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.

 

If The Official Story Is True, Why Hasn't Gov't Sued?

page: 3
70
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


Hey TA, I can tell you why. The plain and simple truth of the matter. Why?

That's it. Why would they want to risk it? They know that the best way to deal with corruption in the public eye is to make the blanket 'crazy conspiracy theories' or 'conspiracy nuts' comments and then let it be. They don't want to draw attention. Period. What do they care if less than 10% of the population ever sees a documentary. They will simply defame you and 'your type' with the above comments and similar ones. Then move on with their agenda.

It's an out of sight out of mind thing. They believe that if enough time goes by that the bulk of that less than 10% will move on like the normal person does. Sure, JFK is a nice conversation but that's all it is now.

They could seriously care less about the truth being told in documentaries. They control the money and everything else now so who cares about the truth?




posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by adam_zapple
For those claiming that the government hasn't sued truthers because it's "afraid of discovery"....

Does the discovery process still take place if the government is the one being sued? If this is the case, any old truther could sue them and subject them to the same discovery process, couldn't they?


Sure, if the suits were allowed to progress. The majority of lawsuits, yes, there have been some, have been thrown out before they are allowed to progress based on the 'fact' that the government already presented the truth of what happened.

You see, there are lawsuits out there but none are getting any real opportunity. It's a farce and no DA or judge has the sack to proceed to the next level. Period.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daystar
There will be no suing, because a court case means media airtime and articles, which will increase public awareness that the whole sorry affair was an inside job.

Out of sight, out of mind.

At least, thats what they hope...


I believe you've summed up the reason entirely. There is already a great deal of attention to this, and they simply don't want to add fuel to the fire (no pun intended). The government's explanation is on such shaky ground as it is, and they've gone to some effort to cover it up that they do not want any more light cast in their direction.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
I mean if it is fraud then clearly people are being ripped off, and the government has a duty to protect the people from fraud!


If that's the case then I know a few people who should be getting refunds from the government for those Michael Moore DVD's they were duped into buying.

That's just as much fraud as anything else.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Hi guys,

just joined this thread and read it through, interesting ...

As for the OP I never bought any DVD's, I just watched the documentaries online for free, watched them all on google video so I can't complain.

I'm skeptical about the whole 9/11 conspiracy theories, especially when architects and engineers for justice and the truth movement etc blatently disregard data which contradicts their evidence, also often taking quotes out of context and effectively making the individuals who said them sound completely different to what they originally meant.

I think this kind of business will stay where it deserves, on the internet, and this is why the media haven't picked up on it, because basically why would they when the engineering community simply refute any conspiratorial allegations. And is it a conspiracy that the media won't report on these issues? I think they won't report on these issues simply because there's nothing to report.

I'm open minded, I believe in a lot of things such as ufos, heck I even believe in big foot but when there's documentaries making allegations which aren't supported by the facts or proper interpretation of the evidence, it's really hard to swallow.

It'll stay on the internet and eventually die away with time, leaving it as a faint rumour where it belongs.

Anyway, thanks,

Dan



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 12:11 PM
link   
I have a question, not having seen or read these items.

Does it say anywhere in the paperwork or video, that this is a conspiracy "theory"

That little back door allows them to say anything they want, as it is only their theory.

Now, understand, this does not mean they use lies or not facts.
It means that the connecting of the dots is the author(s) theory, not fact.

This is why they are not and can not be sued and why you will not get any $$$$$ back.

When they say theory, it means the book is no more fact than a harry potter book/movie.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 12:28 PM
link   
I don't really think the Government would waste their time with that even if they WERE telling the truth. People make bunk documentaries all the time. At the end of the day, a documentary is still entertainment. Anyone remember the guy that tried to sue FOX for telling lies? Can't. Even the news is considered entertainment.
Don't get me wrong, I'm pretty damned sure the Gov. is lying about 9-11, but just saying that they wouldn't be bothered to sue Michael Moore. There are already lots of people that are trying to do that.

On the topic of the shills - I regret that they are being so deceitful from behind the confines of Government support, because if they weren't, and they could be found out, they could be prosecuted. Well, I would like to think that they could. Propaganda is supposed to be illegal.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by dariousg
 


It is interesting that you used the figure of 10%...

"They don't want to draw attention. Period. What do they care if less than 10% of the population ever sees a documentary."

I read a good book a while back called "The Tipping Point"... It dealt with "critical mass" and what is needed to shift public opinion. 10% is the figure.

Meaning, if we could get even 10% of the population to look closely at the evidence, everything else would take care of itself. People all across the country would wake up. So, I would have to agree wholeheartedly with what you said. They do NOT want this to become a serious news issue. If it started to become one, they would step in and do something to distract people away from it.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Realtruth
 


Thanks once again everyone and you too RT.

lol, I thought my second idea was better than the OP about intentionally filing a class action law suit against et al producers of these films for fraud. But since so few have responded to that notion, maybe not.

