I am just gearing up to read it now but Michael Ruppert's Rubicon goes into heavy details about the war games, who controlled them and how they were used to confuse ATC on that day. As far as I know the contents of this book have never been contested and it is available in the Harvard Business library.

That seems like it could very informative. I'll have to find a way to get a hold of it. Thanks dude, it's exactly what I wanted to know regarding those drills.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kW5qiuLb8jY

Check this video out. Ruppert goes into some of the details early on in the video. Another thing to remember about Ruppert is that he bases everything he says in that book on real, verifiable news stories. He doesn't touch the demolition of the towers, he doesn't touch what hit the pentagon. Everything in his book is tracable back to the source and would be admissable in a court of law.

Watching right now; he seems real knowledgeable too. Good link man.

He's that guy who was killed by our government in a mock suicide that made no sense too, right?

He actually committed suicide just last week and it appears to be a legitimate suicide. There's confirmation from his close friends including a note left by him and an e-mail. Vice did a doc on him called "Apocolypse Man" too and he looks pretty rough in it.

I'll take that back then. That's why I like this subreddit at times. Certain people don't blindly believe speculation, like I just have.

3. Bush continued reading to children for forty minutes after the attack, which is against standard procedure. He also didn't seem fazed at all, as if he expected the event. Why would a president place reading as more imperative than an attack?

The Wikipedia article says that he stayed only seven minutes after being told of the second attack, because:

"The President felt he should project strength and calm until he could better understand what was happening."

(Seriously though, go read that article. It's a pretty good one, and it's short.)

In the 16 minutes between the tower attacks, many people still believed that the North Tower crash had been a freak accident.

Re: 4) I'm surprised they found a termite in all that rubble too

Yeah, it doesn't make any sense to me either. It shouldn't be there. The fact that it was, along with the molten steel at the site, makes it very suspect.

http://www.primetermite.com/images/termite%20victory.jpg

Who the fuck would snap a piece of bacon? I am now furious. Fuck termites.

You may think it was a typo, but I know termites did 9/11 bro.

Anyway, thanks for the heads up. I fixed it.

All Questions are more important than All Answers

Though possibly "true", any answer you settle on will become as a thought terminating cliche'; that is, preventing you from keeping an open mind.

Is that creepy feeling you have when being lied-to is more trustworthy than that "legitimate answer", which is then "believed" ?

I always keep an open mind. I'm even open to the idea that the secretive groups who rule the world do so to protect humanity, rather than benefit for their own good. Or even that our Government has all these new anti-terrorism laws to legitimately try and protect people by bypassing laws for faster prosecutions.

Open to doesn't mean I believe it.

I'll admit when wrong if there is compelling evidence, or an argument, that is without a doubt true.

Glad to hear that!

Good Luck :)

1. Yes, it very well can. If the possibility exists then by definition it is possible, no matter how slim it might be. The problem is not that it might have been a coincidence, even for my standards that could very well pass without any questions raised, the problem is the sheer number of coincidences and firsts on that day.

2. Cheney has already been found to have lied to the Commission regarding the events surrounding the handling of Flight 93 situation. Further, the Commission itself -which the sole purpose of its existence was to report officially the events of 9/11- not only excluded the report of Norman Mineta as they completely changed his words and plugged the source not to him but to a "military aide". If the commission report's purpose was to write a report based on the witnesses' reports then certainly to exclude and manipulate a report from one person is already evidence enough of fraud.

3. This is something that isn't relevant seen that everyone reacts differently to shock. To explore this angle assuming that he had to know otherwise he would have act differently is not a good argument.

4. For the same reason that there was molten steel in the debris; used to demolished the buildings.

5. Not only that but the field of debris clearly shows that the airplane was traveling in a completely different direction than the one that was officially told.

6. Not only your rights but the citizens' lifes in wars started with the excuse of terrorism and the innocents in the other countries that had nothing to do with 9/11 or anything USA related. The conspiracy theory tells that 9/11 was false flag which the objective was to strike fear into the people and gain support towards wars, something that everyone can easily see if he just stops with their fanatic patriotic faith. It's not just that they refuse to listen, it's that they are afraid of even considering that their own country would do such thing, despite the existence of a multitude of evidence proving this.

7. It hasn't much, people (debunkers) are just simply copy-pasting everything they find in the first page of a google search and spamming everywhere they stalk. They are not interested in discussion, they are not interested in using reasoning, all they care is dump spam and reject everything that is being said. Regarding the other part of your question: the one thing that I am aware of that can be related to that is the JTRIG operation.

Other than all this, try to be objective and use clear reasoning and backup your claims and avoid dismissing without corroboration.

Michael springman proved that the CIA was running the al Qaeda show since the 1980s.

Really? Its been more than a fucking decade and you can't open any of the MANY books documenting, usually point by point, the lies and propaganda of 9/11..

