Patriots questioning 9/11 official story

[integral]

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/

[Carl G]

No matter what the subject matter may be, I consider a link without comment, especially by a member with just 5 previous posts, spam.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

I kind of have to agree with Carl. Integral, although I have liked your other posts, I have not bothered to click your link. Had there been a comment, I might have clicked it. What's more, there are already a few threads with 9/11 as the topic, so assuming this really is what the title says it is rather than a spoof or a gag, this could easily have gone as a reply on another thread. As Carl mentioned, a comment in addition to the link would have been nice. I may click later, when I feel like going over the 9/11 thing again - but I've researched a lot of stuff so it could well be something I've already seen - and since you didn't add this to another thread, it increases the likelihood that it might be a rerun.

[Katy]

No matter what the subject matter may be, I consider a link without comment, especially by a member with just 5 previous posts, spam.

didn't we do this topic a while back anyway?

[Carl G]

You mean 9/11? There's a 9/11 thread in active discussion, currently 10 threads down from the top.

Or, do you refer to the subject of spam and spammers. Good topic. They should fry.

[integral]

My bad. I agree that I should have posted a comment or put this in the other thread.
So, here's my comment now:

I found this site quite interesting as it helps refute the cliché that everyone who questions the 9/11 story is a conspiracy nut.
Take a look at the list of patriots on the site--quite impressive in my opinion.

[Dan Rowden]

I've seen this site before and it's actually quite interesting. It's quite an impressive line-up of people. Some simply have a political agenda which is fairly obvious, but the list of military and security personnel makes it worth looking at. As for spam, this isn't Common Ascent, we don't have a "you must supply a coment with your links" policy, even if doing so might make sense on occasion. In this instance it's obvious what the post was about. However I do agree that people should look around a bit for any extant threads on a given subject before starting new ones.

[keenobserver]

so what are they saying? that planes didnt do it? or in the case of the pentagon it was a missle? and that smaller building 7 was it, that it was demolished?
One thing you need to realize if you want to conspire to do something is, everyone involved must be completely trustworthy with lips zipped, i mean not even the wives can know.
Because of this, real juicy tricks with severe consequences if anyone finds out, are rarely attempted, but if so only a very few very necessary very close and dear are called upon. Any more than that and forget it, statistics will get you in the end.
So with this 9/11 matter, if there were any decent especially government-based conspiracies, you can bet but a handful of connivers were involved, all of which were well acquainted one with another.
One other pertinent fact, here in the USA classes dont mix it up very much, consequently you wont find, for instance, some senator with a longtime great friend in the building demolition business, not a guy he could trust his entire career and reputation with, for starters, no, it just aint gonna happen.
Therefore no matter how loudly many people doubt and question, I just have to shake my head in disbelief at all these unbelievable conspiracy theories.

[Dan Rowden]

so what are they saying?

Individually they're saying lots of different things - you'd have to read the site and their comments to know. Collectively they're saying the official version of events doesn't ring true (to say the least).

that planes didnt do it?

I don't think anyone on that site is specifically suggesting that. Did you read it before posting this commentary? There is, in fact, considerable reason to suggest that planes piloted by incompetent towel-heads could not have done what is suggested (not that planes weren't involved). I happen to agree. What that leaves us with is open to question and speculation.

or in the case of the pentagon it was a missle?

Yes, lots of people, some of them quite credible believe that either a missile or a plane much smaller than the one claimed to have struck the Pentagon was actually responsible. The FBI could clear this matter up in a minute if they wanted to by releasing surveillance film from various buildings en route to the building. Can't help wonder why they won't.

and that smaller building 7 was it, that it was demolished?

It's pretty obvious it was demolished. And whilst it was smaller it was still a 43 story highrise and not even on the same block as the other 6 WTC buildings. There's plenty of cause for doubt over the official story with respect to building 7 (which doubts even itself, frankly).

One thing you need to realize if you want to conspire to do something is, everyone involved must be completely trustworthy with lips zipped, i mean not even the wives can know.

That simply isn't true, or at least the degree to which it might be true depends on the specific nature of the conspiracy in question. Your point about wives is silly. Most wives do not know the specifics if what their military, security force or bureaucrat husbands do at work. It also isn't the case that people need to know the larger agenda behind their personal activities. In a large factory, Bob needn't ever have any idea what Tom at the other end of the building actually does for a living, much as Nancy on the 4th floor of the Mercantile building needn't know what Betty does on the 8th. Most people are on a need to know basis and most don't need to know.

Because of this, real juicy tricks with severe consequences if anyone finds out, are rarely attempted,

That they are rarely attempted doesn't mean they never happen. The CIA and Mossad essentially function this way. Militarily they happen all the time. Reichstag Fire, Vietnam War, USS Liberty, JFKs assassination, Iran-Contra and God knows how many military messes, Election rigging. It happens more than you might think.

but if so only a very few very necessary very close and dear are called upon. Any more than that and forget it, statistics will get you in the end.

Well, yes, there doesn't need to be too many people directly in the know. It depends on the nature of the conspiracy.

So with this 9/11 matter, if there were any decent especially government-based conspiracies, you can bet but a handful of connivers were involved, all of which were well acquainted one with another.

That seems obvious. But there needn't be many of them.

One other pertinent fact, here in the USA classes dont mix it up very much, consequently you wont find, for instance, some senator with a longtime great friend in the building demolition business, not a guy he could trust his entire career and reputation with, for starters, no, it just aint gonna happen.

Are you serious? The backroom dealings between U.S. politicians and business are legendary. They account for a significant portion of how politics is done. In the U.S. many small businesses are owned by larger corporations. Politicians tend to deal with the upper echelon.

Therefore no matter how loudly many people doubt and question, I just have to shake my head in disbelief at all these unbelievable conspiracy theories.

Well, you haven't even mentioned a single specific one (in any detail) so I don't think you're shaking your head at anything tangible.