9/11 Questions[W:434]

[MadLib]

NOTE: I do not believe in 9/11 conspiracies; these questions are simply to spark discussion.

For truthers: for you, what would constitute evidence that 9/11 was not an inside job, and instead was a surprise attack by foreign terrorists with no assistance or meaningful foreknowledge on the part of the United States government?

For debunkers/non-conspiracy theorists: what would convince you that 9/11 was an inside job (i.e. that the US government either orchestrated the attacks as a false flag or that they assisted in al-Qaeda's operation)?

 

[Fledermaus]

Re: 9/11 Questions

NOTE: I do not believe in 9/11 conspiracies; these questions are simply to spark discussion.

For truthers: for you, what would constitute evidence that 9/11 was not an inside job, and instead was a surprise attack by foreign terrorists with no assistance or meaningful foreknowledge on the part of the United States government?

For debunkers/non-conspiracy theorists: what would convince you that 9/11 was an inside job (i.e. that the US government either orchestrated the attacks as a false flag or that they assisted in al-Qaeda's operation)?

1. An intelligent and cogent counter-theory that is firmly supported by all the evidence uncovered and analyzed by the NSA, Fire Professionals, the CIA, Engineers, the FBI, the FAA, mainstream media, alternative media, NTSB, intelligence organizations world wide, the military and local, state and federal law enforcement (to name a few).

2. Nothing else needed

 

[MadLib]

Re: 9/11 Questions

1. An intelligent and cogent counter-theory that is firmly supported by all the evidence uncovered and analyzed by the NSA, Fire Professionals, the CIA, Engineers, the FBI, the FAA, mainstream media, alternative media, NTSB, intelligent organizations world wide, the military and local, state and federal law enforcement (to name a few).

2. Nothing else needed

I'm wondering what specific evidence would convince you to change your mind - leaked documents showing government involvement, whistleblower testimony, etc.

 

[Fledermaus]

Re: 9/11 Questions

I'm wondering what specific evidence would convince you to change your mind - leaked documents showing government involvement, whistleblower testimony, etc.

No one thing will do. A "leaked" document absent any corroboration is pretty much a non-starter.

Now numerous "leaked" documents, AND corroborating evidence, AND a cogent theory would do it.

 

[Jango]

Re: 9/11 Questions

No one thing will do. A "leaked" document absent any corroboration is pretty much a non-starter.

Now numerous "leaked" documents, AND corroborating evidence, AND a cogent theory would do it.

Corroborating evidence as in?

 

[Jango]

Re: 9/11 Questions

NOTE: I do not believe in 9/11 conspiracies; these questions are simply to spark discussion.

For truthers: for you, what would constitute evidence that 9/11 was not an inside job, and instead was a surprise attack by foreign terrorists with no assistance or meaningful foreknowledge on the part of the United States government?

For debunkers/non-conspiracy theorists: what would convince you that 9/11 was an inside job (i.e. that the US government either orchestrated the attacks as a false flag or that they assisted in al-Qaeda's operation)?

Someone like a hacker unleashing the absolute depths of any relevant government documentation that was ever entered into a computer.

BTW - The documentation that is already out in the open dismisses the notion that 9/11 was a 'surprise attack' as was previously suggested.

 

[Fledermaus]

Re: 9/11 Questions

Corroborating evidence as in?

As in something amongst the gajillions of bits of (to repeat) evidence uncovered and analyzed by the NSA, Fire Professionals, the CIA, Engineers, the FBI, the FAA, mainstream media, alternative media, NTSB, intelligence organizations world wide, the military and local, state and federal law enforcement (to name a few).

EXAMPLE: If the CLAIM is that a Boeing flew over the pentagon rather than into it a few eyewitnesses to that fact, the radar tracking to match, etc.

 

[Jango]

Re: 9/11 Questions

As in something amongst the gajillions of bits of (to repeat) evidence uncovered and analyzed by the NSA, Fire Professionals, the CIA, Engineers, the FBI, the FAA, mainstream media, alternative media, NTSB, intelligence organizations world wide, the military and local, state and federal law enforcement (to name a few).

