See other 9/11 Articles
Title: Why The 9/11 Conspiracies Won't Go Away
Source:
Time
URL Source: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,1531304,00.html
Published: Sep 4, 2006
Author: LEV GROSSMAN
Post Date: 2006-09-04 10:12:37 by Zipporah
Ping List: *9-11* Subscribe to *9-11*
Keywords: None
Views: 1087
Comments: 119
Why The 9/11 Conspiracies Won't Go Away Turns out, we need grand theories to make sense of grand events, or the world just seems too random Take a look, if you can stand it, at video footage of the World Trade Center collapsing. Your eye will naturally jump to the top of the screen, where huge fountains of dark debris erupt out of the falling towers. But fight your natural instincts. Look farther down, at the stories that haven't collapsed yet. In almost every clip you'll see little puffs of dust spurting out from the sides of the towers. There are two competing explanations for these puffs of dust: 1) the force of the collapsing upper floors raised the air pressure in the lower ones so dramatically that it actually blew out the windows. And 2) the towers did not collapse from the impact of two Boeing 767s and the ensuing fires. They were destroyed in a planned, controlled demolition. The dust puffs you see on film are the detonations of explosives planted there before the attacks. People who believe the second explanation live in a very different world from those who believe the first. In world No. 2, al-Qaeda is not responsible for the destruction of the World Trade Center. The U.S. government is. The Pentagon was not hit by a commercial jet; it was hit by a cruise missile. United Flight 93 did not crash after its occupants rushed the cockpit; it was deliberately taken down by a U.S. Air Force fighter. The entire catastrophe was planned and executed by federal officials in order to provide the U.S. with a pretext for going to war in the Middle East and, by extension, as a means of consolidating and extending the power of the Bush Administration. The population of world No. 2 is larger than you might think. A Scripps-Howard poll of 1,010 adults last month found that 36% of Americans consider it "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that government officials either allowed the attacks to be carried out or carried out the attacks themselves. Thirty-six percent adds up to a lot of people. This is not a fringe phenomenon. It is a mainstream political reality. Although the 9/11 Truth Movement, as many conspiracy believers refer to their passion, has been largely ignored by the mainstream media, it is flourishing on the Internet. One of the most popular conspiracy videos online is Loose Change, a 90-min. blizzard of statistics, photographs, documents, eyewitness accounts and expert testimony set to a trippy hip-hop backbeat. It's designed to pick apart, point by point, the conventional narrative of what happened on Sept. 11, 2001. For all its amateur production values--it was created by a pair of industrious twentysomethings using a laptop, pizza money and footage scavenged from the Internet--Loose Change is a compelling experience. Take the section about the attack on the Pentagon. As the film points out--and this is a tent-pole issue among 9/11 conspiracists--the crash site doesn't look right. There's not enough damage. The hole smashed in the Pentagon's outer wall was 75 ft. wide, but a Boeing 757 has a 124-ft. wingspan. Why wasn't the hole wider? Why does it look so neat? Experts will tell you that the hole was punched by the plane's fuselage, not its wings, which sheared off on impact. But then what happened to the wings? And the tail and the engines? Images of the crash site show hardly any of the wreckage you would expect from a building that's been rammed by a commercial jet. The lawn, where the plane supposedly dragged a wing on approach, is practically pristine. The plane supposedly clipped five lampposts on its way in, but the lampposts in question show surprisingly little damage. And could Hani Hanjour, the man supposedly at the controls, have executed the maneuvers that the plane performed? He failed a flight test just weeks before the attack. And Pentagon employees reported smelling cordite after the hit, the kind of high explosive a cruise missile carries. There's something empowering about just exploring such questions. Loose Change appeals to the viewer's common sense: it tells you to forget the official explanations and the expert testimony, and trust your eyes and your brain instead. It implies that the world can be grasped by laymen without any help or interference from the talking heads. Watching Loose Change, you feel as if you are participating in the great American tradition of self-reliance and nonconformist, antiauthoritarian dissent. You're fighting the power. You're thinking different. (Conspiracists call people who follow the government line "sheeple.") "The goal of the movie was just really to get out there and show that there are alternate stories to what the mainstream media and the government will tell you," says Korey Rowe, 23, who produced the movie. "That 19 hijackers are going to completely bypass security and crash four commercial airliners in a span of two hours, with no interruption from the military forces, in the most guarded airspace in the United States and the world? That to me is a conspiracy theory." It's also not much of a story line. As a narrative, the official story that the government--echoed by the media--is trying to sell shows an almost embarrassing lack of novelistic flair, whereas the story the conspiracy theorists tell about what happened on Sept. 11 is positively Dan Brownesque in its rich, exciting complexity. Rowe and his collaborator, Dylan Avery, 22, actually started writing Loose Change as a fictional screenplay--"loosely based around us discovering that 9/11 was an inside job," Rowe says--before they became convinced that the evidence of conspiracy was overwhelming. The Administration is certainly playing its part in the drama with admirable zeal. If we went to war to root out fictional weapons of mass destruction, is staging a fictional terrorist attack such a stretch? But there's a big problem with Loose Change and with most other conspiracy theories. The more you think about them, the more you realize how much they depend on circumstantial evidence, facts without analysis or documentation, quotes taken out of context and the scattered testimony of traumatized eyewitnesses. (For what it's worth, the National Institute of Standards and Technology has published a fact sheet responding to some of the conspiracy theorists' ideas on its website, www.nist.gov. The theories prompt small, reasonable questions that demand answers that are just too large and unreasonable to swallow. Granted, the Pentagon crash site looks odd in photographs. But if the Pentagon was hit by a cruise missile, then what happened to American Airlines Flight 77? Where did all the real, documented people on it go? Assassinated? Relocated? What about eyewitnesses who saw a plane, not a missile? And what are the chances that an operation of such size--it would surely have involved hundreds of military and civilian personnel--could be carried out without a single leak? Without leaving behind a single piece of evidence hard enough to stand up to scrutiny in a court? People, the feds just aren't that slick. Nobody is. There are psychological explanations for why conspiracy theories are so seductive. Academics who study them argue that they meet a basic human need: to have the magnitude of any given effect be balanced by the magnitude of the cause behind it. A world in which tiny causes can have huge consequences feels scary and unreliable. Therefore a grand disaster like Sept. 11 needs a grand conspiracy behind it. "We tend to associate major events--a President or princess dying--with major causes," says Patrick Leman, a lecturer in psychology at Royal Holloway University of London, who has conducted studies on conspiracy belief. "If we think big events like a President being assassinated can happen at the hands of a minor individual, that points to the unpredictability and randomness of life and unsettles us." In that sense, the idea that there is a malevolent controlling force orchestrating global events is, in a perverse way, comforting. You would have thought the age of conspiracy theories might have declined with the rise of digital media. The assassination of President John F. Kennedy was a private, intimate affair compared with the attack on the World Trade Center, which was witnessed by millions of bystanders and television viewers and documented by hundreds of Zapruders. You would think there was enough footage and enough forensics to get us past the grassy knoll and the magic bullet, to create a consensus reality, a single version of the truth, a single world we can all live in together. But there is no event so plain and clear that a determined human being can't find ambiguity in it. And as divisive as they are, conspiracy theories are part of the process by which Americans deal with traumatic public events like Sept. 11. Conspiracy theories form around them like scar tissue. In a curious way, they're an American form of national mourning. They'll be with us as long as we fear lone gunmen, and feel the pain of losses like the one we suffered on Sept. 11, and as long as the past, even the immediate past, is ultimately unknowable. That is to say, forever.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-46) not displayed.
.
.
.
#47. To: Cynicom, Jethro Tull (#46)
When little people or commomn people without shared interest are involved, a conspiracy will fall apart. Attempts to include common people into the cabal at the top are disengenuous. As I've said before, speculation about who was involved in a 9-11 conspiracy by individuals other than the bunch of Ay-rabs---'cluding a bunch o' 19 o' them little, common Ay-rabs---that we're supposed to believe really did engage in a completely successful conspiracy to commit "terrorist attacks" on 9-11, is a pointless diversion. The 9/11 Truth Movement at its best focuses like a laser on two outstanding issues: The "official explanation" for the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 does not make sense. Five years after the event, there is still no official explanation how the hell WTC 7 collapsed. Think about that one.
Cyni, I’m a born skeptic, that said the testimony of William Rodriquez might give you pause for thought. Not only did he hear and see explosions in the basement of the WTC *before* the plane(s) hit, he rescued a person who was severely burnt as a result. I’ve met tons of head cases at the scenes of emergencies, but his story rings true to me. That said I’ll leave the finer points of 911 to other people. There are things I simply can’t answer. Unanswered questions, nevertheless, doesn’t negate eyewitness testimony which can be corroborated by witnesses. If you'd like to see the Rodriquiz testimony, give me a hoot. I'll get it to you.
Rodriguez wasn't the only one, check the 2nd link I posted to Yertle. http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=33941&Disp=8#C8
"If there’s another 9/11 or a major war in the Middle-East involving a U.S. attack on Iran, I have no doubt that there will be, the day after or within days an equivalent of a Reichstag fire decree that will involve massive detentions in this country." - Daniel Ellsberg Author, Pentagon Papers I am sure most people have already given it a lot of thought. 9/11 like many other "conspiracies", will live on forever. One side effect is that a few people will make names for themselves and some will gain financially by promoting its life.
Jethro... And from your profession you know they will never be answered. I saw the Rodriguiz video. He is a very convincing young man and I like you came away with more questions than answers. Accepting that he is totally honest, recounting what he believes to be factual, then there are only two possibilities. One...Something DID happen prior to the main event. Two...Or he is mistaken as an "eye witness". Which you know happens.
Saves you the trouble? 9/11 like many other "conspiracies", will live on forever. One side effect is that a few people will make names for themselves and some will gain financially by promoting its life. Oh, really? So the folks in the 9/11 Truth Movement are just engaged in self-promotion? Wow, you can take Cynicom out of "Free Republic," but you can't take "Free Republic" out of Cynicom, now can you? Well, guess what? I couldn't help noticing, having lost a friend in the WTC 1 collapse, that a few people ("big" people---not "little, common" ones that would muck it all up) have used a "conspiracy theory" of 9/11---you've heard it: 19 guys hijacking planes and flying them into WTC with the result that all of WTC collapsed in the course of one day---to gain extra-constitutional power, massive appropriations, expansion of government, "use of force" authorizations---not to mention "making names" for themselves. They've used their "conspiracy theory" to spend hundreds of billions of dollars and sacrifice thousands of lives on war in the Middle East, with no end in sight. And they're sure "promoting its life," too----they're using your tax dollars to do it on sites like this, and they get a lot more coverage and "promotion" than those 9/11 Truth people you gratuitously accuse of self-promotion. Think about that one, too. Oh, off the subject, what was your evidence that Stalin was Jewish again...? I think I missed it the first time......
I agree and that’s why the ancillary testimony available to us is so important. If this were presented to an unbiased grand jury, an indictment would be a slam dunk. Lets leave it at this; such a scheme isn’t outside the realm of some in government and the winner in all this is the group of the usual suspects.
Resorting to personal attacks is meaningless. If you have something of substance, germane to the topic I will be glad to discuss.
That's safe to say. I like how von Bulow put it, he said it's not his duty to explain how it happened, but the official explanation is laughable.
"If there’s another 9/11 or a major war in the Middle-East involving a U.S. attack on Iran, I have no doubt that there will be, the day after or within days an equivalent of a Reichstag fire decree that will involve massive detentions in this country." - Daniel Ellsberg Author, Pentagon Papers All gerbils aside, may I ask you a question? How come you're always the first guy out of the gate on 9/11 threads, carrying water for the government with arguments like "the Bible says conspiracy theories ain't so"? Are you the "Badeye" of 9/11 threads?
