It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is this 9/11 nonsense going to ever go away? ZERO eveidence but still pushing on!

page: 38
61
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 11:09 PM
link   
I offer as evidence of MOTIVE the following excerpts:

"At current levels of defense spending, the only option is to try ineffectually to manage increasingly large risks...This leaves the next president of the United States with an enormous challenge: he must increase military spending...to maintain American military preeminence... to fight and win, as rapidly and decisively as possible, multiple, nearly simultaneous major theater wars... like Iran, Iraq and North Korea... the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."

-PNAC signed by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Rove and many other Neo-Conservatives, Sept 2000




posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by waypastvne
That is nowhere near free fall speed.


In fact it is much easier to prove WTC1 & 2 did not fall at freefall speed - simply watch the videos of them collapsing, you can see the debris coming off the buildings is falling at free fall speed, so obviously the buildings are falling slower - but that is apparently too difficult for truthers to see!


I love this post !
Ya know why?
It's a very astute observation that I have NEVER, EVER heard anyone point out in all the 9/11 threads I've posted in !
Awesome job and frankly I'd give you 20 stars if I could but alas you only get one from me



You take your facile assumption as fact and then use it to pour scorn on dozens of experts in whose opinion the buildings are collapsing at what is termed 'free-fall' speed.

The arrogance of people who rubbish expert opinion based on an ill informed personal assumption is beyond belief.



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by JonU2
reply to post by wcitizen
 


My post was removed as being "Off Topic" when I merely made the point about seeing photographic evidence of a steel beam vaporising during the WTC collapse? How could that happen due to jet fuel and pancake collapse?


It cant. Especially 2-110 story buildings falling the same way + a 47 story building. Heres where it gets tricky.

No one has ever done a controlled demolition on a 110 story building especially on such a massive building as WTC TOWERS 1 and 2.

WHY? Because it cannot be done. They would have to dismantle the building thus conventional controlled demolition for the TOWERS were not done by conventional demolition methods.

For WTC building 7? Sure. Control Demolition Companies have 47 story buildings on their resumes


edit on 23-9-2010 by superluminal11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by wcitizen

Originally posted by ritualmurder911

"bin laden determined to attack within the united states". what don't you understand?


edit on 23-9-2010 by ritualmurder911 because: (no reason given)




Said who?


The Bush administration.

However, the FBI is NOT investigating Bin Laden for the crime -- he is not a suspect.

>> Oh wait. there were plenty of WARNINGS that Bin Laden was going to attack, that the Bush administration ignored. But when 9/11 happened -- THEY were the ones who said it was "definitely Bin Laden." But that's about all we got for "Who did it."

There has never been a credible accepted connection between 9/11 and whoever did it. The Bush administration came up with a list of suspects with the help of the CIA -- which was easy, since most of them got their PASSPORTS at the Saudi Arabian embassy that the CIA operates out of. 6 of these guys show up alive and 4 are commercial pilots.

So; not only did Saddam Hussein have NOTHING to do with Al Qaeda -- but Al Qaeda is NOT proven to have committed the acts of terrorism.

Anyone have any PROOF beyond the Bush administration just telling us? WE are still waiting for a flight manifest. We had some passports that survived the pulverization of the WTC and we have some credit cards that the FBI was prohibited from tracing, and a few Arabic flight manuals in a rented van. Then we have a double-agent that worked in South Florida to train them at an air strip that was used as a "blind drop" by the CIA. In fact, the owner is rumored to work for the CIA and got a $25 Million contract after 9/11 for cargo. The "alleged terrorists" were also partying with strippers before the attack -- but the media quit covering and went with the "Allah Akbar" theme. We just FORGOT, that these guys weren't acting like Allah-fearing-Muslims.

I know all the EVIDENCE presented by the Bush government -- and all the agencies had their cronies working at the top and approving WHAT got submitted.

And Cheney had shredding trucks working for a few days at his house.

>> I mean, how many novels of "this is strange and circumstantial" do we need? -- How could the Bush government be so embroiled and intertwined with the "bad guys" at every turn? The evidence is 90% "because we told you so."


>> What REAL evidence is there of Al Qaeda's involvement?
What EVIDENCE is there that we went to war for anything but profit, power and resources for BushCo sponsor companies?

