[Uncle Mort]

	Originally Posted by INTelliJent To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	But I'm just some guy on the internet of course.

That you are...

[Toni]

I've never yet met a conspiracy theorist who could be persuaded by logic. That's why they drive me crazy!

[Dinand]

My personnel opinion is that every theory has to be considered.
A lot of them are probably bullshit but a select few may hold some truth.

For the people disregarding all these theories, ask yourself if you even objectively considered the presented 'proof'. If not then ask yourself if you are afraid of the conclusion you might make.

[AnaK]

Most conspiracy theories sound paranoid and nutty. But then again, if in 1935 someone said they were worried Germany would start collecting Jewish and other "undesirable" types like homosexuals, and sending them off to death camps, and then it would also happen in Poland, Italy and France, I would have thought that sounded paranoid and nutty too. It is like the old adage - Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're NOT out to get you.

Most are just as hard to prove incorrect as they are to prove correct. Who ever really knows?

[INTJRyan]

	Originally Posted by stasis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Why would this need to be done? It isn't as if NORAD stopped the actual hijackers from accomplishing their goal. When we look at events we find that, what, somewhere in the vicinity of 35 total conspirators are necessary? 19 of which were operatives that died outright?

Don't ask me, I'm not inventing the theory. In this thread someone claimed that NORAD was down. I've also heard stories about planting explosives in the towers, missiles launched into the pentagon, Flight 93 was shot down etc. All of these of course add to the numbers needed to pull it off. 35 people could (and likely did) pull off an operation like that (including the 19 hijackers), but I think you are seriously underestimating the amount of people that would be in on it if it were the government.

Hell, look at Watergate. Would you say more or less people were involved in Watergate than 9/11? They couldn't even pull off a simple burglary in the same town, much less an international conspiracy involving the President, the CIA, and who knows else. I guess the entire FBI is in on it too? Or the cover-up is just that good I guess.

	Originally Posted by stasis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You keep wanting to involve hundreds of people and requiring the cooperation of state organs that are already apparently not required at all. And where that is not the case you suppose that bureaucrats would need to have some special level of competence in order to accomplish what we already know monied speds and lone, armed dorks can instigate well enough on their own.

You can say apparently it's not required all you want, but that's not the way government works. It's just not realistic. By competence, I'm referring to the ability to keep a secret, and plant all the evidence pointing to a small group of Al Queda hijackers, not the actual jacking and crashing. Possible? Barely. Plausible? Not even slightly.

	Originally Posted by INTelliJent To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I would argue that the Middle East conflict has accomplished the bare minimum that was necessary, which was to secure the status of the petro-dollar a little longer. Separately, the destabilization was necessary to drag on the conflict, reaping continued profits for a MIC looking for an excuse post-Cold War. There are more reasons, but these sit near the top.

Now here we go. The military industrial complex and support of the petrodollar was behind it. That's about 35 people isn't it?
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Furthermore, the attacks and our subsequent adventurism bankrupted the country and led for calls for the Euro to replace the dollar. Uh Mission Accomplished?

	Originally Posted by INTelliJent To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Well it depends on which conspiracy theory you are talking about. As far as MSM goes, I guess you trust FOX/(MS)NBC/CNN/CBS/ETC as bastions of no-nonsense investigative journalism then?

There are more than right winged hack sites on the internet. Alphabet news is dead.

Originally Posted by INTelliJent To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

As far as credible whistleblowers and people questioning the official story ( there are more than on this list, like Sibel Edmonds and Wesley Clarke): To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. And again, I'm not just blowing smoke that a retired Marine MGySgt involved in Air Defense for NORAD told me specfically that things that shouldn't have happened, happened mid-incident and he (obviously) questions the official story. But I'm just some guy on the internet of course.

Why doesn't he come forward? Oh afraid of the ridicule, that's right. A lone voice of righteousness in the wilderness, I'm sure. Most of those people are referring to the administration's misuse of intelligence information that could have prevented the attacks. THAT IS A MUCH MORE LIKELY THEORY. i.e. Senior Administration Officials knew of the attacks and did nothing. Much more likely than them orchestrating the whole thing. The rest are opinions of people retired or not involved with government anymore. Why do I give a fuck if some dude has flown 100 combat missions? Doesn't make his opinion anymore credible. I want credible evidence.

	Originally Posted by INTelliJent To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I've seen some various video footage that leads me to believe both of those guys are COINTELPRO assets, regardless of what "good information" they put out. If I tell you the truth, in part or in whole, and look like a maniac doing it, there's a "method to the madness".

Of course! They're in on it too!

[INTelliJent]

	Originally Posted by INTJRyan To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Now here we go. The military industrial complex and support of the petrodollar was behind it. That's about 35 people isn't it? To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Furthermore, the attacks and our subsequent adventurism bankrupted the country and led for calls for the Euro to replace the dollar. Uh Mission Accomplished?

The US is bankrupt? Not if you listen to the "progressives" and Neo-kenyesians.

The amount of people that needed to know the details of the operation could be miniscule. The people/organizations providing various levels of support, both ideological and financial, whether directly or indirect, would be nearly impossible to trace at this point.

	Originally Posted by INTJRyan To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	There are more than right winged hack sites on the internet. Alphabet news is dead.

Left winged hack sites?

Originally Posted by INTJRyan To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Why doesn't he come forward? Oh afraid of the ridicule, that's right. A lone voice of righteousness in the wilderness, I'm sure. Most of those people are referring to the administration's misuse of intelligence information that could have prevented the attacks. THAT IS A MUCH MORE LIKELY THEORY. i.e. Senior Administration Officials knew of the attacks and did nothing. Much more likely than them orchestrating the whole thing. The rest are opinions of people retired or not involved with government anymore. Why do I give a fuck if some dude has flown 100 combat missions? Doesn't make his opinion anymore credible. I want credible evidence.

