No consensus on who was behind Sept 11-global poll

[-Cp]

HOLY CRAP!

From the files of WTF?

NEWSMEAT ▷ No Consensus on Who Was Behind Sept 11-Global Poll

 

[MichaelCollins]

911 was clearly allowed to happen by BUSHTEAM... as they knew the power that it would give them.

Islamic extremism, including al qaeda ... was US/CIA inspired and initiated...

Its not a conspiracy theory... but if BUSHTEAM and US secret services were unaware of 911 planning ..i would be amazed.

They let it happen... and wanted it to happen ... to give them free reign to start war and thus feed the antiquated US war machine.

 

[-Cp]

911 was clearly allowed to happen by BUSHTEAM... as they knew the power that it would give them.

Islamic extremism, including al qaeda ... was US/CIA inspired and initiated...

Its not a conspiracy theory... but if BUSHTEAM and US secret services were unaware of 911 planning ..i would be amazed.

They let it happen... and wanted it to happen ... to give them free reign to start war and thus feed the antiquated US war machine.

WOW - who let the nutcases out?

 

[Modbert]

WOW - who let the nutcases out?

Who let the nutcases out?

History has proven that FDR knew about Pearl Harbor and allowed it to happen.

Why is it so crazy to suggest that perhaps the Bush Administration allowed a "new pearl harbor" to occur in this country.

Acts and laws the size of the Patriot Act take months if not years to write yet it was written before 9/11.

It gave the Bush Administration to later on invade Iraq because many if not most people figured that Saddam must be connected to Osama Bin Laden by working together to take down America. (Where in fact it was later proven there was no link between Saddam and 9/11)

It also allowed the Bush Administration to begin the "War on Terror" in which many American civil liberties have since been taken away, with wiretaps occuring throughout the country.

The first people to visit Bush in the White House after he won the 2000 election were the oil companies.

Defense contractors including many of Bush's friends and of course the Carlyle Group.

Connections between the Carlyle and the Bush family have created controversy, particularly in relation to the War on Terror and the Iraq War. George H. W. Bush and his Secretary of State James A. Baker III have at times been advisors to the group. One writer claimed that Saudi Arabian interests have given $1.4 billion to firms connected to the Bush family Of this figure, $1.18 billion comes from contracts awarded to defense contractor Braddock, Dunn & McDonald, which Carlyle sold before George H. W. Bush became an advisor. A Carlyle spokesman noted in 2003 that its 7% interest in defense industries was far less than several other Private equity firms. The group has in the past had links with the Bin Laden family, although the group argues investment was relatively minor and made by relatives including half brother to Osama Bin Laden who had "disowned" him. - Wikipedia

I ask you -CP, a honest question that I want a honest answer.

If the Bush family or firms connected to them are getting $1.18 billion at least from Saudi Arabian interests then who is the Bush's family loyality going to be to? The American People or The Saudis?

How about Dick Cheney and Haliburton in which they gave him millions last year through stocks? Who is loyality to? The American People or Haliburton?


The funny but sad thing is that all I'm saying are facts. They're not contested, they're all true and I dare you to give me evidence that proves otherwise.

 

[-Cp]

Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - Popular Mechanics

They sum it all up...

 

[Modbert]

Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - Popular Mechanics

They sum it all up...

Posting a link that only shows it wasn't a conspiracy supposedly by the Gov't itself who did it. I'm stating they let it happen at the very least. The Gov't doing the job itself is another debate.

White House Releases Pre-9/11 Intel Memo - April 10, 2004

This was given to President Bush on August 6, 2001 and was ignored.

Btw, Popular Mechanics the best you can come up with? The business that has been owned since the 1950's by the Hearst Corporation.

You might know the Hearst Corporation, Founded by William Randolph Hearst which also owns ownership in the history channel where the Popular Mechanics debunking episode was showed. (Gee, that couldn't mean anything could it? )

You know William Randolph Hearst right? The man who was the inspiration for the leading character in one of the greatest movies ever; Citizen Kane.

