9/11 Conspiracy Proof *updated*

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
You make a poor assumption thinking that all I know is the superficial aspects that the "media" plops out there without looking past the surface. If anything that describes most truthers. They know nothing more than what they can find on some paranoid whackjob's website, which is why most can't explain much of anything on their own words and have to copy & paste replies. There's not a sinlge truther in here willing to lay out there own comprehensive explanation of how 9/11 went down, according to their beliefs. All they do is point to little disparate shards that they deem to be facts and tell people to "connect the dots." That's pure, unadulterated bulshit. Most of there little factoids completely wilt under any scrutiny anyway and they resort to distorted generalizations, and ignominiously exclaim 'How dare anyone question me when I'm just looking for "truth."'

You know why truthers don't lay out any detailed, comprehensive outline of how 9/11 went down? It's because they already tried. Loose Change tried and it got shot down. So they "edited" their film, and it got shot down again. So they re-edited it. Seems that if they were really looking for truth they would do some due diligence and fact checking instead of being so loose and fast with those same facts. If they have the truth then why the need to distort statements, cherry pick quotes, employ bad science, and avoid all the facts that we do already know?

Oh, as far as Kennedy:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27705829/

Maybe that conspiracy can finally be put to rest? I doubt it though because truthers are like religious zealots. They firmly believe and they'll be damned if they actually let facts get in the way of being a true believer.

*sigh* the power of google. They never explained how the SECOND PASSENGER was affected. Are you being sarcastic though with that link?

Loose Change may be all wrong or may not. Where are they cited as the EXPERT?

Like I said, no one has all the answers....doesn't mean they are all wrong though.

I think it's funny how in things like this the people that mostly have nothing to say try and use as many of the biggest words they can.

 

[Bulk Beef]

*sigh* the power of google. They never explained how the SECOND PASSENGER was affected. Are you being sarcastic though with that link?

The 3D modeling referred to in that article absolutely does address Connally's wounds.

 

[Mr. Lennon]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
You make a poor assumption thinking that all I know is the superficial aspects that the "media" plops out there without looking past the surface. If anything that describes most truthers. They know nothing more than what they can find on some paranoid whackjob's website, which is why most can't explain much of anything on their own words and have to copy & paste replies. There's not a sinlge truther in here willing to lay out there own comprehensive explanation of how 9/11 went down, according to their beliefs. All they do is point to little disparate shards that they deem to be facts and tell people to "connect the dots." That's pure, unadulterated bulshit. Most of there little factoids completely wilt under any scrutiny anyway and they resort to distorted generalizations, and ignominiously exclaim 'How dare anyone question me when I'm just looking for "truth."'

You know why truthers don't lay out any detailed, comprehensive outline of how 9/11 went down? It's because they already tried. Loose Change tried and it got shot down. So they "edited" their film, and it got shot down again. So they re-edited it. Seems that if they were really looking for truth they would do some due diligence and fact checking instead of being so loose and fast with those same facts. If they have the truth then why the need to distort statements, cherry pick quotes, employ bad science, and avoid all the facts that we do already know?

Oh, as far as Kennedy:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27705829/

Maybe that conspiracy can finally be put to rest? I doubt it though because truthers are like religious zealots. They firmly believe and they'll be damned if they actually let facts get in the way of being a true believer.

*sigh* the power of google. They never explained how the SECOND PASSENGER was affected. Are you being sarcastic though with that link?

Loose Change may be all wrong or may not. Where are they cited as the EXPERT?

Like I said, no one has all the answers....doesn't mean they are all wrong though.

I think it's funny how in things like this the people that mostly have nothing to say try and use as many of the biggest words they can.

alkemyst, it is a waste of time trying to even argue with these people. They only believe the open ended evidence that is provided to them by their trustworthy government. Our sources are always wrong and theirs are always right. It is because of people like TastesLikeChicken (who are in fact the majority) that our government gets away with murder.

 

[Fritzo]

Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282

Originally posted by: Newbian
This is going to go very bad very fast.

/Grabs some popcorn.

I'm just waiting for what the non-believers say. This is pure hard evidence on top of everything else that proves the story we have been told by our government is full of lies.

