What Year Did You Stop Your Cognitive Dissonance Towards The 9/11 OS ?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Huh? The explanations given didn't make sense to me. Why's that so hard for you to understand or believe?

So did you look for clarification of the explanations if they didn't make sense, or did you just deny them because they don't make sense?

Suppose I went outside and saw 3 buildings completely pulverized. So I ask what happened & someone tells me one of their friends punched 2 of them then all 3 collapsed. I would ask if their friend was the Hulk because that wouldn't make sense to me. Then if I asked to speak to their friend & they stonewall me before eventually saying their friend was vaporized in the explosions. That would make me more suspicious because it wouldn't make sense to me.

That story is easily confirmed or denied by studying physics. Not to mention a spectator on the street isn't an official testimony or account of how the buildings collapsed. The government's account of the actions on 9/11 IS an official account of what happened, backed up by the government's research and investigation.

How about rewording your account a bit? You talk to the someone who says that his friend punched two buildings into rumble and then the someone hands you an independent investigation into the matter that confirms his story. Do you still disbelieve the account then?

Then if I asked to see footage of the event and they only showed me 5 frames of video. I work in the entertainment industry & was in classes in college for it when 9/11 happened. I know how easy it is to manipulate imagery & audio, especially when the raw footage is hidden. So this would make me even more suspicious.

It's funny how you bring this point up since the Truther movement is known for doctoring the building collapse video to make it look like the entire building fell the entire time at free fall speed, which isn't true.

I've never blindly believed what authority figures tell me, especially when they have something to gain from it. Especially since I've been learning the truth since before 9/11; such as the Gulf of Tonkin incident, how the Lusitania was secretly transporting weapons, the Tuskegee Experiments, the "rat lines" & their smuggling of Nazis out of Europe after WWII, etc.

Fantastic, doubt everything. It's a good rule of thumb to live by. That doesn't mean that you continue to doubt them if their story checks out however. Also, it would be nice if you'd extend some doubt in the direction of the Truther movement as well. Just doubting the government means you end up duped by independents looking to take advantage of you instead of the government. It doesn't mean you stumble across the truth though.

So no, I didn't believe that 4 planes did what they claimed they did, especially since I watched from the press coverage right after the 1st plane hit. My opinion wasn't influenced by any documentaries, conspiracy theories, message boards, or the such. I watched as the events went down & kept doing my own research.

Your opinion certainly wasn't influenced by the laws of physics either.

Whatever. I explained several times my thought process. I don't need your acceptance of it or anyone else's for that matter. Perhaps people like you weren't involved in politics then but I was. I knew about Massoud's assassination days before 9/11 and about Rumsfeld's bombshell revelation about the Pentagon's trillions of unaccountable money right before 9/11 (and I watched as the anthrax attacks got people to pass the Patriot Act). I knew that Clinton had drastically reduced the defense budget, while Bush and Cheney were looking to increase it. I also knew about the CIA's support of the Afghan militias against the Soviets; the US's meetings with the Taliban to build a pipeline & share power with the Northern Alliance; and about bin Laden, his fellow Wahabis & their goals (since I'm the kind of Muslim they target, not like you'd know that).

So when the events on 9/11 happened, it raised my suspicions. And when the administration continued to stonewall investigations of it, it only raised my suspicions even more. And when they chose to attack the Taliban who had just refused to share power with the Northern Alliance, it was even more suspicious. I could go into more but none of that matters to you. You seem to have your own bias on this & neither of us is going to change our opinions of it.

Also, my community was effected by this incident far more than any other in this country. Our mosques were raided, our charities were shut down, my parents were questioned for giving to various charities including the Red Crescent. Friends I'd known for years suddenly questioned me because I'm a Muslim, while different mosques started getting vandalized. I even had people at my college try to recruit me for secret meetings about "the Muslim problem" until they found out I was a Muslim.

And yet no one ever targeted the Wahabis or their governments, which are the main ones who've supported those extremists groups (just as they did in Chechnya's war against Russia, Afghanistan's revolt against the USSR in the 80s, and in the Balkans). Even the official story claimed it was mostly Saudis who did 9/11, yet they're protected by the US. We (the US) even have bases in Wahabi controlled Qatar & throughout the Arabian Gulf, which doesn't make sense if we were actually trying to stop the Wahabis.

So no, the official story didn't make sense to me because none of it matches with reality. You may think all of these things are coincidences but I'm not naive enough to think that. Global powerbrokers plan their actions carefully, then convince the ignorant public that they're too dumb to be held accountable for their actions. Read "Which Path to Persia" & "A Clean Break" then tell me this is all a coincidence lol.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
Whatever. I explained several times my thought process. I don't need your acceptance of it or anyone else's for that matter. Perhaps people like you weren't involved in politics then but I was. I knew about Massoud's assassination days before 9/11 and about Rumsfeld's bombshell revelation about the Pentagon's trillions of unaccountable money right before 9/11 (and I watched as the anthrax attacks got people to pass the Patriot Act). I knew that Clinton had drastically reduced the defense budget, while Bush and Cheney were looking to increase it. I also knew about the CIA's support of the Afghan militias against the Soviets; the US's meetings with the Taliban to build a pipeline & share power with the Northern Alliance; and about bin Laden, his fellow Wahabis & their goals (since I'm the kind of Muslim they target, not like you'd know that).

This is all circumstantial evidence and not proof of anything regarding who was responsible for 9/11 and how they did it. Not to mention the money that the Pentagon couldn't account for is a budgeting shortfall; it has been established many times that the attacks weren't done to cover up the shortfall. There has even been a thread recently that has shown that the budgeting shortfall has grown considerably since then.

So when the events on 9/11 happened, it raised my suspicions. And when the administration continued to stonewall investigations of it, it only raised my suspicions even more. And when they chose to attack the Taliban who had just refused to share power with the Northern Alliance, it was even more suspicious. I could go into more but none of that matters to you. You seem to have your own bias on this & neither of us is going to change our opinions of it.

It helps that MY bias is built up around actual objective evidence surrounding the events on the day, where as YOUR bias is built up around a bunch of circumstantial evidence built up around your presdisposal to think that the government is always up to the worst possible solution.

Also, my community was effected by this incident far more than any other in this country. Our mosques were raided, our charities were shut down, my parents were questioned for giving to various charities including the Red Crescent. Friends I'd known for years suddenly questioned me because I'm a Muslim, while different mosques started getting vandalized. I even had people at my college try to recruit me for secret meetings about "the Muslim problem" until they found out I was a Muslim.

What does this have to do with anything? Islamophobia has only gotten worse since then. WAY worse.

And yet no one ever targeted the Wahabis or their governments, which are the main ones who've supported those extremists groups (just as they did in Chechnya's war against Russia, Afghanistan's revolt against the USSR in the 80s, and in the Balkans). Even the official story claimed it was mostly Saudis who did 9/11, yet they're protected by the US. We (the US) even have bases in Wahabi controlled Qatar & throughout the Arabian Gulf, which doesn't make sense if we were actually trying to stop the Wahabis.

This is the first time you've made a fair point. There IS something fishy about the events of that day, but it isn't that the government orchestrated it or they enacted a controlled demolition of the buildings and stuff. That's all nonsense. I do agree that we need to further investigate the Saudi backgrounds of the terrorists though. But I think the likely reason the government dropped ball there is because Bush became gung-ho to follow in daddy's footsteps and Cheney just wanted any excuse to make his mercenary company more money.

So no, the official story didn't make sense to me because none of it matches with reality. You may think all of these things are coincidences but I'm not naive enough to think that. Global powerbrokers plan their actions carefully, then convince the ignorant public that they're too dumb to be held accountable for their actions. Read "Which Path to Persia" & "A Clean Break" then tell me this is all a coincidence lol.

I don't care about that crap in relation to what happened on 9/11. It is all irrelevant. What matters is if 4 planes were REALLY hijacked and flown into 3 buildings and a field, which has been shown to have happened beyond any doubt. All your extra "evidence" is just tacked on circumstances that allow you to blame the government, but you have no hard evidence the government was involved. If you were to bring this case to court, it would be thrown out for lack of evidence.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I want to hear your retractions when the truth finally comes out lol. You probably still think the US was caught off guard at Pearl Harbor.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I want to hear your retractions when the truth finally comes out lol. You probably still think the US was caught off guard at Pearl Harbor.

