It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


911 Truth, Fading Away?

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 06:03 AM
reply to post by ipsedixit

well i sincerely question the intelligence of anyone who doesn't believe that

1. 9-11 was planned

2. No plane hit the pentagon.

3. Nothing crashed in Pennsylvania except your IQ levels.

4. No commercial airliners were hijacked or used as weapons.

5. The collapses of the "twin towers" were controlled demolitions.

5. The collapse of WTC 7 was a controlled demolition.

6. It was all planned YEARS in advance.

7. The man in that video is acting; poorly.

[edit on 10/23/2008 by JPhish]

posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 06:21 AM
I have been looking at this "event" for some time.

At first glance, seemed what we saw that day is what happened.

Then I stumbled across something.......

"THE FIRE PANELS" (similar to a black box on a airplane) but fire panels send out information to monitoring companies...(they get paid for this service).

I know most here will ignore this item. so I challenge you to look yourself and see what you find (and/or the "lack-of" info available).

WT1 - Panel info? Signals sent?
WT2 - Panel info? Signals sent?
WT7 - Panel info? Signals sent?

Not to mention what "other" fire panels in "other" buildings sent out.

As always your Canadian friend,

[edit on 23-10-2008 by svenglezz]

posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 07:14 AM
reply to post by svenglezz

Although I appreciate your input to this thread, this is about the decline of the truth movement around the United States.

In answer to your question. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, I believe were responsible for the Fire Alarms and what were activated. They were interviewed over several days by the 911 Commission: PANYNJ interview 10 (June 16, 2004); PANYNJ interview 7 (June 2, 2004)

If I find more information, I will U2U it to you.

Thanks Sven.

posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 07:49 AM
Many thanx,

I bring this "item" up due to the lack of info avail. and how this info is "fading away", what is so suprizing to me...since this will give so much information on that day (times, sprink. zones, detectors etc. etc. etc.)

And this is the first I have heard of a meeting, on this issue of the signals sent to the monitoring co.'s , (any documentation).

I was told that the WT7 was on "TEST" mode during the event. (but would like to see the information sent to the monitoring co.' that the system was being worked on by a contractor, and in particular what was being worked on?). Plus when a system is on "test" the building must have a designated person for "fire watch" (again this info fading away)

And I can't seem to find ANYTHING on WT1 and WT2 (maybe fadddddddiiiiinggggg)

Your Canadian friend,

posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 07:55 AM

googled your info....(cut and paste) your day's noted above....
got some links (1 below)


No wonder it's are the web pages (with real info)....fading fast.


posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 07:55 AM
Dble post

[edit on 23-10-2008 by IvanZana]

posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 07:59 AM
ah....the link it's ok seems to work now......

but must say, the info not there..........and for **** sakes...can they make the "TEXT" any smaller.

Your Canadian friend,

posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 07:59 AM

Originally posted by tmbandt
reply to post by jthomas

Ahhh, critical thinking... Yeah, that's listening to the official story and buying it hook, line and sinker? I was once there too man.

You still are, believing that there is an "official story" instead of the evidence from thousands of different independent sources.

At threat of derailing this thread, what would you like to discuss? As in, what part of the official story, to you, holds an absolute truth to it?

I'll take the evidence over your Official 9/11 Truth Movement Fairy tale every day.

See, I don't delve into the building collapse, nor the holograms, nor the "what hit the pentagon" stuff.

You're into woo, as you've made perfectly clear.

I'm more into the real questions, like who profited? Who lied? And so forth.

Yes, you have "questions" but no evidence. Questions that we have heard endlessly, debunked endlessly, laughed at endlessly.

Yup, you really ARE a newbie at this.

posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 08:00 AM
To this day, Nazi war criminals are still going to jail.

911 debunkers and other war criminals will see their day.

I Promise you. Sooner or later....

There is enough information to charge some of you under the RICO act.

[edit on 23-10-2008 by IvanZana]

posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 08:05 AM

Originally posted by IvanZana
There is enough information to charge some of you under the RICO act.

