It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Why? Answer these 2 questions and you may find the truth

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 10:24 PM
Consider this for a moment. There are all these theories on how the events of 9/11 were faked.. All this evidence that some facet of the events that took place on 9/11 was faked. It doesn’t matter which theory you subscribe to or if you believe all of them, though some do contradict each other .
They all have supporting evidence, many with “expert” opinions.
All of them support the idea that something was fake about the events that took place on 9/11..
Now consider this.
All those witnesses. It doesn’t matter what they think they saw or heard.
Just that they were there, Thousands of witnesses on the ground. And millions on TV. None of them saw all of it but all of it was seen by someone.
Millions of witnesses. Think about that.
It doesn’t matter what they saw. Just that they saw it.

The planes crashed, all of them. If one of them is faked, they all are faked. If any one of them is real, there is absolutely no reason to fake any. Unless you think that it was coincidence you have to accept that if one was fake, they all are.

Why didn’t they do it at night? There’s absolutely no reason you can’t navigate one of those planes into the side of the WTC at night. They could have even had someone go in and light up a big cross to aim at with office lights, Most people probably wouldn’t notice. And even if people had noticed it, it could have easily been written off as a coincidence. Oh the conspiracy theorists could have made something of it but, oh well.

It would have had exactly the same impact on the American psyche. Isn’t that what it was all about? To scar the American psyche so we would get into a war? They didn’t have to kill an extra 2000 or so people. Don’t you think 1000 would have been enough? Just the people on ONE plane would have been enough. They could have chosen any ONE of those targets and it would have been enough. They could have used any ONE of those planes.
Why did they go so big? And why didn’t they do it at night?

Think about that.
Why would they push it to such an extreme? And as you grasp at an answer for that one, think about the witnesses. They can’t control all of them. They can plant as many witnesses as they want, but they can’t plant all of them. Millions of witnesses that they have NO control over. Why would they allow that? Just to make it more convincing? They would be trying to commit the crime of the millennium. Understand the scope of influence to be able to pull this off. In front of millions of witnesses. Why push it? There is absolutely no reason to do it so big with so many witnesses.

Any theory about anything that was faked on or about the events that took place on 9/11 needs to first answer these 2 questions.
Why didn’t they do it at night? Doing it in broad daylight was totally unnecessary.
Why did they use 4 planes? Using more than 1 was totally unnecessary.
Eliminating either one of those factors would multiply their chances of success.
Why would they not do that? For effect, is not an adequate answer. Any time you try to increase the magnitude of a conspiracy like this, you increase it’s chances for failure. Why would you add some fluff when it would greatly increase your chances for failure, when the minimal effort is sufficient.?
Do you think that if they had crashed one plane into one building killing 500 to 1000 people in the middle of the night, that it would not have had the exact same result?

It’s already been established that pre 9/11 the feds utterly failed, whether through incompetence or on purpose, they failed. That does not have anything to do with faking any part of any of the events on 9/11.

They used the events of 9/11 to pursue their agenda. Well that’s kind of obvious. There’s no way in hell we’d sit still for even ONE of those attacks. But that had absolutely no effect on the events that took place on 9/11.
There is a conspiracy here. Your average managers meeting qualifies as a conspiracy but it had absolutely nothing to do with faking the events that took place on 9/11.

Virtually every piece of “evidence” was sought in an effort to “prove” that a particular theory is correct. This is not a search for truth, it is a search for proof.
Either the perpetrators are criminal masterminds or they are incompetent. Pick one. You can’t have both. An incompetent could not have pulled this off as well as they did and a criminal mastermind would not have jeopardized the operation by doing it on such a scale in front of so many witnesses.

posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 10:56 PM

Originally posted by Grimstad
The planes crashed, all of them.

Yet not one single piece of wreckage can be confirmed with serial numbers?

If one of them is faked, they all are faked.

Extremely faulty logic.

If any one of them is real, there is absolutely no reason to fake any.

Extremely faulty logic.

Unless you think that it was coincidence you have to accept that if one was fake, they all are.

No, we don't have to accept that at all. Again, that's your extremely faulty logic.

Why didn’t they do it at night?

