Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The five biggest issues with the 'Official Story'

page: 6
6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 12:01 PM
link   
Ok Exponent....logical thinking here....If questions are asked the people will just naturally want to answer them...Would you not Agree...Also once the questions are put forward who is to decide which are most valid...then once it is decide...who gets to decide who has the proper credentials to answer such questions legitimately without bias.

Do you see the conundrum?

I am afraid if i am going through the questions...I can eliminate the commission as being Valid....Reason...the commission chairs have stated themselves it was setup to fail....so it has no bearing on the Official story whats so ever.

The collapses Are out...as no one has been able to come to any kind of agreement by experts on both sides without me going into character assassination about who would be able to be believed.

Bazants report has to be dropped as it is a paper of reference...it was never included in the OS.

Fema and NIST both have conflicting reports and they do not say the same things...so those should be removed from the biggest issues....So now you might tell us what we are left with.

Right the hijackers maybe can be still in...but it is a whole new ball of wax as professional pilots cannot seem to come to terms with What the OS has stated about their abilities.

Flight paths are at issue as you can see by many threads out there...and were the flight paths part of the OS...or just the fact planes did crash into things.

Not sure where it all stands...so when the submission part is done...is this where you decide to answer the questions that have been put forward.

Also why would you add the MOD factor in there...because it is a pretty open thread just based on the title...because there is only really one big issue....Were people lied to by the OS concerning 9/11.

so where does this thread stand.....I think it is at a standstill...but i will add a few more questions if you like...i know i have bullet pointed 20 so far.
edit on 123131p://f02Monday by plube because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by plube
Ok Exponent....logical thinking here....If questions are asked the people will just naturally want to answer them...Would you not Agree...Also once the questions are put forward who is to decide which are most valid...then once it is decide...who gets to decide who has the proper credentials to answer such questions legitimately without bias.

I make no claims about answers, I simply hope that together we can come up with the list of most important questions to people such as yourself.

Every other thread descends into bickering. This is intended to be a thread without bickering between viewpoints.


Not sure where it all stands...so when the submission part is done...is this where you decide to answer the questions that have been put forward.

I don't intend to answer the questions. I'm going to petition the mods to start a stickied thread for each of the 5 biggest issues, and aggressively remove any posts deviating from the topic. This way we can have an actual debate without having to use the debate forum, and we can try and avoid the bickering.


so where does this thread stand.....I think it is at a standstill...but i will add a few more questions if you like...i know i have bullet pointed 20 so far

It's more a question of what you think the most important questions are that I am interested in. I appreciate your participation so far.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by plube
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


*why was WTC7 evacuated so promptly yet people in the towers were told to stay where they were...
*why was WTC7 not part of the official Story
*why was all that money spent on making "the bunker" but abandoned on the very day
*why did the MSM mistakingly say the building collapsed before it did.
*why was did NIST eventually show such large amounts of damage to WTC7 based mostly on apparent witness testimony rather than the video evidence.


I don't get your point. Are the issues you're having with "the official story" really a concern why they didn't make these things part of the "official story"? If that's the case then there are lots and lots and lots and LOTS of things they never made a part of "the official story", such as how big the piece of wreckage would need to be to create the house sized crater photographed in the roof of WTC 5. Granted, someone made the really, really bad decision to tell the people trying to leave the south tower to return to their offices and it needs to be examined, but it's not a factor because it plays no part on how 19 Islamic fundamentalists managed to pull off the worst terrorist attack in US history. The attack would still have played out whether they told workers to return to their offices or not.

Besides, the reason why they didn't make WTC 7 a more important component of the "official story" should be obvious- nobody died in WTC 7 during the attack, which in the point of view of the "official story" makes it yet another building among a bunch of buildings from the Marriot to the Deutschebank building that were smashed up when the towers collapsed. The only ones making much ado about WTC 7 are the conspiracy proponents, and in their never ending straw grasping they're simply getting more milage out of that then they would from griping about the house sized crater in the roof of WTC 5. I'm noticing that noone is making THAT an issue with "the official story".



It seems to me the facts should decide the scenario...not the scenario decide the facts....


