Which Arguments Should Be Used When Talking About 9/11?

[PhilosophyGenius]

Alright, since you want to get to the basics, I'll ask you the questions Gold himself can't answer: 1) If the neo-con's goal was a war, why would they choose the country's principal centers of Finance and Military? 2) If their goal was Iraq, why'd they pick a pasty in Afghanistan? 3) Why are "It's never happened before"s and "I don't think it can happen without controlled explosives, so it couldn't"s enough to convince you? Gold himself on this site has said that, despite lacking %100 of evidence, is %100 sure Bush did it.

1) The WTC was hit before so it makes sense that it would get hit again. And I'm not too sure you can call the WTC America's "principal centers of Finance" because they were destroyed and the economy recovered withing months. If anybody wants to destroy our economy they would hit Wall Street or something, the economic devestation would be far worse.

The Pentagon which was hit was under construction-so there was not a huge loss of life and no one important died when it was attacked.

2) bin Laden set up the bases in Afghanistan in the mid 90's because that was his only choice for a safe haven. Also Afghanistan is loaded with oil and drugs.

3) Exlosives in the WTC is only a fraction of the 9/11 Truth argument. Ruppert's book which proves the govnt was behind 9/11 is 500 pages, and only a small paragraph of that book talks about the possibility of explosives in the WTC.

[jetsetlemming]

1) The WTC was hit before so it makes sense that it would get hit again. And I'm not too sure you can call the WTC America's "principal centers of Finance" because they were destroyed and the economy recovered withing months. If anybody wants to destroy our economy they would hit Wall Street or something, the economic devestation would be far worse.

The Pentagon which was hit was under construction-so there was not a huge loss of life and no one important died when it was attacked.

2) bin Laden set up the bases in Afghanistan in the mid 90's because that was his only choice for a safe haven. Also Afghanistan is loaded with oil and drugs.

3) Exlosives in the WTC is only a fraction of the 9/11 Truth argument. Ruppert's book which proves the govnt was behind 9/11 is 500 pages, and only a small paragraph of that book talks about the possibility of explosives in the WTC.

1) Only from the terrorist's point of view. It was then, and still was, a great target. For US prepetrators, though, they'd never strike twice in the same spot. That behavior wouldn't seem like behavior from terrorists to the people. They'd expect terrorists to move around, with a goal of as many tagrets as possible, with big things secondary to speading "terror".
2) Afghanistan is shit for oil compared to just about every other middle eastern country
3) You gotta start somewhere. If you can't convince people the towers weren't brought down just by the planes, a lot of time and credit to your name is blown out the window. A whole lot of the 9/11 stuff on this site is that the towers weren't brought down just by the planes.

[jetsetlemming]

They wouldn't have to explain the document's dissapearence. By admitting they existed they'd admit there was a connection. They'd deny the documents were ever there.

[PhilosophyGenius]

They wouldn't have to explain the document's dissapearence. By admitting they existed they'd admit there was a connection. They'd deny the documents were ever there.

How dare you question Chuck Norris!!!!

Round house kick to the face for you...

[somebigguy]

They wouldn't have to explain the document's dissapearence. By admitting they existed they'd admit there was a connection. They'd deny the documents were ever there.

It was widely reported that sensitive documents were in that building, I don't believe it was any secret.

[PhilosophyGenius]

It was widely reported that sensitive documents were in that building, I don't believe it was any secret.

And if it really was a secret, we wouldn't be talking about it right now. Chuck Norris sends his regards to you sbg.

[somebigguy]

And if it really was a secret, we wouldn't be talking about it right now. Chuck Norris sends his regards to you sbg.

Hey, did Chuck Norris ever get to bang Christie Brinkley during those exercise videos they did together?

[ThotPolice]

In that documentary "Loose change" they say Jeb Bush was in charge of the WTC prior to it's attack and that 2 weeks before 911 the military was running security tests in the building where they where closing whole sections down at a time. They say to plant the explosives.

How true is all that?

[PhilosophyGenius]

Hey, did Chuck Norris ever get to bang Christie Brinkley during those exercise videos they did together?

To answer your question:
"When Chuck Norris has sex with a man, it is not because he is gay, but because he has run out of women."

Meaning yes.

[jetsetlemming]

It was widely reported that sensitive documents were in that building, I don't believe it was any secret.

...wait. Then what would be the point in destroying them? If there were anything about them "secret", that part'd be denied, with the non-threatening part's destruction or dissapearance explained through some official story. Lots of badly covered up stuff gets away in America. The people that believe it, no matter how much evidence they have, are labeled paranoid conspiracy freaks, and largely ignored except by the sci fi channel.