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.

 

9-11 lets lay it on the table....please provide evidence

page: 9
7
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 02:38 PM
link   
Yeah - all us folks here in the middle - on the proverbial fence if you will - or in the intellectual "jury's out" box if you will - we're doing okay with watching the evidence from both sides come in.



OOB - checkin' in good to go on things!




posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


Stay on topic. No "seemingly" personal attacks please. Everyone has a right to their opinion. Do it the right way!

Peace



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
A lack of evidence is not in and of itself, evidence.

Which security level from which agency? You know, the agencies that rarely talked to each other about anything? This last statement show incompetence, not complicity.


Well yes a lack of evidence can be evidence. Its used in court a lot.

Yes for example when they can't find evidence to convict someone, that is evidence to convict?
A lack of evidence may leave a hole or suspicion but in and of itself, is not evidence.


There were classified and unclassified intell from the different agencies, they did not need to talk to each other to pass on the warnings.

Actually they did. Proof you ask? 9/11 is the proof.


If an agency like NORAD was incompetent why was no one punished or fired. Instead people involved were given promotions and awards.

Assuming NORAD was incompetent, I would think nobody has been punished because just like the rest of the government, it's part of the ole boys network. Here's a perfect example: The Bush administration outright lied to get us into the Iraq war and this common knowledge now. So why hasn't anyone in the Bush administration been punished? I could go on and on with examples but almost everyone on the planet is now familiar with that example.



[edit on 28-1-2008 by jfj123]



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 05:19 PM
link   
From Ultima

If an agency like NORAD was incompetent why was no one punished or fired. Instead people involved were given promotions and awards.



I am not well versed in the whole NORAD stuff. Who was incompetent and what did they do?

Please tell me what employees of NORAD got promotions.

Agian...I'm not saying it didn't happen...I'm just curious.

Thanks in advance

CO



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Valhall
Yeah, I'm sure most of them started there. That's about all I have in common with them though.


Well i am sure there would not as many theories if the FBI and FAA would release more information. The more they hold back the more it looks like they are covering something.


Ultima your a good guy and I appreciate the opportunity to talk with you. I disagree with your statement, however.

My impression is, no, no it wouldn't. Truthers claim this as one of their sentinel arguments and, I have to agree. If what you’re claiming is true. Honestly, I don't know if it is, or isn't. My point is this: it's from the feds. The rally cry right now is one of "release the files!!!!", as you say. If they actually did, the rally cry would then become they withheld some information, played games with the numbers or operated in secrecy.

For the truth movement to have any credibility, which to me they don't, they have to be willing to get off arguments that are just plain absurd, which they refuse to do.

I guess what I am trying to say is, to me in my opinion, it seems as though the truth movement lives for questions and ignores the answers when they don't fit their already determined outcome(s).

What if the truth movement is, in fact, a red herring, would the leaders be willing to say something along the lines of 'we were wrong, but there are many aspects that are worth perusing"?

Would truth leaders/vocal advocates be willing to start a public education campaign that admits there are all kinds of kooks making a mockery of the idea of truth, identify them and move on to real, worthwhile aspects of 9-11 that really might hold a conspiracy?

My contention is no, they would not. To most truthers, IMO, the act of asking questions seems to be the stone by which the build their house on. They don't seem to listen to the answers and will go to almost any extreme of ridiculousness to force their agenda, and demand you take them seriously.

I have heard the term 'flat earthers' when referencing people who believe the official story. Believers ask for real proof. Not speculation, not conjecture. Believers ask for mountains of data that form a trend where the truth typically resides. That’s not a flat earther. A flat-earther is someone who is presented with volumes of evidence by the leading experts in their fields and then dismiss all of it, on it’s face, because they “know” better.

You truthers are the flat earthers; believing what you believe because a few high disciples (despite mountains upon mountains of publicly available research, findings, etc) have told you it isn’t so. And you believe it. What do they offer? Web sites with questionable sources, shadowy ‘experts’ and a lot of speculation built on speculation coupled with a very high dose of not understanding what they are talking about.

Instead of claiming the 9-11 Commission report is an “Omission Report”, how about you all get Soros and others to fund an alternate report? How about you get it peered reviewed by scientists….experts in their fields? I am not the first person to suggest this. There is a darn good reason that hasn’t happened.

