9/11 Conspiracy Theories How about them?
#1
Posted 29 October 2006 - 11:31 AM
I'd recommend going through the Wikipedia article on the issue, and it provides a simple way to distinguish between the theories:
1. Key individuals within the government and defense establishment "let it happen on purpose" (LIHOP). That is, they knew the attacks were coming (though there is a range of opinion about how specific their knowledge was) and undertook to weaken America's defenses sufficiently to ensure a successful major terrorist attack on home soil.
2. Key individuals within the government and defense establishment "made it happen on purpose" (MIHOP). That is, they planned the attacks (and here there is a range of opinion about what the plan was) and ultimately carried it into action.
It's also worth mentioning the Loose Change video, which popularized the theories above with strong evidence. It has been released in two editions already, and a final version is expected to be released later this year.
Your thoughts, your ideas? I, personally, give substantial credit to the theories, and I do believe in fact that there is much more to the story of 9/11 than the US government is willing to admit.
#2
Posted 29 October 2006 - 11:41 AM
#3
Posted 29 October 2006 - 11:44 AM
#4
Posted 29 October 2006 - 01:12 PM
I am quite interested in reading about any kind of conspiaries, though I don't know really why since reading about them just gets me annoyed and I start asking myself how people can be so selfish and just... evil. And yes, I do believe the American government was deeply involved in 9/11. I actually know of something very suspicious that happened that day conserning the Twin Towers, but I don't think I will be getting into that, since no one will believe me, especially since I live this far away from America and practicaly nobody in the USA knows about this. Well, no civilians, that's for sure.
#5
Posted 29 October 2006 - 01:17 PM
I do feel that the US purposely ignored the intelligence it had, and wasn't prepared for an attack on its home land. I know for fact, everyone in the Bush Administration (assuming they didn't do it themselves) regret it deeply.
#6
Posted 29 October 2006 - 01:46 PM
#7
Posted 29 October 2006 - 01:53 PM
But, I think that the people who say that it was planned by the government just to invade Iraq are retarded. They could just invade Iraq a million other ways without all that planning. Plus, no government in its right mind, or even partially insane, would launch an attack on its own country for more oil. They may have recieved a tip-off, but like PS said, what could they do? Arrest any Muslim who gets on an airplane? Lock down the city?
#8
Posted 29 October 2006 - 02:27 PM
- Historically, this wouldn't be out of place. In the 1960's, in the midst of the Cold War, United States military officers were considering conducting attacks on Guantanamo Bay, fabricating a false pretense to invade Cuba and begin a campaign on the Communist threat.
- The destructiong of the towers (Twin Towers, WTC 7) were done entirely in free-fall, exactly what would happen in a controlled demolition
- Flight 757 that supposedly hit the Pentagon had no traces left, and the debris was inconsistent with the actual build and structure of the airplane
- Hours before the attacks on the WTC, jet fighter planes were called off to run tests hundreds of miles away. Only three jet fighter planes were left to defend the entire United States
etc.
Believe me, there is a lot more evidence, I will post it up in time when I have collected them all from the source. However, you can see it all for yourself. Here is the Loose Change, Second Edition from Google Video. It's an hour and a half long, however, so be sure to have some time to watch it.
#9
Posted 29 October 2006 - 02:34 PM
2) That may be able to happen in a controlled demolition, but it could also happen in an attack like what happened. The twin towers were only built to withstand a small civilian plane hitting it, so obviously a 747 jumbo jet could demolish them.
3) People saw the friggin' thing hit the Pentagon!
FlamingDuck, on Oct 29 2006, 02:07 PM, said:
But, I think that the people who say that it was planned by the government just to invade Iraq are retarded. They could just invade Iraq a million other ways without all that planning. Plus, no government in its right mind, or even partially insane, would launch an attack on its own country for more oil. They may have recieved a tip-off, but like PS said, what could they do? Arrest any Muslim who gets on an airplane? Lock down the city?
Exactly
The ill effects of doing those things, if any of you didn't realise would be just as bad, but in a different way. Evacuating the city= Loss of jobs, fear of returning because of possible terrorist attacks which result in crumbling economy and loss of jobs, many deaths from rushing to evacuate the city, and ovverall, NYNY could become a ghost town.
Arresting every muslim/arabic in the US= Sending them to concentration camps, everyone looks down on the US (which they've done anyway), riots of arabic people resulting in deaths on their side and ours, and many other horrible things.
The fact is, is that we may have gotten evidence of an attack, but it was so weak that it wasn't enough to act on. If it didn't happen, reacting to it would have been even worse than an actual attack. And only Hitler would be insane enough to kill 3000 people just to go to war.
#10
Posted 29 October 2006 - 02:41 PM
Quote
So you're telling me that when we received warning of the attack, the military should have NOT done anything? That (to put it simply), "well, we know that there is going to be an attack soon, and thousands will die, but since we don't know anything else, let's just sit-back, and wait for it to happen?"
And for the record, if you had read my post, you would know that these jet planes were called off before the attack. If we were anticipating an attack, why would we risk that?
And also, for the record, I don't think it fair for you to insult a theory that you don't know much on, even if it is a conspiracy theory. Watch the Loose Change video, then prepare a rebuttal.
#11
Posted 29 October 2006 - 03:07 PM
2) I read your post, and fyi, 14 jets were left to protect us, not 3. It states that in the video. And we would risk that because we still weren't sure if they had been hijacked. It was assumed, but it wasn't confirmed. And attacking the planes and killing the people inside, especially if they weren't hijacked, would turn everyone against the government.
I'm watching it right now. When they said that the 747 the crashed into the pentagaon couldn't have possibly been able to do those maneuvers, let me remind you. Boeing designd a jumbo jet that could do barrel rolls and loops without stalling or crashing. thousands of people watched the presentation. Hony Hondjure (sp?), the terrorist that supposedly flew the 747 into the pentagon, could have easily faked having poor flying skills to reasure people he might have suspected were watching him, that he was a bad pilot and couldn't possibly fly a 747, or to make them think he was supposed to be the one flying the plane when in fact it was a different terrorist.
Do you see how many holes are in these theories? Like I said, only a monster like Hitler would think of doing that.
#12
Posted 29 October 2006 - 04:07 PM
Quote
You have me puzzled, what could be worse than killing 3000 people?
