America's Destruction a Long Term Agenda

Nobody said that! This is just another example of you twisting words to match whatever side of the story you want to support.

I never said we need to "nationalize banks to save ourselves from the communists," as if communism truly exists. All I know is that we need to abolish the Federal Reserve. But, the unfortunate thing is that this will not, and cannot happen. At least not without a mass-awakening of the people.

Yeah, but the banks are the ones creating this money to begin with. They can create wealth out of nothing, so shareholders really do not mean shit. The fact is, these banks exist above and beyond the governments of the world, and they do in fact have control over everything.

Whether you want to believe that is a conspiracy theory or not is fine with me -- I don't care.

But unlike the Japanese banks, the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers are much more powerful, thus more private. So of course they're not going to be listed amongst the biggest bankers in globalist-owned rags like The Economist and Barons. What governments do the Japanese own and control? The Rockefellers and Rothschilds pretty much own all of the western world and all its governments.

The Japanese banks were all funded by the Rothschilds, and now they're basically owned by the bigger and more established banking families. They're really all part of the same picture, and it's families like the Rockefellers and Rothschilds who are at the top of the list and pretty much control the global economy (the Rothschilds especially).

Just look at who heads the Trilateral Commission, which consolidates the biggest players of the financial and corporate elite from the US, Europe and Asia.... That person is David Rockefeller.

 

Rat is just a modern-day Joe McCarthy. Any evidence that discredits one of his conspiracy theories can't be legitimate; it must just be proof of how widespread the conspiracy is, and evidence that the person arguing must be either a sheep or part of the conspiracy. Whenever Rat gets caught posting a complete boldfaced lie, it is us that have our eyes closed since we believe the evidence against the theory (which was obviously manufactured by the illuminati).

But unlike Joe McCarthy, Rat actually seems to believe these crazy theories.

 

So you're just going to criticise? Are you going to refute anything I said in the above post referring to 9/11, or is criticising people simply your way around not having to answer questions?

 

No, just another example of how you are a total liar. You can't get your story straight.

And for all your bluster, you can't actually prove that Rothchilds controls anything. They are a small investment bank and not especially influential.

 

But where did I say we need to federalize the banking system to save ourselves from communists? I think it is YOU, Pointbreak, who is the liar!

See, you edit my words to fit your feeble arguments.

You cannot even properly spell Rothschild, so I kind of doubt you're an authority on them, unlike me, who devotes hours on end to reading books about such things.

"Small investment bank"?? LOL!

 

What's the point? There's no evidence that could possibly exist, even in theory, that would convince you that you're wrong about anything.

If Osama bin Laden showed up at your house and personally admitted responsibility in the 9/11 attacks, you'd say that the CIA paid him off to admit it to you, so you'd stop defending him on internet message boards.

If you personally saw a plane crash into the Pentagon, you'd marvel at how much US-controlled smart missiles look like airplanes.

If you got to know Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin personally, and found out that they were both soft-spoken people who hated the press (but had ample evidence of their voyage), you'd still say that they were movie stars who faked the moon landing.

If you were made the leader of the freemasons tomorrow and found no evidence of a massive conspiracy, you'd say that the higher-ups did it just to throw you off their track.

If every single crop-circle faker in the world admitted that the whole thing was a hoax and showed exactly how they did it, you'd say that the aliens have brainwashed them.

So what's the point of arguing with you? It's not just a simple matter of convincing you that you're wrong. There's no evidence that COULD exist EVEN IN THEORY to convince you.

 

There is ample evidence to back up Rat's claims, if you care to look it up. Google is an amazing tool.

 

Instead of lashing insults and stooping to your level, I will take the time to answer you in a civil manner.

I believe that I am right, and that in time you will come to find out that much of what I say is the truth. If you don't want to believe a word I say and think that I am a total crackpot, that is fine.... I'm sure it wouldn't be the first time someone has thought that.

I haven't always held the views I hold now. Three and a half years ago, I would throw a fit on these boards if someone dared suggest that 9/11 was an inside job. I am sure there might be one or two people still here from back then that can attest to that. If not, just look at my archived threads. I responded to people back then almost the same way you respond to me now -- only worse.

