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.

 

Just what evidence would you believe

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 04:19 PM
link   
Have 9/11 conspiracists reached the same point as the moon landing hoax believers who now state that there is no longer any evidence that would convince them the moon landings actually took place?

Just what conclusive evidence would actually convince you that 9/11 really was all about a group of terrorist hijackers wanting to cause as much damage to the US as possible by flying planes into buildings?




posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 04:26 PM
link   
I'd say... if building 7 never fell.

That's the only way. That was the clincher for me, and I've tried to disprove it to myself, but it doesn't work.

Too many rich and powerful people benefited and used 9/11 as a catalyst to push their agendas through, and too many coincidences happened all in one day, to make it even mathematically remote that it could've been possible that it happened the way it did.

What would you do if the CTers are right? Just hypothetically, how would you feel about it? Would you feel good about it? Would you feel scared as Hell and completely vulnerable?

The human mind can filter out a lot important pieces of information if that information threatens sanity and mormality. Don't think I'm celebrating the fact that I can't talk myself out of this. It's bad #, man. It would be HEAVEN if things were really what they said they were, compared to how screwed we actually are. I guess if you value your sanity, just keep believing it was all the terrorist's fault.



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Retseh
 


At present, the physical and mental world is growing farther and farther apart. Just like the rich and poor gap.

More and more people in a westerized/corporatized society view physical and/or emotional conflict as "barbaric"(why do you think people need viagra?). Americans, in general are emotionless drones unable to "give" themselves to another person(the "barbaric" word called love). Most resist love so they can serve their masters(the corporate world). And of course, the corporate world feeds off competition and hatred. Add on greed, materialism, self hate, hatred for the poor, etc. and you have a healthy society for the elites that had it ALL planned out from the beginning.

These elites rely on your smugness, ignorance and passivity to further their agenda.

These people know they are in trouble and will do everything in their power to survive. They know that they have been exposed and in their cowardliness, will do anything to avoid the justice from the people. They'd rather see everyone else perish than to meet their maker.



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 05:11 PM
link   
I don't know all that about the moan hoax. I'm pretty well on the fence about that one. I think we've been to the moon, and at the same time I think there is a good chance some of that footage is actually fake.

All I ask for is a logical explanation that makes sense. When I watched those buildings fall, and immediately thought it was controlled demolition, the same as all the news anchors. I never even thought a single bad thing about 9/11 until that was just dropped and swept away. Even then for awhile I just accepted that I was wrong about it. I didn't care, I was all about - lets go bomb afganistan. And I watched the news every day and night for hours on end for the bombing to start.

It wasn't until the Iraq war that I started smelling something that stunk. Then of course, when you smell something that stinks, you start to look at where it's coming from.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 11:54 AM
link   
Notice how few replies there were to this thread.

Conspiracy theorists cannot even create a hypothetical set of circumstances that would make them believe that 9/11 actually happened as advertised.

Puts all the other theories in perspective don't you think.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Retseh
Notice how few replies there were to this thread.

Conspiracy theorists cannot even create a hypothetical set of circumstances that would make them believe that 9/11 actually happened as advertised.

Puts all the other theories in perspective don't you think.


Few replies because you bring absolutely nothing to the table. My little post probably went right over your head.

Retseh,

There are people that seek truth no matter what the consequences and outcome may be. There are also people that seek comfort in the familiar. Life makes sense inside the "familiar" setting.

I see you as a familiar type of person.

How can people like me prove to a "familiar" type like yourself that the 19 hijackers would need help from sources inside the US government? I can't, because you enjoy the "familiar" and will do everything it takes to protect your fragile "familiar" ego.



[edit on 16-9-2008 by JimBeam]



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by dunwichwitch
I'd say... if building 7 never fell.

That's the only way. That was the clincher for me, and I've tried to disprove it to myself, but it doesn't work.

Too many rich and powerful people benefited and used 9/11 as a catalyst to push their agendas through, and too many coincidences happened all in one day, to make it even mathematically remote that it could've been possible that it happened the way it did.


And WTC 7 falling made all of this possible?

No one, rich or otherwise, needed to risk getting caught red handed by putting demolition devices in WTC 7. WHY? Really ?

What kind of 6 graders plan is that?



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 04:56 PM
link   
Taxi,

[snip]

How can some "rogue" terrorist" pull this off without complicity from the US government???????

Yawn.


Mod Edit - removed insult

Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 19-9-2008 by elevatedone]



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimBeam
Taxi,

You are irrelavant.

How can some "rogue" terrorist" pull this off without complicity from the US government???????

Yawn.


