Do you flat out believe the official story for 9/11? Do you believe there is no evidence to support any other theory?
If you answered YES to either of those questions, then I am interested in what you think of the following points:
Mohamed Atta (one of the main hijackers) was a coc aine snorting, vodka drinking hedonist who spent much of his time prior to the attacks motor
boating strippers and doing lines of coke off them. He had even gone into the world trade center building completely out of his mind demanding blue
prints for the building and generally acting deliberately suspicious. Few problems here. Extremist Muslims, especially martyrs are likely by
definition to be incredibly religious, well needless to say Atta's behavior does not seem to fit here, it seems more like the behavior of a deranged
hedonist. This doesn't fit.
The hole that was left in the side of the pentagon. We are told that without a doubt, a Boeing 757 slammed into the pentagon. Well sorry but the hole
is absolutely tiny and anyone who payed attention can clearly see that a Boeing 757 would make a far larger hole, and there would also be a great deal
of debris laying about. Donald Rumsfeld was also seen clearing the Pentagon lawn after the 'attack', pretty odd for the secretary of defense to do
that. I would also like to know how people think that the hijacker who apparently flew the pentagon plane, who could barely handle a single engine
Sesler according to his American flight instructor, was able to make such difficult maneuvers and actually successfully hit the pentagon.
The pentagon is one of the most protected and secure buildings in the US. It has missile defense systems that automatically take out incoming targets,
as it is a military zone and an absolute no fly zone for a 30km perimeter. So what happened? Do you really think that a 757 could make it all the way
to the pentagon without having any issues? Norad's missile defense systems would have shot it out of the sky before it got anywhere near the
Building 7. How can a building that was not hit by any plane, apparently had no explosives in it and only some tiny fires on a couple of floors
collapse demolition style, in free fall? People may say that it was damaged when the towers fell. Why didn't other buildings collapse like that then?
The exercises taking place on that day. Military exercises were taking place that day that predicted the exact same situation that was took place on
9/11, a lot of fighter pilots and so forth thought that the actual attacks were an exercise so they did not respond to the threat out of confusion.
Strange that, not really relevant but the same thing happened on the day of the London bombings.
The explosions. Many many people have said they heard explosions on the ground and in the basement, witnesses saw their friends killed by exploding
walls in the basement. So if we listen to the hundreds of witnesses claiming to have heard explosions, then who planted the explosives, video evidence
has also revealed explosive flashes occurring as the towers fall. So do you believe there were no explosives? or that the terrorists planted them and
the commission was just too lazy to investigate it or?
So here is just a few things worth mentioning.
So believers and 'OSers' what do you think of these things? Do you choose to ignore them to fit your idea of what happened, deny these realities
because of the grim realization that the government may have actually let this atrocity take place? Even if you don't believe it was orchestrated by
the government, do you not think that they may have had prior knowledge? which has been proven by the way. If they did have prior knowledge and did
just let it happen, that is almost just as bad. Even if they didn't orchestrate it, can you not believe that they may have assisted? Pulled a few
strings and turned a few blind eyes so that it could happen?
I want to know how when people see the points I am about to put forward, how they can still defend the OS so consistently. Do these things not matter
to you? If so it seems you're basing your judgment on a small section of the information available and are not making an informed decision.
Cheers in advance.
edit on 14-8-2011 by sir_slide because: (no reason given)