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.

 

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

page: 29
10
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
What evidence would make you believe that the United States government was directly involved in planning and carrying out 9/11?

Maybe I'm being a bit simplistic in the way I've interpreted your question, jfj123. If so, apologies.

For me, I could be persuaded the US government was involved in either the planning or execution (or, indeed, both) if any of the following could be established.

  • That WTC1 was brought down in a controlled manner or else evidence of explosives is proven
  • That WTC2 was brought down in a controlled manner or else evidence of explosives is proven
  • That WTC7 was brought down in a controlled manner or else evidence of explosives is proven
  • That Flight 11 didn't exist or else didn't take the flightpath attributed to it on 9/11 or else didn't impact WTC1
  • That Flight 175 didn't exist or else didn't take the flightpath attributed to it on 9/11 or else didn't impact WTC2
  • That Flight 77 didn't exist or else didn't take the flightpath attributed to it on 9/11 or else didn't impact the Pentagon building
  • That Flight 93 didn't exist or else didn't take the flightpath attributed to it on 9/11 (note: I don't believe evidence of a shoot down of Flight 93 is necessarily evidence of an inside job)
  • That insider trading can be proven and be shown to have been committed by individuals or organisations linked to the US government or its agencies
  • That widespread warnings were issued to members of the US government or its agencies regarding travel on or around 9/11
  • That the US government or its agencies were collaborating with the members of the organisation known as al Qaeda

There are, no doubt, a number of other pieces of evidence that would convince me the US government or its agencies were involved, but this covers most.




posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

1. There are no FBI or NTSB reports that matches any of the wreckage (parts) found to any of the 9/11 aircraft.

The official reports from both the FBI and NTSB have not been released yet.


2. There is no evindece of the bodies from the planes being in the buildings. Plus the fact that ID was done before the newest DNA testing was complete.

The new testing was primarily needed for victims of the WTC attack. 184 of 189 victims positively identified by Nov 16th 2001...by DNA and other forensic means.


3. There are no photos of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon.

There are no photos of the Titanic hitting an iceberg either...yet it happened.


4. There are no videos of FLight 77 hitting the Pentagon.

There are no videos of the Titanic hitting an iceberg either...yet it happened.


5. The eyewitness accounts (specailly at the Pentagon) would not hold up in court.

There was eyewitness testimony during Moussaoui's trial. Also, are you saying that Father Stephen McGraw...who was headed to a graveside service...is a govt plant, lying? He would lie, a sin against all he believes in, to please the govt?



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
The official reports from both the FBI and NTSB have not been released yet.


Why? How much longer do we have to wait for this? And can we really trust the FBI to tell the truth?


The new testing was primarily needed for victims of the WTC attack. 184 of 189 victims positively identified by Nov 16th 2001...by DNA and other forensic means.


I honestly cannot dispute this; I have concentrated my own investigations on the aircraft themselves and not the DNA evidence.

There are no photos/videos of the Titanic hitting an iceberg either...yet it happened.


Fallacy: The sinking of the Titanic was not a politically-motivated, deliberate attack on civilians. It was the result of crew incompetence combined with shoddy workmanship. And, there has been no known attempt to cover it up.

Bush/Cheney deliberately stalled the 9/11 investigation. They refused to appear for questioning individually, under oath, on the record. Instead they came together, with the stipulations that it be off the record, no transcripts, no oaths, nothing. This is unprecedented in the history of criminal investigations in the U.S. And make no mistake, regardless of who you believe responsible, it is a criminal investigation.

If the official story is true, why take this unprecedented step? Wouldn't you expect complete transparency from a government investigating such a horrendous crime, and so obviously chomping at the bit to go to war because of it? I wouldn't just expect it--I would effin' DEMAND it. The fact Congress has never done so should tell you, something else is going on behind the scenes.


There was eyewitness testimony during Moussaoui's trial.


His trial was a circus. He lied throughout, the government tried to convict him without allowing him access to due process, the judge did some VERY strange things (such as suddenly reversing decisons to take the death penalty off the table and dismiss the case entirely due to gov't attempts to keep Moussaoui from his own defense). To this day there is question as to just what his involvement was.

Moussaoui's Trial

There's some interesting tidbits there, including a note that as yet, no direct evidence links Moussaoui to 9/11.


Also, are you saying that Father Stephen McGraw...who was headed to a graveside service...is a govt plant, lying? He would lie, a sin against all he believes in, to please the govt?


Clergy lie all the time. The Catholic Church deliberately shuffled pedophile priests all over the country to hide their wrong-doing, and then tried to shield them from prosecution. Pat Robertson owns a diamond mine and uses his ministry as a tax shelter. And yes, I believe this Mcgraw character would lie, especially to protect his life, his family, his "flock"... I don't believe the word of priests, not for one damn second.



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by coughymachine
 


I don't think your points were simplistic at all. Very interesting points. Thank you for posting them.



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Nighthawk
Fallacy: The sinking of the Titanic was not a politically-motivated, deliberate attack on civilians. It was the result of crew incompetence combined with shoddy workmanship. And, there has been no known attempt to cover it up.


