In light of new information regarding what went on leading up to and during the 9/11 terrorist attack, i have done a complete 180 on whether or not I believe the mainstream story we have been told.

There was simply too much to be gained, starting from the WTC lease holder himself, who earned 7 Billion dollars from WTC's collapse, to the bush administration and neo cons who needed a catastrophic event inorder to implement their strategic wars for us to deny that they were involved.
In retrospect it seems that neither sadaam or bin laden would dared to provoke the US in such a manner as to ensure their own destruction.

here's the 1st of an 18 part documentary to explain some of this, which i dont believe all of it but its info nonetheless
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Odp1FO0Vmuw&mode=related&search=

10/21/2007 6:14:16 PM

oh jesus christ, man

10/21/2007 6:17:43 PM

Hold the phones, I figured it all out.

10/21/2007 6:19:19 PM

Planes crashes can make buildings fall down?!? WTF?!?!

10/21/2007 7:15:53 PM

Quote :

"it seems that neither sadaam or bin laden would dared to provoke the US in such a manner as to ensure their own destruction. "

1) even the Administration has admitted that Sadaam had nothing to do with 9/11
2) yeah.... Bin Laden's "assured destruction"? first, he's still alive. second, he would have viewed dying fighting the US a noble cause. 72 virgins and whitney houston and all that....

[Edited on October 21, 2007 at 8:31 PM. Reason : .]

10/21/2007 8:30:00 PM

There are a lot of unexplained things about 9/11. A plane definitely did not hit the Pentagon...

10/21/2007 8:33:05 PM

^sometimes i feel that way

but then I say that I really dont know what all went on.

10/21/2007 8:53:57 PM

^^ Really? Is that opinion a result of careful examination of available evidence or did you just see a flash video that says it was a missile?

Quote :

"OK, I only read about half of this thread, but listen up. I know for a fact that a plane hit the pentagon becasue I saw it. With my own eyes. I was on my way to DC with my parents on the morning of September 11. I took the week off of school and after spending Monday night in Richmond, we were headed up to see the sites in DC. We were coming up on washington and were almost to the point where the pentagon is visable on the left. I was driving and my dad was in the passenger seat. All of a sudden we both see a plane coming from the right and behind us, though we hadn't heard it apporach. National Airport is in the direction that the plane was flying, but this plane was flying low and fast. It crossed our path and disappeared for about 2 seconds before we saw a flash of light and heard what sounded like a muffled firework. A few seconds later, we saw a large plume of smoke coming from where the plane had been headed. Just then we came around the bend and saw the building on fire. Fucking scary as shit. We pulled over on the side of the road, as did some of the other drivers, to watch and talk to the other people who had seen it, but about 5 minutes later a bunch of cops came through running everybody out. So yeah, it was a plane. End of thread."

http://www.brentroad.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=159930&page=28

[Edited on October 21, 2007 at 8:55 PM. Reason : .]

10/21/2007 8:54:52 PM

one thing i've always been interested in seeing is the traffic video footage from around the pentagon that would have definitely recorded the plane on its way to the building, assuming that THAT part of that shitty flash video was indeed true.

10/21/2007 9:01:11 PM

If there aren't any pictures it didn't really happen...

10/21/2007 9:03:50 PM

i can't decide if you've smoked yourself retarded or if you were born that way

10/21/2007 9:19:32 PM

Probably a little bit of both.

10/21/2007 9:22:48 PM

If you actually open your mind up and look at all the evidence that has been compiled on this subject, there is no way you can truly believe that at the very least Bush and Cheney knew about the attacks before they happened. At the worst, they were behind it. I'm beginning to think more towards the latter.

Apparently, files related to the Enron and Worldcom scandals were in WTC Building 7 and they were destroyed when that building was brought down. Also, the guy who owned the lease for the WTC bought it for $15 million about 5 months before the attacks. During that time he re-worked his insurance policy to cover terrorist attacks. When the attacks happened, he ended up getting $7 billion (with a B) from it. Also, the morning of 9/11 Cheney took control of NORAD... the first time in history it wasn't controlled by a general. He never issued a command to bring down the airplanes despite the fact that they were very off course. Personally, after viewing as much of the evidence as I have there are just too many facts that startle me for me to believe it was completely terrorists behind it. But if you want to shut the door on ever knowing what really happened that day, then just go on being the sheep that you are.

