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 the evidence was rock solid...

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 11:04 AM
link   
I wanted to try something here. If there was evidence that did prove what happened, one way or the other, would you go along with it if it was widely accepted from all corners?

Truthers: If evidence came to light, from any source you choose, that proved that four planes were hijacked and destroyed along with the Pentagon and WTC towers 1, 2 and 7, and no controlled demolitions, holograms, nukes or anything else was involved, would you accept that?

The Other Side: If evidence came to light, again from any source you like, that proved it was all about the Gubmint with fake planes, missiles and controlled demolitions, would you accept that?

Please state which side of the argument you are on, or indeed anywhere in between, and if you would change your mind in this example.




posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 11:20 AM
link   
I would support the explantion which was supported by FACTS, which currently support the official explanation inwhich (4) planes were hi-jacked, (3) where crashed in buildings (Twin Towers and Pentacon) and (1) was shot down (flt 93).

The problem with asking that particualr question on this site is that, from what I've seen, most CT'ers here disregard any facts which do not support their 'Government did it" theory.



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Muppetus Galacticus
 


If credible undisputable evidence came in either way I would accept it as fact either way.

Currently we have an official explanation of what happened and, I do feel that terrorist did fly planes into the WTC and the Pentagon. Is there enough evidence going around to raise suspicion, of course there is and I think with any controversial topic one can find evidence to support either side.

To date there has not been one shred of absolute proof showing the US government or anyone for that matter control demoed the WTC. Are there pictures and testimony which might lead one to believe a conspiracy? Yes I think there is a ton of material one could use to form that opinion. But the same can be said of the other side. 9-11 will never IMO have a clear cut answer. There will always be those who say any evidence brought forward for either side was created and is a lie.

I think the root cause of why some are unwilling to even consider that 9-11 was done as it was officially stated, is their hate for president Bush and the current administration plain and simple. Democrats for the most part have never considered Bush the rightful winner of the first election and they will never embrace anything the man or his administration says as truth about 9-11.



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 01:06 PM
link   
I would most definitely support the Official version of how WTC 7 came down if they come out with a 9/11 Commission Report on it. But since there currently is not Official Version for how that building came down, then one has no choice but to go with the information that we DO have available which overwhelmingly supports CD.

The fact that there is no Official Version for how WTC 7 came down,brings up numerous red flags. Any intelligent and inquiring person out there automatically assumes that the gov't does not want to release that information because maybe it's going to make them look bad. Are they protecting Silverman? And why are doing that? We have actual video footage of what the lobby of that building looked like after a bomb went off in the basement of that building -- and this was before that building imploded. The fact is, any professional who's not being paid off by the powers that be -- and this includes those university's out there like MIT that rely on private corporate donations to keep their programs running... you ask any professional demolition expert, architect or engineer what they are seeing in those video's of that building going down and you will see ALL of them saying that it's most definitely a controlled demolition.

But having said this... I hope to God it's not because if it is, then we would have to also consider that this is what brought down the towers also.
So there's no doubt about it, a new independent investigation needs to done immediately if not sooner on at least WTC 7 and once that's completed, there will be enough information to determine if an investigation should be done on the towers too.



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 02:47 PM
link   

The fact is, any professional who's not being paid off by the powers that be -- and this includes those university's out there like MIT that rely on private corporate donations to keep their programs running.


This shows that you are uninterested in the truth....just because the facts do not support your 'Government-did-it' theory.....you dismiss them.


you ask any professional demolition expert, architect or engineer what they are seeing in those video's of that building going down and you will see ALL of them saying that it's most definitely a controlled demolition


What about all of them which say otherwise? That's right....since they don't support your view.....they are all Government shills.......

How about providing sources for all

ALL of them saying that it's most definitely a controlled demolition
??



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Muppetus Galacticus
 



I change my mind daily when given new evidence/theories. Only a closed minded individual would do the opposite IMO.



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by ferretman2
The problem with asking that particualr question on this site is that, from what I've seen, most CT'ers here disregard any facts which do not support their 'Government did it" theory.


Or most debunkers "hand wave" the physics of it all away. Take your pick. Both sides are guilty of disregarding "things". I say things because you state facts as if they have been proven without a shadow of doubt. Facts stand on their own and don't need magazines and television stations trying to "debunk" the other theories IMO.



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by geemony
I think the root cause of why some are unwilling to even consider that 9-11 was done as it was officially stated, is their hate for president Bush and the current administration plain and simple. Democrats for the most part have never considered Bush the rightful winner of the first election and they will never embrace anything the man or his administration says as truth about 9-11.


