It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

None-believers

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
Also, I have heard theories from missile strikes to hydrogen bombs, none of these theories are ever supported. You are overlooking evidence such as the prior activities of mohammed atta, the phone calls made on board the other flights, etc.




what Phone calls? who made them, where are the Credit card receipts> show me JUST those, and I'll agree that 911 was NOT an inside job. and if you are saying that the calls were made with personal Cell phones, then you would be able to produce those phone records, I wont talk about any other evidence, just the "phone calls" YOU brought up, sight your source with with a link, prove the calls were made




posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 04:07 PM
link   
See, that is where 911 CT gets looney.

Are you actually suggesting that those phone calls were never made, and that the people claiming they were made were infact in on the conspiracy? That they even killed their wives and husbands for a petty detail of the conspiracy?

Thats just plain silly.



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Thats just plain silly.


You're right. And you also make very, very bad assumptions. You don't know that any of the things you suggested would have to have been the case yet you assume then anyway to arrive at the conclusion that you did.

I'm not saying those people didn't have loved ones killed, or that they didn't suffer as a consequence, but you use the kind of absolute bullcrap logic in reaching your conclusion that complicates discussions of anything else in regards to 9/11.

You think you can just assume how everything would have happened, down to every last detail. You might be bright on this and that, Nygdan, but I don't think you're quite that intelligent, as there are more variables than you're probably even aware of. When you pull out logic like that, you're deluding yourself.



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
See, that is where 911 CT gets looney.

Are you actually suggesting that those phone calls were never made, and that the people claiming they were made were infact in on the conspiracy? That they even killed their wives and husbands for a petty detail of the conspiracy?

Thats just plain silly.


Just plain silly, WELL SITE THE SOURCE THAT MAKEs YOU THINK IT'S SILLY? I have yet to see anything that says the phone calls happened, site a source that is not third party hearsay. I dunno what planet you live on, but in my world you cannot connect to cell towers at 500 mph, Nor do I know of any in flight cell phones that will work Without a Credit Card. but I suppose it's easier to believe the "terrorists" are kind enough to let folks swipe the card. which will STILL leave a paper trail.

external source

Now deceased, Mrs Olson is alleged to have twice called her husband from an American Airlines Flight 77 seat-telephone, before the aircraft slammed into the Pentagon.
www.vialls.com...

Cellular experts privately admit that they're surprised the calls were able to be placed from the hijacked planes, and that they lasted as long as they did.
www.globalresearch.ca...

And I thought, oh, thank goodness, it can't be her plane. I'm sounding rather selfish here, but that just went through my mind...

And then one of the secretaries rushed in and said, "Barbara's on the phone." And I jumped for the phone, so glad that -- to hear Barbara's voice. And then she told me, "Our plane has been hijacked."...........T. OLSON: She says, "We've just been hijacked." I had two conversations, Larry, and I'm -- my memory is -- has -- tends to mix the two of them up because of the emotion of the events. We spoke for a minute or two, then the phone was cut off. Then we spoke -- then she got through again, and we spoke for another two or three or four minutes. She told me that the plane had hijacked, that she had been -- she told me that they did -- they did not know she was making this phone call.

transcripts.cnn.com...

there has to be Some paper trail of these calls, it should be simple to find them

edit for clarity

[edit on 25-2-2007 by thedigirati]



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by aecreate
Why is it not conceivable,
that the meanest,
most sinister,
unscrupulous,
yet smartest, individuals are filtered through
the most elite colleges, and filtered further inside
these insititutions through secret societies such
as Skull and Bones (like Kerry and Bush) so that they
can have a place in very-powerful positions?
You know, like in Government.

These are the people that need to be contradicted.

"I don't pay taxes to buy lies"
I, and many others, are tired of being lied to by
these smart, mean, and unscrupulous people that
run this government. Enough is enough. There
used to be a few bad apples, now its just
a few good ones.

Some 9-11 theories are bad apples.

If so, this gov't handed us a rotten core.

This once glorious nation will not crumble from
dissent, but rather from corruption, ignorance and
outright dismissiveness.

