What exactly happened on 911?

Jonny7 · 27-02-2013 04:14PM #1

Every thread here seems to descend into very detailed hole-picking exercises.

If the "official" version of events on 911 is wrong

I would like to know exactly what did happen?

It's now 2013, I'm open to proper detailed accounts as long as they stand up to the same scrutiny that the official version of events is subject to.

gnfnrhead · 28-02-2013 07:44PM

My view is fairly straight forward. They knew about it before hand but either didn't know enough to act in it, or were too late to act on it. I think that's as far as it goes.

Jonny7 · 02-03-2013 12:42AM

Okay fair enough, what evidence do you have that makes you take this position?

gnfnrhead · 02-03-2013 04:54PM

Jonny7 wrote: »

Okay fair enough, what evidence do you have that makes you take this position?

I dont have any evidence of that being the case, it's just what I think happened. I dont push for others to believe it, it's just my own opinion. I could be wrong, but I dont think I've seen anything to confirm that I am. Unfortunatly it is something that will probably never be proven. Imagine the outrage in America if that turned out to be the case. If it did happen like I think, it'll never be revealed. It wouldnt be worth it for anyone who could do so.

Jonny7 · 02-03-2013 06:07PM

Okay i think we can call that a hunch rather than a theory.

knucklehead6 · 04-03-2013 08:59AM

I don't think everything that happened on that day will ever be fully known, and one of the reasons is that the truthers will always find some little sliver of information in any report, official or otherwise, and create a whole campaign of disinformation.

For people to say the planes were unloaded and THEN flown into the buildings as part of a government conspiracy is too ridiculous for words, yet there are people who insist that is exactly what happened, and they will always obscure and obfuscate what DID actually happen.

Then there is possibly some CIA lad or something who had an idea this was going to happen and was laughed out of his superiors office, and THAT would have been hushed up.

the_syco · 04-03-2013 09:57AM

knucklehead6 wrote: »

Then there is possibly some CIA lad or something who had an idea this was going to happen and was laughed out of his superiors office, and THAT would have been hushed up.

Sounds like the pilot of "The Lone Gumen"... :pac:

Separating the wheat from the chaff would have been the hardest part. They may have had reports about the WTC, but wouldn't have known if they were credible or not. Also, as they weren't really talking to each other, I'd say a lot of credible info wouldn't have been connected.

Jonny7 · 08-03-2013 02:36PM

It seems to me that 911 conspiracy theories appears to be a case of people more interested in attacking the main story rather than people actually finding out the real truth or presenting solid theories as to what really happened.

Torakx · 16-03-2013 11:56AM

I think it should be obvious there are groups out there causing the issue to be more complex than it is already.
I think the US Gov knew about it.Too many coincedences, as with the 7/7 bombings
Both attacks allowing both countries to go to war with very good reasons for the public.
Does anyone think the "terrorists" didnt think that would happen?

Is the idea the Pearl Harbour attack and subsequent nuclear bomb being planned/known beforehand, still just a theory?

I am also aware they had all their fighter pilots out on a training exercise on that very day, at that time.
What happened to back up jets and pilots?

I might not know exactly who and what.But I am pretty sure it was not like the official version lays out at all.

It might be that most people that conider it long enough would cme to the same conclusions.
But if the media and others (I include "paid shills" there) where not constantly arguing for the main story, it would be negated soon enough.
The fact this forums has a whole section to this topic and its still on ging in 2013 tells me alot of people still know the official story is bull and also makes me think there is a reason the official story has been held up for so long to cause this arguement.
If you shout something loud enough and enough times it can become true.
A resounding NO from the public is what keeps this going now.And with them probably dis-info agents to try steer them off course.

Jonny7 · 16-03-2013 03:27PM

Torakx wrote: »

I think it should be obvious there are groups out there causing the issue to be more complex than it is already.
I think the US Gov knew about it.Too many coincedences, as with the 7/7 bombings
Both attacks allowing both countries to go to war with very good reasons for the public.
Does anyone think the "terrorists" didnt think that would happen?

My point is that the conspiracy theories themselves are weak and don't appear to be based on any direct evidence. Do any conspiracy theories stand up to the level of scrutiny that theorists are applying to the "official story"?

I might not know exactly who and what.But I am pretty sure it was not like the official version lays out at all.

Which is something I hear constantly echoed. Which leads me to believe that the people who question 911 are not interested in knowing or attempting to ascertain exactly what happened that day.

Torakx · 16-03-2013 08:46PM

I would say an issue might be, people (including the MSM) constantly throwing the official story into the arguement.
If somebody poses the idea that it was oranised by some americans for example, some other "random" guy will cme in and start touting the official story..
So how does one escape the MSM's version?
You cant really.
Its a great way to squash information too.Now there are so many varying theories nobody knows now where to start looking.
People like me give up with all the bull going around and settle for just knowing in themselves that the view pushed on the MSM is most likely a pack of lies.
I see no evidence strong enough to tell me this wasnt a conspiracy.
There are many issues with the official story,yet it is prevailant...
The MSM does its job imo and it doesnt matter even if a vast majority dissagree, because that vast majority will still think whatever the MSM says is what everyone else actually believes.

For all I know a majority may think 9/11 was an inside job.

Sixtus · 21-03-2013 06:54PM

Torakx wrote: »

I think it should be obvious there are groups out there causing the issue to be more complex than it is already.
I think the US Gov knew about it.Too many coincedences, as with the 7/7 bombings

Which coincidences? A massive terrorist attack that effects thousands of people I would be surprised if there wasn't a bunch of concidences.

Both attacks allowing both countries to go to war with very good reasons for the public.
Does anyone think the "terrorists" didnt think that would happen?

The 7/7 attacks happened 3 years after the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

The terrorists probably knew the attacks would happen but these are people who will kill themselves for "holy war" so they just might, maybe, be indifferent to the consequences of their actions.

Is the idea the Pearl Harbour attack and subsequent nuclear bomb being planned/known beforehand, still just a theory?

Yes. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pearl_Harbor_conspiracy_theory

And additionally it's a discredited theory.

I am also aware they had all their fighter pilots out on a training exercise on that very day, at that time.
What happened to back up jets and pilots?

No thats not true at all.

Firstly the USAF didn't keep alert fighters on standby 24/7 with weapons hot armed fully fueled jetfighters over US airspace before 9/11. Only during the Cuban missile crisis did such a thing occur.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-planes

Furthermore NORAD and the USAF responded remarkably well on 9/11 you can listen to the unedited tapes from NORAD command here

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/08/norad200608

[
I might not know exactly who and what.But I am pretty sure it was not like the official version lays out at all.

It might be that most people that conider it long enough would cme to the same conclusions.
But if the media and others (I include "paid shills" there) where not constantly arguing for the main story, it would be negated soon enough.
The fact this forums has a whole section to this topic and its still on ging in 2013 tells me alot of people still know the official story is bull and also makes me think there is a reason the official story has been held up for so long to cause this arguement.
If you shout something loud enough and enough times it can become true.
A resounding NO from the public is what keeps this going now.And with them probably dis-info agents to try steer them off course.

Sorry that entire argument is a oxymoron.

I would say an issue might be, people (including the MSM) constantly throwing the official story into the arguement.
If somebody poses the idea that it was oranised by some americans for example, some other "random" guy will cme in and start touting the official story..
So how does one escape the MSM's version?
You cant really.
Its a great way to squash information too.Now there are so many varying theories nobody knows now where to start looking.
People like me give up with all the bull going around and settle for just knowing in themselves that the view pushed on the MSM is most likely a pack of lies.
I see no evidence strong enough to tell me this wasnt a conspiracy.
There are many issues with the official story,yet it is prevailant...
The MSM does its job imo and it doesnt matter even if a vast majority dissagree, because that vast majority will still think whatever the MSM says is what everyone else actually believes.

For all I know a majority may think 9/11 was an inside job.

The majority of people think 9/11 was a inside job?

In 2006/07 the high watermark of the truth movement they managed to get 500-600 people to turn up at ground zero during the memorial service (they distastefully interrupted the minutes silence shouting "9/11 was a inside job")

Since then AE 9/11 have barely a few thousand members, and are demanding 100,000 dollars for their new campaign. They won't get it. Meanwhile the Veronica Mars kickstart has gotten nearly 3m dollars. The AE truth petition on the whitehouse website has gotten 15k petitions but the petition to get the whitehouse to build a death star got 3 times that amount.