If you know anything about me, you'd know I'm not adverse to admitting when I'm wrong. Unfortunately since you can't seem to accept any definitive proof that this wasn't a false flag orchestrated by our government, I don't think I'd ever share the same sentiment as you with seeing your retractions when you are proven wrong.

PS: You must believe that the Moon Landing was a hoax. See I can attribute random beliefs to you too without your input on them.

originally posted by: FissionSurplus
When we decided that we were going into Iraq to bomb the tar out of it and take out Saddam Hussein, when it had NOTHING to do with 9/11. I knew right them it was a false flag and being used as an excuse for another imperialistic invasion. It took a few years, as I wasn't on the internet then.

Then I began to watch the documentaries and there was no doubt. I was angry, I felt sick, and I finally realized that we have a government who will kill almost 3,000 of its own citizens and consider them 'collateral damage' to further their twisted agenda.

As you point out it 9/11 was not the pretext to the war in Iraq, so how did an irrelevant topic change your thoughts on 9/11?

The pretext to the war in Iraq was wmd's and this pretext was in fact true.

Just ask the hundreds of troops that have health issues because of exposure to such chemicals in Iraq.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I want to hear your retractions when the truth finally comes out lol. You probably still think the US was caught off guard at Pearl Harbor.

If you know anything about me, you'd know I'm not adverse to admitting when I'm wrong. Unfortunately since you can't seem to accept any definitive proof that this wasn't a false flag orchestrated by our government, I don't think I'd ever share the same sentiment as you with seeing your retractions when you are proven wrong.

I told my opinions from the beginning. And gave many reasons why I share those opinions. You're the one questioning my opinion. That's why I'm bewildered by you, because everyone's entitled to have their own opinion. And I have more than enough reasons to validate my opinion.

You on the other keep trying to convince me to change my opinion. Circumstantial evidence is allowed in the judicial system all the time. Judges use it because they're given leeway to do so. That's why you can bring up a person's criminal past in a court case; because it increases the likelihood they'll be seen as untrustworthy (be they a witness, a plaintiff or defendant). Even though those other events have nothing to do with the case at hand. And police have the leeway to use circumstantial evidence, as well. You've heard of "probable cause" right? And when I was on a jury, we were instructed to make a certain decision unless there was "a reasonable doubt".

So even our own law enforcement & judicial systems take into account extra circumstances. So how am I in the wrong for doing it in this case? The first thing you do when investigating a crime is look for a motive. That's literally the basics of criminal justice. Yet when I point out who has motives, you choose to ignore that. Really?

EDIT: Sorry about the Pearl Harbor thing. The wording came off differently from how it sounds in my head. What I meant to say is something to the effect of "our government lies to us all the time, especially in important events. And just like with Pearl Harbor, our government knew far more than what they admit. Many people even had a lot to gain from a catastrophic event in America, just as they did with Pearl Harbor. Yet many people still only believe the official narrative about it, even though the truth about Pearl Harbor came out long ago".

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

I realize that the headlines that Bin Laden admitted doing 9/11 and the source was a total contradiction.

In 2007 it all clicked into place for me ,And since then i have investigated EVERYTHING !!!

Cui bono

a reply to: enlightenedservant

I don't remember him praising anyone for 9/11. But I do remember him saying that Muslums cannot kill innocent people in war so called the terrorist act of 9/11 anti-islam (which is contradictory to what you are saying). I know Bin Laden worked with the US government in the past so I am not a fan of his at all. He is a just a patsy for a false flag operation that allowed US to reinstate the coc aine industry in Afgahnistan (taliban had banned poppy production in years prior to 9/11) and to plunder the worlds oil nations.

CIA Plane crashes with 4 tonnes of coc aine

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
I told my opinions from the beginning. And gave many reasons why I share those opinions. You're the one questioning my opinion. That's why I'm bewildered by you, because everyone's entitled to have their own opinion. And I have more than enough reasons to validate my opinion.

This is a discussion forum. The purpose of such things is to discuss opinions. If you are going to put your opinion out in public on a discussion forum, don't be surprised or taken aback if someone questions it.