You answered this question earlier in your own post: "millions of TV witnesses". Doing it at night just doesn't cut it, like doing it during the day does.

They can plant as many witnesses as they want, but they can’t plant all of them.

As long as the truth movement can prove that one of them was planted, then that's reasonable suspicion to prove that the official story has some serious flaws in it. Here's some witnesses who I find a little 'dubious': Ted Olson, Lloyde England, Harley Man, Jerome Hauer and Aziz El-Hallan.

Why did they use 4 planes?

Prove that four planes were used, by showing the forensically identified part numbers of the alleged plane wreckage.

Virtually every piece of “evidence” was sought in an effort to “prove” that a particular theory is correct. This is not a search for truth, it is a search for proof.

All that truthers need to do is to prove that the official story theory is a lie. It doesn't matter which part, as long as it can happen. Truthers want the truth, not the official story fairytale that fails to support itself.

Truthers do not need to post any other alternate theory about what happened. They only need to prove that the official story is a lie. Think about that and you may find your search for the truth will be a little clearer.

[edit on 18-4-2009 by tezzajw]

posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 11:18 PM
One palne would not have been enough of a shock to the American public to warrant a war. Air accidents happen fairly frequently and whilst tragic a single plane would not galvanise the people the way that a co-ordinated deliberate attack would.
One plane would also be more easily passed off as an accident, not as a deliberate attack. People needed to have an ongoing demoralisation that was stoked into anger for war to be announced.
We were exposed first to the planes crashing into various buildings, followed immediately by the realisation that this was a well planned attack. We were bewildered and afraid, not knowing how many planes were being high-jacked or what their targets might be.
We watched the officials grounding all flights and attempting to account for thousands of planes, we saw police and firefighters running into the burning buildings and saw people plummeting to their deaths on the streets below.
We knew that those people were dying not in a rapid fireball, but in agony and desperation.
All of these images were broadcast live around the world - allied countries watched in horror along with their American friends as they realised that a world super power was being attacked on their home soil.
Those images, that fear is what made a daylight attack necessary. It made not only the American people bay for blood, but denied any opportunity for people to nay say what had occured. Allied countries were given very little choice but to denounce the attackers and pledge to support their American brothers.
The death toll didn't matter anywhere near as much as the spectacle.

Regardless of whether this was perpetrated by terrorists, the American government or some other shadow otrganisation, it was undeniabley designed to inflame the American people.
My question to you would be 'What would any terrorist organisation gain from these attacks? Surely they would have anticipated being decimated in return?'

posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 12:45 AM
Personally, I think the conspiracy theorists are "barking up the wrong tree".

The conspiracy is not whether the government was directly responsible for, or even, just complicit in, the terrorist plot. As the OP has intimated, it seems highly unlikely that the US government would, or even could pull off such a heinous act.

No, in MY opinion, the real conspiracy lies in the cover-up of the fact that once the planes hit the World Trade Center and it became obvious that the damage was severe enough to threaten the integrity of the structures, the authorities were forced to execute the Pre-Planned and Prepared Controlled Demolition of the WTC.

It is my belief that, after the truck bombing of the WTC in the '90's, the authorities became aware of the potential for catastrophic collateral damage to the surrounding real estate should either of the WTC towers fall due to similar attack in the future. A plan was then formulated, likely with the full knowledge and support of the government, that to mitigate the potential for collateral damage, the WTC complex would be "pre-wired" for a controlled demolition, should a future event threaten the structure's stability.

Knowing that the execution of such a drastic act would mean the sacrificing of perhaps tens of thousand of lives; the only saving grace to plan was the possibility that tens, or even a hundred thousand or more lives might be spared if the towers were not allowed to fall across the rest of the finacial district.

On that fateful day in September, the nightmare became reality and the order was given. The Twin Towers fell, 3,000 lost their lives.

How many more might have died if the towers had toppled over instead of collapsing in on themselves, we'll never know.

Nor will we likely ever know who actually gave the order to "flip the switch".

Furthermore, I believe that the World Trade Center is Not the Only skyscraper to be so "rigged" to implode on command.

But if word leaked out that other such prime pieces of real estate were similarly wired to self-destruct, can you imagine the public's reaction?

-Who would want to live or work in a building full of explosives? Who would build anywhere near such a high-rise time-bomb?

-How could the owners of the building andits tenents ever get any kind of insurance?

-Who would be held responsible if somethong should go wrong, causing a pre-mature collapse?

For these reasons, and many more, I believe that the government has decided to keep this contingency plan under the strictest of secrets.

THIS is what I believe to be the True Conspiracy arising from the tragedy of 9/11.

posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 01:11 AM

Originally posted by tezzajw

So you are saying that all were faked or some were faked?

Throughout all these theories there is one common thread. That the American people are stupid and ignorant, mainly because they cannot “see the truth”. Yet apparently they are sharp enough that it was required to boost this thing to such a level that no one could disbelieve it. Thereby increasing the complexity of the operation to such a level that there are that many more ways the fakery could be discovered by a smart public. Which is it?
You’re right, you do not have to accept anything. As a matter of fact you don’t accept anything that’s does NOT support your theory.
That is not a search for the truth.
Repeatedly these pieces of “evidence” get explained away by common people on this very forum. But “Truthers” don’t accept it. Sure there could be some plants but all of them? Is anybody that doesn’t agree with you a plant?
Is everybody here that tries to bring a little rationale to the discussion a plant?
I’ve already conceded that the feds lied, but was it to cover their own incompetence or to cover the alleged fakery of the events on 9/11?
And if you think that 4 planes were required just to make it more impressive, then you obviously underestimate the level of fear and loathing in the American people. They could have plowed one plane into the center of Times Square and the result would have been exactly the same. An attack of that magnitude in our own front yard? Unacceptable. We invaded Panama just to take out one guy that never did anything to the American public.
The feds lied. What’s new? That in no way supports that any of the events that took place on 9/11 were faked.
I’m glad you mentioned the Harley guy. You already know what happened in that thread. I explained very clearly and concisely how I arrived at the very same conclusion as that guy and I get called a plant and a liar and you tried to defend the guy. You pulled something I said out of context and tried to construe it as a threat when I was simply putting an asshole in his place.
Real good truth seeking there. Just because you don’t understand something does not mean it’s not understandable.

@ ilandrah
Which is it? Terrorists or some other organization. Their motivations would be completely different. Do you really think terrorists wanted to enflame the American public? They use about as much forethought as the republican leadership or any other religious extremists. Do you really think that attacks all over the world are to enflame those people or instill fear and strike a blow for Allah? And that they did. It wasn’t a cakewalk but they pulled it off. Did the incompetence of the feds allow them to do it? Sure. But that in no way supports any supposition that anything that happened on 9/11 was faked. And if it was someone else, then all of the events of 9/11 were faked and we are back to the every increasing complexity of the conspiracy. Now are we dealing with criminal masterminds or incompetent fools. All my experience with the feds and my observations points at the latter.
As for the impact of more than one plane, I refer back to panama.
And let me also point out that any one of those planes would have equated to the single largest terrorist casualty list in history that was not carried out by a large military force. That alone was enough for us to want to teach them a lesson.

posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 01:22 AM

Originally posted by Bhadhidar

Again. the level of the conspiracy and the fact that you assume there is currently unexploded evidence out there right now.

A controlled demo is a very precise maneuver that requires installation of hundreds of pounds if not thousands of pounds of explosives. It's not something you can just leave lying around in some back room somewhere untill the time comes.
There are people that maintain these buildings and the best actually know every inch of their building. Are they plants? And don't forget this stuff has been laying around for years at this point. It would NOT go unnoticed. The entire maintenance staff of every one of those buildings would have to be in on it.

EDIT: And that includes the WTC.

[edit on 19-4-2009 by Grimstad]

posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 01:28 AM
Apart from the weakness in the OP logic, it can be assumed the perps wanted their actions loudly known. And if it wasn't just 19 Arab men then maybe whoever may have perpetrated 9/11 wanted it to be on a scale beyond the level of basic understanding. ie Something only they could know as true or truth or whatever.
I don't even know what I'm saying now and yet contributing to this petty inference into what we'll never know lest through our own individual understanding which will always remain limited.

