9/11 Theory

Conspiracy the Lee Harvey Oswald didn't do it.

covering it up doesnt mean the government is directly involved in the attacks. Knowing about it, or knowing the truth but not letting it out can be a conspiracy.

 

One wonders how much our Government hides from us. But to set up a full scale war (two, actually), based on an attack you staged yourself. . that is amazing. I don't visit the sites that talk about those things, you never know who's watching. I don't honestly believe in it, I think we seized an opportunity for Economic power.

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">In other hand, have you imagine the aftershock if US get caught in the future? Bush will be in a jail for long time for murder and treason if not being executed, US will be distrusted instantly, and that will bring gigantic chaos and worldwide economic depresson for a long time. Knowing tiny plus side and catastropic minus side, I don't think any sane people will choose to go ahead with 9/11. </div>

1. Who's going to jail Bush? The UN? We BS the UN all the time, we went to war without their consent. . not only that -- they flat out told us not to.

2. Who sincerely trusts the US? There's the UK, Saudi, Israel, South Korea, India and Pakistan. . anyone else? Russia works with us, the far East isn't too fond of is, the Middle East flat out hates us. And ironically enough, we have no allies in any African country, and minimal interest in South American countries. The US has interest only in regions where they are directly threatened, or have something to gain. We don't need to spy on Cuba, Miami is RIGHT there. The UK helped establish the EU, and we have them as an ally. And what does Europe really do? We don't have a considerable amount of support from any of the 'stronger' countries. The Panama Canal? We controlled trade their for so long, giving it up was such a big fuss. Saudi Arabia has OIL. . our protection for their oil isn't a bad deal. Israel is in the thick of everything. They'd be doing nothing without our backing.

3. World-wide economic depression? The only countries doing well in the world are the ones with US backing. If it was all a conspiracy, the countries that would be affected are already in a terrible situation. The EU is flourishing, Japan already has it staple on the world's economy (second highest GNP). South Korea has established itself as an export-based economy.

People are sold on China becoming this super-power, I am too. But until they toss out Communism, they'll be stuck in their own bubble, and I honestly think they are fine with that. Saudi Arabia are still one of the richest countries in the world, and along with US backing and protection, they don't need to invest in anything. As long as they have oil, they wouldn't go down (even with war declared on them .. the US is defending them). Israel is too busy declaring war on obscure militants deep within countries. . and they have backing from the US. India is the fastest growing country, economically, in the world. In one year, they posted a growth of the same percentage of the past NINE years.

And they're all alligned with us.

As for the rest of the post (and other people's), I don't remember the movie, and I am not going to visit any sites that are THAT extreme. Kwan1031, this wasn't all directed at you, I just found a post interesting enough to write all this about. No hard feelings, eh? []

 

If Bush ever involved in 9/11 and it became a public knowledge, he will be impeached and jailed. Watergate can sink a president, and 9/11 can definitely do it again and more. And, once you are impeached, you can be jailed.

Of course there is no country sincerely trust another country. I lived more than half of my life in South Korea, and they certainly don't trust US either. However, right now, other countries simply can't ignore whatever US does. Because not only US is the leading country in the world, despite acting for US' own benefit there is a basic trust that US won't do anything irrational or shake up the world's balance dramatically. There are countries who benefits more or less dealing with US. However, all countries in the world benefit a global stability (unless they are in a civil war) because of US like how Rome brought a peace for few centuries. And in order for any economy to flourish, stability is must. If 9/11 is indeed proven to be the work of US, those trusts will be shattered and the world will be in chaos because they lost a stability in the world.

If you think collapse of US' trust won't bring much of world wide depression, you are vastly underestimating the role of US. Around 60 years ago, depression in US brought world wide depression and indrectly caused WWII. And, that's when US really didn't have much role in world economy. In today's world, little hick-up affect worldwide stock market. For example, little economic collapse in Hong Kong (I believe) brought a major depression in many Asian countries less than 10 years ago, and just one big company's announcement can move world-wide stockmarket one way or the another. If there is a major economic depression in US now, that will definitely shake up world economy for the long time.

