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.

 

If Someone Proved one point Would Accept the rest?

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 08:16 AM
link   
If someone proved one of your sticking points that has prevented you from accepting the OS would you change your mind about the entire conspiracy?

Example:
Lets say Joe Schmoe's son is going through his deceased fathers things and finds a camcorder.
So he charges and hits play.
The tape was shot in DC and out the hotel window is the Pentagon and it clearly shows the plane hitting.

or

More debris is found between NYC buildings.
Again a camcorder.
This time it was shot on one of the planes clearly showing the hijackers doing their thing.

Would evidence like this stop your conspiracy in it's tracks?




posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 08:21 AM
link   
a reply to: samkent

Buildings don't smash through themselves without an accelerant.


The only "experts" that think this were paid to. Think about that.



posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 08:23 AM
link   
When has evidence ever stopped a conspiracy theory?


+12 more 
posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 08:25 AM
link   
Would you stop believing the OS if one aspect was disproven...

Good, good...


Then take a good look at the Pentagon footage again and notice the fireball explode outwards with debris flying outwards and then try and lullaby us all to sleep with more BS, sorry OS...

Would evidence like physics stop your conspiracy in its tracks?



Let me assume, no, you'd hit every 9/11 thread as per with the same tired critiques.




As to your question, no I wouldn't stop believing the conspiracy I believe because nothing you've said negates it.

We're not all hologram believers.



You know what they did find in the rubble, a passport...
No camcorder though.
Just a passport, an asbestos passport that can sustain a fire that steel beams couldn't.

Please...



posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 08:25 AM
link   
a reply to: samkent

These events are the most recorded in history, how many more angles do you think we need?



posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 08:31 AM
link   
a reply to: samkent

What evidence would you need to believe your father wasn't your father?

Or that your childhood was full of completely different events than you previously believed?

What evidence would convince you that you didn't speak or understand English until you read these words?



posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 08:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
If someone proved one of your sticking points that has prevented you from accepting the OS would you change your mind about the entire conspiracy?

Example:
Lets say Joe Schmoe's son is going through his deceased fathers things and finds a camcorder.
So he charges and hits play.
The tape was shot in DC and out the hotel window is the Pentagon and it clearly shows the plane hitting.


I can tell you exactly what would happen.
They would claim the video was planted and is fake, they would claim the son is a CIA agent, they would claim that the dad was a CIA agent, or that they were actors, or that they didn't exist in the first place...

These people already reject all science and evidence in favor of their unfounded and unproven theories, and even when you repeatedly present the evidence to debunk the core of their theories, they'll walk away and still stick to exactly the same bs even though you just debunked it with actual reality and science.

A perfect example is the "molten steel" (although there are plenty of great examples).
The theorist claims that this cannot possibly be Aluminum (of which there was plenty) because it supposedly doesn't glow orange.
Then you can offer them conclusive proof that this is scientifically wrong and it does in fact glow orange, and that temperatures in that fire were perfect for it, and that there was a massive amount of that metal present on the plane and on the facade of the building as well as within it.
Then they'll go to the next thread and pretend they were never proven wrong on that and again use it as "evidence" of "molten steel".

There is no debating with these people, they are completely irrational and actively reject evidence which contradicts their theories and paranoias.



posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 09:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Rocker2013

So molten aluminium made the towers fall into themselves. Got it. Thanks for the info.



posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 09:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Wide-Eyes

Not only that, but inexperienced "pilots" who couldn't handle small planes at low knots, could guide 3 jumbo boeing planes perfectly into 3 buildings at a high rate of knots...

Totally feasible.



posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 09:22 AM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Yeah man. They were Afghani as well weren't they? Oh, wait!



posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 09:23 AM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

No, I got it wrong. They were Iraqi.



posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 09:26 AM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Or were they Libyan? I get confused, they all look the same to me.



posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 09:45 AM
link   
a reply to: samkent

I would probably ask why none of the other footage was released if all it showed was the plane everyone claims hit the building.

But since you don't have that camcorder, and none of the other footage was released, I guess there will always be a question mark in that department.

With so many cameras that could have gotten the shot, it's almost uncanny that not one DVR was able to produce a picture of the plane at any point. (except for the 5 grainy frames that don't show the plane that is.)



posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 10:09 AM
link   
There already exists sufficient evidence to persuade me that planes most likely hit the structures in question on that horrible day.

