Why Do You Support The 911 Official Story? , page 1
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 5 times


reply posted on 3-12-2008 @ 05:10 PM by Anonymous ATS




reply posted on 3-12-2008 @ 05:49 PM by Griff
reply to post by cashlink


For me, I support most of the official story because of plausible deniability. They would need at least some of it to be true. I think they CYA'd themselves into a corner to cover for themselves and each other's mess ups. But, I don't feel that something of this magnitude would be set forth. At least not by the many that a total inside job would take. Maybe a few select double agents. I don't know. I really hope I'm right on that. Or we're all screwed.


reply posted on 3-12-2008 @ 06:04 PM by SPreston
posted by captiva
Can we presume that the lack of replies or interest means that no one but the government debunkers actually believes the official story? I mean the debunkers wont know how to deal with a thread that doesnt needed their debunking skills???


Perhaps they are rallying their forces to valiantly defend the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY.

i277.photobucket.com...

After all it would be extremly hard to admit to their wives and children and fellow workers and friends that they have been badly mistaken about the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY for over 7 long years. There must be another way out of the quicksand.




[edit on 12/3/08 by SPreston]

[edit: oversized image changed to external link]

[edit on 4-12-2008 by 12m8keall2c]


reply posted on 3-12-2008 @ 06:19 PM by Seymour Butz
Originally posted by Griff
reply to post by cashlink


For me, I support most of the official story because of plausible deniability. They would need at least some of it to be true. I think they CYA'd themselves into a corner to cover for themselves and each other's mess ups. But, I don't feel that something of this magnitude would be set forth. At least not by the many that a total inside job would take. Maybe a few select double agents. I don't know. I really hope I'm right on that. Or we're all screwed.



The only CYA was the 9/11 Commission Report.

Democrats knew that if scrutinized, Clinton would be blamed for 95% of the screwups by the intel guys. They need to protect his legacy, since he's the only guy they've had in the Whitehouse in 20 years. The Muslim problem had been brewing for his entire tenure, and he did nothing to counter it. If anything, he hindered the intel services - I believe he did this cuz as a lawyer, he was more concerned with being able to prosecute a terrorist AFTER the fact than preventing it.

Bush was the sitting Pres, so he rightly should take some heat too. He knew that he needed to take care of the problem, and prolly looked forward to making a "legacy" for himself. He knew that he was going to need the intel services with him on this, and so he wasn't interested in any witch hunting either, cuz even if he could put a large amount of blame on Cllinton, plenty of guys at the FBI, etc would take heat too. So there was nothing to gain from pissing of those bureaucrats either.

So I believe a deal was struck between Dems and Reps. The Dems went along with the 9/11 CR basically whitewashed the systemic intel failings that could be be pinned to a large part on Clinton, for the reasons mentioned. And Reps did so to support Bush.

So what did Dems GIVE? Financial support for the war. Ever notice how many vote for the $$$, and then turn around and say how they're against it? I especially noticed this after the '06 elections, where a lot of Demmies ran on an anti war stance, and then did nothing, that I can tell.

Reps? Like I stated,they agreed to NOT put any blame on Clinton, even though he had over 7 years after the '93 bombings to recognize the danger that AQ posed.

This is the stink that Ron Paul raises about the 9/11 CR. He's stated before many times that the conspriacy theories are absurd, and preposterous. He has no interest into some inside job theory, and rightly so. He just thinks they're nuts. But he recognizes when there's been a whitewash by his fellow politicans. THAT'S the investigation he wants to do over.


reply posted on 3-12-2008 @ 06:42 PM by Seymour Butz
reply to post by SPreston


The question is just a little open ended, don't ya think? Where does one start?

What's the point in stating everything that has convinced me?

Every thread that I post in has my personal arguments. If you're interested in what I think, ask me there.


reply posted on 3-12-2008 @ 06:54 PM by hinky
I guess this make me a government paid debunker. Absolutely enjoy the pictures and captions.

I believe the official story. Chances are I'm older than most of the people here so I actually know a few things both good and bad about our government.

I see a common thread running through these types of posts. I don't need to prove anything. You are wanting to disprove an official report. This places the burden on the person who doesn't believe the real truth. Hence the problem with this argument. You have already accepted the fact the official report is lying and you are the only one who see the truth. Exception claims require exception proof and the proof needs to be repeatable in controlled settings.

I see most people involved with trying to disprove the official story as someone who is uneducated in engineering or science in general, or someone who is trying to make money off keeping the debate alive with false information from their latest book or DVD, or just people who generally have a political ax to grind and hate Bush so much they believe he doesn't wear his horns in public.

What most of the non-believers of the official story have in common is their total disregard of the over-riding theory that a person or small group of people who are willing to commit suicide for an act of terror, can actually pull off a spectacular terrorist attack.

