posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 06:32 PM
Upper right corner is the snapshot stuck in my mind.
It looks so unlike him.
Is it possible it was picked for just that effect? To increase the conspiracy babble and conceal
the identity of the real masterminds?
I'm not politically aligned at all, but I'm in the same boat you are. I've been up and down the thing, and the only thing I know is that there's
too much unknown. There's too much hanging for the official story to ring true for me. Of course the conspiracy ideas have similar problems.
My problem isn't the lack of evidence, it's the flood of evidence! And it all seems to point in different directions - that's the real problem we
face. I'm sure you're aware of all the same evidence I am, if you've spent time on the subject.
The 'Mossad did it' is in reference to the van full of Israelis with remote control gear cheering as the towers fell, right? That certainly didn't
add up for me for several reasons. One, it was too unprofessional. Two, it was too easily let go after the fact, the men were just released, just
like that. Three, it was too easy to follow, it gave a clear picture, (Mossad did it) that a lot of prejudiced people automatically take as gospel -
that especially seems to be evidence of a grander cover up. Also, Mossad reputedly had an underground facility beneath the WTC complex, and I doubt
they would have shot themselves in the foot like that, if indeed they planned on using it to take over America or whatever.
I do think the radio controlled plane concept needs to be refuted, because it seems to correspond to flawed (altered) surveillance (messed up time
stamps) and the Global Hawk system's capabilities. It also seems to fit with the amazing precision with which the planes were flown. Such a
concrete approach could have been planned years in advance, and practiced on simulators until it could be done in the dark with a blindfold. There is
also the matter of the radio beacon that was noticed by some the day of the attack, shortly before the first plane struck. This could explain away
the remote control theory, or bolster it, depending on how you look at it, and the limits you ascribe to the technology.
Also, any or all of the above information could be faked, intended to mislead, so one has to take that into account. There's so much more too, reams
and reams of paper, book after book, a billion websites...
All that 'evidence' makes me sure of only one thing. Somebody, or some bodies are actively engaged in trying to confound those searching for the
truth by presenting false leads and half truths meant to isolate the searchers. It makes some look like lunatics in the eyes of staunch party
defenders, while also making you look like an apologist for rejecting anything not completely accurate. What it serves to do is transplant elements
of the middle into the extremes, while at the same time reducing the impact the remaining middle people can have on their 'bookends' by infusing the
debate with liberalism, patriotism, nationalism, racism, religiosity, and FEAR.
That's the main thing proven. So whoever did commit 9/11 most definitely wanted to make us afraid.. Not necessarily afraid of one thing over
another, but distrustful and fearful of practically everything.
I think JFK was getting stale, so they had to think up another mind boggling tangle of loose ends and half truths to keep the people busy for a while
so that they (whoever the hell THEY are) could cement their control or execute another attack.