That reason? Conspiracy theories tend not to survive the harsh lights of reality, complete understanding and context. And, for good reason: truthers don’t care about any of that. What they care about is making evidence fit their outlook on life.

I really believe the truthers in these forms believe the more they talk, the more they bring the exact same claims into question and the shear volume of posts give credence to their arguments. It doesn’t. It just causes those of us who have tried to explain the realities of what’s claimed ad nausea to stop talking. This is ironic because as the same “theories” are endlessly mutated, rehashed and brought up the realization occurs, to many, that there really isn’t any discussion going on. Only advocacy to a captive audience. So, we stop talking and truthers stand around claiming “they win” because believers are – simply put – exhausted from explaining the same things over and over and over again to people who don’t really care what the answers are in the first place.

Again, the truth movement has nothing to do with truth or 9-11.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 


Most certainly could not have better expressed that myself.
Trying to say it nicely seems not to be working.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 05:54 PM
link   
Evidence?, like the evidence that the Gov't is hiding, covering up, or has already destroyed?. For example, all the steel from the WTC's that were shipped off to be recycled before investigators had the chance to inspect and test it. A good piece of evidence showing motivation for 9/11 probably rests in the Dick Cheney sponsored 2001 Energy Task Force Report- still not available even to our congressinal representatives.
Now, at the Pentagon, if any of the videotapes (80 or so) the Gov't confiscated showed a commercial passenger jet flying into it, the Gov't would have publicly released such tape to corroborate their story.

Factual, un-tainted, physical evidence was purposefully destroyed by those in charge of the site investigation/ clean-up, so it has, and will continue to be, difficult to come up with "the smoking gun", especially in the eyes of those who have a disposition to believe "we could not be so evil".

The history of U.S. false-flag terror attacks simply confirms what I already know in my gut.
After 6 1/2 years the " War For The Remaining Oil Reserves/Pipeline Routes/Afghani Opium" disguised as the "War On Terror" continues.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 06:17 PM
link   
When I watched the news broadcasts on that horrible day with my brother. We watched all day as so many did in this country. Not for one second did my instincts tell me that what I was seeing was factual. The entire thing smelled like a red flag op to me. Turns out my intuition was dead on accurate.

9/11 was an inside job. 9/11 was the biggest scam since the Federal Reserve and/or the formation of the IRS.

The level of dishonesty, corruption, and demoralization of this government onto its citizens is second only in evil to that of Lenin/Stalin. And its getting worse. everyone knows it and everyone feels it- whether they will admit is another story. Someone people are also so brainwashed they cannot think for themselves anymore- they are not at fault- but rather the brainwashers are at fault.

If you do not know yourself well enough to trust your instincts- you are an atamaton of the living dead.

Yes, folks its really this bad- and we haven't seen the worst of it yet.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 


A deeply considered and thoughtful insight, with a refreshingly original perspective. I never appreciated until recently the pointlessness of trying to engage a hardline 'truther' by appealing to reason, logic, facts, evidence and the patient exercise of intelligence. But you're right, it is pointless.

'Truth-ism' is a religion, secure in the shared belief-system that 'it-was-an-inside-job.' There is no point engaging with someone whose position is so fixed that they are not looking for answers, and refuse to answer questions, because their mind is made up. 'If you don't BELIEVE IT, then you must be stupid!!!'

'Truthers' have now pushed so many people away from considering that there may have been complicity from some inside the government. The f***ing attitude has just about killed the debate.

And Yea, The Truthers shall inherit the Kingdom of the Earth, and Lo, all non-believers shall perish, and they shall forever suffer the torments of Hell...



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 07:01 PM
link   
Well, let's review the evidence then, and try (like good little OOBs would) to NOT spin some fantasy yarn around it. See the evidence we have right now points to inconsistencies, incompetencies and gaps in the official record. So why can't we work to increase those data points, instead of working to discuss ad nauseum some one's pet theory?

Here are just a few of the facts we have that beg answers from our government and the agencies they employed to investigate and report the actions of 911:

1. Two different groups of seismologists placed the impact time of Flight 93 3 minutes after the officially stated impact time in the 911 Commission report. One of those groups was carrying out a mandate straight from the Pentagon - and the 911 Commission still rejected the same timetag given by the first and the second group for the impact and placed an impact time 3 minutes earlier in the report.

