Slap MessageBoards
General Discussion => WHATEVER => Topic started by: Commercial D on October 21, 2006, 03:29:56 PM
-
Before you answer, consider:
WTC 7 (http://wtc7.net)
Scholars for 9/11 Truth (http://st911.org)
Terror Storm: A History of Gov't-Sponsored Terror (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=786048453686176230)
9/11 Eyewitness (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603)
-
Where is Donnie when we need him?
-
Commercial D, you don't happen to work for the government do you?
-
i don't think the government set it up, but i do think that they were complicit in it happening
-
never post
-
I've seen all those conspiracy things and they somehow make sense, but afterall I wouldn't want to believe it, cause who knows what else they've set up and noone ever realized...
I'll stick to common belief, i don't wanna mess up my whole perception.
-
This story separates that fine line between being normal and being stupid.
I can easily turn my brain off to someone when I hear them start talking about it.
-
I'm really sick of hearing people talk about this. I've read all the sites and the supposed proof as well as the official story and rebuttals and I just don't buy it. By the way, the official story of wtc 7 is not that it collapsed from fire, but from damage from falling debris.
-
and we went into Iraq to find the weapons of mass destruction.
-
i believe bush is a to dumb to pull it off that cleanly
-
I believe that if I wanted to prove that my assault on another person was in self-defense, I would cut off my own penis.
-
i believe in spam. y'all niggas ever fry up some spam wit a little eggs and cheese? sheeeit, bitchs.
-
im not dumb enuff to belive any of does dumb conspircys
-
KYLE !
-
you'd have to be stupid to believe any of that shit.
-
No, all those conspiracies make large, factless, leaps. An base almost all of their 'proof' on misinformation, things that have been proven wrong and in some cases, plain lying.
Put your mind to some actual user, if you don't want to believe the official story, read the 9/11 timeline. Then you'll see how it was a mjor fuck-up on our side. But you can't say "it was an inside job" just because you have a persecution complex.
-
you'd have to be stupid to believe any of that shit.
coincidentally, i'd apply that exact quote to how i feel about a good amount of the people in our country.
-
HA. who else isn't the least bit surprised slap forums are full of sheeple? bunch of frickin lemmings.
-
Expand Quote
you'd have to be stupid to believe any of that shit.
Regarding 9/11?
-
Inside job: the thing that clinches it for me is the towers falling at near free-fall...so if you were standing at the top of the buildings when they collapsed and dropped a pebble off of the top, you and the pebble would hit the ground at the same time, although you'd have 110 stories of skyscraper to fall through...pretty unsettling.
-
I think it was an inside job, now if they had charges inside or they just let it happen for an excuse to invade Iraq for the Saudi's (Iraq is the Saudi's biggest oil competitor). And for all of you who don't care or don't want to think about it, just so you know this stuff I am saying will soon be against the law thanks to Bush and Co. turning the US into a Facisit state.
-
I think it was an inside job, now if they had charges inside or they just let it happen for an excuse to invade Iraq for the Saudi's (Iraq is the Saudi's biggest oil competitor). And for all of you who don't care or don't want to think about it, just so you know this stuff I am saying will soon be against the law thanks to Bush and Co. turning the US into a Facisit state.
haha i dunt live in da states, im not evan dumb as ameracans
-
9-11 wasn't an inside job, because the word job implies work, and this administration doesn't really do any.
Unless of course, raping the Constitution is considered work.
-
i think aliens had a direct part in this...
-
(fnord)
-
inside job for sure.
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
you'd have to be stupid to believe any of that shit.
Regarding 9/11?
regarding anything involving our government.
-
it wasn't an inside job. too many people would have to keep their mouths shut, and if this forum proves anything about humans, it is that we love to talk shit.
-
Loose Change helped us weed out the hippies.
-
too many people would have to keep their mouths shut,
yeah, if the govt. couldn't keep iran-contra a secret, no way would they be able to keep attacking NYC under wraps.
But I also hate that reasoning, since it means that there's not alien spacecraft at Area 51 and the US really did go to the moon.
-
Expand Quote
too many people would have to keep their mouths shut,
yeah, if the govt. couldn't keep iran-contra a secret, no way would they be able to keep attacking NYC under wraps.
But I also hate that reasoning, since it means that there's not alien spacecraft at Area 51 and the US really did go to the moon.
i said fucking ALIENS, people
-
The 911 Conspiracy South Park was pretty good.
-
fnord
-
it wasn't an inside job. too many people would have to keep their mouths shut, and if this forum proves anything about humans, it is that we love to talk shit.
Isaac you would be shocked.
-
Loose Change helped us weed out the hippies.
It also helps us seperate the people who don't bother to check up on what they're told as fact by a high-school student on some homemade documentary and those who do check up on whether what they're saying has any truth behind it.
-
i seriously doubt you have any idea what the "truth" is. either way you look at what happened that day, it's too much for the public to handle. unsuprisingly, a lot of things are covered up for that very reason.
-
You mean like Bush having anti-aircraft guns installed on his holiday home the day before 9/11 (even though that wasn't part of the normal order at the time)? Even this proves nothing.
If anything really is covered up, neither of us would know anything about it. And none of the cocksuckers at loose change would know anymore than we do. They just make spurious claims with no facts to support them (worse than that, making claims as fact which even popular mechanics refutes given their knowledge of how 'free-falling' buildings would work). The worst thing they do is take this so called evidence and then make a giant leap and say, without even any of their made-up evidence to support it, that the Government must have planned it.
I've no doubt that the US Government made a major fuck-up the day of 9/11, and before it. Ignoring warnings from all over because they "didn't set a specific date". And I've no doubt the the PNAC members used this attack as a means of invading the middle-east.
But I won't put blind-faith into some crack-pot idea forged by some spotty cunt with a voice recorder and a mate who can make looming music for him.
-
i forgot to mention that i haven't seen any of those documentaries and don't plan to. we seem to be on the same page.
-
I think it was an inside job, now if they had charges inside or they just let it happen for an excuse to invade Iraq for the Saudi's (Iraq is the Saudi's biggest oil competitor). And for all of you who don't care or don't want to think about it, just so you know this stuff I am saying will soon be against the law thanks to Bush and Co. turning the US into a Facisit state.
If it was an excuse for going into Iraq don't you think they would have linked it more closely? I mean, fuck, if you are making it up why blame Al Qaeda and the taliban? Why not call them secret agents from Iraq? Also, that tower 7 argument is garbage. Have you ever seen a map of the buildings destroyed during that whole thing? Its right in the fucking line of fire, and the buildings surrounding it were all atleast partially damaged from the world trade center. I believe fully that Bush had enough information to do something about it, and just sat on it. He just got elected controversially and had none of what he has called "political capital." Saw that and new it would elevate him to great heights before his inevitable failure. I think that conspiracy theories about the 9/11 inside job actually weaken the very serious and very legitimate charge that the Bush whitehouse let this happen.
I saw "loose change" and it seemed spotty, I definitely was planning on checking up on it, anybody know any good sites to look up?
-
If anything really is covered up, neither of us would know anything about it. And none of the cocksuckers at loose change would know anymore than we do. They just make spurious claims with no facts to support them (worse than that, making claims as fact which even popular mechanics refutes given their knowledge of how 'free-falling' buildings would work). The worst thing they do is take this so called evidence and then make a giant leap and say, without even any of their made-up evidence to support it, that the Government must have planned it.
I've no doubt that the US Government made a major fuck-up the day of 9/11, and before it. Ignoring warnings from all over because they "didn't set a specific date". And I've no doubt the the PNAC members used this attack as a means of invading the middle-east.
But I won't put blind-faith into some crack-pot idea forged by some spotty cunt with a voice recorder and a mate who can make looming music for him.
Yes.
-
Actual evidence, Loose Change was done by college drop out hippies (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cw7FtELu4A)
-
Expand Quote
I think it was an inside job, now if they had charges inside or they just let it happen for an excuse to invade Iraq for the Saudi's (Iraq is the Saudi's biggest oil competitor). And for all of you who don't care or don't want to think about it, just so you know this stuff I am saying will soon be against the law thanks to Bush and Co. turning the US into a Facisit state.
haha i dunt live in da states, im not evan dumb as ameracans
where do you happen to live where people such as yourself really are dumber than americans?
-
i think the republicans put forward bush just because hes a person
that way people will think the government is too stupid to do shit like this
-
anybody know any good sites to look up?
BYU Physics Prof. on Evidence of Thermite Explosives at WTC Site (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4884818450327382904)
Terror Storm: A History of Gov't-Sponsored Terror (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=786048453686176230)
Matthew Horton Woodson, Congressional Candidate for 5th district of Oklahoma (http://www.sendmeabuck.com)
Former Mi5 Agent Says 9/11 an Inside Job (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2005/270605insidejob.htm)
Why Did the Trade Center Skyscrapers Collapse? by Morgan Reynolds, Chief Economist for U.S. Department of Labor during the first G.W. Bush Administration (http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html)
Former German Defense Minister Confirms CIA Involvement in 9/11 (http://www.prisonplanet.com/021104vonbuelow.html)
Former UK Minister of Environment Questions 9/11 Story (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,4747953-111381,00.html)
Scholars for 9 11 Truth (http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/)
Statement: Twelve Questions About 9/11, Signed by 100 Prominent Americans (http://www.wanttoknow.info/911statement)
http://www.dc911truth.org/
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=964034652002408586
-
Expand Quote
I think it was an inside job, now if they had charges inside or they just let it happen for an excuse to invade Iraq for the Saudi's (Iraq is the Saudi's biggest oil competitor). And for all of you who don't care or don't want to think about it, just so you know this stuff I am saying will soon be against the law thanks to Bush and Co. turning the US into a Facisit state.
