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.

 

No Lawsuits Prove No Conspiracy!

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 02:16 PM
link   
Nine years and all this “supposed” evidence.

Why don’t some of you truthers take the whole thing to court?
Put your name on the line, instead of creating websites.
Lay your reputation on the line, instead of lining your pockets.

Thousands of “professionals” and not one of them with any balls.

At least Julian Assange has enough guts to stand before the world’s media. If your proof is so strong let good ole JA put it up on WikiLeaks.

If you can get a professional video annalist to stake his reputation on some video hanky panky then take the source to court and sue. Sue on the local level. I guarantee it will make the national news.

If you can get one of these ‘pilots’ to stake his career on the FAA lying about the planes not being able to make certain maneuvers, then sue the FAA!

You have lawyers advertising on tv now. They are falling over themselves to get to the next auto crash or drug side effect. There have to be hundreds all over the country willing to get their name on the news, even if they lose.

Will any of these internet experts leave their trailer park and file a lawsuit? No!
Instead they’ll sit in their bathrobe and create another skeezy Youtube video and hide behind screen names. As if screen names can hide them from the “Big Bad Government”.

The lack of lawsuits PROVE there is NO evidence of a conspiracy.




posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 02:35 PM
link   
To keep it fair and balanced...or as fair and balanced as these ridiculous conspiracy stories can be..., there actually were several lawsuits. One lawsuitt was from Judy Wood against NIST, on the grounds that they swindled the gov't by charging them for a report claiming the towers were destroyed by fire induced structural collapse rather than lasers from outer space. Her lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice, meaning that if she tries to file it again she'll be whacked with a fine. The other was from April Gallop, who sued Cheney on the grounds that that no plane hit the Pentagon. All they needed to do is document the eyewitness accounts that showed a plane actually did hit the Pentagon to get it dismissed as a "delusion and fantasy" (the judges comments, not mine).

What your thread should have as a title is that the only ones so confident in their proof that there's a conspiracy to file a lawsuit are the outright crackpots the conspiracy people are avoiding like Christmas fruitcake.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 02:44 PM
link   
Agreed with both posters. These " truthers " conveniently swear up and down that it was an " inside job ". And at best, all they have is here say for their sole basis of argument. They continually fabricate stories, using what ever means they can " latch " onto, to push their argument.
If their " testimony " is such of FACTUAL documentation, why no news stations?, nor any massive law suits at the highest level? Because its just talk....and talk is cheap.
Come up with convictions of the upper echelons of power, then you'll have my attention. Until then, carry on wisely~



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 02:59 PM
link   
But when is someone going to take this ‘peer reviewed’ evidence with them to court?

When are the ‘professional pilots’ going to take the FAA to task in court?

When are all the ‘demolition experts’ going to march behind their lawyers?

Like NEVER! Because it’s all BS.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 


Shills..cough..cough. There is not a judge in this nation who would let that in their courtroom. If you will recall Vincent Bugliosi wrote a book outlining a closed case against Former President GW Bush. No prosecutor has ever attempted to take it on. Why? Lawyers, prosecutors, and judges will not put a giant target on their chests. All this thread shows is how disgustingly corrupt the legal system is, and fails utterly at disproving that the 911 event has huge discrepancies.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by stephinrazin
 


And what discrepancies might there be?
Fact: video of planes flying into towers
Fact: towers came down
Fact: radical pilots dead
Fact: innocent lives takin
Fact: airplane debris at pentagon
Fact: many injured at pentagon
Fact: eyewitnesses to both accounts

And you were saying?



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 03:42 PM
link   
Lawyers will take on any case they feel they can win. It doesn’t matter how ridiculous the case may be.

Remember the hot coffee from the fast food place?

It’s all about name recognition. Win, lose or draw you will come out a winner if the public knows your name.



If you will recall Vincent Bugliosi wrote a book outlining a closed case against Former President GW Bush. No prosecutor has ever attempted to take it on.