Down to brass tacks- is this OP a truther or an official storyer? I couldn't tell. It's late for me- geez.

posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 01:42 AM

Originally posted by Moonsouljah
The only problem with my "weak" logic is that it actually is logical when you look at the big picture. I'm not holding on to some microscopic fleck of primer that happens to have some of the same chemical properties of some explosive and looking for anything that may support my preconceived notion. Not saying that that is your particular position.
I am not part of any group. It's just me with my own opinion based on my own obsevations. Which is all it took to shoot down the theory that WTC7 was a controlled demo, or that the Harley man was a plant. It's really not hard. I honestly don't know what the "official" story is. other than some terrorists hijacked some planes and crashed them into some buildings.

posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 02:09 AM
reply to post by Grimstad

It's just me with my own opinion based on my own obsevations which is all it took to shoot down the theory that WTC7 was a controlled demo,

What “facts” was it that shot the controlled demolition theory of WTC 7 down for you?

[edit on 19-4-2009 by impressme]

posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 02:22 AM
I have two theories on 911. One, President Bush was murdered in the 911 incidents then cloned to cover up an outbreak. Watching the events on television didn't convince me that what I was witnessing ever even happened.

[edit on 4/19/2009 by FT1980]

posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 02:28 AM

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by Grimstad

It's just me with my own opinion based on my own obsevations which is all it took to shoot down the theory that WTC7 was a controlled demo,

What “facts” was it that shot the controlled demolition theory of WTC 7 down for you?

[edit on 19-4-2009 by impressme]

Well the "fact" is the building did not collapse in the manner typically described by those that say it's collapse is indicative of a controlled demo.
The following quote describes how I arrived at that particular conclusion.
I cut and pasted from the other thread. This quote is a bit off topic from the OP of that thread.

Originally posted by Grimstad
EDIT. Well I guess I'm a little behind the wave and it's already been debunked. Well at least WTC7 has. If you'd like to see the truth(yes the government got it right) you can view the video HERE. I leave my rant for your amusement. Damn. I was so proud of myself. Enjoy.

Well. Not wanting to be closed minded about the issue I followed the link to Archs and engineers for 911 truth listed above in bonez post..
From there I ended up on youtube watching the videos from that high school teacher explaining where NIST screwed up.
I'm not contesting that NIST screwed up, the biggest problem was that they tried to cover their mistake (just ask Bill clinton how well that works). So I'm watching the videos, replaying very important parts and examining the video myself and I did catch a couple miniscule mistakes on the teachers part, but mainly I felt there was something going on that couldn't be seen. It looked like the antenna on the roof was starting to go long before the building went. I sat through 2 of his videos and then went looking for the 3rd but couldn't find it. I gotta say that teacher had me going and his logic was sound, His examination of his video totally supported his theory. Mind you this video was downloaded from the net and was looking directly at what I think would be the right end of the building if you were looking at it from the front. So I can't find part 3 so I click on this other video of the same building.
KEEP IN MIND that the whole reason for the controversy is that the teacher observed the building in complete freefall which should not be the case because the building should be hitting the resistance of the lower part as it falls. The time difference for what it should be and what the teacher observed is about 1,5 seconds. The NIST model predicts the right time.
So. I click on this other video and lo and behold, there is the front of the building in all it's glory. And whats that? The LEFT end of the building begins to cloapse then a pause then the center and last the RIGHT end of the building. THE VERY END THE TEACHER WAS OBSERVING. When the teacher observed the collapse the center of the building had already dropped a few floor and was PULLING DOWN on the outside of the building was in fact in freefall finding no resistance because the core was pulling it down.
BAM! CHECK AND MATE! BUHBYE! Whew. I need a cigarette.
See kiddies. Thats what happens when you get a wild hare up yer butt about some [ahem] conspiracy and you lose perspective.
I thought for sure I was right, or rather that you were wrong, but I opened my mind to the possibility that you were right and I was wrong. So I examined it for my self and found the answer in the very evidence that the oposition put forth.
Aliens? Sure. Ghosts?. Why not? But blowing up the WTC on purpose? I'm sorry but that's just plain [how about silly? will that work?].

Man. Thats waaaay better than the 3 paragraphs I had before.

Edit: Sorry for the typos I was getting a little excited.

posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 02:39 AM

I actually have another write up of this with a couple more details and a little less attitude (sorry) but this was quicker.

