1
   

911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB OUR NATION IS IN PERIL

 
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Dec, 2004 08:59 am
Capricorn One was a fine movie! I am so glad he gets to finish his joke while climbing the cliffside.
0 Replies
 
Rafick
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Dec, 2004 09:18 am
Asherman wrote:
Rafick,

Why is it that you are so concerned over such patent nonsense?


You add up all the dead from 9/11 and from both wars -- with the war in Iraq providing the clear majority -- and summarize them as "Total death toll stemming from the 9/11 attacks."

Total death toll from 9/11 terrorist attacks: 3,020; and from President Bush's attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq: more than 21,000.

Connecting the tragedy of 9/11 to our shameful invasion of a country that had no part in 9/11 and was neither an aggressor nor a real threat does an injustice to all of the victims.

The 9/11 attacks had no connection with Iraq. Saddam Hussein was not involved in the 9/11 attacks. did we find any WMD?

9/11 was a malicious attack. remember everyone said "we will never forget"

$87 billion to fund Iraq reconstruction (on top of the $79 billion already spent, and the estimated $55 billion extra that will have to come soon), and yes, we will be paying off the effects of a half-trillion-dollar budget deficit for unknown years to come. Certainly, it is hard to currently assess the effects of increased government secrecy, eroded privacy, and the PATRIOT Act.

We lost a lot on 9/11, but the greatest loss of all may be truth. How many times must a lie be repeated before it becomes the truth?

After over 14 months of the largest and most important Commission in our nation's history--an investigation into the brutal murder of nearly 3000 Americans and foreign nationals from over 80 countries; there has NOT been A SINGLE high level Administration or intelligence official that has been brought before the Commission in public and sworn to tell "the whole truth and nothing but the truth"

The bottom line here is if Administration and Intelligence officials have nothing to hide then why don't they come forward in public hearings, raise their hands and promise to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

If they showed the real proof i think the whole world would help them to catch the terrorists. but most countries are not convinced.

you may call it "patent nonsense" but i think it deserved more investigation then what we got.

anyway this is our Commander in Chief :

Commander in Chief

http://www.usenet-replayer.com/cgi/content/framebanner_3?http://www.usenet-replayer.com/5/4/2/8/1099498245.1.JPG
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Dec, 2004 09:23 am
McGentrix wrote:
Capricorn One was a fine movie! I am so glad he gets to finish his joke while climbing the cliffside.
Laughing
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Dec, 2004 09:29 am
Anybody ever wonder why it seems, despite all the wonderful conspiracy theories out there to play with, so many folks seem to latch on to one or another in particular and drag it with 'em wherever they go? Sure puts meaning to the term "single minded", don't it?
0 Replies
 
Rafick
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Dec, 2004 09:33 am
http://www.shocking.com/~z29/bush.gif
0 Replies
 
Rafick
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Dec, 2004 09:33 am
http://www.shocking.com/~z29/bush.gif
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Dec, 2004 10:19 am
Thanks for that last post Rafick....definitive proof at last that there was a government conspiracy behind 9/11.
0 Replies
 
Synonymph
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Dec, 2004 11:10 am
Rafick http://www.mainzelahr.de/smile/cool/kos.gif

Follow me...
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Dec, 2004 11:50 am
conspiracy theories aside, I think the general concensus of opinion world wide..... and the USA is still PART of the world, not a world unto itself, despite the best efforts of this administration.... is that the white house gang has not been entirely forthcoming about 9/11.....that doesn't mean they planned it...but it is not unreasonable to assume that the whole unvarnished truth would be, at the very least, embarassing to the naked emperor and his entourage, not to mention the possibility of negative impact on his financiers, which of course would be the worst that could happen......
0 Replies
 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Dec, 2004 12:02 pm
The embarrassment is probably due to the fact that they had not only ignored but dismissed warnings from the out going Clinton administration that al Qeada was a major threat and were completely unprepared for the attack.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Dec, 2004 12:04 pm
Acquiunk wrote:
The embarrassment is probably due to the fact that they had not only ignored but dismissed warnings from the out going Clinton administration that al Qeada was a major threat and were completely unprepared for the attack.


part of it yes....
0 Replies
 
Rafick
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Dec, 2004 01:27 pm
Weapons of Mass Destruction:
Just a Reminder...

Weapons of Mass Destruction:
Who Said What When


Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-CT, September 4, 2002

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.

Dick Cheney August 26, 2002

If we wait for the danger to become clear, it could be too late.

Sen. Joseph Biden D-Del., September 4, 2002

Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.