You on the other keep trying to convince me to change my opinion. Circumstantial evidence is allowed in the judicial system all the time. Judges use it because they're given leeway to do so. That's why you can bring up a person's criminal past in a court case; because it increases the likelihood they'll be seen as untrustworthy (be they a witness, a plaintiff or defendant). Even though those other events have nothing to do with the case at hand. And police have the leeway to use circumstantial evidence, as well. You've heard of "probable cause" right? And when I was on a jury, we were instructed to make a certain decision unless there was "a reasonable doubt".

Yes, circumstantial evidence is allowed, but you have to use it in collaboration with ACTUAL evidence. Or rather you are supposed to. I'm sure you can find a few cases where someone was convicted based on circumstantial evidence alone, but that isn't how things are supposed to be done.

So even our own law enforcement & judicial systems take into account extra circumstances. So how am I in the wrong for doing it in this case? The first thing you do when investigating a crime is look for a motive. That's literally the basics of criminal justice. Yet when I point out who has motives, you choose to ignore that. Really?

Well it helps to establish evidence to back that motive up.

EDIT: Sorry about the Pearl Harbor thing. The wording came off differently from how it sounds in my head. What I meant to say is something to the effect of "our government lies to us all the time, especially in important events. And just like with Pearl Harbor, our government knew far more than what they admit. Many people even had a lot to gain from a catastrophic event in America, just as they did with Pearl Harbor. Yet many people still only believe the official narrative about it, even though the truth about Pearl Harbor came out long ago".

I'm not trying to deny that the government and the people who run it tend to be overly opportunistic. I just think you are giving them FAR too much credit to suggest that they could plan out, get many different government organizations to work together, implement, and then cover up such a wide scale attack for 14 years without any widespread leaks. Meanwhile, the agency in charge of monitoring communications can't even keep a lid on its classified bulk data collection program. The logistics of the government being in on 9/11 are just logically insane to the point that it is unbelievable.

The better answer to looking at 9/11 is to say that, yes terrorists DID hijack 4 planes and fly them into buildings, BUT the events leading up to it (who financed them and helped them plan the attack) should be investigated. The only things the government appears to be guilty of is taking advantage of a terrible situation to further its own politics (as tradition) and being inept at establishing accountability (again, as tradition).

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: enlightenedservant

I don't remember him praising anyone for 9/11. But I do remember him saying that Muslums cannot kill innocent people in war so called the terrorist act of 9/11 anti-islam (which is contradictory to what you are saying). I know Bin Laden worked with the US government in the past so I am not a fan of his at all. He is a just a patsy for a false flag operation that allowed US to reinstate the coc aine industry in Afgahnistan (taliban had banned poppy production in years prior to 9/11) and to plunder the worlds oil nations.

CIA Plane crashes with 4 tonnes of coc aine

I think it was one of the early video responses he released. Then again, there's no guarantee those early videos were authentic either (I'm not referring to the "October Surprise" fake video right before the 2004 election).

Sorry, I'm not good with only replying to one part at a time. I always screw it up but I'll try it again. Here goes.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
I told my opinions from the beginning. And gave many reasons why I share those opinions. You're the one questioning my opinion. That's why I'm bewildered by you, because everyone's entitled to have their own opinion. And I have more than enough reasons to validate my opinion.

This is a discussion forum. The purpose of such things is to discuss opinions. If you are going to put your opinion out in public on a discussion forum, don't be surprised or taken aback if someone questions it.

I don't have a problem with discussing this issue or my opinions. But discussing something isn't the same thing as trying to persuade someone of something. This thread is about when did we stop blah blah. I answered that question & gave my reasons why I instantly didn't believe the official story. Someone replied that it didn't make sense to instantly dismiss the official story, so I gave a long list of reasons why I did. Then you jumped in & started what seemed like an attempt to convince me to change my opinion.

I'm not trying to convince anyone of either side of the debate because people are free to believe what they choose. But that doesn't mean you should be trying to convince me my opinion is wrong, especially since you don't have all of the facts either. There's too much classified information regarding 9/11 for either side to claim they have the 100% truth.

Yes, circumstantial evidence is allowed, but you have to use it in collaboration with ACTUAL evidence. Or rather you are supposed to. I'm sure you can find a few cases where someone was convicted based on circumstantial evidence alone, but that isn't how things are supposed to be done.

