I just watch AE911 Truth, and I have some questions.
21 2012-09-08 by [deleted]
First of all, if explosive charges were actually placed in WTC7, is it possible that the downed plane in Pennsylvania was actually intended for WTC7? It seems slightly plausible given that human error was bound to occur.
I've read from another redditor before (it would take ages to find it if the post still exists) whose wife was a responder to the crash site in PA that the emergency staff were explicitly told that the plane had been shot down, not crash landed. Turning the passengers into heroes was an effective way to provide an alternative explanation for the incident. If Flight 93 was indeed shot down, perhaps the government knew that it was not on its intended collision course (so, perhaps the passengers actually DID try to subdue whatever kind of malicious pilot was in the driver seat of the plane).
By claiming that a plane hit the Pentagon, but removing all proof that one actually did, and instead leaving evidence that points more towards a missile hitting the Pentagon, if true, I believe this was to distract attention away from the oddities that surrounded the strange collapses of the buildings, especially WTC7. With downed planes in several locations, the public is surely more inclined to trust word of the media and the government, right?
Furthermore, I think that the cleanup operation was so blatantly deliberate it's hardly a conspiracy. I remember as a 6th grader wondering to myself why they were hauling the rubble away when it usually took weeks upon months to investigate even a small incident plane crash on any other day. Another thing that I distinctly remember is, before I even knew the word "thermite", I was puzzled as to why there could be magma-hot liquid weeks after the accident, especially considering that fuel would have exploded with any sort of ignition source in the surrounding debris area. It wasn't like the WTC was coated in a flammable substance, and it was precisely this that was odd to me. How a source could stay lava hot for so long.
Furthermore, the correspondence of the anthrax attacks around the same time as 9/11 was extremely odd, as if someone was trying to snuff certain people out. According to Wikipedia, the anthrax stuff started on the 18th of September, just 1 week later. To me this looks like a diversion tactic, allowing time for the destruction of evidence without being noticed by a large majority of people.
I'm not sure how many people have turned up dead, but I do still to this day wonder how many people there are that know what really happened on 9/11.
All of it was blamed on this illusive "Al-quaeda" so quickly, it seemed like a really quick explanation to a more complicated operation. I don't think the true explanation of 9/11 is the Occam's razor, because the simplest explanation is usually not the right one in the case of social engineering/societal perception manipulation. I honestly think greed and power lie at the very summit of the explanation as to why 9/11 occurred, followed by racism, fanaticism, and delusion which led us into 2 wars that were completely useless and unjustified. By bringing up WMDs, the government could resurrect the fear they had started to build in the 50s. And it worked.
After watching the documentary, I am convinced that if the official story is true, the downing of WTC7 was so rare that it would be like someone dying from getting hit in the eye with a paper airplane.
What are your thoughts? To me, 9/11 represents a whole paradigm shift in the way society operated, and as such, it should be looked at very seriously and with a desire to get accurate information about it. Sadly, this is not what has happened. I think the country would tear itself apart from the inside out if the real truth on 9/11 came out in some kind of official manner. It's disgusting to think that there are people out there, high up in the chain of command, who know the true story, who get up every morning, put on a pot of coffee and drive to their government job like it's no big deal - not giving a shit in the world if the truth came out to the public.
Oh and one more thing, I have been reading up on 9/11 for a LONG time, and the documentary showed me for the first time ever that liquid steel was draining out of the buildings. WTF was that!? Obviously it was probably thermite. It just blows me away that that detail was conveniently missed. Also NISP knows more than they are telling, that is for damn sure. Their simulations are bunk and they know it, unless the people involved were all killed.
edit:
Here are some additional thoughts that I missed:
I remember, reaaaaaaally vaguely from watching the coverage on the morning of 9/11, as I sat in Geography class, that there had been claims of a 3rd plane hitting WTC7, but a day or two later that claim had been corrected and changed to "a piece of the plane that ejected from the main WTC buildings". This seemed strange.
If 9/11 was actually about eliminating as many people as possible and having an external force commit terrorism to America, I believe that the operation would be so absolutely covert that it would be too late to save us once a legit terrorist attack actually occurred (ie terrorists would infect drinking water with ricin or some other really stealthy chemical).
The other day, someone here in /r/conspiracy mentioned among other names that Daniel Pearl's death was potentially connected to hushing the truth about 9/11. What do you think about this?
