The five biggest issues with the 'Official Story'

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 10:32 AM
link   
First off, just my opinion, the 'official story' encompasses everything that was fed to us by our main stream media. Whether it was eyewitness testimony or official press releases to 'expert' analysis, all of it was initially presented by the very trustworthy news sources. Because we all can agree FOX, CNN and MSNBC would never report fallacies.


Lets see, 5 questions regarding the 'official story', hmmm?

1. Secondary explosions. Plenty of 'eyewitness' accounts as well as audio and video evidence. Argued at every turn by the 'believers' as explainable. Just a little doubt and you can escape with your world view intact. Why no explosives analysis by our government?

2. The collapses. Quite fast, looking very suspicious, unexplained by the best engineers at NIST. Why can't they be explained? (see #1)

3. The government did not start an investigation into the attacks on 911 until public demand got overwhelming. Why?

4. The anthrax attacks were initially linked to Iraq and/or Saddam Hussien. Maybe you don't associate this attack with 911 but I do. And that's how our news presented it at the time. Now we've been told it was our own government that attack us. When did our government know this and why didn't they tell us in a timely manner?

5. No release of evidence to lay the issue to rest. If there is compelling evidence that backs the 'official story' I haven't seen it. Why no 'official' transcript of the entire testimony given to the 911 Commission?

I have a few more but those will do for now, peace.

edit on 7/8/2012 by infinityoreilly because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by infinityoreilly
 


Thank you for participating. Plube, could you also summarise your feelings?

It seems we're getting much wider views than I had anticipated, so this may require multiple stages of pruning.

I'll contact a mod later today, thanks for the participation so far guys and gals



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by plube



I remember the denials for years that WTC7 even came close to freefall......but hey those darn stubborn truthers huh...can you believe the tenacity.



Did you know that one of those dam stubborn Truthers recently did a more in depth analysis of the acceleration of WTC7 than Chandler did.

What he found was that there were times when the acceleration was greater than free fall, even reaching accelerations of up to 38 ft per sec per sec. Isn't that great news. Well not great news for Truthers because it can mean only one thing:

Momentum Transfer,,,,, just like we been telling you for years.


So far I count three votes for the Official Truther Story. Are you ready to explain to us, how the Jews did 911, Can you fit your pieces of the puzzle together for us plube ?
edit on 8-7-2012 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinityoreilly
First off, just my opinion, the 'official story' encompasses everything that was fed to us by our main stream media. Whether it was eyewitness testimony or official press releases to 'expert' analysis, all of it was initially presented by the very trustworthy news sources. Because we all can agree FOX, CNN and MSNBC would never report fallacies.


Lets see, 5 questions regarding the 'official story', hmmm?

1. Secondary explosions. Plenty of 'eyewitness' accounts as well as audio and video evidence. Argued at every turn by the 'believers' as explainable. Just a little doubt and you can escape with your world view intact. Why no explosives analysis by our government?

2. The collapses. Quite fast, looking very suspicious, unexplained by the best engineers at NIST. Why can't they be explained? (see #1)

3. The government did not start an investigation into the attacks on 911 until public demand got overwhelming. Why?

4. The anthrax attacks were initially linked to Iraq and/or Saddam Hussien. Maybe you don't associate this attack with 911 but I do. And that's how our news presented it at the time. Now we've been told it was our own government that attack us. When did our government know this and why didn't they tell us in a timely manner?

5. No release of evidence to lay the issue to rest. If there is compelling evidence that backs the 'official story' I haven't seen it. Why no 'official' transcript of the entire testimony given to the 911 Commission?

I have a few more but those will do for now, peace.

edit on 7/8/2012 by infinityoreilly because: (no reason given)


I vote for these five.



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by infinityoreilly
2. The collapses. Quite fast, looking very suspicious, unexplained by the best engineers at NIST. Why can't they be explained? (see #1)


So physicists can find Higgs Bosons but can't explain the speed of supposedly collapsing skyscrapers.

I KNOW, the Higgs Bosons did it. Sneaky buggers!


psik



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by plube
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


hey Dave...don't put all truthers in to one group ok...I am interested...please ask away....ask anything you like...I am a brave soul....truth is about respecting the views of anyone....whether it is accepted by others or not.


That's civil of you, thank you. I will try to keep in the spirit of the OP's topic, since I take umbrage at the truthers polluting literally every thread with their conspiracy zealotry as much as the OP apparently doess.

