In These Times

Latest Comments view all 3

• • 21 Jul 06
  • 6:37 pm

  Does anyone out there want to address this theory: yes, the Bush admin and the neo-cons wanted a "new Pearl Harbor" but they didn't go as far as planning this massive 9/11 false flag.They really didn't have to. Instead someone--maybe Chaney, maybe Bush, who knows--simply said out loud to the right person "If we're ever going to get into Iraq there would have to be an attack on American soil." Next thing you know there's an attack. No documentation, no planning from inside, just a couple words spoken from one insider to another, both whom stood to gain by such an …

  Posted to The 9/11 Faith Movement

• • 23 Jul 06
  • 9:40 pm

  thanks rabbit and all, I've now read the entire thread and I went and re- watched "9-11 Revisited. I've already seen loose change, etc. so I'm no pro but I've done a little homework. Question concerning building 7 and the oft repeated footage of silverstein talking about Pulling #7: If he flat out states that they pulled the building, why hasn't there been a huge stink been made about how that could be possible, considering it must take more than a few hours to set up explosives in even a non burning building and the building came down at five that …

  Posted to The 9/11 Faith Movement

• • 25 Jul 06
  • 11:25 am

  This is such a vast subject that I'll limit myself to a small slice in order to get some feedback from you all. I've seen a number of 9/11 Truth related videos now and every one of them has the Silvrstein snippet where he says Building #7 was "Pulled". 1. Why, despite silverstein's comment, do some 9-11 Truthers talk about the impossibility of THREE buildings collapseing into their own foot prints? Isn't it obvious to everyone that, accrding to the guy who leased the building, that this building was in fact professionally demoed? this would us with leave TWO miracle collapses. …

  Posted to The 9/11 Faith Movement