One way to look at conspiracy theory is instead of focusing on small evidences or events, look at the big picture and see if an accident benefits or not. Nobody will go for $100 lottory, when the ticket cost $99, because you can either win $1 or lose $99. And, when I see 9/11 and how it benefits US and how it will affect US if they get caught, minus simply dominates plus side as I write before. And, while many people tend to believe that government can keep absolute secret for long time, many vital informations tend to leak out sooner or later. Considering there were much safer and effective ways to dealing with Middle East, no sane person will choose extreme method like 9/11.

I am not saying the government is what major news media is potraying. And, because I grew up on South Korea and majored in History to boot, I am well aware of what dictatorship and government are capable of. However, 9/11 conspiracy theory just doesn't make sense in number of reasons...

 

I was going to write why I thought the video "Loose Change" was full of it after having seen it, but I found this link instead:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loose_Change_%28video%29

Thanks wikipedia.

They sure did make a lot of errors while making this video. I always try to check up wikipedia after hearing about something controversial like this, I suggest you people do the same.

Just an example:
"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," O'Brien said, "you don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe." The italicized part was left out of the documentary. [21]

 

Don't wanna delve too much into this topic, but where ever there's smoke, there's fire.... and there's too much smoke here for a fire not to exist.

Conspiracy theories have been around for ages and none of them have made their way into the mainstream, however, the 9/11 theories were able to do so. Don't you think there's a reason for this?

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting dunksworth:</div><div class="quote_post">Don't wanna delve too much into this topic, but where ever there's smoke, there's fire.... and there's too much smoke here for a fire not to exist.

Conspiracy theories have been around for ages and none of them have made their way into the mainstream, however, the 9/11 theories were able to do so. Don't you think there's a reason for this?</div>

I haven't seen many points in this thread that can not be accounted for by wikipedia, etc. , or that are that compelling. Although I might be forgetting something, and I am open to changing my opinion. As for this video, "Loose Change", I don't think much of it at all. These theories sound ridiculous and the previous link in my other post explains why.

 

^ I read that wikipedia site and other similar pages that attempt to debunk the 9/11 conspiracy theories, and frankly, their reasonings are pretty weak. They tend to focus on the weaker points and give lame reasons for the stronger points. For example, they never gave clear explanations as to the explosions that could be seen and heard. The explosions imo was the most damning evidence that support the conspiracy theory. They also never gave logical explanations as to why the owner of WTC7 all of a sudden bought the twin towers a few weeks prior to 9/11 with a convenient clause in the insurance that reward him in the event of a terrorist attack, and also the huge amount of stock that was purchased prior to 9/11 that essentially rewards the holder if United Airlines stock plummetted (which obviously, it did). The attempts to disprove some of the questions reminds me of those creationists who attempt to disprove evolution. They only come across as desperate and unwilling to admit defeat.

You also have to question the motives of that wikipedia page too. If they were unbias, why are they trying so hard to disprove Loose Change? A neutral article would've been stating the points that hold a lot of weight and at the same time, criticize the weaker ones. All wikipedia did was attempt to discredit the whole thing and refer to it as fiction.

Personally, I was never the type to get caught up into conspiracy theories. I heard about 9/11 being set up years ago but just like everyone else, I thought it was just a bunch of nonsense. c'mon, why would the gov't do such a thing w/o thinking they could get caught?..... But after watching LC and doing some more research, it becomes clear that something is definitely wrong. Yes there are certain aspects of LC that seem flawed, but if you look at everything as a whole, they just raise way too many legitimate questions that make it difficult to believe that something wasn't wrong.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting dunksworth:</div><div class="quote_post">^ <font color=""Red"">I read that wikipedia site and other similar pages that attempt to debunk the 9/11 conspiracy theories, and frankly, their reasonings are pretty weak. They tend to focus on the weaker points and give lame reasons for the stronger points. For example, they never gave clear explanations as to the explosions that could be seen and heard. The explosions imo was the most damning evidence that support the conspiracy theory. They also never gave logical explanations as to why the owner of WTC7 all of a sudden bought the twin towers a few weeks prior to 9/11 with a convenient clause in the insurance that reward him in the event of a terrorist attack, and also the huge amount of stock that was purchased prior to 9/11 that essentially rewards the holder if United Airlines stock plummetted (which obviously, it did). The attempts to disprove some of the questions reminds me of those creationists who attempt to disprove evolution. They only come across as desperate and unwilling to admit defeat.</font>

You also have to question the motives of that wikipedia page too. If they were unbias, why are they trying so hard to disprove Loose Change? A neutral article would've been stating the points that hold a lot of weight and at the same time, criticize the weaker ones. All wikipedia did was attempt to discredit the whole thing and refer to it as fiction.