If it didn't fit into the realm of possibilities as I saw it, it just couldn't be true. I knew it all, or so I thought I did.

Then I actually tried looking at things with an open mind and began looking into the many mysteries and unanswered questions surrounding 9/11.... things I had once criticised people for believing. After just a little research, I began to think that maybe some of these conspiracy kooks weren't so kooky after all. There were just too many things not adding up. It wasn't very long after this that I came to the conclusion that 9/11 was indeed an inside job. This pretty much changed the way I looked at the world and sent me on a quest for the truth, which lead me to many of the other topics I often discuss in here. What I am saying is, I haven't always been into conspiracies. There was a time when I shunned conspiracy theories, as you and your buddy Pointbreak often do on these boards.

Heheh. You're probably right.

I'd probably see some wreckage, too.

Once again, I never said the moon landing was fake, I simply mentioned somebody from Nexus Magazine who was on Coast to Coast AM with George Noory, discussing the landing on the moon and the possibility of THE FOOTAGE (not necessarily the landing itself) being faked.

Gee, you got me there.

Who said anything about crop circles? Can you find a thread where I have posted anything about crop circles? That's not even my bag.

I feel this is what I should be saying to you.

 

If anyone isn't sold on government complicity in the September 11th attacks, I urge you to check out the book titled The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11 by David Ray Griffin. I believe it's around $15.00 (US). The book can be found almost anywhere. Most Barnes and Noble bookstores carry it, as well as Amazon.com:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...104-7319390-5351955?v=glance&s=books&n=507846



This is probably the most comprehensive yet condensed analysis of the 9/11 attacks to date. It's also one of the highest-ranking, best-selling books regarding 9/11 complicity.

 

That's big of you to admit. I've become much more open to alternative explanations other than the ones the mainstream media offers just in the past year. I know a few people who have opened their minds very recently too. This is what gives me hope that there is still the possibility of serious change. I think that when people, even those who are stubbornly set in their belief system, are presented with the facts, they are able to wake up and see through the BS.

That's what I was thinking. But, I have hope even for Kandahar.

 

Sorry, but there's no hope of me abandoning reason, in favor of paranoid conspiracy theories which border on mental illness.

You kids have fun though.

 

Good! Then stop trolling people's posts whom you do not agree with.... unless of course you have something to back up your words with. Otherwise, I will see to it that you are banned, along with your buddy, Pointbreak.

There's nothing wrong with disagreeing, but until you present some facts along with your arguments, it would probably be best to avoid the threads of people that you normally don't agree with. I am sick of the incessant trolling by some of you people, who think you hold the answers to the universe while never backing anything up that you say. Grow up!

 

I have provided plenty of evidence that your conspiracy theories are not feasible. And you're one to talk about backing up your words...you post articles that turn out to be either distortions of the truth from tabloid websites, or just outright lies.

You do that.

You claim that you once believed most of the "official" story of 9/11 until you found too much stuff that didn't make sense. That would be perfectly fine...if your conspiracy theories made any more sense. While there might be some minor errors in the official 9/11 story (I don't presume to know whether the passengers overtook that plane in Pennsylvania, the hijackers were just incompetent and crashed it, or the government shot it down), the version that you hear from the media is almost certainly closer to reality than your paranoid theories.

The 9/11 story usually reported still has the preponderance of evidence behind it. As with any other event with conflicting hypotheses, I'll employ the scientific method. If your conspiracy theories suddenly produce more evidence of their validity, I'll be more likely to believe them. The same cannot be said of you, because no matter how much evidence is provided you will never believe the mainstream story.

You have never provided reasonable answers to any of the following questions:

1. Why did the government engineer this attack in the first place? If the illuminati secretly direct all of the world's actions anyway, why did the government care about public support for its planned war?

2. What happened to that plane and its passengers if it didn't crash into the Pentagon?

3. Since the government had a fourth plane at its disposal anyway, according to your theory, why would it take the chance of someone seeing something other than a plane crash into the Pentagon?

