So since 9/11 was brought up...
When the 9/11 Commission Report was released it had lots of 'plot holes' and what seemed like missing information. I am not a theorist nor do I believe that report is 100% truthful. I am a normal citizen who has questions and wonder about the validity of that report. Why is someone negatively labeled when they don't believe everything the government says? Are we expected to take their word and move on? Even if things don't add up?
For example, if my bank charges me a fee that I know I did not incur am I supposed to leave it and pay it because the bank is always right and never makes mistakes? No, most of us will call the bank, explain the situation and get it corrected. The bank (which is made of humans working on computers) made a mistake just like the government can. Unfortunately, we can't just call the government and get a simple answer like this example.
This is why I wonder why the 9/11 Family Steering Committee was created. A group of family members of the actual fallen victims that day who also didn't believe the information from the Commission Report who sought an independent investigation. They also had a long list of specific questions for the government found here: http://www.911independentcommission.org/questions.html
As far as the collapse of the 3 buildings that day in NY; yes, some don't know a third building (WTC 7) which suffered no impact at all fell just like Towers 1 and 2; is questionable too. We saw how the 3 buildings fell the same way in pancake fashion even though each building was impacted differently. The buildings were constructed on heavy duty fireproof steel so it would be expected that the top parts impacted (above aircraft crash) should have tipped over to the side of impact and the bottom part should have at least remained in place. There are architects and engineers who can confirm this yet it's not questioned. WTC7 was NOT hit by an aircraft but fell the same exact way as the Towers. Does this seem logical to you?
Furthermore, there are videos of first responders and others who were present who were told that WTC7 is coming down ('being pulled' which is a demolition expression). Also, both BBC World (Jane Standley) and CNN (Aaron Brown) reported the collapse of WTC7 before it actually happened. How did the media already know beforehand? Why wasn't any of this in the 9/11 Commission Report?
Lastly, there is the Pentagon crash. Many have pointed out the inconsistencies between the plane measurements and the damage that was actually done to that building. The Pentagon is supposed to have state of the art heavy surveillance at all times. So what happened that day? Did they turn it off? There is testimony from then Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta who testified the following at the 9/11 Commission: "There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, 'The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out.' And when it got down to, 'The plane is 10 miles out,' the young man also said to the vice president, 'Do the orders still stand?' And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, 'Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?' Well, at the time I didn't know what all that meant." This testimony was also NOT in the 9/11 Commission Report. Are you starting to see a pattern?
I only noted a few points to hopefully get you questioning things around you. Always do your own research and find out what makes sense to you. To answer the person above, I found many 'leaks' to the events that happened that day and presented just a few. People have come forward but you are either omitted or you are labeled a conspiracy theorist and lose credibility instantly. There have been many historical events where the government's actions have been suspicious and controversial from wars to assassinations. But to know why or for what purpose, we may never know the truth...
reply
share
generationofswine
8 years ago
See, there you go, what you are doing is ignoring all the information that disproves your theory...it goes against the Scientific Method.
If you want to prove you are right, so the world believes it, you have to be willing to accept the evidence that disproves what you are saying and adjust the theory to account for, until you come to a point where it is either disproved or proven.
By cherry picking the details like you are doing, then using false analogies to support your claim, you aren't proving anything...except that you aren't willing to actually test your hypothesis.
"Few people understand the psychology of dealing with a highway traffic cop."
reply
share