It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why Do You Support The 911 Official Story?

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 5 2008 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by hinky
 



I'll humor you a little bit. I'll keep this only to the topic of the opening question.


Let me humor you a little bit, had you read the official story like the 911 Commission report, you would have realized the report did not answer most of the questions that Americans wanted. The entire 911 Commission report was nothing more than a white wash, simply implying that our Government was not responsible for anything that happened on 911, also meaning no accountably.


The 9/11 Commission Report, despite the vast quantity of labor behind it, is a cheat and a fraud. It stands as a series of evasive maneuvers that infantilize the audience, transform candor into iniquity, and conceal realities that demand immediate inspection and confrontation. Because it is continuously engaged in scotching all attempts to distinguish better from worse leadership responses, the Commission can't discharge its duty to educate the audience about the habits of mind and temperament essential in those chosen to discharge command responsibility during crises. It can't tell the truth about what was done and not done, thought and not thought, at crucial turning points. The Commissioners' immeasurably valuable access to the principals involved offered an extraordinary opportunity to amass material precious to future historians: commentary based on moment-to-moment reaction to major events. But the 567 pages, which purport to provide definitive interpretations of the reactions, are in fact useless to historians, because a seeming terror of bias transforms query after commissarial query—and silence after silence—into suggested new lines of self-justification for the interviewees. In the course of blaming everybody a little, the Commission blames nobody—blurs the reasons for the actions and hesitations of successive administrations, masks choices that, fearlessly defined, might actually have vitalized our public political discourse.

www.harpers.org...





I noticed some new found friends took time to respond and thanks for the feedback. I must have hit close to home or a raw nerve or 2 on a couple of people. Facing the truth hurts at times, and within this thread you see example of people's responses to this. They strike back in with inconsequential responses or off topic responses. But then, I have kids over 30 so I'm used to it


Its so funny because your whole statement in this paragraph is *off topic*.
Your 30-year-old kids have nothing to do with this topic.


Once again, I see a commonality running though these threads, I need to provided the proof or reasoning of why I believe the Government in this matter. No, the real question should be "Why are you a minority in this matter and why do you question an official report?". My government provided an official report of this terrorist act.

Wow! By looking at this thread “you” are the only one making these erroneous statements so the only minority is you. Now as for providing proof, that IS what this thread is about for the Official believers to show why they believe in the Official Story.
You ask why I question an official Government report because I live in the United States of America and I can! Furthermore, I don’t trust a lying Government, what Country do you live in? That is what is so great about our Country our Government has to answer to the people however, since G-Bush and his administration feel they do not have to answer to anyone, we will continue pushing for answers and keep pushing for a new investigation. American are not stupid we know our Government is corrupt that is why we always question everything they do because (We The People) do not always trust them.



Once again, the sheeple or whatever comments will come, but here is where the real problem lies.


You still resort to ridiculing the posters, Why?



I'm not an uneducated man living in a tent connecting to the internet from some internet cafe I happen to be digging garbage from their trash cans. Words have meaning. I can see from the writings within this thread there are kids posting their worldly responses trying to make themselves feel self important. I see engineering terminology used in wrong forms or just plain bad English. I can understand the English aspect due to the sad state of our educational system or English not being a first language of some people. I can not disallow the wordage of engineering terms though. I see this commonly throughout threads or web sites of the people trying to show that airplanes can not bring buildings down. To me, just a plain ordinary guy will a little education and a decent job, this is a problem.
This thread, is not about the type of people who post here, so save your snide remarks, your off topic!



Sometime when a person has a little time, they should look into what the term "official report" or "final report" really is and what it really means. Maybe even look into the legal aspect. This is part of where words have meanings. Someday, someone within this very thread may have an important job and can fully understand the ramifications of those words and feel the full burden of placing a signature on this type of document. People without this understanding or just aren't aware of what this document truly is, don't have a full appreciation of the Government's action.


WOW! You do not have an understanding about American rights, do you!
What has this got to do with proven why the Official Story is True?



