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.

 

What are you afraid of?

page: 1
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 09:50 PM
link   
I saw an excellent presentation on youtube yesterday that was not directly related to 911. It did however speak deeply on the 5th amendment from the perspective of a Law Professor and a Law Officer. Heres the link to that:
www.lewrockwell.com...

What would happen if a new investigation were launched? Why are people opposed to it? It would not effect 99.9% of people in their daily lives. The money needed to do so would be trivial. It could only benefit and could not harm you in any way shape or form unless you were a co-conspirator. Barring guilt, I can simply not think of a single good reason to thwart a new investigation. In the off chance that you made a statement about 911 and were afraid of something coming back to haunt you like the good professor points out in the video, I could see that. But the percentage of people that made a statement about 911, thats way less then .1% of the population. So whats the big deal? We KNOW that NIST broke the rules for investigating a fire, why not start there?




posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 
Why would I oppose a new investigation?

Two reasons, 1) it would be a waste of time and resources and, 2) when the investigation came to the same conclusions as the original, the truth movement would ask for another investigation.

It would be akin to what occurs in this video:




posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


1. I know if I lost someone I loved in a fire and also could prove for a fact that procedure was not followed in the investigation I would want a new one. I can't speak for you but the educated guess tells me you would feel the same way.

2. Agreed. However, there will always be naysayers. Take for example your friend and mine, John Titor. He has been 100% proven to be a fraud and people still believe in him. But there arent any active Titor threads anymore, either. The percentage of people would die down considerably.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
reply to post by jprophet420
 
Why would I oppose a new investigation?

Two reasons, 1) it would be a waste of time and resources and, 2) when the investigation came to the same conclusions as the original, the truth movement would ask for another investigation.


I have two problems with this line of reasoning...



1) it would be a waste of time and resources


So what? Seriously, think of the trillions of dollars that gets wasted by government mishandling and inefficiency every year. Splashing some aside from a military budget or some such thing would more than amply cover the costs of a rigorous investigation.



2) when the investigation came to the same conclusions as the original, the truth movement would ask for another investigation


Firstly, you're predetermining the outcome of the hypothetical investigation already. Secondly, the whole reason that the 'truthers' want a new investigation is that there are SO MANY pieces of 'evidence' which have not been disclosed, or lingering questions that have not been answered.

It really would be simple to shut the truthers up forever - release the missing Pentagon frames and other Pentagon videos. Case closed, truthers lose. Disclose the findings of the investigation into the put options and the money wired to Atta. Case closed, truthers lose. Release the final 3 minutes of F93's CVR. Case closed, truthers lose. I could go on and on and on.

Seriously - it is the covering up of such important details that FOSTER the entire truth movement. If they just released it, as TPTB allegedy have no reason to fear, us truthers could just crawl away and get back to JFK, Elvis and UFOs...

Rewey



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rewey
Release the final 3 minutes of F93's CVR.


It would be difficult for the government to release something that doesn't exist. The "missing" three minutes is an urban myth; the CVR goes all the way up to the moment of impact.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by Rewey
Release the final 3 minutes of F93's CVR.


It would be difficult for the government to release something that doesn't exist. The "missing" three minutes is an urban myth; the CVR goes all the way up to the moment of impact.


Thats great, they can concentrate on flight 77 instead, which we know is inaccurate. That would be more efficient use of resources, one of the points brought up earlier. A win win situation would be created. I can't imagine opposing it.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by Rewey
Release the final 3 minutes of F93's CVR.


It would be difficult for the government to release something that doesn't exist. The "missing" three minutes is an urban myth; the CVR goes all the way up to the moment of impact.


I've heard two conflicting stories about the final minutes of the CVR - one is about there being a three minute (or so) discrepancy between the timestamp (or whatever it's called) on the CVR or FDR and the official crash time. The second is that the final three minutes of the CVR (presumably when the passengers were allegedly trying to regain control of the plane) was played to the family members of those who died on F93.

I know the first discrepancy was shown to be incorrect, or urban legend, but I hadn't heard the same for the second part. Did this really happen or not?

Rewey



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
reply to post by jprophet420
 
Why would I oppose a new investigation?

