EPT9-11 - Page 26
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
SerotoninsGone
United States40 Posts
| ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On September 08 2003 18:26 TeCh)PsylO wrote: so.. they had the information, and peiced it together, but they just didnt think that it could be pulled off. now, compare this to the idea that there ideology and policy was to attack the middle east, but they didnt have the support. after 9-11, they jumped on this oppertunity(pretty big coincidence imo ), but then why cover up issues surrounding 9-11, and why lie abuot the war? They knew the Middle East was a threat to the U.S., they just couldn't go to war and say "because it is a threat" without any proof. 9/11 proved that the middle east was a threat, so now we are at war. What is your point? The WTC has been bombed before in 1993 when Clinton was in office by a man from Al Queda. Clinton had no ambition of a war in the middle east, yet the WTC was still bombed.. So I guess... Only if there is a war after a bombing that means they planned the bombing to go to war? Did Bush plan the '93 bombing? See how that doesn't make sense? It's logic. If a building is bombed twice by the same people, it is more likely to be because of the same reason as opposed to one president plotting it and the other not plotting it. | ||
|
iGgs
Russian Federation772 Posts
On September 08 2003 19:29 SerotoninsGone wrote: if the bush administration was behind 9/11 they wouldn't have stopped flying. having perfect knowledge of which flights would be hijacked, they could fly securely, and they could divert suspicion at the same time. no one is quite so paranoid as an individual trying to pull off a grand conspiracy... if they were behind it they would have done it for the effect smart guy. what kind of retard doesnt ground all flights regardless of whether he pulled of the stunt and is trying to hide it or it actually was an act of terrorism. | ||
|
Iron[NM]
United States57 Posts
God man, you are just stupid. | ||
|
iGgs
Russian Federation772 Posts
| ||
|
WiLLiE
China82 Posts
| ||
Klogon
MURICA15980 Posts
On September 08 2003 19:29 SerotoninsGone wrote: Option2: They KNEW about it, but they didn't AID it. So, they wouldn't know WHICH FLIGHTS, but they would know it would happen.if the bush administration was behind 9/11 they wouldn't have stopped flying. having perfect knowledge of which flights would be hijacked, they could fly securely, and they could divert suspicion at the same time. no one is quite so paranoid as an individual trying to pull off a grand conspiracy... | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On September 09 2003 02:12 WiLLiE wrote: i think Bush would send a f-15 n shoot at the hijacked plane b4 it crashs into the building ^^ Bush didn't have enough time to make that call. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On September 09 2003 02:34 Klogon wrote: Option2: They KNEW about it, but they didn't AID it. So, they wouldn't know WHICH FLIGHTS, but they would know it would happen. option 3: they didn't think it would happen | ||
|
SerotoninsGone
United States40 Posts
option 2: you don't follow something like a terrorist plot "loosely". Too many things can go wrong. what if they were planning on hijacking a plane, landing it, filling it with bombs, and then crashing into the middle of NYC? if bush knew that an attack was coming, he would have had operatives following every single hijacker, such that he would have precise knowledge of what and when they planned their attacks. You don't let a rabid dog loose in your house for a few days and then come back and look at the carnage. psylo has even gone so far as to say that they had automatic control of the planes because of the precision required in striking the towers. this suggests to me that bush would have to know, well, just about everything. in order for a grand conspiracy like this to work, bush (pnac, whatever) needed to know exactly what they would be risking in order to prompt a war in the middle east. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
You give 2 links, one says that the steel couldn't have melted. another says they found pools of melted steel on the ground. That makes at least 1 of them wrong, and if 1 is wrong they might as well all be wrong. | ||
|
iGgs
Russian Federation772 Posts
On September 09 2003 03:21 SerotoninsGone wrote: iggs, can you read? you are essentially on the same level as iron, who i believe everyone else posting here would agree needs to be silenced. option 2: you don't follow something like a terrorist plot "loosely". Too many things can go wrong. what if they were planning on hijacking a plane, landing it, filling it with bombs, and then crashing into the middle of NYC? if bush knew that an attack was coming, he would have had operatives following every single hijacker, such that he would have precise knowledge of what and when they planned their attacks. You don't let a rabid dog loose in your house for a few days and then come back and look at the carnage. psylo has even gone so far as to say that they had automatic control of the planes because of the precision required in striking the towers. this suggests to me that bush would have to know, well, just about everything. in order for a grand conspiracy like this to work, bush (pnac, whatever) needed to know exactly what they would be risking in order to prompt a war in the middle east. not stopping flights is not an option in a situation the likes of 9/11 regardless of whether they were in on it or not | ||
|
pyogenes
Brazil1401 Posts
On September 09 2003 03:39 BlackJack wrote: Psylo, your sources have already proven to be not credible. You give 2 links, one says that the steel couldn't have melted. another says they found pools of melted steel on the ground. That makes at least 1 of them wrong, and if 1 is wrong they might as well all be wrong.  you didnt understandthe pools of melted steel thing is in reference to some foulplay at the BASE of the towers while the steel not melting is in reference to the plane crash up at the top where the steel didnt melt. | ||
|
ObsoleteLogic
United States3676 Posts
| ||
|
pyogenes
Brazil1401 Posts
| ||
|
iGgs
Russian Federation772 Posts
