Why do you defend the official version of the 9/11 events here on DU?

[gandalf]

Sometimes I ask myself why some people here on DU defend with much effort the official 9/11 story as presented to us by the White House, the law enforcement agencies, and, of course, our media.

If I believe that the official story is correct, at least regarding the basic assertions, why spending hours and hours constructing Internet sites (e.g. Ron Harvey) and arguing endless debates with people whom I consider conspiracy nuts? (If you want to have a look at these debates, visit the "9/11, Military Affairs, and Terrorism" forum).

Do I really need to support what Bush and the media is telling the people all the time anyway? What would be my personal motivation to invest so much free time? Because I want to save the lost souls who believe conspiracy theories?

[rainy]

1. I do not believe the official version

I think they let it happen on purpose to get the PNAC plan going. It would take a catastrophic event, Pearl Harbor like to get it going. Just look in to project Northwood.

[gandalf]

2. But Northwood was more than just LIHOP nt

[aljones]

3. The truth is somewhere in the middle.

Although i don't believe that our government just set back, knowing that 3000+ Americans where going to be killed on sept. 11th, and did nothing. But i think that under the circumstances they had all the pieces of the puzzle and where just too lazy to do anything about it. plus they were and are deathly afraid of offending the Saudi Arabians. Our great and wonderful government decided that it might just be time for the American people to take one for the team and that they would clean up the mess afterward.

smile ally

[TahitiNut]

5. What if they only expected 500 to die?

Who could foresee the number of fatalities? Who could foresee the number of successful hijackings? Who could foresee the collapse of either or both towers? (The Empire State building didn't collapse when hit.) Positing a LIHOP probability doesn't necessarily assume detailed precognition.

[tnlefty]

6. I've heard this frequently from a few people who have a hard time with

LIHOP or MIHOP.....

The thinking that the powers that be knew that something was going to happen and did nothing to stop it because they didn't realize that it would be as horrendous as it was. In other words, thinking that hitting the towers would be enough, but not intending for them to fall nor the loss of life.

I don't buy that but know quite a few people who do.

[gandalf]

4. Glad to see my favorite winning...

perhaps the defenders are only in the 9/11 forum.

[Selwynn]

7. Name me one person here who has defended the official version here?

Just because you don't believe the official version doesn't mean you must believe MIHOP for instance.

And just becuase you don't believe MIHOP doesn't mean that therefore you believe the "official" version.

[gandalf]

9. Names? Via PM

As I don't want to name people publicly, I will send you some names via PM. They mostly post in the 9/11 forum.

"Just because you don't believe the official version doesn't mean you must believe MIHOP for instance".

That is right. I only wonder about the motivation of some people to spend so much time to defend the official version.

[Selwynn]

13. You posted the allegation publicly - so post the name publicly

Common - let's see em, and give them a chance to say if they feel you are fairly characterizing their position as a defense of the official position.

Because I highly doubt they will agree with your assessment.

[gandalf]

14. OK.

According to my definition of the "official version" of the 9/11 events (the basic assertions of the 9/11 events as explained to us by WH and the media: OBL recruited 19 islamists who hijacked 4 airplanes; flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, flights 175 and 11 crashed into the WTC, and the resulting structural damages and the fire caused WTC 1,2 and 7 also to collapse, and the probable cause was a huge intelligence failure) and looking at the threads especially in the 9/11 forum, boloboffin, LARED, TrogL invest a lot of time to defend the "official version".

edited for clarity.

[linazelle]

18. I agree, there a MANY things to believe about 9/11 and

I don't know what the "official" version is. That's why two commission have been investigating it. If anything, the results from the commission are "official"--even the tainted presidential commission has some value.

One can choose to believe they LIHOP but not believe the stuff about missiles being launched from planes, or no plane flying into the Pentagon. These details are all distractions to me. What's important is what they knew, when they knew it and what they did about.

[SeveneightyWhoa]

8. Because some conspiracy theorists go off on ridiculous tangents.

Like, a missile crashed into the pentagon rather than the plane.

Concentrate on more important things--serious issues that haven't been looked into by the major media--rather than things like whether bombs blew up the WTC buildings. That type of stuff destroys the credibility of ALL doubters of the official theory.

And you're going to have to realize there's a grey area. Not everyone who points out a fault in a conspiracy theory is a supporter or defender of the "official story".

[gandalf]

10. But how do you define ridiculous?

It's a fact that the CIA smuggled drugs. Nevertheless, most people would call that ridiculous, I suppose.

[SeveneightyWhoa]

16. No, that isn't ridiculous.

The fact that people are still fighting about whether a missile smashed into the pentagon, when plenty of evidence--and common sense--shows otherwise, is ridiculous.

The idea that bombs brought down the World Trade Center, is ridiculous. It's quite simple to discern what's absolutely crazy and what isn't.

[SeveneightyWhoa]

17. One more thing:

To me, it seems as if theorists are on the right track when examining and questioning connections between governments and terrorists, actions of NORAD, etc.

Its when they get to the PHYSICAL stuff--ie. missiles, bulges on the bottom of a plane, the thought that planes weren't enough to bring down the towers so it must've been a bunch of bombs--that they totally lose track of reality.

Stick to the circumstancial, governmental, stuff. Stay away from the physical, because thats when it gets ridiculous.

[gandalf]

23. To me, your distinction looks arbitrary

Probably pure common sense is not enough (more proof, however, would do, like the video footage of the confiscated cctv of the gasoline station near the Pentagon), because with common sense you would expect to see debris of the plane. Perhaps it really hit the Pentagon, it is only somewhat counter intuitive.

If the US fight a war on drugs, whereas the CIA smuggles drugs at the same time, but you don't call that ridiculous, then I don't get why a missile should be so absurd (that doesn't mean I support this idea here!).

[mmonk]

11. Who defines what is official?

[gandalf]

12. I think it is a sufficiently precise name for the following:

The 9/11 story as presented to us by the White House, the law enforcement agencies, and, of course, our media. Regarding the basic facts, there is only one story, and that is what I call official.

Negative definition: What the NY Times or McClellan would call "conspiracy theory" is certainly leaving the official path.

[DinahMoeHum]

15. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

BTW, don't get me started on that crap about a missle hitting the Pentagon instead of Flight 77. If this was the case, what happened to the passengers and crew? Did they just walk away and never come back ????

Sheeeesh, enough already. It's enough for me to know that * & Co.'s slackness and incompetence following up on the Clinton Administration's work was a big factor in the failure to stop 9/11. They didn't merely drop the baton Clinton handed them, they toyed with it, then flung it into a dumpster.

:grr:

[uhhuh]

20. Not taking sides here

But IF they were willing to let thousands be killed in the attacks themselves, there is no reason to believe that they wouldn't have had the pentagon plane flown elsewhere and killed or continued to detain the passengers and crew.

[castlerockliving]

19. So was the official story true about OKC or TWA 800

If the belief that the FBI and other agencies arent telling us
the truth about 9/11, does this mean we didnt get the truth
about OKC(more than one bomber), TWA 800(missile hit plane)
and Waco.  

Can we really trust any party to tell us the truth???

[gandalf]

22. "Can we really trust any party to tell us the truth?"

As long as so many inconsistencies exist as with 9/11 and TWA 800, and as long as not more convincing evidence is produced, my answer would be no.

But it should be possible to produce, for instance, positive (DNA) identification of some of the hijackers. That did not happen up to now. Why not?

[Bridget Burke]

21. What "official version"?

Why, we'll hear the true details when Our President testifies in public! Then, we'll get the separate account from the Vice President & the full story will be obvious.

Except that's not going to happen.