I disagree with this. Most CTers started off wanting to prove the CTs wrong. At least that's where I came from. BTW, I voted for Bush in 2000.



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 07:23 PM
link   
i dont believe in any ct or official ct.

if it came to light that there was no controlled demo, a plane did hit the pentagon, and in general all ct's had been disproved, it would still support our modus operandi for entering an unpopular war.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

it certainly hasnt been debunked by a longsot.



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 07:46 PM
link   
The problem with the 9/11 event is that there are many, many questions to be filled.

For the CT`ers one off the questions would be: Why went the WTC down so fast??? It was free falling and it doesnt seem to encounter any drag???

For the Anti CT`ers one off the qeustions would be: How is it possible to hide such a large operation iff we asume that the WTC was demoed???
To demo a big building requires a lot off explosives and man power to do it. How can the goverment hide such a large operation???

I am ready to believe either sides until one off the sides comes up with powerfull hard evidence that backs up their story 100% without any doubts.

Time will tell the entire story some day and that day will come in the next decades to come. Although that is what i think it is. It could be easely 100 years from now to hear the final truth off what ever happend that day with 1000% certainty.



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 08:12 PM
link   
If the evidence was rock solid there would be no debate.. certainly not of the magnitude there has been for six years.
When looking at a debate from the outside, trying to determine the side to believe often has less to do with the evidence as it does with the styles of the debaters.
Name calling generally comes first from the side with no proof of their position.



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by RelentlessDespot
If the evidence was rock solid there would be no debate.. certainly not of the magnitude there has been for six years.
When looking at a debate from the outside, trying to determine the side to believe often has less to do with the evidence as it does with the styles of the debaters.
Name calling generally comes first from the side with no proof of their position.

like when bush called conspiracy theorists names?
i will concede that some 'truther' probably called him nazi first, but people were spewing the words 'nazi' and 'facist' long before 911.

IMHO neither side has compelling evidence at the moment. thats scary considering its 6 years later.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 03:29 AM
link   
The Facts are in, It was an inside job.

That is the conclusion I came to after not wanting to believe it, I still wish it was as simple as the official story says.

If you can't believe the facts are in on 9/11. At least you can believe the facts are in that those with power have repeatedly lied to America and made lots of money at our expense.

I may not know all the details, but I have a poponderance of evidence to believe beyond a reasonable doubt.

[edit on 17-9-2007 by Redge777]



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 03:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by James R. Hawkwood
The problem with the 9/11 event is that there are many, many questions to be filled.



If the CT's are right in just one of there arguements the entire official story unravels.

If the Pentagon was hit with a missle, who made up the other plane, must be inside job.

If they found Atta's passport 48 hours after collapse and it could not have been there, how did they know to plant evidence, inside job.

If WTC7 was controlled demo, who planted charges Inside Job.

If Osama Confession tape was faked, why were we not told it was fake, inside job

If a Command and Control plane was scrambled yet fighters were not? Inside job

If steel can not melt on a floor that a victim is pictured standing on and not getting burned, how did the steel fail, inside job.

If Nist had to doctor its findings to match the official version, who told them too, inside job.

If explosives blew up the lobby, who set them, inside job.

If Fires raged at the bottom of building with no material source, what chemical was there? inside job.

ect. ect. ect...



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 04:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by geemony
I think the root cause of why some are unwilling to even consider that 9-11 was done as it was officially stated, is their hate for president Bush and the current administration plain and simple. Democrats for the most part have never considered Bush the rightful winner of the first election and they will never embrace anything the man or his administration says as truth about 9-11.


What about people who care nothing for Bush, Republicans OR Democrats? What about people from outside the USA who could care less about US politics but just want the truth to be known?



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 04:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Redge777
 


Spot on. You get a star for that. The official story is a cumulative argument. We are asked to believe that 9/11 unfolded as per the official story. Therefore, ALL of the official story has to stand up to scrutiny. If just one aspect of the official story is proven to be false then by logical extension doubt is then cast upon the whole of the rest of the official story.

For those who don't believe or understand this point, consider this.

If 9/11 unfolded exactly as we're asked to believe, then we have to ask, the government: how do you know? The government would tell us: because we have examined the whole thing, and based on all the evidence, this is the correct answer.

