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

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 10:02 PM
link   

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....




posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


Well.
It would take more then they have been able to produce thus far for me.

And laying off the psychological tactics of brow beating and etc would be wonderful.


And the massive egomasterbation parties ceasing would be nice since after all a true commitment to the truth would welcome a dissenting opinion.

And the tea leaf reading sessions of still photos of a fluid event and using that as proof something was amiss, pattern recognition does not impress me.

And etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc.

[edit on 16-3-2008 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 01:02 AM
link   
This is why I believe in government involvement of 9/11 :

1) The fact that the Government had prior knowledge that these types of attacks were possible, and even probable. Though in the days after the event, we were LIED to by every government spokes-hole in the Bush administration that there was no knowledge, no way that anyone could have imagined something like this happening.

This simple fact is what we should be focusing on. This is where the lie begins. So many yell “smoking gun” when they show a video of windows being blown out of a collapsing building, when the smoking gun has been in our faces the whole time, from the very beginning (or before the beginning in this case). This is the crack in the dam that can bring down the whole facade. If they are lying about this simple fact, why would you believe anything else that is spoon fed to you by the same people? These lies have never been explained away.

SOURCES
www.usatoday.com...

www.boston.com...

www.cbsnews.com...

www.washingtonpost.com.../specials/attacked/archive

2) The fact that the 9/11 Commission deemed the financing of the attacks was, “ . . . of little practical consequence,” and ,” . . . we have seen no evidence that any foreign government-or foreign government official-supplied any funding.”

WHAT?? Does this make sense to anyone? Didn’t the United States invade 2 countries because of their supposed involvement in 9/11? What about the evidence that Pakistan’s ISI (intelligence agency) director Mahmood Ahmed wired $100,000 to 9/11 terrorist ring-leader Mohammed Atta. Why has this information been buried and underreported by the media? Why haven’t we invaded Pakistan? Weren’t they “harboring” terrorists when Bin Laden supposedly fled there from Afghanistan? According to President Bush, “We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.”

SOURCES
www.9-11commission.gov...

www.famousquotes.me.uk...

edition.cnn.com...

timesofindia.indiatimes.com...

On a side note about funding, did you know that the 911 committee was originally given only 3 million dollars to fund it’s investigation? (although this was eventually increased to 15 million.) To put this in perspective almost 40 million dollars (80 million if you include independent probes) was spent on investigating the Clintons’ various schemschemes and scandals. Think about that for a second, almost 4 times the money was spent on investigating a real estate scam and who the president was sticking his wick into, than the murder of 3,000 American Citizens. [sarcasm] Glad we have our priorities straight [/sarcasm]

SOURCES
edition.cnn.com...

transcripts.cnn.com...

www.time.com...

. . . continued next post . . .


[edit on 17-3-2008 by DrZERO]



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 01:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
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.


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.


The WTC buildings have been the only buildings to collaspe from fire and structural damage. Many buidlings have had longer lasting fires and just as much or worse structural damage and did not collapse.

www.pleasanthillsfire.org...

Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel framed high-rise building to collapse. Following are examples of high-rise fires that were far more severe than those in WTC 1 and 2, and Building 7. In these precedents, the fires consumed multiple floors, produced extensive window breakage, exhibited large areas of emergent flames, and went on for several hours. The fires in the WTC towers did none of these things.


NIST has changed their minds again and have stated that there was no pancaking.





[edit on 17-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 01:10 AM
link   
3) The fact that the only video footage we have of Flight 77 hitting the pentagon is from the security booth, and even that footage wasn’t released for 6 months! Additional footage from better angles exists and has been confiscated by the FBI.

Wouldn’t this missing footage clear up any questions on what really happened at the Pentagon that day? Why is it being withheld? Don’t the American people, and the world for that matter, have a right to see that evidence?

SOURCES
www.judicialwatch.org...

www.washingtonpost.com...¬Found=true

news.nationalgeographic.com...

pentagonresearch.com...


So once again I ask, can someone, anyone, explain one or all of these statements? No arguing about CD, no arguing about planes, missiles, squibs, melting steel, holes in fields with no plane wreckage, fruit-stand guys or any of the other millions of minute details.

The questions are (1) Why did they lie? (2) Why did they fail to investigate thoroughly? and (3) Why have they stolen evidence?



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 01:13 AM
link   

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?



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 02:26 AM
link   
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]



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 03:12 AM
link   
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...



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 03:36 AM
link   
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.



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 04:07 AM
link   
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]



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 06:37 AM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


Read the PNAC-report, that pretty much sums up the events and the reasoning behind 911 from the government's perspective, before the events actually happened. Coincidence?

So you actually believe that the government wasn't behind 911, and that they are so incompetent that they couldn't stop it, and now they make it look like they did it, in order to not look so incompetent? At least that's what I got from reading your posts.

Like others before me said, I think you don't want to know, either it's to shocking for you, or you have alterior motives. The way you act and respond doesn't make me feel you are out to find truth.



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Disclosed
 


Disclosed I am not trying to say that to debate this topic you have to be on myside, and through my guidelines only.

My youngest brother serves in the Canadian Armed Forces and is my biggest skeptic. Go figure he hasn't done any reading or research, just what's told to him on the news which "These people" control. We still have great discussions and he has some views that carry alot of merit. Like the audio in some clips of 9/11 can be doctrined.

Trust me Disclosed i can take other people's view points but this is how the Op is coming across to me.

What would make you believe the sky is blue?

Now every anwser no matter how right it is, I say show me evidence. You say well the way the light from the sun hits the particals in our air, creates the colour blue through our receptors of our brain. Now i say show me proof of these particals. Show me evidence our receptors in our brain work like that.

The anwser is there and known, i just want to fustrate you. There is enough evidence there to convict a few on 9/11 but the people behind the curtain have such a strangle hold on society that it is almost impossible to convict.

Do your research on the Bilderberger's, Round Table, CFR, Trilaterial Commission and see how they operate and you see how things unfold around you. What the individuals get from it is beyond me, but remember that 100's if not 1000's of German soldiers exterminated Jew's during WWII. Do you honestly believe that cause were "THE WESTERN DEMOCRACY" we can't possible do that (9/11). Also the public of Germany was unaware of the camps, all they knew was they were removing the Jews from there Country.

And for us all we know is it was the evil terrorist group that was behind it all!! They were behind it just not all of it.

But we'll see if my call on the Op is true about being a Dis-info agent, if he replies to my previous post or not.

It is Healthy to Debate just not in away that causes fustration and discontent between the debaters. I understand how I could come across the way you say i do, but i do tell you that i'm not that way. Just fustrated in the way the Op is running this forum of discussion.

Thanx, Long Live Humanity and destruction to the Illuminati



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 10:18 AM
link   
Evidence of Thermate residue has been found on WTC steel by professor steven jone.. Email NY fire commissioner and demand that they investigate this.. www.nyc.gov... We need to honor those that have perished and are still perishing as a result of this treason es act against U.S citizens.. It is our duty to protect the constitution.. so lets get off our asses and do something. Email or call the commissioner lets #ing flood his lines and emails!!!!!!!!!



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by AceWombat04
 


The ISA wired 100,000 to one of the" terrorist". ISA is a known collaborator with the CIA and the U.S government.. drivers licenses on many of the hijackers had military addresses.. the 911 commision reports stated that the transfer of 100,000 dollars was of no importance to the 911 investigation.. I can go on and on....I honestly think your a federal troll so it does not matter what I say.



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by gmac1000
 


Thats crap on the puffs... if it was from air pressure from the collapse it would evenly distribute around the floor and all or most windows would have blown out on each floor not just a few. on that floor..... not to mention the so called pile driver isn't even there..the collapse also violates the law of constant motion.. you see a piece of the building that is about to fall over to the side but ends up disappearing in the dust... lol what can cause this.. . Anyone that is not a "federal conspiracy theorist" here will answer you on that. Also evidence of thermate a military version of thermite as been found on WTC steel.. wake the # up this is the new Reichstag's fire.. ironic isn't it that the patriot act is modeled after the enabling act that was passed after the Reichstag's fire which was then blamed on the communist.. the new boogie man are Muslims or "Muslim extremist"... if you completely believe the 911 federal conspiracy theory then we can assume one thing.. had you been in Germany during Hitler's rise you would have believed the Nazi's.. that the communist were behind the Reichstag's fire.... and would have been on of the citizens that would have helped Hitler become a dictator and cause the Holocaust and therefore you would be as a German citizen indirectly responsible for the holocaust.. right now Bush is a dictator.. right now there is a Holocaust in Iraq.. 1 million innocent Iraq citizens have perished(conservative number)... is this not a Holocaust?? are you backing the New world order under Bush the Dictator..which has right now nearly unlimited powers due to the patriot act? if you do.. then you are dishonoring those that perished on 9/11 and the current wars and those souls are looking at you in disgust.



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 11:06 AM
link   

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?



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 01:36 PM
link   

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



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 01:47 PM
link   
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.



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 01:52 PM
link   

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.



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 01:56 PM
link   

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]





new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join