ConanTheBarber
Legendary Member
It's entirely possible that America did reap what it sowed in reference to 9/11. There is no concrete evidence that it was a false flag attack. The CIA is damn good at keeping its secrets. However, given that our government has considered such attacks in the past, and then wanted sooo badly to remove Saddam, it makes you wonder what really happened. The 9/11 report has proven inaccurate in many areas, and there really are things about the attack that make me wonder.
I think there's plenty of evidence that a group of young Saudis, funded by Bin Laden and led by Mohamed Atta, came to the States, enrolled in pilot's schools, learned to fly, hung out in nightclubs to appear anything but terrorists, bought tickets on several flights, and on Sept. 11, 2001 boarded those planes and took them to their ends in New York, in Arlington, Va., and in Shanksville, Pa.
Bin Laden initially denied his involvement but later spoke openly about it.
It is clear that the peeps from The Project for the New American Century had long wanted to see Saddam Hussein removed from power, but it's also clear that they merely used the fait accompli that 9/11 had occurred to bring that goal to pass.
No evidence at all that they (and members of various government agencies) engineered 9/11 to achieve that goal.
There are many many ass-backwards conspiracy theories regarding 9/11, but if you study it, there are also a lot of very interesting things that happened that day that lead me to believe there was a lot more to it than what we were told. We'll probably never know, kind of like with Kennedy (Jackie even said she thought LBJ was behind his assassination) ....
Conspiracy theorists comb facts backwards and forwards, looking for any remotely conceivable oddities. They're always going to find something, but it's seldom anything clear cut -- and very often things easily explained by people with real expertise.
BTW, why would Jackie's opinion about her husband's assassination have any weight. She didn't like Johnson. That didn't give her insight into the events of Nov. 11.
... I think ... it's a little naive to always trust and believe the people that are guarding the information so they can turn it into their own story.
True, of course.
But that means merely that you should be willing to examine what you are told.
It doesn't suggest at all that, in a particular case, there's a valid counter-narrative.
Sometimes there is and sometimes there isn't.
And even if you can see that someone might have an investment in a particular narrative, that doesn't at all mean that they don't offer it with complete sincerity, nor that they aren't in fact right.
Last edited: