Impeach Bush

[Ronald Wilson Reagan]

i think the link to iraq is where this falls down.
i mean a relatively left wing uk government managed to invade iraq after just telling a few medium sized lies.
so why would a right wing us government need to go to all this trouble?

I agree that this is a huge part in the flaws of the theory, but you also have to realize that it wasn't until AFTER 9/11 that the country took a radical rightward shift. Bush barely beat Gore (officially, lets not dilly dally around popular votes or the loaded supreme court), a representative of the Clinton legacy, and Bush's approval was pretty low (nothing like today, but that shit is just rediculous now). The congress was pretty closely divided. Bush could only pass legislation that was very mainstream up until then. After 9/11 everybody trusted Bush and shit like the USA PATRIOT act was able to pass. A neo-con group whose membership included Dick Cheney among others (whose name I have forgotten, but I'm sure Commercial D knows about) had previously stated that some sort of catastrophic event was necessary to make the changes they needed. In the end though, I agree with Chomsky's opinion about it, they exploited the disaster like the group suggested, but a lot of people in power all over the world did too.

[otis b driftwood]

yeah, obviously the country (and probably the west to a degree) shifted to the right following 9/11 and bush got a free pass to do whatever he liked.

i still think if they were going to stage something they could have done something easier to pull off and hide with the some impact, something like the incident in the school in chechnya for example.

i guess they may not have passed the patriot act on the back of this but then again over here some very repressive legislation has been passed without anything close to the scale of 9/11 happening.

[Ronald Wilson Reagan]

I agree with you. IF they were to stage something they would do it more like they did with the Gulf of Tomkin incident or The sinking of the U.S.S. Maine. Put it somewhere far away, but still make it seem like it affected us here. Government plans often fuck up, and they know that. Thats why any sort of staged event in our history has been away from public first hand view.

[Sleazy]

and quite franlky, we don't have a lot of people in the US who would be willing to die to help the goverment kill US citizens to fool the public into a meaningless war. Who the fuck would do that? Even the most inbreed, "support the troups" kind of idiot wouldn't do that. It's a chicken and egg situation.

You need a tragic incident to get people amped enough to fight and die over

but you also need people amped enough to fight and die to pull it off

[Commercial D]

Y'all need to toss aside right-wing, left-wing paradigms, concerns about Saudi hijackers (Osama is Saudi, right?), and speculation about he minutiae of motives and understand that this was, like the JFK assassination, a psy-op designed to induce not just an unending war but a political paradigm shift that would lead to an eventual loss of liberty, the end of the Bill of Rights, and a microchipped population.

Download & watch this before you make up your mind...

[Sleazy]

FYI, paridigm is commonly considered a word that people use to sound smart, so I wouldn't recomend using it twice  in one post. They even made a joke about it on the simpsons...

That being said you didn't address my point at all. Please answer this simple question:

What is the motive for taking on additional complexity in the 9-11 attacks by adding bombs to the building to ensure that they colapse? Or simply put, why was it so important that they fall and not just be struck?





Also, if you are implying that my thinking is party line a quick search of my post history could put that thought to rest for you.

[Alan]

The obvious point of contention being interpretation of the word modern, but I dont think it is worth the effort to debate the timeframe turkeylurkey was referring to when the context itself was pretty clear.

It didn't seem that obvious, but yeah, I agree.

[Commercial D]

FYI, paridigm is commonly considered a word that people use to sound smart, so I wouldn't recomend using it twice  in one post. They even made a joke about it on the simpsons...

That being said you didn't address my point at all. Please answer this simple question:

What is the motive for taking on additional complexity in the 9-11 attacks by adding bombs to the building to ensure that they colapse? Or simply put, why was it so important that they fall and not just be struck?

Also, if you are implying that my thinking is party line a quick search of my post history could put that thought to rest for you.

Motives are speculation. I'm more concerned with the science behind the collapse. But to satisfy you I can name a few possible motives for bringing the towers down, rather than just crashing planes into them:

1. "Paradigm shift" refers to a sudden and complete change in mass consciousness, a willingness to follow the government and relinquish personal liberty. The removal of the twin towers from the NYC skyline accomplished that.