Two reasons, 1) it would be a waste of time and resources and, 2) when the investigation came to the same conclusions as the original, the truth movement would ask for another investigation.


So you are opposed to the war in Iraq then, correct? Hard to think of a bigger waste of time and resources than that.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420


What would happen if a new investigation were launched? Why are people opposed to it?


To venture a guess, I'd say the truthers are deathly afraid of any possibility of any new investigation becuase of the risk that it will disprove, without remorse and for all time, the truthers' pet conspiracy theories, whatever they may happen to be (controlled demolitions, lasers from outer space, no planes, or what have you). The truthers have invested so much emotion into these conspiracy stories, it's gotten to the point where they hope there really IS a conspiracy going on.

As for everyone else, we really don't care, since we know any new investigation will just show what it did before, only in much greater detail. Go ahead and have as many investigations as you want. We only ask that you be an adult and accept whatever the findings are, rather than simply go into childish temper tantrums and insist the findings are yet another coverup simply becuase the rulings don't agree with what you want to believe.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



Dave do you seriously think that after 503 first responder eye witness testimonies are relayed to a brand new commission, that they will disregard this approach?, remember this - no one stated out of any of the FR`s that the explosions were due to an inside job, it was a day of terrorism, how was it not the case that terrorists themselves planted the bombs?, and duly investigated.

Seismic data proves it, FR`s 19000 plus pages of evidence backs it, various videos show it how it was.

I very much doubt a fresh enquiry would overlook any of the three above, let alone all three, especially when this time WTC7 will feature heavily into it all.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seventh

Dave do you seriously think that after 503 first responder eye witness testimonies are relayed to a brand new commission, that they will disregard this approach?, remember this - no one stated out of any of the FR`s that the explosions were due to an inside job, it was a day of terrorism, how was it not the case that terrorists themselves planted the bombs?, and duly investigated.


Ummmm, no. It is the conspiracy people and only the conspiracy people who are claiming the explosions that witnesses heard were actually preplanted explosives, rather than any of the thousands of flammable objects that would naturally explode when they catch on fire (electrical transformers, pressurized pipes, etc). I was next door to a building that had an electrical transformer overheat and it blew up like a bomb and rocked my own building, so I know full well this is what the witnesses must have heard.

There was a very interesting eposide of Mythbusters that I saw, the other day. It went into the explosive power of fire extinguishers, which they tested by putting a fire extinguisher in a fire. Those things are filled to 800 PSI and when overheated, yes, they do blow up like a bomb, and they have the footage to prove it. SO, if your new investigation conclusively proved that the explosions witnesses heard were actually some of the many fire extinguishers throughout the building that were blowing up as the fires reached them in turn, would you accept that ruling and finally put your conspiracy theories to bed?

You know as well as I do that you wouldn't. To the truthers, the explosions MUST be from preplanted explosives becuase they WANT them to be from preplanted explosives. If people can become so seduced by their delusions that they can seriously believe the towers were destroyed by laser beams from outer space or that there were never any planes to begin with, then no amount of facts, logic, or proof will ever be able to sway them.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Firstly - People whom do not believe the official story are not some type of leper and thus treated accordingly, most of us surprisingly are human beings, with children and live life accordingly, exactly the same as everyone else.

We disbelieve the Official Story because it is absolutely laced with contradictions and science bending hypothesis`s, and a complete farce of an enquiry, we do not interfere with little kids nor smoke crack pipes 24/7/365, we do not see it the same way as you guys because of all of the above, without derailing this thread - a picture, tell me how a basic Jet Fuel cookie cutter explosion as shown in picture one, turned into the 200 + metre long, 100 + metre high, and clearly showing signs of white phosphorus burning also, shown in picture two within milliseconds.

When the average guy sees a plane exploding he sees picture one, when it turns into picture two it sets the chance of probabilities alarm ringing in the common sense and basic science part of his brain, and he starts to question things, when he looks into it, he discovers there are hundreds of points exactly similar and more science bending anomalies than is healthy.

Now what part of this makes people like me... A fruitcake, part of some mental disorder group, a leper, different to you?.





