9/11 Truth: Bush Admin. sets the towers to fall, raises military budget, Iraq for OIL

Abookamongstthemany

CorporateWhore wrote:

You are failing to see my point:

Bush did not "blow up the twin towers" to gain more power. If he had done it for that reason, then he failed. In comparison to prior presidents, he has gained NO power.

Bush did not blow up the twin towers. Both of your motives make no sense: Iraq is a failure and blot on his presidency. And, he has gained no power and he leaves the office in disgrace. Did he just fail? Was he expecting more power than he got? Nah. He didn't blow up the twin towers. It's completely unreasonable.

I don't think Bush blew up anything. They have gained plenty of power and authority. There was no case for war before the attacks that the public would have bought into....the costs alone would make public object. The war may be a failure but that just looks bad on Bush. What about the defense contractors, private interests etc that have made billions???

69charger

El_Kabong wrote:

i don't want to use the search function...i'm asking you for the millionth time: why did building 7 fall?

I don't want to answer it for the millionth time only to have you ignore it. Use the search function.

trappedinmyradio

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

What did I assume? I asked you a question then I said 'if' in another sentence.

So the official theory has been consistant? Far from it. We've been pointing those inconsistancies out but I guess it's ok to excuse them since they are the official ones. And it's not so much inconsistancy as it is discussion of possibilities because NONE of us have any way of knowing for sure what happened. If it's so boring then by all means, don't let me hold you up.

all of them are inconsistent...you have just decided to rail against one in particular...you've championed the internal explosives planted by agents of the u.s. government for the reason buildings 1 and 2 fell...that one just doesn't work for me...if you're postulating what could have happened then you, at least, have to say that the official commision report could be what happened. what do you feel you are accomplishing by being here talking about this? how do you feel it is affecting change?

trappedinmyradio

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I don't think Bush blew up anything. They have gained plenty of power and authority. There was no case for war before the attacks that the public would have bought into....the costs alone would make public object. The war may be a failure but that just looks bad on Bush. What about the defense contractors, private interests etc that have made billions???

yeah, bush isn't going to be the president forever...he knew that...but, his interests will be his interests as long as he wants them to be...these things are why i believe that this was a convenient occurence for the administration and their interests...but, i don't think they orchestrated it. but, i do think they watched the symphony perform...

69charger

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Are you kidding me? You guys are fine with giving up more and more of your liberty in order to 'keep us safe'. Where does it end and you finally say 'no more'?

So I can infer from your statement that you against undue restrictions on our rights just so we can 'feel safe'?

CorporateWhore

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I don't think Bush blew up anything. They have gained plenty of power and authority. There was no case for war before the attacks that the public would have bought into....the costs alone would make public object. The war may be a failure but that just looks bad on Bush. What about the defense contractors, private interests etc that have made billions???

Hah, nah. Bush didn't make any money from it. Why would he allow it? Nice try, though.

El_Kabong

corporatewhore,

you know even back in 2001 i was calling bush 'the puppet of pnac', no one thinks bush had anything to do w/ it other than being a bafoon...

i don't think it was the american 'government', you know that and so do all the others who throw that misconception around. i think it was groups like the neo-con group pnac <cheney, rumsfeld, wolfowitz, perle, jeb bush...> as well as parts of foreign governments and ppl in the private sector.

i have also said several times that it wasn't 'just to go to iraq'. iraq was a part of their agenda, sure, but not all of it, it was easy to accomplish that quicker than several of their goals...it's about getting the power and authority to get away w/ doing whatever they want...'free-speech' zones, extraordinary rendition, wiretapping our phones, reading our mail, justifying torture, getting rid of any due process...

they already accomplished other goals, they broke the nuclear non-proliferation treaty....

and you can't say these ppl haven't profited! daddy bush's company <that also has several other former cabinet members> is the leading arms supplier for the war in iraq! halliburton's stock went from under $10 to over $80! around $9 billion missing in iraq, $2.9TRILLION missing from the pentagon.....

tell me,mr capitalism, if something shows to be profitable, what does the manufacturer usually do? push more.

and that is why it is about bin laden and not saddam. first, it's a lot easier to pin it on bin laden and a concept rather than a person and a country. it is painfully obvious. is saddam hung? did iraq have elections? then why would the ppl keep letting so much of our money be spent on wars and bombs instead of here? and they even said it themselves, they don't care about bin laden b/c capturing him won't really accomplish much, he will be replaced and that this could last decades....they need that constant fear and terror to whip out and whip the populace into a panic to gain support. come on, look at how they milk 9/11 for political gains and emotion.