He had a nice job working for Raytheon while in retirement, public statements like that jeopardize security clearances. You know, that backdoor from the military to the MIC does exist.

If 20> (or whatever) people were actually involved in carrying out the plan, a few phone calls would be all it takes to ensure no one acted to prevent it. The FBI/NSA/CIA etc. are arresting their own patsies left and right these days, why not do it then? It's not like a threat on the WTC hadn't been acted on before (and prevented).

A pilot's knowledge on the capability of aircraft and novice pilot ability, or the process for interception, is not an appeal to false authority. The skill required to do what was done was more than what was provided at some novice flying school.

	Originally Posted by INTJRyan To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Of course! They're in on it too!

In on what? Getting paid money to read a different script than the one handed to the alphabet soup talking heads? You don't have to be knowledgeable of the (overall, anyway) plan to carry it out. It's the same reason you aren't supposed to hold a bag for someone else at the airport. You're blowing it out of proportion. EACH PAWN IS A KING!!OMGZRIDICULUZ!!!

[INTJRyan]

Ok I give up. It's all shadow agents and government actors acting alone yet controlling massive portions of the military and government. Looking forward to arguing with you in the next thread where you posit the government is totally incapable of completing even the slightest task.

[Nemesis]

It's always neat that the people who buy into this shit claim that others are "sheeple" and crap like that, yet they always seem to say the same damned things as one another and use the same tired examples (Reichstag etc.), the same regurgitated rhetoric, the same sources, and the same arguments. Basically, they all believe in the same silly theories.

"Free-thinkers"

Right.

[stasis]

	Originally Posted by INTJRyan To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	35 people could (and likely did) pull off an operation like that (including the 19 hijackers), but I think you are seriously underestimating the amount of people that would be in on it if it were the government.

Theorist A suspects that Bin Laden's muddy ragtag couldn't have pulled off such an effective breach of US security from the outside. Implicit: that this is to seriously underestimate the means necessary to overcome the functioning of the state. In contrast, Theorist B suspects that a bureaucratic conspiracy couldn't have accomplished such an effective breach of US security from the inside. Explicit: that this is to seriously underestimate the means necessary to overcome the functioning of the government.

Theory A provides an unlikely story to explain a scenario that already has mundane historical precedent and ample evidence to the contrary. Theory B responds to Theory A by discarding what this precedent and the evidence indicates about realistic potentials. Both of these positions, despite nominal opposition to one another, aggrandize the potency and the significance of state organs in the attacks.

Where superficially there are two camps here disagreeing about likelihood, the first finding the second naive while the second finds the first paranoid, both camps seem to be unified in defensive reaction to events. Like an identity-affirming loop (compels and satisfies participants) which also affirms the state (controls anxiety against the other). These particular arguments and counterarguments are held by millions of people, comprising a cultural narrative on the subject. The Patriot Act, which of course itself aggrandizes the potency and the significance of the state in response to the attacks, is entirely consistent as well...

It seems like virtually the entire culture reacts in the same direction.

[newtome]

How about we turn this around a bit.

4 planes with their transponders turned off (that alone is a reasonable effort) are able to attack your highest military headquarters, the pentagon.

What happens if a true enemy plane without a transponder was to attack. Would the public just say "wasn't that terrible that (insert bad country) attacked the Pentagon and blew it up". Or, would they say, WTF was our military up to when we spend how many billions on it to defend our country from countries like (insert bad country).

You see it isn't just the fact that someone was able to do it. It is also the fact that there was no effort whatsoever to stop it. If I am right every aircraft in the US had been ordered to land. The only aircraft in the sky were military or the hijacked planes, yet the military still couldn't find them.

It wasn't like they were being tailed by fighters waiting for orders to shot them down, they were flying alone doing whatever they wanted to do.

Doesn't that seem a bit surreal to anyone, especially over your capital?

[The Dan Keizer]

I actually enjoy inventing conspiracy theories myself more than learning about existing ones. I rarely see the point in believing them one way or another. I mean if you aren't sure then you aren't sure.

For example, when that dude from Kone 2012 or whatever it was called went on that rampage where he was running around naked in the city, I told everybody I thought the government had slipped him a mickey. They did it on account of an initiative to end actual atrocities going on did not jibe well with the corporate-agenda wars the state has going right now.

[wolfyx]

Originally Posted by stasis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Theorist A suspects that Bin Laden's muddy ragtag couldn't have pulled off such an effective breach of US security from the outside. That this is to seriously underestimate the means necessary to overcome the functioning of the state. In contrast, Theorist B suspects that a bureaucratic conspiracy couldn't have accomplished such an effective breach of US security from the inside. That this is to seriously underestimate the means necessary to overcome the functioning of the government. Theory A provides an unlikely story to explain a scenario that already has mundane historical precedent and ample evidence to the contrary. Theory B reacts to Theory A by discarding what this precedent and the evidence indicates about realistic potentials. Both of these positions, despite nominal opposition to one another, aggrandize the potency and the significance of state organs in the attacks. Where superficially there are two camps here disagreeing about likelihood, the first finding the second naive while the second finds the first paranoid, both camps seem to be unified in defensive reaction to events. Like an identity-affirming loop (compels and satisfies participants) which affirms the state (controls anxiety against the other). These particular arguments and counterarguments are held by millions of people, comprising a cultural narrative on the subject. The Patriot Act, which of course itself aggrandizes the potency and the significance of the state in response to the attacks, is entirely consistent as well... It seems like virtually the entire culture reacts in the same direction.

Your posts are heavy and hard to crack even if you don't write walls of text. Anyway, the theorists B are backed by the established authority so they have the “popular” and generally accepted version.

All that the Theorists A can do is find inconsistencies in the Theorists B version of the events. For the 9/11 events there are literary dozens and I am not satisfied with any explanation that has been given so far to, for example, the questions raised by another poster before me in this thread:

* How can air planes vaporize when they hit the ground or a building?
* Why does the government deliberately hide, cover or remove evidence from crime scenes?
* How can buildings fall at free-fall speed when damaged by fire?