When I glanced or just perused the NIST report, on first blush, I have no problems. But then, I don't claim to be an engineer or a fire fighter that now saves the world. However, when I just go visit some sites that are highly recommended in these regards, I see many problems with simple things from a complex engineering problem such as a plane loaded with fuel and striking a building at several hundred miles an hour.


So are you saying the NIST report is true and it stands up to real science.

Scholars file challenges to NIST reports on 9/11

Submissions may shatter the cover-up, founder declares
Madison, WI (PRWEB) March 30, 2007 – Some members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, a non-partisan organization of students, experts and scholars dedicated to exposing falsehoods and revealing truths about 9/11, have filed complaints against the National Institute of Standards and Technology for legal defects in its studies of events of 9/11 involving the Twin Towers and Building 7.
James H. Fetzer, the society''s founder, believes these actions have the potential to break the back of the cover-up that has enveloped these events.
"It would be nice if the government would tell us the truth about our own history," Fetzer said. "But all we get from the President, the Vice President, the Secretary of State and former Secretary of Defense is a ''song and dance'' that keeps the American people in ignorance." The complaints have been filed by Ed Hass, who edits The Muckraker Report; Morgan Reynolds, past Chief Economist in the Department of Labor in the Bush administration; and Judy Wood, former professor of mechanical engineering at Clemson University. Reynolds and Wood are both members of the society.
The complaints, which are archived and available to the public at www.ocio.os.doc.gov/ITPolicyandPrograms/Information_Quality/PROD01_002619 , fall into three categories. The complaint by Ed Haas concerns claims that NIST has advanced asserting that it has found "no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event" in relation to Building 7. Haas alleges that this is false and misleading insofar as NIST has never looked for evidence of this kind. Moreover, NIST denies having found any "corroborating evidence" supporting the hypothesis that the building was brought down by controlled demolition, which is inconsistent with evidence it acknowledges.
Indeed, in his complaint, Haas observes that the gross features of the collapse of Building 7—a 6.6 second, complete, symmetrical, and total collapse—qualify as evidence of controlled demolition of that building, which contradicts NIST''s affirmations. In a second complaint, Haas observes that conflicts of interest affect using many of the same scientists, experts, subcontractors, and others who were responsible for research on the Twin Towers to conduct research on Building 7 as well, which tends to taint their objectivity.
"Building 7 has been of special interest lately," Fetzer remarked, "since archival footage from the BBC has been discovered, where a female reporter is explaining that Building 7 has also collapsed." The problem is that the building only collapsed at 5:20 PM, while and she is reporting it at 4:57 PM, which is 23 minutes too soon. "You can find a dozen articles about it on 911scholars.org, which is the society''s web site. You can even see Building 7 clearly standing in the background over her left shoulder in these news video clips, which raises disturbing questions about the media in all of this."
The second complaint, which has been filed by Morgan Reynolds, disputes NIST''s explanations of the jetliner-shaped holes in the Twin Towers. According to NIST, the North Tower (WTC-1) was hit by Flight AA 11, a Boeing 767, traveling at an estimated 443 mph, yet its tail section disappears within 0.25 seconds. And it claims that the South Tower (WTC-2) was hit by Flight UA 175, another Boeing 767, flying at an estimated speed of 542 mph, where its tail section disappears into the building in approximately 0.20 seconds.
Reynolds observes that the planes are 159 feet in length, which means that, on the NIST account, Flight AA 11 lost only 2% of its speed in despite massive resistance from a steel/concrete building. Similarly for Flight UA 175, the airspeed of which did not decline in spite of its impact with steel walls and concrete floors, as well as the dense steel core consisting of 47 columns. The complaint contends that real jetliners would have been dramatically slowed by the impact, which implies that the NIST report is not only factually wrong but also physically impossible in violating physical laws.