There was some ABC reporter that died over seas in the middle east a while back, and the name escapes me but the death was shady as FUUUUCK. Apparently he died of a heart attack after crouching for too long in a crab-like position or something. At first I thought it was George Stephanopoulos, but thankfully it was not. I'm not sure if there is any kind of connection here, but that was weird to me.
Don't even get me started on NORAD, Cheney, and the potential chance to call the planes out of the air. If someone really wanted to step in to prevent 9/11 they abso-fucking-lutely could. This is America, where the FBI, or actually ICE now (yay!) can kick down your door for pirating a couple copyrighted songs but we can't tell a plane via intercom to stand down? Or simply send a few jets up there while the chaos is going on to see what all the hubbub is about?! Smells fishy to me.
The amount of twisted language used surrounding victim treatment, the recovery/cleanup process, and the memorialization of the event was for the most part disgusting. I'm not talking about the legitimate expressions of sadness from those poor families. I'm talking about the words used by the higher ups to describe the events. I probably saw a 100x increase in the use of the words "ideological" after the event among others, and it wasn't until 2012 that I read 1984 and learned about doublethink.
Expanding on point #6, the language and discussion that surrounded 9/11 in the successive years made 9/11 sound to the outsider like the worst possible tragedy an individual could imagine. But putting it into perspective with all the other types and amount of death that occur, 9/11 seems actually pretty negligible in terms of net loss of life. But the biggest talking points for the government were focused on retaliating against the enemy because of the great loss of life. I don't think we will ever go to war against Phillip Morris for causing way more people to die of cancer from smoking cigarettes...or will we go to war for the several kids that have starved to death while you've been reading this post? No. The war was manipulation at its finest. And whenever anyone started to dance around the edges of the actual truth, the government seems to do this genius "put you on hold" technique where they put as much paperwork and legalese between it and the victims as possible in order to avoid actually answering legitimate questions. Now this is where the Patriot Act comes in. I'll bet a pizza with someone that Bush and co already was wet to pass the Patriot Act because of the NWO mindset.
ps, I've always wondered this but if there were charges placed in all the WTC buildings, who do you think placed them? A government contractor or a hired party from another country so as to avoid potential leaks of information? If I had to guess it was probably a professional operation done under the guise of window washing, mechanical repairmen, or some other type of public service that required bringing lots of explosive stuff into the building that appeared to be legitimate and non-dangerous. If ever we were able to narrow down the companies that had active contracts to operate inside the premesis on or around that morning, it would be interesting to see if there are any clusters of fatalities that were reported from that company. So, for example, if it turned out that Stanley Steamer was requested for carpet cleaning service a week or two earlier before the attacks (not saying they were, this is just an example), perhaps we could do some digging to find if there had been a chunk of fatalities around that time due to elimination of evidence/rats. Any sort of cluster of deaths within a public service organization such as this right before the attacks would send up a huge red flag in my book. This includes possible "accidents" involving employees, contractors, etc.
After watching Man on Wire, I'm slightly convinced that it would have taken a lot of effort to sneak into the building to place charges without being noticed by security cameras or a layman just doing his or her job. Even while the buildings were being constructed and there was a lot of contractor foot traffic in and out of the building, Philippe Petit was able to sneak his tightrope junk up to the top without getting caught. If he can do it, a hired company could do the exact same thing with explosives. Funny how that movie came out after 9/11 but never mentioned anything about the attacks. Maybe the documentary's silence on the issue was a really subtle way of indicating something more...
What am I missing or overlooking?
edit 2: wow, thanks to grandmacaesar, I found this: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-P45nCWbzaJM/TldguPAwAgI/AAAAAAAAAq4/PMxiI6ghjLg/s400/butts.png, http://mybigfatanti-zionistlife.blogspot.com/2011/08/official-2001-fbi-docs-on-urban-moving.html, http://www.takeourworldback.com/dancingisraelisfbireport.htm, http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:1g8h5QsniJkJ:scam.com/showthread.php%3Ft%3D22617+&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a
edit 3: Could a small drone have been what hit the pentagon (along with a missile)? Seems likely considering the push to get more of these things out into the world now, and considering the unbroken pylons on the pentagon, the weird looking wheel rim, and it's dissimilarity with that of the rim of a 757.
edit 4: thanks to jablome, check this out: https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2010/10/26/trade-center-cameras-locks-electricity-turned-off-weekend-before-911/ apparently cameras, locks, etc were disabled in the weeks leading up the attacks. And in the comment section of the link above, I found this interesting page you should see too: http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_power_down.html
59 comments
6 Nordic99 2012-09-08
If you guys could quit arguing about the red herring Pentagon nonsense long enough, you should watch this:
Colorado Public Television Presents 9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out
http://video.cpt12.org/video/2270078138/
This is a documentary hosted by Richard Gage, the architect who started Architect and Engineers for 911 truth.