BTW- hard evidence is physical evidence (explosive casings, chemical residue, blast damage, etc). None of this has been found. Maybe there was a coordinated attack where some guys set off explosives in the basement right before the plane hit. Who knows? We'll never be able to tell.

If anyone is still implying the govt. took part in this, please find a hobby.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Bulk Beef

*sigh* the power of google. They never explained how the SECOND PASSENGER was affected. Are you being sarcastic though with that link?

The 3D modeling referred to in that article absolutely does address Connally's wounds.

Well I will have to see what they have to say when it airs and provides proof.

I can say I used modern technics not available prior as well to prove God exists. Add some scientific mumbo-jumbo that only a minority of people in the country understand and sell my tapes for a fortune.

Doesn't make me right though.

Maybe they are going to assume Oswald used a BFG1000?

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282

alkemyst, it is a waste of time trying to even argue with these people. They only believe the open ended evidence that is provided to them by their trustworthy government. Our sources are always wrong and theirs are always right. It is because of people like TastesLikeChicken (who are in fact the majority) that our government gets away with murder.

What's really funny is some of these people that insist there is no conspiracy in this world events pretty much are claiming there is a conspiracy to claim there is one.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282
alkemyst, it is a waste of time trying to even argue with these people. They only believe the open ended evidence that is provided to them by their trustworthy government. Our sources are always wrong and theirs are always right. It is because of people like TastesLikeChicken (who are in fact the majority) that our government gets away with murder.

You have made it patently clear that you will continue to believe what you want to believe no matter how little evidence you have, and how much evidence there is to the contrary. It doesn't help your case that you simply others who don't accept the lack of evidence on your part as "closed minded"

Remember, 99% of the time, when someone asks you to have an open mind, they are really trying to demand you have an EMPTY mind.

 

[Bulk Beef]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: Bulk Beef

*sigh* the power of google. They never explained how the SECOND PASSENGER was affected. Are you being sarcastic though with that link?

The 3D modeling referred to in that article absolutely does address Connally's wounds.

Well I will have to see what they have to say when it airs and provides proof.

I can say I used modern technics not available prior as well to prove God exists. Add some scientific mumbo-jumbo that only a minority of people in the country understand and sell my tapes for a fortune.

Doesn't make me right though.

Maybe they are going to assume Oswald used a BFG1000?

No mumbo-jombo, so even fucking retards such as the op and yourself will be able to comprehend it. You still won't, but it will be because you choose not to.

 

[OCGuy]

This thread is now about Bill Murray.



Groundhog Day > Bible




Discuss....

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Fritzo

Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282

Originally posted by: Newbian
This is going to go very bad very fast.

/Grabs some popcorn.

I'm just waiting for what the non-believers say. This is pure hard evidence on top of everything else that proves the story we have been told by our government is full of lies.

BTW- hard evidence is physical evidence (explosive casings, chemical residue, blast damage, etc). None of this has been found. Maybe there was a coordinated attack where some guys set off explosives in the basement right before the plane hit. Who knows? We'll never be able to tell.

If anyone is still implying the govt. took part in this, please find a hobby.

There was physical evidence. It also matches that of jet fuel.

Keep in mind the WTC was not a free for all for any researcher to analyze.

You last statement is a pretty bold one as even if the jets were the sole method of bringing the buildings down....no one knows for sure who brainstormed it.

Do you think our government at ALL levels never did anything wrong to the people? I am sure you don't think that. This is just another level of how the wrong people in power can do things to profit....there is nothing different than the City Mayor that embezzles a couple million and blows it on prostitutes and gambling.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
This thread is now about Bill Murray.



Groundhog Day > Bible




Discuss....

Didn't I tell you, to call me Ernie, or Big Ern?

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: So
Remember, 99% of the time, when someone asks you to have an open mind, they are really trying to demand you have an EMPTY mind.

Sig Worthy!!!

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: darkswordsman17

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
This thread is now about Bill Murray.



Groundhog Day > Bible




Discuss....

Didn't I tell you, to call me Ernie, or Big Ern?

"I'm a god. Well, not Thee God, a god."

