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.

 

An Unanswered Question

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 12:08 PM
link   
Why haven't other countries who might stand to gain from the tarnishing of the reputation of the U.S. as pertaining to the WTC event publicly postulated with solid evidence that a conspiracy exists? Perhaps it's that they can't achieve this from foreign soil. It would be a viable reason to declare their own war on terrorism if it could be proved that we did in fact do this, so why hasn't one of them done this in the nearly 8 years that they've had to do so? Also, what'll happen if it is proved. I'd like to see answers to these questions here instead of quarrels over nonrelevent theories please...thanks, plainmike




posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 12:44 PM
link   
That is the best question I've seen posed on the topic in...well maybe ever. It could be because the official story is accurate.



posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by plainmike
 


I think they do divulge other's secrets, but they do it with leaks rather than by official pronouncements.

For instance in many of the Soviet liberated POW camps in WW2 there were American servicemen. They were never repatriated to the US, Historically no mention was made of this. After the Viet Nam war there were a good number of American POWs that were initially negotiated for release, for a price. The agreement was renigged on. Officially all the POWs came home.

The former Soviets have never officially debunked the moon landings, but they have not prevented some of their scientists from personally making remarks.



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by plainmike
Why haven't other countries who might stand to gain from the tarnishing of the reputation of the U.S. as pertaining to the WTC event publicly postulated with solid evidence that a conspiracy exists?


That should be obvious- anything which does not conform to the truthers conspiracy doctrine is by default part of the conspiracy, too. Therefore, all these countries aren't spilling the beans because they're active participants in the 9/11 plot, too.

Of course.



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by plainmike
Why haven't other countries who might stand to gain from the tarnishing of the reputation of the U.S. as pertaining to the WTC event publicly postulated with solid evidence that a conspiracy exists?


That should be obvious- anything which does not conform to the truthers conspiracy doctrine is by default part of the conspiracy, too. Therefore, all these countries aren't spilling the beans because they're active participants in the 9/11 plot, too.

Of course.


Your sarcasm is only shadowed by your denial of logic and lack of knowledge of world politics.

1. How might other countries gain from the tarnishing of the reputation of the US?
2. By definition the OS is still a conspiracy theory. Apply everything you said across the board, not just the aspects that help your case.
3. We feed them, and you don't bit the hand that feeds you.



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 10:25 PM
link   
Well put!

Idealistically, Would you if you are trying to maintain a stable environment for your people, try to blow the whistle on a "super power" who would intern either have you assasinated, or otherwise have your country deemed a haven for, or funding terrorists, as per the examples currently overseas?



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
Your sarcasm is only shadowed by your denial of logic and lack of knowledge of world politics.

1. How might other countries gain from the tarnishing of the reputation of the US?
2. By definition the OS is still a conspiracy theory. Apply everything you said across the board, not just the aspects that help your case.
3. We feed them, and you don't bit the hand that feeds you.


All right, perhaps this will answer your question- after the 9/11 attack, the U.S. gave our NATO allies our intelligence showing that AL Qaida was behind the attack, and when they compared it with what their own intelligence services were reporting, they found it convincing enough to invoke article 5 (the whole reason NATO troops are in Afghanistan). Compare this with their Looking at the evidence we gave them that showed Saddam Hussein was making nukes, and many of them didn't find it convincing.

This necessarily means that either the claim is correct that it really was a terrorist attack and all these claims of controlled demolitions are rubbish, or, it really was a gov't conspiracy and NATO is actively cooperating with the coverup.

Care to guess which one the conspiracy people are going to say it is?



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by plainmike
 



The fact is there are many foreign government officials calling for a real investigation. You do realize who is running the show though, right?


pl911truth.com...
Brae Antcliffe BA LLB, Elected Alderman to the Council of The City of Sydney, Australia, early 1980s for 3.5 years

Berit Ås, former member of Parliament, Norway (Charter Member of PL911Truth)

Andreas von Bülow, former State Secretary in the Federal Ministry of Defense, West Germany; former Minister of Research and Technology; former member of the German Parliament (Charter Member of PL911Truth)

Giulietto Chiesa, Italian member of the European Parliament; vice chairman, Committee on International Trade; member, Committee on Security and Defense (Charter Member of PL911Truth)

Wolfram Elsner, PhD, former head of the Planning Division of the Ministry of Economic Affairs of the State of Bremen; director of the Bremen State Economic Research Institute; and Bremen State Official for Industrial Defense Conversion, 1989 - 2001 (Charter Member of PL911Truth)

Douglas Nixon Everingham, Member, House of Representatives, Australia, 1967-75 and 1977-84, Minister for Health 1972-75, a Vice-President, World Health Assembly 1975, Parliamentary Adviser, UN delegation.