As Martin Lee and Norman Solomon noted in their 1990 book Unreliable Sources, Hearst "routinely invented sensational stories, faked interviews, ran phony pictures and distorted real events."

Hearst's use of "yellow journalism" techniques in his New York Journal to whip up popular support for U.S. military adventurism in Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philippines in 1898 was also criticized in Upton Sinclair's 1919 book, The Brass Check: A Study of American Journalism. According to Sinclair, Hearst's newspaper employees were "willing by deliberate and shameful lies, made out of whole cloth, to stir nations to enmity and drive them to murderous war." Sinclair also asserted that in the early 20th century Hearst's newspapers lied "remorselessly about radicals," excluded "the word Socialist from their columns" and obeyed "a standing order in all Hearst offices that American Socialism shall never be mentioned favorably." In addition, Sinclair charged that Hearst's "Universal News Bureau" re-wrote the news of the London morning papers in the Hearst office in New York and then fraudulently sent it out to American afternoon newspapers under the by-lines of imaginary names of non-existent "Hearst correspondents" in London, Paris, Venice, Rome, Berlin, etc.

Hearst was criticized continually by Communists for being anti-Communist and ultra-nationalist and was also called a Nazi by some Communists. They accused him also of libel (mostly about his articles on the Soviet Union and Stalin, for example those alleging the Ukrainian famine of 1932-1933). In 1918, Hearst had called for the legal recognition by the United States of the Bolshevik government until it happened in 1933. He said, "Let us recognize the truest democracy in Europe, the truest democracy in the world today."

Hearst is rumored to have provided financial assistance to Josephine Terranova after her sensational murder trial in 1906.

Hearst also sympathized with Harry J. Anslinger in his war against marijuana. Jack Herer and others argue that Hearst's paper empire (he owned hundreds of acres of timber forests and a vast number of paper mills designed to manufacture paper from wood pulp) in the early 1930s was threatened by hemp, which: 1) like wood pulp, could also be used to manufacture paper[9] and 2) also had an advantage over wood pulp, because it could be regrown yearly as well.[9] Between 1936 and 1937, Hearst associated marijuana with hemp in his newspapers[10] and published many of the stories that Anslinger fabricated.[10] Hearst would indeed play a major part in aiding the anti-marijuana movement, which eventually led to its prohibition in the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937,[11] a law which also outlawed hemp. Other commentators[12] have subsequently pointed out that Jack Herer and others have missed that the Hearst chain was one of the biggest buyers of newsprint in the U.S. The Hearst chain had, as buyers of newsprint, a strong interest in a low price for newsprint. If anyone could produce large amounts of cheap newsprint from a new crop it would lower Hearst's purchasing cost for newsprint. The conclusion of this reasoning is that Hearst had no relevant financial interest in a ban on the cultivation of hemp.[12]

Hearst was criticized in John Steinbeck's masterpiece The Grapes of Wrath because he did not use his vast, fertile land for farming - Wikipedia.

William Randolph Hearst - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The link to that in case you want it.

I can't even begin to describe the amount of irony in what I just posted. It's just too much.

Btw, again everything I posted here is ALL FACTS. No nutjob conspiracy here since it's all facts.

 

[SUZ4CERTAIN]

911 was an inside job!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Who let the nutcases out?

History has proven that FDR knew about Pearl Harbor and allowed it to happen.

Why is it so crazy to suggest that perhaps the Bush Administration allowed a "new pearl harbor" to occur in this country.

Acts and laws the size of the Patriot Act take months if not years to write yet it was written before 9/11.

It gave the Bush Administration to later on invade Iraq because many if not most people figured that Saddam must be connected to Osama Bin Laden by working together to take down America. (Where in fact it was later proven there was no link between Saddam and 9/11)

It also allowed the Bush Administration to begin the "War on Terror" in which many American civil liberties have since been taken away, with wiretaps occuring throughout the country.