You're the one who gratuitously...no, I don't mean to say that...despicably accused people in the 9/11 Truth movement as motivated by desire for self-promotion and financial gain. Do you withdraw that smear? If you have something of substance, germane to the topic I will be glad to discuss. How did WTC 7 collapse? Just answer that question. Substantive enough for you?
There is the government explanation for everything concerned with 9/11. Whether one accepts it or rejects it is for them to decide. For those that reject the official "version", they are free to disprove it.
YT always pulls this stunt. Makes 1 post and never follows up. Don't you know that those evil muslims, whose names don't even appear on the 4 flight manifests or their dna samples anywhere, flew those airliners all over the east coast for almost two hours unimpeded. Mark
If America is destroyed, it may be by Americans who salute the flag, sing the national anthem, march in patriotic parades, cheer Fourth of July speakers - normally good Americans who fail to comprehend what is required to keep our country strong and free - Americans who have been lulled into a false security (April 1968).---Ezra Taft Benson, US Secretary of Agriculture 1953-1961 under Eisenhower
There is the government explanation for everything concerned with 9/11. Whether one accepts it or rejects it is for them to decide. Oh? That's funny---I thought I had already quoted verbatim here this statement from a government site: "The NIST investigation of the WTC 7 building collapse is not yet complete. The report on the WTC 7 collapse investigation will be released in draft form for public comment and posted on this web site as soon as it is available." That still mean to you that there is a "government explanation" somewhere for how WTC 7 collapsed? Point me to it, champ. For those that reject the official "version", they are free to disprove it. And you're free to ignore discussions of both the "proof" of the "government version" and the rebuttals thereof, right? You ignored my question, aren't prepared to engage the subject substantively, and have limited yourself to dismissive comments and scurrilous smears about the 9/11 Truth movement on this thread. You're no more serious a debater on this issue than you are on your preposterous claim that Stalin was "Jewish." Buh-bye.
Would you support a real independent citizens grand jury/commission on 911? Or are you satisfied with the governments version? Mark
If America is destroyed, it may be by Americans who salute the flag, sing the national anthem, march in patriotic parades, cheer Fourth of July speakers - normally good Americans who fail to comprehend what is required to keep our country strong and free - Americans who have been lulled into a false security (April 1968).---Ezra Taft Benson, US Secretary of Agriculture 1953-1961 under Eisenhower
"Drive by" posters, they used to call 'em... :P "Kickin' an anthill"... ;)
Mark... Firstly, as my nic implies I am a cynical old man. (politics/government) Support an investigation??? You better believe I do and would. The problem would be keeping the "government" out of the investigation. In other words, let the chickens out and lock the Fox in the henhouse. I spent my professional career in government service as a Federal drone so have at least a smattering of knowledge of how it does not work. Satisfied??? Certainly not.
The governemnts explanations through the NIST, FEMA/ASCE, SILVERSTEIN, 911 COMMISSION reports are filled and riddled with lies, falsehoods, halftruths and almost zero science. What real research was done, actually DISPROVE the governments position. I've read whole sections of each, and summeries from others. The only way NIST got the both towers to collapse together, in the same exact manner, was to use computer modeling/simulations, and then after tweeking all loads/perimeters they got the desired result, and this still was only in 1 of 9 trys. The government handed a conclusion to these paid agencies, and told them fit a report to it. It maybe the greatest hoax in modern history. Mark
If America is destroyed, it may be by Americans who salute the flag, sing the national anthem, march in patriotic parades, cheer Fourth of July speakers - normally good Americans who fail to comprehend what is required to keep our country strong and free - Americans who have been lulled into a false security (April 1968).---Ezra Taft Benson, US Secretary of Agriculture 1953-1961 under Eisenhower
Fair enough. Mark
If America is destroyed, it may be by Americans who salute the flag, sing the national anthem, march in patriotic parades, cheer Fourth of July speakers - normally good Americans who fail to comprehend what is required to keep our country strong and free - Americans who have been lulled into a false security (April 1968).---Ezra Taft Benson, US Secretary of Agriculture 1953-1961 under Eisenhower
The Bible also clearly shows us that Satan is capable of reciting scriptures out of context when it serves His purposes. Your quote has no bearing whatsoever on the 9/11 tragedy. But since you brought the Bible into this discussion, let’s not forget that (in the Christian Scriptures) it reminds us that the WHOLE WORLD lies in the power of the wicked one. And let’s also remember that again in the Christian Scriptures (the Gospels, to be specific) we were given four separate accounts of how humans conspired to murder God’s Son. Knocking down a couple of buildings ain't sh*t compared to that ! And knocking down a couple of buildings in order to manipulate Americans into accepting a(nother) contrived war & a budding police state, is a scheme Machiavelli's Prince would be sure to emulate were he alive today.