Just because some author wrote a book doesn’t mean the case had merit.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 05:28 PM
link   
No lawsuits path pt 2.

Gross incompetence resulting in the loss of human life - Buildings that are engineered and structured to withstand commercial airliner impacts, and the ensuing fires, are constructed to do just that. Failing to withstand any of the former aspects is a serious breach of government enforced building and safety regulations, resulting in charges of causing death by gross incompetency and negligence, and the respective architects/engineers/building technicians and designers responsible for the towers overall designs, would have to answer for their structural ineptness via the judicial system, with lawsuits filed from both government officials and relatives of those whom died due to the obviously flawed structural design.

Why were the engineers/architects responsible for the WTC design, never brought to court to face these very serious charges, and why were they not sued by the relatives of every single person whom died that day *due to seriously flawed architectural death traps?*.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 09:37 PM
link   
The first 9/11 commission demonstrated how it is inappropriate for a state to investigate it's own crimes. This is similar to a judge deciding on a case where he is the defendant. Serious conflict of interest. I am not saying the legal system is directly involved in 9/11, but pressure from the state can be enough to affect judgements. People have tried going through the legal system to no avail. The only way this can be settled with any sense of justice is from a higher and independent body, a United Nations Panel.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 07:21 AM
link   


Gross incompetence resulting in the loss of human life


I doubt you would be able to find a jury that would agree with you on this. Building safety inspectors don’t go looking for aircraft defense features during any part of the design/construction process.
Since it was designed to withstand a 707 impact, lawyers would quickly point out the planes were larger than design spec.
Imagine trying to sue an auto manufacturer over an auto crash with an 18 wheeler. Just because the car had a 5 star rating doesn’t mean it could win.




The first 9/11 commission demonstrated how it is inappropriate for a state to investigate it's own crimes.


You have already made a conclusion. Is that the way you want to tried for a crime?

My point is: With all these shark lawyers in the US, not one case has gotten past the initial stage. The two mentioned were thrown out because the plaintiff’s were basically in la la land.

If these are the best cases that can be brought to court it proves there is NO CONSPIRACY.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 09:12 AM
link   
I don't think it is just lack of lawsuits that proves no " inside job " but the lack of any legal process.

A huge raft of truther conspiracy theories incorporate AA 77 didn't hit the Pentagon, UA 93 didn't crash near Shanksville, the WTC planes were holograms or substitutes. Not saying they all believe all of that; some will say that the WTC planes were genuine but the Pentagon was definitely a missile; others will say UA 93 flew on past a fake crash site etc.

Anyway, point I am trying to make is that there seems almost universal agreement that some of the planes that took off that morning were not the ones to end where they are said to have ended up. If any of that was to be true then it follows that there must be a huge amount of evidence of wrong-doing out there. Trouble is that none of it has surfaced in 9 years plus and no-one has confessed to anything.

If there was actually any hard evidence about anything truthers would not have to keep bleating about a new investigation. Does anyone seriously doubt that if AA 77 was found on the bed of the Atlantic Ocean or buried somewhere that an investigation would not follow ? Would not the msm go berserk ? Same if someone confessed to being involved. Longer this goes on the improbable becomes impossible.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by kwakakev
The first 9/11 commission demonstrated how it is inappropriate for a state to investigate it's own crimes. This is similar to a judge deciding on a case where he is the defendant. Serious conflict of interest. I am not saying the legal system is directly involved in 9/11, but pressure from the state can be enough to affect judgements. People have tried going through the legal system to no avail. The only way this can be settled with any sense of justice is from a higher and independent body, a United Nations Panel.


The problem for you is that the United Nations already agrees with the myriad gov't reports. After the attack, the US showed it's NATO allies it's intelligence showing that the attack was the work of Al Qaida. NATO looked at it and compared it to what their own intelligence services were reporting, and they found it credible enough to invoke article V for the first time in its history. It's the whole reason why their troops are in Afghanistan along with ours. Even special forces from Denmark are there.

