Hypothetical: What is the minimum it would take for you to disbelieve the OV of 9/11?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Title says it all.

[Skibum]

Excuse my ignorance, but what is OV.

[realitybites]

Proof.

[KingMerv00]

Originally Posted by Skibum

Excuse my ignorance, but what is OV.

I'm ignorant too. Obvious version maybe?

[jhunter1163]

OV = Official Version.

For me it'd take an indisputably authentic Watergate-style tape with GWB saying something either ordering it or indicating that he had knowledge it was about to happen.

[Hellbound]

Hmmm

Hard to say. At this point, any evidence that would have convinced me should have been found.

1) Photo/video evidence of explosives being planted in any of the WTC towers. However, before I'd accept this, there'd ALSO have to be evidence of wire/detonators/etc being removed from the debris before anyone had a chance to see them, something that is highly unlikely.

2) Several of the passengers/highjackers from the crashed flights showing up alive, or remains being found somewhere not associated with the crash sites, and positively identified. If there was no logical explanation, that'd do it.

3) Clear video showing anything besides a plane impacting one of the crash sites, and evidence of planted aircraft parts. No single line of evidence on these, video can be faked.

4) Clear evidence of money and/or orders being sent from government to the highjackers.

5) Documented proof that government officials knew of the specific attack before it occurred.

THat'd be a start. There might be some more, but they'd be so unlikely as to be disregarded. OF course, even many of these are highly unlikely. #5 would be the only one that I might suspect would have any remote chance of being true...but I don't believe it.

[drkitten]

The minimum? A plausible counter-version.

Again, at a minimum, a plausible counter-version would need to be free of obvious factual errors (e.g., misstating the rate of fall of the towers, miscalculating the load strength of high-temperature steel girders, and so forth.) It would need pass Occam's razor, for example, by restricting the number of operatives to a number that could be reasonably expected to keep secret an operation of this magnitude. It would also need to have at least a minor amount of physical proof associated with it.

[Dog Town]

Fairies that wear boots and keep shouting "ya gotta believe me"!
Ozzy spoke to me in my slumber about this! Or while I was shroom'en. Either way, I'm with The Oz!

[Hellbound]

Originally Posted by drkitten

The minimum? A plausible counter-version.

Again, at a minimum, a plausible counter-version would need to be free of obvious factual errors (e.g., misstating the rate of fall of the towers, miscalculating the load strength of high-temperature steel girders, and so forth.) It would need pass Occam's razor, for example, by restricting the number of operatives to a number that could be reasonably expected to keep secret an operation of this magnitude. It would also need to have at least a minor amount of physical proof associated with it.

See, I'd need the physical proof before disbelieving, not just a counter-theory. I might doubt the OV more, but I'd still place more weight with it than any counter-theory, absent some sort of physical evidence or direct admission.

[Johnny Pixels]

If we're talking on the level of conspiracy to let something happen, or nudge it through, some kind of evidence of action taken to further the aims of the plot, which couldn't be shown to be acts of ignorance, short sightedness, mistakes etc. Or if we're talking the whole explosives etc story, then I'd want specific characteristic patterns that determine such things, ie explosive residue, bomb parts, timing/detonator mechanisms, blast patterns on concrete/steel, means to plant explosives, estimates of amounts required. I'd want to see wreckage from the pentagon and Shanksville not matching their respective planes, as well as the damage being atypical for the impacts claimed.

That'd do for a start, to get me thinking about it. It also makes me think as to why the whole CT has to be so complicated. If the government wanted to make 9/11, all they had to do was not interfere in the plans of Al Qaeda, or to nudge them in the direction of the attack. That cuts out so many variables, but then at the same time, they have to keep the secret from their own people, who would still be investigating Al Qaeda and trying to prevent attacks, and still needs a motive. That'd be the final thing I'd want, a reason.

[T.A.M.]

Minimum evidence it would take based on attack:

Pentagon:
Physical Proof of a missile, or multiple (more than 5 people) witnesses testifying that they were watching the pentagon at the time, and NO PLANE hit it.