I absolutely agree...but the problem is that so much fake information is being put out by those damned fool conspiracy web sites...no interceptors were scrambled, no Arab names were on the passenger manifests, all the bomb dogs were withdrawn from the WTC the day before the attack, no plane wreckage was recovered at the Pentagon, some of the hijackers are still alive, the list of outright bad information being passed around goes on and on...that the scenario these bad facts are leading to are equally as bad. When someone tells you "flight 93 landed in Cleveland" of course you're going to be led to believe there's something suspicious about the affair. It's the whole reason why the people telling you "flight 93 landed in Cleveland" aren't telling you they're quoting an Associated Press report that was retracted shortly after it was made.

...which brings up back to the question of "just what IS the official story" all over again.
edit on 9-7-2012 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
[I made this thread. I think it's fair that I get to detail exactly what it's about. If you'd bothered to read the OP properly you'd know that I am suggesting creating new threads for discussion of the most important points.


I think this thread will suffice, all the questions are here, all the questions are in the process of being answered. I will continue to participate in debating those questions with members. They are all relevant and do not need another thread.


I'm sure I have, but I created this thread to avoid that. All discussion threads in this forum degenerate to bickering as people cannot accept being incorrect on an issue or cannot justify things beyond trust.


So yes, the point of consolidating questions is to create a thread for each where going off topic could theoretically be grounds for mod action. Consolidating discussion is much more valuable than the current anarchic approach.

If that is the case then making yet another thread will change nothing. I might just make a thread where people can ask 10 questions, and still get to discuss them in that thread, instead of adhering to silly restrictions. What is your real agenda? For you to chose which questions you want to remove from ATS, so you can control what people discuss?



People participating in this thread as I requested in the OP


You say you do not want your thread to turn into bickering? But why then are you bickering with many members in most of the other threads?

You've just posted a load of unneccesary pathetic bickering in a thread I made,. but you then claim you dont want people to bicker in your thread? Maybe practice what you preach before telling others how to act in your own thread.

You even admit to your own bickering in your OP, but in the last 15 mins you have been bickering in a few other threads?

I don't think you will have many people backing you to petition the mods either.


I said to you "who is we" in response to the following quote in your OP:


we just want a list of questions to be consolidated


and you replied with:


People participating in this thread as I requested in the OP


What makes you think people want them to be consolidated?

edit on 9-7-2012 by thegameisup because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 12:26 PM
link   
Thanks for this thread. I'll contribute a few questions:
1. What happened to the most expensive and best military in the world, that it failed to intercept any of the planes at least 1 hour and 40 minutes after hijacks were suspected, and if the shanksville plane was indeed shot down, why is it denied?
2. Why was the president allowed to sit in a classroom, when it was clear that we were "under attack". (a) Wasn't the commander in chief's safety in question? (b) Wasn't the commander in chief needed immediately to lead the military/country?
3. Why did the administration continually deny that they could have possibly foreseen using planes as weapons?
4. Why did the administration attempt to thwart an investigation, and why was in underfunded?
5. Why did Bush and Cheney request, and why were they allowed, to testify to the commission together, off the record, and not under oath?



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by thegameisup
I think this thread will suffice, all the questions are here, all the questions are in the process of being answered. I will continue to participate in debating those questions with members. They are all relevant and do not need another thread.

Please do not. The point of this thread is to remove bickering, not to encourage it.


If that is the case then making yet another thread will change nothing. I might just make a thread where people can ask 10 questions, and still get to discuss them in that thread, instead of adhering to silly restrictions. What is your real agenda? For you to chose which questions you want to remove from ATS, so you can control what people discuss?

What are you talking about? This doesn't even make any sense, you have become incoherent. I'm talking about adding threads, not removing them.


You say you do not want your thread to turn into bickering? But why then are you bickering with many members in most of the other threads?

Because these threads have diverged wildly from the OP and there is no mod sanction against it. How is this incredibly simple concept so hard to understand?


I don't think you will have many people backing you to petition the mods either.

You yourself posted your list of questions. You don't think a thread for each is most appropriate?


I said to you "who is we" in response to the following quote in your OP:

It wasn't in my OP.


You saying "we jsut want a list of questions to be consolidated" is now missing from you OP, and there is no green text to say you have edited, and it is a good while after you made the thread, so technically you cannot edit it, how come that has now been deleted, and how come there is no trace of it being edited?

Because it wasn't in my OP, you are being irrational.


Also, by saying that you are not talking about the people participating in the thread, because you do not know if people do want a consolidated thread. I find this comment, and the removal/stealth editing of it very suspicious?!