very good points.
Bush saw first plane hit the WTC on 9/11 The mind once expanded by a new idea never returns to its' original size
Mark... Fair enough what??? I have made it plain here that I have never bought the governments version of any segment of 9/11. Conversely I do not buy into the off the wall conspricy ides that float around. It is up to the individual to use rational thinking on their own as to what is possible and what is impossible.
So we're supposed to infer that you don't believe the "government explanations" of 9-11? You don't seem satisfied with the people currently questioning the "government versions" whom you accuse of self-promotion and greed. So who should do an honest investigation of the events of 9/11? Just answer that question. BTW, I'll match your alleged cynicism in every aspect---easily. Cynicism I don't mind---dishonesty I can't tolerate.
Bush made this remark a couple times. This would mean he knew and saw it happen while in the limo on the way to the school. This is impossible since the only KNOWN video of the first impact is by the Naudet bros. Mark
If America is destroyed, it may be by Americans who salute the flag, sing the national anthem, march in patriotic parades, cheer Fourth of July speakers - normally good Americans who fail to comprehend what is required to keep our country strong and free - Americans who have been lulled into a false security (April 1968).---Ezra Taft Benson, US Secretary of Agriculture 1953-1961 under Eisenhower
What are YOUR "rational thoughts" on the subject? Are you at all interested in what really happened on 9-11? If not, why are you here harassing people with inane put-downs and shadow-boxing "arguments"? You can't have it both ways: you can't come here and denounce people who see all kinds of holes in the "official version" of 9/11 as crackpots and loonies, and then disavow belief in the "official version" yourself.
Your right Mark.
The mind once expanded by a new idea never returns to its' original size
Define, off the wall. Mark
If America is destroyed, it may be by Americans who salute the flag, sing the national anthem, march in patriotic parades, cheer Fourth of July speakers - normally good Americans who fail to comprehend what is required to keep our country strong and free - Americans who have been lulled into a false security (April 1968).---Ezra Taft Benson, US Secretary of Agriculture 1953-1961 under Eisenhower
You see Sam Danner posting here this past week? I think that was his nic.
A video made because the fire crew they were with just "happened" to have been called out that morning to a bogus report of a "gas leak" at a location that gave them a superb view of the initial impact on WTC 1. I never thought anything of that marvelous coincidence, until I began reading "off the wall" stories on this "off the wall" forum about other later reports of "gas leaks" in the area that also turned out to be bogus---apparently to facilitate evacuation of the area. Who was calling in all those "gas leak" reports, I wonder?
This would mean he knew and saw it happen while in the limo on the way to the school. This is impossible since the only KNOWN video of the first impact is by the Naudet bros. In the excitement of the morning he must have left without being properly wired. "If there’s another 9/11 or a major war in the Middle-East involving a U.S. attack on Iran, I have no doubt that there will be, the day after or within days an equivalent of a Reichstag fire decree that will involve massive detentions in this country." - Daniel Ellsberg Author, Pentagon Papers He's "wired" most of the time, booze, drugs, delusions of grandure.