4. Why did the government "waste" one of its planes by crashing it into a rural field?

5. Why did the government attack its own facility - the facility where the people planning this attack work, no less - at all? Wouldn't the World Trade Center attacks have been sufficient to rally support for any war?

6. You've claimed that the government definitely shot down the plane in Pennsylvania, to "make the Air Force look good." How does it make the Air Force look good if they then give the credit to the passengers? How does it make the Air Force look good if they let two additional planes reach their targets after the first attack? Who cares if the Air Force looks good anyway?

7. Of the enormous number of people required to cover up an attack like this, how come not a single one of them has told the story? Even the North Koreans haven't been that effective at silencing people.


You just look for trivial chinks in the armor of the mainstream story to label it inconsistent and entirely invalid. Meanwhile your own story has MAJOR LOGICAL INCONSISTENCIES, and almost NO evidence supporting it.

 

Since Rat isn't around right now, I'll try to clear up your questions as I see it.

You don't seem to understand the human psyche very well. If you have them scared of phantom "terrorists", they're much more likely to go along with you rather than questioning your theories about Iraq having WMDs and such.

Second, you need some type of security breach to scare the people with and point to as you take away their liberty to give them supposed safety from the "terrorists", while really turning their country into a police state. Just look at the burning of the Reichstag building that Hitler pinne don his political oponnents. It bares some very large similarities to the 9/11 attacks.

The Lord only knows. They could have disposed of it in a number of different ways. Shit, maybe it didn't even exist. I wouldn't put it past them to do something that sloppy.

I don't know what was said about a fourth plane, so I can't answer this.

Maybe to make it look like NORAD did something instead of sitting on it's hands like it did?

This one I honestly can't answer. The only thing I can think of is that they wanted to make it look like they were hit at their main base, and therefore delect "inside-job" theories, but I admit that falls rather flat.

As I said before, to make it look like they didn't stand down. That would breed inside-job theories like crazy.

It wouldn't have taken that many people. The folks at the top mastermind it, then it's pretty easy to manipulate the lower-downs into doing what is needed without knowing it. For example, NORAD has said that they were doing wargames drills that morning that involved planes hitting buildings. Now, as stupid as this sounds, I'm sure most, if not all, of the people at NORAD except the highest-ranking officers thought that was what was going on.


Now, some questions for you.


1. Why did the architect who build the WTC say that there was no way that it was physically possible for those two passenger jets (if that is indeed what they were) to cause the collapse of the towers by hitting where they did?

2. Why did he say that the only way the towers could have been destroyed that way was if a large explosive charge was planted at the base of the tower, in the basement. This would have been a large device, too big to be brought in by more "terrorists" in a vehicle.

3. Why did Bin Laden look competely different in the video where he admitted complicity in the attacks than in the one where he denied it, and all other pictures and videos of him?

4. Why did witnesses see not passenger jets, but unmarked white objects that look more like missiles, in their words.

Answer those sensibly, I dare you.

 

This misses the point entirely. According to Rat's theory, the illuminati control all the events of the world anyway. So why would they even care whether or not the people supported their war?

And everyone on board that plane is probably sitting in a concentration camp somewhere in the United States, right? "It didn't even exist"? Now that's just stupid, and you know it.

I already addressed this, but I'll address it again:

1. If the illuminati control the entire world anyway, why would they care if NORAD looks bad?
2. Why would they immediately give credit to the passengers for overtaking the plane and crashing it? Why wouldn't they say "Yeah, we shot it down. We're awesome"?

Until you guys can come up with a logically consistent conspiracy theory that fits the evidence, the mainstream theory has the preponderance of evidence behind it.

Are you crazy? Think of how many people knew about Watergate, and that was just a simple hotel burglary!

You're right, it does sound stupid. You don't think that a single one of those lower-ranked people, after the attack, might connect the dots of their "drill" and the attacks? Not one person would think that and then tell their story?

The architect, Minoru Yamasaki, died in 1986. So I don't know where you're getting this. Regardless, the testimony of an architect touting his own work would hardly be sufficient evidence of a massive conspiracy.

See above.

