TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11?
Pages (162): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 [143] 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 »
| quote: |
| Originally posted by culorut Apparently we have a new non-reader who has just joined the forum. Welcome and if you can read (properly) it only takes a few minutes of your time. If you choose not to then don't complain about it. |
Ok, we read, you read. Here you go.
The 9/11 Truth Movement's Dangers
(The Nation) This column was written by Christopher Hayes
According to a July poll conducted by Scripps News Service, one-third of Americans think the government either carried out the 9/11 attacks or intentionally allowed them to happen in order to provide a pretext for war in the Middle East. This is at once alarming and unsurprising. Alarming, because if tens of millions of Americans really believe their government was complicit in the murder of 3,000 of their fellow citizens, they seem remarkably sanguine about this fact. By and large, life continues as before, even though tens of millions of people apparently believe they are being governed by mass murderers. Unsurprising, because the government these Americans suspect of complicity in 9/11 has acquired a justified reputation for deception: weapons of mass destruction, secret prisons, illegal wiretapping. What else are they hiding?
This pattern of deception has not only fed diffuse public cynicism but has provided an opening for alternate theories of 9/11 to flourish. As these theories � propounded by the so-called 9/11 Truth Movement � seep toward the edges of the mainstream, they have raised the specter of the return (if it ever left) of what Richard Hofstadter famously described as "the paranoid style in American politics." But the real danger posed by the Truth Movement isn't paranoia. Rather, the danger is that it will discredit and deform the salutary skepticism Americans increasingly show toward their leaders.
The Truth Movement's recent growth can be largely attributed to the Internet-distributed documentary "Loose Change." A low-budget film produced by two 20-somethings that purports to debunk the official story of 9/11, it's been viewed over the Internet millions of times. Complementing "Loose Change" are the more highbrow offerings of a handful of writers and scholars, many of whom are associated with Scholars for 9/11 Truth. Two of these academics, retired theologian David Ray Griffin and retired Brigham Young University physics professor Steven Jones, have written books and articles that serve as the movement's canon. Videos of their lectures circulate among the burgeoning portions of the Internet devoted to the cause of the "truthers." A variety of groups have chapters across the country and organize conferences that draw hundreds. In the last election cycle, the website www.911truth.org even produced a questionnaire with pointed inquiries for candidates, just like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce or the Sierra Club. The Truth Movement's relationship to the truth may be tenuous, but that it is a movement is no longer in doubt.
Truth activists often maintain they are simply "raising questions," and as such tend to focus with dogged persistence on physical minutiae: the lampposts near the Pentagon that should have been knocked down by Flight 77, the altitude in Pennsylvania at which cellphones on Flight 93 should have stopped working, the temperature at which jet fuel burns and at which steel melts. They then use these perceived inconsistencies to argue that the central events of 9/11 � the plane hitting the Pentagon, the towers collapsing � were not what they appeared to be. So: The eyewitness accounts of those who heard explosions in the World Trade Center, combined with the facts that jet fuel burns at 1,500 degrees Fahrenheit and steel melts at 2,500, shows that the towers were brought down by controlled explosions from inside the buildings, not by the planes crashing into them.
If the official story is wrong, then what did happen? As you might expect, there's quite a bit of dissension on this point. Like any movement, the Truth Movement is beset by internecine fights between different factions: those who subscribe to what are termed LIHOP theories (that the government "let it happen on purpose") and the more radical MIHOP ("made it happen on purpose") contingent. Even within these groups, there are divisions: Some believe the WTC was detonated with explosives after the planes hit and some don't even think there were any planes.
To the extent that there is a unified theory of the nature of the conspiracy, it is based, in part, on the precedent of the Reichstag fire in Germany in the 1930s. The idea is that just as the Nazis staged a fire in the Reichstag in order to frighten the populace and consolidate power, the Bush Administration, military contractors, oil barons and the CIA staged 9/11 so as to provide cause and latitude to pursue its imperial ambitions unfettered by dissent and criticism. But the example of the Reichstag fire itself is instructive. While during and after the war many observers, including officials of the U.S. government, suspected the fire was a Nazi plot, the consensus among historians is that it was, in fact, the product of a lone zealous anarchist. That fact changes little about the Nazi regime, or its use of the fire for its own ends. It's true the Nazis were the chief beneficiaries of the fire, but that doesn't mean they started it, and the same goes for the Bush Administration and 9/11.