I saw "loose change" and it seemed spotty, I definitely was planning on checking up on it, anybody know any good sites to look up?
Look I am not even talking about the movie Loose Change.
-
Man at the time of 9/11 i the guy's i was working with were all really into there politics, it was a great enviroment to be working in, there's a radio persenter here in the UK called Jeremy Vine - he's on BBC Radio 2 from 12-2PM UK time, he's totally unbiased and very funny for objective views, also the best news on TV here is Channel 4 New with John Snow, again, he's totally unbais to any point of view so let people put there points forward.
Then both of the presenters with question the living shit out the interviewee, it makes for some great entertainment, both of them had been interviewing a lot of Americans on the lead up to 9/11
Then once it all happend it was somewhat of an "atmosphere" of the US government being under alot of suspition about "how" and "why" something like this could happen.
I mean the fact that a plane "disappeared" outside the Pentagon, without trace is a bit mysterious, i mean planes are pretty big, when they crash they leave a lot of wreckage, i mean a lot, you're not going to be cleaning that up in a couple hours, more like the next 2 weeks for a rush job.
Then there's the plane that was prehaps shot down, which again didn't seem to leave any wreckage or bodies - which is pretty interesting, Lockerbie when that got blown up, that shit was everywhere for months and months - very dubious to save the least
After it happend, we (the people in my office) basically found so much information in things that had happend or "not" happend, alot of people were changing statments they'd made on the day, just so much dodgy shit was going on with American news coverage, like it was like no one was sure what they should or shouldn't be saying
But i'd jsut like to know, why - if a building was collapsing would it being blatently having explosions inside that are all recorded, which you can also see going off on the outside, building don't fall in on themselves either, unless it's controled, you'd think if a plane flew into a building there would be some serious shit going on, not a nice little pile a few hours later
I just find the situation a little strange, you dont' have to be a genius to think something a little odd with it all.
But what i find even better is Bush keeps telling American's that "Your freedom is at risk !"
At risk from what ? You dont' have the IRA, ETA, (ok most are now defunct) etc, blowing shit up litteraly on your doorstep, i mean how many car bombs have gone off in America.
If you were going to start a "terror" campaign in the states using planes would be the last thing i'd have thought of - great publicity but you can only really do it once (even though it happend twice) - car bombs in the streets no problem
I mean look at the Tube bombing in London and Madrid, now that's goign to put paranoia in the public, that would ruin New York for weeks not days. . . .
I just find it all a bit "easy" to pin the blame on an organisation that may or may not exist as such a highly organised group
Anyway Bin Laden and Bush are like coke buddies from there Dad's oil days - you don't really fuck with you're party buddies that hard, i mean maybe draw a cock on his face while he's sleeping but, blow up some buildings, hmmmmm
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
I think it was an inside job, now if they had charges inside or they just let it happen for an excuse to invade Iraq for the Saudi's (Iraq is the Saudi's biggest oil competitor). And for all of you who don't care or don't want to think about it, just so you know this stuff I am saying will soon be against the law thanks to Bush and Co. turning the US into a Facisit state.
haha i dunt live in da states, im not evan dumb as ameracans
where do you happen to live where people such as yourself really are dumber than americans?
kiribati
-
The conspiracy ends with the lack of an inner-city subway system in Winnipeg, right?
Nope, it ends in East St. Paul, with a suburban kid who can't get anywhere unless he's in a car.
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
I think it was an inside job, now if they had charges inside or they just let it happen for an excuse to invade Iraq for the Saudi's (Iraq is the Saudi's biggest oil competitor). And for all of you who don't care or don't want to think about it, just so you know this stuff I am saying will soon be against the law thanks to Bush and Co. turning the US into a Facisit state.
I saw "loose change" and it seemed spotty, I definitely was planning on checking up on it, anybody know any good sites to look up?
Look I am not even talking about the movie Loose Change.
Seperate point. Answer for why we would accuse Al Qaeda of an attack if we wanted to go after Iraq
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
I think it was an inside job, now if they had charges inside or they just let it happen for an excuse to invade Iraq for the Saudi's (Iraq is the Saudi's biggest oil competitor). And for all of you who don't care or don't want to think about it, just so you know this stuff I am saying will soon be against the law thanks to Bush and Co. turning the US into a Facisit state.
I saw "loose change" and it seemed spotty, I definitely was planning on checking up on it, anybody know any good sites to look up?
Look I am not even talking about the movie Loose Change.
They did say that Iraq helped Al Qaeda do it at first that along with WMD's is why we invaded Iraq.
-
and it turned out that Sadam hated al-qaeda almost as much as the US does/did. he was a secular muslim and didn't want those nuts in Iraq at all.
-
They did say that Iraq helped Al Qaeda do it at first that along with WMD's is why we invaded Iraq.
This is true. In my eyes, regardless of whether you think the US was complicit in 911, they used it as an excuse to do unspeakably awful things. Virtually all their foreign policy after 2001 can be enacted under the guise of the war on terror. Like Hunter S. said about the whole thing, you have to look at who benefitted from 911. Is Al Queda or the Taliban getting anything out of it? Fuck no, maybe a little publicity, but is that worth it for having your ass hunted down by the same country who funded you and trained you in the first place? Halliburton and many other military contractors are making billions offa the war on terror, so don't think it's completely out of the question that they weren't bummed when those planes hit those buildings.
-
im taking an entire class on 9/11 coverups this semester, its a criminal justice credit...anyways...There is a semesters worth of evidence proving that the government ignored numerous warnings about 9/11, and that Bush has classified tons of documents that would further prove this and perhaps more. There is a lot more to the 9/11 story and we probably wont ever know the truth. Dont believe me? Check out this site my professors created:
http://www.justiceblind.com/911undergrad.htm
-
I'm glad your tuition was spent well.
-
I'm glad your tuition was spent well.
Tuition covers 12 hours of credit, and anything more than that. My tuition is being spent on the 14 hours of classes I need....and this class makes it 17 hours. The price would be the same with or without this class....that I find interesting, by the way.
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
I think it was an inside job, now if they had charges inside or they just let it happen for an excuse to invade Iraq for the Saudi's (Iraq is the Saudi's biggest oil competitor). And for all of you who don't care or don't want to think about it, just so you know this stuff I am saying will soon be against the law thanks to Bush and Co. turning the US into a Facisit state.
I saw "loose change" and it seemed spotty, I definitely was planning on checking up on it, anybody know any good sites to look up?
Look I am not even talking about the movie Loose Change.
They did say that Iraq helped Al Qaeda do it at first that along with WMD's is why we invaded Iraq.
But why add the extra degree? Why not directly attribute it to Sadaam if neither group was responsible anyway? I think they were complicit, and in that book "the price of loyalty," a tell all book by a former cabinet member it is said that Bush came into the 9/11 meeting with only one thing on his mind, how it could be connected to Hussein. He let it happen because he could benefit out of it, no doubt.
But I will go against my side and say this: a lot of major conspiracies throughout history have not come out to be true until years after they occured, the period of saying "if there was something it would have already been leaked," is not here yet. The current administration is still in power.
-
since when did the us need an excuse to do anything?
-
The reason the US needed an excuse was to get the public on their side. 911 created an atmosphere of flag waving us vs. them mentalness that gave the administration carte blanche to do whatever they wanted.
-
look at shit like kyoto...you think the us cares?
-
I dunno what kyoto has to do with it. I meant that unless there wasn't some kinda whitewash excuse, your regular everyday people wouldn't be down to send their kids to the desert to get killed.
-
since when did the us need an excuse to do anything?
Spanish-American war- 1897, The sinking of the USS Maine by the spanish was used as an excuse to go to war
Vietnam war-1964(?) A ship is sunk off the gulf of tonkin, prepelling the us into full scale war.
Of course, these never happened.
The U.S. government needs an excuse and is willing to exploit one.
-
marinus vanderlube bombing the reichstag...fuck that dude....you guys are right....
-
Don't take that leap to quickly jsoy, just because the government sat on their hands, likely intentionally, doesn't mean they planned the whole thing.
Tomkin happened after a close call, and the USS Maine actually sunk, but it was because of an internal coal furnace explosion. They have a history of EXPLOITING an event, not creating it.
-
what about wrestling...that shit real?
-
This is such a good topic. The most interesting stuff to read here in a long time. Carry on!
-
thanks man...I do my best to keep people educated....
-
They have a history of EXPLOITING an event, not creating it.
yes, and "they" exploited the fuck out of 9/11. is that really any better than orchestrating the whole thing? i'd say it's almost worse.
-
heres what really happened
(http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b192/Gaydude69/dragontradecenter3vl.jpg)
-
(http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b192/Gaydude69/DeathStarWTC.jpg)
-
i think dat tha terrorists were liked hired by da US or something
-
Expand Quote
They have a history of EXPLOITING an event, not creating it.
Its like manslaughter versus murder. Its not worse necessarily, it certainly is bad though. I'm just saying that it is probable that they let it happen, but I believe it unlikely that they orchestrated it.