#13
Posted 29 October 2006 - 04:26 PM
#14
Posted 29 October 2006 - 05:04 PM
Mr.T, on Oct 29 2006, 06:48 PM, said:
2) That may be able to happen in a controlled demolition, but it could also happen in an attack like what happened. The twin towers were only built to withstand a small civilian plane hitting it, so obviously a 747 jumbo jet could demolish them.
3) People saw the friggin' thing hit the Pentagon!
1) Why won't the government clear its name then? If the government truly is innocent, then why doesn't it release some clear videos of the 747 striking the Pentagon, or try to again reaffirm its explanation of why the towers collapsed, etc.?
2) The Twin Towers, according to an engineer in the video, were designed to withstand everything from hurricans to tidal waves to bombs to commercial jet craft. That includes a 747.
2a) If the jet fuel fire supposedly weakned the building enough to collapse, then why have other, weaker buildings burned for longer and NOT collapsed? The video brings up a number of examples, one of which occured include a building that burned for 24 hours, and did not collapse. But the WTC, with reinforced steel cables and columns unlike few buildings, collapsed after barely an hour?
3) Where is the evidence? And some people claim they never saw it. Why, also, did the FBI confiscate videos at a nearby gas station and Sheraton hotel, moments after the attack? Why did the government release only five frames of video that don't even depict an actual plane?
3a) Where is the debris from the plane? How could it completely "vaporize"? [View that section of Loose Change for more detail]
#15
Posted 29 October 2006 - 05:12 PM
Quote
If they 'ent doing that now, I doubt they'd of do that before 9/11. The worst would have most likely be the airport security crisis like in London, and that could have solved the problem.
#16
Posted 29 October 2006 - 05:28 PM
Golden Legacy, on Oct 29 2006, 08:18 PM, said:
747s weren't invented at the time the towers were built.
Quote
That's because all of those buildings had their support beanms wrapped with asbestos like they should have. The WTC was constructed during the time when everyone was freaking out about asbestos' health effects, so they were sprayed with a cheap foam substitute. This was knocked off by the force of the explosion which allowed the fire to weaken the girders sufficiently for them to bend. This alone wouldn't have been enough, but the bending allowed the top half of the tower (In both structures) to gather enough momentum to crush the rest of the structure.
Quote
It was carted away with the rest of the debris from the destroyed section of the pentagon, investigation wasn't as imperitive, because it was pretty clear what happened.
Eugine, on Oct 29 2006, 08:18 PM, said:
And why don't they do it? Because it's a completely ludicrus idea! I'm saying that no practical defensive measures could've been taken without more information.
#17
Posted 29 October 2006 - 05:40 PM
Airport measures could have definetly been taken, I found the intelligence to be pretty outstanding. It warned of a air strike on important US buildings, why was that ignored? Thinking of it, 9/11 was very similar to the Titanic story.
The UK government took the transatlantic bombing seriously (because they said it was in motion for a few years now) and look where it got them. It saved the lives of many British people.
#18
Posted 29 October 2006 - 05:46 PM
Let me remind you of what is going on in Iraq. Let me remind you this is the administration that once coined the term "Axis of Evil", and singlehandedly created enemies in North Korea and Iran.
Why is it so hard to believe? If you take it from the government's perspective, it's a brilliant move; you create a powerful tragedy under which you receive unwavering support from your people and the world to carry out your ambitions. A few thousands lives now, but inevitably you get to accomplish your goals, whatever they may be.
I wouldn't put it past Bush to be responsible for something like this.
#19
Posted 29 October 2006 - 06:11 PM
Eugine, on Oct 29 2006, 08:54 PM, said:
That's because before 9/11, 9/11 had never happened. After it, this kind of attack became consievable so we were better prepared for it. If you watched the News reports, you'd know that no one even suspected that this was an attack after the first plane hit. Some still thought that it was some kind of accident after the second one.
Quote
"Important US buildings"? That's the best you've got?! Do you have any idea how many thousands of buildings fall under that category and how many billions of dollars it would take to protect them all?
And GL, if they truly posess the evil brilliance you ascribe to them, they would've had terrorists from Iraq attack so that they could get support for a war that needed it more.
#20
Posted 29 October 2006 - 06:46 PM
Quote
After they tried to destroy it in 93, and specifically said it wasn't over, they'd return to finish their job, I'd of think it was plausible.
93' bombings occurred, the terrorists said they'd return to finish what they started. Eventually, they received intelligence importang buildings would be destroyed by planes, they overlooked the WTC... Pretty smart for being the CIA.
#21
Posted 29 October 2006 - 06:53 PM
#22
Posted 29 October 2006 - 07:53 PM
#23
Posted 29 October 2006 - 08:04 PM
#24
Posted 29 October 2006 - 10:12 PM
And need I remind you these neoconservative thinktanks include **** Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.
#25
Posted 30 October 2006 - 05:13 AM
That said, Rumsfeld could have done it without him im sure.
I mean, it *is* possible that the whole thing could have been deliberate but then why would Bin Laden be helping? I mean he released videos saying he'd done it - why would he do that?
I havent watched the video yet although i will shortly, but it just seems a little too...hmm. If the next US election gets another terrorist attack then maybe i'll start believing it.
#26
Posted 30 October 2006 - 05:14 AM
Quote
So you're telling me they were justified for the killing of 3000 people?
Actually, you know, this argument is really amuzing. I didn't lose any family member or friends, or any countrymen actually. I just find it ironic that a fellow American after seeing 3000 people die, says ignoring it was the best choice for the American government. That the USA is justified for doing nothing. That nothing could have been done! The CIA is suppose to look into every case, it's the point. To protect its citizens. If they refuse to even look at conspiracy theories, they better just close, because conspiracy theories usually always come true (Jim Jones mass suicide, Iraq can be one too ^^ etc.)
#27
Posted 30 October 2006 - 05:41 AM
I sincerely hope they didnt do all that stuff...
#28
Posted 30 October 2006 - 09:10 AM
The US government wouldnt kill 3000 of thier own people, if they wanted to start a war in Iraq, they would have done it a better way than kill 3000 US civilians, spend billions of dollars in Afganistan, then go into Iraq with a lame reason. Infact why would they do that when they can just PAY Al-Queda members to bomb it for us with the planes, so its even more believable? Its such a bullsh*t theory.
Also his statement about lives being lost were fake? My grandmothers friend was on one of the flights that hit the second world trade center, and this liberal f*ck has the nerve to say that all those people were MADE UP? You even believing this guy is an insult to human intellegence.
