Lets just pretend....

Pretend that the 9/11 commission, NIST, gov't officials, and the talking heads on "news" channels had all from the very beginning claimed the following:
1) that all three WTC buildings were brought down by explosive devices and the planes were either a distraction or symbolic.
2) that the Pentagon was not struck by a 757, but by a missile.
3) that flight 93 didn't actually bury itself in a hole that existed at least 7 years before that day but had been shot down by the USAF.
4) that its a long shot that even one of these things could have occurred as the result of years of careful planning, dedicated training, and unbelievable luck; but that all three could not have occurred on the same day without some inside (the US gov't) help.

There are so many other special circumstances and strange events on that day that could be discussed in this fashion, but these are the key events that comprise the core of the 9/11 tragedy.

I just want to know, if this were the "official story" would you current OS supporters be on this site day and night calling BS, making videos, scouring the net for any and all related material, or marching in the streets to protest? Would 1000+ architects and engineers put their reputations on the line to say that somehow the laws of physics had changed on that day? Would chemists and physicists routinely show evidence that refuted the official story or experiments that backed alternative explanations? Do you think military personnel and commercial airline pilots with expertise with similar or the exact same equipment would dismiss this OS out of hand going as far as to say its pure "bullsh*t"? Last but certainly not least would millions of people ranging from those who were actually inside the buildings to those who have only seen the videos on TV and have not spent anytime investigating the circumstances or evidence still think it was a massive cover-up?

Originally posted by budaruskie

flight 93 didn't actually bury itself in a hole that existed at least 7 years before that day

I hadn't heard that before

i think if people actually knew the governement was responsible as well as they know that the Pacific ocean is an ocean, then i still don't think there would be much difference. people would be torn between "they did it for the best intentions" and "the government is trying to control us all". there might have been a civil war/revolution much sooner than expected (as i expect one to come as a result of everything occuring and going to occur thus far), but the end result would still be the same as we predict it will be now or in the near future.

reply to post by In nothing we trust


Watch this

Originally posted by budaruskie
Pretend that the 9/11 commission, NIST, gov't officials, and the talking heads on "news" channels had all from the very beginning claimed the following:
1) that all three WTC buildings were brought down by explosive devices and the planes were either a distraction or symbolic.
2) that the Pentagon was not struck by a 757, but by a missile.
3) that flight 93 didn't actually bury itself in a hole that existed at least 7 years before that day but had been shot down by the USAF.
4) that its a long shot that even one of these things could have occurred as the result of years of careful planning, dedicated training, and unbelievable luck; but that all three could not have occurred on the same day without some inside (the US gov't) help.

Well we could be at least 50% closer to the truth instead off 100% mislead.

Damand 9/11 truth !!
S&F

Originally posted by budaruskie
Pretend that the 9/11 commission, NIST, gov't officials, and the talking heads on "news" channels had all from the very beginning claimed the following:
1) that all three WTC buildings were brought down by explosive devices and the planes were either a distraction or symbolic.
2) that the Pentagon was not struck by a 757, but by a missile.
3) that flight 93 didn't actually bury itself in a hole that existed at least 7 years before that day but had been shot down by the USAF.
4) that its a long shot that even one of these things could have occurred as the result of years of careful planning, dedicated training, and unbelievable luck; but that all three could not have occurred on the same day without some inside (the US gov't) help.

There are so many other special circumstances and strange events on that day that could be discussed in this fashion, but these are the key events that comprise the core of the 9/11 tragedy.

I just want to know, if this were the "official story" would you current OS supporters be on this site day and night calling BS, making videos, scouring the net for any and all related material, or marching in the streets to protest? Would 1000+ architects and engineers put their reputations on the line to say that somehow the laws of physics had changed on that day? Would chemists and physicists routinely show evidence that refuted the official story or experiments that backed alternative explanations? Do you think military personnel and commercial airline pilots with expertise with similar or the exact same equipment would dismiss this OS out of hand going as far as to say its pure "bullsh*t"? Last but certainly not least would millions of people ranging from those who were actually inside the buildings to those who have only seen the videos on TV and have not spent anytime investigating the circumstances or evidence still think it was a massive cover-up?

Well the only thing i dont like is, that everyones saying it was the US Government. First of all, i would focus on how it was possible that NO ACTION was taken on those terrorists prior to 911.

There where warnings from EVERYWHERE. Agents from the FBI. From other Countries. And surely some people knew what would happen on 911.

Thats the point to start with. Why has such an incompetence occured on one day in the best secured country of the world. (well maybe second best, as i would put Israel on ther first place)

Stupid video making stupid assumptions.

