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.

 

A Simple Question For Debunkers Of 9/11 Truth

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2010 @ 11:28 AM
link   
Simply put : Do you feel that the current judicial system that we have in place in the United States is fair and adequate ? When a person or group of persons is suspected of committing a crime, do you believe that the person(s) should be brought before a court to answer to said crime(s) ? Or do you believe that the person(s) should be allowed to select a group of individuals, of their choosing,to conduct an investigation to ascertain whether or not the crime(s) warrant further investigation ? Now, if those person(s) were suspected of being the one(s) responsible for killing your family members, which set of procedures would you want to see applied ? If you chose the private investigation scenario,then what if those investigators stated that they were not allowed to do a thorough and impartial investigation ? Would this cause you to cry foul, or would you simply accept it and move on ?
Now let's suppose that the criminal(s) were brought before the court instead. Would you want to see those suspected of murdering your family tried with ALL of the available evidence, or would you rather see them tried with only the 'evidence' that THEY have supplied.,evidence that,when held up to scrutiny,carries no weight in this court of law ?
Would you feel that justice is served by letting them point the finger at someone else,although they have absolutely nothing that can prove this ?
Would you want the court to allow you to introduce the volumes of what you consider to be evidence that could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the suspect(s) were indeed somewhat complicit in the murder of your family ? Or, would you just turn and walk away ?
Be honest with yourself on this. Which course of procedure would you favor ? The right way,or the wrong way ?
The defense has not proven to me that Osama bin Ladin had anything to do with murdering your family.
But I, and so many others, have mountains of evidence that would prove to you who did it. And still,you refuse to acknowledge that we have the right to bring the real perpetrators to justice.
Those were your fellow Americans who were murdered that day. Those people were part of your family. IF you have any sense of National Pride at all, that is.
To deny those poor souls justice is MOST SHAMEFUL on your part. It is a DISGRACE.
But,we will get JUSTICE. With or without you.




posted on Mar, 23 2010 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 

I don't think the emotional response you are looking
for will materialize, but good luck with it



posted on Mar, 23 2010 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 


I feel like it is a legitimate question. If I were looking for 'emotional' responses, I would have posted a story about a Pet Goat .



posted on Mar, 23 2010 @ 12:34 PM
link   
It is a basic premise that everyone is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

There is also procedural legal machinery in place to ensure that no-one has to endure a trial unless it has been established that there is a prima facie case against them ; i.e a good case which may well result in conviction.

A trial is not the place to air pet theories, speculations, innuendoe etc.

If you want an investigation and for people to stand trial please come up with some evidence that doesn't dissolve like mist on examination.



posted on Mar, 23 2010 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


Funny, I don't recall any 'trial' that ever 'established a prima facie case' that proved Osama bin Ladin had anything to do with 9/11. Could you direct me to that trial ? After all, to quote yourself : "everyone is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." Where oh where, is the "good case which may well result in conviction" ?

"Doesn't dissolve like mist on examination" ? You mean like the Twin Towers, that dissolved like mist ? Or are you referring to the OS, which would dissolve like mist upon examination ?

If you people truly believe that 19 hijackers outwitted the ENTIRE U.S. government,Department of Defense,Norad,C.I.A.,F.B.I.,N.S.A., Air Traffic Control, F.A.A.,etc.,etc.,etc., then surely you have at least SOMETHING to base your beliefs on, other than the OS ?!!!

Was there a trial for Iraq and the WMD fairy-tale ? Could you link that for me also ? Was there a trial for Lee Harvey Oswald ? Is it commonly accepted as FACT that he did indeed shoot President Kennedy ? I mean, after all, nobody actually saw him do it ?

So why should I believe the OS this time around ? Can you vouch for their credibility ? Beyond a reasonable doubt ?

If the OS is true, wouldn't you feel much safer if 19 muslims were in charge of protecting our country ? I mean after all...



posted on Mar, 23 2010 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
Simply put : Do you feel that the current judicial system that we have in place in the United States is fair and adequate ?


Yes, simply put. But it is actually much more complicated than that. But you want simplicity.


When a person or group of persons is suspected of committing a crime, do you believe that the person(s) should be brought before a court to answer to said crime(s) ?


Suspected by whom? You know there is a whole legal process wherein first it is determined if a crime has been committed, etc. We do not do "private prosecutions" in this country. Only the state (and I mean that in the broader sense) can bring charges.



Or do you believe that the person(s) should be allowed to select a group of individuals, of their choosing,to conduct an investigation to ascertain whether or not the crime(s) warrant further investigation ?


