"Loose Change" Director Chuckles Over Flight 93

124»

Comments

  • I think lifestyle choices are not a major contributing factor...it solely lies in foreign policy....to say its lifestyle choices is a fear to induce the public their freedom is under attack...to me 9/11 was an attack at the government...they view it as Israel views the accidental killing of innocents...a by-product for a bigger goal.....the WTC was the symbol of Capatilism and the Pentagon the center of America's military might....its a shame this ever occured b/c since that day the world as gone to crap....
  • audome25audome25 Posts: 163
    Saturnal wrote:
    we got attacked because of our dealings in the Middle East, and in addition to that, they don't like our way of life.


    not saying foreign policy doesn't play a role, since it is obvious it does, but if Osama had come out and said he was angry that young muslims are choosing western lifestyles, and that western culture was finding its way into controling muslim nations and threatening to undermine religious control (which is exactly what happened/is happening to christianity) he wouldn't get the "support" that he gets from non muslim nations. that support being a sort of apathy towards stopping him.
  • audome25 wrote:
    not saying foreign policy doesn't play a role, since it is obvious it does, but if Osama had come out and said he was angry that young muslims are choosing western lifestyles, and that western culture was finding its way into controling muslim nations and threatening to undermine religious control (which is exactly what happened/is happening to christianity) he wouldn't get the "support" that he gets from non muslim nations. that support being a sort of apathy towards stopping him.

    Just because a country isn't willing to invade Iraq or Afghanistan, doesn't mean they support Bin Laden. What you're saying is like telling someone who doesn't vote that they're supporting Bush.
  • audome25audome25 Posts: 163
    Saturnal wrote:
    Just because a country isn't willing to invade Iraq or Afghanistan, doesn't mean they support Bin Laden. What you're saying is like telling someone who doesn't vote that they're supporting Bush.


    there's a difference between apathy at stopping him and invading a country. you can do a lto to stop these people without ever picking up a weapon.
  • audome25 wrote:
    not saying foreign policy doesn't play a role, since it is obvious it does, but if Osama had come out and said he was angry that young muslims are choosing western lifestyles, and that western culture was finding its way into controling muslim nations and threatening to undermine religious control (which is exactly what happened/is happening to christianity) he wouldn't get the "support" that he gets from non muslim nations. that support being a sort of apathy towards stopping him.
    I'm sorry but I think it's really silly that people still believe Osama was the mastermind for this whole thing.....
  • audome25audome25 Posts: 163
    I'm sorry but I think it's really silly that people still believe Osama was the mastermind for this whole thing.....


    well if we are discussing al quaeda reasoning, and osama has made statement on behalf of al quaeda....
  • audome25 wrote:
    there's a difference between apathy at stopping him and invading a country. you can do a lto to stop these people without ever picking up a weapon.

    I agree
  • audome25audome25 Posts: 163
    I'm sorry but I think it's really silly that people still believe Osama was the mastermind for this whole thing.....


    i think its really silly that a non engineer with no aviation experience can tell me he's not.
  • audome25audome25 Posts: 163
    Saturnal wrote:
    I agree


    but they have to want to.
  • audome25 wrote:
    i think its really silly that a non engineer with no aviation experience can tell me he's not.
    Where have you been? I've heard both engineers and aviation experts claim that this was an inside job.
  • audome25audome25 Posts: 163
    Where have you been? I've heard both engineers and aviation experts claim that this was an inside job.


    great for them, I, being both, have not.
  • spiral outspiral out Posts: 1,052
    dangerboy wrote:
    with all the talk about fire and chemicals and such....don't leave out the effect of having the integrity of the steel compromised by the impact of a large jetliner at 400 mph...imho, it's not so hard to believe that the two together could have resulted in the failure of the structure...

    Thats a fine argument but can anybody explain why all the buildings that fell that day looked like controlled demolition, i would have thought that if the towers had collapsed because of the fires burning, steal becoming weak and having a plane stuck in the side of them, that they would have fallen down in a more dangerous way you know maybe falling to the side or something.

    As it was, they fell into a nice pile of rubble in like ten seconds.

    Also what was the reason for the third building to fall?

    That is why i cannot believe the offical line.
    Keep on rockin in the free world!!!!

    The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
Sign In or Register to comment.