Something I'd like to point out that is covered in that other write up. All over the place I keep seeing that little snippet that shows WTC7 collapsing like it was demo'd. It is always missing the 2 seconds that lead up to that point that shows the progressive collapse.
The feds are not the only ones trying to mislead the people. So are at least SOME of the alleged "Truthers".

[edit on 19-4-2009 by Grimstad]

posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 03:18 AM
I remember watching it and my first reaction was, this is fake. They're talking about a terrorist attack, but all I see is just another demolition!

posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 03:40 AM
Your questions don't really eliminate the possibility of a governmental conspiracy. A night-time attack wouldn't have been as good for TV. Whoever did this wanted to maximize the number of fatalities, and to get the most thorough, visible coverage possible.

Here's why I think it wasn't the US Government. The following quote is from the Koran. Note, in particular, the verse from the Koran - 9:111.

"ALLAH has bought from the believers their lives and their money in
exchange for Paradise. Thus, they fight in the cause of ALLAH, willing to
kill and get killed. Such is His truthful pledge in the Torah, the Gospel,
and the Quran - and who fulfills His pledge better than ALLAH? You shall
rejoice in making such an exchange. This is the greatest triumph." [ Koran 9:111]

The verse discusses jihad. I am convinced that the date was chosen because of the number of this verse.

posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 03:46 AM
reply to post by Grimstad

Thank you for your reply and I respect your opinions. However, I am disappointed with the NIST report, because it is made up of phony science and does not stand up to "real" science and it has been proven.

660+ Engineers and Architects

These professionals have a problem with the NIST phony report and “have” confronted NIST and have shown them their errors, and have ask NIST to make the proper scientific changes in their reports, however NIST refuses.

So I wouldn’t count on NIST to report the truth, their job was to cover up the truth and that has been proven.

Seven Senior Federal Engineers and Scientists Call for New 9/11 Investigation

Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely
By Dr. Steven E. Jones
Physicist and Archaeometrist
The views in this paper are the sole responsibility of the author.

I was a sleep for a very long time, the reason I could not wake up was because I would not stop reading the web sites concerning 911, infact, they kept me in a coma!
I came to my senses, and reliesed that there are some people in our government who had a conmen enemy, it was the “truth”.
Good luck to you on your search for the truth.

posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 03:57 AM
reply to post by Grimstad

They didnt do it at night because they wanted people IN the buildings. In order to justify an incursion by the military in the middle east, this scam needed to have maximum impact. In fact I'll go further and use your argument against yourself and ask YOU the question - Why did it occur at 9am? Why didnt it occur at 7am or 3am or even during the lunchbreak when the building wouldnt have full occupancy? And if your lost for an answer I'll tell you why - because 9am was the exact time of commencement of business when the buildings would be FULL. Co-incidence? Not when there are 11 other hours in the day when it could have occured. And no, 1000 deaths wouldnt have been enough to justify an incursion into the ME at the same time avoiding a nuclear WWIII. This needed to be BIG. At least as big as Pearl Harbour, if not bigger. Research the 'Project for the new American Century'. It actually references the need for a new 'Pearl harbour' catastrophe for America to impliment its goals.

I also notice you refernce 'millions' of witnesses to 9/11 seeing planes etc. Im not sure where you get this figure from. According to what I have read, many people in New York on 9/11 didnt see any planes, except on mainstream TV many hours later...

And finally, you summarise your post with the tired old 'Oh but we all know the Feds failed on 9/11..'. Well sorry, but I dont buy it. Your Feds may be human, I agree, meaning they make mistakes like the best of us, but to say human frailty was to blame for 9/11, and that they simply overlooked and failed to track THREE 'hijacked' planes for more than 90 minutes, and that I would buy such a suggestion, is an insult to my intelligence..

[edit on 19-4-2009 by Nonchalant]

posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 04:07 AM
reply to post by Grimstad

Are you joking? Because 2 seconds aren't shown, it doesn't remove what happened in the next 10. How anyone can describe that instant uniform failure of an entire 50 story building, as progressive is beyond me.

