Former Reagan Treasury Secretary Questions Twin Towers Collapse

In your world, is someone lying anytime they're just plain wrong? Why do you see more there than that?

You've got to be kidding. Nobody on the planet had more motive.

well, this is the president and these "facts" are on the official presidential website

why would Bush make the same mistake twice in official channels without being corrected?

this is the president after all

or maybe the folks who assured us of WMDs in Iraq were in charge of fact checking for Bush...

either way, admitting that GWB is just plain wrong more than makes up for your defense of him

who are the investers in the defense industry? (read arms manufacturers)

Bush family and his administration

Cheneys connection to Halliburton

The main lobbiests being energy (oil)

2 oil companies making record petrol profits while the price at the pump has gone up

more war = more weapons = more profits

big oil is the investor

follow the money

some people think money is more important than human life...

OK, do better than that and enlighten us.

No "facts" just quotes.

If he made a mistake and changed his statement, we would jump on him for that, claiming it wasn't a mistake but a deliberate attempt at subterfuge.

Besides, anytime the guy speaks without prewritten dialogue (and sometimes then, too) he f's something up. They may have just gotten tired of rewriting him.

I'm not going to debate any of the above. If all that is true, was there not a simpler way to start a war other than the elaborate plan of collapsing two towers, killing 3,000+ people, invading a backwards and rather irrelevant country and only two years later, finally then going into a place that actually has oil? Rather a round-about plan, if you ask me.

After all, if the WMD stuff was all doctored up anyway, why not just cut to the chase and go with that and skip all the 9-11 stuff?

for starters....


http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0614-05.htm

and that's just an appetizer

Serisouly, dude, what the fuck is your problem? "Talking points boy"? I could sling that back at you easier than you pin it on me. I corrected what I assumed was a mistake in your facts. I misinterpereted what you were saying.

So, seriously... chill the fuck out, man. Go take your crusade somewhere else, or tone the flamethrower down a tad.

Look at who won and who lost in the deal...

Bush won passage of the very unpopular "anti-terror" bill. Which handed him powers beyond comprehension. It could not have passed without this kind of attack.

The so-called terrorists lost life and limb. They lost everything and gained nothing. And as of this very day I haven't seen credible evidence to suggest anyone actually claimed credit for the attack.

True terrorists require their victims know who attacked, or the effect of terrorism is lost.

Past history suggests you and evidence are not the most familiar of bedfellows to begin with.

Calm down. Take a breather my friend. Your blood pressure is making the veins in your neck stand out..

Oh, if you wish, please prove me wrong. It might help the stress level

so where is your evidence then, Reitsuki?

Yeah, you pretty well summed up the folly of terrorism right there.



OBL has mentioned he did on tape, as has KSM. But you probably reject that out of hand. Believe what you will.



All the bin Laden T-shirt wearing adorers of al Qaeda seem pretty sure of who attacked. That lady passing out candy in Palestine did, too.

Not true. The desired effect can be achieved through creation of a fear of your subway blowing up and knowing it is entirely possible. It is not required to know who actually blew the thing up the first time. Since there are many organizations engaged in terrorism, the success of any terrorist act, regardless of the perpetrator, is sufficient to place a populace on guard and succeeds to a degree for all the organizations.

Also, not all terrorist attacks are claimed by a single organization. Some are even claimed by multiple organizations or the wrong organization.

There is a propensity on the forums to distill every complex concept into a nice quotable "forum-bite". This doesn't always serve the topic well.

Actually if you read the official transcripts you'll see that OBL not only doesn't claim responsability for it, he reveals that he only learned of the plot four days prior to 9-11.

Why should I have any?

why shouldn't you?

Because I'm not here to prove anything. Last I checked, you only needed evidence when you were trying to prove something.

You confuse me for Sisyphus, I think.

You kinda make it sound like he was involved, then.

Previously OBL would immediately claim responsibility, such as when the US war ship was damaged a year before. There is no reason to go to all that trouble, then deny it. OBL denied he was involved from day one, but in a recording he says something about it, as if it's America's punishment. But he never said "we crashed planes into American buildings" or anything similar.

/me laughs

But Kendra said he knew about it four days before-hand. Which is it?

look, i don't know anything

i am not accusing anyone of anything

on 9/11 itself, i had several friends who were convinced Bush did it

my question was "Who stands to Gain" and I couldn't figure out who did, so I said they were nuts

flash forward, look at what has happened

I see little rhyme or reason besides profit that pushed the events to todays state

I am absolutely questioning Bush, but more so the people who voted him in the second time

the writing was on the wall and it has hardly gotten better

You are right, it seems a back woods way to take to make a profit, however, how else are you going to get permission to repeatedly invade Muslim nations?

they can't even give Saddam a fair trial

Imagine if Nueremburg (sp?) went this badly

If Hussein is such a monster, why can't he get a fair trial?

The current administration has made so many bad decisions and is so sneaky and decietful (Patriot act, sneak and peak searches, torture, warentless wiretapping of citiznes,hold us citizens arrested on us soil as enemy combatents,retaliatory outings of secret security agents and top secret information,planted questions and answer sessions,backdoor draft, body armor,loss of military benefits) that now when it really might be important for us to act militarily, I so distrust our motives that I cannot support a choice that very well might be the correct choice

they have lied so much, abused thier power so much, and manipulated things so much right out of the gate (the Bush/Gore thing) and until now that I can't take my microscope off them

they are either the dirtiest, filthiest, slimiest leaders in the US history, or the most clownish, inept, foolish, idiotic morons that have ever been allowed to play with matches, much less the button of the bomb

there is no middle ground

so again, I am not saying they had anything to do with it for sure, but I am am saying they are not trustworthy and it would not surprise me if it did



FEAR

fear makes people do stupid things, like trade freedom for "security" (which is in quotes because NO ONE can deliver on that promiss)

almost everyone in this country was traumitized in some way.

the scared gave up their freedom

the enraged supported blowing up muslims

if you wanted to get public support up for an illegal and un needed invasion, how would you do it?

"Remember the Alamo!"

or, more appropriatly

"Remember the Maine!"

Mr Potty Mouth is getting mad!