Jeanette Fitzsimons, Co-leader of the New Zealand Green Party since 1995, and member of the House of Representatives since 1999.

Constance Fogal, Canadian Action Party Leader, 2004-2008 (Charter Member of PL911Truth)

Egon Frid, elected Member of Swedish Parliament, 2006-- . Member of Committee on Civil Affairs, Deputy Member of the Committee on Transport and Communications.

Yukihisa Fujita, member of the House of Councilors, National Diet of Japan; Chairman, Special Committee on North Korean Abduction Issue and Related Matters; former member of the House of Representatives (Charter Member of PL911Truth)

Ole Gerstrom, Member of Parliament, Denmark, 1973-1975.

Bill Goodacre, Smithers, BC, Town Council (12 years); elected Member of the British Columbia (Canada) Legislature, 1996-2001

Senator Mike Gravel, United States Senator (1969 - 1981) (Charter Member of PL911Truth) Dan Hamburg, former Californian member of the US House of Representatives (Charter Member of PL911Truth)

Ferdinando Imposimato, elected Italian Senator, 1987-1992, and 1994-1996. Elected to the Chamber of Deputies (Parliament), 1992-1994

Tadashi Inuzuka, member of the House of Councilors, National Diet of Japan (Charter Member of PL911Truth)

Senator Prof. Muhammad Ibrahim Khan, member of Pakistan's Senate since 2006; member of Standing committee on Education and Science and Technology; member of Standing Committee on Law, Justice and Human Rights and Parliamentary Affairs; Vice President of Jamaat e Islami (Pakistan) Click here to see statement

Dr. Sergey Ivanovic Kolesnikov, Member of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly (Parliament) of the Russian Federation. He is vice president of the Duma Commitee for Eco Defense. Former Deputy Director of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences (RAMN).

Paul Lannoye, former Belgian member of the European Parliament, where he was vice chair of the Committee on Energy, Research, and Technology (Charter Member of PL911Truth)

Kira Lukiyanova, Member of the Parliament of the Russian Federation (Duma). Vice-Chairman of the Investment Committee of the Duma.

Michael Meacher, Minister of the British Parliament; former Minister of the Environment; former Undersecretary for Industry (Charter Member of PL911Truth)

Per Mohn, deputy representative to the Norwegian Parliament from Akershus, 1989–1993

Dr. Andrew J. Moulden, Leader of the Canadian Action Party (Charter Member of PL911Truth)



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zerbst
The fact is there are many foreign government officials calling for a real investigation. You do realize who is running the show though, right?


I think you're mistaking "calling for a real investigation" with believing in various conspiracy theories.

Hell, I am a 'debunker' and I have no problem with a new investigation, I don't think one is required but it's a long way from '911 was an inside job'



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 12:17 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


Well, the link in my initial reply is to Political Leaders for 911 Truth. It's a petition currently signed by 54 political leaders calling for Obama to authorize a new independent investigation to determine what happened on 9/11. There's no mistaking what they're asking for.

In my reply to the OP I mentioned neither "inside job" nor "conspiracy"? The only person trying to inject those terms here is you! I think you are mistaken in not thinking a complete investigation is required? There is no denying the many ignored details in the original report. With all the lingering questions, along with significant amounts of new evidence, the only mistake is ignoring these facts.

Truth stands true always, there is no need to protect it from scrutiny. In fact, the only thing I can think of more useless than protecting truth is someone trying to "debunk" it.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
All right, perhaps this will answer your question- after the 9/11 attack, the U.S. gave our NATO allies our intelligence showing that AL Qaida was behind the attack.
This necessarily means that either the claim is correct that it really was a terrorist attack and all these claims of controlled demolitions are rubbish, or, it really was a gov't conspiracy and NATO is actively cooperating with the coverup.


I find your logic somewhat flawed, what evidence?......

Osama is classified among among The FBI's Ten Most Wanted Fugitives.
However, on the Usama bin Laden page on the FBI website, there is no explicit statement to the effect that he might be wanted in connection to the Septmber 11, 2001 attacks.