El_Kabong

69charger wrote:

I don't want to answer it for the millionth time only to have you ignore it. Use the search function.

ignore it??? i always answered you.

come on, prove to us all how quick and easy it is to find these millions of posts of yours answering this. if you can't answer the question just say so

trappedinmyradio

El_Kabong wrote:

i don't think it was the american 'government', you know that and so do all the others who throw that misconception around. i think it was groups like the neo-con group pnac <cheney, rumsfeld, wolfowitz, perle, jeb bush...> as well as parts of foreign governments and ppl in the private sector.

and you can't say these ppl haven't profited! daddy bush's company <that also has several other former cabinet members> is the leading arms supplier for the war in iraq! halliburton's stock went from under $10 to over $80! around $9 billion missing in iraq, $2.9TRILLION missing from the pentagon.....

tell me,mr capitalism, if something shows to be profitable, what does the manufacturer usually do? push more.

and that is why it is about bin laden and not saddam. first, it's a lot easier to pin it on bin laden and a concept rather than a person and a country.

see, we're on the same page here...

chikevin

yield2me wrote:

the idea that Bush had those towers taken down on purpose is just sick...

i'd crap on bush if i could, but to think he had a hand in this is just stupid.

Abookamongstthemany

trappedinmyradio wrote:

all of them are inconsistent...you have just decided to rail against one in particular...you've championed the internal explosives planted by agents of the u.s. government for the reason buildings 1 and 2 fell...that one just doesn't work for me...if you're postulating what could have happened then you, at least, have to say that the official commision report could be what happened. what do you feel you are accomplishing by being here talking about this? how do you feel it is affecting change?

The official one just isn't working for me. There are, of course, plenty of possibilities. But when the official theory just isn't adding up it begs for questioning which I am doing and learning along the way. I learn more everytime we have these discussions.

Let me ask you, why did building 7 fall? Why did some firemen report hearing explosions coming from the basement of buildings 1 and 2? I had made a thread with a great documentary about the collapes during the summer but when I tried to pull the thread up again I found the link no longer works. They got really technical about it...much more than I can ever recite for you.

I don't just talk about it here. I've discussed it with co workers and friends and let them borrow documentaries about it. Any sharing of knowledge is good to me. I like discussing it except when people get rude and all that. Just like any other thing we discuss here...the debate is fun and it's good to get your views out there to share with others. The more the message gets out the bigger chance for change or at the very least more awareness.

Abookamongstthemany

chikevin wrote:

i'd crap on bush if i could, but to think he had a hand in this is just stupid.

No one thinks Bush masterminded anything.

trappedinmyradio

i don't find the firefighter accounts to be credible relating to basement explosions...explosions in the basement would have caused the building to come down differently. there are things like this that you have to consider and analyze and then toss them aside because they do not mesh with the physical reality of what happened.

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

The official one just isn't working for me. There are, of course, plenty of possibilities. But when the official theory just isn't adding up it begs for questioning which I am doing and learning along the way. I learn more everytime we have these discussions.

Let me ask you, why did building 7 fall? Why did some firemen report hearing explosions coming from the basement of buildings 1 and 2? I had made a thread with a great documentary about the collapes during the summer but when I tried to pull the thread up again I found the link no longer works. They got really technical about it...much more than I can ever recite for you.

I don't just talk about it here. I've discussed it with co workers and friends and let them borrow documentaries about it. Any sharing of knowledge is good to me. I like discussing it except when people get rude and all that. Just like any other thing we discuss here...the debate is fun and it's good to get your views out there to share with others. The more the message gets out the bigger chance for change or at the very least more awareness.

69charger

El_Kabong wrote:

ignore it??? i always answered you.