 

[Mr. Lennon]

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: So
Remember, 99% of the time, when someone asks you to have an open mind, they are really trying to demand you have an EMPTY mind.

Sig Worthy!!!

How cute, the sheep are jerking each other off now.

What So said has to be one of the stupidest things I have ever read on these forums.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: So
Remember, 99% of the time, when someone asks you to have an open mind, they are really trying to demand you have an EMPTY mind.

Sig Worthy!!!

How cute, the sheep are jerking each other off now.

What So said has to be one of the stupidest things I have ever read on these forums.

That statement, coming from you?
:laugh:

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
You make a poor assumption thinking that all I know is the superficial aspects that the "media" plops out there without looking past the surface. If anything that describes most truthers. They know nothing more than what they can find on some paranoid whackjob's website, which is why most can't explain much of anything on their own words and have to copy & paste replies. There's not a sinlge truther in here willing to lay out there own comprehensive explanation of how 9/11 went down, according to their beliefs. All they do is point to little disparate shards that they deem to be facts and tell people to "connect the dots." That's pure, unadulterated bulshit. Most of there little factoids completely wilt under any scrutiny anyway and they resort to distorted generalizations, and ignominiously exclaim 'How dare anyone question me when I'm just looking for "truth."'

You know why truthers don't lay out any detailed, comprehensive outline of how 9/11 went down? It's because they already tried. Loose Change tried and it got shot down. So they "edited" their film, and it got shot down again. So they re-edited it. Seems that if they were really looking for truth they would do some due diligence and fact checking instead of being so loose and fast with those same facts. If they have the truth then why the need to distort statements, cherry pick quotes, employ bad science, and avoid all the facts that we do already know?

Oh, as far as Kennedy:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27705829/

Maybe that conspiracy can finally be put to rest? I doubt it though because truthers are like religious zealots. They firmly believe and they'll be damned if they actually let facts get in the way of being a true believer.

*sigh* the power of google. They never explained how the SECOND PASSENGER was affected. Are you being sarcastic though with that link?

Loose Change may be all wrong or may not. Where are they cited as the EXPERT?

Like I said, no one has all the answers....doesn't mean they are all wrong though.

I think it's funny how in things like this the people that mostly have nothing to say try and use as many of the biggest words they can.

As far as I'm concerned they are wrong until they bring some solid proof to the table, which the truthers continually fail to do. When 99.9% of their claims get shot down in glowing balls of flame one can be pretty sure that the remaining .01% has no validity either. But truthers focus on that .01% as if it proves their case while ignoring that ponderous 99.9% that they're wrong about.

btw, you're using the classic conspiracy theorist maneuver. When presented with facts, completely ignore them and bring up a tangetially related issue instead. Example:

CT: There are termite burn marks on the WTC steel.

Skeptic: Those marks aren't from thermite. It's slag from the oxy-acetylene cutting torches used to cut the beams into manageable sizes for removal purposes.

CT: Well that doesn't explain why WTC7 imploded!

Such a blatantly transparent deflection is used so they don't actually have to address the facts in front of them. You just did that very thing with your "SECOND PASSENGER" comment.

As far as using big words, they aren't big words to me. They are just plain old words. If they seem big to you then maybe you should get out more?

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: Fritzo

Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282

Originally posted by: Newbian
This is going to go very bad very fast.

/Grabs some popcorn.

I'm just waiting for what the non-believers say. This is pure hard evidence on top of everything else that proves the story we have been told by our government is full of lies.

BTW- hard evidence is physical evidence (explosive casings, chemical residue, blast damage, etc). None of this has been found. Maybe there was a coordinated attack where some guys set off explosives in the basement right before the plane hit. Who knows? We'll never be able to tell.

If anyone is still implying the govt. took part in this, please find a hobby.

There was physical evidence. It also matches that of jet fuel.

Keep in mind the WTC was not a free for all for any researcher to analyze.

You last statement is a pretty bold one as even if the jets were the sole method of bringing the buildings down....no one knows for sure who brainstormed it.

