Could you be persuaded to change your mind?

reply to post by coughymachine



I believe 100% that the U.S. government, along with the 9/11 Commission, intentionally covered-up what really happened. Nothing can change my mind on this because it is already over and done with.

After than, my mind is not made up.

Going to extreme examples, there is nothing that could convince me that the terrorists did not have any inside help. Conversely, there are unlimited smoking guns that could convince me that the government was complicit in 9/11. Only problem is these smoking guns are non-existent.

Originally posted by jprophet420
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.

You know this has got to aggravate me. You've looked at a few photos and you're convinced beyond recovery? How wide is this hole you've studied so closely? Cause I've looked at the same photos and seen how a 757 core and even much of the wings could well fit. So we are on different brain planets and ne'er the two will meet. Kinda sad, really. Therefore, I can help explain it elsewhere if you're willing to be open-minded, and I'll look at your calculations in turn and see if you've found something I missed.

But this is a side-track, which CM's OP warned us not to get tangled in. So...

Originally posted by coughymachine
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.

It's about become that for me, since there are those as impervious to my ideas as I am to theirs. It really is a good skill, but in general it's a waste of time trying to get logic through to some people.

Great thread starter, and mixed results so far. We have those who have their rationality on display, if only in response to the tone of the thread. I encourage that. There are those entirely too sure of themselves (mostly on the Truther side it seems) and those who say they're open-minded but then show otherwise with their posts. Really, if there's any communicating to be done by us 'truthers' besides preaching to the choir and debating with brick walls, it's communicating with those yet to consider the darker options. And how can we expect them to be open-minded to our vaunted demo or hologram theories if we aren't open to hear their doubts about these?

And debunkers need too realize there are those for whom ripping apart Loose Change's claims will do nothing to cure them of suspicion. There are dark possibilities that have nothing to do with elaborate half-plausible MIHOP machinations. Truthers, embrace debunkers and debunkers, embrace truthers.

Lots more to say, but I don't need to soap-box it.

all!

reply to post by Caustic Logic

...how can we expect them to be open-minded to our vaunted demo or hologram theories...

I agree, this is one of the key problems the 'truth' movement faces (I do hate the terms 'truther' and 'debunker', since both sides are presumably interested in the truth whilst attempting to debunk one another. Nonetheless, I'll stick with them).

It seems to me that the debunkers have been relatively successful in dismissing or at least casting sufficient doubt on the various theories, causing the truthers to turn to ever more exotic explanations. It's as though this is the only way they can justify persisting with their suspicion.

But what if most of the key elements of the 'official' version are true? What if Flights 11 and 175 did crash into WTC 1 & 2 (don't read anything into this - I'm not a supporter of either the no-plane or hologram theories)? What if the towers did collapse broadly as described by NIST? What if WTC 7 did collapse as a result of damage caused by the collapse of WTCs 1 & 2, and subsequent fires? What if Flight 77 did strike the Pentagon? What if passengers aboard Flight 93 did wrestle with the hijackers and force the plane to crash in Shanksville?

Would all this rule out the possibility that there was some level of government participation? I don't think it would.

This is why I'd very much like the discussion to take place at a higher level perspective. Forget the micro issues and look at the bigger picture. For me, this is the future of the debate.

The longer we are locked in often pointless arguments about the small details, the longer it will take to make any progress. And by progress, I don't rule out the possibility that 9/11 was entirely to work of external forces.

Originally posted by Griff

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.

The same evidence available to me is available to everyone. The difference between me and 9/11 Truthers is I don't have any need to dismiss evidence.

Nothing confusing there, is there?

Originally posted by coughymachine

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.

[snip]

To keep it short, this is what I think you are saying:

1. You're reasonably certain that AA77 hit the Pentagon but not 100% due to conflicting eyewitness accounts.

2 If the government was sufficiently motivated, it could manufacture evidence. Do you have a time frame? Could it be achieved secretly with relatively few people, or could a large number of people be involved and keep it secret?