"Morgan poses a substantial number of anomalies that NIST will be hard pressed to explain," Fetzer said. "But the greatest challenge to its scientific integrity is posed by the complaint filed by Judy Wood, which is a veritable tour de force." While the documents filed by Haas and Reynolds run less than ten pages in length, the one filed by Wood runs forty-three pages, including photographs and other supporting evidence. "It is a powerful critique that demonstrates the government has completely and utterly failed to explain what happened to the World Trade Center on that tragic and fateful day."
Fetzer characterizes Dr. Wood, who has degrees in civil engineering, engineering mechanics, and materials engineering science, as the leading expert on technical aspects of the destruction of the World Trade Center. "There are experts in many areas of science and of engineering studying 9/11," he explained, "but she has degrees that are centrally focused on critical areas in which competence is required to begin to understand what happened on 9/11. No one else in the 9/11 community comes close to her level of expertise."
Her complaint, technically, Request for Correction, like the others, asserts that the basic integrity of NIST''s report, called NCSTAR 1, is lacking because, by its own admission, NIST did not investigate the actual destruction of the World Trade Center Towers: "The focus of the investigation was on the sequence of events from the instance of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower." This means that the NIST report does not actually include the collapse behavior of the towers after the conditions for their initiation were realized, which NIST refers to as "the probable collapse sequence."
"NIST, of course, claims that it was the impact of the aircraft and the jet-fuel based fires, which caused the steel to weaken and bring about a collapse," Fetzer said. "But the buildings were designed to withstand such occurrences and the steel had been certified by UL to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit for several hours without weakening. The fires only burned around 500 degrees for less than an hour (in the case of WTC-2) and an hour-and-a-half (in the case of WTC-2), so NIST really doesn''t even reach the point at which a ''collapse'' of any kind would be ''initiated.'' The situation is quite remarkable."
Thus, to this day, Americans have not been given any explanation whatsoever for the destruction of the WTC complex that comports with information and quality standards. In contrast, Dr. Wood''s RFC contains a stunning array of visual evidence that confirms highly unusual energy effects seen by all as the Twin Towers were almost instantaneously destroyed in less time than it would take a billiard ball to hit the ground if dropped from the height of 110 stories, a result she demonstrates in relation to the law of falling bodies.
nWood also points out other compelling evidence that NIST ignored, including visual evidence of unusual and unexplained devastation to vehicles parked blocks away from the WTC complex, including some with disintegrated engine blocks but unexploded gas tanks. And she notes the peculiar damage of perpendicular gouges in WTC-3, WTC-4, WTC-5, and WTC-6, as well as other distinctive effects, such as cylindrical holes in these buildings and even in the street, which remain unexplained by NIST to this day. "These outcomes appear to be inexplicable if only conventional explosives, much less fires, were involved," Fetzer said. "Cars burned, paper did not."
Indeed, Wood goes further and points out that the huge quantity of dust resulting from the visible process of steel disintegration, some of which was captured on film, combined with these other effects suggest the probable use of high-tech, directed energy weapons. Another element of Wood''s proof is the almost complete lack of even a rubble pile at the WTC complex. "Where did it go?", she asks. Whatever the source of energy and heat may have been, it had no effect upon massive quantities of paper floating around the city.
Jerry Leaphart, a Connecticut-based trial lawyer, who is also a member of Scholars, represents the complainants in this effort. Leaphart states that NIST now has 60 days to respond to the RFC. After that, an appeal can be taken or other legal action could be pursued. "Anyone with a serious interest in what happened at the World Trade Center has to read Wood''s complaint," Fetzer added. "It is a stunning indictment of the NIST''s failure to come to grips with the problem. In my opinion, these submissions have the potential to shatter the cover-up in one of the greatest murder mysteries in history. We are all indebted to them for doing this."
James H. Fetzer Founder Scholars for 9/11 Truth

911researchers.com...


www.911scholars.org...
9/11, NIST, and “Bush Science”: A New Standard For Absurdity
www.911blogger.com...





You wanted to know why I believe the official report. I haven't seen anything at all that makes me believe otherwise in regards to the collapse of the towers. At least nothing that makes sense to my untrained eyes.

