Calling All Official Story Believers!!! I need your input. ***

This thread is for believers of the official story ONLY. If you are so-so on the issue or if you are a "truther" please do NOT post here.

While I absolutely HATE 9/11 discussion these days and even though I have sworn off talking about it; I have decided to make one final post/effort in the area just because the idea was eating at me.

I need a bit of input from you guys for a future (and final) piece I am planning.

I promise you guys that I will in no way belittle you, try to make you look bad or anything else in that future post. I am simply asking this for the information aspect of it.

For those of you who wouldn't mind helping, this is what I ask you to include in your post.

----------

Your Age Range (15-20, 21-25 etc)
Your Political Affiliation (Republican, Democrat, Libertarian etc)
and
Your ONE (1) Main Supporting Reason for the Official Story (Al-Quaeda Hijackers Theory) Note: Please ONLY Provide Your Main Supporting Reason

----------

"Truthers", PLEASE refrain from posting here. I will be doing this EXACT same thread for you at a later date.

This is for information gathering purposes ONLY.



Thanks in advance guys!
Jasn

[edit on 11-10-2007 by SimiusDei]

Mod Edit: All Caps – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 11/10/2007 by Mirthful Me]

I am 21-25 age group.Repiblican. I support the official story because It does seem possible for people not to like this country

44. Rep, dem, lib disgusted. Waiting for the Wigs to come back. How two 110 story building could be dissolved to a couple almost perfectly collapsed piles of dust is beyond my understanding. Comments by Silverstein about 'pulling' wtc7 caught up in the midst of orgasmic carnage. Israelis dancing about a white van videotaping scene as it happened in Jersey. The coincidental NORAD training manuevers. No skid on Pentagon lawn. Cell phone calls from heights most experts say is impossible. The pres able to sit for 20 min's in the schoolhouse while events played out. A reported landing of one of the planes at Hopkins. Some time frame inaccuracies. And lastly, how some Cessna trained jihad lackies could perform a feat of terrorism most seasoned pilots say would be a very long strecth. No hijack alerts. The list goes on. Unexplained explosions heard at the site etc etc etc. Remote controlled is the only viable thing I can think of. Edit: Oh, and all the multi million 'put' options on the airlines stock. And the convenient 'insurance' policies Silverstein bought weeks before. You take any one of these things and can easily debunk it, you put all the dots together and you got one fine mess.

[edit on 11-10-2007 by jpm1602]

reply to post by jpm1602


NOTE: Please read the OP before posting.

The "truthers" will have their chance.



Jasn

I'm 24 and of no political offiliation. I believe the official story because all the other theories are very far-fetched - the amount of co-operation and deception needed to pull a thing like this off would be immense. If the gov't really was going to do a false-flag operation, why not just crash the jets? I don't see why they'd take so many risks to blow the towers up when just planes crashing into them would have been a very effective fake terrorist operation. Note that I don't actually think it was a false-flag attack, but if it was I don't see any need to explode the towers as well. Doing that would make exposure far more likely for very little extra benefit.

1) Old

2) Conservative.

3) I believe the official story because almost all "truther" theories rely on extremely well planned and thought out operations that would have required the cooperation and/or complicity of many hundreds, if not thousands of individuals, however no one, I repeat...no one.. has come forward claiming to be in insider with proof of government involvement.

No one has even come forward as a non-participant whistleblower who has uncovered proof of govenrnment involvement.

Furthermore, even though almost all "truther" theories require highly complex planning and tactics on behalf of the government, the truthers smoking gun proof is usually something so mundane that there is a huge disconnect between the degree of planning and forethought required to execute the operation and the bumbling screw up that they point to as proof of a conspiracy.

Let me illustrate one example:

Pentagon: The "plan" is to fly a dummy jet or the real AA airliner down Columbia PIke and I395 so everyone could see it, then over a bunch of light poles, use pre planted explosives to take the poles down, have MIB move the poles into the "correct" positions, even placing one on Lloyd's taxi-cab while no one is looking, and then "using dozens of other MIB to "plant" phony airplane parts around teh building and grounds to make it look like AA 77 crashed into the building.

Now, "They" planned all this out, "they" succesfully disappeared all the passengers and crew of AA77 with no families coming forward with suspicions or irregularities, They placed phony airplane parts at the Pentagon with no one noticing or producing any proof or evidence of "parts planting".

They did all this and more but they messed up the flight path of the plane? The most important aspect of the plan? They planted parts but the wrong parts as most truthers claim when confronted with pictures of fuselage scraps, engine parts, landing gear struts?