How rich have Bush and Cheney gotten from the companies they helped and WHY did they move most of their money to Dubai? Doesn't it make you sick that Halliburton moved operations offshore, doesn't pay taxes, and sells polluted water to troops? Why do you guys not care to have PROOF? It should be easy to come by.



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by googolplexIrregardless of what is being said the fact is there are just to many question being ask, that are avoided, slufted off, or totally disregarded, sure maybe this could happen once in a blue moon but there's not that many blue moons, and there never will be. Time for these lairs to answer some questions.
Actually, that is not a fact.
It is an assumption based upon a personal interpretation.



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
However, the FBI is NOT investigating Bin Laden for the crime -- he is not a suspect.

If you know and have proof that someone is involved, why would you need to open up an investigation? You would already have all the pieces.

Instead of being called a suspect, he would be called a criminal. He is being called a criminal.


edit on 23-9-2010 by Section31 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by superluminal11

Originally posted by JonU2
reply to post by wcitizen
 


My post was removed as being "Off Topic" when I merely made the point about seeing photographic evidence of a steel beam vaporising during the WTC collapse? How could that happen due to jet fuel and pancake collapse?


It cant. Especially 2-110 story buildings falling the same way + a 47 story building. Heres where it gets tricky.

No one has ever done a controlled demolition on a 110 story building especially on such a massive building as WTC TOWERS 1 and 2.

WHY? Because it cannot be done. They would have to dismantle the building thus conventional controlled demolition for the TOWERS were not done by conventional demolition methods.

For WTC building 7? Sure. Control Demolition Companies have 47 story buildings on their resumes


edit on 23-9-2010 by superluminal11 because: (no reason given)




>> You are pulling that out of your rear. "It is impossible."

Yet, you accept that floors of a building can START collapsing by the WIND of the approaching upper floors. The "pancake collapse" did not have enough time to transfer the load before the floors below started collapsing -- I mean, it kept up with the falling debris.

A skyscraper CANNOT be taken down by demolition -- yet it CAN with Jet Fuel? Your logic starts with; "Airplanes brought down the WTC" and works backward -- magically making sense of how the curtain wall pulls in, and the floor joists are cantilevered out and how an imploding vacuum kept the floors from going "whoomp -- whoomp!"

If you cannot DEMOLISH a skyscraper of that size -- how can you take it down by just collapsing two floors? Think of all the time and money that could be saved by just lighting an office fire and pulling a few floor joists.

>> Seriously, the Bush administration and NIST need to take this new "insta-collapse-a-building" technique -- they could make a bundle. Instead of cutting floor supports and columns, and putting shaped charges on girders -- all you need to do is sandblast off some insulation, light a fire, and let two floors fold the building into a neat package of pulverized dust. I'm surprised that the Pancake Collapse didn't leave them gift wrapped with a nice bow on top.

Just make sure you get a net for all the girders that fly out like a rocket shot them.

>> Saying that a fire can collapse a building and then that it can't be done by demolition -- that's kind of like NOT having logic. That's kind of like saying that you can't BUILD a skyscraper floor by floor but you can have Popeye hit some steel beams with his Spinach Charged fist and it will just fall into place.



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
I'd still like to how how the Trusters can possibly rationalize the fact that according to the FBI, there's no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11!





Yes, this simple fact alone proves Bush lied when he stated that Obama Bin Laden was responsible and made that embarrassingly awful 'Wanted Dead or Alive' speech.

He lied when he said he had seen the first plane hit the tower on TV before going into the classroom, because the footage of that had not yet been aired at that time.

He lied about WMD in Iraq.

But, no, he wouldn't lie about what happened to the WTC buildings. No.




edit on 23-9-2010 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)




edit on 23-9-2010 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by wcitizenHe lied about WMD in Iraq.

..and, this is what its all about. Since Bush lied about WMD in Iraq, that also means he lied about 9/11?!? I don't buy into that. You need more than that to prove your case.



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst

Originally posted by wcitizen

Originally posted by ritualmurder911

"bin laden determined to attack within the united states". what don't you understand?


edit on 23-9-2010 by ritualmurder911 because: (no reason given)




Said who?


The Bush administration.

However, the FBI is NOT investigating Bin Laden for the crime -- he is not a suspect.

>> Oh wait. there were plenty of WARNINGS that Bin Laden was going to attack, that the Bush administration ignored. But when 9/11 happened -- THEY were the ones who said it was "definitely Bin Laden." But that's about all we got for "Who did it."

