9/11 Conspiracy Theories
- Thread starter wkmac
- Start date
Good questions.
First, we have to go back to 1994 under the Clinton Administration. Paul Wolfowitz and Bill Kristol approached and discussed with President Clinton, the pursuing of military action against Sadaam hussein. Clinton rejected the request (short version) and the republicans who were pushing for war were disappointed.
Afterwards, a new right wing think tank called "The Project for the New American Century" was born.
"On January 16, 1998, following perceived Iraqi unwillingness to co-operate with UN weapons inspections, members of the PNAC, including Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Robert Zoellick drafted an open letter to President Bill Clinton, posted on its website, urging President Clinton to remove Saddam Hussein from power using U.S. diplomatic, political, and military power. The signers argue that Saddam would pose a threat to the United States, its Middle East allies, and oil resources in the region, if he succeeded in maintaining what they asserted was a stockpile of Weapons of Mass Destruction. They also state: "we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections" and "American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council." They argue that an Iraq war would be justified by Hussein's defiance of UN "containment" policy and his persistent threat to U.S. interests.[SUP][10][/SUP]""
PNAC, wanted a war with IRAQ for years before Bush was elected. The record is clear. Unfortunately, Clinton did not agree. PNAC then went on to write its own manifesto, where its goal was to establish America as the last superpower in the world. Military might, and military dominance in the world was the goal of PNAC. PNAC believed that "NATION BUILDING" was in order, and using our military, we could establish a world democracy through military might.
The members involved in PNAC had significant positions within the bush administration, including, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Scooter Libby, and the following list:
Elliott Abrams[SUP][5][/SUP]
Gary Bauer[SUP][5][/SUP]
William J. Bennett[SUP][5][/SUP]
John Ellis "Jeb" Bush[SUP][5][/SUP]
Richard B. Cheney[SUP][5][/SUP]
Eliot A. Cohen[SUP][5][/SUP]
Midge Decter[SUP][5][/SUP]
Paula Dobriansky[SUP][5][/SUP]
Steve Forbes[SUP][5][/SUP]
Aaron Friedberg[SUP][5][/SUP]
Francis Fukuyama[SUP][5][/SUP]
Frank Gaffney[SUP][5][/SUP]
Fred C. Ikle[SUP][5]
Donald Kagan[SUP][5][/SUP]
Zalmay Khalilzad[SUP][5][/SUP]
I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby[SUP][5][/SUP]
Norman Podhoretz[SUP][5][/SUP]
J. Danforth Quayle[SUP][5][/SUP]
Peter W. Rodman[SUP][5][/SUP]
Stephen P. Rosen[SUP][5][/SUP]
Henry S. Rowen[SUP][5][/SUP]
Donald Rumsfeld[SUP][5][/SUP]
Vin Weber[SUP][5][/SUP]
George Weigel[SUP][5][/SUP]
Paul Wolfowitz[SUP][5][/SUP]
Now, if you consider that the planning for war takes alot of time, and that PNAC was writing its manifesto about World Dominance, Regime Changes and changing the mindsets of the American public going back to 1992, its clear to see how this planning took shape after Bush was elected.[/SUP]
In 1997, everyone on the list played A MAJOR ROLE in the IRAQ war, including Zalmay Khalizad who became the ambassador to Afghanistan and then ambassador to Iraq once they got started.
Ok, once the plan was in action, PNAC had to sell the idea to BUSH and his administration, but BUSH's administration was already planned out for him. Everyone sitting in the board room of PNAC discussing war with IRAQ and Afghanistan was going to be a player in each war.
Thats the behind the scenes (short version of the story).
Bill Kristol wrote two very important things in 1997 that haunt america today. First, he wrote (and everyone on the list was signatory to it) the following:
"Section V of Rebuilding America's Defenses, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", includes the sentence: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor"
Kristol also wrote that "the changing of the american mindset for war could only be accomplished by an event that would eclipse pearl harbor".
Now, keep this in perspective, "changing the mindset of the american mindset for war"....how were they going to do that? Thats the easy part.
All they had to do was "create" an event that would eclipse pearl harbor. 911 clearly eclipsed pearl harbor. I dont think anyone can disagree.