Personally, I was never the type to get caught up into conspiracy theories. I heard about 9/11 being set up years ago but just like everyone else, I thought it was just a bunch of nonsense. c'mon, why would the gov't do such a thing w/o thinking they could get caught?..... But after watching LC and doing some more research, it becomes clear that something is definitely wrong. Yes there are certain aspects of LC that seem flawed, but if you look at everything as a whole, they just raise way too many legitimate questions that make it difficult to believe that something wasn't wrong.</div>

I liked you're first paragraph. I can see where you are coming from. Although I did not really feel you made your case against wikipedia in the second paragraph (Loose Change makes dozens of factual errors and relies upon blurry video to point out missles I cannot see). You also don't really say much in your third paragraph except speculate and such, so I'll respond to the section highlighted in red.

Loose Change tries to pass off misrepresentation of events as fact, and it is done too often for one to trust that video anymore.

World Trade Center collapse
The documentary focuses on the combustion temperature of jet fuel (1517 ?F / 825 ?C) which is much lower than the melting point of steel (2777 ?F / 1525 ?C). This is true but irrelevant as it does not elaborate on the combustion temperatures of office equipment and open air flame which can be much higher, and it fails to note that "steel loses 50 percent of its strength at 1,200 degrees F [650 ?C]." [24] While the steel components of the WTC were certified to ASTM E119 requiring them to be exposed to ~2000 ?F for several hours; [25] this is a test of specific materials under controlled conditions and does not reflect the performance of "assemblies under actual fire conditions." [26]

As temperatures rose in the buildings, the remaining core columns softened and buckled, shifting much of the burden to the building's exterior. The floors, which largely remained intact outside the impact zone, reacted by pulling the exterior columns inward, adding to the extreme stress on the exterior columns. In the north tower, as fires consumed office furniture and other debris, softening the steel in the exterior columns, they gradually started to bow inward and then buckle. [27]

This buckling and the resulting floors falling could be heard as "secondary explosions" and "crashes" prior to the collapse. As the Twin Towers had strong outer shells and light weight trusses for floors, that would force the collapse inward as the towers were — structurally speaking — 95% air because of their open floor designs. It would allow the interior of the building to collapse first; so that debris, floors and elevators could fall inside the tower and blow out windows ahead of the exterior collapse. While FEMA's initial report concluded the floor trusses gave way and created a pan-cake effect; a comprehensive report by the NIST concluded the WTC collapse occurred because the columns failed first. [28] Either way the Twin Towers open floor design, greater height (wind and structural loads), their supporting columns and fireproofing being compromised by the initial impact; is significantly different from all the notable high-rise fires used as comparisons in the documentary.

How is this not damning evidence concerning the "explosions" heard? Also, were not the Twin Towers previously attacked in 1993? Another terrorist attack could have happened which I could see be put in a clause. Osama Bin Laden's Al-Qaeda network was still around. You have to elaborate more on this point and your point about stocks (which are bought and sold quite frequently). Then I will be able to address you better.

Whatever future points you may make, the most damning evidence, the explosions, appear to be BS, IMO, according to what I have read so far. I don't feel Loose Change is credible.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Chuck:</div><div class="quote_post">Anybody who thinks the government set this up is sadly naive.</div>

Anyone who discredits this information and atleast doesn't take it with a pinch of salt is sadly naive.

Just some food for thought.
http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm#Preloader

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7...&q=Loose+Change

 

So basically, if the US Government was behind the attack on 9/11, and they didn't use a plane for the attack on the pentagon, but planned on using the plane for the blame. They went through all the elaborate planning and just happened to 'forget' that no plane would leave people asking serious questions?

I find that hard to believe with all the planning they forget to leave the biggest evidence.

Now if it was something else, I can see it (like another plane or missile as the video suggested) but then why would that be covered up for the Plane?

