Could you be persuaded to change your mind?

Originally posted by coughymachine
reply to post by seanm

 

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?

Evidence. Massive, irrefutable evidence. And that evidence has to be able to refute ALL of the massive evidence that converges on the conclusion that AA77 hit the Pentagon. If you've read some of my posts, you know that I ask specific questions of those who claim that AA77 didn't hit the Pentagon, questions that specifically address the implications of making such a claim.

For instance, I have repeatedly asked Craig Ranke to bring evidence to the table explaining what many of hundreds of people saw and brought out as wreckage from the Pentagon if that wreckage was not from a Boeing 757. Of course, I never have gotten an answer. And I first posed the question of no-planers in 2002 without an answer.

And that is only the tip of the iceberg. There are so many implications of stating that no 757 hit the Pentagon, that I am 100% confident that no-planers have never sat down and thought about those implications. Instead. we have Truthers like Craig Ranke looking for anything that might be construed as refuting the evidence that AA77. He finds what he "thinks" are smoking guns and ignores everything else.

All I or any person needs is massive evidence - not claims, assertions, misrepresentations of data, little "anomalies", strawman arguments. We need so much evidence from so many sources.

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.

Whatever flaws there might be would have to be pretty significant to refute ALL the data and evidence, wouldn't you agree? Have you seen any that do, either singly or together?

do keep in mind that there are rebuttals to claims of conspiracy. here is a very detailed one done by popular mechanics.


here is a rebuttal to that.

for the record, not even that got me to change my mind.


i just think the hardest part for me to get over is that we caused the terrorists hatred which fueled their plot.
the evidence is now getting blurred with zealotry and bias (on both sides), and the only thing i know is true is that our foreign policy is such that we tick people off for 'our national interest overseas'(which seems to be an oxymoron). AND that we've been doing it since before WWII (i.e. japan).

reply to post by seanm

Whatever flaws there might be would have to be pretty significant to refute ALL the data and evidence, wouldn't you agree? Have you seen any that do, either singly or together?

In answer to the first part, yes, I would. The answer to the second is a little more complicated.

The big problem for me with this debate is that once you're open to the possibility that 9/11 was a self-inflicted wound of some sort, it's nigh-on impossible to treat any new information with absolute impartiality. And the reverse is true also. If one is absolutely convinced the alternative theories are preposterous, then any new 'information' offered in support one of those theories is pretty much dismissed.

I liken it in many ways to optical illusions or lateral thinking puzzles. Once you see the 'illusion' or the solution, you scratch your head wondering how the hell you missed it.

Here's a puzzle offered both as an example of what I mean and also as a bit of fun. If you're familiar with it, you'll know what I'm driving at. If not, it might take us a few heated exchanges to convince you the correct answer is indeed correct.

I place three cups on a table and, without you looking, place a ball under one of them.

I then invite you to select the cup you think the ball is under and place your finger on it.

I remove one of the other two cups and show you it's empty (remember, I know where the ball is).

You now have two cups in front of you: the one with your finger on it and one other.

I offer you the chance to either stick with your original selection or switch.

What should you do and why?

To return to your point. The problem people have with the Pentagon strike is that there do appear to be conflicting eyewitness accounts. There also appears to be errors in the FDR data, though the extent and implications are far from clear. Add to that the suspicion that, if the government were involved in some way, then it would be relatively straightforward to manufacture a great deal of the physical evidence used to support the Pentagon strike claim, and it's easy to see why some people remain wedded to alternative theories.

I saw with my own eyes a plane hit the one tower!!!!!

I would have to SEE, with my own eyes an overwhelming amount of evidence to convince me what I saw was not what I saw.

Telling me "theories" of why what I saw wasn't really what I saw doesn't work for me.

I would need actual evidence, not pet theories.

The thing is, there is a big difference between what happened at the towers and what happened afterwards. Of course those were real planes hitting the twin towers, no doubt about that. What im not convinced of is what happened with flight 77 and also 93.
Remember those supposed recordings of the passengers planning to charge the cockpit? It is absolutely impossible that those recordings happened. There is just too much that doesnt add up.

The WTC is a complete loss as far as the gov't story goes, and I know for a fact that it was controlled demoed.

On the Pentagon, I know a 757 hit the pentagon, because it was guided by a QRS-11 guidance chip. Just like the planes that hit the twin towers.

So I guess that at this point I could never change my mind.

Originally posted by downtown436
The WTC is a complete loss as far as the gov't story goes, and I know for a fact that it was controlled demoed.

You 'know' this, or you strongly suspect it to be so? If it's the former, then on what basis?

On the Pentagon, I know a 757 hit the pentagon, because it was guided by a QRS-11 guidance chip.

As above - you know these planes were guided in this way or strongly suspect it to be so?

Originally posted by coughymachineCould you be persuaded to change your mind? » Post Reply
Post Reply

Yes if 100% proof was available.
Sadly it isnt and never will be which is why this debate will never end until something dwarfs it or it leaves living memory (meaning when this generation is gone and 9.11 is just in history books)

Originally posted by jprophet420
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.