The mind once expanded by a new idea never returns to its' original size
Yeah I agree there. As soon as I saw SD, I provided a couple links to show that his whole story was nonsense. As are other theories. I've been questioned on forums because I will not support certain theories. I've also walked out on a couple lectures that I thought were bullshit. On that topic, thats why I really don't discuss the Pentagon and Shanksville. Its a trap for all the "NO PLANERS". In every hit piece, the no plane theory is brought up. Once in awhile I'll post something on the Pentagon/Shanksville. I read and keep abreast on credible sites and people that look into these two events. Thats why you'll see me post alot of articles with timelines and such. Real credible proof that isn't debatable. Mark
If America is destroyed, it may be by Americans who salute the flag, sing the national anthem, march in patriotic parades, cheer Fourth of July speakers - normally good Americans who fail to comprehend what is required to keep our country strong and free - Americans who have been lulled into a false security (April 1968).---Ezra Taft Benson, US Secretary of Agriculture 1953-1961 under Eisenhower
The dog that didn't bark at the Pentagon is, where is the state-of-the-art video? They can't claim that all the cameras were malfunctioning like they got away with on the morning of the London tube bombings. That would be the morning that Bibi was told to stay in his hotel room in London. The morning of the coincidental ongoing terrorist 'games'. Nope, this is the Pentagon. Where's the 30 fps high definition video of what really happened that morning?
"If there’s another 9/11 or a major war in the Middle-East involving a U.S. attack on Iran, I have no doubt that there will be, the day after or within days an equivalent of a Reichstag fire decree that will involve massive detentions in this country." - Daniel Ellsberg Author, Pentagon Papers Here is another. Who at OEM/FEMA called the Mayor and the Fire Chief and told them the towers were going to collapse? Then BEFORE noon, the WTC7 was completely evacuated because it was in danger of collapsing? Mark
If America is destroyed, it may be by Americans who salute the flag, sing the national anthem, march in patriotic parades, cheer Fourth of July speakers - normally good Americans who fail to comprehend what is required to keep our country strong and free - Americans who have been lulled into a false security (April 1968).---Ezra Taft Benson, US Secretary of Agriculture 1953-1961 under Eisenhower
This pics are amazing, robin. Is our leader wired even for everyday living? Something very odd here.
I know alot won't like this statement, but from everything I've read and seen, I'm leaning toward an airliner/aircraft at both sites. The Pentagon airliner was remote controlled and PA was shot down by the large debris field seen. Now I know alot of the evidence doesn't make sense, but there are too many eyewittness reports. Mark
If America is destroyed, it may be by Americans who salute the flag, sing the national anthem, march in patriotic parades, cheer Fourth of July speakers - normally good Americans who fail to comprehend what is required to keep our country strong and free - Americans who have been lulled into a false security (April 1968).---Ezra Taft Benson, US Secretary of Agriculture 1953-1961 under Eisenhower
Mark.. My indoctrination to "eye witness accounts" goes way back many years ago. College professor is standing in front of his class giving a lecture. The door pops open, a person runs in and shoots the professor twice. The perp then leaves, The classroom is in chaos. The professor stands up dusts himself off and tells the class what they just saw was a test. He then has them take paper and pencil, write exactly what they saw and heard, with no talk among students. Of the numerous students no TWO students saw the same thing, no ONE student described the event without error.
Who at OEM/FEMA called the Mayor and the Fire Chief and told them the towers were going to collapse? Then BEFORE noon, the WTC7 was completely evacuated because it was in danger of collapsing? Mark As always, good calls, Mark. I specifically remember a brief segment on the "Loose Change" video where a reporter records a black policewoman calling out, "Get out of the area! The second tower is coming down!" This is obviously before the start of the collapse, because the reporter repeats incredulously, "The second tower is coming down?" and the policewoman nods and confirms, "It's coming down." Inside info? What else could it be?
Cyni, the eyewitness (Rodriquez) has a survivor (someone help me with his name) from the blast willing to tell the world what really happened.