What do you see Dave?.

[edit on 9-9-2009 by Seventh]

EDIT: P.S.

P.S. You will notice that the plane tip is flush with WTC2 the South Towers edge, look carefully at the explosion in the yellow oval and explain how that explosion is possible, look at the plane, look where the yellow oval explosion is, now, when people like me look at the explosion in picture we automatically work out that the explosion in picture two is impossible look at it`s centre, so we get to thinking that something else caused it, we do research, we find a picture with something looking remarkably like a missile exiting WTC2, that strangely enough sits perfectly to describe the yellow oval explosion, just another side that seemingly appears to answer yet another anomaly.

[edit on 9-9-2009 by Seventh]

[edit on 9-9-2009 by Seventh]



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Hmm. There are several of those witnesses that heard 2 explosions BEFORE the first impact. So your theory is null and void untill investigated. It has also never been explained how the lobby exploded, nor how the b2 and b3 levels exploded. None of this is in the 911 commission report, all of this is on the news reports from the day.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Hmm. There are several of those witnesses that heard 2 explosions BEFORE the first impact. So your theory is null and void untill investigated. It has also never been explained how the lobby exploded, nor how the b2 and b3 levels exploded. None of this is in the 911 commission report, all of this is on the news reports from the day.


Furthermore to back this up are the seismic data reports - these clearly show two lots of data 14 and 17 seconds before the respective impacts, every single report that uses time in their testimonies uses time as given by the U.T.C. including NIST, UA/AA flight data and the LDEO.

An interesting point here is that no seismic activity was registered re:- Pentagon impact which was nigh on ground level, it is assessed that a plane hitting a building a 1000 feet in the air + a building built to absorb energy would have a very slim chance of registering at all, the data recorded just prior to collapses registered 2.1 and 2.3, 80,000 lbs of sodium nitrate exploding in quarries (below ground) registers around 2.0.

Food for thought.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seventh
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



Dave do you seriously think that after 503 first responder eye witness testimonies are relayed to a brand new commission, that they will disregard this approach?, remember this - no one stated out of any of the FR`s that the explosions were due to an inside job, it was a day of terrorism, how was it not the case that terrorists themselves planted the bombs?, and duly investigated.

Seismic data proves it, FR`s 19000 plus pages of evidence backs it, various videos show it how it was.

I very much doubt a fresh enquiry would overlook any of the three above, let alone all three, especially when this time WTC7 will feature heavily into it all.


Here is the result of your first responders investigation:

Investigator: "did you hear any explosions"?
FR: "yes".
Investigator: "was it from dynamite or explosives being intiated"?
FR: "how the hell would I know"?

repeat as necessary.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by Seventh
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



Dave do you seriously think that after 503 first responder eye witness testimonies are relayed to a brand new commission, that they will disregard this approach?, remember this - no one stated out of any of the FR`s that the explosions were due to an inside job, it was a day of terrorism, how was it not the case that terrorists themselves planted the bombs?, and duly investigated.

Seismic data proves it, FR`s 19000 plus pages of evidence backs it, various videos show it how it was.

I very much doubt a fresh enquiry would overlook any of the three above, let alone all three, especially when this time WTC7 will feature heavily into it all.


Here is the result of your first responders investigation:

Investigator: "did you hear any explosions"?
FR: "yes".
Investigator: "was it from dynamite or explosives being intiated"?
FR: "how the hell would I know"?

repeat as necessary.


Source?.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 03:02 PM
link   
Anyone else replying re:- explosions.

1). Research.

2). Relevant material.

3). Before posting a meaningless load of crap that is purely your perception.

A pointer -

graphics8.nytimes.com...

When read then post.

Thanks.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seventh
Firstly - People whom do not believe the official story are not some type of leper and thus treated accordingly, most of us surprisingly are human beings, with children and live life accordingly, exactly the same as everyone else.


You misunderstand me. I do not consider you a leper, nor do I consider you a kook or even an idiot, and I refute any who claim that you are. Most, if not all, of the people I've chatted with here are quite intelligent people who are interesting to talk to. The problem certainly isn't with you.

