` When I ask about the role that Middle-Eastern terrorists have to play, they don't have much to say - never mind the fact that we've been getting threats and actual bombings from them for several decades!
` Their arguments are amazingly unimpressive and fail to take into consideration many mundane facts about the laws of physics and the architecture of the buildings involved. They also fail to address revealing photographs showing the full extent of the damages.
` Furthermore, other supposed evidence of a conspiracy including certain actions and quotes immediately lose their suspicious status as soon as they are put back in context!
` In September, I was thinking of writing an article on the subject, though I had no a clue how to start rambling on about it. Luckily, I found an article by Phil Molé - which describes his trip to a Truth Convention - that organizes the arguments very well. This has inspired me to follow his example. So, I shall:
` First of all, he admonishes, what everyone reading this should keep in mind, is that the Truth Movement members (which I've begun to call 'Truth-ites') do not question their assumptions and do not care for contradictory information, even if it is demonstrably true. Their mantra is; 'we already know'.
` Those are their convictions, and they are not willing to change them. As one such member said at the 2006 Truth Convention; “We already know this stuff; we’re here to reconfirm what we already know.”
` As Molé's investigation further revealed, the whole thing is for strengthening group identity; these people did not form this organization to investigate critically. He found the arguments presented at the conference to be easily disproven by abundant evidence. And here it is:
` One of the Truth Movement's main assumptions is that the collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) towers was due to a controlled explosion, based on dubious signs that explosives were used to demolish the towers and that the steel was melted when it couldn't have been. For example, they cite the fact that the towers 'pancaked' straight down instead of keeling over sideways. An article by David Heller is often cited:
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° Fahrenheit. No fuel, not even jet fuel, which is really just refined kerosene, will burn hotter than 1500° Fahrenheit. [2005, “Taking a Closer Look: Hard Science and the Collapse of the World Trade Center.” Garlic & Grass, Issue 6.]
` Gee, that's funny. Did anyone say anything about steel having to melt in order for it to be drastically weakened?
` Sure, there were reports of molten gray metal found at Ground Zero, so he maintains that some kind of substance that would melt steel would have caused it. Dr. Steven Jones had a popular article about informal observations of flowing and pooled gray metal, alleged to be steel. (Also, I thought that steel glowed yellow when it was melted!)
` Importantly, one should keep in mind that there was more than just steel making up the structure of the WTC towers and that any kind of melted metal coming from a bombed building is likely to be referred to as 'steel' by almost any observer.
` Any expert could tell you that a simple laboratory test - for example, an atomic absorption test - would be needed to actually establish what type of metal it really was. Average eyewitnesses are actually useless for that detail.
` So, what other kind of 'gray metal' would fit the description? Aluminum! Indeed, an important component of the WTC structural material was aluminum, which melts quite readily into gray pools: Its melting point is actually so low that it is also prone to bursting into flames!
` Other than that, there is no evidence of any steel having been melted: The fire in the North Tower was estimated between 1,000° and 1,800° F, well below the 2800° needed to melt steel. But then, if the steel wasn't melted, then how could the buildings have collapsed on their own?
` For this you must take into account another well-known fact - that steel loses 50% of its strength at only 650° F, and can indeed lose as much as 90% of its strength at 1,800° F! [Eager, Thomas and Musso, Christopher. 2001. “Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse: Science, Engineering and Speculation.” JOM, 53(12), 8–11.] Also, temperature differences dramatically warp steel, which tends to pull various attachment points and supports out of place. Furthermore, when you take into account that the WTC towers had a very unique, lightweight structure that would inherantly have exaggerated the problems of weakened steel, a different picture emerges.
` It is true that 95% percent of the towers' interiors were nothing but air because they were a 'perimeter tube' design, in the center of which was a 27x40 meter core, designed to provide additional support. [Eager, Thomas and Musso, Christopher. 2001. “Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse: Science, Engineering and Speculation.” JOM, 53(12), 8–11.] Joists connected the outer beams to the core at each story, which provided much of the overall support for the weight of each floor.