So because the theory B is highly inconsistent, I doubt it.

I can only speculate about what a Theory A would be like and how an event of this scale was pulled off. I do not have all the factual evidence and I am not in a position that will allow me to carry on an independent investigation, in order to construct a theory.

So this would make me a Skeptical, not a Theorist.

[stasis]

	Originally Posted by wolfyx To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So this would make me a Skeptical, not a Theorist.

We might suppose that INTelliJent is engaged by his position in this thread because it is a means of critiquing the state. We might suppose that INTJRyan is engaged by his position in this thread because it opposes INTelliJent's position. Whatever the color of the tshirt, though, these arguments and counterarguments are nevertheless shared by apparently large numbers people who hold them for personal reasons differing. They have a cultural quality to them as such and this is notable because the quality appears relatively consistent despite aesthetic disagreement at the personal level. That's what I'm suggesting.

[INTJRyan]

Originally Posted by newtome To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

How about we turn this around a bit. 4 planes with their transponders turned off (that alone is a reasonable effort) are able to attack your highest military headquarters, the pentagon. What happens if a true enemy plane without a transponder was to attack. Would the public just say "wasn't that terrible that (insert bad country) attacked the Pentagon and blew it up". Or, would they say, WTF was out military up to when we spend how many billions on it to defend our country from countries like (insert bad country). You see it isn't just the fact that someone was able to do it. It is also the fact that there was no effort whatsoever to stop it. If I am right every aircraft in the US had been ordered to land. The only aircraft in the sky were military or the hijacked planes, yet the military still couldn't find them. It wasn't like they were being tailed by fighters waiting for orders to shot them down, they were flying alone doing whatever they wanted to do. Doesn't that seem a but surreal to anyone, especially over your capital?

And then you have people like this, willing to outright LIE and disguise it as fact. It's these outright distortions that make it even more difficult to ascertain the truth.

On 9/11, the terrorists turned off the transponders on three of the four hijacked aircraft. With its transponder off, it is possible, though more difficult, to track an aircraft by its primary radar returns. But unlike transponder data, primary radar returns do not show the aircraft's identity and altitude. Controllers at centers rely so heavily on transponder signals that they usually do not display primary radar returns on their radar scopes. But they can change the configuration of their scopes so they can see primary radar returns. They did this on 9/11 when the transponder signals for three of the aircraft disappeared.94

Boston Center did not follow the protocol in seeking military assistance through the prescribed chain of command. In addition to notifications within the FAA, Boston Center took the initiative, at 8:34, to contact the military through the FAA's Cape Cod facility. The center also tried to contact a former alert site in Atlantic City, unaware it had been phased out. At 8:37:52, Boston Center reached NEADS. This was the first notification received by the military-at any level-that American 11 had been hijacked:115

FAA: Hi. Boston Center TMU [Traffic Management Unit], we have a problem here. We have a hijacked aircraft headed towards New York, and we need you guys to, we need someone to scramble some F-16s or something up there, help us out.

NEADS: Is this real-world or exercise?

FAA: No, this is not an exercise, not a test.116

NEADS ordered to battle stations the two F-15 alert aircraft at Otis Air Force Base in Falmouth, Massachusetts, 153 miles away from New York City. The air defense of America began with this call.117

At NEADS, the report of the hijacking was relayed immediately to Battle Commander Colonel Robert Marr. After ordering the Otis fighters to battle stations, Colonel Marr phoned Major General Larry Arnold, commanding general of the First Air Force and NORAD's Continental Region. Marr sought authorization to scramble the Otis fighters. General Arnold later recalled instructing Marr to "go ahead and scramble them, and we'll get authorities later." General Arnold then called NORAD headquarters to report.118

F-15 fighters were scrambled at 8:46 from Otis Air Force Base. But NEADS did not know where to send the alert fighter aircraft, and the officer directing the fighters pressed for more information: "I don't know where I'm scrambling these guys to. I need a direction, a destination." Because the hijackers had turned off the plane's transponder, NEADS personnel spent the next minutes searching their radar scopes for the primary radar return. American 11 struck the North Tower at 8:46. Shortly after 8:50, while NEADS personnel were still trying to locate the flight, word reached them that a plane had hit the World Trade Center.119

Radar data show the Otis fighters were airborne at 8:53. Lacking a target, they were vectored toward military-controlled airspace off the Long Island coast. To avoid New York area air traffic and uncertain about what to do, the fighters were brought down to military airspace to "hold as needed. "From 9:09 to 9:13, the Otis fighters stayed in this holding pattern.120

In summary, NEADS received notice of the hijacking nine minutes before it struck the North Tower. That nine minutes' notice before impact was the most the military would receive of any of the four hijackings.121

The details of what happened on the morning of September 11 are complex, but they play out a simple theme. NORAD and the FAA were unprepared for the type of attacks launched against the United States on September 11, 2001.They struggled, under difficult circumstances, to improvise a homeland defense against an unprecedented challenge they had never before encountered and had never trained to meet.

Or maybe they were just dupes OR IN ON IT TOO.

---------- Post added 07-10-2012 at 09:09 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by wolfyx To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	* How can air planes vaporize when they hit the ground or a building? * Why does the government deliberately hide, cover or remove evidence from crime scenes? * How can buildings fall at free-fall speed when damaged by fire?

There were tons of debris recovered. Nothing was "vaporized."

Specific evidence of hiding, covering, or removing evidence?

Of all the things I hear, the buildings "free falling" as some sort of evidence of internal demolition is absolutely the nuttiest. When the internal support of a building is burned out, it pancakes exactly like you saw. What do you folks expect it to do? Break in half with the bottom remaining unscathed? Ridiculous.