EXAMPLE: If the CLAIM is that a Boeing flew over the pentagon rather than into it a few eyewitnesses to that fact, the radar tracking to match, etc.

1) The C.I.A. has released many 9/11 related documents. I've yet to see any of the same effort from the N.S.A. in releasing 9/11 related documents.

2) Is your threshold for believing the same between MIHOP & LIHOP?

 

[Fledermaus]

Re: 9/11 Questions

1) The C.I.A. has released many 9/11 related documents. I've yet to see any of the same effort from the N.S.A. in releasing 9/11 related documents.

2) Is your threshold for believing the same between MIHOP & LIHOP?

1. Probably since the NSA is STILL collecting information and releasing said information CAN jeopardize the origin of said information (canary trap anyone?)

2. Yes.

BTW - NSA HAS released SOME information:

The National Security Agency intercepted two messages the day before Sept. 11 where the participants referred to "zero day" and beginning of "the match," intelligence sources told ABCNEWS.

The public disclosure of the information has angered the White House, which says it compromises national security.

The NSA, sources said, secretly intercepted and recorded two conversations in Arabic on Sept. 10. One said, "Tomorrow is zero day." Another intercepted message said, "The match begins tomorrow."

However, the information was not translated until after the attacks — on Sept. 12 — and, sources said, even if the messages had been translated sooner, it would not have been of much use because the messages were too vague and had no context, with no details of time, location or the nature of the event referred to.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=91532

 

[Jango]

Re: 9/11 Questions

1. Probably since the NSA is STILL collecting information and releasing said information CAN jeopardize the origin of said information (canary trap anyone?)

2. Yes.

BTW - NSA HAS released SOME information:

The National Security Agency intercepted two messages the day before Sept. 11 where the participants referred to "zero day" and beginning of "the match," intelligence sources told ABCNEWS.

The public disclosure of the information has angered the White House, which says it compromises national security.

The NSA, sources said, secretly intercepted and recorded two conversations in Arabic on Sept. 10. One said, "Tomorrow is zero day." Another intercepted message said, "The match begins tomorrow."

However, the information was not translated until after the attacks — on Sept. 12 — and, sources said, even if the messages had been translated sooner, it would not have been of much use because the messages were too vague and had no context, with no details of time, location or the nature of the event referred to.

9/11 Was 'Zero Day' in Intercepted Warning - ABC News

Yes, I'm aware of that nugget. But that's about it, IIRC, whereas as I said, the C.I.A. has released many documents.

Obviously, releasing documents that jeopardize sources & methods is not wise, however, as the C.I.A. has done, like an example being when the C.I.A. officially declared War on OBL, that has been released. The N.S.A. undoubtedly has documentation similar in nature.

 

[The German]

Re: 9/11 Questions

NOTE: I do not believe in 9/11 conspiracies; these questions are simply to spark discussion.

For debunkers/non-conspiracy theorists: what would convince you that 9/11 was an inside job (i.e. that the US government either orchestrated the attacks as a false flag or that they assisted in al-Qaeda's operation)?

Evidence.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Re: 9/11 Questions

For debunkers/non-conspiracy theorists: what would convince you that 9/11 was an inside job (i.e. that the US government either orchestrated the attacks as a false flag or that they assisted in al-Qaeda's operation)?

Actual evidence that doesn't rely on whimsical interpretations of physics.

 

[jamesrage]

Re: 9/11 Questions

NOTE: I do not believe in 9/11 conspiracies; these questions are simply to spark discussion.

For truthers: for you, what would constitute evidence that 9/11 was not an inside job, and instead was a surprise attack by foreign terrorists with no assistance or meaningful foreknowledge on the part of the United States government?

For debunkers/non-conspiracy theorists: what would convince you that 9/11 was an inside job (i.e. that the US government either orchestrated the attacks as a false flag or that they assisted in al-Qaeda's operation)?