The goal is the truth.
Accountability.
Retribution.
Delicious truth apple sauce.


Good speech! My focus now is on the Neo-Nazi opportunists that want to use the "9/11 Truth Movement propaganda campaign" to mobilize people against the USA.

I am satisfied that the Government did not actively participate in the events of 9/11...contrary to what the "truth movement" is preaching to the young and/or feeble minded.

I will concede that the 9/11 Commission's investigation and report are not as competent and comprehensive as a work of this magnitude should be.

Cheers! and palms down.



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 08:38 PM
link   
Simple,

We couldn't pull something like this off and keep it a secret. The logistics are just too great. And allowing people to make books, movies and investigate it claiming to know "the truth" is as risky as pulling it off. If the US Government had done this, every person that tried to "tell the truth" about it would disappear. Sorry, but that's how it would be.

It really WAS islamic terrorist, sorry to burst your bubble, Osama is real, and he really did have a hand in this. The government does lots of things, some good, some bad, but 9/11 was not an inside job. The people saying it was, hawking books, movies, t-shirts... are just making money hand over fist.

You are more then welcome to believe it was "the evil US Government", that's your right, but it's awful silly to waste time on the subject. Concentrate on what's really going on, and you'll be a lot more afraid.



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by nick7261

Originally posted by T Trubballshoota


you 911 CT Cultists


First sign that a person can't debate the facts is calling his opponent in the debate bad names.

Watch for this whenever you see anybody on tv or radio disagree with the "official" version of 9/11. The hosts, like Hannity, O'Reilly, and even local guys here, immediately start calling them "wack jobs", "wingnuts", "conspiracy nuts", etc.


Wait a minute! The whole reason I found this place is because people were accusing others of being "Sheeple" "Too stupid to comprehend" "blind patriots"..and so forth, all comming from proponents of the (alleged) "Truth movement"..Not to mention the whole gist of this thing teeters upon baseless accusations of MASS MURDER.


It's part of their playbook -it's much faster and a quick kill to simply attach a label to somebody than to discuss the facts. If they could win on the facts they wouldn't need to attach the derogatory labels.


Facts? In "Facts" do you mean *SOLID EVIDENCE* to back wild claims? Lets discuss SOLID EVIDENCE and NOT theory...In return I promise not to call Hitler puzzy-ass worm-food. for now...K?


Just like it's easier to call somebody a "CT Cultist" than to try and figure out why the FAA caused military fighters to be scrambled away from TWO hijacked planes heading towards Washington D.C.


Well if the incompetence of the FAA is your only beef with * THIS ISSUE AS A WHOLE* (like we are talking about) Then why would you lump yourself in, or take offense to, the cultist/nazi label? Ya know..if it didn't apply to you???

[edit on 25-2-2007 by GwionX]



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by HarvinTabor
Simple,

We couldn't pull something like this off and keep it a secret. The logistics are just too great.


yeah, I tend to agree. Kind of like all those people who say we never landed on the moon and that it was faked.

Also, there were calls made from those people on the other flight, why do you think they tried to retake the plane over pennsylvania?



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by GwionX
Wait a minute! The whole reason I found this place is because people were accusing others of being "Sheeple" "Too stupid to comprehend" "blind patriots"..and so forth, all comming from proponents of the (alleged) "Truth movement"..Not to mention the whole gist of this thing teeters upon baseless accusations of MASS MURDER.


And your point is?



Facts? In "Facts" do you mean *SOLID EVIDENCE* to back wild claims? Lets discuss SOLID EVIDENCE and NOT theory...In return I promise not to call Hitler puzzy-ass worm-food. for now...K?


Ok, you go first. Let's assume for the sake of argument that the 19 arabs pulled off 9/11. What SOLID EVIDENCE do you have that bin Laden and/or al-Qaeda were behind it?

Please don't cite the "fat" bin Laden video because that is no solid evidence. Even if it IS bin Laden, a self-serving "confession" on bin Laden's part isn't solid evidence.


Ok. I'm waiting.

