>
> "...It's about whether two jet planes would be sufficient to take down
> three office towers (and quite possibly they could? I really don't know.)"
they would, as what we saw with our own eyes makes clear...
why the hell would anyone need to "pre" dynamite buildings, and then
arrange for commercial airliners to be hijacked in order to....cover for
their explosion?
--
the incredible amount of plotting, planning, conspiring - and smoking
incredible amounts of pot ( that's looking at it in the most positive
way) necessary to hold such theories truly wastes time we'd be better
off devoting to figuring out how to stop the power from destroying
us...rather than imagining how invisible and conspiratorial and
mysterious the power is...
>
> "You seem convinced the official (government) story is true, and quite
> possibly it is?
> I'm sure even the Bush administration can tell the truth occasionally!"
of course, but again, they don't have to tell us what we saw with our
own eyes...
> try this: hiroshima and nagasaki were not destroyed by atomic bombs...
> the cities were wired, before hand, by, um, , uh, palestinian nazis, who
> then set up america to drop those...
Frank, I take your point. No one is questioning the atomic bombing of Hiroshima
or Nagasaki. But try these on for size...
The U.S. wanted a war with Spain, largely to seize the Philippines. Something
happened to sink a ship called the Maine in a harbour in Cuba (the evidence is it was
probably an accident). However the press seized upon this so that whenever
anyone questioned the war, the response would be "Remember the Maine!!"
Or how about this?
Hitler wanted to declare marshall law and seize absolute power, but he needed
an event to cement his intention. Suddenly the Reichstag burnt down -
"it's those damned communists!!", went the cry! - and his moment came.
Or what about this?
President Roosevelt (FDR) provoked the attack on Pearl Harbour, knew about it
in advance and covered up his failure to warn the Hawaiian commanders. Why?
FDR needed the attack to sucker Hitler to declare war, since the public and Congress
were overwhelmingly against entering the war in Europe. It was his backdoor to war.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/pearl/www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/pearl.html
Or what about this?
Japan was virtually materially defeated and had petitioned for surrender, but
the U.S. decided to nuclear bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki anyway - not so much
as the last act of WWII, but more as "the first shot" in the Cold War - to send a
firm message to Russia that she had the bomb and was prepared to use it.
However, the government "justified" this atomic nightmare by saying that it had
little choice and had saved tens of thousands of Allied lives.
Or how about this?
The U.S. wanted a pretext to launch a full-scale war with North Vietnam.
Something suspicious happened in the Gulf of Tonkin, and this pretext was
immediately seized on by those in power to begin a brutal years long war
with a poor nation.
You ask why certain parties would have a vested interest in creating
the events of September 11?
> why the hell would anyone need to "pre" dynamite buildings, and then
> arrange for commercial airliners to be hijacked in order to....cover for
> their explosion?
Try these reasons on for size:
The neocons had long wanted a war with Iraq to finish what the first Bush
government had started - to remove Saddam Hussein and try to create stability
in the region for Israel and oil. But first they had to create a pretext to
garner public support - they did this by making repeated false allegations
about "weapons of mass destruction" and false statements associating Iraq
with September 11 - in other words, as the Downing Street memo tells us,
the "intelligence was being fixed around the policy".
The U.S. government/intelligence agencies had received advance warnings about
a coming attack that could involve planes and buildings - but chose not to
act hoping this would create a "new Pearl Harbour" - a new pretext for endless
war on the world. Whenever anyone questions the wisdom of this war, the
patriotic response is "Remember September 11!!"
If anyone says "We shouldn't go to war with Iraq", the patriotic response
is "Remember September 11!!"
Whenever anyone says "We shouldn't torture people", the patriotic response
is "Remember September 11!!"
Whenever anyone says "The PATRIOT Act is wrong - we shouldn't be removing
personal liberties", the patriotic response is "Remember September 11!!"
Whenever anyone says "The nation is being looted to enrich the military-industrial
complex", the patriotic response is "Remember September 11!!"
And what will happen if the government proposes a draft to get fresh, warm bodies
to fight its "war on terror" (maybe they'll try and draft you, Frank?), and people
have the audacity to resist? Will the patriotic response be "Don't be a traitor!
Don't you remember September 11?"
Oh well, you get my drift. I don't say the official 911 story is false.
Maybe it simply was a couple planes that brought those three buildings down.
But as explained above, I can see plenty of reasons why certain parties
would have a vested interest in creating September 11.
The facts show that the history of government disassembly and coverup is long
and ugly, and often we common people only learn the truth years later. You
can call me ignorant if you like, but the truth is I harbour a healthy
skepticism for ALL who grasp after power over others and their "official" stories -
(especially when they are rich, civilian warmongers and liars like the Bush admin!)
And no, I don't smoke pot :-)
Best regards,
James.
No comments:
Post a Comment