Teen Forums - Teen Chat, Teen Help, Teen Advice & Support

1) At first, I'd like to mention the behavior of President Bush that morning...
Once the second plane hit, it was obvious that there was a coordinated attack. If the President was not in on the plot, then there was every reason to believe that he was a likely next target. That being the case, he should have been immediately whisked off to an undisclosed location. He should not have remained in any previously-announced location - especially where his presence also endangered the lives of children, such as a school. By dawdling for almost a half hour in a classroom - which, even worse, was near an airport - Bush was, at the very least, guilty of reckless endangerment. The only way he could not be putting himself and all those children in danger would be if he knew enough about the plot to know that he personally was not a target.
The president has admitted that he continued to read a story to schoolchildren in a Florida school for 30 minutes after being informed that two planes had struck New York and that the nation was under attack. He has never explained this puzzling behavior!


2) Secondly, I'd like to mention the lack of US air defense...
There’s the question of how and why the Pentagon was allowed to be hit, over a half hour after the second of the Twin Towers was hit, and why none of the four hijacked planes were even intercepted. First there was the “failure of imagination” excuse. A blatant lie. If the “war games” prove nothing else, they prove, at the very least, that the possibility of hijacked planes crashing into buildings was something that NORAD had not only thought of, but specifically trained for.
Yet another excuse is that there were no scramble-ready fighter planes at Andrews Air Force Base, the base nearest to Washington, D.C. If true, this raises more questions than it answers. Why on Earth were there no scramble-ready fighter planes at Andrews Air Force Base, of all places? And who on Earth made that decision? One would think that Washington, D.C. would be the single most important place to defend, hence the single most important place to have scramble-ready fighter planes at all times.


3) Now, there's the way The Twin Towers was collapsed...
I strongly suspect the way the twin towers collapsed. The twin towers could not have collapsed as a result of burning jet fuel. Most of that fuel was consumed on impact. In the south tower, most of the fuel was spilled outside the building. Heat caused by burning jet fuel does not reach temperatures needed to melt steel. What does stand out as particularly suspicious and still unexplained is that fires raged out of control beneath THREE of the collapsed towers for ONE HUNDRED DAYS, clearly indicating the presence of some kind of substance utilized in the demolition of the structures. The Twin Towers did not fall because of plane impacts or fires. Most likely explosives were placed on structural supports in the towers (as was done in Oklahoma City), and these controlled implosions snuffed out the lives of three thousand people.


4) The way the Pentagon was damaged...
The hole in the Pentagon was not made by a jumbo jet. Damage to the building was simply not consistent with the size of the hole nor the absence of debris. At the supposed point of impact, a whole bank of windows remained unbroken and there were no marks on the lawn. No airplane debris (except what was planted on the lawn) nor remains of passengers were ever found.


5) Before 9/11, there were already plans and preparations to go to war with Afghanistan...
9/11 provided the perfect excuse for a war which otherwise would have been very difficult to sell to the American public, given what horrible luck the Soviets had had in Afghanistan back in the 1980′s. 9/11 provided an excuse, not only for a war in Afghanistan, but also for a century of imperialistic “war on terror.”

6) Osama bin Laden’s history and the question of what connection, if any, he might still have had with the CIA...
Osama bin Laden was once a U.S. ally back in the 1980′s. Of course, erstwhile allies can sometimes turn into genuine enemies. (Saddam Hussein was once a U.S. ally too.) But some people suspect that Osama bin Laden may have turned into a fake enemy, with the role of creating excuses for U.S. imperialism. Are there any solid grounds for such suspicion?

7) The most important issue is that 9/11 has not yet been investigated by any official authority, that was independent of the Bush administration...
Such independence would be needed for an honest investigation of even the possibility of negligence or incompetence, let alone anything worse, on the part of high officials in the Bush administration. The 9/11 Commission was supposed to be beholden only to Congress and not the executive branch, but was in fact run by people like Philip Zelikow, with close ties to the Bush administration.


There are still loads of reasons to strongly be suspicious about 9/11, but I don't want this to be really long, so I have written what I have seen as most important...

It's really the time for humanity to take a dump.

Double post

Unfortunatelly i have no Opinion on This , but i would love to see other opinions.

I've read this somewhere before...


Anyways, I don't see the need for this. These have all been discussed and debated already. It happened 10 years ago, no need to dwell on the past any longer

TL;DR


Watch the loose Change video on Youtube.

The Vintage Coast Website

Subscribe to it!!

Why would they need to fly planes into the buildings? Why not use just explosions and say that it was terrorism?
What official authority is NOT connected to "the Bush administration", aka the federal government?
Have they done a lot of tests to see if the damage from flying a JJ into a fortified building such as the pentagon at the same speeds, heigts, angle results in the same or a totally different kind of damage to the building?

If you're going to watch loose change, don't believe everything it says until you read or watch a few rebuttals to it. Getting both sides of the story is important to formulating one's own opinion...

I agree. If you watch loose change, it's VERY convincing. But so are the rebuttal documentaries. Just goes to show you that anything that is well produced can be very convincing, which goes to show you that we should be very watchful that we are not too naiive when people try to tell us stuff ... which ever side you belong to!

I don't form my opinion basing on a film I've watched! I've searched and been through many discussions about this matter, and frankly, never have read any convincing rebuttal!

If those things I mentioned were also pointed out in that movie, well maybe because they are the conclusion of deep search, enough information, and logical thinking!

Have never really seen the films, nor I'd bother...

It's really the time for humanity to take a dump.

[quote=Syrian;780147]1) At first, I'd like to mention the behavior of President Bush that morning...
Once the second plane hit, it was obvious that there was a coordinated attack. If the President was not in on the plot, then there was every reason to believe that he was a likely next target. That being the case, he should have been immediately whisked off to an undisclosed location. He should not have remained in any previously-announced location - especially where his presence also endangered the lives of children, such as a school. By dawdling for almost a half hour in a classroom - which, even worse, was near an airport - Bush was, at the very least, guilty of reckless endangerment. The only way he could not be putting himself and all those children in danger would be if he knew enough about the plot to know that he personally was not a target.
The president has admitted that he continued to read a story to schoolchildren in a Florida school for 30 minutes after being informed that two planes had struck New York and that the nation was under attack. He has never explained this puzzling behavior!

OK THIS POINT DOESN'T CONVINCE ME EITHER WAY BC WHO KNEW BUSH WAS AT THE SCHOOL?? IF HE KNEW NOTHING, STAYING WHERE HE WAS WOULD BE A GOOD THING TO DO SO TO SHOW THAT HE WASN'T FREAKING OUT.

2) Secondly, I'd like to mention the lack of US air defense...
There