Could you be persuaded to change your mind?

A simple question: what would it take to convince you that the opposite view about 9/11 was correct.

I ask this to both sides of the debate, not in order to re-run tired, old arguments, but to get some simple ideas about how the discussion should/could develop. That said, part of me wonders whether, in the absence of any new material, the ongoing debate serves any real purpose other than for people to practice their debating skills.

As an example, to the 'truthers', what would it take to convince you that the towers' collapse sequence was broadly as described by NIST?

To the 'debunkers', the reverse: what would it take to convince you they were brought down in a controlled manner?

In both cases, please answer given the limitiations we face, i.e. no materials available for analysis; best endeavours as to the damage caused to the buildins by whatever you believe hit them, etc.

Given there are so many facets to the theories that surround 9/11, please don't limit your responses to what did or didn't happen to the towers. Consider what it might take to persuade you that Flight 77 did/didn't (delete as applicable) crash into the Pentagon building. What would it take to convince you that the 19 hijackers identified in the 9/11 Commission report did/didn't hijack and pilot the planes, and so on.

[edit on 15-10-2007 by coughymachine]

Nothing would convince me that the government or individuals within it didnt have a hand in it. Too many coincidences, too many convenient circumstances, it was too perfect. Not to mention the long and rich history of false flag operations as a means to steer nations and policies.

At this point or at any other in the future, if the government came out with some never released evidence, I wouldnt believe it. They could simply have just cooked it up all these years. If they had any evidence to clear their names, it would have been out a long time ago.

[edit on 15-10-2007 by Unplugged]

If the FBI would release the videos of the pentagon, taken all over the damn place; I might start to believe the official story. The longer these tapes are kept from the taxpaying citizens of this country, the more I believe there is a conspiracy and that over 3000 people were sacrificed for greed and power.

So far, we have one who doesn't believe in evidence at all, and another who says no evidence is relevant unless there's a video of it happening.

I submit that both views are fairly representative of the views of the majority of posters here.

I won’t be arrogant enough to say that that I’d never change my mind about 9/11 being an inside job as I like to keep an open mind but many issues would have to be addressed, such as:

Why after all the warnings from various Intel agencies around the world, no –one was fired, reprimanded held accountable etc?
.
Why the 9/11 Commission not only contradicts itself, but omits important information and contradicts witness testimonies (such as Mineta)? Cheney didn’t even call for an evacuation of the Pentagon!

Why plans for invading Iraq and Afghanistan were already drawn up pre 911 (incidentally both Rice and Powell stated in 2001 that Saddam was no threat and lead us to war on false pretenses)

Why there was no further investigation by the FBI on the day of 9/11 that car bombs may have been planted in the WTC’s basement, despite numerous reports of explosions?

Why family victims had to push so hard just to get 9/11 investigated (apparently) adequately?

Why after six years there is still no adequate explanation as to how WTC7 collapsed, despite apparently everyone (including the BBC who reported the collapse before the event) knowing it was going to collapse?. Seems everyone knew, but no-one can explain why.

Why the most sophisticated and technologically advanced military in the world could not intercept a single plane even over P-56 prohibited airspace considering the US was clearly under attack?

Why Rice told a mistruth that they had never envisaged planes being used as missiles?

Why the borders remain relatively open yet there has not been one attack in the US since 9/11?

Why the media remains silent on a daily basis?

Why all the changes to the laws such as wiretapping, patriot act, arrests without charges, policy guidance for civilian labor programs, Halliburton contracts for detention facilities etc

Why Bin laden is apparently still alive despite numerous intercepts of communication?

Why bin Laden was interviewed by a mainstream reporter in June, 2001, yet the CIA etc could not find him and still can’t?

Why a bunch a so-called devout Muslims could disgrace their religion by drinking (and apparently gambling, visiting strip clubs etc) shortly before meeting their maker.

Why the official story has changed so many times and why they have not been forthcoming with all the evidence even if does not relate to national security. etc , etc , etc.