You must not read very well:

Wisconsin academic: 9/11 report a fraud
"It's now very clear," he told me. "The official 9/11 report is a complete fraud." Barrett says a close examination of the twin towers falling shows puffs of smoke, a sign the buildings were pre-planted with explosives, and the collapse of the towers was a controlled demolition.

www.cnn.com...


Unanswered Questions and the "Final Fraud" of the 9/11 Commission:
a. The September 11th families who fought for and gained an independent investigation (the 9/11 Commission) posed 400-plus questions, which the 9/11 Commission adopted as its roadmap. The vast majority of these questions were completely ignored in the Commission hearings and the final report.
b. The membership and staff of the 9/11 Commission displayed awesome conflicts of interest. The families called for the resignation of Executive Director Philip Zelikow, a Bush administration member and close associate of "star witness" Condoleezza Rice, and were snubbed. Commission member Max Cleland resigned, condemning the entire exercise as a "scam" and "whitewash."
c.The 9/11 Commission Report is notable mainly for its obvious omissions, distortions and outright falsehoods - ignoring anything incompatible with the official story, banishing the issues to footnotes, and even dismissing the still-unresolved question of who financed 9/11 as being "of little practical significance." NIST Omissions
After the destruction of the WTC structural steel, the official Twin Towers collapse investigation was left with almost no forensic evidence, and thus could only provide dubious computer models of ultimately unprovable hypotheses. It failed to even test for the possibility of explosives. (Why not clear this up?)
All the Signs of a Systematic 9/11 Cover-up
a. Airplane black boxes were found at Ground Zero, according to two first responders and an unnamed NTSB official, but they were "disappeared" and their existence is denied in The 9/11 Commission Report.
b. US officials consistently suppressed and destroyed evidence (like the tapes recorded by air traffic controllers who handled the New York flights).
c. Whistleblowers (like Sibel Edmonds and Anthony Shaffer) were intimidated, gagged and sanctioned, sending a clear signal to others who might be thinking about speaking out.
d. Officials who "failed" (like Myers and Eberhard, as well as Frasca, Maltbie and Bowman of the FBI) were given promotions.

www.911truth.org...



640+ Engineers and Architects
150+ Pilots and Aviation Professionals

320+ Professors Question 9/11

230+ 9/11 Survivors and Family Members

180+ Artists, Entertainers, and Media Professionals




patriotsquestion911.com...

You need to do some real research before you start condemning people, who do not agree with your opinions. However, your opinions are always welcome but don’t insults other people who do not agree with you. These 640 + Engineers and Architects are risking their reputations and careers because they do not believe in the Official Story. Do you also think they are a bunch of immature 30-year-old kids?





This thread is only about why people believe or do not believe the official report. Other facts or made up facts about everything else is for a different thread.


No, this thread is about why“YOU” believe in the Government 911 Story.
And to show us why it is true. However, you have failed to show anything as of proof; the only thing you did give us is your opinions.






[edit on 12/5/2008 by cashlink]



posted on Dec, 5 2008 @ 12:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 



Thanks. I do try to post the truth and keep my own biasness out of it. Obviously, that doesn't always work.


One thing I like about you Griff, is you do put up a good argument, and you show your sources. I also feel that you are in the middle when it comes to 911, however, my hat is off to you.



posted on Dec, 5 2008 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by ashamedamerican
reply to post by jthomas
 


Thanks for cutting my quotes in a way that makes me look like I didn't know what the 911 commission report was.


Everyone can read your post. There's no denying that your wrote that the 9/11 Commission Report is the "official story" despite the fact that, according to every 9/11 Truther in the world, the "official story" was reported as existing for close to three years before the 9/11 Commission report came out.


I also enjoyed how you referred to the official story that you claim doesn't even exist as "a debunked fallacy" .


Yes, the claim that there is an "official story" is a fallacy and that fallacy was shown to be such years ago. Why are you confused about that?