It's pretty damn good, sober, straightforward.
It has a real "just the facts" point of view.
And yes, the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition. It's obvious as can be. The big question of course is who did it, and why it's been so successfully covered up. Obviously plenty of people high up in the government know damn well who did it, but they're terrified into helplessness. The people who did this are just pure evil. And they weren't a bunch of cave-dwelling religious nuts.
9/11 was a coup. Trouble is, people like you and me don't know who it was that overthrew what. But it was a coup, in the same vein that the JFK murder was a coup. It was to show the world Who Really Runs Things. And not to fuck around with Who Really Runs Things.
What cracks me the hell up about people who complain about "conspiracy theorists" is that we know for an established FACT now, that the Anthrax attacks, which were a big big part of the terror of that period, and which we were told came from the scary swarthy middle eastern terrorists as the plane attacks, were in FACT from inside our own country, with Anthrax made by our own military. That was an "inside job" and nobody argues it at all any more. 100% an inside job. EVEN IF you believe the official story on that (which is silly), it was an inside job (oh, but a lone nut, a bad apple, a "rogue nut", yeah right).
But if you suggest that the planes crashing into the buildings were committed by domestic enemies, like the anthrax attacks were, you're still met with dumbfounded gazes, and shocked disbelief. By a great many people. A HELL of a lot of people know the truth, too, but have been conditioned by the media and the trolls on internet sites (like here) to think that EVERYONE will laugh at them and mock them if they say what they believe.
People don't believe what the media TELLS YOU they believe. One of the biggest lies the media tells us is WHAT WE BELIEVE. They're very cunning that way.
3 RDS 2012-09-08
Good post man. The anthrax part is so true. Don't forget the fact that Al Qaeda isn't even real and was the CIAs list of assets know as "the base." At least that's my understanding of it. Check out that BBC documentary...
3 [deleted] 2012-09-08
Actually, the name "Al Qaeda" is just a sick Israeli joke.
In colloquial Arabic "Ana raicha al qaeda" means...
"I gotta go take a shit."
Really.
2 RDS 2012-09-08
haha really?
what is the basic translation? "Ana raicha" being a form of "I've got to do something" and "al qaeda" means "go to the bathroom?"
I was under the impression "Al" is a form of "the" and Qaeda means "base."
Lol so I looked it up while writing this comment.
But apparently it also means toilet seat.
5 Slipgrid 2012-09-08
Yes, 93 was shot down, likely headed for WTC7. Pentagon was most likely a flyover. Anthrax sent from US labs to major media, Democrats, and tabloids is a clear signal to coverup the story. Danny P was following the money... that's what wsj journalist used to do. The video of his death was made after he was killed. There was a USA Today reporter that gave the whole story in a 7-10 minute segment the day after the event, but he was fired five years later and discredited. There is an interesting story about someone war dialing NORAD during the attack.
9/11 is an interesting study... the more you look into it, the more you find... it never ends.
3 hb_alien 2012-09-08
Flight 93 was headed for DC. Likely headed for the White House or Capitol.
4 [deleted] 2012-09-08
hb_alien....sure as usual
-2 hb_alien 2012-09-08
Everyone else in here... paranoid, making shit up, and clutching at straws ignoring massive evidence that opposes their theories.
0 [deleted] 2012-09-08
[deleted]
1 Slider149 2012-09-08
If the fourth plane was heading for the capitol, Bush wasn't there anyways. The "head of the nation" would have been intact.
5 grandmacaesar 2012-09-08
For the people that set-up the buildings, google urban moving systems fbi pdf. Also google wtc "the b thing".
Have a cool day!
3 SovereignMan 2012-09-08
You are definitely on the right track.
3 UhhImJef 2012-09-08
Haven't seen this one, but zeit geist make all these points also.. and also goes into the federal reserve and how our monetary system is fucked. Impossible to get out of debt when the dollar is produced- at intrest. You earn a dollar, and owe 3 for it. Average american works for 4-5 months to pay their federally unconstitutional income tax.
6 [deleted] 2012-09-08
[deleted]
1 UhhImJef 2012-09-08
Yea.. $ is the root of all evil.
1 railroadwino 2012-09-08
2 archonemis 2012-09-08
They're functionally identical.
