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

Originally posted by AceWombat04
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 ....
  
• 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.

Have a star, Ace Wombat. You stole my thunder.

Add:

1. Evidence of large cash transfers to support such an operation - follow the money

2. Any kind of paper trail which documents or reveals complicity in planning any part of such an operation, which can be validated and checked and the validity of which could not be argued about in a court of law

I already posted the need for such unequivocal evidence in other forums in the past. Reassuring to see others think the same way.

Whatever your gut instincts, any reasonable person needs to see something more tangible than the usual BS about 'controlled demolitions' and 'molten steel' to accept the 'inside job' theory. If any real evidence of complicity is ever uncovered, then all will change. Until then, the 'Truthers' will unfortunately remain an eccentric minority clutching at straws. Ranting about an 'inside job' is never going to convince most people. Sound evidence of the right kind will.

If you want a guide on how to proceed, look at what Greer has done with The Disclosure Project. Whatever you may think of his beliefs/actions in other areas, he got >400 inside witnesses who worked on programs with the ETs, back-engineered the technology or otherwise had direct knowledge and experience of the US Govt's dealings with the ET issue and the cover-up to go on record and swear they will testify to Congress if asked to do so. All real people, under their own names. That's the way to go with the 9/11 thing.

Posting another grainy, photoshopped youtube video claiming 'proof of controlled demolitions,' or making stupid and easily refuted claims about a missile hitting The Pentagon (ignoring all the eyewitnesses and plane wreckage seen/filmed by hundreds of spectators) just turns people off and gives 'Truthers' a bad name (which is only partly deserved).

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
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?

....but as you have said yourself, all of the reports have not been released yet. Perhaps those will fill in the information that you feel is so critical for you to accept.

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

The "actual, physical evidence" colledted and analyzed by the investigating parties doesnt count? What about that evidence?

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

Questioning the official reports is all fine and good. However, since the official reports have not been released yet, you are only basing your statement on the information released to date. Perhaps when the official reports are finally completed you will get the big picture.

[edit on 17-3-2008 by Disclosed]

Originally posted by bovarcher

1. Evidence of large cash transfers to support such an operation - follow the money

2. Any kind of paper trail which documents or reveals complicity in planning any part of such an operation, which can be validated and checked and the validity of which could not be argued about in a court of law

I already posted the need for such unequivocal evidence in other forums in the past. Reassuring to see others think the same way.

Well you should try sites like this so you can track money and events.

www.trackingthethreat.com...

I have several more sites if you are interested.

[edit on 17-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by ULTIMA1

Interesting site, but they still think Bin Ladin is alive. Come on now. You know he is dead.
There would be some evidence he is alive.

reply to post by bovarcher


You make a very good point about ENDGAME and Alex Jones, but to say there is no NWO plan or agenda is abit of a strech. If you watch and read the news and see what has happened over the last 60yrs you can see there plan unfolding. I always tell people that ENDGAME is full of "Theory's" but if you read Daniel Estulin's "The True Story of The Bilderberg Group" you will see how they operate and what they are truly doing. If you read that book you'll have a better understanding of what is going on than watching ENDGAME.

Oh and big surpise the Op didn't anwser my question on the first page. I now believe he is a dis-info agent till he proves otherwise. This is his only thread and hasn't come back makes you wonder.

reply to post by Spaxz


Or maybe the stance your showing now was showing then and he felt no need to answer you.

Originally posted by earthman4
Interesting site, but they still think Bin Ladin is alive. Come on now. You know he is dead.

What evidence do you have that he is dead?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by earthman4
Interesting site, but they still think Bin Ladin is alive. Come on now. You know he is dead.

What evidence do you have that he is dead?

He does not breath or make any sounds or movement at all. I believe this is because his heart is not beating and he is atomized.

Originally posted by earthman4
He does not breath or make any sounds or movement at all. I believe this is because his heart is not beating and he is atomized.

What actual evidence do you have ?

Originally posted by thefreepatriot
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.

I count that among the evidence to which I was referring, actually. It's just that that's not conclusive proof by my standards. (It is evidence, though.)

I stated that I believe something beyond the which is outlined in official story happened that day, but that I am agnostic and unconvinced enough to accept that I can't prove it and don't know with certainty what it was. I don't believe the official story, but I'm also not convinced of a larger conspiracy. I'm open-minded. How does that render me, in your mind, a "federal troll," may I ask? Speaking of which - If I were, I would have be an anti-war, unemployed, relatively poor federal troll living in subsidized housing lol.

I apologize if I unintentionally offended you somehow. I do not, however, apologize for having an opinion and an open mind that forces me to say "I don't know," and "I believe," rather than, "I am convinced," or, "I know."

[edit on 3/17/2008 by AceWombat04]

[edit on 3/17/2008 by AceWombat04]

Originally posted by AceWombat04
I count that among the evidence to which I was referring, actually. It's just that that's not conclusive proof by my standards. (It is evidence, though.)

The biggest evidence against the official story is the lack of evidence that supports it.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by AceWombat04
I count that among the evidence to which I was referring, actually. It's just that that's not conclusive proof by my standards. (It is evidence, though.)

The biggest evidence against the official story is the lack of evidence that supports it.

By my standards (the standards of skepticism,) abscence of evidence isn't evidence of anything, because you can't prove a negative (such as the official story not being true); you can only prove a positive assertion, such as, "There was a government conspiracy which was responsible for the attacks." That's the dilemma. There's more evidence in support of a larger conspiracy than just the lack of evidence in support of the official story, though, in my opinion. It's just that none of it is totally conclusive by my standards. This thread asked what would prove a government conspiracy, not what we believe, which is why I answered the way I did.

Like I said in my original post: I believe a larger conspiracy occured, and my instincts tell me that people in positions of influence in this country were involved. I just can't prove it, and therefore can't honestly say I know there was one. I'm not saying there wasn't one. I'm just being skeptical, and skeptics don't make any assertions of their own without proof (only pseudoskeptics can do that by the definitions of those words - that isn't to criticize pseudoskepticism either; it's just not what I am.)

[edit on 3/17/2008 by AceWombat04]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
The biggest evidence against the official story is the lack of evidence that supports it.

The biggest evidence the official reports are true is the lack of evidence that disproves it.

Originally posted by jfj123
reply to post by jfj123

 

To answer my own question, I would need to treat it like a courtroom trial. I would consider the government innocent until proven guilty.

I would accept testimony of the conspirators.
Physical evidence from the crime scenes.
Proof of complicity to cover up, alter, or destroy evidence.
]



If you just have a look at Youtube for long enough , with the keywords 9/11 conspiracies , Im sure you will find lots of "interesting" things , most note worthy being an hour documentary , detailing the events and pointing out the holes in the US government version of events ... me having things to do , I dont currently have time to go trawling but its out there and well worth a look .

Originally posted by The Nighthawk

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.

And since you know me, you can make that assumption ?

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

Thank you for explaining my problem to me.

, 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.

But even a prosecutor cannot charge someone without solid evidence.

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.
They were designed to take an impact from a 727 not traveling at high speed.

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.

It was a 727 from what I've read and not at top speed.

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

What does the timing matter?

, 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?

That is not necessarily true. The WTC's were massive structures that didn't collapse instantly from the plane impact. The mass of the building itself might have outweighed the damage done by the plane impact thus eliminating lateral movement. I've seen this with cars driving into 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 Purdue simulation may help answer some of these questions.
www.youtube.com...

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.
The number of individuals required to pull off a conspiracy of this magnitude is simply too great to keep quite and not make a single mistake that would leave physical 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?

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?


By no means am I trying to make anyone angry on purpose or on accident. If I have, I am sincerely sorry.
My point is that I have seen people make claims of evidence over and over but never actually seen evidence.
I am simply interested in finding the truth whatever is may be. If the government is involved, I do want to know that. If we start the investigation with the assumption of guilt, we've tainted our own investigation to the point that we cannot trust our own findings.

By the way ... apologies for the addition to the original text , I saw random characters and deleted them because I speak english not machine code ... made everything sit in the same box ... once again .. apologies.

Originally posted by AceWombat04
By my standards (the standards of skepticism,) abscence of evidence isn't evidence of anything, because you can't prove a negative (such as the official story not being true);

Lack of evidence is used as evidence in court all the time.

Originally posted by Disclosed
The biggest evidence the official reports are true is the lack of evidence that disproves it.

Too bad you have no real evidence to support the official story.


[edit on 17-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Lack of evidence is used as evidence in court all the time.

Oh really? Care to cite an example, please? I'd be curious to see how "no evidence" was admitted as evidence.

Originally posted by The Nighthawk

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.

I guess that's my point. They did get caught.

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?
No. My point is valid.

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.
So what you're saying is that your perception is greater then the super genius' who pulled off the most horrific act of terror in american history? They thought of everything except what you posted above? Doesn't seem likely.

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.
So what you're saying is that they do not care about how we perceive them in any way yet you are also saying that they staged this massive conspiracy because they wanted to pull one over on us, proving they indeed did care how we perceive them.