9/11 doubts and/or questions

Explain why it would take thousands of people.
I don't see that it would take more than a roundtable of people.

Using the official government story, it didn't take ANYONE to be involved.

 

I guess.
But I have two answers.
1) There weren't that many people in on it.
2) Power corrupts. We're only 60 plus years removed from Nazi Germany. I don't think that, as a species, we've conquered that part of our DNA which allows us to do the unspeakable.

Again, I'm not saying I BELIEVE any of this.
But I'm not saying I don't either.

 

In-fucking-credible how many normally sane posters on this board are giving the Pentagon questions the time of day.

Where the FUCK is Barbara Olson?

 

To the posters who toasted and roasted me regarding this thread, my point was I think there are some questions that have not been fully or honestly answered.

As a counter point, I did read the Popular Mechanics debunking the myths. All good points.

Regarding the depth and deception of a (possible) conspiracy. At the beginning of "Loose Change" there is a segment on a covert military operation called Northwinds that was drafted by the Joint Chiefs Of Staff in 1962. The "false flag" operation was designed to make it appear that Cuba was attacking the U.S. It included "mortar attacks'' on Gitmo, sinking a Navy ship in the harbor, snipers firing in Miami and Washington D.C., crashing a plane that was "supposed" to be carrying college students on vacation. All of this was to legitimize military action against Cuba and then perhaps against the Soviet Union. McNamara and Kennedy killed the plan and fired the JCS.

Operation Northwinds is now declassified info. All that shows is what the military is capable of planning.

Having that plan shot down plus Kennedy's wishes to withdraw from Vietnam and it's not that hard to imagine a conspiracy to kill a sitting president. And if that happened and got swept under the rug, then is it that hard to wonder or question current events?

 

If i did subscribe to that theory and was convinced it was a missle I'd say venture that Olson's plane was shot down.
But what would be the point of that.
Makes no sense to me.

 

I don't know what's more starkly frightening -- the attack on the World Trade Center, or educated journalists subscribing to a theory of a U.S.-based conspiracy in its destruction.

 

Also, regarding the Pentagon and the theory about the "cartoon-like" hole that wouldn't be created.

Fine, I buy that. I don't expect an outline of a 757 carved into the side of the Pentagon. But what about the engines and the wings? If they dissolved into a fine mist at impact with the Pentagon wall, why did the rest of the plane make a hole? Why is there no damage at all outside of the hole? I'm trying to be logical here. Wouldn't a couple of steel and titanium engines that weigh a couple of tons each cause two distinct points-of-impact damage on each side of the big hole?

And if the plane skidded into the Pentagon, as has been reported, where are the skid marks on the ground? There aren't any in the photos taken soon after.

Were the terrorists good enough as pilots to aim a plane that size at full speed and hit the side of the Pentagon not much bigger than the plane itself. The second plane that hit the South Tower almost missed to the right.

If you're an educated person or a person with a working brain, aren't these questions worth (better) answers?

And for anyone who lost loved ones during 9/11, I continue to be deeply saddened and sympathetic and I pray they were not "collateral damage" inflicted by a black ops plot.

 

regardless of your beliefs about what happened 9/11, i think we should agree that it is our job to be skeptical of everything and not just take what the government spoon feeds us at face value.

it seems to me the complaint du jour with the media isn't that we are too liberal, but that instead of watchdogs, we're government lapdogs.

i think the best way to honor those lost in 9/11 is to QUESTION EVERYTHING and make sure the truth comes out (whatever that maybe).

someone else said it, and i have to agree. conspiracy theories arise when there is obvious incompetence. that's the case here. i don't think W's administration has done anything to earn our trust.

p.s. i don't think we've been told the complete truth about 9/11. did the government do it? probably not. but we all know they were asleep at the wheel. maybe we can look at it as a modern-day pearl harbor in more ways than one. they definitely didn't do everything they could to stop it.

 

Ditto.
The New York Times, bitched about every day as the beacon of liberalism, employed a reporter who, from what little I know, appears to have been complicit in spreading the misconceptions (lies) that led to the Iraq war. And then she went to jail to protect a high-ranking White House officials who'd been feeding her lies and White House political ammo.
And then NPR, another bastien of liberalism, gushed about what a hero she was for protecting her sources.

That's supposed to be liberal?
Screw the liberal/conservative monikers.
That's cronyism.

 

I, too, would like to know why the official account of an attack on my country has 28 pages about the damned Saudis redacted. Who gives a damn for them? We are owed the whole truth, period.

 

Oh, every administration lies. No doubt about that.

But to this degree? And this often on so many major issues? No. I can't think of another one that comes close.

There's a reason when the "How much do you trust this president" poll numbers fall off a cliff. And this thread is a great example of what happens when they do.