3. It would be relatively easy to fool a large number of people. Isn't that an assumption?

reply to post by seanm

1. You're reasonably certain that AA77 hit the Pentagon but not 100% due to conflicting eyewitness accounts.

Reasonably certain a plane hit the Pentagon? Yes.

Not 100% due to conflicting eyewitness accounts and my general level of suspicion.

2 If the government was sufficiently motivated, it could manufacture evidence. Do you have a time frame? Could it be achieved secretly with relatively few people, or could a large number of people be involved and keep it secret?

Yes. I believe if the government was sufficiently motivated, it could manufacture evidence. The time frame is dependent upon which phase of any such operation we're talking about. If we're talking about the planning phases, then it could have taken years and involved a relatively small number of people.

If we're talking about the preparation, then were talking about maybe a few months and again a relatively small number of people 'in the know', though perhaps a larger number of people unwittingly involved.

If we're talking about the execution of such a plan, then we're talking a few hours. Again, not many people need 'know'.

If you want to try and pin me down to specifics, firstly I'd be reluctant to do so and secondly, you'd force me to invent scenarios I don't subscribe to just to give you an answer. You're better off asking someone who actually believes that Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon for their view, since they're much more likely to have given it some thought.

3. It would be relatively easy to fool a large number of people. Isn't that an assumption?

Yes it is, but at the risk of inviting ridicule, how many people around the world are bewildered by David Copperfield, for example.

Any such attempt to 'fool' people (and we're talking specifically about potential eyewitnesses where the Pentagon is concerned) would rely on a combination of favourable circumstances, such as the topology in and around the Pentagon (something I'm not familiar with so cannot expand upon), careful stage management, post-event PsyOps and so on.

reply to post by Caustic Logic

no, ive actually examined the photo on my computer and come to the conclusion that the hole in the pentagon is 2 low for it to be a 757.

the top of the hole in the pentagon is 30 feet up and only 6 feet wide. the top of the fuselage is 18 feet off the ground, and the plane cleared the fence on the outside that was at least 6 feet tall. that means at 24 feet the hole should have been 13 feet wide, and its not.

Originally posted by coughymachine
reply to post by seanm

 

Yes. I believe if the government was sufficiently motivated, it could manufacture evidence. The time frame is dependent upon which phase of any such operation we're talking about. If we're talking about the planning phases, then it could have taken years and involved a relatively small number of people.

If we're talking about the preparation, then were talking about maybe a few months and again a relatively small number of people 'in the know', though perhaps a larger number of people unwittingly involved.

Are you entertaining that it is possible that a 9/11 conspiracy could extend back to earlier than the Bush administration?

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by Caustic Logic

 

no, ive actually examined the photo on my computer and come to the conclusion that the hole in the pentagon is 2 low for it to be a 757.

the top of the hole in the pentagon is 30 feet up and only 6 feet wide. the top of the fuselage is 18 feet off the ground, and the plane cleared the fence on the outside that was at least 6 feet tall. that means at 24 feet the hole should have been 13 feet wide, and its not.

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

seanm

A couple of questions for you.

Consider the following principal claims:

• WTC1 was brought down by a controlled demolition
  
  
• WTC2 was brought down by a controlled demolition
  
  
• WTC7 was brought down by a controlled demolition
  
  
• Flight 77 did not crash into the Pentagon
  
  
• Flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville

If any one of these claims were proven, would you conceed that 9/11 was an inside job?

If so, for each claim (excluding the Pentagon claim, which you've already answered earlier in this thread), what would it take to convince you?

If not, why not?

reply to post by seanm

Are you entertaining that it is possible that a 9/11 conspiracy could extend back to earlier than the Bush administration?

Yes. But just so we're clear, I could similarly accept the idea that it wasn't a conspiracy at all.

Since we're all after the "truth" of the event, we should all be openminded enough to change if proof is given that makes you change your mind.

Having said that, it would take a lot of it.

Originally posted by coughymachine
seanm

A couple of questions for you.

