Why the official story does make sense

I know that around here this is just going to get me labeled as a troll. But if you apply a small amount of critical thinking to the events of 9/11, it's pretty easy to understand why it was more than likely a simple terrorist attack.
The official story in and of itself did not make a powerful enough case for war. If it were the conspiracy that most of you claim it was, then wouldn't there have been some damning evidence that made the case to invade to separate countries? As support for the war falls ever lower, wouldn't the conspiracy allow the administration to come forth with new evidence, that could not be released earlier, to strengthen the case for the war?
On top of that, no clear cut conspiracy theory has panned out. We've heard controlled demolitions, nukes, space weapons, holograms, all of the above, none of the above, but no real hard proof has ever emerged of any of it. And no real reason has ever emerged ever.

Originally posted by Unkle Greggo
As support for the war falls ever lower, wouldn't the conspiracy allow the administration to come forth with new evidence, that could not be released earlier, to strengthen the case for the war?
On top of that, no clear cut conspiracy theory has panned out. We've heard controlled demolitions, nukes, space weapons, holograms, all of the above, none of the above, but no real hard proof has ever emerged of any of it. And no real reason has ever emerged ever.

You see, the big point you seem to be missing is this. They SAID they had all of this evidence and would present it to the public. It NEVER happened. When questioned on it they said they never told us they had said that. Well, that's a bunch of crap because you can google and find many videos of them saying that they would present the evidence.

They have lied and then lie to try and cover up that lie. In the end they depend on the passive nature of the populace to simply trust the government.

Plus, the evidence that they tried to pass off to get into Iraq panned out to be completely false. It's a joke.

As to the last part of your post. What evidence has been provided to SHOW us that CD didn't take place? NONE! We just want the truth. We just want a REAL investigation.

A third point that totally argues against this 'critically thought out' post (sarcasm there my friend, sorry) is the commission that put together the report on 911. There are so many holes in that report that it is actually comedic. Plus they left out very important details. You see, THAT'S why there is so much conspiracy talk about that day. Because this administration has LIED to us and the world over and over on many things and have been caught. Why would we believe that they wouldn't lie to us about 911?

Originally posted by Unkle Greggo
The official story in and of itself did not make a powerful enough case for war.

It wasn't to gain support for war, Bush already signed off to attack Afghanistan before 9/11. It was to gain support from Americans for the war.

but no real hard proof has ever emerged of any of it. And no real reason has ever emerged ever.

How can you prove controlled demolitions when NIST admitted not testing for explosive residue and the government admits that the evidence was hauled off and destroyed with out being examined?

Originally posted by dariousg

You see, the big point you seem to be missing is this. They SAID they had all of this evidence and would present it to the public. It NEVER happened. When questioned on it they said they never told us they had said that. Well, that's a bunch of crap because you can google and find many videos of them saying that they would present the evidence.

They have lied and then lie to try and cover up that lie. In the end they depend on the passive nature of the populace to simply trust the government.

Plus, the evidence that they tried to pass off to get into Iraq panned out to be completely false. It's a joke.

As to the last part of your post. What evidence has been provided to SHOW us that CD didn't take place? NONE! We just want the truth. We just want a REAL investigation.

A third point that totally argues against this 'critically thought out' post (sarcasm there my friend, sorry) is the commission that put together the report on 911. There are so many holes in that report that it is actually comedic. Plus they left out very important details. You see, THAT'S why there is so much conspiracy talk about that day. Because this administration has LIED to us and the world over and over on many things and have been caught. Why would we believe that they wouldn't lie to us about 911?

Your first paragraph sort of makes my point. If this was a staged event then the administration could have staged a much stronger case for war. The evidence would not have been a joke.

As to your final paragraph, inefficiency by the government points to conspiracy. What the hell have they ever done that they didn't make a mess out of?

And the best argument against controlled demolition is the time needed to pull it off. With thousands of people in those buildings everyday it would be impossible to wire them without somebody noticing.

[edit on 15-7-2008 by Unkle Greggo]

There is dozens of threads on this site about the 911 theories - you should look them up because they answer all your questions and counter all your beliefs on the subject. It would take too long to write out a list of reasons for what you're saying being naive.

Originally posted by Unkle Greggo
I know that around here this is just going to get me labeled as a troll. But if you apply a small amount of critical thinking to the events of 9/11, it's pretty easy to understand why it was more than likely a simple terrorist attack.
The official story in and of itself did not make a powerful enough case for war. If it were the conspiracy that most of you claim it was, then wouldn't there have been some damning evidence that made the case to invade to separate countries? As support for the war falls ever lower, wouldn't the conspiracy allow the administration to come forth with new evidence, that could not be released earlier, to strengthen the case for the war?
That's asking basic questions, not critical thinking.
On top of that, no clear cut conspiracy theory has panned out.
We invaded Afghanistan becasue we were attacked by Saudis. Thats The Official Story, and if you call that clear cut I would be kind of amazed
We've heard controlled demolitions, nukes, space weapons, holograms, all of the above, none of the above, but no real hard proof has ever emerged of any of it. And no real reason has ever emerged ever.

