 10-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]


That's your interpretation of 'Pull it.' You can't assume that's what was meant by the speaker, unless he actually admits that's what he meant.

What does the Chief say he meant by that command? Sorry but I genuinely have not heard his version. If he is on record saying 'By "Pull it" I meant detonate pre-placed demolition charges which had been placed in the building prior to it catching fire and being structurally damaged by falling debris' then OK, that's what he meant.

Has he said that, or anything like that?



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Togetic
[edit on 10-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]
I understand your point, but I have trouble believing that they would have the technical expertise necessary to weigh in on these sorts of issues.

But they were there and they saw and heard things that contridict the official story.



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by bovarcher
Hi, ULTIMA1. That's your interpretation of 'Pull it.' You can't assume that's what was meant by the speaker, unless he actually admits that's what he meant.


Well Silverstein stated that when hewas talking to the fire commander and stated PULL IT, he meant to pull out the firemen.

Fire Chief Nigro who was the commander at the time states that he evacuated the firemen early in the day without talking to anyone.

So when chief Nigro decided to PULL IT when he was talking with Silverstein could only mean that he was talking about the building, not the firemen (since the firemen were already out of the building).

forums.randi.org...

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Togetic
[edit on 10-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]
I understand your point, but I have trouble believing that they would have the technical expertise necessary to weigh in on these sorts of issues.


But they were there and they saw and heard things that contridict the official story. Do you believe that it is possible to have a 100% consistent story?

I certainly don't. And not because of malice or conspiracy, but merely because of human inaccuracies. Studies have shown that people can experience the same thing and relate different sensual experiences. I have read a lot of things on both sides of the aisle and haven't found anything outside of a reasonable margin of error.



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 11:42 AM
link   



Kind of like the fact that after 6 years i have not seen any physical evidence or official reports that support the official story.

It has been proven time and time again how many holes are in the official story and how much information is missing or left out of the official story.

[edit on 10-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]


Sure, I agree with you (believe it or not). I never said I 'support the official story'. There may be holes in it. Knowing The Bush Administration and their long record of ineptitude and incompetence, they probably appointed - well, let's say 'not the most able or appropriate people' to the commission.

One thing I do know is that your current govt, or agencies within it, would never be capable of mounting any kind of op like 9/11 and successfully covering it up. That, my friend, is inconceivable. I mean, just look at them.

The evidence is that the operation was thought up and planned for >24 months by the war council of AQ, who had by then plenty of experience in explosive-belt suicide bombings (mainly in Tel Aviv and Haifa) and in high-speed-into-fixed-target suicide truck bombings. The cost of planning, organizing, recruiting, securing, training, placing and setting up the op ran to several million US$, and involved a significant operation in Afghanistan, a second in Pakistan and a third in Hamburg. This can all be tracked and verified outside the USA, and outside any possible involvement of any US agencies. It is an absolutely standard AQ op, involving the long-planned, sudden and simultaneous strike against multiple high-profile targets for maximum publicity impact and loss of life. There is evidence that the op was originally conceived to involve >50 operatives and >10 simultaneous targets in the US including dams and nuclear power stations, but that it was downscaled to ensure success and to reduce complexity and risk.

A lot of Americans really have no idea about the virulent, pathological, deep hatred of the USA and all it stands for which many tens of thousands of AQ sympathizers in the Arab world harbor. They do not even understand the complex religious, societal and political background of militant Jihadist Wahabism, and what are its eventual global objectives. These people are, thanks to Osama and his wealth, very well financed and organized. And patient.

Even some contributors to ATS are so fixed in their own dislike and contempt for their own government, they have their heads up their own a**es so far they can't even see beyond the borders of the USA. The Govt must be responsible, right? BECAUSE I WANT THEM TO BE!!! Because it fits my belief-system.

Wake up, guys.

You can be absolutely 100% confident that AQ has been planning its next high-profile strike against the USA for at least the past 2 years. This is likely to involve nuclear weapons, and/or strikes against nuclear facilities. I'm not joking. Pakistan has a nuclear arsenal and expertise, and there is evidence of the involvement of renegade elements in the Pakistani armed forces with AQ.

