|
Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11? (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| donnybrasco |
Until I came on this board, I wouldn't have believed that so many SCREWBALLS could possibly be on the Internet...I should have known better.
So you all think it's much more plausible that 9-11 was at the very least, a co-conspirated event, co-ordinated to occur with the Al Queda attacks or, co-ordinated solely by the U.S. government? THIS seems more plausible to you than the possibility that Osama and his organization, who took credit for the atttack, and who are still out there today attacking, could be the sole attackers?
My god. Get out from behind your computers more often...take a walk...talk to real people...and get back in the REAL WORLD! You sit here talking about this as though it's something to be realistically debated, like the economy or politics! How on EARTH could the U.S. government keep such a thing secret? WHY on earth would any group of Americans do something that horrific against other Americans?
Trancer, just to be fair to you and just so you know, I have read most of what you posted in this thread and I went to these expose' websites that you posted links to. None of those so-called "revealing" pictures reveal ! Have you really looked at them? There's nothing in them that even remotely supports the points they're trying to make! And the content of the texts? PSYCHO-BABLE! Not that I expected anything different, but these sites are barely even good for a laugh!
I'll even give you an example; Supposedly, there's a picture of a helicopter puting a bomb on top of one of the towers after it's been attacked...do you really think a bomb would be needed at this point? I mean, a freakin HUGE JET PLANE was just flown in to the building! I think it was going to fall all on it's own, don't you?!?!
This forum needs a section for;
PS: Pakastani; If you truly are entertaining the possibility that any of this conspiracy theory crap is even remotely credible, then you are going to lose a lot of credibility all the way around, imho. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by donnybrasco
Until I came on this board, I wouldn't have believed that so many SCREWBALLS could possibly be on the Internet...I should have known better.
So you all think it's much more plausible that 9-11 was at the very least, a co-conspirated event, co-ordinated to occur with the Al Queda attacks or, co-ordianted solely by the U.S. government? THIS seems more plausible to you than the possibility that Osama and his orginaztion, who took credit for the atttack, and who are still out there today attacking, could be the sole attackers?
My god. Get out from behind your computers more often...take a walk...talk to real people...and get back in the REAL WORLD! You sit here talking about this as though it's something to be realistically debated, like the economy or politics! How on EARTH could the U.S. government keep such a thing secret? WHY on earth would any group of Americans do something that horrific against other Americans?
Trancer, just to be fair to you and just so you know, I have read most of what you posted in this thread and I went to these expose' websites that you posted links to. None of those so-called "revealing" pictures reveal ! Have you really looked at them? There's nothing in them that even remotely supports the points they're trying to make! And the content of the texts? PSYCHO-BABLE! Not that I expected anything different, but these sites are barely even good for a laugh!
I'll even give you an example; Supposedly, there's a picture of a helicopter puting a bomb on top of one of the towers after it's been attacked...do you really think a bomb would be needed at this point? I mean, a freakin HUGE JET PLANE was just flown in to the building! I think it was going to fall all on it's own, don't you?!?!
This forum needs a section for;
PS: Pakastani; If you truly are entertaining the possibility that any of this conspiracy theory crap is even remotely credible, then you are going to lose a lot of credibility all the way around, imho. |
donnynarco, you're too stupid to be a school yard bully. You should probably find a new day job, you goof. :p |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
911 Truth Statement
Respected Leaders and Families Launch 9/11 Truth Statement Demanding Deeper Investigation into the Events of 9/11
NEW YORK CITY, NY (Oct. 26, 2004) - An alliance of 100 prominent Americans and 40 family members of those killed on 9/11 today announced the release of the 911 Truth Statement, a call for immediate inquiry into evidence that suggests high-level government officials may have deliberately allowed the September 11th attacks to occur. The Statement supports an August 31st Zogby poll that found nearly 50% of New Yorkers believe the government had foreknowledge and "consciously failed to act," with 66% wanting a new 9/11 investigation.
Focusing on twelve questions, the Statement highlights areas of incriminating evidence that were either inadequately explored or ignored by the Kean Commission, ranging from insider trading and hijacker funding to foreign government forewarnings and inactive defenses around the Pentagon. The Statement asks for four actions: an immediate investigation by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, Congressional hearings, media analysis, and the formation of a truly independent citizens-based inquiry.