George W. Bush September 12, 2002

If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.

Ari Fleischer December 2, 2002

We know for a fact that there are weapons there.

Ari Fleischer January 9, 2003

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.

George W. Bush January 28, 2003

We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.

Colin Powell February 5, 2003

Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations.

Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, February 5, 2003

We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.

George Bush February 8, 2003

So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? I think our judgment has to be clearly not.

Colin Powell March 8, 2003

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.

George Bush March 18, 2003

We are asked to accept Saddam decided to destroy those weapons. I say that such a claim is palpably absurd.

Tony Blair, Prime Minister 18 March, 2003

Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.

Ari Fleisher March 21, 2003

There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. As this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them.

Gen. Tommy Franks March 22, 2003

I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction.

Kenneth Adelman, Defense Policy Board , March 23, 2003

One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites.

Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark March 22, 2003

We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad.

Donald Rumsfeld March 30, 2003



Saddam's removal is necessary to eradicate the threat from his weapons of mass destruction

Jack Straw,
Foreign Secretary 2 April, 2003

Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of mass destruction U.S. forces find -- and there will be plenty.

Neocon scholar Robert Kagan April 9, 2003

I think you have always heard, and you continue to hear from officials, a measure of high confidence that, indeed, the weapons of mass destruction will be found.

Ari Fleischer April 10, 2003

We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them.

George Bush April 24, 2003

Before people crow about the absence of weapons of mass destruction, I suggest they wait a bit.

Tony Blair 28 April, 2003


There are people who in large measure have information that we need . . . so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country. Donald Rumsfeld April 25, 2003

We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so.

George Bush May 3, 2003

I am confident that we will find evidence that makes it clear he had weapons of mass destruction.

Colin Powell May 4, 2003

I never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country.

Donald Rumsfeld May 4, 2003

I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein -- because he had a weapons program.

George W. Bush May 6, 2003

U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and find" weapons of mass destruction.

Condoleeza Rice May 12, 2003

I just don't know whether it was all destroyed years ago -- I mean, there's no question that there were chemical weapons years ago -- whether they were destroyed right before the war, (or) whether they're still hidden.

Maj. Gen. David Petraeus,
Commander 101st Airborne May 13, 2003

Before the war, there's no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical. I expected them to be found. I still expect them to be found.

Gen. Michael Hagee,
Commandant of the Marine Corps May 21, 2003

Given time, given the number of prisoners now that we're interrogating, I'm confident that we're going to find weapons of mass destruction.

Gen. Richard Myers,
Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff May 26, 2003

They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer.

Donald Rumsfeld May 27, 2003

For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.

Paul Wolfowitz May 28, 2003

http://www.smith-family.com/hannah/archive/bush-finger.jpg
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Dec, 2004 01:40 pm
Rafick wrote:
Iam not here to convince you people about any theories or Conspiracies just here to speak my mind, i though i might get some intelligent responses back guess i was wrong, you cant get blood out of stone.


Ask a stupid question and you'll get a stupid answer.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Dec, 2004 02:05 pm
gungasnake wrote:
Rafick wrote:
I challenge anyone to watch the new "911 In Plane Site" video and still believe the government's story that a jet airliner full of passengers hit the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. It simply can't be done. I'll bet anyone any amount of anything that they just can't do it.


http://hometown.aol.com/vesnan/BullShit.gif

I've seen these kinds of claims here and there on the internet, including this forum and, distressingly, on tenc.org and a couple of similar places populated by people who are at least theoretically bright enough to know better. By this, of course, I have in mind the various claims that the whitehouse and/or pentagon were somehow or other complicit in 9/11, either from the outset or in that fighter cover for D.C. was deliberately withheld after the attacks on the two trade towers.

Now, in general, I have nothing against conspiracy theories, but I like to at least subject them to rudimentary sanity checks. In the case of the new book which alleges that LBJ was complicit in the JFK assasination for instance, no simple sanity checks appear to be violated, at least to my knowledge, hence I would be the last person to denigrate the author of the book without knowing much more than I do about the subject.

Nonetheless, the various claims of whitehouse or pentagon complicity in 9/11 fail any sort of sanity check very badly. In fact, the simplest such tests totally forbid the theories.

For starters, consider the two trade towers. Their destruction and the devastation of the surrounding area and associated loss of life involved hundreds of billions of dollars of loss to the American economy, during George W. Bush's administration. Presidents, of course, are judged as much as anything by how the economy fares while they are in office. George H.W. Bush in particular was pointedly denied a second term in office for precisely this reason. What then could possibly tempt George W. Bush to risk such a thing on his own watch? I do not know of any possibility of a reasonable answer.