In short getting excited by the existence of this subforum as proof that "the majority of people believe 9/11 is a inside job" is belittled by the fact that the forum is only used by maybe 20 people.

9/11 conspiracy theories are dead in the water.

Torakx · 22-03-2013 06:05PM

Sixtus wrote: »

Which coincidences? A massive terrorist attack that effects thousands of people I would be surprised if there wasn't a bunch of concidences.

In regards to the 7/7 bombings for example, im talking about the training exercise that was to do with the exact situation and place and time it happened.

The 7/7 attacks happened 3 years after the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

The terrorists probably knew the attacks would happen but these are people who will kill themselves for "holy war" so they just might, maybe, be indifferent to the consequences of their actions.

Fair enough, I didnt say it was about Iraq officially or anywhere.I ment it gave them an excuse to go to war in general.
As far as I know Al Qaeda were being blamed as well as british muslims at different times from the start.
Later finding the Al Qaeda claim to be false.
Im not sure where Al Qaeda were advertising their presence at that time though.
Maybe it was a scam of a different kind too.
Insurance? construction contracts? Not sure.
Im certainly not an expert on this topic.
Just voicing an opinion.
Been busy with other stuff recently, but do like to comment and get feedback.

Yes. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pearl_Harbor_conspiracy_theory

And additionally it's a discredited theory.

Guess thats another one I dont have time to recheck.I presume you didnt do all the research yourself and are taking the opinion of that site regardless?
Not saying thats a bad or good thing.Just that I dont rely fully on just googling a CT and then posting a link to it.More a mix of refering to theories and also checking it out too, to see if it seems possible or likely.
The problem with conspiracy theories for the most part, is that they are by default unproven.So I have alot more work and uphill climbing to do when theorizing,compared to if I wanted to take the "mainstream" or generally accepted stance.
But honestly if I did that, I would be bored and have left long ago.

No thats not true at all.

Firstly the USAF didn't keep alert fighters on standby 24/7 with weapons hot armed fully fueled jetfighters over US airspace before 9/11. Only during the Cuban missile crisis did such a thing occur.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-planes

Furthermore NORAD and the USAF responded remarkably well on 9/11 you can listen to the unedited tapes from NORAD command here

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/08/norad200608

Thanks, I will have to set time aside, maybe this weekend to look into that more.
I have not come across info conflicting with my view on the response issue so far, until now.

The majority of people think 9/11 was a inside job?

In 2006/07 the high watermark of the truth movement they managed to get 500-600 people to turn up at ground zero during the memorial service (they distastefully interrupted the minutes silence shouting "9/11 was a inside job")

Since then AE 9/11 have barely a few thousand members, and are demanding 100,000 dollars for their new campaign. They won't get it. Meanwhile the Veronica Mars kickstart has gotten nearly 3m dollars. The AE truth petition on the whitehouse website has gotten 15k petitions but the petition to get the whitehouse to build a death star got 3 times that amount.

I never said the majority were interested in important topics.
I just mentioned I personally dont know how many people really believe it was as the MSM stated.
The deathstar factoid is funny though.Not suprising.

In short getting excited by the existence of this subforum as proof that "the majority of people believe 9/11 is a inside job" is belittled by the fact that the forum is only used by maybe 20 people.

9/11 conspiracy theories are dead in the water.

Its not proof and I dont really find this exciting tbh lol
I just think the fact that we had to dedicate a sub section to this one topic, says alot about how strongly people felt, compared to many other Ct's out there.
Regardless of the people frequenting this quiet corner of the main CT forums.
It was more of a general passing comment, than a poll or fact.
I dont come here to win arguements,dont know if everyone does.But I dont.
Honestly, alot of the time,I just post what im thinking right at that moment,for the most part and expect others to be as open and discuss their thoughts without fear of reprisals and negative comments.

The logo for boards does say "now ye're talkin" not "now ye're arguing/debating".
I take things as presented to me.Maybe a flaw, but meh! lol

Sixtus · 22-03-2013 06:18PM

Torakx wrote: »

In regards to the 7/7 bombings for example, im talking about the training exercise that was to do with the exact situation and place and time it happened.