Afterwards, 98% of americans backed military action in the middle east. BUSH could have attacked every country in the middle east in 2002 and the american public would have approved of it. (mindset)
A neo-conservative Washington-based organization known as the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), funded by three foundations closely tied to Persian Gulf oil, and weapons and defense industries, drafted the war plan for U.S. global domination through military power.
One of the organization’s documents clearly shows that Bush and his most senior cabinet members had already planned an attack on Iraq before he took power in January 2001.
The PNAC was founded in the spring of 1997 by the well-known Zionist neo-conservatives Robert Kagan and William Kristol of The Weekly Standard.
How were they going to convince us all that war was the answer? They used their connections in the middle east to recruit, train, fund and supply the hijackers along with help from terror groups who were friendly with these men. Usama Bin Laden was a friend of the republicans, Reagan, Cheney, Rumsfeld and BUSH 1.
Together, they convince 19 islamists to hijack planes and fly them into the towers, little did they know , that a bigger plan was in store and they had "NO PART" in that aspect of the operation.
One thing to consider with the towers, was that a ton of gold is stored there, and gold was only 200 bucks an ounce at that time, after 911, gold shot up to 1000 dollars an ounce before bush left office. Of all the gold stored under the trade towers, most of it went missing, and considered lost in the fires and debris.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/gold.html
What happened to the missing metals? Who stole it? What about insurance on the buidlings at the trade centers? Who profited from the loss of the buildings? Larry Silverstein.
What other target in the USA could you attack that would cause damage but not destroy the country? How about 2 tall almost vacant buidings? While they were at it, why not take down the Solomon Building (WTC 7) and destroy potential evidence against large corporations?
3000 lives? Chicken Feed. They were expendable. 3000 lives lost was the number that convinced us all to go to war. We wanted revenge, we wanted to get even for these murders. 3000 isnt a large number compared to bombing lets say a packed football stadium, or blowing up a nuclear plant in a populated area, or flying a plane into a densly populated residential area.
The towers were just enough to disrupt americas economy buy they knew it wasnt enough. As a distraction, something or a plane hits the pentagon. But why? It would cause minimal damage, kill a few, but what would it accomplish? Terrorists are smart enough to know that nothing could have changed after hitting the pentagon.
As for flying airplanes into the towers, they knew that wouldnt be enough, and the buildings would need some assistance to come down. Fires, would have not been enough. A majority of the towers were vacant as tenants were leaving the towers for newer buildings. Both towers were LOSING money every month before 911.
A little demolition here and there, and presto, a complete collapse of the towers in less than an hour. Since everyone saw the planes hit, who would question what happened? Its clear right? We saw planes! Its an easy sell when you backdrop that with deaths of americans.
From a monetary standpoint, people made money on the deal. From a military standpoint, the case was made for war. From a defense contractor standpoint, military projects were about to skyrocket.
The case for war in the middle east was born, and all it took was 7 years to plan and put in action.
Yes, hijackers took some airplanes, but I believe they were not a part of the bigger plan. I dont really know if they knew what they were doing. Any idiot could hijack a plane in 2001.
Flight 93 I believe, was a hoax. A flight that was deliberately crashed or blown up to change the mindset of americans. Stories of "lets roll", and fights with hijackers are the stuff of tough americans. But what about the flight attendant who was contacted on an air phone and when pressed for her credentials and flight numbers, she didnt know them? Its all recorded. How could she forget what flight she was on?
Then, at the crash site, there is no debris. NONE, nothing. The official report says the plane was reduced to pieces no bigger than 2" each. Seriously? No time in history of flight has this ever been the case.
The goverment ( and its partners) created this hoax to start wars they believed would lead to global dominance, and in fact, it worked in reverse. Now we are pizz poor and losing our standing in the world.
We attacked ourselves to fulfill a dream of military dominance. All you have to do is read the words of PNAC, see who the players are, how they fit into the equation after 911 and how they influenced a president to go along with the program and kill americans.
Peace.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/gold.html
What happened to the missing metals? Who stole it? What about insurance on the buidlings at the trade centers? Who profited from the loss of the buildings? Larry Silverstein.
What other target in the USA could you attack that would cause damage but not destroy the country? How about 2 tall almost vacant buidings? While they were at it, why not take down the Solomon Building (WTC 7) and destroy potential evidence against large corporations?
