Footage of AA F77 Hitting the light poles and crashing into the Pentagon. Thats the biggest one for me..

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
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]

Your avatar is both attention getting and extremely disturbing, that may not be a complement. lol

What you just stated goes both ways.. how about:

"what would prove that 911 WASN'T an inside job"? Since there has never been any REAL proof............

Sorry mr Obvious..


By the way? to answer the op question:

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

Oh that is such an easy EASY duh thing for me.. the crux of my suspicion and doubt over 911 revolves around building 7. If you watch building 7 collapse knowing that it was not hit by an airplane that day and believe that fire and maybe minimal damage caused it you need to have your head examined. When it is explained in full empirical glory why and how building 7 collapsed without demolition assistance.. then and ONLY then will I throw in the towel.

why make an assumption that it wasn't a conspiracy?! look at the evidence presented in this site. what would convince me it wasn't a conspiracy? if the evidence supported that. with all due respect, at best this premise / thread derails the search for truth accidently. at worst it is another thread in a giant series of threads that are actively flooding this board with one fallacy after the next, pulling attention away from the truths that are available to be discovered here at this most important of forums.

Originally posted by dscomp
Its too late for that.

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

No such proof was ever provided, just the wishfull thinking and tyhe manipulation of facts.

I neither believe nor disbelieve in a non-terrorist related conspiracy being behind the events of September 11, 2001. I suppose I'm sort of an agnostic skeptic in that I keep an open mind, don't make any assumptions one way or the other, and don't make any assertions of my own.

In order for me to believe without question or continued skepticism that 9-11 was not allowed to happen intentionally (not that I think it necessarily was allowed to happen intentionally for that matter, but that wasn't the OP's question,) I would require:

1) Irrefutable documentation (backed by multiple, credible witnesses having no personal ties to, or vested interests in, the public image, security, wealth, or political standing of those cited in such documentation, and which would not be in a position to suffer pressure, threats, coercion, or manipulation such as to dissuade them from bearing accurate witness to such documentation) of:

a) Orders given and procedures followed which were unfailingly consistent with attempts to intercept and interdict the aircraft involved in the attacks

or

b) A clear and irrefutable inability or lack of situational awareness sufficient (and the reasons for said inability or lack) to issue such orders or follow such procedures to an extent sufficient to prevent the attacks.

2) Sworn testimony in support of the above, before a commission or panel constituted by persons having no political, financial, personal, legal, or preferential ties to those concerned or those affected by said testimony and those cited in said testimony.

That's my standard of proof. However, I don't believe, even under the best of circumstances, with the best of intentions, and/or with even maximal effort, that the above standards are possible to meet. So, I'm left where I started - not knowing what to believe one way or the other.

An agnostic skeptic, making no assertions or assumptions, and not knowing. Does that prove there was a conspiracy (other than one perpetrated by terrorists)? No. Does it prove that terrorists alone were responsible either? Nope.

It just proves I don't know anything.

[edit on 3/8/2008 by AceWombat04]

"This is an awful lot of real world # to be going on during an exercise"

From the September 11th NORAD recordings.

They were tracking 93 when it nose dived in front of them. As for the other 3. Lets just say there was a lot of confusion. First they had to actually ask the FAA if this (the first WTC strike) was real world or exercise. There was quite a bit of disbelief and a lot of disappearing blips (transponders) on tracking screens.

And then of course there is Manettas' testimony, but hey, hes just tthe head of the FAA, what does he know.

"the plane is 10 miles out sir, does the order still stand?" Cheney answers "Of course the order stands, have you heard anything to the contrary?"

I'm sure it was all just some horrible misunderstanding, it was after all a stressful day. We should probably just be glad that no puppies were thrown from cliffs.

Oh, and how about that photo guys? Still waiting. Do keep in mind those 2 six ton engines impacted that building at 500miles per hour, yet are those windows I see intact. Of course the building was fortified in that exact section after all.

And I do believe if it was Kurt Weldon who produced the plethora of charts which proved that the FBI with the assistance of Orion Scientific Services was well aware and had been tracking for sometime 18 would be highjackers and yes Mohammed Atta himself.

But I'm sure all that evidence was fabricated and he completely perjured himself, because after all that is how this administration has conducted business now isn't it?

Originally posted by KMFNWO
First they had to actually ask the FAA if this (the first WTC strike) was real world or exercise. There was quite a bit of disbelief and a lot of disappearing blips (transponders) on tracking screens.

NORAD did not ask if it was real world or exercise becasue of disbelief it was because they had exercises going on that day.

One of the exercises involved using false blips on radar.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by KMFNWO
First they had to actually ask the FAA if this (the first WTC strike) was real world or exercise. There was quite a bit of disbelief and a lot of disappearing blips (transponders) on tracking screens.

NORAD did not ask if it was real world or exercise becasue of disbelief it was because they had exercises going on that day.

One of the exercises involved using false blips on radar.

Admission of exercises being conducted at same time - next (we won't get into what those exercises entailed)

Originally posted by KMFNWO
Admission of exercises being conducted at same time - next (we won't get into what those exercises entailed)

You can look up what the exercises were and what they entailed, its not classified.

I'm quite aware, thank you. Now about that picture?

Curious - what did you come up with on the "put" options on American and United. I ask this only because Senator Kucinich is seeking indictments on the subject which just adds credibility to what has already been shown on the issue.