9/11 What evidence would make you believe in a conspiracy?

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123 For the same reason I explained before. If you have powerful friends, you are safe.


Problem is that an angeny like NORAD is held responsable for protecting lives, so they can be held accountable.

Yes it sucks.


The other side of that is that government and military people getting punished or fired for speaking out against the official story.

Of course because, in my opinion, if we knew how much they really dropped the ball we would lose all confidence in our government.




posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Of course because, in my opinion, if we knew how much they really dropped the ball we would lose all confidence in our government.


No, i am talking about things like this.

Under Fire! U.S. Army Intelligence Analyst Targeted For Suggesting New Independent 9/11 Investigation

Army: Doubting Official 9/11 Story Is ‘Disloyal To The United States’



posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Of course because, in my opinion, if we knew how much they really dropped the ball we would lose all confidence in our government.


No, i am talking about things like this.

Under Fire! U.S. Army Intelligence Analyst Targeted For Suggesting New Independent 9/11 Investigation

Army: Doubting Official 9/11 Story Is ‘Disloyal To The United States’


Yes, I understand what you're saying and I'm saying that the people in power who F'ed up, don't want a new investigation because then we'd know how incompetent they are and they would then lose everything. Nobody wants to be the fall guy so the low man on the totem pole gets the pole.



posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


I think the average American knows the government messed up real bad. If they didn't, we wouldn't have 911 in the first place.

However, I firmly believe the US government was involved. Not everyone, not even close to everyone, but those in power (some anyway) knew what went down on 911.

Just the fact they knew what really happened and didn't bother to tell the American public leads me to believe they did it.

An inside job at its finest.

You need to read the thread I posted about the 911 intelligence agency involvement to understand another part of the attack.



posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 01:27 PM
link   
I really thought you were smarter than you let on.

"So a show called Endgame describes a supposed group of people. Is there real evidence of this or is it just more supposition?"

Instead of trying to get everyone to convince you of what is truth and what is ignorance, why don't you research stuff for yourself. The truth on everything is out there, how much of it you can find is up to the individual.

I tell you read Daniel Estulin books and you'll have all the information you need to know. I promise you if your as knowledgeable as you can possibly be you'll see stuff in the news, newspapers, economic magizines, CEO Excutives interviews and you'll see there NWO plan. All the other stuff like human inslavement and de-population is all hearsay. Keep an open mind and stop believing everything we were taught in life and you'll see a new world emerge in front of your eyes.

Be Informed, by yourself not others. That is the only way to know the truth and then you can come on here and debate your views, since you would have done your homework. As we can see here you have not done your homework and just want to talk sheep language and i believe you want to convert people to more of a sheepish life. Cause God Damn the Truth is Hard to Swallow.

Sorry if i come across rude since this is in all typing and no tone of voice but i mean no riducule here. Just my opinion.



posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spaxz
I really thought you were smarter than you let on.

"So a show called Endgame describes a supposed group of people. Is there real evidence of this or is it just more supposition?"

Instead of trying to get everyone to convince you of what is truth and what is ignorance, why don't you research stuff for yourself. The truth on everything is out there, how much of it you can find is up to the individual.

I have looked into quite a bit myself. Here's the problem, if I go and watch the movie, that's great for me but it doesn't further the discussion here any further, does it?
Also, the vast majority of the time someone tells me to watch something, or goto a specific website and "find out for myself", I've been very disappointed. What they'd say I'd find, usually isn't there or it's the exact opposite of what they claim. I'm not saying it would happen with your suggestion but previous experience makes me very skeptical of anyone who doesn't post at least summary info here with source references.


I tell you read Daniel Estulin books and you'll have all the information you need to know. I promise you if your as knowledgeable as you can possibly be you'll see stuff in the news, newspapers, economic magizines, CEO Excutives interviews and you'll see there NWO plan. All the other stuff like human inslavement and de-population is all hearsay. Keep an open mind and stop believing everything we were taught in life and you'll see a new world emerge in front of your eyes.

I assure you I do have an open mind or I wouldn't even come to ATS.


Be Informed, by yourself not others.

Not possible. We are all informed by others, yourself included. Tell me one bit of information that you have learned, which has not been contaminated by someone else.