3000 lives? Chicken Feed. They were expendable. 3000 lives lost was the number that convinced us all to go to war. We wanted revenge, we wanted to get even for these murders. 3000 isnt a large number compared to bombing lets say a packed football stadium, or blowing up a nuclear plant in a populated area, or flying a plane into a densly populated residential area.
The towers were just enough to disrupt americas economy buy they knew it wasnt enough. As a distraction, something or a plane hits the pentagon. But why? It would cause minimal damage, kill a few, but what would it accomplish? Terrorists are smart enough to know that nothing could have changed after hitting the pentagon.
As for flying airplanes into the towers, they knew that wouldnt be enough, and the buildings would need some assistance to come down. Fires, would have not been enough. A majority of the towers were vacant as tenants were leaving the towers for newer buildings. Both towers were LOSING money every month before 911.
A little demolition here and there, and presto, a complete collapse of the towers in less than an hour. Since everyone saw the planes hit, who would question what happened? Its clear right? We saw planes! Its an easy sell when you backdrop that with deaths of americans.
From a monetary standpoint, people made money on the deal. From a military standpoint, the case was made for war. From a defense contractor standpoint, military projects were about to skyrocket.
The case for war in the middle east was born, and all it took was 7 years to plan and put in action.
Yes, hijackers took some airplanes, but I believe they were not a part of the bigger plan. I dont really know if they knew what they were doing. Any idiot could hijack a plane in 2001.
Flight 93 I believe, was a hoax. A flight that was deliberately crashed or blown up to change the mindset of americans. Stories of "lets roll", and fights with hijackers are the stuff of tough americans. But what about the flight attendant who was contacted on an air phone and when pressed for her credentials and flight numbers, she didnt know them? Its all recorded. How could she forget what flight she was on?
Then, at the crash site, there is no debris. NONE, nothing. The official report says the plane was reduced to pieces no bigger than 2" each. Seriously? No time in history of flight has this ever been the case.
The goverment ( and its partners) created this hoax to start wars they believed would lead to global dominance, and in fact, it worked in reverse. Now we are pizz poor and losing our standing in the world.
We attacked ourselves to fulfill a dream of military dominance. All you have to do is read the words of PNAC, see who the players are, how they fit into the equation after 911 and how they influenced a president to go along with the program and kill americans.
Peace.
Isnt anyone curious about "one" aspect of 911 that they are uncomfortable with?
Cmon Island, your a smart man, a thinker, you have to have at least one thought about something you dont believe adds up.
Is there anyone who wants to know why the reporter for the BBC while in a live shot, talks about a building that went down, with a live shot behind her shows the buidling still up? Why is she 20 mins early with the report? How did she get that info on that building before it went down? She is clealy taken off air when its realized that they goofed.
???
Peace.
Cmon Island, your a smart man, a thinker, you have to have at least one thought about something you dont believe adds up.
Is there anyone who wants to know why the reporter for the BBC while in a live shot, talks about a building that went down, with a live shot behind her shows the buidling still up? Why is she 20 mins early with the report? How did she get that info on that building before it went down? She is clealy taken off air when its realized that they goofed.
???
Peace.
Catatonic
Nine Lives
You should consider getting some other hobbies.
and you my friend, need to take your head out of the behinds of the people that are controlling your thoughts.
Peace.
moreluck
golden ticket member
people like your keeper ??
At least baba asked some questions. The rest of you will avoid discussing the issue of 911 because you are afraid of what you may find out. Its alot easier to believe 19 middle eastern hijackers did this all on their own.
And then we retaliated and went to war.
They may not believe what I have to say, but at least baba and upsgrunt gave me a chance to express a viewpoint, maybe theres something in there that sparks their interests to research, maybe not, but its a conversation.
Even if both of them said "your nuts", I would respect their opinions.
The facts are the facts. 911 and the wars in the middle east were planned events long before Bush took office. President Bush's cabinet up to his vice president were choices that HE DIDNT MAKE, those were made for him in 1997 (three years before he won the office) All the players were ready to assume their roles in the administration.
The only one missing from the PNAC crowd of cronies who ended up in Bush's cabinet was Colin Powell, and once everything got going and the war had to be sold, Colin Powell jumped ship. What did he know that we all dont know?
He knew the mis information about weapons of mass destruction were BS, but he went along with the program just long enough for him to realize that he had to remove himself from the fabrication.