` And yes, they were indeed insulated, though when impacted by a huge airplane, the spray-on insulation was probably very easily jarred from around the steel beams, which were then more vulnerable to the heat.
` Not only did the 1000-or-so-degree heat cause considerable weakening, but the steel trusses eventually expanded at each end until they were too tall to support the weight of the building's floors, and so the collapse was imminent. So, not only does the fact that the steel was rendered not terribly strong have a role to play, but, significantly, so does the expansion and warping of the steel due to such temperature differences. [ Eager, Thomas and Musso, Christopher. 2001. “Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse: Science, Engineering and Speculation.” JOM, 53(12), 8–11.] So, it is no surprise that the trusses had gone limp below the floors they were meant to support.
` There is also the allegation that explosives called 'squibs' could be seen in the video. I will not contest that sprays of debris flying horizontally from the buildings are present. But, the mechanics of the buildings' collapse indicates another cause:
` When you see a controlled demolition, you can see all the squibs going off at the same time in all the major support points of the building. Just after that, the entire building - at the same time - free-falls to the ground.
` When you watch the World Trade Center towers falling, you cannot see any 'explosions' going off at all prior to the building's collapse, nor do all the sections of either building collapse simultaneously. What you see is this:
` The parts of the buildings that were above the plane impact points begin falling first - meanwhile, the lower parts of the buildings are completely stationary until the top has collapsed upon them, subsequently causing supports and other structures on the floors below them to bend and burst like bubbles, debris flying out the sides. [You can see for yourself in the PBS NOVA Documentary Why The Towers Fell.]
` In other words, the plumes of debris seen in the videos cannot be from squibs as they do not actually begin until after the buildings have begun to fall! If they were controlled explosions, of course, they would have to go off before the collapse in order to cause it. Instead, such plumes are clearly due to all of the immense pressure from the millions of tons of towers bending and popping, which would blow chunks of concrete out of the windows!
` Controlled demolitions do not collapse like this, though it is precisely what you could expect from such buildings that had been hit by airliners and went up in flames. ...And yes, you could say that the buildings could be rigged to fall from above the impact points first, but it would be extremely difficult knowing just where the impact points would be!
` On further observations, looking at the South Tower (Building 2), you can clearly see that it did not fall straight down - as the North Tower had done - but indeed, the tower tilted toward the impact point and began 'pancaking' downward at an angle.
` This makes sense because the North Tower (Building 1) was hit between the 94th and 98th floors, the plane tearing through to the center of the building. The South Tower was then struck between the 78th and 84th floors, at an angle, which severely damaged the entire northeast corner. [2005. “9/11: Debunking the Myths.” Popular Mechanics. March, 2005.]
` Therefore, when you compare the two towers, the South Tower sustained damage that was both lower down and less evenly distributed. The weakened point, therefore, had to support considerably more weight, which is why one could predict that it would be tilted and that the top of the building would have fallen before the North Tower had, despite being struck afterward. Not surprisingly this is exactly what had happened!
The Other Tower
` Of course, WTC building 7 also collapsed because, as it is claimed by Truthites, that there were more bombs there!
` On the website wtc7.net , one can see a typical claim: “fires were observed in Building 7 prior to its collapse, but they were isolated in small parts of the building, and were puny by comparison to other building fires.”
` Revealingly, their one-sided argument seems to be intimately linked with their literally one-sided images of Building Seven! They only use the north-facing views, such as the one to the left. Note the smoke pouring up and out of the far (and non-visible) side of the building.
` In fact, the only way that it could appear that this building was not extensively damaged would be if one did not see the south side (below). As is plain, the buidling was in fact missing the smoke-pouring side and was otherwise extensively ravaged by fire from top to bottom.
` Richard Banaciski, a firefighter who was working at the site, reports this very thing:
We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. [“World Trade Center Task Force Interview: Richard Banaciski.” Interview conducted on December 6, 2001. Transcribed by Elisabeth F. Nason.]
