Why I Doubt the Official "Story"

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Remember, conspiracy theorists don't take the evidence and reverse engineer it into a scenario. They come up with a scenario first and then pick and choose the evidence that happens to support the scenario. This is why there are people so hung up in these conspiracy claims they don't quite grasp the reality that Bush is no longer president- it's Obama who should be the one behind the sinisister secret plot to take over the world, now.

Yes, I agree.

The OS is one of the conspiracy theories. The OS conspiracy theory begins with the scenario, started on the morning of 9/11, that Bin Laden orchestrated the entire plot, conspiring with a band of terrorists.

It seems that every bit of the "investigation" was intended to pick and choose evidence that supports that scenario.

Doubt comes from the fact, not theory, that much of what we know of the "investigation" was spoon fed to us by the organization, the Federal government, and it's members who have the most at stake.

If the theory is that there isn't a dimes bit of difference between the establishment Republicans and Democrats, then how was the 9/11 Commission an impartial investigation? Because it was "bi-partisan?"

Do you really believe the OS, as constructed by the 9/11 Commission, is the entire story?

reply to post by TheLieWeLive

I just think If there is nothing to hide then don't hide it. No wonder there is doubt to the Official Story.

While I don't believe the official story, well, not all of it....

I don't believe there is anything to find at the pentagon other than what we were told, like the other buildings, a passenger jet full of people slammed in there. It makes no sense to send jets into the WTC then try to slip a missile into the pentagon, if this was an "inside job" as they'd know that they would be attacking from an angle that would be captured on what, 800 some different CCTV cameras?

This is where I flip flop..

sometimes I feel it's a honeypot, something to keep you distracted and once the time is right, they release the footage, prove it was a jet, and smash you in the face with your lunacy.

Other times I think, if there is nothing to hide, why hide it?

And then pondering that, I think, wait.... Maybe the official story is wrong AND the conspiracies were wrong, and this WAS a coordinated guerrilla attack by some country and it WAS a missile that hit the pentagon, but releasing footage that would show the world that even the pentagon was not defended might leave too much egg on the face of a billions of dollars a year defense industry....

Anyways, here's my question to the OS'rs. Not the ones actively lying, the ones unaware of the lying and distorting of facts in this thread...

IF you are right, and we are wrong and retarded, what is the harm in letting us dig around in the sandbox? The worst possible thing that could happen is that we prove you right, so why are you so upset about it?

And, before you try, it's not tarnishing the memory of those who died, one darn bit. If I died in that attack, or a similar one, I'd want the thing fully investigated.

More money was spent investigating where Clinton liked to slip his cigars. Think about that before you respond.

reply to post by phishyblankwaters


Think about that before I respond. Ok. Thought about it. The FBI alone damn near spent the same amount of money investigating 9/11 as was spent looking into Monica/Whitewater. That doesn't include the actual Commission, the CIA, NSA, NYPD, PAPD, NIST etc....

It would seem the OP may have reasons for the opinion they stared at the beginning of this thread.

When a publication such as the Wall Street Journal seems to be expressing a similar opinion.

www.marketwatch.com...

If you thought that the fires at the World Trade Center twin towers, set off by the horrific jetliner impacts of September 11, 2001, were the cause of the destruction of those iconic skyscrapers, you may be mistaken. Experts now cite evidence showing that high-temperature incendiaries and explosives were planted throughout the twin towers and the lesser-known 47-story Building 7, also destroyed later the same day.

As well as a follow up the next week.

www.marketwatch.com...

New evidence shows that the September 11th activities of former President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld were falsely reported by official sources.

I, my self, have had trouble with OS and am wondering if this might be the beginning of a crack we have been waiting for. For a common citizen to question is one thing; for a publication of such note to do so, could be a problem for continued desceptions.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by homervb
I was referring to Iraq, and the fabricated Iraq/Al-Qaeda connection as well as the fabricated evidence of WMDs in Iraq

Now I am in 100% in agreement with you. The invasion of Iraq is by far the most shameful thing Bush did becuase up until then we only lashed out when we or our friends were attacked. The war in Iraq was the first unprovoked war in our history and it leaves a stench of imperialism we will never be able to shake off....and it was all over bad intelligence. In the meantime, unknown thousands or even hundreds of thousands have died as a result. I agree completely that "whoops, my bad" doesn't cut it and someone needs to answer for this, so I hope you'll see my point when I say it's hard to do this when we have to waste so much time arguing with all these Alex Jones groupies insisting the 9/11 attack was all just a hologram staged by secret cults of Satan worshipping numerologists..

It's one thing to doubt the findings of the 9/11 commission as improbable. It's another thing entirely to attempt to substitute something even more improbable in its place.

I'll agree with you, lasers from space, hologram planes, all that stuff takes away from finding the truth. Because even any of that stuff was true who in god's name knows anything about that technology? Not me.

But you do agree the Iraq war was an act of imperialism, so it so wrong to wonder if the "bad intelligence" happened to be just that, or maybe this bad intelligence was fabricated to allow the US to establish it's presence in the Middle East? First it's Afghanistan, then it's Iraq, next it's Iran.

President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat

The Saddam-9/11 Link Confirmed

Hussein's Prewar Ties To Al-Qaeda Discounted

9/11 panel sees no link between Iraq, al-Qaida

Court Filings Assert Iran Had Link to 9/11 Attacks

Saudi Arabia May Be Tied to 9/11, 2 Ex-Senators Say

Things like this are what make me question 9/11. How much more can the government use 9/11 for their own search of power and control? Are truthers really crazy for being skeptic at all? I find it extremely hard to believe the US just happens to keep messing everything up with "bad intelligence" constantly. We're talking about the most powerful nation on Earth. It's almost like the line between "bad intelligence" and war propaganda is progressively being skewed. And IMO It's naive to think they would never consider orchestrating the events themselves. Hell, if they're covering up the Saudi involvement it's almost evident that they're picking and choosing elements of the 9/11 attack and spinning it in their direction to achieve whatever they want. Did they just let it happen? Or did they just manage to hit the jackpot and achieve their first step in gaining control and power in whatever country they please? IMO, the US Government doesn't just hit the jackpot. Direct involvement or not, they make it happen one way or another. Do you not share this school of thought?

Originally posted by hdutton
It would seem the OP may have reasons for the opinion they stared at the beginning of this thread.

When a publication such as the Wall Street Journal seems to be expressing a similar opinion.

www.marketwatch.com...

If you thought that the fires at the World Trade Center twin towers, set off by the horrific jetliner impacts of September 11, 2001, were the cause of the destruction of those iconic skyscrapers, you may be mistaken. Experts now cite evidence showing that high-temperature incendiaries and explosives were planted throughout the twin towers and the lesser-known 47-story Building 7, also destroyed later the same day.

As well as a follow up the next week.

www.marketwatch.com...

New evidence shows that the September 11th activities of former President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld were falsely reported by official sources.

I, my self, have had trouble with OS and am wondering if this might be the beginning of a crack we have been waiting for. For a common citizen to question is one thing; for a publication of such note to do so, could be a problem for continued desceptions.

Great find

More stuff like this will be coming out... and in spite of the best efforts of would-be debunkers who say its been 11 years and nothing has happened.... it ain't over til it's over.

I can hardly wait for the OS troops to respond.....

Originally posted by SimontheMagusI can hardly wait for the OS troops to respond.....

I'm not an OS troop, but those are NOT Wall Street articles. They are press releases from truther organizations.

Originally posted by 911files

Originally posted by SimontheMagusI can hardly wait for the OS troops to respond.....

I'm not an OS troop, but those are NOT Wall Street articles. They are press releases from truther organizations.

Ssssh - Keep quiet. If he's expecting that garbage to gain traction, he's harmless and will remain so for the next 20 years... I wonder how much they paid for those articles? I doubt that Gage donated any of his salary for those....

Originally posted by Reheat
Ssssh - Keep quiet.

I cannot remain quiet. I am a truther. I am interested in the truth. I must scream it from the housetops!

apropos nothing in particular: as labels are so popular in conspiracy circles, particularly amongst skeptics, those whom are referred to as 'OSers' might more properly be defined as 'anti-truthers'.

just a random thought.

Originally posted by RoScoLaz
apropos nothing in particular: as labels are so popular in conspiracy circles, particularly amongst skeptics, those whom are referred to as 'OSers' might more properly be defined as 'anti-truthers'.

just a random thought.

I fight this labeling thing all the time. I've been labeled a government agent by some and a looney "twoofer" by others. It all depends on the bias of the individual and whether they agree with what I have to say on an issue. I started my 9/11 research because I did not trust the government to be forthcoming. Over the years I've been greeted by government agencies with harsh resistance and quite frequently lying. I've had to take them to court, won a few battles, lost many more. My work has been cited by OS loyalists (my namesake in his book, The Ground Truth) and by TM loyalists (Gaffney).

So no matter what category someone wishes to put me in, my sole purpose in research is to uncover the "truth". If the 911 Commission Report got it right, then that works for me. If something else, that too works for me. I have no vested interest except to understand the best that I am capable of what happened on 9/11 and why. But in the end, I am and always shall remain, a truther.

reply to post by 911files


John, the difference is you're a truther, whereas most who post here are "truthers". You know very well there is a huge difference...