The Reichstag example also holds a lesson for those who would dismiss the very notion of a conspiracy as necessarily absurd. It was perfectly reasonable to suspect the Nazis of setting the fire, so long as the evidence suggested that might have been the case. The problem isn't with conspiracy theories as such; the problem is continuing to assert the existence of a conspiracy even after the evidence shows it to be virtually impossible.
In March 2005 Popular Mechanics assembled a team of engineers, physicists, flight experts and the like to critically examine some of the Truth Movement's most common claims. They found them almost entirely without merit. To pick just one example, steel might not melt at 1,500 degrees, the temperature at which jet fuel burns, but it does begin to lose a lot of its strength, enough to cause the support beams to fail.
And yet no amount of debunking seems to work. The Internet empowers people with esoteric interests to spend all kinds of time pursuing their hobbies, and if the Truth Movement was the political equivalent of Lord of the Rings fan fiction or furries, there wouldn't be much reason to pay attention. But the public opinion trend lines are moving in the truthers' direction, even after the official 9/11 Commission report was supposed to settle the matter once and for all.
Of course, the ommission report was something of a whitewash � Bush would only be interviewed in the presence of Dick Cheney, the commission was denied access to other key witnesses, and just this year we learned of a meeting convened by George Tenet the summer before the attacks to warn Condoleezza Rice about al Qaeda's plotting, a meeting that was nowhere mentioned in the report.
So it's hard to blame people for thinking we're not getting the whole story. For six years, the government has prevaricated and the press has largely failed to point out this simple truth. Critics like The New Yorker's Nicholas Lemann might lament the resurgence of the "paranoid style," but the seeds of paranoia have taken root partly because of the complete lack of appropriate skepticism by the establishment press, a complementary impulse to the paranoid style that might be called the "credulous style."
In the credulous style all political actors are acting with good intentions and in good faith. Mistakes are made, but never because of ulterior motives or undue influence from the various locii of corporate power. When people in power advocate strenuously for a position it is because they believe in it. When their advocacy leads to policies that create misery, it is due not to any evil intentions or greed or corruption, but rather simple human error. Ahmad Chalabi summed up this worldview perfectly. Faced with the utter absence of the WMD he and his cohorts had long touted in Iraq, he replied, "We are heroes in error."
For a long time the credulous style has dominated the establishment, but its hold intensified after 9/11. When the government speaks, particularly about the Enemy, it must be presumed to be telling the truth. From the reporting about Iraq's alleged WMD to the current spate of stories about how "dangerous" Iran is, time and again the press has reacted to official pronouncements about threats with a near total absence of skepticism. Each time the government announces the indictment of domestic terrorists allegedly plotting our demise, the press devotes itself to the story with obsessive relish, only to later note, on page A22 or in a casual aside, that the whole thing was bunk.
In August 2003, to cite just one example, the New York dailies breathlessly reported what one U.S. official called an "incredible triumph in the war against terrorism," the arrest of Hemant Lakhani, a supposed terrorist mastermind caught red-handed attempting to acquire a surface-to-air missile. Only later did the government admit that the "plot" consisted of an FBI informant begging Lakhani to find him a missile, while a Russian intelligence officer called up Lakhani and offered to sell him one.
Yet after nearly a dozen such instances, the establishment media continue to earnestly report each new alleged threat or indictment, secure in the belief that their proximity to policy-makers gets it closer to the truth. But proximity can obscure more than clarify. It's hard to imagine that the guy sitting next to you at the White House correspondents' dinner is plotting to, say, send the country into a disastrous and illegal war, or is spying on Americans in blatant defiance of federal statutes. Bob Woodward, the journalist with the most access to the Bush Administration, was just about the last one to realize that the White House is disingenuous and cynical, that it has manipulated the machinery of state for its narrow political ends.
