911 :: Truth Or Lies the proof that will open your eyes

[whafizi 0]

So, what do you think about the 911 attack? Really scarry, huh? Everything is so crazy, just like the hollywood film.

But now, some questions are rising, some doubt need to be answered.
What really happened there?

Now, ladies and gentleman, I wish to present you a video that will able to open your eyes to what really happened in 911 attacks. This is a very interesting material that will help you to rethink about this "terrorist" thing. Please dont shy away from this truth;

Left click and "save as"
Road To Tyranny

or

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

The size is about 233mb, but it really worth viewing. Just like viewing X-MEN 2.

[dangerdan 0]

I really think that there may be something in the conspiracy theories regarding 9/11 and in particular the attack on the Pentagon.The images simply do not show any sign of a plane or damage consistent with a plane hitting the Pentagon. To me it looks like a missile hit the Pentagon, is it not coincidental that the President was completely safe on the other side of the building at the time.You hear stories of people being told not to fly on the day, being told to avoid the WTC, the US Secretary of Defense released documents regarding terrorism with the header featuring a plane flying into the twin towers.I would recommend anyone who wants to know more about this watch a documentary called 'Loose Change' by the end you'll be absolutely convinced it was the American Government behind the whole thing but please, take it with a pinch of salt.

[CopsNRobbers 0]

I've watched that documentary and I'm convinced that you guys are either full of hot air or seriously need to exercise common sense. First off, you guys say that there was no sign of a plane hitting the pentagon. Here is a sign of a plane hitting the Pentagon:

This is another sign:

I don't remember ever hearing of a missile with wheels. Have you? I highly doubt it.

 

Now, you said "Is it not coincidental that the President was completely safe on the other side of the building at the time?" It was indeed coincidental. They most likely thought that the president would be at the White House. Remember Flight 93? He just happened to be at the Pentagon rather than there.

 

Another thing, remember the Twin Towers? Remember the 1993 bombing? Ever since then, there have been bomb-sniffing dogs patrolling the building. You could argue that they bribed the dog's handlers. For the sake of argument, we'll go with that. What about the bombs supposedly planted there? You could argue that they bribed the people inside to get killed, but then you, sir, are a complete idiot. For the sake of argument, let's say that the people who put in the bombs were elite U.S. engineers who could work silently at night after everyone left, remove parts of the wall, put bombs in them, and restore the wall well enough so that not even the most observant person could detect it. Now, I doubt these people are going to live inside the walls themselves. That means they must enter and exit the building. So people on the street would see them entering or exiting a closed building. I suppose you could bribe them, too. Now you might be asking "Why couldn't they just put the bombs in while they were building the thing in the first place and just bribe all the workers?" Well, think of it this way: a building full of bombs + and explosion = a building full of explosion. Anyway, for you to put all those bombs in for 2001 in the conditions listed above would require you to start in the mid- to late- nineties. So Bill Clinton must have started the entire operation. So yeah. Now then, back to bribing everyone. I doubt crack U.S. bomb technicians and random onlookers and bomb dog handlers would be bribed cheap (assuming they'd all take money over saving their fellow countrymen' lives). Let's say they all wanted no more than half a million dollars. Let's say there's only 9000 people to bribe. That's 4 trillion, 5 hundred million dollars. So yeah. Why would the government spend that much on a false flag operation? The Nazis just had a guy shoot another guy. Rather than spending a minimum of 4.5 trillion dollars, why not just spend a couple million or so having pretend terrorists blow themselves up outside the White House? I have 2 ideas: 1) Bill Clinton wanted to spare no expense in making it look authentic when there was a "terrorist" attack during his third term when he invaded for oil, or 2) you guys are either lying for your own greedy purposes, or such stupid sheep I could trick you into thinking I was God Himself with an old string and a newspaper. You make me sick, and you should all be ashamed of yourselves. You know darn well the lies you're spreading are just that: lies.

 

And that's what I think about that.