I can hear it now.....The planners..

MIB #1 "We need some fake parts to scatter around"

MIB #2 "Yeah...yeah...get some airplane pieces and engines and crap"

MIB # 1 "What color should I get? How many engines?"

MIB # 2 " I dunno...get the cheapest stuff you can....no one will notice if they dont match."

I'm British, thirty something, and would describe myself as a centre-left social democrat.

I believe in the main thrust of the official story: that is Muslim extremists hijacked 4 planes and used them to attack targets in the US, 3 of them being "successful" and the other one crashed (though I'm open to the idea of it being shot down).

The reason I believe the core of the official story is that an overwhelming amount of evidence and experts support it. For example: if the towers were brought down by explosives I would expect the majority of the world's demolition experts and structural engineers to spot it and say so -whereas in fact they all say the opposite. The science behind the official version works, for the conspiracies (at least the ones involving explosives) it doesn't.

Also the suggested conspiracies would involve thousands of people to carry out and require a degree of competence and planning that would essentially be god-like. The "truthers" though seem to find that the conspirators made loads of basic errors - making them both omnipotent and incompetent at the same time....

Conspiracies of the scale suggested simply do not happen - it would be impossible to keep everyone involved quiet, or to stop someone getting hold of some killer evidence. Just look at the Valery Plume (sp?) conspiracy - probably less than 10 people involved in that, no mass murder, no world famous landmarks destroyed, no TV cameras filming it....yet, they were caught out.

On ther other hand: I think Saudi Arabia's role in this has been covered up and that the hijackers may have been trained, or even been a part of, a foreign power's security forces. That 15 or the 19 hijackers were Saudi would actually supports the official story - if they were making this up then they would have said they were Taliban or Iraqi, after all it was Afghanistan and Iraq they were desperate to invade and SA they were desperate to keep out of it.

There may well also have been a cover of the incompetence of the security forces in the build up to 9/11.

Although jpm162 seems to be trying to support the "truther" version (or at least one of them) his post epitomises the problems there are with the position:

How two 110 story building could be dissolved to a couple almost perfectly collapsed piles of dust is beyond my understanding.

Just because something is "beyond your understanding" doesn't mean it didn't happen. Engineers and other experts do understand how it happened and agree with it.

. You take any one of these things and can easily debunk it, you put all the dots together and you got one fine mess.

If every single point has been debunked then why in the world would want to link them all together? Of course you will get a “fine mess” if you join them together, and a “fine mess” would be the opposite of conspiracy.


[edit on 11/10/07 by FatherLukeDuke]

OK, I promised myself I'd never post on 9/11 again but I'll risk it.

Age - 50

Politics - I'd vote for a Socialist party if we still had one in the UK.

Reason - Let's keep it simple, Means, motive or opportunity take your pick of any of them. None of the conspiracy ramblings can resolve those issues without recourse to madcap non-existent technology, an army of zombie like helpers who will never talk or another even less sustainable conspiracy theory to support the original argument.

That doesn't mean we know the whole truth or every nuance of how it all came together but we do know, (or at least should know) that particle beam weapons and holograms were not involved.

By the way, am I the only one who gets more and more irritated by the seeming arrogance of those conspiracy theorists who insist on being called "truthers" with the attendant implication that those who do not presently follow that line of thought or belief are not equally anxious to know the full truth?

Democrat by registry, Constitutionalist at heart, Late 30's

My main problem with most of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists is that the ones proposing the theories, theories that are contrary to established belief, are required to come up with empirical, tangible, and demonstrable proof. They have not succeeded in doing so to this point. I read plenty of opinions, some with more merit than others, but none objective and feasible enough to justify a change of opinion.

What the 9/11 Truthers need is proof. Tangible proof is not an idea, a theory, or a feeling. It needs to be solid, viewable, and its existence and relation to the event need to be verified. "Loose Change" is not a proof, nor are Dylan Avery's conclusions. They are all theories, without merit, i.e. without proof.

Proof is a memo from Dick Cheney to the owner of the WTC. Proof is an internal DoD document linking the government to the attack. Proof is a piece of Tomahawk wreckage from the Pentagon. Proof is a Sidewinder tailsection embedded in the ground someplace near Shanksville. Proof is a undetonated demolition charge found in the WTC debris. Proof is one senior Bush Administration official going on camera and saying, "We did this, and my conscience can't take it anymore".

The simple fact is that thus far, not one of those things has happened. Conspiracy theorists have not one single tangible piece of evidence to back up their claims. It's all circumstantial or opinion based.