As anyone can see in my last reply in this thread, you did say that comment in your OP, and now it has gone, with no trace of editing!
edit on 9-7-2012 by thegameisup because: added quotes

What a shock you find so much of 911 suspicious, when you can't even read a two page thread to figure out when I posted something.

edit:
conway that was an excellent response. Thank you for sticking with the purpose of this thread!
edit on 9/7/12 by exponent because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by thegameisup
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


I think it depends on who really did 9/11, and what their actual agenda was? There could have been quite a few different agendas. If the attacks were commited by bin laden, as the USA government say, then the towers are not a low value target, because deaths of Americans would most likely have been their main objective.


All right then, they are a LOWER value target, because as you say, they were full of people and it would be a swift and easy way to kill 10,000 people at once. Plus, it would settle unfinished business that al Qaida left behind from 1993. This does make them a significant target however you look at it.

That said, I say they are a lower value target than the other buildings they might have been targetting, becuase I believe there was more to the attack than what was actually played out. Flight 93 was heading toward Washington, and Washington is a city chock full of critical government installations, and any one of them being destroyed would have have a much more traumatic impact than the destruction of the WTC had. Think on this for a moment- if it turned out flight 93 was targetting the US Capitol, and if it succeeded in crashing into the Capitol building and it took out most of Congress, and they were showing nonstop coverage of the US capitol building burning to the ground, do you think this would have had a more traumatic impact on the US infrastructure and the American people than the WTC attack did, or less?

This leads me back to the question I asked earlier- is the "official story" one of an attack to murder as many random people as possible that largely succeeded, or is the "official story" one of an attack against the US infrastructure itself that largely failed?




If this was an inside job, then there could have been many finacial benefits for various different people, Larry Silverstein for example got 2 asbestos hazards out of the way, and a nice insurance packet to go with it. The felling of both towers would be more dramatic than say WTC7, and from a fear and disbelief perspective, they were good targets.


This is predominantly grasping at straws to support a preconceived hypothesis. Silverstein took all that insurance money and put it into the construction of their replacements...yes, even WTC 7...so even that statement is argumentative.

Let's face it, the more you stare at anything, the more you're going to notice something weird about it. This is why people are insisting the crash site in Shanksville was staged. Like it's somehow far fetched for a mediocre pilot with a death wish to crash an airplane into the ground, or something?


If you have read the OS, I'm am guessing you have, then you know as much as I about what the government claim actually happened, and that being 4 attacks against the American people and their government. However, this is just the government's version of 9/11, and as you know there is also a good argument for an inside job by the government.


..but as you certainly have to be aware, the main problem the "inside job" proponents are suffering is that they cannot even agree amongst themselves as to what the "inside job" actually is. For every person insisting it was a gov't plot, there's another insisting it was the work of the Jews. How many times have we seen verbal fistfights break out between those who insist the towers were brought down by controlled demolitions vs. those who insist they were brought down by directed energy weapons? There's even one guy here insisting the towers were really fake buildings! Despite the varied theories, the one thing they all have in common is that "they are all based upon sound research and careful analysis." I'm not a physicist so I can't make heads or tails of Judy Wood's junk science, but it cannot be refuted she has produced at least something to defend her case with.

Unless there are cults of Satan worshipping military industrialists out there who are staging false flag operations with nuclear powered hologram projectors to steal Afghanistan's lithium for Israel, you obviously all can't be right. If some of you are only seeing what you yourselves want to see, then why isn't it the case you're *all* simply seeing what you yourselves want to see?



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

All right then, they are a LOWER value target, because as you say, they were full of people and it would be a swift and easy way to kill 10,000 people at once. Plus, it would settle unfinished business that al Qaida left behind from 1993. This does make them a significant target however you look at it.

That said, I say they are a lower value target than the other buildings they might have been targetting, becuase I believe there was more to the attack than what was actually played out. Flight 93 was heading toward Washington, and Washington is a city chock full of critical government installations, and any one of them being destroyed would have have a much more traumatic impact than the destruction of the WTC had. Think on this for a moment- if it turned out flight 93 was targetting the US Capitol, and if it succeeded in crashing into the Capitol building and it took out most of Congress, and they were showing nonstop coverage of the US capitol building burning to the ground, do you think this would have had a more traumatic impact on the US infrastructure and the American people than the WTC attack did, or less?

