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.

 

What would prove to you that 9/11 was not a conspiracy?

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 8 2008 @ 04:20 AM
link   
Lets assume for the pupose of this discusion that the September 11th attacks were not a government conspiracy.

What would it take to prove it to you?




posted on Mar, 8 2008 @ 04:29 AM
link   
Scrap my post... sorry!

I read your initial question wrong.

The only way I could possibly believe that it *might* not be a government conspiracy would be if:

1) All wreckage of the planes was matched with serial numbers and maintenance records to the actual planes that were allegedly involved.

2) All DNA evidence of all human remains was matched with all the people that supposedly died - all independently verified.

3) All pictures from all cameras pointed anywhere near the crash sites were released without editing.

4) George Bush didn't look, sound and act as guilty as hell to explain why he and Cheney were going to front the Commission together, instead of being alone. "It's all politics" my arse!

I won't list further points, I would be here all night. I can't accept that 911 was not an inside job, so pretending otherwise is wasting my time.

[edit on 8-3-2008 by tezzajw]



posted on Mar, 8 2008 @ 04:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dmantex
Lets assume for the pupose of this discusion that the September 11th attacks were not a government conspiracy.

What would it take to prove it to you?


Verifiable existence of alternate universes.

Why?
You need another set of laws of physics, most notably.
And a disconnect between cause and effect.
And an alternate history without the rise of the national security state.
And a government reaction that immediately began an open, impartial and full investigation of the events.

Edit to add: but whose government, or element thereof? Or combination of elements from several of them, perhaps including non-govermental actors? They are not monoliths.


[edit on 8-3-2008 by gottago]



posted on Mar, 8 2008 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
Scrap my post... sorry!

I read your initial question wrong.

The only way I could possibly believe that it *might* not be a government conspiracy would be if:

1) All wreckage of the planes was matched with serial numbers and maintenance records to the actual planes that were allegedly involved.


FALSE. WE do not need serial numbers from aircraft parts to know that AA11, UA175, AA55, andUA93 were the aircraft that crashed. Your claim ignores ALL of the other evidence.


2) All DNA evidence of all human remains was matched with all the people that supposedly died - all independently verified.


Already done years ago. And we have other evidence.


3) All pictures from all cameras pointed anywhere near the crash sites were released without editing.


FALSE. We do need videos to know that all and which aircraft crashed on 9/11. Again, you cannot dismiss all of the other evidence.


4) George Bush didn't look, sound and act as guilty as hell to explain why he and Cheney were going to front the Commission together, instead of being alone. "It's all politics" my arse!


Subjective opinions are completely irrelevant.


I won't list further points, I would be here all night. I can't accept that 911 was not an inside job, so pretending otherwise is wasting my time.


You would be better to learn to understand why your claims are irrelevant and immaterial.



posted on Mar, 8 2008 @ 01:01 PM
link   
Firstly, everyone accepts 9/11 was a conspiracy. Where we differ is on the actors and what role they played.

Unfortunately - for me that is - I think I'm in a position where nothing could convince me that the mainstream account is entirely accurate. Although I remain open-minded about how, for example, WTC1, 2 and 7 collapsed, I don't think there's anything anyone could say or do to prove to me beyond all doubt that the intelligence services weren't involved in some way.

The reason, quite simply, is that to prove it, someone would have to prove a negative which, as 9/11 'mainstreamers' and atheists will tell you, can't be done..



posted on Mar, 8 2008 @ 01:06 PM
link   
A thorough 3rd party investigation that could cite concrete irrefutable evidence of what really happened and could bring a strong majority of all specialists in any associated field of study (ie, physics, aerospace, etc etc)
to a general consensus and also explain rationally all anomalies. Like the smoking gun "attack" on the Pentagon

Fortunately this is America and that will never happen. The lies, cover-up, and media circus were enough for most people.

what ever happened to Britney Spears anyway?



posted on Mar, 8 2008 @ 01:21 PM
link   
Its too late for that.

Irrefutable proof has already been provided proving it was an inside job.



posted on Mar, 8 2008 @ 01:30 PM
link   
Absolutely. no doubt about it.

I was just stating what it would take to change my mind.




posted on Mar, 8 2008 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

FALSE. WE do not need serial numbers from aircraft parts to know that AA11, UA175, AA55, andUA93 were the aircraft that crashed. Your claim ignores ALL of the other evidence.

Already done years ago. And we have other evidence.

FALSE. We do need videos to know that all and which aircraft crashed on 9/11. Again, you cannot dismiss all of the other evidence.


1. Yes we do need part and serial numbers becasue there is no other physical evidence or crime scene reports that match parts numbers to any of the 9/11 planes.