` Does that look puny to you? It should also be mentioned that the emergency response workers who were there noted that the lower south section of WTC7 looked as if it might collapse by 3pm - almost two and a half hours before it did collapse. [“World Trade Center Task Force Interview: Richard Banaciski.” Interview conducted on December 6, 2001. Transcribed by Elisabeth F. Nason.] In other words, their assessment was that the building was doomed.
` Also, the authors of the aforementioned web site claim that in order to cause the pancaking of this building, that the falling debris would need to be symmetrical from both WTC1 and WTC2.
` Looking at actual footage, one can clearly see that the south wall of the building gave in first, which makes sense because that was the side that was burning and crumbling in.
` Like the south tower, the way the building fell was consistent with what we know about it and damage done to it by flying objects - in this case, debris that came from a building which had fallen over slightly to the side. There are no mysteries here!
` If you were to add a planned demolition hypothesis, then how could you explain why the collapse began where the damage was most extensive? Did the conspirators know exactly where the debris would strike WTC 7?
` Indeed, the tower did not fall 'straight down into a convenient pile' as alleged by creators of the documentary Loose Change. The rubble was 12 stories high and 150 meters across. What's so convenient about that?
` For further evidence to fuel the conspiracy, Truthites are usually quick to mention that in a September 2002 PBS Special called America Rebuilds, Larry Silverstein says:
` The conspiracy theoriests - such as Alex Jones at prisonplanet.com - will tell you that this is damning evidence of a confession that he gave the okay to detonate the building, because they assume that 'pull it' means to demolish the building.
I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, “We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.” And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse. [“America Rebuilds” PBS Home Video, ISBN 0-7806-4006-3.]
` Lou Ryan, who is sitting here as I'm reading this to him, has just blurted out; "You total moron! Don't you know that 'pulling it' refers to pulling out your group? Everyone uses it, all the time, even in the military when they 'pull out' soldiers! What an idiot!"
` This is true, you know.... For another example of the term, another first responder said that there were “tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out.” [“World Trade Center Task Force Interview: Richard Banaciski.” Interview conducted on December 6, 2001. Transcribed by Elisabeth F. Nason.]
` So yes, it appears that Jones is taking this way out of context. On top of this, to clarify what Silverstein had meant, spokesperson Mr. Dara McQuillan said on September 9, 2005:
In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.
Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.
As noted above, when Mr. Silverstein was recounting these events for a television documentary he stated, “I said, you know, we’ve had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it.” Mr. McQuillan has stated that by “it,” Mr. Silverstein meant the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building. [See “9/11 Revealed? A New Book Repeats False Con-spiracy Theories.”]
` Hello? In fact, there is abundant evidence, besides McQuillan's indications, that there had been many firefighters evacuating the tenants in the building, and they worked there until shortly before the collapse occurred. For example, Daniel Nigrois said in a NYT interview:
The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was [that] the collapse [of the WTC towers] had damaged 7 World Trade Center … It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn’t] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely. [“World Trade Center Task Force Interview: Daniel Nigrois.” Interview conducted on October 24, 2001.]
` Indeed, there is large agreement between McQuillan’s response and the testimony of the firefighters, including facts such as firefighters being at the WTC 7 site, rescuing and evacuating people until late in the afternoon, that they predicted that collapse was imminent, and that they acted on this by pulling back and waiting for the building collapse at around 5:20 pm.
` So, when you look at the Truth Movement's story, you find that it is full of gaping holes, much like the ones found on WTC 1, 2 and 7, and so inevitably cannot stand up to scrutiny. Larry Silverstein could not have destroyed the WTC building (presumably for a huge insurance payoff) for all of those reasons - plus the fact that his alleged confession was on a PBS special and therefore seen by millions seems a bit weird.
` Furthermore, he does not have any link with the U.S. government, which are supposedly the real terrorists. And if our terrorist government were the ones who blew up the building, why wait until everyone was evacuated?
` Indeed, 3,000 people died in towers 1 and 2, but nobody died in WTC 7! Plus, if 1 and 2 both needed to throw debris out to hit WTC 7, and then all three buildings need to be wired for demolition in order to collapse, why bother? Why not just blow the buildings up with bombs and then blame terrorists? Why would they need planes?