The first people to visit Bush in the White House after he won the 2000 election were the oil companies.

Defense contractors including many of Bush's friends and of course the Carlyle Group.



I ask you -CP, a honest question that I want a honest answer.

If the Bush family or firms connected to them are getting $1.18 billion at least from Saudi Arabian interests then who is the Bush's family loyality going to be to? The American People or The Saudis?

How about Dick Cheney and Haliburton in which they gave him millions last year through stocks? Who is loyality to? The American People or Haliburton?
View attachment 5827

The funny but sad thing is that all I'm saying are facts. They're not contested, they're all true and I dare you to give me evidence that proves otherwise.

Provide EVIDENCE FDR knew about and allowed Pearl Harbor. When you do submit it for review and you should win lots of money from someone. You claim to know history and make this IGNORANT claim.

Next you will be telling us when did not need to drop the bombs on Japan cause they were gonna surrender.

 

[MichaelCollins]

I am pretty convinced that BUSHTEAM were well aware that 911 was going to happen. Not sure if they were actually involved in the planning and execution ..but it is pretty obvious they knew about it and welcomed it...

It cannot be a coincidence that as soon as BUSHTEAM get into power..an event occurs which allows them free licence to carry out their long intended and long planned invasion of Iraq....and also to create a new imaginary enemy....and to create a large proportion of the US public with FEAR and hatred.

For those of you ..who cant believe that your leaders would sacrifice 3000 US lives...why do you doubt this? They are the same people who showed no problem in dropping 1000s of bombs on iraqi civilians....and surely all human life is equal?...and they did this for money...pure and simple...pretty cold hearted.

For those who insist that BUSHTEAM didnt know about it... it must mean that you believe the US secret services are unbelievably incompetent?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I am pretty convinced that BUSHTEAM were well aware that 911 was going to happen. Not sure if they were actually involved in the planning and execution ..but it is pretty obvious they knew about it and welcomed it...

It cannot be a coincidence that as soon as BUSHTEAM get into power..an event occurs which allows them free licence to carry out their long intended and long planned invasion of Iraq....and also to create a new imaginary enemy....and to create a large proportion of the US public with FEAR and hatred.

For those of you ..who cant believe that your leaders would sacrifice 3000 US lives...why do you doubt this? They are the same people who showed no problem in dropping 1000s of bombs on iraqi civilians....and surely all human life is equal?...and they did this for money...pure and simple...pretty cold hearted.

For those who insist that BUSHTEAM didnt know about it... it must mean that you believe the US secret services are unbelievably incompetent?

You are a RETARD. We did not drop bombs on civilians. Much less thousands of them. Our attacks were specific and attempted to avoid civilian casualties. In fact we were so worried about avoiding civilian casualties we caused more problems for our military later on.

And again retard, Britain was right there with us bombing those "civilians" too. Italy and Spain sent troops as well as Britain. Poland also had a contingent. Several smaller European Nations also sent troops.

We had 49 allies when we invaded. Since you live in retardo land I am surprised you are not claiming we killed 600 thousand like the idiotic Lancet report.

 

[MichaelCollins]

You are a RETARD. We did not drop bombs on civilians. Much less thousands of them. Our attacks were specific and attempted to avoid civilian casualties. In fact we were so worried about avoiding civilian casualties we caused more problems for our military later on.

And again retard, Britain was right there with us bombing those "civilians" too. Italy and Spain sent troops as well as Britain. Poland also had a contingent. Several smaller European Nations also sent troops.

We had 49 allies when we invaded. Since you live in retardo land I am surprised you are not claiming we killed 600 thousand like the idiotic Lancet report.

NO, it was just the 100,000.... 33 911's Pretty sick, no?

Committing 33 911's for profit.... no other cause.

As evil as anything Hitler did.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

[/B]


NO, it was just the 100,000.... 33 911's Pretty sick, no?

Committing 33 911's for profit.... no other cause.

As evil as anything Hitler did.