As I look into material the truthers refuse to, I base my viewpoint on things they simply are unable to even consider, so if I have to come up with an "issue with the official story" it would need to be the one thing even Lee Hamilton admitted he could never find out- just WHY would Al Qaida go through all the time, trouble, and fortune to commit themselves into an attack against such a strategically low value target? Let's face it, the towers were impressive but they were really low value targets as far as the US infrastructure goes. It would be like Adolph Hitler telling the Luftwaffe to muster its entire air fleet to attack the board walk at Coney Island. Simply blaming it upon the mentality of mad dog religious zealots wanting to kill anyone, in any way, would make sense for low grade terrorist thugs like Black September but it's not really suitable for exceptionally well educated and organized people like Bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Making an educated guess based on, well, nothing whatsoever, I would say everyone is making much ado over the towers inappropriately since the real targets of the attack might have been major government buildings in Washington targeted by flights 77 and 93. Remember, we don't know what flight 93 was going to attack, and from the erratic flight path of flight 77 it suggests it was originally looking for another target instead. The towers were simpy peripheral targets thrown into the mix for good measure to take care of AL Qaida's unfinished business from 1993, but everyone's attention is squarely on the towers because that was the attack that turned out to be successful as well as the dramatic way the attacks against them played out.

Thus, it may warrant the OP defining what he means by "a problem with the official story". Does he mean a problem with the "official story" as in it's an intentional lie, or does he mean a problem with the "official story" as in there are simply too many things we don't know and can never know for us to get a completely accurate "official story" to begin with? Both are relevent to the OP's topic, after all.



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


First off...do not put words into my text that is not there....As i have stated over and over....I do not accuse jews of anything....I readily and admittedly challenge that at all opportunity...I will gladly and readily state this out and out...Zionists....simple as that...and you know the difference...as others do....Now if this was treated like a proper criminal investigation....what is the first thing you always look for ....MOTIVE.

Who are to benefit from this the most....and who had the means and money and could provide the backing to do this....Zionists.

Who are all these people with dual citizenship in governments all over the world that sit in the shadows...well guess....Zionists.

am i afraid to state my point of view....never...i can tell you why...and it can be checked if you really care to dig....I was detained under the anti terrorism act here in Britain because of what i think...I was interrogated...i was subjected to hours upon hours of psychological analysis....I was separated from my family....I was very close to being sectioned....do you have any idea what that is like as a innocent person...most likely not....do you.

when Yassar Arafat died i was going to make my way to Palistine...because Some Zionist did not like my points of views they reported me...and on their word alone i was put through this whole process...I had police ....approx 7 officers ....show up at my residence and separated me from my family....And you think this is acceptable because one is just speaking out on their point of view....I am a white Canadian Male ....and they for some reason think i was going to go and do what....come on.

I record instances....I went down to LA and recorded The riots after Rodney king affair....i went to New Zealand and recorded the bogus y2k bug in the year 2000...i was in Hamilton on newyears eve in new Zealand 1999...

after the 9/11 incidence i traveled 30,000 miles in three months asking all kinds of questions of people throughout the states,,,,,including having the privilege of being able to tour fort Campbell and learning many valuable things I watch ...i learn ....and i record.....It is what i do.....So i am glad to have the abilty to be free to do these things...and when your freedoms get trounced on then it is time to act.

Now you might say i have a thing against Zionists....well I do but it does not cloud my objectivity.....and you might bring this up because of my signature thread....but it is well stated and the thread speaks for itself....so if you would like to try and use it against me...please go right ahead...because i stand by what i think and i do check things when i put them forth....because i do not want the same thing to happen to others just for how they think.

now to your question.....Look closely at the individuals involved in 9/11 and i have found links and connections between the people who could have the knowledge and the funding to pull off the whole operation...and also because if you look at what the Zionists want...then things do fit in....also I will state it again....Zionism is NOT a race of people....It is a political movement that does not care about what you ,i or any other person thinks as long as we do not interfere with their end goals.....Slavedom of all Goyim...and if you are not with them...then my friend you to are Goyim.



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Damn Dave...i find myself agreeing with you twice in a single thread...how could this be....I am finally at a loss for words...not because i am starting to side with a non existent inconsistent OS ...but because you are thinking quite logically....and that is what will lead down the path to some answers....I think there were so many failures on the day....I question the collapses because of my professional opinion....but i do try to keep the explosives out of it...just because it might appear to be the case...without evidence it can only be pure conjecture.
We can keep questioning 9/11 and rehashing bits and pieces...but I do think it needs a complete investigation with keeping the criminal element clearly at the forefront...Not sure how this would be setup or how it can even progress properly because as i have stated...the evidence has been removed in many cases...and contaminated...but what can be done is to question all persons in the know with clear guidelines and see what is consistent and then check why and if any inconsistencies exist and follow those leads to the bitter end.



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by plube
 


While I appreciate the good debate, I am trying to focus this thread soley on peoples biggest issues. You've already listed some but perhaps you could give a concise list so I can compare them to the lists of others?

I don't want to discourage debate, just that I think you should start your own thread for these questions.

Thanks again!



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


I have already given fifteen points of contention.....bulleted....but i could give a whole lot more...but for now fifteen is good....and once these questions are sorted.....go ahead...but i venture to say...no matter what you do...no five questions become more important than another set of questions.....To me because there are so many unanswered questions....It shows that none of 9/11 has been looked into satisfactorily to meet anyones point of views.



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   
(1) Why did NIST say that they saw nothing about the collapse of WTC7, that made them think explosives were used, and so because of this they did not test for explosives? Pretty much everyone who has seen the WTC7 collapse says it looks like a controlled demolition, that alone is enough to at least investigate if they were present.

(2) Why during NIST's technical briefing were they no able to convincingly explain why WTC7 achieved freefall speed? They said they would address this in their final report, which they then fudged to fit their calculations.

NIST WTC 7 Technical Briefing, 8/26/2008 (NIST has removed this video from their website for some reason)
vimeo.com...



(3) Why were staff in WTC2 not evacuated, and instead told to return to their desks, when WTC7 was already evacuated when Barry Jennings inspected the building just after 9am?

(4) What time were the staff evacuated from the following buildings that were closer, or as close to the towers as WTC7: Marriott Hotel (WTC3), Verizon Building, Bankers Trust building, WTC US Post Office, WTC 4, WTC 5 & WTC 6?

(5) NIST stated the reason WTC7 collapsed was due to fire alone, and they also noted it was the first time a steel framed building had ever collapsed due to fire. WTC3, 4, 5 & 6 were all closer, and suffered far more damage yet they never collapsed.

The Verizon building, WTC US Post Office & the Bankers trust building were a similar distance from the towers as WTC7, how come none of these collapsed either?




posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by plube
I have already given fifteen points of contention.....bulleted....but i could give a whole lot more...but for now fifteen is good....and once these questions are sorted.....go ahead...but i venture to say...no matter what you do...no five questions become more important than another set of questions.....To me because there are so many unanswered questions....It shows that none of 9/11 has been looked into satisfactorily to meet anyones point of views.

I was hoping for you to summarise the most important, but I appreciate your position.

Thegameisup, thanks for posting yours. Hopefully we can solicit a bunch more.



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
" Lee Hamilton admitted he could never find out- just WHY would Al Qaida go through all the time, trouble, and fortune to commit themselves into an attack against such a strategically low value target? Let's face it, the towers were impressive but they were really low value targets as far as the US infrastructure goes. "


Interesting avenue of thought. I disagree about 'low value' unless you mean militarily.


" Simply blaming it upon the mentality of mad dog religious zealots wanting to kill anyone, in any way, would make sense for low grade terrorist thugs like Black September but it's not really suitable for exceptionally well educated and organized people like Bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. "


I'll agree with you here.


" Making an educated guess based on, well, nothing whatsoever, I would say everyone is making much ado over the towers inappropriately since the real targets of the attack might have been major government buildings in Washington targeted by flights 77 and 93. "


Thanks for the laugh (nothing whatsoever, classic!) but the footage of the towers is what traumatized us, so the psyop was successful for whoever thought up the plan.


" Thus, it may warrant the OP defining what he means by "a problem with the official story". Does he mean a problem with the "official story" as in it's an intentional lie, or does he mean a problem with the "official story" as in there are simply too many things we don't know and can never know for us to get a completely accurate "official story" to begin with? Both are relevent to the OP's topic, after all.


The last part sums it up pretty well, and nicely put Dave! Too many things we don't know or won't be told.



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr


I KNOW, the Higgs Bosons did it. Sneaky buggers!


psik


Ha Ha! Touche!! I'm not a structural engineer, but if I was, I wouldn't jeopardize my career by going against anything the big dogs were barking.



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
WHY would Al Qaida go through all the time, trouble, and fortune to commit themselves into an attack against such a strategically low value target? Let's face it, the towers were impressive but they were really low value targets as far as the US infrastructure goes.


I noticed another member quoted this passage you wrote and I found it quite interesting.

Why do you call these buildings low value when they potentially can have thousands of people inside at any one time?

I would have thought anyone wanting to commit a terrorist act, be it the supposed Muslim terrorists, or the US government on their own people, then those building would have been a good choice, and also very symbolic.

My question about this is why did they not impact lower down, which would have potentially caused more deaths?