Since you believe the fallacy that there is an "official story" rather than evidence, you are 100% a 9/11 conspiracy theorist, also known as a "9/11 Truther" and a "9/11 Denier."

i believe it was an inside job, i don't know how they were taken down. if it was muslims i'm guessing that the government either bribed them or threatened their families

More like what area's could my mind be changed in.

For example nothing could change my mind on WTC7, that was pre-rigged
to fall, that much is clear.

My mind is made up on the, extra help needed beyond the planes to bring down WTC 1 & 2. How is where my mind could be changed.

I mean a scecret DEW weapon could exist, I cant rule it out.

Holograms, based on my research, it would take I lot to change my mind that they were used.

Bottom line 9/11 is false flag operation, how is not so important, as that it was done, and not just by some rookie piliots armed with boxcutters.

Originally posted by coughymachine
reply to post by seanm


To return to your point. The problem people have with the Pentagon strike is that there do appear to be conflicting eyewitness accounts. There also appears to be errors in the FDR data, though the extent and implications are far from clear.

OK, you have two things. 1) If you think that conflicting eyewitness accounts are sufficiently contradictory to cause you to doubt and question if AA 77 hit the Pentagon, how would you proceed - on your own, with the information available to you - to establish which one is correct?

2) If you feel there are errors in the FDR, are you confident that they are REAL errors? In other words, would you consider that you may not know what you don't know and then proceed to try to ascertain if they are really errors?

Add to that the suspicion that, if the government were involved in some way, then it would be relatively straightforward to manufacture a great deal of the physical evidence used to support the Pentagon strike claim, and it's easy to see why some people remain wedded to alternative theories.

Are you really that confident "it would be relatively straightforward to manufacture a great deal of the physical evidence?" What evidence would suggest to you that it would be easy? Can you tick off on a piece of paper all that would be necessary, for instance, to manufacture and plant evidence making it seem that AA77 hit the Pentagon? What are the implications in terms of eyewitnesses? Could you tell us what happened to AA77 and reveal all who would have seen it, say, fly over the Pentagon?

As I wrote earlier, the implications of entertaining that AA77 did not hit

Originally posted by coughymachine
reply to post by seanm


To return to your point. The problem people have with the Pentagon strike is that there do appear to be conflicting eyewitness accounts. There also appears to be errors in the FDR data, though the extent and implications are far from clear.

OK, you have two things. 1) If you think that conflicting eyewitness accounts are sufficiently contradictory to cause you to doubt and question if AA 77 hit the Pentagon, how would you proceed - on your own, with the information available to you - to establish which one is correct?

2) If you feel there are errors in the FDR, are you confident that they are REAL errors? In other words, would you consider that you may not know what you don't know and then proceed to try to ascertain if they are really errors?

Add to that the suspicion that, if the government were involved in some way, then it would be relatively straightforward to manufacture a great deal of the physical evidence used to support the Pentagon strike claim, and it's easy to see why some people remain wedded to alternative theories.

Are you really that confident "it would be relatively straightforward to manufacture a great deal of the physical evidence?" What evidence would suggest to you that it would be easy? Can you tick off on a piece of paper all that would be necessary, for instance, to manufacture and plant evidence making it seem that AA77 hit the Pentagon? What are the implications in terms of eyewitnesses? Could you tell us what happened to AA77 and reveal all who would have seen it, say, fly over the Pentagon?

As I wrote earlier, the implications of entertaining that AA77 not hitting the Pentagon are massive and must be dealt with. But they aren't dealt with by 9/11 conspiracists. Instead, there are assertions of "could have", "governments have been successful before", etc. That, in my mind, is why 9/11 conspiracy theories fail to get beyond theories and talk.



[edit on 16-10-2007 by seanm]

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
More like what area's could my mind be changed in.

For example nothing could change my mind on WTC7, that was pre-rigged
to fall, that much is clear.

My mind is made up on the, extra help needed beyond the planes to bring down WTC 1 & 2. How is where my mind could be changed.

I mean a scecret DEW weapon could exist, I cant rule it out.

Holograms, based on my research, it would take I lot to change my mind that they were used.

Bottom line 9/11 is false flag operation, how is not so important, as that it was done, and not just by some rookie piliots armed with boxcutters.

Bottom line is that your mind is made up. Would it ever be possible for you to entertain that you may be completely wrong or are you convinced you will live the rest of your life with your current beliefs?

Originally posted by wolfmann_86
The thing is, there is a big difference between what happened at the towers and what happened afterwards. Of course those were real planes hitting the twin towers, no doubt about that. What im not convinced of is what happened with flight 77 and also 93.
Remember those supposed recordings of the passengers planning to charge the cockpit? It is absolutely impossible that those recordings happened. There is just too much that doesnt add up.

I would be happy to see the evidence that those recordings would be impossible.