I figure that:

1) 911 was a huge crime
2) Contrary to what has been stated by a poster or two, some of these films do indeed allege that the government at least LIHOP. IE, Cheney's stand down order as testified by Minetta.
3) Most of these films are being sold as documentaries. That means:

wordnetweb.princeton.edu...


S: (n) documentary, docudrama, documentary film, infotainment (a film or TV program presenting the facts about a person or event)


So in that sense, someone's lying. Either these producers, or the government.

4) A suit that I speak of could be made to force discovery if plaintiffs will NOT accept settlement, under any circumstances out of court or in court.

5) Seeing as pertinent jurisdiction has been a problem with the other cases I mentioned, that would need to be considered carefully. In other words, what court would have jurisdiction over said case? Would any lower court do? Didn't I read somewhere that to even reach the Supreme Court, a case has to be referred up from a lower court due to lack of jurisdiction? Not sure on that.

6) So the idea would be to file suit against the producers, et al. Since plaintiffs must show suitable standing, we claim that defendants have:

a) Caused us monetary loss
b) Deceived us with fictitious information
c) Caused us considerable pain and suffering due to the tremendous implications of the "bogus" information they present. In this regard, the pain and suffering emanates from the defendants presenting what appears to be factual information that implicates elements of our very own government in the biggest crime ever committed on American soil. This would then force the government to prove:
a) that 19 hijackers caused the crime.
b) that stories about many of the hijackers still being alive are false.
c) that a plane did indeed hit the Pentagon as claimed by releasing the confiscated videos and showing the plane
d) that the passenger lists (still not released) are valid
e) that the FDR data on 77 is valid and that the PentaCon officers are lying...

etc, etc, etc. Shall I go on?


Why couldn't we have a case here, if done in this manner? Lol, sorry to sue you all, but if you see where I am going with this, I think you see why. It's a good thing.
And no worries, we'd never EVER accept settlement until the government PROVES its case. Anyone with me or what?

And oh, if you didn't buy a DVD, all ya gotta do is buy one! Then you have standing in the case!

They ripped you off according to the government's story!

[edit on Tue Feb 17th 2009 by TrueAmerican]



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by dariousg

Originally posted by adam_zapple
For those claiming that the government hasn't sued truthers because it's "afraid of discovery"....

Does the discovery process still take place if the government is the one being sued? If this is the case, any old truther could sue them and subject them to the same discovery process, couldn't they?


Sure, if the suits were allowed to progress. The majority of lawsuits, yes, there have been some, have been thrown out before they are allowed to progress based on the 'fact' that the government already presented the truth of what happened.


Which specific lawsuits are you referring to? Case # and where they were filed would be the best reference and easiest to look up.

No case can just be "thrown out" without a sufficient reason...and even then, the decision can typically be appealed.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
lol, thanks for the flags and stars folks. A very simple question indeed.

And you know, this question just popped into my mind out of nowhere, never really thought of it before. But it leads me to something else I want to run by yas.

What if a bunch of us were to get together and file a class action suit against all these DVD producers alleging fraud, deception, loss of money for purchasing them, and causing us extreme discomfort and loss of faith in our government. We could get an attorney to represent us and force a discovery process. You see, that's the problem. Morgan Reynolds, Judy Woods, April Gallop, and others have tried but have all failed to get a judge to allow discovery process.

I am feeling pretty uncomfortable with all this. How about you's? Do you feel ripped off? Those bad bad producers, they ripped us off and fed us lies. I want my money back, and none of them are granting me a refund!



This is the greatest idea ever!!!

I'm going to sue Alex Jones for everything he has!!!

Do you no how paranoid I have become because of his product???



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 12:39 PM
link   
You are overlooking a possibility.
The possibility that such a plan could easily backfire (and probably would if it ever gained legs) when the Government threw out their critical evidence and sided with the Government.

Then you would have set a precident for the case that casts a positive light on the criminals.
It would be detrimental to any "truther movement."



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrmonsoon
I have a question, not having seen or read these items.

Does it say anywhere in the paperwork or video, that this is a conspiracy "theory"

That little back door allows them to say anything they want, as it is only their theory.

Now, understand, this does not mean they use lies or not facts.
It means that the connecting of the dots is the author(s) theory, not fact.

This is why they are not and can not be sued and why you will not get any $$$$$ back.

When they say theory, it means the book is no more fact than a harry potter book/movie.


Hi there,

just wanted to reply to your post if you're interested, if not, I'm sorry lol, just thought I'd add a few thoughts ...

Although it is a theory espoused in these documentaries, they are still stating that what they claim are facts, and not a fiction, they are claiming they have evidence to support alleged claims are reality in contradiction to the official version by the Government which they say is a fiction.

I don't think though that the Government or anyone for that matter could take these guys to court simply because, and please disagree with me if you want, I think it's clear the CT's are not consciously trying to mislead anyone or commit a fraud, I think they are sincere in their claims, and sincerely putting forward their ideaologies.