Simple have 4 men train to fly commercial jetliners, then send 15 extemists to America who are willing to die for their cause...Hijack four airplanes and crash them into stuff.......Done.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by dunwichwitchI'd say... if building 7 never fell.


I am not sure if you are saying dogmatically because bldg 7 fell that you won't accept it was anything but an inside job or if what you *mean* is that if you were shown sufficient evidence that bldg 7 could fall in the way it did w/out explosives, only then would you believe that it was terrorists that committed these acts.

If it is the latter, can you please look through the NIST report and tell me what it is in there you can't accept? Even the fire fighters who were doing their best to prevent this understood how it happened. The videos that you see on youtube making it sound like the fire fighters were implying that actual bombs were responsible have been cut and/or they were using terminology in the heat of the moment to get their men out of the way.


Please, look at the NIST report... you will see the significant damage that was done to the building that somehow the theorists seem to conveniently leave out.

wtc.nist.gov...

It also goes through all the possible explanations and if you can approach this from a non biased view, as I did, you will see how this bldg came down in that manner w/out the help of planted explosives.

so, once that is cleared up, there should be no issues in you in believing that this was an act of some sick men who felt they could teach americans a lesson by committing such horrible acts, correct? (this does not negate the fact that I have questions as to how these men were able to pull off such acts, but I don't doubt that they did.. I can't. The evidence is stacked against them).



[edit on 16-9-2008 by justamomma]



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 07:09 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 07:26 PM
link   
This thread is great. we have one group; the group that started the thread, saying
"truthers, who needs to testify before congress, what technical data can be made public, or what analysis of the footage and other testimony needs to be done to make you drop your argument as being wrong?"

That's all, they are not actually asking you to drop your argument, just asking what evidence is good enough (hence the title).

and the other side; the truther's, cannot give one reasonable burden of proof that would lead to the acceptance of the governments reasoning. They cannot give a single name or technical piece of evidence that they would trust to be true.

Isn't this the same reason the creationism isn't accepted as science? Seeing as how neither of these theories (creation or 9/11 conspiracy) have a way to disprove them? Isn't that what makes a theory scientific? a way to test and disprove it?

We "sheep" can give you lots of examples like....
As a member of "the matrix" (thanks Jim) If one person, just one person that has everything to lose comes forward and says "hey, we blew it up," I would seriously start asking questions, signing petitions, and putting pressure on elected officials.


So who is being infantile? who is bringing nothing to the table?
Free thinking and reasonable people can clearly see your hypocrisy showing!



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimBeam[snip].


Seriously? Did I just click on the wrong button and end up in the kiddie forums some how? Obviously you have the rationality of a child (although even that may be too much credit chalked up in your favor).

The question being asked is valid and all you can say is 'gaah gaah goo goo, the matrix has you"?
just



Mod Edit - removed uneeded material.

Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 19-9-2008 by elevatedone]



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Retseh

Just what conclusive evidence would actually convince you that 9/11 really was all about a group of terrorist hijackers wanting to cause as much damage to the US as possible by flying planes into buildings?


It's just the opposite with me. This site and most of the whacked out theories are either old news or make me laugh.

I have read some books and talked to some old buddies about other stuff lately and beginning to come to the conclusion that our government was very complicit in 9/11. It has nothing to do with this site or threads within it. I don't even look at this forum as I feel there are an abundance of government malcontents and people from other other countries who's opinion I could give care less about because this is an American problem.

I was an absolute firm believer of the story of 9/11. I can say first hand that a few men with a dedicated mission can accomplish a great task. No, I can't go into details, but what these terrorists did was not above anything out of the ordinary for people willing to die for a cause.

I've got some issues to iron out within myself over this. Thanks for having this thread started.



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Retseh
Notice how few replies there were to this thread.

Conspiracy theorists cannot even create a hypothetical set of circumstances that would make them believe that 9/11 actually happened as advertised.

Puts all the other theories in perspective don't you think.


Here's one.

Show me another building that collapsed from fire (from whatever source) into it's own footprint, and took months to cool off. It must have had 90% of the concrete of the building turn to a fine powder. People must have been able to walk where this "intense fire" was, several minutes before it collapsed.

Show me that anywhere else in the history of the world.



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 12:25 PM
link   
Not long ago there was a bridge in Oak Land that collapsed from a diesel fire Oak Land Bridge Collapse

So there we have established that a fire can melt concrete and soften steel re-bar.


And I found this NIS Report on building collapses. Of course you truthers may not accept the report because it is from the NIST, but what other organization in the world would do this kind of analysis?



Another important finding of this study was the lack of readily available, and well-documented, information on partial or total structural collapse due to fire. Unless the fire event was significant for other reasons, e.g., loss of life, very little information was available. It is recommended that a centralized database be developed, whereby structural damage and collapse can be investigated and systematically reported in the future. The current lack of systematic information on fire-induced collapses seriously limits the profession's understanding of the scope and nature of the real structural fire protection problem.


so, we have that buildings can collapse and do collapse from fire and that there is little to no record of this because of the rarity and insignificance of a building falling over without other things happening like deaths.

okay so half or better of your required evidence is provided.

also, i would think that the heat factor (about people walking so close to the fire) can be explained by insulation (walls and floor) , like an oven mit; you can pick up a dish that is more than 400 degrees without discomfort, BUT it will still burn.



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

Originally posted by sir_chancealot

Show me another building that collapsed from fire (from whatever source) into it's own footprint, and took months to cool off. It must have had 90% of the concrete of the building turn to a fine powder. People must have been able to walk where this "intense fire" was, several minutes before it collapsed.

Show me that anywhere else in the history of the world.

OK, as long as you show me another incident where 2 fully laden passenger jets were flown into skyscrapers in one of the most densely populated area in the planet.

Unique things happen, get over it.

Seeing as nobody will answer the OPs question, I'll answer the converse: What would it take to convince me that the government carried out the attack (not just were complicit in some way)?

I would want proof positive, not just the "negative" evidence that CTs bring to the table. By negative evidence, I mean stuff like "well you can't explain the collapse properly" or "the hole in the pentagon looks too small" and the worst fallacy of all "it was just too convenient for the government" .

Positive evidence would be the stuff that blows apart other conspiracies, such as Watergate: whistle-blowers, documentary evidence, communication records. If this was a conspiracy it would have to be vast compared to watergate - the number of people involved in it's inception would number hundreds if not thousands. Yet not a peep from anyone involved in the greatest atrocity ever committed on US soil.

The government couldn't even cover up the Valery Plume affair, which involved about 8 people and a relatively minor crime.

[edit on 17/9/08 by FatherLukeDuke]



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 08:34 PM
link   
What I don't understand is the true hard core evidence that the government did do this SEVERELY out weighs the evidense that some bum in the mountains who is on dialisis did this. So you ask "what evidense would it take to convince me" how about if we had captured Mr. Laddin and had him admit it on live tv..... like 4 months after 9-11. But here is the thing, how does a CNN camera crew go and find him yet 7-9 THOUSAND highly trained, technologically advanced soldiers "just cant find him".But at the year mark of the war in Iraq we find sadam. If you are looking for an honest answer, there is NOTHING that will convince me!



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 09:58 PM
link   
FatherLukeDuke and nocargo, both of you have struck the same nerve I have. Forget the crap you read here and many other web sites. You have idiots and fools on both sides of the argument.

It has taken me a long time but I now am considering, the government is more involved than anyone of a serious nature would consider.

The comments about secrets and security in general are well taken. Very valid points. TV reporters finding Bin Laden and stooge number 2 while the CIA can't seem to find it's ass with 2 hands is another great point.

There has to be a time, when you look at the circumstantial facts such as the points above, and one or two or five starts to outweigh the other side of the equation.

Just forget the buildings falling and any reason they fell. Multiple hi-jackings of airplanes occurred in the past, so this can and was done before. Picking a day when exercises for this very situation are happening, is a little weird, but the info could have been obtained pre 9/11 fairly easily. Other factors such as response times for fighters seem to have some problems. There are any number of other myths and facts to weed through which make sense or are just stupid.

This isn't the thread to discuss these facts, statements, and myths as individuals but I mention them only as a group.

A person should consider them themself and decide if one side is the truth or the lie.



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
...OK, as long as you show me another incident where 2 fully laden passenger jets were flown into skyscrapers in one of the most densely populated area in the planet. ...


The B-17 into the Empire State Building in 1947. Just so you don't think it was a tiny little thing: history1900s.about.com...

At 9:49 a.m., the ten-ton, B-25 bomber smashed into the north side of the Empire State Building. The majority of the plane hit the 79th floor, creating a hole in the building eighteen feet wide and twenty feet high. The plane's high-octane fuel exploded, hurtling flames down the side of the building and inside through hallways and stairwells all the way down to the 75th floor.


Here's another one where a fully loaded C130 crashed into an apartment building: www.chinadaily.com.cn...

USAF A-7D Corsair, with 20,000 pounds of fuel: www.waymarking.com...

www.usatoday.com...

goliath.ecnext.com...

There are a few examples of jets crashing into buildings that not only didn't cause collapse, but DIDN'T cause 90% of the concrete to turn to powder.

Let the goal-post moving begin!



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join