10 Years after the Terror Attacks on 9/11 (Independent investigation)

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by thegameisup
 


Without sitting through an hour and a half of what is probably regurgitated trutherisms - can you please present one new fact that would evidence a theory other than what you refer to as the "OS"?




posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by thegameisup
 


Without sitting through an hour and a half of what is probably regurgitated trutherisms - can you please present one new fact that would evidence a theory other than what you refer to as the "OS"?


This is actually a very interesting video, if you are genuinely interested in 9/11, which I would expect you are being in this 9/11 forum, then I think you might enjoy it.

It's a very balanced presentation, investigating the history of 9/11, it presents all the known accurate facts, and it is put across in an interesting way. It's not just another 'truther' video, it is never biased to one side or the other, it gives the students/watchers a full understanding of what has happened through history, and what is currently going on gloabally, and it gives the viewer a much wider picture than just the events that happened on 9/11.

The guy is a historian, and as he states, as a historian, it's difficult to document the full history behind 9/11 because not all the data/evidence is available to be analysed.

There is even much more to it than that, and if you have the slightest bit of interest in 9/11, then this video is a very good watch, it is very different to most of the generic 9/11 videos.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by plube
 


Hey plube.

I'm not really wanting to argue finite details of 9/11 either, it just ends up in a tit for tat battle that nobody will ever win, and that is not making progress.

Sharing information on the other hand is positive, as long as the information is not misleading. I liike the fact you are creating your own models, and there are people like yourself doing good work, using their expertise to their advantage.

Most people that passionately defend the official reports, seem to just want to force their views on others, and not allow other people to ask questions or have an opinion.
I think this negative behaviour is pointless because they will never convince anyone of anything by forcing their opinions on them, and by belittling anyone for having an alternative view.

If the official reports were up to scratch then people would not be asking questions. It's as simple as that really. I know some people here see 9/11 as a game of one upmanship, and it's not worth feeding them if that is there sole aim. Some people will never see 9/11 in any way other than the commision report, even though it's massively flawed, as is the NIST report, and even if NIST and the commision report were updated and corrected, some of these people will still agree with the old report.

That is their choice, 9/11 research is moving forwards, if these people want to be stuck on old inaccurate data that is up to them, there are plenty of others who only care about completely accurate reports, hence why so much good work is being done by many 9/11 researchers.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by ClintK
And it only merits $14 million. A politically motivated investigation of Clinton? Somewhere between 40 and 70 million. What is wrong with us? Seriously, there is something really messed about that. If we can spend more than a trillion on these wars, wasn't a thorough investigation worth at least a few hundred million?

I still disgusts me. I'm not a truther, but the measly amount spent makes me very suspicious.


The first question that comes to mind is, just how much should an investigation cost for it to be credible? All the 9/11 commission really did was hold a nonstop question and answer session so the money probably mostly went to paying the overhead of bringing them there. If, for example, they brought over some intelligence agent from Germany to explain the details of Mohammed Atta's contacts with Al Qaida operatives while in Hamburg, what difference does it make to his tstimony if he submitted a travel bill of $2,000 vs $5000 for reimbursement?

The second question is the more obvious- regardless of how much money they spent on the investigation, do you really think the truthers are going to believe any findings that doesn't correspond to the conspiracy porn they're reading? Heck, from what I've seen so far only two people have ever actually read the 9/11 commission report to even know what the "official; story" actually is, so even if the commission had everything from a documented moment by moment technical progression of the collapse to a signed confession letter from Atta and Bin Laden, do you really think there won't be characters insisting a plane couldn't make that hole in the Pentagon and the 9/11 Commission report was still a coverup?

The third question is one I've asked before- Peopel like Richard Gage are uniquely qualified to do his own investigation; he has the training, he has the blueprints, he has all sorts of video of the collapse, he has the explosives formula, he has 1400 professionals to do the investigation, and he certainly has the funding. Plus, he has his own independent media outlet to release whatever he wants to say. It would only take him a few weeks to reverse engineer the collapse and show us how controlled dmeoliitons brought down the building in the way we all saw, and yet he refuses to do it. All he does is come up with new and exciting ways to ask people for donantions. Why is this?



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by thegameisup
Most people that passionately defend the official reports, seem to just want to force their views on others, and not allow other people to ask questions or have an opinion.
I think this negative behaviour is pointless because they will never convince anyone of anything by forcing their opinions on them, and by belittling anyone for having an alternative view.


Can you give me an example of this, please? When for example, someone quotes some conspiracy porn they've been reading and they make claims like "no interceptors were scrambled", and someone else comes along and points out this is incorrect and interceptors were actually scrambled from Massachussetts and Virginia, is this "forcing their views onto others" and "belittling anyone for having an alternative view", or, is it simply correcting someone else's mistake and wanting to set the record straight?



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


If it took $300 million for the investigation of the Challenger disaster, it certainly should take more than $14 million to investigate 9/11. There was a lot more they could do, and they had asked for more from the White House, but the request was denied. If you read the articles, the Bush Administration did just about everything they could to stifle, stonewall and snuff out the investigation. There were many articles at the time that wondered why the administration was "trying to kill the baby in the crib." They opposed it in the first place, made sure it wasn't funded properly, opposed extended time and tried to influence the panel via Roberto Gonzales.

