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.

 

Let's get back to asking questions

page: 1
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 10:11 AM
link   
The more 9/11 threads I read, the more I realise we’re gradually allowing what happened that day to be consigned to history and, in the process, rendering it increasingly unfathomable.

Whether through over-exuberance or through being manipulated, we’re losing sight of our objective. We’re positing explanations when we should be examining those presented to us. We’re inviting the burden of proof when it rightfully belongs with those espousing the mainstream view.

Too many of us pretend to be ‘just asking questions’ when really, we’re just trying to out-manoeuvre the opposition in what has, for many it seems, long since ceased to be about uncovering the ‘truth’ and has instead become a pissing contest.

I would like to see us stop making unsubstantiated statements and revert to asking questions - genuine, agenda-free questions. I would like to see us resist the temptation to offer ‘alternative’ explanations and press those who argue the mainstream case for solid proof. They have an evidentiary standard to meet and are failing.

We are letting them off the hook.




posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 10:32 AM
link   
It has been proven here at ats that flight 93 crash site is a fraud.

So if you want to convince people of a fraud, flight 93 is it.

Nobody can debunk it, tho they try, poorly.

Little do they know their jobs are becomming obsolete.




[edit on 22-12-2007 by IvanZana]



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by IvanZana
It has been proven here at ats that flight 93 crash site is a fraud.

What proof do you have of this?



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 11:49 AM
link   
I agree with the OP.

Just lately, a lot of good points have been lost through what ATS have very recently termed "9/11 Madness".

We should not lose sight of the fact that what we're discussing here is very serious, and some of the posts are leveling accusations at known people. This may be the internet, but laws still apply.

To those on BOTH sides of the debate, if you're going to suggest something, come up with something more concrete than a video on YouTube or Google Video (although that isn't to say that those videos couldn't offer good supporting evidence), but they should not be *the* source of evidence.

Getting back to legalities for a moment: could your "evidence" stand up to scrutiny in a court of law, and pass the "beyond reasonable doubt" test??

IMHO the movement needs to remember that we're all trying to prove the same thing: that 9/11 was not as it seems. If that happens to show it was an inside job, are you prepared to put evidence forward in an impeachment trial?

It is one thing to argue a point, a whole different story proving it.

There is some very good evidence out there to show that 9/11 isn't as it seems, but some of the "theories" are just that - theories.

I think as part of 9/11 Madness, the burden of proof and quality of evidence also needs to be challenged, for the sake of the movement.

6 years and counting since this atrocity was committed; we are in great fear of being laughed off the stage indefinitely if we don't stop arguing amongst ourselves and produce something undeniable that clearly demonstrates 9/11 as presented in the media and in official investigations as a lie.

Even if we prove just a small core part of the argument is flawed (e.g. collapse of the WTC), then people will have to sit up and listen.

3000 people died that day - let us not dishonor their memory.

[edit on 22-12-2007 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by mirageofdeceit
 


That was excellently stated. We never did have availability of 99.9% of any evidence at WTC. Not even that much for the Pentagon and PA.

99.9% of WTC evidence was ordered hauled off to India and China to be recycled, before the FBI, NIST, or independent investigators could thoroughly examine it, including lab test it for signs of any type of explosives.

We have science that works on constant definites. We have documentation of what should happen with planes impacting anything. We have the construction of all buildings available for research. From this, there is a strong circumstantial case, that what we were told in the "official" and 9/11 Commission reports were not what happened.

When the co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission report state to the media and write in their book that their own report is heavily lacking for answers, that should strongly indicate the "official" report demands a thorough independent official investigation, with no more "kid glove" questions for US bureaucrats. Or excusing anyone from appearing. If they refuse to appear, find them in comtempt and jail them until they do agree to appear, and logically answer the questions put to them. Demand all reports and evidence withheld concerning 9/11, which has not been made public.

We, the people, are their employers. They work for us. We do not work for them. They owe us truthful answers and all evidence we paid to have gathered. It is up to us to demand we get those answers. Few, if any, employers, in the business world, would stand for what our bureaucrat employees have put us through for nearly 8 years.



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 12:41 PM
link   
How long is it going to take you lot to come to accept that some Islamic extremists hijacked some airliners and flew them into the trade towers? I mean seriously! Its been 6 years and your still ranting about these ridiculous conspiracies!



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by paulpaulpaul
How long is it going to take you lot to come to accept that some Islamic extremists hijacked some airliners and flew them into the trade towers? I mean seriously! Its been 6 years and your still ranting about these ridiculous conspiracies!


Speaking for myself. When someone can actually prove beyond a reasonable doubt that 9/11 occurred exactly the way the "official" reports claims it did. That means using all known documented science methodology to do it. Not until then.



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by paulpaulpaul
How long is it going to take you lot to come to accept that some Islamic extremists hijacked some airliners and flew them into the trade towers? I mean seriously! Its been 6 years and your still ranting about these ridiculous conspiracies!

We'd all accept it if it could be proven.

Can you prove it?



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by paulpaulpaul
How long is it going to take you lot to come to accept that some Islamic extremists hijacked some airliners and flew them into the trade towers? I mean seriously! Its been 6 years and your still ranting about these ridiculous conspiracies!

I see you just registered here, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but I think you really need to look through some of the evidence presented here in these forums. I particularly point your attention to LaBTop and his thesis on the WTC collapses. He has examined seismic recordings of that day as recorded by LDEO. It shows that things are most certainly not as the Official Report would have you believe.

LaBTop Thesis:
www.studyof911.com...

[edit on 22-12-2007 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 02:09 PM
link   
The problem with the 911 conspiracists is that they will all say what didn't happen - i.e: not the official story, but nobody ever seems to be willing to actually say what they think happened. I can tell you what I did see, a load of Saudi Arabians boarding a plane in order to hijack it.

Are you saying that these images from a CCTV camera have been falsified then? If they have been falsified then by whom and for what cause?

Was it George Bush? Osama Bin Laden? Tony Blair? Goldfinger? John Smith?

Who is responsible and why?



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by coughymachine

I would like to see us stop making unsubstantiated statements and revert to asking questions - genuine, agenda-free questions. I would like to see us resist the temptation to offer ‘alternative’ explanations and press those who argue the mainstream case for solid proof. They have an evidentiary standard to meet and are failing.

We are letting them off the hook.


well i must admit though us mainstream believers cant prove with out a doubt that things happened the offical way. you cant prove they didnt and this fact kinda makes this whole thread pointless or a troll at best..



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by paulpaulpaul
The problem with the 911 conspiracists is that they will all say what didn't happen - i.e: not the official story, but nobody ever seems to be willing to actually say what they think happened. I can tell you what I did see, a load of Saudi Arabians boarding a plane in order to hijack it.


How is that possible? When even the "official" report states some of the alleged hijackers were other than Saudi nationals? You personally saw 19 Arab looking people board 4 flights, and it was those pictured and named in the "official" version? If so, how is it possible to be in 4 places at the same time?

If you do not personally witness, how can you know for certain anything about what someone else is telling you happened?

Perhaps, you should be aware. At least 7 of the pictures and names of hijakers, promoted by the media, were false. That was proved by BBC, and confirmed by FBI spokesperson Mueller, when interviewed by BBC with their proof.


Who is responsible and why?

That is what we are trying to find out through investigating why the "official" version completely ignores and defies the laws of physics. However, you are doing more harm to the "official" version trying to justify it, by making statements which do not concur with the "official" version.

[edit on 22-12-2007 by OrionStars]



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 02:30 PM
link   
I think the main question here is that if the circumstances of 911 are so suspicious, and this is taken to imply some other forces are at work, then who are these people and what are they trying to do? It is the most basic question and nobody seems to be willing to stump up a solution.

You know it has been 6 years and I have not actually ever heard anybody explain the who and why of the supposed conspiracy.

Just because your mainstream doesn't imply your wrong.



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by paulpaulpaul
Are you saying that these images from a CCTV camera have been falsified then? If they have been falsified then by whom and for what cause?

Have you seen CCTV images of the 19 alleged hijackers actually boarding the four planes that morning?

And can you prove they are who we're told they are?



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars

Originally posted by paulpaulpaul
The problem with the 911 conspiracists is that they will all say what didn't happen - i.e: not the official story, but nobody ever seems to be willing to actually say what they think happened. I can tell you what I did see, a load of Saudi Arabians boarding a plane in order to hijack it.


How is that possible? When even the "official" report states some of the alleged hijackers were other than Saudi nationals? You personally saw 19 Arab looking people board 4 flights, and it was those pictured and named in the "official" version? If so, how is it possible to be in 4 places at the same time?

If you do not personally witness, how can you know for certain anything about what someone else is telling you happened?

Perhaps, you should be aware. At least 7 of the pictures and names of hijakers, promoted by the media, were false. That was proved by BBC, and confirmed by FBI spokesperson Mueller, when interviewed by BBC with their proof.



Who is responsible and why?


That is what we are trying to find out through investigating why the "official" version completely ignores and defies the laws of physics. However, you are doing more harm to the "official" version trying to justify it, by making statements which do not concur with the "official" version.



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 02:33 PM
link   
I believe that 19 Saudis hijacked some planes and flew them into various targets. I believe what I have seen. However you believe what you have not seen.

I will make the assumption that you believe there is some sort of mischief at play and these videos have been falsified. If so by who and why?

You imply that there is all this falsification but you are totally unwilling to give any thoughts as to who is responsible and their motives.


[edit on 22-12-2007 by paulpaulpaul]



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaleGribble
well i must admit though us mainstream believers cant prove with out a doubt that things happened the offical way. you cant prove they didnt and this fact kinda makes this whole thread pointless or a troll at best..

A troll? How so? Because I'm suggesting that the burden of proof is yours and that those of us who doubt the mainstream account should ask you to meet it?

I frank admission that you can't would have been enough.



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by paulpaulpaul
I think the main question here is that if the circumstances of 911 are so suspicious, and this is taken to imply some other forces are at work, then who are these people and what are they trying to do? It is the most basic question and nobody seems to be willing to stump up a solution.

You're trying to redefine the theme of this thread.

My point was that your claims should be scrutinised, not mine or anyone else's who challenges your version of events. You have to meet the same evidentiary standards as you'd expect from us and, thus far, no one who supports your position has done so.

I think this has to stop. I think you should be asked to think about the position you hold and support it with evidence.



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by paulpaulpaul
You imply that there is all this falsification but you are totally unwilling to give any thoughts as to who is responsible and their motives.

Again, you're trying to frame this discussion on your terms. I'm not going to let you.

I have made no claims in this thread. Maybe 19 Saudi hijackers did board the planes as reported. Maybe they didn't. You made that claim here. I've simply asked you to back it up.

Can you?



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 02:49 PM
link   
I have actually reverted to the most basic and unanswered theme of the 911 conspiracy. Who and why? I have never actually asked for any evidence, just a simple who and why.

What is so hard to answer about this?

I have stated my position and presented my evidence. I believe that a group of Saudi Arabians hijacked a number of airliners and flew them into targets. The reason I believe this is because I have seen it on BBC News.

Coughymachine. Do you believe there is a conspiracy? If so who mastermined it and for what purpose? I don't want any evidence.

[edit on 22-12-2007 by paulpaulpaul]

[edit on 22-12-2007 by paulpaulpaul]



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join