There has never been a credible accepted connection between 9/11 and whoever did it. The Bush administration came up with a list of suspects with the help of the CIA -- which was easy, since most of them got their PASSPORTS at the Saudi Arabian embassy that the CIA operates out of. 6 of these guys show up alive and 4 are commercial pilots.

So; not only did Saddam Hussein have NOTHING to do with Al Qaeda -- but Al Qaeda is NOT proven to have committed the acts of terrorism.

Anyone have any PROOF beyond the Bush administration just telling us? WE are still waiting for a flight manifest. We had some passports that survived the pulverization of the WTC and we have some credit cards that the FBI was prohibited from tracing, and a few Arabic flight manuals in a rented van. Then we have a double-agent that worked in South Florida to train them at an air strip that was used as a "blind drop" by the CIA. In fact, the owner is rumored to work for the CIA and got a $25 Million contract after 9/11 for cargo. The "alleged terrorists" were also partying with strippers before the attack -- but the media quit covering and went with the "Allah Akbar" theme. We just FORGOT, that these guys weren't acting like Allah-fearing-Muslims.

I know all the EVIDENCE presented by the Bush government -- and all the agencies had their cronies working at the top and approving WHAT got submitted.

And Cheney had shredding trucks working for a few days at his house.

>> I mean, how many novels of "this is strange and circumstantial" do we need? -- How could the Bush government be so embroiled and intertwined with the "bad guys" at every turn? The evidence is 90% "because we told you so."


>> What REAL evidence is there of Al Qaeda's involvement?
What EVIDENCE is there that we went to war for anything but profit, power and resources for BushCo sponsor companies?

How rich have Bush and Cheney gotten from the companies they helped and WHY did they move most of their money to Dubai? Doesn't it make you sick that Halliburton moved operations offshore, doesn't pay taxes, and sells polluted water to troops? Why do you guys not care to have PROOF? It should be easy to come by.



Lol! Exactly. The Bush administration said OBL had determined to attack US, therefore it must be true.

I mean they lied about WMD in Iraq, but they wouldn't lie about that!



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Section31

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
However, the FBI is NOT investigating Bin Laden for the crime -- he is not a suspect.

If you know and have proof that someone is involved, why would you need to open up an investigation? You would already have all the pieces.

Instead of being called a suspect, he would be called a criminal. He is being called a criminal.


edit on 23-9-2010 by Section31 because: (no reason given)



Um, it's called Law and Justice. If you are going after Bin Laden -- then he has to be a SUSPECT. Until Bush took office that is -- now they just need a rumor that someone thinks you are a "terrorist."

Again, your rebuttal is NON LOGIC, and nothing to do with how we go after criminals AND EVEN TERRORISTS in the real world.

What evidence do you have that Al Qaeda did 9/11? Where is the flight manifest so we can account for who was on the flights?

>> Where are the reconstructed airplanes that the FAA does after ever crash?

There was a total divergence from normal protocol. The Bush administration obstructed an investigation, and did lots of weird and curious things. When evidence was destroyed -- there was no repercussions -- on MORE than one occasion.

>> So, if this is a slam dunk, where is your EVIDENCE? I know all the points you can make before you look them up, but every trail that you follow will lead back to Bush or the CIA.

What was the names of the airports where the "alleged hijackers were trained?" I'll give you a hint; Jupiter Florida and near the "School of the Americas" where they train people to kill Union organizers in Latin America. Why don't you look up information about the Lead Hijacker's girlfriend who worked at a strip club? Why don't you ACTUALLY read the court case against Moussoui and the torture they put him through to get him to confess to every attack on the USA in the past few decades?

YOU KNOW for a fact that Al Qaeda did it; where is the court case and what is the evidence?



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 11:39 PM
link   
The 'luck factor' of the terrorists:

www.9-11commission.gov...

From the wife of one of the 9/11 victims. Full text on link above.

The Theory of Luck
With regard to the 9/11 attacks, it has been said that the intelligence agencies have to be right 100% of the time and the terrorists only have to get lucky once. This explanation for the devastating attacks of September 11th, simple on its face, is wrong in its value. Because the 9/11 terrorists were not just lucky once: they were lucky over and over again. Allow me to illustrate.