The problem, rather, are with these stupid conspiracy websites pushing out every damned fool conspiracy story imaginable, from controlled demolitions to laser beams from outer space to there not being any planes at all. I haven't seen a SINGLE conspiracy website that isn't a veritable shopping mall of books, DVDs, T-shirts, baseball caps, posters etc etc etc, so it's obvious to me their true motive is to instigate false public unrest for their own financial gain. Thus, the problem isn't that there really is some secret conspiracy afoot. The problem is that these websites want you to believe there's a conspiracy, and are only giving you a heavily edited, narrow range of information that happens to give a veneer of support for a conspiracy, and everything that refutes it is intentionally concealed from you. I'm not here to insult you. I'm here to show you that you're being suckered by these conspiracy websites, and I will happily show you all the proof of this that you'd like.

Let me ask you something, to prove my point- have you ever actually *read* the 9/11 report to know what the so-called "official story" actually is? If not, then it goes back to the topic of this thread all over again- what are YOU afraid of?


An interesting point here is that no seismic activity was registered re:- Pentagon impact which was nigh on ground level, it is assessed that a plane hitting a building a 1000 feet in the air + a building built to absorb energy would have a very slim chance of registering at all, the data recorded just prior to collapses registered 2.1 and 2.3, 80,000 lbs of sodium nitrate exploding in quarries (below ground) registers around 2.0.


You are contradicting yourself. If the building was "designed to absorb energy" as you say then there shouldn't have been *any* seismic activity reported, aircraft impact OR demolitions. The building would either absorb the shock or it wouldn't. Besides, every video footage in existence shows the initial structural failure was up at the ninety-somethingth floor, at the point of impact, and this cannot be refuted. Planting explosives below ground would have had no effect on the chain reaction of structural collapse above ground, and thus, would have been pointless.



[edit on 10-9-2009 by GoodOlDave]



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
Hmm. There are several of those witnesses that heard 2 explosions BEFORE the first impact. So your theory is null and void untill investigated. It has also never been explained how the lobby exploded, nor how the b2 and b3 levels exploded. None of this is in the 911 commission report, all of this is on the news reports from the day.


The only witness I'm aware of that claims this is William Rodriguez, and his testimony is dubious. For one thing, He claims that he heard multiple explosions, with the second one being from the plane strike, but he was down in the basement when the first plane hit so he wouldn't know what was happening outside and obviously couldn't know what was causing what. He himself admits that someone else (who he never identifies) told him that the second explosion he heard was from the plane strike, which THAT person couldn't know because that person had to have been outside the building and wouldn't know what was happening inside. More likely, the first explosion he heard was from the plane strike and the second was a followup explosion caused by the plane strike.

For another, Rodriguez was a custodian for the building, and he would have had access to all the secret and restricted places where these demolitions would have been planted. We know this becuase he uses the key to the restricted stairwells as a prop for his talks. He above everyone else would have been able to discover all these secret explosives planted throughout the building, or have at the very least seen some strange activity had been going on in those areas before the attack, but as we both know, he makes no mention of any such thing.

SO, either there's a perfectly explainable, non-conspiracy reason for what Rodriguez heard, it's just that Rodriguez didn't know what it was, OR, William Rodriguez is himself a participant of the conspiracy and he's actively spreading disinformation to cover up the REAL operation, in which case nothing he says can be believed. Doesn't THAT blow your mind?



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seventh

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by Seventh
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



Dave do you seriously think that after 503 first responder eye witness testimonies are relayed to a brand new commission, that they will disregard this approach?, remember this - no one stated out of any of the FR`s that the explosions were due to an inside job, it was a day of terrorism, how was it not the case that terrorists themselves planted the bombs?, and duly investigated.

Seismic data proves it, FR`s 19000 plus pages of evidence backs it, various videos show it how it was.

I very much doubt a fresh enquiry would overlook any of the three above, let alone all three, especially when this time WTC7 will feature heavily into it all.


Here is the result of your first responders investigation:

Investigator: "did you hear any explosions"?
FR: "yes".
Investigator: "was it from dynamite or explosives being intiated"?
FR: "how the hell would I know"?

repeat as necessary.


Source?.


Reality



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join