Then, in exchange for agreeing to let Condi Rice testify, the made the panel agree not to ask for any more testimony from White House aids. And the real eye-opener was when they asked Bush himself to testify, the Administration agreed only if Cheney could be there with him!!

And there's more. I could go on and on. It simply wasn't a credible investigation.

Sure, some truthers won't believe anything but their own version. But how can such a half-baked, underfunded, politically-influenced investigation like that be credible?? All it does is give them fuel for their fire. Especially when you consider all the neo-cons in the Bush Administration who we KNOW wanted a confrontation with Iraq?



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by thegameisup
It's a very balanced presentation, investigating the history of 9/11, it presents all the known accurate facts, and it is put across in an interesting way. It's not just another 'truther' video, it is never biased to one side or the other

This is complete lies. It is an incredibly biased video presenting only the truther side. I haven't fully finished my review of it, but it is not remotely balanced at all.

The NIST report is covered literally in seconds, and then contrasted with minutes of discussing DRG and claiming he is an 'excellent scholar'.

Biased rubbish.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 12:17 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by ClintK
 


And you have been at least twice in this thread that a lot more than 14 million was spent. You willfully ignore that because you don't trust them



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by thegameisup
It's a very balanced presentation, investigating the history of 9/11, it presents all the known accurate facts, and it is put across in an interesting way. It's not just another 'truther' video, it is never biased to one side or the other

This is complete lies. It is an incredibly biased video presenting only the truther side. I haven't fully finished my review of it, but it is not remotely balanced at all.

The NIST report is covered literally in seconds, and then contrasted with minutes of discussing DRG and claiming he is an 'excellent scholar'.

Biased rubbish.


Now that the soft way to handle this thread doesn't work, defamation becomes the weapon of choice.

Ganser is a well known historian in Europe. Your attempts to discredit him will fail miserably.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by ClintK
 





And the real eye-opener was when they asked Bush himself to testify, the Administration agreed only if Cheney could be there with him!!

Do you really think anything GW had to say would have made any difference to the commisions results?

Did the CIA mention Atta in any of your daily reports before 911?
Uhh I don't know. They might have.

Did you know AQ was going to fly planes into the WTC?
No I only heard reports of another terror plan.

Just what would you expect GWB to say under oath?
If you want to see just how stupid our government realy is Google the Youtube vid of a congressman asking a military officer if adding too many troops to an island would tip it over.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by thegameisup
It's a very balanced presentation, investigating the history of 9/11, it presents all the known accurate facts, and it is put across in an interesting way. It's not just another 'truther' video, it is never biased to one side or the other

This is complete lies. It is an incredibly biased video presenting only the truther side. I haven't fully finished my review of it, but it is not remotely balanced at all.

The NIST report is covered literally in seconds, and then contrasted with minutes of discussing DRG and claiming he is an 'excellent scholar'.

Biased rubbish.


I doubt you have even watched it, and you should watch it all before commenting because you have not got to his conclusion yet, which does not take one side or the other.

The presenter is very credible, and just presents facts, truths, and if you don't think truthful facts are not balanced then that is a problem with your thinking.

It's not a review of NIST, if you have watched it you would know this, you obviously do not understand the concept of this historical presentation.

Can you point out anything in it that is not truthful? NO!

What was that you said about not wanting to bicker about 9/11?! You seem hellbent on bickering at every opportunity.

There is nothing wrong with this video, all facts in it are truthful, and cannot be argued.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 12:55 PM
link   
Here it is for ya.



You put these idots in charge and expect perfection to come out the other end?
Was GWB muck better than Hank Johnson? A little but not a lot.

Look at the top level people in any organization and you will see these types who have no clue about the real world. Their only redeeming quality is that they know a lot about one narrow subject which puts them at the top of their field.
Why do you think the commision didn't get down to the itsy bitsy details? Because they couldn't comprehend the totality.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by thegameisup
Most people that passionately defend the official reports, seem to just want to force their views on others, and not allow other people to ask questions or have an opinion.
I think this negative behaviour is pointless because they will never convince anyone of anything by forcing their opinions on them, and by belittling anyone for having an alternative view.


Can you give me an example of this, please? When for example, someone quotes some conspiracy porn they've been reading and they make claims like "no interceptors were scrambled", and someone else comes along and points out this is incorrect and interceptors were actually scrambled from Massachussetts and Virginia, is this "forcing their views onto others" and "belittling anyone for having an alternative view", or, is it simply correcting someone else's mistake and wanting to set the record straight?


This has nothing to do with the topic, none of what you are talking about is in the video I posted, and has nothing to do with the thread.

If you spend time in the 9/11 htreads here you will see that a lot of people that support the OS passionately defend it, take exponent for example, they are attacking the video because they think it's a 'truther' video, and it is not, it presents both sides, and lets the viewer decide for themselves. All information in the video is verifiable and accurate.

