Reagan and Clinton are the two presidents most responsible for the current economic meltdown. Reagan allowed banks to speculate in real estate (Savings and Loan scandal direct result), brought about a massive intensification in the "War on Drugs" (one of the most costly mistakes in our history) which lead to the creation of the so called "prison industrial complex" which has succeeded in incarcerating some incredible percentage of African Americans and destroying a multitude of families leaving them dependent on welfare. Clinton brought us NAFTA which is responsible for the utter destruction of Mexican agriculture and family farms due to massive influx of subsidized American corn and other crops, the destruction of the traditional family farm also intensified the illegal immigration problem, we also saw the creation of the Mequilladores system which often has shocking human rights abuses and has vacuumed up American jobs until they left for even cheaper shores, he also of course signed in to the law the repeal of Glass-Stegall: per wikipedia. Seriously one president after another since Eisenhower has advanced the interests of the financial industry and Globalization at the expense of American jobs with horrific consequences for the environment, worker safety and of course the current economic meltdown. Reagan and Clinton were two of the worst. Bush just deliver the Coup de Grace and now Obama is beating the dead horse.
No, you didn't. You simply repeated the gross illogic of the official story. Sorry boys, but this case is closed. We now have physical proof that it was an inside job. So spare your endless excuses and regurgitations of the official lie. It's just up to you now to accept it.
Or reject it. Your "proof" leaves a lot to be desired. A few guys with an obvious agenda but no obvious expertise who say that some paint chips that someone gave them look sort of like some kind of thermite is far from convincing. barfo
Sinobas I would be more inclined to listen to what you have to say if I didn't have to look at Marilyn Manson's ugly mug. I'm not saying I agree with or disagree with what you say. There is so much disinfo all around on both sides of this matter that i'm undecided about it. I am however decided that I can't stand your avatar. Likewise, it annoys me greatly that Tlong's avatar doesn't show a Thong bikini. Come on it rhymes for godsakes!
Exactly. If their game had been to prop up claims to an invasion, predicated primarily on ferreting out a stockpile of WMDs, how hard would it have been to dig some pits out in the middle of the desert, bury some black market russian chems and then conveniently "discover" them in the aftermath of the invasion? Why orchestrate some massive conspiracy to destroy the twin towers and blow up the pentagon if you're only going to half-ass the conspiracy and neglect to plant the right evidence and complete the farce?
I actually have an open mind about the subject of 9/11. However, I hate I repeat hate your avatar how about a nice picture of Arvydas looking in the mirror? Or maybe a rotting wildebeast carcas? Anything but that Manson pic! I tell you what I will change mine if you change yours!
The fact that governments sometimes deceive their citizens isn't any sort of evidence that it happened in this particular case. barfo
I don't think there's disbelief that the government is capable of misleading or deceiving its people. I think the disbelief is that they can pull off a deception this enormous with no one the wiser, especially in an age with so much media scrutiny. And I think the point others have made, that you dismissed rather oddly, is valid. Why would they go to all that effort of perpetrating a crime as large as 9/11 and then forget or fail to pull off the much more minor deception of planting the evidence in Iraq that would have validated the largest justification for prosecuting that war?
i asked an honest question. what about these "findings" exposes that it was an inside job? surely you can give me an answer to that question.
There are two schools of thought. One is that Bush wanted to go to war and needed a justification. The other is that, following a terrorist attack in the US, he truly believed there was a national security risk from Hussein and WMD. The second one doesn't imply 9/11 was a deception. The first one might but, if so, leaves one wondering why he didn't finish the deception job and plant the WMD in Iraq. Had he done so, had WMD turned up, he probably would have had much more political will from the people to conduct the war as he saw fit. It really doesn't make a lot of sense that he'd do a huge, criminally murderous deception and then fail to do the minor deception that would have made his war much more popular and allowed him more latitude.
Gonna play Devil's advocate here: I think the difference between 9/11 and Iraq invasion is that after 9/11 there was tremendous sympathy among the international community and media. Whereas with Iraq the international community was by and large against the invasion. Again playing Devil's Advocate I suppose someone could say that there was a far larger degree of scrutiny when we went to war with Iraq and it was in a foreign country with troops of other nationalities that the WMD's being planted might be more likely to be shown to be a conspiracy. I often wondered why they didn't do exactly that, plant WMD's and that was the conclusion I came to. Simply too difficult to pull off a deception (WMD's planted) when people were looking for us to do something exactly like that. It could be argued that 9/11 was a sympathy causing event that it seems rude (even now as shown by this thread) to suggest might be a false flag event. Like I have said I'm undecided I have turned this over in my head MANY times since the event. The Anthrax attacks being linked to American Millitary bases (Ames strain is only found in US Bio-Weapons labs) was what really got me thinking the whole 9/11 truth movement might have some merit. I notice that the Anthrax on the democratic side of the building helped get the Patriot Act passed and was never really adequately solved. Also the Bush Admin started taking Cipro PRIOR to the Anthrax attacks per a right wing judicial watchdog group called appropriately enough Judicial Watch. So while I think I will never be completely satisfied with either explaination of the events of that day. I don't dismiss either possibility and keep an open mind until such time as I feel either side has brought forth conclusive proof of either theory. Now IIRC Osama Bin Laden has never been charged with 9/11 on the FBI's website due to lack of evidence. Can someone tell me if that is correct or an Urban Legend?
I wonder why the Government won't release detailed video of how to successfully attack our military headquarters...
Gravity can, though. And you would too, if something big and heavy like the top of a building fell on you. barfo
No, the next question I should ask is how anyone can take that rather ambiguous statement and think that it proves something. And if there was some sort of giant conspiracy, why would Silverstein admit to it on TV? barfo
He did. Each floor was capable of supporting so much weight. As the first 20 floors fell on the floor below, that floor couldn't hold the weight and collapsed to the floor below. 21 floors fell on that one, it couldn't hold the weight, 22 floors fell on the next one, etc. The more floors above falling to a floor, the heavier, thus the faster it'd collapse. Maybe the top floor took a second to collapse, but as the mass hitting the floors below got heavier, the floors below collapsed instantaneously.