College professor is standing in front of his class giving a lecture. The door pops open, a person runs in and shoots the professor twice. The perp then leaves, The classroom is in chaos. The professor stands up dusts himself off and tells the class what they just saw was a test. He then has them take paper and pencil, write exactly what they saw and heard, with no talk among students. Of the numerous students no TWO students saw the same thing, no ONE student described the event without error. What does your silly little example prove? That eyewitness testimony can be impeached? Any trial lawyer knows that. Go ahead and impeach the testimony of the 9/11 eyewitnesses, if you can. The inference you want your readers to draw---cynically, yes, and dishonestly---is that the testimony of 9/11 witnesses is wholly discreditable. Go ahead. Impeach substantively any of the testimony of the 9-11 eyewitnesses that, for example, they heard explosions in the buildings after the impacts but before the onset of collapse. Just for once, discuss the issues of this thread substantively.
Comments (88 - 119) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestConspiracy at the top by plotters with shared self interest is one thing.
#48. To: Cynicom (#46)
#49. To: Jethro Tull (#48)
#50. To: Peetie Wheatstraw (#47)
Think about that one.
#51. To: Jethro Tull (#48)
There are things I simply can’t answer.
#52. To: Cynicom (#50)
I am sure most people have already given it a lot of thought.
#53. To: Cynicom, robin (#51)
#54. To: Peetie Wheatstraw (#52)
Oh, really? So the folks in the 9/11 Truth Movement are just engaged in self-promotion? Wow, you can take Cynicom out of "Free Republic," but you can't take "Free Republic" out of Cynicom, now can you?
#55. To: Jethro Tull (#53)
such a scheme isn’t outside the realm of some in government and the winner in all this is the group of the usual suspects.
#56. To: YertleTurtle (#1)
#57. To: Cynicom (#54)
Resorting to personal attacks is meaningless.
#58. To: Peetie Wheatstraw (#57)
How did WTC 7 collapse? Just answer that question. Substantive enough for you?
#59. To: Peetie Wheatstraw (#56)
#60. To: Cynicom (#58)
How did WTC 7 collapse? Just answer that question. Substantive enough for you?
#61. To: Cynicom (#58)
#62. To: Kamala (#59)
YT always pulls this stunt. Makes 1 post and never follows up.
#63. To: Kamala (#61)
Would you support a real independent citizens grand jury/commission on 911?
#64. To: Peetie Wheatstraw (#60)
#65. To: Cynicom (#63)
#66. To: YertleTurtle (#1)
The Bible quite correctly forbids the belief in conspiracies, since believers ascribe to "perpertrators" qualities only allowed to God -- omnipotence and omniscience.
#67. To: Buzzard (#66)
#68. To: Zipporah (#0)
#69. To: Kamala (#65)
Fair enough.
#70. To: Cynicom (#63)
The problem would be keeping the "government" out of the investigation. In other words, let the chickens out and lock the Fox in the henhouse.
#71. To: Itisa1mosttoolate (#68)
#72. To: Cynicom (#69)
It is up to the individual to use rational thinking on their own as to what is possible and what is impossible.
#73. To: Kamala (#71)
#74. To: Cynicom (#69)
#75. To: Kamala (#74)
Define, off the wall.
#76. To: Kamala (#71)
This is impossible since the only KNOWN video of the first impact is by the Naudet bros.
#77. To: Kamala, Itisa1mosttoolate (#71)
Bush made this remark a couple times.
#78. To: robin (#77)
#79. To: Cynicom (#75)
#80. To: Kamala (#79)
#81. To: Peetie Wheatstraw (#76)
#82. To: robin (#77)
#83. To: robin (#80)
#84. To: Kamala (#83)
but there are too many eyewittness reports.
#85. To: Kamala (#81)
Here is another.
#86. To: Cynicom (#84)
#87. To: Cynicom (#84)
My indoctrination to "eye witness accounts" goes way back many years ago.
.
.
.