Originally posted by Spaxz
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.

Guess this thread will die out soon then. You want answers, but only if they fit your guidelines. We cant say there arent holes....we cant ask you to post any evidence...can we at least pee when we need to?

Where there is a chance to debate, people will always take sides. But when you limit one side to what it can/cannot say....it is no longer a debate.

Ah well, i'm sure this will still be debated on in 10 years, 20, who knows. Just like the Kennedy assassination....

Originally posted by Disclosed
But when you limit one side to what it can/cannot say....it is no longer a debate.

Oh, you mean like the people that believe the official story can ask for evidence but refuse to post evidence when asked, saying things like they do not need to post evidence its up to people who disagree to post evidence?

reply to [url=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/f

---

I always thought it was incumbent on those making the claims to provide the evidence to back said claims?
Hmph guess I was wrong.
But then again Aircraft Maint. Techs are by proxy high velocity impact physicists too.

The case for a collapse has been made.
I for one agree with it based off of my knowledge of physics, (and not just the parts that suite me) observation of the videos to be found on the subject and the pictures of ground zero in the aftermath agree with the unintentional collapse model.

And it is extremely telling that what some "truthers" let pass as evidence is shoddy at best. Pictures with little more than pattern recognition by a mind that wants to believe. Emphasis of certain factors while blatantly ignoring others. And then there are the telltale psychological features I see exhibited.

Those puffs you see coming out the windows below the collapse line is displaced air and debris (read mostly dust, buildings aren't clean in between walls and etc when they get done building it and the Twin towers had years of accumulation added on to that).

That is not to say I don't think the US government don't have quite a bit answer for (I talk about it in my thread so I won't be rehashing it here). But I think some people are embellishing on it, for various deep seated psychological and financial (authors like the prisonplanet.com guy, a stage magician that happend to work at the WTC and etc) gain reasons in different parts.

One psychological reason I seem to notice is almost a weird case of patriotism, something like the Twin Towers were built by Americans so thusly the government must have blown them up to make them fall down.

Take that as constructive criticism please.
I am in no mood to going into the usual go round n round that I usually get stuck in when I post to this particular forum. I tend to end up repeating myself, or clarifying my statements because someone wantonly misinterprets it, or getting drawn into semantics fun, or any combination there in and some I most likely missed.

And to clarify pattern recognition is what has people seeing clouds that look like animals or etc, and faces in wood.

[edit on 17-3-2008 by WraothAscendant]

The first one that comes to mind is the extrealy poor cover up of building 7 that came down 8 hours later by a "controlled demolition" according to the lease holder Harvey Silverstein and he and the fire cheif decided to "pull it" yet a control demolsion takes days to prepare and they had to do it over rubble mixed with bodies...I don't think so

...I like i say this is the first to come to mind many more are there...

None.....My problem is that it is very easy too take ANYTHING big that has happened and make yourself believe anything. The government at the time had no capability to pull it off. They can't keep a secret for 5 minutes anymore. I think that what we should really be talking about is ACOUNTABILITY. Why heads did not roll after 9-11. Why we did not gut the CIA and FBI at the top levels. Not too mention the NSA, and NRO. They owed us that much. The lying weasles were not planning anything except saving their jobs.

Proof (proof mind you, not evidence; they aren't the same thing) for me would require at least one (or all, depending on the nature of the conspiracy) of the following:

• Verifiable payment transactions showing receipt of money by the attackers from some U.S. government, intelligence, or military agency.
  
• Sworn testimony by credible, unbiased witnesses who could provide evidence of, if not outright conspiracy, then of compartmentalized activities which - perhaps unbeknownst to them - might have been the building blocks of a conspiracy being perpetrated without those individuals' or groups' knowledge. Caveat: this would only be sufficient if enough witnesses testified to fully account for every element of the conspiracy and/or its compartmentalized building blocks, and if each and every one of them had no political, personal, or other bias or reason to testify falsely or incorrectly.
  
• In the event of substantial evidence of compartmentalization as outlined above, further evidence and/or testimony linking the upper tiers of said compartmentalized plot to some U.S. military, intelligence, or government agency, an individual, or individuals, in such an agency.
  
• In the event of the previous two standards being met, some physical, documented, or verifiable evidence that said testimony was true and accurate.
  
• Irrefutable evidence of statements, clear intent, and/or motive on the part of groups or individuals in such an agency or agencies, indicative of direct involvement in such a conspiracy.
  

Now, don't get me wrong. I believe something fishy went on that day. I just don't know it did. Is there evidence in support of an unacknowledged conspiracy? In my opinion, yes. Is that evidence non-circumstantial and conclusive? No - not at all, in my opinion.

