It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Enuff ... I have a question ... please?

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 06:10 PM
I've been reading this site for a few years now but have never posted before ... please excuse any mistake of ettiquette ... but I have a couple of questions ... a lot of you guys on here seem to be a LOT smarter than anyone I've spoken with about this:

WHY hasn't ANYONE been held accontable for the events of 9/11? ESPECIALLY in light of the recent reports that the 9/11 Commission had so much trouble/deception/stupidity given to them in testimony from so many different sources ... including the President & Vice President of the United States of America ... but we'll never know what they said ... conveniently .... >

How difficult would it be to start a petition here at ATS ... written out by whomever is most qualified that frequents this site (put it to a vote if need be) ... not detailing conspiracies, but actual discrepencies, mistakes, and mis-truths that are VERIFIABLE as well as other factual info. that ties into the many conspiracy theories, but when looked at as a whole might tie together into something tangible ... signed by as many as possible ...

and then send that petition to several "reputable" news agencies .... hit the mainstream as well as the right & left wingers ... send the petition to EVERYONE ... hit THOUSANDS of reporters ... sometimes people like Bill O'Reilly and Bill Maher can be the best way to break these stories but a local guy might work better ya never know ... and then follow their investigations/reportings and continue to release that information as publically as possible...? Go as far as to challenege them as "investigative reporters" ... the serious ones might take us serious!

I don't know what happened on Sept. 11th, 2001, but I do know (after finding this site and many others like it afterwards) that something is amiss. I'm an American and Americans deserve to know the truth about what happpened when 3,000 other Americans were brutally murdered.

So I guess to sum this up: WTF Happened the morning of Sept. 11, 2001?
Who did it?
Who failed to do their job?
How can we get thisinfo. out to EVERYONE?

It's taken a few years of reading this site to even register as a member ... but at this point 5 years later ... I think we DESERVE to know what happened ... so let's DEMAND it ... skip around the government BS and go to people who might take this seriously!

posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 06:30 PM
It is interesting in fact, the subject: Why wasn't anyone help responsible?

Members on this site can help provide people who hold responsibility.

You had:

- NORAD and the Air Traffic Controllers - They didn't go through proper protocol to intercept the hijacked aircraft. However on 9/11, Planes were late to intercept the first aircraft, the second aircraft and the aircraft that hit the Pentagon, even after they were well aware.

- F.B.I Higher ups - Investigations into Al Qaeda activities that involved Osama Bin Laden, and some of the terrorists claimed to of taken a place in the 9/11 Hijackings were either blocked or discontinued under unusual circumstances, with agents being reassigned.

- C.I.A. - put options were placed on Morgon Stanley (occupied bits of the WTC), United Airlines and American Airlines, LARGE put options. I hold the C.I.A. responsible as they are the heads of the intelligence community especially within the United States, unusual trading is a sign they observe as a coming attack or occurence. Why was nothing done.

- Key military officials - They had a say in whether to stand down on 9/11, which none did exactly but there were suspicious delays. It's funny how delays weren't really frequent and common before 9/11, yet on 9/11 there seemed to be inefficiencies with operations.

- Secret Service staff - they were aware before Bush was, when the WTCs were hit of the occuring issue, yet they didn't take away President Bush, as he is the Commander -in-Chief and was elected to protect the country. Yet they kept them there, even after Rice and Cheiney were evacuated and help underground for protection.

That's just to touch up on the subject, who else has some?

posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 03:29 PM
Events such as this are a mathematical eventuality. All departments have their flaws and always will have. There will always be someone with a plan to blow something up. Eventually the flaws and the plans will coencide to provide an avenue for a successful attack.

That's not the answer we want to hear.

So - it was Bush's fault. It's his fault we haven't had any rain in the midwest for a long time, too. I mean - come on, he's the president (the stupidest one we've ever had by some accounts) - he's got to be capable of something of this magnitude. We view our presidents as kings and dictators..... what a mess....

You have to love the chaos of pointing fingers.

posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 03:52 PM
Why hasn't anyone been held accountable? Because it would give what we're saying that much more credibility. Which would be bad for them.

Originally posted by Aim64C
That's not the answer we want to hear.

It's not far off from the "answer" I accepted for a few years after 9/11, until being exposed to the other conspiracy theories. I'm not the kind of person to let events like 9/11 effect me in any emotional or psychological way, and I had no trouble accepting them even right after they had occurred. Governments kill people all the time dude. I don't like it, but it's nothing new, and I slept just the same as I do any other night. And from my experience, this is how it was for most "truthers".

It's kind of annoying to see pseudo-psychologists try to explain why people believe non-government explanations. You may not like it, but a lot of us do see logic in these ideas, and not for reasons of psychological trauma.

posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 03:59 PM
And I knew the towers were going to colapse the moment I heard that planes had hit them. So we're both special, here.

I can see logic in your claims. That's the problem. You apply everyday logic and common sense to an area of events that require an understanding of paranormal (not like ghosts - but by literal meaning 'outside of the normal') events and conditions.

As I said - you can't hold any one individual responsible. It's departments that all have their flaws. And as I said - it's an eventuality that the 'right' flaws will match up with the 'right' plans for an attack - and one will slip through.

We need to work to improve all of our departments, that will always be the case. But so will the fact that it will always be an eventuality that an attack gets through.

If you want any one person to truely blame - blame the person(s) in the organization that coordinated and dreamed up the attack. If it weren't for such individuals - we wouldn't need the departments we have to defend against those attacks.

posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 04:36 PM

Originally posted by Aim64C
I can see logic in your claims. That's the problem. You apply everyday logic and common sense to an area of events that require an understanding of paranormal (not like ghosts - but by literal meaning 'outside of the normal') events and conditions.

What reproducible, consistent logic would you then suggest?

If you disregard logic here, then I don't understand why you are backing either "side" of the story.

posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 04:43 PM
You use common building logic for one. The WTC structure is unlike any other in the world. Citing other cases of demolition or natural colapse are irrelevant and then require the ability to intiutively understand physics and structural components - something I can do with no effort.

It's a difference of how people's minds work. Mine works in that way, so can some other people. Those who can't never will have that trait. Just as there are intuitive abilities that I will never have - such as the ability to handle large math functions purely mentally.

And, as stated before, the world of counter terrorism and espionage is far different than our common intuition that deals not only with crime/punishment but also with instant gratification.

That is not the case. The instinct that we have to arrest a person who is part of a terrorist network as soon as we have proof does not yield a dead terrorist organization.

I'm not saying that logic does not apply - just not our domesticated logic.

posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 05:08 PM

Originally posted by Aim64C
You use common building logic for one. The WTC structure is unlike any other in the world.

Where have I compared it to any other structure in the world?

Was it made of any special materials, of which we know little? Or was the engineering used in its construction an esoteric kind?

posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 05:12 PM
Please tell me you know how the WTC was constructed and how it compares to other structures which are cited in evidence that the WTC was demolished with explosives. Otherwise I have no idea why that part of the debate is even participated in by you.

posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 05:17 PM
No skyscraper has ever collapsed, structurally due to fire....then 3 come along on the same day.....defies logic.

posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 05:25 PM

Originally posted by Koka
No skyscraper has ever collapsed, structurally due to fire....then 3 come along on the same day.....defies logic.

Most skyscrapers are constructed of concrete with internally supportive steel. None have ever used an external steel mesh support like the WTC used. That steel supported a great deal of the weight and gave the towers much stabilization and allowed them to reach the heights they did.

Fire would be more likely to bring them down than any other skyscraper.

You've also got the fact that most other skyscraper fires have been fires - and many elevator systems were intact. Firefighters were unable to reach the floors necessary to fight the fires.

No skyscraper has ever been hit by a passenger liner, to my knowledge, either.

posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 05:46 PM
I concede that we will never find out the truth behind the collapse of both towers, although I do believe it was designed to take the impact of a jet airliner, yet no one has been held for account for design error.

What design was WTC7, did that also have an external steel structure?

And what of Larry Silverstein's statement regarding pulling the building, or did he just use the wrong term for demolishing a building?