Regardless, you don't think that any of the people who escaped the basement of the towers would have noticed an enormous explosion?

This is a favorite of the conspiracy theory websites, and the short answer is he didn't. The slightly longer answer is that those websites used the clearest pictures they could find of bin Laden from the previous tapes, and the blurriest pictures they could find of that tape.

Certainly if the US government can orchestrate an attack and coverup of this magnitude, they'd be able to make someone look enough like Bin Laden to shoot a grainy video?

I hope you're talking about the Pentagon attacks, because there's a little thing called a video camera that definitely shows planes flying in to the World Trade Center.

How many witnesses are you referring to? And were they handpicked by tabloid websites? A followup-question that you failed to answer before: Why would the US government take the risk of using a missile and someone seeing or videotaping it, when an airplane would've been sufficient?

 

But they have to keep the people under control. Even they can't stand up to a massive uprising. So they have to keep us scared and divided.

I don't know. Stranger things have happened. I know they've done some VERY sloppy coverup jobs. Specifically where serial numbers of planes that landed one place were different from when they took off....

I already addressed the first point, and for the second, you've stumped me. Perhaps there is not conspiracy behind the wrecked plain.

No it doesn't. It's full of flaws.

What story?

And when I said "as stupid as this sounds", I meant the drills excuse, not my argument.

I could have sworn I read that somewhere, but maybe I was wrong. It could have been some other architect, not the one who built it, but I know that was said by an expert at some point.

The question is, who could escape from such an explosion?

It is still CLEARLY not the same man. You can argue the finer points of this case with me all you like, but if you try to tell me that is the same person as in the other videos, I will wonder how you can type a coherent sentence. And as I said, they're quite sloppy. I've read enough on this subject to know.

I'm not saying that to the average bystander these would have looked like missiles, because we have footage of the planes hitting, but that they looked a bit off for passenger jets, and they weren't marked. Witnesses have been very adament about that.

 

The fact is, you haven’t provided a shred of evidence to support your claims and counter-claims since you have been visiting this site. Your opinion, to me, is not evidence… nor is it to others.

I don’t know exactly what your idea of “tabloid websites” is, but I will assume you’re referring to Rense.com, which is just one of the dozens of websites I frequent and have posted articles from.

It seems like anytime you don’t have any facts of your own to bring forth to the table, you bring up my citing of Rense.com. Either that, or you simply shoot your mouth off like you hold all the answers. It’s old already.

As I have said before, I use a number of sources; both mainstream and independent. All news ultimately comes from the mainstream. I like independent sources because they offer commentary and an in-depth look at the news surrounding the news, which you’re not going to see covered on the nightly news with Peter Jennings.

A person getting their news from all mainstream sources is just as bad as someone who gets all their news from alternative sites like Rense.com -- both are a mixture of truths, half-truths and lies. It's up to the people themselves to decide what to believe and what not to. It's called thinking for yourself.

You have stated a number of times how much you trust the mainstream media to deliver you the news. You probably also don’t know that ALL mainstream media in the US is controlled by a total of only SIX corporations; General Electric, Viacom, Disney, Bertelsmann, Time Warner, and Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation (FOX), all of which are owned by the military-industrial complex. General Electric is the top contractor of the US military. Yet, you rely on big corporations owned by the military-industrial complex to deliver you the truth.

But whatever, there will always be brainwashed types who buy into whatever is spoonfed to them, never asking the questions that should be asked. You’re just one among many.

First of all, the same things I mention regarding 9/11 are the same things other people are mentioning. These are not my “conspiracy theories.” They didn’t originate with me.

The fact is, Flight 93 was shot down. Donald Rumsfeld has slipped twice already, saying the plane was “shot down.” Planes that crash into fields don’t leave debris stretching over a five mile radius, either

First of all, unlike you, I don’t claim to have the answers to everything. However, I will ask questions when things warrant questioning. Most of these questions you are asking me have no real answers, which is why you are asking them.