You weren’t there. You didn’t see the evidence first hand.

If all you have is Youtube evidence then you have no case at all.

It’s like the Salem witch hunts all over again.

I still don't believe the official story, as well as the bs behind 7/7. TPTB have big plans in store for the sheeple.

You seem to be asking if those who believe the traditional version of what happened on 9/11 agree with the conspiracy theories.

I think the answer is probably no.

Originally posted by samkent
Stupid video making stupid assumptions.

You weren’t there. You didn’t see the evidence first hand.

If all you have is Youtube evidence then you have no case at all.

It’s like the Salem witch hunts all over again.

funny... and those who where there saw "NO PLANE" at all, or anything that could suggest that a plane could went down there. But yeah almighty samkent, you where probably there, saw the engines, wings, luggage, seats and all the bodies the somehow wherent caught on video. Probably it was an optical illusion or something like that.
Please enlighten us with your sheer knowledge...

But yeah almighty samkent, you where probably there, saw the engines, wings, luggage, seats and all the bodies the somehow wherent caught on video.

No but I did see pictures of plane debris on tv and online. Oh but you don’t believe MSM.

Just how do you function in daily life if you don’t believe the stories in the daily news?

I guess you didn’t believe in the bank crisis of 08/09? It was just a government trick to get you to pull your money out at a lower rate.

I guess you didn’t believe in the gulf oil spill? It was just a gov tanker sailing back and forth dumping oil.

There was plane debris in Shankvsville and everywhere else within a 5 mile radius. A plane certainly did crash but not the way the OS would have us believe. A debris field as large as flight 93's could only mean it broke up in midair. The real question is why did it explode in mid flight?

Originally posted by budaruskie
I just want to know, if this were the "official story" would you current OS supporters be on this site day and night calling BS, making videos, scouring the net for any and all related material, or marching in the streets to protest? Would 1000+ architects and engineers put their reputations on the line to say that somehow the laws of physics had changed on that day? Would chemists and physicists routinely show evidence that refuted the official story or experiments that backed alternative explanations? Do you think military personnel and commercial airline pilots with expertise with similar or the exact same equipment would dismiss this OS out of hand going as far as to say its pure "bullsh*t"? Last but certainly not least would millions of people ranging from those who were actually inside the buildings to those who have only seen the videos on TV and have not spent anytime investigating the circumstances or evidence still think it was a massive cover-up?

We aren't basing our opinions entirely upon drivel from a single source like Dylan Avery or Alex Jones, like you truthers are doing. We're looking at the picture as a whole and looking at evidence from different sources and we're seeing they all corroborate each other. For it to have genuinely been a conspiracy, WTC maintenance and inspectors would have seen thousands of mysterious packages wired throughout all the towers, Ted Olsen would have asked, "who the heck is this pretending to me my wife" when someone called him, the hundreds of people throughout the Pentagon area would have seen that it was a cruise missile that hit the building and not any passenger jet, they would never have found any passenger DNA at any of the crash sites, there'd have been blatant signs of sabotage from explosives on the steel at ground zero, and so on. Plus, there'd never have been any clear consensus from the multitudes of NIST and FEMA engineers who looked at the evidence and interviewed the witnesses like we have now.

SO, there would be lots and lots and LOTS of actual concrete evidence proving it was a staged attack, and you truthers wouldn't need to wallow in this circus of conspiracy web sites, innuendo dropping, Youtube videos made by college kids in their dorm room, statements from play-pretend experts who have zero expertise in the field they're commenting on, and so forth, and plus, you truthers wouldn't be getting in these fistfights amongst yourselves over what this "blatantly a conspiracy" actually is becuase you'd actually know what it is. So, yes, I would accept that there there had been a conspiracy, becuase the person I spoke to who actually worked in the south tower would have likewise agreed there was a conspiracy, rather than denouncing you conspiracy people for basing your accusations upon sheer ignorance of how the towers were actually buillt and operated.

It's one thing to play "Let's just pretend" when we're watching Star Wars, but it's something different entirely when we're trying to learn how 3,000 people died.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
You seem to be asking if those who believe the traditional version of what happened on 9/11 agree with the conspiracy theories.

I think the answer is probably no.

Frankly, I'm dumbfounded at how you could even draw this conclusion from the OP but I can assure you that I was not asking what you thought I was asking. I'm not sure how I could have made it more clear, you should go back and re-read the OP in order to contribute something to the discussion. G.O.D. is certainly not one of my favorite members but at least he answered the question. Regardless of how much I completely and utterly disagree with every single line of it, I do appreciate the response. Samkent's response was certainly enlightening, on topic, and respectful. The insults and complete avoidance of the questions or points laid out in a post is the hallmark jibber-jabber response to be expected by those who don't have any idea about what they are talking about. Besides, I'd bet my life that at least one of the screen names that has posted on this particular thread was created so that a member could pile on with multiple screen names, or could continue responding to a thread after another member made them look foolish. Yes, I'm talking to A____1 and D____s among others.

