Im doing a report on 9/11 truth

Hey everyone. im writing a persuasive paper on the conspiracies behind 9/11 and i need a lot of sources that i can get information from. i have read some amazing stuff on this forum so i was hoping you guys could all post 1-2 sites each that have some good information i could use. hopefully pressed rat can get me some good sites. i have faith in all of you. this topic is really important to me and i want to make it really powerful. when i told my teacher my topic she said
"I didnt even know there were such theories." Nobody in class had any idea about them either. i want to make this good and hopefully it will lead to other things....after learning more about it i would love to start a 9/11 truth group at my high school. a lot of people would be interested and i could probably educate a lot of people. it would also mean more to me than what i would have on a college application....first things first though....my paper...

thanks for any help

*edit* disregard any spelling or grammar errors in this post.

 

Don't leave out the part about the shape changing, time travelling lizard jews.

Make sure you mention the high level homosexual control of the Republican party,and the giant NWO base under the Denver airport.

And make sure your bibliography includes links to websites which question the holocaust and ponder the "mysterious, eternal allure of Adolf Hitler".

 

www.911truth.org

and don't listen to pontbreak, only a few people in the 9-11 truth movement believe in lizard conspiracies and that sort...

 

good luck bro...there are tons of info out there and some of it is just crazy

 

You have to admit, the 9/11 truth movement steering committee has some pretty impressive credentials:

Janice Matthews, Executive Director: advanced training in social welfare and midwifery

W. David Kubiak, International Campaign Advisor: taught mass media & memetics in Japan, ran a blues bar, failed candidate for state senate.

Gabriel Day, Outreach Director: no credentials listed

Les Jamieson, Northeast Program Coordinator: He has spent nearly every Saturday afternoon since Jan. 2004 at Ground Zero, handing out literature

Wow, with a team like that you know they aren't going to buy into just any old conspiracy theory.

 

He said he wanted alternative theories on 9/11 not necessarily a reputable source, but nice knee-jerk reaction to shoot down the link!

www.infowars.com is a good site, Alex Jones' opinions are usually slanted to the second amendment christian side, but a lot of his observations about the government and the like are pretty right one.

www.whatreallyhappened.com presents a lot of links to other site about a variety of conspirational and indie media news. All their articles are linked to their source, so you can judge the validity of teh statement for yourself based on where it came from.

http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/signs.htm is another site that collects various articles and reports and presents them on its front page. They covered a lot of the 9/11 coverups back when it was breaking and what not.

Good luck. There is some truth out there some where, so dont let the republicans and sheeple discourage you from looking!

 

that's the pathetic part of it , you nutter's think your gonna find your "proof" or your "truth" on the web! yeah ,just go cut & paste everything you find print it out PRESTO! you solved the case. haha.

 

Hello,

If you're doing a report on just 9/11 alone, I wouldn't go into the theories behind it just yet, stick to what happened on that day.

This video should make you think.

http://http://question911.com/linkout.php?filename=Loose%20Change%20-%20A%20Documentary%20on%20911%20Part%201.wmv (part 1)

http://http://question911.com/linkout.php?filename=Loose%20Change%20-%20A%20Documentary%20on%20911%20Part%202.wmv (part 2)

I think I've posted the links for these videos a few times, and nobody has stepped up to debunk what it says, which is what I'd really like to hear.

Things such as the New World Order can be a bit confusing, there's a lot of conceivable situations and a lot of bogusness and a lot of spin like lizards and stuff.

Be careful out there.

 

it would help if the link's hadn't expired.

 

sorry guys.. just saw my post count and ... just wanted to find somewhere to make it to 912..

but seriously.. there are loads of convincing resource sites on this subject... good luck... i'm sure with the help of some of the people here youll get no end of useful info..

 

well thanks for those sites. i dont expect to prove anything, im just trying to reinforce what i believe to be mostly true: that the government had a part in 9/11. i guess thats more or less what the paper is about. thanks.

 

Uh...I wouldn't even say that THAT'S fair. People who believe in "lizard conspiracies" are themselves probably working to undermine the 9/11 truth movement. I was stunned to see an article of such wretched stupidity in the www.mujca.com site.