10/21/2007 9:31:19 PM

Oh god, Mr. Joshua is just salivating at this thread. Great.

10/21/2007 9:36:32 PM

Not this shit again. You've fallen into the normal self-congratulatory conspiracist mentality that anyone who doesn't agree with you is a close-minded sheep who lacks your superior intellect and independent thought process. You're completely ignoring the possibility that those who doubt are actually well read individuals who don't form opinions based solely on catchy flash videos.

Also you should probably go ahead and drop $5 on another screen name if you want anyone to take you seriously.

10/21/2007 9:45:24 PM

I'd be more inclined to not be a "self-congratulatory conspiracist" if someone would please, please, please refute some of this evidence instead of just dismissing it as ridiculous. Trust me, I would love to believe that my government was not behind this attack. But the evidence that exists suggests to the contrary and any rational person who looks at some of it for less than 5 minutes would admit that something doesn't add up. So please, enlighten me as to why none of this is true. You don't even have to do it, point me to a video or anything that proves me wrong. But please don't dismiss it without even considering the possibility. That's called ignorance.

P.S. You're sn is a character that Gary Busey (that crazy guy who had his own show on Comedy Central) played in a movie from 20 years ago, so don't give me shit about mine.

[Edited on October 21, 2007 at 9:51 PM. Reason : P.S.]

10/21/2007 9:49:51 PM

What is there to refute? You've made passing references to several coincidences with absolutely no evidence to support your claims.

No one is stopping you from making an intelligent case except yourself.

10/21/2007 9:55:31 PM

Ok, let's start with the fact that the buildings were brought down by demolitions. This is one of the more known pieces of evidence so hopefully you'll have something to refute it with. The fact that these buildings fell down so fast and in such a controlled manner, were the first steel structures to collapse due to fire, and the fact that Building 7 collapsed despite the fact that there really was no damage to it. Also, firefighters and policemen reported hearing explosions prior to the buildings coming down.

Please try to keep this civil and just attack my argument, not me. Also, please try to actually answer the question and not dance around it.

10/21/2007 10:03:00 PM

What exactly is your proof that it was brought down by a controlled demolition?

A 10 second google search will show you a plethora of articles by engineers who explain why it fell in the manner that it did. Contrary to your claim, there was significant damage to WTC 7. There are a number of pictures that make it clear that much of it was scooped out by the collapse of towers 1 and 2.

10/21/2007 10:07:55 PM

Thank you. Exactly the answer I expected and was not hoping for.

10/21/2007 10:21:31 PM

Quote :

" Ok, let's start with the fact that the buildings were brought down by demolitions. This is one of the more known pieces of evidence so hopefully you'll have something to refute it with. The fact that these buildings fell down so fast and in such a controlled manner, were the first steel structures to collapse due to fire, and the fact that Building 7 collapsed despite the fact that there really was no damage to it. Also, firefighters and policemen reported hearing explosions prior to the buildings coming down. "

I took STS 322 (technological catastrophes) this summer and we covered terrorism. A guy from the army corps of engineers came in a gave a big lecture about domestic terrorism and he covered 9/11. He said that at first he didn't see how planes hitting the top of the buildings would cause them to fall like that. After examining the evidence however, he concluded that is exactly how they should have fallen and has since been incorporated into their models. He went over specifically how and why they fell. I needed no further convincing.

10/21/2007 10:29:30 PM

^^ You stated that it is a fact that the towers were brought down by a controlled demolition and provided nothing else. You haven't even presented an argument to respond to.

10/21/2007 10:38:50 PM

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

10/21/2007 10:47:11 PM

Ask your doctor if Paxil is right for you.

Talk to some people who actually *know* something about structural engineering.