My gut, and my every instinct, tells me that there was a conspiracy stretching beyond a group of terrorists hijacking some planes. That just isn't good enough for me, though. I can infer a conspiracy, but I cannot prove it. Facts require proof. Hence my agnostic, open-minded skepticism.
Edited for spelling and grammar
[edit on 3/17/2008 by AceWombat04]

[edit on 3/17/2008 by AceWombat04]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Oh, you mean like the people that believe the official story can ask for evidence but refuse to post evidence when asked, saying things like they do not need to post evidence its up to people who disagree to post evidence?

Your stance is unusual, ULTIMA1.

A person says they agree with the official reports...I would think the original reports would be their evidence. Not to mention, some official reports havent been released yet, which should back up those reports even more. Perhaps you need to wait until those are released.

If a person wants to dispute those reports, they are the ones that need to post WHY they think they are wrong, with evidence to back that up.

Also, these reports are read as a whole, not "quote mined". People tend to only post portions of data, or even the first few sentences in a paragraph, when the rest of the paragraph explains things differently. Why not post the entire facts?

Originally posted by jfj123

Endgame....watch it. You will be given a partial list of the "Elites," and how they do what they do. Search NWO quotes on ATS, and you'll learn more about who the "Elites" are...

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

jfj, If you're not yet familiar with this piece of truly astounding propagandist delusion from Alex Jones, I would caution you before viewing that it contains more than 120 'inaccuracies' which anyone even casually acquainted with historical fact will easily see through.

For example, in the first 10 minutes you'll be told that 'The Rothschilds bought up the British economy' (precise quote) after it was erroneously reported that Napoleon had just won the Battle of Waterloo. Well, you can easily discover that in 1815, over 99% of the Brit economy was in private hands, and not even for sale. Of the very tiny part which had publicly available shares, there is no record of 'The Rothschilds' buying ANY shares during that period. I presume Jones researched the fact that Nathan Rothschild had a private intelligence service which brought news of the battle's result early, and he just invents the rest.

Next you'll be told that 'Edward VII was forced to abdicate because of his pro-Nazi views...' well, again, a complete lie. You can find out easily why Ed 7 decided to abdicate, as it's a matter of public record. He chose to marry an American divorcee called Wallis Simpson, and renounced the throne as a consequence. They lived outside the UK for the rest of their lives and had no children for obvious reasons. This had nothing to do with (Jones' imagined/invented) political views or sympathies the King may/may not have had for Hitler or anyone else.

And so on for 90 minutes...

Jones just invents stuff - makes it up, to support his political agenda, expecting his small, devoted audience will be too dumb to check the facts.

The saddest part is seeing Jones, accompanied by a small handful of misfits and deluded weirdos, yelling through a megaphone at a Canadian hotel where The Bilderberg Group are meeting (a bunch of harmless old-money has-beens with little influence over anything, and a fraction of the world's current wealth). According to Jones, they are The Evil Ones, The Devil Incarnate, The Founders of The New World Order, and are going to 'Enslave us'!!!!! I'm not kidding.

The CT stuff about genetics is also entertaining - again, a complete lack of knowledge of the subject matter is manifest, and the 'conclusions' ridiculous.

Watch it, just for entertainment value. You'll have a good laugh.

Cheers

Hard evidence like a lab report and a reputable chain of custody from WTC steel with thermite on it, that would sell me. I would like to thank the conspiracy theorists for at least not being sheep. I can't go along with the theories unless I see the things or hear the people.
I have no hard evidence of a planned demolition on 911.
I don't know what hit the pentagon.
I have some evidence fight 93 was shot down.
I know about the plan to take the oil from Iraq.
I have no evidence there are extraterrestrials.
I make suppositions on most occurances.

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
But then again Aircraft Maint. Techs are by proxy high velocity impact physicists too.

And it is extremely telling that what some "truthers" let pass as evidence is shoddy at best.

But us aircraft Maint. techs do know that an aluminum airframe is not going to cause much damage to steel beams. Also the fact that the nose of the aircraft made from graphite is going to be destroyed as soon as it hits the building and not survive to make it all the way through the building.

Its even more telling when people that believe the official story can do so without any real evidence to support the official story. I mean things like no photos or videos of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon, no reports that match any of the parts found to any of the 9/11 planes. Very, very shoddy.

Originally posted by Disclosed
A person says they agree with the official reports...I would think the original reports would be their evidence.

But the problem is we know that the official reports that have been released are missing a lot of information. So how can someone beleive the official reports when so much information is missing?

Also poeple that believe the official report have no actual, physical evidence to support the official story.

We also have lots of facts and evidence that do question the official story.





[edit on 17-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]

[edit on 17-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]