Do you believe 9/11 conspiracy theories that claim the U.S. government was involved?

Post-9/11 Era Forum

9/11 Conspiracy

Do you believe there was a 9/11 conspiracy or was it just a blatant attack.

Well I belive that the twin towers and the Pentagon was obviously nothing more than an attack don't imagine that the US could be involved in such a thing.

Well, I not only "don't imagine" that the U.S. was involved. I know it wasn't.


http://a.movies.com/i/news/sheenc_g_marq.jpg
Charlie Sheen. One of Hollywood's biggest morons.

So what were all the allegations again? The towers fell to quickly or the wrong way. The fire in the towers was not where the planes hit. A plane did not hit the Pentagon it was something else. Sadamm was involved. Saudi Arabia was involved. Saudi's were flown out of the cvountry for protection after the skies were cleared. Flight 93 was shot down by the USAF. Is that them all or are there more of these theories?

Well, do ya?



Poll posted by Whidden, for P.O.T.U.S.

Osama did it. Not CIA dudes, with C-4 on some structural mounts. No drones. Just hijacked passenger jets.

Hijacked by Osama's goons.


To believe the conspiracy theories, you have to think everyone is in on it. The government, the Discovery Channel, the Press, etc.

Hell, you think all that, you might as well include Inreview Staff in the conspiracy. It just gets silly after awhile.

Duplicate threads merged.

-HECK!

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/01/359238.html?c=on

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007...l?c=on#comments

Real easy answer… Any theory or set of theories that suggest that large airliners actually hit the WTC on 9-11-2001,or that suggest that al Qaeda actually exist ,or that there is a plane in that empty hole near Shanksville ,PA ,or that a 757 can magically pass through cable spools without as much as knocking them over ,or that a 767 can penetrate a building leaving only an 8x4 meter hole are bogus theories and are counter-productive to the 9/11 truth movement. Unfortunately the vast majority in the movement accept most of the plane hugger truthling rubbish.

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/01/359238.html

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007...l?c=on#comments

Seriously... like "Mission Accomplished"

-HECK!

Soldiers understand the "Mission Accomplished" sign on a ship. Each unit in the military has a mission to perform. Your mission could be flying grunts to the battlezone or it could be paying troops at base/post X or digging a latrine. The soldiers I work with every day have a mission every day and they accomplish that mission. A war is not a mission, a battle is not a mission. Individuals or units would have a mission in that battle or war.

This ship's crew had a mission, it's mission was accomplished otherwise it would not have returned. Military folks understand the mission. Accomplishing your mission successfully during time of war is a very big deal.

Hope this helps you understand what the "MISSION" is in the military.

But didn't Bush go on that boat and say that major military operations were overe or winding down? that was not true was it.

No GW intended to be in front of the banner mainly to show respect for the ship and it's crew and have a nice backdrop for the speech he was making. Yes the ship's mission was accomplished and he went to pay respect to those who accomplished their mission. Of course the media not understanding the military read into the banner. The banner was more for the boats home port not for the general public. If the Pres' never showed up the banner would have still been there.

Bush dressed up as a pilot, made an historic jet landing aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, then made a speech declaring "major combat operations in Iraq have ended" standing in front of a 50ft sign which stated "mission accomplished" and you think this was to show respect to the ship's crew?

You're either being disingenuous or naive about how politicians and spin doctors work and try to stage manage events to their advantage.