(Jeopardy music playing in background... )



Well if the incompetence of the FAA is your only beef with * THIS ISSUE AS A WHOLE* (like we are talking about) Then why would you lump yourself in, or take offense to, the cultist/nazi label? Ya know..if it didn't apply to you???



I didn't lump myself in with anybody, nor was I offended.

I just pointed out that it's an over-used and sophmoric debating ploy to try to label your debate opponent with bad names, like Neo-Nazi for example, when you can't win the debate intellectually.

Thanks for providing another example in your most recent rants about focusing on the Neo-Nazis. I feel safer already...


PS

By the way, I'm still waiting on you to get back to me re the Doubletree video. Did you show all your friends at home and at work how the "plane" took 6 seconds to travel 1200 feet to hit the Pentagon? Do they both still thank that white blip was the plane?



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by GwionX
the Neo-Nazi opportunists that want to use the "9/11 Truth Movement propaganda campaign" to mobilize people against the USA.


I've seen you metion this shadow menace a few times now. Was curious if you could name any members, indicate their capabilities. How many mebers roughly? They got a website even? You talkin Hufschmid and Bollyn? They're somebody's paid clowns and professional self-discreditors. Much less a threat to the USA than to the "Truth" movement. I'm not sayin you're just making stuff up, but would like a few more specifics. Perhaps new thread material?



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedigirati
Just plain silly, WELL SITE THE SOURCE THAT MAKEs YOU THINK IT'S SILLY?




posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by nick7261

Originally posted by GwionX
Facts? In "Facts" do you mean *SOLID EVIDENCE* to back wild claims? Lets discuss SOLID EVIDENCE and NOT theory...In return I promise not to call Hitler puzzy-ass worm-food. for now...K?


Ok, you go first.

You keep doing this.

YOU are trying to convince people that established fact is indeed not established. Therefore, YOU need something solid, tangible, and demonstrable. A government memo, an internal DoD document linking the government to the attack, a piece of Tomahawk wreckage from the Pentagon, a Sidewinder tailsection embedded in the ground someplace near Shanksville, for gods sake something tangible and related to the event.

And for future reference, this is how an argument goes:

Average Joe: Well, X is an established fact.
Skeptic: No way, X is wrong its really Z.
Average Joe: Ok, lemme see something to back that up.
Skeptic: Ok, well here I have Exhibit A, and here is Exhibit B, and Exhibit C.
Average Joe: So?
Skeptic: So because A, then B, and finally C, Z couldn't have happened.
Average Joe: Why?
Skeptic: We have tested it over and over, it it demonstrable and repeatable, and we have tangible evidence in A B and C. Z cannot be, and we have shown in independent conditions using the proofs at hand.
Average Joe: Maybe common wisdom needs to be amended here.

But what you're doing is this:

Average Joe: Well, X is an established fact.
Skeptic: No way, X is wrong its really Z.
Average Joe: Ok, lemme see something to back that up.
Skeptic: No. Prove me wrong.
Average Joe: Son, I have established fact on my side, you need to show me something to back up these claims.
Skeptic: No, I'm right, I know it.
Average Joe: What makes you so sure?
Skeptic: Well, there were these videos on the internet...
Average Joe: Video evidence?
Skeptic: Well, no. Some guy made a convincing documentary....
Average Joe: Son, thats an opinion, not a fact.
Skeptic: No no, its real I know it and you have to prove me wrong.
Average Joe: It doesn't work that way.
Skeptic: Yes it does!!! Yes it does!!!
Average Joe: Ok whatever man.



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Reality Hurts

YOU are trying to convince people that established fact is indeed not established.


If the established "fact" is that bin Laden is responsible for 9/11, then it will be ridiculously easy for you to provide me the evidence of this fact.

Yes, I am taking the position that there has been no solid evidence presented by anybody that ties bin Laden to 9/11. The claim that some dude hiding in a cave in Afghanistan defeated the U.S. air defense system to attack the Pentagon is a grandiose claim that requires grandiose evidence.

Just because you believe it doesn't mean it's an established "fact." It's more like an established "belief."



Therefore, YOU need something solid, tangible, and demonstrable.