#29
Posted 30 October 2006 - 09:59 AM
Mr.T, on Oct 29 2006, 11:00 PM, said:
So you actually think there are NO conspiracies in the world!? You think that what you see is what you get!? Toasty, the world isn't all black and white. I'm sorry to say this, but you're living in a fantasy world, where pigs can fly and rainbows can dance.
And about the Hitler thing... You seem to have absolutely no idea just how many people would do something like this for personal gain. I've said this before and I stand by what I sad: People are truly evil, selfish creatures.
I whole-heartedly agree with GL.
#30
Posted 30 October 2006 - 02:17 PM
Eugine, on Oct 30 2006, 08:28 AM, said:
I had to laugh at that one. You gave two examples out of millions of theories and suddenly that means "usually." So tell me, how many millions of dollars should the CIA allocate to readying defenses because of the call they got from a Cuban drug dealer who said that France was going to attack us through Canada?
#31
Posted 30 October 2006 - 07:16 PM
"...were designed to withstand everything from hurricans to tidal waves to bombs to commercial jet craft. That includes a 747."
I'm currently sick so I'm not really 100% mentally and physically well so I'm not going to spend much more time here, all the points I gathered while reading these two pages I forgot :D
But I wouldn't put it past America to do something like this to 'justify' thier war.
And again, the terriosts were Suadi Arabian, not Iraqi damit!
Edit- Found my voice.
"In the first days after the terror attacks on New York and Washington, Saudi Arabia supervised the urgent evacuation of 24 members of Osama Bin Laden's extended family from the United States.
Patrick E. Tyler, "Fearing harm, bin Laden kin fled from US", The New York Times, September 30, 2001
"...a Western intelligence officals said [Osama] is sufferening from kidney and liver disease. Bin Laden has kidney failer and 'his liver is going,' the offical said... He said Bin Laden followers were trying to find a kidney dialysis machine for thier ailing leader."
Kathy Gannon, "Bin Laden reportedly ailing," The Associated Press, March 25, 2000
Question. Why after the attacks did all the headlines read "Terrorists attack America" If you are so sure it was Afghanistan why didn't they read "Afghanistian (or Iraq or Cuba) Attack America"
#32
Posted 30 October 2006 - 07:53 PM
Because either of those would've made it sound like an official war had been declared. If you had read more than the headline you would've been informed of the nature of the terrorists' origins.
#33
Posted 30 October 2006 - 08:20 PM
#34
Posted 30 October 2006 - 09:05 PM
The only way we can know, is by the information gathered about the attacks, such as recorded phone conversations etc. There is no actual 100% evidence of a specific terrorist piloting the planes. Im sure Al-Queda trained more than just the 9/11 bombers to become pilots.
watch, on Oct 30 2006, 10:30 PM, said:
Dude let it go no hispanic country had ANYTHING to do with it. Cmon now Cubans? They have enough problems, there is no way they would take that risk and attack the US.
#35
Posted 30 October 2006 - 11:33 PM
One, Mexico just came to mind seeing as I wanted another country to prove how ridiculas the claims were. Like Mexico would send terrorists to America.
And Cuba has had problems with America in the past and is so close to America.
#36
Posted 31 October 2006 - 01:16 AM
Golden Legacy, on Oct 29 2006, 06:00 PM, said:
Let me remind you of what is going on in Iraq. Let me remind you this is the administration that once coined the term "Axis of Evil", and singlehandedly created enemies in North Korea and Iran.
Why is it so hard to believe? If you take it from the government's perspective, it's a brilliant move; you create a powerful tragedy under which you receive unwavering support from your people and the world to carry out your ambitions. A few thousands lives now, but inevitably you get to accomplish your goals, whatever they may be.
I wouldn't put it past Bush to be responsible for something like this.
Yeah, and what happens if the people find out, and then, if enough people believe it? Ohnestly, if this was actually true, more people would believe it than do now. Like I said, conspiracy theories are just things people make up to either explain the unexplainable, or in this case, put the blame on someone else for no reason.
Eugine, on Oct 29 2006, 07:00 PM, said:
After they tried to destroy it in 93, and specifically said it wasn't over, they'd return to finish their job, I'd of think it was plausible.
93' bombings occurred, the terrorists said they'd return to finish what they started. Eventually, they received intelligence importang buildings would be destroyed by planes, they overlooked the WTC... Pretty smart for being the CIA.
*sigh* This is just sad. Do you know how many times a single Wikipedia article is edited in a day? Tens, if not hundreds of times a day, depending on how hot a topic it is. This one is a fairly hot topic, so just imagine how many edits it has. The point is, it's been tampered with, and the information could easily be biased. Sure, there are some articles in Wiki that are true, but on a hpt topic like this, where only people who are interested in it (which means conspiracy theorists) edit and add "facts" to it, there just isn't any way this is solid enough to even stand.
Eugine, on Oct 29 2006, 08:07 PM, said:
Like PS said, if the CIA/FBI acted upon every conspiracy theory/possible terrorist threat, they'd be stretched so thin that when one did happen, we wouldn't be able to react at all. Now of course, if it's rock solid of course they'll investigate. But people (including the CIA) thought it was an accident when the first plane hit because the information wasn't reliable (wow! I just got a note saying Jessica Simpson thinks I'm hot from some random guy that passed me by! I should go ask her out! :D ). You can argue that the CIA is dumb as **** all you want, but I'd like to see your small country's intelligence agency do any better, assuming you even have one.
Golden Legacy, on Oct 29 2006, 10:26 PM, said:
And need I remind you these neoconservative thinktanks include **** Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.
Yeah, and guess what? That is entirely infference. It's going off of one sentence which states: "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." Now I don't know about you, but I don't see anything in there that screams "OMG!! T3H UNIT3D 5TAT3S ATTACK3D ITS3LF!!!!"
Eugine, on Oct 30 2006, 05:28 AM, said:
Actually, you know, this argument is really amuzing. I didn't lose any family member or friends, or any countrymen actually. I just find it ironic that a fellow American after seeing 3000 people die, says ignoring it was the best choice for the American government. That the USA is justified for doing nothing. That nothing could have been done! The CIA is suppose to look into every case, it's the point. To protect its citizens. If they refuse to even look at conspiracy theories, they better just close, because conspiracy theories usually always come true (Jim Jones mass suicide, Iraq can be one too ^^ etc.)