The Statement's list of signatories includes notables spanning the political spectrum, from Presidential candidates Ralph Nader, Michael Badnarik, and David Cobb to Catherine Austin Fitts, a member of the first Bush administration, as well as Washington veterans like Pentagon whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg and retired CIA analyst Ray McGovern. Other signers range from peace activists like Code Pink co-founder Jodie Evans and Global Exchange's Kevin Danaher to former US Ambassador and Chief of Mission to Iraq, Edward L. Peck; from environmentalists like Randy Hayes and John Robbins to business leaders such as Paul Hawken and Karl Schwarz, CEO of Patmos Nanotechnologies; from populist journalist Ronnie Dugger to renowned investigative reporter Kelly Patricia O'Meara.
The Statement also includes 43 noted authors, including New York Times #1 bestseller John Gray, as well as 18 eminent professors, historians, and theologians. Other notables include five-term Georgia Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, singers Michelle Shocked and Michael Franti, and actors Ed Asner and Mimi Kennedy.
The Statement was facilitated by 911truth.org, a leading coalition. The organization has also announced a press conference outside of Eliot Spitzer's Manhattan office (corner of Cedar and Nassau) at 2:00PM on Thursday, Oct. 28th where 9/11 family members and victim group representatives will file a formal complaint demanding the first criminal investigation of 9/11 events by the New York Attorney General.
The Statement
We Want Real Answers About 9/11
On August 31, 2004, Zogby International, the official North American political polling agency for Reuters, released a poll that found nearly half (49.3%) of New York City residents and 41% of those in New York state believe US leaders had foreknowledge of impending 9/11 attacks and "consciously failed" to act. Of the New York City residents, 66% called for a new probe of unanswered questions by Congress or the New York Attorney General.
In connection with this news, we have assembled 100 notable Americans and 40 family members of those who died to sign this 9/11 Statement, which calls for immediate public attention to unanswered questions that suggest that people within the current administration may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war.
We want truthful answers to questions such as:
- Why were standard operating procedures for dealing with hijacked airliners not followed that day?
- Why were the extensive missile batteries and air defenses reportedly deployed around the Pentagon not activated during the attack?
- Why did the Secret Service allow Bush to complete his elementary school visit, apparently unconcerned about his safety or that of the schoolchildren?
- Why hasn't a single person been fired, penalized, or reprimanded for the gross incompetence we witnessed that day?
- Why haven't authorities in the U.S. and abroad published the results of multiple investigations into trading that strongly suggested foreknowledge of specific details of the 9/11 attacks, resulting in tens of millions of dollars of traceable gains?
- Why has Sibel Edmonds, a former FBI translator who claims to have knowledge of advance warnings, been publicly silenced with a gag order requested by Attorney General Ashcroft and granted by a Bush-appointed judge?
- How could Flight 77, which reportedly hit the Pentagon, have flown back towards Washington D.C. for 40 minutes without being detected by the FAA's radar or the even superior radar possessed by the US military?
- How were the FBI and CIA able to release the names and photos of the alleged hijackers within hours, as well as to visit houses, restaurants, and flight schools they were known to frequent?
- What happened to the over 20 documented warnings given our government by 14 foreign intelligence agencies or heads of state?
- Why did the Bush administration cover up the fact that the head of the Pakistani intelligence agency was in Washington the week of 9/11 and reportedly had $100,000 wired to Mohamed Atta, considered the ringleader of the hijackers?
- Why did the 911 Commission fail to address most of the questions posed by the families of the victims, in addition to almost all of the questions posed here?
- Why was Philip Zelikow chosen to be the Executive Director of the ostensibly independent 911 Commission although he had co-authored a book with Condoleezza Rice?
Those who are demanding deeper inquiry now number in the hundreds of thousands, including a former member of the first Bush administration, a retired Air Force colonel, a European parliamentarian, families of the victims, highly respected authors, investigative journalists, peace and justice leaders, former Pentagon staff, and the National Green Party.