This leads me back to the question I asked earlier- is the "official story" one of an attack to murder as many random people as possible that largely succeeded, or is the "official story" one of an attack against the US infrastructure itself that largely failed?


If we are to believe it was a real terrorist act by bin laden, which has yet to be conclusively proven, then yes the pentagon would have been a lower value target due to more people being in the towers.The 1993 bombings are also heavily debated as an inside job, and so should be left separate from 9/11.

Like I say, there is no point debating waht if's, on what actually happened.

We do not know what the actual motive was for 9/11, when we have all the evidence independently investigated, and we can find out who really was behind it, only then can we know what the motive was. If it was an inside job, then there would be many reasons for why it was committed, but at this moment we do not conclusivel know either way.



This is predominantly grasping at straws to support a preconceived hypothesis. Silverstein took all that insurance money and put it into the construction of their replacements...yes, even WTC 7...so even that statement is argumentative.

Let's face it, the more you stare at anything, the more you're going to notice something weird about it. This is why people are insisting the crash site in Shanksville was staged. Like it's somehow far fetched for a mediocre pilot with a death wish to crash an airplane into the ground, or something?


It's not more grasping at straws than taking the official word for it without all the evidence being investigated independently, not just some of the evidence presented by the American government. This is what this video is about, the fact that it's difficult to tell who did it, and why at present.

Again, flight 93 has only been presented by the government, there are manner of other possible scenarios, until an independent investigation happens, we can never be sure of anything unfortunately.


..but as you certainly have to be aware, the main problem the "inside job" proponents are suffering is that they cannot even agree amongst themselves as to what the "inside job" actually is. For every person insisting it was a gov't plot, there's another insisting it was the work of the Jews. How many times have we seen verbal fistfights break out between those who insist the towers were brought down by controlled demolitions vs. those who insist they were brought down by directed energy weapons? There's even one guy here insisting the towers were really fake buildings! Despite the varied theories, the one thing they all have in common is that "they are all based upon sound research and careful analysis." I'm not a physicist so I can't make heads or tails of Judy Wood's junk science, but it cannot be refuted she has produced at least something to defend her case with.


Unless there are cults of Satan worshipping military industrialists out there who are staging false flag operations with nuclear powered hologram projectors to steal Afghanistan's lithium for Israel, you obviously all can't be right. If some of you are only seeing what you yourselves want to see, then why isn't it the case you're *all* simply seeing what you yourselves want to see?


The people who support the OS and those that dont cannot agree either, and no one ever will agree until there is a final conclusive independent investigation that is not biased either way, and all the evidence would have to be included in that investigation, not just some of the evidence.

Let's not get side-tracked with other theories, only verifiable evidence that is thoroughly investigated independently, can conclude what really happened on 9/11. I cannot stress this enough.
edit on 9-7-2012 by thegameisup because: added quotes



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by conwaylemmon
 
Thanks, Conway. Dave, would you do me a solid, and just answer question #5. Can you give us a clue as to why they insisted upon these 'conditions'? If there was no 'conspiracy', why the dodge? Why no recording? For two guys with nothing to hide, they sure weren't too open about what happened that day. What's your take?



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by dillweed

Dave, would you do me a solid, and just answer question #5. Can you give us a clue as to why they insisted upon these 'conditions'? If there was no 'conspiracy', why the dodge? Why no recording? For two guys with nothing to hide, they sure weren't too open about what happened that day. What's your take?



He most likely won't, or if he does it won't really be his opinion. It will be some other persons. Or he'll feign ignorance on which #5 question your referring to.

'5. Why did Bush and Cheney request, and why were they allowed, to testify to the commission together, off the record, and not under oath?'