Did the government provide anything solid, tangible, or demonstrable linking bin Laden to 9/11? Just curious...




A government memo, an internal DoD document linking the government to the attack, a piece of Tomahawk wreckage from the Pentagon, a Sidewinder tailsection embedded in the ground someplace near Shanksville, for gods sake something tangible and related to the event.


Ok... I'll start with the McClatchey faked photo from Shanksville. I've demonstrated that this photo does not depict what the government claims. Namely, the smoke plume in the photo is shown to be about 2200 feet wide and high, which contradicts every witness who claims to have seen *any* sort of smoke plume, let alone a smoke plume twice as wide as the WTCs were tall.




Average Joe: Well, X is an established fact.


How do you define what is an "established fact?"




But what you're doing is this:

Average Joe: Well, X is an established fact.
Skeptic: No way, X is wrong its really Z.


You're Average Joe/Skeptic example is actually almost *exactly* how the government has made their case against bin Laden.

Average Joe: OMG! The Trade Centers and the Pentagon were attacked!
Government: Um.... we think it was bin Laden. That rat!

Average Joe: Who do you think is going to win the Super Bowl this year?
Government: (Geez.... that was easier than I thought it was going to be!)

Skeptic: Hey! Not so fast! What *proof* do you have it was bin Laden?
Government: Traitor!!!!

Average Joe: F***ing arabs! Let's nuke 'em!
Government: Um... well let's not be too hasty... let's just go over there and control their country's resources for starters... and um.... oh yeah... let's install a democracy while we're at it!

Skeptic: But what about showing me some evidence it was bin Laden?
Government: Traitor!! Moonbat!!! Don't you know we're at war!!

Average Joe: Let's watch CNN tonight and see what happened in the Scott Peterson case...
Government: Um.... we didn't catch bin Laden.... but um.... We better get Saddam Hussein before he gets us!

Average Joe: Cool.... f***ing arab... let's get Saddam for what he did to us on 9/11....
Government: Um... yeah... he's hiding WMD's too!

Skeptic: That's a grandiose claim! Where's your evidence!
Government: Shut up you traitor or we'll tap your phones!

Get the point? It was the government who was making the grandiose claims all along. Not only did they not provide affirmative evidence, they provided *misinformation* re the Iraq WMDs.

How can an Average Joe/Skeptic like me ever have access to, or present, the same evidence the government is keeping from everybody?

What I can do is point out when the government's stories are b.s. and not an "established fact."



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by nick7261
How can an Average Joe/Skeptic like me ever have access to, or present, the same evidence the government is keeping from everybody?


You could always join them.




Open Your Mind - Illuminati Symbolism - It's All Around You!

www.youtube.com...

[edit on 26-2-2007 by In nothing we trust]



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 04:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by nick7261

Originally posted by GwionX
Wait a minute! The whole reason I found this place is because people were accusing others of being "Sheeple" "Too stupid to comprehend" "blind patriots"..and so forth, all comming from proponents of the (alleged) "Truth movement"..Not to mention the whole gist of this thing teeters upon baseless accusations of MASS MURDER.


And your point is?
I would consider this an "unconventional" debate if you would even stretch it that far. Most if not all opponents of the (alleged) "truth movement" have had to wade through a steady barrage of such insults. So perhaps you should consider it a rebuttle --instead of a cop-out. Furthermore, outrageous unsupported claims are generally met with outrage...I don't make the rules, it is what it is.


Ok, you go first. Let's assume for the sake of argument that the 19 arabs pulled off 9/11. What SOLID EVIDENCE do you have that bin Laden and/or al-Qaeda were behind it?


Are you trying to feed Finland with that Red Herring?


Please don't cite the "fat" bin Laden video because that is no solid evidence. Even if it IS bin Laden, a self-serving "confession" on bin Laden's part isn't solid evidence.





Ok. I'm waiting.


Khalid Sheikh Mohammed: Source BBC

"According to Sheikh Mohammed, he himself first pitched the idea of the aerial-style attacks on the US, calling for the hijacking of 10 jetliners on both coasts of the US and crashing nine of them.

