| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Newo |
Posted - 11/20/2005 : 05:44:25
Former MI5 agent David Shayler, who previously blew the whistle on the British government paying Al Qaeda $200,000 to carry out political assassinations, has gone on the record with his conviction that 9/11 was an inside job meant to bring about a permanent state of emergency in America and pave the way for the invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq and ultimately Iran and Syria.
David Shayler joined MI5 in October 1991 and worked there for five years. He started at F Branch (counter-subversion) in January 1992, and worked in T Branch (Irish terrorism) from August 1992 until October 1994. He left the organization in 1996.
Shayler appeared on The Alex Jones Show to kick off what will be a wider public campaign to educate the public on 9/11 issues and government corruption.
Shayler again risked jail by speaking out. The British government has a legal gag preventing him from speaking about his work during his MI5 tenure. Since what Shayler discussed was already on the public record (a consequence of which was his imprisonment on two separate occasions), he now feels safer in stepping back out into the limelight.
Shayler delved into his past investigations and the evidence that led some within MI5 to conclude that the Israelis bombed their own London embassy in July 1994. Shayler said that the Israelis framed two Palestinians who remain in jail to this day.
"The same thing has happened with two Palestinians who were convicted of conspiracy to cause the attack on the Israeli Embassy in Britain in 1994 but MI5 didn’t disclose two documents which indicated their innocence. One document indicated another group had carried out the attack and the other document was the belief of an MI5 officer that the Israelis had actually bombed their own embassy and allowed a controlled explosion to try and get better security and these documents were never shown to the trial judge let alone the defense."
Shayler said that his suspicions were first aroused about 9/11 when the usual route of crime scene investigation was impeded when the debris was immediately seized and shipped off to China.
"It is in fact a criminal offence to interfere with a crime scene and yet in the case of 9/11 all the metal from the buildings is shipped out to China, there are no forensications done on that metal. Now that to me suggests they never wanted anybody to look at that metal because it was not going to provide the evidence they wanted to show people that it was Al-Qaeda."
Shayler then went on to dismiss the incompetence theory.
"The more I look at it, you realize that it’s not incompetence. There were FBI officers all over the country, Colleen Rowley is obviously the one who managed to get a congressional hearing, but there was plenty of evidence certainly."
"There are so many questions that need to be answered, protocols being overridden within national defense, people actively being stopped from carrying out investigations. This wasn’t an accident, they were aware there was intelligence indicating those kind of attacks, there were FBI intercepts saying it in the days before the attacks. When you look at it all, that is a big big intelligence picture and yet these people were crucially stopped from doing their jobs, stopped from trying to protect the American people."
Shayler elaborated by saying the evidence suggests the attack was originally meant to be much wider in scope and was an attempt at a violent coup intended to decapitate the entire government as a pretext for martial law.
"So you’re looking at a situation in which you almost have a coup de’tat because you’ve got to bear in mind that there were weapons discovered on planes that didn’t take off on 9/11. Now people have obviously postulated that they were going perhaps to attack the White House, Capitol Hill. That looks to me like an attempt to destroy American government and declare a state of emergency, in fact a coup de’tat, a violent coup de’tat."
"There are so very many questions about this and you realize again that none of the enquiries ever get to the bottom of any of these things, they don’t take all the evidence, they don’t often take any evidence under oath when they should be taking it under oath."
Shayler was forthright in his assertion that the attack was planned and executed within the jurisdiction of the military-industrial complex.
"They let it happen, they made it happen to create a trigger to be able to allow the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Iraq and of course what they’re trying to do now is the same thing with the invasion of Iran and Syria."
Shayler ended by questioning the highly suspicious nature of the collapse of the twin towers and Building 7, the first buildings in history, all in the same day, to collapse from so-called fire damage alone.
"I’ve seen the results of terroristic explosions and so on and no terrorist explosion has ever brought down a building. When the IRA put something like a thousands tonnes of home-made explosives in front of the Baltic Exchange building in Bishopsgate and let off the bomb, all the glass came out, the building shook a bit but there was no question about the building falling down and it doesn’t obey the laws of physics for buildings to fall down in the way the World Trade Center came down. So you have the comparison of the two, Building 7 compared with the north and south towers coming down and those two things are exactly the same, they were demolished."