The train exercise was a paper exercise run by a private company and involved a handful of people.

But Peter Power, a former Scotland Yard police officer, says on 7 July, the exercise he ran was office-based and involved just six people from a publishing company.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8124687.stm

The had no control over emergency services, nor were there any live drills on the underground that morning.

I know this because I was finishing work at 7am that morning and took a route home that took me from near heathrow to seven sisters, I travelled across several of the lines that would be later attacked, and through Kings Cross station. There were NO drills.

Fair enough, I didnt say it was about Iraq officially or anywhere.I ment it gave them an excuse to go to war in general.
As far as I know Al Qaeda were being blamed as well as british muslims at different times from the start.
Later finding the Al Qaeda claim to be false.
Im not sure where Al Qaeda were advertising their presence at that time though.
Maybe it was a scam of a different kind too.
Insurance? construction contracts? Not sure.
Im certainly not an expert on this topic.
Just voicing an opinion.
Been busy with other stuff recently, but do like to comment and get feedback.

Al Qaeda took responsibility for the 7/7 attack

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/7-7_london_bombings.html

The terrorists trained in Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Sidique_Khan

You seem to be completely clueless about the 7/7 attack.

Guess thats another one I dont have time to recheck.I presume you didnt do all the research yourself and are taking the opinion of that site regardless?
Not saying thats a bad or good thing.Just that I dont rely fully on just googling a CT and then posting a link to it.More a mix of refering to theories and also checking it out too, to see if it seems possible or likely.

No the Pearl Habour conspiracy theory is completely BS.

The problem with conspiracy theories for the most part, is that they are by default unproven.So I have alot more work and uphill climbing to do when theorizing,compared to if I wanted to take the "mainstream" or generally accepted stance.

No, any theory should be provable, the problem with conspiracy theories is that people fabricate the theories and don't have any supporting evidence, twist the facts to suit their theories and ignore any evidence that contradicts their pet theory.

Thanks, I will have to set time aside, maybe this weekend to look into that more.
I have not come across info conflicting with my view on the response issue so far, until now.

Not come across or not bothered to look for any?

Torakx · 22-03-2013 07:32PM

How can I look for that which I dont know exists....
At the time I researched 9/11, that debunk did not come up at all.
It might be this forum has created a more concentrated effort.
Briniging alot more to light than previously.
Its not that I didnt try to look.
There are too many topics for me to cover any one fully.And of late I have very little time to set aside for research.I must rely on other peoples posts for clues and research topics.
Thats why I keep trying to highlight my intention to discuss.I dont have the time for finding all the facts and it seems years later the arguements change on some topics.

The wiki I read today said Al Qaeda made a video soon after the 7/7 bombings claiming responsibility and that it was then dismissed as a fake.
Again I have college stuff to do, so no time to set aside a whole debate with people.
But since im here on the 9/11 topic.
Is there a video you can reccomend that would cover all the points you would like to have laid out for me, so I can see your perspective and compare? Same for the 7/7 bombings.
Something that covers all the supposed strange coincedences etc.
I must try take your word for things that seem reasonable and fit into my perspective relating to world politics.Which is probably not the same as yours.
At least until I somehow find time to look into it.Maybe this weekend.maybe...lol

Jonny7 · 24-03-2013 08:00PM

Again, this thread is about attacking the official story - plenty of other threads cover that.

What alternatively happened on 911? As of yet I haven't come across any strong theories.

pablodiablo · 26-03-2013 08:38PM

I would have a number of issues in regards to 911. First I would like to know why the Bush administration resisted an official investigation into the day's events for 441 days. I would have thought it would be one of the first things to happen in the aftermath. Then there is the letter from Ashcroft Rumsfeld and Tenet to warn the Commision that there is an investigatory line that must not be crossed what's the point in having a Commision if they don't have the freedom to properly investigate what happened? Then you have Bush sitting in a classroom reading a book when it was fairly obvious the country was under attack and there was no attempt made to secure the President!

