Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That would mean that several hundred "Advisors" also looked the other way. Otherwise, there would be several hundred people in the news saying, "I told you so." Has that happened? Of just hearsay?
Invasion of Iraq was not fully based on 9/11. There was a multitude of things, Iraq being one of them.
Not new but I wonder if the biggest reason for invasion is oil, The British oil companies have been complaining that they have not had their share?
Conspiracies wouldn’t be conspiracies if all of the information were made public. I would fear more a government that prevented and restricted information to the citizens more then one that provided an open honest truthful one. Once you have a government that hides information YOU no longer have a government of the people.
I used to have a lot of respect for Paul Craig Roberts. I even met the man when I worked in non-profit political education/advocacy circles. I have to say, he very very quickly went off the deep end after the Iraq war began. It started out with what seemed like reasoned, principled criticism of the Iraq war, though when I met him he was only speaking out against our threats of war against Iraq because we hadn't yet launched the invasion. But after we did launch it, he quickly turned into a barking-mad lunatic. It sucked watching a man I once followed and admired become a conspiracy nutbag. I seriously wonder if his mind is going since he is getting up there in age.
Not new but I wonder if the biggest reason for invasion is oil, The British oil companies have been complaining that they have not had their share?
You know, that's a good question. It's hard telling what was in the back of their minds, we'll probably never know.
but so many people blame Iraq on we went after Sodamn Insane. Partly. Others blame it on WMD. Partly. Others say it was the terrorists. Partly. but the biggest reason was that that country had surrendered in 1991 with conditions that they allow us to have Weapons inspectors insure they were shutting down. They played the shell game with our inspectors. They'd move biologics and material a day before the inspectors would be there. Then they kicked them out of the country and wouldn't stick with their surrender agreements. Couple that with 9/11 and the attackers running and hiding in Iraq and Iraq wouldn't turn them over or let us come in to search for them and oh oh, we have a war.
But like you say, how much of it is thoughts of oil?
I've followed the Kennedy Assassination for many years. Here you have an assassination where numerous witnesses saw something that contradicted the actual report. 9-11 you had thousands of witnesses collaborated most of the official report.
The Kennedy Assassination, while spectacular in its execution and impact was actually very simple to carry out.
9-11 while spectacular in its execution, would of been impossible to carry out in the terms described by conspiracy theory nuts.
Years before Kennedy was assassinated several people stated they wanted to kill Kennedy.
Years before 9-11 captured terrorists stated there was a plan to destroy a large city using hijacked airliners.
Kennedy was hated. He and his entourage (his dad and brothers) double-crossed the mob, the CIA and Cuban nationals (Bay of Pigs)
The USA is hated by Muslim extremest and was attacked prior to 9-11 (The first WTC bombing)
The point here, for a conspiracy to have validity, there has to be a clear path where the ends justify the means. There was nothing mystical, high tech or super sophicated about the Kennedy assassination. What is being said about 9-11 being a conspiracy or inside job involved planning, technology and personnel that would rival all the Apollo missions put together. Hopefully most sane Americans will realize this and shove these conspiracy nuts into the corner where they belong.
I think it's easy and understandable for people to get caught up in the "Loose Change" movies and the like. They present their views in a very compelling way. They create scenarios that are plausible for the layman to believe and they tug at your heartstrings.
I won't resort to calling someone a nut just because they got swayed by this. It's not much different then people falling for the "War Of The Worlds" radio broadcast so many years ago.
I do think it should sadden our leaders that so many Americans are so distrustful of the gov't that we'd entertain the idea of this conspiracy.
That said, what flyboyj says about the complexity of the "Lose Change" conspiracy being so far beyond the scope of reality to actually make happen holds true in my mind as well.
I think it's easy and understandable for people to get caught up in the "Loose Change" movies and the like. They present their views in a very compelling way. They create scenarios that are plausible for the layman to believe and they tug at your heartstrings.
I won't resort to calling someone a nut just because they got swayed by this. It's not much different then people falling for the "War Of The Worlds" radio broadcast so many years ago.
I do think it should sadden our leaders that so many Americans are so distrustful of the gov't that we'd entertain the idea of this conspiracy.
That said, what flyboyj says about the complexity of the "Lose Change" conspiracy being so far beyond the scope of reality to actually make happen holds true in my mind as well.
Agree, but the term "nut" almost seems like a necessity especially when these folks just refuse to believe non-biased subject matter experts (demolition, building construction, aviation, etc.) when they present compelling facts. Perhaps in lieu of "nuts" the term "technically challenged" is more appropriate!
I've followed the Kennedy Assassination for many years. Here you have an assassination where numerous witnesses saw something that contradicted the actual report.
I'm curious if you agree then that the world bankers knocked off JFK, because he was getting rid of the fat cats and the Federal Reserve, and changing the monetary policy of the United States. If so, were you convinced of this in 1963? Or after a number of years.
I have seen many videos of the 911 WTC's, and not one of them has collaborated the official report. The only collaboration I've seen of the official report is from the administration that made the report. If you have any real evidence then you are welcome to post a video that shows an airplane that knocked down the towers. I would like to see it.
Other than that, most all of the witnesses state, and all of the videos show the towers were demolished by explosives. In fact it's surprising if you have seen a lot of videos of 911 that you can't see this and come to this conclusion yourself. I could see this immediately the first day when the collapse of the towers was shown in TV.
Quote:
9-11 while spectacular in its execution, would of been impossible to carry out in the terms described by conspiracy theory nuts.
What happened to the towers then. Are they still standing up? Are you saying they couldn't have been knocked down by explosives but they could have been by an airplane? If so, then why aren't buildings demolished by airplanes, as that would sure save a lot of time preparing the buildings with explosives.
Quote:
Years before 9-11 captured terrorists stated there was a plan to destroy a large city using hijacked airliners.
I've never seen any supposed terrorist say such a thing. Please provide a video where they do, and not one provided by CIA operatives, donning masks or otherwise. Show me a video of a telecast speech, where there is no question of the speaker's identity.
Quote:
The USA is hated by Muslim extremest and was attacked prior to 9-11 (The first WTC bombing)
Ridiculous. The U.S. is invading their countries. Of course they want the U.S. out of their countries. But I haven't seen any Muslim airplanes or ships over here in the United States. Are there any Muslim armies invading us? If you have any evidence to show that they are then feel welcome to provide it.
Last edited by Floridanative2; 08-04-2007 at 08:21 PM..
Reason: addendum
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
monetary policies and false flag attacks
this Reagan official, why would he say this? I am just trying to figure it out, Not sure where his info comes from.
