What's new

Las Vegas: Worst Mass Shooting in US History

Tell me you believe an airplane hit the Pentagon. 9/11 doesn't add up at all.

People aren't just eager to wrap their heads in tin-foil and believe every conspiracy (I mean, some do, but not all.) There are a lot of conspiracy theories because there are many reasons to be skeptical and doubt the information given - JFK, the moon landing, 9/11, etc.

I like people with the guts to say stuff that is hard to believe, or unpopular to believe. If we ever lose this element in our society, we're just "cooked", as in "done". The human spirit will have been quashed by the experts and "debunkers" who systematically reinforce conformity/conventionality/propaganda.

One the of the first things that came to my mind when I heard of the Vegas massacre was who would select a country music event to shoot it up. I was willing to bet it was someone like the occasional leftist hell-bent on mayhem for cause of making the world a better place, like the Unabomber Ted Kaczynski or the congressional baseball practice shooter.

It is the nature of our police and security personnel not to talk loose. I'm sure there is a lot they know we haven't heard about yet. And it is the nature of everyone with a cell phone to run video of something like this. Pretty hard for the officials to make up a story and suppress everything that would counter it. So of course, they will say less, much less. Well, nothing, really.

I've considered the possibility that he was a psychopath but rejected that because well, a long stable life of not bothering anyone....

I've considered the possibility that he was a self-professed "genius" trying to do the perfect crime, the greatest mass shooting, but rejected that because, well, he did it from his own room, though it looked like he thought he might walk out and drive his car away to do something else.

I've considered if he could possibly be a terrorist recruit, and rejected that as well. Because he's too old for that sort of ideological "cause", for turning a "new leaf". Yah, there are oldsters lost in their grand ideologies, like Red, say.... but they almost always have been on their gig for decades.

he was a success at everything, even gambling.

I'd say he just got bored.
 
Ok so I checked this out. It loses me before this, but really here is where it ends for me:



So did he go to the site? Did he dig through the rubble to ascertain the depth of the penetration on the building? Was he there during demolition and construction to gain an understanding of the depth of the impact? Is he fully versed on all of the safety and security features of the Pentagon and the building construction, considering some of it was added as recently as just a few years before the attack? Does he understand the engineering aspect of the construction of the building thoroughly enough that he can accurately gauge the impact any aircraft, let alone of this specific airplane at exactly this speed and angle of impact? Did he walk the grounds to identify all the smaller things, such as wing-tip marks in the grass or the length and depth of the first impact, which was in front of the building, or the exact nature, position, and condition of all debris at the impact site?

Or did he just take the picture provided him through media outlets and make his best guesses like everyone else did?

If you read the whole article, you'll read about multiple people who were there and eye-witnesses and very credible sources who say no plane hit the Pentagon. Again, I know there are a lot of credible things that do point to it being a plane, but why are people so quick to accept that and dismiss tons and tons of eye-witnesses, experts, and evidence that say it was a missile?
Do you really believe the plane disintegrated and only small parts being found isn't weird? Science, dude. 747 engines are made of titanium and it's practically impossible for it to disintegrate to totality. How do you account for this? Is that not weird to you?
Why did the Pentagon have their self defense sensors and cameras ordered to be off that day by the VP? So many questions.
 
If you read the whole article, you'll read about multiple people who were there and eye-witnesses and very credible sources who say no plane hit the Pentagon. Again, I know there are a lot of credible things that do point to it being a plane, but why are people so quick to accept that and dismiss tons and tons of eye-witnesses, experts, and evidence that say it was a missile?
Do you really believe the plane disintegrated and only small parts being found isn't weird? Science, dude. 747 engines are made of titanium and it's practically impossible for it to disintegrate to totality. How do you account for this? Is that not weird to you?
Why did the Pentagon have their self defense sensors and cameras ordered to be off that day by the VP? So many questions.

I skimmed a bunch of it. The problem is there are also credible eye witnesses that saw the opposite, or actual thing that happened. Also, if you do any research on eye-witnesses you would find out their are notoriously unreliable, especially if questioned much after the fact since our memories are malleable and we sub-consciously change them to fit our personal narrative, or what our friends thing, or what the media portrays, or even to fit what the interviewer is asking.

There is also plenty of photographic evidence of airplane debris at the crash site. Google it and go to images. The deconstruction and reconstruction showed the depth of the damage. And then the question is, what actually happened to that airplane, as BP/GF pointed out? It took off, it was hijacked, it had hundreds of people on board, where did it go? And in the end, why is anyone who is involved in the cover-up still keeping it a secret? Why haven't literally hundreds of people come forward yet?

I am as skeptical as the next guy, but I am far more skeptical of the conspiracy nut crowd. Everyone who makes their judgments after the fact with limited knowledge and then digs for evidence that supports their view while scoffing at or ignoring anything that doesn't.

Take the WTC collapse just for one. All of the conspiracy nuts say it was controlled explosions that took it down. But I remember a high-rise construction engineer talking about the engineering of these buildings and that they were designed to fall that way to minimize damage to surrounding structures if the building were to have something catastrophic happen...like an airplane impact! Which is something that all tall buildings must incorporate as that is always a threat, and was actually part of the building code. So the pancaking once the fall starts was designed, not done on purpose. He also explained that the junction points withing the WTC's steel inner structure were due for renovation because the fire retardant that is sprayed on the inner structure was aging and in danger of being blown off which would expose the steel to fire, that could weaken it enough to allow it to start to collapse, which is exactly what the experts' opinions were, that the impact from the plane blew the fire retardant off the steel structure on several floors above and below exposing the steel to the direct heat from the jet fuel, which easily burns hot enough in that quantity to weaken the structure, and even to melt the metal at the point of impact, which impact generated heat and forces of its own.

But the conspiracy theorists say, in essence "nuh-uh!! He is in on it!!"

Invoking Occam's Razor what is more likely?

So, really in the end, it is all crap.
 
I've heard about this! I believe it involves grabbing women in their private areas. Maybe if i become a much worse person(hard to believe its possible) i may one day be elected to high office.

whats wrong with grabbing women by the *****, they give consent. unlike the rapist on the left. like clinton, weinstein and anthony wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeener!



why are you not in arms about those rapist
 
Last edited:
Along with lots of peer reviews scientific journals.


Still waiting for that info about Snopes from you though. Unless you have nothing as usual.

naah if logic does not enter your brain, their is no hope. one day you will relaise the truth about snoppes. or maybe not! depends on your intelligence
 
whats wrong with grbabing women by the *****, thye give consent. unlike the rapist on the left. like clinton, weinstein and anthony wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeener!



whjy ar eyu not in arms about those rapist

I find the entire concept objectionable.
 
Took you long enough Archie. Cappy is trying to play the Tiny Weenie and Thee Crap Fan troll of constant *******. He hasn't said anything worth reading for a couple years.

Yeah, that guy apparently had a major problem with me. I don't care if you dislike or don't agree with my posts, but why be a condescending ******* about it who neg me **** about my mom's *****?
 
naah if logic does not enter your brain, their is no hope. one day you will relaise the truth about snoppes. or maybe not! depends on your intelligence

Yep, you got nothing. As usual you talked out your *** and have no facts or information to back it up. I genuinely am asking to get more information about them if there is something and you have nothing.

Its sad that you can never back up anything. Maybe one day you will...
 
Took you long enough Archie. Cappy is trying to play the Tiny Weenie and Thee Crap Fan troll of constant *******. He hasn't said anything worth reading for a couple years.

LMAO at YOU calling someone else a troll.

And just for the record, I am the Dexter of trolls. I only troll the trolls 95% of the time.
 
If you read the whole article, you'll read about multiple people who were there and eye-witnesses and very credible sources who say no plane hit the Pentagon. Again, I know there are a lot of credible things that do point to it being a plane, but why are people so quick to accept that and dismiss tons and tons of eye-witnesses, experts, and evidence that say it was a missile?
Do you really believe the plane disintegrated and only small parts being found isn't weird? Science, dude. 747 engines are made of titanium and it's practically impossible for it to disintegrate to totality. How do you account for this? Is that not weird to you?
Why did the Pentagon have their self defense sensors and cameras ordered to be off that day by the VP? So many questions.

What do you mean with these witnesses. There are a list of witnesses and their exact statements that I provided to you earlier. Almost everyone described the incident separate from each other the same or similar. Almost half of them even said that it was an AA plane.