Originally posted by UltimateSkeptic1

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Remember, conspiracy theorists don't take the evidence and reverse engineer it into a scenario. They come up with a scenario first and then pick and choose the evidence that happens to support the scenario. This is why there are people so hung up in these conspiracy claims they don't quite grasp the reality that Bush is no longer president- it's Obama who should be the one behind the sinisister secret plot to take over the world, now.

Yes, I agree.

The OS is one of the conspiracy theories. The OS conspiracy theory begins with the scenario, started on the morning of 9/11, that Bin Laden orchestrated the entire plot, conspiring with a band of terrorists.

It seems that every bit of the "investigation" was intended to pick and choose evidence that supports that scenario.

I'm not sure if I can agree with that. For one, there's a difference between "theory" and "hypothesis", as hypothesis is coming up with a complete guess on how to explain somethign while a theory is based upon the available evidence (not sure who it was that first pointed that out, but thank you!). These conspiracy claims of "lasers from otuer space", "hologram planes" and other nonsensical claims have absolutely zero tangible proof to back them up, so they really should be called a conspiracy hypothesis. The 9/11 attack being perpetrated by islamic fundamentalists in combination with government incompetence, on the other hand, does have tangible evidence to back the claim up- German intelligence reporting Mohammed Atta was in contact with Al Qaida operatives in Hamburg, Atta and Hanjour taking flight training in a school in Florida, phone calls from the planes reported their being hijacked, airports using their own security services before 9/11 and who didn't have access to FBI terrorist watch lists, orders not being handed down properly, and so on.

If you don't subscribe to the attack being perpetrated by islamic fundamentalists in combination with government incompetence then you at least have to agrree there is abundant evidence to support it.

Doubt comes from the fact, not theory, that much of what we know of the "investigation" was spoon fed to us by the organization, the Federal government, and it's members who have the most at stake.

Not true. Doubt comes from the fact that additional information not included in the 9/11 commission report is slowly coming to light- FBI translators reporting their supervisors ordering them to work as slowly as possible so they can request a larger budget, fighters being ordered to chase nonexistant hijacked planes, and what have you. All during the 9/11 commission hearings all participants attempted to paint themselves as being on top of the situation, and it's slowly coming to light they were slipping on banana peels and tripping over their own shadows just like everyone else was. The coverup is understandable, since the military obviously doesn't want our national enemies to know its billion dollar defense systems are only as good as the 17 year old high school drop outs pushing the buttons. It's when certain people consciously introduce unnecessary paranoia into the mix which I object to.

Heck, one person here actually insisted the WTC towers were actually fake buildings and they were actually hollow. This isn't a theory or even a hypothesis. It's a runaway imagination.

Originally posted by UltimateSkeptic1

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by UltimateSkeptic1

 

A small group of men made it through the entire U.S. air defense and attacked major landmarks.

There's your problem right there.
You seem to think we have air defences for internal planes. We do not.

NOT planning to defend against a coordinated hijacking, when the U.S. already was aware of the possibility, is, by definition, part of "air defense."

The OS is basically, "We royally screwed up. We knew Bin Laden was a threat, and we knew there was a risk of coordinated hijackings of civilian planes, and we did nothing to stop it until after 9/11."

To me, without getting into any "evidence," that specific OS doesn't make logical sense.

The pentagon had drills with the same scenario of civilian jets used as weapons and crash into the pentagon and WTC two years before 9/11. And a plane was actually used as a weapon crashing into the White House. The embedded debunkers know all about it but it won't stop them from defending the OS and claiming that no one could of predicted 9/11, and the government was simply incompetent. There is no debate amongst real people anymore, everybody knows that the OS is a lie except for the ones that are attacking you right now in this thread.

Originally posted by homervb
But you do agree the Iraq war was an act of imperialism, so it so wrong to wonder if the "bad intelligence" happened to be just that, or maybe this bad intelligence was fabricated to allow the US to establish it's presence in the Middle East? First it's Afghanistan, then it's Iraq, next it's Iran. Things like this are what make me question 9/11. How much more can the government use 9/11 for their own search of power and control? Are truthers really crazy for being skeptic at all? I find it extremely hard to believe the US just happens to keep messing everything up with "bad intelligence" constantly. We're talking about the most powerful nation on Earth. It's almost like the line between "bad intelligence" and war propaganda is progressively being skewed.