` Prepping a building for demolition takes a considerable amount of time - first, it needs to be partly gutted, and then extensively wired! And those are huge buildings, so that would take ... what? Weeks? How could the building be utterly untouched and occupied until the last moment? That means that this would have had to have been going on without anyone working there noticing it! "What is in that giant briefcase? What are those noises? Why did I just fall through the floor?"
` Many of the Truthites also believe that the Pentagon was not struck by Flight 77, but instead, used a strategically fired missile or some kind of bomb. Thierry Meyssan wrote his book Pentagate, that the damage done to the Pentagon was too limited to have resulted from the crash of a Boeing 757. Loose Change claims that the damage was “a single hole, no more than 16 feet in diameter,” totally without remains of an airplane.
` Such is only true from certain angles! The 9/11 conspiracy theorists selectively use pictures taken at such a perspective that shows that the damage to the Pentagon looks small, and try to ignore pictures that show - more accurately - the full extent of the damage.
` They also seem to expect that a crashed airplane will leave an airplane-shaped hole in a solid building, i.e. a shape showing the wings, as they did with the glass-covered WTC buildings. The truth is, when an aircraft - which is deceptively light and delicate - slams into nine feet of concrete, the wings shear right off pretty easily!
` Tellingly, numerous photos show that there are parts of an airplane in the wreckage. Parts that have clearly been fragmented and charred by plowing through nine feet of reinforced concrete at four hundred miles per hour or so. It's pretty typical of plane wrecks in which the plane hit a very solid object.
` For example, here is the landing gear:
` Like I said, the plane would not have made an airplane-shaped hole in the building because this is not a cartoon: In real life, the wings would be expected to be utterly destroyed.
` Not much of the plane is recognizable because of the sheer strength of the building and the immense speed at which the plane crashed. However, bits and pieces were recovered that surely look like part of a plane:
` Said Truthites will just write these off as 'planted' plane wreckage or faked photos. And they will ignore anyone's eyewitness accounts such as the one from blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer, who was the first structural engineer at the crash site. He describes (in an article in Popular Mechanics) what he himself observed:
` So, why do they claim that CNN correspondent Jamie McIntyre told Judy Woodruff that he couldn't see anything of a plane crash? Well, let us look at the transcript:
I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box....
...I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?” [“9/11: Debunking the Myths.” Popular Mechanics. March, 2005.]
WOODRUFF: Jamie, Aaron was talking earlier — or one of our correspondence was talking earlier — I think — actually, it was Bob Franken — with an eyewitness who said it appeared that that Boeing 757, the American jet, American Airline jet, landed short of the Pentagon.
Can you give us any better idea of how much of the plane actually impacted the building?
MCINTYRE: You know, it might have appeared that way, but from my close-up inspection, there’s no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. The only site is the actual site of the building that’s crashed in, and as I said, the only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you can pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around, which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse. [Transcript.]
` Conspiracy theorists, on the other hand, only cite the one sentence, “From my close-up inspection, there’s no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.” Given the situation, what this clearly means is that he could not see evidence of the plane touching down 'anywhere outside of but nearby the Pentagon'. Taken out of context, it does seem like he meant that there was no plane debris around.
` There was a film called United 93, about the hijacked airplane that crashed into an unoccupied area because the passengers actually fought the terrorists. The premiere was attended by the creators of Loose Change in order to, as one forum member put it “bite these bastards where it hurts, and have this Fight 93 movie backfire on them.” [Quote.]
` To them, there have been two outcomes of Flight 93, depnding on who you ask. Some of them say that the plane landed safely, which stems from the initial AP reports which confused Flights 1989 and 93. It was Flight 1989 that landed in Cleveland Hopkins Airport, not 93, and the AP did correct the error later on. [Kropko, M.R. 2002. “September 11 Tension Vivid to Controller.” Associated Press, August 15, 2002.]
