zapper said:
whooooooooooooooooossssssssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
straight over your head.
(and it wasn't even maths that we were attempting to discuss this time).
Has anyone been to www.abovetopsecret.com?
- Thread starter Eldron
- Start date
whooooooooooooooooossssssssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
straight over your head.
(and it wasn't even maths that we were attempting to discuss this time).
as I said right over your head...................zapper said:oh no, I feel the vein in my forehead throbbingSorry , it went over your head!
There are many things you "can't" do. Putting me on your ignore list is one of them....Wurm said:Conspiracy, my ass. Facts is facts, Flappy. Can you show where any of Ruppert's case or timeline is in error? (I've tried and I can't.)
I thought not. So shaddap.
Wurm said:Conspiracy, my ass. Facts is facts, Flappy. Can you show where any of Ruppert's case or timeline is in error? (I've tried and I can't.)
I thought not. So shaddap.
The facts are the facts, as you have outlined.
I have read some of the links that you supplied earlier.
The excerpts that you have highlighted denote, at a very minimum, inconsistencies which in themselves are serious, about Sept 11th.
It appears that even though 3,000 people died that day - the US gov isn't prepared to be open about what really happened that day.
Why the concealment ? If there is nothing to hide .........?
Given the fact that we know that this administration lied and lied repeatedly about the supposed threat that Iraq posed to the USA, it is not unreasonable to wonder why it (the gov) has been inconsistent about Sept 11th.
Exactly. I'm glad that at least someone here is starting to "get it".limerickman said:
If one looks at this logically, and realizes as we now know that BushCo had intended/planned/hoped on invading Iraq even before they usurped power in '00, it is not inconsistent then that they would need a catalyst, an excuse, to go after Iraq. 9/11 was that catalyst.
Further, if you read the Neo Con's own writings from their "Project for a New American Century", you'll see that they've stated as far back as 1997 that they needed a "new Pearl Harbor" event as a smokescreen for the invasion of the Mid-East. It's there in plain black & white:
(p. 51, PNAC white paper, REBUILDING AMERICA'S DEFENSES - Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century.)
So it appears that they manufactured just such an event: 9/11. The problem has been that the corporate Main Stream Media has been complicit in the cover up from the git.
What is more, judging from the Bushes past behavior and associations with criminal enterprises, it is well within their realm of conscience and ability to aid & abet something like the 9/11 attacks. To wit:
> Prescott Bush's (GWB's grandfather) involvement in illegal war profiteering with the Nazis during WWII. His operations were shut down by FDR.
> George H. W. Bush's involvement in the Iran-Contra affair, and the October Surprise.
> GWB's atrocious record as businessman/enterpreneur, and later, his equally disgusting record as Gov. of Texas.
...and that's before we even discuss Cheney's abominable record.
With all due respect, I have been arguing the point that 9/11 was the smoke screen for the invasion of Iraq.
AS regards the invasion of Afghanistan, I can understand American anger and I can understand their invading Afghanistan to get get the man who orchestrated
9/11, BinLaden.
But are you seriously suggesting that 9/11 was orchestrated by the Americans ?
AS regards the invasion of Afghanistan, I can understand American anger and I can understand their invading Afghanistan to get get the man who orchestrated
9/11, BinLaden.
But are you seriously suggesting that 9/11 was orchestrated by the Americans ?
even the invasion of afghanistan was in the works pre-9-11, as bechtel and halliburton had done exhaustive feasibility studies for a pipe line to the oil of the baltic sea.
even with all conjecture and speculation of pieced together facts regarding the actual orchestrators of the attacks aside, the premise for them as retribution against the us and it's policies is well known, so even if the orchestration was not there, the instigation was.
for one, us developed and funded "freedom fighters" were left unsupported, betrayed and willing to fight against their previous benefactors...
bush even acknowleged this in a rather bizarre speech in which he mentions the way the "us used to" -support regimes with poor human rights records, that was the way it was done then, the way it is done now has changed-
or words to that effect. this was previously done covertly, the main change i see is this support is increasingly overt.
current us war policies and figureheads only worsen this situation, leaving us citizens less safe at home and abroad.
it is for certain, the subsequent invasions were pre-planned and publicized for support under deceptive pretense, and of late under the guise of promoting democracy (we could use a bit of that in the us) with no semblance of primary justification for anything other than the interests of us multinational corporate interests.
even with all conjecture and speculation of pieced together facts regarding the actual orchestrators of the attacks aside, the premise for them as retribution against the us and it's policies is well known, so even if the orchestration was not there, the instigation was.