Ahh yes the Nazi reference, wondered when you would get around to that. You are so stupid it is a waste of time to argue with you. You have no facts, no evidence no reality, just this tired lie that you keep making in thread after thread.

Again retard, if we are guilty so are YOU, Britain was right there the whole time doing the SAME thing. In fact they are STILL there. How many 7/7's did Britain commit you fucking RETARD?

 

[MichaelCollins]

Ahh yes the Nazi reference, wondered when you would get around to that. You are so stupid it is a waste of time to argue with you. You have no facts, no evidence no reality, just this tired lie that you keep making in thread after thread.

Again retard, if we are guilty so are YOU, Britain was right there the whole time doing the SAME thing. In fact they are STILL there. How many 7/7's did Britain commit you fucking RETARD?

Ah..but the difference is that the US public supported the US terrorism...whereas the British public overwhelmingly opposed it.

Just as did every public on the face of the earth apart from the US and Israel.

Most European countries had 90% opposition to the US terrorism.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Ah..but the difference is that the US public supported the US terrorism...whereas the British public overwhelmingly opposed it.

Just as did every public on the face of the earth apart from the US and Israel.

Most European countries had 90% opposition to the US terrorism.

And yet they are STILL there. Go figure.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

911 was clearly allowed to happen by BUSHTEAM... as they knew the power that it would give them.

Islamic extremism, including al qaeda ... was US/CIA inspired and initiated...

Its not a conspiracy theory... but if BUSHTEAM and US secret services were unaware of 911 planning ..i would be amazed.

They let it happen... and wanted it to happen ... to give them free reign to start war and thus feed the antiquated US war machine.

ROFLMNAO... Here's your sign...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Who let the nutcases out?

History has proven that FDR knew about Pearl Harbor and allowed it to happen.

Look, as much as I'd love to pile on FDR, given that his policies unnecessarily drug the US through 10 years of economic hell prior to WW2 and saddled the US with economic crippling social policy after WW2; history does not prove that he had prior knowledge of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. I know you 'feel' it does and that's fine, but there is no such proof.

Why is it so crazy to suggest that perhaps the Bush Administration allowed a "new pearl harbor" to occur in this country.

Because there is no evidence which would lead a reasonable person to such a conclusion; because it flies in the face of reason and this despite your ad hoc thesis to the contrary.

Acts and laws the size of the Patriot Act take months if not years to write yet it was written before 9/11.

The Patriot Act was not created after 9-11, it was signed into law after 9-11. It had been drafted during the Clinton administration and had been debated for several years; gaining substantial support prior to 9-11, it just had not been passed and sent up for the President's signature.

It gave the Bush Administration to later on invade Iraq because many if not most people figured that Saddam must be connected to Osama Bin Laden by working together to take down America. (Where in fact it was later proven there was no link between Saddam and 9/11)

Hussein was a long term overt proponent of international Islamic terrorism and had directly supported Islamic terrorism against the United States her interests and allies for decades prior to 9-11...

It also allowed the Bush Administration to begin the "War on Terror" in which many American civil liberties have since been taken away, with wiretaps occuring throughout the country.

Name one of the "many American civil liberties have since been taken away" Federal wire taps have occurred in this country since shortly after that advent of the telephone.

The first people to visit Bush in the White House after he won the 2000 election were the oil companies. Defense contractors including many of Bush's friends and of course the Carlyle Group.

ROFLMNAO... Oh GOD! Now that IS precious...

I ask you -CP, a honest question that I want a honest answer.

If the Bush family or firms connected to them are getting $1.18 billion at least from Saudi Arabian interests then who is the Bush's family loyality going to be to? The American People or The Saudis?

That question would have been better framed as a "stupid" question than an honest one, as while it may be honest, its honesty is overwhelmed by its stupefying premise...

How about Dick Cheney and Haliburton in which they gave him millions last year through stocks? Who is loyality to? The American People or Haliburton?