Now as for that dragon taking out the tower, I'm pretty sure that that is actually how tower 7 went down.
-
I'm just saying that it is probable that they let it happen, but I believe it unlikely that they orchestrated it.
So you're a LIHOP, not a MIHOP.
-
An inside job? Are you fucking kidding me? Alright, I didn't really read everyone's posts on this thread, but the conspiricy theorys are incredibly stupid and based on misinformation and general assumptions.. Do people really think that the American government is going to kill its own fucking people just for an excuse to invade Iraq? Use your common sense dude this isn't a fucking movie, they could have done something more realistic to get people to back the invasion into Iraq. Yeah the government did exploit the fuck out of the whole thing, but that's definately not worse then orchestrating it... If more Americans weren't fucking idiots then it wouldn't have worked anyway becuase they'd realize that being patriotic doesn't mean that you're going to agree with everything the government does but you're actually going to excersize you rights and the freedoms given to you.
-
Do people really think that the American government is going to kill its own fucking people just for an excuse to invade Iraq?
It's not the government. We're talking about maybe 50 people involved, some of whom are in government (Cheney), some of whom aren't (Silverstein). And this is about much more than just Iraq. It's about re-shaping foreign policy, shredding the Bill of Rights, and implementing a perpetual state of emergency to quash dissent, just for starters.
Maybe downloading and watching this video (http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=786048453686176230) will lead you to a different perspective.
By the way, are you one of the Mellons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Mellon_family)? Like Carnegie-Mellon?
-
Expand Quote
Do people really think that the American government is going to kill its own fucking people just for an excuse to invade Iraq?
It's not the government. We're talking about maybe 50 people involved, some of whom are in government (Cheney), some of whom aren't (Silverstein). And this is about much more than just Iraq. It's about re-shaping foreign policy, shredding the Bill of Rights, and implementing a perpetual state of emergency to quash dissent, just for starters.
Maybe downloading and watching this video (http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=786048453686176230) will lead you to a different perspective.
By the way, are you one of the Mellons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Mellon_family)? Like Carnegie-Mellon?
I didn't watch the video yet, but before I do, let me ask you this... If enough key people in the government could pull off an operation such as 9/11 and keep it under wraps, why wouldn't they just kill the people that made this video showing their fiendish plot... I mean, if they killed all those people to quash dissent, why wouldn't they kill a few more dissenters who could ruin their evil plans? It doesn't really add up... But I'll watch it in a few hours and get back to you.
Edit: No, I'm not one of the Mellons... If I was I would probably have something more important and expensive to do with my time then this.
-
Expand Quote
I'm just saying that it is probable that they let it happen, but I believe it unlikely that they orchestrated it.
So you're a LIHOP, not a MIHOP.
A what? I'm no pancake house!
-
government (Cheney)
-
bush knows how ta fly fighter jets nd shit, mabey he did it
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Do people really think that the American government is going to kill its own fucking people just for an excuse to invade Iraq?
It's not the government. We're talking about maybe 50 people involved, some of whom are in government (Cheney), some of whom aren't (Silverstein). And this is about much more than just Iraq. It's about re-shaping foreign policy, shredding the Bill of Rights, and implementing a perpetual state of emergency to quash dissent, just for starters.
Maybe downloading and watching this video (http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=786048453686176230) will lead you to a different perspective.
By the way, are you one of the Mellons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Mellon_family)? Like Carnegie-Mellon?
Edit: No, I'm not one of the Mellons... If I was I would probably have something more important and expensive to do with my time then this.
Because there is no reason to, most americans don't think that 9-11 was an inside job, I bet if 90% of america started thinking it was these people would be some of the first to go.
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
I'm just saying that it is probable that they let it happen, but I believe it unlikely that they orchestrated it.
So you're a LIHOP, not a MIHOP.
Let It Happen On Purpose, as opposed to Made It Happen On Purpose. No pancakes required.
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Do people really think that the American government is going to kill its own fucking people just for an excuse to invade Iraq?
It's not the government. We're talking about maybe 50 people involved, some of whom are in government (Cheney), some of whom aren't (Silverstein). And this is about much more than just Iraq. It's about re-shaping foreign policy, shredding the Bill of Rights, and implementing a perpetual state of emergency to quash dissent, just for starters.
Maybe downloading and watching this video (http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=786048453686176230) will lead you to a different perspective.
By the way, are you one of the Mellons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Mellon_family)? Like Carnegie-Mellon?
Edit: No, I'm not one of the Mellons... If I was I would probably have something more important and expensive to do with my time then this.
Because there is no reason to, most americans don't think that 9-11 was an inside job, I bet if 90% of america started thinking it was these people would be some of the first to go.
Dude you're rediculous, if it's such a big important job and was excecuted so flawlessly to fool all of us they wouldn't let this internet video leak. Also the video has a ton of errors and many of the accounts are from unqualified random people with no credibility. Just go here - www.loosechangeguide.com (http://www.loosechangeguide.com)
-
no you look at my website no you look at my website no you look at my website it says your website is wrong no you look at mineit has facts no so does mine no you look here you fucker no you look at this url
-
i heard from a credible source that bush went to war on iraq because laura bush said something about what saddam hussein's penis must be like
-
no you look at my website no you look at my website no you look at my website it says your website is wrong no you look at mineit has facts no so does mine no you look here you fucker no you look at this url
No dude loose change does not have facts... It has general assumptions based upon shoddy evidence.
-
Expand Quote
no you look at my website no you look at my website no you look at my website it says your website is wrong no you look at mineit has facts no so does mine no you look here you fucker no you look at this url
So is a lot of the "facts" backing up that it wasn't an inside job. The one thing that always gets me, what about the guys who are alive in the Mid East, the ones that "died" during 9/11 all they all lying?
-
The fact is that WTC 7 crumbled to the ground that day, the same way the other two towers fell, and it did'nt even get hit by a plane. Yet there is still no plausible explanation as to how it happened.
-
I don't recommend Loose Change. Shoddy indeed. Dylan Avery strikes me as something of a bozo.
I do, however, recommend:
Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse? (http://worldtradecentertruth.com/volume/200609/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf) by Brigham Young University physicist Stephen E. Jones (.pdf).
and...
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=alex+jones
-
The fact is that WTC 7 crumbled to the ground that day, the same way the other two towers fell, and it did'nt even get hit by a plane. Yet there is still no plausible explanation as to how it happened.
Well, more than just those 3 towers collapsed and were completely destroyed, still others around it were partially destroyed. If you look at a diagram of the buildings destroyed in that area, the fact that tower 7 fell is not really surprising. And believe it or not, there are lots of ways to make a building fall like that. I guess I am a LIHOP.
-
Expand Quote
The fact is that WTC 7 crumbled to the ground that day, the same way the other two towers fell, and it did'nt even get hit by a plane. Yet there is still no plausible explanation as to how it happened.
Yeah, I'm not surprised when a 47 story building, blocks away collapses for no reason either. Meanwhile the Millenium Hilton located at the base of the towers still stands till this day. Amazing how a Hilton has more structural integrity than a World Trade Center building. I guess funnier things have happened. Like how they find the terrorist's red bandanas, even though the blackbox disinegrates from extreme heat.
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
The fact is that WTC 7 crumbled to the ground that day, the same way the other two towers fell, and it did'nt even get hit by a plane. Yet there is still no plausible explanation as to how it happened.
person.Your argument shows that you lack any sound knowledge except for what is fed to you by conspiracy theorists. Look at a diagram of what happened. One that shows all the buildings in the area at the time, to scale, showing size and shape. Then look at what happened to everything between Tower 7 and the twin towers. ALL of the buildings were either entirely gone or had enough damage to the point where they were shut down. Just look at a map of it. I listened to all this tower 7 bullshit until I saw that map. When I saw that, I could tell it was not out of the ordinary that it entirely collapsed. It wasn't "blocks away," maybe a couple from tower 1 and 2, but those "blocks" you speak of, were also entirely leveled. Also, the Hilton is IN the world trade center, it WAS a trade center building. I stayed there over the summer of 2000. I don't know why you would think that a hilton and a world trade center building are mutually exclusive entities, and why if they were a "world trade center building" would automatically be more structurally sound. I don't know much about what happened to that Hilton, but I would be AMAZED if it were still standing.
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
The fact is that WTC 7 crumbled to the ground that day, the same way the other two towers fell, and it did'nt even get hit by a plane. Yet there is still no plausible explanation as to how it happened.
person.Your argument shows that you lack any sound knowledge except for what is fed to you by conspiracy theorists. Look at a diagram of what happened. One that shows all the buildings in the area at the time, to scale, showing size and shape. Then look at what happened to everything between Tower 7 and the twin towers. ALL of the buildings were either entirely gone or had enough damage to the point where they were shut down. Just look at a map of it. I listened to all this tower 7 bullshit until I saw that map. When I saw that, I could tell it was not out of the ordinary that it entirely collapsed. It wasn't "blocks away," maybe a couple from tower 1 and 2, but those "blocks" you speak of, were also entirely leveled. Also, the Hilton is IN the world trade center, it WAS a trade center building. I stayed there over the summer of 2000. I don't know why you would think that a hilton and a world trade center building are mutually exclusive entities, and why if they were a "world trade center building" would automatically be more structurally sound. I don't know much about what happened to that Hilton, but I would be AMAZED if it were still standing.