There is ton of pictures of debri from the plane.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...es-reveal-aftermath-9-11-attack-Pentagon.html

The plane went into the building that is why there is not much debris outside of it.


Did you read through any of the articles I linked before?

Many of those show multiple examples of planes hitting less reinforced places and the impact and how it relates to the plane. The majority of experts are in agreement with the crash and how it should look especially with a building that had the type of reinforcement the pentagon had.


I also did a little digging on the video you claim is fake. It was originally aired during trial and had to be court ordered to be released. Later through the freedom act it was produced for public to view it. Lots of news organizations have shown it. I cant find any retracting it. I only found a couple sites claiming it to be fake but all of those were just some random guy claiming that, mostly youtube conspiracy people. It might be fake but I can not find evidence of that and I can find evidence of it being real. Can you link any real sources for it being a fake?

I have no problem with questioning what happened. I have no problem with researching it and questioning the reports from the government. But it seems like you are only looking at sketchy at best sources about the conspiracy while ignoring the well researched articles clearly debunking the conspiracy's with actual evidence on this one. But maybe I am missing stuff on it. So far the links you have posted do not have any good evidence or are reliable sources though.

Those two links are sketchy at best with their information and sources. The witnesses for example are picked out, why not use all of them? Because most of them agreed on seeing a plane hit the pentagon. Not sure why we consider an old man retired for 30+ years an expert at anything to do with the attack either.

Even the wiki link about it has a lot of answers for some of the basics asserted in these theories with links to good sources confirming their information.

The Pentagon
File:Pentagon Security Camera 1.ogv
Security camera footage of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon (at 1:26 in the video)

The Pentagon, after collapse of the damaged section

Airplane debris scattered near the Pentagon on the day of the attack
Political activist Thierry Meyssan and filmmaker Dylan Avery claim that American Airlines Flight 77 did not crash into the Pentagon. Instead, they argue that the Pentagon was hit by a missile launched by elements from inside the U.S. government. Some claim that the holes in the Pentagon walls were far too small to have been made by a Boeing 757: "How does a plane 125 ft. wide and 155 ft. long fit into a hole which is only 60 ft. across?" Meyssan’s book, L’Effroyable Imposture (published in English as 9/11: The Big Lie) became available in more than a dozen languages. When released, the book was heavily criticized by both the mainstream French and American press, and later, from within the 9/11 Truth movement. The French newspaper Liberation called the book "a tissue of wild and irresponsible allegations, entirely without foundation."[99][100][101]

In response to the conspiracy theorists' claim of a missile hitting the Pentagon, Mete Sozen, a professor of civil engineering at Purdue University argues that: "A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building. When Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, one wing hit the ground and the other was sheared off by the Pentagon's load-bearing columns."[99][102] According to ArchitectureWeek, the reason the Pentagon took relatively little damage from the impact was because Wedge One had recently been renovated.[103] (This was part of a renovation program which had been begun in the 1980s, and Wedge One was the first of five to be renovated.[104])

Evidence contradicting some conspiracy theorists' claim of a missile hitting the Pentagon have been described by researchers within the 9/11 Truth Movement, such as Jim Hoffman, in his essay "The Pentagon Attack: What the Physical Evidence Shows", and by others broadly refuting the role of other conspiracies in the attacks. The evidence refuting missile claims includes airplane debris including Flight 77's black boxes,[105] the nose cone, landing gear,[106] an airplane tire,[107] and an intact cockpit seat[108] were observed at the crash site. The remains of passengers from Flight 77 were indeed found at the Pentagon crash site and their identities confirmed by DNA analysis.[109] Many eyewitnesses saw the plane strike the Pentagon. Further, Flight 77 passengers made phone calls reporting that their airplane had been hijacked. For example, passenger Renee May called her mother to tell her that the plane had been hijacked and that the passengers had been herded to the back of the plane. Another passenger named Barbara Olson called her husband (U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson) and said that the flight had been hijacked, and that the hijackers had knives and box cutters.[8][99][110][111] Some conspiracy theories say the phone calls the passengers made were fabricated by voice morphing, the passengers' bodies disposed of, and a missile fired at the Pentagon.[112][113][114]