David Shayler joins a spate of recent credible whistleblowers who share the same sentiments about the real story behind 9/11. Former Chief Economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush’s first term Morgan Reynolds publicly questioned the unexplained collapse of WTC Building 7 earlier this month. In addition, a former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under President Reagan, Paul Craig Roberts, shared his concerns last week when he said the Bush Administration were making the same mistakes as the Nazis when they invaded Russia in the dead of Winter. Roberts seriously doubts the official explanation behind 9/11.
Click here for a clip in which Shayler discusses 9/11.
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/ju...
That makes three this month, be sure to follow this up with the recent articles on Paul Craig Roberts and Morgan Reynolds.
http://www.911blogger.com/2005/06/f...
--
Buy your best friend flowers. Buy your lover a beer. Covet thy father. Covet thy neighbour's father. Honour thy lover's beer. Covet thy neighbour's father's wife's sister. Take her to bingo night. |
| 35 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| prozacrat |
Posted - 11/27/2005 : 21:43:18
quote:
Originally posted by darwin
quote:
Originally posted by prozacrat
I suppose Bush could just not leave the Oval Office like Clinton, but we all know where that got him.
Not sure where you get the idea that Clinton hid in the Oval Office. He holds the record among US Presidents for his number of foreign visits and the rate and duration of those visits.
http://www.ntu.org/main/press.php?PressID=218&org_name=NTU
I was just making a joke about what Clinton liked to do while left to his own devices in the Oval Office.
http://www.prozacrat.com |
| Newo |
Posted - 11/27/2005 : 10:59:54
quote:
Frog in the Sand
* Dog in the Sand *
France
1529 Posts
Posted - 11/25/2005 : 12:13:09 Show Profile Email Poster Send Frog in the Sand a Yahoo! Message Reply with Quote
Funny to see how conspirationists recycle the same suspicions and "arguments" over and over, whether they talk about the 9/11 events, the JFK assassination, the Roswell incident, whatever. Sometimes I wonder if they're aware of their conformism.
General criticisms aside, how´d you feel about the piece I posted?
--
Buy your best friend flowers. Buy your lover a beer. Covet thy father. Covet thy neighbour's father. Honour thy lover's beer. Covet thy neighbour's father's wife's sister. Take her to bingo night. |
| Carl |
Posted - 11/26/2005 : 06:55:22
Yeah, but that's just beacause his search for chicks like Monika Lewinsky led him around the world! ;)
 "Join the Honeycult!"
|
| darwin |
Posted - 11/26/2005 : 01:55:04
quote:
Originally posted by prozacrat
I suppose Bush could just not leave the Oval Office like Clinton, but we all know where that got him.
Not sure where you get the idea that Clinton hid in the Oval Office. He holds the record among US Presidents for his number of foreign visits and the rate and duration of those visits.
http://www.ntu.org/main/press.php?PressID=218&org_name=NTU |
| Frog in the Sand |
Posted - 11/25/2005 : 12:13:09
Funny to see how conspirationists recycle the same suspicions and "arguments" over and over, whether they talk about the 9/11 events, the JFK assassination, the Roswell incident, whatever. Sometimes I wonder if they're aware of their conformism.
-----
"In the magnificent fierce morning of New Mexico, one sprang awake, a new part of the soul woke up suddenly and the old world gave way to the new." - D. H. Lawrence
|
| prozacrat |
Posted - 11/24/2005 : 11:49:55
Personally, I don't think intelligent design should be taught in schools either, but I can tolerate it as long as it doesn't go farther than the teacher saying "there are those who think there's some sort of intelligent force that pushed the universe into motion, but since there's nothing to back that up and it's only still considered due to lack of a plausable explaination, that's all I'm gonna tell you." From what I've read, that's what studying intelligent design amounts to, and should by no means be confused with evangelical creationism, which would really be ass-backwards to teach in schools. Nobody's considering teaching school children that the Earth and the whole universe is 6,000 years old, which is what the media would like people to believe "intelligent design" means. But if Bush supports schools mentioning intelligent design, which doesn't contradict evolution, then that's fine by me. I don't believe in intelligent design, but the majority of Americans do, in one form or another. This subject doesn't really relate to Bush's abilities as a statesman, other than the fact that I'm sure many of the other leaders of the world have some sort of religious belief, and it'd be sad if Bush had to appear religiously neutered just because he's an American.
http://www.prozacrat.com |
| Superabounder |
Posted - 11/24/2005 : 11:08:19
A president who has pushed "intelligent design" and said it should be studied in schools, which Bush did before the white house spokesman back-tracked, has demonstrated enough of his intellect to me.