But I have no doubt that, six months from now, with perhaps three or four million US citizens dead from the next attacks, there will be contributors to ATS (if it survives) who claim the US Govt was responsible for the whole thing, to suit some nefarious evil agenda.

Sad.











4 aircraft were hijacked by the 19 AQ operatives, a



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by bovarcher
One thing I do know is that your current govt, or agencies within it, would never be capable of mounting any kind of op like 9/11 and successfully covering it up. That, my friend, is inconceivable. I mean, just look at them.


So your saying that the 19 hijackers are better then any of our special ops units, and they could not have pulled it off?

I tend to believe more that our government knew it was going to happen (because of all the warnings) and let it happen ?

Do you know what agencies track terrorist organizations and thier finances? I do, i have several unclassified and classified sites i use for resources.

Also have you seen the theory that Al-Qaeda doesn't actually exist, it was made up?



posted on Nov, 11 2007 @ 03:06 AM
link   
Hi ULTIMA1




I tend to believe more that our government knew it was going to happen (because of all the warnings) and let it happen ?


Yes, I think that is credible. More likely laziness, incompetence and ineptitude, the hallmarks of the current US administration, let it happen. But someone may have had detailed information about the actual date. We don't have any firm evidence one way or the other.

If the date had been known, what should have been the response? Ground all world air traffic, or all air traffic in North America? You can see how that would have played with The Conspiracy-Believers.

Once the aircraft were confirmed as hijacked, there wasn't much time to act. Presumably the precise targets were not known but could only be guessed at. The sky was full of commercial aircraft, especially round DC & NYC. Even if you had time, and enough firm information before the actual impacts, would you risk possibly shooting down the wrong plane full of passengers, if it was your decision? Temporary decision paralysis usually takes over in these circumstances.


Do you know what agencies track terrorist organizations and thier finances? I do, i have several unclassified and classified sites i use for resources


That would be interesting. Any chance of sharing this?



Also have you seen the theory that Al-Qaeda doesn't actually exist, it was made up?


Yes I've heard that. Basically, it's kind of accurate in a way. It's not an organization with a hierarchy. It's an ideology which is subscribed to by a large number of disparate individuals and sub-groups throughout the world. Osama, because of his family history, has very significant financial resources so Jihadists go to him with operational plans for terror attacks and for blessing and approval. They don't take orders, as such.

'Al Qaida in Iraq' or 'The al-Qaeda Organization in the Land of the Two Rivers' as they call themselves is a case in point:

www.tkb.org...

(plenty of other refs & web pages but you may know them).

They are not answerable to Bin Laden or the hardliners in NE Pakistan. They do their own murderous thing and make it up as they go along. They just call themselves AQ because they identify with militant Sunni Wahabism and its global objectives, and they enjoy killing Americans.



posted on Nov, 11 2007 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by bovarcher
Yes, I think that is credible. More likely laziness, incompetence and ineptitude, the hallmarks of the current US administration, let it happen. But someone may have had detailed information about the actual date. We don't have any firm evidence one way or the other.


That would be interesting. Any chance of sharing this?



Well if the agencies involved were incompetent why was no one fired. The people from NORAD were all given promotions and awards.

The following sites are some of the unclassified sites i have.

www.trackingthethreat.com...
www.globalsecurity.org...
www.ctstudies.com...
www.defenselink.mil...
www.securityinfowatch.com...





[edit on 11-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Nov, 11 2007 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Well if the agencies involved were incompetent why was no one fired. The people from NORAD were all given promotions and awards.


This is a very good question. It's not unique to 9/11 though, we see this kind of nest-feathering all over the world all the time.


Thanks for the links. Very much obliged.

Best wishes.




posted on Nov, 11 2007 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by bovarcher
This is a very good question. It's not unique to 9/11 though, we see this kind of nest-feathering all over the world all the time.


Thanks for the links. Very much obliged.



Well problem is why NORAD could not catch any of the 4 hijacked planes. I mean NORAD has a very respectful track record.

No problem, let me know if you have questions or would like to see more sites.


[edit on 11-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]






top topics



 
3
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in

join