2. WTC was a white elephant, with declining occupancy rates and stuffed with asbestos that had to be removed.

3. Those with foreknowledge would have been able to profit from insider trading on affected companies.


I don't have all the answers. I'm not even trying to convince anyone. I've just seen enough for myself to be convinced that this was a set-up. Maybe if you would turn off The Simpsons and do some research for yourself you might come to similar conclusions.

[Commercial D]

I agree with you. IF they were to stage something they would do it more like they did with the Gulf of Tomkin incident or The sinking of the U.S.S. Maine. Put it somewhere far away, but still make it seem like it affected us here. Government plans often fuck up, and they know that. Thats why any sort of staged event in our history has been away from public first hand view.

That wouldn't be a "new Pearl Harbor" though would it?

P.S. It's Gulf of Tonkin.

[lophatrophazoa]

just leave this one for the mythbusters

[Sleazy]

Expand Quote

FYI, paridigm is commonly considered a word that people use to sound smart, so I wouldn't recomend using it twice  in one post. They even made a joke about it on the simpsons...

That being said you didn't address my point at all. Please answer this simple question:

What is the motive for taking on additional complexity in the 9-11 attacks by adding bombs to the building to ensure that they colapse? Or simply put, why was it so important that they fall and not just be struck?

Also, if you are implying that my thinking is party line a quick search of my post history could put that thought to rest for you.

[close]

Motives are speculation. I'm more concerned with the science behind the collapse. But to satisfy you I can name a few possible motives for bringing the towers down, rather than just crashing planes into them:

1. "Paradigm shift" refers to a sudden and complete change in mass consciousness, a willingness to follow the government and relinquish personal liberty. The removal of the twin towers from the NYC skyline accomplished that.

2. WTC was a white elephant, with declining occupancy rates and stuffed with asbestos that had to be removed.

3. Those with foreknowledge would have been able to profit from insider trading on affected companies.


I don't have all the answers. I'm not even trying to convince anyone. I've just seen enough for myself to be convinced that this was a set-up. Maybe if you would turn off The Simpsons and do some research for yourself you might come to similar conclusions.

not likely, I'm feeling pretty confident that the motive question still hasn't been answered so why move on to the absurd with out a just cause. Not chasing lost causes is probably the reason I got more time to watch the simpson than you handsom.

You do realize that you are trying to argue that it's not possible to colapse a building by hitting it with a plane right? And then arguing the goverment is actually working with Osama and the on going hunt for him is just an elaborate charade? Afganistan just a pawn. And that this is all because occupancy was low in the twin towers and because they had asbestos?

You do realize how rediculous that sounds right?

You can bloat your points with as many links and much polysyllabic blabble as you like, at the end of the day your still arguing a rediculous point.

[Commercial D]

You're assigning words and arguments to me that I haven't written or made.

WTC 7 wasn't hit by a jet.

Watch Terror Storm, read Steven E. Jones's paper, then tell me what you think.

I'm audi!

[the j]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

FYI, paridigm is commonly considered a word that people use to sound smart, so I wouldn't recomend using it twice  in one post. They even made a joke about it on the simpsons...

That being said you didn't address my point at all. Please answer this simple question:

What is the motive for taking on additional complexity in the 9-11 attacks by adding bombs to the building to ensure that they colapse? Or simply put, why was it so important that they fall and not just be struck?

Also, if you are implying that my thinking is party line a quick search of my post history could put that thought to rest for you.

[close]

Motives are speculation. I'm more concerned with the science behind the collapse. But to satisfy you I can name a few possible motives for bringing the towers down, rather than just crashing planes into them:

1. "Paradigm shift" refers to a sudden and complete change in mass consciousness, a willingness to follow the government and relinquish personal liberty. The removal of the twin towers from the NYC skyline accomplished that.

2. WTC was a white elephant, with declining occupancy rates and stuffed with asbestos that had to be removed.

3. Those with foreknowledge would have been able to profit from insider trading on affected companies.


I don't have all the answers. I'm not even trying to convince anyone. I've just seen enough for myself to be convinced that this was a set-up. Maybe if you would turn off The Simpsons and do some research for yourself you might come to similar conclusions.

