Don't not confuse “conspiracy theories” with “reasonable suspicion.”
Theories are simply possibilities based on intellectual conclusions.
Suspicion is based on specific events and evidence. For example you can
not conduct a courtroom trial based on theory, you can however, conduct
one based on evidence.

__________________________________________


another person, this time a woman, one of 400+ insiders that do not
believe this governments story.


Catherine Austin Fitts – Assistant Secretary of Housing under George
H.W. Bush. Former Managing Director and Member of the Board of Wall
Street investment bank, Dillon, Read & Co

Audio Interview 9/9/04: Regarding 9/11 "The official story could not
possibly have happened... It’s not possible. It’s not operationally
feasible... The Commission was a whitewash." (About 45 minutes into the
file.) http://157


Essay 3/22/04: "The first category of people who benefited were those
who are guilty and complicit in designing, implementing and financing
the 9-11 operation. On such a sophisticated and successful covert
operation, the people responsible would have had budgets and financing
and would have organized the operation to maximize their political and
financial benefits." http://globalresearch.ca


Signatory: Petition requesting a reinvestigation of 9/11:
"We want truthful answers to question. … As Americans of conscience, we
ask for four things:
An immediate investigation by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer
Immediate investigation in Congressional Hearings.
Media attention to scrutinize and investigate the evidence.
The formation of a truly independent citizens-based inquiry."
http://www.911truth.org/article



Bio: http://www.solari.com/about/ca_fitts.html

Its all there, just go back and re-read the thread.

cheers.


____________________________________________

another of 400+ that doesnt buy this governments story about 911


Paul Craig Roberts, PhD – Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury under
Ronald Reagan, "Father of Reaganomics", Former Associate Editor of the
Wall Street Journal. Currently Chairman of the Institute for Political
Economy and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute. Former William
E. Simon chair in political economy, Center for Strategic and
International Studies, Georgetown University. Former Senior Research
Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University. Author or co-author of
several books on economics and politics, including; The Supply-Side
Revolution (1985), Alienation and the Soviet Economy: The Collapse of
the Socialist Era (1990), The Soviet Union After Perestroika (1991), The
Capitalist Revolution in Latin America (2003).

Endorsement of 9/11 and American Empire (Vol I) – Intellectuals Speak
Out: "This is the most important book of our time. Distinguished
national and international scientists and scholars present massive
evidence that the 9/11 Commission Report is a hoax and that the 9/11
"terrorist attack" has been manipulated to serve a hegemonic agenda in
the Middle East. The book's call for a truly independent panel of
experts to be empowered to bring out the true facts must be heeded or
Americans will never again live under accountable government."
http://www.interlinkbooks.com


Essay 8/16/06: "We know that it is strictly impossible for any building,
much less steel columned buildings, to "pancake" at free fall speed.
Therefore, it is a non-controversial fact that the official explanation
of the collapse of the WTC buildings is false."
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info


Essay 2/6/06: "There are not many editors eager for writers to explore
the glaring defects of the 9/11 Commission Report. One would think that
if the report could stand analysis, there would not be a taboo against
calling attention to the inadequacy of its explanations."
http://www.counterpunc


Bio: http://www.vdare.com/roberts/bio.htm

here is an interesting site http://www.secretwarsinter.com/content.html


_______________________________________


and yet another of the 400+ officials that dont buy this governments
story about 911




Morgan Reynolds, PhD – Chief Economist, U.S. Department of Labor under
George W. Bush 2001 - 2002. Former Director of the Criminal Justice
Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis. Professor Emeritus,
Economics, Texas A&M University.

Video 6/2/06: "I first began to suspect that 9/11 was in inside job when
the Bush-Cheney Administration invaded Iraq. … We can prove that the
government’s story is false." http://video.goo


Essay 6/9/05: "It is hard to exaggerate the importance of a scientific
debate over the cause(s) of the collapse of the twin towers [each 1300+
feet tall, 110 stories] and building 7 [610 feet tall, 47 stories, and
not hit by an airplane]. If the official wisdom on the collapses is
wrong, as I believe it is, then policy based on such erroneous
engineering analysis is not likely [to] prove to be sound."
http://www.l...


