September 11, 2001 attacks were planned by the United States government

A more accurate version....

Plane for WTc1 + bombs in the basement to bring it down

Plane for wtc2 + bombs in the basement to help bring it down

plane for pentagon + I never seen any plane hit the pentagon, nor any plane debris

flight 93 (not sure where it was going) + Was possibly a planned crash to make it seem as if the government did actually protect us from something

blow up wtc7 with demolitions + lieing to the people saying it was from falling debris = makes perfect sense

 

Actually, all I've done is expose your hypocracy. You're the one that asked if capturing/killing bin Laden would make a difference or not; I'm the one that has shown quotes from Bush saying how important it is to the war against terror that al Qaida underlings are captured or killed. When presented with this evidence you ignore it and shift the focus to a secondary issue.

If you were debating against me in a formal debate you would have lost now. It's a shame that someone with clearly as much passion and energy to blindly support a lying President cannot remove the blinders he wears to critically examine the evidence given to him that he has asked for.

That is why I have called you, and continue to call you, an apologist for Bush. I'm not even debating about who was behind 9/11 or if there's a conspiracy or not to it. All I did was show how President Bush has deceived the American public using his own words. It's not my problem if you cannot accept hard evidence. You can choose to claim that I'm the one ignoring the facts but like I said, if this were a formal debate governed by the rules you would be the one on the losing side, not I.

 

Your version is totally fine. Why was no plane -at all- involved in WTC 7?

A plane (or supposed plane in the pentagon's case) was used in every other situation. Why not wtc7?

 

Just because you want a given result, it doesn't mean that's the tactically wise solution. The wishes of the 9/11 victims are not at issue either. If the expenditure of the troops necessary to find the guy will not yield a decent result, why do it?

Furthermore, if OBL is in pakistan as assumed, do you believe bush should invade an ally to get the guy? Yes or no?

 

Because it was much shorter than the two towers and would have been VERY difficult to fly a plane into it. There were important offices in there that needed to be destroyed, and so they pretended thigns fell on it and than it fell down all by itself. Also, if they flew a plane into WT7 too, then why the rest of the WTC buildings... they knew the two towers were the best choices, and knew they simply needed to say debris fell and brought down building 7 and people would accept it. They sadly did not realize people would eventually start looking at this closely and uncover all their lies.

 

Irrelevant. The government knocked down the towers, right? They knew when they'd fall. All they had to do was time the last plane to hit the tower 7 after the towers fell.

 

Time another plane to hit building 7 after the original 2 buildings fell?? If another plane hit a building that long after the first two hit than red flags would have been going up much sooner then they did. If an hour after the fact another building was hit by another plane there would be no possible way to cover that up.

 

It'd be easy. In the confusion a plane was lost track of; a smaller plane was in the area. The government could have also gotten a smaller plane to slam into wtc7. It's a smaller building with a weaker structure - the government knew this. It wouldn't have taken a 707 to drop it. Something a lot smaller. For such an extended planning period, surely a better option that explosives could have been arranged. Dont you agree?

 

No, I do not agree. If NORAD lost track of another plane after what happened then there would be a SERIOUS investigation done and a lot of people would doubt the "official story". NORAD was able to make sure all other planes over North America were down, but it they lost track of 1 over NYC they would have some serious answers to come up with.

 

And explosions were the best possible answer. Come on, now. After the years of planning this would have taken. Even a missile, like they used at the pentagon, could have easily leveled the tower instead of explosions from within. A missile or a smaller plane. Both better options than a controlled demolition. And we've just spent 10 minutes working through this.

So, again, why the fundamental flaw?

 

Its not flawed..... you are living proof that people bought the "it fell naturally" story... by you not believing it was brought down by explosions, you are giving them the power to pull wool over your eyes. What more proof do I need?

 

Still why did they fly the Bin Ladens out thats a fact and nobody has told us why?

 

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flights.asp

 

It is flawed. Very much so.

Saying that your idea is right, because mine is wrong is the ultimate logical error people make. A missile or a plane. Both more logical than a demolition, given the other events.

Why the fundamental flaw?

 

I've answered a yes/no question from you earlier in this thread with a yes answer. Frankly, if you aren't going to answer my questions the same way I have no further interest in debating with you.