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by infinityoreilly
 


As has been pointed out, a President or Vice-President, testifying under oath to a Congressionally chartered panel runs into separation of powers issues as set forth in the Constitution. To prevent future, political precedents (and witch hunts) from being conducted there had to be set rules. Why in private? Because there were going to be details discussed that the American people AND our enemies did not need to know ( like the "vaunted" communications system on Air Force One was so bad that there were several times the President was out of the secured comm loop...which was also one of the reasons he ended up at Offut AFB in Omaha)



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by conwaylemmon
Thanks for this thread. I'll contribute a few questions:
1. What happened to the most expensive and best military in the world, that it failed to intercept any of the planes at least 1 hour and 40 minutes after hijacks were suspected, and if the shanksville plane was indeed shot down, why is it denied?
2. Why was the president allowed to sit in a classroom, when it was clear that we were "under attack". (a) Wasn't the commander in chief's safety in question? (b) Wasn't the commander in chief needed immediately to lead the military/country?
3. Why did the administration continually deny that they could have possibly foreseen using planes as weapons?
4. Why did the administration attempt to thwart an investigation, and why was in underfunded?
5. Why did Bush and Cheney request, and why were they allowed, to testify to the commission together, off the record, and not under oath?


This is the curious thing about how people look at this issue. All 5 of those questions relate to people's actions.

But the collapse time and its relevant physics has not been mentioned since page one.

So different have very different priorities in how they look at reality. Neither the government nor the military can change the physics.

psik



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 01:43 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


psikeyhackr YOU like ANOK dont understand the physics related to the construction/destruction of the WTC buildings and that is a FACT!!



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


psikeyhackr YOU like ANOK dont understand the physics related to the construction/destruction of the WTC buildings and that is a FACT!!


I second that.



Show of hands ?



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by conwaylemmon
 
Thanks, Conway. Dave, would you do me a solid, and just answer question #5. Can you give us a clue as to why they insisted upon these 'conditions'? If there was no 'conspiracy', why the dodge? Why no recording? For two guys with nothing to hide, they sure weren't too open about what happened that day. What's your take?



I was hoping to keep the discussion in the spirit of the OP's wishes that this be a thread to PRESENT people's issue they have with "the official story", not to DISCUSS them...but if the OP doesn't mind the derailment, there are two possible probabilities that come to mind...

a) For them to be questioned on what they knew and when they knew it, it would necessarily mean they would have to discuss sensitive intelligence material and how they got it. Bush knew we were entering a war phase and he knew Al Qaida was listening, and he didn't want to compromise our intelligence gathering capabilities. It'd be like demanding Eisenhower publically identify the French resistance fighters that were feeding him intelligence on the Nazis- guess what the Nazis would do to them once they found out who they were. Personally, I think that's the whole reason why it took so long to find Bin Laden- one by one all these geniuses in the Media were gleefully reporting each method we were using to eavesdrop on Al Qaida to sell their newspapers and one by one Al Qaida read the newspapers and plugged up the security holes. They're religious zealots but they're not stupid.

...OR...

b) Bush was a college frat boy sent to Washington to do a man's job and he knows it, and he knew he bungled his responsibilities horribly. For all we know, Bush sat in the corner and cried like a little girl the whole time during the 9/11 attack and everyone else was covering for him. He had no idea what to expect from the 9/11 commission so he demanded to be allowed to hold a grown up's hand behind closed doors while being interviewed becuase he didn't want to appear like a complete boob to the public.

This probably isn't the answer you were looking for, however.



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


psikeyhackr YOU like ANOK dont understand the physics related to the construction/destruction of the WTC buildings and that is a FACT!!


That is the 9/11 dichotomy.

If it is IMPOSSIBLE for skyscrapers to be completely collapsed by the fall of their top 15% then the people who say it is possible must call the people who say it is not "LIARS" or "STUPID".

But if it IS POSSIBLE for skyscrapers to be completely collapsed by the fall of their top 15% then the people who say it is possible should have NO OBJECTION WHATSOEVER to obtaining and making public COMPLETE and ACCURATE data on the distributions of steel and concrete in the towers. I would like to know the weight of all of the steel trusses and corrugated steel pans in the standard floor assembly outside the core. I HAVE NEVER SEEN IT. I computed and reported that the concrete slab weighed 614 tons. That can be computed from the dimensions of the floor and density of the concrete. But I have never seen it reported by anyone else.

In fact, if it is possible then they should be able to build a physical model and demonstrate the FACT!

It is like the true purpose of the 9/11 debate is to keep most people fundamentally confused while believing what they prefer to believe, not see that EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS the fundamental physics.

Skyscrapers must deal with GRAVITY and therefore MASS and therefore TIME if things start falling. The mass must be held up against GRAVITY and if it is not then GRAVITATIONAL ACCELERATION brings in TIME and VELOCITY therefore the Conservation of Momentum.