Do you think our government at ALL levels never did anything wrong to the people? I am sure you don't think that. This is just another level of how the wrong people in power can do things to profit....there is nothing different than the City Mayor that embezzles a couple million and blows it on prostitutes and gambling.

The physical evidence builds an extremely compelling case that nothing but airplanes and jet fuel brought down the WTC. There is no evidence to the contrary.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
As far as I'm concerned they are wrong until they bring some solid proof to the table, which the truthers continually fail to do. When 99.9% of their claims get shot down in glowing balls of flame one can be pretty sure that the remaining .01% has no validity either. But truthers focus on that .01% as if it proves their case while ignoring that ponderous 99.9% that they're wrong about.

btw, you're using the classic conspiracy theorist maneuver. When presented with facts, completely ignore them and bring up a tangetially related issue instead. Example:

CT: There are termite burn marks on the WTC steel.

Skeptic: Those marks aren't from thermite. It's slag from the oxy-acetylene cutting torches used to cut the beams into manageable sizes for removal purposes.

CT: Well that doesn't explain why WTC7 imploded!

Such a blatantly transparent deflection is used so they don't actually have to address the facts in front of them. You just did that very thing with your "SECOND PASSENGER" comment.

As far as using big words, they aren't big words to me. They are just plain old words. If they seem big to you then maybe you should get out more?

You don't use those kinds of words in EVERY post though...just calling it like I see it.

The thing is is I don't know where you are getting your 99.9% getting shot down.

First thing in anything like this you have to separate those that really know an issue and understand it from the 9 others out of 10 that just are jumping on some bandwagon.

In the 9/11 situation it's not 100% concrete in any story. So by your own definition you are simply defining anything you don't believe as what's wrong.

My Connolly comment was right on though...most do not consider his wounds along with Kennedy's. I am not putting down this new information, but so far it's just a report no evidence has been given.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
The physical evidence builds an extremely compelling case that nothing but airplanes and jet fuel brought down the WTC. There is no evidence to the contrary.

No actually there is a lot of evidence to the contrary. However; they have connected this evidence to the jet fuel.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
You make a poor assumption thinking that all I know is the superficial aspects that the "media" plops out there without looking past the surface. If anything that describes most truthers. They know nothing more than what they can find on some paranoid whackjob's website, which is why most can't explain much of anything on their own words and have to copy & paste replies. There's not a sinlge truther in here willing to lay out there own comprehensive explanation of how 9/11 went down, according to their beliefs. All they do is point to little disparate shards that they deem to be facts and tell people to "connect the dots." That's pure, unadulterated bulshit. Most of there little factoids completely wilt under any scrutiny anyway and they resort to distorted generalizations, and ignominiously exclaim 'How dare anyone question me when I'm just looking for "truth."'

You know why truthers don't lay out any detailed, comprehensive outline of how 9/11 went down? It's because they already tried. Loose Change tried and it got shot down. So they "edited" their film, and it got shot down again. So they re-edited it. Seems that if they were really looking for truth they would do some due diligence and fact checking instead of being so loose and fast with those same facts. If they have the truth then why the need to distort statements, cherry pick quotes, employ bad science, and avoid all the facts that we do already know?

Oh, as far as Kennedy:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27705829/

Maybe that conspiracy can finally be put to rest? I doubt it though because truthers are like religious zealots. They firmly believe and they'll be damned if they actually let facts get in the way of being a true believer.

*sigh* the power of google. They never explained how the SECOND PASSENGER was affected. Are you being sarcastic though with that link?

Loose Change may be all wrong or may not. Where are they cited as the EXPERT?

Like I said, no one has all the answers....doesn't mean they are all wrong though.

I think it's funny how in things like this the people that mostly have nothing to say try and use as many of the biggest words they can.

alkemyst, it is a waste of time trying to even argue with these people. They only believe the open ended evidence that is provided to them by their trustworthy government. Our sources are always wrong and theirs are always right. It is because of people like TastesLikeChicken (who are in fact the majority) that our government gets away with murder.

Your sources? Don't you dare start throwing around a word like sources.

Those who support the "theory" that planes brought down 9/11 is a who's-who of physicists, demolition companies, engineers, and researchers.

