Top 5 reasons the Official 9/11 Story is Bogus

[fitzbew88]

Rick, an allegation is not an idea.

Yeah it is - I have an idea that alleges that NASA is covering something up. Can I prove it? No. Did I say I could prove it? No. Do I care either way? Not really - how can I demonstrate otherwise? I can't. Do I find these ideas interesting? Yes, because I think it's healthy to explore alternative realities.

I'm afraid this is the crux of our disagreement.

 

[Rick Deckard]

And yes in an ideal world we would censor out any wild-eyed unproven hurtful allegations --- but I don't truly believe we (the community as a whole) would ever agree on what should be censored.

I want the 'wild-eyed unproven hurtful allegations' out in the open. I don't want to discourage people from 'thinking out loud'.

You have to explore the boundaries to find the middle.

 

[Rob]

... ... I have an idea that alleges that NASA is covering something up. Can I prove it? No. Did I say I could prove it? No. Do I care either way? Not really - how can I demonstrate otherwise? I can't. Do I find these ideas interesting? Yes, because I think it's healthy to explore alternative realities.

See who's doing the big work round here, eh?

 

[Rick Deckard]

See who's doing the big work round here, eh?

Nope - you got me. What 'victory' are you claiming now?

 

[Rob]

See who's doing the big work round here, eh?

Nope - you got me. What 'victory' are you claiming now?

The sweet sweet victory of undetected sarcasm. Obviously.

 

[fitzbew88]

I want the 'wild-eyed unproven hurtful allegations' out in the open. I don't want to discourage people from 'thinking out loud'.

You have to explore the boundaries to find the middle.

If you don't see your neighbor's children playing in the street for a week, can you picture yourself going over to your neighbor and accuse him of selling them into slavery? When he protests, would you say: "I was just thinking out loud, exploring the boundaries?"

I think we may just disagree on this ethically -- I just don't think that's ok.

 

[cottonzway]

I'm the only one who read the commission's report here aren't I?

 

[fitzbew88]

I'm the only one who read the commission's report here aren't I?

No. But many folks don't consider it truthful, and still suspect that the U.S. government is secretly responsible (thus a U.S. government report cannot be held as reliable).

Repeated statements by Osama Bin Ladin and Ayman al-Zawahiri taking credit for the attacks (even bragging about them) are not taken as truth; indeed one individual told me that those two gentlemen were in on it --- they are CIA agents.

At this point of insanity you just have to accept it.

A fascinating story recently in the New Yorker describes much of the history of the Islamic fundamentalist movement and some of its internal dissension. Although not really helpful in resolving the 9/11 conspiracy movements it is still a good ( but very long! ) read.

The Rebellion Within

 

[cottonzway]

See I have read it and it's the PRIMARY reason to why I stongly feel that we have been mislead. Without getting into wild claims about this or that, if someone sat and read the report they should have the same conclusions I have. It's just hard to have that debate with people who have not read it.

 

[fitzbew88]

See I have read it and it's the PRIMARY reason to why I stongly feel that we have been mislead. Without getting into wild claims about this or that, if someone sat and read the report they should have the same conclusions I have. It's just hard to have that debate with people who have not read it.

Oh, I see.

 

[Aaron LeClair]

I'm the only one who read the commission's report here aren't I?

I read the Pentagon part, and parts of the rest. I have also read a lot of the critiques and reviews of it. That was enough for me. I was unable to find anything on building 7. I hear it's not in there.

 

[pixelsmith]

There are over a 100 important omissions in that 571 page piece of shit that would have blown the lid off the whole thing. 9/11 was indeed a staged terror attack.

 

[pixelsmith]

government sponsored terror is nothing new. many have been declassified, admitted to by military officials and are a matter of public record.

pearl harbor, gulf of tonkin, northwoods, oaklahoma bombing, 9/11....all staged or knew were coming.

 

[fitzbew88]

I read the Pentagon part, and parts of the rest. I have also read a lot of the critiques and reviews of it. That was enough for me. I was unable to find anything on building 7. I hear it's not in there.

It's mentioned several times but are you looking for an explanation about why it collapsed? I don't see that. Should there be? Is there any good reason to believe it wasn't damaged by the shock of the Towers collapse and eventually collapsed itself?

I have never heard a compelling reason to believe that the 7 WTC collapse was mysterious. Lots of nearby buildings were undoubtedly damaged -- it's reasonable to assume some were damaged enough to eventually collapse.

 

[Aaron LeClair]

I read the Pentagon part, and parts of the rest. I have also read a lot of the critiques and reviews of it. That was enough for me. I was unable to find anything on building 7. I hear it's not in there.

It's mentioned several times but are you looking for an explanation about why it collapsed? I don't see that. Should there be? Is there any good reason to believe it wasn't damaged by the shock of the Towers collapse and eventually collapsed itself?

I have never heard a compelling reason to believe that the 7 WTC collapse was mysterious. Lots of nearby buildings were undoubtedly damaged -- it's reasonable to assume some were damaged enough to eventually collapse.

Yes, an explanation.

Should there be? It wouldn't hurt.

I am one of the few people that did not turn into a demolitions expert after 9/11 so I do not know if there is good reason or not. I listen to both sides though. I also question both sides.

 

[fitzbew88]

I read the Pentagon part, and parts of the rest. I have also read a lot of the critiques and reviews of it. That was enough for me. I was unable to find anything on building 7. I hear it's not in there.

It's mentioned several times but are you looking for an explanation about why it collapsed? I don't see that. Should there be? Is there any good reason to believe it wasn't damaged by the shock of the Towers collapse and eventually collapsed itself?

Yes, an explanation.

Should there be? It wouldn't hurt.

No it wouldn't hurt.

I'm not sure I would *expect* it to be in the 9/11 report though which I don't think was devised to answer all the engineering questions involved --- but I would be surprised if some agency (or insurance company) has not addressed this somewhere.

If it turned out that we just don't know why it collapsed --- I wouldn't be too surprised by that.

Many things happened on that day that we will never fully understand.

 

[cottonzway]

If anyone cares, if anyone takes this serious, if anyone doesn't want to disgrace 3,000 dead human beings and all the misery that has followed since 9/11 just read this one page, page 172 of the 9/11 Commission Report and tell me something isn't seriously WRONG!

http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-189.html

 

[fitzbew88]

If anyone cares, if anyone takes this serious, if anyone doesn't want to disgrace 3,000 dead human beings and all the misery that has followed since 9/11 just read this one page, page 172 of the 9/11 Commission Report and tell me something isn't seriously WRONG!

http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-189.html

Do you mind helping us out a little? I don't see anything untoward on either page. (And did you mean page 172 or 189?)

 

[cottonzway]

It's page 172, but for some reason that sources it as page 189. If you look at the top left-hand corner of the page you will see where it says 172.

 

[fitzbew88]

It's page 172, but for some reason that sources it as page 189. If you look at the top left-hand corner of the page you will see where it says 172.

Thanks.

I don't *see* anything untoward on the page, what am I missing?