PNAC and groups like them, like the Heritage Foundation, are dangerous for american policy and direction. You have many billionaire kooks funding them and controlling the direction of the information they produce and sell on FOXED SPEWS.
The Koch brothers fund Heritage and those two guys are the most dangerous right wing nuts on the planet. They were also behind the Project for the new american century.
Its hard to accept that players behind the scenes could have this much influence on the country, but they do. Think tanks are the new policy makers for right wing politics.
The American Enterprise Institute http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/american-enterprise-institute
This group is just as bad as PNAC, and its working on its new agenda for the republicans as we speak. It has the same players as PNAC after PNAC folded including DICK CHENEY and his WIFE and daughter.
There is alot more to the world of politics then you may realize folks.
Its NOT a simple 19 middle eastern men flying some planes into buildings.
Peace.
And then we retaliated and went to war.
They may not believe what I have to say, but at least baba and upsgrunt gave me a chance to express a viewpoint, maybe theres something in there that sparks their interests to research, maybe not, but its a conversation.
Even if both of them said "your nuts", I would respect their opinions.
The facts are the facts. 911 and the wars in the middle east were planned events long before Bush took office. President Bush's cabinet up to his vice president were choices that HE DIDNT MAKE, those were made for him in 1997 (three years before he won the office) All the players were ready to assume their roles in the administration.
The only one missing from the PNAC crowd of cronies who ended up in Bush's cabinet was Colin Powell, and once everything got going and the war had to be sold, Colin Powell jumped ship. What did he know that we all dont know?
He knew the mis information about weapons of mass destruction were BS, but he went along with the program just long enough for him to realize that he had to remove himself from the fabrication.
PNAC and groups like them, like the Heritage Foundation, are dangerous for american policy and direction. You have many billionaire kooks funding them and controlling the direction of the information they produce and sell on FOXED SPEWS.
The Koch brothers fund Heritage and those two guys are the most dangerous right wing nuts on the planet. They were also behind the Project for the new american century.
Its hard to accept that players behind the scenes could have this much influence on the country, but they do. Think tanks are the new policy makers for right wing politics.
The American Enterprise Institute http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/american-enterprise-institute
This group is just as bad as PNAC, and its working on its new agenda for the republicans as we speak. It has the same players as PNAC after PNAC folded including DICK CHENEY and his WIFE and daughter.
There is alot more to the world of politics then you may realize folks.
Its NOT a simple 19 middle eastern men flying some planes into buildings.
Peace.
My keeper? Find a source where you can demonstrate where anything I said was said by ANYONE else in left wing politics, or anyone alltogether regarding 911 and whats behind it.
Ive done my own research, ive connected my own dots, and made my own conclusions. Unlike you , who wakes up, turns on FOXED SPEWS, hears a story, goes to the web, copy and pastes it to this blog as independent thought.
Why not think for yourself??? I know, its too hard.
Dialog, either make it or repeat it, we know what your choice is.
Peace.
soberups
Pees in the brown Koolaid
OK, here's the deal;
Bush/Cheney was, without a doubt, the most corrupt and incompetent President that our nation has ever had. And I do not doubt for one minute that he intended to invade Iraq long before 9-11, and that he used 9-11 as an excuse.
That being said, the conspiracy theories simply do not add up.
If I am Bush/Cheney and I want to create some sort of "Pearl Harbor" event to justify military action that I had already decided upon ahead of time...there are much simpler and easier ways to do it than arranging for 4 airliners to get hijacked and turned into Kamakaze flights against buildings that I have had pre-wired with demolition charges.
A conspiracy of that magnitude is too complicated, it involves too many people, and there are too many loose ends, variables and potential points of failure.
If I am Bush/Cheney and I want to "justify" a war against Iraq under the pretense that WMD's are being produced there, I wouldnt hire a bunch of Saudi Arabians to hijack airliners with box cutters. Instead, I would "arrange" for a small, crude nuclear device to go off somewhere in the United States that could be blamed on Iraq. Such a device could be constructed and deployed by a mere handful of people, as opposed to the hundreds or even thousands that would have to be "in on" a conspiracy to destroy the Twin Towers using jet airliners and demolition charges.
I do believe that a conspiracy took place after the fact to cover up the potentially embarrassing failures of our intelligence apparatus to predict and stop the attack. And I have no doubt that there was a conspiracy after the fact to maximize the "potential" of the 9-11 attacks to justify the invasion of Iraq that had already been decided upon ahead of time.