Meanwhile, those who realized this was the White House's MO from the beginning have been labeled conspiracy theorists. During the 2004 campaign Howard Dean made the charge that the White House was manipulating the terror threat level and recycling old intelligence. The Bush campaign responded by dismissing Dean as a "bizarre conspiracy theorist." A year later, after Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge retired, he admitted that Dean's charge was, indeed, the truth. The same accusation of conspiracy-mongering was routinely leveled at anyone who suggested that the war in Iraq was and is motivated by a desire for the United States to control the world's second-largest oil reserves.
For the Administration, "conspiracy" is a tremendously useful term, and can be applied even in the most seemingly bizarre conditions to declare an inquiry or criticism out of bounds. Responding to a question from NBC's Brian Williams as to whether he ever discusses official business with his father, Bush said such a suggestion was a "kind of conspiracy theory at its most rampant." The credulous style can brook no acknowledgment of unarticulated motives to our political actors, or consultations to which the public is not privy.
The public has been presented with two worldviews, one credulous, one paranoid, and both unsatisfactory. The more the former breaks apart, the greater the appeal of the latter. Conspiracy theories that claim to explain 9/11 are wrongheaded and a terrible waste of time, but the skeptical instinct is, on balance, salutary. It is right to suspect that the operations of government, the power elite and the military-industrial complex are often not what they seem; and proper to raise questions when the answers provided have been unconvincing. Given the untruths to which American citizens have been subjected these past six years, is it any surprise that a majority of them think the government's lying about what happened before and on 9/11?
Still, the persistent appeal of paranoid theories reflects a cynicism that the credulous media have failed to address, because they posit a world of good intentions and face-value pronouncements, one in which the suggestion that a government would mislead or abuse its citizens for its own gains or the gains of its benefactors is on its face absurd. The danger is that the more this government's cynicism and deception are laid bare, the more people � on the left in particular and among the public in general � will be drawn down the rabbit hole of delusion of the 9/11 Truth Movement.
To avoid such a fate, the public must come to trust that the gatekeepers of public discourse share their skepticism about the agenda its government is pursuing. The antidote, ultimately, to the Truth Movement is a press that refuses to allow the government to continue to lie.
^^
Big hit piece if you ask me but at least he admits the 9/11 commission was a white wash. More recycling of the same bullshit you use to move goal posts around the real facts of what happened on 9/11. Thanks for the poor read.
http://books.google.com/books?id=8t...snum=12#PPP1,M1
Great a book about why people are paranoid, must be all the coke and heroin the CIA have imported into the USA.
http://books.google.com/books?id=3C...snum=11#PPP3,M1
I wonder why this professional debunking gets such awesome reviews? LOL, FAIL
You should try reading this one,
Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory
http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-...40267382&sr=8-3
ok colorut, assuming you are 'right' about the 9/11 conspiracy- i just want to know what does it prove to you?
that the gov used that to get into the middle east?
i mean this whole conspiracy theory sounds the same as Kennedy being alive in Nova Scotia 
even still.. who is 'they'? who plotted this so called conspiracy? Bush's administration? NeoNazis? Barney?
| quote: |
| Originally posted by culorut ^^ Big hit piece if you ask me but at least he admits the 9/11 commission was a white wash. More recycling of the same bullshit you use to move goal posts around the real facts of what happened on 9/11. Thanks for the poor read. http://books.google.com/books?id=8t...snum=12#PPP1,M1 Great a book about why people are paranoid, must be all the coke and heroin the CIA have imported into the USA. http://books.google.com/books?id=3C...snum=11#PPP3,M1 I wonder why this professional debunking gets such awesome reviews? LOL, FAIL You should try reading this one, Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-...40267382&sr=8-3 |
It proves the official story is a flat out lie and is the real conspiracy theory to me personally. If you decide to learn for yourself you will soon tell people how you feel, it's hard to hold the truth in once you know especially when over 3000 people died because of lies and deception.