The pressure group Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act request on December 15, 2004, to force the government to release video recordings from the Sheraton National Hotel, the Nexcomm/Citgo gas station, Pentagon security cameras and the Virginia Department of Transportation. On May 16, 2006, the government released the Pentagon security camera videos to Judicial Watch.[115] The image of American Airlines Flight 77 which appears in the videos has been described as "[a] white blob" and "a white streak" (by the BBC),[116] "a thin white blur" (by The Associated Press),[117] and "a silver speck low to the ground" (in The Washington Post).[118] A sequence of five frames from one of the videos already appeared in the media in 2002.[119] Some conspiracy theorists believe the new video does not answer their questions.[120]
 
Yep, you got nothing. As usual you talked out your *** and have no facts or information to back it up. I genuinely am asking to get more information about them if there is something and you have nothing.

Its sad that you can never back up anything. Maybe one day you will...

our defintiion of facts are different bra!

snopes does not deal in facts and truths.


when it comes to snopes you will believe the mainstream media, facebook and the democrats over some random poster on a internet board.

so not gonna bother explaining it to you!

one day the truth shall set you free
 
What do you mean with these witnesses. There are a list of witnesses and their exact statements that I provided to you earlier. Almost everyone described the incident separate from each other the same or similar. Almost half of them even said that it was an AA plane.

There is ton of pictures of debri from the plane.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...es-reveal-aftermath-9-11-attack-Pentagon.html

The plane went into the building that is why there is not much debris outside of it.


Did you read through any of the articles I linked before?

Many of those show multiple examples of planes hitting less reinforced places and the impact and how it relates to the plane. The majority of experts are in agreement with the crash and how it should look especially with a building that had the type of reinforcement the pentagon had.


I also did a little digging on the video you claim is fake. It was originally aired during trial and had to be court ordered to be released. Later through the freedom act it was produced for public to view it. Lots of news organizations have shown it. I cant find any retracting it. I only found a couple sites claiming it to be fake but all of those were just some random guy claiming that, mostly youtube conspiracy people. It might be fake but I can not find evidence of that and I can find evidence of it being real. Can you link any real sources for it being a fake?

I have no problem with questioning what happened. I have no problem with researching it and questioning the reports from the government. But it seems like you are only looking at sketchy at best sources about the conspiracy while ignoring the well researched articles clearly debunking the conspiracy's with actual evidence on this one. But maybe I am missing stuff on it. So far the links you have posted do not have any good evidence or are reliable sources though.

Those two links are sketchy at best with their information and sources. The witnesses for example are picked out, why not use all of them? Because most of them agreed on seeing a plane hit the pentagon. Not sure why we consider an old man retired for 30+ years an expert at anything to do with the attack either.

Even the wiki link about it has a lot of answers for some of the basics asserted in these theories with links to good sources confirming their information.

Tons of puctures of debris? There's a few pics of some small scraps of metal. Hardly, "tons."
Airplane crash experts and pilots say it's practically impossible there wasn't substantially more debris including the titanium engines. Do you think the disintegrated? If so, can you provide me with other cases of that happening?
The video is real in the link you gave, but the gif that shows the tiny plane, that's not online with the crash point of impact is fake. Feel free to watch the video online and pause it yourself. The original has no visible plane.
 
Tons of puctures of debris? There's a few pics of some small scraps of metal. Hardly, "tons."
Airplane crash experts and pilots say it's practically impossible there wasn't substantially more debris including the titanium engines. Do you think the disintegrated? If so, can you provide me with other cases of that happening?
The video is real in the link you gave, but the gif that shows the tiny plane, that's not online with the crash point of impact is fake. Feel free to watch the video online and pause it yourself. The original has no visible plane.

Yes in the links I provided earlier have lots of examples including the plane that hit the WTC. There is also multiple simulations ran by experts that show the result is fairly accurate.

The pictures are more than a little debri, especially the ones provided by the FBI recently. But yes I do think that some of it exploded when it hit one of the most reinforced buildings in the world at 350mph and most of the debri and destruction where inside the building since momentum should carry it that way. Lots of the plane was found past the outside ring and in the next 2 rings. There are also lots of witness accounts of the rubble if you want to look those up as well. Including the engineer who had completed the remodel of the building. Just because 1 or 2 "experts" in a youtube video are claiming it is impossible does not mean you should ignore the hundreds of other "experts explaining that it is very reasonable and makes sense. Same with the witnesses.

