Announce your position on 911.

Originally posted by sensfan

Originally posted by Connected

Originally posted by sensfan
Care to show me this mountain of conflicting information?

This is where my temper gets off the hook. Seriously, if you don't already know the conflicting information, you are not worthy of a debate.

Now don't get angry. ;-)

Do you know what a debate is? You state a position, and back it up with facts and evidence. just making a statement like yours is no way to debate either.

Edit to add that I don't think we need to start another debate about 9/11...there are too many threads repeating themselves already.

[edit on 15-3-2007 by sensfan]

But why would you ask him to provide conflicting information when you supposedly read all of them? Simply saying "there's no proof" doesn't cut it.

The whole thing about keeping it a secret......
They haven't kept it a secret, they have just kept it out of the media that they control.
hundreds of millions world wide know it.
It's not a secret , it's a "big" lie.







[edit on 16-3-2007 by AwakeAndAllSeeing]

Also, my standing is that I don't believe in the official theory.

I do not believe the Government story


1) cell phone call records never shown

2) I can and do keep secrets ( read bio)

For all you guys who keep saying Bush isn't smart enough to carry out 9/11 - let me enlighten you. The president only presents a goal. A task to work for. Lets say he says to his Administration..."I want to secure oil trade from the middle east...make it happen." The Joint Chiefs of Staff are the masterminds (amoung other agencies, such as the CIA / NSA and SS) of these atrocities. This is FACT people. Not speculation, not ideas, not presumptions - but straight up FACT. The whole argument going on about how the Bush Administration isn't smart enough to carry out attacks - they might not be smart enough - but thats not the point. The point is the MILITARY and Intelligence agencies come up with the details and carry out the missions, not our dummy president.
Bush is only the start of it - as a matter of fact - I'd even be willing to say Bush doesn't even know the details of what went on behind the scenes of 9/11. He wouldn't want to know - ever heard the term Plausable Deniability?

I dont belive either side.. Governments or Theory..

1. To much dis Information to make a logical stance without seeming like you have been told what to say, or that you buy into something else without proper facts.

2. I think only a small core group really knows.. And they are a mix of people, not just muslims, not just americans. I have read everything I can on the subject.. Honestly Im tired and worn out by this. For a long time I had the its an inside job stance. Then I find out more about people I trusted like Alex Jones, that they are frauds themselfs..
So our Government is not honest, nor are the people who seem to want to stand for the truth. Its true, everyone in this world lies, To get to the bottom of something this grand scale, I admit fully I am not capable of this task. And I cant come online infront of many people who are smarter and more capable of such tasks.. Just know there is a growing amount of people who are starting to feel like me. We are begining to understand that you cant trust what you are told, better to hear it from the horses mouth.. wait horses dont talk... human logic for you.. yawn..

[edit on 16-3-2007 by zysin5]

I disbelieve the official story

Reason:
I believe the NSA fully knew before-hand that there were these terrorists who were going to crash planes into the twin-towers, but they knowingly didnt do anything to stop it.
The secret govt. might have even co-operated with them to see that they were successful in their sick plot.

I have to go with the overwhelming body of sceintists, engineers, and architects on this matter.

Reasons I can no longer believe the "Truth Movement's" stance:

My own research, occams razor, and the fact that "believers" want to compare the events of 9/11 to other events to support their claims. There are no such events that can produce the conclusion of a certain outcome.

For example: What happens to a large aircraft when it is deliberately rammed into a building? No data to support a certain outcome.

What happens to the building? No data to support a certain outcome.

What happens to a tall steel-framed building when it is structurally damaged severely, then burns out of control? No data to support a certain outcome.

I see people trying to compare, say, the wreckage/debris field of Flt 93 to other plane crashes. This is illogical in my mind, Because the pilots of the compared crashes were doing everything in their power to STOP the collision from occuring. While the pilot of 93 was intentionally trying to ram it into the ground, or was being forced from the controls while it collided with the ground. IF 93 was shot down, THEN you would have that debris field everyone (for some reason) feels the need to see. This would be because the plane would have lost it's integrity in mid-air, then fell to the ground. Instead of being purposefully and aerodynamically rammed into the ground at full speed.

Same can be said when the comparisions are made with the B-25 and the Empire State building to a 767 and the Twin Towers. There is a huge discrepency between the size, speed of the craft, the intention of the pilot, and the structure itself.

Same can be said when comparing the Madrid fire to WTC 7. The Windsor never had a large amount of structral damage done before the fires, it was also mostly comprised of steel reinforced concrete, the "steel only" portion of the building failed. WTC 7 and controlled demolitions? There were no sychonized explosions on any audio, nor demolition spikes on any seismograph reading the area when WTC 7 fell.

Since none of these comparisions can be made on equal footing, yet try to be presented as "proof" or evidence to substanciate a claim; it brings out the skeptic in me. I start asking "Who" is making these claims as fact. "Why" do they want people to believe this is factual. And "What" is their motivation. ... Then I start looking into "How" they are building their circumstantial, faith-based movement.

Sorry, I would want to be a part of that about as much as spending a summer at Jesus Camp.

Rare USA Today 911 footage suggests not only airplanes crashing into the buildings, but also explosives as demolishing them.



The fact that people were shut up suggests a controlled media, and only one story regarding the incident.

for what its worth:

I believe the official story

1. rise in islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East, demonisation of US [using Palestine question, failure of gulf states to provide for their populations [rising unemployment etc] and sanctions in Iraq] made USA an obvious and easy target

2. Al Qaeda - financed, motivated, capable


though its possible]/i] it was 'allowed' to happen