 

I asked a very simple question. No speech this time, chant? Come on, big boy. Surely you think that the US should go invading random countries to capture one person, dont you? This is the basis of your argument. Sad that you won't defend the belief

 

Now, I want to come back and explain why I asked you the question about the history channel special, as well as the Popular Mechanics hit piece and all the other attempts by the government to attack 911 Truth. If 911 truth is so stupid, nutty, and dumb, why do they attack it? Why not just ignore it, and let it go away by itself?

The answer is because of guilt, and the government knows that the 911 truthers are right. But here is what makes the government so stupid. If they were smart, they would shut up and not talk about 911 being an inside job. The wouldn't bother to try to debunk it. This way, it would be harder for the word to get out.

But by running specials on the History Channel about 911 being an inside job, they add fuel to the fire, and millions of people who would have otherwise not have known about 911 Conspiracies would have simply never heard of it.

Now, millions of Americans who watched that special on television will begin doing their own research. And when they compare what the government says to facts and science, they will find that the government is indeed lying.

The evidence shows that this has already happened. A large percentage of the U.S. population now questions 911, and a large portion of them believe 911 was an inside job. Many of these people include none other than the families who lost their loved ones on that day.

The Jersey Girls, for example, are extremely unhappy with the run around they've gotten from the government, and they were also not happy with the 911 Commission report.

Think about it lorien. Why has 911 truth been attacked by Sean Hannity, Michelle Malkin, Bill Oreilly, and Rush Limbaugh? Why has Popular Mechanics and the History channel gone out of their way to debunk it? The answer is because they know its the truth, but by trying to debunk it, they're actually digging their own graves!

lorien, I've already answered this, and you know it. The answer I gave was simple and direct: I don't know every detail of 911, and the only people who do know is the government, and they aren't telling us everything. I don't know why they didn't fly planes into building 7. Why did Jefferey Dahmer eat his victims instead of just killing them? Who knows? Who cares?

From what I've read and research, and what I actually know, I see that there are serious holes in the official story of 911. The government is WRONG about the temperature at which steel melts, and they are WRONG about jet fuel being hot enough to melt it.

I know, from history, that they've lied and carried out attacks before. I know, that the Bin Laden family is connected to the Bush family, and declassified documents show they were flown out of the country after 911.

I know that in the PNAC documents, Dick Cheney talked about needing a "new pearl harbor" to get the American people behind the war. I also know that we funded Bin Laden in the 80s, and he was our boy.

Based on all the things I know, the evidence shows that the government did it. I don't know why they destroyed building 7 without flying planes into it, and for me to sit here and wonder is nothing more than speculation. I can only go on the evidence I have.

 

You're just a fool lorien, I already said that I was going to sleep, you and GTech both missed that bit. Conveniently.

Later and once I have finished my internet jobs for today I will come and debate you two clowns. I'm still catching up on all the mountain of posts in this thread. telsa is doing a great job by the looks of it.

 

Lorien, here is one more bit of evidence that shows 911 was an inside job. This passage is taken from the Wikipedia article on Osama Bin Laden:

The Wiki article goes on to say that Bin Laden originally denied being behind the attacks. Wow, this sounds really strange:


Bin Laden initially denied involvement in the September 11, 2001 attacks while praising them effusely, explaining their motivation, and dismissing American accusations of his involvement as an example of its hatred for Islam. On September 16, 2001, bin Laden read a statement later broadcast by Qatar's Al Jazeera satellite channel saying:

I stress that I have not carried out this act, which appears to have been carried out by individuals with their own motivation.

 

So, six year after the fact, the government STILL hasn't sought formal charges against Bin Laden, the man they claim was responsible for 3,000 American deaths? Come on Lorien, this isn't hard to figure out.

They haven't sought charges because Bin Laden wasn't behind 911, and more than likely, Bin Laden is dead, because he was suffering from renal disease in 2001. The fake Bin Laden video that they recently showed this week is exactly that fake!

Come on, a five year old child could figure this out. Tomorrow is September 11, and Bin Laden "conveniently releases a new video to remind Americans of him, at a time when the war in Iraq is losing support, and the heat on the government about 911 is at an all time high." Does it get any more obvious?

It is so easy to see that the Bin Laden video is fake, and Bin Laden is just another Lee Harvey Oswald. He is the Oswald of the 21st century.