I tend to think of human beings as huge rubbery test tubes, too, with chemical reactions seething inside |
| prozacrat |
Posted - 11/24/2005 : 10:19:51
It's funny you should mention that. Somewhat related, I saw Andy Rooney try to make some sort of point on TV the other night. He seemed rather proud that he was bringing to the attention of his viewers the fact that Bush hasn't spent that much time in the White House. He started listing all the places Bush has visited during his presidency, including all the numerous states and all the foreign countries, finishing with "and of all places, Mongolia." Rooney seemed to think that Bush was being a bad president for going to these places and meeting with the leaders of these countries. He ridiculed Bush for spending time at his ranch in Texas (where he meets with foreign dignitaries and attends to numerous other matters of state, and isn't just "vacationing" as Michael Moore would have everybody believe) and visiting with the public all over the U.S. Rooney suggested that maybe Bush should spend more time at the White House. I suppose Bush could just not leave the Oval Office like Clinton, but we all know where that got him. This isn't a direct rebuttal to yours, Newo, but it's related. I know Bush has had some pretty dim moments in front of the camera. But I think it's downright silly that people like Rooney are insulting Bush for actually exercising his position as a world statesmen. Last I heard a requirement for being a world statesmen was actually visiting the rest of the world, which I think he's done a pretty good job of despite the fact that he's had to focus much of his presidency on keeping more psychos from flying planes into our buildings or attacking us with WMDs, which strikes me as a rather pressing matter. Perhaps Bush couldn't recall the names of the leaders of those countries because he was too preoccupied with the ones who have been threatening us.
http://www.prozacrat.com |
| Newo |
Posted - 11/23/2005 : 01:23:46
quote:
prozacrat Posted - 11/22/2005 : 20:48:20
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Newo
Weird when you see smart people debating the virtues of puppets compared to each other. It´s obvious the current president is unable to read at a level would enable him to make sense of the nuclear briefs one is supposed to, so exactly how retarded does a head of state have to be before you say Wait a second..?
--
Buy your best friend flowers. Buy your lover a beer. Covet thy father. Covet thy neighbour's father. Honour thy lover's beer. Covet thy neighbour's father's wife's sister. Take her to bingo night.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've never seen how Bush's public speaking skills (or lack thereof) directly reflect his level of comprehension. I know very intelligent, thoughtful and deep people who aren't good with words. One friend can hardly comeplete a sentence without tripping up on his words, but he can school me anyday. I'd rather trust my security to somebody who knows what to do (especially when they're difficult decisions) rather than somebody who knows how to talk smoothly. Clinton, although he's an intelligent man, never really seemed to get anywhere with his mad smooth-talkin' skilz other than lying repeatedly under oath. I sigh and shake my head every time I hear Bush butcher the English language. Sometimes it's laugable. But he never fails to convey his message. I know what he's talking about when he talks. But no matter how clearly Clinton speaks, and how smooth his voice is, and no matter how much of a twinkle there is in his eye, he's still a convicted liar. That's somebody I have a difficult time giving the benifit of the doubt.
You understand what he´s talking about because everything he says is scripted, please tell me you understand how much our political discourse is based on illusion. I gleaned a little about his comprehension when in that interview he was asked the names of leaders of 100 countries and couldn´t even name half a dozen - last I heard a requirement for a world statesman was some knowledge about the world. If you were the manager of a restaurant would you hire a chef who couldn´t find the kitchen?
--
Buy your best friend flowers. Buy your lover a beer. Covet thy father. Covet thy neighbour's father. Honour thy lover's beer. Covet thy neighbour's father's wife's sister. Take her to bingo night. |
| Erebus |
Posted - 11/22/2005 : 22:33:07
Somebody's Miracle, Honeycomb, Shonen Knife '97, Meat Puppets '94, Dick Dale ' 96, six Sierra Pale Ales, and sufficient bowls later: Hey, it's fun to be honest, especially from the valley of sin. Yes, I actually do like you guys, despite yourselves, as it were.