---------- Post added 07-10-2012 at 09:35 PM ----------

Originally Posted by stasis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Theorist A suspects that Bin Laden's muddy ragtag couldn't have pulled off such an effective breach of US security from the outside. Implicit: that this is to seriously underestimate the means necessary to overcome the functioning of the state. In contrast, Theorist B suspects that a bureaucratic conspiracy couldn't have accomplished such an effective breach of US security from the inside. Explicit: that this is to seriously underestimate the means necessary to overcome the functioning of the government.

That's not quite it. I think the operation itself was easy enough, indeed much easier than Operation Northwoods, and requiring less people. It's the cover-up that's the problem. See again, Watergate and every political scandal ever.

[stasis]

	Originally Posted by INTJRyan To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	political scandal

These are only failures. We know that success does not take much.

[Ghostwheel]

	Originally Posted by INTJRyan To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	On 9/11, the terrorists turned off the transponders on three of the four hijacked aircraft.

How do you know that the terrorists turned them off?

	Originally Posted by INTJRyan To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	NORAD and the FAA were unprepared for the type of attacks launched against the United States on September 11, 2001.They struggled, under difficult circumstances, to improvise a homeland defense against an unprecedented challenge they had never before encountered and had never trained to meet.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
.

Five different "mock terror" military exercises scheduled on September 11th.

On the morning of September 11 2001, within minutes of the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the CIA had been running "a pre-planned simulation to explore the emergency response issues that would be created if a plane were to strike a building". The simulation was held at the CIA Chantilly Virginia Reconnaissance Office. The Bush administration described the event as "a bizarre coincidence". The matter was not mentioned by the media. (AP, 22 August 2002). To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. .

A bizarre coincidence indeed....

And then another "mock terror" exercise happened again in London on 7 July 2005:

A fictional "scenario" of multiple bomb attacks on London's underground took place at exactly the same time as the bomb attack on July 7, 2005. Peter Power, Managing Director of Visor Consultants, a private firm on contract to the London Metropolitan Police, described in a BBC interview how he had organized and conducted the anti-terror drill, on behalf of an unnamed business client. The fictional scenario was based on simultaneous bombs going off at exactly the same time at the underground stations where the real attacks were occurring. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. .

What are the odds the "mock terror" exercises just happened to happen on the same days as the attacks?

I wish I could go to Vegas on just one day's worth of those odds.

And if I saw someone play those odds not just once but twice, I'd be very suspicious indeed.

[wolfyx]

Originally Posted by INTJRyan To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

There were tons of debris recovered. Nothing was "vaporized." Specific evidence of hiding, covering, or removing evidence? Of all the things I hear, the buildings "free falling" as some sort of evidence of internal demolition is absolutely the nuttiest. When the internal support of a building is burned out, it pancakes exactly like you saw. What do you folks expect it to do? Break in half with the bottom remaining unscathed? Ridiculous.

How about this ?

11 REMARKABLE FACTS ABOUT 9/11

1) The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7

It is commonly known that the Twin Towers fell on 9/11, but did you know that a third World Trade Center high-rise building also fell that day? WTC Building 7, a 47-story steel-framed skyscraper located one block from the Twin Towers was not hit by any plane, but collapsed at 5:20 that evening, imploding in the exact manner of a professionally engineered demolition. It fell suddenly, straight down, at near freefall speed, and landed in a compact pile of rubble, barely damaging any of the surrounding buildings. These are but a few of eleven characteristics of Building 7's collapse that are consistent only with controlled demolitions. Further, the leaseholder of the three buildings, Larry Silverstein, said in 2002 on PBS that on the afternoon of 9/11 he suggested to the NYC fire department commander that they "pull" WTC 7. "Pull" is an industry term that means "demolish," but it normally takes a team of skilled people many weeks to design and implement large demolitions. Astonishingly, there is no mention of WTC Building 7's remarkable collapse in the 571-page 9/11 Commission Report.

2) Fire has never — prior to or after 9/11 — caused any steel frame building to collapse. The sudden, vertical, explosive, and total collapse of the Twin Towers at near freefall speed can only be explained by controlled demolition.

3) The WTC steel, which if fully examined could have relvealed the effects of explosives, was quickly shipped overseas and melted down. This was an unprecedented violation of federal crime scene laws.

4) Whenever contact is lost with any airplane, fighter jets routinely take to the air to investigate. This commonly occurs about 100 times per year in well under 20 minutes. But on 9/11 nearly two hours passed without any interception.

5) The Secret Service broke established protocols by allowing President Bush to remain in a well-publicized classroom "photo op" long after it was known that the U.S. was under attack and he might well have been a target.

6) Unidentified insiders made millions on the stocks of American and United Airlines and those of other corporations that were likewise impacted by the attacks. These "put option" bets were made just prior to 9/11.

7) There were warnings of the impending attacks from at least eleven other countries. Also prior to 9/11, insiders such as John Ashcroft, top military officers, and San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown were warned not to fly.

8) In September of 2000, a group of neocon hawks, many of whom would become key officials in the Bush administration, wrote that their proposed massive military buildup would proceed slowly "absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor."

9) Some of the alleged 9/11 "suicide hijackers" are still alive and well, according to the BBC and The Guardian. At least five of the alleged hijackers may have trained at U.S. military bases, as reported in Newsweek and other sources.

10) The Bush administration resisted the formation of the 9/11 Commission for 441 days. Similar investigations, such as those for Pearl Harbor, the JFK assassination, and the space shuttle disasters, all started in about one week.

11) "The Jersey Girls" — four courageous 9/11 widows — finally forced the 9/11 Commission into existence and presented many questions, most of which were ignored. Under the leadership of Bush administration insider Philip Zelikow, the final report failed to address any of the evidence pointing to official complicity.

And this:

The 9/11 Pentagon Attack: Planes Simply Do Not Vaporize - Why Didn’t They Show Us the Wreckage?