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting huevonkiller:</div><div class="quote_post">How is this not damning evidence concerning the "explosions" heard? Also, were not the Twin Towers previously attacked in 1993? Another terrorist attack could have happened which I could see be put in a clause. Osama Bin Laden's Al-Qaeda network was still around. You have to elaborate more on this point and your point about stocks (which are bought and sold quite frequently). Then I will be able to address you better.

Whatever future points you may make, the most damning evidence, the explosions, appear to be BS, IMO, according to what I have read so far. I don't feel Loose Change is credible.</div>
I actually read their explanation and similar explanations before. You can believe it if you want, but personally, I feel it was just an easy answer that doesn't explain the whole thing. Explosions were heard minutes before collapsing, don't you think we would've actually noticed if a whole floor fell? (ie windows smashing where the floor fell and subsequent debris or dust flying). And it also doesn't explain the flashes of light (much like explosions) seen just prior to the collapse.

Well regarding the stocks and the insurance, you'll have to watch the video again b/c they explain it well. However, I can't recall if I saw the insurance part on LC or I read it on another website. But if you want a similar example of how much this plays a part to a conspiracy actually existing, just take a look at all the numerous court cases where a spouse died or was murdered and there existed an insurance clause that rewarded the other spouse a large sum of money upon that person's death. If the insurance was signed in a relatively short amount of time prior to the death (which is the case with the 9/11 attack) then there's almost a guarantee that person who signed it is guilty of murder.

Anyways, I don't wanna delve into this any further b/c like someone else stated, you never know who's watching (yes, I know that sounds like foolish paranoia, but I still ain't taking any chances). If ppl want to believe that the gov't wasn't involved in it, then go ahead and believe that. But personally, there's no way I can believe that considering all the legitimate questions (that shouldn't even arise in the first place) and the amount of "coincidences" that occured. You just have to take a step back and think to yourself, "who benefits the most from the attacks"..... and don't even think for a second that it's Al-Queda and Bin Laden.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting dunksworth:</div><div class="quote_post">I actually read their explanation and similar explanations before. You can believe it if you want, but personally, I feel it was just an easy answer that doesn't explain the whole thing. Explosions were heard minutes before collapsing, don't you think we would've actually noticed if a whole floor fell? (ie windows smashing where the floor fell and subsequent debris or dust flying). And it also doesn't explain the flashes of light (much like explosions) seen just prior to the collapse.

Well regarding the stocks and the insurance, you'll have to watch the video again b/c they explain it well. However, I can't recall if I saw the insurance part on LC or I read it on another website. But if you want a similar example of how much this plays a part to a conspiracy actually existing, just take a look at all the numerous court cases where a spouse died or was murdered and there existed an insurance clause that rewarded the other spouse a large sum of money upon that person's death. If the insurance was signed in a relatively short amount of time prior to the death (which is the case with the 9/11 attack) then there's almost a guarantee that person who signed it is guilty of murder.

Anyways, I don't wanna delve into this any further b/c like someone else stated, you never know who's watching (yes, I know that sounds like foolish paranoia, but I still ain't taking any chances). If ppl want to believe that the gov't wasn't involved in it, then go ahead and believe that. But personally, there's no way I can believe that considering all the legitimate questions (that shouldn't even arise in the first place) and the amount of "coincidences" that occured. You just have to take a step back and think to yourself, "who benefits the most from the attacks"..... and don't even think for a second that it's Al-Queda and Bin Laden.</div>

How was that not an adequate explanation for the explosions? They are clearly accounted for, if they aren't you should explain why. And your example about insurance doesn't mean automatic guilt or provide hard evidence, only speculation. Even the 9/11 Truth movement claims Loose Change exaggerates and lies about various things. Loose Change ignores hundreds of witnesses that claim they saw a 757 at the pentagon, use wrong parts of different airplanes to make their case, and attempt minimal fact-checking. They also don't know as much about physics as they think they do. The stocks are speculation, and I repeat to you, they are sold and bought in huge quantities daily. Explain that better or else it is another loose conjecture. Either way I have more info about it in the ccdominoes link.

