Those Darn 9/11 Conspiracies
The New American takes them on.
It's kind of amusing (yet annoying) how these articles always attack the most extreme 9/11 claims and ignore the very substantial evidence that 9/11 was an inside job-- some of the best evidence is listed in my 9/11 Talking Points.
To be completely fair, the The New American article isn't as completely dismissive of conspiracy theories in general about 9/11 as the recent Popular Mechanics article. But they sure do not go out of their way to show some of the clear evidence of government complicity.
By the way, this little essay here is a good piece that makes the point that you only need two pieces of evidence to prove the official story of 9/11 is wrong: the insider stock trades on American and United Airlines and the collapse of WTC building 7.
It's kind of amusing (yet annoying) how these articles always attack the most extreme 9/11 claims and ignore the very substantial evidence that 9/11 was an inside job-- some of the best evidence is listed in my 9/11 Talking Points.
To be completely fair, the The New American article isn't as completely dismissive of conspiracy theories in general about 9/11 as the recent Popular Mechanics article. But they sure do not go out of their way to show some of the clear evidence of government complicity.
By the way, this little essay here is a good piece that makes the point that you only need two pieces of evidence to prove the official story of 9/11 is wrong: the insider stock trades on American and United Airlines and the collapse of WTC building 7.
posted by spooked at 10:42 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home