How about that? Here's the the problem there Scooter... the money Cheney is recieving from Haliburton is money which was DEFERRED FROM INCOME HE DERIVED WHEN HE WORKED FOR HALIBURTON... Cheney has not recieved one cent from Haliburton beyond that deferred compensation and there is no a scintilla of evidence ANYWHERE to suggest he has... of course if you should find some evidence, then you've got a first class case for impeachment, since that would constitute a felony and you girls can get busy walking through the impeachment.

The funny but sad thing is that all I'm saying are facts. They're not contested, they're all true and I dare you to give me evidence that proves otherwise.

First your assertions are not fact; your assertions are the rawest of fantasy generated through fallacious reasoning, typical of the anti-American leftwing ideology which itself exist absent a scintilla of credibility...

Second, your assertions are contested and are refuted each and every time they are advanced; which it should be noted are only advanced in the shadows of internet message boards and asinine socialist blogs; as they are the stuff of which buffoonery is comprised.

Third, There is no end to the evidence the proves them 'otherwise...' as noted above.

Here's your sign:

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I am pretty convinced that BUSHTEAM were well aware that 911 was going to happen. Not sure if they were actually involved in the planning and execution ..but it is pretty obvious they knew about it and welcomed it...

It cannot be a coincidence that as soon as BUSHTEAM get into power..an event occurs which allows them free licence to carry out their long intended and long planned invasion of Iraq....and also to create a new imaginary enemy....and to create a large proportion of the US public with FEAR and hatred.

For those of you ..who cant believe that your leaders would sacrifice 3000 US lives...why do you doubt this? They are the same people who showed no problem in dropping 1000s of bombs on iraqi civilians....and surely all human life is equal?...and they did this for money...pure and simple...pretty cold hearted.

For those who insist that BUSHTEAM didnt know about it... it must mean that you believe the US secret services are unbelievably incompetent?

ROFLMNAO.... Sweet Mother... that is hilarious.

You speak of evidence but never show any; your reasoning is throughly fallacious yet you advance it as if it were the purest essence of sound validity.

For instance: On what specific principle of reason are you resting your assertion that it cannot be a coincidence that 9-11 occured 8 months after Bush took office?

Now in case you've missed that... what you're looking at here is Check-mate, as there is no such principle in reasoning and the facts as to how 9-11 came about are well documented and there isn't a lot of room for conjecture surrounding those facts.

When a nation allows a populist President to strip its intelligence and law enforcement services of the means to communicate with one another in the face of organized international aggression which is being advanced against it... then it's a certainty that those aggressors have gained the advantage.

You'll recall that the election of 2000 was hotly contested and that the typically smooth transition from one administration to the next was significantly injured and mired in delays by the hostile refusal by the Gore Campaign to accept their politicla defeat; this resulted in severe delays in the Bush administration taking office and created substantial animosity through the truncated transition.

Now the US had been getting attacked by International Islamic terrorism for decades, going back to the Carter Administration; but in the 1990s, those attacks escalated to unprecedented levels and the reaction by that administration was to treat those attacks as a violation of law... which were to be treated by federal prosecution, where indictments were handed down and the facts 'investigated' and where those being indicted were recognized as 'the accussed' and the full scope of protections of the individual's God given rights against government power were respected.

The prevailing judgment prior to 9-11 was that this was the way to handle International Islamic terrorism; one case at a time, one crime at a time and one defendant at a time...

Then on 9-11-2001, International Islamic Terrorism changed the paradigm...

That Bush was President on 9-11 was merely a gift from God himself; that a man capable of setting aside the stupefying effects of socialist PC policy, treating acts of war as criminal violations of the law; giving a determined enemy the advantage to murder thousands of innocent people; a man ready to take on the responsibility of pursuing these animals to wherever they can crawl and destroy them whenever they are found; is purely a miracle in and of itself. And as you and everyone else knows, that is precisely what Bush has done...