Franchise4ever, I don't know what those links are supposed to prove, you must have not seen my previous posts. The first video contains many of the same information in Loose Change, and I don't see why Loose Change is a credible source.

http://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/JoeR/penta...ensions_est.htm

http://www.ccdominoes.com/lc/LooseChangeGuide.html

Example of topics ccdominoes link debunks/proves Loose Change wrong/proves all conspiracy theorists wrong:

Subject Index

Air Defense

Flights 11 and 77 Confused
Langley Fighters go wrong way
NORAD exercises on 9/11
NORAD Timeline of 9/11 Response
On Alert vs. Combat Ready
Pre-9/11 Procedure
Stand Down order?

Aircraft

767 Specs
Black boxes found at WTC?
Jet fuel effects when burning
NTSB denies black boxes found for 11 & 175
Speed at impact
What are they made of?
Appendix A - Internet Resources
Appendix B - Summary of Errors in 'Loose Change'
Appendix C - 9/11 Air Defense Response
Appendix D -PNAC 'Pearl Harbor' doc. Excerpts
Appendix E - Excerpts from 'Loose Change' 1st ed
Burlingame, Charles, Pilot

Conspiracy Theorists

$1,000000 Challenge
American Free Press
Dewdney, Ken
Flocco, Tom Conspiracy author
Marrs, Jim
Men in Black mark WTC cubicle locations
'No-Planers'
Questions for
Rivera, Geraldo
Ryan, Kevin - Steel expert?
Schwarz, Karl W.B. Psych. evaluation of by jurist
Schwarz, Karl W.B. credentials
Thompson, Hunter S
Walter, Jimmy
Where's your evidence?
Worst investigative reporting ever?

Controlled Demolition, Inc.

Loiseaux, Mark didn't see molten steel
Prep work involved in demo
Suspicious demolition in NYC?
FAA issues nationwide ground stop
Facts = harrassment?
Flight 175 Not a passenger jet?

Flight 93

9/11 Commission statement
All passenger remains Identified
Cockpit recorder transcript released
Confused with flight 1989
Human remains recovered
Lands in Cleveland?
Missing minutes from CVR?
No debris found?
Official story?
Pamphlet handed out at premiere of 'United 93'
Spotted after 9/11?

Foreknowledge

Ashcroft flying charter due to threats?
Inside traders left profits uncollected?
Insider trades on put options?
Pentagon Brass Canceled 9/11 travel plans?
PNAC New Pearl Harbor
Proof of $100 million scam?
Rice warns Willie Brown not to travel?
SEC coverup?
WTC corrosion motive for demolition?

Government

Is there evidence of complicity in 9/11?
Revolt against Rumsfeld
Rumsfeld missile quote
Hijackings - Intervention Rules
Iraq - Quagmire accomplished
Operation Northwoods

Pentagon

9 feet of concrete smashed?
Aircraft debris photos
C-130 followed flight 77
Cable spools undamaged?
Cordite bomb?
Cruise missile?
Did witnesses see airliner hit?
DNA Identification
Engine misidentified
Engine rotor mystery?
Eric Bart's witness list
Flight 77 didn't damage lawn?
Flight 77 maneuvers
Fuselage part faked?
Gallop, April, survivor
Jet Fuel Fires over large area
Light poles undamaged?
List of things that may have hit it according to LC
More aircraft parts misidentified
Mysterious planes spotted?
No trace of Flight 77?
Photos of entry hole
Plane vaporized on impact?
Ring construction diagram & photo
Secondary explosion
security cam footage
Structural engineer sees damage and body parts
Videos seized suspiciously?
White mark on lawn
Wittenburg, Russ (pilot) on flight 77 maneuvers

Phone Calls

Bingham, Mark
Denied by Dylan Avery
Denyng murder victims' last words
Often do work in planes
Ong, Betty
'Research' into
Sweeney, Madeline
Poll - New Yorkers want investigation?
Romero, Van Retraction of CD statement
Ronnie, A guy named, in Little Rock
Tent, it is a

Terrorists

Al Qaeda & bin Laden claim responsibility
Are some alive?
Bin Laden at American Hospital with CIA?
Bin Laden gets special treatment at Pakistan hospital?
bin Laden still threatening
Bin Laden, proof not involved?
Fake bin Laden confession tape?
FBI says all 19 positively identified
Hanjour, Hani Trouble landing Cessna 172
Initial ID confusion
Mentioned in PNAC report
On flight 11