Both psychiatrists and psychologists would be forced to agree with that.
The difference is in how they think of the 'cause' - i.e. nature / nurture.
(Hint: one group thinks you can drug people into normal behavior patterns.)
1 archonemis 2012-09-08
Intro to psychopathology:
http://youtu.be/Hon3AzMO6vs
You have stumbled on something worth discussion.
The people who order these sorts of activities are certainly psychopathic. This is tricky because there are a lot of rubes, dupes and true believers who are being manipulated by the psychopaths into doing bad things. You can't go on a McCarthy-esque witch hunt. If you do you're no better than a common demogogue.
Still, this is a subject that has been on my mind for the last year.
Pick up Dr. Robert Hare's Without Conscience.
Cheers.
-1 The_Sumerian 2012-09-08
To learn the motivation for the false flag operations google up global collateral accounts.
3 [deleted] 2012-09-08
Watch www.warbydeception.com , and you won't have any important questions left unanswered.
1 [deleted] 2012-09-08
[deleted]
2 [deleted] 2012-09-08
As far as 9/11, no. The majority of the ones I've viewed are just beating around the bush and dwell in the "how" and not the "who'.
As far as captivating documentaries in general, I recommend every single Adam Curtis film (eg: The Power of Nightmares, The Lonely Robot, The trap, etc). I've just cost you the rest of your weekend.
1 billsang1 2012-09-08
This guy claims a plane hit the pentagon. I still like most of his stuff, very insightful. Also this guy has so much hatred for Israel it blinds him to the other truth.
2 [deleted] 2012-09-08
Again, focusing on the how and not the how, and using ad hominem to attack his credibility.
2 KonDon 2012-09-08
In terms of who placed the explosives, it's likely servicemen repairing the buildings, or agents with security clearance. They were given packages to deploy, without being told what was in them. Just speculation though
1 alllie 2012-09-08
No. To bring a building down in it's own footprint it takes the expert placing of explosives. They had to be placed on the support columns. Mossad again. Probably advised by experts.
0 GrymmWRX 2012-09-08
My feeling is that they were always there. Built into the thing. If you look into what offices were headquartered there...
1 [deleted] 2012-09-08
[deleted]
0 GrymmWRX 2012-09-08
Like I said...just a feeling...can't prove you wrong. I also have a feeling they could pull it off construction wise.
0 SSJAmes 2012-09-08
This actually makes sense to me. If the government builds a structure that they KNOW is going to contain sensitive information, or anything that they don't want in civilian/enemy hands, a "self destruct protocol" actually makes a lot of sense. I bet even the white house is rigged with explosives.
1 GrymmWRX 2012-09-08
I would imagine so...the underground bunkers and tunnels that the White House must have would be the true nerve center. Anything else is facade...
1 [deleted] 2012-09-08
[deleted]
1 GrymmWRX 2012-09-08
It was huge windfall for Larry Silverstein.
2 jablome 2012-09-08
There were unusual evacuations in the weeks leading up to 9/11.
2 UhhImJef 2012-09-08
Also happened to be running a NORAD exercise, that consisted of hijacked airplanes, supposed to run into buildings
2 UhhImJef 2012-09-08
At the same time, in the same airspace on the same day.
2 EvilScotsmen 2012-09-08
Good book worth reading, Michael Ruppert's 'Crossing the Rubicon'. Its scary to think he wrote it back in 2004. All this evidence had been accumulated and yet I wasn't aware of any of it. I was busy fixating on 'Fahrenheit 9/11', thinking that I was seeing all the pieces fitting together. When actually I had no fucking idea.
2 rockytimber 2012-09-08
All sides agree on these facts: there was enough energy released on 9/11 to bring three buildings down in Manhattan and a hole was punched into the Pentagon and an airplane came down in PA. The debate over how and what happened with these incidents will not be resolved by us because all we can do is speculate, we don't have access to the crime scene or the forensic evidence. The real questions have always been a) is the official story credible? b)did elements in the gov't have foreknowledge and stand aside? c)did elements in the government participate in the operation? To ponder these questions, you don't have to do forensic analysis of the crime scene, you have to study motive, money, intelligence, the 9/11 timeline (history commons) look at whistleblower testimony etc. I recommend looking into Sibel Edmonds and her site Boiling Frogs. And skip theories of how the buildings came down, how 93 crashed, how the pentagon got a hole in it. For example, on the JFK issue, the biggest smoking gun isn't that we know conclusively how JKF's body was penetrated by ballistics, it is that the official story was shown to be a joke, and that plenty of folks had a motive to have him assassinated, and there was definitely a lot more to it than a lone gunman. Again, in that instance, the crime scene was controlled, altered, and restricted.