Bio: http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=bio

yep, just a bunch of theriores and since this government has a track
record with butchering the Indians I will continue that I dont trust
this governments 911 story and will continue to post to this thread and
I like having your input, thanks.


______________________________________

another man who has problems with this governments story about 911. He
was the head of the FBI


LOL


Louis Freeh – Director of the FBI, 1993 - 2001. Former U.S. District
Court Judge for the Southern District of New York, appointed by
President George H.W. Bush. Former Deputy United States Attorney in New
York. Former FBI agent. Former officer in the United States Army JAG
Corps Reserve.

Essay An Incomplete Investigation - Why did the 9/11 Commission ignore
"Able Danger"? Wall Street Journal 11/17/05: "Even the most junior
investigator would immediately know that the name and photo ID of Atta
in 2000 is precisely the kind of tactical intelligence the FBI has many
times employed to prevent attacks and arrest terrorists. Yet the 9/11
Commission inexplicably concluded that it "was not historically
significant." This astounding conclusion--in combination with the
failure to investigate Able Danger and incorporate it into its
findings--raises serious challenges to the commission's credibility and,
if the facts prove out, might just render the commission historically
insignificant itself. … No wonder the 9/11 families were outraged by
these revelations and called for a "new" commission to investigate."
http://www.opin


Interview Lou Dobbs Tonight 11/30/05: Regarding the Able Danger
anti-terrorism data mining program.

Lou Dobbs: Why is there this reaction to what is called by more than
half of our congressmen and women, to open up and to allow our elected
representatives to know what happened?

Louis Freeh: Well, it's a great question. I mean, the issue here, which
was the issue when the 9/11 commission first responded to this, is they
obviously missed something. They obviously didn't consider what at least
is a very important allegation.

Their response to it, it was historically insignificant. Historically
insignificant that an intelligence unit may have identified by name and
photo, Mohamed Atta a year before the 9/11 hijackings as a member of al
Qaeda in the United States.

Lou Dobbs: Tim Roemer, Slade Gorton, other members of the 9/11
commission have said they just had no hard evidence to deal with here.
How do you respond?

Louis Freeh: I disagree with that. I was a prosecutor and an FBI agent
for many, many years. I deal in facts. You have two witnesses. You have
United States Naval Academy graduate, Captain Philpot, you have
Lieutenant Colonel Shaffer, an army intelligence officer. These aren't
data loaders, these are intelligence experts who both have said,
unequivocally, this unit identified Mohammed Atta by name and possibly
photo in mid 2000.

To say that they don't have any documents to prove their case, these
aren't informants that we have to verify their credibility. We have
testimonial evidence, which, as a prosecutor, that's more potent
sometimes than documentary evidence.

Lou Dobbs: You were director of the FBI until June of 2001. Were you
ever aware of Able Danger? Was the FBI ever given any reason to sense
that there was some military intelligence or military intelligence
evidence or suggestion that there would be an attack or some
relationship to Mohamed Atta?

Louis Freeh: Absolutely not. Myself, but also my former colleagues and
current FBI colleagues, we read about this in the newspapers in August
of this year. And what is very significant here Lou -- which is a point
that has been made, and which I think you made -- we had officers at
Able Danger who made appointments, actually made appointments to go to
the FBI and share this intelligence in 2000 and those appointments were
canceled.