GRADE SCHOOL PHYSICS!

The Physics Profession should have resolved this by 9/11/2002.

So it is now of global cultural significance that most of the Physics Profession and therefore most Engineers have not solved this in a decade. Like we are supposed to believe that Electrical Engineers can't understand this even though it is not directly relevant to their profession. This is like the old Guild System of Europe with people keeping Guild Secrets.

Grade School Physics as a Guild Secret.


Kind of like 700 year old double-entry accounting, supposedly invented in Italy, not being mandatory in our schools and yet economists do not suggest something so simple and yet blather on about the economy. Yeah, let's debate Keynes versus Hayek. That is what is really important!

www.youtube.com...

The pseudo-intellectual bullsh# of European culture.

psik



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne
I second that.

Show of hands ?


I third that.

I also submit that this thread has now been officially derailed by the truthers like they derail every other thread here. Once Psikey starts introducing his junk physics into a thread like he does over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over, the thread has officially jumped the shark. Show of hands?

I thank Exponent for his attempt, but I think he overestimated the audience he is appealing to.



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by waypastvne
I second that.

Show of hands ?


I third that.

I also submit that this thread has now been officially derailed by the truthers like they derail every other thread here. Once Psikey starts introducing his junk physics into a thread like he does over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over, the thread has officially jumped the shark. Show of hands?

I thank Exponent for his attempt, but I think he overestimated the audience he is appealing to.


I am so impressed by comments from the Bowling Ball Balloon Man about Junk Physics.

ROFLMAO

Time is junk physics.


psik
edit on 10-7-2012 by psikeyhackr because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by thegameisup
If we are to believe it was a real terrorist act by bin laden, which has yet to be conclusively proven, then yes the pentagon would have been a lower value target due to more people being in the towers.The 1993 bombings are also heavily debated as an inside job, and so should be left separate from 9/11.


Of course, you have to know that literally *everything* is being debated as a conspiracy, from the moon landing being faked to the pyramids being built by UFOs to Princess Di being assassinated by the SAS. I've even encountered one guy who insisted the price of bananas is being controlled by the CIA, so of course the 1993 bombings being a conspiracy would be no exception to the conspiracy mongers. I will say to them the same thing I will say to the 9/11 truthers- if you have an alternative explanation, fine, but ya gotta prove it...and when I say prove it I mean using actual verifiable proof, not the baloney those damned fool conspiracy web sites are shoveling out that can be debunked in a 30 second Google search.


We do not know what the actual motive was for 9/11, when we have all the evidence independently investigated, and we can find out who really was behind it, only then can we know what the motive was. If it was an inside job, then there would be many reasons for why it was committed, but at this moment we do not conclusivel know either way.


The problem here is that we just don't know enough details about the attack to fully understand what was going on. This causes a vaccuum, and as nature always abhors a vaccuum nature will always try to fill it. Thus when we see a hole in "the official story" we instinctively try to fill it in with our own information so that the overall story makes sense to us. The key words here is "makes sense to us" so for the "official story" to make sense to me, I fill in the vaccuum with gov't incompetence and general nincompoopery. YOU fill in the vaccuum with sinister secret plots to take over the world. In the end, it isn't an investigation; it becomes a Rorschach test.

The difference is that I fully and wholeheartedly admit my human failings and I fall into this trap myself. I have yet to encounetr a truther who is intellectually honest enough to do likewise.




Let's not get side-tracked with other theories, only verifiable evidence that is thoroughly investigated independently, can conclude what really happened on 9/11. I cannot stress this enough.


I wholeheartedly agree here...but what is your of "verifiable" however? THAT seems to be the $64,000 question.



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


Thanks for the Reply and i appreciate your answer to the questions about the function of the thread....good luck in trying to decide what are the most important questions....And also as you know from our discussions...i too think the back and forth bickering achieves very little...And i do also have to agree with Dave in some points...which is difficult for me as i tend to see truthers get classed as tin foil hat wearing psychotics that do not have a brain in their heads...But i have to say i am finding Dave to almost slip over to the darkside on occasion.

So Dave....don't be afraid....truthers can be nice sometimes...I know i can't be....but i have reasons why i fight against the machine so much...as it has affected me personally with false allegations by officials who hold the OS as gospel.





new topics




 
6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join