If I need to provide sources proving that one of the most heavily defended and surveiled buildings in the world has easily 80+ video tapes they won't release than I fear there's no helping you because I don't have the time to waste on exercises in futility. Go to a Wal-mart sometime and look at the roof, you're telling me that the pentagon has less video surveillance than a department store?


Obviously, you can't demonstrate your own claim that there are "80+ tapes that they claim show a 757 hitting the pentagon, but they refuse to release?"

But I can show you that your claim doesn't hold up.


85 videos

The videos taken from the Pentagon area after the 9/11 attacks were mentioned in the Maguire declaration, where FBI Special Agent, Jacqueline Maguire responded (see below) to a request from Scott Bingham.
In Summary:

* She determined that the FBI had 85 videotaptes that might be relevant. Of those, 56 "of these videotapes did not show either the Pentagon building, the Pentagon crash site, or the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon on September 11."
* Of the 29 remaining videotapes, 16 "did not show the Pentagon crash site and did not show the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon."
* Of the 13 remaining tapes which showed the Pentagon crash site, 12 "only showed after the impact of Flight 77."
* The videotape taken from the Citgo gas station did not show the impact.
* No videotapes were located from the Sheraton Hotel, though she located a videotape from the Doubletree Hotel.

www.flight77.info...



As for your clearly and badly photoshopped T-shirt that that claims 4.6%, nice try but it's closer to 85% who believe we're not being told the truth.


Only 4.6% believe 9/11 was an inside job.




Zogby America Likely Voters 8/23/07 thru 8/27/07 MOE +/- 3.1 percentage points

402. There are three main schools of thought regarding the 9/11 attacks. The first theory is the official story, and maintains that 19 Arab fundamentalists executed a surprise attack which caught US intelligence and military forces off guard. The second theory known as Let It Happen argues that certain elements in the US government knew the attacks were
coming but consciously let them proceed for various political, military and economic motives; and the third theory Made It Happen contends that certain US government elements
actively planned or assisted some aspects of the attacks. Based upon your knowledge of 9/11 events and their aftermath, which theory are you more likely to agree with?

Made it happen: 4.6%

www.911truth.org... Page 5


You truthers need to learn how to read rather than believe what Truther propagandists like David Ray Griffin tell you.



posted on Dec, 5 2008 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by 911files

2006 Zogby Poll

By now, I am sure the numbers are much higher. I am not convinced that "911 was an inside job!", but I am convinced there is much more to know.


In the 2007 poll, only 4.6% believe 9/11 was an Inside Job:


Zogby America Likely Voters 8/23/07 thru 8/27/07 MOE +/- 3.1 percentage points

402. There are three main schools of thought regarding the 9/11 attacks. The first theory is the official story, and maintains that 19 Arab fundamentalists executed a surprise attack which caught US intelligence and military forces off guard. The second theory known as Let It Happen argues that certain elements in the US government knew the attacks were
coming but consciously let them proceed for various political, military and economic motives; and the third theory Made It Happen contends that certain US government elements actively planned or assisted some aspects of the attacks. Based upon your knowledge of 9/11 events and their aftermath, which theory are you more likely to agree with?

Made it happen: 4.6%

www.911truth.org... Page 5



posted on Dec, 5 2008 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by cashlink

Let me humor you a little bit, had you read the official story like the 911 Commission report, you would have realized the report did not answer most of the questions that Americans wanted. The entire 911 Commission report was nothing more than a white wash, simply implying that our Government was not responsible for anything that happened on 911, also meaning no accountably.


Tell us. cashlink, the source of the evidence that the 9/11 Commission used, what that evidence was, how much evidence they examined, the Commission's purpose, how it was a "white wash".

I'm pretty confident you can't but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.



posted on Dec, 5 2008 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


I'm sorry but im not buying that. Your saying there was not one camera that caught the impact of the plane hitting the pentagon, besides the badly edited one the government released?