He is wanted in relation to the 1998 African Embassy bombings.

"USAMA BIN LADEN IS WANTED IN CONNECTION WITH THE AUGUST 7, 1998, BOMBINGS OF THE UNITED STATES EMBASSIES IN DAR ES SALAAM, TANZANIA, AND NAIROBI, KENYA. THESE ATTACKS KILLED OVER 200 PEOPLE. IN ADDITION, BIN LADEN IS A SUSPECT IN OTHER TERRORIST ATTACKS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD."

On first reading the web page seems to be out of date, a pre-9/11 page, which the FBI forgot to update.

The FBI, like most organizations, updates its website periodically, when new information, concerning a "wanted fugitive" becomes available.

On closer examination, the original posting, which dates to June 1999, was updated: in November 2001, at least three weeks after the US invaded Afghanistan. (Click here to go to FBI Usama page)

The decision to go to war was taken without a indictment by the US Justice department and corroborating statements by the FBI to the effect that Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda was behind the attacks. It was taken without an indictment issued by the Justice Department.

At eleven o’clock, on the morning of September 11, the Bush administration had already announced that Al Qaeda was responsible for the attacks on the World Trade Center (WTC) and the Pentagon. This assertion was made prior to the conduct of an indepth police investigation conducted by the FBI..

The FBI confirmed in a recent statement (July 2006) that "The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on the Usama Bin Laden's Most Wanted page is because "the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11" (See the Muckracker Report, See also Enver Masud, FBI: Bin Laden Not Wanted for 9/11? The 'FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11', Wisdom Fund, June 2006). Rex Tom, FBI Director of Investigative Publictiy stated in this regard that

“The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice then decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.”

Barely four weeks later, on the 7th of October, Afghanistan was bombed and invaded by US troops

The war on Afghanistan started on October 7, 2001, less than a month after 9/11.

On September 20th, the Taliban government had offered, "to hand Osama bin Laden to a neutral Islamic country for trial if the US presented them with evidence that he was responsible for the attacks on New York and Washington." (George Mombiot, The Guardian, 11 Nov 2003). This offer which was repeated by the Taliban government on October 1, 2001, six days before the beginning of the bombing:

"We are ready for negotiations. It is up to the other side to agree or not. Only negotiation will solve our problems." Bush was asked about this offer at a press conference the following day. He replied: "There's no negotiations. There's no calendar. We'll act on [sic] our time." (Ibid)

To this date, the Justice department has not formally indicted and charged Osama bin Laden for the 911 attacks:



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 04:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by plainmike
so why hasn't one of them done this in the nearly 8 years that they've had to do so


Technically, no one could do anything till the NIST was finished with their HYPOTHESIS...the final report came out Nov. '08...since then there has been a lot of activity, including favorable interviews on morning talk shows, PBS running "Press for Truth".....papers disproving the collapse hypothesis, unexploded, active accelerents found in the dust...



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seventh


I find your logic somewhat flawed, what evidence?......


the intelligence that showed the trail between Bin Laden and the hijackers. A lot of it is sensitive information, and it's obvious why they aren't releasing it to the public- it will compromise our intelligence gathering capabilities. If it was revealed that, say, Abdul the Kabul taxi driver is on the CIA payroll, Ol' Abdul wouldn't survive an hour.

Not that it matters, since NATO looking at our evidence and invokign article V is a de facto certification of the validity of the claim that Al Qaida was behind the attack...unless you're of the mindset that NATO is actively helping the US cover up its "inside job", in which case, it's only proof of my OTHER statement that conspiracy theorists will insist that everythign that contradicts their conspiracy stories are likewise part of the conspiracy, in circular logic.



“The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice then decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.”


Then you've just contradicted yourself. Such an admission would imply that the FBI is NOT a willing participant in this "inside job" conspiracy of yours, otherwise they'd just say, Yeah he did it" like everyone else is doing. If THAT'S the case then the FBI would be forefront in investigating any possibility of an inside job, and since they didn't find even a trace of any conspiracy, or even let slip their findings anonymously to the press (like the #2 FBI man did during Watergate) THAT means your conspiracy stories are STILL wrong.

Methinks you're simply quoting the statement out of context, and snipping one individual passage out of what they actually said to make it appear as if they're saying somethign else.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join