2. No, DNA matching was difficult back in 2001. In fact NIST DNA experts had to come up with new testing just for 9/11, this new testing was not done untill 2002 after the majority IDs had been made.

3. Yes we do need videos becasue you have no physical evidence or crime scene reports that verify AA11, UA175, AA77 and UA93 were actually involved in 9/11.



posted on Mar, 8 2008 @ 04:13 PM
link   
Frankly, I don’t see any CTers ever thinking anything but. Besides pretty much all the facts leading to terrorists, pretty much all of the circumstantial evidence does too. They could be provided their requested evidence, yet their very nature would simply exclude it as part of the conspiracy.

DNA, serial numbers, video, eyewitnesses… it all has been shown time & time again. People can’t refuse the results, so they just attack the process, or vice-versa. Admittedly, there are plenty of questions that still go unanswered to my satisfaction, there has yet to be any evidence to show anything other then what rational people believe.



posted on Mar, 8 2008 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jake the Dog Man
...there has yet to be any evidence to show anything other then what rational people believe.

What is irrational about believing it possible that members of one or more intelligence services either knew about or were involved in the planning and execution of the attacks?

After all, it's pretty well known they were, at the very least, aware of the attack in 1993, which was a failed attempt to bring at least one tower down.

Or, in this increasingly Orwellian world of ours, should we practice a bit of doublethink here and pretend that didn't happen?



posted on Mar, 8 2008 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Dmantex
 


Nothing would prove to me otherwise.

The official story is bunk, the 911 commission was a terrible excuse at an investigation, and pretty much everything the government says has some sort of spin put on it.

What would convince me? If I had a time machine and went back to watch all the events leading up to 911 and actually had the ability to hop on the planes and be inside the WTC before it happened.

Plain and simple. I will not be convinced otherwise.



posted on Mar, 8 2008 @ 04:30 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Mar, 8 2008 @ 04:36 PM
link   
im not angry ......im just wise ?



posted on Mar, 8 2008 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Dmantex
 


Well it wasn't a conspiracy. So I'm good. There has never been solid evidence presenting showing a conspiracy. The "believers" typically rely on lack of evidence or imaginary scenerios such as holographic planes or anti-matter bombs as evidence. Sorry but a lack of evidence is not evidence in and of itself.



posted on Mar, 8 2008 @ 05:31 PM
link   
Well, I suppose the main thing is a believable explanation for how WTC7 fell just like a controlled demolition.

There's other stuff, a lot, but that's the one I like to focus on. It's kinda an obvious lie.



posted on Mar, 8 2008 @ 07:00 PM
link   
What the OP Should have used as a title ..... "What Would Prove the 911 was an Inside Job?" Since there has never been any proof. Simply read most of thte above posts. they are pure specualtion and/or opinion.

Sorry guys.

[edit on 8-3-2008 by CaptainObvious]



posted on Mar, 8 2008 @ 07:47 PM
link   
It was a "conspiracy".
It is a matter of whose conspiracy.

We have no real evidence of whose.

We have plenty of evidence that the official story is an attempt to make you believe something that a shrewd thinker with a discerning eye would not believe. Most people do not think for themselves. They need the media to do it for them.
And therein lies the division among us.



posted on Mar, 8 2008 @ 07:57 PM
link   
I myself don't believe everything I read and hear. One fact does stand out though, not everything adds up. There are questions to be answered that have been asked.

No i don't believe 9/11 was a government job. I believe that some group of individuals took advantage of the intellegence they had on the attacks. Who this group is, is another thread and conspiracy. I myself believe the group was the inner circle on the Bilderberg's, Round Table, CFR, Trilateral Commission etc...

Either way this was done for a global purpose, to further the fear in the population which worked (the second someone sees a person of Middle Eastern desent they say terrorist, so on and so on)

Wake up people, if there was nothing to hide the answers would be alot more clear and concise. The biggest question in my mind is,

"Why did they destroy the rubble and ship it off so fast?"

They always gather up "Everything" to do a thorough investigation on disaster to prevent further ones from occuring. This is fact, and I believe this is a big question to be answered if nothing out of the ordinary was done.



posted on Mar, 8 2008 @ 08:00 PM
link   
I feel like I'm being asked what evidence needs to be fabricated in order to make most people buy the story.

I wouldn't be surprised if new "details" emerged on the major news networks shortly after finding out what people would need to believe the official story, or rather lack thereof.

I'm not saying I'd refute any evidence or that I'm just going to "believe what I want to believe anyways". I'm saying that this is a suspicious question.

[edit on 8-3-2008 by metatronscube]




top topics



 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join