Again, who is doing the "suspecting"? There is a defined criminal procedure in this country, run, generally speaking, by people we all select via the electoral process.


Now, if those person(s) were suspected of being the one(s) responsible for killing your family members, which set of procedures would you want to see applied ?


Again, suspected by whom? You? Me? The guy nect to you? Should we started dragging people into court as soon as someone raises a suspicion?


If you chose the private investigation scenario,then what if those investigators stated that they were not allowed to do a thorough and impartial investigation ?


If you privately suspect someone of a crime, then you should conduct a private investigation, aggregate your findings and present them to the public prosecutor.


Would this cause you to cry foul, or would you simply accept it and move on ?


Wouldn't be the first time in US judicial history that someone wasn't satsified with the outcome of an investigation, won't be the last. I would suggest both - cry foul but try and move on as well.


Now let's suppose that the criminal(s) were brought before the court instead. Would you want to see those suspected of murdering your family tried with ALL of the available evidence, or would you rather see them tried with only the 'evidence' that THEY have supplied.,evidence that,when held up to scrutiny,carries no weight in this court of law ?


Huh? You throw around terms like "evidence" with so little concern for the actual meaning. The prosecution presents a theory and the facts that the prosecution believes are relevant. That's how it works. The defendent is under no obligation to present anything.


Would you feel that justice is served by letting them point the finger at someone else,although they have absolutely nothing that can prove this ?


Sure, that is their right. They are on trial. They have no obligation to present a defense but are allowed to.


Would you want the court to allow you to introduce the volumes of what you consider to be evidence that could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the suspect(s) were indeed somewhat complicit in the murder of your family ? Or, would you just turn and walk away ?


I really don't know what you mean here.


Be honest with yourself on this. Which course of procedure would you favor ?


If it were my family I would prefer the procedure in which they put the person I suspect in a chair with handcuffs and me with a baseball bat, but that is why we don't let victims or close relations of victims choose the method.


The right way,or the wrong way ?


If it were my family, again, I would only want to do it my way.


The defense has not proven to me that Osama bin Ladin had anything to do with murdering your family.


Fine, like I said cry foul and move on.


But I, and so many others, have mountains of evidence that would prove to you who did it. And still,you refuse to acknowledge that we have the right to bring the real perpetrators to justice.


So what do you want to do, have everyone search all over the internet conspiracy websites for all this so called "evidence" and put it all together for you? Why can't you do that? Why can you put it all together so it does resemble something like a mountain. And put your name to it as well.


Those were your fellow Americans who were murdered that day. Those people were part of your family. IF you have any sense of National Pride at all, that is. To deny those poor souls justice is MOST SHAMEFUL on your part. It is a DISGRACE.


To deny justice to anyone, even the accused, is a disgrace.


But,we will get JUSTICE. With or without you.


Well, I could be wrong but that sounds like a not very well veiled threat.

So, where is this "simple question"?



posted on Mar, 23 2010 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 


You are passionate okbmd.

There are people who hate that and will attack it whenever they see it.

You can fight them. Which is exactly what they want, because then you are not pursuing your passion.

Or, you can ignore them. Which they hate.

Or, you can deconstruct their attacks. Which will shut them up. This requires a thorough understanding of the techniques they use. It is kinda fun if you know what you're doing and have some time to kill.

Regardless of what you do you will never convert them. They hate you and will continue to hate you until you shut up.



posted on Mar, 23 2010 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


So then, you consider the pursuit of justice to be a threat ? This speaks volumes as to your character. There can never be justice as long as those of us who are true to our morals and convictions step aside and let those of your ilk dictate to us what is true or not true. As i've said, Justice will prevail, with or without YOU.



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by hooper
 


So then, you consider the pursuit of justice to be a threat ?


Absolutely. When put in the context of "with or without you".

Justice is not something we pursue as individuals, it is something we do as a society. Your threat is quite obvious. You will pursue what you call justice even after the society you live in has deemed justice has been served.


This speaks volumes as to your character.


Thank you.


There can never be justice as long as those of us who are true to our morals and convictions step aside and let those of your ilk dictate to us what is true or not true.


You are more than welcome to disagree with the outcome of the justice system, however, when you take the next step and seek out your own justice then you are bound, ironically, to find yourself the object of the very system you rejected.


As i've said, Justice will prevail, with or without YOU.


Again, in an ironic fashion, you are correct. Justice is served without regard to my personnel opinions. That is why it works as well (though not perfectly) as it does.



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 


I think your emotional rants about justice, as you perceive it , smacks of Salem 1692.