No real hard proof has ever emerged supporting the OS either, so by your own logic the OS doesent make sense either. There are plenty of reasons to pull a flase flag operation, the government themselves cite them in the operation northwoods documents.

I believe that the government would state pending info release and then flipflop more out of error than clandestine secrecy.

Fact of the matter is, the government jumped the gun a little and attacked the wrong folks. That's a likely reason in my mind that they would be secretive. Furthermore, the only (and yet all too compelling) evidence of CD is the BBC broadcasting the other building's collapse too early. That is the single most disturbing 9/11 fact. I don't believe the BBC was in on it, but perhaps those who were let the cat out too soon.

I'm still out on the issue. Everything in my mind points toward the released "truth" except for that one bit of information. If this has been debunked please tell me. Maybe they meant another building and got them mixed up?

Originally posted by jprophet420

No real hard proof has ever emerged supporting the OS either, so by your own logic the OS doesent make sense either. There are plenty of reasons to pull a flase flag operation, the government themselves cite them in the operation northwoods documents.

No the reason that it does make sense is that if you were plotting a conspiracy you could take the time to fabricate the evidence to be air tight. This administration has been accused of so many cover ups and secrets that you would have to believe they could do a better job of manufacturing the evidence.

Proof that you request cannot be delivered via the internet.

But reason can be, and although I do not count myself among those in movements to debunk nor promote the CT theories circumstantial to the 9/11-Iraq-Afghanistan events in recent history, I will point out something that many of these exchanges omit.

As rabidly committed to the destruction of the Soviet Union, Zbigniew Brzezinski, former Carter administration member (and current adviser to presidential candidate Barrak Obama) was determined to create 'a new Viet Name for their forces committed in Afghanistan. He knew that the USSR was wobbling internally and wanted to encourage it's collapse by creating a political, diplomatic, and morale drain on their stressed out Marxist society.

Osama bin Laden, at the time, was 'at play in the fields of the Lord' (bad pun) funneling monies to the northern Afghan resistance to the Soviet occupation. We used him as a contact point to deliver American technology in the way of cheap weapons, to maximize their effectiveness in the struggle. We provided training and experts to assist in educating these Muslim fighters in the techniques of resistance. Osama bin Laden was the money man - he seems to have funded the camps directly. These 'freedom fighters' came from Arab countries and Muslim communities all over the region and were instrumental in 'convincing' the Soviets it was time to withdraw, (incidentally leaving their leadership to explain to the Soviet people why all those soldiers had to go to Afghanistan to die.) It was a significant blow to the USSR's morale. (We need not engage in theoretical exchanges of how the 'bin laden'-U.S. 'connection was established - it is a fact of record)

Once accomplished however, there were other equally repugnant and troublesome reasons to continue the training camps, as far as Osama was concerned. He began to travel with a radical muslim extremist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi who had in past years developed and begun to apply a new and different approach for addressing 'western' corruption in Islamic society. Namely, don't attack the enemy here (local government,) instead attack the source of the corruption - the west itself.

Bin Laden was approached with a request to allow someone to select certain individuals from his training camps for a special mission. He conceded, and thus, the hijackers were assembled.

THAT was the extend of bin Laden's contribution to 9/11. He was and is NO master mind.

Yet - our government did everything in it's power - both legally and illegally - to maintain that 'he' was THE 9/11 terrorist mastermind. Surely you remember the countless talking heads? This was the first 'misdirection' used by the administration in 'creating' an enemy that did not exist. Whatever the motivation, the fact remains that thousands of Muslim militia, having NOTHING to do with 'terrorism' are paying the price for our misbegotten relationship with bin Laden and his ilk.

Unless someone disagrees with what I have laid out above, you can plainly see that all the information was not given to us by our public servants, and in fact, we were on several occasions, lied to.

When any story begins with a lie, you must accept the criticism and inquiry that it begets. Our administration disagrees. But then, they are supposed to be 'our' employees; we are NOT supposed to be their 'subjects.'

This is why I welcome inquiry into this affair, and I will entertain ANY theory, because the truth is not forthcoming, and the only circumstances in which any true patriotic citizen should accept that the truth is withheld is because he accepts the reason it is being withheld. THAT reason has not been given either.

Originally posted by Unkle Greggo

Originally posted by jprophet420

No real hard proof has ever emerged supporting the OS either, so by your own logic the OS doesent make sense either. There are plenty of reasons to pull a flase flag operation, the government themselves cite them in the operation northwoods documents.

No the reason that it does make sense is that if you were plotting a conspiracy you could take the time to fabricate the evidence to be air tight. This administration has been accused of so many cover ups and secrets that you would have to believe they could do a better job of manufacturing the evidence.

The fallacy in that logic is that you would have to believe in the cover ups to believe they could have done abetter job at them.

Also, just wanted to point this out (AGAIN): If a theory makes sense it is not necesarrily true. That kind of nullifies the point of making the OP, unless it had some hidden point iam missing.

[edit on 15-7-2008 by jprophet420]

Originally posted by Unkle Greggo

The official story in and of itself did not make a powerful enough case for war.

