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.

 

Just What Would It Take For You To Believe The Opposite Story?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 08:02 PM
link   
I have a question for you all. . .

Just What Would It Take For You To Believe The Opposite Story???

What if one day you woke up & one by one all the things you truely believed concerning the events of 911 were proven to be just the opposite?

I'm talkin like stuff on the news stating this top ranking official has come clean with something, or the research of Mr. Jones has been proven, or AA flight 77 really did hit the Pentagon because they finally released the vids, or WTC 7 really fell from getting shelled from WTC 1 & 2 debris & diesel fires . . .

Just what would it take for you to HONESTLY change your mind, and come to the unbelievable conclusion thay you have been wrong the whole time?

I think this is a really important question for all of us that debate these complex issues. . .

I have posed this question to myself to make sure I'm not walking blindly thru life. . .

I'm really gonna think about this & post what my criteria is, but I'm really curious what all the rest of you, ( that with vigor ), debate these issues here at ATS think about this. . .

You know who you are. Please be honest.

Who knows, thru this method we may finally figure this out. . .

[edit on 21-9-2006 by 2PacSade]




posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 08:13 PM
link   
The one thing that would prove or disprove it... has to be proper pentagon footage.
We saw the towers get hit, we saw them come down.. majority of evidence would of been destroyed in the towers coming down...

The plane crashing in pensylvania... is very possible, even if the US shot the plane down that doesnt show INVOVLEMENT mearly rash decisions in the name of protecction.

But footage of the plane hitting the pentagon... unabeded would either break or make the case for 911.

If A plane was seen, flying as they say in, I would have to beleive them.
Because the only thing that leads me to questions the towers.. is the fact another major aspect of the attack is highly questionable... so it begs how much of the whole thing is questionable.

If they never release footage of the pentagon.. i beleive it shows invovlement.
If they show footage of a plane, clearly hitting the pentagon, from a correct angle with no interference... i beleive it shows hey maybe it really was a flukey freak of nature incident.



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 08:22 PM
link   
I read my post & realized that I should at least start this off so I'm not accused of trolling. . .

My first criteria for HONESTLY changing my mind would be to switch from thinking that WTC 7 was nothing other than a CD. I just firmly believe that from everything I've been exposed to that until unequivocal evidence has been produced to support another explanation, I stand strong. I think that from here, the official story turns into a house of cards. . .

spelling

really bad spelling

[edit on 21-9-2006 by 2PacSade]

[edit on 21-9-2006 by 2PacSade]



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 08:24 PM
link   
If evidence were found and became the consensus of engineering organizations that stated they have indisputable evidence of explosive materials from the sites. That would be good enough for me to accept the buildings were blown up. Then we would need evidence the US government caused it to happen.



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by tooblue
If evidence were found and became the consensus of engineering organizations that stated they have indisputable evidence of explosive materials from the sites. That would be good enough for me to accept the buildings were blown up. Then we would need evidence the US government caused it to happen.


I'll keep a log of all the top criteria from all of you so you can see stats later on.

C'mon! I know there's a lot of you outy there. . . Again, maybe thru this method we'll all learn something. . .



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 08:55 PM
link   
Thing you have to realise here guys is that the CT theory has already been debunked, disproven and shamed MANY times. It's just funny because it's a vicious cycle. As soon as one theory is misproven you guys move onto another one just to keep the ball rolling and you choose to ignore any evidence that would indicate otherwise. Have you noticed how different the theory is today than it was a year or two ago?

This has been proven when watching "Screw Loose Change: Not Freakin' Again Edition". Sure, there are still some valid points brought up by CT'ers that Screw Loose Change cannot account for... but just by showing that the Loose Change kids have lied and manipulated their evidence discredits the whole film.

Another thing CT'ers can't get their head around is pure logic. Sure the WTC's were the only towers to collapse by fire, but they are also the only towers to have 767 jets rammed into them at high speed. You can't just ignore that. Same with the pentagon... why risk exposing yourself by flying a freaking missile into the building when you could do the same thing you did with the twin towers?

The only thing that would convince me that the WTC's were destroyed would be footage released showing people planting explosives in the buildings. All the other evidence you have is shaky at best, 4 years after the theories started you've still got nothing 100% solid.

The only thing that would convince me that the pentagon was hit by a missile would be footage of the building being hit by a missile. Everything else is just speculation.

As for Flight 93, I do believe it was shot down. But I don't think this is part of a grand conspiracy. I think NORAD decided that they had no other option and shot the plane out of the sky after gaining presidential order. Can you really blame them? And can you really blame them for covering it up? The nation was going through one of the toughest times ever and so were the families on Flight 93



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 09:11 PM
link   
Flight 93 wasnt shot down,people were getting cell phone calls to just about the last minute.



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 09:15 PM
link   
Logically, extraordinary claims take extraordinary evidence. I have yet to see any evidence of anything other than pretty much the official story. Even I have some problems with a few things, but I just it hard to believe that there is not one shred of evidence, yet people should be expected to believe that it was all a hoax.

