A Newbie has 3 questions for de-bunkers, page
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times
Topic started on 28-7-2007 @ 03:27 PM by Cowgirlstraitup7
I just got turned onto this website a couple of weeks ago, and I have read all the 9/11 threads. But I want to do something a little differant here. Let's pretend for the sake of arguement that I have been living under a rock for the last 6 years and I don't know anything about conspiracy theories. Let's pretend I just now found out about the events of September 11, 2001. I am in shock, I can't believe what has happened and my only access to information is what I can find on the internet. Not conspiracy sites, actual news footage from that day as well as the 9/11 commission report, the NIST report and the pancake collapse documentary on The History Channel. I only have access to the OFFICIAL stuff. After watching all this stuff, I have three, just three questions.....

After hearing this from our OWN PRESIDENT, why would you NOT think it's fishy?




After hearing this from our OWN secretary of defense, why would you NOT question what happened to flight 93?



After this video being shown to the world, how can you say, without a shadow of a doubt that is in fact AA 77 hitting the pentagon, when there are countless other videos that have far better graphics and angles on the pentagon that day and at that time, why only this video, and again, how do you feel this is conclusive proof that this IS flight 77?




Okay, I am just addressing these three issues. These are three key things that make a lot of the American people question what really happened on 9/11. I am not saying anything one way or the other, but I am saying I have questions. I want to know why de-bunkers brush these things off and just go along with the "OFFICIAL STORY".

Thanks, from the Newbie!




Mod Edit: to repair video

[edit on 7/28/2007 by kinglizard]

[edit on 28-7-2007 by Cowgirlstraitup7]


reply posted on 29-7-2007 @ 01:21 PM by apex
Originally posted by wenfieldsecret
Rumsfield was reading from a paper...so it wasnt a slip of the tounge....but was written by a lackey of somesort...


Well thats assuming it wasn't a slip of the tongue. And any reports of debris from UA 93 states it was in two discrete areas, with one engine a few hundred yards from the main site, with lighter debris further away. It wasn't like that at lockerbie, which suffered an explosion from a bomb:

www.martinfrost.ws...

or like that from TWA 800. Yet I still hear endless theories that it was shot down, rather than deliberate flight into terrain.
TWA 800 debris field

And as I mentioned elsewhere, a 757 hitting at high speed elsewhere did have both engines away from the main debris

struggled for a further seven kilometres (4.3 miles) before crashing into a wooded area close to the village of Taisersdorf at a 70 degree downward angle; each engine ended up several hundred metres away from the main wreckage


But i'm sure a 2 minute video of rumsfeld is proof of a shootdown.
Pages:     ^^TOP^^



Flight 93 was headed for Building 7
  Posted 10 days ago with 48 member flags
9/11 INTERCEPTED
  Posted 2 days ago with 45 member flags
9/11: The WTC Elevator Key
  Posted 12 days ago with 43 member flags
What are your favorite 9/11 debunking tactics?
  Posted 6 days ago with 17 member flags
Who is the Joker on ATS radio now running their mouth?
  Posted 14 days ago with 13 member flags
Was the government a co-conspirator?
  Posted 16 days ago with 9 member flags
British Police Want Us To Present False Flag Terror Evidence.
  Posted 6 days ago with 8 member flags