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

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
NO, there were only photos of parts shown, no reports matching them to
any of the 9/11 planes.

Did the defense attorney for Moussaoui make mention of that, to have the evidence excluded? After all, if they used photos of items not associated with the 9/11 events, I would think it would be irrelevant, and inadmissible.

I'm sill waiting for conspiracy proof.

So far its all circumstantial and theories.

Some nut saying he was involved will be treated
like a UFOs sighting or inventor of non relativistic free energy.

Just a faker.

What documents were written, was it done on handshakes and
verbal orders with nothing left behind.

Just like the Arab hijackers only we got the ids right away.

CT is all from suspicious minds like Elvis Presley's song.

reply to post by JamesSchumacher


wow, you got to see this youtube page, the info part:

www.youtube.com...

He must have everything but 911.

The only proof of many conspiracies are things like news
reports of CIA planes doing down with illegal drugs on board.

ED: At least he has a wiki page:
en.wikipedia.org...
Those fools took down Lear and we need to know.


[edit on 3/13/2008 by TeslaandLyne]

“Yes, still trying to prove the point that you and others who believe the official story believe in something without real facts and evidence to support it.

People that beleive the official story keep stating they have evidence of what happened that day when in reallity they do not.

Whats it going to take for people to wake up from the fantasy world of the official story and face reallity ?”

Funny how the OP question is asked specifically to address this kind of thinking. Except for the bad punctuation & misspelled words, one could change a few words to say exactly the same thing about CTers. Where as everyone may have questions, CTers think that just to question what happened is enough to prove their views. Cutting & Pasting from various websites does not proof make. While the “official story” may leave questions, it is far more provable & relevant to the facts.

I frankly don’t see many of average ATS posters ever accepting anything to counter their slanted views. As I have stated before, I believe that things were mishandled & covered up… creating a cover or asses “conspiracy” of sorts, but not one shred of evidence has ever pointed to any part of 9/11 being staged or planned. I would be willing to entertain any, but I have seen none to date.

the reality is the Building 7 fell, with light to moderate damage, straight down into its footprint, while buildings like wtc 6, which had the twin towers fall DIRECTLY on top of it.... were still mostlt structurally intact.... in fact, they were so in tact that they needed to be taken down by demolition teams later.

Hmmm.... wow they must have built WTC7 ontop of a jenga puzzle with half its pieces missing. Even then, the topple should have been more sideways, don't you think?

Does anybody have statistics on what chance a steel building has off falling straight down in an accidental collapse? Common sense escapes people at this place in the 9/11 argument. All of the columns and trusses and struts and whatnot would have had to fail, each floor's structure failing almost perfectly even, one after the other, in perfect order, with little or no mass obstructing the path of the collapse.

I didn't take engineering 101 or anything. I just used common sense.... and WTC7 was the clincher.... nobody could convince me 9/11 was some govt conspiracy against the people until I saw wtc7 again. I had completely forgotten about wtc7 like the day after the attack, and I remember being very puzzled as to why the building was falling. On the news, they said there were fires raging, just raging, and then when they finally showed footage of the building and the collapse, I was like "Wait, where's the raging fires? Why is this thing falling? Why did Dan Rather just say it looks like a controlled demolition? It DOES!! Holy crap, what's going on?"

Then I walked off and it escaped me for a few years.

Funny how the media can make you forget your own initial suspicions within a few hours.

Needless to say, being bamboozled into watching these "crazy conspiracy theory videos" reminded me of WTC7. After that, it was obvious that something far different went on that day then what we're told.

I mean.... if WTC7 was purposely demolished... which it was.... because they don't build buildings on top of jello pudding (the nasty pudding skin isn't as strong as you'd think)..... that means this whole thing that happened all throughout the day was planned, because how could so many unrelated things just coincidentially be put into place and pulled of on the exact same day to create this story that the government used for its own gain? It wasn't all by accident, or by some previously unconcieved of outside threat. It was known about, planned in advance, and perpetrated by people who had very close ties with people in operation of at least NYC, if not the whole country.

That is undisputable. If you try to dispute it, you may dispute it away in your mind... but that's just you. Whatever helps you sleep in your comfortable well heated well lit decent sized non crowded shelter at night.

Whatever makes the illusion of safety and permanence more pallattable. Whatever makes you happy, I guess. Believe it or not.

It doesn't change what actually happened, only your perception of what happened.

reply to post by jackinthebox


And even more reason to believe in the contradictory nature of the Pentagon strike, you know? The generator was moved towards the building like a plane would hit it, but the wings never showed their imprints. It bounced off of the lawn officially, but it made no marks. The plane broke glass but the Pentagon could take it because it's structurally fitted with all kinds of protectants to this type of attack.

It's hard to separate fact from fiction when everything's so ambiguous.

But yeah, I have no trouble believing the air cushion aiding the plane would have torn the lawn to pieces. If you think about it, the plane has all of that air shooting towards the nose and traveling back anyways, and this is no different from the bottom. The air cushion itself had to have some force if the plane were going as fast as reports had mentioned (no clue as to numbers. I've heard 250-500 MPH or so). Of course, this is just common sense I'm rehashing. I'm not pointing out anything new, just saying.

Good point. It accentuates the controversy lingering around the issues.

Originally posted by Disclosed
Did the defense attorney for Moussaoui make mention of that, to have the evidence excluded?

Do you think the defense attorney was really going to have a chance against the government ?

Well the point is that if there were reports that matched the parts to the 9/11 planes in court then we would have access to them.

But since the FBI and FAA will nto release that information then we do not have any evidence to support what planes were involved in 9/11.

Originally posted by Jake the Dog Man
While the “official story” may leave questions, it is far more provable & relevant to the facts.

So please post what is provable about the official story. Please post actual physical evidence that suports the official story.

You have no actual evidence since the main investigators will not release a lot of information.

[edit on 14-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
So please post what is provable about the official story. Please post actual physical evidence that suports the official story.

ULTIMA1,

I think the topic of this thread is "What would prove to you that 9/11 was not a conspiracy".

It is asking what evidence would prove it....not for you to provide it.

It is NOT asking for each person to defend their beliefs. It only is asking what they would need to prove it wasnt a conspiracy.

Guess I thought the topic was pretty straight forward.

So the answer should be...

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

Evidence.


Nothing else really proves anything, you know?

Originally posted by bsbray11
Evidence.


Nothing else really proves anything, you know?

That should be the correct answer.
But if that evidence even hints at pointing toward terrorist involvement, not matter what the source, it will be completely ignored or dismissed (about 100% of the time - I'm trying to think of a situation where it wouldn't be). The evidence could be 100% correct and credible, still wouldn't matter.

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
But if that evidence even hints at pointing toward terrorist involvement, not matter what the source, it will be completely ignored or dismissed

I was going to say, that's just what the layman says when the theory is bad but he doesn't understand why.


We're talking about evidence though. So what I should say, is what are you even talking about?

[edit on 14-3-2008 by bsbray11]

reply to post by ThatsJustWeird

But if that evidence even hints at pointing toward terrorist involvement, not matter what the source, it will be completely ignored or dismissed (about 100% of the time - I'm trying to think of a situation where it wouldn't be). The evidence could be 100% correct and credible, still wouldn't matter.

Who are you to judge how people will interpret evidence? You make an ignorant presumption.

Here's a situtation where evidence "wouldn't be...ignored or dismissed." If I were to see any such evidence. I would certainly be willing to accept any and all evidence proving involvement by foreign terrorists.

Originally posted by Disclosed
It is NOT asking for each person to defend their beliefs. It only is asking what they would need to prove it wasnt a conspiracy.

So in other words you cannot post any evidence to support the official story.

So what it would take to make me believe the official story is the release of all reports, facts and evidence about what really happened that day.



[edit on 14-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by bsbray11
I was going to say, that's just what the layman says when the theory is bad but he doesn't understand why.


We're talking about evidence though. So what I should say, is what are you even talking about?

Originally posted by jackinthebox
Who are you to judge how people will interpret evidence? You make an ignorant presumption.

Here's a situtation where evidence "wouldn't be...ignored or dismissed." If I were to see any such evidence. I would certainly be willing to accept any and all evidence proving involvement by foreign terrorists.

You guys are acting like you are new here.
You should know by now that any evidence (yes evidence as in, it can be proven) would be QUICKLY dismissed as being planted by the government or simply lies told by the government (again, no matter how credible the evidence is).
Presumption? lol
Hardly. This is simply a daily observation. Do you have any...evidence...9/11 would be any different?
As an example: there is plenty of actual physical verifiable evidence that a plane crashed into the Pentagon - including the bodies of those who were on a airplane that morning. You also have verifiable tracking of that airplane from above and below it. Does that stop people from believing a missile hit the Pentagon? Of course not. You can release all the tapes in the world from every single angle imaginable, do you honestly think that is going to change people's minds about a plane hitting the Pentagon? If so, I'd like to live in your world. There would be threads immediately on how the videos were doctored. I have yet to see anything to indicate this wouldn't be the case.

reply to post by ThatsJustWeird


You cynicism lead you to make illogical sweeping generalizations. I see your point, but it is nowhere near as universal as you are trying show.

Even if people tried to claim that the videos were "doctored" I would not choose to believe that, unless I saw clear evidence of such. As an example.

reply to post by jackinthebox

I HOPE I'm making broad illogical generalizations. But as I stated, I'm saying this based on daily observations. I unforunately have yet to see anything that leads me to believe this is the exception and not the rule.

In fact, in the thousands of years of human history has there ever been a non natural event that doesn't have some sort of conspiracy behind it and a large following of that conspiracy? That can't be right can it?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Disclosed
It is NOT asking for each person to defend their beliefs. It only is asking what they would need to prove it wasnt a conspiracy.

So in other words you cannot post any evidence to support the official story.

I don't need to....since that isnt what this thread is about. It was asking what it would take to prove to you that 9/11 was not a conspiracy.

reply to post by ThatsJustWeird

In fact, in the thousands of years of human history has there ever been a non natural event that doesn't have some sort of conspiracy behind it and a large following of that conspiracy? That can't be right can it?

And governments have never set out to harm their own people.

NORAD and the Vice President look like patsies of sorts.

Arabs or others on board.. there is no evidence, it all burnt up and
one one is a witness.
OR
One way to have no witnesses is to have no one on board.
Passenger plane flights were bogus and other planes were used.
Disguised from NORAD by the Vice President.

The aftermath also being controlled by government forces gives the
official report no creditability without an open court of justice for 911 .

reply to post by jackinthebox


There is a theory about the Civil War as a northern plan to pay
off debt to the East India Company.

Some how was 911 a payoff to someone?

No way should anyone think Arabs flu in any planes on 911 and
much less piloted any.

And to think overseas attacks are related seems a stretch.
No more hijackings have occurred.
If it was so easy why isn't the Vice President looking out with
NORAD any more.