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

If someone got blamed. If it was incompetence, why did they get promoted? If it was the highjackers totally, why is it not provable?

I guess, if they would start answering questions (real questions and not strawmen) then I'd be more apt to listen.

Originally posted by Wildbob77
If you wired a building wouldn't there be lots of evidence that this was done.

I was just watching "Future Weapons" and they had something interesting on. It was a mortar shell that spins around in the air and has sensors to find targets, hits the targets (tanks) with what they called "molten copper" but if the shells don't lock onto anything, they explode in the air. They specifically said that there is no trace left. So, no trace of the mortar shell, sensor, bombs attached, or molten copper. Sounds like it could be done to me.

Just sayin.

Originally posted by seanm
Bottom line is that your mind is made up. Would it ever be possible for you to entertain that you may be completely wrong or are you convinced you will live the rest of your life with your current beliefs?

No offense, but so far I have seen the same from you. The only answer to the original OP was "a lot of evidence" that I have seen. Again, I mean no offense, but to call the kettle "black", one should be any color but.

Originally posted by seanm
OK, you have two things. 1) If you think that conflicting eyewitness accounts are sufficiently contradictory to cause you to doubt and question if AA 77 hit the Pentagon, how would you proceed - on your own, with the information available to you - to establish which one is correct?

On balance, I believe the Pentagon was struck by a plane, as I've already said. However, since there are contradictory eyewitness accounts, there is always an element of uncertainty about exactly what happened. I don't think it's possible to be 100% convinced of what happened based upon the evidence available to us right now.

To answer your question more directly, I have a view and wouldn't proceed any further until such time as new evidence came to light.

2) If you feel there are errors in the FDR, are you confident that they are REAL errors? In other words, would you consider that you may not know what you don't know and then proceed to try to ascertain if they are really errors?

To the first question, no, of course not. I have absolutely no expertise in this area. I'm utterly dependent upon the analysis of those who are qualified to interpet the data.

As yet, I haven't seen the PFT questions answered fully or their claims fully de-bunked. That said, I've stepped back over the past few months and haven't kept up-to-date. If they have been de-bunked, perhaps you have a link?

Are you really that confident "it would be relatively straightforward to manufacture a great deal of the physical evidence?"

If the government was sufficiently motivated to plan and participate in the attacks, then yes, I believe it would have been relatively straightforward to manufacture a great deal of the physical evidence. This assumes, of course, that there was a need to manufacture evidence. But remember, in my earlier post, I was simply explaining why some people held the view they do. My view, is that a plane probably did hit the Pentagon.

Please bear this in mind as you read my responses to your questions below.

What evidence would suggest to you that it would be easy?

I didn't say it would be easy; I said relatively straightforward. And I say this in the context of assuming that the operation was planned, at least in part, by elements within the government.

Can you tick off on a piece of paper all that would be necessary, for instance, to manufacture and plant evidence making it seem that AA77 hit the Pentagon?

If you really insist, then I guess I could tick off a fair few, if not all. But so could pretty much anybody if they sat down and thought about it. The problem is you would force me to invent a set of circumstances I don't necessarily agree with in order to do so.

What are the implications in terms of eyewitnesses?

This would be the most challenging aspect, in my view, certainly in the case of the Pentagon. But again, it can be relatively easy to fool people, even on a very large scale. However, it's no surprise that this is the area where the available evidence is most contradictory.

Could you tell us what happened to AA77 and reveal all who would have seen it, say, fly over the Pentagon?

If it didn't crash into the Pentagon? No, I can't.

How do 'debunkers' explain the molten metal pouting out of the towers? or the white smoke that was coming from the same location as the molten metal? Those two things are the signature of thermite/ thermate. This white smoke can also be seen at the bottom of the towers before they collapse.
How about the massive basement bombs?
All the explosions going off on the lower levels? Trashed lobby areas, etc.
For the people that keep talking about the "steel weakened by fire" stuff... The core of the towers was made of massive steel beams reinforced with concrete (surrounded by it). How can that be breached, much less "weakened"? The pancake theory is nonsense. The core column that hold the structures up had no reason to 'pancake'.
The second tower wasnt even hit in the middle core of the structure, the plane hit off center.
Also, jet fuel burns very fast, most of the fuel in the planes went up instantly in the impact explosions. But yeah, sure, it burned forever and took the entire towers down. ie. The small plane that crashed into the Empire State had jet fuel, and that burned out in 30-35 minutes.


this site has some good picture of the construction of the towers, with the interior exposed too.

algoxy.com...

[edit on 16-10-2007 by Unplugged]

What would it take to change my mind? hmm....

Simply balance this equation for me (and yes I realize that comparing the 911 debate to a chemical equation is a stretch, but I hope it illustrates my point, that yes my mind could be changed, but not likely to happen):

A Government I do not trust
+
Questionable story/theory/evidence
->
Family member/First responders/Experts fighting for a "real" investigation +
Unanswered questions/Governments unwillingness to disclose evidence


That about sums it up I guess