There are a whole host of things that just don't add up about that day and the aftermath. The pilots were regarded as average to poor by there flight instructors but yet in the case of the Pentagon the pilot managed to fly a plane of that size and at speed keep it about 50feet off the ground and hit its target....from the time the first plane hit to when all four planes were accounted for NORAD had ample time to scramble fighter jets in fact if contact is lost with a plane by air traffic control it is standard operating procedure for NORAD to scramble jets. Between Sep 2000 and June 2001 jets were scrambled 67 times...but not on sept 11...

I guess a lot of people just want to ignore a lot of the evidence. It's just easier to believe what we are told and not to ask the hard questions but the very fact that the administration in question has a proven track record of lying should be taken into account also when looking at the evidence.

26-03-2013 08:46PM

pablodiablo wrote: »

I would have a number of issues in regards to 911. First I would like to know why the Bush administration resisted an official investigation into the day's events for 441 days. I would have thought it would be one of the first things to happen in the aftermath. Then there is the letter from Ashcroft Rumsfeld and Tenet to warn the Commision that there is an investigatory line that must not be crossed what's the point in having a Commision if they don't have the freedom to properly investigate what happened? Then you have Bush sitting in a classroom reading a book when it was fairly obvious the country was under attack and there was no attempt made to secure the President!

So what's the alternative explanation for this then.
Why did they stall an investigation, when they could have just had a fake one ready to go?
Why didn't they make a big show of securing the president to show how serious the attack was, or alternatively just not have him in public?
Why not have the fake terrorists be good pilots?
Why not scramble jets, but have them not be able to find the planes in time or similar

Jonny's point is that pointing out holes in the official story (which aren't actually holes and are mostly untrue) is not the same as having a coherent alternative explanation.

pablodiablo · 26-03-2013 09:41PM

A possible alternative I think is that senior officials in strategic positions were aware of the plan for the day's events. I think it's possible that these officials could have compromised the reaction time of NORAD. It could even be a possibility that the Pentagon was hit by a missile from a US fighter jet. Also the way WTC 7 fell is highly suspicious and looks extremely like a controlled demolition and if this is possible I think the use of explosives placed in strategic positions could have contributed to the collapse of the two towers.

As far as what really happened on that day we will never know because the official story has been published and some people are happy with that and there are also a lot of people that are not. The only people that know the truth are the elite of the American government of the day and going by the lies of the official story I think it's fair to say we will never know the whole story...

26-03-2013 09:53PM

pablodiablo wrote: »

A possible alternative I think is that senior officials in strategic positions were aware of the plan for the day's events. I think it's possible that these officials could have compromised the reaction time of NORAD. It could even be a possibility that the Pentagon was hit by a missile from a US fighter jet. Also the way WTC 7 fell is highly suspicious and looks extremely like a controlled demolition and if this is possible I think the use of explosives placed in strategic positions could have contributed to the collapse of the two towers.

But again all of these "holes" do not add up to an alternative explanation. They just add more questions that conspiracy theorists cannot answer.
Why did they hamper NORAD's reaction if they supposedly had enough authority to get a fighter to shoot at the Pentagon?
Why did they rig building 7 to collapse in such an obvious way?

And this is even before we get to the practical stuff like how they set up all of this stuff.

pablodiablo wrote: »

As far as what really happened on that day we will never know because the official story has been published and some people are happy with that and there are also a lot of people that are not. The only people that know the truth are the elite of the American government of the day and going by the lies of the official story I think it's fair to say we will never know the whole story...

So we should just make stuff up and believe what we are told by conspiracy theorists and be happy with that?

MarkyMark22 · 26-03-2013 10:00PM

gnfnrhead wrote: »

My view is fairly straight forward. They knew about it before hand but either didn't know enough to act in it, or were too late to act on it. I think that's as far as it goes.

I second this,I read that Condaliza Rice received a memo in the August prior to the attacks that warned them that a terrorist threat was imminent.

There's always the talk of it being a false flag incident in order to invade Iraq/Afghanisation. Apparently, there's a trillion worth of lithium in Iraq that they went in there for.

The only reason I think it could have been a false flag operation is because they have previous for it with the Gulf of Tonkan incident.

pablodiablo · 26-03-2013 11:03PM

King Mob I take it that you believe the official story then? As there was no impartial and objective investigation into the days events we will never know the truth. The only people who know the truth are unwilling to tell it...