Are we certain? What about the Lusitania? She was torpedoed...who knows if that may have been the fate of the Titanic as well...and covered up.

But, none the less, it does not change the fact that there were no pictures or videos of the Titanic hitting an iceberg. Without that, can you actually prove it happened?



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed

Originally posted by The Nighthawk
Fallacy: The sinking of the Titanic was not a politically-motivated, deliberate attack on civilians. It was the result of crew incompetence combined with shoddy workmanship. And, there has been no known attempt to cover it up.


Are we certain? What about the Lusitania? She was torpedoed...who knows if that may have been the fate of the Titanic as well...and covered up.

But, none the less, it does not change the fact that there were no pictures or videos of the Titanic hitting an iceberg. Without that, can you actually prove it happened?

Herein lies our problem. We must provide 100% proof with everything we say and also prove that our proof is not fabricated. All the supposed "truthers" need to do is make up work arounds to support their idea of the truth and explain that since it's a conspiracy, their proof is hidden. how convenient for them.



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 12:40 PM
link   
I noticed you guys jumped right on the Titanic thing, and still refuse to address the question of why so much about 9/11 is still secret, why Bush/Cheney stalled the investigation, why they refused to testify under oath and on the record, why they still refuse to do so to this day, why no direct evidence linking Moussaoui to 9/11 has been produced, and generally why this government continues to act like it has something big to hide.

Why?

Why?

#ing WHY?!?

Why won't you answer this? What are they hiding? I would be willing to believe the official story IF and ONLY if there was complete transparency. But there isn't. By definition that means something is being kept secret, and there has to be a reason for it besides just "CYA".


[edit on 3/25/2008 by The Nighthawk]



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
But, none the less, it does not change the fact that there were no pictures or videos of the Titanic hitting an iceberg.


But we had survivers from the titantic! Ops guess you forgot that?

Still waiting for evidnece to support your claims and the official story.



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

5. The eyewitness accounts (specailly at the Pentagon) would not hold up in court.



Why not? Are you a lawyer or judge by profession? If you are, then you will know that eyewitness testimony ALWAYS 'holds up in court' unless the defense can demonstrate, unequivocally and to the satisfaction of all the jurors, that said eyewitness testimony from a specific individual is fallacious or unreliable. Do you know all these eyewitnesses personally? I doubt it. So what gives you any right to discredit their accounts of what they saw?

Two or three corroborating eyewitness accounts can send someone to execution, and frequently has. Two hundred different eyewitness testimonies from separate individuals which corroborate in detail is IN LAW absolute, unequivocal proof beyond all reasonable doubt, UNLESS there is clear opposing evidence presented which contradicts such multiple-corroborative testimonies. In which case, the jury makes a choice of who to believe.

But there's little point in debating with you, Ultima. Some of us are beginning to think, after all this time, that you are some kind of disinformation troll planted to discredit the '9/11 Truth movement'. You're doing a good job of it, by the way.

Cheers.



[edit on 25/3/2008 by bovarcher]

[edit on 25/3/2008 by bovarcher]



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by bovarcher
Why not? Are you a lawyer or judge by profession? If you are, then you will know that eyewitness testimony ALWAYS 'holds up in court' unless the defense can demonstrate, unequivocally and to the satisfaction of all the jurors, that said eyewitness testimony from a specific individual is fallacious or unreliable.


Their are several reasons why the witness statements would not hold up in court.

1. The witnesses could not agree what type of plane they saw, this would be torn apart by any good defense.

2. The witnesses could not agree on if the plane hit the ground or buidlings first, this would be torn apart by any good defense.

3. A witness stated they did not know what hit the Pentagon, they were told later it wasa 757. This would be completly torn apart and probably thrown out of court.

[edit on 25-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
3. A witness stated they did not know what hit the Pentagon, they were told later it wasa 757. This would be completly torn apart and probably thrown out of court.


A witness reports seeing an airliner hitting the Pentagon....and it gets thrown out because he doesnt know what exact model number it is?

I find that impossible to believe.

example:

Students witnesses someone shooting their teacher in class with a handgun. However, all of their testimony is thrown out because they couldnt identify the gun as a Glock?

[edit on 25-3-2008 by Disclosed]



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Disclosed
But, none the less, it does not change the fact that there were no pictures or videos of the Titanic hitting an iceberg.


But we had survivers from the titantic! Ops guess you forgot that?

Still waiting for evidnece to support your claims and the official story.



Those would be called eye witnesses. You have dismissed eyewitnesses at the WTC and pentagon. And yes I know the eye witnesses were not from the aircrafts but the only difference is that if there were, they could have told you what happened inside the planes.



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by bovarcher
Why not? Are you a lawyer or judge by profession? If you are, then you will know that eyewitness testimony ALWAYS 'holds up in court' unless the defense can demonstrate, unequivocally and to the satisfaction of all the jurors, that said eyewitness testimony from a specific individual is fallacious or unreliable.


Their are several reasons why the witness statements would not hold up in court.