WTC 1&2:
Physical evidence that the planes that hit the WTCs had no passengers or hijackers on them. Physical evidence that DEFINITIVELY proves Explosives were used to bring down the buildings.

Shanksville:
Evidence that the Plane was shot down (missile parts, a debris field scattered in a long, linear fashion over a great distance). Physical Evidence that the passengers on the planes are still alive.

[Kaarjuus]

Originally Posted by jhunter1163

For me it'd take an indisputably authentic Watergate-style tape with GWB saying something either ordering it or indicating that he had knowledge it was about to happen.

Hey, Rumsfield's talk about a missile hitting Pentagon was caught on tape!

[boooeee]

A plausible theory of how the light poles near the Pentagon got knocked down.

For starters.

[Brainster]

A slick documentary with MTV-style music, citing credible sources like American Free Press, Karl Schwarz and Jim Marrs, and created by a couple college-aged kids from Oneonta oughta do it.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Kaarjuus

Hey, Rumsfield's talk about a missile hitting Pentagon was caught on tape!

The 757 that hit the Pentagon was a "missile" just as a rock that I throw at a stray dog is a "missile." Rummy was sort of right in his imprecise comment, he was just making too broad a characterization of what hit the Pentagon.

*awaits assault from the grammar Nazis*

Quote:

If the government wanted to make 9/11, all they had to do was not interfere in the plans of Al Qaeda, or to nudge them in the direction of the attack.

And if not the US government, the Israeli government, or both, since Israel benifitted from America taking a more active role in the Mid East, right? (I saw an article a couple of months ago where an Israeli official was caught saying that America in Iraq was starting to make Israel's position worse, not better. )

Of course, finding proof of the above via confession poses quite a challenge.

Quote:

"A reason."

Pearl Harbor II, of course, haven't you read your PNAC Primer?

DR

[Loss Leader]

Here are the things that cause me to disbelieve the conspiracy theories:

1. A completely plausible theory of how the attacks were carried out, by whom, and for what purpose consistent with all known physical and pyschological evidence.

2. The lack of even one confession from a conspirator. All sorts of Watergate conspirators broke from Nixon and confessed to reporters, Congress and their own children.

3. The lack of any coherent theory of just what the heck the conspiracy was - who was involved, how they accomplished the attacks, and what their goals were.

Help me past those and we can talk.

[TxLady]

I would need indisputable proof and a reason, a plausible reason why our government (and all of the other people that would have to be involved) would commit such horrific crimes. The disrespect shown by CT'ist towards the victims, their families, and the rescue workers appalls me and it would be hard for me to believe anything coming from them.

[brodski]

Which parts of the official version? It would, for instance, take much less to convince me of LIHOP than MIHOP.
However it will still take a lot to convince me of LIHOP, probably an admission of guilt from one of the involved parties, or documented proof that the US had prior specific information about the attacks of 9/11.
It wouldn't take much at all to convince me that several parts of the OV are inaccurate, but this will have more to do with arse covering after the fact, to hide errors or to make various government and military bodies look better than they actually are. But then that tends to be SOP for most official reports and investigations.

[defaultdotxbe]

i would deem any of the above as grounds for a new investigation

[Pardalis]

Originally Posted by brodski

Which parts of the official version? It would, for instance, take much less to convince me of LIHOP than MIHOP.
However it will still take a lot to convince me of LIHOP, probably an admission of guilt from one of the involved parties, or documented proof that the US had prior specific information about the attacks of 9/11.

I agree. And the "proof" of the LIHOP would have to come from an unbiased, non-partisan, non-woo source.

[brodski]

Originally Posted by Pardalis

And the "proof" of the LIHOP would have to come from an unbiased, non-partisan, non-woo source.

Not neccerserlily, however the source of the "proof" will obviously influence the weight I would give to it. I wouldn't dismiss out of hand evidence supplied from a disgruntled Civil Servant to a democratic senator, for instance, although there is obviously a partisan element to it.