I notice you didn’t ask anything about the stand down of NORAD. The several warnings to key people (Willie Brown, Salmon Rushdie) not to fly that day. The war game exercises that were taking place on the morning of 9/11 that involved false radar blips on the radar screens, confusing the already delayed fighter response. The put options placed on American Airlines just days before the attacks. WTC leaseholder Larry Silverstein's admission that Building 7 was "pulled" (as in a controlled demolition)....

And if you think I am crazy for asking these questions, would you also say the same about the 400 9/11 families who have a lawsuit against the Bush administration for complicity in the attacks? What about Congressman Ron Paul and Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, who have both spoken out regarding the attacks, saying that we are being lied to in regard to the official story that was given to us?

First of all, the globalists operate through the various governments of the world, namely the US and European governments. If the US didn’t have enough support for the war, there would be the risk of civil unrest. And people are not going to serve in a war that is not justified. Therefore, you have to make the people think they are under attack by creating an enemy to fight to justify the war. That enemy was Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, even though there is no evidence to this date to support the claim that bin Laden had anything to do with the attacks, whatsoever.

They also needed something to justify the destruction of the Constitution, civil liberties, and the re-engineering of society into a police state. 9/11 was it.

Again, I don’t have the answers to everything, and I don’t have a definitive answer for this. I do know that Flight 77 disappeared from the radar several minutes before the Pentagon was hit. The plane could have easily landed at a remote location or been shot down over the ocean. But this is speculation and I am not going to go there because I would rather stick to what can be proven.

What I do know is that on the morning of 9/11, CNN reported live from the scene that no plane hit the Pentagon. On closer examination of the footage taken at the Pentagon just minutes after the crash (before the outer wall collapsed), there is no evidence visible that would indicate a Boeing 757 hit the building. There is no discernable wreckage to be seen, nor is there a hole in the Pentagon’s exterior to indicate that a Boeing hit it. There is also no damage, whatsoever, to the Pentagon lawn. I don’t believe that a Boeing could have crashed so precisely into the Pentagon without leaving wreckage, or a hole big enough to accommodate this wreckage.

While many of the eyewitness accounts described by the mainstream media reported seeing a 757 crash into the building, there are a number of people being silenced, who claimed NOT to see a Boeing hit the building -- rather something much smaller. Several of these people were ex-military personnel, who have experience working around missiles and UAV’s, which several of these people described as hitting the Pentagon.

You also have the Pentagon C-ring punch out, where whatever hit the Pentagon hit with enough force and velocity to pierce three of the five rings of the Pentagon, leaving a 16 foot diameter hole through the inner wall of the C-ring of the Pentagon.

The most damaging piece of evidence, to me, is a picture showing an engine rotor amidst building debris outside the Pentagon. This is one of the few discernable pieces of wreckage to be seen outside of the Pentagon. Documentary filmmaker Dave vonKleist, who produced the documentary entitled 911: In Plane Site, sent a picture of the rotor into Rolls Royce, one of the manufacturers of Boeing 757 engines, and got a response back from one of the company’s spokespeople saying it wasn’t from the engine of a 757. So what is it from?

How would I know? Am I the government? Again, I only go by what can be proven, not by what can’t be proven, which is the trap you want me to fall into so you can discredit me. I’m not stupid.

However, it is SPECULATED that a plane as big as a 757 would be incredibly difficult to fly into a bulding as short as the Pentagon, even with an experienced pilot (which the alleged 9/11 hijackers were not). There would have likely been more of a risk in using a 757, as the drag that would result from the close proximity to the plane and the ground would likely cause the plane to crash before hitting the building.

Simply put, it would be nearly impossible for even the most experienced pilots to crash into a building like the Pentagon, let alone without touching the ground flying that close to it. Several pilots have stated that it would literally take years to master a maneuver like this. Seems logical to me.

Again, you’re asking me a question that cannot be answered, as there is no physical evidence to support why they would do this, if it even did crash to begin with. I, and many others, believe it was shot down for the reasons mentioned above.

Well, maybe that’s the question they want you to ask. Did you ever think of that?

First of all, the side of the Pentagon that was hit was largely unpopulated at the time, as it was undergoing renovation. Only a few people inside the Pentagon were hurt or killed. But if they had no problem murdering regular Americans, why would they care if a few faceless people at the Pentagon were killed?