Don't trip as you rush to court.

posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 08:09 AM
Dbke post, darn button

[edit on 23-10-2008 by IvanZana]

posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 08:10 AM
it's realy realy simple......

everyone can "TALK" all they like...without "EVIDENCE" if we all want it...
it is there.......(for both sides of the argument).

Where is the "clear" information on the "FIRE PANELS" and info. sent to the
monitoring co'.s'

Its' that simple.....BUT everytime I bring it up............IT FADES

OR I get a bit of info from his' say....or a reply like "oh they had interviews of personal (fire etc.) for this information" it's in the report.

Your Fading
Canadian friend,

PS i await info

posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 08:11 AM
reply to post by svenglezz

reply to post by IvanZana

Oh Jthomas.

Your tactics in trying to obsefucate the truth is truly laughable.

You are under the delusion that justice seekers have to prove that 911 was an 'inside job' . We dont.

The government has failed to prove the conspiracy that Bin Laden was involved in 911. The fbi admited it had no evidence that bin Laden was involved in the attacks of 911. Everyday evidence from the official myth is being officially debunked.

The official story has been debunked long ago. If you would of paid attention and reviewed the links you would of not posted this substance-less thread.

[edit on 23-10-2008 by IvanZana]

posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 08:18 AM
reply to post by TrueBrit

These are to common tactics being used by some of the users here and other 'conspiracy' sites.

Disinformation Methods

There are many methods of disinformation from spreading lies to setting up straw men. There is a whole lexicon of disinfo tactics and it can be overwhelming to the novice like myself. For some background on some of the methods of disinfo check out this site. Fintan Dunn has done a lot of reporting on the CIA fake internet sites here.

In the case of 9/11 disinformation I've found that they use three main tactics:

1. Ignore it: For most Americans, if it's not on TV it doesn't exist. By studiously ignoring an issue the media can make it disappear. This has been spectacularly effective in the case of 9/11. Almost universally; main stream media avoid this topic like the plague.

2. Infiltrators: An agent of the perpetrators pretends to be a truth seeker. He publishes some statements supporting 9/11 truth (usually on some minor topic) and, gains some notoriety (with the help of other agents and insiders) He then discredits himself by coming out with some outrageous statements or actions like saying he is an alien abductee or UFOlogist etc. thereby throwing discredit onto the whole 9/11 truth topic.

3. Attacking straw men: This classic debate tactic is to re-frame the opponents argument making it seem that some weak point or minor issue is crucial and then shooting it down. The aircraft "pods" are the best example of this tactic.

Please read more here an educate yourself on the art of propaganda being used on conspiracy sites that seek truth.

Dont every think that the perps of 911 didnt fund the disinformation and coverup of the crime too. 911 didnt end when the towers came down. its here today infront you.

[edit on 23-10-2008 by IvanZana]

posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 08:43 AM

You can spam internet forums with deceptive posts. You can repeat the same things over and over. You can hold your breath until you turn blue. This does not mean you have any evidence to back up ANY of your theories. This is a reason why the 911 truth movement is not gaining any momentum at all.

posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 01:20 PM
The number 7 is also an interesting number, meaning cleansing, purification, inner knowledge, awareness, wisdom, Intution, Birth and death, cycles, truth and deception

These are a few meanings that come to this special number

7 years on this is what's actually happening.

People asking the questions, becoming more and more aware
Keep it up.

Just want to point this out too.
Sheeple on another thread, stated this

The government cannot possibly create a 9/11 like they are some gods lol

Ok. But

Then if that's really the case, then terrorists cannot create a 9/11 either. So what's going through people's minds now?

People look around at the places you forgot to look at over the 7 years

[edit on 23-10-2008 by mind is the universe]

posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 01:59 PM
reply to post by IvanZana

Thank you IvanZana, I have never seen this web sit before, lots of good information to learn here. I will use this to my advantage.

posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 03:05 PM

Originally posted by IvanZana

You are under the delusion that justice seekers...