DNA of humans remains was found in the wreckage.

Engine and landing gear are clearly seen in the photos:
http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm

The original has no visible plane.
Watching it live is too hard to see a plane going through a crappy video at 250mph. The ones showing more of the white blob going through is through slowing it down and enhancing the image. Which is what was shown in court. Most independent experts agreed that the video was not a fake and that the image was a plane.
 
george soros shorted mgm stock.

the perps home was burglarized.

no motive released by nobody!


somethings smells fishy, real fishy. and no it is not the fish buffet in the mgm!
 
our defintiion of facts are different bra!

snopes does not deal in facts and truths.


when it comes to snopes you will believe the mainstream media, facebook and the democrats over some random poster on a internet board.

so not gonna bother explaining it to you!

one day the truth shall set you free

I am not asking for your silly explanation. I dont believe you and your opinions. I am willing to look at any source of information that you have to back up your claims. But again you dont have any. You pulled it out of your *** and have literally nothing to back up your claim. The founders of the website are not "liberals" "democrats" one is from Canada and the other has only been registered as a republican. They also have well sourced information in their articles so you can research it yourself and check the facts, although I am guessing that is not a thing you are familiar with based on your posts. Also it still humors me that I am the "left" to you, I guess this shows how out of touch with reality you are.

So again lets see any shred of evidence from any source besides your opinion.


our defintiion of facts are different bra!
This I agree on. You believe your opinions or others opinions are facts I believe facts are not opinions and are information that is well researched and has solid evidence backing it up. Which you do not have any of on this one. Sorry we all dont take your word as Facts. Its pretty sad that you think anyones word is a fact. Guess thats why you are so brainwashed with propaganda.

I guess ill drop it. I am trying to get you to back up your claims but maybe I am being too rough with you and should just let you have a pass on this one. You are pretty sensitive and we need to respect that and treat you gently.
 
I like people with the guts to say stuff that is hard to believe, or unpopular to believe. If we ever lose this element in our society, we're just "cooked", as in "done". The human spirit will have been quashed by the experts and "debunkers" who systematically reinforce conformity/conventionality/propaganda.

One the of the first things that came to my mind when I heard of the Vegas massacre was who would select a country music event to shoot it up. I was willing to bet it was someone like the occasional leftist hell-bent on mayhem for cause of making the world a better place, like the Unabomber Ted Kaczynski or the congressional baseball practice shooter.

It is the nature of our police and security personnel not to talk loose. I'm sure there is a lot they know we haven't heard about yet. And it is the nature of everyone with a cell phone to run video of something like this. Pretty hard for the officials to make up a story and suppress everything that would counter it. So of course, they will say less, much less. Well, nothing, really.

I've considered the possibility that he was a psychopath but rejected that because well, a long stable life of not bothering anyone....

I've considered the possibility that he was a self-professed "genius" trying to do the perfect crime, the greatest mass shooting, but rejected that because, well, he did it from his own room, though it looked like he thought he might walk out and drive his car away to do something else.

I've considered if he could possibly be a terrorist recruit, and rejected that as well. Because he's too old for that sort of ideological "cause", for turning a "new leaf". Yah, there are oldsters lost in their grand ideologies, like Red, say.... but they almost always have been on their gig for decades.

he was a success at everything, even gambling.

I'd say he just got bored.

Lol. i'm an oldster "lost" in my grand ideology? I'm a lifelong student of History, specializing in Europe since the French Revolution, but well enough versed in American history as well. And who recognizes the dangers of authoritarianism. There are no grand ideologies. You still don't understand that people can think differently from yourself without having fallen under the influence of ideologies. I'm as independent a thinker as it gets.

Did you just trigger me? Lol, maybe, but I still like ya and get a kick out of ya. Carry on....

