Sort:  

There are rebuttals and answers for everything out there. It is just a matter of whether or not you trust the sources and accept the narrative that is presented.

Flight 93:

http://www.toledoblade.com/Nation/2011/09/11/Witness-lawman-coroner-look-back-at-tragedy-of-Flight-93.html

Pentagon wreckage:

https://www.businessinsider.com/the-fbi-pentagon-on-911-2017-5

Building 7:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/03/part_of_the_conspiracy_2.html

But even without any evidence at all, if I just think through the events, a coverup just doesn’t add up to me.

Let’s assume the worst of the worst: 9/11 was everything you say it was and more. The BBC was in on it the whole time. What does that mean? That means that someone tipped off a mainstream media organization in advance of the greatest false flag operation in modern history, and that the news teams were so incompetent that they accidentally leaked the secret news that this was about to happen early. What motivation would anyone have for telling the BBC their plans ahead of time? And if it was a whistleblower, where are they now and why weren’t there others? In my mind, the far simpler explanation was that 9 hours into the most intense news day of all time, as building 7 was burning to the ground, the overworked and exhausted news team halfway around the world misheard initial reports and made a simple mistake.

Just my rationale for what I believe. Not trying to convince you or anyone else, just laying out the reasons for why I’m still not convinced it was much more than we were told.

I’d be willing to concede that the official report might be a little fuzzy, but I chalk that up to bureaucrats trying to save face and hide incompetence and mistakes, not cover up something sinister.

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.15
TRX 0.23
JST 0.032
BTC 89292.82
ETH 2436.28
USDT 1.00
SBD 0.68