It may be boring but justice is best served by objective consideration of facts.



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


As an analyst, I reviewed hours of footage, documents, speeches etc, to ease the minds of conspiracy theorists. Unfortunately, I was unable to. The biggest people we have in America is those who take words of others at face value. Dig deep enough, the facts speak for themselves.

We have equal access to the Courts, except pertaining to 9-11, or other "proven" theories. Setting aside the conspiracies, get a book entitled, "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder." Lawyer and author Vincent Bugliosi is laying his reputation on the line for truth and justice. He, as an assistant prosecutor convicted Charles Manson and six other for murdering Sharon Tate and her family in 1969. He's prosecuted 106 felonies, with 1 loss, including winning 22 out of 22 murder cases.

Read the book, then ask yourself: If our courts won't accept a case that is signed, sealed, and delivered on a silver platter, WHY?



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by rev. richard
reply to post by Alfie1
 


As an analyst, I reviewed hours of footage, documents, speeches etc, to ease the minds of conspiracy theorists. Unfortunately, I was unable to. The biggest people we have in America is those who take words of others at face value. Dig deep enough, the facts speak for themselves.

We have equal access to the Courts, except pertaining to 9-11, or other "proven" theories. Setting aside the conspiracies, get a book entitled, "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder." Lawyer and author Vincent Bugliosi is laying his reputation on the line for truth and justice. He, as an assistant prosecutor convicted Charles Manson and six other for murdering Sharon Tate and her family in 1969. He's prosecuted 106 felonies, with 1 loss, including winning 22 out of 22 murder cases.

Read the book, then ask yourself: If our courts won't accept a case that is signed, sealed, and delivered on a silver platter, WHY?





Rev, I see on here daily accusations of mass murder against GWB, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Silverstein, CIA, FBI, Mossad, MI5, and even small guys like Lloyde England.

It is a very important principle that no-one is guilty until proven so and these absurd and unsubstantiated allegations are wicked and defamatory.

May I suggest :- Put up or shut up !



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by rev. richard
reply to post by Alfie1
 


We have equal access to the Courts,


In so far as civil matters are concerned, but not criminal. You are more than welcome to file a complaint with any law enforcement agent you want but that does not gaurantee you that the object of your complaint is going to be dragged in to court. Nobody would want to live in that kind of system of justice, would they? I am not aware of any civil matters regarding 9/11 that were denied access to the courts - mind you that does mean that they are going to always get their desired outcome.



except pertaining to 9-11, or other "proven" theories.


I think this may be were you are falling short. The "proven" part. Most of these self proclaimed theories are nothing more than articles of incredulity, not whole theories.


Setting aside the conspiracies, get a book entitled, "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder." Lawyer and author Vincent Bugliosi is laying his reputation on the line for truth and justice. He, as an assistant prosecutor convicted Charles Manson and six other for murdering Sharon Tate and her family in 1969. He's prosecuted 106 felonies, with 1 loss, including winning 22 out of 22 murder cases.


If I am not mistaken this book has nothing directly to do with 9/11 but is an examination of the circumstances that led to the invasion of Iraq.


Read the book, then ask yourself: If our courts won't accept a case that is signed, sealed, and delivered on a silver platter, WHY?


Well, for starters the book is simply the legal opinion of one lawyer.



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


"Your threat is quite obvious." Again, do you feel threatened by the fact that there are those of us who wish to see an independent investigation conducted by a committee of representatives that we the people have chosen? Your infatuation with the word 'threat' is only an attempt on your part to 'bait' me.Give it up dude, you will never get me to go there. Find someone else to play with.

"Justice is not something we pursue as individuals,it is something we do as a society...You will pursue what you call justice even after the society you live in has deemed justice has been served ."

Are you arguing for me,or against me here?!! Because you made my case for me in that last quote.
Maybe you have been asleep for the last several years,so here's the deal...The overwhelming majority of American 'society' rejects the official 9/11 story. At least 1/3 of that same 'society' believes that the government had foreknowledge and was complicit or 'allowed' it to happen. And by the way, your cherished MSM conducted these polls.


"So, what do YOU want to do...have everyone search all over the internet...and put it all together for you ? Why can't you do that ?"

So, let me emphasize that. I am not alone in my pursuit of justice. The majority of Americans agree with me.

So, maybe your perceived 'threat' is very much larger than you realize.



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by hooper
 



"Your threat is quite obvious." Again, do you feel threatened by the fact that there are those of us who wish to see an independent investigation conducted by a committee of representatives that we the people have chosen? Your infatuation with the word 'threat' is only an attempt on your part to 'bait' me.Give it up dude, you will never get me to go there. Find someone else to play with.


