A random check of the links below the quotes yielded some active pages and some pages not found. It would take a bit of digging to see if they have been archived.

But that's really not my point. My point was that the photographs of the pentagon after the hit did not look like a plane had hit the building. The hole was smaller than the diameter of a jetliner, and there did not seem to be damage to the sides where the wings should have hit. I'm not positive about the height of the tail - but it seems like the vertical damage wasn't extensive enough, either. Maybe I'm not looking at the photos correctly, or maybe there is physics at work that I'm not taking into account. I am still wondering why the damage wasn't more extensive based on the size of the plane that people saw?

In addition, we have a government that couldn't get FEMA to New Orleans for 3 weeks. And we're supposed to believe that this same government could pull off something like this?

Yeah. And we're ALSO supposed to believe that the moon is made out of cheese.

Jefferson resigned:

Quote:

And we're ALSO supposed to believe that the moon is made out of cheese

No Jeff, just that man never walked on the moon! Didn't you hear that too, how the pictures were all staged?

~od~

Item #21 in the first text document:
"a. The September 11th families who fought for and gained an independent investigation (the 9/11 Commission) posed 400-plus questions, which the 9/11 Commission adopted as its roadmap. The vast majority of these questions were completely ignored in the Commission hearings and the final report."

Does anyone know what the questions were? I found some on a website, but there are only about 40. (Questions)

To the author of the text document: Don't state that there were questions posed and not state where they are listed so others can tell if the reason to doubt (#21) is a valid one.

Don't know what that specific question is.

However, I do know that MANY people engage in questioning/debate that is intellectually dishonest. It'd be like you asking me, "When did you stop beating your wife?"

If I say, "I never did" - you'd simply reply, "So you're saying you haven't quit beating your wife!" If I say, "A long time ago" - you'd say, "So... you used to beat your wife!"

That's kind of what some of these people are doing. And, in some cases, they keep asking the same questions even after the answer was given - because the answer was not to their liking.

There is no way to prove - beyond a shadow of a doubt - that the United States Government did NOT have ANY part in the 9/11 fiasco. It's like trying to prove that I have never, ever, stepped out on my wife. There's no evidence of it, and I can tell you I haven't, but I cannot account for every minute of every day of my life for the past 25 years.

In other words, the whole argument about the 9/11 Conspiracy is really kind of stupid and dishonest. Question away, but let's be smart about it!

Oops, sorry, reason #21 was in the second attachment (in the first post on this thread). I also found all the reasons on this website: 911Truth.org ::::: The 9/11 Truth Movement
I don't see #21 as being a good reason to doubt if there is no listing given of the 400+ questions posed, or at least a URL for the listing.

I think I see what you mean by intellectually dishonest questions, but if the answers given do not fit the evidence at hand, then I think people are right to request further information.

Sure, people are always free to ask questions. In fact, we SHOULD.

But sometimes the answers just don't square with what you WANT to be the answer. Other times, there are no good answers!

Several years ago, there was an accident on an Interstate near where I used to live. It was slushy snow, and a little Chrysler PT Cruiser went out of control, crossed the median, and hit a huge Chevy Suburban pretty much head on. You'd THINK that the people in the PT Cruiser would have been toast. But they weren't. In fact, they really weren't hurt at all. But the driver of the Suburban was killed instantly. WHY? Makes no sense to me! But it DID happen that way.

Reality doesn't always make sense.

I WANT to believe the official story.
I DON'T want to believe that we have rogue people in our government, or elsewhere in our country, who would hatch a plan to create another "Pearl Harbor", as some have suggested.

It DOESN'T help that the scene was not treated as a crime scene.

It doesn't help that we do not have access to the surveillance tapes so I can watch the dang plane fly into the Pentagon and say, "See! It's a damn plane, you ninnies!!!!!!"

1. Yeah, but how the heck WOULD you "treat it like a crime scene"? Keep in mind that they were searching for survivors too!

2. Typical surveillance cameras are NOT video cameras - they are "still life" cameras that just take pictures every 1-2 seconds. Any picture of the plane would have been, at best, extremely blurry.

1) I don't know. Maybe I'm being unrealistic. Maybe not.
2) I may be wrong, but I believe the surveillance cameras where I work are live video cameras that project to the Security office, where there are monitors showing each view. Are you telling me we don't have the same equipment (or better) at the PENTAGON???