9-11

[BulgarianPride]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kSq663m0G8[/youtube]

Why would they 'do' this building as well if it's an inside job? You know how many people would have to be in on it?

Try reading the site I put up and see it from another side. Stop being blinkered.

I'm asking about freefall, your article says NOTHING about freefall. Why would I read an article on freefall which contains no references to freefall. If I want some information about Manchester City I don't go to an Alabama knitting society's website.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXTlaqXsm4k[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw[/youtube]

Watch and refute to your heart's content.

I am going to bump this post as nobody has really addressed these videos.

 

[TheMightyQuinn]

It does not really come down to that though does it? Thinking differently is good and to be encouraged but it has to be based within a definable reality, the best method we have for defining our reality is reasoning based on demonstrable evidence, if we choose to disagree with that evidence we must produce evidence of our own that stands up better to review than that previously offered. Do I believe that our leaders ore infallible purveyors of the truth, absolutely not, unquestioned authority is disastrous and dangerous, questioning is good but only useful if you are willing to accept the answers based on the evidence presented by those with the best authority to do so.

In this case though, the US government are confirmed liars which renders any evidence they offer as suspicious.

Don't get me wrong, in general, I'm not an unbelieving or cold person, I'm more than happy to take people on face value but if I know someone is a liar then it's only natural I'll struggle to believe them.

I'm not professing to know anything more than anyone else, I just think that there's nothing been said or done since 2001 to render me less suspicious.

It's profiling, I admit that, when looking for a mass murdering liar, history points you time and time again towards Washington.

I don't disagree with your suspicion Quinny but in this case, the evidence we can see is pretty conclusive. It beggars belief to say that it was missiles not planes, or that it must have been remote control because it's too difficult to hit a building even that big or that the government set it up but nobody at the Pentagon knew etc, etc

Yeah, obviously some theories can be ruled out but the truth is something that we're clearly not being told.

 

[pauldominic]

I hear you fella and I agree washington has plenty of blood on it's hands but i just cant in this case see them being behind this specific attack, did they know an attack was coming? almost certainly, did they know its exact nature ? probably not, more telling did their own arrogance lead them to take fewer precautions against such an attack? again who knows but its not hard to imagine given all their posturing. I also have no doubt that in 911's aftermath most governments not just the usa have used it as a political tool to engineer outcomes profitable to themselves and their cohorts. But the sheer logistics of something this huge to be orchestrated from the inside for me just makes it unreasonable in the sense of how i draw my own conclusions.

I agree it sounds improbable but if you look at second war against Iraq in the light of history and hindsight, the legal, moral and political justification looks very very dodgy.

Tony Blair signed up purely because of our shared military history.

 

[Challenger1978]

I see everyone's arguing about the air attacks on 9/11 again.

What I want to know is what the fuck went on with the anthrax attack that happened on the same day.

Was it a coincidence that some nutter posted out anthrax the same day ?

Or did the maniac see the air attacks on the tele and then decide to post the anthrax ?

What were his reasons, was he an al qaeda nutjob or just some crank with a grudge ?

 

[BoyBlue_1985]

Is it just me or does dids not even answer a question or picks out a part ignores evidence presented then spouts more nonsense because it's all fucking nonsense. CCTV which hasn't been invented. Why a flight instructor carries more credence than a fire fighter regarding the attacks, ignoring the fact 2 of them had pilot licences, seeing a pic of a damaged beyond repair WTC6 then still declaring it was pulled despite the fact it stood right next to tower 1

Every time I read his post ignoring the question and spouting more crap I just want to scream

 

[THEBLUEDONKEY]

I hear you fella and I agree washington has plenty of blood on it's hands but i just cant in this case see them being behind this specific attack, did they know an attack was coming? almost certainly, did they know its exact nature ? probably not, more telling did their own arrogance lead them to take fewer precautions against such an attack? again who knows but its not hard to imagine given all their posturing. I also have no doubt that in 911's aftermath most governments not just the usa have used it as a political tool to engineer outcomes profitable to themselves and their cohorts. But the sheer logistics of something this huge to be orchestrated from the inside for me just makes it unreasonable in the sense of how i draw my own conclusions.

I agree it sounds improbable but if you look at second war against Iraq in the light of history and hindsight, the legal, moral and political justification looks very very dodgy.

Tony Blair signed up purely because of our shared military history.

no doubt the war on Iraq was built on some very shaky ground both moralistic and evidential. However all that is evidence of (if it is at all) is that governments and people alike are opportunists, it does not mean that they orchestrated 911 as an event in itself. To engineer something on the scale of 911 to justify a war in Iraq is sheer insanity. The risk to those individuals involved in a so called inside job are such that even bush and his buddies would not be undertake such a strategy

 

[Bob Hope]

Is it just me or does dids not even answer a question or picks out a part ignores evidence presented then spouts more nonsense because it's all fucking nonsense. CCTV which hasn't been invented. Why a flight instructor carries more credence than a fire fighter regarding the attacks, ignoring the fact 2 of them had pilot licences, seeing a pic of a damaged beyond repair WTC6 then still declaring it was pulled despite the fact it stood right next to tower 1

Every time I read his post ignoring the question and spouting more crap I just want to scream

wtc6 never collapsed . wct7 collapsed

 

[manimanc]

the funniest beliefs these conspiracy clowns came out with was that the planes fired missiles before they hit the towers and that the planes were in fact holograms....

god bless america in more ways than one!!

 

[THEBLUEDONKEY]

I am going to bump this post as nobody has really addressed these videos.

Without wishing to be rude what is it exactly you believe to be the significance of the freefall event at WTC 7 ?

 

[Bob Hope]

one of the weirdest things to happen on that day was that the BBC reported that the WTC7 had collaped, but you could still see it standing behind the reporter.