Post this "to scale" diagram of what happened. And I dont know what hotel you stayed in thats in the World Trade Center but the Millenium Hilton is on 55 Church street, adjacent to the towers. I'm not being fed anything what you call conspiracy theorists say. I just do my own research, rather than referencing some "to scale" diagram of what happened. Must be a pretty big diagram. So post it if it will fit.
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
The fact is that WTC 7 crumbled to the ground that day, the same way the other two towers fell, and it did'nt even get hit by a plane. Yet there is still no plausible explanation as to how it happened.
person.Your argument shows that you lack any sound knowledge except for what is fed to you by conspiracy theorists. Look at a diagram of what happened. One that shows all the buildings in the area at the time, to scale, showing size and shape. Then look at what happened to everything between Tower 7 and the twin towers. ALL of the buildings were either entirely gone or had enough damage to the point where they were shut down. Just look at a map of it. I listened to all this tower 7 bullshit until I saw that map. When I saw that, I could tell it was not out of the ordinary that it entirely collapsed. It wasn't "blocks away," maybe a couple from tower 1 and 2, but those "blocks" you speak of, were also entirely leveled. Also, the Hilton is IN the world trade center, it WAS a trade center building. I stayed there over the summer of 2000. I don't know why you would think that a hilton and a world trade center building are mutually exclusive entities, and why if they were a "world trade center building" would automatically be more structurally sound. I don't know much about what happened to that Hilton, but I would be AMAZED if it were still standing.
your so called "research" is a collaboration of internet bullshit that you're stupid enough to beleive
-
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d7/WTC_Building_Arrangement_and_Site_Plan_%28building_7_highlighted%29.jpg)
-
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d7/WTC_Building_Arrangement_and_Site_Plan_%28building_7_highlighted%29.jpg)
STUNNING EVIDENCE, BUSH KNOCKED DOWN THE TOWERS
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
The fact is that WTC 7 crumbled to the ground that day, the same way the other two towers fell, and it did'nt even get hit by a plane. Yet there is still no plausible explanation as to how it happened.
person.Your argument shows that you lack any sound knowledge except for what is fed to you by conspiracy theorists. Look at a diagram of what happened. One that shows all the buildings in the area at the time, to scale, showing size and shape. Then look at what happened to everything between Tower 7 and the twin towers. ALL of the buildings were either entirely gone or had enough damage to the point where they were shut down. Just look at a map of it. I listened to all this tower 7 bullshit until I saw that map. When I saw that, I could tell it was not out of the ordinary that it entirely collapsed. It wasn't "blocks away," maybe a couple from tower 1 and 2, but those "blocks" you speak of, were also entirely leveled. Also, the Hilton is IN the world trade center, it WAS a trade center building. I stayed there over the summer of 2000. I don't know why you would think that a hilton and a world trade center building are mutually exclusive entities, and why if they were a "world trade center building" would automatically be more structurally sound. I don't know much about what happened to that Hilton, but I would be AMAZED if it were still standing.
It was in the newspaper. I don't save the newspaper. But Commercial D did happen to post a diagram of the area. The answer to your question is right there. The millenium hilton appears to be further away from the towers than WTC 7. Also, the only building between 7 and 1 is building 6. As far as I know, building 6 is long gone, and that bullshit about 7 being blocks away... look at the map. Do it asshole. You'll realize you are a fucking idiot, and all that shit you wrote is regular. Building 7 is right there, in harms way.
-
bush is another hitler.
its just a repeat in history.
socialist nation here we come.
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
The fact is that WTC 7 crumbled to the ground that day, the same way the other two towers fell, and it did'nt even get hit by a plane. Yet there is still no plausible explanation as to how it happened.
person.Your argument shows that you lack any sound knowledge except for what is fed to you by conspiracy theorists. Look at a diagram of what happened. One that shows all the buildings in the area at the time, to scale, showing size and shape. Then look at what happened to everything between Tower 7 and the twin towers. ALL of the buildings were either entirely gone or had enough damage to the point where they were shut down. Just look at a map of it. I listened to all this tower 7 bullshit until I saw that map. When I saw that, I could tell it was not out of the ordinary that it entirely collapsed. It wasn't "blocks away," maybe a couple from tower 1 and 2, but those "blocks" you speak of, were also entirely leveled. Also, the Hilton is IN the world trade center, it WAS a trade center building. I stayed there over the summer of 2000. I don't know why you would think that a hilton and a world trade center building are mutually exclusive entities, and why if they were a "world trade center building" would automatically be more structurally sound. I don't know much about what happened to that Hilton, but I would be AMAZED if it were still standing.
Of course everything is in harms way, but only 3 buildings were "leveled" that day. The Millenium still stands, WTC 7 fell to the ground. 7 hours after the initial attack. There was never a Hilton inside the WTC complex like you claim. The hotel you stayed at back in 2000 was prob'ly the Mariott, near WTC 3. So your bungling fat face caused some confusion there.
Call my research bullshit, but its true. There is no debating that WTC7 has crumbled to the ground, after having minor damage. Meanwhile, your basing your evidence on a friggin blueprint! And your posting as if you have any comprehension of what actually happened. You dont even know where you stayed. Either get your ass off your shoulders, or go read the newspaper
-
And presumably you have first hand experience and proof of this "minor damage" that you claim proves the theory? Stop going around claiming you know more then others because of a bunch of second hand information from conspiracy sites. You can't be any more certain of this "fact" than anyone else who was halfway across the country when it happened.
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
The fact is that WTC 7 crumbled to the ground that day, the same way the other two towers fell, and it did'nt even get hit by a plane. Yet there is still no plausible explanation as to how it happened.
person.Your argument shows that you lack any sound knowledge except for what is fed to you by conspiracy theorists. Look at a diagram of what happened. One that shows all the buildings in the area at the time, to scale, showing size and shape. Then look at what happened to everything between Tower 7 and the twin towers. ALL of the buildings were either entirely gone or had enough damage to the point where they were shut down. Just look at a map of it. I listened to all this tower 7 bullshit until I saw that map. When I saw that, I could tell it was not out of the ordinary that it entirely collapsed. It wasn't "blocks away," maybe a couple from tower 1 and 2, but those "blocks" you speak of, were also entirely leveled. Also, the Hilton is IN the world trade center, it WAS a trade center building. I stayed there over the summer of 2000. I don't know why you would think that a hilton and a world trade center building are mutually exclusive entities, and why if they were a "world trade center building" would automatically be more structurally sound. I don't know much about what happened to that Hilton, but I would be AMAZED if it were still standing.
your so called "research" is a collaboration of internet bullshit that you're stupid enough to beleive
Stop kidding yourself
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
The fact is that WTC 7 crumbled to the ground that day, the same way the other two towers fell, and it did'nt even get hit by a plane. Yet there is still no plausible explanation as to how it happened.
person.Your argument shows that you lack any sound knowledge except for what is fed to you by conspiracy theorists. Look at a diagram of what happened. One that shows all the buildings in the area at the time, to scale, showing size and shape. Then look at what happened to everything between Tower 7 and the twin towers. ALL of the buildings were either entirely gone or had enough damage to the point where they were shut down. Just look at a map of it. I listened to all this tower 7 bullshit until I saw that map. When I saw that, I could tell it was not out of the ordinary that it entirely collapsed. It wasn't "blocks away," maybe a couple from tower 1 and 2, but those "blocks" you speak of, were also entirely leveled. Also, the Hilton is IN the world trade center, it WAS a trade center building. I stayed there over the summer of 2000. I don't know why you would think that a hilton and a world trade center building are mutually exclusive entities, and why if they were a "world trade center building" would automatically be more structurally sound. I don't know much about what happened to that Hilton, but I would be AMAZED if it were still standing.
your so called "research" is a collaboration of internet bullshit that you're stupid enough to beleive
Stop kidding yourself
-
bush is another hitler.
its just a repeat in history.
socialist nation here we come.
I wish we where a socialist nation, Germany (if that is what you are referring to) was a fascist nation not socialist. Bush is not the new Hitler, he (Bush) is motivated by greed not just racism and pride.
-
The thing that gets me about all of the 911 conspiracy theories is the number of seemingly normal people who have bought into them. Usually conspiracy theories appeal to a certain kind person; remember the lone gunmen from the x files? Paranoid, rich fantasy lives, never heard of Occam's Razor, etc. But in this case we've got tenured professors on board. We've got the Presbyterian church publishing a book that claims that Bush was complicit. I suppose it's a kind of mass hysteria, and wish fullfillment amongst certain people. Many of these academics were undergraduates during Vietnam, and still identify with themes and spirit of the protest movement. Still, they just seem so gullible. What doesn't surprise me is how often Israel and the jews pop up in these conspiracy theories. Many of them really just sound like a revised versions of the Protocals of Zion. Almost all of the theories have antecendents in antisemitism. That said, I don't thnk many of the people who believe them have that bias, nor do they understand that it alone underlies the near archatypal idea that there is a secret cabal controlling the world.
-
Expand Quote
Do people really think that the American government is going to kill its own fucking people just for an excuse to invade Iraq?
It's not the government. We're talking about maybe 50 people involved, some of whom are in government (Cheney), some of whom aren't (Silverstein). And this is about much more than just Iraq. It's about re-shaping foreign policy, shredding the Bill of Rights, and implementing a perpetual state of emergency to quash dissent, just for starters.