[Cuddles]

I will never disbelieve the official version, the government is paying me plenty to keep quiet.

[Skeptic Guy]

An official note from my Illuminati handler that it was all fake...

Oh, wait...there it is. It was covered up by the Big Foot photos. Never mind.

Given all the evidence that the OV is THE version, I really can't imagine anything that would make me think otherwise.

[rwguinn]

Complete refutation of the
1) laws of thermodynamics;
2) conservation of energy
3) calculus
4) materials science
5) any and all engineering principals you can think of.

[Blue Mountain]

DrKitten said it for me; a plausible counter theory that takes into account:
1. The fact four aircraft were hijacked on a single day
2. The fact all four aircraft and their passengers were lost that day
3. The fact there are videos of jet aircraft hitting the WTC
4. The fact the twin towers of the World Trade Center collapsed on television in front of the whole world
5. The fact something hit the Pentagon, and there are many witnesses who say it was a jet
6. The fact a jet aircraft crashed into the ground in Pennsylvania

The OV covers all the above facts by explaining the hijackings were carried out by people of Middle Eastern origin with the intent of commiting acts of terrorism upon the United States. It gives us their names and details of their background and motivation.

So a counter theory would have to explain the above six facts with different and plausible explanations, or prove to me conclusively those facts above are wrong, or some comibination of the two. That's quite a challenge.

The OV fits Occam's Razor quite nicely, since it requires the fewest basic assumptions.

[gumboot]

This depends...

A single small piece of evidence might prove one small element of the OV to be incorrect, and as such I would nolonger believe the OV, but a new theory virtually the same, except for that detail.

If you mean one of the CT claims? Wow. Um. It depends on the theory. For starters a lot of them involve technologies that I don't believe exist. Proof of them would help.

Ultimately though, it's not just about the evidence, it's about balance of evidence. Bringing up one piece of evidence about a CT doesn't immediately demolish the enormous mountain of evidence supporting the OV.

Basically, I'd need proof that the US government was what they say it is. I'd need proof they wanted to set up a police state, and proof they wanted to take over the world.

They would also have to prove the government ALREADY had absolute control over the media and every government department, down to the local police/fire level.

Because, without proof of that, I don't see how they can explain away all the existing evidence. And if they can't explain away the existing evidence, all they can do is amend the OV. They can't overturn it.

-Andrew

[R.Mackey]

I'll tell you this much, I won't believe any alternate theory of Sept. 11th until somebody actually manages to produce one.

There's not one. All I see is "questions" and "doubts" and innuendo. No actual theories.

Of course, being an aerospace engineer helps me sort through the BS.

[CurtC]

Originally Posted by Kaarjuus

Hey, Rumsfield's talk about a missile hitting Pentagon was caught on tape!

You mean when he said "...using an American Airlines flight filled with our citizens as a missile to damage this building..."?

[brodski]

Originally Posted by CurtC

You mean when he said "...using an American Airlines flight filled with our citizens as a missile to damage this building..."?

Yes, but the CTers usually report that as "...using an American Airlines flight filled with our citizens [inaudible] a missile to damage this building..." With the impaction that he used the word "and" instead of "as". To be honest I'm surprised that they where even that accurate. When I first herd a CTer quote Rumsfield, I had to look for corroborating evidence that Rumsfield existed.

[Obviousman]

You might consider the other side of the coin on an LC thread:

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...ic=11161&st=30

Someone asked if people would accept an independent review if that determination went against the CTists.

At least one poster reckons that they'd support a review but only if it confirmed their beliefs! Otherwise it would be a "whitewash".

"The accused will be given a fair trial and then shot. March in the guilty bastard!"

[smother]

The one thing that would sway me:

Loose Change final version will support the OV all the way through.

When your side of the fence is occupied by loonies, you might wanna switch sides.

[The Painter]

Quote:

What is the minimum it would take for you to disbelieve the OV of 9/11?