The 9/11 Pentagon Attack: Planes Simply Do Not Vaporize - Why Didn’t They Show Us the Wreckage?
As each day passes, more and more Americans are becoming aware of the startling evidence that clearly contradicts the official explanation of Sept.11th, 2001 offered by the Bush administration. In fact, as more and more evidence comes to light, incongruities in the official explanation become increasingly and undeniably apparent.

Ironically, the growing number of people new to these unexplained discrepancies poses a new problem for those of us who have been researching 9/11 for many months or years. We will have to find a way to explain the many complexities related to the attacks to those who now doubt the official version of events. We are faced with the overwhelming task helping great numbers of people understand the many contradictions in the 9/11 story they were fed by their government.

Obviously, that is not an easy assignment, even when the great majority of truth seekers agree that the official explanation is little more than a pre-written cover story designed to herd the American public into supporting an agenda that would otherwise horrify and outrage them. However, it becomes far more complicated in light of a topic that causes a great deal of confusion within the research community itself. That disparity relates to the strike on the Pentagon.

Many questions still remain about what actually took place at the Pentagon on September 11th 2001. That’s fine, because the goal of the 9/11 truth community is to raise these questions for further investigation. The problem arises when researchers feel that it is their responsibility to explain what happened at the Pentagon. It is NOT. Rather, it is their charge to highlight the doubts that have been legitimately raised regarding what exactly hit that building.

Some researchers claim that a 110 ton Boeing 757 hit the building, leaving only a 16 foot hole in the facade (prior to its collapse some 22 minutes after the initial impact.) Others claim that an A-3 Skywarrior fighter jet was the actual aircraft. Some say it was an unmanned Global Hawk armed with depleted uranium missiles, and still others claim that the Pentagon was hit by another type of military missile. We can argue each of these theories forever, and accomplish absolutely nothing.

We really have to put and end the internal dispute that is getting us nowhere and work together to bring information rather than more uncertainty to the public that is now just entering the 9/11 discussion. To that end, I am posing ONE pertinent question about the strike on the Pentagon: Why didn’t they show us the wreckage?

Planes do not simply vaporize. Never in the history of aviation disasters has an aircraft ever totally disintegrated. Even exploding space shuttles did not vanish into thin air. Therefore, it stands to reason that whatever hit the Pentagon had to leave some recoverable debris in its wake. Surely, there had be enough identifiable rubble remaining from a 110 ton aircraft to satisfy the skeptics? There is no way to convince me that the few scraps of metal and small engine parts, which according to some researchers are not from a 757, are proof of anything. at all. Neither am I convinced that the handful of uninformative photos that were released were not staged by the people who planned this event. An 110,000 tons aircraft has to leave more convincing evidence than what we have been offered. I defy anyone, anywhere to recreate a plane crash in which110 tons of aircraft are reduced to a select few, barely identifiable parts.

Why was this most important event in America’s history not fully documented by camera crews? Why wasn’t this event filmed and analyzed to its fullest extent for historical and forensic purposes? Why weren’t standard crime scene procedures followed, and why were government officials permitted to tamper with and eventually collect and secrete all of the crime scene evidence? Last time I looked, tampering with or destroying crime scene evidence was a felony. Why wasn’t every inch of the scene photographed by official investigators prior to the recovery process?

There is ample evidence of government complicity in the events of September 11th 2001, but nothing is more suspect than their relentless effort to prevent the public from examining the evidence. The cover up may actually speak louder than the actual evidence of complicity. That in itself may be the most important thing to consider in all of this intrigue and mystery.

It is too late now for the Bush administration to make good and show us the evidence. They have had 5 years to create a library of fabricated films and images. By this time, they actually could have produced a hanger full of faux plane wreckage. We needed to see the evidence at the crime scene at the time of the crime. We did not, and the troubling question remains unanswered: why didn’t they show us the wreckage?

Even without the mounting evidence of their involvement, nothing aside from time travel into the past will remove the aura of government complicity in the events of 9/11. Nothing at all can remove the cloud of suspicion that hangs over this administration because of its undaunted and obvious efforts to keep essential evidence at the Pentagon site hidden from the public.

One side note regarding the actions of a novice pilot attempting to hit the Pentagon: If you were throwing a dart at a toilet seat, would you aim at the side of the seat or would you aim down at the top of the seat, you know…the part that many men try to avoid hitting? Any pilot - especially a less skilled one - looking at the Pentagon as the target of a projectile, surely would have planned a simple, top-down, dive-bomb approach. The Pentagon is shaped like a set of of toilet seats, one smaller than the other, each one residing in the void of the next larger. The side of the Pentagon is 77′ high yet the topside surface target space is approximately 29 acres. What would anyone reasonably aim for - a 29 acre target or the relatively miniscule one - on the ONLY reinforced section of the building designed to withstand a frontal attack?

I offer this as another common sense question left out of the discussion by the people who continue to stand by one of the most unbelievable fairy tales ever sold to the American public since the JFK magic bullet story. It is another QUESTION, not an answer, in the long line of questions no one in any official capacity has been willing to listen to, never mind answer.

In conclusion, I repeat that we have to stop trying to ANSWER the questions that have been raised. Instead, we have to collectively demand the answers. Even more constructively, we must focus on the essential questions that absolutely needs to be answered. In the case of the Pentagon, where is there any concrete evidence of the remains of a 110 ton Boeing 757 among the wreckage at the scene? Why didn’t they collect, examine and reveal the wreckage to the public? Why, why, why didn’t those in charge of finding out what happened at the Pentagon show us the wreckage? We think we know.

And this:

911 Cell Phone Calls From Planes? Not Likely

Or, Why phone calls cannot be made from planes without PicoCell technology

No one, with a knowledge of antenna technology could subscribe to phone calls from planes, and here are some basic reasons why. This is somewhat technical, but this needs to be shown why this is virtually impossible. I'll attempt to simplify it.