1. The witnesses could not agree what type of plane they saw, this would be torn apart by any good defense.

By this statement, you're saying the only discrepancy is that they could not identify the plane but they agreed there was a plane that hit.


2. The witnesses could not agree on if the plane hit the ground or buidlings first, this would be torn apart by any good defense.

An extremely high stress situation and a few are not sure exactly what happened first? Come on.


3. A witness stated they did not know what hit the Pentagon, they were told later it wasa 757. This would be completly torn apart and probably thrown out of court.
[edit on 25-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]


Seriously? A witness did not know what hit the pentagon? 1 person out of how many? If they didn't know what hit, they didn't see what hit so they're really not an eye witness are they?



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
A witness reports seeing an airliner hitting the Pentagon....and it gets thrown out because he doesnt know what exact model number it is?


No, please read the post. A witness states HE WAS TOLD LATER it was a 757 that hit the Pentagon. HE DID NOT see it. HE DID NOT know what hit the Pentagon.


Originally posted by jfj123
Those would be called eye witnesses. You have dismissed eyewitnesses at the WTC and pentagon.


But most of the eyewitness testimony would not hold up in court.


Originally posted by jfj123
If they didn't know what hit, they didn't see what hit so they're really not an eye witness are they?


Bingo, now your catching on. FINALLY




[edit on 25-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
No, please read the post. A witness states HE WAS TOLD LATER it was a 757 that hit the Pentagon. HE DID NOT see it. HE DID NOT know what hit the Pentagon.


....and the witnesses that actually saw the plane hit?


Gary Bauer, a former Presidential candidate, happened to be driving into Washington, D.C. that morning, to a press conference on Capitol Hill. "I was in a massive traffic jam, hadn't moved more than a hundred yards in twenty minutes. ... I had just passed the closest place the Pentagon is to the exit on 395 . . . when all of a sudden I heard the roar of a jet engine. I looked at the woman sitting in the car next to me. She had this startled look on her face. We were all thinking the same thing. We looked out the front of our windows to try to see the plane, and it wasn't until a few seconds later that we realized the jet was coming up behind us on that major highway. And it veered to the right into the Pentagon. The blast literally rocked all of our cars. It was an incredible moment."
www.massnews.com...

[edit on 25-3-2008 by Disclosed]



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Disclosed


Originally posted by jfj123
Those would be called eye witnesses. You have dismissed eyewitnesses at the WTC and pentagon.


But most of the eyewitness testimony would not hold up in court.

Of course they would unless you can discredit them. Can you discredit them? If you can't then you can't say they wouldn't hold up.


Originally posted by jfj123
If they didn't know what hit, they didn't see what hit so they're really not an eye witness are they?


Bingo, now your catching on. FINALLY

I am but I don't think you are. You must be claiming that nobody saw anything at either the WTC's or the pentagon.




[edit on 25-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
Are we certain? What about the Lusitania? She was torpedoed...who knows if that may have been the fate of the Titanic as well...and covered up.

Can you possibly drag this thread any further off topic by mentioning naval disasters? This thread is about alleged planes being allegedly flown into buildings.


Originally posted by jfj123
Herein lies our problem. We must provide 100% proof with everything we say and also prove that our proof is not fabricated.

Which is exactly why we're still waiting for absolute proof regarding the identity of the alleged aircraft that allegedly crashed into the towers.



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
Can you possibly drag this thread any further off topic by mentioning naval disasters? This thread is about alleged planes being allegedly flown into buildings.


The intent was to show that even though there wasnt a video/photograph of the major event at the time, it still happened.

Guess I was a little colorful with my example there...but it still gets the point across.

[edit on 25-3-2008 by Disclosed]



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by Disclosed
Are we certain? What about the Lusitania? She was torpedoed...who knows if that may have been the fate of the Titanic as well...and covered up.

Can you possibly drag this thread any further off topic by mentioning naval disasters? This thread is about alleged planes being allegedly flown into buildings.

Actually, this thread is about what amount or type of evidence would make you believe in a conspiracy.


Originally posted by jfj123
Herein lies our problem. We must provide 100% proof with everything we say and also prove that our proof is not fabricated.

Which is exactly why we're still waiting for absolute proof regarding the identity of the alleged aircraft that allegedly crashed into the towers.

But you'll never get absolute proof. It's simply not going to happen. People have been executed without absolute proof.

Also, when are you going to answer my question? Do you believe actual planes hit the WTC's? If not, what do you believe hit the WTC's and why?


[edit on 25-3-2008 by jfj123]



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Bingo, now your catching on. FINALLY

I am but I don't think you are. You must be claiming that nobody saw anything at either the WTC's or the pentagon.

No, its not that noboby saw anything, its the fact that the witnesses statements could be easily debunked in court due to all the misconceptions.


Originally posted by jfj123
Also, when are you going to answer my question? Do you believe actual planes hit the WTC's?


Its not the point if planes hit the buildings, its WHAT PLANES hit the buildings.


[edit on 25-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]




top topics



 
10
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join