[close]

not likely, I'm feeling pretty confident that the motive question still hasn't been answered so why move on to the absurd with out a just cause. Not chasing lost causes is probably the reason I got more time to watch the simpson than you handsom.

You do realize that you are trying to argue that it's not possible to colapse a building by hitting it with a plane right? And then arguing the goverment is actually working with Osama and the on going hunt for him is just an elaborate charade? Afganistan just a pawn. And that this is all because occupancy was low in the twin towers and because they had asbestos?

You do realize how rediculous that sounds right?

You can bloat your points with as many links and much polysyllabic blabble as you like, at the end of the day your still arguing a rediculous point.

U.S intelligence knew of an attack being planned they then used their cia operative osama to make sure all went as planned

reason for total destruction and not just a strike is simply
just hit the building maybe 100 people die no excuse to destroy building 7 and the U.S wouldn't have been scared shitless enough to go into this ridiculous war. plus ya boy larry Silverstein gotta get his too.

the straight fact of the matter is that burning jet fuel wouldnt have caused that collapse it woulda fucked up the building but not collapse i think people need to just research because nothing they have told us is true

[Blue Fescue]

Osama and the on going hunt for him is just an elaborate charade?

Isn't this true?

[Sleazy]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

FYI, paridigm is commonly considered a word that people use to sound smart, so I wouldn't recomend using it twice  in one post. They even made a joke about it on the simpsons...

That being said you didn't address my point at all. Please answer this simple question:

What is the motive for taking on additional complexity in the 9-11 attacks by adding bombs to the building to ensure that they colapse? Or simply put, why was it so important that they fall and not just be struck?

Also, if you are implying that my thinking is party line a quick search of my post history could put that thought to rest for you.

[close]

Motives are speculation. I'm more concerned with the science behind the collapse. But to satisfy you I can name a few possible motives for bringing the towers down, rather than just crashing planes into them:

1. "Paradigm shift" refers to a sudden and complete change in mass consciousness, a willingness to follow the government and relinquish personal liberty. The removal of the twin towers from the NYC skyline accomplished that.

2. WTC was a white elephant, with declining occupancy rates and stuffed with asbestos that had to be removed.

3. Those with foreknowledge would have been able to profit from insider trading on affected companies.


I don't have all the answers. I'm not even trying to convince anyone. I've just seen enough for myself to be convinced that this was a set-up. Maybe if you would turn off The Simpsons and do some research for yourself you might come to similar conclusions.

[close]

not likely, I'm feeling pretty confident that the motive question still hasn't been answered so why move on to the absurd with out a just cause. Not chasing lost causes is probably the reason I got more time to watch the simpson than you handsom.

You do realize that you are trying to argue that it's not possible to colapse a building by hitting it with a plane right? And then arguing the goverment is actually working with Osama and the on going hunt for him is just an elaborate charade? Afganistan just a pawn. And that this is all because occupancy was low in the twin towers and because they had asbestos?

You do realize how rediculous that sounds right?

You can bloat your points with as many links and much polysyllabic blabble as you like, at the end of the day your still arguing a rediculous point.

[close]

U.S intelligence knew of an attack being planned they then used their cia operative osama to make sure all went as planned

reason for total destruction and not just a strike is simply
just hit the building maybe 100 people die no excuse to destroy building 7 and the U.S wouldn't have been scared shitless enough to go into this ridiculous war. plus ya boy larry Silverstein gotta get his too.

the straight fact of the matter is that burning jet fuel wouldnt have caused that collapse it woulda fucked up the building but not collapse i think people need to just research because nothing they have told us is true

Seems to me there are three factors at play

1) structural damage from planes
2) fire
3) increased tempature of fire due to large concentration of jet fuel

I got a minor in math and studied quite a bit of physics and I am not even going to pretend that my level of skill is close to what would be needed to calculate something this complex and also something that is unprecidented like this. Even if you had the skills to do so, the fact that it is unprecedented makes it just an intellegent estimate at the end of the day. There would most certainly be a lot of unknowns with a building this old and things like contrustion and engineering errors during the building and maintance of the towers could also contribute to the unknowns.