It had to be a very powerful stimulus, this intelligence and
information, to make these officers want to really breach the chain of
command and go directly to the FBI. We'd like to know why those
appointments were canceled." http://transcripts.cnn.com


Editor's note: The 9/11 Commission Report asserts that only three of the
alleged hijackers were known to U.S. intelligence agencies prior to
9/11; Nawaf al-Hazmi, Salem al-Hazmi, and Khalid al-Mihdar. There is no
mention in the Report that the names and photographs of alleged hijacker
Marwan al-Shehhi and alleged ring-leader Mohamed Atta had been
identified by the Department of Defense antiterrorist program known as
Able Danger more than a year prior to 9/11 and that they were known to
be affiliates of al-Qaida. Able Danger also identified Nawaf al-Hazmi
and Khalid al-Mihdar. http://www.foxnews.com. See also Rep. Curt
Weldon, Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, Capt. Scott J. Phillpott, Major Erik
Kleinsmith, and James D. Smith.


Bio: http://www.fbi.gov/libref/directors/freeh.htm

ok....so tell us about building 7


nothing hit it.

here is an excellent video with no soundtrack etc.


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-609179074068244932&q=911+truth&hl=en

___________________________________________



another person out of 400+ who doesnt buy this goverernments story on
911

Congressman Curt Weldon – Former 10-term Congressman from Pennsylvania
1987 - 2006. Former Vice Chairman of the House Homeland Security
Committee. Former Vice Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.

Fox News Article 8/28/05: Regarding the 9/11 Commission "There's
something very sinister going on here that really troubles me," Weldon
told FOX News on Thursday, blasting the Sept. 11 commission for not
taking the claims more seriously. He said some panel members were trying
to smear [Lt. Col. Anthony] Shaffer and Able Danger. "What's the Sept.
11 commission got to hide?" Weldon asked." http://www.foxnews.com


Press conference transcript 9/17/05: Regarding the 9/11 Commission
Report "There's something wrong here, something tragically wrong. The
American people, the families, the country and the Congress need to know
the truth, the whole truth, the complete truth. And so far we haven't
gotten it. … Somebody's got to connect the dots and answer the
questions. If the 9/11 Commission won't do it, then Congress has to do
it." http://www.gl


Speech on the floor of Congress 10/19/05: "I am not a conspiracy
theorist, but there is something desperately wrong, Mr. Speaker. There
is something outrageous at work here. This is not a third-rate burglary
of a political campaign headquarters. This involved what is right now
the covering up of information that led to the deaths of 3,000 people,
changed the course of history, led to the invasion of Iraq and
Afghanistan, and has disrupted our country, our economy and people's
lives." http://frwebgate


Editor's note: The 9/11 Commission Report asserts that only three of the
alleged hijackers were known to U.S. intelligence agencies prior to
9/11; Nawaf al-Hazmi, Salem al-Hazmi, and Khalid al-Mihdar. There is no
mention in the Report that the names and photographs of alleged hijacker
Marwan al-Shehhi and alleged ring-leader Mohamed Atta had been
identified by the Department of Defense antiterrorist program known as
Able Danger more than a year prior to 9/11 and that they were known to
be affiliates of al-Qaida. Able Danger also identified Nawaf al-Hazmi
and Khalid al-Mihdar. http://www.foxnews.com. See also Louis Freeh,
Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, Cap. Scott J. Phillpott, Major Erik
Kleinsmith, and James D. Smith.


Bio: http://www.montcogop.org

well AB you might apprciate this website.

http://911scholars.org/

He said this White House is covering it up (911).



Here is some other questions
http://www.prisonplanet.com/911.html


just take them 1 by 1, I got plenty of time to hear your rebuttles, even
months and months, because I have been waiting for years for someone to
give me the answers to these questions and you two guys sound just
perfect to answer them...

just what thing did you watch?

It was called 911 mysteries about the twin towers.


599


another non believer out of over 400+

Congressman Ron Paul, MD – 9-term Congressman from Texas, 1979 - 1985,
1997 - present. Member of the House Financial Services Committee, the
International Relations committee, and the Joint Economic Committee. On
the Financial Services Committee, he serves as the Vice Chairman of the
Oversight and Investigations subcommittee. 1988 Libertarian Party
candidate for President. Former Flight Surgeon, U.S. Air Force.

