Who's behind 11 sep., some statistics

To say bush was not behind sept 11.

Then why did he invade iraq? it has nothing to do with terrorism.

Why is it, all of sudden iraq is number1 objective? why isn't he going after terrorist nows? His used the taiban as buffer then invaded his real objective iraq in order to control the oil flields, which was his real ojective.

If bush has always wanted the oil flields, and knew that he needed a reason to invade it and then found out that terrorists wanted fly to planes into the two towers. I'm sure he would of allowed it. Mabe he made bader then it would of been by firing a missle at the pentagon. Making sure the towers would fall after the crash.

Originally posted by Thinker
To say bush was not behind sept 11.

Then why did he invade iraq? it has nothing to do with terrorism.

Why is it, all of sudden iraq is number1 objective? why isn't he going after terrorist nows? His used the taiban as buffer then invaded his real objective iraq in order to control the oil flields, which was his real ojective.

If bush has always wanted the oil flields, and knew that he needed a reason to invade it and then found out that terrorists wanted fly to planes into the two towers. I'm sure he would of allowed it. Mabe he made bader then it would of been by firing a missle at the pentagon. Making sure the towers would fall after the crash.

Do you think Bush is actually behind the actions of the US?

Originally posted by TrueLies
Ruppert Blows The Lid
Off 911 In New Book
Posted At Kitco.com
Copyright � 2002 bw/Kitco Inc. All rights reserved
9-6-4

TrueLies,

No offence, but Michael Ruppert isn't exactly an esteemed journalist. In fact, if you really care to hear BOTH sides of the argument, click This Link for an excellent refutation of Mikey Ruppert's 9/11 timeline.

BTW: For anyone interested in rational responses to the 9/11 conspiracy theories, that site is excellent. Although I should forewarn you that the guy who writes it is very intense in some of his criticism.

Also, some of you may not realize this, but practically everything to do with 9-11 has already been discussed on ATS and is listed somewhere in the "Forum Reference Index AND Thread for Discussing anything related to 9/11, Pentagon, etc" which is located here.

Originally posted by Thinker
To say bush was not behind sept 11.

Then why did he invade iraq? it has nothing to do with terrorism.

Why is it, all of sudden iraq is number1 objective? why isn't he going after terrorist nows? His used the taiban as buffer then invaded his real objective iraq in order to control the oil flields, which was his real ojective.

If bush has always wanted the oil flields, and knew that he needed a reason to invade it and then found out that terrorists wanted fly to planes into the two towers. I'm sure he would of allowed it. Mabe he made bader then it would of been by firing a missle at the pentagon. Making sure the towers would fall after the crash.

Ok, once and for all.. I am terribly sorry to burst your bubble on the Pentigon.. but it was a plane. I live here in Maryland, we were at Arlington Cemitary and saw it it. A friends dad was walking back to his office in the Pentigone when the damn thing flew over his head. I am not part of the government coverup commity. I simply saw what I saw, The argument taht it was not a plane that hit the pentigon is a stupid argument.

Wraith

There could have been a video of Bin Laden riding on a wing of the plane and some Liberal would still say its "Bush's fault"....dont even bother arguing anymore...its pointless...