But the idea that Bush/Cheney had any direct, premeditated involvement with the 9-11 attacks simply doesnt wash with me. I do not for one minute put it past Bush/Cheney to kill Americans in order to justify their little war, but it simply is not logical that they would choose to do so in the manner that the conspiracy theorists accuse them of.
Bush/Cheney was, without a doubt, the most corrupt and incompetent President that our nation has ever had. And I do not doubt for one minute that he intended to invade Iraq long before 9-11, and that he used 9-11 as an excuse.
That being said, the conspiracy theories simply do not add up.
If I am Bush/Cheney and I want to create some sort of "Pearl Harbor" event to justify military action that I had already decided upon ahead of time...there are much simpler and easier ways to do it than arranging for 4 airliners to get hijacked and turned into Kamakaze flights against buildings that I have had pre-wired with demolition charges.
A conspiracy of that magnitude is too complicated, it involves too many people, and there are too many loose ends, variables and potential points of failure.
If I am Bush/Cheney and I want to "justify" a war against Iraq under the pretense that WMD's are being produced there, I wouldnt hire a bunch of Saudi Arabians to hijack airliners with box cutters. Instead, I would "arrange" for a small, crude nuclear device to go off somewhere in the United States that could be blamed on Iraq. Such a device could be constructed and deployed by a mere handful of people, as opposed to the hundreds or even thousands that would have to be "in on" a conspiracy to destroy the Twin Towers using jet airliners and demolition charges.
I do believe that a conspiracy took place after the fact to cover up the potentially embarrassing failures of our intelligence apparatus to predict and stop the attack. And I have no doubt that there was a conspiracy after the fact to maximize the "potential" of the 9-11 attacks to justify the invasion of Iraq that had already been decided upon ahead of time.
But the idea that Bush/Cheney had any direct, premeditated involvement with the 9-11 attacks simply doesnt wash with me. I do not for one minute put it past Bush/Cheney to kill Americans in order to justify their little war, but it simply is not logical that they would choose to do so in the manner that the conspiracy theorists accuse them of.
Lue C Fur
Evil member
Good points, but when you look at the targets selected by the hijackers, they really served NO purpose other than to "terrorize". The towers were money losers, mostly vacant, and the perfect target for "minimal damage". Rigging them was easy, they were mostly empty. If they rigged only the empty floors, who would know?
How far the conspiracy goes, we may never find out, but if bush could hire independent contractors to fight in Iraq from other countries, why couldnt they hire independent contractors outside the country to rig the buildings?
The saudi arabian goverment secretly put money into the 911 plot, and they stood the most to gain as gasoline prices jumped 400%. All of opec stood to gain on 911, why not then middle eastern hijackers? Plenty of religious reasons to convince them to buy into the plot.
BUSH may not have had direct knowledge, but I believe CHENEY who has been involved with CIA, NSA, Heritage Foundation, American Institute, the Saudis, the Iraqis, and the PNAC group DID have knowledge and was involved. BUSH was the right man for the job because he was the most clueless.
ALot of insurance money has been paid for the towers and surrounding buildings , and that made them the perfect target, they go down, insurance pays to put them back up. A temporary loss and inconvenience, but at the end of the day, the towers became more profitable falling down than standing up.
Americans would cheer the reconstruction, and afterwards, the tenancy problem would be solved with new structures because of history. A win / win.
NOBODY can explain why WTC7 fell completely in free fall speed without the help of demolition, and thats something that people are trying to communicate to everyone. I know it sounds nutty, but if you take one thing at a time, and look at the data, you will find that you have more questions that need answering, than you do explanations.
I agree, that the terrorists could have made a bigger impact by placing a nuke somewhere, but that would have been to costly in creation, and deployment and damage.
Why not fly the planes into GIANTS stadium during a game and kill 70 thousand people?
Why not fly into a nuke plant?
Why not fly into something significant in America and cause severe death?
Why choose the trade towers which had no significant value as a target?
Why the Pentagon? With its defenses and design, only minimal damage would occur.
Flight 93, why is there no evidence of a plane crash by all crash standards?
Our goverment has done things like this before. It has created these false scenarios to start wars.
Look at the gulf of Tonkin, or Operation Northwoods.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
These examples of plans to FAKE a series of attacks to start wars is NOT something out of science fiction. They are real.