Audio interview The Alex Jones Show 1/18/07: "Dr. Ron Paul, Texas
Congressman exploring a run for President, appeared on The Alex Jones
Show Wednesday and had the following to say about 9/11:

Caller: I want a complete, impartial, and totally independent
investigation of the events of September 11, 2001 . I'm tired of this
bogus garbage about terrorism. Ask Michael Meacher about how he feels
about this bogus war on terrorism. Can you comment on that please?

Congressman Paul: Well, that would be nice to have. Unfortunately, we
don't have that in place. It will be a little bit better now with the
Democrats now in charge of oversight. But you know, for top level policy
there's not a whole lot of difference between the two policies so a real
investigation isn't going to happen. But I think we have to keep pushing
for it. And like you and others, we see the investigations that have
been done so far as more or less cover-up and no real explanation of
what went on." http://www.total911.info

Bio: http://www.house.gov/paul/bio.shtml

fair enough,

what about these

32 sec video of Bush http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5I7NFracPU

42 sec video of the "boogie man"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41UAnkQARFs

90 sec FOX NEWS video; no plane hit the Pentagon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSZG3a8F-YM&mode=related&search=

60 sec CNN NEWS video; no plane hit the Pentagon
http://thewebfairy.com/911/pentagon/


its only a couple of minutes, whats your take on these, if you dont
mind.

This guy doesnt believe this governments story and he was on the 911
commission....go figure, maybe hes full of propaganda too.



Senator Max Cleland – Former member of the 9/11 Commission, resigned in
December 2003. Currently serves on the board of directors of the
Export-Import Bank of the United States. U.S. Senator from Georgia 1997
- 2002. Secretary of State of Georgia 1982 - 1996. Administrator of
the U.S. Veterans Administration 1977 - 1981. Captain, U.S. Army
awarded Silver Star and Bronze Star for bravery in Viet Nam. Triple
amputee from war injuries.

New York Times Article 10/26/03: "As each day goes by, we learn that
this government knew a whole lot more about these terrorists before
Sept. 11 than it has ever admitted." http://www.commondreams.org


Boston Globe Article 11/13/03: "If this decision stands [to limit access
to White House documents], I, as a member of the [9/11] Commission,
cannot look any American in the eye, especially family members of
victims, and say the Commission had full access. This investigation is
now compromised." http://www.


Salon Article 11/21/03: Regarding the 9/11 Commission "It is a national
scandal." http://dir.salon.com


Resigned from the 9/11 Commission, 12/03, after having served on it for
12 months. Former Senator Bob Kerrey from Nebraska was selected to
replace him. The 9/11 Commission Report was issued 7 months later.


Transcript of audio interview 3/23/04: "One of these days we will have
to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America.
But this White House wants to cover it up."
http://www.democracynow.org


Bio: http://memory.loc.gov

well theres 599 questions to go, so get busy.

And you never addresed these 400+ men and women with credentials who
dont buy this governments story...
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/


Is this propaganda too? and how so?


_____________________________________________
http://www.physics911.net/closerlook

Melting Steel


What About the Fires?
The official story maintains that fires weakened the buildings. Jet fuel
supposedly burned so hot it began to melt the steel columns supporting
the towers. But steel-framed skyscrapers have never collapsed from fire,
since they’re built from steel that doesn’t melt below 2750 degrees
Fahrenheit. No fuel, not even jet fuel, which is really just refined
kerosene, will burn hotter than 1500 degrees Fahrenheit.
Steel-framed skyscrapers have never collapsed from fire.

It’s also odd that WTC7, which wasn’t hit by an airplane or by any
significant debris, collapsed in strikingly similar fashion to the Twin
Towers. There wasn’t even any jet fuel or kerosene burning in WTC7.

According to the 9-11 report by the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA), "the specifics of the fires in WTC7 and how they caused the
building to collapse remain unknown at this tim."