The very fact people call people 'truthers' means they will never agree with anyone that disbelieves the OS and the sterotying and branding is an 'us & them' attitude. Everyone should be wanting to know the whole truth, and the officail reports left a lot of the actual truth out, hence people asking questions and being branded truthers.

If someone that thinks the NIST report, or the 9/11 commision report, has all the facts and is 100% truthful, which they are not, then in their eyes they already have the all the truth they need to be convinced. And if someone believes some of it but not all of it, then they are branded as a truther. So people like exponent will always defend their position, because the moment they have one single question about the official reports, they then become a truther.

Exponent is actually a truther now because they made a thread asking questions about the OS.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
Just what would you expect GWB to say under oath?


Why was Bush and Cheney not asked questions in public? Why behind closed doors?

This is the big problem, their lack of transparency.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by thegameisup
I doubt you have even watched it, and you should watch it all before commenting because you have not got to his conclusion yet, which does not take one side or the other.

How would I know the facts I posted if I hadn't watched it?


The presenter is very credible, and just presents facts, truths, and if you don't think truthful facts are not balanced then that is a problem with your thinking.

He does not present truthful facts. He lies directly, by omission and by misrepresentation. I don't know if it's intentional or not but it is incredibly unbiased.


It's not a review of NIST, if you have watched it you would know this, you obviously do not understand the concept of this historical presentation.

Can you point out anything in it that is not truthful? NO!

Sure, he claims DRG is an "outstanding scholar"


I'll post a more full analysis later, the last 30 minutes are incredibly tedious.


What was that you said about not wanting to bicker about 9/11?! You seem hellbent on bickering at every opportunity.

There is nothing wrong with this video, all facts in it are truthful, and cannot be argued.

This is faith at its most bare. You're obviously completely ignorant with regard to 911 if you think this video is remotely accurate. No unbiased video gives mere seconds to the NIST report but minutes to DRG. He literally spent more time on special pleading than explaining the official theory behind WTC7.
edit on 9/7/12 by exponent because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by thegameisup

Originally posted by samkent
Just what would you expect GWB to say under oath?


Why was Bush and Cheney not asked questions in public? Why behind closed doors?

This is the big problem, their lack of transparency.


Have you never heard of "separation of powers"? Do you know what that means and why it exists?

Why do you want to change the topic of the thread?
edit on 9-7-2012 by Reheat because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 01:33 PM
link   
This is not an independent investigation but a collection of videos. I skimmed it because it is ALL information that has been rehashed and rehashed.

The difference between a Truther and OSer is not that great. We all believe the same thing occurred ( a collapse) but the perception of how this came to be is the deal breaker.

An OSer is not defending anything and does not have to. Physics were not suspended on 9/11. 1000's of people sae planes hit the towers and Pentagon and there are 100's of videos. There are NO videos of no planes hitting the WTC or remote controlled planes. NONE. Blurry overlayed Photoshop from 2006 does not count either.


Contrary to popular belief, there are still active investigations regarding 9/11 for those who may have perpetrated or were involved or who have been captured. PENTTBOM is the largest investigation the FBI has ever had. Many of the Truthers seem to leave that out because it would hurt your argument of a total investigation.

There were 3 separate and official investigations regarding 9/11.

1. NIST- this was the determine how the buildings could have failed and prevent in the future. That is it. That is the job of NIST. Do a little research and see that they are not government appointed drones but independent.

2. Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States - This is the 9/11 Commission report. It's job was to find the intel failures prior to 9/11. They did. If you read it, it will show you that the intelligence community missed opportunities and in what was a glorified pissing contest did not give key pre 9/11 documents on the hijackers.

3. PENTTBOM - This is the largest FBI investigation ever. There is a plethora of information that would allow your perception of the events that day to change.


Once you have read and investigated those 3 incidents, start to pick them apart. Do not use websites that 'point' to the same drivel...find something new. That is an investigation. I have watched every video that claims something new and 10 minutes in you hear Northwoods, remote control or thermite. I turn it off at this point because there is nothing new and as the OP stated the same arguments begin.

What,out of those THREE separate investigations, missed anything? You have the before, the during and the after investigations.



edit on 9-7-2012 by esdad71 because: (no reason given)
edit on 9-7-2012 by esdad71 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 


Anyone who defends this obvious ploy on the administrations part, to lie without consequence, is part of the problem. It's people like you we are trying to get rid of. It's people like you who delay our attempts to re-open the investigation. It's people like you who should be in jail for obstruction of justice. 'Seperation of Powers'? That's ridiculous.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
He does not present truthful facts. He lies directly, by omission and by misrepresentation. I don't know if it's intentional or not but it is incredibly unbiased.


Where exactly did Ganser lie? One by one... lets go...

P.S.: You call other people liars without proving it, and when someone does that to you, you can't get to the ALERT button fast enough? You know how this kind of behavior is called, do you?
edit on 9-7-2012 by ALF88 because: (no reason given)



new topics
top topics
 
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join


ATS Live Reality Remix IS ON-AIR! (there are 3 minutes remaining).
ATS Live Radio Presents - Reality Remix Live - SE4 EP5

atslive.com

hi-def

low-def