I do believe a conspiracy may be present, but only in the form of a cover-up to save face not an organized plot to make it all look like an attack. I’m supposed to believe holograms, missiles & controlled demolitions? With no evidence left behind? All supported by fuzzy logic & a misunderstanding of physics?

I’m still waiting for anything compelling.



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 09:21 PM
link   
If all the tapes, depositions, reports and so on were released and it was abundantly clear that there was no involvement or aiding the attacks on the part of Bush&Co, then I would be more than happy! More than happy because it would feel so good to know I was wrong!

More than happy to say I was wrong.

But the fact that tapes have been confiscated, people not listened to and legitimate reports ignored, the fact that we are being asked to believe in fantasy physics makes me wonder not just why they are hiding things but just how much they have to hide.



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Samblack
Flight 93 wasnt shot down,people were getting cell phone calls to just about the last minute.


Interesting you say this. The last reported call from the plane was a 911 call, of which the operator said that the caller reported sitting in the bathroom and seeing white smoke coming from the plane. I also think there was some 3 minutes or so before the crash where there were no calls, or else they were censored (I think some recordings released are just silence for the last few minutes or so, not sure on that one though -- anyone else know about that?).



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 09:32 PM
link   
Maybe the focus should be put onto the highjacker's themselves.

You can argue footage and physics all day long to no avail, but what of the
highjackers?

Someone needs to dig deep, real deep into their backgrounds.

Were they agents? Or were they just a bunch of fools talked into doing
something dirty so someone else would not get their hands dirty?

And who would this someone else be? That is your kicker. That would tell you
which side of the fence these guys were on, and then you would know if it was a conspiracy or not.



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by doctorfungi
Thing you have to realise here guys is that the CT theory has already been debunked, disproven and shamed MANY times. It's just funny because it's a vicious cycle. As soon as one theory is misproven you guys move onto another one just to keep the ball rolling and you choose to ignore any evidence that would indicate otherwise. Have you noticed how different the theory is today than it was a year or two ago?


Of course it's different. More and more evidence is coming out, painting a more and more scary picture. You say things have been "debunked," yet I can say that the "debunkers" have been debunked. (One thing I loved was the suggestion that they had DNA from the hijackers in the towers...as if the fires were hot enough to melt steel and not destroy DNA.)


This has been proven when watching "Screw Loose Change: Not Freakin' Again Edition". Sure, there are still some valid points brought up by CT'ers that Screw Loose Change cannot account for... but just by showing that the Loose Change kids have lied and manipulated their evidence discredits the whole film.


Did you really think that that disproved EVERYTHING? It addressed a few errors, but over all was merely derisive of the implications of the evidence - in a wholely rude and reactionary way. Over all, it made me loathe the messenger.


Another thing CT'ers can't get their head around is pure logic.


LOLOL!


Sure the WTC's were the only towers to collapse by fire, but they are also the only towers to have 767 jets rammed into them at high speed. You can't just ignore that.


No one has ignored that. You seem to be ignoring the fact that the energy required to create the pyroclastic cloud was far greater than the stored potential. Is it logical to ignore that?


Same with the pentagon... why risk exposing yourself by flying a freaking missile into the building when you could do the same thing you did with the twin towers?


Because it's easier to guide a missile than a craft into something that is only a few stories high? I'm not saying I necessarily buy the missile story - I'm on the fence with that. But I can say that there would be reasons to do it that way rather than hope a plane would hit just right. (And if I was a "Terrorist," I'd aim for the middle... That would be logical.)


The only thing that would convince me that the WTC's were destroyed would be footage released showing people planting explosives in the buildings. All the other evidence you have is shaky at best, 4 years after the theories started you've still got nothing 100% solid.


And neither does the "official" conspiracy. In fact, the official CT has even less in the way of evidence. But they do have a lot of guilty action.


...

As for Flight 93, I do believe it was shot down. But I don't think this is part of a grand conspiracy. I think NORAD decided that they had no other option and shot the plane out of the sky after gaining presidential order. Can you really blame them? And can you really blame them for covering it up? The nation was going through one of the toughest times ever and so were the families on Flight 93



Uh, yes. I can blame them for covering it up. If you couldn't blame them for shooting it down, it would be most understood in the immediate context. And if that was merely to "spare our feelings" back then, why keep the pretense up years later - unless there is more pretense, by far, than that to keep stitched together?

[edit on 21-9-2006 by Amaterasu]



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
... The last reported call from the plane was a 911 call, of which the operator said that the caller reported sitting in the bathroom and seeing white smoke coming from the plane. ...


I'm just wondering...how could it be that they were in a bathroom and could see smoke? I have never seen a window in any airplane bathroom - but I suppose stranger things have happened.

[edit on 21-9-2006 by Amaterasu]



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by CAPT PROTON
Maybe the focus should be put onto the highjacker's themselves.