Yeah it went something like this:

Me: "X" proves that "Y" couldn't have happened
You: Oh yeah? Well what about "C"

You just move from topic to topic. You get called out on one thing and quickly introduce some other facet of your conspiracy without ever acknowleding what was presented to you.

come on, prove to us all how quick and easy it is to find these millions of posts of yours answering this. if you can't answer the question just say so

I'm not going to do your work for you. Do it yourself.

Search function: Use it.

El_Kabong

69charger wrote:

Yeah it went something like this:

Me: "X" proves that "Y" couldn't have happened
You: Oh yeah? Well what about "C"

You just move from topic to topic. You get called out on one thing and quickly introduce some other facet of your conspiracy without ever acknowleding what was presented to you.



I'm not going to do your work for you. Do it yourself.

Search function: Use it.

wow, i didn't think it was so hard to say "I think building 7 fell b/c....." but i gues for some it is....don't worry, pal, i'm sure nist will eventually come up w/ some theory and finish their report

El_Kabong

El_Kabong wrote:

wow, i didn't think it was so hard to say "I think building 7 fell b/c....." but i gues for some it is....don't worry, pal, i'm sure nist will eventually come up w/ some theory and finish their report

ok, i did a search and found....a whole lotta nothing...i found one reply that said it was ;inertia' ineratia from what? i found another that said falling debris damaged 1/3 of teh building causing fires which lead to the collapes, to which i posted this site:
http://www.wtc7.net/videos.html

and asked you how the building could fall like this from damage to 1/3 of the building and fire? <again being only the 3rd steel framed building to fall from fire> to which you didn't reply :(

so you say debris damaged 1/3 of the building and fire made it fall? that's not what the video looks like, there's 3 of em, you should really try watching them

usually you'd duck out of the thread when building 7 came up or you would start making personal attacks...the one rely of 'WHY THE FUCK WAS MY REPLY DELETED? not cool Kat!' was pretty funny...maybe if you could address the topic instead of attacking posters you wouldn't have your replies deleted? or did kat just not want the turth of building 7 out there? hahahahaha

trappedinmyradio

please, stop talking about fire destroying steel structures...it's ridiculous...and fire didn't destroy either building 1 or 2.

El_Kabong wrote:

ok, i did a search and found....a whole lotta nothing...i found one reply that said it was ;inertia' ineratia from what? i found another that said falling debris damaged 1/3 of teh building causing fires which lead to the collapes, to which i posted this site:
http://www.wtc7.net/videos.html

and asked you how the building could fall like this from damage to 1/3 of the building and fire? <again being only the 3rd steel framed building to fall from fire> to which you didn't reply :(

so you say debris damaged 1/3 of the building and fire made it fall? that's not what the video looks like, there's 3 of em, you should really try watching them

usually you'd duck out of the thread when building 7 came up or you would start making personal attacks...the one rely of 'WHY THE FUCK WAS MY REPLY DELETED? not cool Kat!' was pretty funny...maybe if you could address the topic instead of attacking posters you wouldn't have your replies deleted? or did kat just not want the turth of building 7 out there? hahahahaha

enharmonic

trappedinmyradio wrote:

i don't find the firefighter accounts to be credible relating to basement explosions...explosions in the basement would have caused the building to come down differently. there are things like this that you have to consider and analyze and then toss them aside because they do not mesh with the physical reality of what happened.

Explosions in the basement wouldn't work. They tried that in the 90s (underground parking garage).

That concrete "tub" foundation was super thick...thick enough that it survived the tower collapse. No basement explosions would matter much IMO.

trappedinmyradio

enharmonic wrote:

Explosions in the basement wouldn't work. They tried that in the 90s (underground parking garage).

That concrete "tub" foundation was super thick...thick enough that it survived the tower collapse. No basement explosions would matter much IMO.

i know this...you know this...i was addressing the issue of concentrated explosives placed by professionals beforehand as a means of controlled demolition.

Abookamongstthemany

enharmonic wrote:

Explosions in the basement wouldn't work. They tried that in the 90s (underground parking garage).

That concrete "tub" foundation was super thick...thick enough that it survived the tower collapse. No basement explosions would matter much IMO.

I'm not saying I think explosions from the basement alone or even at all brought down the towers by themselves. I'm just wondering what the sounds were and if there were anymore like them throughout the building.