10/21/2007 11:32:02 PM

oh gosh are we seriously arguing about this again? hahaha

10/21/2007 11:44:40 PM

I too was skeptical about 9-11 explanations, but then I read this article. It is easily the best refutation of every single conspiracy theory regarding this tragedy:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

Quote :

"CLAIM: No fighter jets were scrambled from any of the 28 Air Force bases within close range of the four hijacked flights. FACT: When the hijackers turned off the planes' transponders, which broadcast identifying signals, ATC had to search 4500 identical radar blips crisscrossing some of the country's busiest air corridors. And NORAD's sophisticated radar? It ringed the continent, looking outward for threats, not inward. "It was like a doughnut," Martin says. "There was no coverage in the middle." Pre-9/11, flights originating in the States were not seen as threats and NORAD wasn't prepared to track them. "

Quote :

"CLAIM: It has been standard operating procedures for decades to immediately intercept off-course planes that do not respond to communications from air traffic controllers," says the Web site oilempire.us. "When the Air Force 'scrambles' a fighter plane to intercept, they usually reach the plane in question in minutes." FACT: In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999. With passengers and crew unconscious from cabin decompression, the plane lost radio contact but remained in transponder contact until it crashed. Even so, it took an F-16 1 hour and 22 minutes to reach the stricken jet."

Quote :

"CLAIM: "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength — and that required exposure to much less heat... "Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat. "

Quote :

"Claim: "The concrete clouds shooting out of the buildings are not possible from a mere collapse. They do occur from explosions"... "Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures." FACT: Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report. "

Quote :

"Claim: Seismographs at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y., 21 miles north of the WTC, recorded the events of 9/11. "The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before falling debris struck the earth," reports the Web site WhatReallyHappened.com. FACT: "There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context." The report issued by Lamont-Doherty includes various graphs showing the seismic readings produced by the planes crashing into the two towers as well as the later collapse of both buildings. WhatReallyHappened.com chooses to display only one graph (Graph 1), which shows the readings over a 30-minute time span. On that graph, the 8- and 10-second collapses appear — misleadingly — as a pair of sudden spikes. Lamont-Doherty's 40-second plot of the same data (Graph 2) gives a much more detailed picture: The seismic waves — blue for the South Tower, red for the North Tower — start small and then escalate as the buildings rumble to the ground. Translation: no bombs."

Quote :

"CLAIM: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one." FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner. "

Quote :

"Claim: Two holes were visible in the Pentagon immediately after the attack: a 75-ft.-wide entry hole in the building's exterior wall, and a 16-ft.-wide hole in Ring C, the Pentagon's middle ring. Conspiracy theorists claim both holes are far too small to have been made by a Boeing 757. "How does a plane 125 ft. wide and 155 ft. long fit into a hole which is only 16 ft. across?" FACT: A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen." The tidy hole in Ring C was 12 ft. wide — not 16 ft. ASCE concludes it was made by the jet's landing gear, not by the fuselage. "

Quote :

"Claim: Many Pentagon windows remained in one piece — even those just above the point of impact from the Boeing 757 passenger plane. Pentagonstrike.co.uk, an online animation widely circulated in the United States and Europe, claims that photographs showing "intact windows" directly above the crash site prove "a missile" or "a craft much smaller than a 757" struck the Pentagon. FACT: Some windows near the impact area did indeed survive the crash. But that's what the windows were supposed to do — they're blast-resistant."

10/21/2007 11:46:46 PM

^ ok none of the points you mention are the questions that i'm concerned about.
here are the things that make me think it was partly an inside job

1. A neo conservative think tank headed by cheney, rumsfeld, and others in 2000 wrote a paper that outlined what the U.S. must do in order to be dominant in this century. One of the main goals was to change american foreign and domestic policies and that could only be accomplished either in the long run or if a major event "like pearl harbor" were to happen.

2. The soon to be axis of evil also just happened to switch from trading in US dollars to Euros, this domino effect would have had a catastrophic consequese on the federal reserve and the US economy. The only way to stop this from happening was to take control of their governments.

3. The proposed oil pipeline had a route through countries that were willing except for one, Afghanistan.

4. The WTC had to have nearly 1 Billion dollars worth of necessary renovations which would have been impossible to pay for, making it a perfect target for demolition/destruction.

5. Stock trading suggests without any doubt that there were many trades done with prior knowledge of 9/11 and the funds envolved were far beyond what any terrorist orginization would have had.