WTC

$160 Billion in gold?
1975 Fire
1993 Bombing
And random nature of explosions
Brown, Hyman says towers overdesigned?
Bush, Marvin connections?
Caccioli, Lou FDNY misquoted
CD theory examined
Chief Palmer reaches impact site
Compared to Empire State Building plane crash
Do the experts agree?
FDNY Chief Turi heard explosion?
FEMA not allowed at Ground Zero?
Firefighters hear explosions
Flight 11 hits north tower
Flt 175 barely hits south tower?
Freefall fraud?
Free-fall of debris
Black boxes found by fireman?
Hot enough to melt aluminum
Insurance settlement
Many people hear explosions
North toweer lobby damage
O'Neill, Paul, head of security
Other skyscrapers burn, don't fall
Phone threats prior to 9/11
Reports not consistent with CD
Rodriguez, Willie account
Seismic data says no CD
Silverstein 'Demands' $7.2 billion
Silverstein Lease & Insurance
South Tower collapses
South tower fell first, reasons
South tower stairway accessible
Squibs debunked
Squibs, revenge of the
Steel melted?
Steel weakens quickly when heated
Thought experiment
Threatened by galvanic corrosion?
Transformer & electrical explosions
Who let the dogs out?

WTC 7

Collapses
Fear of collapse, numerous FDNY quotes
Fell in convenient pile?
Nigro, Daniel, FDNY Chief quotes
Photo - Force of debris from WTC1
Tenants


Game over, these links are sublime/awesome. You're the paranoid one that has to take a step back and realize these videos pass off many things as fact that aren't.

 

To ensure that I'm not wasting my time debating with a 12 year old, can you please refrain from using such icons as or in the most inappropriate times. For example, I too can post some links that give sound arguments as to how the moon landing was staged or how the holocaust never happended and then end it with a ..... it doesn't add any credibility to the argument and only makes me come across as being juvenile. Nevertheless, I will still respond to your post.

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting huevonkiller:</div><div class="quote_post">How was that not an adequate explanation for the explosions? They are clearly accounted for, if they aren't you should explain why.</div>
I already stated the main reasons on the first paragraph.

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">And your example about insurance doesn't mean automatic guilt or provide hard evidence, only speculation.</div>
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">The stocks are speculation, and I repeat to you, they are sold and bought in huge quantities daily. Explain that better or else it is another loose conjecture. Either way I have more info about it in the ccdominoes link.</div>
I bet you also bought Martha Stewart's reasoning for selling her stocks prior to it plummeting... In the case of 9/11, there was an irregular amount of movement into put options (stock) for United Airlines days prior to sep.11th. That, coupled with the insurance issue makes for one strong argument. But if you think the stock issue is a weak argument, then the insurance issue alone is strong enough proof. Of course it doesn't mean automatic guilt (i don't think there's such evidence that does prove automatic guilt), but you have to think of the odds and consider the other criteria. Honestly, if this were any other case involving a similar insurance clause, then there would be very little question as to who the guilty party is. Just look at the cases where similar situations arose.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting dunksworth:</div><div class="quote_post">To ensure that I'm not wasting my time debating with a 12 year old, can you please refrain from using such icons as or in the most inappropriate times. For example, I too can post some links that give sound arguments as to how the moon landing was staged or how the holocaust never happended and then end it with a ..... it doesn't add any credibility to the argument and only makes me come across as being juvenile. Nevertheless, I will still respond to your post.


I already stated the main reasons on the first paragraph.



I bet you also bought Martha Stewart's reasoning for selling her stocks prior to it plummeting... In the case of 9/11, there was an irregular amount of movement into put options (stock) for United Airlines days prior to sep.11th. That, coupled with the insurance issue makes for one strong argument. But if you think the stock issue is a weak argument, then the insurance issue alone is strong enough proof. Of course it doesn't mean automatic guilt (i don't think there's such evidence that does prove automatic guilt), but you have to think of the odds and consider the other criteria. Honestly, if this were any other case involving a similar insurance clause, then there would be very little question as to who the guilty party is. Just look at the cases where similar situations arose.</div>

Wasting time? Maybe I'm the one wasting time, did you even go to those links? Ok, imagine I didn't put those faces, Jesus Christ, lighten the hell up. No anyway, move your mouse over to there, and you'll see the hundreds of errors in all of your posts and Loose Change. You are so lazy, go read some of it and then get back to me. OMG are you going to cry? Get over the faces. As for any stock/insurance/explosion questions that may arise, the link speaks for itself.

