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.

 

Even if the truth comes out, do you think people will still cover it up?

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 01:28 PM
link   
I just realised if the truth comes out its a inside job , do you think UN or anyone else will try to cover it up much as possible, so only few people get caught?




posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 05:36 PM
link   
Look what we know about Pearl Harbor, so I don't think it will be covered up, it'll just be ignored.



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by dino1989
 


I think the truth IS out and they ARE covering it up.

As such the original question is moot.



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 10:47 PM
link   
I can't believe you people are still on this. It was NOT a conspiracy, get over it you nutjobs lol. Basing your 9-11 conspiracy on the fact that the towers were designed to withstand impacts from Boeing 707's is like saying the Titanic was a "controlled sinking" because it was designed not to sink. Find a new topic to obsess about because you nuts have beaten this horse to death.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 01:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Maj35t1cI2
 


Lolol

explain why scientist found Nano-thermite on WTC dust?

ohh right , bush put it there to confuse people for no reason



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 01:51 AM
link   
IMO Maj35etc. is a prime example of a group of people who no matter what evidence is presented, will by choice, choose not to see the truth.

The weight of the FACTS against 911 being anything but an inside job are so monumental there just is no getting around that mountain any longer and simply put people who can’t get around it will bury their heads in the sand. Just like Pearl Harbor, just like so many other instances in American History where what really happened and what the public are spoon fed are by far, far two different things.

By the way Maj35, here's a typographical error in your signature. That *l* should be a *p* - just sayin...


peace

[edit on 5-8-2009 by silo13]



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 04:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Maj35t1cI2
 

Even the official version states that it was a conspiracy.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 05:02 AM
link   
reply to post by dino1989
 


Basically, the truth will only be vouchsafed to the "top" people, and they will certainly keep the truth to themselves. Glod bless them (He won't).



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 05:13 AM
link   
You're still assuming it was an inside job.

This could have been an attack from outside, just one far more sophisticated than anything Bin Laden's Al Qaeda could even get close to accomplishing.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 06:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vinciguerra
This could have been an attack from outside


Yes, it "could" have, and lets assume it was, who should be punished for allowing it to happen?



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 09:49 AM
link   
They may not have allowed it to happen. If someone (I'm thinking Mossad but there are other possibilities) hacked into the wargames and diverted drones from those wargames and used them in the attack then the military might (just might) have actually been caught off guard.

My point being that if you can hack the wargames and the radar system at the same time then you'd expect to see what ended up being the official US military story, that they sent fighters up in response but kept sending them to the wrong places.

Of the various theories, I think this is one of less plausible, but it shouldn't be ruled out at this stage. The Americans were definitely complicit in the cover-up (a conspiracy in itself) but that doesn't necessarily mean they were complicit in the attacks themselves. Two separate crimes, however interrelated they may be.

Do you see where I'm going with this? There's a chance that somebody had already been set up as the fall guy. I'm not sure exactly which people or institution.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vinciguerra
The Americans were definitely complicit in the cover-up (a conspiracy in itself) but that doesn't necessarily mean they were complicit in the attacks themselves.


I can quite easily believe that they had nothing to do with the planning and execution, but they sure as hell knew, and as you have said that they were complicit in the cover up, ask yourself, how did they know what to cover up if it was a genuine attack?



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 10:41 AM
link   
The 9-11 was created as a war bridge to the middle east in order to start the last CRUSADE...............
bin laden tricked all his people just like bush tricked some of you.

lol why would you let your supposed enimies family flee the scene instead of holden they @@#@ for ransom WHY??
SMH THEY DONT CARE IF THE TRUTH IS OUT

[edit on 8/5/09 by Ophiuchus 13]

[edit on 8/5/09 by Ophiuchus 13]



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 11:12 AM
link   
its going to be really hard to shake off the conspiracy label that is firmly in place around this event. how long ago was JFK killed off?

It IS the perfect storm: a wholly unbelievable event coexisting with a wholly unbelievable explanations of said event - logic be damned, full speed ahead!



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 06:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Neo-V™

Originally posted by Vinciguerra
The Americans were definitely complicit in the cover-up (a conspiracy in itself) but that doesn't necessarily mean they were complicit in the attacks themselves.


I can quite easily believe that they had nothing to do with the planning and execution, but they sure as hell knew, and as you have said that they were complicit in the cover up, ask yourself, how did they know what to cover up if it was a genuine attack?


Knowledge of a crime isn't quite the same as complicity in it. I agree, the cover-up itself shows that the officials know far more than they are lettign on, but it doesn't prove that they had a direct hand in what happened. They may be accessories to mass murder rather than mass murderers.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vinciguerra
Knowledge of a crime isn't quite the same as complicity in it.

I think you'll find it is, I'm not of the exact terminology for it, something by association I think.


Originally posted by Vinciguerra
They may be accessories to mass murder rather than mass murderers.

That's what I was looking for, accessories to mass murder.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 01:59 PM
link   
Not necessarily. If I know who committed a burglary I am under no obligation to tell the authorities.

However, the authorities swear a duty of protection, so the legal standards are different.

Then there's wilful negligence - basically letting it happen even though they knew about it.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join