You really need to stop watching so many reruns of The X Files, dude.
2007-08-28 18:47:23
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
6⤊
3⤋
I love when people say that the ******* history channel debunked something..people come on now..the government can take that network without batting an eye and do a switcheroo with some "experts" and there you have it..case debunked right? Wrong..its happened on the history channel already with this issue..they can't touch the world wide web and while there is a lot of bullshit out there, facts are still shining through..hey non-believers check this video out..if you can sit your *** down and watch for two hours you may just learn something, after all I put up with your propaganda.
www.zeitgeistmovie.com
You want answers..its right there..its true..its proof and if you don't like it then go back in your bubble and cry becasue this is the world now and you either have to grow up and face it or you're too young to be worrying about it anyway.
I will not be responsible now for not warning you in some way to the bullshit our great and noble government has commited..hey who remembers another bullshit ten year war called vietnam? We started that one too..foreign policies teacher told us that story..who served in the military and was a decorated soldier.
I don't want to hear anything about pentagon being hit by a plane..that is just plain stupidity...people will really believe anything on that almighty moniter won't they. Look at the wreckage vids again please..where the hell is all that wreckage?
Building 7 and somerset...safe collapse of a building which could have been set up to save lives but I doubt it in the time span and all the "terror" going on. Somerset..no wreckage, no blood, just a big burn spot..where did that plane go?
You people make me laugh so much..open your eyes and stop watching tv for two ******* seconds and read the paper archives..try actual research through those articles and videos..search they're there, and then come back and try saying to my face that it wasn't a planned inside job since '93.
2007-08-29 03:58:09
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
Be rational.Some people would go to any extent to prove a point and may partially succeed too but that doesn't alter the rational deductions.For every rational logic there is an equally appealing perverted logic and people with impressionable minds jump to get it.May be that provides them with some kind of escape or a diversion.Going a little ahead,I think 9/11 is likely to prove a bigger mile stone for the Muslim world than for others as it shall alter their religious structure for the years to come and make them ultimately,a more open and progressive community.Hope,there would be somebody to remind them at that point of time to THANK America for it and pray for the souls of victims of 9/11, with true feelings.
2007-08-29 02:03:39
·
answer #3
·
answered by brkshandilya 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
1) If Loose Change is so factual, why did they have to go back and change their story three times? They're working on a third edition as we speak. How many times des it have to be debunked before they can run out of things to make up. Plus, three 20 somethings with too much time on their hands does not make them structual engineers. The fire proof material was blown off the steel in the WTC and the fire burining didn't melt steel beams, just made them lose integrity and finally collapse. Science from real scientists, not basement dwellers.
2) Facts, well, he's the son of a Sauid Royal family. Many members of the family ackonowledge him. Basically, to sum this up, what facts do you have on President Bush? Maybe he's an actor. This line of reasoning is laughable.
3) That makes no kind of sense.
4) Do what now?
2007-08-29 01:59:45
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
2⤋
Fact: A fuel tanker truck overturns burst into flames on a freeway. The flames melt, yes, melt the steel support frame on the overpass above it and the overpass collapses. A complete section. You are going to tell me that a commercial jetliner hitting a building can produce less damage?
Fact: The attacks on the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the attack on the USS Cole, and the attacks of 11 September all have been linked to individuals and groups that at one time were armed and trained by the United States and/or its allies
Fact: The 1993 WTC bombing had links to bin Laden and Al-QED.
Fact: Saddam was not a threat to us. bin Laden is. Al-Qaeda is now stronger now than before 9/11.
I've seen the pictures of the plane hitting the Pentagon I've seen the pictures of the plane edited out. I happen to believe the witnesses more than I do you.
2007-08-29 03:35:29
·
answer #5
·
answered by midnight&moonlight'smom 4
·
2⤊
2⤋
I think the Public does acknowledge that it was imploded a planned job, however by who? Not the US no matter how much oil is needed or wanted!!! So I don't think our Government and the the Terrorists had a clandestine tryst to send suicide bombers and blow up the towers. I believe it was inside our country all right- Terroist Iraqi Muslim cells, living amongest us, enjoying our "Devil Country" who set the charges in the towers and co-conspired with the suicide bombers to synchronize the collision with the setting off of the charges. Talaban maniacs that will be found one by one in their rat holes just like Sadam.
2007-08-29 01:51:47
·
answer #6
·
answered by Faerie loue 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
It was an inside job, by Al - Qaeda! Get real with that goverment conspiracy, thats ridiculous to even think that America's goverment was behind it. If a president is to be blamed for 9/11, it would be Clinton. He is the one who recieved all the intel and could have prevented it. I may hold Clinton responsible for ignoring all the intel, but I won't hold our goverment responsible for allowing it to happen. So anybody who wants to blame Bush better start pointing fingers at Clinton first. Bush was in office for only 7 months at that time, and it takes more than 7 months to plan that attack. It takes more than 7 months to learn to fly a plane, that level of attack takes a few years, which is Clintons era
2007-08-29 02:57:18
·
answer #7
·
answered by Rocman 3
·
1⤊
2⤋
Yes,LC reviewed mainly a lot news lines out later the next days from 911-
facts abound- Building 7 why did it fall? why the tower's fall consistant with a demolition- why didn't the "crime scene" get treated as such and "evidence" was so quickly removed?
Why did Am. Airlines have the biggest stock selloff ever the day before 911?
Why did Norad happen to have training day that same day and the planes flew off course for over 40 minutes?
so much stuff was just wrong and the whitehouse seems so chicken to refute the inaccuracies-
So, what other times did George happen to be reading books (upside down) like My Pet Goat- ever heard any other cutsie school visits such as that 911 day? why was that?
Why did Gulianne stash thousands of gallons of diesel under the WTC - it sure burned and smoldered for weeks, didn't it...?
there is so much more than these facts- it's overwhelming- America must wake up.
a cataclysmic event to rally support for a war? did THAT work- sadly... it looks emotion ruled over facts...
*sigh*
thanks for the insightful question!
omni
2007-08-29 02:01:17
·
answer #8
·
answered by omnimog 4
·
0⤊
4⤋
Afraid of what truth? Loose change is just that a bunch of loose facts. Emotion plays a huge part of it when it turned our nation upside down.
2007-08-29 01:55:08
·
answer #9
·
answered by Glen B 6
·
3⤊
3⤋
Loose change was DEBUNKED by Popular Mechanics magazine and the History Channel.
2007-08-29 01:47:57
·
answer #10
·
answered by SW1 6
·
4⤊
3⤋