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.
Originally posted by mikelee
I agree, selected & chosen by the people. Because anything would result in the same clash of conspiracy theorys we sort thru here already.
Originally posted by hooper
Originally posted by mikelee
I agree, selected & chosen by the people. Because anything would result in the same clash of conspiracy theorys we sort thru here already.
This has always been my question with regard to an investigation. The truth movement now has Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth, Firefighters for 911 Truth, Lawyers for 911 Truth, Scholars for 911 Truth, Pilots for 911 Truth, We Are Change, etc.
Why not convene a convention, gather everything to date, a publish an in-depth, comprehensive, scholarly, scientific and uniform either narrative or critique of 9/11. No more 10 minute Youtube videos with spooky music, half editied interviews, and vague, disparate questions by "citizen reporters". Produce something concrete, with attribution and references.
As they say in academia, "publish or perish".
Originally posted by jthomas
Any new investigation would have to have credibility to BEGIN with and would have to have the legal power to subpoena witnesses, i.e., just as much legal power and justification as any government investigation.
In order to justify such an investigation, one has to present sufficient evidence that all the other investigations - including independent, government, and quasi-government investigations - are wrong by the evidence and conclusions.
It is not sufficient to do what the 9/11 Truth Movement has done for 8 1/2 years: make claims and assertions and say there are "unanswered questions" that have, in fact, been repeatedly addressed, debunked, and whose premises have been shown to be factually inaccurate. Claims, expressions of "doubt", so-called "anomalies", assertions that "NIST violated physics" is just not going to hack it. Someone or some group is going to have to have SOLID reasons and evidence to get to square one because experts in all the relevant fields are going to be asked to advise on the justification for, and the evidence presented for, a new investigation.
The 9/11 Truth Movement has not succeeded in convincing us skeptics, or even in raising any doubts, in the last 8 1/2 years. I don't see how it's possible for you to convince professionals in their relevant fields. (Yes, not even A&E would be able to convince them either, I'm sure.)
So how do you propose to proceed?
Originally posted by WWu777
Obviously you've done ZERO research into 9/11 then if you think it's all about anomalies and unanswered questions.
There are hundreds of facts that contradict the official story. That in itself is enough to to warrant a new investigation.
Explosions were heard and felt, even from the basement by many eyewitnesses, which was ignored by the 9/11 Commission, for example.
See this film for hundreds of compelling arguments that the official story is false and unproven and makes no sense.
"Zero: An Investigation into 9/11"
This film is a masterpiece of historical reconstruction. It features Nobel Prize Winners and experts from various fields who explain with many compelling arguments why the official story of 9/11 is impossible and makes no sense. Everyone who has seen it with a thinking mind has been convinced that we were not told the truth about 9/11 by the US government.
Originally posted by Faiol
yes, it would show that the people are awaking ... I dont expect for them to find out who did it, but they will find out that the official history does not possesses any real evidence
Originally posted by jthomas
The evidence and investigations show quite clearly who did it and how.
Originally posted by bsbray11
Originally posted by jthomas
The evidence and investigations show quite clearly who did it and how.
I realize I have already asked you this repeatedly and you don't like to answer it, but what specific evidence are you talking about? Not names of reports or papers, but the actual items of evidence themselves.
For the sake of argument, let's look at the issue of explosions going off at the WTC. Not the sound of falling bodies, but ones like the one that blew out the windows in the WTC1 lobby and caused major damage downstairs according to multiple testimonies, photographs, etc. What specific evidence do you have to prove conclusively what caused this, if these kinds of unanswered questions have already been answered?
Originally posted by jthomas
You mean to say that the reports, papers, investigations, forensic scientists, structural engineers, chemists, physicists, architects, firemen, FBI, etc. etc, did not rely on evidence?
Originally posted by bsbray11
Originally posted by jthomas
You mean to say that the reports, papers, investigations, forensic scientists, structural engineers, chemists, physicists, architects, firemen, FBI, etc. etc, did not rely on evidence?
Yes, which is why when I always ask you what specific evidence you are talking about, you answer with these rhetorical questions instead of actually posting any evidence like you are talking about.
I asked a simple question, but did not get an answer to it. If all the evidence exists that you claim exists, you would be able to post it.
I asked what your evidence is for what was causing explosions at the WTC complex, you didn't post any. Because there is no evidence of what was causing them. Only 10 years of speculation by all parties. This is why people want a more thorough investigation.