I (personally) believe the Pentagon was attacked for several reasons. For one, they probably wanted to make it look like an al-Qaeda style attack. They did this by attacking the two major pillars of the United States, which fall in the form of economy and military might, which the towers and the Pentagon represent.

I believe it also entailed psychological reasons, to make people feel as if their country was being attacked on all ends, which would frighten the people enough so that they would support the actions that would follow without question. An attack on the towers would have probably been enough, but these attacks were intended to be psychologically traumatizing to people.

I cannot answer this question because I don’t remember saying the plane was shot down “to make them look good.” Perhaps you can find the thread in which I stated this. If not, you’re probably thinking of somebody else, or you made it up altogether.

Several whistleblowers have come forward since 9/11.... David Schippers, Mary Schneider, Catherine Austin Fitts, Former German Defense Minister Andreas Von Buelow, Col. Don de Grand-Pre....

Just because you're not hearing them in the mainstream news, doesn't mean they're not out there.

 

You think that if 9/11 hadn't happened, and they had invaded Iraq by using the WMD justification, there would have been a "massive uprising"? Don't be ridiculous. The protests might've been a little bit bigger, but there would not have been some kind of government coup or revolution in the United States.

If this was a coverup job, it was anything but sloppy. It was nearly flawless.

Your own theory has a hundred times as many flaws.

That they were told they were going to do drill exercises regarding planes flying into buildings. That's the kind of thing that the media would eat up.

So some expert said this? What's your source, and how many "experts" did they have to ask before they found one that would tell them what they wanted to hear?

No it's not. Stop trying to change the subject. Wouldn't the people escaping from the restaurants in the basement have noticed a massive explosion?

It is the same person as in the other videos. Have you actually seen the videos or are you just relying on freeze-frame pictures from tabloid websites, which try to pick the best pictures from some videos and the worst ones from others.

You didn't answer my question. If the United States can orchestrate a massive coverup, they ought to be able to make someone look like bin Laden. And it wouldn't just be a matter of finding a few pictures from the videos to prove otherwise; you'd have to zoom in and look for differences in the moles and freckles.

I ask the same question I asked earlier: How many witnesses? What's your source of information? And how many witnesses did they have to ask before they found some people who were willing to tell them what they wanted to hear?

 

Your idea of evidence is providing links to tabloids which prove to be entirely false! Look at the article you used at the beginning of this thread! After it was proven to be an outright lie, you backtracked and said you "weren't sure if it was true." You just can't be bothered to check ahead of time, and you do this on a regular basis. Why should I give any credibility to your conspiracy websites when they're regularly proven to be completely false?

Rense is one. It is by no means the only tabloid you post from.

Then why do you use it, if it comes from the military-industrial-illuminati-propaganda-machine or whatever you call it?

Mainstream sources aren't routinely getting caught posting complete lies, like you are. When they do post untrue information, it's a major scandal.

They all have one other thing in common too: They're in business to make money. With that said, they all place a lot of value on their good name and credibility, and therefore they run truthful news stories.

I don't particularly like the concentration of media into fewer hands, but so far the accuracy of their reporting has not suffered.

You accept whatever the various conspiracy theories spoonfeed to you, without even bothering to check to see if it's a complete lie before you post it here. If people call you on a couple of your stories, that's OK with you, because you just find another bullshit story on the same websites a few days later.

I'm not ruling out the possibility that the plane was shot down. I don't see a lot of conclusive evidence either way. What I do rule out is the possibility that the US government hijacked it, then shot it down to show that they were on the job, then denied that they had shot it down. It makes no logical sense.

I'm not asking you to have the answers to everything. But the fact that you answer SO MANY questions with "I don't know, I'm not the US government" indicates to me that you know your theory doesn't make any sense. If you can't even come up with any credible theories as to the US government's motives for various aspects of 9/11, don't expect anyone with any rational capacity to accept your theories.

?
What should I have asked? If you have questions, ask.

Willie Brown and Salmon Rushdie? That seems like an...odd...group of people to warn not to fly. What makes them so special?