No, numbnuts. Read again. Read the previous posts as well. We reacted to 9/11 by going to war, so first off, your post makes no sense at all. Secondly, I'd like to state this again if you didn't soak in it's greatness before:
Platinum Sun, on Oct 29 2006, 08:18 PM, said:
OMG!! THERE'S ACTUALLY SOMETHING THERE!! Wow!! It's amazing! I actually used my eyes that time too!
Aquamarine, on Oct 30 2006, 10:13 AM, said:
So you actually think there are NO conspiracies in the world!? You think that what you see is what you get!? Toasty, the world isn't all black and white. I'm sorry to say this, but you're living in a fantasy world, where pigs can fly and rainbows can dance.
And about the Hitler thing... You seem to have absolutely no idea just how many people would do something like this for personal gain. I've said this before and I stand by what I sad: People are truly evil, selfish creatures.
I whole-heartedly agree with GL.
I'm sorry Aqua, but you see, though some conspiracy theories may be correct, that doesn't make them theories anymore since they have a body and have proof that's standing on solid ground. This makes them "conspiracy facts."
#37
Posted 31 October 2006 - 04:39 AM
Anyway, you're actually telling me the intelligence seemed phony? I'll repeat myself again.
They attempted to bomb the WTC in 1993, but were unsuccessful. Al Queda specifically said they'd be back to finish the job. Al Queda even declared war on the US.
Eventually, they got intelligence that important buildings will be destroyed by Air strike (some even said the date was also mentioned when an Al Queda member was excuted, his last words were "Call 911")
I find this intelligence to be pretty threatening. But the CIA didn't, they just brushed it, did nothing (that's the nothing I was talking about Toasty, not the aftermath of 9/11)
The 9/11 Commission Report also placed blame on Bush & Clinton for "failure to act," same as me. So, please don't argue, because the American government agrees with me that atleast something should have been done after receiving the evidence. If in doubt, read the 9/11 Commission report.
#38
Posted 31 October 2006 - 08:22 AM
Call 911 you mean? As in the emergency number? And the US government is supposed to say
"911, or maybe 9/11 as in the day, and in the year the best choice is 2001, so I have come to the conclusion there will be a terrorist attack on the world trade centers, 2 big buildings, on september 11th 2001."
They are supposed to come to that conclusion, from the words "call 911"?
Give me a break.
#39
Posted 31 October 2006 - 03:13 PM
Eugine, on Oct 31 2006, 04:53 AM, said:
Anyway, you're actually telling me the intelligence seemed phony? I'll repeat myself again.
They attempted to bomb the WTC in 1993, but were unsuccessful. Al Queda specifically said they'd be back to finish the job. Al Queda even declared war on the US.
Eventually, they got intelligence that important buildings will be destroyed by Air strike (some even said the date was also mentioned when an Al Queda member was excuted, his last words were "Call 911")
I find this intelligence to be pretty threatening. But the CIA didn't, they just brushed it, did nothing (that's the nothing I was talking about Toasty, not the aftermath of 9/11)
The 9/11 Commission Report also placed blame on Bush & Clinton for "failure to act," same as me. So, please don't argue, because the American government agrees with me that atleast something should have been done after receiving the evidence. If in doubt, read the 9/11 Commission report.
You only find it threatening because it already happened. You'd be entirely stumped if that was all the info you had to go on. So would I, and so would everyone else in the world (except the terrorists of course).
Quit being a hipocrite. You warned me for insulting your country, when that's all you ever do when it comes to America. Who's makeing it personal now?
#40
Posted 31 October 2006 - 04:41 PM
Mr.T, on Oct 31 2006, 06:27 PM, said:
Thats actually very true Eugine, he doesnt deserve a warning for making a slight remark about your country when your here talking about how much you dislike America.
#41
Posted 31 October 2006 - 05:32 PM
Yeah, and what happens if the people find out, and then, if enough people believe it? Ohnestly, if this was actually true, more people would believe it than do now. Like I said, conspiracy theories are just things people make up to either explain the unexplainable, or in this case, put the blame on someone else for no reason.
And on what basis do you believe that? People have been in doubt of the government's take on 9/11 for so long, since it has hesitated in releasing information, and has proven seemingly ineffective.
*sigh* This is just sad. Do you know how many times a single Wikipedia article is edited in a day? Tens, if not hundreds of times a day, depending on how hot a topic it is. This one is a fairly hot topic, so just imagine how many edits it has. The point is, it's been tampered with, and the information could easily be biased. Sure, there are some articles in Wiki that are true, but on a hpt topic like this, where only people who are interested in it (which means conspiracy theorists) edit and add "facts" to it, there just isn't any way this is solid enough to even stand.
What are you talking about? The Wikipedia article is basically reporting the theories themselves, from the sources, such as Loose Change The Wikipedia article isn't the source of the conspiracy theories, but is merely reporting on them.
Like PS said, if the CIA/FBI acted upon every conspiracy theory/possible terrorist threat, they'd be stretched so thin that when one did happen, we wouldn't be able to react at all. Now of course, if it's rock solid of course they'll investigate. But people (including the CIA) thought it was an accident when the first plane hit because the information wasn't reliable (wow! I just got a note saying Jessica Simpson thinks I'm hot from some random guy that passed me by! I should go ask her out! :D ). You can argue that the CIA is dumb as **** all you want, but I'd like to see your small country's intelligence agency do any better, assuming you even have one.
Don't go insulting another person's country. I don't see ANY other nation that has such a corrupt regime, or a government that has literally removed all credibility of the nation in one fell swoop. And surely, like Eugine mentioned, that this particular threat was MORE than the usual one? Al Qaeda returning to finish the job of '93? Yeah, I'm sure that's easy to overlook.
Yeah, and guess what? That is entirely infference. It's going off of one sentence which states: "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." Now I don't know about you, but I don't see anything in there that screams "OMG!! T3H UNIT3D 5TAT3S ATTACK3D ITS3LF!!!!"
If you had actually understood the message, the neoconservatives are saying that in order for America to progress, there is need for some dramatic event to be the trigger for transformation. A "new Pearl Harbor" means something on the scale of 9/11.
I'm sorry Aqua, but you see, though some conspiracy theories may be correct, that doesn't make them theories anymore since they have a body and have proof that's standing on solid ground. This makes them "conspiracy facts."
Ha. I found that amusing. A conspiracy grounded in reality isn't a "theory" anymore; it becomes the evident truth. If it turned out that 9/11 was really the cause of the United States itself, is it still a "conspiracy theory" - Nope, it's the hard truth, whether you are willing to accept it or not.