THAT IS A FACT.

2. There are 3 unexplained blank moments of voice recorder from Flight 93 that the government has yet to even PROFFER an explanation for. The voice recorder goes silent at the earlier impact time published in the Commission report, but continues in silence.

THAT IS A FACT.

3. The NIST did not recover any core column steel from WTC 1 or 2 that were exposed to temperatures in excess of 250 C yet they ran their failure initiation models at over 700 C.

THAT IS A FACT.

4. The NIST performed scaled fire testing yet they did not incorporate the findings of that testing into their report conclusions.

THAT IS A FACT.

5. The NIST stated in its final report that it rejected scenarios of lesser impact damage because a. they didn't match photographic evidence of the damage of the building, and b. they didn't result in failure initiation. When pressed on publishing the lesser damage model results because it wasn't sound to not publish them based on them not initiating failure they CHANGED THE WORDING OF THE FINAL REPORT and took out the statement that the failure to cause failure initiation was a reason for not publishing the lesser damage models and left only the statement that the lesser damage models were not published because they didn't match photographic evidence EVEN THOUGH they state in their own final report the greater damage model they did publish DIDN'T MATCH PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE.

THAT IS A FACT.

6. When modeling floor truss failure NIST was unable to get the floor trusses to "walk" off the connectors as they believe the specimens showed they did, so they jacked the temperature way beyond any temperature supported by any data they had until they finally got the floor trusses to walk off the connectors and published that in their final report.

THAT IS A FACT.

7. The NIST report describes a progressive collapse that does not account for the behavior of the core columns and describes floor failures that do not match the failure mode of elements as described in their own report.

THAT IS A FACT.

8. There were massive explosions in the basement of WTC 1 that caused collapses, trapped people, injuries and substantial damage from about floor 3 to the Lobby to at least B4 and not a damned person has been able to explain how that happened.

THAT IS A FACT.

9. There were at least 2 arrests taking place during a period of pandemonium and while WTC 2 was collapsing and which took place right at the base of the buildings with debris and bodies falling all around - and NO ONE HAS TOLD US WHO THOSE "MIDDLE EASTERN MEN" WERE or WHY IT WAS SO DAMNED IMPORTANT TO GET THEM ARRESTED AT THAT MOMENT.

THAT IS A FACT.

10. There were 12 men arrested for trying to purchase fake IDs in Tennessee in December 2001. The woman with the DMV who had been in on trying to get them fake IDs turned state witnesses and DIED IN A 25 MPH FLAMING CRASH prior to testifying. Two of these men had WTC passes dated the week before the attack and claimed to have been working on the sprinkler system in WTC 1 - but the Port Authority states they do not contract out maintenance on the sprinkler system. NO ONE HAS EXPLAINED THIS.

THAT IS A FACT.

11. George W. Bush has repeated more than once that he "watched the first plane fly into the first building" while in Florida and that plane footage was not shown until the next day. AND NO ONE HAS EXPLAINED THIS TO US.

THAT IS A FACT.

12. Multiple first responders, in official reports, and multiple survivors have described multiple discrete explosions in WTC 1 in between the plane impact and the collapse and NO ONE HAS EXPLAINED THIS TO US.

THAT IS A FACT.

And that's just the first dozen off the top of my head.

Now, I've been posting in this forum for a while now - long enough for my short term memory not to remember exactly how long it has been - and every time I post some information I have some yahoo from one side or the other say - so what are you trying to say Val?

I'm not trying to say a gawd-damned thing, ok? Get it straight...I'm an OOB. I find data and I share it. I don't have to draw a conclusion unless I have come to my personal level of "that's a preponderance of evidence", and I don't have to agree with a friggin' one of you - no matter what your label is.

I believe the OP of this thread wanted evidence. I've posted 12 points of fact here that I urge others to add to. See if you can do it...because I think a lot of people here can't actually tell fact from speculation. And I'm betting there are some that can't stick to the facts...ON BOTH SIDES!


[edit on 1-28-2008 by Valhall]



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 07:08 PM
link   
Popular Mechanics has a great article on debunking the 9-11 myth.

However, there will always be those that will want to believe otherwise...