That is the only way to know the truth and then you can come on here and debate your views,

Actually anyone here can debate their views.


since you would have done your homework. As we can see here you have not done your homework and just want to talk sheep language and i believe you want to convert people to more of a sheepish life. Cause God Damn the Truth is Hard to Swallow.

The nice thing about an opinion is that it doesn't have to be correct.
I've done quite a bit of research, I have knowledge on a number of subjects that give me unique perspective regarding 9/11.


Sorry if i come across rude since this is in all typing and no tone of voice but i mean no riducule here. Just my opinion.

You have the right to your opinion.

My point is that if anyone really wants to be taken seriously, they need to substantiate their claims. Anyone can guess, and suppose all they like but they're just spinning their wheels unless they can show something solid.

I keep hearing things like:
Holographic planes hit the trade towers.
Nuclear bombs blew up the trade towers.
etc..
These are very specific statement that are claimed as fact, and they should have evidence to support them. Of course those people refuse to show any evidence. Where does that leave us? NOWHERE.



posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 02:00 PM
link   
this topic has been posted before................
n before that



posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dr.Greenthumb
this topic has been posted before................
n before that


Someone from another thread felt as if they were being picked on because they kept asking this question. He had a good point and since I hadn't seen this particular question posted on ATS before, I thought I'd help him out and start a new thread. If the topic doesn't interest you, please find another thread that does fit your interests.



posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 02:25 PM
link   
9/11 What evidence would make you believe in a conspiracy?

What evidence would make you believe that the United States government was directly involved in planning and carrying out 9/11?

Just to look at it a little different, what level of evidence is needed for you to believe?

For example,
Do you require a document that shows the conspiracy and signed by president bush?

Do you need several pieces of solid evidence showing parts of the conspiracy?

Do you need to see details that are inconsistent with official reports?

Do you wish to believe without the need of any evidence?



posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 02:36 PM
link   
Jet fuel doesn`t burn hot enough to melt steel.

Thats all the evidence anyone should need.

What about hundreds if not thousands of eyewitness accounts that are contrary to the official report of what happened.

How about the news footage that millions saw but was never replayed again on MSM.

This argument is important and I hope more people start to see all the facts.

You cannot deny physics such as the fact that it is physically impossible for a 110 story building to collapse upon itself at free fall speeds due to a weakened structural system.

There were explosions in the basement before the first plane crash as accounted by employees that were there.

There is so much evidence I don`t understand why anyone would say there is none.

Its time to understand that life is more complex then you could ever imagine.
Its not as simple as most believe.
You own your own spirit and you need to control it.
The 9/11 conspiracy is only a small part of the equation.
For most people it is too much to fathom.
It is scary.

But if you stop being controlled by what you see and are told and even what you think are another`s perceptions of yourself, you will be able to escape the true madness.
You have to be in tune with your spirit and separate yourself from the matrix of society to be able to understand that there is a much higher purpose.

To think that this is a crazy idea is only natural.
You are only a product of your environment.

Life is as deep as the entire universe.
Most of us know nothing and for some people, that is exactly how they like it.



posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by csulli456
Jet fuel doesn`t burn hot enough to melt steel.

Thats all the evidence anyone should need.

Jet fuel burns hot enough to weaken steel to the point of collapse.


What about hundreds if not thousands of eyewitness accounts that are contrary to the official report of what happened.

What did the 1000's of witnesses say that were contrary?


How about the news footage that millions saw but was never replayed again on MSM.

What was seen?


This argument is important and I hope more people start to see all the facts.

You cannot deny physics such as the fact that it is physically impossible for a 110 story building to collapse upon itself at free fall speeds due to a weakened structural system.

Please show me the physics math involved.


There is so much evidence I don`t understand why anyone would say there is none.

Please post some actual evidence here. I would greatly appreciate it.



posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


The evidence has been posted in every thread a thousand times and you know this.

I`m not going to play your dumb game of you pretending that you have no idea what I am talking about in reference to eyewitness accounts, news footage and actual physics.

As for your "weakened steel to point of collapse theory", where is your evidence or proof that this has ever happened at any one time in history other then 9/11?