Ok but it seemed like you were saying that all of the other things I brought up were circumstantial evidence and thus shouldn't be mentioned. Yet circumstantial evidence is allowed in criminal justice all the time, especially when looking for a motive. That's why I listed the numerous geopolitical facts, political & economic motivations, etc. And like I think I said in an earlier post, if they said it was a combination of planes & controlled demolitions, I would've been far more inclined to believe that. But I'll never believe the 4 planes alone theory, not to mention Building 7's controlled demolition.

And btw, saying "but that isn't how things are supposed to be done" has no meaning in regards to criminal justice or the Bush administration. If people did what they were "supposed" to do, there wouldn't be a need for a judicial system in the first place. And the Bush administration broke so many laws that it's hard to take that phrase seriously, in regards to them.

Well it helps to establish evidence to back that motive up.

The question here should be which evidence will you accept? The Clinton Administration drastically reduced the defense budget. Fact. The Bush Administration wanted to drastically increase it. Fact. The CIA supported Wahabi extremists in the Balkans, Chechnya, and Afghanistan's War against the USSR. Fact. The Taliban rejected US officials' offer to share power with the Northern Alliance so they could have enough stability to build that pipeline. Fact. The Bush Admin had a report about terrorists attacking US buildings and did nothing about it. Fact. The Mossad was tailing the 9/11 hijackers and warned no one. Fact. The firefighters on 9/11 reported secondary explosions throughout the towers before they came down. Fact.

There's simply too many facts to choose from & those are just off the top of my head. But if you don't believe any of those, that's up to you. As I said before, everyone's entitled to his or her own opinion. However, I have more than enough facts to support my conclusion.

I'm not trying to deny that the government and the people who run it tend to be overly opportunistic. I just think you are giving them FAR too much credit to suggest that they could plan out, get many different government organizations to work together, implement, and then cover up such a wide scale attack for 14 years without any widespread leaks. Meanwhile, the agency in charge of monitoring communications can't even keep a lid on its classified bulk data collection program. The logistics of the government being in on 9/11 are just logically insane to the point that it is unbelievable.

Quite the opposite. I think you're vastly underestimating them. There are entire fields of study that most people don't even know exist, but our hand-chosen leaders have mastered. Things like "crisis management", creative destruction, the rules to "divide & rule", trade misinvoicing, "transfer pricing mismatches", etc. Common voters mock our leaders because of their perceived incompetence, but don't realize just how brilliant they are. They've literally mastered the arts of maintaining power & transferring wealth from the public to themselves. But people get caught up with the roles they play on tv & never see them for who they are (like believing Dubya was a country boy when he was actually from Connecticut & his dad was the head of the CIA before becoming President).

Just to disprove your point, what do you know about Jeffrey Sterling & Operation Merlin? I'd advise you to look into Condolezza Rice's statements regarding him & the info he spread. Apparently only the upper echelon of the Bush Administration knew about the project. They secretly used the CIA to smuggle nuclear weapon plans to a Russian asset, who would send the info to Iranian assets. Those assets would try to smuggle it into the Iranian nuclear program. Then the US & Israel showed the IAEA what to look for, claiming it was Iranian plans, even though Iran had nothing to do with it. Sterling blew the whistle on it years after the program was enacted & was recently convicted for his disclosure. But according to you, this type of thing would never happen because of their perceived incompetence.

a reply to: glend

"We believe that the worst thieves in the world today and the worst terrorists are the Americans. Nothing could stop you except perhaps retaliation in kind. We do not have to differentiate between military or civilian. As far as we are concerned, they are all targets, and this is what the fatwah says"

Osama Bin Laden, in an interview prior to the Embassy Bombings in Africa.......we do not have to differentiate between military and civilians.......

What were you saying about Osama being concerned about killing innocents?

www.pbs.org...

a reply to: enlightenedservant

UNOCAL Press Release, August 21, 1998..

"Suspension of activities related to proposed
natural gas pipeline across Afghanistan"

web.archive.org...://www.unocal.com/uclnews/98news/082198.htm

So, the plans for the pipeline were killed in 1998.

Deal signed in 1999 for the US to back a pipeline that avoids Afghanistan completely..

www.wsws.org...

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: enlightenedservant

UNOCAL Press Release, August 21, 1998..