[edit on 28-1-2008 by Midav]



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Valhall
 


Actually Val I could think of any number of possibly scenarios for each and every one of your statements. If I thought it worth my time to type them out for you I would. But it would serve no good puprose.
And I would be ignored and attacked on loopholes.
And most likely even my mental ability.
It has happend multiple times before.
Thus the problem with the whole damn thing.
My experience is that most "truthers" don't seem to want debate so much as they want and expect complete capitulation to their theories.
Which me and other see holes in.
So we get attacked and called "believer", sheeple, denier.
You name it.

And please don't take this the wrong way but your not an OOB either.


[edit on 28-1-2008 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 07:23 PM
link   
Well, not only have you admitted you can't stick to the facts - because you outright stated you were ready to speculate on scenarios that could address the facts instead of wanting to list facts - but you can't even read. I'M NOT A TRUTHER!

So - you voluntarily gave up a chance to state FACTS (apparently because you're stuck in speculation) and still are getting called out on your inability to comprehend.

Please - don't even approach me if you've got some cross to bear in the form of defending a position - I don't know if you've noticed, but I'm not in the mood to appease you. I will speak out.

[edit on 1-28-2008 by Valhall]



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
reply to post by Valhall
 


Actually Val I could think of any number of possibly scenarios for each and every one of your statements. If I thought it worth my time to type them out for you I would. But it would serve no good puprose.


[edit on 28-1-2008 by WraothAscendant]


C'mon. That's a sad way out. I think if that you can counter Val's facts with counter-facts, it is your responsibility as an ATS member to do so. It's what we do despite the loopholes and everybody "Picking on you". Post the argument and keep it to the facts and not the poster, huh?

Cuhail


[edit on 1/28/2008 by Cuhail]



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Valhall
 

Well if it walks like a duck.
Talks like a duck.
And has feathers and a bill like duck.
I call it a duck.
Sorry.
You state your not a truther.
Yet you lambast only those that disagree with truthers.
You repeatedly state theories along the lines of a truther.
In the very WAY a truther states them.
And then there is the repeated statements of being an OOBer though is obviously also not the case.
Sorry to stray dangerously near the realm of ad hominium but that is what I see.
No matter how you choose to attack me otherwise.
That is what myself and OTHERS see.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Midav
 


Wwll there are actually a lot of people that think the popular mechanics article was less than spectacular....if you are interested here is a link to a response:

www.serendipity.li...

I encourage you to read pop mech and the response and draw your own conclusions. Very long read but very interesting indeed.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Cuhail
 


Considering I see no possible gain?
And only the continued "Your just a stupid believer and what you say has no value.".
You can claim I have a persecution complex all you want.
But I see what I see.
Especially when I see the so called "truthers" on this site condoning doing to those that disagree with them, that which they themselves are always complaining about.

[edit on 28-1-2008 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Yet you lambast only those that disagree with truthers.


That's odd - I've been vilified in this very thread by truthers because I've had the guts to call some of their inane theories just that.



You repeatedly state theories along the lines of a truther.


Where have I stated a "theory" in this thread? Quote me. Otherwise, you just lied like a dog.

So, hopefully I won't treat you in the same bizarre manner you're treating me because the "walk like a talk like a" has got you over in a real unsavory gaggle of geese right now. And I just shudder at the label you get with that group...eek.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by WraothAscendant
 


What kind of gain are you looking for? Everybody to align with your view only? This is a place where different theories are looked at and possibly combined to finish a puzzle to which we don't know what the picture is.

Nobody has the answers or we wouldn't need the forum. The forum is here for everyone to say what they believe and listen to what others believe. There is no right or wrong areas unless you're not submitting what you have in your supported theory.

Don't get all mad. Just submit what ya have, listen to counter-arguments and follow up with your argument.

Just remember to argue the topic, not the posters who differ in theory to you. It's okay to disagree, but, don't get all mad and stomp off saying no one plays fair but you.

Cuhail



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Midav
Popular Mechanics has a great article on debunking the 9-11 myth.

However, there will always be those that will want to believe otherwise...

[edit on 28-1-2008 by Midav]


Are you not aware Thomas Eagar's "Popular Mechanics" article became the Bush adminstration's original "official" report? That is the what is causing all the dissention, between those not agreeing with the original Bush administration presentation vs. the plural you agreeing with it. So much for your concept of debunking.

Debunking would come after the "official" White House report, not before it came out.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join