Really? Then why are we at war -- in two different countries, no less.

Originally posted by Unkle Greggo
If it were the conspiracy that most of you claim it was, then wouldn't there have been some damning evidence that made the case to invade to separate countries?

No, not if the "conspiracy" was to simply allow a terrorist act to take place. In fact, it would have even been possible to anonymously supply funding and perhaps even some direction and never leave a trace. Remember, we're in Iraq. Iraq. The 9/11 Commission said Iraq wasn't involved in 9/11, so obviously specific links to countries were not required. We were a paranoid nation after 9/11, and were willing to attack anyone our government said might be a threat.

Originally posted by Unkle Greggo

As support for the war falls ever lower, wouldn't the conspiracy allow the administration to come forth with new evidence, that could not be released earlier, to strengthen the case for the war?

Maybe you could give me an example. Not sure what you mean here.

Originally posted by Unkle Greggo

On top of that, no clear cut conspiracy theory has panned out. We've heard controlled demolitions, nukes, space weapons, holograms, all of the above, none of the above, but no real hard proof has ever emerged of any of it. And no real reason has ever emerged ever.

Sure it has. Read the position papers on middle east policy, Iraq and the American military put out by the Project for a New American Century, which Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Scooter Libby and Richard Armitage were all signatories to. They wanted to use the military to spread American influence in the middle east, and they had hoped to bring democracy to the middle east by overthrowing Saddam Hussein and establishing it in Iraq. They presumed the other ME countries would then fall like dominoes and they'd all become democracies friendly to the west. However, they lamented that this would likely be a slow process unless there was "a catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor." That's an EXACT quote, by the way. And it was written just about a year before 9/11. Coincidence? Maybe, but certainly an eye-opener.

None of this is to say I believe there actually was a conspiracy, but rather, that there could have been and I can't rule it out.

Originally posted by ClintK

Originally posted by Unkle Greggo

The official story in and of itself did not make a powerful enough case for war.

Really? Then why are we at war -- in two different countries, no less.

The two countries you are talking about are Iraq and Afghanistan, no?

Did you miss the War with Iraq in the 90's? Did you miss the extensive bombing of Afghanistan in the 90's? Were both of these military actions before 9/11? These countries and their leaders weren't exactly getting christmas cards from ANY of the world's leading nations.

They were despotic and aggressive-- rogue leaders in a volitile region. Saddam was essentially on World Probation for his crimes, Yet he remained defiant. (dumb move) The Taliban had more UN sanctions against them than they had women to randomly behead. It was clear after Kenya and Tanzinia that the Taliban were also fostering a cause detrimental to US interests around the world.

How do people miss all of this? Are the majority of people confused about 9/11 just too young to remember the 90's? Did people just forget the DECADES leading up to 9/11, and on to the present? We have been at war with this region, and these two geographical areas for much longer than 5-7 years.. WAKE-UP People sheeze.

A. Bin Laden has never been accused of masterminding the attacks on 9/11. He has been accused of financing then.

B. To the poster who wasn't sure what I meant. What I was saying was that as support falls for the war, if this were an inside job then wouldn't the administration just whip out some new evidence, claiming it was just declassified every few weeks, and use it to rebuild the case for war?

Originally posted by Unkle Greggo

The official story in and of itself did not make a powerful enough case for war.

Really? Then why are we at war -- in two different countries, no less.

The two countries you are talking about are Iraq and Afghanistan, no?



How do people miss all of this? Are the majority of people confused about 9/11 just too young to remember the 90's? Did people just forget the DECADES leading up to 9/11, and on to the present? We have been at war with this region, and these two geographical areas for much longer than 5-7 years.. WAKE-UP People sheeze.



Nobody "missed" anything here. We only hit Afghanistan once and we certainly weren't "at war" with Iraq either. We had no ground troops in either country. We had no air bases in either country either (our air power in Iraq was out of Kuwait). Then 9/11. That's the only reason we're in Afghanistan. Period. And it was also used to push the war with Iraq.

You asked why people didn't believe the official story. I told you why I was suspicious of it, but you never responded to what I said.

Originally posted by Unkle Greggo
As to your final paragraph, inefficiency by the government points to conspiracy. What the hell have they ever done that they didn't make a mess out of?

How many times has NORAD ever messed up and missed escorting an plane off course?

If NORAD was incompetent why was no one punished or fired, instead they received medals and promotions (for not doing thier job).

How do people miss all of this? Are the majority of people confused about 9/11 just too young to remember the 90's? Did people just forget the DECADES leading up to 9/11, and on to the present? We have been at war with this region, and these two geographical areas for much longer than 5-7 years.. WAKE-UP People sheeze.

You can be at war with a region? You can be at war with a geographical region? Show me the declaration of war please. Who authorized this war?

The war(s) we are in now became authorized (illegally) after 911, and preventing future terrorist attacks was cited as reason to invade both countries.

reply to post by Unkle Greggo

He certainly has been identified as the co-conspirator, by the other co-conspirator we have in custody.