Why I Believe 9/11 Conspiracies

At the risk of being labeled a "nut" or "whack job," I write this next piece. Let me set the record straight before I begin. First, I do not believe every 9/11 conspiracy out there. However, I do believe that something happened that day which our government is not telling us via the "official story." Second, I am neither an anarchist nor an anti-war advocate. I think good laws are necessary for a healthy nation, and I do not think we use our military enough. And, third, I have never used drugs, unless you consider alcohol and nicotine drugs. With these preliminaries out of the way, here is why I believe that something else happened on 9/11:

1) During a short press conference, Donald Rumsfel said that a plane was "shot down" over Pennsylvania by the terrorists. This video can be seen on YouTube - I am certain many of you have seen it. What is startling about the short clip, is the confidence with which Rumsfeld spoke. He was reading prepared remarks. Need I remind everyone that Rumsfeld is a polished politician. He has served our country since the Nixon Era. He does not make mistakes when addressing the media, especially with an issue as significant as 9/11. In fact, those who have watched Rumsfeld over the years all say the same thing: he speaks his mind and is a straight-shooter. When you watch the video, notice the people in the background react when Rumsfeld uses the words "shot down."

2) I do not buy the argument that people's memories are more flawed during stressful or chaotic times. Am I the only one who disagrees with this point? I have found just the opposite to be true. Our senses are heightened in times of stress and chaos. We are more aware of what is going on around us. It is common sense, despite what any psychologist says. This is important because people from all walks of life said they heard "bombs" or "secondary explosions" around the WTC buildings as the fire enveloped the upper floors.

3) There is no way a 747 hit the Pentagon, at least the way the official report claims. More damage, and a different caliber of damage would have occurred.

4) Terrorists responsible for the hijackings have been confirmed alive. Even the number is exaggerated - all I need is one of them to be alive for something rotten to be in Denmark.

5) The crash site in Pennsylvania did not look like any plane crash I have seen before.

6) The AP story about United 93 landing in Cleveland was printed then removed within an hour. This is suspicious.

7) The military training exercises that morning were virtually identical with real life. Yet, the claim is that the government had "no idea" that planes would ever be hijacked and flown into buildings.

I could probably think of other reasons that lead to me to believe that something else went on that morning that we have not been told. These reasons, however, are sufficient for me to distrust the offical story. "Our age is one of advertisement" - that was spoken in 1847 by Soren Kiekergaard. How prophetic and applicable are those words today!

For those who unwaveringly accept the government's version of the facts, I leave you with two facts and one conjecture. First the facts: The event that caused US involvement in both the Spanish American War and Vietnam have been proven false. The destruction of the Maine and the Gulf of Tonkin incident were fabricated to engage our enemies. And now the speculation. Some historians think FDR knew about the bombing of Pearl Harbor before it happened. Nothing proven...but it makes you wonder.

Is it really so difficult to believe that nations need war to survive? Our economy is intertwined and dependent on military and defense spending. President Eisenhower warned us of the "military industrial complex" before he left office. We should have listened.