for one, us developed and funded "freedom fighters" were left unsupported, betrayed and willing to fight against their previous benefactors...
bush even acknowleged this in a rather bizarre speech in which he mentions the way the "us used to" -support regimes with poor human rights records, that was the way it was done then, the way it is done now has changed-
or words to that effect. this was previously done covertly, the main change i see is this support is increasingly overt.
current us war policies and figureheads only worsen this situation, leaving us citizens less safe at home and abroad.
it is for certain, the subsequent invasions were pre-planned and publicized for support under deceptive pretense, and of late under the guise of promoting democracy (we could use a bit of that in the us) with no semblance of primary justification for anything other than the interests of us multinational corporate interests.
limerickman said:
Well there is no one more critical of US foreign policy than this poster.
But I cannot buy the concept that 9/11 - in itself - was manufactured.
Obviously since 9/11, all sorts of excuses have been invoked by the US goverment to do terrible things in Iraq and to a lesser extent Afghanistan.
But if I am being asked to buy the concept that somehow the Bush gov organised 9/11, I'm not conviced.
Yes, i believe that they tried to attach all sort of issues to 9/11 as a pretext for
illegally invading Iraq.
But I cannot buy the concept that 9/11 - in itself - was manufactured.
Obviously since 9/11, all sorts of excuses have been invoked by the US goverment to do terrible things in Iraq and to a lesser extent Afghanistan.
But if I am being asked to buy the concept that somehow the Bush gov organised 9/11, I'm not conviced.
Yes, i believe that they tried to attach all sort of issues to 9/11 as a pretext for
illegally invading Iraq.
An extraordinary appeal to Americans from the Bush administration for money to help pay for the reconstruction of Iraq has raised only $600 (£337), The Observer has learnt.
Yet since the appeal was launched earlier this month, donations to rebuild New Orleans have attracted hundreds of millions of dollars.
The public's reluctance to contribute much more than the cost of two iPods to the administration's attempt to offer citizens 'a further stake in building a free and prosperous Iraq' has been seized on by critics as evidence of growing ambivalence over that country.
This coincides with concern over the increasing cost of the war.
More than $30 billion has been appropriated for the reconstruction.
Initially, America's overseas aid agency, USaid, expected it to cost taxpayers no more than $1.7bn, but it is now asking the public if they want to contribute even more.
It is understood to be the first time that a US government has made an appeal to taxpayers for foreign aid money. Contributors have no way of knowing who will receive their donations or even where they may go, after officials said details had be kept secret for security reasons.
USaid's Heather Layman denied it was disappointed with the meagre sum raised after a fortnight. 'Every little helps,' she said.
In the past 12 months, Americans raised some $250bn for charity, including other foreign causes such as the Asian tsunami victims. Layman said: 'There is no financial goal. People are looking for a way to help rebuild Iraq and this is a way to facilitate that.'
The fundraising comes amid concern that some US projects in Iraq will be scrapped or only partly completed because of rising costs. Some officials fear that money may run out before key projects are completed.
Last week, the number of US troops killed in Iraq rose above 1,900.
Yet since the appeal was launched earlier this month, donations to rebuild New Orleans have attracted hundreds of millions of dollars.
The public's reluctance to contribute much more than the cost of two iPods to the administration's attempt to offer citizens 'a further stake in building a free and prosperous Iraq' has been seized on by critics as evidence of growing ambivalence over that country.
This coincides with concern over the increasing cost of the war.
More than $30 billion has been appropriated for the reconstruction.
Initially, America's overseas aid agency, USaid, expected it to cost taxpayers no more than $1.7bn, but it is now asking the public if they want to contribute even more.
It is understood to be the first time that a US government has made an appeal to taxpayers for foreign aid money. Contributors have no way of knowing who will receive their donations or even where they may go, after officials said details had be kept secret for security reasons.
USaid's Heather Layman denied it was disappointed with the meagre sum raised after a fortnight. 'Every little helps,' she said.
In the past 12 months, Americans raised some $250bn for charity, including other foreign causes such as the Asian tsunami victims. Layman said: 'There is no financial goal. People are looking for a way to help rebuild Iraq and this is a way to facilitate that.'
The fundraising comes amid concern that some US projects in Iraq will be scrapped or only partly completed because of rising costs. Some officials fear that money may run out before key projects are completed.
Last week, the number of US troops killed in Iraq rose above 1,900.
Similar threads