Answer: it has never happened.
You have absolutely no proof, just what others in high places have stated and you unfortunately believe because you don`t believe that those running government for the people by the people could actually have perpetrated such evil misdeeds upon those they were elected to work for.
Its a scary thought and its much easier to believe in everything the machine presents as reality.

Even if fire weakened the steel, tell me how the hell does a 110 story tower fall at free fall speeds encountering no resistance?
The pancake theory is contrary to itself in that as each floor were to pancake it would meet a small amount of resistance thus taking time and not allowing the tower to fall at free fall speeds.

You ask for evidence but it is all around you.

The truth is you don`t want the evidence.
Its way too scary, and I completely understand.
Its the same reason why I am not out and about stirring emotions to win over peoples` opinions.
This is way bigger then I could ever put a dent in.

Once again, I`m not going to make the same arguments over and over that have been made by me and others so many times on these threads.
The evidence is all there if you really want it.

Go ahead and "quote" away.



posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by csulli456
reply to post by jfj123
 


The evidence has been posted in every thread a thousand times and you know this.

Then why are you discussing it on this thread?


I`m not going to play your dumb game of you pretending that you have no idea what I am talking about in reference to eyewitness accounts, news footage and actual physics.

Actually, it's not a game. You see, I'm tired of people making claims they can't back up in other threads so I'm asking a reasonable question. Can you back up what you're saying or not?


As for your "weakened steel to point of collapse theory", where is your evidence or proof that this has ever happened at any one time in history other then 9/11?

Building fires cause structural steel to weaken all the time, sometimes leading to collapse. Also keep in mind that it's not JUST a fire that caused the WTC's to collapse but also planes hitting the 2 buildings.


Answer: it has never happened.
You have absolutely no proof, just what others in high places have stated and you unfortunately believe because you don`t believe that those running government for the people by the people could actually have perpetrated such evil misdeeds upon those they were elected to work for.

I haven't seen any evidence to suggest otherwise.

No other time in history, that I'm aware of, has there been an incident where large jet planes have hit a skyscraper at near mach speeds. Do you know of any other time this has happened so we can compare?


Its a scary thought and its much easier to believe in everything the machine presents as reality.

Actually, as I've stated previously, I don't trust this administration at all.


Even if fire weakened the steel, tell me how the hell does a 110 story tower fall at free fall speeds encountering no resistance?

The pancake theory is contrary to itself in that as each floor were to pancake it would meet a small amount of resistance thus taking time and not allowing the tower to fall at free fall speeds.
The weight/mass would overcome most of the resistance. The time difference for that type of weight would not be perceptable. Most people simply don't understand the weight, mass, etc.. involved in a collapse like that.


You ask for evidence but it is all around you.

Yet you can't post any? That seems odd now doesn't it?


The truth is you don`t want the evidence.

Then why do I keep asking for it? Why would I start a new thread asking for it? Why would I come here asking questions and looking for it?
Your statement makes no sense at all.


Its way too scary, and I completely understand.

I'm sorry you find it scary. I do not. Thank you for your concern.


Its the same reason why I am not out and about stirring emotions to win over peoples` opinions.
This is way bigger then I could ever put a dent in.

I'm sorry you feel so overwhelmed. Might I suggest tackling one piece at a time.



posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Actually, it's not a game. You see, I'm tired of people making claims they can't back up in other threads so I'm asking a reasonable question. Can you back up what you're saying or not?


It wouldn't matter. You would refuse to believe it, regardless of its completeness. I think there has been ample evidence found for a conspiracy of the powerful, but so many people won't look at it for what it is. See, I think your problem is that you look at the situation like a defense lawyer, when you should be looking at it like a cop or prosecutor. The defense has to play the "innocent til proven guilty" card, that's his specialty. The police and prosecutors have to assume a perp is guilty.


Building fires cause structural steel to weaken all the time, sometimes leading to collapse. Also keep in mind that it's not JUST a fire that caused the WTC's to collapse but also planes hitting the 2 buildings.


Which they were specifically designed to take, and keep standing.

After a B-25 Mitchell hit the Empire State Building in the forties, one of the design criteria for any building of a certain height is that it be able to take a direct hit from a certain size of airplane at certain speeds. The WTC towers were built to withstand a hit from a fully-loaded Boeing 707 at near top speed. A 767 is about the same size as a 707, ergo the towers should have withstood the hit.