Next consider Dick Cheney, who was in the whitehouse at the time and missed a close encounter with one of the hijacked planes only via the heroism of its passengers. Consider also that the whitehouse was built in the early 1800s and that the architects assuredly never planned for it to survive an encounter with a 767.

For Cheney to have had any complicity in the events would amount to playing Russian roulette with at least two or three chambers in the revolver loaded. What could plausibly tempt a guy like Cheney to put his own ass at such risk? What could you possibly offer the guy to take such a chance?

Money? I doubt it; I mean, the guy seems to have lots of that... Sex, teenage interns maybe?? The guy probably has access to as much of that as his heart condition would allow for. Drugs? What??

Likewise the pentagon lost about 300 of its own people in the attacks and there is no way they could have known precisely how the plane would hit the building or who amongst themselves would be killed. Aside from the fact that any pentagon complicity would also represent pentagon bosses playing Russian roulette with more than one chamber loaded, there is also the fact that any such conspiracy would involve an unacceptable risk of destruction of military careers and of hundreds if not thousands of major-league type lawsuits by relatives of victims.

Aside from all that, there is the fact that firefighting squads from every jurisdiction within something like a 30 mile circle around Washington D.C. were right there fighting that fire for several days. How does a government go about buying the silence of all those different firemen if the whole thing is a scam of some sort? What politician would risk HAVING TO try to keep all those guys silent?

The inescapable conclusion I come to is that anybody who buys off on any of these theories is basically an idiot.



Bingo!
0 Replies
 
Rafick
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Dec, 2004 02:39 pm
Who Were Those People, Anyway?
Before September 11, the combined forces of US military and domestic intelligence -- the CIA, the FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency -- were clueless that such a catastrophic event would occur. Yet a day or so later, the FBI had secured the names and mugshots of each of the 19 hijackers. How did the FBI know who the hijackers were? After all, all the eyewitnesses are dead. How could the FBI distinguish between "regular" Muslims and hijacker Muslims on those flights? Or did they just go through the passenger lists culling out the Muslim-sounding names and labeling the people bearing those names as hijackers? "You're Muslim so you're a hijacker..."

On September 30 I looked at the passenger lists of those four flights. To my surprise, the lists contained none of the hijackers' names. Here are the URLs I checked:

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA11.victims.html

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA77.victims.html

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/ua175.victims.html

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/ua93.victims.html

The Associated Press article states that since 9-11 there has been an enormous interest in robot planes ...

http://www.public-action.com/911/robotplane-ap/index.html

NO KIDDING! Laughing Laughing Laughing
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Dec, 2004 03:01 pm
The first link says 92 were on the plane, but only 87 names, thus the hijackers must not be counted as victims, as they were responsible for the act. Leaves 4.

Second lists 56 names, 64 on board. Leaves 8.

Third lists 56 names, 65 on board. Leaves 9

Fourth lists 33 names, 45 on board. leaves 12.

33 names of people on those flights not listed.

19 were hijackers.


This really isn't rocket science.
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Dec, 2004 03:03 pm
Rafick, please notice that the links you gave for the passenger lists is actually a link to names of the victims. The terrorists were not considered victims by any stretch of the imagination. As an example, the first list http://www.able2know.com/go/?a2kjump=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2FSPECIALS%2F2001%2Ftrade.center%2Fvictims%2FAA11.victims.html indicates that there were 92 passengers on board but then only lists 87 names, leaving out the names of the hijackers. While I have not checked the other links, I would bet you will find the same thing.

Next time you may want to know what you are talking about before offering "proof" to support your whacked out theory. At least see to it that the proof you give a link to is really backing you up.
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Dec, 2004 03:04 pm
Beat me to it McG. Ah well, great minds think alike.

Smile
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Dec, 2004 03:16 pm
waait a min here. A few pages ago O'Bill said and I... hee heee heee.... quote...hee hee hee.

"Clearly OJs best film"

hee hee hee hee.

OJs best fils was nAked Gun 2.5

HEs one of our cinematic geniii. hee heee heee.

He cuts throughh the script and gets at the meat of a character'

Hed take a stab at any role, so loong as it had a decent point.

his razor wit so pointed, so sharp.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Dec, 2004 03:33 pm
a genuine slice of cinematic genius....

fits every role like a glove......
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/24/2025 at 01:40:10