And if you can't get this "committee of represnetatives" to convene on your command will you still be seeking your own brand of justice?


Are you arguing for me,or against me here?!! Because you made my case for me in that last quote.
Maybe you have been asleep for the last several years,so here's the deal...The overwhelming majority of American 'society' rejects the official 9/11 story.


Whatever makes you happy. If that is what you want to believe then I kind of know better than try to dissuade you. But as a matter of record, no I have not been sleeping for the last several years. I have been wide awake, I participate in politics, I read and by virtue of my job, interact with a large cross section of the American population. My view point is my own, but from where I stand, once this computer is shut off pretty much the issue disappears until some nutjob with a gun makes the evening news.


At least 1/3 of that same 'society' believes that the government had foreknowledge and was complicit or 'allowed' it to happen. And by the way, your cherished MSM conducted these polls.


Yeah, you better check those numbers again.


So, let me emphasize that. I am not alone in my pursuit of justice. The majority of Americans agree with me.


Yeah, you pretty much are alone. There are a few more of you out there, but not many. Not enough to make even a ripple in the political pond by conventional means. This is why when you use language like "justice with or without you" it takes on a whole new meaning.


So, maybe your perceived 'threat' is very much larger than you realize.


Oh I think it is real, but for much different reasons. It wouldn't be the first time in history that a political microrganism, frustrated with a lack of attention, took extraordinary steps to garnish attraction and foment imaginary revolutions. See T. McVeigh and Oklahoma City.



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 02:30 PM
link   
Your "simple" question turned out pretty complicated.

If you're generally interested in my answer, it's this. Your legal system in the US is a joke, largely designed to incarcerate and kill black people in the defence of a perverse capitalism. The only thing that could make it more of a laughing stock would be some sort of "9/11 Trial" designed by the TM.



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


I've got a better idea...How about YOU go and check those numbers. If I check them for you,AGAIN, then you will simply come back and dismiss them,AGAIN.

So, you 'participate in politics'.Hmmm, that should garner you alot of support and lend incredulous amounts of credibility to anything you might have to offer in terms of the OS...

And again, I'm an old-school fisherman, so I know rotten bait when I smell it.

So we can either debate in a civil manner, without all of the not-so-subtle accusations you tend to inject into your posts,or I can choose to use the 'Ignore' function. I've not used it yet, because I believe everyone has the right to their opinion, but if you want respect then you must give respect. It's up to you.



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 


Yes, I would like to see the numbers again wherein you can establish that the "overwhelming majority" of Americans think that 9/11 was a huge plot conducted by the US government. Please show me the numbers.

Also, how respectful is it to accuse me of being asleep for the last couple of years? Or call me "rotten bait"?

And who are you to assume that you represent "we the people" I am one of those "people" too and I do not wish to see any public time, money, or political energy wasted on giving platforms to people with imaginary grievances. Particularly when they may expend their time in the public eye throwing about baseless accusations against innocent persons. Why should I pay to have someone, for instance, accuse Ted Olson of orchestrating 9/11 so he could get rid of his wife? Or accuse the woman in Shanksville of faking a photo? Or make accusations about how the fireman from ground zero are lying about what they saw and heard that day because they are afraid of losing their pensions? All this and more is part and parcel of the "investigation".



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


'Being asleep' is a fairly common figure-of-speech. Surely, you are aware of that ?

And again, the 'numbers' are very easy to google. Don't expect that I am going to do that for you.

And the 'rotten-bait' referred to your tactics,not your person. But, you know that already., you are just wanting to argue.

And I've never mentioned Ted Olson,and certainly would find it incredulous for anyone to think that he 'orchestrated' 9/11.

And, I've never mentioned 'the woman in Shanksville'.

There is alot in the TM that I don't 'buy into'. But there is just as much, if not more, in the OS that I don't buy into as well.

So, if you are going to debate someone else's thread, then I can only suggest that you post on that thread instead of this one.

My intent is to discuss why there should/should not be an unbiased, more comprehensive investigation than what the government gave us. The OS STINKS in my opinion.And I have numerous reasons for feeling that way, and Ted Olson hating his wife is not one of them.

So, let's try not to drive 'left-of-center' here ?



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 


Fine, you don't hold to the Ted Olson - Fake Photo - lying firemen school of the thought, however, the folks that do are also crying for a new "independent" investigation. So how do we give you your investigation without giving them their platform and not be in the same place say, 5 years from now with them wanting their own investigation?




top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join