like i said before pol, i dont have every anser,i dont pretend or think i do. why did they not plant WMD? maybe they would have been easily tracked back to usa... maybe they DIDIENT NEED TO? they are still there right now arent they? there is no 'exit plan' in sight, anywhere. so, why would they have needed to plant the WMD to stay?
but see, now im the one making up my own theory, i dont have any information on that.
i dont deal with things other then facts, so i cant anser anything about the WMD issue. but there are still people out there who beleive that they did find WMD's... because the though has been seared into their skulls by mind numing repetativness.
but, i dont blame them, since your 'News' released stuff like this
(going to make a bit of fun of your president here, because pretty much everything he says these days is funny as hell to me)
lol, look at his face after he finish hes sentance.. he is like ' Oh shit, did i really say that? .. dam it )
the fact is the president had a memo on the 6th, saying that Bin laden was determined to attack. and as far as i know, this was the last memo the president had seen before the attack, as he went for a month long vacation that august, and he REQUESTED the memo. your free to prove me wrong on that 'last memo before 911' thing, i am not certain about that, and im actualy pretty busy this week end so i dont have time to look it up..
then, 3 months after 9/11, he admited to WATCHING the first plane hittin the tower BEFORE he went into the classroom.
the fact that you THINK that he said it as a publicity stunt is your THEORY.
you MADE THIS UP, what information do you have to back it up?
you lie to yourself to make yourself feel safe again... and i dont blame you
a found a page a little while ago, with some nice intel. in it, there are some things i dont fully understand, but, im not a pilot... so i dont understand what stuff like 'ground effect' other then the fact that your plane reacts diffrently when its close to the ground... but anyway
in it i find this quote from a much larger chunk of text, that i find intresting.
"Hani Hanjour. Reported to have 600TT and a Commercial Certificate (see quotes right margin). Hani tried to get checked out in a 172 a few weeks prior at Freeway Airport in MD. Two seperate CFI's took Hani up to check him out. Baxter and Conner found that Hani had trouble controlling and landing a 172 at 65 knots. Bernard, the Chief CFI, refused to rent him the 172. I have instructed many years. I have soloed students in 172's when i had 300 hours as a CFI. How anyone could not control a 172 at 600TT and a Commercial is beyond me. Flight Schools keep going till you "get it" if you are a bit rusty, and then rent you the plane. They are in business to make money after all. .right? The Chief CFI basically refused any further lessons and basically told him to get lost. All this can be confirmed through google searches."
( For those who dont know, Hani was the guy that was sopposably in the pilot seat when he flew his plane into the pentagon )
and, also they examine the discrepancies betwen the flight data recorder, and the inforation they gave in the 911 commision report(MAJOR differences betwen the two). they interview a few Air force fighter pilots and even an interview with a former boston air traffic controler.
i dont beleive all the looney crap i hear out there, because there is allot of it. i dig down for the stuff that is has substance, has a backing, has information relating to it, and can be proven...
example, here is obviously a mistake, on part of BBC. reporting WTC7 colapsing before it actualy does ( by 20 minuts or so ).
you can see WTC7 on the upper right of the cityscape...
what i find FUNNY about the whole 9/11 coverage, is that BBC LOST THEIR FOOTAGE! ALL OF IT!... on quite possibly the most important news day of our time, and they LOOSE IT!.. wtf?
( i know the article is about the video link i posted above, but they say they lost ALL their footage in it... )