6. Who gained the most from 9/11? bush administration, Leaser of WTC, Military contract companies, the US Economy, US oil companies, stock market(in the long run)

7. People who lost the most? 9/11 victim's and families, bin laden, saddaam, taliban,

there were just too many motivations for the bush administration not to act on them
having seen how this administration handled the war on iraq it should be clear that they have had a plan all along and they were willing to break, change, and ignore alot of laws and proper procedures in order to get what they wanted
knowing how publicly aggressive they were in post 9/11 who is to say they werent greatly tempted pre 9/11 to at least look the other way as terrorists planned and executed the attacks

i'm not 100% conviced that they did it, or had knowledge of it, im just saying it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck.....

10/22/2007 12:59:16 AM

I suddenly have the sad realization I'll be having this argument with random conspiracy nuts for the remainder of my adult life. I miss the X-files type conspiracies those were more fun.

Seriously though, you cannot just extrapolate that someone did something just because they stood to profit from it. There are many many many different things that Bush Cheney and the rest could have profited from, they are in positions of great power and influence. Whatever happens no matter how terrible they probably have a way to respond to it, not necessarily to cause it.

I will grant that the possibility that George Bush knew that Iraq wasn't really a danger and that it would make his oil buddies many $$$ to sustain an interruption of the oil flow from Iraq. That is a much more plausible conspiracy, but to say that George Bush wanted for 911 to happen is just crazy. Especially the whole idea about the controlled demolition, why then the bloody planes?

[Edited on October 22, 2007 at 1:49 AM. Reason : k]

10/22/2007 1:48:34 AM

1. "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." That seems like a fair observation in the context of military spending.

2. To be fair, we only invaded one of three countries in the axis of evil - no partial economic catastrophe has happened.

3. The Taliban accepted a proposal from Unocal to build a pipeline in 1998. Afghanistan was invaded 6 years ago and no pipeline has been built.

4. I googled and couldn't find any mention of this.

5. http://www.snopes.com/rumors/putcall.asp

6. Benefit is not an indicator of causality. However, this logic is one of the hallmarks of conspiracism.

7. Bin Laden had motivations, albeit misguided ones based on his fighting with Soviets. Regardless, his audience is incredibly larger now.

BTW, if I were planning 9/11 I would have replaced some of the Saudi hijackers with Iraqis so that I could sell my war to the public. Then if I had already killed 3,000 Americans just to put some money in my pocket than I would really have no moral qualms about planting some WMDs in Iraq to maintain the credibility of my party.

[Edited on October 22, 2007 at 1:53 AM. Reason : .]

10/22/2007 1:48:49 AM

Quote :

"Also, the guy who owned the lease for the WTC bought it for $15 million about 5 months before the attacks. During that time he re-worked his insurance policy to cover terrorist attacks. When the attacks happened, he ended up getting $7 billion (with a B) from it."

If I had a lease to a property that was already the site of a terrorist attack, I'm pretty sure I would get an insurance policy to cover terrorist attacks. 1994 isn't that long ago.

10/22/2007 2:25:58 AM

^^

1. Would the "fair observation" lead them to desire that even to take place? Yes.

2. Iraq's change from trading in $'s to euro alone caused the euro to surpass the $ in value. The truth is the value of the US dollar was not backed by gold but because countries traded oil only in the $. if key countries started to change, as irag, venequela, and iran did, that would have been disasterous when international banks went to cash in their dollars to buy euros.

3. One of the first things the karzai did was sign the new oil pipeline agreement.

4. the renovations were to remove asbestos from all of the steel in the building. It was necessary.

5. ---
6. No. but in this situation the solution to the equations are clear.
this temtations could have come across many presidents before now, but this is one of the few administration that is greed enough to cause suspicion.
if you remember the iran contra scandal and how there was a secret govt set up, you must know that a few people can hijack power away from congress and break the laws all in the name of national security. Anyone with experience of what people can do should not rule out this possibility.

[Edited on October 22, 2007 at 2:35 AM. Reason : .]