"Suspension of activities related to proposed
natural gas pipeline across Afghanistan"

web.archive.org...://www.unocal.com/uclnews/98news/082198.htm

So, the plans for the pipeline were killed in 1998.

Deal signed in 1999 for the US to back a pipeline that avoids Afghanistan completely..

www.wsws.org...

That's true but that's only part of the story. You're free to believe or reject these links, but here's some follow up to the situation you linked.

Threat of US strikes passed to Taliban weeks before NY attack
Basically says that 2 months before 9/11, the US let the Taliban know they were going to attack if the Taliban didn't turn over Bin Laden. This article is from Sept 22, 2001, 11 days after 9/11 & several weeks before the US started the attack on Afghanistan.

US planned war in Afghanistan long before September 11
This article also says the US planned attacks on Afghanistan prior to 9/11. But unlike the above article from the British Guardian publication, it's from a socialist website. This article is incredibly detailed, is from November of 2001, and mentions different pipelines through Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan.

July 21, 2001: US Official Threatens Possible Military Action Against Taliban by October if Pipeline Is Not Pursued
This also mentions that the US threatened to attack the Taliban if they didn't resume the oil pipeline. It mentions events from July of 2001, 2 months before 9/11. This page is actually from a timeline of events leading up to 9/11, with one event claiming an Afghan warlord in April 2001 predicting a US invasion against the Taliban.

Afghanistan Aims to Revive Pipeline Plans
This article is from the LA Times in May of 2002, which is half a year after the US started attacking the Taliban. It says that the new US-backed Afghan government was (surprise surprise) planning to revive the pipeline you linked.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Yes, I am well familar with the "sources" that you are using on the pipeline story.

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

LOL And what's that supposed to mean? The Guardian & LA Times aren't credible sources now? If that's the case, why should we believe any news source? Western media is mostly owned by corporations, so why believe any of their news accounts either? And since politicians are notorious liars, why believe any of their accounts about 9/11, the War on Terror, or anything else? I could've easily listed links from Middle Eastern & Central Asian media but I wanted to present a more balanced approach.

The simple fact is that most people never mention the business deals behind our foreign policy. They just spoon feed the basic narratives to the public & the masses obey or reject them. But there's always money to be made from war. Or are we supposed to blindly believe "us good them bad" is why we go to wars?

EDIT TO ADD: I assume you put "sources" in parenthesis because you don't consider them true sources. If you do consider them true sources, it's my misunderstanding. Though you also linked to the socialist site I did so I figured you agreed that it was a legitimate site (www.wsws.org stands for World Socialist Web Site).

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Gee you post an article about Hamid Karzai approaching UNOCAL to come back to Afghanistan, to which UNOCAL said, "Thanks, but no thanks" and you somehow how think it supports your points.......

Then you post an article that has a Pakistani Diplomat claiming that three retired US officials who attended a UN conference said that the US was considering military force....to which NO OTHER individuals that attended the meeting heard...........

Again, it is no wonder that you are confused about 9/11

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

Did you forget what I was originally replying to?

Our chain of posts goes back to your response to me about the pipeline going through Afghanistan. You used 2 links to say the pipeline was dead in 1998 & 1999. So I linked 3 stories from 2001 which talk about the US threatening to attack Afghanistan before 9/11 happened, 2 of which mention pipelines in Afghanistan. One of those stories came from one of the very sites you used to make your initial point (wsws.org)!

I was showing you that the pipeline talks were indeed being mentioned before the invasion. And my 4th link shows that the new US-backed government was trying to revive the Afghan pipeline. It was an article from 2002.

So what am I supposedly confused about? I didn't say the pipeline was built. I mentioned it as one of the many facts that made me skeptical of the official story on 9/11. I already listed many other reasons so there's no need to repeat them. But I think maybe you're the one confused by our little exchange.

the week of 9/11 .

there was a NEWSWEEK that i bought and inside they had an "artists" rendering of the collapsed towers

a picture of what the rubble should have looked like

a pile of rubble

when i saw the actual pictures of the collapse something just did not compute

after the PBS "special" there was no doubt left in my mind

i still carry that NEWSWEEK everywhere i go

literally, i live in my van and it is in my backpack with with all my "papers"