The rest of the questions are up to you to answer, we never had a proper investigation. It is and was all a farce. No one will deny this accept for the die hards who still believe there were WMD's in Iraq.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Krypton A peer-reviewed paper which puts your demolition "theory" to shame... A Critical Analysis of the Collapse of WTC Towers 1,2&7 From a Conventional Explosives and Demolitions Industry Viewpoint |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by culorut Well explosives traces are found in the dust. |
Well *I* believe you, culorut.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by culorut It proves the official story is a flat out lie and is the real conspiracy theory to me personally. If you decide to learn for yourself you will soon tell people how you feel, it's hard to hold the truth in once you know especially when over 3000 people died because of lies and deception. The rest of the questions are up to you to answer, we never had a proper investigation. It is and was all a farce. No one will deny this accept for the die hards who still believe there were WMD's in Iraq. |
Non-profits formed by journalists that promote increased American engagement in World issues constitute evidence of a New World Order?
You may as well have cited Freedom's Watch, since that was the non-profit formed by those same neoconservatives in between PNAC and this one. Guess what? They went bankrupt. Just like their ideological base.
You still haven't shown any evidence of a nefarious New World Order orchestrated behind the scenes by Rockefeller/Bilderberger/CFR/Trilaterals.
Nothing to see here, please move on.
Numerous warnings before 9/11 that might of prevented it, unless of course they wanted it to happen or made it happen.
Report Says FAA Got 52 Warnings Before 9/11
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...-2005Feb10.html
1998: Indonesia Gives US Warning of 9/11 Attack?
1999: British Intelligence Warns Al-Qaeda Plans to Use Aircraft, Possibly as Flying Bombs
March 1999: Germany Provides CIA Hijacker�s Name and Telephone Number
August 12, 2000: Italian Intelligence Wiretap of Al-Qaeda Cell Reveals Plan for Massive Aircraft-based Strike
January 24, 2001: Italians Hear of Brothers Going to US for �Very, Very Secret� Plan, Other Clues
March 2001: Italians Advise US about Al-Qaeda Wiretaps
Summer 2001: Bin Laden Speech Mentions 20 Martyrs in Upcoming Attack; Other Hints of Attack Spread Widely
June 2001: Germans Warn of Plan to Use Aircraft as Missiles on US and Israeli Symbols
June 4, 2001: Illegal Afghans Overheard Discussing New York City Hijacking Attack
June 13, 2001: Egypt Warns that Bin Laden Wants to Assassinate President Bush with an Explosives-Filled Airplane
July 2001: India Warns US of Possible Terror Attacks
July 16, 2001: British Spy Agencies Warn Al-Qaeda Is in The Final Stages of Attack in the West
Late July 2001: Taliban Foreign Minister Tries to Warn US and UN of Huge Attack Inside the US
Late July 2001: Egypt Warns CIA of 20 Al-Qaeda Operatives in US; Four Training to Fly; CIA Is Not Interested
Late July 2001: Argentina Relays Warning to the US
Late Summer 2001: Jordan Warns US that Aircraft Will Be Used in Major Attack Inside the US
August 2001: Moroccan Informant Warns US of Large Scale, Imminent Attack in New York
August 2001: Russia Warns US of Suicide Pilots
August 2001: Persian Gulf Informant Gives Ex-CIA Agent Information About �Spectacular Terrorist Operation�
Early August 2001: Britain Warns US Again; Specifies Multiple Airplane Hijackings
August 8-15, 2001: Israel Reportedly Warns of Major Assault on the US
August 23, 2001: Mossad Reportedly Gives CIA List of Terrorists Living in US; at Least Four 9/11 Hijackers Named
August 29, 2001: Cayman Islands Letter Warns of �Major Terrorist Act Against US via an Airline or Airlines�
August 30, 2001-September 4, 2001: Egypt Warns Al-Qaeda Is in Advanced Stages of Planning Significant Attack on US
Late August 2001: French Warning to US Echoes Earlier Israeli Warning
September 4, 2001: Mossad Gives Another Warning of Major, Imminent Attack
September 7, 2001: French Give �Very Specific Information� about Possible Attack on US Soil
September 7, 2001: Priest Is Told of Plot to Attack US and Britain Using Hijacked Airplanes
Before September 11, 2001: Three Countries Hear Bin Laden Tell Wife to Return to Afghanistan; This Warning Sets Off �Scramble� in US and Elsewhere
I love it. There were intelligence warnings that an AQ attack would occur, which is evidence that a terrorist attack didn't really occur, because it was an inside job!