2 [deleted] 2012-09-08
OP, you need to read this. It's free:
http://www.bollyn.com/solving-9-11-the-book
1 alllie 2012-09-08
No. The Capitol was the fourth target.
Also Fight 93 was supposed to take off and probably crash first, crash into Congress, with Congress in session, thus leaving Bush and Cheney with all the power. But Flight 93 was delayed and sat on the runway.
This delay and the passenger's rebellion might be the only reasons we have any democracy left today.
Mossad. They couldn't trust any American to do it. So everyone involved was Mossad, who could be persuaded it was in Israel's best interest. And Israel has a long history of false flag attacks. I am not saying they did it on their own, but the Bush and Cheney got Sharon to get Mossad to do that part of it.
0 Rockran 2012-09-08
Could you elaborate on that? As even thermite doesn't hold it's molten temperature for anywhere near that long.
Sounds like you've thrown in a few weeks for no reason whatsoever.
8 [deleted] 2012-09-08
[deleted]
0 hb_alien 2012-09-08
Could have been molten aluminum, since the fires burned hot enough to do it.
2 penkilk 2012-09-08
Molten aluminum doesnt glow like lava. Just imagine alllll that asbestos, one of the best insulators you could ask for, slam packed around these pools
2 [deleted] 2012-09-08
[deleted]
-1 hb_alien 2012-09-08
Link to said news footage?
0 jack_spankin 2012-09-08
A plane did hit the Pentagon. My college roommate and best friend was driving on the highway and saw the plane himself along with hundreds of others.
Do you understand how infuriating it is for someone who was an eye witness to hear this bullshit?
5 CaughtInTheNet 2012-09-08
I don't doubt he saw a plane over the highway. What is highly questionable is whether a 757 hit the pentagon. It is speculated that the 757 flew right over the pentagon at the same time as the impact of whatever hit it- giving the impression that the 757 hit. There were too many witnesses to deny the existance of a 757.
The investigative work done here is very important:
http://citizeninvestigationteam.com/evidence.html
4 railroadwino 2012-09-08
So we're supposed to stop all study of the hard evidence like the fact that a commercial airliner couldn't have made the hole that was in the pentagon all because you - a guy on the internet - claims your friend saw it?
6 [deleted] 2012-09-08
[deleted]
1 kahirsch 2012-09-08
There were dozens of witnesses.
Why do you think that the hole wasn't big enough?
-5 jack_spankin 2012-09-08
No, you do the real homework and learn that it's perfectly reasonable for a plane that size to fold up like a tin can on impact.
4 [deleted] 2012-09-08
[deleted]
-1 Rockran 2012-09-08
Would you please quote where jack_spankin said this?
2 [deleted] 2012-09-08
[deleted]
-1 Rockran 2012-09-08
That's better.
Now, whilst the Pentagon isn't made of nuclear blast resistant materials, and a jet isn't a 757, what are you thoughts on this video? - This jet seems to do exactly that (Fold up like a tin can. It even gets turned to dust).
2 Zanzibareous 2012-09-08
I believe you are mixing up your personalities because you ask if he/she "knows how infuriating it is for someone who was an eye witness to hear this bullshit?". But you were not an eye witness, your college roommate and best friend were. So are you getting infuriated as someone who was roommates and friends with an eye witness? I think you're getting a little emotionally overcharged for someone trying find answers to a story that has been presented that has been proven to be false.
-1 jack_spankin 2012-09-08
The arguments of the tin foil crowd have been debunked over and over and over again. You are like the anti-vax crowd. You'll look for one needle in the haystack as evidence that it's not a haystack.
2 Zanzibareous 2012-09-08
Aside from you not addressing my counter argument to your claims of outrage and 'eyewitness accounts', you are misguided in your other assumptions within your comment.
I am not aligning myself with all of the arguments and claims of conspiracy theorists regarding this subject. I am only addressing the fact that there are certain points of the official story that cannot be true, and that any question into the actual events is shunned and drowned out, which should not be the case for any event in history.
In 200, every single account of a plane being 'compromised' over national airspace, there was a military fighter intercepting said flight within minutes. On September 11, there were four flights that were able to fly through national airspace for about an hour (depending on the flight) with no intercepting military jets stopping any of them. The reason given for this is NORAD performing 'war game exercises' that simulated the same events happening that day. Dick Cheney took over control of NORAD months before.