All this was, is just someone who took hijacking an airplane to a new level. The fact they did 4 at once only means they are better than the PLO who hijacked 3 at on time back in the 70's. The fact they crashed the planes into the buildings only means the Japanese didn't have the range for their planes in WW2. This isn't brain surgery, it's terrorism 101.

Go ahead and flame away but you wanted to know. I'm not getting into a pissing contest about this and I see this thread being derailed fairly fast.


reply posted on 3-12-2008 @ 07:12 PM by djeminy
Originally posted by Seymour Butz
reply to post by SPreston


The question is just a little open ended, don't ya think? Where does one start?

What's the point in stating everything that has convinced me?

Every thread that I post in has my personal arguments. If you're interested in what I think, ask me there.




What exactly would be the true honest reasons why you and Griff (and now Hinky)
pretend that the "Firefighters for 9-11: Evidence of controlled demolitions":

firefightersfor911truth.org...

or the, "Another look at the Doubletree videos" threads, never existed?

How can you possibly continue with your strange exchanges in the above posts,
without taking the information presented in these two threads into careful
consideration!!!

Do you seriously think you're fooling anyone else....... but yourselves???

What's wrong with you people???

You don't really have to answer those last two questions please, as the answers are
already known!








[edit on 3-12-2008 by djeminy]



reply posted on 3-12-2008 @ 08:13 PM by ashamedamerican
Originally posted by hinky
I see a common thread running through these types of posts. I don't need to prove anything. You are wanting to disprove an official report. This places the burden on the person who doesn't believe the real truth.

So you just believe what you are told, without requiring any kind of proof at all?
As for the burden of proof:
If you tell me that the moon is made of cheese, and I prove that isn't scientifically possible, and you still insist on claiming that it is made of cheese the burden of proof lies on you, not me.
Therefore since a ridiculous number of holes have been proven to exist in the official story, the burden of proof isn't on me. I'm not the one claiming that jetfuel dropped a skyscraper into it's footprint, I'm one of the people that on the side of the arguement pointing out that this isn't physically possible.

See there's this thing called 'peer review' where you send out the results of your research to be reviewed and validated by other scientists.
When NIST released it's official story of what happened, architects, engineers, scientists, etc. all said "hey wait a minute, this doesn't even make sense" and in a nutshell NIST replied with "it does to us, you just have to take our word on it, don't listen that that 'science' stuff it's evil."
That my friend is not science, call it what you like, propaganda, philosophy, pseudoscience, disinformation, but it is however not science.

I see most people involved with trying to disprove the official story as someone who is uneducated in engineering or science in general, or someone who is trying to make money off keeping the debate alive with false information from their latest book or DVD, or just people who generally have a political ax to grind and hate Bush so much they believe he doesn't wear his horns in public.

That is a very wonderful way of trying to discredit all 911 researchers as nuts, crackpots, or looneys, but the fact is that there are architects, engineers, scientists, demolitionists, etc. who are all obviously educated and most of them are not trying to sell books or DVD's. As for Bush not wearing his horns in public I don't think he has horns, he's just a puppet, and he does seem to enjoy showing off his strings in public at every chance he gets.


Go ahead and flame away but you wanted to know. I'm not getting into a pissing contest about this and I see this thread being derailed fairly fast.

So you won't get into a 'pissing contest' as you put it, over the reasons why you support the official myth in this thread, but you're more than happy to get into one over why we don't support it in other threads?
Oh no my friend this is not 'topic derailment' we are just pointing out that the official myth has already been debunked.


reply posted on 3-12-2008 @ 09:50 PM by cashlink
reply to post by hinky


I believe the official story.


Why do you believe in the official story? You can at lease entertainer us in what has convince you that our Government is telling the truth, and please explain to me why people like me who can not see the Governments “truth”.

That is all I am asking is that to much to ask for. I am sick and tired of being told by debunkers that I can’t see the Government truth! Where is the Government truth?
What is the truth with science that support the OS. However if there is no real truth and science that can not support the OS then “why” would you believe what the Government tell you in the first place, when it is a (proven fact) that our Government lies to us all the time. And it is a proven fact they use the media to tell their lies and it is a proven fact the media lies to us all the time.


reply posted on 3-12-2008 @ 10:05 PM by cashlink
reply to post by Griff


Ok Griff, what has sold you into believing the OS story why do you rally believes in the Government story and I am not picking on you. I read a lot of your posting and I find a lot of your work very interesting. I do respect your work, and you have changed my mind on a few things. However my opinion is, I feel the Government is lying about most things concerning 911.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^



9-11 lecture at Basel University, Switzerland.
  Posted 14 days ago with 14 member flags
9/11 Actors re-visited
  Posted 7 days ago with 13 member flags
Wikipedia categorizes 9/11 truth as \'denialism\'
  Posted 18 days ago with 11 member flags
Building Collapses in Rio
  Posted 14 days ago with 6 member flags
new film "Human the film (2012)" covers all the bases and more!
  Posted 8 days ago with 6 member flags
you must try this youre self ????
  Posted 14 days ago with 4 member flags