The logic is astounding! 
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN I love it. There were intelligence warnings that an AQ attack would occur, which is evidence that a terrorist attack didn't really occur, because it was an inside job! The logic is astounding! |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov So culorut has found evidence of thermite that proves planes did not hit the Twin Towers... but he also has evidence that proves planes did hit the Twin Towers... and he wonders why people have a hard time believing anything he says. |
| quote: |
| I love it. There were intelligence warnings that an AQ attack would occur, which is evidence that a terrorist attack didn't really occur, because it was an inside job! |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by culorut Alqaeda and the CIA are essentially one, |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov So culorut has found evidence of thermite that proves planes did not hit the Twin Towers... but he also has evidence that proves planes did hit the Twin Towers... and he wonders why people have a hard time believing anything he says. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN Cretinrot wouldn't be able to find his own asshole if his life depended on it. He's just a conspiracy sheep posting long-winded garbage he doesn't come close to understanding. The fact he's still banging on about thermite is but one tiny fraction of his dishonesty. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN completely wrong. |
A little more,
When Osama Bin Laden Was Tim Osman
The two men headed to the Hilton Hotel in Sherman Oaks, California in the late Spring of 1986
were on their way to meet representatives of the mujahadeen, the Afghan fighters resisting the
Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
One of the two, Ted Gunderson, had had a distinguished career in the FBI, serving as some sort
of supervisor over Special Agents in the early 60s, as head of the Dallas field office from 1973-75,
and as head of the Los Angeles field office from 1977-1979. He retired to become an investigator
for, among others, well-known attorney F. Lee Bailey. And all along the way, Gunderson, whether
or not actually a CIA contract agent, had been around to provide services to various CIA and
National Security Council operations, as he was doing now.
In more recent years Gunderson was to become controversial for his investigations into child
prostitution rings, after he became convinced of the innocence of an Army medical doctor named
Jeffrey McDonald, who had been convicted of the murder of his wife and three young children in
the 1970s. This has led to various attempts by the patrons and operators of the child prostitution
industry to smear Gunderson's reputation.
Michael Riconosciuto was there to discuss assisting the mujahadeen with MANPADs�Man
Portable Air Defense Systems. Stinger missiles were one possibility. If the U.S. would permit their
export, Riconosciuto could modify the Stinger's electronics, so the guided missile would still be
effective against Soviet aircraft, but would not be a threat to U.S. or NATO forces.
But Riconosciuto had another idea. Through his connections with the Chinese industrial and
military group Norinco, he could obtain the basic components for the unassembled Chinese 107 MM rocket system. These could be
reconfigured into a man-portable, shoulder-fired, anti-aircraft guided missile sytem, and
produced in Pakistan at a facility called the Pakistan Ordinance Works. The mujahadeen would
then have a lethal weapon against Soviet helicopter, observation, and transport aircraft.
Riconosciuto was more than just an expert on missile electronics; he was also an expert on
electronic computers and associated subjects such as cryptology (see my
"Michael Riconosciuto on Encryption").
Riconosciuto was a prodigy who had grown up in the spook community. The Riconosciuto family
had once run Hercules, California, as a company town. In the early days (1861) a company called
California Powder Works had been established in Santa Cruz, CA. It later purchased land on
San Pablo Bay, and in 1881 started producing dynamite, locating buildings in gullies and ravines for
safety purposes. A particularly potent type of black powder was named "Hercules Powder", which
gave the name to the town of Hercules, formally incorporated in 1900. In World War I, Hercules
became the largest producer of TNT in the U.S. Hercules, however, had gotten out of the explosives
business by 1940 when an anhydrous ammonia plant was constructed. In 1959 Hercules began
a new manufacturing facility to produce methanol, formaldehyde, and urea formaldehyde. In 1966
the plant was sold to Valley Nitrogen Producers. Labor problems led to a plant closure in 1977.