The "sources" put forward by the conspiracy theorists are from youtube videos and people with zero credibility or qualifications to make the statements that they do.

Just to entertain you, let's look at your scenario. If you have a coherent theory, then you should easily be able to answer the following questions:

1. If the United States government was involved, who exactly perpetrated 9/11?

I mean, it seems to me like AT LEAST the following people would need to be involved: The terrorists who hijacked the planes, whoever planted the thousands of pounds of explosives in the buildings, the NYFD, the NYPD, those doing the recovery effort, the NTSC, FEMA, various judges and courts who imposed gag orders, parts of the media, Popular Mechanics, PBS, Governor Pataki, every engineer in the world who has supported the plane theory, The American Society of Civil Engineers, NORAD (depending on your conspiracy variant), the FAA (again dependent), The Silverstein group (variant dependent), the insurance companies for Silverstein (variant dependent).

2. What DID bring down the WTC? Why did WTC 7 fall so "suspiciously" if this was a conspiracy? Wouldn't you want to make it seem as "realistic" as possible, so you wouldn't rig explosives to a building you weren't going to hit with a plane. Right?

3. How were thousands of pounds of explosives and miles of detonation cord sneaked into the two biggest buildings in NYC, rigged to the outer structure of the building (which isn't easily accessible) without a SINGLE person coming forward and saying "yeah, I saw some guys on the 80th floor working on the building?"

4. Why use thermite? It isn't really an explosive and, while it's great for cutting steel, it needs to be constant contact to heat the steel up to the required temperatures which would require much more engineering than simply rigging real explosives.

5. If the buildings were wired to blow, then why even slam planes into them? It seems that the planes add a whole new element. Why not just say that a bunch of terrorists set off a bomb that took the buildings down? That would remove nearly ALL suspicion because that suspicion is based on the presence of explosives.

6. What happened to the plane in PA? Why was it "unsuccessful?"

7. (Conspiracy theory variant-dependent) If the government shot a missile at the Pentagon or used "remote controlled planes" full of explosives, where did the passengers go? When were the planes "switched?" Where were the "fake" planes built? Where did they take off from?"

Thanks!

 

[OCGuy]

Look everyone! A bunch of conspiracy nut-jobs who live in thier mom's basement! Everyone point and laugh now.




















Losers.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
The physical evidence builds an extremely compelling case that nothing but airplanes and jet fuel brought down the WTC. There is no evidence to the contrary.

No actually there is a lot of evidence to the contrary. However; they have connected this evidence to the jet fuel.

Nope. Let's see some hard evidence of explosives.

The best people have come up with is trace amounts of thermite which were detected from samples sent "directly" to a professor at BYU. That means we don't have any proof that the "samples" were from WTC site or that they were un-tampered, but that doesn't even matter much because the evidence this story presents is not evidence of an explosion.

First, if the samples were taken after the recovery effort began, the trace amounts can easily be from the torches used to cut the beams to clear them out of the WTC.

Second, if the samples are from before the recovery let's just say it takes about 5,000 lbs of well-placed thermite to bring down the WTC. The professor claimed he found sulfer from thermite catalyzing. Now, thermite is about 2% sulfur by weight -- so 5,000 lbs works out to about 100 lbs of sulfur.

So, Chemical & Engineering News estimated the debris that flew into the air at about 1 million tons. That's a lot. Even if it was one tenth that amount, the other compounds would swamp any detectable amount of sulfur.

Finally, the USGS did a survey and found the following major components in samples of WTC dust: Silicon, Calcium, Magnesium, Sulfur, Iron, Aluminum, Carbon (organic and carbonate), Sodium, Potassium, Titanium, Manganese, and Phosphorus. Four of those were flagged by the professor as potential parts of thermate -- potassium, titanium, magnesium, sulfur) which is ENTIRELY possible.

Except that the USGS and EHP both have studies that think it's far more likely that the chemical traces came from other sources:

The levels of many of the elements are consistent with their presence in building materials, including chromium, magnesium, manganese, aluminum, and barium. The very high levels of titanium (> 0.1%) were due to their presence in paint, especially white paint. The lead levels are elevated due to the use of lead-based paint on metallic surfaces during construction of the building. The detected lead dust concentrations were lower than would be found outdoors in older cities affected by tailpipe emissions from leaded gasoline...

