If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
You mean like the ones in Germany, Japan, South Korea and Thailand?
So by the rules of jurisprudence, given our complicity with Saddam, we too should be invaded and our leaders overthrown as accomplices to gross atrocities and crimes against humanity.
If we are to be consistent to Bush's own standard that is.
I do listen to you by the way. (Although some of my friends think you're a spy.)
Your friends need to get out and learn about the world outside instead of believing what they see on tv as much as you do I think. Yet I can't say you don't often put a smile on my face.
Which raises an interesting question:
1) What do you do?
2) Why (and how) do you post so much?)
Dunno about you, but I'm still waiting for the moment that the French say that they are opposed to war because of their economic links with Iraq.
Well, not really.:rolleyes:
Everything is the fault of the United States, eh?
Always is. Were such an evil nation.
Says you.
Then you will, of course, accede that the tactic of focusing on the misadministration and cited references to conspiracist and dubious websites, as well as continually decrying the administration for just being the administration, ignoring their policies, would also expose the hollowness of a side who chose to employ it, will you not?
Since your reference is obviously aimed at my suspicions of 9/11, do you not think that the victims and their families, let alone the nation and indeed the world deserve to have all the inconsistencies of the cover story addressed fully? We currently have more time, energy and resources being brought to bear to investigate the how's and why's of the Columbia disaster than were made on behalf of an event that claimed the lives of many many more people.
So, Id have to maintain that the substance of many issues remain to be adequately accounted for by this administration.
Now, you see, I did read what you submitted. And if there is evidence provided in a balanced and respectable way, then I will accept it, or at least consider it.
However, when you post this evidence from clearly conspiracist sites (Hell, Bush as a devil-worshipping Masonic Illuminati?) then it is sharply discredited by association, as well you can understand.
Do you (yes/no answer, if you please) believe that the US government is involved with either the attacks on the WTC or the anthrax episodes? Involved as in "helped to bring them about by direct intervention", not involved via historical precedent or neo-imperialistic tendencies.
Do you know why Columbia came down? I would suspect not.
However, one could postulate that the WTC attacks were brought about by the airliners, no? I mean, did I miss something?
Planes crash in to tower.
Tower collapses.
Is there much more to it than that?
I know some of the references you posted. I know the FEMA officials were in the area before, or whatever. But you think there's more to it than that?
The substance of issues may well have to be substantiated. However, name me any administration that has ever fully released all documentation on time, ever co-operated fully, or suchlike?
Your careful paranoia is amusing, especially when it is so contrasted with Globe et al's outlook. This is not to say that either of you are right or wrong. Both of you have respective merits; both of you have weaknesses to the case. You both refuse to accept each others' points.
Globe et al. are mocked for expecting us to believe them on the grounds of what they say. You are not much better. We know little of what you do, or your pespective, only that you trust nothing and no-one.
However, it is equally unfair to suggest that I think little of your comments. I respect the thoughts behind them, just wish that you would moderate some of your suspicions with a temperance of realism.
As for do I believe that the administration had anything to do with 911 whether actively or with knowledge aforesight, yes and will likely continue to hold that suspicion until it passes from the public consciousness or a legitimate investigation is conducted with adequate answers to the inconsistencies.
And no its not as simple as two planes crash and towers come down, which you would know if you did some detailed research into the event and the fact that both planes did not dump their fuel directly into the each building to warrant the sorts of conflagrations that were claimed. Also the fact that if the cover story were true, then why did the second building hit crumble first despit the fact that it was the one hit at an angle with less fuel burning inside (the vast majority of fuel spraying out over the area in a giant fireball) whilst the first building, which had recieved a direct hit and had been burning for an hour already, crumbled sometime after the second one did?
In fact, I came across this report which you might find of interest...
http://www.americanfreepress.net/07_14_02/Unexplained_9-11_/unexplained_9-11_.html
or this:
http://www.americanfreepress.net/Conspiracy/Fire_Engineers_Call_WTC_Probe/fire_engineers_call_wtc_probe.html
Or to make it a hattrick:
http://www.americanfreepress.net/10_22_01/Some_Survivors_Say__Bombs_Expl/some_survivors_say__bombs_expl.html
Can I say conclusively there was collusion? No. But if you consider the convenience and alarming speed with which the media provided us with a nice cover story, the specific request of Bush to Daschle not to investigate, and the fact that even many of the families of the victims have since filed a class action lawsuit against the administration demanding a full accounting, Id say this deserves more than the neat wrap up it received.
Moreover, when one considers that more effort and time was spent investigating Clinton's sexual improprieties, I shoudl think the public would be a bit more intent on investigating such a atrocious assault on our nation and on the international community.
Did you bother to read the rather detailed and exact analysis provided by the Engineering firm that designed the World Trade Center? It was widely published not long after the attack, I think it was Time magazine where I saw it.
Do you have an Engineering degree? How about detailed knowledge of the construction of the WTC? How about knowledge of how to take a building down (demolition) or how explosives and incendiaries work? How about target analysis?
I don't have an Engineering degree, and I have only the passing knowledge of a native NYer of the construction of the WTC...but I do have expertise in the remainder...
First article...
Obvious possible reason for an explosion in the Customs House is superheated air trapped in the center portion..away from windows or doors that might let it out. Other possibilities include ignition of dust or other flammables inside in an overcharged atmosphere, again caused by heat.
Second article...
The designers of the building warned that collapse was to be expected well before the buildings collapsed. At least one of the Engineers involved was amazed that the towers stood as long as they did. Obviously, the discussion of a fuel tank (although diesel isn't generally explosive) brings up another possible cause for an explosion (but not one that merits any special consideration except in hindsight).
Third article...
Having employed "implosions" to drop buildings, I find the unwillingness of the subjects of these articles to lend any weight to the effects of vacuum and superheated air a bit difficult to believe. One method used to drop buildings is to create a "fireball" inside that consumes the oxygen. The resulting overpressure from external air will not only collapse the building, but almost guarantees the building will drop straight down. Small explosions mean nothing. At the temps being generated by the burning fuel, aluminum, plastic, steel, etc...any closed room could have exploded, as well as anything else that had a pressure differential. It seems to me that an awful lot of those quotes (like those attributed to the Engineers involved with construction) are taken out of context to make their point (considering the article I mentioned at the top used those same quotes in a much broader context, not trying to make the quotes fit the scenario that someone is pushing).
Given that the White House has systematically tried to steer serious questions aside only suggests further that this administration is hiding important truths which the American public, let alone the international community, have a right to know.
Im surprised that a stickler for accuracy and non-ambiguity such as yourself is constantly ready to dismiss the importance of such a full scale comprehensive investigation whilst championing those who wasted significant public time and resources investigating a blow job in the oval office.
Guess youd be more consistent if 9/11 had happened on Clinton's watch.
Only if you believe that such conspiracies are possible. :rolleyes:
Neverthless, I think its obvious that we shall perpetually disagree and shall never concede our positions.
It was actually all smoke and mirrors, with creative special effects assist by Hollywierd, done at the behest of Bush, within his plot to increase his oil shares. The WTC is still standing... I mean, have you actually visited the supposed spot?
Then again, it could be that the WTC towers never even were! They were most likely another of the media events staged like the moon walks! :rolleyes:
Is this the prelude to the clandestine-collaborator coming clean and confessing - finally - that HE was the chief conspirator, and claiming his credit, formally? Since he has "first hand experience"...?