9/11 caused by government

Didn't we (this forum=we) already go through all of this? :

And no I don't trust the admin either.

Yes, we've been through all of this. Back years ago, probably in December of 2001 when I joined MDC, I posted how a student of DH's (DH is a public high school teacher in Brooklyn) told his class about his father, a firefighter, who told him about how chunks of the enormous caches of munitions stored somewhere in the WTC complex kept exploding, making an already dangerous situation for the recovery workers there even more dangerous.

There was plenty of law enforcement offices and officialdom housed in the WTC, including federal agencies. There were large munitions stores there. None of that is a mystery. None of that was hidden. I knew about them in the '80s when I worked at the WTC.

There are at least some ... if not all ... of your internal explosives. No mystery.

Enjoy your conspiracy theories. And honestly, the government was negligent enough in the run up to 9/11 and deserves enough blame for its negligence without our furies insisting on it having to be blamed for the whole thing. And watch where your conspiracy theories lead you. As the recent Village Voice article about them pointed out, most of them lead back to neoNazi and various other racist groups ... but hey, freedom of speech and freedom of association, great things.

:
if the government did this, does nobody find it odd that they purposefully blew up FEMA headquarters, the epi-center of the US economy and a HUGE cache of munitions that were sort of needed for the war people are claiming the admin caused this catastrophy to start????

If the admin planned and carried this out, sorry, but they'd have taken out the NYC subway system--not a crap load of the stuff, money and staff needed to start their war.

Let me start out by saying that I think there is MUCH more to the story than the official line we've been fed about what happened on and leading up to 9-11. I believe that at the very least, officials in our gov't were in a position to stop what happened and instead allowed it to take place because they (Project for a New American Century types) knew that a catastrophic event was the only thing that would propel the American public to get behind an invasion of Iraq- which has loong been a goal of many in the current administration.

That being said, I feel I must share this article I read that seeks to debunk alot of the theories in that movie. I watched it and it was compelling but it's important to remain as objective as possible and look at all possible explainations.. So in honor of that here is the link-
http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...tml?page=1&c=y

There are some things in that movie that are not addressed in the article though.
One that gets me is the passport of one of the hijackers that was found on the street of NY. How is it that the black boxes made out of titanium were destroyed but a passport made out of nothing more than paper manages to escape the raging inferno? I've yet to hear a reasonable explaination and Occam's razor ,which dictates that the simplest of two explainations is most likely the truthful one, would seem to indicate that the passport was planted by those who would have us believe the official story.

Another thing that was mentioned was the experiments that were done to see how easy it was to make a cell phone call from 30,000 ft. Apparently the odds of getting a call through at that altitude are less than 1%, according to the study cited in the movie. If that is true than it seems highly suspicious that there were so many reported calls recieved from flight 93.. it would seem to defy the odds to a miraculous degree... I'd like to know more about that.. the movie mentions that some of those calls were kinda wierd like a guy talking calling his mother and identifying himself to her with his full name.. when was the last time you called your mom and and said "Hi, mom. It's me, Jane Smith." That seems very odd to me.

The other thread was removed. Why? Because it got personal, ugly and was in MAJOR violation of the UA. The same as the thread about this topic that was up the time before that. This is the THIRD try at a thread about this.

If it is going to stay, then it needs to not be personal. People need to comment on the topic, not invalidate others' experiences, not be rude and demeaning, not comment on other posters' intelligence...and so on.

If that can't happen, then this thread will go away too. Probably faster than the last two did.

Quote:
Well put Harpyr.

The thing is, those of us who are highly skeptical about the official explanation of what happened on 9/11 don't have to explain exactly what happened right down to the very last irrefutable detail in an alternative scenario.

When you have a theory that is murky, contradictory, highly implausible in many parts, that defies physics, and which includes the stonewalling of further investigation of the evidence, and destroying of evidence, such as with the theory that terrorists hijacked airliners, and escaping air defences, crashed them into enormous twin towers and the Pentagon, totally destroying the twin towers, then all we have to do is point out the mass of inconsistencies, and some real howlers (like WTC 7 coming down).

It is like a lawyer in a courtroom for the defence. To bring a case against some guy accused of murder the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that he is guilty. The defence team is surely allowed to point out the logical errors, lack of firm evidence etc. of the prosecution. They don't have to go out and find the real murderer to have their innocent client acquited.

The burden of proof is on the prosecution's side.

At the moment it seems to me and many others with independent minds that the case for 9/11 being caused by 19 suicidal hijackers from the Middle East doesn't stack up; they had the motivation it is true, but then the same could be said for the US Govt. There are too many assumptions, and shakey circumstantial evidence, and what looks like highly contrived "facts" within officialdom's theory. On the surface it seems plausible, but just a rudimentary sifting thru the facts would make any honest investigator uneasy.