The SEC
The terrorist's lucky streak began the week before September 11th with the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC. The SEC, in concert with the United States intelligence agencies, has sophisticated software programs that are used in "real-time" to watch both domestic and overseas markets to seek out trends that may indicate a present or future crime. In the week prior to September 11th both the SEC and U.S. intelligence agencies ignored one major stock market indicator, one that could have yielded valuable information with regard to the September 11th attacks.

On the Chicago Board Options Exchange during the week before September 11th, put options were purchased on American and United Airlines, the two airlines involved in the attacks. The investors who placed these orders were gambling that in the short term the stock prices of both Airlines would plummet. Never before on the Chicago Exchange were such large amounts of United and American Airlines options traded. These investors netted a profit of at least $5 million after the September 11th attacks.

Interestingly, the names of the investors remain undisclosed and the $5 million remains unclaimed in the Chicago Exchange account.

Why these aberrant trades were not discovered prior to 9/11? Who were the individuals who placed these trades? Have they been investigated? Who was responsible for monitoring these activities? Have those individuals been held responsible for their inaction?

The INS
Prior to 9/11, our US intelligence agencies should have stopped the 19 terrorists from entering this country for intelligence reasons, alone. However, their failure to do so in 19 instances does not negate the luck involved for the terrorists when it comes to their visa applications and our Immigration and Naturalization Service, or INS.

With regard to the INS, the terrorists got lucky 15 individual times, because 15 of the 19 hijackers' visas should have been unquestionably denied.

Most of the 19 hijackers were young, unmarried, and un-employed males. They were, in short, the "classic over-stay candidates". A seasoned former Consular officer stated in National Review magazine, "Single, idle young adults with no specific destination in the United States rarely get visas absent compelling circumstances."

Yet these 19 young single, unemployed, "classic overstay candidates still received their visas." I am holding in my hand the applications of the terrorists who killed my husband. All of these forms are incomplete and incorrect.

Some of the terrorists listed their means of support as simply "student" failing to then list the name and address of any school or institution. Others, when asked about their means of support for their stay in the US wrote "myself" and provided no further documentation. Some of the terrorists listed their destination in the US as simply "hotel" or "California" or "New York". One even listed his destination as "no".

Had the INS or State Department followed the law, at least 15 of the hijackers would have been denied visas and would not have been in the United States on September 11th, 2001.

Help us to understand how something as simple as reviewing forms for completeness could have been missed at least 15 times. How many more lucky terrorists gained unfettered access into this country? With no one being held accountable, how do know this still isn't happening?

Airline and Airport Security
On the morning of September 11th, the terrorists' luck commenced with airline and airport security. When the 19 hijackers went to purchase their tickets (with cash and/or credit cards) and to receive their boarding passes, nine were singled out and questioned through a screening process. Luckily for those nine terrorists, they passed the screening process and were allowed to continue on with their mission.

But, the terrorist's luck didn't end at the ticket counter; it also accompanied them through airport security, as well. Because how else would the hijackers get specifically contraband items such as box-cutters, pepper spray or, according to one FAA executive summary, a gun on those planes?

Finally, sadly for us, years of GAO recommendations to secure cockpit doors were ignored making it all too easy for the hijackers to gain access to the flight controls and carryout their suicide mission.

FAA and NORAD
Prior to 9/11, FAA and Department of Defense Manuals gave clear, comprehensive instructions on how to handle everything from minor emergencies to full blown hijackings.

These "protocols" were in place and were practiced regularly for a good reason--with heavily trafficked air space; airliners without radio and transponder contact are collisions and/or calamities waiting to happen.

Those protocols dictate that in the event of an emergency, the FAA is to notify NORAD. Once that notification takes place, it is then the responsibility of NORAD to scramble fighter-jets to intercept the errant plane(s). It is a matter of routine procedure for fighter-jets to "intercept" commercial airliners in order to regain contact with the pilot.

If that weren't protection enough, on September 11th, NEADS (or the North East Air Defense System dept of NORAD) was several days into a semiannual exercise known as "Vigilant Guardian". This meant that our North East Air Defense system was fully staffed. In short, key officers were manning the operation battle center, "fighter jets were cocked, loaded, and carrying extra gas on board."

Lucky for the terrorists none of this mattered on the morning of September 11th.

Let me illustrate using just flight 11 as an example.

American Airline Flight 11 departed from Boston Logan Airport at 7:45 a.m. The last routine communication between ground control and the plane occurred at 8:13 a.m. Between 8:13 and 8:20 a.m. Flight 11 became unresponsive to ground control. Additionally, radar indicated that the plane had deviated from its assigned path of flight. Soon thereafter, transponder contact was lost - (although planes can still be seen on radar - even without their transponders).

Two Flight 11 airline attendants had separately called American Airlines reporting a hijacking, the presence of weapons, and the infliction of injuries on passengers and crew. At this point, it would seem abundantly clear that Flight 11 was an emergency.

Yet, according to NORAD's official timeline, NORAD was not contacted until 20 minutes later at 8:40 a.m. Tragically the fighter jets were not deployed until 8:52 a.m. -- a full 32 minutes after the loss of contact with flight 11.

Why was there a delay in the FAA notifying NORAD? Why was there a delay in NORAD scrambling fighter jets? How is this possible when NEADS was fully staffed with planes at the ready and monitoring our Northeast airspace?

Flight's 175, 77 and 93 all had this same repeat pattern of delays in notification and delays in scrambling fighter jets. Delays that are unimaginable considering a plane had, by this time, already hit the WTC

Even more baffling for us is the fact that the fighter jets were not scrambled from the closest air force bases. For example, for the flight that hit the Pentagon, the jets were scrambled from Langley Air Force in Hampton, Virginia rather than Andrews Air Force Base right outside D.C. As a result, Washington skies remained wholly unprotected on the morning of September 11th. At 9:41 a.m. one hour and 11 minutes after the first plane was hijack confirmed by NORAD, Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. The fighter jets were still miles away. Why?

So the hijackers luck had continued. On September 11th both the FAA and NORAD deviated from standard emergency operating procedures .Who were the people that delayed the notification? Have they been questioned? In addition, the interceptor planes or fighter jets did not fly at their maximum speed.

Had the belatedly scrambled fighter jets flown at their maximum speed of engagement, MACH-12, they would have reached NYC and the Pentagon within moments of their deployment, intercepted the hijacked airliners before they could have hit their targets, and undoubtedly saved lives.

Leadership
Joint Chief Of Staff
The acting Joint Chief of staff on Sept 11th was on the morning of September 11th, he was having a routine meeting . Acting Joint Chief of staff Myers stated that he saw a TV. report about a plane hitting the WTC but thought it was a small plane or something like that. So, he went ahead with his meeting. "Meanwhile the second World Trade Center was hit by another jet. Nobody informed us of that," Myers said. By the time he came out of the meeting the Pentagon had been hit.

Whose responsibility was it to relay this emergency to the Joint Chief of Staff? Have they been held accountable for their error? Surely this represents a breakdown of protocol.

Secretary of Defense
The Secretary of Defense, was at his desk doing paperwork when AA77 crashed into the Pentagon.

As reported, Secretary Rumsfeld felt the building shake, went outside, saw the damage and started helping the injured onto stretchers. After aiding the victims, the Secretary then went into the 'War Room'.

How is it possible that the National Military Command Center, located in the Pentagon and in contact with law enforcement and air traffic controllers from 8:46 a.m. did not communicate to the Secretary of Defense also at the Pentagon about the other hijacked planes especially the one headed to Washington? How is that Secretary of Defense could have remained at this desk until the crash? Whose responsibility is it to relay emergency situations to him? Is he then supposed to go to the war room?

President
At 6:15 a.m. on the morning of 9/11, my husband Alan left for work; he drove into New York City, and was at his desk and working at his NASDAQ Security Trading position with Cantor Fitzgerald, in Tower One of the WTC by 7:30 a.m.

In contrast, on the morning of September 11, President Bush was scheduled to listen to elementary school children read.

Before the President walked into the classroom NORAD had sufficient information that the plane that hit the WTC was hijacked. At that time, they also had knowledge that two other commercial airliners, in the air, were also hijacked. It would seem that a national emergency was in progress.

Yet President Bush was allowed to enter a classroom full of young children and listen to the students read.

Why didn't the Secret Service inform him of this national emergency? When is a President supposed to be notified of everything the agencies know? Why was the President permitted by the Secret Service to remain in the Sarasota elementary school? Was this Secret Service protocol?

In the case of a national emergency, seconds of indecision could cost thousands of lives; and it's precisely for this reason that our government has a whole network of adjuncts and advisors to insure that these top officials are among the first to be informed--not the last. Where were these individuals who did not properly inform these top officials? Where was the breakdown in communication?