Have you not ever seen a fire? Whether a house, or even a backyard fire where you've thrown like a desk or a pallet or something on it??

Every structure put into a fire, or thats on fire, NEVER collapses in its entirity, all at the same second. Depending on what areas the fire started in, those areas will structurally weaken, and then overtime, fail. But unless a building is completely engulfed for a long period of time, then it may appear to fail more uniformly.

The problem with the wtc 7 is that it wasn't a raging inferno. Look up any skyscraper fire, you see flames and smoke pouring out every *affected* window, yet in WTC 7 the fire had not completely engulfed the building, how you can say that UNIFORM DAMAGE HAS BEEN DONE TO EVERY FLOOR, IN THE EXACT SAME MANNER is insane. And even then, it would not provide an instantaneous, complete failure of every part of the building. That's the bottom line, go light something on fire and watch.

I don't care what theory you prescribe to about 911, but anyone with an IQ over 80 can tell that there was something else at play that day - and official story, is just that, a story.

The only time in history wheres planes are able to evade Norad, and hit 3 targets including the most heavily defending building on planet, with SAM sites and no fly zone coverage. Then its the only time in history that 3 steel structured buildings, experience complete, uniform failure, and practically free fall.

Then, its the only time in history that the government doesn't even want to investigate? Just the fact ALONE that they didn't want to investigate the most devastating attack on American soil, shows that the entire thing is garbage.

One day the truth will be out, probably sometime after the same government that murdered its own people on TV has destroyed your life, and every single official story believer is going to be sooo ashamed, and feel extremely stupid.

posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 04:24 AM
Bush's brother was in charge of security at the WTC.. Guess when his last day was? What a coincidence 911! Come on!

posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 04:37 AM
Show me an engine or two - or eight and 4 black boxes, and I'll show you 4 downed planes. >.<

Show me nothing, and I believe just that.

It's not called an idiot box for no reason.

posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 05:41 AM

Originally posted by impressme
Good luck to you on your search for the truth.

Yes. That’s the very group that I linked to. Architects and engineers for 911 truth.
I already pointed out how their observations are flawed.
Look for yourself. They base all their observations about WTC7 on video that only shows part of the collapse. If you watch it from the front of the building the progressive collapse can clearly be seen. And that is exactly what the NIST report claims. It is ONLY the outer shell of the building that achieves freefall.
The interior was already on it’s way down and had about a 1.5 second lead. That building did EXACTLY what it was supposed to according to the laws of physics.
Maybe they didn’t have the right video at first. But they do now. And even though it completely discredits their hypothesis, they continue to perpetuate this….well in the beginning it could have been a misunderstanding, but now can only be construed as a lie.

I don’t count on the NIST report. I examined the evidence for myself and came to my own conclusion. I watched the A&E video VERY closely, and I saw that before the presenter started to measure the collapse, an antenna on the roof twitched for 1 frame. He missed or ignored it. When I saw video that showed the other side of the building, it clearly showes why that antenna twitched. Part of the building was already collapsing and it stopped just short of that antenna, pause for half a sec then continued, BEFORE THE TEACHER EVEN STARTED TO MEASURE. Why doesn’t A&E made the proper scientific changes?

Your second link refers to the very same group.

Your 3rd link is full of dead links (seems mainly to video or picture evidence) and though it presents a whole lot of questions it provides very few conclusions. I did follow what links I could, which go to 9-11 Research.
Here’s an example of their work.

Volume of dust: Their analysis of the video and picture evidence concludes that there is no way that the friction from the falling building could not generate the heat necessary to make the clouds expand as they did.. The entire page is about how heat effected the dust cloud. NO WHERE IN THAT ENTIRE PAGE DO THEY EVEN MENTION THE VERY HOT FUEL FIRE THAT WAS RAGING INSIDE THE BUILDING. They don’t even bring it up and discount it. Not one word was said about the existing fire. Not one word. NOT ONE.

I do not just discount your opinions without examining the evidence. Even if it’s just to learn about who is giving me the evidence. (not you, them).
I now have less reason to believe them than I do the feds.
The feds haven’t lied to me yet because I have not read their report, though I did see the first 30 seconds or so of the video. They haven’t had a chance to lie to me.

new topics

<<   2 >>

log in