What would you do?

[Pushkin]

Let's imagine a scenario where you personally become convinced that the US Government had murdered its own citizens. For the purposes of this thread THIS IS A HYPOTHETICAL situation. Discussing why it wouldn't happen is not the aim,(there are plenty of other threads doing just that) rather the question is what would you do?

Scenario 1 - you have verifiable hard evidence of CD, MIHOP that is damning in its implication of the Govt and the US President and furthermore their desire and ability to kill people to further their own ends.

Scenario 2 - you don't have verifiable evidence with which to persuade someone else - but by word of mouth or personal research you have been completely convinced the USG is at the heart of 9/11?

what are your options? what are your choices?

[alex04]

Scenario 2 - you don't have verifiable evidence with which to persuade someone else - but by word of mouth or personal research you have been completely convinced the USG is at the heart of 9/11?


Just a question, not intended to be argumentative (JAQing off eh:D)

How would you be completely (and objectively) convinced that it was an inside job without 'verifiable evidence'? Discounting personal and/or emotional bias? If it's just the 'belief'.. are we getting into the woo here?:D

Surely if the research had convinced you, you'd have verifiable evidence from that?

(hey maybe i'm wrong.. just asking!)

[DC]

im actually totaly convinced that Al capone was guilty of alc smuggeling and other crimes.
and alot others was totaly convinced, but the only evidence they had was that he didnt pay enough taxes......

sometimes you can be convinced without hard evidence.

another example. most JREFers do belive that UBL is somehow invovled in 9/11, while the FBI and others have no hard evidence.

even wars was started without hard evidence. iraq.

i would like to have scenario A.
according to Steven Jones, he is now in scenario A, while in my eyes he is still acting as if he is in Scenario B, what i find very suspect.

when i was in scenario A, i would contact all media outlets in the world, Den Haag, UN and everyone till someone listen to me and takes a look at my evidence.

but i dont have evidence :(

[Pushkin]

Just a question, not intended to be argumentative (JAQing off eh:D)

How would you be completely (and objectively) convinced that it was an inside job without 'verifiable evidence'? Discounting personal and/or emotional bias? If it's just the 'belief'.. are we getting into the woo here?:D

Surely if the research had convinced you, you'd have verifiable evidence from that?

(hey maybe i'm wrong.. just asking!)

Hollywood mode on....your brother (who you obviously didn't know existed) suddenly turned up and told he'd been part of the demolition team for the towers with a pre op brief from the president himself. he then died from a slow acting poison that the NWO had given him and all the other operatives. he was completely convincing and his last words were "get them for me brother"....

or something.

Whilst I realise that the scenario as posted in the OP is full of questions and "wait a minute, how did that happen?" i thought some interesting discussion might ensue...

I'll get my coat.

[bonavada]

Hollywood mode on....your brother (who you obviously didn't know existed) suddenly turned up and told he'd been part of the demolition team for the towers with a pre op brief from the president himself. he then died from a slow acting poison that the NWO had given him and all the other operatives.


Firstly I'd contact the Mental Asylum he escaped from and complain about the security there.

BV

[Confuseling]

:) I think it's a fair question - and you and DC are quite right, you don't need hard evidence when you have abductive reasoning, also known as inference to the best explanation.

The point though is that the question is slightly self - negating. If there isn't any hard evidence, and you've inferred that it was a conspiracy, you've got a problem. Either your reasoning is different to the reasoning of all engineers, intelligence agencies, academics, media and so forth across the planet, in which case you must assume that the fault is yours and not theirs (this seems to happen on occasion - type 911 controlled demolition into google and click any of the first 3 million hits), or you've been given privileged information (like the brother's confession).

Unfortunately, such evidence isn't reproducible by definition - if it was, it would fall into the first category. So you're stuffed. The only useful thing a confession could do would be to point you towards evidence that is hidden.

[DC]

The only useful thing a confession could do would be to point you towards evidence that is hidden.

what maybe was tryed by Sibel Edmonds

[gumboot]

Firstly I'd run my evidence past someone I knew and trusted who had a degree of expertise in the field relevant to the evidence.

Assuming they were convinced, I'd pass the evidence along to the media, along with my expert-friend's analysis/explanation. There are media outlets all over the world that would give their right tooth to implicate the US government in something like that.

[Dave Rogers]

Scenario 1 - this is fairly obvious. Quite apart from the clear moral imperative, my life is in danger as long as I'm the only one who knows about the hard evidence. It seems to me that the moral and practical imperatives coincide here; my goal is to publicise the evidence as fast as I can, to as many people as I can. As soon as the secret's out, there's no point in anyone killing me. First of all make sure my evidence is clear and irrefutable - possibly run it by someone I trust, as Gumboot suggests - then contact every paper, every radio station, every TV outlet and every professional journal I can think of, all at the same time, and make as much noise in as short a time as I can.

Scenario 2 - this is the hard one. I have to prove my case before I say anything, because if I get a reputation for peddling unfounded conspiracy theories then I won't be listened to even when I have a solid argument. Options I can immediately rule out, therefore, are flooding the internet with YouTube videos, phoning in to radio talk shows, accosting politicians at irrelevant events and starting up my own bogus scientific journal. One rather sneaky option might be to join the debunking movement, study the various conspiracist arguments from the outside, and get a reputation for being skeptical about the conspiracy theories while developing my own argument for release when I'm certain it's irrefutable. Overall, though, I think I get one shot at this and one shot only (if even that many) before being dismissed as a crank.

Dave

[fuelair]

Hollywood mode on....your brother (who you obviously didn't know existed) suddenly turned up and told he'd been part of the demolition team for the towers with a pre op brief from the president himself. he then died from a slow acting poison that the NWO had given him and all the other operatives. he was completely convincing and his last words were "get them for me brother"....

or something.

Whilst I realise that the scenario as posted in the OP is full of questions and "wait a minute, how did that happen?" i thought some interesting discussion might ensue...

I'll get my coat.As stupid as Bush is, he could not possibly be stupid enough (and Rove and Cheney would not be even if he was) to talk to any involved agent below Cheney and Rove.

[Architect]

I'm with Dave. As long as I'm the only source then I'm in considerable danger. The only option is to get if public as quickly as possible, and to do so in a convincing manner.

Isn't that the plot of a Robert Redford film, though?

[Confuseling]

Eek! Dave Rogers has gone native! :p

(or to be slightly more precise was native to begin with and has been stringing us along in an elaborate ruse!)

[quarky]

being put to death by one's govt was a leading cause of death in the 20th century.

who needs conspiracies?

[Alferd_Packer]

Isn't that the plot of a Robert Redford film, though?


Are you thinking of "Three Days of the Condor?"

The evil CIA agent had an office in the WTC.

[parky76]

i would offer my services to the guilty parties as a co-conspirator. i like to be on the side of winners.

[DC]

i would offer my services to the guilty parties as a co-conspirator. i like to be on the side of winners.

i dont doubt that

[Architect]

Are you thinking of "Three Days of the Condor?"

The evil CIA agent had an office in the WTC.

Some members of the Truth Movement would consider that definitive proof!

[Irony]

Scenario 1: I would make the information public as quickly as possible.

Scenario 2: I would look around for a qualified mental institution with a reputation for treating its patients well, then check myself into it.

[AZCat]

Are you thinking of "Three Days of the Condor?"

The evil CIA agent had an office in the WTC.

I love that movie. I fell in love with Faye Dunaway in Chinatown and watched Three Days of the Condor because of her. I didn't know it also had the rockin' Max von Sydow.