This goes back to the OP: in wikipedia I was disapointed by some of their references to the 9/11 truth movement, primarily that the CT's are creating their theories to make themselves feel comforted, and also to help them feel part of a community, or even to feel more empowered than their peers having 'the truth'. I mean, what nonsense and utter bunkum, and I can't believe I read this. This is just armchair pychology at it's worst and I expected better from wikipedia.

The CT's are not delusional, power hungry or looking for comfort and neither are they looking to commit a fraud on any individuals or the public who buy their dvds or donate to their causes. They are however evidently inclusive of well respected individuals with credentials, anyone should be honest and admit that, these people are sincere and being quite upfront and honest about their take on the whole 9/11 tragedy.

These people are none of the above, they are simply mistaken, and I doubt anyone could take them to court for simply having their facts wrong, or incorrect interpretations and speculations which the 9/11 truth movement is littered with, as anyway, it currently seems to me.

Thanks for reading, hope I made sense of this in a diplomatic fashion,

Dan



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by maarduk
 


I respect your opinion, but disagree.

I believe, what "they" are doing is , for example, listing fact1, fact2 and fact3.
They then propose a conclusion based on facts.

The facts are not disputable, but the theory based on facts is.

let me give an example:
We can't see air.
We can't "feel" air (in the same sense as we feel water)

therefor, Air does not exist.

Now, of course, this is a silly example, but I believe it clearly shows my point.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 01:12 PM
link   
And I suppose NASA must be afraid of the discovery process too...or they would have sued the Flat Earth Society....



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by adam_zapple
 


Way to marginalize and passively insult your opponents.


Knew it was just a matter of time before they showed up.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrmonsoon
reply to post by maarduk
 


I respect your opinion, but disagree.

I believe, what "they" are doing is , for example, listing fact1, fact2 and fact3.
They then propose a conclusion based on facts.

The facts are not disputable, but the theory based on facts is.

let me give an example:
We can't see air.
We can't "feel" air (in the same sense as we feel water)

therefor, Air does not exist.

Now, of course, this is a silly example, but I believe it clearly shows my point.


Hi, thanks for your reply to my post, it's appreciated.

What I meant, and maybe I wasn't clear on this I don't know, but I meant that what the CT's were doing was listing the facts, and then they were relaying their theories on top of the facts.

Sorry, I should have been clearer, I agree with your post, I'm certainly not saying that the CT's were relaying facts, but rather theories.

Thanks,

Dan



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR
reply to post by adam_zapple
 


Way to marginalize and passively insult your opponents.


Knew it was just a matter of time before they showed up.


Just pointing out the ridiculousness of the "afraid of discovery" argument.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by burth179

Originally posted by jfj123
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


If the government sued every person who claimed they did or did not do something, that's all the government would be doing.

Let's be honest, these little DVD's don't bother the government one way or the other. If the DVD's were accurate and the government was guilty, don't you think those people would "go away" ? Do you honestly think that if the government killed 3000 people on 9/11, plus 5000 more US troops because of 9/11, that they would even hesitate for a second to "remove" anyone else that was in their way?



They have removed the people standing in their way. The lady that just died in the Buffalo crash. As if that was an accident. She met with Obama about an independent 9/11 investigation and dies in a plane crash a week later? I'm not buying that at all.

Rampant paranoia. I can't believe ANYONE actually thinks that the government would take out an entire flight just to get to one person. Look at all the attention this accident is getting in the media and by investigators. Why would the government risk taking out an entire flight when they can simply have her get in a car accident? or shot during a mugging? trip and fall??? etc....


William Cooper predicted the NWO would commit 9/11 before it happened, and he was gunned down by police months later over him "not having a permit for his hand gun" or something along those lines. Um, yeah as is that is the reason he was gunned down.

You don't even know what happened ? "something along those lines"??? seriously? Before you just assume that something is a conspiracy, at least look into it enough to know something about it.


Aaron Russo died of a "heart attack" right after he came out and said Nick Rockefeller told him about 9/11 before hand. Not specifically, but that it would be an "event", and out of the "event" we were going to go into Afghanistan, etc. Russo also made the "Freedom to Fascism" documentary about the illegal IRS income tax. I'm sure it was just a coincidence he got this heart attack shortly after giving the interview.

First you say that Rockefeller told him about 9/11 then you backtrack and say it was an "event". You really need to get your facts straight.


The facts are, they Powers that Be are removing the people that are important enough to remove.

So all these citizens groups looking into 9/11, aren't important enough?


I haven't seen those documentaries, the people behind them probably aren't seen as a big enough threat for the Powers that Be to care.

Wow, you have no facts at all ! You haven't seen any of the documentaries so you have no idea what is in any of them. That being said, you don't know at all, how important those people are???



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Diplomat
I'm not really understanding the logic here.

In the eyes of the government, the 9/11 conspiracy videos are simply false and fake.

So should the government start suing hollywood companies who make films like The Day The Earth Stood Still?


Exactly. They think they are trivial; not worthy of a trial.



new topics

top topics



 
70
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join