The point I am making is that I seriously doubt that anyone on this board really is enough of an expert to be able to talk to this, there are probably not that many people alive that could, it's just that complex and that specialized. Plus it would most likely take years of research and imperical testing to even get close.

[lophatrophazoa]

WTC 7 was just razed by donald trump so he could build a new one and get some real estate, it just happened to be on 9/11

[the j]

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1e3og_wtc-collapse-was-controlled-demolit

this guy probably knows a bit

[antihero]

The question was should you or should you not impeach Bush and it turned into this? First no-one can say with 100% certainty what happened on 9/11, so thats out the equation. Secondly saying Bush should be impeached for the war is a joke. You can't say the decision was right or wrong, ever stop to consider a lot of other factors are involved. For instance maybe it was the right idea just fought the wrong way? Blaming Bush is stupid, him and his ADVISORS (you seriously don't think he makes these decisions on his own) make hundreds of decisions from the information they have, which is a lot more than us. Sure they will get some wrong but saying Bush should be impeached is oversimplifying the matter way too much.

[lophatrophazoa]

no way dude, bush makes everything off the top of his monkee head and then does it. down in the south we call him the freestylin prez

[Blaise]

Popular Mechanics: Debunking The 9/11 Myths
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=1

One thing mentioned: fire didn't need to melt the steel, only weaken it.  And jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning.

[trent steel]

In the end, we were able to debunk each of these assertions with hard evidence and a healthy dose of common sense. We learned that a few theories are based on something as innocent as a reporting error on that chaotic day. Others are the byproducts of cynical imaginations that aim to inject suspicion and animosity into public debate. Only by confronting such poisonous claims with irrefutable facts can we understand what really happened on a day that is forever seared into world history

thank you

[sebastian toombs]

popular mechanics?  everyone knows theyve been a pawn of the CIA since its OSS days...

[getsintopplsbiznes]

[Commercial D]

Chertoff's Cousin Penned Popular Mechanics 9/11 Hit Piece

But the article fails to provide evidence to support its claims and doesn't answer the key question: What caused the collapses of the twin towers and the 47-story World Trade Center 7?

[Blaise]

Afterword - Debunking 9/11 Myths

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/4199607.html

excerpt:    "As often happens in the world of conspiracy theories, a grain of truth—it’s possible that Ben and Michael Chertoff are distantly related—was built into a towering dune. In fact, Ben and Michael Chertoff have never spoken. And no one at Popular Mechanics had any contact with Michael Chertoff’s office while preparing the article. Moreover, Ben was one of many researchers on the story, not the author."

[the j]

The question was should you or should you not impeach Bush and it turned into this? First no-one can say with 100% certainty what happened on 9/11, so thats out the equation. Secondly saying Bush should be impeached for the war is a joke. You can't say the decision was right or wrong, ever stop to consider a lot of other factors are involved. For instance maybe it was the right idea just fought the wrong way? Blaming Bush is stupid, him and his ADVISORS (you seriously don't think he makes these decisions on his own) make hundreds of decisions from the information they have, which is a lot more than us. Sure they will get some wrong but saying Bush should be impeached is oversimplifying the matter way too much.

perjury nuff said

as president u are inder oath to uphold the constitution mr. bush has done everything but that

[Commercial D]

But the article fails to provide evidence to support its claims and doesn't answer the key question: What caused the collapses of the twin towers and the 47-story World Trade Center 7?

[Commercial D]

Expand Quote

But the article fails to provide evidence to support its claims and doesn't answer the key question: What caused the collapses of the twin towers and the 47-story World Trade Center 7?

[close]

Benjamin's mother in Pelham, New York, however, was more willing to talk. Asked if Benjamin was related to the new Secretary of Homeland Security, Judy said, "Yes, of course, he is a cousin."

[trent steel]

[the j]

tinfoil jokes are nooooottttt funny christ!