1. ANTENNAS - All antennas are characterized by what is known as a "lobe pattern." The lobe pattern or area the antenna is designed to serve is a result of it's physical shape and other factors. The best omni-directional antenna is that of the single element antenna, or single dipole antenna such as is used on all cell phones. This has a circular lobe pattern. Note that this is not the same antenna used on cell towers.

Directional antennas are widely used in TV and radio to maximize a service area. A receive and transmit radio frequency (RF) pattern of any directional antenna is a roughly eliptical shape, or egg shape. An example are AM radio towers, which may use other towers near them. These other towers can be grounded to act as reflectors and direct service to a nearby city. The FCC determines when and where antenna directional technology can be used, and by which stations. Reflecting antennas can also be used to prevent interference with other stations.

Cell tower antennas use a specially designed directional antenna which incorporates a reflector. This reflector is carefully designed to create a directed radiation pattern directed over a large 2 dimensional area. These reflectors work very much like the reflector you see in a floodlight. Directional antenna characteristics are what divides a geographic region into cells. Any given antenna type has the same receive and transmit lobe pattern.

Today you can see that most all visible cell towers have a triangular pattern of antennas. This clearly shows that the 360 degree area around a cell tower is divided up into three groups of antennas, with each group facing one of three directions. Each antenna group lobe pattern slightly overlaps the other. The FCC determines the effective radiated power in watts of any transmitter, including cell tower antennas. Therefore, every watt must be used efficiently for best signal quality (such as it is.) Cell tower antenna design dictates that only a VERY small amount of RF is radiated vertically up into the air, as this is considered lost RF energy.

2. AIRPLANES - An airplane is made of aluminum alloy. It is NOT transparent RF frequencies, but instead acts as a shield. Sections of the plane made of carbon composite will greatly attenutate or even stop all cell phone signals, as this is also conductive material. Only when a cell phone has "line of sight" with a cell tower, can a talk connection take place. And such a talk connection can only take place THROUGH A WINDOW ON THE PLANE, because the body of a plane cannot pass the signal from a cell phone.

3. Cell tower antennas use power levels of 100 watts or more and group of antennas can have power levels of 800 watts. However, a pocket cell phone only transmits an RF signal of less than 1 watt, with many phones transmitting just .4 watts. No phone call can be made until the cell tower receives this tiny signal and establishes a channel with the phone by assigning the phone a frequency to talk on. This basic procedure takes place on both digital and analog cell phones. Only the older, bigger bag phones can output up to 4 watts of power, which almost no one uses anymore.

In conclusion we have:

A. A plane moving at more than 500 MPH

B. Plane windows acting as small aperatures for a cell phone RF signal. This forces the cell phone antenna to become highly directional, but without any increase in gain. There is no gain because plane is not a reflector or resonant cavity tuned to cell frequencies.

C. The cell phone is rapidly moving past cell towers that may or may not be in line with the side of the plane. If a tower happens to be in line with the side of the plane when it turns, such a connection will not last but few seconds, if at all.

D. The pocket cell phone signal of less than 1 watt must be received before the call can be placed.

E. Cell antennas have a weak signal lobe above them, making establishing a connection with a phone
unlikely.

So, how could a phone call be made ?

The "911 - In Plane Sight" proves beyond a doubt, that at least one windowless plane was used on the second tower. Imagine the challenge of trying to make a cell phone call, from completely shielded window-less plane ! Network video enlargements clearly show it was armed with a missile which is clearly visible when it was launched. The detailed phone dialogs we've read about from those that "called from the plane" can only be fiction and theatre.

Since we know the flights did depart from airports, these same people could not be allowed to live to tell the story of the fictional flight. If they did make phone calls, it might have been at gunpoint on the ground somewhere. It's likely they all went to the bottom of the ocean with their knowledge.

[newtome]

Originally Posted by INTJRyan To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

On 9/11, the terrorists turned off the transponders on three of the four hijacked aircraft. With its transponder off, it is possible, though more difficult, to track an aircraft by its primary radar returns. But unlike transponder data, primary radar returns do not show the aircraft's identity and altitude. Controllers at centers rely so heavily on transponder signals that they usually do not display primary radar returns on their radar scopes. But they can change the configuration of their scopes so they can see primary radar returns. They did this on 9/11 when the transponder signals for three of the aircraft disappeared.94

I stated this.The transponders allow the aircraft to be seen and identified on commercial/civil radar. There is still a question whether they could see the radar as discussed above and I quote "But unlike transponder data, primary radar returns do not show the aircraft's identity and altitude." So they still had the aircraft on civilian radar. Why didn't they also have the aircraft of Military radar and if ther did then why was it so hard foir the F15's to find them.

Originally Posted by INTJRyan To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Boston Center did not follow the protocol in seeking military assistance through the prescribed chain of command. In addition to notiications within the FAA, Boston Center took the initiative, at 8:34, to contact the military through the FAA's Cape Cod facility. The center also tried to contact a former alert site in Atlantic City, unaware it had been phased out. At 8:37:52, Boston Center reached NEADS. This was the first notification received by the military-at any level-that American 11 had been hijacked:115 FAA: Hi. Boston Center TMU [Traffic Management Unit], we have a problem here. We have a hijacked aircraft headed towards New York, and we need you guys to, we need someone to scramble some F-16s or something up there, help us out. NEADS: Is this real-world or exercise? FAA: No, this is not an exercise, not a test.116 NEADS ordered to battle stations the two F-15 alert aircraft at Otis Air Force Base in Falmouth, Massachusetts, 153 miles away from New York City. The air defense of America began with this call.117

It took a while but not all that relevant.,

Originally Posted by INTJRyan To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

At NEADS, the report of the hijacking was relayed immediately to Battle Commander Colonel Robert Marr. After ordering the Otis fighters to battle stations, Colonel Marr phoned Major General Larry Arnold, commanding general of the First Air Force and NORAD's Continental Region. Marr sought authorization to scramble the Otis fighters. General Arnold later recalled instructing Marr to "go ahead and scramble them, and we'll get authorities later." General Arnold then called NORAD headquarters to report.118

So the F15's should be in the air. I thought, and I'm just a dumb aussie, that u guys are meant to have aircraft on the ground ready to be scrambled immediately, not wait 10 minutes for a pilot to finish their coffee.