As Americans of conscience, we ask for four things:
- An immediate investigation by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer
- Immediate investigation in Congressional Hearings.
- Media attention to scrutinize and investigate the evidence.
- The formation of a truly independent citizens-based inquiry.
Given the importance of the coming election, we feel it is imperative that these questions be addressed publicly, honestly, and rigorously so that Americans may exercise their democratic rights with full awareness.
In closing, we pray and hope for the strength to approach this subject with wisdom and compassion so that we may heal from the wounds inflicted on that terrible day.
http://www.911truth.org/article.php...041026093059633 |
|
|
| donnybrasco |
^^^Even if any of those things turn out to be accurate or true, it doesn't mean that the U.S. Government INTENTIONALLY allowed 9-11 to happen, you nut-jobs!! Have you ever heard the term "Bureaucracy"?? The Government even admitted that they had certain hijackers on their watch lists, but that they couldn't deciminate the intel on them fast enough because they are just over-loaded with too many people on those lists to keep track of, and that's it!
There is no great conspiracy here, there's only human beings, who up and don't do their jobs!
And I for one doubt that this so-called petition (if it even exists) signed by Ralph Nader is about a "conspiracy" so much as it's about asking why the intel community failed to do it's job. I have heard NOTHING from Nader about a "grand conspiracy" anywhere else. You quoting your "911truth.org" source is NOT credible! "NEW YORK, NY (Oct. 26, 2004)"...WTF IS THAT SUPPOSED TO MEAN!??! Does that mean the screwball who runs this conspiracy site woke up at 3 in the morning on Oct. 26, 2004 and concocted this fantasy in his head? Who is this person? Who wrote this? It's not from a credible media outlet, I can tell you that! ...I think someone on the Internet is twisting this petition to fit his own stupid conspiracy theory garbage!
God, I can't believe I let myself be sucked in to this STUPID debate, TOTAL waste of time. You guys lose ALL credibility in any of your arguments on any subject as far as I'm concerned when you entertain lame plots like this. I feel sorry for you guys. You're whole life is a waste...please, become suicide bombers and join the Jihad already! The sooner, the better! |
|
|
| ogvh5150 |
Do you actually think you can pull off something like 9/11 without some spook knowing?
You give too much credit to the intelligence community believing they were caught with their pants down.
At your screwball comments:
Sounds like a persons desperate attempts at name calling rather than fact finding. Sure you can say all you want but you never ever argue what you really know and that is nothing.
Just the ideal mindset that was bestowed upon you by watching too many spy and war movies.
Clear your mind of useless clutter from established media. This is the same media that told you Saddam had WMD's.
Now if you still believe that this and previous administrations had no idea what events were to unfold on 9/11/01 then I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn for a low price. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by donnybrasco
I have heard NOTHING from Nader about a "grand conspiracy" anywhere else. You quoting your "911truth.org" source is NOT credible! "NEW YORK, NY (Oct. 26, 2004)"...WTF IS THAT SUPPOSED TO MEAN!??! Does that mean the screwball who runs this conspiracy site woke up at 3 in the morning on Oct. 26, 2004 and concocted this fantasy in his head? Who is this person? Who wrote this? It's not from a credible media outlet, I can tell you that! |
Well, just because you're ignorant to many things does not mean that those things don't exist. :p
There is no such thing as investigative journalism any more, so very few scandals actually get reported anyhow. I'm assuming that you also believe that if something is not reported by one of your corporately controlled, "credible media outlets," that it never could have happened? :rolleyes:
|
|
|
| Trancer-X |
9/11 and the Mainstream Press
by Dr. David Ray Griffin
septembereleventh.org
Friday, Jul 29, 2005
Link to Original
Address given at the National Press Club
July 22, 2005
After the attacks of 9/11, I accepted the blowback thesis, according to which the attacks were payback for US foreign policy. About a year later, a colleague suggested that the attacks were orchestrated by our own government. My response was that I didn’t think the Bush administration---even the Bush administration---would do such a thing. A few months later, another colleague suggested that I look at a website containing the massive 9/11 timeline created by Paul Thompson. This timeline, I found, contained an enormous number of reports, all from mainstream sources, that contradicted the official account. This started a process that led me to publish The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11, which summarized much of the evidence that had been discovered by previous researchers---evidence, I concluded, that provided a "strong prima facie case for official complicity."