Aside from its startling nonchalance, this statement makes a rather
profound assumption. Again, no building prior to 9-11, in the 100-plus
year history of steel frame buildings, had ever collapsed from fire.

The flattened ruins are WTC1 and WTC2 (in the middle), and WTC7 (at the
bottom)

This fact was known to firemen. Hence their unflinching rush up into the
skyscrapers to put out the fire. Partly it was bravery, to be sure, but
partly it was concrete knowledge that skyscrapers do not collapse due to
fire. Yet after 100 years, three collapsed in one day.

Did the FEMA investigators not think to ask the New York City Fire
Department how they thought the fire started, or how the fires could
have caused the astounding, historical collapse? This would seem to be
an elementary step in any investigation about a fire. Instead, they
chose to leave the cause of the collapse “unknown.”


Conclusion
So if the science in this article is correct (none of it goes beyond the
tenth grade level), then we know that the floors of the three WTC
buildings were not pancaking but were falling simultaneously. We also
know that fire is an insufficient explanation for the initiation of the
collapse of the buildings.

Why, then, did the three WTC buildings fall?

There is a method that has been able to consistently get skyscrapers to
fall as fast as the three buildings of the World Trade Center fell on
9-11. In this method, each floor of a building is destroyed at just the
moment the floor above is about to strike it. Thus, the floors fall
simultaneously ? and in virtual freefall. This method, when precisely
used, has indeed given near-freefall speed to demolitions of buildings
all over the world in the past few decades. This method could have
brought down WTC7 in 6.5 seconds. This method is called controlled
demolition.

A controlled demolition would have exploded debris horizontally at a
rapid rate. A controlled demolition would also explain the fine,
pulverized concrete powder, whereas pancaking floors would leave chunks
of concrete. Controlled demolition would also explain the seismic
evidence recorded nearby of two small earthquakes, each just before one
of the Twin Towers collapsed. And finally, controlled demolition would
explain why three steel skyscrapers, two of which were struck by planes
and one of which wasn’t, all collapsed in essentially the same way.


The massive energy required to pulverize concrete into microscopic dust
suggests the use of explosives
Ongoing Questions
But having established that all three WTC towers had to have been
assisted in their failures, I asked myself, Who could have planted the
explosives to blow up the buildings in a controlled demolition? Could
fundamentalist Muslim fanatics have gotten the plans for those
buildings, engineered the demolition, and then gotten into them to plant
the explosives?

This seemed improbable. And after learning that WTC7 housed the FBI,
CIA, and the OEM, it seemed impossible. Then I thought, Why would
terrorists engineer a building to implode? Wouldn’t they want to cause
even more damage to the surrounding buildings and possibly create more
havoc and destruction from debris exploding away from the building? And
if they’d planted explosives in the buildings, why would they have
bothered hijacking and flying planes into them? Perhaps WTC7 was
demolished to destroy evidence that would answer these questions. To
this day, I don’t know. But this is how I began to question the official
story about 9-11.

Recently I learned that President Bush’s brother, Marvin Bush, is a part
owner of the company that not only provided security for both United and
American Airlines, but also for the World Trade Center complex itself. I
also discovered that Larry Silverstein, who had bought the leasing
rights for the WTC complex from the NY/NJ Port Authority in May of 2001
for $200 million, had received a $3.55 billion insurance settlement
right after 9-11 - yet he was suing for an additional $3.55 billion by
claiming the two hits on the towers constituted two separate terrorist
attacks! He stood to make $7 billion dollars on a four month investment.
Talk about motive.

In conclusion, I’ll repeat myself. None of the many 9-11 researchers can
definitively say exactly what happened on that fateful day in September
almost 3 years ago. But any sensible person can easily spot dozens of
inconsistencies in the official story that is being forced upon us. And
the fact is, most of the available 9-11 evidence points to at least some
level of government complicity or foreknowledge.