Now, understand that I personally believe that there was some form of 911 related conspiracy. However it is a belief, it is not fact, as in "I think that 93 was shot down". No matter how much I want to believe it, simply believing it does not make it real.


Additionally, most of the 9/11 theories give way too much credit to an historically inefficient and ineffectual organization. The US Government is not exactly the model of high efficiency, quite the opposite. To think that they were able to covertly wire these buildings, control the planes, dispose of the evidence, do something at the Pentagon, and choreograph all of this to the second without a hitch is nearly laughable. Then to think that they accomplished all of this without a leak or misplaced memo is comical indeed.


Finally, I think the "war for oil" and "war for Halliburton profit" is weak. I find it impossible and irrational to honestly and truly believe that the United States government purposely demolished the World Trade Centers, killed thousands of its own citizens, devastated the economy for several years, and spent more than a trillion dollars to get entrenched in an unpopular war that they're in the process of running away from. All so that Halliburton and a couple oil companies could make an extra few billion a year. This makes no sense. Why not just "accidentally" lose a few billion more, like Rumsfeld admitted to?

People want to make this 9/11 thing into an overly elaborate Rube Goldberg machine.



[edit on 11-10-2007 by Reality Hurts]

Age 40, Republican
I believe the official story, in fact I think most of these "truthers" may suffer from mental disorders. Moon based particle beams, hologram machines, how about a simple plot where the government enabled 19 terrorists to strike at us and get their virgins. But it has to be much more grand than that. The official story is the only one that makes sense, and is as close as we can come to what really happened with the evidence we have. Which by the way all "schitzos" will tell you is fabricated and scripted. With how hated the Bush administration is, If there was any kind of conspiracy, particle beams or not, it would be uncovered.

30-35, Center: I have voted for Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, and independents. I am not registered for any party.

Islamic Jihadists really do hate and want to kill Westerners. They have repeatedly stated that they hate us and they have demonstrated that by killing us for centuries.

I do not believe that the government is a monolithic entity that wants to enslave us and take away our freedoms. I believe that the government is made up of individuals that care for their fellow countrymen and are patriots who would happily spill the beans if there was a secret government conspiracy that planned and executed the attacks of 9/11. Including volunteer fireman at the crash site of flight 93 all the way up to the secret spy types at the CIA.

Early 20s, individualist anarchist, US

like many said before, the evidence for there being no conspiracy is massive.

though many of my fellow anarchists are very much 'truthers', i do not blame the president and his administration for these atrocities. I prefer to blame the foreign policy that the united states has been implimenting for the past 60 years (not republicans OR democrats, but republican AND democrats).
As mentioned before, for a secret this large and this mainstream (i.e. covered in the media, talked about constantly) to not be uncovered in 6 months let alone 6 years is too far-fetched.
I do believe that the fundamentalist muslims want to kill us, and i DO believe that they had the means, power, and will to do so on 9/11/2001 without the help from the US government. But (there is always a but), the US has done things in the past that could motivate terrorists to pick us as a target.

"War is just one more big government program." – Joseph Sobran

edit: grammer

[edit on 11-10-2007 by DINSTAAR]

Thirty-something.

My motto has always been "vote Republican, live Democrat", but the Republican party has become such a clown parade that I've had to revise my stance of late.

The 9/11 conspiracies are just too complicated. They rely on an unprecedented level of intelligence and cooperation between government entities. Entities that would realize no benefit for the massive amount of risk attached to their participation.

Originally posted by SimiusDei

Your Age Range (15-20, 21-25 etc)
Your Political Affiliation (Republican, Democrat, Libertarian etc)
and
Your ONE (1) Main Supporting Reason for the Official Story (Al-Quaeda Hijackers Theory) Note: Please ONLY Provide Your Main Supporting Reason

29, independent

One reason?

I was in NY on 9/11 interviewing for a job with a brokerage company a few blocks from WTCs. I was getting off the subway at WTC when the 1st plane hit.

There was confusion and urgency, but no panic. I continued walking to my interview because I didn't want to be late, but I was looking over my shoulder all the way.

I saw plane 2 hit WTC2 while standing on a corner waiting for the light to change.

Anyway... since then I read the 9/11 report and the ONE thing that I never understood until I read the report was the depth planning by al-qaeda and the FBI's questioning of Khalid Sheik Mohammad (sp?). After reading the 9/11 report, I am convinced it was al-qaeda.

I'm not convinced that the report didn't cover up evidence that we knew it was going to happen.