He features prominently in the US 9/11 Commission Report on how the attacks were carried out, and its authors drew heavily on his statements during interrogations.

Testimony from Sheikh Mohammed was also used by defence lawyers for Zacarias Moussaoui, who was jailed for life in 2006 for his role in the 11 September attacks."

This is a connection to Al-Queda..But you will probably say it is---guess what--some kind of government plot.

I know the OBL challenge was a set-up...plus OBL is pretty slick. Sheikh Mohammed and Atef were as far as the Al-queda chain went with SOLID proof. More recently released video dating back to pre-9/11 from Al-Jazeera allegedly shows two of the hijackers with OBL. Not quite as solid as a straight up confession like Sheikh Mohammed provided.





Well if the incompetence of the FAA is your only beef with * THIS ISSUE AS A WHOLE* (like we are talking about) Then why would you lump yourself in, or take offense to, the cultist/nazi label? Ya know..if it didn't apply to you???




I didn't lump myself in with anybody, nor was I offended.

I just pointed out that it's an over-used and sophmoric debating ploy to try to label your debate opponent with bad names, like Neo-Nazi for example, when you can't win the debate intellectually.

Thanks for providing another example in your most recent rants about focusing on the Neo-Nazis. I feel safer already...


Why personalize it? If it doesn't apply to you..no worries. Right? When I am talking about the "right wing radical groups" I am focusing my thoughts on the deceitful propaganda stream...Not you, nick.



PS

By the way, I'm still waiting on you to get back to me re the Doubletree video. Did you show all your friends at home and at work how the "plane" took 6 seconds to travel 1200 feet to hit the Pentagon? Do they both still thank that white blip was the plane?


Heh..."Both" I thought you were above such sophmoric insults...guess I was wrong.. My analysis stands...how's yours holdin up?



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 08:09 AM
link   
Nick, regardless of what you think, the onus is on you to back up your claims. You keep going back to this mentality of "I don't have to prove it, you prove it first!". I'm sorry, and I'm not trying to be insulting here, but that is juvenile and not the way real conversation or dialogue works.

I think that very few of us here actually believe the government explanations for 911. I know I don't swallow it, but I also can't stomach this internet mentality of "No, you prove it, I saw a video online and I'm convinced". THAT gets nothign solved.

As I illustrated to you, the proof is out there , go do something useful.



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by GwionX
Furthermore, outrageous unsupported claims are generally met with outrage...I don't make the rules, it is what it is.


I guess that's why so many people are pissed off at Bush and his administration.




Are you trying to feed Finland with that Red Herring?


Red herring? You're the one who claims bin Laden is behind 9/11. Where's the evidence?






Khalid Sheikh Mohammed: Source BBC


Seriously, you need to do more research on this. The entirety of the KSM information came from the 9/11 Commissioners reading the PENTTBOM report written by the FBI. That's where it all traces to. And the 9/11 Commissioners were not even permitted to question the FBI agents who wrote the PENTTBOM report.



Testimony from Sheikh Mohammed was also used by defence lawyers for Zacarias Moussaoui, who was jailed for life in 2006 for his role in the 11 September attacks."


This is incorrect. The Moussaoui defense wanted to call KSM as a witness, but the government didn't want KSM to testify (wonder why?). The Moussaoui defense also wanted Richard Redi to testify, and again, the government objected. They reached a deal in which neither KSM nor Reid testified, and instead both parties agreed to stipulate to a written statement regarding KSM and Reid.

Just for fun, if you really believe that KSM testified, try to look up his testimony in the court record. It's not there because he wasn't a witness.

Maybe you shouldn't trust the BBC reporters.


This is a connection to Al-Queda..But you will probably say it is---guess what--some kind of government plot.


No, this is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. The government pinned 9/11 on bin Laden without putting up any evidence of same. This is NOT a connection to al-Qaeda because what you cited is not even true. KSM didn't testify. The only "evidence" of what KSM allegedly said is what the FBI tells us he said.




I know the OBL challenge was a set-up...plus OBL is pretty slick.