Maybe downloading and watching this video (http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=786048453686176230) will lead you to a different perspective.
By the way, are you one of the Mellons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Mellon_family)? Like Carnegie-Mellon?
oh my god i hadn't caught your mellon reference! dude, money mellon is a secret love child of richard mellon scaife posing as a skater on the slap boards to help cast doubt on the truth that yearns to be free.
-
The thing that gets me about all of the 911 conspiracy theories is the number of seemingly normal people who have bought into them. Usually conspiracy theories appeal to a certain kind person; remember the lone gunmen from the x files? Paranoid, rich fantasy lives, never heard of Occam's Razor, etc. But in this case we've got tenured professors on board. We've got the Presbyterian church publishing a book that claims that Bush was complicit. I suppose it's a kind of mass hysteria, and wish fullfillment amongst certain people. Many of these academics were undergraduates during Vietnam, and still identify with themes and spirit of the protest movement. Still, they just seem so gullible. What doesn't surprise me is how often Israel and the jews pop up in these conspiracy theories. Many of them really just sound like a revised versions of the Protocals of Zion. Almost all of the theories have antecendents in antisemitism. That said, I don't thnk many of the people who believe them have that bias, nor do they understand that it alone underlies the near archatypal idea that there is a secret cabal controlling the world.
I have not read one 9/11 theory that blames Israel or Jews at all. And it is not mass hysteria to question why more wasn't done to prevent and why buildings fell like a demolition. If you are saying in anyway some one like me is anti Jew because I think the government either was behind the attacks or ignored them so they could profit from the war then that is lame.
Also since this is something I know about did you know that just a couple of years ago that the US government declared that the ALF and ELF (Animal Liberation and Earth Liberation fronts) where the biggest terrorist threat to the US, in this day and age of 9-11 why would the government target groups that never killed anyone, and say that violence is not the answer? Why do I think well because they where costing the bourgeois businesses that profit off the rape and pillage of the Earth and environment millions of dollars, under the guise of freedom and protection the US and English government have used their money to crack down on anyone who disagrees with their fascist democracies. I think 9-11 was an inside job for the sole reason that war is profit for the companies that make death machines and the men in charge stand to gain the most money from these wars, look how much the companies that these men where involved in have made so far.
-
Expand Quote
The thing that gets me about all of the 911 conspiracy theories is the number of seemingly normal people who have bought into them. Usually conspiracy theories appeal to a certain kind person; remember the lone gunmen from the x files? Paranoid, rich fantasy lives, never heard of Occam's Razor, etc. But in this case we've got tenured professors on board. We've got the Presbyterian church publishing a book that claims that Bush was complicit. I suppose it's a kind of mass hysteria, and wish fullfillment amongst certain people. Many of these academics were undergraduates during Vietnam, and still identify with themes and spirit of the protest movement. Still, they just seem so gullible. What doesn't surprise me is how often Israel and the jews pop up in these conspiracy theories. Many of them really just sound like a revised versions of the Protocals of Zion. Almost all of the theories have antecendents in antisemitism. That said, I don't thnk many of the people who believe them have that bias, nor do they understand that it alone underlies the near archatypal idea that there is a secret cabal controlling the world.
I have not read one 9/11 theory that blames Israel or Jews at all. And it is not mass hysteria to question why more wasn't done to prevent and why buildings fell like a demolition. If you are saying in anyway some one like me is anti Jew because I think the government either was behind the attacks or ignored them so they could profit from the war then that is lame.
Also since this is something I know about did you know that just a couple of years ago that the US government declared that the ALF and ELF (Animal Liberation and Earth Liberation fronts) where the biggest terrorist threat to the US, in this day and age of 9-11 why would the government target groups that never killed anyone, and say that violence is not the answer? Why do I think well because they where costing the bourgeois businesses that profit off the rape and pillage of the Earth and environment millions of dollars, under the guise of freedom and protection the US and English government have used their money to crack down on anyone who disagrees with their fascist democracies. I think 9-11 was an inside job for the sole reason that war is profit for the companies that make death machines and the men in charge stand to gain the most money from these wars, look how much the companies that these men where involved in have made so far.
a lot in your post, but let me just repeat what was in my post: "I don't think many of the people who believe them have that bias,..". so no, i don't think you are anti-semetic by virtue of believing the us goverment was implicit in the 911 attacks. however, i'm surprised that you haven't heard the argument that the pnac represents israeli interests and that 911 provided them the occasion to influence the bush administration to attack arab regimes that threaten israel. ergo, israel, or a cabal of jews, secretly helped contrive the attacks. or the insidious rumor that jewish employees didn't show up at the wtc on 911. surely, you catch the whiff of it in the arguments about silverman's insurance policies. but, perhaps this is all new to you. i'm not being sarcastic. you may only be acquainted with the military/industrial complex/multi-national corporation conspiracy. the latter is actually more complicated then the jewish conspiracy, but don't let that get in your way!
-
I pick and choose what I read and try my best to avoid any anti Israel stuff. To me it makes more sense that greed would be the main motivated then some vast Jewish network, I think you would agree.
-
The anti-semetic/ anti-jew conspiracy theory on 9/11 certainly is out there. It's huge in a lot of Arab nations who think the jews did it so America would attack arab nations.
And alphabet soup. All you are doing now is trying to find small flaws in my argument. Telling me I don't know what hotel I stayed in doesn't account for the fact that building 7 is closer than the Hilton. The document shows that comparing the two proves nothing. Also, you said building 7 was "blocks away," when in fact, only one building stood between 7 and 1. The hilton was damaged. More than 3 buildings were levelled. Spare change and those dumb documentaries just pretend like only 3 were demolished. Many were. The building 7 argument is flawed, and I haven't received enough evidence to believe anything else. Any arguments I have heard are easily debunked, which makes me even more suspicious. Believe what you want man, but you ain't convincing me.
-
inside job.
in 10 or 15 years this will all come to light..
-
inside job.
in 10 or 15 years this will all come to light..
hahahh you too huh
-
The anti-semetic/ anti-jew conspiracy theory on 9/11 certainly is out there. It's huge in a lot of Arab nations who think the jews did it so America would attack arab nations.
And alphabet soup. All you are doing now is trying to find small flaws in my argument. Telling me I don't know what hotel I stayed in doesn't account for the fact that building 7 is closer than the Hilton. The document shows that comparing the two proves nothing. Also, you said building 7 was "blocks away," when in fact, only one building stood between 7 and 1. The hilton was damaged. More than 3 buildings were levelled. Spare change and those dumb documentaries just pretend like only 3 were demolished. Many were. The building 7 argument is flawed, and I haven't received enough evidence to believe anything else. Any arguments I have heard are easily debunked, which makes me even more suspicious. Believe what you want man, but you ain't convincing me.
he'll never hear it. it's a sickness. taken to its extremes it looks like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Icke
-
I pick and choose what I read and try my best to avoid any anti Israel stuff. To me it makes more sense that greed would be the main motivated then some vast Jewish network, I think you would agree.
that you pick and choose shows you're biased towards theories that do something more than explain the phenomena in the most simple way. is it really so hard to believe that some arabs hijacked several planes and flew them into buildings? that the impact of collision and the heat of the explosion compromised the structure of the towers such that they collapsed in the direction gravity pulls them?
-
The anti-semetic/ anti-jew conspiracy theory on 9/11 certainly is out there. It's huge in a lot of Arab nations who think the jews did it so America would attack arab nations.
And alphabet soup. All you are doing now is trying to find small flaws in my argument. Telling me I don't know what hotel I stayed in doesn't account for the fact that building 7 is closer than the Hilton. The document shows that comparing the two proves nothing. Also, you said building 7 was "blocks away," when in fact, only one building stood between 7 and 1. The hilton was damaged. More than 3 buildings were levelled. Spare change and those dumb documentaries just pretend like only 3 were demolished. Many were. The building 7 argument is flawed, and I haven't received enough evidence to believe anything else. Any arguments I have heard are easily debunked, which makes me even more suspicious. Believe what you want man, but you ain't convincing me.
You are right, so many buildings collapsed that day. The Hilton was IN the world trade center, it WAS a trade center building. You stayed there. Theres so many flaws in the WTC 7 story. I wasnt surprised when it fell later in the day either.
The story is debunked, I dunno what I was thinking.
-
Expand Quote
I pick and choose what I read and try my best to avoid any anti Israel stuff. To me it makes more sense that greed would be the main motivated then some vast Jewish network, I think you would agree.
that you pick and choose shows you're biased towards theories that do something more than explain the phenomena in the most simple way. is it really so hard to believe that some arabs hijacked several planes and flew them into buildings? that the impact of collision and the heat of the explosion compromised the structure of the towers such that they collapsed in the direction gravity pulls them?
No way dude, it had to have been the government, I mean I think that if you believe the government you're just another misled sheep. Anarchy 4 lyfe.
-
donald rumsfeld shot jr.
-
yeah, and, like, who would be the least bit suspicious of the american government? i know we did bad stuff but that was, like, a long time ago. nice people govern us now who all truly care for every human life as it was their own. i mean, right?