OK, darwin, how long before we see a Sierra Nevada Porter twelve-pack at Raleys'? |
| prozacrat |
Posted - 11/22/2005 : 20:48:20
quote:
Originally posted by Newo
Weird when you see smart people debating the virtues of puppets compared to each other. It´s obvious the current president is unable to read at a level would enable him to make sense of the nuclear briefs one is supposed to, so exactly how retarded does a head of state have to be before you say Wait a second..?
--
Buy your best friend flowers. Buy your lover a beer. Covet thy father. Covet thy neighbour's father. Honour thy lover's beer. Covet thy neighbour's father's wife's sister. Take her to bingo night.
I've never seen how Bush's public speaking skills (or lack thereof) directly reflect his level of comprehension. I know very intelligent, thoughtful and deep people who aren't good with words. One friend can hardly comeplete a sentence without tripping up on his words, but he can school me anyday. I'd rather trust my security to somebody who knows what to do (especially when they're difficult decisions) rather than somebody who knows how to talk smoothly. Clinton, although he's an intelligent man, never really seemed to get anywhere with his mad smooth-talkin' skilz other than lying repeatedly under oath. I sigh and shake my head every time I hear Bush butcher the English language. Sometimes it's laugable. But he never fails to convey his message. I know what he's talking about when he talks. But no matter how clearly Clinton speaks, and how smooth his voice is, and no matter how much of a twinkle there is in his eye, he's still a convicted liar. That's somebody I have a difficult time giving the benifit of the doubt. |
| floop |
Posted - 11/22/2005 : 14:39:23
quote:
Originally posted by Cheeseman1000
How they laughed when they saw how a complete buffoon is going to take over as head of state based purely on who his parents are.
 I have joined the Cult Of Frank/And I have dearly paid
and he talks funny |
| Cheeseman1000 |
Posted - 11/22/2005 : 14:33:41
Americans find the British humourous: take Prince Charles' US visit recently. How they laughed when they saw how a complete buffoon is going to take over as head of state based purely on who his parents are.
I have joined the Cult Of Frank/And I have dearly paid |
| Newo |
Posted - 11/22/2005 : 14:28:37
Weird when you see smart people debating the virtues of puppets compared to each other. It´s obvious the current president is unable to read at a level would enable him to make sense of the nuclear briefs one is supposed to, so exactly how retarded does a head of state have to be before you say Wait a second..?
--
Buy your best friend flowers. Buy your lover a beer. Covet thy father. Covet thy neighbour's father. Honour thy lover's beer. Covet thy neighbour's father's wife's sister. Take her to bingo night. |
| Monsieur |
Posted - 11/22/2005 : 13:41:05
quote:
Originally posted by Erebus
quote:
Originally posted by Monsieur
Excellent statement Erebus.
Sure, under Bill Clinton, the USA lived one of its most prosperous decades - but we all know that Bill Clinton was just about to do something horrible, with unrecoverable damages for the entire human race. Wasting 40 million bucks to prevent apocalypse seems a fair price to me.
Some of you might say that the declared reason was a blowjob and not apocalypse. But then, one can argue that it is all part of the same thing, for the depravation of the world's most powerful man can only lead to apocalypse.
The fact that 9/11 occured under Bush is only a coincidence.
1. The prosperity of the ‘90s had little to do with Bill Clinton. About all he can be credited with is staying out of the way of economic momentum, momentum which began under Bush Sr. by the way. Clinton came into office stealing credit for a recovery well underway during Bush Sr’s term and left office well after the beginning of a recession that the Dems blamed on Bush Jr. And of course the Dem propaganda machine, otherwise known as CBS, CNN, ABC, et al., did their usual to obscure the truth in such matters.
2. Clinton and “dances-with-dictators” Albright actively facilitated North Korea’s nuclear ambitions. Through weakness and collaboration they successfully encouraged the criminal regimes of Iran, Iraq, and China. That’s the damage I speak of.