In a criminal trial, once the prosecution has presented its initial case, the defense asks the judge for a dismissal on the grounds that a prima facie case for guilt has not been presented. However, if the judge declares that such a case has been made, then the defense must rebut the various elements in the prosecution’s case. The defense cannot simply ignore the prosecution’s case by stating that it is "too outrageous to be dignified by a response." If the defense fails to offer a convincing rebuttal, the prima facie case is presumed to be conclusive.
The Bush administration responded to the charges against it as a defense attorney would, declaring them too outrageous to be taken seriously. President Bush himself advised people, perhaps especially reporters, not to tolerate "outrageous conspiracy theories." What the president really meant is that people should not tolerate any outrageous conspiracy theories except his own, according to which 19 Arab Muslims defeated the most powerful and sophisticated defense system in history and also defeated the laws of physics, bringing down three steel-frame building in a way that perfectly mimicked controlled demolition.
In any case, what was needed at that stage was someone to play the role of the judge, determining, from an impartial perspective, whether a prima facie case for the guilt of the Bush administration had been made.
This role should have been played by the press. But the mainstream press instead offered itself as a mouthpiece for the administration’s conspiracy theory.
The role of the impartial judge has, nevertheless, been played by civil society, in which tens of millions of people in this country and around the world now accept the 9/11 truth movement’s contention that the Bush administration was complicit in the attacks.
The fact that the president was finally forced to appoint a 9/11 commission provided an opportunity for the Bush administration to rebut the allegations made against it. You might assume that the 9/11 Commission would have played the role of an impartial jury, simply evaluating the evidence for the competing conspiracy theories and deciding which one was more strongly supported.
The Commission’s investigative work, however, was carried out by its staff, and this staff was directed by the White House’s man inside the Commission, Philip Zelikow, a fact that the mainstream press has not emphasized. Under Zelikow’s leadership, the Commission took the role of the prosecution for the Bush administration’s brief against al-Qaeda. In doing so, it implicitly took the role of the defense for the Bush administration. Accordingly, an important question to ask about The 9/11 Commission Report, especially since we know that the Commission had many copies of The New Pearl Harbor, is how well the Commission rebutted the prima facie case against the Bush-Cheney administration, which was summarized in that book.
In a second book, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, I showed that the Commission simply ignored most of that evidence and distorted the rest. I will summarize a few of the 115 sins of omission and distortion that I identified.
The New Pearl Harbor reported evidence that at least six of the alleged hijackers are still alive. David Harrison of the Telegraph interviewed two of the men who supposedly died on Flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania, one of whom said that he "had never even heard of Pennsylvania," let alone died there. The Associated Press reported that Waleed al-Shehri, supposedly on Flight 11, contacted the U.S. embassy in Morocco about two weeks after 9/11. The 9/11 Commission Report, nevertheless, suggested that al-Shehri was responsible for stabbing one of the flight attendants shortly before Flight 11 crashed into the North Tower.
The New Pearl Harbor cited reports that although Mohamed Atta, the supposed ringleader, had been portrayed as a devout Muslim ready to meet his maker, he actually loved alcohol, pork, and lap dances. Zelikow’s commission, however, said that Atta had become "fanatically" religious. They also claimed that they could find no credible explanation as to why Atta and the other hijackers went to Las Vegas. The mainstream press has let the Commission get away with these obvious contradictions.
People who have seen Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 know that President Bush was in a classroom in Sarasota when he was told that a second plane had struck the World Trade Center, a sign that the country was suffering an unprecedented terrorist attack. And yet the president just sat there. Many critics have asked why he did not immediately assume the role of commander-in-chief, but the more important question is why the highly trained Secret Service agents did not immediately rush him to safety. Bush’s location had been highly publicized. They should have worried that a hijacked airliner was bearing down on them at that very moment. And yet they allowed the president to remain at the school another half hour, thereby implying that they knew the president was not a target.