10/22/2007 2:35:11 AM

I am going to be complicit in the even in which the Solicitor General of the United States' wife dies. Or is Ted Olson such a crass asshole that he willingly sacrificed his wife so the United States could invade Afghanistan?

Also, if this was only a pretense for war, why did the United States wait so long to go into Afghanistan? After all, we only went into Afghanistan after they refused to turn over bin Laden. If memory serves correct, they waited a few weeks to invade.

10/22/2007 2:39:31 AM

Quote :

"the bush administration and neo cons needed a catastrophic event inorder to implement their strategic wars"

10/22/2007 2:39:46 AM

^^remeber, we werent attacked by the taliban, us invading Afghanistan was a big change in policy which took time for the administration implement
it was the "if you harbor terrorists, you are a terrorist" policy, you cant just go invade a country cause bin laden is there

anyways, all im saying is that it should be an open question, no one should be satisfied with the story we've been told, there are way too many holes and conflicts of interest even in the investigation,

10/22/2007 2:45:39 AM

1. That's quite a leap.

2. Certainly you realize that the exchange rate is dictated by a great many things other than what one country chooses to trade.

3. And Afghanistan will receive 8% of the proceeds. Every country in the region had hoped to secure some of the pipeline for this reason - the same reason that the Taliban agreed to it in 1998. There was never an issue of any country not wanting the pipeline, in fact there was competition as to who would receive it (on behalf of the host countries, not the oil companies).

4. I looked all over and didn't see any numbers as high as the one you are giving.

6. It sounds like your distrust of the government and distaste for the current administration are clouding your logic.

10/22/2007 3:13:36 AM

Did the evil Republican neocons orchestrate the attack on the WTC on February 26, 1993, too?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-09-17-iraq-wtc_x.htm

The failed New York bomb plot of June 24, 1993?

Quote :

"In the 1995 terrorism trial over a failed plot to blow up five New York City landmarks, the jury deliberated seven days before returning guilty verdicts against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and nine others. The trial lasted eight months as evidence was presented about the plot targeting the U.N. General Assembly building, the New York FBI building, the Lincoln Tunnel, the Holland Tunnel and the George Washington Bridge [emphasis added]."

http://edition.cnn.com/2001/LAW/05/10/embassy.bombings.01/index.html

The US Embassy bombings on August 7, 1998, in Tanzania and Kenya that were linked to al Qaeda?

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/africa/embassy_bombing/map.html

The failed millennium attacks on or about January 1, 2000, which included a planned attack on a US destroyer, the USS The Sullivans?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_millennium_attack_plots

The bombing of the USS Cole destroyer on October 12, 2000, which was linked to al Qaeda?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17598388/

You idiots. No matter how much you wet-dream for it to be so, George Bush did not start the war with the Islamofascists anymore than Bill Clinton did. These radical Islamists--not to be confused with peace-loving Muslims--hate us and they want to destroy Americans, America, and our way of life.

I mean, are some of you just stupid or what?

[Edited on October 22, 2007 at 3:42 AM. Reason : .]

10/22/2007 3:31:28 AM

Quote :

"^^remeber, we werent attacked by the taliban, us invading Afghanistan was a big change in policy which took time for the administration implement it was the "if you harbor terrorists, you are a terrorist" policy, you cant just go invade a country cause bin laden is there"

You have a really bad memory there. We demanded the taliban turn bin Laden over. they refused which left no other option. It wasn't a change in policy. We did the same thing in Panama in 1989.

And what about Ted Olson's wife?

10/22/2007 7:15:35 AM

Quote :

"A plane definitely did not hit the Pentagon..."

you're batshit crazy.

10/22/2007 7:38:42 AM

Quote :

"a big change in policy which took time for the administration implement"

bullshit. more like, it took a few months to mass a military shitstorm of carriers and weaponry before we obliterated their little boyscout jamboree

10/22/2007 8:11:36 AM

one thing the conspiracy theorists cant explain is how our government would keep the 100's of people who would be involved quiet. there would be too much to gain monetarily plus the immortalization of being the hero who exposed the plot for so many people to keep their mouths shut.

use your brains people.