27-03-2013 01:14AM

pablodiablo wrote: »

King Mob I take it that you believe the official story then? As there was no impartial and objective investigation into the days events we will never know the truth. The only people who know the truth are unwilling to tell it...

Yes I do believe the official story as none of the holes you are pointing to are true, and more importantly and on topic you cannot provide any alternative explanations for those holes.

Why do you reject the official story because there are holes in it, but then have no issue with the conspiracy explanation when there are even more holes?

enno99 · 27-03-2013 01:25AM

King Mob wrote: »

Yes I do believe the official story as none of the holes you are pointing to are true, and more importantly and on topic you cannot provide any alternative explanations for those holes.

Why do you reject the official story because there are holes in it, but then have no issue with the conspiracy explanation when there are even more holes?

Well the official story should be the truth and shouldnt have any holes in it at all

27-03-2013 01:42AM

enno99 wrote: »

Well the official story should be the truth and shouldnt have any holes in it at all

And I don't think there are, as I have explained.

pablodiablo does believe there are holes and rejects the official story because of them.
However he does not seem to have a problem with the conspiracy explanation despite it having even more holes.

Brown Bomber · 27-03-2013 01:51AM

enno99 wrote: »

Well the official story should be the truth and shouldnt have any holes in it at all

These things either take a freak event like the downing of a CIA plane in Nicaragua to expose Iran-Contra or decades to get closer to the truth (or both) like NATO'S neo-fascist Gladio terrorists in Europe where the details are still coming out to this day http://www.todayszaman.com/news-310176-ergenekon-sought-to-reorganize-politics-over-past-several-years.html

enno99 · 27-03-2013 03:03AM

King Mob wrote: »

And I don't think there are, as I have explained.

pablodiablo does believe there are holes and rejects the official story because of them.
However he does not seem to have a problem with the conspiracy explanation despite it having even more holes.

"We to this day don't know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us," said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. "It was just so far from the truth. . . . It's one of those loose ends that never got tied

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101300.html

are you privy to information that the 911 commission did not have because they seem to think there are holes in it ?

enno99 · 27-03-2013 03:20AM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

These things either take a freak event like the downing of a CIA plane in Nicaragua to expose Iran-Contra or decades to get closer to the truth (or both) like NATO'S neo-fascist Gladio terrorists in Europe where the details are still coming out to this day http://www.todayszaman.com/news-310176-ergenekon-sought-to-reorganize-politics-over-past-several-years.html

Or perhaps it will just take people facing up to the FACT that governments are capable of LIES and MURDER and are doing so on a daily basis around the world

27-03-2013 03:54AM

enno99 wrote: »

"We to this day don't know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us," said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. "It was just so far from the truth. . . . It's one of those loose ends that never got tied

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101300.html

are you privy to information that the 911 commission did not have because they seem to think there are holes in it ?

I'm not sure what the point you are making here is.
Did this Republican governor conclude that the WTC was destroyed be a controlled demolition or something similar? Or was he referring to the general ass covering and bureaucracy that always happens in these investigations?

Further, on topic, how does this gel with the conspiracy theory?
Why is this government official blowing the whole operation? Why couldn't he have been bought off? Why couldn't he have replaced by someone who could have been bought off? Why couldn't they not just falsify all of the evidence and such to fool the investigation?

And then which are you saying is not true? What Norad said happened or what the commission said happened? Or are they both not true?

enno99 · 27-03-2013 09:20AM

King Mob wrote: »

I'm not sure what the point you are making here is.

Simply if the 911commission report is part of the official narrative then the there are holes in it
You said there were none

pablodiablo · 27-03-2013 11:22AM

Well King Mob there are many reasons for so many conspiracy theories about 911

1. the official story doesn't add up
2. there are people out there with questions that have never been properly answered
3. possibly the most corrupt administration ever just happened to be in office

i'm sure other people have even more reasons. That is why conspiracy theories are theories cause we the people have been denied the truth. You said we should just make stuff up and just believe what the conspiracy theorists say- yet you believe the official story? The chairs of both the 911 commission and the official congressional inquiry into 911 said the investigation had been compromised by government interference so where does that leave the official story? If the government had nothing to fear from the investigation why did they interfere with it?

What exactly happened on 911?

Comments