-
Expand Quote
I pick and choose what I read and try my best to avoid any anti Israel stuff. To me it makes more sense that greed would be the main motivated then some vast Jewish network, I think you would agree.
that you pick and choose shows you're biased towards theories that do something more than explain the phenomena in the most simple way. is it really so hard to believe that some arabs hijacked several planes and flew them into buildings? that the impact of collision and the heat of the explosion compromised the structure of the towers such that they collapsed in the direction gravity pulls them?
Of course not and as I said (please read back more then a page) I think that it had more to do with Bush and Co ignoring and allowing the Saudi's to fly the planes into the buildings so that they could use it as an excuse to invade Iraq (you do know that one of the first things Bush said was find a way to blame Saddam).
The fact that the Neo Con group that many of the Bush and company belonged to said that a new Pearl Harbor was needed so they could invade Iraq again is very suspicious don’t you think?
But as I have said has the claims of the Saudi men coming forward saying that they are one of the pictured hijackers even be disproved.
And before you say all conspiracy theories are bullshit lets go over a few that proved to be true.
1. The US government was in fact trying to deport John Lennon because they feared his influence over the US elections and his anti war stance.
2. The US government did in fact test Syphilis effects on black men in the south.
3. The US targeted the more radical fringe groups of the 60’s and 70’s.
These are three of the more well know that have proved true, so please don’t write us all off as crazy.
-
yeah, and, like, who would be the least bit suspicious of the american government? i know we did bad stuff but that was, like, a long time ago. nice people govern us now who all truly care for every human life as it was their own. i mean, right?
oh the debt we owe to noam chompsky and howard zinn....
-
Expand Quote
yeah, and, like, who would be the least bit suspicious of the american government? i know we did bad stuff but that was, like, a long time ago. nice people govern us now who all truly care for every human life as it was their own. i mean, right?
oh the debt we owe to noam chompsky and howard zinn....
They both are good writers.
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
I pick and choose what I read and try my best to avoid any anti Israel stuff. To me it makes more sense that greed would be the main motivated then some vast Jewish network, I think you would agree.
that you pick and choose shows you're biased towards theories that do something more than explain the phenomena in the most simple way. is it really so hard to believe that some arabs hijacked several planes and flew them into buildings? that the impact of collision and the heat of the explosion compromised the structure of the towers such that they collapsed in the direction gravity pulls them?
Of course not and as I said (please read back more then a page) I think that it had more to do with Bush and Co ignoring and allowing the Saudi's to fly the planes into the buildings so that they could use it as an excuse to invade Iraq (you do know that one of the first things Bush said was find a way to blame Saddam).
The fact that the Neo Con group that many of the Bush and company belonged to said that a new Pearl Harbor was needed so they could invade Iraq again is very suspicious don’t you think?
But as I have said has the claims of the Saudi men coming forward saying that they are one of the pictured hijackers even be disproved.
And before you say all conspiracy theories are bullshit lets go over a few that proved to be true.
1. The US government was in fact trying to deport John Lennon because they feared his influence over the US elections and his anti war stance.
2. The US government did in fact test Syphilis effects on black men in the south.
3. The US targeted the more radical fringe groups of the 60’s and 70’s.
These are three of the more well know that have proved true, so please don’t write us all off as crazy.
those are unfortunate parts of us history, but they aren't conspiracy theories. they don't offer alternative and complicated explanations of anything. the cia and fbi wiretapped tons of people during the cold war. tuskegee was a tragedy, and will always be an embarrassment. the attempts to hide these things failed because people can't keep secrets.
as to the saudi claim, isn't the more likely explanation that our intelligence was bunk and there was a mix up in identification?
more interesting than all of this is your reference to neo conservatives. george was not part of a neocon group. he came into office a traditional conservative and reflected a typical conservative isolationist foreign policy. he was influenced by neocons and their ideas after 911. he probably regrets it now.
the new pearl harbor quote is taken out of context. one of the concerns in the neo conservative movement was that after the cold war, that without a distinct enemy, americans would become complacent about the world, and that it would be difficult to rally public support around any military actions. bill kristol and other like thinkers implored clinton to intervene in bosnia, but it was a good three years after his administration knew a genocide was occuring before they stepped in. you may recall there was intense conservative backlash against this move: "no nation building!" the "pearl harbor" phrase meant merely that in the short time since the wall fell, it seemed the only way americans would back a war was if they were attacked on their shores. it is a huge jump from someone making what is essentially a true statement to concluding that there was conspiracy to allow the country to be attacked.
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
I pick and choose what I read and try my best to avoid any anti Israel stuff. To me it makes more sense that greed would be the main motivated then some vast Jewish network, I think you would agree.
that you pick and choose shows you're biased towards theories that do something more than explain the phenomena in the most simple way. is it really so hard to believe that some arabs hijacked several planes and flew them into buildings? that the impact of collision and the heat of the explosion compromised the structure of the towers such that they collapsed in the direction gravity pulls them?
Of course not and as I said (please read back more then a page) I think that it had more to do with Bush and Co ignoring and allowing the Saudi's to fly the planes into the buildings so that they could use it as an excuse to invade Iraq (you do know that one of the first things Bush said was find a way to blame Saddam).
The fact that the Neo Con group that many of the Bush and company belonged to said that a new Pearl Harbor was needed so they could invade Iraq again is very suspicious don’t you think?
But as I have said has the claims of the Saudi men coming forward saying that they are one of the pictured hijackers even be disproved.
And before you say all conspiracy theories are bullshit lets go over a few that proved to be true.
1. The US government was in fact trying to deport John Lennon because they feared his influence over the US elections and his anti war stance.
2. The US government did in fact test Syphilis effects on black men in the south.
3. The US targeted the more radical fringe groups of the 60’s and 70’s.
These are three of the more well know that have proved true, so please don’t write us all off as crazy.
those are unfortunate parts of us history, but they aren't conspiracy theories. they don't offer alternative and complicated explanations of anything. the cia and fbi wiretapped tons of people during the cold war. tuskegee was a tragedy, and will always be an embarrassment. the attempts to hide these things failed because people can't keep secrets.
as to the saudi claim, isn't the more likely explanation that our intelligence was bunk and there was a mix up in identification?
more interesting than all of this is your reference to neo conservatives. george was not part of a neocon group. he came into office a traditional conservative and reflected a typical conservative isolationist foreign policy. he was influenced by neocons and their ideas after 911. he probably regrets it now.
the new pearl harbor quote is taken out of context. one of the concerns in the neo conservative movement was that after the cold war, that without a distinct enemy, americans would become complacent about the world, and that it would be difficult to rally public support around any military actions. bill kristol and other like thinkers implored clinton to intervene in bosnia, but it was a good three years after his administration knew a genocide was occuring before they stepped in. you may recall there was intense conservative backlash against this move: "no nation building!" the "pearl harbor" phrase meant merely that in the short time since the wall fell, it seemed the only way americans would back a war was if they were attacked on their shores. it is a huge jump from someone making what is essentially a true statement to concluding that there was conspiracy to allow the country to be attacked.
those are unfortunate parts of us history, but they aren't conspiracy theories. they don't offer alternative and complicated explanations of anything. the cia and fbi wiretapped tons of people during the cold war. tuskegee was a tragedy, and will always be an embarrassment. the attempts to hide these things failed because people can't keep secrets.
as to the saudi claim, isn't the more likely explanation that our intelligence was bunk and there was a mix up in identification?
more interesting than all of this is your reference to neo conservatives. george was not part of a neocon group. he came into office a traditional conservative and reflected a typical conservative isolationist foreign policy. he was influenced by neocons and their ideas after 911. he probably regrets it now.
the new pearl harbor quote is taken out of context. one of the concerns in the neo conservative movement was that after the cold war, that without a distinct enemy, americans would become complacent about the world, and that it would be difficult to rally public support around any military actions. bill kristol and other like thinkers implored clinton to intervene in bosnia, but it was a good three years after his administration knew a genocide was occuring before they stepped in. you may recall there was intense conservative backlash against this move: "no nation building!" the "pearl harbor" phrase meant merely that in the short time since the wall fell, it seemed the only way americans would back a war was if they were attacked on their shores. it is a huge jump from someone making what is essentially a true statement to concluding that there was conspiracy to allow the country to be attacked.
I know that George wasn't part of the Neo Con group; I have always felt it is Dick Chaney that is making all the big decisions, and if anything George Bush may have been left out of loop on purpose.
But those three things I mentioned where all once held as nothing more then crazy talk from people and all where proved true. And what makes you think after all that the government is any better now then in the 1950s? Our history is dark (genocide of the native population, slavery, forced internment of US citizens of Japanese decent, funding para military groups in South America etc..) honestly is the ignoring and allowing of a terrorist act out of the realm of possibility? And you are right I am taking the Pearl Harbor reference out of context, but I do think it shows motivation as to why the US would allow something like that to happen, after the cold war we had our chance to get rid of all of Nukes, Russia offered a crossed the board to dismantle theirs, we could have been the harbingers of world peace instead we have made the world a worse place because of our greed. (sorry off topic)
And where are those same people who cared about Bosnia now that Darfur is undergoing even worse Genocide? Funny that no high ranking officials seem to care about them, no oil or weapons to profit from?
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
I pick and choose what I read and try my best to avoid any anti Israel stuff. To me it makes more sense that greed would be the main motivated then some vast Jewish network, I think you would agree.
that you pick and choose shows you're biased towards theories that do something more than explain the phenomena in the most simple way. is it really so hard to believe that some arabs hijacked several planes and flew them into buildings? that the impact of collision and the heat of the explosion compromised the structure of the towers such that they collapsed in the direction gravity pulls them?