What set up? It's straight forward. The U.S. Government averred that bin Laden is the perp behind 9/11. Where is the evidence of this?


Sheikh Mohammed and Atef were as far as the Al-queda chain went with SOLID proof.


So now you're saying there is no solid proof bin Laden ordered 9/11?



More recently released video dating back to pre-9/11 from Al-Jazeera allegedly shows two of the hijackers with OBL.


So what we have a video that nobody can authenticate allegedly showing two arabs that look like the arabs the government claims were on the hijacked planes talking to bin Laden. And that is evidence of what?




Not quite as solid as a straight up confession like Sheikh Mohammed provided.


Can you please cite an original source of this confession. I'd like to read it.





Why personalize it? If it doesn't apply to you..no worries. Right? When I am talking about the "right wing radical groups" I am focusing my thoughts on the deceitful propaganda stream...Not you, nick.


I didn't think you were talking about me. I thought you were talking about Nazis. And my point was that a lot of times people will try to throw labels on other people, like "nazi" because it's quicker and easier to discredit somebody by labeling them than by debating the facts.





Heh..."Both" I thought you were above such sophmoric insults...


Lighten up... it was a joke... not an insult. I'm sure you are a very nice person with lots of friends.


My analysis stands...how's yours holdin up?


Your analysis of the Doubletree video is faulty. The white thing can't be the plane because it took six seconds from the time the white thing disappeared to the time of the explosion. The distance the plane would have traveled in that time would have been a few hundred feet. At about 600 ft/s the plane would have hit in about 2 seconds, not 6.



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reality Hurts
Nick, regardless of what you think, the onus is on you to back up your claims. You keep going back to this mentality of "I don't have to prove it, you prove it first!". I'm sorry, and I'm not trying to be insulting here, but that is juvenile and not the way real conversation or dialogue works.



RH... It's not up to me or anybody else on the internet to prove anything. This is just entertainment and a diversion.

However, the same can't be said of the government. The government has sent tens of thousands of young men and women to Afghanistan and Iraq based on claims that a) bin Laden was behind 9/11, and b) Saddam had WMDs.

It is the U.S. government who has made the grandiose claims here, and who has failed to provide much evidence, if any, to support their claims. And rather than present evidence of their claims, Bush chose to speak out against "conspiracy theorists"?

Seriously, don't you find it odd that the President of the United States would take time at a UN speech to discredit "conspiracy theorists"?




Sorry, but it's not up to me to prove anything. I've read the 9/11 Commission Report, the NIST reports, the FEMA reports, the State Dept. web site trying to "debunk" CTs by citing Popular Mechanics, and something's not right here.

When you have the wealthiest, most powerful country in the world needing to cite an article from Popular Mechanics to "debunk" their detractors, something is not right.

And you know what's not right? It's exactly what you said to me, only it should be applied to the government, and not me. If the government would have "proven" their case re 9/11 then they wouldn't need to be citing Popular Mechanics to back them up. They'd be able to cite their own investigations.



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by nick7261
Sorry, but it's not up to me to prove anything.

If you claim something contrary to established and accepted fact, yes you do. But I'm now done / this thread, you're more interested in trying to win an internet argument than having a discourse or discussion. Get the validation you so truly desire from the other posters who agree with you, and sleep better at night my friend.



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 12:58 PM
link   
Believing the Offical Story is just as lunatic of a thing to do as to believe in the Conspiracy Theories. It's funny listening to all you Die Hard official story people standing by everything the media has reported. I'm sorry having the passport of one of the Highjackers fly out of his pocket and land on the ground so he could easily be identified after he just flew a jet into a building is just laughable!! Granted there are some pretty crazy Inside Job Theories out there, but if you can believe the passport story, what is stopping you from believing the whole beam idea. Sorry, there is way too much evidence that is Credible that points to the government hiding a lot, which should be enough to open a new independent investigation in itself. When you look at the events of that day and who really stood to gain from it, you really start to wonder about the Inside Job Evidence!!! So you can tell me, that since a Highjackers passport flies down out of the sky and lands on the ground after that event, we are the one's that believe in wacked out conspiracy theories!!!



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join