10/22/2007 8:44:25 AM

yep. honestly thats been one of the major things ive thought of all along as well. If this information is so easy for all these people to obtain then surely someone credible would have been able to step forward with some irrefutable evidence just as easily.

Lets just assume this WAS some conspiracy attack, theres NO WAY, 0% chance that every person consulted would agree with this plan being carried out. There is also no chance that information on it would be able to be kept from all major players in the government...and with outspoken as many goverment figures (esp dems of course) are against Bush there is also no way that someone wouldnt have come forward by now to present that evidence and hurt the Republican's chances even more at regaining the presidency.

it defies logic

10/22/2007 8:58:46 AM

Quote :

"You idiots. No matter how much you wet-dream for it to be so, George Bush did not start the war with the Islamofascists anymore than Bill Clinton did. These radical Islamists--not to be confused with peace-loving Muslims--hate us and they want to destroy Americans, America, and our way of life."

wow, that shows you did not read anything i wrote

Quote :

"You have a really bad memory there. We demanded the taliban turn bin Laden over. they refused which left no other option. It wasn't a change in policy. We did the same thing in Panama in 1989."

uhh, again, people please learn how to read, the point of what i said was to show why we didnt immediately invade Afghanistan, we had to give them a chance to hand him over.


and hooksaw, your point seems to be there were attacks before this administration so why should we believe this is an inside job,
no one is saying bush created bin laden so he can attack us, they were there and trying well before that time, but never has it seemed like there was cooperation on their part,
so my question is why are you so satisfied with the story you've been told?

10/22/2007 9:22:09 AM

Quote :

"Ok, let's start with the fact that the buildings were brought down by demolitions. This is one of the more known pieces of evidence so hopefully you'll have something to refute it with."

ahahaha, this motherfucker barges in on here with this gem.

He has no evidence to support the WTC was brought down via demolition, but just states it as a "known" and expects us to refute his conspiracy which lacks even the slightest bit of evidence to take it from "conspiracy theory" to "theory."

What's sad is that you guys fall right into it and try to prove the mainstream information instead of requiring him to disprove the mainstream story. He has the burden of proof. Not us.

10/22/2007 10:12:06 AM

Quote :

"He has the burden of proof. Not us. "

AMEN.

if youre going to come in spouting that all this conspiracy theorized stuff is 'KNOWN' you better be providing some rock hard sources.

10/22/2007 10:26:40 AM

^ Agreed. And I have to say, as much as I dislike Bush and the decisions that he's made, I wouldn't go so far as to say that he would allow 3,000 American civilians to be murdered for the sake of a few bucks.... That's just ludicrous

10/22/2007 10:30:28 AM

^ And 3,000 was the low number too. I remember that the morning of the attacks that they were estimating upwards of 50,000 dead. Although that may be media sensationalism, it very well could have been a lot more than 3000. So Bush would have had to make the decision to kill 50,000 to 100,000 American civilians before orchestrating this kind of attack.

Those who believe that he is that evil have serious problems. No, he's not perfect and far from it, but he's not evil.

10/22/2007 10:37:12 AM

^^ thats where you have it wrong, the future of american was in great jeopordy, the survival of our economy depended on us controlling the trade of oil in the US $
the only way we could have done it is if we were provoked to go to war
i dont think bush knew anything
but a few behind the scenes im sure rationalized this as sacrificing 3000 in order to save millions

10/22/2007 11:20:19 AM

jesus dude. i have a bridge i can sell you.

10/22/2007 11:27:22 AM

Quote :

"uhh, again, people please learn how to read, the point of what i said was to show why we didnt immediately invade Afghanistan, we had to give them a chance to hand him over."

and we just knew that the taliban wouldn't.

Don't you realize it is would have been more cost effective to just pay off the taliban and northern alliance to not attack an oil pipeline than to orchestrate a huge massive attack on the american people and to invade another country.

10/22/2007 11:38:07 AM

Quote :

"so my question is why are you so satisfied with the story you've been told?"

maybe because I saw a fucking airplane fly into a tower.




Also, Where is Ted Olson's wife? If that wasn't an airplane that hit the pentagon then were are the people that were on that plane and where did that plane go?

10/22/2007 11:40:09 AM