Touche. However I'm trying to make the distinction that I would never act on any suspicious or really consider them truth, and although my self reflection is biased, I'm just not as far out there as a person that I would label a conspiracy theorist. Any suspicion of conspiracy on my part is based on speculation, and unlike what I'd call a true conspiracy theorist, I'm not naive enough to disregard the fact that I quite possibly could be wrong and I'd go as far as to say that I hope I'm wrong. Maybe it makes sense to say that my theories are based on skepticism, as opposed to my skepticism being based on conspiracy theories. Hrm, I dunno, it makes sense to me.

Regarding your example of being able to have your cake and eat it too: That's pretty much where I lie. If you read my statements I don't believe the actual events of 9/11 were fabricated by the government. I've never said anything to remotely suggest that. What started this is me simply saying, "I wouldn't be surprised if.."

BTW the Warren Report established that Oswald was a lone gunman didn't it? Your statement implies otherwise, but I get your point.

I'm more along the line of there being a lot of screw ups that provided inaccurate information, as usual, from our government. People who are friends of people and are getting seats they aren't really qualified for. Hence when knowledgeable people step in and pick it apart, it can easily look like a conspiracy, when really it's just a failure we have in the system.


However, I'm still foaming at the mouth about all the tapes of the Pentagon (and videos that show the flight path) they wont release. #1 issue is hiding evidence, it makes you look guilty in a murder trial, why wouldn't it make the government look guilty of something too?

Ok.. So basically you're covering your ass. "I believe A, but i'll say "I knew it all along" when B happens"

What I said was



Which makes absolutely no damn sense. Basically what I was trying to get across is that there are people who don't believe the Warren Report, but also don't believe the government made the Warren Report up. Basically that the government isn't trying to fool people, they're just inept.

Ehm, I guess that's one way of looking at it. I don't see it as much of an "I told you so" situation as you all make it out to be. My statement is more a declaration of my feelings towards government than any kind of official statement I can reference in the future. I don't believe A or B, I know that I'll never know the truth...wait why the hell are we talking about this, what exactly is so wrong about saying, "It wouldn't surprise me if..."?!

Oh well, I prefer Saturday afternoon quarterbacking to Monday morning quarterbacking any day.

The real deal is that if terrorists can take this.. http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=5528

We don't have a prayer.. I mean, he continues reading his jihad statement when a fly CRAWLS UP HIS NOSE!

If you shoot at a duck, and kill the one next to it but the one you shot at lived while the other didn't, is that a conspiracy? You have to consider that when the WTC fell, ALOT of variables took place. There is (using common sense), no way to have known exactly how things transpired within all the chaos. All it would have taken is the right chain of events to do what happened. Much like when you wake up in the morning. The right chain of events has to happen for you not to get in the car wreck the person 5 minutes ahead of you did. But had you left 5 minutes earlier like normal, it could have been you. The events of 9/11 are no different. Most people after about an hour knew planes hit the WTC. The conspiracy theorists didn't start coming out in full until after the towers fell. But an event like 9/11 they will anyways as its the perfect time to exploit it. Even if the towers had not fallen, it's a guarantee they would have claimed the planes were remote controlled or other stupid crap, totally ignoring the facts of the people (including the pilots) being on the plane. (Oh wait, they did.)

9/11 was a cluster f*ck in information as it was coming out during a turbulent chaotic time. There was lots of confusion.

We can try and pick apart why things happened a certain way. But it's really futile. Everything in some way was connected. And even not so, there were so many witnesses, there is simply no way to discount what any of them said and how they saw things from their point of view. They are more credible than anyone not there.

One thing to keep in mind. As I have stated before no explosive residue was found afterwards. From Towers 1 &2 or #7. As it surely would have been if they would have been used. As well, watch the videos again. What you are seeing aren't explosions from bombs. Simply put its the building collapsing in and on itself pushing the dust, smoke, etc out the sides as the air and weight are compressing downwards and pushing out the sides.




Do you really need the govt to say a plane hit it? I take it the hundreds of eyewitnesses on the highway that saw it come in aren't good enough?

There is no excuse for a rushed and piece of faeces evaluation of what went down during 9/11. There are things that aren't accurately event attempted to be explained, even if they are part of 9/11, the investigation was rushed and thrown in a cabinet and filed as "done".

BTW: How can you test the entire structure of a fallen building for explosive residue when you can't even mention in your report a fully explainable reason for WTC7 because you were too busy rolling out the report ASAP for war? (again, not saying there are explosives, but saying that theres a lot of bullfaecesting going around to get to the point of war. )


So you're saying that taking away (or destroying) evidence is okay? Regardless of whats going on, this whole movement would be 100% prevented IF those videos were never taken and hidden, even if it was a plane, the government created a whole circus going on about this, and both sides are insane, the side that doesn't question stealing evidence for the obvious, and the side that thinks the lack of evidence is evidence for a specific conspiracy theory. It SHOULD however be making you ask questions, as in where are the videos, and why?

Wouldn't you be suspicious of a guy who took some security camera footage of a store that he was at that was robbed? Wouldn't you question him about that? Or would you just let him off the hook?

9/11 commission final report issued on August 21,2004.

Invasion of Iraq started on March 20, 2003

NEXT!

How do you report on rubble in a foreign dump in terms of an accident? Maybe I wasn't referring to the commission created over a year after 9/11 took place, and over a year after we invaded Afghanistan... and after we started shipping off WTC ASAP.

Not to mention, the 9/11 commission report has a lot of criticism, even from internal members, more than I brought up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9-11_Commission#Criticisms
So all you do is open a can of worms as to the while inability to conduct a proper investigation by bringing them up...

And this isn't MTV, and just like MTV, you're not cool.

That still doesn't answer the question(s). Thousands of people were going to work or elsewhere in Washington DC on the morning the plane hit the Pentagon. AT LEAST hundreds were known to have seen it. Let alone the physical evidence left behind from the impact IN the building. Just like the phsyical evidence was found in the wreckage of the WTC from the 2 planes that hit them. Google is your friend. (Let alone the light poles that hit the cars and highway that the plane took down as it descended.)

It's futile to ignore and purposely circumvent the hundreds of witnesses since it will not add credibility to your claims as they were there and can give first hand accounts and all most people beyond that have is google.

You can't blame papers on everything. Fact is if there was bomb residue (which there would have been), as well as bomb material, it would have been found and known in some capacity. A collapsed building means nothing. SOMEONE, especially if they were a conspiracy theorist, would have leaked it. With all of the supposed 'leaks' around 9/11, that would have come as well.

As for war...welcome to life. It sucks. And no matter what country you are in practically, there will always be people wanting it for whatever reason. Noble or not.The only difference between now and back then, is that nowadays everything is so politically correct. Back then it was more wild and rugged and murder and war was almost a way of life.

Hell, I live in the Black Hills of South Dakota. Look at the history here BEFORE the white man came! I can say they (Lakota) didn't get the Black Hills or SD by asking nicely or by diplomatic means.

Native Americans have inhabited the area since at least 7000 B.C. The Arikara arrived by 1500 A. D., followed by the Cheyenne, Crow, Kiowa and Pawnee. The Lakota arrived from Minnesota in the eighteenth century and drove out the other tribes, claiming the land, which they called Paha Sapa, for themselves.

It's amazing what history tells us, if one will listen to it.

I'm not so much a conspiracy theorist, I don't care to try to answer weird questions with ideas that hold little or no water, I however like to ask questions, especially in the presence of fishy behavior.

No matter what, it's suspicious, thats what gets to me, the "only videos they have" are complete faeces, where as the ones we KNOW they have they wont release. As I said, why wouldn't this hold up in a court room for a murderer? Oh, because we need to have faith in our government? Because terrorism is a good excuse for suspicious behavior (which is quite the opposite...). I mean we have Enron and Haliburton, and we STILL trust our government to not cut corners and hand out checks to friends or cover up some faeces for extra money/support?

I'm not saying there is bomb residue, I'm just saying this is definitely another one of those smoke and mirror comities thrown together to get an answer someone wants, not a panel of experts. It's a waste of my money (...to someones friends in the government) for absolutely nothing, I have the right to be pissed.


And stop giving me the "ZOMG Witnesses!" There are hundreds if not thousands of witnesses claiming hearing bombs at WTC and seeing Rockets at Pentagon. Witnesses are a waste of my time. I can probably get more than 100 times that claiming they've seen alien aircraft...

Hypothetical, but in the same context.

Imagine you work at a discount store like Wal-Mart. You play security. One day while working you see some people shoplifting items from the store and putting them in their pockets. You quickly run to your security booth and low and behold, you see them still doing it on the closed circuit cameras.