The 9/11 Commission’s only response was to report that "[t]he Secret Service told us they . . . did not think it imperative for [the President] to run out the door." The Commissioners evidently accepted the implied suggestion that maintaining presidential decorum was more important than protecting the president’s life. The mainstream press has had no comment on this remarkable response to that remarkable incident.
Another big question created by the official story is how the hijackers, by crashing planes into the Twin Towers, caused them and Building 7 to collapse. One problem is that Building 7 was not struck by an airplane, and steel-frame buildings had never before been caused to collapse by fire alone, even when the fires had been much bigger, hotter, and longer-lasting. The Commission avoided this problem by simply not mentioning this fact or even, incredibly, that Building 7 collapsed.
Another problem, which I mentioned earlier, is that the collapses had all the standard features of controlled demolitions. For example, all three buildings came down at virtually free-fall speed. The Commission even alluded to this feature, saying that the "South Tower collapsed in 10 seconds." But it never explained how fire plus the impact of an airplane could have produced such a collapse.
Controlled demolition was also suggested by the fact that the collapses were total, with the 110-story Twin Towers collapsing into a pile of rubble only a few stories high. The core of each tower had consisted of 47 massive steel columns, which extended from the basements through the roofs. Even if we ignore all the other problems in the official "pancake" theory of the collapses, those massive steel columns should have still been sticking up a thousand feet in the air. Zelikow’s commission handled this problem with the audacious claim that "[t]he interior core of the buildings was a hollow steel shaft."
James Glanz, a science writer for the New York Times, co-authored a book in 2003 entitled The Rise and Fall of the World Trade Center. This book contains an extensive discussion of the construction of the towers around the 47 interior columns. And yet when the Commission in 2004 published its incredible denial that these columns existed, the Times did not protest.
Another example: Breaking those massive steel columns would have required very powerful explosives. Many survivors of the towers have reported hearing and feeling explosions. But the 9/11 Commission failed to mention any of these reports. William Rodriguez told the 9/11 Commission behind closed doors about feeling and hearing a huge explosion in the sub-basement of the North Tower, then rescuing people from its effects, but neither his name nor any of his testimony is found in Zelikow’s final report.
The mainstream press has also refused to report Rodriguez’s story, even though NBC News spent a day at his home taping it.
The Commission also failed to address the many reasons to conclude that the Pentagon was not struck by Flight 77. The Commission in particular failed to subpoena the film from the video cameras, confiscated by the FBI immediately after the attacks, which could at least clear up one of the questions---whether the attacking aircraft was a Boeing 757.
The Commission did allude to one problem---the fact that Hani Hanjour, the alleged pilot, was known to be completely incompetent, incapable of flying a Boeing 757, let alone performing the remarkable maneuver reportedly executed by the aircraft that hit the Pentagon. The Commission handled this problem simply by saying in one place that Hanjour was considered a "terrible pilot" while saying elsewhere that he was given the assignment to hit the Pentagon because he was "the operation’s most experienced pilot." The mainstream press has not pointed out this contradiction.
The Commission also failed to discuss the considerable evidence that Flight 93 was shot down by the US military, perhaps when passengers were about to wrest control of it. The Commission dealt with this problem only indirectly, by claiming that Vice President Cheney did not give the shoot-down order until 10:10, which was at least four minutes after Flight 93 crashed. In support of this claim, the Commission said that Cheney did not enter the Operations Center under the White House until almost 10:00 that morning. To make this claim, however, the Commission had to contradict all prior reports. It also had to delete Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta’s testimony, given during the Commission’s public hearings, that when he got down there at 9:20, Cheney was already in charge. Even such an obvious lie, supported by such blatant suppression of evidence, has elicited no murmur from our mainstream press.
There are dozens of other omissions and distortions the press has allowed the Commission to get away with. For example, the Commission’s endorsement of the claim by General Richard Myers that he was on Capitol Hill that morning ignores Richard Clarke’s report, in Against All Enemies, that Myers was in the Pentagon, participating in Clarke’s videoconference. Also, the Commission’s account of why the hijacked airliners were not intercepted contradicts the account that had been told since shortly after 9/11 not only by the U.S. military but also by the press, in thousands of stories. But the press now, like Gilda Radnor, says "Never Mind."