#42
Posted 31 October 2006 - 06:16 PM
The first one, I honestly have no idea what the heck you're arguing about anymore, so I'll leave that one alone.
It dosn't matter how the Wiki article is viewing its subject. Even if it is reporting on just the theories and not drawing any conclusions, that dosn't stop people from editing random crap into the article.
The whole "insulting one's country" thing was taken care of (Quite elequently I might add.) even thought you obviously didn't bother to read that part. As for the actual issue, hell yeah it's easy to overlook!! There was eight years between the two attacks. Do you have any idea how many threats we got in the interem? Their promise to return looked like a footnote by the time all our other enemies put in their two cents. A lot of really angry people hate us you know.
Ever heard of a coincidence? Someone always benefits from tradjedy, life is like that sometimes. Just because another pearl harbor would be useful dosn't automatically mean the government created one. This argument would end much faster if I killed you and Eugine, that dosn't mean I throw all my moral principles out the window and go stab you guys!
I'll start with the textbook definition of "Theory:"
A hypothetical dictation of a course of events that, if it had occured, would produce the evidence observed at present.
That means that all theories are based on facts. That's where theories come from, deducing a course of events based on available evidence. An explanation that's not based on facts is called a "lie."
#43
Posted 31 October 2006 - 06:34 PM
France- Becuase America labled them as the bad guy becuase they didn't support the War on Terror
"When you need a scapegoat, when you need a worthy whipping boy, you really can't do better than the country of France. And that's who the Bush pundits went after, accusing the French of being an "Axis of Weasels." All this was done to distract the American public from the real rats who were in Washington.
France had decided not to support any rush to war in Iraq. It tried to convince the United States to let the weapons inspectors do their job. The French minister of foreign affairs, Dominique de Villepin, spoke eloquently at the United Nations as the war began...
It wasn't long after being fed these French Whoppers that the American people took the bait. French wine was poured onto the street, and, at one New Jersey restaurant, down the toilet. French restaurants were shunned. Vacationers cancelled their plans to travel
France-with bookings down 30 percent. The Congressional dining room substituted "freedom" fries for french fries on its menu, following the lead of a North Carolina restaurant owner who was following the lead of a WWI-era effort to rename sauerkraut "liberty cabbage." Restaurants across the country followed suit, and as the president of the Fuddruckers restaurant chain put it, "Every guest who steps up to a counter at their local Fuddruckers and says, 'Give me freedom fries!' shows their true support for those who guard our most important freedoms, especially freedom from fear."
A Lebanese-owned chain of stores in California's San Joaquin Valley, French Cleaners, had one of its stores tagged with anti-French graffiti and another burned to the ground. The French-owned Sofitel Hotel in Manhattan replaced the French flag flying outside with Old Glory. Fromage.com, a French cheese distributor, received hundreds of hostile e-mails.
In Las Vegas, an armored fighting vehicle, complete with two machine guns and a 76-millimeter cannon, was used to crush French yogurt, French bread, bottles of French wine, Perrier, Grey Goose vodka, photos of Chirac, a guide to Paris, and, best of all, photocopies of the French flag. The makers of British-owned French's Mustard didn't wait for a backlash; they put out a press release explaining that "the only thing French about French's Mustard is the name!"
Middle East- Becuase you 'defiled' their land and you keep trying to rule over them.
Why Australians hate America- Bush. Plain and simple, every Australian I have talked to, including me, we do not hate America. We hate the greed, the sterotypes and your Government.
Read this. This is fact. Maybe it will register somewhere in your thick skull.
I would like to throw out a possibility here: what if September 11 was not a "terrorist" attack but, rather, a military attack against the United States? George, apparently you were a pilot once - how hard is it to hit a five-storey building at more than 500 miles an hour? The Pentagon is only five stories high. At 500 miles an hour, had the pilots been off by just a hair, they'd have been in the river. You do not get this skilled at learning how to fly jumbo jets by being taught on a video game machine at some dip**** flight training school in Arizona. You learn to do this in the air force. Someone's air force.
The Saudi air force?
What if these weren't wacko terrorists, but military pilots who signed on to a suicide mission? What if they were doing this at the behest of either the Saudi government or certain disgruntled members of the Saudi royal family? The House of Saud, according to Robert Baer's book Sleeping With the Devil, is full of them. So, did certain factions within the Saudi royal family execute the attack on September 11? Were these pilots trained by the Saudis? Why are you so busy protecting the Saudis when you should be protecting us?
4. Why did you allow a private Saudi jet to fly around the US in the days after September 11 and pick up members of the Bin Laden family and fly them out of the country without a proper investigation by the FBI?
Private jets, under the supervision of the Saudi government - and with your approval - were allowed to fly around the skies of America, when travelling by air was forbidden, and pick up 24 members of the Bin Laden family and take them first to a "secret assembly point in Texas". They then flew to Washington DC, and then on to Boston. Finally, on September 18, they were all flown to Paris, out of the reach of any US officials. They never went through any serious interrogation. This is mind-boggling. Might it have been possible that at least one of the 24 Bin Ladens would have possibly known something?
1. Is it true that the Bin Ladens have had business relations with you and your family off and on for the past 25 years?
Most Americans might be surprised to learn that you and your father have known the Bin Ladens for a long time. What, exactly, is the extent of this relationship, Mr Bush? Are you close personal friends, or simply on-again, off-again business associates? Salem bin Laden - Osama's brother - first started coming to Texas in 1973 and later bought some land, built himself a house, and created Bin Laden Aviation at the San Antonio airfield.
The Bin Ladens are one of the wealthiest families in Saudi Arabia. Their huge construction firm virtually built the country, from the roads and power plants to the skyscrapers and government buildings. They built some of the airstrips America used in your dad's Gulf war. Billionaires many times over, they soon began investing in other ventures around the world, including the US. They have extensive business dealings with Citigroup, General Electric, Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, and the Fremont Group.
According to the New Yorker, the bin Laden family also owns a part of Microsoft and the airline and defence giant Boeing. They have donated $2m to your alma mater, Harvard University, and tens of thousands to the Middle East Policy Council, a think-tank headed by a former US ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Charles Freeman. In addition to the property they own in Texas, they also have real estate in Florida and Massachusetts. In short, they have their hands deep in our pants.
Unfortunately, as you know, Mr Bush, Salem bin Laden died in a plane crash in Texas in 1988. Salem's brothers - there are around 50 of them, including Osama - continued to run the family companies and investments.
After leaving office, your father became a highly paid consultant for a company known as the Carlyle Group - one of the nation's largest defence contractors. One of the investors in the Carlyle Group - to the tune of at least $2m - was none other than the Bin Laden family. Until 1994, you headed a company called CaterAir, which was owned by the Carlyle Group.
After September 11, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal both ran stories pointing out this connection. Your first response, Mr Bush, was to ignore it. Then your army of pundits went into spin control. They said, we can't paint these Bin Ladens with the same brush we use for Osama. They have disowned Osama! They have nothing to do with him! These are the good Bin Ladens.
And then the video footage came out. It showed a number of these "good" Bin Ladens - including Osama's mother, a sister and two brothers - with Osama at his son's wedding just six and a half months before September 11. It was no secret to the CIA that Osama bin Laden had access to his family fortune (his share is estimated to be at least $30m), and the Bin Ladens, as well as other Saudis, kept Osama and his group, al-Qaida, well funded.
You've gotten a free ride from the media, though they know everything I have just written to be the truth. They seem unwilling or afraid to ask you a simple question, Mr Bush: WHAT IS GOING ON HERE?
In case you don't understand just how bizarre the media's silence is regarding the Bush-Bin Laden connections, let me draw an analogy to how the press or Congress might have handled something like this if the same shoe had been on the Clinton foot. If, after the terrorist attack on the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, it had been revealed that President Bill Clinton and his family had financial dealings with Timothy McVeigh's family, what do you think your Republican party and the media would have done with that one?
Do you think at least a couple of questions might have been asked, such as, "What is that all about?" Be honest, you know the answer. They would have asked more than a couple of questions. They would have skinned Clinton alive and thrown what was left of his carcass in Guantanamo Bay.
#44
Posted 31 October 2006 - 07:03 PM
FYI, when we saved France from Germany in WWI (mabey WWII, I can't remeber, I always get them mixed up) they spat in our face. They may have thanked us, though I can not remeber, but they still hated us even before we did what you say we did.
Sorry, wrong again. We've never tried to rule over them. They may assume that, but all we're doing is giving them support so they can succesfully sustain a democracy as their new government, which is by far better than haveing Saddam Hussein as their dictator.
Say what you want, it's all an opinion. But please, keep them to yourself. I'm tired of hearing them, especially since I don't care.
Lets start at the beginning. Have you ever flown a 747 at 500mph in real life? No, you havn't. That means that you cannot say how hard it is to fly a 747 at all. Also, do you know how they trained? Or where? Or what on? No, you don't know that either. And no, you don't have to learn it all in an airforce. You could learn it as an airlines pilot. You just need to keep a steady grip, and know how to fly one. Something a terrorist could easily do.
And lets see. Is Robert Baer a conspiracy theorist too? Or mabey an anti-american? Probably.
I have to get off now, but I rest my case.
#45
Posted 31 October 2006 - 07:20 PM
From what I could decifer, the terrorists learnt to fly in American air schools. They definetly couldn't of just step in a plane and try to fly into the WTC, that was about a once in a lifetime opportunity afterall.
#46
Posted 31 October 2006 - 07:21 PM
I also think he has a point regarding the flying of the aircraft - that would have had to have been an incredibly precise manouvre, surely.
I was thinking though - what about the phone calls that were made from the planes to the loved ones of the people who were meant to have died on these planes? I mean, it seems a bit much that the US would actually have killed these people and i doubt they could just have hired actors to do that...any thoughts as to how they could have pulled that off?
And Mr T, do you really need to say all the "Keep it to yourself" stuff - i mean, clearly you do care about this or you wouldnt be defending America so adamently - and furthermore, you cant just say "I rest my case" as this is a debate with no way of proving it one way or the other - so you cant rest your case cos you cant prove that what you say is true. With that said, as much as i would like to believe the Bush Administration was capable of this (for the sake of irony) im still not convinced about it - it still feels like its a bit much just to win the next election..
That said, there's no arguing that it was indeed, a very good thing for the Bush Administration - I dont think some people appreciate that these guys are politicians - contrary to what you may want to believe, they do not really have your best interests at heart, and they are fully capable of doing something horrific to maintain their power - You have to cheat and backstab to get ahead in politics and it takes them most of their lives - they live for the power.
They make decisions for the benefit of your country (this goes for all countries, not just the US before you bite my head off) so that the public can vote to keep them in power.
Any government could have been capable of doing a 9/11 on themselves. The real question is, would the Bush Administration really be confident enough that they could get away with it, or would they have even thought of it. Im not sure i credit them with enough intelligence to be able to do that...
Its like that question of "would you murder someone if you knew you could get away with it" Obviously some people still say they wouldnt - but there are those, perfectly normal people, who say they would - why is it so hard to believe that a countries government would be equally capable of doing this, especially if it felt it would benefit the country and their own government in the long run.
Scary stuff, politics.
#47
Posted 31 October 2006 - 07:33 PM
And as effective as I like to think the government is, they can't get away with anything. ever. It's one of few advantages to the media microscope that we have our government under.
#49
Posted 01 November 2006 - 04:35 PM
England, you have bad teeth, drink tea think your the sh*t and your not. You have absolutely no natural resources and depend on other countries for almost everything, then whine about it.
Australia, your all a bunch of kangaroo and kwala bear lovers and love to lasso things while riding a horse. You have a really strong accent and smell bad.
Grenada, where the hell is that? Your probably some south american country or something who knows. You contribute little to nothing on a global level besides maybe drugs.
France, a bunch of frog eatting p*ssies, with woman that dont shave thier armpits. You eat bad cheese, complain about everything while sucking on your cancer stick. Your so damn liberal your basically communist. Secondly, you lose every war, you have never ever won a single war against another power.
Now, im sure you didnt take offense to that, being is how I just spewed out a bunch of stereotypes. And thats all your doing, and GL you should be ashamed of yourself. Your a kid just like everyone else here, including me, and you act like you know how the world works. Your accusing our government of killing OUR FAMILY? How dare you, if you knew people that died in this tragedy you would know how I feel. You make me sick.
My post is intended to be a flame, but its only an example of stereotypes. I dont feel that way, and I do know where Grenada is.
Dont you think, it would have been alot easier for the Bush Administration to not have to go through all this? I mean why do all this when you could just hang out as president and not have any wars.