No science has even been addressed in my post yet.
Actually I could go on and on and on. Of course I could be wrong though….



edit:sp


[edit on 16-10-2007 by cams]

Originally posted by seanm
So far, we have one who doesn't believe in evidence at all, and another who says no evidence is relevant unless there's a video of it happening.

I submit that both views are fairly representative of the views of the majority of posters here.

Oh don't leave out the posters who would rather stand on the sidline and criticize other posters with broad generalizations rather than answer the question.

I think the Pentagon videos would go a long way to changing peoples minds, depending on what they show.

Personally, if they could give total disclosure on everything regarding 9-11, I could make a better decision. But with things as they are now, I don't think that my mind will be changed anytime too soon.

[edit on 16-10-2007 by Karlhungis]

i am a 'debunker' i guess.

i think that 9/11 was much like the bombing of pearl harbor. america's current foreign policy is to tick off everyone around them at their expense. we are still misusing our military and have for 60 years. we are still getting involved in conflicts in other soveriegn nations that are not part of the US.

i guess my foundational arguement against truthers is that the US government or any world power (illuminati etc) would not HAVE TO plant the bombs because they have already ticked off some people across the globe that want to plant them themselves.

it would be difficult to convince me otherwise because i know our foreign policy is so messed up that we have made enemies that are willing to do this to us. we have to stop d!ck(cheney)ing around the world and start talking.

reply to post by DINSTAAR

i am a 'debunker' i guess.

i think that 9/11 was much like the bombing of pearl harbor

A 'debunker' who likens 9/11 to Pearl Harbor?

Some people - an increasing number in fact - would argue that Pearl Harbor was deliberately engineered by Roosevelt in order to help him persuade the American people to support America's entry into WWII. Now whilst the attack itself was obviously carried out by the Japanese, it was, if McCollum's Memo is anything to go by, the clear intention of the US administration to provoke Japan into doing just that.

Some people - an increasing number in fact - would argue that Pearl Harbor was deliberately engineered by Roosevelt in order to help him persuade the American people to support America's entry into WWII. Now whilst the attack itself was obviously carried out by the Japanese, it was, if McCollum's Memo is anything to go by, the clear intention of the US administration to provoke Japan into doing just that.

thanks for the input. let me explain...
that is exactly what i feel they did during 9/11. they provoked it much like we did the japanese with the oil embargos and what have you. i considered myself a 'debunker' as my views do not coincide with the 'truther' mentality of bush planting bombs in the towers(etc).
you're right; my views would fall somewhere in the middle of debunker and truther. i guess i didn't explain very well. i am a detrubunther.

as mentioned above i believe japan was provoked by our foreign policy (i.e. we were trying to go to war with them). the hijackers and their camp were also provoked by years of our covert/obvious policies. we put in the shah of iran. we traded weapons with them. we supported israel with weapons (on and on).

i think your argument was more about how i defined myself, and i hope i clarified. its not that my opinions arent strong, just that i havent polarized myself to being a truther or debunker.
but i am starting to like the detrubunther a little bit.

Agreed DINSTAAR

What you proposed above is in line with my thoughts from the time it happened and therefore what is actually being obscured by all the wild theories put forward (Alien technology DEW, hologram planes etc etc). All the obvious (to me) disinfo proposed only serves to divert attention and energies in the wrong direction.

Show me absolute, irrefutably solid evidence of a theory and you'll have my attention.

I'm not sure if anything could change my mind now.

I guess I'm a truther, but the evidence I have seen just can't be suppressed and forgotten. What I have seen and read, will stay with me forever and even if ther is a confession tape of some middle-eastern people, I will still be hard to turn. Maybe I'm just really stubborn but I don't believe anything Bush or his administration say, as the old joke goes - "how do you know when a politician is lying? their lips move"
So I dont think anything will change my mind.

Also flag and star for you coughymachine, excellent post.

[edit on 16-10-2007 by TheOmen]

as i am not a conspiracy theorist or truther i cant really change my mind either way on those subjects.

However, the evidence makes it clear that the official story is inaccurate at the least.

it would take the government admitting that data was manipulated in certain cases. for example the FDR indicates a downward angle at the time of impact while the video indicates a parallel (in relation to the ground) strike.