If they demonstrated that flying planes into buildings does not cause them to collapse. They could do this by building several 110 story buildings built the same way the trade towers were, have 3rd party inspectors and scientists verify that the buildings are legit and then fly the same exact fully loaded planes into the buildings and if the towers fall then the truffers were right. But since that would be way too expensive and take a long time to do they could do everything scaled down using the same kind of materials but scaled down.

 

[Thoreau72]

Re: 9/11 Questions

NOTE: I do not believe in 9/11 conspiracies; these questions are simply to spark discussion.

For truthers: for you, what would constitute evidence that 9/11 was not an inside job, and instead was a surprise attack by foreign terrorists with no assistance or meaningful foreknowledge on the part of the United States government?

For debunkers/non-conspiracy theorists: what would convince you that 9/11 was an inside job (i.e. that the US government either orchestrated the attacks as a false flag or that they assisted in al-Qaeda's operation)?

For me, several things, many things.

For example: if the Pentagon had immediately provided video from its many cameras looking out, and any one of those cameras showed a 757, there would be no doubt that the Pentagon portion was factually correct.

So too, if the FBI had not gone around and confiscated the video cameras from all surrounding civilian buildings, I would not be suspicious. To my knowledge, none of those videos have been returned to their rightful owners all these years later.

So too, if the FDR and CVR from the airplanes had been provided quickly and showed that they were assigned to the aircraft in question, I would not be suspicious.

If independent observers had been allowed to inspect the aircraft wreckage and record serial numbers, I would not be suspicious.

If Wally Miller had not amended his first statement to the media, I would not be suspicious.

If the judiciary had allowed families to sue, with the proper and normal discovery processes allowed, I would not be suspicious.

And on and on.

Good question Mad Lib.

 

[Bob0627]

Re: 9/11 Questions

NOTE: I do not believe in 9/11 conspiracies; these questions are simply to spark discussion.

For truthers: for you, what would constitute evidence that 9/11 was not an inside job, and instead was a surprise attack by foreign terrorists with no assistance or meaningful foreknowledge on the part of the United States government?

For debunkers/non-conspiracy theorists: what would convince you that 9/11 was an inside job (i.e. that the US government either orchestrated the attacks as a false flag or that they assisted in al-Qaeda's operation)?

For me, the evidence is too overwhelming that 9/11 was not an inside job. There is no evidence that can change events such as the stand down (really a non event) and the complete destruction of the 3 towers. So conversely, if the US defense apparatus mounted a real attempt at preventing the 9/11 massacre, even if unsuccessful and the 3 towers were not destroyed, it would have made it much more difficult for me to believe 9/11 was an inside job. Even then, other events would be questioned, such as the Pentagon, the rapid destruction of evidence and the obvious stonewalling in investigating 9/11. Unfortunately, given this government with its long history of pathological lies, it's impossible not to question everything. There is nothing trustworthy about the US government and its 9/11 story.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Re: 9/11 Questions

No one thing will do. A "leaked" document absent any corroboration is pretty much a non-starter.

Now numerous "leaked" documents, AND corroborating evidence, AND a cogent theory would do it.

Omg... Finally, thank you for that concession that you are irrationally attached to your position regardless of any evidence presented.

This admission could have saved you months of frustration.

 

[Fledermaus]

Re: 9/11 Questions

Omg... Finally, thank you for that concession that you are irrationally attached to your position regardless of any evidence presented.

This admission could have saved you months of frustration.

Irrationally? By requiring more than one uncorroborated item?

REALITY is best understood by looking at ALL the available EVIDENCE and looking at the results in a holistic manner.

Not taking singular items and trying to weave a fantasy from them (Molten metal, NORAD exercises, etc.).

Now I realize some people lack the ability to consider the whole and would rather focus laser-like on some anomaly or out-of-context quote. Those are the people incapable of understanding the totality of what happened on 9/11.