Complete and total inside job, the saudi 'perps' were all on US payrolls. Or do you think your islamic fundy, ready to sacrifice their life to Allah 'terrorists' thought it would be a good idea to hit the strip club the night before their 'martyrdom'?

You want legitimate answers. Wake the fuck up and read a book. Use your God given critical thinking skills.

You have questions: GO DO SOME RESEARCH AND ANSWER THEM FOR YOURSELF. If you want to be swell, SHARE with us!

Damnit, make some references if you think YOUR points are important.

Bottom line: you're not helping, you're making BS work. Fix that please.

/edit.. Sorry. I'm mad. I've known all these answers for years. You seem intelligent, but you express complete ignorance.. while there is an abundance of legitimate, verifiable, easy to access information to answer your questions.

I'm looking for the answers I haven't found. I've researched these points myself, and a lot of it doesn't have conclusive evidence to back the claims up. I found a lot of it to be inconclusive, so I came here to ask people who I assumed would be very knowledgeable about it.

Is it really so offensive for me to want to hear the opinions of other people? The websites and video that try and prove 9/11 was an inside job are just as biased and sensationalist as the mainstream media. They all have agendas. I came here for your answers; what the problem? You'll discuss and upvote an absolutely false story about Nine-trillion missing from the Federal Reserve but you won't discuss this?

Isn't his subreddit all about asking questions and having those questions answered for not only myself, but anybody who views these answers? It's easy to submit a shitty image or video that has no value whatsoever. It's better and more useful, in my mind, to have a real discussion on matters that are important.

If you don't find this important or worth discussing, what do you find worthy? Why don't you tell me, I'd like to discuss it.

Sorry I asked by the way.

After seeing this video, it changed my view of the events that happened on that day. It's a long video, about 4 hours but definitely worth the watch. it's an alternative theory (nuclear demolition), but in my mind has a lot of supporting evidence. Give it a watch if you care to seek the truth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lec9giab90I

It's not about asking, it's about telling.

You see something suspicious: compare and evaluate.

There's SO MANY smoking guns, and it seems like you're nitpicking.

The MSM is a tool of propaganda. Useless. Look how they handled Turkeys false flag planning: ignored. NOT mentioned SPECIFICALLY on any MSM netowrk. Not one. All they reported was: Turkey shut down Youtube.. (No one asks why? Reporting is dead to MSM? -It's controlled. Period).

Opinions are shit, and the fact that soo many people had the opinion that the govt would never pull a false flag, or torture people, proves it.

Facts please. Use your fucking brain and post what you find cogently. Let's discuss that, rather than opinions, ok?

I'm not going to tell you how to find worth. It's not that hard.

[deleted]

That was a little... unnecessary. Especially because everything he said is true.

Especially because everything he said is true.

Please reference the below link for reply.

http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/23rdqn/a_few_question_i_had_about_911_for_those_who_know/cgzx7sf

[deleted]

No problem buddy.

My question is this... Why did both buildings collapse in a text book style controlled demolition? Why did one plane to each building knock down structures that are made to handle extreme winds?

Shady shit.

Why did both buildings collapse in a text book style controlled demolition?

They didn't. Not even slightly. Controlled demolitions start from the bottom, not the top. Controlled demolitions also don't allow that much debris to fly that far from the building. The only similarity between the Twin Towers and a controlled demolition was that they collapsed at all.

Why did one plane to each building knock down structures that are made to handle extreme winds?

This might come as a surprise to you, but the forces and interactions caused by wind are very different than those caused by a fully-loaded airliner traveling at top speed.

Ah, i see i was wrong. I appreciate you correcting me.

Don't forget about WTC 7 which had a simple office fire yet collapsed in free fall. That's more damning evidence than the other WTC building honestly. Pretty sure building 7 contained important documents as well but I'm not positive on that one.

And the pentagon whose hole is smaller than the supposed plane that crashed into it.

It wasn't. First point here.

Yes It was, that article even says so

Where's it say that? Because I'm not seeing it.

Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide

It also fails to mention the height of the plane.

Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide

The fuselage on a 757 isn't more than 15 feet wide.

It also fails to mention the height of the plane.

44.5 feet.

I see the problem here is that you accept that the wings and giant engines disappeared. That's where we're having a problem, because of course there was no trace of the wings or engines anywhere outside or inside the pentagon for that matter.

No it doesn't. The hole was wider than the fuselage. On wing dug into the ground, the other broke on impact. It didn't punch a plane shaped hole the building.

I always keep an open mind. I'm even open to the idea that the secretive groups who rule the world do so to protect humanity, rather than benefit for their own good. Or even that our Government has all these new anti-terrorism laws to legitimately try and protect people by bypassing laws for faster prosecutions.

Open to doesn't mean I believe it.

I'll admit when wrong if there is compelling evidence, or an argument, that is without a doubt true.

Glad to hear that!

Good Luck :)

Yes It was, that article even says so