3. The investigations of the Clintons went way beyond Monica Lewinsky, and that specific investigation had nothing to do with a blowjob. It was about blatant obstruction of justice and violation of his oath to uphold the constitution. (Americans concerned to see Libby punished might want to consider the grand jury perjury of Bill Clinton. See also, Sandy “Pants” Berger.) I repeat, there can be no full comprehension of the global mischief Clinton would have wrought had he not been encumbered by legitimate investigations into his criminal activities. Ken Starr is an American hero, and both Clintons belong in prison.
4. The planning of 9/11 goes back to the middle of Clinton’s horrendous administration and, to the extent that responsibility for 9/11 rests at the doorstep of America, it is Clinton that we have to blame. The investigative and immigration failures that made 9//11 possible form the centerpiece of Clinton’s beloved “legacy”.
Once again, a surprisingly lucid and deeply logical reply.
I agree with you when you say that Clinton has little to do with the prosperity of the 90s - it happened spontaneously, like many economic phenomena. Of course, Clinton can be blamed for the recession that started in the early 90s because economic trends never occur spontaneously.
By the way, if you want to have a better insight into different economic problems, perhaps there are better sources of information than CNN and Fox News. I think any economist would laugh at you if you told him you learned something by watching TV.
I agree with the fact that Clinton was dancing with dictators. They're crapping their pants in North Corea right now.
Of course, investigations on Clinton have nothing to do with a blow job but with him being a liar. Of course, noone ever lies, especially not presidents. Of course, this investigation has nothing to do with the fact that hard line born again christians likely to be shocked by this kind of things happen to be the main actors of the election of Bush.
Actually, there is not a single thing that Clinton does better than Bush. Humanity is like that, either black or white.
I will show you fear in a handful of dust |
| darwin |
Posted - 11/22/2005 : 13:37:28
quote:
Originally posted by Erebus
1. The prosperity of the ‘90s had little to do with Bill Clinton. About all he can be credited with is staying out of the way of economic momentum, momentum which began under Bush Sr. by the way.
How did Bush senior help the economic momentum? Could it be by starting to balance the budget with his tax increases. So, are you saying we should get rid of junior's tax cuts and spending increases and return to trying to balance the budget?
I hope you've noticed how little I've been crowing the free fall of the Bush administration and conservative revolution. It has been a wonderful sight to behold. |
| Erebus |
Posted - 11/22/2005 : 13:07:19
quote:
Originally posted by Monsieur
Excellent statement Erebus.
Sure, under Bill Clinton, the USA lived one of its most prosperous decades - but we all know that Bill Clinton was just about to do something horrible, with unrecoverable damages for the entire human race. Wasting 40 million bucks to prevent apocalypse seems a fair price to me.
Some of you might say that the declared reason was a blowjob and not apocalypse. But then, one can argue that it is all part of the same thing, for the depravation of the world's most powerful man can only lead to apocalypse.
The fact that 9/11 occured under Bush is only a coincidence.
1. The prosperity of the ‘90s had little to do with Bill Clinton. About all he can be credited with is staying out of the way of economic momentum, momentum which began under Bush Sr. by the way. Clinton came into office stealing credit for a recovery well underway during Bush Sr’s term and left office well after the beginning of a recession that the Dems blamed on Bush Jr. And of course the Dem propaganda machine, otherwise known as CBS, CNN, ABC, et al., did their usual to obscure the truth in such matters.
2. Clinton and “dances-with-dictators” Albright actively facilitated North Korea’s nuclear ambitions. Through weakness and collaboration they successfully encouraged the criminal regimes of Iran, Iraq, and China. That’s the damage I speak of.
3. The investigations of the Clintons went way beyond Monica Lewinsky, and that specific investigation had nothing to do with a blowjob. It was about blatant obstruction of justice and violation of his oath to uphold the constitution. (Americans concerned to see Libby punished might want to consider the grand jury perjury of Bill Clinton. See also, Sandy “Pants” Berger.) I repeat, there can be no full comprehension of the global mischief Clinton would have wrought had he not been encumbered by legitimate investigations into his criminal activities. Ken Starr is an American hero, and both Clintons belong in prison.