Bush will leave office in January of 2009, not one dime wealthier than when he arrived in office; not having recieved a penny from anyone beyond his Government salary and a new administration will take power; he will not contest this in any way; nor will he spend the next four years second guessing his successor; as has HIS predecessor... and that he was in office on 9-11 will be recored by some as coincidence and others a fate... but either way, there was very little Bush could have done to have prevented it, given the information he had at that time and this WHOLLY WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF HINDSIGHT.

 

[editec]

TRUTH does not need consensus.

TRUTH is a a stand-alone program.

 

[MichaelCollins]

ROFLMNAO.... Sweet Mother... that is hilarious.

You speak of evidence but never show any; your reasoning is throughly fallacious yet you advance it as if it were the purest essence of sound validity.

For instance: On what specific principle of reason are you resting your assertion that it cannot be a coincidence that 9-11 occured 8 months after Bush took office?

Now in case you've missed that... what you're looking at here is Check-mate, as there is no such principle in reasoning and the facts as to how 9-11 came about are well documented and there isn't a lot of room for conjecture surrounding those facts.

When a nation allows a populist President to strip its intelligence and law enforcement services of the means to communicate with one another in the face of organized international aggression which is being advanced against it... then it's a certainty that those aggressors have gained the advantage.

You'll recall that the election of 2000 was hotly contested and that the typically smooth transition from one administration to the next was significantly hyphenated by the hostile refusal by the Gore Campaign to accept their politicla defeat; this resulted in severe delays in the Bush administration taking office and created substantial animosity through the truncated transition.

Now the US had been getting attacked by International Islamic terrorism for decades, going back to the Carter Administration; but in the 1990s, those attacks escalated to unprecedented levels and the reaction by that administration was to treat those attacks as a violation of law... which were to be treated by federal prosecution, where indictments were handed down and the facts 'investigated' and where those being indicted were recognized as 'the accussed' and the full scope of protections of the individual's God given rights against government power were respected.

The prevailing judgment prior to 9-11 was that this was the way to handle International Islamic terrorism; one case at a time, one crime at a time and one defendant at a time...

Then on 9-11-2001, International Islamic Terrorism changed the paradigm...

That Bush was President was merely a gift from God himself; that a man capable of setting aside the stupefying effects of socialist PC policy and to take on the responsibility of pursuing these animals to wherever they can crawl and destroy them whenever they are found. And that is what Bush has done...

Bush will leave office in January of 2009, not one dime wealthier than when he arrived in office; not having recieved a penny from anyone beyond his Government salary and a new administration will take power; he will not contest this in any way; nor will he spend the next four years second guessing his successor; as has HIS predecessor... and that he was in office on 9-11 will be recored by some as coincidence and others a fate... but either way, there was very little Bush could have done to have prevented it, given the information he had at that time and this WHOLLY WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF HINDSIGHT.

Not one dime.... several billions dollars richer.

Do you not think that BUSHTEAM have a big party every 911? I do.

 

[jillian]

Provide EVIDENCE FDR knew about and allowed Pearl Harbor. When you do submit it for review and you should win lots of money from someone. You claim to know history and make this IGNORANT claim.

Next you will be telling us when did not need to drop the bombs on Japan cause they were gonna surrender.

I wouldn't be so outraged by the assertion that there was some advance knowledge of Pearl Harbor. It's not like that's a new debate. And at least one rear admiral asserted some advance knowledge.

Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge debate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think the reason these discussions happen is a lack of transparency on the part of government as well as people's inability to believe "something like this could happen" simply because of incompetence.

I'm certainly not a conspiracy theorist and I don't think even Bush is so venal as to allow thousands of people to die for no reason, however, when your intelligence says there are guys from the middle east learning how to fly jets but not wanting to know how to land those jets, little bells should maybe go off. It's that kind of failure that allows people to fill in the blanks of their astonishment with all kinds of fabulous conspiracies.

Personally, I think this administration has proven it isn't competent enough to have pulled off something like 9/11 and I don't think it would have been possible for so many necessary people to be silent and keep such a secret.