However, that would prove by admission that there was a conspiracy theory, so there really is no way i could be led to believe the official story.

I appreciate all the responses you've given so far.

What about looking at specific issues. Is there any way, for example, those who believe Flight 77 struck the Pentagon could be persuaded that it didn't? If so, what sort of evidence would need to be presented?

And vice versa: what would it take to persuade those who don't believe it struck that it did? Would the release of all the confiscated videos satisfy them if it showed a commercial aircraft? Or is it too late even for that - that they would simply suspect fakery?

Perhaps subject experts such as Caustic Logic and Craig Ranke could offer views here.

Same goes for the collapse of the towers and WTC7 etc.

First, I'd like to say that my mind can be change.

What would it take?

I would need to see an engineering analysis that demonstrates to me that the most probable cause for collapse was something other than planes crashing into the buildings followed by fire which leads to a loss of strength in the metal which eventually leads to catastrophic failure. To me, that's the best model that fits the facts.

You would have to include in this report some evidence that something else (explosives) were involved. When I've been on jobs that used explosives you could always find traces of the wiring that was used for detonation. If you wired a building wouldn't there be lots of evidence that this was done.

I would also need to see how the planes were controlled to crash exactly where the collapse was going to occur. The collapse in both the towers started on the floors at or near where the planes crashed.

reply to post by Wildbob77



What about the possibility that the towers collapsed broadly as described by NIST, but it was still a conspiracy? Could you buy that? If so, what would you need to see to persuade you?

It is hard for me to believe that a handful of men with box cutters held 60+ passengers on a plane hostage long enough to ram the planes into a building. I just find the whole story absurd, to be honest. Now, with that being said, do I think they were Muslim fundamentalists? Yes, I do. However, I also think that our government had foreknowledge of the event, perhaps as far back as the early 1990s, and nothing was done to prevent it from taking place.

for flight 77 specifically, there is nothing that could lead me to believe flight 77 hit it. I have reviewed several photos of the initial hole and none of them indicate a 757 caused the damage.

there is no way i could be talked out of believing there was no BOMB in the basement either, the videotape doesent lie.

With the propper evidence i could believe:
a. that a passenger airliner hit the north and south towers.
b. Bush 'wasn't in on it'
c. Osama was 'in on it'

that's about it however.

Originally posted by Karlhungis

Originally posted by seanm
So far, we have one who doesn't believe in evidence at all, and another who says no evidence is relevant unless there's a video of it happening.

I submit that both views are fairly representative of the views of the majority of posters here.

Oh don't leave out the posters who would rather stand on the sidline and criticize other posters with broad generalizations rather than answer the question.

Exactly. You ask them to present evidence that AA77 did not hit the Pentagon and refute the massive evidence that it did and they go off an whine that they don't have to.

I think the Pentagon videos would go a long way to changing peoples minds, depending on what they show.

I always found that strange, personally. The nature of evidence doesn't require any videos. We have the physical evidence, we have the witnesses to the crash and the wreckage. Videos are immaterial.

If no one believes the massive evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon, why would they ever believe a video anyway?

reply to post by coughymachine


There is always the possibility that there was a conspiracy. Right now I believe that it was a conspiracy of muslim terrorist who attacked the twin towers.

reply to post by seanm

We have the physical evidence, we have the witnesses to the crash and the wreckage. Videos are immaterial.

If no one believes the massive evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon, why would they ever believe a video anyway?

And here we have what for me is one of the major stumbling blocks in this whole debate. We do appear to have a lot of evidence but for those who suspect the government was involved, it's easy to dismiss this evidence - it was either planted or else fabricated.

Let me ask you a direct question, seanm: what would it take for you to believe that the Pentagon was not hit by Flight 77?

Just so you know my view - rather than have you jump to conclusions - I believe something did hit the Pentagon. I remain to be 100% convinced that it was Flight 77, but I believe it's the most likely explanation, notwithstanding the obvious apparent flaws in the current account.