4. The planning of 9/11 goes back to the middle of Clinton’s horrendous administration and, to the extent that responsibility for 9/11 rests at the doorstep of America, it is Clinton that we have to blame. The investigative and immigration failures that made 9//11 possible form the centerpiece of Clinton’s beloved “legacy”.
|
| Monsieur |
Posted - 11/22/2005 : 09:09:45
Excellent statement Erebus.
Sure, under Bill Clinton, the USA lived one of its most prosperous decades - but we all know that Bill Clinton was just about to do something horrible, with unrecoverable damages for the entire human race. Wasting 40 million bucks to prevent apocalypse seems a fair price to me.
Some of you might say that the declared reason was a blowjob and not apocalypse. But then, one can argue that it is all part of the same thing, for the depravation of the world's most powerful man can only lead to apocalypse.
The fact that 9/11 occured under Bush is only a coincidence.
I will show you fear in a handful of dust |
| Erebus |
Posted - 11/22/2005 : 08:47:55
quote:
Originally posted by prozacrat
It's pretty sad that an architect has to include the whims of sadistic madmen as a variable when designing a building. And I don't know why the metal had to be shipped off to China, but I do understand why they wasted no time in cleaning it up. Before it was treated as a crime scene it was a search and rescue operation, and was that way for several days. After that it was a matter of finding and identifying the remains of 3,000 human beings so their loved ones could have at least some sort of closure. I'm not a forensics expert, so I won't try to estimate the specific costs of investigating the terrorist attacks versus Clinton's fling, but it does make sense that Clinton's investigation would cost much more, since they were investigating the most powerful man in the United States trying to cover up what he did with whatever resources he had at his disposal, which was anything he wanted. If you've got the President of the U.S.A. lying under oath, hell yeah it's gonna cost a lot of money to prove it, which they did, after spending $40 million. With the terrorist attacks you had those shitbags admitting to it right away. And with cameras rolling and thousands of eyewitness accounts, it's not that hard to figure out what happened. Does that make sense to anyone else?
Makes sense to me. Whenever anybody bemoans the time and money spent investigating the Clintons, I think of how much domestic and international damage they would have done had they simply been left alone. The horror. |
| Scarla O |
Posted - 11/22/2005 : 08:39:16
The jet fuel can't have been THAT hot as there are pictures of people looking out from the hole created by the planes.
----------------------
Scarla O'
Friday 13th January 2006
The Metro Club
19-23 Oxford Street, W1
On stage: 8.30pm |
| Superabounder |
Posted - 11/22/2005 : 08:09:37
I think the fact that you had tons of burning jet fuel running through the floors at the top plus the impact of a giant jet definitely would add variables that the Madrid skyscraper didn't have. The jet fuel burns quite a bit hotter than a normal fire I would guess. I can't answer the fact that the adjacent building collapsed, other than that the entire WTC complex had structurally been ruined by the collapse of the two giant towers.
When you watched the events of that day, I think that anyone saying that the buildings were demo'd would have to be dreaming. I think that it was purely a giant lottery strike for Bin Laden. If and how he has ties to the US, who knows. But I tend to doubt that anyone "planned and coordinated" those events any more than actually planning to fly jets into the buildings and cause loss of life and destruction that was incredibly visible. The fact that the building collapsed was just completely lucky and unexpected for the perpetrators. Well that's my conjecture at least.
I tend to think of human beings as huge rubbery test tubes, too, with chemical reactions seething inside |
| Angry Elvis |
Posted - 11/22/2005 : 05:57:10
owen
that's some pretty thin gruel, you're obviously just going to see whatever it is that you want to
good luck!
***i'm just a hunka hunka burnin love*** |
| Newo |
Posted - 11/22/2005 : 02:22:28
I don´t doubt bin Laden is somehow involved but feel he is or was playing the part of useful idiot. Ever read an interview with him? the idea that that man could be the mastermind of such a complex miliitary strike is laughable. Too, bin Laden´s brother Salem was a heavy investor in Bush´s Arbusto through James Bath till he died in a plane accident over Texas (funny how when you associate with this family air travel becomes quite dangerous).
quote:
Bin Laden himself is seen chuckling on a tape about how they lucked out with the way the towers were built.