Official accounts reported of several passports of the hijackers being recovered near the site of the towers, supposedly surviving the crash and the collapse of the towers unharmed.
Multiple accounts of witnesses (both video and testimony) of secondary explosions going on inside both of the WTC towers, from firefighters to civilians. While not as prevalent, there are witness accounts of seeing a military plane strike the towers, rather than commercial (there were also witnesses claiming to see a commercial airliner as well).
One of the more eye-opening actions is that of the government offering money to the families of those deceased from the towers to keep their silence. Even those that refused were ignored and not given accurate responses in regards to their questioning of the day.
The conditions which George Bush and Dick Cheney were to testify about the events and conditions of that day shed some light onto the secrecy that is involved in this case, which, nefarious or innocent, should not be allowed in such a nationally felt event.
There are more, however I wish to see if you really want to have a discussion about the topic, or simply throw me in the crowd of any and all conspiracy theorists who talk about the subject. Because I don't wish to be categorized with those who talk about it with regards to fifth dimension lizard aliens secretly sending in planes to the buildings. See how if one person were to say something about an event I am talking about, that I don't automatically agree with what they are espousing? Some critical thinking is always in order when discussing such topics.
1 UhhImJef 2012-09-08
Seeings the planes can withstand temps up to 2000F, there was no debris that corilates with planes crash (big hole, wing marks on building) AND there is a hotel across the street the employees were watching the footage in awe of what happened, and the FBI came and confiscated said footage and blackmailed them into keeping hushed about what they saw. Not saying your friend didnt see a plane cause i wasn't there. But maybe he is one of hundreds to also be bribed/blackmailed. Big brother dont play.
2 [deleted] 2012-09-08
[deleted]
1 UhhImJef 2012-09-08
Yea, tend to overthink stuff from time to time.. try to look at every possible scenario.
-4 jack_spankin 2012-09-08
Of course. The most likely explanation is that hundreds liked and were paid off because you think you are a crash expert.
1 UhhImJef 2012-09-08
Far from a crash expert.. just a toker who pays attention to details, dick.
-4 jack_spankin 2012-09-08
That is evident.
Apparently not enough details.
0 [deleted] 2012-09-08
[deleted]
0 jack_spankin 2012-09-08
I really don't want to drag him into this because he is so done with the conspiracy nuts on this issue.
He say a commercial jet flying right over the highway he was on. He was afraid it was coming right down on top of him which it didn't. I doubt he could tell the difference between a 737, 757, etc.
You can get into the size of the crash site and the entrance hole and all that crap if you want. But I know he was an eyewitness along with dozens of others, and ten years later you still have keyboard commandos saying it's all some sort of coordinated lie.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1wQ2BJsgx0
This is what he tells me to send people and what he sends people when they ask since we've talked about it several times.
1 [deleted] 2012-09-08
[deleted]
-3 jack_spankin 2012-09-08
There is no mistake. A plane crashed into the pentagon. there were witnesses and physical evidence far in excess of any other possiblity.
3 [deleted] 2012-09-08
[deleted]
-3 jack_spankin 2012-09-08
Except for the 100+ eye witnesses and the mechanical gear from the plan all over the pentagon and the entire flight of people whose bodies ended up in the pentagon.
2 FemaCampDirector 2012-09-08
With the yet to be released security camera footage from multiple angles, there will be no doubt.
1 [deleted] 2012-09-08
[deleted]
5 brownestrabbit 2012-09-08
With recent reports coming out that CNN has been taking literal bribes to report whatever their buyers want to report, how can they be considered credible?
They have been caught many times, falsifying news/information. What is to keep them from falsifying the 'first-hand' accounts/ eye-witnesses?
More reporting on the Bahrain issue.
-4 jack_spankin 2012-09-08
That is evident.
Apparently not enough details.
1 GrymmWRX 2012-09-08
I would imagine so...the underground bunkers and tunnels that the White House must have would be the true nerve center. Anything else is facade...
0 GrymmWRX 2012-09-08
Like I said...just a feeling...can't prove you wrong. I also have a feeling they could pull it off construction wise.
2 RDS 2012-09-08
haha really?
what is the basic translation? "Ana raicha" being a form of "I've got to do something" and "al qaeda" means "go to the bathroom?"
I was under the impression "Al" is a form of "the" and Qaeda means "base."
Lol so I looked it up while writing this comment.
But apparently it also means toilet seat.