Get real. Even if it isn't the most heavily guarded building in the world it would still have cameras pointed at all the outside walls. Like most buildings do.

There isn't even a video of the "plane" coming towards the pentagon? At any angle at all?

You better believe there is. Il bet there are dozens that caught the approach and impact. They've just no intention of showing us them.

Get your head out your arse.



posted on Dec, 5 2008 @ 11:18 AM
link   
well i think a bunch of islamic extremists hijacked planes and flew them into buildings. That 4th plane was a bit funny wouldnt surprise me if it was shot down. Maybe it crashed i dunno.

but if you think the US government & intelligence agencies were accomplaces somehow deliberately assisting and helping them in the atrocities of 9/11 then i think you are wrong.

I could think of far better ways that cause much less damage that could be used for an excuse to go to war.

thesneakiod, maybe they do have footage maybe they dont. But the extremists would certainly love some of that pentagon footage to use in their propoganda films like they use the trade towers footage. If i was in control i dont think i would release the footage either if i had any.

[edit on 5-12-2008 by yeti101]



posted on Dec, 5 2008 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


2007 Poll

See, now you are doing what you accuse the Truthers of doing, distorting evidence. "Inside job" does not necessarily mean "made it happen", "let it happen" is in that context as well. The two combined add up to 40% in the same poll quoted.




403. In October 2006, a New York Times/CBS poll found that only 16% of Americans believe they have been told the whole truth about this administration's foreknowledge of the September 11 attacks. Based upon your knowledge of 9/11 events, do you agree or disagree that the Congress should investigate the executive branch's conduct prior
to, during and following the September 11 attacks?

Agree 50.7%


Please don't misrepresent polling data.

Just for the record, I voted for President Bush in 2000 and 2004, so I am not a Bush-hater. None-the-less, I agree with the 50.7% in the 2007 poll.

[edit on 5-12-2008 by 911files]



posted on Dec, 5 2008 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by 911files
reply to post by jthomas
 


2007 Poll

See, now you are doing what you accuse the Truthers of doing, distorting evidence.


Not at all.


Inside job" does not necessarily mean "made it happen",


Yes it does.



posted on Dec, 5 2008 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Amazing, a non-Truther defining Truther terms.



posted on Dec, 5 2008 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by ashamedamerican
 





If I need to provide sources proving that one of the most heavily defended


Well, you are going to have to provide sources for that claim. Despite what many truthers believe...there are no gun emplacements, no missile launchers, no artillery, no heavy weaponry at all at the Pentagon. The security there on 9/11, came from the security force assigned there (with their standard issue Beretta M-9's)

If you have any doubt how well defended the pentagon is, please feel free to grab an M-16 and walk towards it.



posted on Dec, 5 2008 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by 911files
Amazing, a non-Truther defining Truther terms.

I can 'one up' you on that one.

A non-Truther defining an alternate reality that can only be understood by himself.

It seems to me that the majority of the official story parrots have purchased the new book '911 debunking for and by dummies' authored by Baghdad Bob.

"There is no official story"
I just might add that to my sig below.



posted on Dec, 5 2008 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by yeti101
 


If you say that, they use the excuse: "Are we supposed to know why they did what they did?" It makes no sense because then they assume they know at least part of the reason why by saying things like: "I bet Cheney and the Neo-cons laughed at all the confusion and pain. Pigs!" Complete rubbish but it makes sense to some.



posted on Dec, 5 2008 @ 07:25 PM
link   
What is the use of this post ?

To think that the WTC was demolished by pyrotechnics and still in the US is just sick. Why not go to another country you might be next. no joke here.

I personally think 911 was allowed to happen just like Pearl Harbor was in WW2. The towers weren't protected against a plane crash and maybe weakened instead of consolidated because they were marked as a target long before 911.