Originally Posted by INTJRyan To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

F-15 fighters were scrambled at 8:46 from Otis Air Force Base. But NEADS did not know where to send the alert fighter aircraft, and the officer directing the fighters pressed for more information: "I don't know where I'm scrambling these guys to. I need a direction, a destination." Because the hijackers had turned off the plane's transponder, NEADS personnel spent the next minutes searching their radar scopes for the primary radar return. American 11 struck the North Tower at 8:46. Shortly after 8:50, while NEADS personnel were still trying to locate the flight, word reached them that a plane had hit the World Trade Center.119 Radar data show the Otis fighters were airborne at 8:53. Lacking a target, they were vectored toward military-controlled airspace off the Long Island coast. To avoid New York area air traffic and uncertain about what to do, the fighters were brought down to military airspace to "hold as needed. "From 9:09 to 9:13, the Otis fighters stayed in this holding pattern.120

9 minutes (8.46) to find some aircraft but the military still doesn't know where they are, and you don't see this as an issue of national security. Apart from military aircraft how many planes are flying without transponders?

Airborne at 8.53, 7 minutes from being scrambled and 16 minutes from being alerted. All I can say is that it is lucky they weren't enemy planes travelling at Mach 2 or 3.

I presume all 15 fighters are sent "toward military-controlled airspace off the Long Island coast" even though you now have a known target and would expect someone to try and protect the important stuff.

	Originally Posted by INTJRyan To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	In summary, NEADS received notice of the hijacking nine minutes before it struck the North Tower. That nine minutes' notice before impact was the most the military would receive of any of the four hijackings.121

This was also 60 minutes before the pentagon was hit, but 60 minutes isn't enough tp protect the pentagon? or even the white house?

Originally Posted by INTJRyan To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The details of what happened on the morning of September 11 are complex, but they play out a simple theme. NORAD and the FAA were unprepared for the type of attacks launched against the United States on September 11, 2001.They struggled, under difficult circumstances, to improvise a homeland defense against an unprecedented challenge they had never before encountered and had never trained to meet.

Being unprepared isn't really an acceptable excuse, is it? Are you telling me that if enemy aircraft got to America while your civilian and commercial aircraft were still in the air that your military defenses would be unable to deal with the situation? Or is it just that the hijack planes flew too slowly to be identified?

The towers may be plausible, but the Pentagon one hour later? And that is deemed acceptable and able to be just explained away?

And how many civil liberties have US citizens and every visitor to America forgone rather than telling the Military to get their shit together? and how many Generals have been sacked because of the failures?

I really do hope God saves America because the military clearly can't.

[Ghostwheel]

Originally Posted by wolfyx To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

1) The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 It is commonly known that the Twin Towers fell on 9/11, but did you know that a third World Trade Center high-rise building also fell that day? WTC Building 7, a 47-story steel-framed skyscraper located one block from the Twin Towers was not hit by any plane, but collapsed at 5:20 that evening, imploding in the exact manner of a professionally engineered demolition. It fell suddenly, straight down, at near freefall speed, and landed in a compact pile of rubble, barely damaging any of the surrounding buildings. These are but a few of eleven characteristics of Building 7's collapse that are consistent only with controlled demolitions. Further, the leaseholder of the three buildings, Larry Silverstein, said in 2002 on PBS that on the afternoon of 9/11 he suggested to the NYC fire department commander that they "pull" WTC 7. "Pull" is an industry term that means "demolish," but it normally takes a team of skilled people many weeks to design and implement large demolitions. Astonishingly, there is no mention of WTC Building 7's remarkable collapse in the 571-page 9/11 Commission Report.

More on this very interesting anomaly:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
.

[INTJRyan]

	Originally Posted by Ghostwheel To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	More on this very interesting anomaly: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. .

YAWN. In short, the building was severely damaged, totally on fire, and unstable; it was no "anomaly". Pull it means get the rescue crews out of the area.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Structure Magazine explains one probable cause of the WTC 7 collapse. "Single Point of Failure: How the Loss of One Column May Have Led to the Collapse of WTC 7"


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Conspiracy theorists say World Trade Center 7 is the best proof for controlled demolition because it wasn't hit by airliners and only had a few fires. They also claim that there was a confession from the building owner who said he "pulled" it. But this is deceptive because while building 7 wasn't hit by an airliner, it was hit by the large perimeter columns of the Tower collapse. It was 400 ft away but the towers were more than 1300 ft tall. As the tower peeled open, it easily tilted over to reach building 7.

Fuck I hate troothers. Debunk the same shit over and over, and it's just on to WELL WHAT ABOUT THIS which is equally if not more retarded. I could be wrong; I mean who could not be swayed by airtight evidence and analysis like this:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Obese wings, reflections, windowless planes seen from the bottom only and CONNIE CHUNG (probably was head of NY Al Queda at the time). Wake up sheeple; we're through the looking glass here.

[Ghostwheel]

	Originally Posted by INTJRyan To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	YAWN. In short, the building was severely damaged, totally on fire, and unstable; it was no "anomaly". Pull it means get the rescue crews out of the area. Structure Magazine explains one probable cause of the WTC 7 collapse. "Single Point of Failure: How the Loss of One Column May Have Led to the Collapse of WTC 7"

The high level of orderliness of the collapse indicates that it was not a random event.

Steel-reinforced buildings like WTC-7 don't collapse from small fires and random debris impact. And if they did, it would produce an uneven collapse.

And modern skyscrapers aren't constructed so that if you collapse one single column the whole thing comes down into its own footprint at freefall speed:

	The symmetry of WTC 7's descent means that all of its steel supports – 25 central and 58 peripheral columns – were destroyed almost simultaneously.

So the "single column" explanation, plainly, is garbage, which is why over 1,600 architects and engineers support the work of
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, speculated that office fires caused the collapse of the building. It, however, acknowledged in its report in May 2002: "The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. [...] the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence...." [T]he skyscraper fell virtually unimpeded. The lack of structural resistance seems to be explainable only by the destruction of the structural supports through the use of explosives. WTC 7 dropped rather than collapsed. It came down as if only air had separated the roof of the building from the street below. WTC 7 fell on average 7 floors per second (47 / 6.5). One second after the onset of the collapse, the speed of descent was almost 10 meters/second; after two seconds, almost 20 meters/second; and at the end, about 60 meters/second (over 200 kilometers/hour). According to the analysis of Frank Legge (Ph.D.), the rate of descent of WTC 7 closely matches the rate of gravitational free fall, which – combined with the uniformity of the descent throughout the breadth and length of the building – is irrefutable evidence of controlled demolition.... A striking feature in the collapse of WTC 7 is symmetry. The collapse progressed evenly throughout the building, and the debris piled up almost completely within the foundations of the building (see the picture below). The symmetry of WTC 7's descent means that all of its steel supports – 25 central and 58 peripheral columns – were destroyed almost simultaneously. Any asymmetry in the damage to structures would have led to asymmetrical collapse. By contrast, a symmetrical collapse without the controlled use of explosives would violate the principle of least resistance. Local office fires (typically dying out in about 20 minutes in any given location) and structural damage here and there could not have weakened all the central and peripheral support structures in a way that would have caused all of them to fail at the same moment. The simultaneity of the destruction of support structures throughout the building can, however, be explained by controlled demolition. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. .

The destruction of WTC-7 was what made me finally look at what happened that day and examine the official explanation for the first time. I am embarrassed only that it took me several years before I actually started to think critically about what politicians and the media had been saying about it.

Add in the mock terror exercises on both 9/11 and 7/7 and that clinched it for me. All the rest is just gravy. But there's a lot of gravy too.

[newtome]

Originally Posted by INTJRyan To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

YAWN. In short, the building was severely damaged, totally on fire, and unstable; it was no "anomaly". Pull it means get the rescue crews out of the area. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Structure Magazine explains one probable cause of the WTC 7 collapse. "Single Point of Failure: How the Loss of One Column May Have Led to the Collapse of WTC 7" To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Conspiracy theorists say World Trade Center 7 is the best proof for controlled demolition because it wasn't hit by airliners and only had a few fires. They also claim that there was a confession from the building owner who said he "pulled" it. But this is deceptive because while building 7 wasn't hit by an airliner, it was hit by the large perimeter columns of the Tower collapse. It was 400 ft away but the towers were more than 1300 ft tall. As the tower peeled open, it easily tilted over to reach building 7. Fuck I hate troothers. Debunk the same shit over and over, and it's just on to WELL WHAT ABOUT THIS which is equally if not more retarded. I could be wrong; I mean who could not be swayed by airtight evidence and analysis like this: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Obese wings, reflections, windowless planes seen from the bottom only and CONNIE CHUNG (probably was head of NY Al Queda at the time). Wake up sheeple; we're through the looking glass here.

I take the lack of response to my post about the almost non-response of the Airforce as confirmation that it was simply undefendable.

[INTJRyan]

	Originally Posted by newtome To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I take the lack of response to my post about the almost non-response of the Airforce as confirmation that it was simply undefendable.

You're not positing some novel theory. That was the exact conclusion of the 9/11 report: every defense mechanism the US had was completely unprepared to face a threat like the one on 9/11, so I don't need to address it. What I was addressing was your insinuation that there was more to this than mere incompetence. Several agencies didn't even follow their own protocols, particularly the Boston ATCs who did not catch on that something was amiss when the plane did not respond to ATC command to increase elevation.

---------- Post added 07-11-2012 at 08:59 AM ----------

	Originally Posted by Ghostwheel To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Steel-reinforced buildings like WTC-7 don't collapse from small fires and random debris impact. And if they did, it would produce an uneven collapse. [/URL]

Gotta love truthers, speaking like they are demolition experts and in black and white terms.

"Conspiracy theorists have long claimed that explosives downed World Trade Center 7, north of the Twin Towers. The long-awaited report from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) conclusively rebuts those claims. Fire alone brought down the building, the report concludes, pointing to thermal expansion of key structural members as the culprit. The report also raises concerns that other large buildings."

Fire ALONE brought down WTC 7.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Look at the fucking pictures guy; the building was completely on fire and heavily damaged.

Let me guess: they're in on the conspiracy as well or "sheeple" who can't handle the real truth.

Originally Posted by Ghostwheel To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The destruction of WTC-7 was what made me finally look at what happened that day and examine the official explanation for the first time. I am embarrassed only that it took me several years before I actually started to think critically about what politicians and the media had been saying about it. Add in the mock terror exercises on both 9/11 and 7/7 and that clinched it for me. All the rest is just gravy. But there's a lot of gravy too.

Congrats on being a dupe. Enjoy it.

[INTelliJent]

	Originally Posted by INTJRyan To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Ok I give up. It's all shadow agents and government actors acting alone yet controlling massive portions of the military and government. Looking forward to arguing with you in the next thread where you posit the government is totally incapable of completing even the slightest task.

Two massive oversimplifications but ok.

Both of the arguments surrounding 9/11 work to my benefit, whether it's the "official" story (a conspiracy theory btw, just with different actors) or one version or another of the different government focused conspiracy theories.

Government is either evil or incompetent, or a potential mixture of both.

As far as government being incapable of the slightest task, that's clearly a strawman.

[VF1J]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


God knows what happened that day, but you can tell why people are confused. WTC 7 must have had a shit architect.