Of course not and as I said (please read back more then a page) I think that it had more to do with Bush and Co ignoring and allowing the Saudi's to fly the planes into the buildings so that they could use it as an excuse to invade Iraq (you do know that one of the first things Bush said was find a way to blame Saddam).
The fact that the Neo Con group that many of the Bush and company belonged to said that a new Pearl Harbor was needed so they could invade Iraq again is very suspicious don’t you think?
But as I have said has the claims of the Saudi men coming forward saying that they are one of the pictured hijackers even be disproved.
And before you say all conspiracy theories are bullshit lets go over a few that proved to be true.
1. The US government was in fact trying to deport John Lennon because they feared his influence over the US elections and his anti war stance.
2. The US government did in fact test Syphilis effects on black men in the south.
3. The US targeted the more radical fringe groups of the 60’s and 70’s.
These are three of the more well know that have proved true, so please don’t write us all off as crazy.
those are unfortunate parts of us history, but they aren't conspiracy theories. they don't offer alternative and complicated explanations of anything. the cia and fbi wiretapped tons of people during the cold war. tuskegee was a tragedy, and will always be an embarrassment. the attempts to hide these things failed because people can't keep secrets.
as to the saudi claim, isn't the more likely explanation that our intelligence was bunk and there was a mix up in identification?
more interesting than all of this is your reference to neo conservatives. george was not part of a neocon group. he came into office a traditional conservative and reflected a typical conservative isolationist foreign policy. he was influenced by neocons and their ideas after 911. he probably regrets it now.
the new pearl harbor quote is taken out of context. one of the concerns in the neo conservative movement was that after the cold war, that without a distinct enemy, americans would become complacent about the world, and that it would be difficult to rally public support around any military actions. bill kristol and other like thinkers implored clinton to intervene in bosnia, but it was a good three years after his administration knew a genocide was occuring before they stepped in. you may recall there was intense conservative backlash against this move: "no nation building!" the "pearl harbor" phrase meant merely that in the short time since the wall fell, it seemed the only way americans would back a war was if they were attacked on their shores. it is a huge jump from someone making what is essentially a true statement to concluding that there was conspiracy to allow the country to be attacked.
those are unfortunate parts of us history, but they aren't conspiracy theories. they don't offer alternative and complicated explanations of anything. the cia and fbi wiretapped tons of people during the cold war. tuskegee was a tragedy, and will always be an embarrassment. the attempts to hide these things failed because people can't keep secrets.
as to the saudi claim, isn't the more likely explanation that our intelligence was bunk and there was a mix up in identification?
more interesting than all of this is your reference to neo conservatives. george was not part of a neocon group. he came into office a traditional conservative and reflected a typical conservative isolationist foreign policy. he was influenced by neocons and their ideas after 911. he probably regrets it now.
the new pearl harbor quote is taken out of context. one of the concerns in the neo conservative movement was that after the cold war, that without a distinct enemy, americans would become complacent about the world, and that it would be difficult to rally public support around any military actions. bill kristol and other like thinkers implored clinton to intervene in bosnia, but it was a good three years after his administration knew a genocide was occuring before they stepped in. you may recall there was intense conservative backlash against this move: "no nation building!" the "pearl harbor" phrase meant merely that in the short time since the wall fell, it seemed the only way americans would back a war was if they were attacked on their shores. it is a huge jump from someone making what is essentially a true statement to concluding that there was conspiracy to allow the country to be attacked.
I know that George wasn't part of the Neo Con group; I have always felt it is Dick Chaney that is making all the big decisions, and if anything George Bush may have been left out of loop on purpose.
But those three things I mentioned where all once held as nothing more then crazy talk from people and all where proved true. And what makes you think after all that the government is any better now then in the 1950s? Our history is dark (genocide of the native population, slavery, forced internment of US citizens of Japanese decent, funding para military groups in South America etc..) honestly is the ignoring and allowing of a terrorist act out of the realm of possibility? And you are right I am taking the Pearl Harbor reference out of context, but I do think it shows motivation as to why the US would allow something like that to happen, after the cold war we had our chance to get rid of all of Nukes, Russia offered a crossed the board to dismantle theirs, we could have been the harbingers of world peace instead we have made the world a worse place because of our greed. (sorry off topic)
And where are those same people who cared about Bosnia now that Darfur is undergoing even worse Genocide? Funny that no high ranking officials seem to care about them, no oil or weapons to profit from?
the neoconservative reaction to darfur has been to demand us led military action, just like in bosnia. the last high ranking neocon was paul wolfawitz, and he's been put away as you might recall. dick cheney signed the pnac's letter to clinton in 1997, but he's no neocon. neocon literally implies you were once a leftist (many were trotskyites), and you took a rightward turn as a result of disallusionment with the left's weak stances on foreign policy, and a sense that the large social welfare programs had failed to address the problems they were designed to address. dick cheney is just an old school rightwinger from the cold war era. he doesn't even have the appreciation of nuance of a james baker or henry kissenger. that his militeristic mindset dovetailed with the neocons on the issue of iraq is probably part of why we're over there.
but the real issue here is laid bare by your use of the phrase "out of the realm of possibility". there is little that is "out of the realm of possibility", but it's not a reason to accept an overly complicated or implausible explanation. and that's really what this is about.
-
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2006/070906terroristrecruiters.htm
White House Targets Conspiracy Theorists As Terrorist Recruiters
'Strategy for winning the war on terror' says world contaminated, corrupted by misinformation
Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com | September 7 2006
A document cited by President Bush in his recent speech at the Capital Hilton Hotel on how to 'win the war on terror' cites conspiracies as one of the wellsprings of terrorism and threatens to "address" and "diminish" the problems they are causing the government in fulfilling their agenda.
On Tuesday Bush referred to the strategy paper as "an unclassified version of the strategy we've been pursuing since September the 11th, 2001," that takes into account, "the changing nature of this enemy."
The document says that terrorism springs from "subcultures of conspiracy and misinformation," and that "terrorists recruit more effectively from populations whose information about the world is contaminated by falsehoods and corrupted by conspiracy theories. The distortions keep alive grievances and filter out facts that would challenge popular prejudices and self-serving propaganda."
The terminology echoes President Bush's speech (video below) to the UN General Assembly on November 10th 2001 in which he stated, "Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th, malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists themselves, away from the guilty."
This is an outright threat to the 9/11 truth movement and is meant to have a chilling effect on freedom of speech.
It is also a callous reminder that the administration that has been the progenitor of the most heinous and deliberate campaign to mislead and lie to its own people is so transfixed by its own hubris that it has the temerity to accuse others of propagating deceptive information.
This is the same administration that deliberately included the Niger yellow cake fraud in a state of the union speech to sell a war - knowing that the information was completely bogus.
How dare they threaten us with the very defining characteristic of their black legacy and equate us with terrorists?
This is a direct assault on the alternative media and a continuation of the twilight zone rhetoric that saw the administration attempt to link its critics with Fascists and Hitler appeasers. The only fascists that should really concern us are not imaginary 'Blogofascists' or 'Islamofascists' but the Neo-Fascist slugs that occupy the White House and their cheerleading sycophants in the mainstream media and congress.
This is by no means the first time political enemies of the state have been smeared as terrorist sympathizers.
Alex Jones' 2001 documentary film 9/11: The Road to Tyranny featured footage from a FEMA symposium given to firefighters and other emergency personnel in Kansas City in which it was stated that the founding fathers, Christians and homeschoolers were terrorists and should be treated with the utmost suspicion and brutality in times of national emergency.
We have highlighted previous training manuals issues by state and federal government bodies which identify whole swathes of the population as potential terrorists. A Texas Department of Public Safety Criminal Law Enforcement pamphlet gives the public characteristics to identify terrorists that include buying baby formula, beer, wearing Levi jeans, carrying identifying documents like a drivers license and traveling with women or children.
A Virginia training manual used to help state employees recognize terrorists lists anti-government and property rights activists as terrorists and includes binoculars, video cameras, pads and notebooks in a compendium of terrorist tools.
Shortly after 9/11 a Phoenix FBI manual that was disseminated amongst federal employees at the end of the Clinton term caused waves on the Internet after it was revealed that potential terrorists included, "defenders of the US Constitution against federal government and the UN, " and individuals who "make numerous references to the US Constitution." Lawyers everywhere cowered in fear at being shipped off to Gitmo.
In May we broke the exclusive of a nationwide FEMA program which is training Pastors and other religious representatives to become secret police enforcers who teach their congregations to "obey the government" in preparation for a declaration of martial law, property and firearm seizures, and forced relocation."
There is also video on the site. If the government is starting to crack down on this it enforces that they are hiding something.
-
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
I pick and choose what I read and try my best to avoid any anti Israel stuff. To me it makes more sense that greed would be the main motivated then some vast Jewish network, I think you would agree.
that you pick and choose shows you're biased towards theories that do something more than explain the phenomena in the most simple way. is it really so hard to believe that some arabs hijacked several planes and flew them into buildings? that the impact of collision and the heat of the explosion compromised the structure of the towers such that they collapsed in the direction gravity pulls them?