I'm not educated or intelligent, frankly, enough to discern who is right, wrong, lying, or telling the truth when it comes to the physics and chemistry aspects of the collapses or the explosions. So I remain agnostic on the prospect of explosives or other devices used to bring the buildings down. But I am sufficiently persuaded by existing evidence that the most probable reality is, at the very least, that planes did hit the buildings that day.

I do however feel there is at least circumstantial evidence that the attacks were permitted to happen with foresight and intent. Circumstantial evidence isn't proof, so I must remain skeptical. Does it stink to high heaven, though? Yes. Definitely.

That's as far as I can go with the tools and knowledge at my disposal. Proving a fact is possible. Proving a negative is not. So the possibility will always remain that a conspiracy took down those buildings. I'm simply less ardent than some as to what the nature of said conspiracy might have been.

As I said, I do feel circumstantial evidence exists that is highly suspicious and worrisome in the extreme, as well as a great many difficult to ignore "coincidences." But that's as far as I can go at the moment. My two cents.

As to what evidence would persuade me definitively that nothing outside of what the OS claims happened that day? Given the aforementioned circumstantial evidence, that would be tough. As stated, proving a negative is impossible technically. But probabilities can be curtailed. And for me, that would take direct evidence countering the suspiciousness or said coincidences and circumstantial evidence. Because there is a mountain of it in my opinion. Every aspect of it would have to be dispelled.

Peace.
edit on 8/4/2015 by AceWombat04 because: Typo



posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 10:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
Then take a good look at the Pentagon footage again and notice the fireball explode outwards with debris flying outwards and then try and lullaby us all to sleep with more BS, sorry OS...

Shoot at concrete and watch which way the debris flies. Inwards where there is no way to go, or the direction where there is a way to go.
Also, gas/plasma goes in every direction possible. If a plane goes in one way, it means there is a hole for stuff to escape. You know.. Physics.



Would evidence like physics stop your conspiracy in its tracks?

Erm....um.... ....hm.





As to your question, no I wouldn't stop believing the conspiracy I believe because nothing you've said negates it.

..............




You know what they did find in the rubble, a passport...
No camcorder though.
Just a passport, an asbestos passport that can sustain a fire that steel beams couldn't.
Please...

I don't even know what you are saying.
First of all, there were plenty of "intact" items recovered. As well as people. A building failing does not mean someone boiled it to liquid. In fact, if you've seen the buildings fall, you saw that they did not boil. They came crumbling down.



posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: IwillbeHONEST



Buildings don't smash through themselves without an accelerant.


You might want to take a look at this. Verinage Demolition Method; No Explosives Required.




posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: AceWombat04



Not only that, but inexperienced "pilots" who couldn't handle small planes at low knots, could guide 3 jumbo boeing planes perfectly into 3 buildings at a high rate of knots...


Actually, the 9/11 hijackers were experienced pilots. Hani, the pilot who flew American 77 into the Pentagon, also possessed a commercial pilots license and worked on a B-737-type rating. Any inexperienced person can control an airplane in the air after a short lesson.

Also remember, the hijackers had no intention of landing the aircraft.



posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Wide-Eyes



So molten aluminium made the towers fall into themselves...


No, but a temperature high enough to melt aluminum is high enough to weaken steel to the point of failure. The impacts dislodged fire protection from structural steel, which exposed the steel structures to direct effects of the fires.
edit on 4-8-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude



With so many cameras that could have gotten the shot, it's almost uncanny that not one DVR was able to produce a picture of the plane at any point.


Let's take a look here.

American 77 Pentagon Video

That is definitely a B-757. My Wing Commander was in the Pentagon when American 77 struck, and I have identified from photos, B-757 wreckage inside and outside the Pentagon.

I might add that while videos are helpful, they are not required to determine the cause of an airplane accident. That is what black boxes, voice recorders, radar data, and communication tapes are for. In fact, the majority of aircraft accidents are solved without the use of video cameras.

We have videos of American 11 and United 175 striking the WTC Towers, yet there are people claiming that no aircraft struck those buildings despite the fact that aircraft wreckage and remains of passengers and crew were recovered and identified.

edit on 4-8-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 03:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: AceWombat04





Also remember, the hijackers had no intention of landing the aircraft.


And if they had they probably would be able to pull off a survivable landing by the use of automatics, as all planes used 9/11 were CATIIIB capable.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join