Lucked out so much a neighbouring tower that wasn´t hit by a plane fell down. Fire has never before caused the collapse of a skyscraper, this year in Madrid I saw one burn hours longer and bigger and bright like a Halloween torch and it remained erect yet on one day in 2001 we have three and it just happened to be the thing the Caesars needed to make war on the world, fancy that.
--
Buy your best friend flowers. Buy your lover a beer. Covet thy father. Covet thy neighbour's father. Honour thy lover's beer. Covet thy neighbour's father's wife's sister. Take her to bingo night. |
| prozacrat |
Posted - 11/22/2005 : 01:31:22
It's pretty sad that an architect has to include the whims of sadistic madmen as a variable when designing a building. And I don't know why the metal had to be shipped off to China, but I do understand why they wasted no time in cleaning it up. Before it was treated as a crime scene it was a search and rescue operation, and was that way for several days. After that it was a matter of finding and identifying the remains of 3,000 human beings so their loved ones could have at least some sort of closure. I'm not a forensics expert, so I won't try to estimate the specific costs of investigating the terrorist attacks versus Clinton's fling, but it does make sense that Clinton's investigation would cost much more, since they were investigating the most powerful man in the United States trying to cover up what he did with whatever resources he had at his disposal, which was anything he wanted. If you've got the President of the U.S.A. lying under oath, hell yeah it's gonna cost a lot of money to prove it, which they did, after spending $40 million. With the terrorist attacks you had those shitbags admitting to it right away. And with cameras rolling and thousands of eyewitness accounts, it's not that hard to figure out what happened. Does that make sense to anyone else?
http://www.prozacrat.com |
| kathryn |
Posted - 11/21/2005 : 15:37:21
quote:
Originally posted by Cult_Of_Frank
I doubt that even the terrorists were thinking they'd be able to bring the buildings down.
Bin Laden himself is seen chuckling on a tape about how they lucked out with the way the towers were built. And the architect has publicly lamented that unforseen design flaw.
I got some heaven in my head
|
| Cult_Of_Frank |
Posted - 11/21/2005 : 15:34:29
I'm sorry, but I don't buy that the US allowed or purposely destroyed these buildings. I do buy that they have exploited the results to create this State of Fear (also a really good read by Micheal Crichton for anyone interested) but the buildings collapsed largely due to their unique engineering. I doubt that even the terrorists were thinking they'd be able to bring the buildings down.
Anyway, I just read VoVat's post and I guess I am just being repetitive, but that's my thoughts on the matter at any rate...
 "Join the Cult of Frank / And you'll be enlightened" |
| VoVat |
Posted - 11/21/2005 : 08:17:26
quote:
I tend to believe the most obvious explanation is the true one. There's term for this as it applies to medicine, but it escapes me at this late hour.
Occam's (or Ockham's) Razor says basically that, but I don't know that that's a specifically medical term.
Didn't Bin Laden essentially admit that he was responsible for the attacks? Or does this guy think he just claimed to be because it fit his purposes?
I really don't buy the "inside job" conspiracy theories. I think the fact that these attacks took place show an intelligence failure, and I think the Bush administration used the attacks to his advantage as much as they possibly could, but I see no reason at all to believe that it wasn't an authentic Al Qaeda attack.
"If you doze much longer, then life turns to dreaming. If you doze much longer, then dreams turn to nightmares." |
| Newo |
Posted - 11/21/2005 : 03:51:46
Angry E, about what an impeachment has to do with a forensic evidence, I was (though I´m not claiming any party politics, I don´t see a difference between the two) pointing out the disproportionate nature of:
forensic investigation of guy getting his dick sucked - $40 million
forensic investigation of murder of 3,000 innocents - $3 million
Z Zoquis, I didn´t say the United States (referring to a country of near 300 million) did anything against anyone, or the US government for that matter: in World War II when the two atom bombs were dropped not a single congressman knew about it beforehand, despite they cost 2 billion. That´s one hell of a secret fundraising mechanism, don´t you think?