Perhaps they had inside knowledge of the building's weak spots, and hit them in precise locations, to assist them coming down?



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 05:06 PM
link   
I’ve been meaning to post on this for a while. For me, the real smoking gun is connecting the dots on Flight 175, the second plane to hit the towers.

1. According to eyewitnesses, including a FOX News reporter, there were no windows on Flight 175.


2. The video of Flight 175 clearly shows an object mounted under the fuselage that should not be there if it were a commercial 757. Analysis shows that it is an actual 3D object, and not a trick of light and shadow.


3. Pilots for 911 Truth has obtained, through the Freedom of Information Act, radar data, FAA communications, and other materials. The materials indicate that ACARS (a sort of text messaging system) was routing communications to Flight 175 to Harrisburg, PA and then to Pittsburgh, PA 20 min. after it was supposed to have crashed in NY.


One last point. If civilian planes were replaced with military planes, which hit the towers, what happened to the original civilian craft? Look into The Cleveland Airport Mystery. It seems that on 9/11, between 10 am and 11 am, the Cleveland Airport was evacuated, at gunpoint, because of either a bomb scare or a hijacking. Two planes landed, the passengers were removed, and taken to a nearby NASA facility. I could go into more detail, but you can read it for yourself.

911review.org...



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by thegameisup

My question about this is why did they not impact lower down, which would have potentially caused more deaths?



Why fly planes into them at all if the towers were allready rigged for demolition? That would have definetly caused more deaths.. no one gets out alive not to mention all the people that were nearby.



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by VictorVonDoom
I’ve been meaning to post on this for a while. For me, the real smoking gun is connecting the dots on Flight 175, the second plane to hit the towers.

]1. According to eyewitnesses, including a FOX News reporter, there were no windows on Flight 175.


Of course, you selected those few witnesses who support your fantasy while ignoring all of the others.


Originally posted by VictorVonDoom
2. The video of Flight 175 clearly shows an object mounted under the fuselage that should not be there if it were a commercial 757. Analysis shows that it is an actual 3D object, and not a trick of light and shadow.


Of course, you again selected a photo with light reflections on the bottom of the aircraft. And you're right it wasn't a 757, it was a 767.


Originally posted by VictorVonDoom
3. Pilots for 911 Truth has obtained, through the Freedom of Information Act, radar data, FAA communications, and other materials. The materials indicate that ACARS (a sort of text messaging system) was routing communications to Flight 175 to Harrisburg, PA and then to Pittsburgh, PA 20 min. after it was supposed to have crashed in NY.


Not they didn't at all. All that was proven was that pfffft does not understand how ACARS works. You do realize that pffft is one of the most discredited groups in the "truth cult". Their crap is even rejected by most other "truther" goups.


Originally posted by VictorVonDoom
One last point. If civilian planes were replaced with military planes, which hit the towers, what happened to the original civilian craft? Look into The Cleveland Airport Mystery. It seems that on 9/11, between 10 am and 11 am, the Cleveland Airport was evacuated, at gunpoint, because of either a bomb scare or a hijacking. Two planes landed, the passengers were removed, and taken to a nearby NASA facility. I could go into more detail, but you can read it for yourself.


You really need to catch up. That crap was from one of the first versions of Loose Change, a work of fiction. It was refuted as total garbage back in about 2006. In fact, it was omitted from later versions of Loose Change because the idiots that made it realized it was false information...



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Classified Info

Originally posted by thegameisup

My question about this is why did they not impact lower down, which would have potentially caused more deaths?



Why fly planes into them at all if the towers were allready rigged for demolition? That would have definetly caused more deaths.. no one gets out alive not to mention all the people that were nearby.


If it was an inside job, then it would be difficult to explain how bin laden got access to the towers to rig them up from top to bottom.

Seeing planes the second plane live on TV makes it very real too, if the towers just came down, with no video of it happening, it may not have had the same effect. The live visual element could have been done to add extra realism and fear.

If it was an inside job, and I am saying if it was, then they probably would want maximum dramatic effect, with minimum lives being lost. I know 3000 deaths is still a lot, but it's a quite a bit less than it potentially could have been.

edit on 8-7-2012 by thegameisup because: spelling correction



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat

You really need to catch up. That crap was from one of the first versions of Loose Change, a work of fiction. It was refuted as total garbage back in about 2006. In fact, it was omitted from later versions of Loose Change because the idiots that made it realized it was false information...



OK I'll bite, what was the false information. The 2 planes landing there? The evacuation of the airport? The passengers taken to a near by hanger? Any information you may know about this would be appreciated, even if it's in your own words with no links. Thanks. I'm open to alternative explanations.




new topics
top topics
 
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join