In 1979 the plant and site was purchased by a group of investors calling themselves Hercules
Properties, Ltd.
However, Michael and his father Marshall Riconosciuto, a friend of Richard Nixon, continued to
run the Hercules Research Corporation. In the early 1980s Michael also served as the Director of
Research for a joint venture between the Wackenhut Corporation of Coral Gables, Florida, and the
Cabazon Band of Indians in Indio, California.
Riconosciuto's talents were much in demand. He had created the a-neutronic bomb (or
"Electro-Hydrodynamic Gaseous Fuel Device"), which sank the ground level of the Nevada test
site by 30 feet when a prototype was tested. Samuel Cohen, the inventor of the neutron bomb,
said of Riconosciuto: "I've spoken to Michael Riconosciuto (the inventor of the a-neutronic bomb)
and he's an extraordinarily bright guy. I also have a hunch, which I can't prove, that they both
(Riconosciuto and Lavos, his partner) indirectly work for the CIA."
http://www.orlingrabbe.com/binladin_timosman.htm
| quote: |
| Originally posted by culorut Not really. What the 9/11 commission report ignores: the CIA-Al Qaeda connection The report of the national commission investigating the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, released July 22, is a lengthy document that deserves careful study. It will be the subject of extended analysis on the World Socialist Web Site. But it is already possible, on the basis of the commission�s composition, the scope of the investigation, and the media coverage surrounding the release of the report, to draw certain definite conclusions. On the most basic level, the 9/11 report is a whitewash. The 567-page document is filled with criticisms of the Bush and Clinton administrations and the performance of the government agencies responsible for intelligence, national security and emergency response. But the commission attributes all of these failures to incompetence, mismanagement, or �failure of imagination.� The fundamental premise of its investigation is that the CIA, the FBI, the US military and the Bush White House all acted in good faith. The 9/11 report thus excludes, a priori, the most important question raised by the events of September 11, 2001: did US government agencies deliberately permit�or actively assist�the carrying out of this terrorist atrocity, in order to provide the Bush administration with the necessary pretext to carry out its program of war in Central Asia and the Middle East and a huge buildup of the forces of state repression at home. The commission concedes, as is well documented, that the Bush administration came into office focused on overthrowing Saddam Hussein, and that operational planning for a war with Iraq began within days of September 11, despite the absence of any connection between the Baghdad regime and the terrorist attacks, and the longstanding enmity between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. The commission heard testimony, from former Clinton and Bush counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke, that the Bush administration stalled on taking action against Al Qaeda during its first eight months in office, despite increasingly strident warnings from Clarke, CIA Director George Tenet, and other intelligence officials that a major Al Qaeda strike against the United States was in the offing. Bush himself received the now-notorious August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Brief from the CIA, which was entitled, �Bin Laden Determined to Strike Within the United States.� But the president told the commission he could not recall taking any action as a result. (He continued his vacation at his Texas ranch for another four weeks). The 9/11 report lists 10 separate occasions where US government agencies let slip what it called �operational opportunities� to detect and potentially disrupt the September 11 plot. These involved far more than a failure to �connect the dots.� Intelligence officials took actions that served to facilitate the 9/11 plot�in effect, running interference for Al Qaeda. The rest, http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/j.../comm-j24.shtml |
| quote: |
| There's nothing in that post that indicate the CIA run the loosely-defined outfit of al qaida. |
wrong. the CIA had exactly nothing to do with bin laden during the soviet invasion. repeating this lie constantly doesn't make it any more truthful.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by culorut I never said that no planes never hit the towers you did. All the events you saw on 9/11 did happen, it's just what they omitted from the public which is important. Not that you can understand any of it anyhow. |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.