Was it luck or No Fault Government
Is it luck that aberrant stock trades were not monitored? Is it luck when 15 visas are awarded based on incomplete forms? Is it luck when Airline Security screenings allow hijackers to board planes with box cutters and pepper spray? Is it luck when Emergency FAA and NORAD protocols are not followed? Is it luck when a national emergency is not reported to top government officials on a timely basis?

To me luck is something that happens once. When you have this repeated pattern of broken protocols, broken laws, broken communication, one cannot still call it luck.

If at some point we don't look to hold the individuals accountable for not doing their jobs properly then how can we ever expect for terrorists not to get lucky again?

And, that is why I am here with all of you today. Because, we must find the answers as to what happened that day so as to ensure that another September 11th can never happen again.

Commissioners, I implore you to answer our questions. You are the Generals in the terrorism fight on our shores. In answering our questions, you have the ability to make this nation a safer place and in turn, minimize the damage if there is another terrorist attack. And, if there is another attack, the next time, our systems will be in place and working and luck will not be an issue.

Mindy Kleinberg is a founding member of September 11th Advocates, a family advocacy group that spearheaded the grassroots effort for the establishment of the independent commission on September 11th.

Her husband Alan Kleinberg was a NASDAQ security trader with Cantor Fitzgerald in the NorthTower of the WTC on the 104th Floor. He was 39 and had been a NASDAQ security trader for 15 years.

Mrs. Kleinberg is a Certified Public Accountant. She met her husband when they both worked at Deloitte-Touche, but she left the accounting profession to become a stay-at-home mom. She lives in New Jersey with her three children; Jacob 11; Lauren 8 and Sam 4

End quote.

Now, debunkers, just so you know, this woman is one of the people you so glibly dismiss as a conspiracy nutter.



edit on 23-9-2010 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngstWhat evidence do you have that Al Qaeda did 9/11? Where is the flight manifest so we can account for who was on the flights?

You asked. You shall receive:
The Passenger Manifests
Scroll down to see lists, articles, and pdfs of original lists.



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Section31

Originally posted by wcitizenHe lied about WMD in Iraq.

..and, this is what its all about. Since Bush lied about WMD in Iraq, that also means he lied about 9/11?!? I don't buy into that. You need more than that to prove your case.


Bush lied about everything.

Your THEORY is that he told the truth about 9.11.

>> Do you have any proof of integrity, honesty and a good record from ANYONE from the Bush family?

"No Child Left Behind" --- failed miserably in Texas. Facts and figures were fixed to make it look good.

The Katrina funeral group that went into New Orleans with 5,000 body bags and "didn't find much" was also the same group that got caught in a campaign finance scandal with Bush in Texas.

Look up Silverado Savings and Loan. $17 Billion went missing -- who ran that bank?
Look up the Keating 5.
Look up BCCI, the drug trade and Dubai.
Look up Federal Investigation of Bush family for counterfeit Treasury Notes. Note the building the evidence was stored in and went "poof."
Look up Dick Cheney's reduction in asbestos damages for Halliburton.
Look up Dick Cheney and "offshore accounts."
Look up Dick Cheney and "trading oil with Saddam."
Look up Dick Cheney and weapons sales.
Look up Bush and Prostitute in Texas accuses of rape. Notice that she commits suicide by jumping out her window.
Look up "Bush nanny runs over herself with her parked car."
Look up Operation Zappata.
Look up Bush and "insder trading." -- all three times it took place and got covered up.
Look up Bush "gets a new drivers license."
Look up Bush and "favors of Harriet Myers get rewarded."
Look up "The Lincoln group and Iraq war propaganda."
Look up "Prescott Bush censored with trading with the Enemy"
Look up "Bush family makes money on Buckenwald"
Look up "Katrina disaster relief fund targets software company held by Bush family member"
Look up "Barbara Bush donates millions to own son."
Look up "Ukrainian separatist mobster invests in Bush family business"
... oh, and look up "Iran/Contra"


>> You know, I haven't bothered with those two stinking crooks in a long time. There is not enough TIME IN THE DAY, to list all the crimes they got away with.

THAT's the "Squeaky clean boy scout" you are defending. The one who brought a civil war to Iraq and can't explain why we went there. The one so meanly accused of going AWOL to stay out of the Civil Guard but NOBODY remembers having served with him.