 

[alkemyst]

IRT the 'government', CIA, FAA, et al being involved or not.

It's extremely doubtful that it would be the whole agency or even known by more than a few within that agency.

You can't say 'well they'd narc then', because at this level you would be aligning yourself with those of the same mindset and goals.

However; some of these plots have been unraveled in the past when someone got in much deeper or at a level they didn't plan on going too.

As far as thermite...there are tons of other dangerous and steel destroying chemicals out there...just so many of them are unstable.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: alkemyst
IRT the 'government', CIA, FAA, et al being involved or not.

It's extremely doubtful that it would be the whole agency or even known by more than a few within that agency.

You can't say 'well they'd narc then', because at this level you would be aligning yourself with those of the same mindset and goals.

However; some of these plots have been unraveled in the past when someone got in much deeper or at a level they didn't plan on going too.

As far as thermite...there are tons of other dangerous and steel destroying chemicals out there...just so many of them are unstable.

What?

Like I said, tell me WHO was involved if you know. Otherwise, I made a pretty conservative estimate based on the conspiracy websites out there.

Second, if it wasn't thermite, then what was it and where is the evidence that it was at ground zero? I was taking the most common "evidence" and showing that it doesn't really prove anything.

 

[Mr. Lennon]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
You make a poor assumption thinking that all I know is the superficial aspects that the "media" plops out there without looking past the surface. If anything that describes most truthers. They know nothing more than what they can find on some paranoid whackjob's website, which is why most can't explain much of anything on their own words and have to copy & paste replies. There's not a sinlge truther in here willing to lay out there own comprehensive explanation of how 9/11 went down, according to their beliefs. All they do is point to little disparate shards that they deem to be facts and tell people to "connect the dots." That's pure, unadulterated bulshit. Most of there little factoids completely wilt under any scrutiny anyway and they resort to distorted generalizations, and ignominiously exclaim 'How dare anyone question me when I'm just looking for "truth."'

You know why truthers don't lay out any detailed, comprehensive outline of how 9/11 went down? It's because they already tried. Loose Change tried and it got shot down. So they "edited" their film, and it got shot down again. So they re-edited it. Seems that if they were really looking for truth they would do some due diligence and fact checking instead of being so loose and fast with those same facts. If they have the truth then why the need to distort statements, cherry pick quotes, employ bad science, and avoid all the facts that we do already know?

Oh, as far as Kennedy:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27705829/

Maybe that conspiracy can finally be put to rest? I doubt it though because truthers are like religious zealots. They firmly believe and they'll be damned if they actually let facts get in the way of being a true believer.

*sigh* the power of google. They never explained how the SECOND PASSENGER was affected. Are you being sarcastic though with that link?

Loose Change may be all wrong or may not. Where are they cited as the EXPERT?

Like I said, no one has all the answers....doesn't mean they are all wrong though.

I think it's funny how in things like this the people that mostly have nothing to say try and use as many of the biggest words they can.

alkemyst, it is a waste of time trying to even argue with these people. They only believe the open ended evidence that is provided to them by their trustworthy government. Our sources are always wrong and theirs are always right. It is because of people like TastesLikeChicken (who are in fact the majority) that our government gets away with murder.

Your sources? Don't you dare start throwing around a word like sources.

Those who support the "theory" that planes brought down 9/11 is a who's-who of physicists, demolition companies, engineers, and researchers.

The "sources" put forward by the conspiracy theorists are from youtube videos and people with zero credibility or qualifications to make the statements that they do.


Thanks!

Actually there have been many credible reports from physicists, demolition experts, engineers, and researchers that claim there is more to 9/11 than we have been told. Of course you wont listen to anything they have to say because in your mind they must be nutjobs for going against the grain. If the evidence you claim is absolute 100% proof that our government is correct, then why would anyone question it? Many tragic things have happened to us through out our history. No one disputes those because the evidence didn't leave us with unanswered questions.