Mac, the most reliable source of concrete information about this issue is by a man named David Ray Griffin. In fact he's giving a lecture in NYC about it next week. Pick up his 2 books on the subject called "The New Pearl Harbor" and the 2nd, "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions." It's the best and most concise analysis on the topic, and trust me, it's anything but boring. It's fucking scary because of how convincing it is.

check out www.septembereleventh.org

 

The thing is though, "reliable and concrete" in the world of conspiracy theorists means second or third hand unverified information.

David Ray Griffin is a professer of Theology. He trawled the web just like anyone else, collected a bunch of conspiracy theories, and put them together. He researched nothing himself, he fact checked nothing, and when asked questions he simply backs off and says "hey this is what i heard, i can't veryify it".

So if that is your definition of "reliable and concrete", then Mister Griffin is your man.

 

Oh dear that sounds like a bad idea.. convincing yourself something is true..with info from biased sources.. oh dear, oh dear oh dear.. Why not look at the multi faceted nature of all the peoples POV in this thread and 'out there'. Instead of parroting [to people who have no idea about these things..] biased 'truths' that support what you wish to be true.


You will find some good information from the links provided [that support what you want].. just a thought though, why not re-check from other sources what they are saying.

If all you want is a one sided view.. then ignore everything i have just said

Here is a site that turned me [along with many other things] the other way [not believing the same as yourself]

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/

It will fully support the notions you would like to put in your paper [trust me].

 

Truth does not equal conspiracy.

 

well, although its a persuasive paper i still have to present the other side of the story so i need that kind of information. im not the kind of kid who jumps on sides like that but from what i have read so far i have just not seen any convincing evidence that the government ISNT behind it. pretty much any info i get is going to be somewhat biased so i will try to make due.

 

You obviously have not read that much then.



No seriously.. information implicating the goverment outweighs and drones out information that does not.. for one simple reason .. they have far more time on their hands and a lot more too lose.. If the fundemental principle that the goverment did not have any involvement , every other notion starts to crumble..

Though this is not that true to be honest.. you say not many people have heard these conspiracies [that you talk too] .. well when i speak with people [away from the net, and not emersed in it] they are not aware either.
Just vague notions of this and that .. nothing joined up.
When you do join the dots.. two posibilities emerge .. i have just chosen the other one.
I don't have any great links to back up my view just endless news reports and govermental information.. all dismissed of course by the 'other side'..
I have yet to meet one person that has been 'converted' my way.

I gaurantee you have read more 'speculation' within this forum than actual fact.. i guees you have to deciede what is what... good luck.

 

the reaction you've elicited from our resident official conspiracy theorists: all ad hominem attacks you may have noticed, will give you a foretaste of what to expect when you present a pro-9/11 truth project to your teacher and class so u need to be prepared. if i were u i'd stick to one aspect of september 11th and focus exclusively on that: eg, ask only one question such as:"what happened to building 7?" or "why didn't the air force respond to the hijackings in time to stop the attacks?", or "why did bush behave so strangely on the morning of the attacks?". as regards sources you need look no further than the offiicial source documents themselves to build a convincing and logical case (if you're interested you can message me and i'll give you some). by using source documents ppl such as pointbreak and matthew can't attack you for your sources (they actually don't reply when you present something irrefutable through source documents, so it's actually they who are clinging to fantasies when an aspect of the truth stares them in the face and they refuse to acknowledge it). also some will say you're trawling for info on the net, like cadcruzer: it's the only line he knows i'm afraid yet he's the first one to use the internet to substantiate his particular pov when it suits him, as we all do. so you see this will require courage as you have to express a minority opinion in the face of hostile elements but it will be a good way to develop your researching and writing skills and your individuality.

 

Actually, all his sources were from the mainstream press. He admits that. If he can deduce that 9/11 was probably an inside job just from mainstream sources, there's a good amount of credibility to it, since it was even allowed into the mainsteam. Pointbreak, I'd love for you to read his 2 books and lemme know what you think.

 

There is nothing for me to gain from reading Griffen. There is no original research or thought, no expert analysis, and no fact checking. All he does is repeat what he heard elsewhere. Why would I want to read that?

Sorry but I read enough of these conspiracies on the web, i don't need to buy a book which just repeats them.