On September 09 2003 04:43 intotherei wrote: who said bomb? i said foulplay... ya who said bomb, lets broaden our horizons people, it surely couldnt have been a bomb, maybe aliens or planetary alignment | ||
|
Iron[NM]
United States57 Posts
| ||
|
TeCh)PsylO
United States3552 Posts
They knew the Middle East was a threat to the U.S., they just couldn't go to war and say "because it is a threat" without any proof. 9/11 proved that the middle east was a threat, so now we are at war. u have just admitted that they needed 9-11 to go to war with iraq. this is a key part of my point. and what exactly about the middle east makes it a threat? militarily wise, they are not a threat at all. in terms of economical influence on the world? yes, they are a big threat. What is your point? The WTC has been bombed before in 1993 when Clinton was in office by a man from Al Queda. Clinton had no ambition of a war in the middle east, yet the WTC was still bombed.. So I guess... Only if there is a war after a bombing that means they planned the bombing to go to war? Did Bush plan the '93 bombing? this is in interesting point to bring up. the CIA had under cover operatives involved in this bombing. they could have stopped it, but thuought the person would provide more information. so basically, they could have stopped the bombing of the WTC, but didnt. read up on the matter.. also, clinton did have ambitions of war. he signed the iraq liberation act, and launched operatin dessert fox, which bombed the crap out of iraq. what this shows though, is that he knew that he would not have the support to bring in ground troops, further leading to the idea that the bush administration needed 9-11 to go into iraq. See how that doesn't make sense? It's logic. If a building is bombed twice by the same people, it is more likely to be because of the same reason as opposed to one president plotting it and the other not plotting it. i never said that the president plotted the attacks. either of them.. people need to keep up with the debate. we have narrowed the debate down to 2 options, in a series all possible conclusions. we have narrowed them down to either 2), they knew, neglected to stop, then used to go to war, or 3) they didnt know, but used to go to war. the debate is now abuot the differance between the two... Psylo, STFU. The US gov't would not want to increase it's deficit, lose trillions for the economy, make millions out of work this is what they are doing, regardless of iraq, so yea.. apparently they do want it Bush didn't have enough time to make that call. actually he did, but he chose to sit in a classroom for 30 minutes after he learned of the attacks reading abuot gouts. psylo has even gone so far as to say that they had automatic control of the planes because of the precision required in striking the towers. this suggests to me that bush would have to know, well, just about everything. plz keep up with the debate... Psylo, your sources have already proven to be not credible. You give 2 links, one says that the steel couldn't have melted. another says they found pools of melted steel on the ground. That makes at least 1 of them wrong, and if 1 is wrong they might as well all be wrong. please keep up with the debate.. i have conceded to this aspect of the debate. obsolete has provided enough evidence to convince me wrong.. but this aspect, as i have always said, does not relate to the rest of the debate.. i still have not seen any evidence to show option 3 is realistic. even if option 3 is true, there is still neglect and someone needs to be held accountable for.. people did not do there jobs, and people are dead.. this is what i think we have established. 1)the bush administration had an ideology of military aggression, especially concerning the middle east. it was also a part of there policy, shown by cheney energy resource plan. 2)a government is capable of allowing such things to happen.(quite frankly, u are the most naive person ive come across if u think otherwise) 3)there is a serious conflict of interest in the administration. there is a large financial incentive to go to war in the middle east. 4)there has been a clear effort to mislead the people about what happend on 9-11, what theuy knew, and also why we are going to war. no body has, or can, prove these wrong.. these are not circumstantial. now we can not draw the conclusion from this, abuot the differance between option 2 and 3, that i have previously described. the differance has to do with what they knew, and what they did. now looking at that evidence, i beleive i have shown 7 things: (see links above-all "credible" sources) 1)they knew something was coming involving plans 2)government officials thuoght this was strong enough evidence not to fly 3)they knew the WTC could be/at some point were a target(look at links above) 4)the govenment turned down information from from other goverment concerning osama 5)bush ordered an investigation stopped abuot osama, before 9-11 6)the president was briefed abuot possible airline attacks from aug 6, right up till sep 11. 7)bush opposed an independant investigation into 9-11. now.. honestly tell me that the dots were not connected. the third scenario(they did not know, but used to advantage for those not keeping up) implies many things. for one, it implies that the bush administrations policy, and corporate incentives, played NO ROLE in how the information was handled before 9-11. do u honestly think that this is possible, for anyone?? it implies that the idea to capitilize on 9-11 occured after 9-11, but somehow not before?? the pnac even said they needed a catastrophe.. the evidence is very heavily waited towards scenario 2. | ||
|
MaxPepper
Sri Lanka298 Posts
| ||
|
TeCh)PsylO
United States3552 Posts
despite his "things are going good" speech(hes saving the iran nuke speach for after next election i suppose), the so called war on terror is doing nothing but spending billions of the american peoples dollars, killing thousands upon thousands of people, destroying US crediblity, and jeopardizing international alliances. all the reasons bush gave for going to war, seem to be failing. but the reasons that he didnt give, seem to be going relatively well.. just an interesting tidbit -_- | ||
| ||