"Justice Seekers"? Is this a Marvel Comic?

... have to prove that 911 was an 'inside job' . We dont.

Who is "we"? The aforementioned "Justice League"?

The government has failed to prove the conspiracy that Bin Laden was involved in 911. The fbi admited it had no evidence that bin Laden was involved in the attacks of 911.

You're either not very well versed in searching/finding information on the Net or you don't understand things very well:

In order to be listed on the FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitive list, the suspect must have been indicted for the crime. To indict Bin Laden formally for the 9/11 attacks would require presenting evidence in a court of law; such evidence linking Bin Laden to 9/11 would include intelligence sources, and Al-Qaeda detainees. Making such sources (and methods) publicly known, perhaps isn't advised. In the Zacarias Moussaoui case, a big deal was made over access to detainee witnesses and about handling evidence from other intelligence sources.

In all, the 9/11 attacks were viewed as an "act of war", and the U.S. government is responding accordingly. During the Clinton administration, terrorism was handled more as a matter of law enforcement. This change in how terrorism is handled may be yet another reason why the U.S. government has not bothered to formally indict Bin Laden for the 9/11 attacks.

Regarding this matter, FBI officials told the Washington Post:

"There's no mystery here," said FBI spokesman Rex Tomb. "They could add 9/11 on there, but they have not because they don't need to at this point. . . . There is a logic to it." [2]
The FBI also maintains a list of "Most Wanted Terrorists". This list is accompanied by a note:

The alleged terrorists on this list have been indicted by sitting Federal Grand Juries in various jurisdictions in the United States for the crimes reflected on their wanted posters. Evidence was gathered and presented to the Grand Juries, which led to their being charged. The indictments currently listed on the posters allow them to be arrested and brought to justice. Future indictments may be handed down as various investigations proceed in connection to other terrorist incidents, for example, the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. [3]
A document released by the U.K. government, Responsibility for the terrorist atrocities in the United States, 11 September 2001 presents facts that link Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda to the 9/11 attacks.

The U.K. document further notes:

This document does not purport to provide a prosecutable case against Usama Bin Laden in a court of law. Intelligence often cannot be used evidentially, due both to the strict rules of admissibility and to the need to protect the safety of sources. But on the basis of all the information available HMG is confident of its conclusions as expressed in this document.

Read that again to clarify your understanding on why the FBI does not list 9/11 as one of the reasons bin Laden is on its Top Ten list.

The official story has been debunked long ago.

By whom? If the "official story" (whatever that means) has been "debunked", how come we don't see headlines in the news about the frog-march of Bush and Cheney and administration officials instead of Sarah Palin's wardrobe costs?

The "official story" is well and fine, thankyouverymuch. Nothing will happen to the "official story" because a) its what happened and b) Captain Bob and his/your "Justice League" are very content to sit at their computers, tilting at the windmill of Internet discussion boards. They'll never get off their backsides and actually *do* anything about all this wonderful "evidence" they've discovered. First off it would kill whatever cash cow they have going on with hats and tee shirts and whatever, and second they'd probably end up owing a million dollars in fines for filing a frivolous lawsuit. Kinda tough to pay that sort of fine off when you work at a Papa John's.

[edit on 23-10-2008 by pinch]

posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 04:34 PM
dear throatyogurt,

how many truthers were there in 2004?






this thread is garbage.

again i would like to see a reply from the administration explaining why my thread question the motives for people like throat yogurt was deleted and this provocative inflammatory bait thread is left to grow and flourish?

am i at ats or jref its becoming quite hard to tell the difference?

posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 05:07 PM
reply to post by Terrorcell

Dom, you are the only one complaining. For the most part we are all having quite civil discussions. Perhaps you can try it some time?

Your questions are a joke, unless you know of a census that was taken over the past 7 years asking people if they were truthers.

Try reading my op, and the other data I have presented on this thread. It is a fact that the TM is on the decline.

Do you have any data/evidence/ info that refutes this?

Oh, if you don't like the thread...simply do not click on it.

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in