` The second allegation is that the plane was shot down by a plane from the conspirators themselves - the U.S. military. It has been asserted that the main body of the engine and other large chunks were found scattered over miles away. Actually, we know that the engine was found 300 yards away, no doubt about it, and it was in a position that was consistent with the direction the plane had been moving. [“9/11: Debunking the Myths.” Popular Mechanics. March, 2005.]
` The black box, also found, clearly records the struggle that had been going on before the crash. Besides, why on earth would they just abort the mission if it was going so well?
` The Truthites also believe that NORAD had supposedly ordered a 'stand down' to actually let the planes reach their destinations. This is because they assume that NORAD actually had the capability of both locating and intercepting planes on 9/11, and that because they did not it must have been deliberate. There had been 67 other interceptions in history, yes, but take this into consideration:
In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart’s Learjet, in October 1999. With passengers and crew unconscious from cabin decompression, the plane lost radio contact but remained in transponder contact until it crashed. Even so, it took an F-16 1 hour and 22 minutes to reach the stricken jet. Rules in effect back then, and on 9/11, prohibited supersonic flight on intercepts. [“9/11: Debunking the Myths.” Popular Mechanics. March, 2005.]
` Planes are very difficult to intercept and it happens only rarely. First off, the NORAD personnell have to radio contact the planes to rule out mundane problems, and then they must contact military personnell to scramble planes after them.
` The 9/11 case was actually much harder than usual because the terrorists had turned off or disabled the plane's radar transponders. Therefore, it would have looked like a moving blip among many others on NORAD's screens, making it impossible for them to even locate and intercept them in the short window of time available.
` Another Truthite 'puzzle piece' is that there was a lot of 'put' trading of airline stock, which is a huge gamble. They surmise that the 'insiders' knew what would happen, and so placed ther bets. Now consider that this is a common event and that the general volume of put trading had also reached the same levels just earlier in the year. Plus, general bad news about the airline industry directly prompted investment comanies to tell their clients that put options would be the best course of action.
` Yes, there was a large spike in American Airlines trade, though this is hardly surprising: the company had released a major warning just before because they had expected possible stock losses. [“AMR Corp Issues 3Q’ 2001 Profit Warning.” Airline Industry Information, September 11, 2001, “Plummeting Profit.” Zeal Speculation and Investment. June 22, 2001.]
` So, what's the point in finding another way to explain it? Is that not sufficient?
` Supposedly, FEMA arrived at the WTC on September 10, 2001 because they knew that the disaster was about to happen. This allegation was based on a statement by Tom Kenney of the Massachusetts task force to Dan Rather on Sept 13, 2001: “We’re currently, uh, one of the first teams that was deployed to support the city of New York for this disaster. We arrived on, uh, late Monday night and went into action on Tuesday morning. And not until today did we get a full opportunity to work, uh, the entire site.” [Schorow, Stephanie. 2002. “Independent Research.” Boston Herald. 5 September (Arts & Life).]
` That seems a bit strange, considering that Monday was September 10. What seems to have happened there was that Kenney confused which day was which - something that commonly happens to people who are working for two long days in emergency response.
` What he apparently meant to say was that he arrived at Ground Zero on the eleventh, which he must have thought was Monday but was really Tuesday, and went into action on 9/12, and did not get a chance to work the whole site until 'today' or, 9/13. In addition, many different sources have documented the arrival of FEMA on 9/11, including Kenney's wife. [Schorow, Stephanie. 2002. “Independent Research.” Boston Herald. 5 September (Arts & Life).]
` Indeed, it is clear that the Truth Movement is not so much concerned with the truth as they are concerned with grossly distorting it.
` Furthermore, the Truthites are curiously silent about al Qaeda, radical Islamic terrorists from Pakistan, or any of our recent history with the Middle East. Do they know about the fall of the Ottoman empire? Do they know about the fragmentation that occurred after WWII? Or the reaction of Muslims to the state of Israel, plus all the frustration about America's support for it? Do they know what Islamic fundamentalism is, or what Soviet Russia has to do with anything?