Consider the following principal claims:

• WTC1 was brought down by a controlled demolition
  
  
• WTC2 was brought down by a controlled demolition
  
  
• WTC7 was brought down by a controlled demolition
  
  
• Flight 77 did not crash into the Pentagon
  
  
• Flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville

If any one of these claims were proven, would you conceed that 9/11 was an inside job?

Of course. All I would need is the irrefutable evidence.

If so, for each claim (excluding the Pentagon claim, which you've already answered earlier in this thread), what would it take to convince you?

If not, why not?

The same answer I gave here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

applies to each instance.

Like every other skeptic of 9/11 conspiracy theories, I am just waiting for the evidence instead of claims and assertions from 9/11 Truthers.

reply to post by coughymachine
I'm one of these 'on the fencers' (but I dont ridicule anyone) I've been reading through the posts, views, evidence (its taken some time due to the amount of information to read) I'm not totally convinced about the 'explosives' theory but I am leaning towards Government involvement (or at least knowledge) - but even then I'm not sure (too messy)

If someone can make a compelling case with evidence, then that would probably persuade me.

Better yet, if someone can give me a starting point for research

[edit on 17-10-2007 by TheJenkster]

[edit on 17-10-2007 by TheJenkster]

Originally posted by seanm
The same answer I gave here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

applies to each instance.

In the post you referred me to, you said that you required...

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.

The implication here is that the evidence supporting one of the theories needs to be more voluminous than that against. Am I reading this right?

If so, I would challenge that. For example, if just one single piece of incontravertible evidence could be produced to prove that just one of the WTC buildings was rigged with explosives, surely that would trump the mountain of evidence used to support the official version, wouldn't it?

If I've read you wrong, simply ignore me.

Originally posted by seanm
Are you entertaining that it is possible that a 9/11 conspiracy could extend back to earlier than the Bush administration?

How far back does the Bush administration span? 20-30 years? Yup. They were all there during Reagan (well, not at the top but still around). I watched a Frontline episode about Cheney last night. I wish I knew the title of it. It was very interesting and scarey (at least to me) to say the least.

Originally posted by coughymachine

Originally posted by seanm
The same answer I gave here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

applies to each instance.

In the post you referred me to, you said that you required...

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.

The implication here is that the evidence supporting one of the theories needs to be more voluminous than that against. Am I reading this right?

No.

If so, I would challenge that. For example, if just one single piece of incontravertible evidence could be produced to prove that just one of the WTC buildings was rigged with explosives, surely that would trump the mountain of evidence used to support the official version, wouldn't it?

Remember, there is no "official version." We are talking about evidence.

Yes, if it could be proven that one of the towers was intentionally rigged with, and brought down by explosives, and that it was the cause of the collapse of that tower, then you have a whole new ball game for the entire 9/11 event.

All you need is evidence.

But then we have a body of accumulated evidence that shows that explosives would not be needed. As well, we have numerous independent studies of the dust and debris that show no evidence of explosives of any sort.

As I said, all you need is evidence.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by seanm
Are you entertaining that it is possible that a 9/11 conspiracy could extend back to earlier than the Bush administration?

How far back does the Bush administration span? 20-30 years? Yup. They were all there during Reagan (well, not at the top but still around). I watched a Frontline episode about Cheney last night. I wish I knew the title of it. It was very interesting and scarey (at least to me) to say the least.

Was there an 8-year pause during the Clinton administration?

Originally posted by seanm
Was there an 8-year pause during the Clinton administration?

You obviously don't know how the government works huh? Do you think the people who make up Bush's admin were not working in the government in one form or another? Or do you think everyone in DC gets fired every 4 years?

If Bin Laden himself stood up on world wide TV and stated that he was responsible, then laid out how it all happened, I still wouldn't believe it. It would only prove to me that he is part of it, or computer graphics have advanced further than expected.

And no, I don't believe it was the Government. Certainly there were people in the government involved, but this goes much higher.

ZIONISM did 911.