If we then find one aspect, just ONE, which is incorrect, we have to then go back to the government and say: hold on a second, you told us you had examined ALL of this. They will say: yes we did! We will say: but you were wrong about THIS (whatever it may be). They will say: ah! We will say: look, we don't mean to doubt you and all that, but could you please check your answer to this particular point; oh, and while you're about it, check all your others too, because you have been wrong about this one point which you previously insisted you were right about. If you can be wrong once, you can be wrong again.

This is the basis of the point about it being a cumulative argument. We are asked to believe that the whole day unfolded just like the government said. If one part of it is proven to be incorrect, or lies, or distortions, or half truths, or omissions, then by logical extension as per the argument above, doubt is cast upon all the rest. If there is no attempt to correct the anomalies, then not only does the cumulative argument fall flat on its face, it gets a kick in the head while it is down on the floor!

In the case of 9/11, on the balance of the available evidence and as Redge has pointed out, not only does the cumulative argument that is the official story fall flat on its face and get a kick in the head, it gets its head stamped on and its face ground into the dirt!!



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 04:32 AM
link   
In short, BBC and WTC7 stuffed it. Yes, most of the evidence surely does suggest the official story is correct, but due to the previous sentence, I smell a rat. IF 9\11 was planned by the US, of course without doubt, evidence WOULD have been fabricated to support the official story, with probably many years of planning. "Evidence" these days doesn't mean that much. You could take a genuine picture of an alien having a beer with you in your lounge and of course it's been "photoshopped". Same with video. Eyewitnesses mean nothing without "proof" (where's the photos?). So in my opinion, rock solid evidence is just too hard to find, for or against. You just have to work with the "stories" and see what adds up.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 05:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Muppetus Galacticus
 


The right course of action for ALL of us should be to follow the truth, no matter which side of the argument it is on. In the immediate months after 9/11 I personally believed the official story and was a willing cheerleader for everything Bush and the rest of his cronies did and said. It seemed to me that the case was closed right from the off.

It was only around the beginning of 2002 that I started to look again. I think it was after someone sent me a link to Thierry Meysan's (sp) website Hunt The Boeing that my antennae started to tingle. Hang on, I thought, this isn't right. If a passenger jet hit the Pentagon, there should be SOMETHING to show it - if nothing else some gouge marks in the lawn from the engines, some kind of wreckage left over, SOMETHING. I couldn't put my finger on it but it didn't seem quite right. So I started to dig.

No, I didn't want to believe that the US Govt. could or would have lied. But the more digging I did the more obvious it became that they HAD lied and that they continued to lie. I couldn't see any reason why they would to this, if the story they themselves had promoted had any value. And this just made me dig deeper and deeper. The more digging I did the more convinced I became, despite the fact that I didn't WANT to believe it. My opinions were based purely on the truth. And if the government could provide incontrovertible evidence that the events unfolded exactly as they said, I'd believe it - IF their evidence was that good.

It's the fact that they CAN'T produce any evidence, after 6 years, which to my mind seals their fate. All it would take is the release of just ONE video from the Pentagon and surrounding area - and there must be dozens. Or the release of the black boxes from the WTC.

I'd gladly change my mind if I could go back to believing the world really is as simple as I used to think it was - if the government could prove that 9/11 happened like they said. I'd gladly give up digging up CTs if someone could give me adequate evidence that governments really don't lie, and have never carried out false flag terrorism or attacks against their own people to justify wars from which already mega-rich people will profit yet more. But they can't do that. The evidence is there. There is centuries worth of it.

The thing that people have to realise is this: governments will not tolerate conspiracy theories about them if they can in any way dispel those theories. Conspiracy theories like 9/11 are not good for the confidence of the public in a government, and they don't help a government's chances of getting re-elected (take that at face value for now!) If a government could prove that a conspiracy theory was incorrect it would not HESITATE to do so, REGARDLESS of how many resources it would take away from its war of terror or anything else. This is seen on a regular basis when leaks to the press dispel various myths. The big problem with 9/11 is that the government could have (before now; now it is far far far far FAR too late!) quite easily proved the conspiracy theories wrong - IF the day unfolded as the official story would have us believe. It would have taken nothing more than the release of one half-decent video to disprove the Pentagon conspiracy theories - and disproving that would have gone a long way to making people think twice about the WTC. The fact that the government HASN'T released any evidence to prove the CTs wrong is because it CAN'T. And it can't for one very simple reason; because it is in it up to its collective neck.

I think for the vast majority of CTers who believe the govt is complicit in 9/11, it has nothing to do with political partisanship as many like to believe. It has nothing to do with WANTING to believe CTs. It is all about looking at the balance of evidence and KNOWING there is no other logical explanation.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join