What we knew the morning of 911

reply to post by OrionStars


Yes, and then someone would see a copy of the original manifest, and then the one printed off in 2002 and start screaming CONSPIRACY....oh wait........thats already going on.

Originally posted by Taxi-Driver
This stuff will make ya nuts... Just look at this thread, you have one person saying "they" were making all of this stuff up as it went along AFTER the fact, then you have another saying it was all PRE-Planted BEFORE the fact, You have another accusing the US head of state of mass murder, and one guy rattling off links to the SAME BIASED website.

So why does the truth movement use information from a CCN newscast, and BBC article released just days after 9/11? I will tell you why- Because it fits their agenda.

It doesn't fit the promoter's agenda to provide the most up to date information.. A clear cut example of deceptive rhetoric.

Some good points here Taxi-Driver, the official story has a few holes but the many theories that compete to explain them conflict with each other to point of lunacy.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


All I said I stated was it was erroneous as of 2002, which made it worthless as trial court evidence. At the same time, it does ring conspiracy at the top levels but not in and of itself. Happy now?

It look a large number more of those contradictions, and far more serious than that small contradiction, to point to the right, not the wrong, people involved. They were not members of Al Qaida. They did it to themselves by their own omissions. If you want to blame anyone, blame them for being so careless via overwhelming arrogance.