There is enough evidence to at least begin a conversation, that 911 was a false flag scenario made up of complicated plans. Remember, BUSH did not chose his cabinet in 2000 after winning the election, it was done for him in 1997.
What else was done for "him" before he took office? thanks for the conversation.
Peace.
soberups
Pees in the brown Koolaid
I am in total agreement with you about the ability and willingess of our government to resort to "false flag" operations in order to mislead the public.
I disagree that 9-11 was a "false flag" operation.
9-11 was too widespread, too complicated, and it involved too many variables.
In order for a "false flag" operation to succeed and not be subsequently exposed, you need to keep it simple and you need to keep the number of people involved to a bare minimum. If in fact 9-11 was a "false flag" operation it would have required the involvement of many hundreds if not thousands of people.
It would have been a lot simpler, cheaper and easier to detonate a crude nuclear device on the outskirts of a medium-sized city and then blame it on "terrorists" (who would, of course, be conveniently vaporized in the blast) that were being "supported" by Iraq. If you are looking for justification for an invasion of Iraq, there it is on a silver platter.
A crude, gun-type uranium fission bomb (the kind that was dropped on Hiroshima) could easily be assembled by a mere handful of people in the back of a rental van. The actual design of such a bomb is quite simple; the only difficulty lies in obtaining sufficent quantitites of enriched, weapons-grade uranium. Once you have the uranium, the rest is easy. Such a plan would be far simpler than trying to coordinate the demolition of buildings with the simultaneous hijacking of airliners, and it would be far more effective for the purposes of justifying the invasion of Iraq.
Very true.
My opinion however, has more of a financial rational to it. There was going to be HUGE financial gains from the attacks. The towers themselves would be rebuilt with insurance money, the precious metals stored there would be stolen, the defense contractors stood to make hundreds of billions of dollars (and they did in no bid contracts), the oil industry made profits never heard of in history, we would regime change in two countries and presumably control the resources of those countries.
I think we can agree, that HUGE profits were made from these attacks, and the loss of life by comparision to the financial gains were minimal. Trillions of dollars passed hands after 911 and all it cost was 3000 innocent civilians.
You would think that the terrorists, if thats what there intention was, wanted to kill americans, they would have chosen a better target with guaranteed results, vs two buidlings that presumably could have withstand an airplanes direct hit.
The design of the towers was to withstand a direct hit, yet they fell down.
I believe money was the motivator along with power, the people behind PNAC were war mongers and still are. I believe they created this hoax and helped to perpetrate it on the american public and involved a clueless leader who didnt know the difference.
Its wasnt just a regime change, it was a financial venture. Everybody wins, except for 911 victims, rescue members and the soldiers who gave thier lives.
To many things just dont make sense surrounding 911. One at a time, we can have a dialog and wind up scratching our heads even harder.
I asked, is there anyone who has "one" thing, that in their minds just doesnt add up?
How about you sober?
Peace.
If you actually do the research instead of just hanging around conspiracy sites, all these 9/11 conspiracy theories fall apart.
The following videos address some of the big ones, if you want to do some reading on the subject by people who aren't crazy or have some weird agenda here is the Popular Mechanics article I linked earlier. This site has a lot of good info as well. I'm providing this stuff for general information, I realize that for the hard core conspiracy theorist no amount of evidence will matter because for these folks it's an emotional issue, not a rational one. You can't reason a man out of something that he was never reasoned into in the first place. FYI, my friend who was at the Pentagon on 9/11 and saw the plane hit is quoted in the first video.
The following videos address some of the big ones, if you want to do some reading on the subject by people who aren't crazy or have some weird agenda here is the Popular Mechanics article I linked earlier. This site has a lot of good info as well. I'm providing this stuff for general information, I realize that for the hard core conspiracy theorist no amount of evidence will matter because for these folks it's an emotional issue, not a rational one. You can't reason a man out of something that he was never reasoned into in the first place. FYI, my friend who was at the Pentagon on 9/11 and saw the plane hit is quoted in the first video.
P
pickup
Guest
upsgrunt
Well-Known Member
As long as it would have taken to set those buildings up for detonation, the amount of people it would have taken, and the amount of people who would have seen "something fishy" going on added to the fact that most people can't keep their mouths shut leads me to wonder if there are just too many variables.
Similar threads
