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: 3
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 07:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by TruthSeekers
SOMETHING DISATROUS WILL FAR EXCEED 911 NEXT YEAR. 911 WONT EVEN BE AN ISSUE COMPARED TOO WHAT IS TOO COME.

Then perhaps you could start another thread and let us know what's going to happen.

This is about challenging mainstreamers to substantiate their claims about what happened on 9/11, not about alternative theories or forthcoming apocalypses.




posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by TruthSeekers
SOMETHING DISATROUS WILL FAR EXCEED 911 NEXT YEAR. 911 WONT EVEN BE AN ISSUE COMPARED TOO WHAT IS TOO COME.


Have you heard something, or would like to predict something ? Come on now don't be shy. Hit us with a few predictions to mull over.



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by coughymachine

Originally posted by TruthSeekers
SOMETHING DISATROUS WILL FAR EXCEED 911 NEXT YEAR. 911 WONT EVEN BE AN ISSUE COMPARED TOO WHAT IS TOO COME.

Then perhaps you could start another thread and let us know what's going to happen.

This is about challenging mainstreamers to substantiate their claims about what happened on 9/11, not about alternative theories or forthcoming apocalypses.


You're right of course, about protocol. I just like predictions.



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by coughymachine
 



That's all well and good coughymachine, but after six years and still nothing? Not one smidgen of evidence that would hold up in a court of law? Not one whistle blower? In all what went on that day, every single piece of hard evidence got swept up, and nothing got left behind that would prove it was an inside job apart from theories? Don't you think that's strange?

I think that this conspiracy has come full circle.

You ask for the questions to be refreshed again and demand answers, but they never got answered the first time, why should now be any different? The same believers of the official story will still fight their corner. And there's nothing wrong with that.

The problem with 9/11 is that its not just one conspiracy. its the towers collapsing, pentagon, flight 93, "real planes", WTC 7, and nearly everyone here has a different theory on each and every one of them.

That to me is what needs to be sorted out.

Paulpaul does have a point though, if this is a inside job then who and why is a reasonable question "to get back to".



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 11:54 AM
link   
Sadly for me, 9/11 has gone so far from reality now its amazing.
Never for any conspiracy has there been so many different theories for all what went on that day.

I admit though that when it happened and the days following, I ate up the official story with no problems and I bet that nearly everyone else here did as well. Most probably because the shock and awe of it all I found it hard to watch the planes go into the towers and their subsequent collapse.

Now having watched the footage so many times in countless different theories, I forget to remember that im watching people die that day.

Coughymachine, if you don't believe the official story, then be prepared to die a ripe old age and never have your questions answered.

[edit on 23-12-2007 by thesneakiod]



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by coughymachine
 




I appreciate your sentiments and the thoughtful, obviously sincere way in which you communicated them.

Would I be welcome in the thread if you believe my honest statement that any skepticism I have comes from not a desire to out maneuver anyone, or to belittle anyone or to minimize someone's opinion?

My skepticism comes from a desire to keep the discussion intellectually honest.



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by thesneakiod
The problem with 9/11 is that its not just one conspiracy. its the towers collapsing, pentagon, flight 93, "real planes", WTC 7, and nearly everyone here has a different theory on each and every one of them.

But what if the towers collapsed broadly in agreement with NIST's estimations; what if Flight 77 did strike the Pentagon; what if the passengers aboard Flight 93 did overwhelm the hijackers, causing it to crash; and what if WTC-7 came down as the direct result of damage sustained by the collapse of the North Tower and the subsequent fires?

Could you rule a conspiracy out even if all these mainstream elements were accurate?

The answer is "no".

And here's the catch: none of them are ever likely to be proven by simply regurgitating old arguments. Indeed, all we're doing is inviting ridicule and making it easy for mainstreamers to brush us off.

The CIT team are among the few doing actual research right now that might, just might throw up some anomalies that we need to take seriously. But it seems to me that our endless preoccupation with video analyses of the collapsing towers does nothing but fuel more futile analyses. The only way we're ever going to prove any of those alternative theories is by getting hold of and analysing the raw materials/evidence. And that ain't ever going to happen.

I believe that, if 9/11 was an inside job, the only way it's ever likely to be exposed is by a confession. Meantime, we've got to show that the mainstream account is flawed. We must insist mainstreamers substantiate their claims; that they must meet the evidentiary standards they've been imposing on us. They won't be able to, of course. We have to avoid giving people like Mark Roberts the opportunity to effectively dismiss those who challenge the mainstream account by shooting down alternative theories instead of substantiating his own.

In sum, we have to take control, not abdicate it.



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
Would I be welcome in the thread if you believe my honest statement that any skepticism I have comes from not a desire to out maneuver anyone, or to belittle anyone or to minimize someone's opinion?

Of course. I would like nothing more than to have a good, honest, fact-based discussion with anyone who accepts the mainstream view, so long as we are both accountable to the same standards and both acknowlegde that there is currently no universally accepted theory as to what happened that day.



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by coughymachine
 


I believe that to accept the official story you have to accept that the government played a part in it, they may not of perpetuated it or helped it in anyway, but they sure as hell done nothing to stop it.

To be able to attack the headquarters of the worlds most powerful military without hindrance in anyway smacks of disbelief in my opinion.

