English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

...can engage in an OBJECTIVE discussion about what really, MIGHT have happened on 9/11?

"..we're through the looking glass here people. Black is white. And white is black."

2006-11-28 20:15:15 · 16 answers · asked by 1/6,833,020,409 5 in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

16 answers

I do have and it is a hot topic, the key word is objective

2006-11-28 23:06:09 · answer #1 · answered by paulisfree2004 6 · 1 0

I feel I can..What really happen on 9/11 is what we saw happen..
it happened because obviously American policy in the middle east....and that we thought we were immune to international terrorism...Its already been proved that our intelligence agency's were not communicating for a variety of reasons...
I have read and seen some films by the 9/11 theorist..and although they can be convincing I notice they all do the same ,they use half quotes and distort facts and use so called experts that some never heard of before..
If you recall when the Aids epidemic first were discovered the theorist were hard at work convincing the world that it was a secret CIA experiment to rid the world of unwanteds.Books were published films were released experts gave testimony and even the KGB was hard at work with accusations..Today we know the facts...
I am no fan of Bush or the sometimes misguided American foreign policy but logic dictates to me..and in America were people cannot fart with out the world discovering which American it was..WELL 9/11 IS PRETTY HARD THING TO COVER UP!

2006-11-28 21:20:47 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

I've seen, read and heard from multiple sources what happened on 9/11. We know what happened.

It would be more appropriate to look at the events leading up to 9/11 and what signs were overlooked.

1. The long history of terrorist activities and the skills acquired to carry out such an atrocity.
2. The camps run by several fanatical religious organizations going back to the original Arab League manifesto.
3. Asama Bin Laden was a billionaire so he had a huge financial base to carry out his plans.
4. The American public really doesn't fully understand the major differences between the Western and middle east mentality.

Let me add some things I saw for myself in 1982:
Damascus Syria -

A captured Israeli soldier being tortured and killed - it was reported but no intervention was allowed.

A single young Syrian girl was raped. She reported the rapist. They were both tried and hung. Him for the act and her because she was soiled.

Buses were sporting pictures of Adolf Hitler because he was a hero for killing Jews. People who have been supported by the United States, hence, another reason for the fanatics to hate the USA.

The hatred has been ingrained for generations. If you think there is a conspiracy then you'd better consider all the facts.

2006-11-28 21:54:10 · answer #3 · answered by redcoat7121 4 · 2 1

Ah, yes. The terrorists, everyone knows, had enough time to land the plane, rig up & weld on a missile bay under it's wing, take off, and fire it right before hitting the tower.

C'mon! We were lied to about Iraq, NOT 9/11. The tragedy was so horrible, do you really think that the government would orchestrate an attack on it's OWN country?

I think too many people are watching edited videos of what happened that day on YouTube. Either that, or our country is filled with the most gullible humans ever to walk the Earth.

2006-11-28 20:54:40 · answer #4 · answered by amg503 7 · 1 1

As far as I know what's happened has been widely showed on the TV . I'm Italian,living in Italy; by chance that day I was at home and in spite of by us it was around 3 pm I was unusually watching the television when the broadcasting was suddenly interrupted for the CNN breaking news. I've lived in direct the plane hitting against the 2nd tower and I will never forget it for having immediately realized that both towers would have collapsed in a short time. In the following I've read and seen a lot about this tragedy but I absolutely don't believe to the different theories about CIA or other funny "involvements". Bin Laden and Al Qaida are the only promoters of that massacre and I really wish that ,sooner or later, they will get the punishment all these terrorists deserve.

2006-11-28 20:38:32 · answer #5 · answered by martox45 7 · 3 1

Occam's razor states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating, or "shaving off," those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. In short, when given two equally valid explanations for a phenomenon, one should embrace the less complicated formulation. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae (law of succinctness):

entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem,

which translates to:

entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity.

This is often paraphrased as "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest hypothetical entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood.

EDIT:
Has anyone bothered to read the last page of the PM report? 300 people, all credible and accredited experts in their individual fields. Let me add another couple of links that may help.

If, all the common sense data doesn't put this silliness to bed, then it seems that one just refuses to accept any explanation other than the one next to the Bigfoot sightings on rense and loosechange.

2006-11-28 20:31:38 · answer #6 · answered by Rich B 5 · 4 0

I really would like to discuss this issue. Problem is; the info out there available I deemed as bias from their point of view and
no-one, "credible enough" source is speaking out.

2006-11-28 20:31:48 · answer #7 · answered by dorianalways 4 · 1 1

me. clearly, flight 175 which hits sth tower fires a missile just prior to impact, which throws the official story out the window. there is more evidence to convict bush than i need.

1. steel doesnt melt from jet fuel, it doesnt burn hot enough
2. buildings dont collapse at free fall speed.
3. footage clearly shows demolition chages exploding as towers collapse.

etc, etc

plus the timeline itself, sth tower hit at 9.03am, a full 37 minutes later a plane enters the pentagon airspace, a NO FLY ZONE, while the us knows it has 2 planes unaccounted for, and it doesnt get shot down. in the year prior to 9/11, 67 planes were escorted from pentagon airspace by f-15 fighter jets, and these planes were not entering in the middle of a terrorist attack. hmm

2006-11-28 20:23:55 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 4

I think its all a scam by the CIA and the Nsa because if you want to convince me that a few bearded extremest would hit the pentagon by planes i wont buy it because then we are in deep sh*t .

2006-11-28 22:08:11 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

Even at first, I wondered why bush & buddies went after saddam, and not osama.osama was raising his hand, as if to say, "here i am, and i did this horrible act, see if you can catch me." bush can find saddam in a rat hole, but not the one claiming responsibility? what the @#$% is up with that-- even after this long- shouldn't bush& buds have osama by NOW? the (terrible) games people play, eh- Bush? You just can't fool the Americans!!!

2006-11-28 20:44:39 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 4

fedest.com, questions and answers