The problems isn't that there's no evidence that it was a legitimate terrorist attack, becuase there certainly is. The problem is that the conspiracy people are so much in love with the idea there's some sinister secret conspiracy afoot that they want it to be true, so they'll come up with every lame excuse they can think of for why they shouldn't have to accept the evidence. Witnesses are disinformation agents, wreckage had been planted, cell phone calls faked, black boxes were manufactured, and so on, and all based on absolutely nothing but their own abject paranoia. It's little wonder why all previous attempts at lawsuits have gone down in flames, because they consistantly fail miserably at the one question they need to respond to: "So you think there's a conspiracy? All right, prove it".



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by stephinrazin
 


And what discrepancies might there be?
Fact: video of planes flying into towers
Fact: towers came down
Fact: radical pilots dead
Fact: innocent lives takin
Fact: airplane debris at pentagon
Fact: many injured at pentagon
Fact: eyewitnesses to both accounts

And you were saying?


Can you prove who was flying the planes?

Numerous eyewitnesses state they saw a missile impact Flight 93. Since you given credibility to the eyewitness accounts at the Pentagon, surely you would do the same for those in Pennsylvania too right?



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 


What makes you think the judicial system in this country is any less corrupt than the other branches of government?



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by BigTimeCheater

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by stephinrazin
 


And what discrepancies might there be?
Fact: video of planes flying into towers
Fact: towers came down
Fact: radical pilots dead
Fact: innocent lives takin
Fact: airplane debris at pentagon
Fact: many injured at pentagon
Fact: eyewitnesses to both accounts

And you were saying?


Can you prove who was flying the planes?

Numerous eyewitnesses state they saw a missile impact Flight 93. Since you given credibility to the eyewitness accounts at the Pentagon, surely you would do the same for those in Pennsylvania too right?


Can you give me a link to the witnesses who saw a missile hit UA 93 ? thanks.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 10:03 AM
link   


Numerous eyewitnesses state they saw a missile impact Flight 93.


Didn’t I read somewhere on this board “If there is no video then it didn’t happen”?
Isn’t that another one of those double standards?

I too would like the names or at least links to the original story of these witnesses.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


Been a while since I had to debate this, thought it was pretty much a done deal.

Evidently I was mistaken, as there were no witnesses to an actual impact, just numerous people who heard a missile, which given its supersonic flight has a very distinct and different sound from that of a commercial airliner.

I would hold no fault with anyone for shooting it down, my point is that if the feds lied about this, then the entire official story is bs.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by BigTimeCheater
reply to post by Alfie1
 


Been a while since I had to debate this, thought it was pretty much a done deal.

Evidently I was mistaken, as there were no witnesses to an actual impact, just numerous people who heard a missile, which given its supersonic flight has a very distinct and different sound from that of a commercial airliner.

I would hold no fault with anyone for shooting it down, my point is that if the feds lied about this, then the entire official story is bs.


Thanks, but who are the "numerous people who heard a missile " ?

You are aware that UA 93,s flight data recorder indicates all systems functioning until impact ?

Given that GWB had given a shoot-down order, and says in his memoirs that he first thought UA 93 had been brought down as a result of that order, I don't think it is a truther or truster point but it is as well to sort out the truth.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by BigTimeCheater
 


So if there is no actual eye witness account of missile impact, then the argument doesn't have merit. That is considered here say. People will go to far extremes to plead their case.

However, I recently came across evidence that would support your argument in general, about the 9/11 story.
The story in itself has many "loop holes". I will admit, our " debates" over the years in regards to 9/11, and my own research has changed my views.

For those of you fellow readers that may not know about this, or ever heard of this, I have one word for you: Zeitgiest. Watch it, live it, love it!



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 10:56 AM
link   


Evidently I was mistaken, as there were no witnesses to an actual impact, just numerous people who heard a missile, which given its supersonic flight has a very distinct and different sound from that of a commercial airliner.


Just what does an airliner sound like when it’s going down vertically at full power? How fast was it going at impact?



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join