"If our own government was responsible for the deaths of almost a hundred-thousand people...would you really want to know?"
Over the course of the past eight years, I've devoted a considerable amount of time to studying the vast number of inconsistencies in the official account of 9/11. What I've discovered is that if you spend even half an hour examining different sides of the puzzle, the official story is downright impossible, and at times absurd.
Yesterday Asia Times posted an article entitled "Fifty questions on 9/11." Below I've linked to this article as well as another key one. If you read these and watch the comprehensive video segment from the third link below, you'll see that the evidence of a conspiracy is not only overwhelming, but damning. And then the truth becomes nine parts conspiracy, one part theory.
• Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
• The Coincidence Theorist's Guide to 9/11
• The 9/11 Myth
• Fifty questions on 9/11
If you're an eternal skeptic dismissing this possibility with an unbelieving head shake or knee-jerk reaction, understand that I'm not pointing any fingers—just presenting evidence that strongly supports an alternate version of events.
It's important to note that 9/11-type events and false-flag operations are not new. Look no further than the Reichstag fire, the Gulf of Tonkin, or Operation Northwoods. History repeats itself, and someone always benefits.
Lastly:
"A building is a symbol, as is the act of destroying it. Symbols are given power by people. A symbol in and of itself is powerless, but with enough people behind it, blowing up a building can change the world."
—V for Vendetta
One little victory: Ahmadinejad has a point...
3 comments:
Conspiracy theories are interesting. I haven't looked at all the links you posted, but did quickly go through the 50 unanswered questions. The way I see these, they are more or less a group of coincidences and vague accusations which, when taken together, are supposed to convince me of something.
There are a couple problems. First, I'm not sure what they are supposed to convince me of. These 50 questions don't add up to any really convincing narrative. They seem to just want me to think that something isn't right.
But then I dig into some of the questions and more problems arise. For example: 43) Is pathetic shoe-bomber Richard Reid an ISI asset?
Are you saying he is? Is there evidence to support this?
49) Has Northrop-Grumman used Global Hawk technology - which allows to remotely control unmanned planes - in the war in Afghanistan since October 2001? Did it install Global Hawk in a commercial plane? Is Global Hawk available at all for commercial planes?
Are you saying that it was installed? Is there any evidence that it was?
21) How come a substantial number of reputed architects and engineers are adamant that the official narrative simply does not explain the largest structural collapse in recorded history (the Twin Towers) as well as the collapse of WTC building 7, which was not even hit by a jet?
Why are there a substantial number that do believe the official narrative? What evidence have you unearthed that convinces you that those who disagree with the official story are correct?
The big problem with many of these (like 43 and 49) is that they are just questions which are supposed to make me believe something shady happened, but really offer no evidence.
It's a classic ploy, and easy to do. For example: Where was Mary Todd Lincoln the night before her husband was assassinated? Was she meeting with John Wilkes Booth secretly? And how come she purchased tickets to the play?
I have no evidence that MTL had anything to do with her husband's death, but by framing a question this way I've implied that MTL was purposely hiding here whereabouts and that the onus is now on her to prove she wasn't.
Every alternative theory I've heard about the attacks is either so complex as to seem unbelievable that it could be pulled off, or it has been refuted before, or based on a collection of media quotes from that day taken out of context (or given undue credence).
I'm not against people questioning the government, I just haven't been shown any evidence that provides a single theory more convincing than the official story.
http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1920944
Now that's funny.
Post a Comment