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
There was plane debris in Shankvsville and everywhere else within a 5 mile radius. A plane certainly did crash but not the way the OS would have us believe. A debris field as large as flight 93's could only mean it broke up in midair. The real question is why did it explode in mid flight?

Most likely the authorities shot it down. But that kind of makes the Truth movement's notions of their involvement in 9/11 look a little suspect. I mean, why shoot down your own weapon?

Originally posted by budaruskie


Frankly, I'm dumbfounded at how you could even draw this conclusion from the OP but I can assure you that I was not asking what you thought I was asking. I'm not sure how I could have made it more clear,

Clearer, you mean? Well, you could learn to express your point properly. When your ideas are as strange as yours it at least helps if they are articulated clearly.

This is genuinely what I understood from your post. That you're asking if one would support a conspiracy theory if it was the generally accepted narrative. Leaving aside the pointlessness of the question, the answer is almost certainly "no" for the vast majority of debunkers.

But I'm not sure what you learn from this?

you should go back and re-read the OP in order to contribute something to the discussion. G.O.D. is certainly not one of my favorite members but at least he answered the question. Regardless of how much I completely and utterly disagree with every single line of it, I do appreciate the response. Samkent's response was certainly enlightening, on topic, and respectful. The insults and complete avoidance of the questions or points laid out in a post is the hallmark jibber-jabber response to be expected by those who don't have any idea about what they are talking about. Besides, I'd bet my life that at least one of the screen names that has posted on this particular thread was created so that a member could pile on with multiple screen names, or could continue responding to a thread after another member made them look foolish. Yes, I'm talking to A____1 and D____s among others.

oookay.

I have no way of proving this and I am going by my own recollections and memories so please if you have heard the same thing as myself or not please feel free to let me know.

Not long after it was reported that the Pentagon was attacked, I was setting up emergency facilities and video link ups will all of our different regions here in Canada and as I was tuning in to CNN on the 60 inch and turning on the smart board for presentations I heard the CNN reporter distinctly say something along these words, " I have just been informed that two F-16s are on their way to meet up with another flight on its way.....Reportedly on it's way to the white house, they have been scrambled out off ( I can't remember..Sorry ) ...." she then went on at explaining that the jets would have to be at mock speed for 10 minutes to reach the "targeted flight". ****** Please note that the above report, I've never seen or heard it again during the entire 9/11 coverage !! *****

Shortly after it was reported that flight 93 had crashed.

Left me with the same question " Was it shot down ? " The times seemed to coincide to me????!!!

Originally posted by Fox Molder
I have no way of proving this and I am going by my own recollections and memories so please if you have heard the same thing as myself or not please feel free to let me know.

Not long after it was reported that the Pentagon was attacked, I was setting up emergency facilities and video link ups will all of our different regions here in Canada and as I was tuning in to CNN on the 60 inch and turning on the smart board for presentations I heard the CNN reporter distinctly say something along these words, " I have just been informed that two F-16s are on their way to meet up with another flight on its way.....Reportedly on it's way to the white house, they have been scrambled out off ( I can't remember..Sorry ) ...." she then went on at explaining that the jets would have to be at mock speed for 10 minutes to reach the "targeted flight". ****** Please note that the above report, I've never seen or heard it again during the entire 9/11 coverage !! *****

Not true, as this was already covered by the 9/11 commission report years ago. They were referring to the flight of F-16s scrambled out of base in Virginia, along with a flight of F-15s scrambled out of a base Massachussets, to intercept the hijacked aircraft.

Not true, as this was already covered by the 9/11 commission report years ago. They were referring to the flight of F-16s scrambled out of base in Virginia, along with a flight of F-15s scrambled out of a base Massachussets, to intercept the hijacked aircraft.



#### That's exactly what I'm trying to say, planes were scrambled for interception of a commercial flight that was bound for Washington, right ?

Originally posted by budaruskie
G.O.D. is certainly not one of my favorite members but at least he answered the question. Regardless of how much I completely and utterly disagree with every single line of it, I do appreciate the response.

Excuse me? If you "completely and utterly disagree" that steel that had been destroyed by explosives would necessarily show evidence of destruction by explosives, would you mind terribly explaining why? I think it's a given that the laws of physics need to apply to your conspiracy stories just as they need to apply to everyone else.