9-11 - Page 27

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.

On September 07 2003 07:14 TeCh)PsylO wrote:
bush is giving a speach on sunday. i will guess that he will convienetly ignore the WMD issue in which he once pounded into every speach. he will stress the so called liberation of the iraq people. even though he will avoid the WMD, he will still attempt to make a claim that iraq was a victory in the war on terror. most importantly, watch out for another "imminent threat", something along the lines of iran having nucleur capabilities. this will conveinetly distract people from the WMD issue, set up a pretext for another war(after all, he is at a rate of 1 per year, he needs to get that 3rd one in pretty soon). as the main stream media jumps on whatever bush decides to be is the most serious threat to are security, they will of course be "to busy" in there comercial packed programing to talk about the real issues, that would and should slap bush across the face with impeachment. only time will tell....

On September 09 2003 05:55 TeCh)PsylO wrote:
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.

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.

actually he did, but he chose to sit in a classroom for 30 minutes after he learned of the attacks reading abuot gouts.

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.

Any nation that pursues WMD is a threat, particularly those who have yet to prove themselves capable of stable leadership. The whole region needs stabilization - it has since, oh... Joshua (from the Bible).

Clinton never sent ground troops in anywhere. In fact, as far as military matters are concerned, I consider Clinton the worst President since Jefferson or Madison. He had many opportunities to get his hands on Osama bin Laden, and turned them down. As goes for economic matters go, the recession started in his term! Not to mention the man's amorality. Honestly, I can't think of a worse example for contrast. I also bring to your attention that Spain has joined the list of countries providing military support.

Curious, one of your own sources said 5 (after the second tower was hit and it was unquestionably a terrorist attack). Even the 30 minutes from the first tower being hit is a reasonable amount of time. You don't think the Secret Service was doing anything? Maybe they weren't scoping every building around? In an attack on the country, their first priority is the security of the President. And technically the responsibility falls on the FAA to make such a call to NORAD.

Um... no, not really. Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates all export a fair amount of oil to the United States. Just because a gov't doc has the word "Iraq" in it, does not solidify your argument

Capable? Yes. Is it plausible though? No. Think of how many people the government would have to buy. Someone would speak up eventually.

Oh sure, there is a large financial incentive - and a huge human interest discouragement. Frankly I think if you can prevent the Islamic fundamentalists from blowing up your ever oil well and every oil worker, then bravo! you deserve it. Just think of the costs of having to protect and rebuild wells and pipelines all over the country.

To fly commercially. I doubt many government officials fly commercially to begin with. Maybe they simply heard there were threats of hi-jackings. Pre-9/11, hi-jackings were fairly easy to pull off (as 9-11 proved). I am sure there have been times when government officials stopped flying commercially before, based on threats, that turned out to be nothing.

So could the George Washington Bridge, the Empire State Building, the Statue of Liberty, the Capitol Building, the White House, the Pentagon, any of the numerous monuments in D.C., any of the airports on the east coast, theme parks in Florida, or how about the West coast? The Golden Gate bridge, down-town San Francisco, maybe even 3-Com Park! Fact of the matter is, there are hundreds if not thousands of targets for terrorists to choose from in a country as populated and economically affluent as ours.

What was he going to do? There were several thousand flights every day, and I agree, he could've issued a travel advisory, but then he may have been tipping the terrorists off to wait for a quieter day. If a President issues travel advisory warnings everytime he is briefed about a possible attack, he'll look like he's jumping at ghosts.

Weighted*
In a word... yeah. You are also bringing in a huge moral compromise. Bush essentially ran his campaign on old fasioned values. He's pro-life, pro-gun, pro-chastity, anti-sex ed (link), and here you are accusing him of the largest case of negligence in the history of our country, consequentially of being a liar and a hypocrite. Bush might not be the smartest, or best spoken individual, but thats asking me to believe a few too many things.

On September 09 2003 16:34 TeCh)PsylO wrote:
this debate has taught me i need to immideitly enroll in an english 101 class.

On September 09 2003 07:11 Klogon wrote:

the only one that would be wrong would be the one that says it found pools of steel. The one that says stell couldn't have melted is correct.

On September 10 2003 00:13 SoLsiTO wrote:
I never said that I did not lie, and once again you take the stance of a relativist which pretty much kills any room for debate. I respect the fact that you have morals and ethics that you live by, I wish the same could be said for everybody but it cannot. However, I do not believe that lieing or doing drugs makes you unmoral, the lack of morality in Bush lies in his manipulation of the American public and his unnecessary greed, especially with his relations and ties to certain corporations. I just cannot see how you can say that Bush is any more or any less moral then Clinton. Clinton lied about being adultry to the American public, Bush lies about reasons to send off americans to kill and be killed. As for your quote, I really hope it is different within the context of where it came from, otherwise it sounds rather hateful.