If you're saying that the war in Iraq was more than a simple "whoops, my bad" and it was a conscious attempt to promote military action, then I would say that yes, the possibility exists, but it's more likely that outside forces (I.E. anti-Hussein protestors in exile from Iraq) used the US and its dumb-as-a-brick president by feeding it the bad information that instigated the invasion. If it was an operation organized by the gov't we would have almost certainly planted whatever evidence of weapons of mass destruction (nerve gas, nuclear weapons, copies of the Star Wars Christmas special, whatever) they would need to justify the invasion. Not only was no WMD found...but they ADMITTED no WMD was found...which tells me the gov't wasn't responsible. It's only the child stealing cookies from the cookie jar who needs to invent an excuse for why they're not the ones stealing cookies.

And IMO It's naive to think they would never consider orchestrating the events themselves. Hell, if they're covering up the Saudi involvement it's almost evident that they're picking and choosing elements of the 9/11 attack and spinning it in their direction to achieve whatever they want. Did they just let it happen? Or did they just manage to hit the jackpot and achieve their first step in gaining control and power in whatever country they please? IMO, the US Government doesn't just hit the jackpot. Direct involvement or not, they make it happen one way or another. Do you not share this school of thought?

I'm all for wondering if there's more to the story than what I've been told. In fact I'd even entertain the idea that Mohammed Atta was innocent and there was some other hijacker aboard the plane and Atta was singled out because he came from Saudi Arabia. It's the outrageous accusations of "lasers from outer space" and "hologram planes" that I find disdainful. This isn't an attempt to find the truth. It's an attempt to bring the theorists' individual abject paranoia into the mix. Doesn't it strike you as odd that between all the accusations against the gov't, the Jewish World Order, the Masons, etc etc etc, the only ones that seem to be completely blameless here is Bin Laden and Al Qaida?

Originally posted by maxella1The pentagon had drills with the same scenario of civilian jets used as weapons and crash into the pentagon and WTC two years before 9/11.

I would like to see a reference on this. The only "drills" I am familiar with are those associated with crashes (not "civilian jets used as weapons"). As a matter of fact, one of the firefighters from the Pentagon was in training for such a crash when the plane hit the Pentagon. They did a lot planning at the Pentagon for this sort of thing because of the proximity of Reagan National. Especially after the Jet Blue crash in 1982 which came pretty darn close. I would imagine that the WTC had similar drills and exercises due to their height.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
fighters being ordered to chase nonexistant hijacked planes, and what have you.

Why don't you explain this or is it covered on what have you? Specifics please.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
All during the 9/11 commission hearings all participants attempted to paint themselves as being on top of the situation, and it's slowly coming to light they were slipping on banana peels and tripping over their own shadows just like everyone else was. The coverup is understandable, since the military obviously doesn't want our national enemies to know its billion dollar defense systems are only as good as the 17 year old high school drop outs pushing the buttons. It's when certain people consciously introduce unnecessary paranoia into the mix which I object to.

This is poppycock. How do you explain that NORAD came out looking infinitely better than the picture presented to the 9/11 Commission only AFTER the NEADS tapes were obtained and analyzed? You're way out of your league here talking what amounts to "smack". Have you gone "truther" or are you really this sadly msinformed?

Originally posted by 911files

Originally posted by maxella1The pentagon had drills with the same scenario of civilian jets used as weapons and crash into the pentagon and WTC two years before 9/11.

I would like to see a reference on this. The only "drills" I am familiar with are those associated with crashes (not "civilian jets used as weapons"). As a matter of fact, one of the firefighters from the Pentagon was in training for such a crash when the plane hit the Pentagon. They did a lot planning at the Pentagon for this sort of thing because of the proximity of Reagan National. Especially after the Jet Blue crash in 1982 which came pretty darn close. I would imagine that the WTC had similar drills and exercises due to their height.

edit on 18-6-2012 by 911files because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-6-2012 by 911files because: (no reason given)

Hope this helps

NORAD had drills of jets as weapons

WASHINGTON — In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties

CRASH AT THE WHITE HOUSE: THE OVERVIEW; Unimpeded, Intruder Crashes Plane Into White House

The scene was frightening proof of what military and security officials, planning against terrorist attacks, had long privately believed: that the White House is more vulnerable than anyone admits.

Originally posted by 911files

Originally posted by maxella1The pentagon had drills with the same scenario of civilian jets used as weapons and crash into the pentagon and WTC two years before 9/11.

Especially after the Jet Blue crash in 1982 which came pretty darn close.

I would love to read more about this crash in 1982, got a link?

Originally posted by maxella1
I would love to read more about this crash in 1982, got a link?

edit on 18-6-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)

Jet Blue 1982 Crash

For those not familiar with the area, the crash was less than a mile east from the Pentagon courtyard center.