Maybe, he made the same error Bush did, when he claimed on 2 separate occasions that he had watched a plane hit the WTC prior to going into the classroom, although no footage was being broadcast showing such an event?

posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 06:07 PM
WTC 7 consisted of two support shafts - much like two of the towers put together and their touching walls dissolved. It used a steel mesh support, yes. Although every.... 15th floor... I beleive, there was a cross-hashed steel frame that was bracketed on. Brackets are a way to cut costs - but often result in lower structural integrity as the rivets or bolts that hold them together are a concentration of stress.

I think this goes against the wishes of the designers - who originally wanted the framework welded together.

Yes, the building was designed to take a hit from the largest airliner at the time (I beleive the 707) - and not at a 300+mph direct hit. It was designed as if a pilot was lost in fog and managed to find the towers.

When they talked about pulling the building - they were reffering to getting the firefighters out. The firefighters were up, possibly 30 floors or more, in the towers. When it became obvious that the towers were going to colapse - their priority shifted to getting their men out of there in a hurry before that happens.

As for Bush's comment - it is part of the confusing southern dialect where 'we' will switch-up tenses in the middle of a sentence - or use them in a way that can be misleading. Just like a lot of you northern folks scramble our brains with 900 mile-an-hour talking.

posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 06:57 PM
Not to mention the World Trade Center was claimed to be overengineered, which it was. Borderline "steel-weakening" fires are not going to cause global failure on one floor to take out the trusses seats and just bring down everything else with it if it sagged.

Even though you had buckling, they still had structural integrity and the core plays a huge part in the support of the building and even though they might of been slight-to somewhat weakened, the exterior columns weren't as compromised as lead to believe.

Fire temperature indications weren't even that high, cept for a few pockets, they claimed, pockets don't refer to the whole floor or several floors.

posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 07:01 PM
You'd have thought that the WTC would have at least stayed standing if it had been designed to with stand any kind of hit from an tower and there would have been no questions, but with the 2nd one going followed later by WTC7 and the statement from Larry Silverstein.....I can't buy it.

Unsure what you are saying regarding Bush saying "we"?

Maybe I wasn't clear here is a thread that better explains it:

Damning Evidence for 9/11 Conspiracy

posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 07:14 PM
Koka, it's also a good prime focus to look at World Trade Center 2's collapse.

It's well known the fireball of that impact, at the corner, burned conservatively more jet fuel than the first impact, so the fires weren't as damaging, and it would of taken more energy, hence a longer time, to take down the towers than than the North Tower, but however, the opposite happened. The South Tower (2nd hit) came down first incredibly defying its restraints of its fires capabilities and then followed by the North Tower not long after.

posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 10:20 PM

Originally posted by Aim64C
Please tell me you know how the WTC was constructed and how it compares to other structures which are cited in evidence that the WTC was demolished with explosives. Otherwise I have no idea why that part of the debate is even participated in by you.

You don't have to compare it to other structures. Read the NIST Report.

posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 03:56 PM
Interesting image:

This is an image of the WTC shortly before collapse. Do you see massive buckling as exclaimed by Howard and the NIST or do you see aluminum facades knocked lose, giving the illusion of buckling, because the exterior columns and the aliuminum facades are totally different, though they are close together.

posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 11:22 PM
I guess my rambling missed my whole point ... I'll try it in one sentence:

Why can't someone compile all of the FACTUAL mistakes, inaccuracies, etc. (skipping the C.T. stuff ... just the facts) ... and have that attcahed to a petition and then sent to THOUSANDS of media outlets via this site and others? Have watchdogs that report who ignored, who didn't, etc. and continue to report that?

I am not sure what to believe ... but I don't believe what I've been told ... too many "mistakes". All those who don't believe (agreeing on one C.T. or another) should band together. Let's stick with facts and attack the sensibilities and honor of those who report our news. Let's present facts and challenege investigative reporters worldwide ti INVESTIGATE. Prsent facts and enuff names and we cant be ignored

posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 11:39 PM
Scholars for Truth has been trying to do as have a number of others, but I'm assuming once this gains enough momentum it'll be recognized more often, but lets stay hopeful

That's sort of like the same case with UFOs, band together with all the factual information, 1000s of UFO sightings that defy explaination for conventional aircraft and bring it in front of congress or the news. It just won't get recognized.

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in