I want some evidence of any company Bush ran, any business venture, any "donation" to him or by him or investment his companies that wasn't shady. I want some altruism or a tough truth he told.

He was President for 8 years -- you got any success stories or something that made the country STRONGER -- you know, beyond all the "imagined attacks that his scariness prevented" that is.
Where is this record of honesty and integrity you keep alluding to?



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 11:50 PM
link   
reply to post by wcitizen
 


its simply amazing the "luck" factor ....

its UNBELIEVABLE if you try to analyze the luck factor in the big picture, its just mind blowing



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 11:50 PM
link   
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 


Just a reminder...

No other building any where in the world is built in the same manner as those towers.
They were Unique in every way, not just the obvious size but materials and the technique.
So you can't really compare them to any other. And like wise you can't compare any other
Demolition Building to these either, they would behave very differnetly. A tradionally built
building would be a lot harder to knock down, and probably would have survived if it was.

This also adds to the Conspiracy, because there is nothing to compare to.



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 

Do you have proof to the contrary?

Lets be real. We can do this back and forth forever. You have nothing.

You have a list of assumptions.



edit on 23-9-2010 by Section31 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst

Originally posted by Section31

Originally posted by wcitizenHe lied about WMD in Iraq.

..and, this is what its all about. Since Bush lied about WMD in Iraq, that also means he lied about 9/11?!? I don't buy into that. You need more than that to prove your case.




OK, Section 31, you are being incredibly dishonest. You seem to be deliberately misconstruing everything I say. Is that the only way you can support your belief in the OS?

Show me, go on, show me where I said that Bush lied about WMD in Iraq, so that means he lied about 9/11.

If you can't show me where I said that, it means you are being very, very dishonest or you are playing a nasty game.

LET ME SPELL IT OUT.

In a court of law, if a witness lies about one thing, his whole testimony is given much less credence. This is a fact. Don't ask me for evidence. If you aren't aware of it go do your own homework.

Bush lied about something huge - that Iraq had WMD. It was a contrived and elaborate, deliberate lie. That lie caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.

My reasoning, now follow carefully please, is that if he is capable of such a huge and deadly lie, he is capable of telling other huge and deadly lies. So, his statements about 9/11 have to be seen in that light. It is not beyoond the realms of possibility that he lied about 9/11. It can't be ruled out. It wouldn't be out of character.
His lack of integrity has to be taken into account.

Now, take into account many other big, serious lies he has told, and that is even more the case.


As to the other part of your statemnet:
quote
and, this is what its all about. Since Bush lied about WMD in Iraq, that also means he lied about 9/11?!? I don't buy into that. You need more than that to prove your case
unquote

Once again you are being dishonest in your interpretation of what I am saying. You project your own inability to use logic onto my statements, and present it as fact.

As I said before, I have to conclude that you are not remotely interested in what the truth is or isn't, you're just here to take cheap pot shots at truthers.



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic_al
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 


Just a reminder...

No other building any where in the world is built in the same manner as those towers.
They were Unique in every way, not just the obvious size but materials and the technique.
So you can't really compare them to any other. And like wise you can't compare any other
Demolition Building to these either, they would behave very differnetly. A tradionally built
building would be a lot harder to knock down, and probably would have survived if it was.

This also adds to the Conspiracy, because there is nothing to compare to.





Have you actually read the statements by the experienced, knowledgeable demolition experts? Have you really considered what they say?

My guess is not, because you are merely pitting your own spurious assumptions against the expert testimony of professional experts, and based on that, dismilssing their statements out of hand.

You are pulling your statements out of thin air and then declaring them to be more valid than those of the professional experts. That is no way to discuss something.


edit on 24-9-2010 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 12:09 AM
link   
Good night everybody.

It's been fun -- just not REAL fun.

Just remember "Travelgate" where Hillary Clinton was investigated for firing a worker for bad performance.

Not that I'm a fan of Bill Clinton after he passed the Republican wet dream of NAFTA -- I'm just saying, that Kenneth Starr spent about 8 years investigating 5 cases against him and he was exonerated on all charges.

So, if we can put a President on trial for lying about extra-mertial affairs -- but we can't investigate 10 crimes that had death's, trillions of dollars, and Constitutional policies violated -- I think we've set a precedent for "lowering the bar."

>> No Democracy without Justice and Transparency -- I guess that means "Mission Accomplished."



new topics

top topics



 
61
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join