9/11 Imcriminating evidence
 

You've all seen the videos, this isn't the first time the government was blamed for something like this, i agree i think there was a lot more too it than most know. The Pentagon, i would be ashamed to leave that much evidence that it was clearly not a plane. The two towers, this was a little cleaner, besides the fact that a plane full of civilians managed to do one of two things, not even exist in the first place due to being made up by the government, which i wouldn't believe since it would be completely pointless to crash a plane in a field. Or, De-Hijack a plane with paid mercenaries that are planning to crash a plane into some building. A plane would not do that to a massive building, now an Atlas intercontinental range Ballistic missle would do about that to a massive tower. See what i never found easy to understand, is why? Why would you even want to blow up two towers, that seems like the least successful way to gain something by blowing to towers in the middle of your country up. They use all this information and basically use it to blame other people iraq afghan ect. ect.

Re: 9/11 Imcriminating evidence
 

Well, wasn't that the point?

To blame other people and instigate war while simultaneously destroying evidence.

Here's 2 really informational websites, We Are Change Minnesota and MN 9/11 Truth > MN 911 Truth Home. They put out a video called 9/11 Mysteries. Part 1 is about the demolition of the towers.

Also, you can search this forum for 9/11, and you will find threads about this topic, and what people on here think about it.

Re: 9/11 Imcriminating evidence
 

I think we must understand the mason to find the whole truth.
1) Masons thrive on war even against each other.
2) Terrorists were started by the KGB during the cold war.
3) Communism was founded after Lennon and Marx were tapped into freemasonry. By Euoropean Masons not American.
4) After the fall of the Soviet Union the KGB did not fall off the earth they went into hiding. Some I believe went to Islamic nations.
5) During the cold war a mason named Angleton ran the CIA. He was out spied by the Soviet masons
6) Angleton was paranoid and thought every Soviet that tried to defect was a spy
7) This changed when a man named Henry David Blee took over (and Blee was not a mason)

I tried to google Angleton and Blee but my computer has been virused and I can't find the web page on this story anymore so please google Angleton Blee and see for yourself.

I have taken the name Blee in honor of this man.

When I was a child my father had an insurance business in Pittsburgh. He would often take business trips to Washington DC and some city in VA telling mom he was going to the home office. I found later the insurance company did not have a home office in either city (I forget the name of the city, no it wasn't Langly) I met many wondefuly non descript men. Some were masons some were not. It was the non masons that blew the whistle about my being molested. I know the CIA has mosonic symbols and was founded by masons. But here is proof that they are not all mosons and please don't hold this against the brave men and woman that work there and risk their very lives to keep us safe.

Re: 9/11 Imcriminating evidence
 

Angleton was a mason

Re: 9/11 Imcriminating evidence
 

Except that many people saw the airplanes but nobody saw or heard an ICBM, nor anything like it. Your premise is flawed.

Re: 9/11 Imcriminating evidence
 

Where's the incriminating evidence you promised? All I see is opinion that can be argued very easily against.

Re: 9/11 Imcriminating evidence
 

If you're talking about the Pentagon attack, that's not true. There are different eyewitness testimonies that contradict each other. The mainstream media just filtered out those that match the official story.

Re: 9/11 Imcriminating evidence
 

I was talking about NY but nice try.

Re: 9/11 Imcriminating evidence
 

I don't see what an Intercontinental ballistic missile has to do with NYC. There is clear footage of the entry of planes in both towards that leaves no discussion about whether or not a plane actually flew into the WTC, whether there was something weird attached to it, whether it was a different size plane or whether it was an Intercontinental ballistic missile. In the case of the pentagon, however, it might have been a missile that hit the pentagon. Testimonies are confusing, the video footage is either censored or unclear and the point of impact just didn't look right. The reason for this could have been that they wanted to make sure not to hit an important part of the Pentagon (the part they hit was under construction and therefore contained little important items or people). This, in turn, would support the claim that 9/11 was an inside job.

Re: 9/11 Imcriminating evidence
 

Exactly my point. Look up a few posts before responding next time.