` The reasons why there are Islamic terrorist groups stem from all of that, and such people have been targeting and attacking America for decades:
` For example, in 1983 Hezbollah truck-bombed a Marine barracks in Lebanon, killing 241 Americans. In 1985, the Palestinian Liberation Front hijacked the Achille Lauro. In 1993, the WTC was bombed via truck, killing six people and injuring a thousand others (ironically, the memorial was destroyed in the 9/11 attack). In January, 1995, thanks to funding by terrorists such as the head of Al-Qaeda (Osama bin-Laden), there was a plan to blow up twelve planes between the U.S. and Asia, though it was stopped. In 1995, bin-Laden had the U.S. Embassy buildings in Kenya and Tanzania bombed, killing twelve Americans, and 200 natives. In 1996, terrorists truck-bombed the Khobar Towers, killing nineteen U.S. military personnel and injuring hundreds more. In 1999, Ahmed Ressam became famous for his attempted attack on Los Angeles international airport. On October 12, 2000, Al-Qaeda arranged a successful suicide boat bombing of the U.S.S. Cole, killing seventeen sailors and injuring 39 more. [Strasser, Steven (ed.). 2004. The 9/11 Investigations: Staff Reports of the 9/11 Commission. New York: Public Affairs Books. More about radical Islam at Rashid, Ahmed. 2001. Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia. New York: Yale University Press.]
` Clearly, Osama Bin Laden has been funding, organizing, and initiating such shenannigans against the U.S., and there is plenty of evidence to back that up. He has also issued two fatwas - one in 1996 declaring a jihad against the U.S. and one in 1998 “to kill the Americans and their allies — civilian and military is an individual duty for any Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it.” [Strasser, Steven (ed.). 2004. The 9/11 Investigations: Staff Reports of the 9/11 Commission. New York: Public Affairs Books, and other sources.]
` Not only is there every reason in the world to think that this was their work, bin-Laden and Al-Qaeda have actually admitted to the September 11 bombings! [Bamer, David. 2001. “Bin Laden: Yes, I Did It.” The Telegraph. November 11.] What would be the point of saying that they were not responsible?
` To all scrutiny, this is but the latest, and worst, attack on us by radical Islamic terrorists because they don't want our 'evil' U.S. foreign policy, along with everything else. Unfortunately, we didn't take them seriously, and so it was American civilians who paid the price.
` ...But how many people actually know about this stuff? The truth is, so many do not that it seems a bit odd when someone does know their history. Therefore, such conspiracy theories are perhaps believable to more people than they could be.
` Another reason why some people like conspiracy theories - in general - is because they are able to keep their eye on what they believe to be dangerous, and so they know who to expect danger from! After such a horrible event, this is understandable for some people. However, the truth here is most important to implement in the future, because only the truth can be used to prevent future terrorist attacks!
` This is quite suspicious. Obviously, such people can be expected not to trust the American government, especially the Bush administration. I can understand that. Need anyone mention Watergate or the Iran-Contra scandal? They did lie to us about the costs of Vietnam, and some of the military tactics were quite unethical.
` And as for the current administration, it has mislead the public about global warming, stem cell research and other science, failed to be as helpful as it could have to victims of Hurricane Katrina, and waged war because of evidence - that never existed to begin with - of weapons of mass destruction! But would it bomb thousands of its own innocent civilians for any reason?
` Plus, let us stop and think a moment: How do we know about all of these things in the first place? Because the government generally cannot keep its bad decisions a secret! There is nobody running around and arresting people for finding these things out. If the U.S. were a police state - as the Truthites accuse - then surely the Truth Convention would have been crashed, or at least the Truth Movement leaders would have been arrested for exposing the U.S. Government's deepest, darkest secrets.
` And when you think about it, if the conspiracy theorists really believed that they were in trouble, they would have acted like it. Yet, Molé reports that they did not seem to give it a second thought.
` As for me, I don't really trust Bush and his flunkies much myself. Even so, is that a reason to say that he's a terrorist on his own country? I'm sorry, but if you are to claim that someone is suspicious in some way or another, you have to back it up. This clearly hasn't been done.