In any case, as these illustrations show, the 9/11 Commission, which had the opportunity to rebut the prima facie case against the Bush administration, failed to do so. This means that the publication of The 9/11 Commission Report needs to be recognized as a decisive event, because it was the moment at which the prima facie case against the Bush administration became a conclusive case.
What we need now is a press that will let the American people in on this development---which is most important, given the fact that the official story about 9/11 has provided the pretext for virtually every other horrible thing this administration has done.
|
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by donnybrasco
The Government even admitted that they had certain hijackers on their watch lists, but that they couldn't deciminate the intel on them fast enough because they are just over-loaded with too many people on those lists to keep track of, and that's it! |
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=103&row=1
http://gregpalast.com/printerfriendly.cfm?artid=104
| quote: |
"NEW YORK, NY (Oct. 26, 2004)"...WTF IS THAT SUPPOSED TO MEAN!??! Does that mean the screwball who runs this conspiracy site woke up at 3 in the morning on Oct. 26, 2004 and concocted this fantasy in his head? Who is this person? Who wrote this? It's not from a credible media outlet, I can tell you that! ...I think someone on the Internet is twisting this petition to fit his own stupid conspiracy theory garbage! |
That's why I had posted the link for you, my friend. So that you could investigate it for yourself. :crazy: :)
http://www.911truth.org/index.php?topic=about
| quote: |
God, I can't believe I let myself be sucked in to this STUPID debate, TOTAL waste of time. You guys lose ALL credibility in any of your arguments on any subject as far as I'm concerned when you entertain lame plots like this. I feel sorry for you guys. You're whole life is a waste...please, become suicide bombers and join the Jihad already! The sooner, the better! |
Well, if that's not a blind and reactionary view than I don't know what is. Your brutal attempt to shroud this whole thing with your stigmatic veil has pretty much been a failure, anyway. There are already too many intelligent, analytical, and hard-working professionals involved in researching all of the events and anomalies surrounding 9/11 - and also what the true reason could be behind our government's sorry explanation for them.
;) |
|
|
| donnybrasco |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
Your brutal attempt to shroud this whole thing with your stigmatic veil has pretty much been a failure, anyway. There are already too many intelligent, analytical, and hard-working professionals involved in researching all of the events and anomalies surrounding 9/11 - and also what the true reason could be behind our government's sorry explanation for them.
[/color] ;) |
:haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha:
Ooooh brother....what went wrong in your up-bringing that has you so messed up in the head dude? :stongue: |
|
|
| donnybrasco |
| quote: | Originally posted by ogvh5150
Sounds like a persons desperate attempts at name calling rather than fact finding. Sure you can say all you want but you never ever argue what you really know and that is nothing. |
Fact finding and debating worthwhile theories is one thing, but this transcends common sense! My god, use your head! Think of what it would take to make your big conspiracy theories happen, versus the realties of life and how improbable they are! NUTS!!
You should be embarrassed for yourselves!
Let me ask you something; Aside from this little fantasy world you have going on the Internet, have you tried to spew these theories directly in person to anyone? Have you noticed that most people you've told have probably looked at you like you're absolutely off your rocker? Maybe they've even told you that you are!
My advise to you is; LISTEN TO THEM!! |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by donnybrasco
:haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha:
Ooooh brother....what went wrong in your up-bringing that has you so messed up in the head dude? :stongue: |
Funny, I was just thinking the same thing about you.
I guess one could never find the truth if one is too scared to even look for it. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by donnybrasco
Let me ask you something; Aside from this little fantasy world you have going on the Internet, have you tried to spew these theories directly in person to anyone? Have you noticed that most people you've told have probably looked at you like you're absolutely off your rocker? Maybe they've even told you that you are!
My advise to you is; LISTEN TO THEM!! |
Actually, I've talked to several people who lost friends and relatives on 9/11. They want to know the truth just like I do. They don't believe the whitewash either. |
|
|
|
|