You can argue footage and physics all day long to no avail, but what of the
highjackers?

Someone needs to dig deep, real deep into their backgrounds.

Were they agents? Or were they just a bunch of fools talked into doing
something dirty so someone else would not get their hands dirty?

And who would this someone else be? That is your kicker. That would tell you
which side of the fence these guys were on, and then you would know if it was a conspiracy or not.


And see if it's true that some of these guys are alive. Seems there is some evidence that they are.



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amaterasu
I'm just wondering...how could it be that they were in a bathroom and could see smoke? I have never seen a window in any airplane bathroom - but I suppose stranger things have happened.


That's a good question. I think I'm mistaken, though. The original AP article says this:


Minutes before the 10 a.m. crash, an emergency dispatcher in Pennsylvania received a cell phone call from a man who said he was a passenger locked in a bathroom aboard Flight 93. The man repeatedly said the call was not a hoax, said dispatch supervisor Glenn Cramer in neighboring Westmoreland County.

''We are being hijacked, we are being hijacked!'' Cramer quoted the man from a transcript of the call.

The man told dispatchers the plane ''was going down. He heard some sort of explosion and saw white smoke coming from the plane, and we lost contact with him,'' Cramer said.


911research.wtc7.net...

They never said he was sitting in the bathroom as he saw the white smoke, so my mistake there. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't, but I agree that it doesn't seem as likely that he would have been locked in the bathroom while seeing it.



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 10:14 PM
link   
True, but it surely is implied, being that he was "locked in" the bathroom.

EDIT: And I might add that it has been shown (I'll see if I can find it) that cell phones wouldn't work - which means either the call was not from the plane, or it was not from the bathroom, because, as has been pointed out, the skyphones do work...maybe. Not sure that even that's true so close to the ground at those speeds...

[edit on 21-9-2006 by Amaterasu]



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by 2PacSade
I have a question for you all. . .

Just What Would It Take For You To Believe The Opposite Story???

What if one day you woke up & one by one all the things you truely believed concerning the events of 911 were proven to be just the opposite?

Just what would it take for you to HONESTLY change your mind, and come to the unbelievable conclusion thay you have been wrong the whole time?


How about if we start with the freakin truth.

I'm tired of being lied to.

I'm tired of this pimp and whore economy that only benifits the very rich.

The gig is up for the liars.

[edit on 21-9-2006 by In nothing we trust]



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 11:45 PM
link   
One little problem about the "white smoke" phone call....it never happened. Yes a guy DID call from the bathroom, but he never once mentioned white smoke or an explosion. Glen Cramer is indeed the dispatch supervisor, but it was John Shaw who actually took the call.


www.post-gazette.com...



For example, in the days following the crash, the Associated Press interviewed Glen Cramer, a Westmoreland County emergency services supervisor, who told AP and other news agencies that he had read "off a transcript" that minutes before the crash a passenger, David Felt, had called and told the dispatcher that he had he had heard an explosion and that there was white smoke in the plane. But in a phone interview, Felt's younger brother Gordon, who was played the 911 tape by the FBI when he went to hear the cockpit recordings in a special event for the victims' families, said, "There was no mention of white smoke or an explosion." Also, the dispatcher who took the call, John Shaw, confirmed that Felt had mentioned neither bomb nor white smoke. "It never happened," he stated


www.pittsburghpulp.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink"> LINK


[edit: shortened long link]

[edit on 9/22/2006 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 05:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by 2PacSade


My first criteria for HONESTLY changing my mind would be to switch from thinking that WTC 7 was nothing other than a CD.



So what proof specifically would have to be shown to you that wtc 7 was not a CD?
This thread has quickly descended back into the same 'ol same 'ol. Lets attempt to steer it back on course. Its actually a good question, I think.

[edit on 22-9-2006 by tooblue]



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 07:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by doctorfungi
Another thing CT'ers can't get their head around is pure logic.

As for Flight 93, I do believe it was shot down. But I don't think this is part of a grand conspiracy. I think NORAD decided that they had no other option and shot the plane out of the sky after gaining presidential order. Can you really blame them? And can you really blame them for covering it up? The nation was going through one of the toughest times ever and so were the families on Flight 93



Thanx for your thoughts DF. I appreciate them.

I don't think I have a tough time grasping logic, it is logical not to just believe everything the first time you hear or see it. I think it's much more logical to rethink things until the facts totally align. . . And at the moment there appears to be a great cross section of the world that is on the fence with a lot of things. Including myself. It's the purpose of this thread. I didn't start it to change your mind. I'm asking for info on what it would take for you to change your own mind. Not from what other people believe. With all my heart I wish this would happen for me.

You do realize by your own words that you are a CT'er. . .

Welcome my brotha!


[edit on 22-9-2006 by 2PacSade]

spellingx2

[edit on 22-9-2006 by 2PacSade]




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join