So I made immature faces, thus my source doesn't count? Wtf, what a jerk. Make a longer post, how rude to ignore the various points made and focus on some random faces (you focused on the little details instead of the important points, amazing). I'm not a bitter old man, I like smilies. If it offends you so much darling, I won't use smilies in the future. Making faces indeed doesn't add any credibility to the links, like I ever implied otherwise. I seriously won't use faces in the future, because you use it as a stupid pretext to attack me, and you come off as a hater, so I'll type the way you want me to, it makes no difference to me. I dare you to post these sound arguements for the moon landing being staged, I know how to respond to stupid theories like that too. Ccdominoes, accounts MINUTE-BY-MINUTE, for the ludicrious docudrama movie known as Loose Change. After having seen that movie, I did not like the creators of Loose Change. The faces are supposed to represent me insulting Russ Wittenburg, not you, but whatever, you need to lay off. .

Russ is a conspiracy theorist who does not believe that ANY aircraft hit the Pentagon, which makes him stupid or insane. Too bad, because his former co-workers were on that plane. I wonder what he thinks happened to them. He believes a missile hit the Pentagon. He has not produced a single piece of evidence to back that belief. He has not attempted to account for the dozens of eyewitnesses who saw the crash. He also believes that the other 3 flights were not piloted by Arabs, because they wouldn't have the skills. I believe that Russ Wittenburg wouldn't have the skills to be an investigator.

 

huevonkiller, you know what, I apologize if I offended you b/c it was not my intention to. Honestly, it wasn't. And I don't want to sound condescending but when you get older, you'll understand why it's not a good idea to use such icons if you want to be taken seriously.

btw, I actually did skim through the website and read certain parts, but personally, I found a lot of the rebuttals to be easy answers and they're nothing I haven't heard before. Loose Change does make weak arguments here and there, but regarding some of the strong arugments, I found a lot of the rebuttals to be weak. For example, the explanations for the collapse of WTC7 was lazy and don't account for all the questions surrounding it.

But the reason I'm leaving areas of the argument behind is because frankly, there's just too much to discuss and I don't the luxury to go into details right now (I'm actually studying for exams). You've seen the length of the numerous websites and how much area they cover, this'll be a neverending discussion if we were to get into it any deeper....

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting dunksworth:</div><div class="quote_post">huevonkiller, you know what, I apologize if I offended you b/c it was not my intention to. Honestly, it wasn't. And I don't want to sound condescending but when you get older, you'll understand why it's not a good idea to use such icons if you want to be taken seriously.

btw, I actually did skim through the website and read certain parts, but personally, I found a lot of the rebuttals to be easy answers and they're nothing I haven't heard before. Loose Change does make weak arguments here and there, but regarding some of the strong arugments, I found a lot of the rebuttals to be weak. For example, the explanations for the collapse of WTC7 was lazy and don't account for all the questions surrounding it.

But the reason I'm leaving areas of the argument behind is because frankly, there's just too much to discuss and I don't the luxury to go into details right now (I'm actually studying for exams). You've seen the length of the numerous websites and how much area they cover, this'll be a neverending discussion if we were to get into it any deeper....</div>

Ok fine I understand, no hard feelings.

 

^ I SAID NO ICONS!!! haha no hard feelings man....

 

I think U.S. was behind all this after watching the movie, but I know why U.S. would kill it's own people, to make Muslims look bad around the world. U.S. did this whole thing so everyone around the world would thing Muslims are terrorist which I dont think is true.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Umair15:</div><div class="quote_post">I think U.S. was behind all this after watching the movie, but I know why U.S. would kill it's own people, to make Muslims look bad around the world. U.S. did this whole thing so everyone around the world would thing Muslims are terrorist which I dont think is true.</div>


You think they killed people just to make Muslims look bad? I don't think so. Going into War was a big reason for 9/11. Why war? Because Iraq sits on so much oil. Muslims are basically just pawns for the whole thing. That's my opinion on the whole thing.