You head back onto the floor so mgmt can see and as they are leaving you bust them. You have 1st hand eyewitnesses (you and mgmt) to them shoplifting. You also have tape from the security cameras. Per law, you bust them on the way out.

As you go in back or wherever, the shoplifters claim the security camera footage you have is fishy. It doesn't prove anything, even though you and mgmt saw it first hand what they had done. They claim you are covering things up. That you are discriminating against them for whatever reason. That the video footage is either too grainy, not specific enough, etc. as to the events that happened. Even though you and others saw it first hand. You MUST be hiding something and have an alterior motive. Why didn't you stop them sooner. Why did you wait?

Also, show me links to people saying they saw rockets hitting the Pentagon. Not links to conspiracy theory websites. But links to other sources. Keep in mind, a rocket would not have penetrated 3 of the 4 Pentagon rings like what did occur with the hole in each ring getting smaller. As for bombs, "sounding like a bomb" and being a bomb are 2 different things. With no explanation of how the bombs got there and were not noticed by others. Either by the people in the tower or going up or down it. Nor were any bomb fragments or material or residue ever found in any of the 9/11 wreckages. Considering how much the theorists like picking things apart and coming to conclusions, its amazing how that never seems to get answered. Sure its a convienant theory, but one that so far has held no weight. And yeah its possible things were exploding, from within and around the damage zones as the fire and the impact, and the subsequent crumbling and bursts from it, occured.

Have you ever mistaken what you heard, especially in a situation you are not familiar with and never dealt with before? I think the biggest thing I have seen from all of this is the "woulda, shoulda, coulda" mentality. NOT the realistic side of it all. Not the common sense side of it. Many of the theorists have been doing just that. Trying to convince themselves things SHOULD have sounded or went a certain way. When reality speaks otherwise. I would also like links to these THOUSANDS of witnesses say they heard bombs.

Theory 1: "The plane would have left a cutout of it when it impacted the building or the wings would have just 'dropped off'.".

Reality: "Since when did life imitate cartoons? Sit in an aluminum and plastic jet going at roughly 500MPH and see what happens when it crashes into a building like the Sears Tower or another sturdy structure meant to withstand some sort of small plane impact."

Theory 2: "Rockets hit the Pentagon. Not a plane."

Reality: "So somehow these rockets managed to pierce 3 of the 4 rings of the Pentagon and not be noticed? With the hole getting smaller with each ring as well as plane wreckage AND the bodies of those on the plane found in the building AND around it. Then how did those bodies and plane wreckage get there? Common sense should answer that one."

The list goes on....

Asking questions is one thing. But using common since and a bit of reality is another. Do a history search on Bin Laden and Al-Queda. You may be suprised what you learn.

Most govts. to some extent lie to their people for various reasons.

Was 9/11 cover-up? No. Did they likely know some information ahead of time? Yes. Was it handled responsibly? No. Could things have been handled better? Of course. Was the information they knew specific? For the most part no. At least not enough to narrow things down to specific places. Could it have prevented 9/11? Likely not. Obviously some people forget the WTC bombing of 93. The bombing of the U.S.S. Cole a year before 9/11. As well as the U.S. Embassy bombings before 9/11. Were those all govt. coverups so they could do 9/11? No. But they all did cumulate up to one date:

9/11/2001

Have you ever heard a bomb going off? I haven't.

For the sake of science, a bomb going off is simply an acoustic shock wave. Your average person has little experience discriminating bomb explosions from stress fractures and collapses in 100 story buildings...I'd strongly suggest that "bomb experts" would be able to tell the difference either.

Same holds true for the "rocket" that people heard hit the Pentagon. Humans perceptions of events is always largely built upon what they expect to see based on a mental model they've already build from previous experiences....some people watch to many movies.

Perhaps I'm the only person alive that can see it, but in that crappy pentagon security cam footage, I can clearly see the tail of a plane. All the conspiracy theorists say 'why would they only release this tiny video?!1', but personally, I can see the plane.

Or go break some more laws so the attention is back on them.

if the attention was back on them then we wouldn't be ignoring him would we?

I'm not suggesting that if we ignore the problem that it will go away. Only, if we don't give him so much publicity he might find it a bit harder to rally support. Make him yesterdays news...

I doubt it. Support is now being primarily rallied from anger over Iraq, online. Stopping talking about Bin Laden (who is not really a figure who gets much attention really if you think about it) probably won't make an iota of difference.

I'm just saying, he's the USA's Katie Couric in the Talladega Nights sense of the word.