As for the fuel weakening the structures to the point of collapse, combined with the hits from the planes, I could see that theory if and ONLY if the structures had collapsed much later, like at the end of the day, instead of within a couple hours of the strikes--and also if they had fallen in a different fashion. The WTC towers fell in their own footprints. In keeping with Newton's laws, if they were going to fall, they should have fallen in the direction of the planes' travel (because the hit should have weakened the strucure on the opposite side of the hit-take a baseball bat to a mailbox and see what I mean), smashing everything in their path. And, if the hits were that damaging, why didn't the tops of the buildings above the strike zones break off and fall separately?

And how did the burning fuel weaken the structure anough to collapse the towers so quickly? Most of it was supposedly consumed in the initial fireball. How did it get through enough of the structural steel to cause the collapse?


Actually, as I've stated previously, I don't trust this administration at all.


Then why do you assume they're innocent by way of incompetence? If you don't trust them that implies you have reason to believe they have ulterior motives.


Then why do I keep asking for it? Why would I start a new thread asking for it? Why would I come here asking questions and looking for it?


Because you're trying to make people angry on purpose, asking questions you already know the answers to, and keep asking to rile us up?



posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
So if it's so black and white, why hasn't anyone, even Rosie O'Donnell simply show the evidence on TV so we can put everyone in jail? You stated that the WHOLE report is a lie. This should be very easy to PROVE.


Because the evidence has been hidden, or destroyed. Criminals do it all the time. Just recently the CIA got caught destroying tapes of suspects being tortured. The first rule in doing anything "wrong" is that you're ready to cover your tracks.


If nobody has seen the evidence, then we don't even know if there is any right? If we don't even know whether or not evidence exists, we don't know whether or not there has been a conspiracy.


Jeezus, what are you, a mob lawyer?


PROOF is a strong word. I will say that the lack of evidence to support there was anything more to to the 9/11 attack, makes me believe the basic official story-Al Queda terrorists plotted and carried out the attacks.


Right, a guy who can barely fly a single-engine Cessna pulls off high-G maneuvers in a 757, which incidentally has software limitations to 1.5 G that can NOT be overridden from the cockpit, successfully skims the ground without the plane's aerodynamic shock wave either sucking it into the ground or "bouncing" it back up into the air, and just happens to hit the one side of the Pentagon that is under renovation. At the very least it would have been more believable had they crashed in a downward ballistic trajectory striking the roof, but the impact zone was low on the side of the building. I have a very hard time believing that.


And the fact that you even know about these items of legislation means they're not that bright. The fact that they keep getting caught doing things tells me they're not that bright. The fact that the Bush Administrations approval rating is under 20% tells me the people behind the scenes aren't that bright. Look if you want to pull something over on the public, the last thing you want is that they're unhappy. If they're kept happy, they won't look at what you're doing so closely.


It doesn't matter if the only realistic recourse the people have is to vote the bums out, the votes are rigged, and the people you think are working for you won't do their #ing jobs. Hell, in 2006 the Dems took over Congress (finally) and they steadfastly refuse to even stop funding for the war or overturn the Patriot Act or investigate the attempted use of the Justice Department to trump up charges against Democratic candidates in hotly-contested races or hold any member of the Bush administration accountable for any number of crimes. Right now Bush is basically saying "F YOU!!" to Congress in their attempts to get Admin. officials to testify under oath, and instead of holding him in Contempt of Congress they just go back to business as usual. At the very least I'd expect a vote of no confidence in his leadership but no, no such luck.

It's kinda like how every major city has organized crime, but very rarely do the guys in charge get knocked down. Evidence is well-hidden or destroyed, cops are on the take, city officials are either paid off or blackmailed, and the cancer grows. Everyone knows it's there, but nobody does anything about it, because the people who are charged with that task either can't or won't do their jobs.

Conspiracies unfold all around you every day. At work, in some house down the street, in the boardroom, at your local police station, in your city councilman's office, even (GASP!!) in the United States Government. Hell, they kept Area 51 a secret for how long? And what's going on there is still a secret that thousands of soldiers, employees, and contractors still won't talk about? The names and scale change, but they happen. I think you already know that and just like to play the harpy, but that's just my opinion.