Tree Fitty ($350.00)

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Originally Posted by Obviousman

You might consider the other side of the coin on an LC thread:

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...ic=11161&st=30

Someone asked if people would accept an independent review if that determination went against the CTists.

At least one poster reckons that they'd support a review but only if it confirmed their beliefs! Otherwise it would be a "whitewash".

"The accused will be given a fair trial and then shot. March in the guilty bastard!"

Unsuprisingly, it boils down to
* CTists - if it doesn't answer all of my questions (regardless of their validity) it's wrong
* non-CTists - Each aspect of the OV is open to retraction of provisional agreement if irrefutable evidence is show proving it to be wrong

[Mancman]

Originally Posted by Obviousman

You might consider the other side of the coin on an LC thread:

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...ic=11161&st=30

Someone asked if people would accept an independent review if that determination went against the CTists.

At least one poster reckons that they'd support a review but only if it confirmed their beliefs! Otherwise it would be a "whitewash".

"The accused will be given a fair trial and then shot. March in the guilty bastard!"

"There are six billion people out there. Why waste my time on a few stubborn ones when the whole world needs to hear what I've got to say?"

Ugh. I just threw up a little in my mouth.

[LW]

Depends on what facet of the OV I should be disbelieving. For example, I would find it easier to believe that the hijackings were planned by some other party than Muslim extremists than that WTC was demolished with explosives.

And note that I say "easier", not "easy".

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I'm just curious what the rough baseline is around here for purposes of demonstrating to CTists (1) our expectations of evidence, (2) that we are not close-minded and (3) that they also need to define what criteria would cause them to rethink their position. Do I think it will _really_ matter? Probably not, but I thuoght it a useful exercise none the less.

[brodski]

Originally Posted by Arkan_Wolfshade

Probably not, but I thuoght it a useful exercise none the less.

I think that it is a vital exercise for all sceptical endeavours, if we cannon come up with a method by which out own theories can be falsified then we are not thinking critically.

[Brainache]

I have never accepted 9/11 as an excuse for the war in Iraq. I can't see any excuse for that.
To convince me that 9/11 was an "Inside Job" I would need at least a few whistle blowers, tapes of people, documents etc.
The Controlled Demolition idea seems to me to be totally inconsistant with all the footage I've seen and the opinions of the engineers I've read, so it would take a pretty huge new revelation to turn me around on that.
No Planes, Pods, Cloaked Fighter Spaceships, Covert Teams Of Crater Makers?
Well to believe that stuff I think I'd need a lobotomy.
I haven't read much about the alledged insider trading prior to 9/11, so I can't comment on that one way or the other.

[Loss Leader]

Originally Posted by brodski

I think that it is a vital exercise for all sceptical endeavours, if we cannon come up with a method by which out own theories can be falsified then we are not thinking critically.

I cannot come up with a method to test whether my perceived reality is, in fact, all just a dream or that I am not in some Matrix-like virtual world. I don't think that my failure to be able to test certain assumptions means that I am not thinking critically. All I can do is state that everything about my perceived reality seems consistent and be on the lookout for any inconsistencies.

(I once woke myself up from a dream in which my waitress was Demi Moore by asking how Demi Moore could possibly be waitressing. I wish I hadn't noticed the unreality; I'd have enjoyed my night a lot more.)

[brodski]

Originally Posted by Loss Leader

I cannot come up with a method to test whether my perceived reality is, in fact, all just a dream or that I am not in some Matrix-like virtual world. I don't think that my failure to be able to test certain assumptions means that I am not thinking critically. All I can do is state that everything about my perceived reality seems consistent and be on the lookout for any inconsistencies.

(I once woke myself up from a dream in which my waitress was Demi Moore by asking how Demi Moore could possibly be waitressing. I wish I hadn't noticed the unreality; I'd have enjoyed my night a lot more.)

It’s very true that we cannot test whether our realty is “real” or not, however the world behaves as if it exists, no amount of dreaming ahs been shown to alter the world, no amount of wishful thinking, therefore a the only rational course of action I can see is to act as if the physical world is real, until evidence to eth contrary is presented.