Please, read more for yourself. Don’t take my word for it. Most of all,
do not buy the double-speak that visible politicians and the media use
to discount any question about 9-11. Clearly, there are no "conspiracy
theories”surrounding 9-11. The official story itself affirms that there
was obviously some kind of conspiracy. It’s just a question of which
conspiracy occurred. We know it wasn’t mere coincidence that several
hijackers happened to be on several different airplanes and happened to
hijack them at the exact same time and happened to pick the World Trade
Center as a target. The real question is, "Who was involved in the
conspiracy?”

Dave Heller, who has degrees in physics and architecture, is a builder
and engaged citizen in Berkeley, California.

home about another fact.

1 The Bush family and Osama family our busniess partners going back
almost 30 years.

2 Marvin Bush was head of security at the WTC buildings when 911
happened. go google it


These are just 2 of the over 600 things/problems that make you wonder.

ok, so bad music and bad focus, what else.


By the way the lady that made 911 mysteries has never made a dime.

Also the "kids" 19 year olds that made LC have never made a dime either.

Now what about Mr. Jones and his hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of
questions about this governments story about 911? no comment?

To be more spacific you said they were propaganda sites.

Can you give me more details please?


also, You Tube is just a site for others to post there videos and such.
You Tube doesnt push anything, there like an art museume, just a place
to show the paintings.

I would love you to back up what you say about the links I provided.

Tell me where they are wrong other than telling us you dont like the
soundtrack.

Back up what you say....

http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/9_11_-_all_the_proof_you_need.html

Some things are so disturbing that they are almost impossible to
believe. That is why, in the 9/11 enigma, less is more.

Until these questions are answered there is no need to establish more
doubt. What we have here is solid undisputed evidence that we were never
told the truth.

Before you read this article, conduct this test. Try to purchase some
stock, or some futures, a mutual fund or some put options, without
providing your identity. Go ahead and try it! See if you get anywhere.
Find out what happens when you tell the investment firm that you want to
make a huge investment anonymously. It can’t be done.

Then ask yourself this question: How could someone have placed anonymous
put options on American Airlines and United Airlines just prior to the
attacks of 9/11? Then ask yourself why no one has investigated this
suspicious deal. Ask yourself why there has been no attempt by the US
government to identify the person who anticipated huge profits from a
disaster that was yet to occur. Is it because the trail possibly leads
to the CIA?

Then wonder about the collapse of Building 7 on the day of the attacks.
Ask yourself why the owner of the building allowed the building to be
pulled down (intentionally demolished) hours after the Twin Towers fell.
Pulling down a building takes weeks of planning and preparation so that
explosives can be safely positioned and wired. Not so in this case.
Wonder why.

If you have any doubts at all about the official 9/11 story, then the
answers to these questions are all the proof you need that something is
very, very wrong!

Independent 9/11 researchers have worked nonstop since the events to
examine the events of 9/11 and they have uncovered enough information to
seriously challenge the official versions of what happened on that
fateful day. But maybe, just maybe, the very fact that massive amounts
of information are available is a problem in itself. There may be far
too much evidence for most Americans to face.

The challenges to the official stories may be too devastating to be
processed by the average American who has spent a lifetime believing in
the system. Many people can deal with the minor violations that are part
of the political scene, but cannot possibly fathom a government that
might be complicit in an attack on its own people. They are not unlike
the parents who eventually come to terms with a child’s shoplifting
spree. The same parents would do anything to deny far more serious
accusations. Imagine the response of parents whose son turns out to be a
Timothy McVeigh.

Some things are so disturbing that they are almost impossible to
believe. That is why, in the 9/11 enigma, less is more. There is a real
danger of frightening everyone off by offering too much information.
Therefore, if we think of the problem as a chess game, two strategic
moves can lead to checkmate.

There are two pieces of the 9/11 puzzle that on their own expose the
lies of the administration.