They let that happen pure and simple, and that isn't a conspiracy.



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by thesneakiod
I believe that to accept the official story you have to accept that the government played a part in it, they may not of perpetuated it or helped it in anyway, but they sure as hell done nothing to stop it.

Well, let's ask the mainstreamers.

Do mainstreamers accept that, in order for the mainstream account to be accurate, at least one person with the power to have stopped or else interfered with the plot must have known in advance and yet failed to act?



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 06:14 PM
link   
I think the main issue with the 911 conspiracy is that its promoters have become so overwhelming obsessed with how this incredible feat was pulled off that nobody ever discusses what the aim of 911 was.

Conspiators don't conspire just for the aim of conspiring do they? Surely there must be an aim of this conpiracy? Is anybody going to give any thoughts to this?

Was it to invade Afganistan?
To invade Iraq?

I have to admit I have read some really far out stories as the events of 911 are concerned (not to imply they are false). Ranging from remote controlled aircraft to holographic Ufo's, missiles on planes to satellite beams and so on. I'm sure alot of you are quite familiar with most of them and can see the evidently ridiculous nature of some.

If somebody has gone to such lengths and efforts, we have to address the question of why.

What was the aim!





[edit on 23-12-2007 by paulpaulpaul]



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by paulpaulpaul
What was the aim!

You sure are determined to switch the focus of this thread aren't you?

Instead of trying to reinvent the wheel here, why not contribute to the extant "why?" thread entitled, Now Lets Discuss The Why......?

This thread is about "whether".

Any luck finding the links to the BBC footage you saw of the 19 alleged hijackers boarding each of the four planes?





[edit on 23-12-2007 by coughymachine]



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 07:46 AM
link   
Lets get back to asking some questions. This is something you appear amazingly resiliant to do. If you do eventially prove that September 11th was some sort of conspiracy then the first question people are going to ask is why. Why was there a conspiracy? What is the aim of it? Do you really think that some sort of technocratic explanation as to why September 11 was an inside job is going to make people believe you. It isn't. At some point in time you are going to have to address what the aim of this supposed conspiracy is. Whether you like it or not.

"then why didn't we invade Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq".

Wizard In the Woods - The generally infantile and ignorant attitude you possess really shines brightly in this absurd question, it shows you have absolutely no knowledge of the Middle-East in any shape or form and you should refrain from any further input to this conversation. Thanks for your time.

[edit on 24-12-2007 by paulpaulpaul]



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by paulpaulpaul
Lets get back to asking some questions. This is something you appear amazingly resiliant to do.

I'm not going to talk about the "why?" in this thread, given its purpose was to discuss the merits of challenging mainstreamers to substantiate their claims.

We have already begun to exchange views in the other "why?" thread. Why constantly try to derail this one?

You entered this thread asserting that 19 men hijacked four planes on 9/11. You then said you had proof of this. You have since revealed that this proof consists of your having viewed some footage on the BBC. I have asked you to back your claim up with links. That is what this thread is about.

Do you have the links to footage of the 19 men identified as the hijackers boarding the four planes on 9/11? If not, are you prepared to acknowledge that you have no proof of this claim?



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 10:49 AM
link   
I know various people have attempted to answer the questions pertaining to who was involved in 9/11. Those people pointed out the simplest way to make discovery is this question, "Who had the most to gain in power and more wealth?"

At the same time, I have watched person after person rationalize their way through what they interpreted to mean gain and who. In the case of 9/11, gain is maintaining power and accumulating more wealth. Until people cease making excuses for people, who were most assuredly intimately involved in 9/11, nothing will be gained for objective answers.

Instead of arguing over how it happened, why not start sorting through the why it happened, to make reasonable discovery of who gained because it happened? The details of how will then become obvious. That means thoroughly investigating the people holding power, with all the accumulated wealth they already possess. Enough for them is never enough. Starting an investigation by baselessly eliminating or rationalizing one's way through suspects, is no meaningful way to carry out an objective investigation to provide evidential answers.

Follow the money, and rest of the investigation will take care of itself as to how and why it happened.



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 12:58 PM
link   
***removed. What I wrote sounded snippy and combative and that's not what I was trying to communicate****


[edit on 24-12-2007 by SlightlyAbovePar]



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 03:34 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?


What images would that be?

These with two timestamps



Or this one with no timestamp?





posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueOrFalse
 


With all due respect, how can any faces be clearly seen to positively identify anyone? Or are people seeing clear faces others may not see?



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 05:36 PM
link   
CCTV coverage of the high-jackers doesn't mean anything when they weren't even on the passenger lists...

www.rumormillnews.com...

How could the 'terrorists' not be on the passenger lists?

None of the official hijackers of the Sep11th-attack appeared on the original manifest of the passenger list. Sources:

www.cnn.com...
www.cnn.com...
www.cnn.com...
www.cnn.com...

911review.org...

[edit on 24/12/2007 by ANOK]



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 

I think TrueorFalse was making the point that the photographic evidence we have of the 19 hijackers is weak. He certainly wasn't suggesting those picture proved anything. In fact, he's even suggesting that, since they have either two timestamps or no timestamps, their legitimacy is questionable.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join