Most of them aren't actually claiming the Bush administration was complicit, just incompetent.

They aren't claiming that the illuminati orchestrated this attack, that no plane hit the Pentagon, and that the CIA faked a video of Bin Laden admitting his guilt.

Their complaints are more focused on what they see as a coverup regarding the incompetent response during and leading up to the attacks.

I addressed this above. The United States is NOT going to fight another Civil War just because the president sends some troops abroad for questionable reasons. There wasn't a Civil War or anything close to it during Vietnam.

You're kidding, right?

If they orchestrated these attacks for the purpose of invading Iraq, why would they blame it on al-Qaeda and Bin Laden who have no ties to Iraq? At best, it would be a gamble if the American people would connect the two. Why wouldn't they just frame Saddam Hussein and Baathist terrorists for 9/11?

If you think the United States has been following the Constitution at any point in the past century, you need to read the document.

Why does the illuminati care if people have civil liberties anyway? Don't they already control all the political parties and the media?

I don't remember CNN ever reporting any such thing, so I'll go out on a limb and say you're full of shit.

Regardless, isn't CNN part of the illuminati-propaganda-machine? Didn't they get the memo that morning?

Here are some pictures.
http://www.september11news.com/AttackImages.htm

I love how you selectively trust military personnel when it suits your purposes, but if their claims support the mainstream explanation it must be because they're controlled by the illuminati.

I don't know. I thought you were claiming a missile hit the Pentagon. Missiles don't have engines at all. So what is your theory on where it came from?

It's not just a matter of people being killed. It's a matter of damaging their own facilities.

Haha. Do you think that the American people associated the World Trade Center and the Pentagon with the "two major pillars of the United States"? Most people aren't so literate. Hell, even the media hasn't made a big deal about that. To the average American, a couple famous buildings where important stuff happens were attacked.

So why would they increase the risk of being found out by attacking an additional target if you admit there wasn't much additional benefit? Another logical inconsistency.

You've implied as much on this thread. You've flat-out said that the plane was shot down. What other motive are you suggesting, if not to make NORAD look good?

Who are they, what exactly are they claiming, and how much were they paid by your conspiracy websites?

 

It came from Newswatch Magazine.... not a tabloid.

So list the sites I have used that are "tabloids."

Because I am intelligent and informed, and I am able to decipher what is truth and what is disinformation based on pre-existing knowledge.

Caught by who? And how can anyone know what is a lie and what isn't, when much of this information is coming directly from the Pentagon?

Well, then you're just gullible and weak-minded, I guess, if you are that simple-minded to believe that.

People in the forums.... whoever reads this.... Are you laughing your asses off right now?

What are you talking about now?

Good for you.

Why does George Bush wear black shoes? Why is Barney a black dog and not a white dog? Why do Laura Bush's eyes look so weird? How many chicken fingers can Karl Rove eat in one sitting?

Mainstream news. Go ahead and Google it.

Most of them believe either the Bush administration did it, or they allowed it to occur.

What difference does it make when the fact is that they believe we are being lied to?

And I assume you've read their complaints?

The times have changed, and this is different.

What difference does it make? Just falsely link Iraq with Osama and al-Qaeda, as the Bush administration did, and the gullible idiots will believe it.

MUCH more so than they are now. When the Patriot Act was passed, the Constitution was basically ripped in half. But you're a neocon, so why would you care?

What does that have to do with it?

http://prisonplanet.com/headline_archive/Feb05/250205.html

Stop dodging.

Most low-ranking military people are just like everyone else. Why would they be part of any conspiracy?

No, they don't. Some people claimed to hear what sounded like a missile, but most of them saw what appeared to be a UAV, such as a Global Hawk.

Yeah, I am sure rebuilding one side of the Pentagon means anything to them.

Subliminally, yes.

Like I said, I don't have the answers to everything.

So they can say it was brought down by the evil terrorists and it was saved from crashing into Washington by the great American men on board. It just makes my heart flutter.

Ever heard of Google? I am not wasting my energy on posting links when you can look it up for yourself.