[size=1]
*Originally posted by lowgas *
**ya, i picked 1 also, altho i do think the government knew what
was comming and let it happen. **
you ACTUALLY believe that?! They knew exactly what was going
to happen and let it? Let those people die? Let the city get
destroyed? Let the country fall into severe depression and anger?
LET it happen?! Gimme a break.
/unflux
:goatee:[/size]
i don’t think they knew it was happening. the info might have been there, but overlooked and not believed, lost in the mountains of data. the intelligence hearings are a no-win situation. if they proved the info was there, then someone’s to blame for overlooking it. if they prove that nobody knew it was happening, that’s just as bad. they should have.
if giant purple frogs started falling out of the sky, someone would surely come to the forefront and say they warned about this 2 years ago.
Yes, I too believe they were tipped off about it, but you have to think about how many false threats the governments a day. It could have very easily been overlooked somehow.
I voted #4 because I believe the government has a lot of information that they aren’t sharing with us. So we are really only getting one side of the story since they don’t share the other side (well, at least I don’t think they are sharing all the info).
No matter what the situation, it is best to know both sides.
is anyone else drained from all the pro-war coverage on all the major news channels…you would think the government was running the channels… 
I voted #1
Lost I agree with you about a lack of information being given out. Our gov has always been wary of telling all… however exactly what happened: terroists + planes = one ****ty day
I think is a no brainer, not too much left to question. Now our prior knowledge of this event, intel tips we may have had, and how we should be responding internationally these are all things that raise serious questions…
Peace
True that we know what happened that day… but some questions come to pass about what brought up to that happening? People don’t just wake up and say “lets plan an attack for no reason”.
It makes me wonder if our government did something in particular to piss them off. Just wondering though, I have no real idea on why exactly they chose to attack us, just bits and pieces that I have heard.
Now our prior knowledge of this event, intel tips we may have had, and how we should be responding internationally these are all things that raise serious questions…
Yep, I agree fully.
i’d love to see it.
i gotta admit i’m fascinated by this stuff. i don’t believe it, but i think i have a fairly open mind if you want to present your evidence.
I will continue with my thesis if anyone wants to hear it and requests it. But what you are all being told to believe is patently false. The WTC buildings were NOT felled by two aircraft. This is a lie.
i’m curious. are you denying that 2 aircraft hit the WTC? or that they did hit it, but in addition to that, something else caused the buildings to collapse. i get that you are implying there was some internal or underground explosion that actually caused the collapse. are you saying the planes were flown into the towers as a kind of diversion?
and why was the plane shot down in penn? i could actually believe that the military would shoot down a plane headed towards DC after the pentagon and WTC hits. and i could believe that it would be covered up. i don’t think that happened, but if shown evidence, i would be open to it. but you are suggesting something beyond that. if these weren’t terrorist hijackings, then why shoot down a plane?
just did some research of my own. here are the official seismic reports:
8:46:26 a.m. EDT [1240 UTC] Aircraft impact - north tower Magnitude 0.9
9:02:54 a.m. EDT [1302 UTC] Aircraft impact - south tower Magnitude 0.7
9:59:04 a.m. EDT [1359 UTC] Collapse - south tower Magnitude 2.1
10:28:31 a.m. EDT [1428 UTC] Collapse - north tower Magnitude 2.3
9:59 and 10:28 are the times of the collapses. now, if a plane hitting the building on the 90-whatever floor can cause a .9 magnitute reaction on the ground, it makes sense that 10 or so stories of the WTC starting to collapse would cause at least 2.1.
also, if there was an explosion in the basement, which is the theory i’ve found on a few other sites, the towers would probably collapse the way usual demolished buildings collapse - they seem to sink into the ground. the cloud of debris is at the bottom of the building and the top floors are intact til they hit ground.
the usual theory in the WTC is that the top floors collapsed and kind of domino-effected down. this coincides with what was visible. the top of the building dissapeared into smoke and dust and the destruction travelled downwards.
i haven’t found a reliable report about the molten metal yet.
*Originally posted by MakaVeli_Da_DoN *
**you would think the government was running the channels…**
they are.
i’m more inclined to think that business runs the channels. money (advertising, etc.) talks. why listen to the government. ask yourself who the gov’t listens to.
That is true. A friend of mine showed me a whole entire list of what companies owned what tv stations. If I can get the site from him, I will post it here.
then compare that list against campaign donations, etc.
Phil I’m interested in reading more of your findings on 911 and I also am interested in what bit-101 has to say.
pretty much all the stuff he’s saying (and more) can be found here:
http://serendipity.magnet.ch/wtc.html
it gets pretty crazy though. there’s so many conspiracy theories there, i don’t even know which one the author believes. the wtc was either brought down by thermite or a nuke in the basement, or unmanned, remote control fighter jets painted to look like passenger planes (the originals were rerouted to a military base. not sure what they did with the passengers) or there was a giant laser beam that disintigrated the buildings. (i’m dead serious - that’s what the guy is saying.) and it was all done by either the fbi or the chinese or the russians or the jews. i couldn’t quite tell.
definitely an interesting read!
so uhh phil, do you have the negatives to these photos youve been examining? how do you know your not examing doctored photos… that were doctored to look fake?
come on now, that was a valid question. if you’re going to present these very radical ideas and claim to have hard proof, you can’t just brush off anyone who questions your proof with a “i don’t have time for people like you”.
you are claiming that all the media’s pictures/films were doctored, but you have one or two that show something different. it’s more logical to think that the one different one is faked, and the large archive of other pictures that agree with each other are true.
I guess Phil is a little testy tonight…
if you want to see what he is talking about, I recommend you go to his site:
where he has this link (amongst a bunch of others)
http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero14/missile/trou_en.htm
Just for the record, I am not endorsing www.corpust.com , I’m just passing along a link=)
Rev:elderly:
EDIT: use IE to view, Netscape will give you the source…:*(
sorry Phil, I did not mean to belittle your response.
I was trying to give the lazy a way to find out what you were talking about, without a condesending tone.:-\
While I don’t necessarily agree with all of your statements, I do respect the fact that you have done the research, have come to your own conclusions, and I feel you don’t deserve the petty “shots” you have rec’d.
I personally feel that there are way too many people ready to take whatever sermon is spewed at them and regurgitate it as their own view.
Sometimes I don’t know when to keep my mouth shut:x
peace to all,
Rev:elderly:
PS…I agree with your view on anonymity…that is why my full name is listed in my profile, and the only email I use is my full name…
Rev:elderly:
thanks Phil… 
and to all:
Question Authority…every day!
Rev:elderly: