I find it interesting that researchers tend to hyper-focus on how the buildings came down. A proper investigation should start by looking at personal associations and the characters involved. That would take you to Sarasota and Venice, Florida. This is where the hijackers converged, lived, and learned to fly. Researching the tiny flight schools involved, you'd uncover a drug running operation with ties to the CIA and individuals connected to the Iran-contra affair. Reading the local papers, the government's portrait of Atta falls apart. Daniel Hopsicker is an investigative reporter from the Venice area and had been writing about some of these characters before 9/11. His documentary can be seen here, but I suggest you read the book Welcome to Terrorland. [video=youtube;Q6W4L-HK-Os]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6W4L-HK-Os[/video] After Hopsicker wrote his book claiming that Ruddi Dekkers and the other flight school owners were government drug traffickers, he was vindicated when Dekkers was arrested for exactly that. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlin...ers-flight-school-faces-drug-running-charges/ Dekkers was a career criminal. He was wanted in his home country for embezzlement, and prosecutors claimed he was working with organized crime. He was investigated in the US for illegally smuggling high tech computer chips.
People talk too much about the destroyed buildings as if it makes a difference. Truthers focus too much on engineering, science, the numbers needed to calculate what could and couldn't have happened physically. They do too little of the usual detective work, like discuss connections of main suspects, key people, events before and after 9/11 etc. There is just so much material to be checked out. So many documents, characters, many puzzling official statements and papers. If I were to thoroughly read, research and bring everything to this forum, it would mean dropping everything in my life and spending months here, day by day, starting from the ideologies of Cheney's student group back in the 1960s.
The proof that the government did it is so clear that the idea of there having been hijackers is ridiculous. These links have most of the proof and some theories on who planned it and why. http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=348380&p=1063729867#post1063729867 http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=349073&page=2&p=1063740783#post1063740783
Rubbish! 7th and 8th graders should have been explaining why airliners could not do that in the first month. The bottoms of skyscrapers must be stronger and heavier than the tops to hold the tops up. So why doesn't everybody expect to be given accurate data on the amounts of steel and concrete on every level? The amazing thing about the 9/11 Affair is the 13 years of stupidity. psik
You say that you KNOW that there were hijackers, Please share with us your INFORMATION that proves without any doubt, that hijacked airliners were used as weapons that day(?)
It's been shared and you know it quite well. The evidence is overwhelming and you know it and you have seen it time and again. On the other hand it is you without a speck of evidence to support your counter claims.