The problem is what were they covering up. IRAQ ? I don`t think so ... maybe something else was going on that required such a sacrifice to keep out of public view.



posted on Dec, 6 2008 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ashamedamerican
 


And if you chose to do something like that, you would quickly find human beings with small arms in your way. Of course, small arms are not going to stop an airliner. So, back to the original.....where is the source for his assertion about the Pentagon and its defenses??



posted on Dec, 6 2008 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by ashamedamerican
 


And if you chose to do something like that, you would quickly find human beings with small arms in your way. Of course, small arms are not going to stop an airliner. So, back to the original.....where is the source for his assertion about the Pentagon and its defenses??


What I stated was that the pentagon was "one of the most heavily defended and surveiled buildings in the world." If you expect anyone to believe that the pentagon which is the headquarters of the United States Department of Defense, is NOT ""one of the most heavily defended and surveiled buildings in the world" apparently you'll believe anything, which gives a good explanation as to why you believe the official fairytale.

Ok ok, you caught me clearly lying, everyone knows that Wal-mart is better defended and surveiled than THE PENTAGON.


Please at least cherrypick something that my 4 year old nephew couldn't argue against.


It sits inside the "Pentagon Reservation" which is 280 acres. Your statement that "there are no gun emplacements, no missile launchers, no artillery" does not mean it's not heavily defended. It sits on one of the most secure pieces of real estate on the face of the planet.


It's very possible that before 911 you would have encountered small arms at the front door, if you have 280 acres locked down tight enough that everyone is being surveiled and tracked and couldn't fart without it being on a classified security report somewhere you don't really have a need for gun emplacements, missile launchers, or artillery.

Unless of course you're trying to shootdown a 757 piloted by a man who couldn't fly a cesna well enough to be checked out to rent planes.


seriously c'mon...


[edit on 6-12-2008 by ashamedamerican]



posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 12:55 AM
link   
I’m amused by those grumbling there is no official story.

Okay, so let’s rephrase the question:

Why do you believe what the media and government purport is the truth about 9/11, which involves the hijackers, Osama, etc. All of that same information is involved in the story that is generally told and “supported” by the media and government, deny it is an “official” story or explanation, but please explain why you believe these supposed truths.

And if you don’t wish to do so and simply come in this thread to say 9/11 Truthers are the ones who need to support their beliefs then I don’t see why you are wasting anyone’s time. You are going off topic and derailing the thread, don’t answer the question, but distracting attention from the question is highly suspicious. Enough trolling.



posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by ashamedamerican
"There is no official story"
I just might add that to my sig below.


I'm waiting for the "thousands" of sources proving god-knows-what about 9/11 that jthomas was talking about. Not just the Kean Commission, and FEMA that went to NIST, apparently, even though that short list concludes the people that had actual access to evidence and funding to put together an actual report. But "thousands."



posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 06:00 AM
link   
There really is no official story, except that spoken by officials "as if true."

You question is probably the wrong question. Try "If you do not support the official 911 story, do you get trouble from your boss, your associates, and others?" The signal if something is not the truth, but an official truth, is when there is a body count, a victim trail, and punishments when you do not conform.

So yes, go ahead and support the official story, because depending upon different circumstances, your job, and your personal safety depend upon it. But remember the best course regarding "the official truth," is probably not to talk about it very much, since when you are lying, you do have to get all the nuances of the lies right. Whereas when you are telling the truth, you do not have to remember anything, just the truth.



posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
I’m amused by those grumbling there is no official story.


I am amused by those who think evidence is just an "official story."


Okay, so let’s rephrase the question:

Why do you believe what the media and government purport is the truth about 9/11, which involves the hijackers, Osama, etc. All of that same information is involved in the story that is generally told and “supported” by the media and government, deny it is an “official” story or explanation, but please explain why you believe these supposed truths.


Simple.

Why do you think that whatever the media or the government said or didn't say about 9/11 from the moment of the first attack is a substitute for all of the lines of independent evidence from thousands of sources and individuals of the media and government were neither the source nor had any control of to begin with?

Or, to put it another way, why did you choose to believe 9/11 Truthers who told you that an "official story" exists that is the substitute for actual evidence?




top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join