And the Bush Administration wasnt in office long when 9/11 happened, your going to sit here and tell me thats the very first thing they were gonna do? Kill 3000 people, start a war and drag the republican party in the sh*tter? cmon. The war has hurt the Bush administration, not help it.
#50
Posted 01 November 2006 - 04:59 PM
The video is very convincing though, i recommend that people who havent watched it do so. Still not sure if i really buy the whole thing though - dont suppose we'll ever know either. I gotta say though - can you imagine if these theories were discovered to be true? No one would ever trust the US again. It would be hugely damaging to your country...and i dont think the world needs that right now, so frankly, i hope it was Bin Laden.
#51
Posted 01 November 2006 - 05:24 PM
Those were real people in those planes, and their families still grieve for the losses.
#52
Posted 01 November 2006 - 07:49 PM
If anyone has to close it, let it be GL.
#53
Posted 01 November 2006 - 08:03 PM
I don't think this should be closed.
The people in those flights were real; I don't think anyone has tried to contradict that.
As for Bush's administration, he shouldn't have been in office in the first place, yea screw you Florida.
Americans, face it. People lie.
#54
Posted 01 November 2006 - 09:55 PM
watch, on Nov 1 2006, 11:17 PM, said:
I don't think this should be closed.
The people in those flights were real; I don't think anyone has tried to contradict that.
As for Bush's administration, he shouldn't have been in office in the first place, yea screw you Florida.
Americans, face it. People lie.
Blamming the bush administration for the attacks on the world trade centers and the pentagon is rediculous. Even if you say the government ignored all the warning signs blame that on Clinton. Afterall
BILL CLINTON WAS PRESIDENT FROM 1992 TO 2000
In that time period, the WTC's were attacked once already and we then went and caught Osama. But we let him go, why?
Thank the UN and public affairs, we were afraid of what other countries would think if we were to execute him. Just like now, you probably would say "dont execute sadam" or "have him tried in Iraq" where he would probably get off since people there still fear him.
And Eugine, your just a f*cking Grenadan bashing America and having some fun with it. So stop being a sh*t mod and close the topic, ravenblade agrees it should be closed, and if he agrees with me on a topic like this then thats saying something. Take your liberal America hating somewhere else, its obvious some members arent appreciating it.
And PS watch, I was kidding with the stereotypes lol.
Have people you know die in an accident, burned alive on a plane that was hijacked by terrorists then kill thousands of people, watch them jump from the building.
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=rtDRGRnkOIA
Enjoy you ignorant f*cks
#56
Posted 02 November 2006 - 02:00 AM
Just quit being lazy and make a new account. That's what I did. Took me about 5 seconds.
And Eugine, seriously. Take back the warn you gave me. You bash America all the time, and when I bash Grenada, you warn me? That's just stupid.
#57
Posted 02 November 2006 - 10:34 AM
#58
Posted 02 November 2006 - 05:25 PM
#59
Posted 02 November 2006 - 06:18 PM
pHantOm, on Nov 2 2006, 02:48 PM, said:
Just a note to this:
If you look carefully at the video of the WTC buildings falling, you'll notice that a few floors below where the building was struck, there are a few jets of smoke, jutting out laterally from the building.
At any rate, I never wanted this topic to turn into a whole war between members, even compromising mutual respect to bring down others in truly awful ways. My purpose for this topic was to bring to light not necessarily the truth, but just to remind people that the world isn't always black and white; that sometimes the truth is more than just what we believe or what we see, and I felt it was worth to prevent another perspective on arguably the most important event, thus far, in the new century.
Just look at how the politics of the world have evolved since 9/11, and where the "critical points" of foreign policy is focused on, now.
I apologize that things went out of hand. I know it's a difficult and certainly very debateable topic to discuss, and I really hope we can forget all this and remember that we are all still part of a community.
.:Topic Closed:.
EDIT: This topic may return in the future, particularly when the final version of Loose Change is released, and when the government is expected to release some more information to the public, sometime in early 2007. If you have any further comments or questions, please PM me, or one of the other moderators.
#60
Posted 31 May 2007 - 09:10 PM
I was reading a few articles on Giuliani tonight, regarding 9/11 (and his Presidential run). He was interviewed by NBC reporters regarding the fact, that he knew the WTC was capable of collapsing and gave no warning to any rescuers.
I conclude that this could mean the following things:
1. He was simply plain bad at making administrative decisions.
2. He wanted to become a hero for handling this tradegy well, because he knew eventually he would run for US presidency. This would have surely gave him extra polling points.
3. This was ultimately part of the bigger picture, a part of the infamous 9/11 Conspiracy Theories.
Opinion?
#61
Posted 01 June 2007 - 01:19 AM
But since this topic was closed I have watched a fantastic video on 9/11
I like to believe I've changed abit in the last, what, 8 months.
Loose Change, Youtube
That video is amazing, it's quite lengthy but it is worth it.
#62
Posted 03 June 2007 - 02:56 PM
I found a nice debate with Loose Change vs Popular Mechanics, and I thought Popular Mechanics had better points than Loose Change.
I also suggest watching 9/11 Coincidences. I went to bed 4AM yesterday watching that video x.x
It's so interesting and mind bobling.
I'm still undecided on whether or not PNAC (everything on this Wiki is factual btw) had anything to do with 9/11.
#63
Posted 08 June 2007 - 02:06 PM
#64
Posted 08 June 2007 - 06:37 PM
My question/point is this: For the government to have pulled off 9/11, it would have taken an incredible amount of time and precision. Just try to imagine - an attack on this scale would have taken an insane amount of planning and scheming. Could the government have really pulled it off with the nearly military, flawless execution it did?
#65
Posted 08 June 2007 - 06:40 PM
Of course they could have. You saw the video before I did GL. Shutting down floors of the towers, fake phone calls. Of course they could have set it up.
Just not well enough.
#66
Posted 08 June 2007 - 08:11 PM
And I'll continue by asking this - why has the media been silent? Loose Change and other such examples have prime examples of media slip-ups, hints, and evidence for the attacks to have been conducted by the government - but why hasn't there been a massive organization of some sort, why haven't the people demanded anything more from the government, to clear their name, if they did the attacks?
Basically, what has caused the public to accept what happened, and not challenge it?