--
Buy your best friend flowers. Buy your lover a beer. Covet thy father. Covet thy neighbour's father. Honour thy lover's beer. Covet thy neighbour's father's wife's sister. Take her to bingo night. |
| Newo |
Posted - 11/21/2005 : 03:35:01
Kathryn, you asked a while back what was to be gained by watching the footage of the towers collapsing. Here´s one thing: you´ll see the towers take 8.5 seconds to fall (time it if you like), which means that the building pieces had to pulverise concrete and shear through steel bolts at a rate of 10 floors per second, the same time it would take a piece of concrete dropped off the side of the building to fall with no air resistance whatsoever. What would you say is the easiest explanation behind the official story that the fire just happened to burn in positions so mathematically harmonious as to result in such smooth symmetrical drops?
--
Buy your best friend flowers. Buy your lover a beer. Covet thy father. Covet thy neighbour's father. Honour thy lover's beer. Covet thy neighbour's father's wife's sister. Take her to bingo night. |
| Angry Elvis |
Posted - 11/21/2005 : 00:05:42
occams razor
***i'm just a hunka hunka burnin love*** |
| Z_Zoquis |
Posted - 11/20/2005 : 19:17:26
LOL, yes that's right. The United States of America blew up two of the most powerful symbols of it's national strength plus flew a plane into the citadel of it's own national security killing 3,000 of it's own innocent civilian population and sentencing it's own intelligence agengies to years of tremendous criticism and scrutiny in order to give itself an excuse to spend half a trillion dollars invading a middle-Eastern nation in order to allow President Bush jr the opportunity to finish a job started by Pres Bush Sr. Riiiight. Boys, them tinfoil hats is a leetle too tight methinks...
lol, oops. I should have actually read the particular variation of this conspiracy theory presented here. I just assumed it was the old one about the US govt doing it to themselves...either way, it's idiocy. |
| kathryn |
Posted - 11/20/2005 : 17:21:26
quote:
Originally posted by Newo
quote:
kathryn
~ Selkie Bride ~
13117 Posts
Posted - 11/20/2005 : 10:06:14 Show Profile Reply with Quote
Talk about timing, and with all due respect Owen. I just had a half-hour conversation with a friend who grew up in Ramallah about how ridiculous we deem the idea that 9/11 was "an inside job." Yeah, Bush awaited the flimsiest excuse to invade Iraq, but it was terrorists who flew those planes and they weren't hired by the American government or anybody but Osama Bin Laden.
How did you and your friend come to the conclusion?
I tend to believe the most obvious explanation is the true one. There's term for this as it applies to medicine, but it escapes me at this late hour.
quote:
Originally posted by Superabounder
I once watched a flash movie about the conspiracy theory of a missile hitting the pentagon instead of it being a 757
Both my former boss and my ex bf were perilously close to the Pentagon and watched that plane hit. That answers that one for me.
I got some heaven in my head
|
| Superabounder |
Posted - 11/20/2005 : 17:15:45
I once watched a flash movie about the conspiracy theory of a missile hitting the pentagon instead of it being a 757, but this site seems to refute that movie fairly thoroughly:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html
I tend to think of human beings as huge rubbery test tubes, too, with chemical reactions seething inside |
| Newo |
Posted - 11/20/2005 : 15:16:16
quote:
kathryn
~ Selkie Bride ~
13117 Posts
Posted - 11/20/2005 : 10:06:14 Show Profile Reply with Quote
Talk about timing, and with all due respect Owen. I just had a half-hour conversation with a friend who grew up in Ramallah about how ridiculous we deem the idea that 9/11 was "an inside job." Yeah, Bush awaited the flimsiest excuse to invade Iraq, but it was terrorists who flew those planes and they weren't hired by the American government or anybody but Osama Bin Laden.
How did you and your friend come to the conclusion?
--
Buy your best friend flowers. Buy your lover a beer. Covet thy father. Covet thy neighbour's father. Honour thy lover's beer. Covet thy neighbour's father's wife's sister. Take her to bingo night. |
| kathryn |
Posted - 11/20/2005 : 12:49:47
quote:
Originally posted by Frog in the Sand
quote:
Originally posted by Newo
"you almost have a coup de’tat
a coup de’tat, a violent coup de’tat."
Aaah, THIS is interesting and unconventional.
-----
"In the magnificent fierce morning of New Mexico, one sprang awake, a new part of the soul woke up suddenly and the old world gave way to the new." - D. H. Lawrence
As well as a great song by The Circle Jerks.
I got some heaven in my head
|
|
|