Two questions must be raised so that even the most diehard Bush
supporters realize they have been deceived. These are issues that no one
can debate or dismiss. These are not conspiracy theories. They are
fact-based questions that can lead to exposing the deceptions in the
official reports. The apologists have no way to explain these away or
justify them. Basically, they offer clear evidence that the official
explanations of 9/11 are meaningless.





1. THE COVER UP

Someone had foreknowledge of the attacks. In the weeks leading up to
9/11 someone made a series of investments that would have paid off in
huge profits because of the attacks. This is well documented and
undisputed. This person specifically invested in the two airliners used
in the attacks, anticipating windfall profits from any drop in the stock
prices of these companies. This is solid evidence that at least one
person in the United States had detailed information that something bad
was going to happen to the specific airlines that were to be used in the
attack.

We have been told that the person who made these investments never
claimed the profits. We are expected to believe that this explains why
his or her identity is unavailable. This is absolutely untrue. This is
not an instance in which someone was waiting to pick up a package at an
airport locker. This is a case of a financial institution processing an
investment transaction for an individual. This CAN NOT BE PERFORMED
ANONYMOUSLY! The identity of this person who had foreknowledge of the
attack is know and this person’s identity is being protected by our
government and this is a fact! Period, end of story.

WHO MADE THE INVESTMENT? Identify this person and you have someone who
very probably had detailed foreknowledge of the events. The fact that
the profits were never collected is even more suspicious and
incriminating. The fact that the identity of this person remains unknown
is even more suspicious. The only possible conclusion is that this
person is known to the government and that his or her identity is being
protected.

There has been a clear and concerted cover up regarding the person who
tried to profit from events he or she knew were coming. The people who
could easily clear this up, but who chose to close any further
investigation into the matter are not underlings. They are officials who
answer directly to the President of the United States. Check.

2. BUILDING 7

On September 11th, Towers One and Two collapsed after suffering direct
hits by airliners. Building 7 was neither hit by an airliner nor damaged
severely by flying debris, but at 5:20 p.m. it collapsed in the exact
same accordion style of the other two towers. The official explanation
by FEMA investigators claimed that WTC 7 fell as a result of burning for
7 hours.

Several weeks after the events of 9/11, Larry Silverstein, the new owner
of the WTC was interviewed on TV. At this time he openly acknowledged
the decision to pull Building 7. This was a public statement in which
the owner of the WTC agreed to the destruction of the building.

This decision was never explained and was never questioned by the Kean
Commission. The conflicting report of the FEMA investigators was also
never explained. Pulling a building requires weeks, if not months of
preparation. Explosives have to be carefully and strategically placed
and wired. How was it possible to pull a building without first
preparing for its demolition?

Larry Silverstein invested $386 million in WTC 7. On 9/11, by his own
admission, Larry Silverstein ordered the demolition of his building. In
February of 2002, his company won a settlement of $861 million from
Industrial Risk Insurers. Do the math. No one investigated. This is a
confession to the demolition of Building 7. Let me repeat that, THIS IS
A CONFESSION! Checkmate.

Until these questions are answered there is no need to establish more
doubt. What we have here is solid undisputed evidence that we were never
told the truth. We have solid evidence that the official investigation
stopped short of delving into questions that could have supplied
answers. We have solid proof that something is very, very wrong.

There is a mountain of unanswered questions concerning the events
surrounding the 9/11 attacks. Anyone willing to listen or look at the
inconsistencies would have to draw an obvious conclusion: the official
explanation of the events of 9/11 is nothing more than a desperate
attempt to distract the American people from investigating the truth.
There can be no denying that there are a number of strange and puzzling
occurrences that have never been, and seemingly cannot be explained.

well why dont you go here and ask yourself if these 400+ people are
crazy too.

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/



then go here, theres no soundtrack on this page
http://www.infowars.com/resources.html#TRAINING


and please start answering the over 600 problems with this governments
story about 911 becuase it just doesnt add up.


or just take this one

How and why did building 7 come down when nothing hit it?

This has never, ever happened in the history of steel framed buildings.

I only share my personal info with those I choose too.