[edit on 3/16/2008 by The Nighthawk]



posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Nighthawk

After a B-25 Mitchell hit the Empire State Building in the forties, one of the design criteria for any building of a certain height is that it be able to take a direct hit from a certain size of airplane at certain speeds. The WTC towers were built to withstand a hit from a fully-loaded Boeing 707 at near top speed. A 767 is about the same size as a 707, ergo the towers should have withstood the hit.


Which it did. The buildings did withstand the initial impacts, a fact also verified in the NIST reports. The plane impacts themselves did not bring down the buildings.




And how did the burning fuel weaken the structure anough to collapse the towers so quickly? Most of it was supposedly consumed in the initial fireball. How did it get through enough of the structural steel to cause the collapse?

The building was filled with materials that caught fire. Paper, cubicles, carpeting, etc etc. That material was ignited during the initial fuel explosion/fire.....and subsequently spread.



posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
Which it did. The buildings did withstand the initial impacts, a fact also verified in the NIST reports. The plane impacts themselves did not bring down the buildings.

The building was filled with materials that caught fire. Paper, cubicles, carpeting, etc etc. That material was ignited during the initial fuel explosion/fire.....and subsequently spread.


I don't buy that bull and neither should you. "Paper, cubicles, carpeting, etc. etc." don't burn hot enough to weaken structural steel to the point of collapse.

The buildings were pulverised. If the pancake theory were true some floors should have remained intact. Explosions were seen and heard by witnesses and caught on tape, and don't tell me paper and carpet explode.



posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 07:54 PM
link   
I think the problem that you face, is exactly how you define 'government' in the initial post. Was the whole USA government responsible for 911 - no. Surely not.

Were some parts/people responsible for 911? Yeah, probably so.

You can't be looking for evidence that implicates a government, you should be looking for evidence that implicates PEOPLE. If some of these people happen to be within the government, then so be it. The actions on 911 would have had to involve PEOPLE from outside the government as well.

I think it's better to ask for the evidence the proves 911 was carried out by PEOPLE, other than just the alleged 19 highjackers and their 'terrorist' support network..

Possible points of evidence that prove some PEOPLE in the USA were involved in either the event itself, or the cover-up of the event:
*The irregular trading of put options on UA and AA airline stock days before the event. Some PEOPLE knew what was going to happen and they made profit from it. Why was this not investigated further?
*TV archived images were faked by FOX. That's evidence that some media PEOPLE have been involved in a cover-up. Check in Google '911 TV fakery'
*Bush and Cheney refusing to meet the 911 commission alone. No recording or transcripts allowed, etc. That's evidence that those two PEOPLE were not forthcoming with the commission's requests. I smell a cover-up. ANY leader who was innocent, would stand before the world and answer ANY question that was posed to him in full public.
*Some 400+ days elapsed before starting an enquiry. Less funds given to the enquiry than what was spent on Bill's fling with Monica. (Good on him, too - she wasn't too bad on the eye). That's evidence that the enquiry was not properly resourced or funded. Again, PEOPLE acted to assist a neat over-up.

You can't target a 'group' of people to look for who's responsible, like the government. You have to target the actual people who were responsible, no matter who they worked for.



posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 08:47 PM
link   
I have a picture that I am not sure that everyone has seen. It shows one of the towers starting to fall.....How can I put this on so you can all see it



posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by The Nighthawk
 


Very well said Nighthawk, what you said got me thinking. Are you a lawyer of some sort Op? You seem to jump back and forth on issues, not seeming to take a side. I do believe you have a side here cause everyone basically has one, on 9/11.

So like Nighthawk said, your either trying to piss people off and get a heated debate going, for points or whatever. Or your one of those dis-info agents I hear people talk about on this site. Which in my opinion is hard to believe but anything is possible.

I ask you Op to show me on this thread, Why building 7 collapsed? Hard evidence please like the ones you request of us.

Thank you for your effort in the discussion of 9/11 but you are coming off a little rude when thousands of people died.

All "we" truthers want is the holes filled in, and if you say there are no holes or ask me to show proof of these holes, I ask other ATS members to discontinue posting replies to this thread as it will only create anger and distane for each other in our replies. To each our own.





new topics
top topics
 
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join