#67
Posted 08 June 2007 - 09:01 PM
#68
Posted 09 June 2007 - 03:19 AM
To be reasonable though. Would you really want to know that your country could do such a thing? I'm only for the conspiracy theories because I am quite anti-Bush and I have been watching/reading Michael Moore and other anti-Bush material for a few years.
Again to be fair, with major events there are always doubters. Some people don't believe that the Holocaust happened. They think that killing that many million in that time period is impossible.
#69
Posted 09 June 2007 - 04:04 AM
#71
Posted 09 June 2007 - 09:42 AM
@ Caael: Let's see, in order:
Because, difficult though it may be to believe, some people like America and would take offense to you calling their entire government a bunch of devious mass-murderers.
It is. It's called the internet.
Discrete about what? Most of these claims are so rediculous and practically treasonous that you'd be called a fool and lose all credibility for publically entertaining them.
@ Watch:
If you've watched all the anti-Bush paraphernalia that you claim to (Of which I have no doubt) then you know what an incompetant fool Bush is, and what a joke his entire administration has become. Could someone whose leisure activities include going onto the "internets" and using "The Google" to find pictures of his ranch really have orchistrated the greatest strategic mass-murder and cover-up in all recorded history?
#72
Posted 09 June 2007 - 09:53 AM
#73
Posted 09 June 2007 - 11:50 AM
#76
Posted 11 June 2007 - 05:57 AM
#77
Posted 11 June 2007 - 02:22 PM
#78
Posted 11 June 2007 - 05:51 PM
And also PS, those sources I provided besides Wikipedia come from various sources, from college professors to the NY Times to BBC. If you have anything against those, feel free to speak.
The point I'm trying to make is, no, the Neo-Cons aren't a "random minority group" in Washington. They have dictated the entire Bush Administration's actions, including the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and nearly all domestic issues as well (Patriot Act? Wiretapping? etc.)
#79
Posted 11 June 2007 - 07:37 PM
#81
Posted 12 June 2007 - 01:08 PM
#82
Posted 12 June 2007 - 03:12 PM
Put it this way: If anyone could have done it, America could have.
#83
Posted 12 June 2007 - 04:06 PM
#84
Posted 12 June 2007 - 08:30 PM
#85
Posted 12 June 2007 - 09:46 PM
So basically the destruction of the WTC, was surely a plus to them, since their cases were dismissed.
#86
Posted 13 June 2007 - 05:49 AM
Platinum Sun, on Jun 13 2007, 08:06 AM, said:
So how is it then that Suadi Arabia has so much American money, if they were to dump it all. Your dollar would be trash?
Bush (Jr and Sr) and their dam Royal Suadi friends.
#87
Posted 13 June 2007 - 01:44 PM
One of the reasons that the towers collapsed is that the should've had asbestos and did not. Asbestos would've protected the girders from the heat of the fire, delaying or even preventing the collapse.
Watch:
They have that money because we gave it to them. You may have heard that we buy a rather significant amount of oil from Middle-Eastern countries. The rest of it is private debt, China has even more than Saudi Arabia, they could crush the dollar if they felt like it, but it would be economic suicide for them as well.
#88
Posted 16 June 2007 - 11:10 AM
Hell, running your computer right now is supporting terrorism!
#89
Posted 16 June 2007 - 11:27 PM
Are you talking about fuel consumption and electricity contributing to 'Climate Change'.
#90
Posted 17 June 2007 - 09:47 AM
Quote
Probably should have quoted this in my last post :silence:
#91
Posted 18 June 2007 - 05:53 PM
#92
Posted 13 July 2007 - 12:43 PM
Edit: I really need to check the dates on these things before I go about posting on them. >.>
This post has been edited by theblueflames: 13 July 2007 - 01:00 PM
#93
Posted 13 July 2007 - 04:52 PM
So you're saying that it's true it was terrorists (that are still alive mind you) did everything because they haven't killed conspiracy theoriests? Why don't they just realease Pentagon footage of the plane then? Rather then like 5 frames of a small scale explosion?
#94
Posted 13 July 2007 - 06:37 PM
#95
Posted 13 July 2007 - 07:19 PM
Maybe that jet was equiped with some advanced control system or engines, or even hull. That would explain why it would be able to pull off the maneuver it did, even though it wasn't supposed to be able to.
#96
Posted 13 July 2007 - 07:20 PM
#97
Posted 13 July 2007 - 09:50 PM
Golden Legacy, on Jul 13 2007, 07:37 PM, said:
I agree with you but i can see their side. What if those documents that they aren't showing so Horrific that they are afraid of the reaction the people are going to have. To say the least, I can't blame them for hiding things but i still would like to know. After all curiosity killed the cat, and if thats true then i died....*starts counting* ......too many times lol
#98
Posted 14 July 2007 - 07:24 PM
Quote
So you're saying that it's true it was terrorists (that are still alive mind you) did everything because they haven't killed conspiracy theoriests? Why don't they just realeased Pentagon footage of the plane then? Rather then like 5 frames of a small scale explosion?
I'm not saying that we handled it the best, all I'm saying is, that any college out would be nothing to take out after killing 3,000 of our other country men. Maybe they don't know it was al Qaeda for sure, I dunno, but they could easily take out a dumb college kid. Or maybe South Park was right, and they want people to think they did it :P. This guy pretty much sums up how I feel about the supposed 9/11 conspiracy.
#99
Posted 14 July 2007 - 11:17 PM
#100
Posted 23 September 2007 - 10:20 PM
If the government had been responsible for 9/11, at least 10,000 people would have to be in on it. The top levels and some of the lower levels of the US government, all those people who were "unloaded" off of Flight 93, all those people who were warned before hand about the attacks.
Think of the Watergate scandal, only a few people were in on this scandal and it still got leaked. If 10,000 people were in on a conspiracy, someone would have choked and confessed by now. It's only human nature.
#101
Posted 24 September 2007 - 09:53 PM
However, this doesn't stop me from believing that the conspiracy theories are absolutely bogus. Just a couple weeks ago, I watched a video in school about the 9/11 conspiracy theories. They are the most ludicrous and most horribly put together theories I have seen in my life. The evidence isn't good, and the theories are easily debunked. It's going to take a massive amount of effort to convince me that the theories are true.
#102
Posted 25 September 2007 - 01:14 PM
#103
Posted 25 September 2007 - 05:22 PM
#104
Posted 24 October 2007 - 09:10 AM
It even said so on one of the public documents on cia.gov you know how they release certain documents after a certain period of time so ya. Um I don't know the link though lol