P.S. Pick up a copy of On Tyranny: 20 Lessons from the 20th Century" by historian Timothy Snyder, and you might begin to understand....
 
our defintiion of facts are different bra!

snopes does not deal in facts and truths.


when it comes to snopes you will believe the mainstream media, facebook and the democrats over some random poster on a internet board.

so not gonna bother explaining it to you!

one day the truth shall set you free

I am not asking for your silly explanation. I dont believe you and your opinions. I am willing to look at any source of information that you have to back up your claims. But again you dont have any. You pulled it out of your *** and have literally nothing to back up your claim. The founders of the website are not "liberals" "democrats" one is from Canada and the other has only been registered as a republican. They also have well sourced information in their articles so you can research it yourself and check the facts, although I am guessing that is not a thing you are familiar with based on your posts. Also it still humors me that I am the "left" to you, I guess this shows how out of touch with reality you are.

So again lets see any shred of evidence from any source besides your opinion.



This I agree on. You believe your opinions or others opinions are facts I believe facts are not opinions and are information that is well researched and has solid evidence backing it up. Which you do not have any of on this one. Sorry we all dont take your word as Facts. Its pretty sad that you think anyones word is a fact. Guess thats why you are so brainwashed with propaganda.

I guess ill drop it. I am trying to get you to back up your claims but maybe I am being too rough with you and should just let you have a pass on this one. You are pretty sensitive and we need to respect that and treat you gently.

My take on snopes is the same as my take on anything internet related (like wikipedia or youtube even), it is only as good as its sources. I have gone through enough sources on snopes to find that most of the time they do a reasonable job debunking internet myths. Generally if snopes says it is real or fake they have something to back it up and only rarely have I ever seen them list sources that I found really questionable, and usually they have multiple sources. So if you see something on snopes with unreasonable or questionable sources I would be interested to check it out. Otherwise to cry "agenda" and then chuck the baby out with the bathwater because you simply disagreed with something in one their articles, or simply heard from some guy that you know that they are driven by the left-wing-fanatics or whatever, and then that is just intellectual dishonesty.
 
Now there is still more confusion regarding the timeline, as well as events that took place prior to the shooter opening fire on the concert crowd.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/worker-warned-hotel-before-las-vegas-shooter-opened-fire-on-crowd/

LAS VEGAS -- A maintenance worker said Wednesday he told hotel dispatchers to call police and report a gunman had opened fire with a rifle inside the Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino hotel before the shooter began firing from his high-rise suite into a crowd at a nearby musical performance.

The revised timeline has renewed questions about whether better communication might have allowed police to respond more quickly and take out the gunman before he committed the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history.

Worker Stephen Schuck says he was checking out a report of a jammed fire door on the 32nd floor of Mandalay Bay when he heard gunshots and a hotel security guard, who had been shot in the leg, peeked out from an alcove and told him to take cover.
 
Yes in the links I provided earlier have lots of examples including the plane that hit the WTC. There is also multiple simulations ran by experts that show the result is fairly accurate.

The pictures are more than a little debri, especially the ones provided by the FBI recently. But yes I do think that some of it exploded when it hit one of the most reinforced buildings in the world at 350mph and most of the debri and destruction where inside the building since momentum should carry it that way. Lots of the plane was found past the outside ring and in the next 2 rings. There are also lots of witness accounts of the rubble if you want to look those up as well. Including the engineer who had completed the remodel of the building. Just because 1 or 2 "experts" in a youtube video are claiming it is impossible does not mean you should ignore the hundreds of other "experts explaining that it is very reasonable and makes sense. Same with the witnesses.

DNA of humans remains was found in the wreckage.

Engine and landing gear are clearly seen in the photos:
http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm


Watching it live is too hard to see a plane going through a crappy video at 250mph. The ones showing more of the white blob going through is through slowing it down and enhancing the image. Which is what was shown in court. Most independent experts agreed that the video was not a fake and that the image was a plane.

I don't have a lot of time to give a thorough response right now, but one thing worth noting is if you think it's the opinion of one or two experts compared to that of hundreds, then your apparent grasp on the conspiracy is poor.
Put it this way, if someone put a gun to my head and said, based off what 100% actually happened, and said was it a missile or a plane that hit the Pentagon and if you choose wrong, you die - I'd be nervous as hell.
There are so many things that don't add up with 9/11 and substantial evidence, witnesses, expert opinions and science that support a conspiracy as much as it being just a terrorist attack. Like I said before, I used to make fun of 9/11 conspirators, but after doing research, I'd be lying to myself if I thought it was just a clear cut terrorist attack.
 
Back
Top