 

[Scott]

Re: 9/11 Questions

For truthers: for you, what would constitute evidence that 9/11 was not an inside job, and instead was a surprise attack by foreign terrorists with no assistance or meaningful foreknowledge on the part of the United States government?

The proof that 9/11 was an inside job is crushing. Here's a link to some of it.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/consp...rce-its-way-onto-ballot-2.html#post1063453486

The lack of crushing proof that 9/11 was an inside job would make me consider the possibility that it wasn't.

 

[Thoreau72]

Re: 9/11 Questions

MadLib

This is one of the best threads/question posed I've seen here.

Thinking about it last night, another action that would have shown the events of the day to be as represented would have been the POTUS ordering an immediate investigation into those events.

Instead POTUS did the opposite, and fought all efforts to hold an investigation. Thank God for The Jersey Girls and their supporters.

If it had really been as the OCT claims, a POTUS with clean hands and no involvement would have ordered an investigation quickly.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Re: 9/11 Questions

NOTE: I do not believe in 9/11 conspiracies; these questions are simply to spark discussion.

For truthers: for you, what would constitute evidence that 9/11 was not an inside job, and instead was a surprise attack by foreign terrorists with no assistance or meaningful foreknowledge on the part of the United States government?

Well, since we are now providing material, weapons, and tactical support to the group that attacked the country, in different countries. Have returned terrorists 5:1 for a deserter (which is usually a death sentence, correct me if wrong).

The whistle blowers who have said how bin Laden was working with the cia up until 911... that history which goes right back through the 80 ' s after being tied to the Bush family since back in the 70 's.

So, While, if I was shown to be wrong on all fronts with compelling evidence that actually addresses the issues with the official version, I would be satisfied... them I would be angry at the debunker crowd who couldn't address those listed issues for over 10 years. However, it would be difficult in the sense that there's now a track record of evidence showing that the war on terror is anything but a war on terror.

 

[Thoreau72]

Re: 9/11 Questions

As Smedley Butler pointed out, war is a racket.

WOT is a spectacular example of that, now in year 13. The Goose The Lays The Golden Eggs for outfits like Blackwater and Halliburton.

 

[MadLib]

Re: 9/11 Questions

For me, the evidence is too overwhelming that 9/11 was not an inside job. There is no evidence that can change events such as the stand down (really a non event) and the complete destruction of the 3 towers.

So, basically, there's nothing that would convince you to change your mind or position in regards to 9/11. That's the attitude of a fanatic.

 

[Bob0627]

Re: 9/11 Questions

So, basically, there's nothing that would convince you to change your mind or position in regards to 9/11. That's the attitude of a fanatic.

No it's attitude of a realist. Unless you equate reality to fanaticism.

 

[Mark F]

Re: 9/11 Questions

For me, the evidence is too overwhelming that 9/11 was not an inside job.

Well, if it was "not an inside job" what have you been blathering on about for the last four months then?

There is no evidence that can change events such as the stand down (really a non event) and the complete destruction of the 3 towers.

10 buildings, not 3.

So conversely, if the US defense apparatus mounted a real attempt at preventing the 9/11 massacre, even if unsuccessful and the 3 towers were not destroyed, it would have made it much more difficult for me to believe 9/11 was an inside job.

But you don't believe it was an inside job. You just said it wasn't. Besides, the timeline and the ROE in place that day clearly demonstrate that any meaningful intervention by air defense forces is not possible. This is a Red Herring.

Even then, other events would be questioned, such as the Pentagon, the rapid destruction of evidence and the obvious stonewalling in investigating 9/11. Unfortunately, given this government with its long history of pathological lies, it's impossible not to question everything. There is nothing trustworthy about the US government and its 9/11 story.

What about 9/11 Truth, with its long history of pathological lies? Do they get a free pass?

 

[MadLib]

Re: 9/11 Questions

No it's attitude of a realist. Unless you equate reality to fanaticism.

The attitude of a realist is that no evidence would change his position?