Of course not and as I said (please read back more then a page) I think that it had more to do with Bush and Co ignoring and allowing the Saudi's to fly the planes into the buildings so that they could use it as an excuse to invade Iraq (you do know that one of the first things Bush said was find a way to blame Saddam).
The fact that the Neo Con group that many of the Bush and company belonged to said that a new Pearl Harbor was needed so they could invade Iraq again is very suspicious don’t you think?
But as I have said has the claims of the Saudi men coming forward saying that they are one of the pictured hijackers even be disproved.
And before you say all conspiracy theories are bullshit lets go over a few that proved to be true.
1. The US government was in fact trying to deport John Lennon because they feared his influence over the US elections and his anti war stance.
2. The US government did in fact test Syphilis effects on black men in the south.
3. The US targeted the more radical fringe groups of the 60’s and 70’s.
These are three of the more well know that have proved true, so please don’t write us all off as crazy.
those are unfortunate parts of us history, but they aren't conspiracy theories. they don't offer alternative and complicated explanations of anything. the cia and fbi wiretapped tons of people during the cold war. tuskegee was a tragedy, and will always be an embarrassment. the attempts to hide these things failed because people can't keep secrets.
as to the saudi claim, isn't the more likely explanation that our intelligence was bunk and there was a mix up in identification?
more interesting than all of this is your reference to neo conservatives. george was not part of a neocon group. he came into office a traditional conservative and reflected a typical conservative isolationist foreign policy. he was influenced by neocons and their ideas after 911. he probably regrets it now.
the new pearl harbor quote is taken out of context. one of the concerns in the neo conservative movement was that after the cold war, that without a distinct enemy, americans would become complacent about the world, and that it would be difficult to rally public support around any military actions. bill kristol and other like thinkers implored clinton to intervene in bosnia, but it was a good three years after his administration knew a genocide was occuring before they stepped in. you may recall there was intense conservative backlash against this move: "no nation building!" the "pearl harbor" phrase meant merely that in the short time since the wall fell, it seemed the only way americans would back a war was if they were attacked on their shores. it is a huge jump from someone making what is essentially a true statement to concluding that there was conspiracy to allow the country to be attacked.
those are unfortunate parts of us history, but they aren't conspiracy theories. they don't offer alternative and complicated explanations of anything. the cia and fbi wiretapped tons of people during the cold war. tuskegee was a tragedy, and will always be an embarrassment. the attempts to hide these things failed because people can't keep secrets.
as to the saudi claim, isn't the more likely explanation that our intelligence was bunk and there was a mix up in identification?
more interesting than all of this is your reference to neo conservatives. george was not part of a neocon group. he came into office a traditional conservative and reflected a typical conservative isolationist foreign policy. he was influenced by neocons and their ideas after 911. he probably regrets it now.
the new pearl harbor quote is taken out of context. one of the concerns in the neo conservative movement was that after the cold war, that without a distinct enemy, americans would become complacent about the world, and that it would be difficult to rally public support around any military actions. bill kristol and other like thinkers implored clinton to intervene in bosnia, but it was a good three years after his administration knew a genocide was occuring before they stepped in. you may recall there was intense conservative backlash against this move: "no nation building!" the "pearl harbor" phrase meant merely that in the short time since the wall fell, it seemed the only way americans would back a war was if they were attacked on their shores. it is a huge jump from someone making what is essentially a true statement to concluding that there was conspiracy to allow the country to be attacked.
I know that George wasn't part of the Neo Con group; I have always felt it is Dick Chaney that is making all the big decisions, and if anything George Bush may have been left out of loop on purpose.
But those three things I mentioned where all once held as nothing more then crazy talk from people and all where proved true. And what makes you think after all that the government is any better now then in the 1950s? Our history is dark (genocide of the native population, slavery, forced internment of US citizens of Japanese decent, funding para military groups in South America etc..) honestly is the ignoring and allowing of a terrorist act out of the realm of possibility? And you are right I am taking the Pearl Harbor reference out of context, but I do think it shows motivation as to why the US would allow something like that to happen, after the cold war we had our chance to get rid of all of Nukes, Russia offered a crossed the board to dismantle theirs, we could have been the harbingers of world peace instead we have made the world a worse place because of our greed. (sorry off topic)
And where are those same people who cared about Bosnia now that Darfur is undergoing even worse Genocide? Funny that no high ranking officials seem to care about them, no oil or weapons to profit from?
the neoconservative reaction to darfur has been to demand us led military action, just like in bosnia. the last high ranking neocon was paul wolfawitz, and he's been put away as you might recall. dick cheney signed the pnac's letter to clinton in 1997, but he's no neocon. neocon literally implies you were once a leftist (many were trotskyites), and you took a rightward turn as a result of disallusionment with the left's weak stances on foreign policy, and a sense that the large social welfare programs had failed to address the problems they were designed to address. dick cheney is just an old school rightwinger from the cold war era. he doesn't even have the appreciation of nuance of a james baker or henry kissenger. that his militeristic mindset dovetailed with the neocons on the issue of iraq is probably part of why we're over there.
but the real issue here is laid bare by your use of the phrase "out of the realm of possibility". there is little that is "out of the realm of possibility", but it's not a reason to accept an overly complicated or implausible explanation. and that's really what this is about.
Kid, thats not what "neocon" means. Neocon is the new kind of conservative (hence "neocon"). It LITERALLY means new conservative. It doesn't literally mean ex-leftist at all. New kind, not new member jackass. The neocon movement has its roots in the last 20 years, with that miserable bastard Ronald Reagan as their hero. Trotskyites? Are you fuckng regular? Bill Kristol was never a trotsykyite. Basically neocon is a new packaging of the right wing. "Compassionate conservatives" who care about others, love jesus, and support strong and constant military use. There is nothing in the neo-con thinking that says you hhave to be an ex-democrat. Those are "Reagan republicans." There is a crossover, but its not the same thing. Also, Dick Cheney and George Bush are unabashed neo-cons. You said Bush PROBABLY REGRETS it now?!?! Are you fucking insane? That dude has never admitted or acted like he's made a mistake in his life. Also he has always claimed to NOT be a traditional conservative, and actually coined the term conpassionate conservative. Also, his acts as president ignore everything traditional conservatives believe, Thats why guys like Pat Buchanan and the head of the Cato institute hate Bush, they think he ignores and does not represent traditional conservative values by fucking up the budget consistently. Bush is the posterchild for the neo-con movement, just because he wasn't part of a think tank doesn't mean he doesn't believe it. He chose his cabinet, he didn't have to pick neocons.
-
Actually the roots of the neoconservative movement do lie in far left leaders of the '60s and '70s who were dissillusioned with "ineffective" liberal foreign policy in Vietnam and such, although much of their current doctrine was formed as a result of the cold war. That's not to say that you can't be a neo-conservative unless you were a democrat first but those are the foundations of the group.
-
Kid, thats not what "neocon" means. Neocon is the new kind of conservative (hence "neocon"). It LITERALLY means new conservative. It doesn't literally mean ex-leftist at all. New kind, not new member jackass. The neocon movement has its roots in the last 20 years, with that miserable bastard Ronald Reagan as their hero. Trotskyites? Are you fuckng regular? Bill Kristol was never a trotsykyite. Basically neocon is a new packaging of the right wing. "Compassionate conservatives" who care about others, love jesus, and support strong and constant military use. There is nothing in the neo-con thinking that says you hhave to be an ex-democrat. Those are "Reagan republicans." There is a crossover, but its not the same thing. Also, Dick Cheney and George Bush are unabashed neo-cons. You said Bush PROBABLY REGRETS it now?!?! Are you fucking insane? That dude has never admitted or acted like he's made a mistake in his life. Also he has always claimed to NOT be a traditional conservative, and actually coined the term conpassionate conservative. Also, his acts as president ignore everything traditional conservatives believe, Thats why guys like Pat Buchanan and the head of the Cato institute hate Bush, they think he ignores and does not represent traditional conservative values by fucking up the budget consistently. Bush is the posterchild for the neo-con movement, just because he wasn't part of a think tank doesn't mean he doesn't believe it. He chose his cabinet, he didn't have to pick neocons.
irving kristol and and norman poderetz were the founders of the neoconservative movement and both were troskyites. you can get the history yourself on wikipedia and you can get a list of politician and public intellectuals who are considered neocons. you'll notice most of them had a sea change in their political leaning at some point in their lives. neither bush nor cheney are part of this movement, and if you look at bush's cabinet you'll notice it has been purged of people identified with this idealogy. the departure of wolfowitz was a clear and certain signal that their day was over. morevoer, condi rice's recent foreign policy statements reflect her own movement back towards the realist ideaology of her mentors james baker and brett scowcroft. consider as well, that james baker and other former foreign policy wonks from both partiers have put together an iraq plan which they will present to the president after the congressional elections. bush has said he will listen to it. a far cry from when he refused to discuss foreign policy wit his father, let alone cosult with anyone from his father's cabinet.
so, sure, bush may never verbally admit regret, his actions do. the iraq war is going to cost him his parties' majority in congress, and that, kid, is not worth any amount of crooked military contracts.
-
(http://www.bgnra.org/Barry%20Walker%20Fast%20Car.jpg)
-
trill as fuck.
-
(http://www.bgnra.org/Barry%20Walker%20Fast%20Car.jpg)
hot damn, someone drove that fucker into both towers?
total cover up.