Government group supressing 9/11 connections?

discuss

Not to use Maddox's idea too heavily, but; If the government can pull of 9/11 they can sure as hell keep it in the dark.

The bigger thing i've never been able to get my head round is why you voted Bush back in after he presided the biggest defence failure in american history

Cause there were no competent competitors.

I'm not surprised.

Hey, I used to live right near Fort Mead, I used to go to Burba Lake all the time, and my dad worked there

Food for the conspiracy theory.

Don't have the bandwidth to watch that, will get around to it later. IF it's Loose Change, I am just going to post a video response.

noir wrote:Not to use Maddox's idea too heavily, but; If the government can pull of 9/11

Which they can't. Not in a million years.

noir wrote:they can sure as hell keep it in the dark.

Now, riddle me this:
If the Gov't can blow up three towers in plain sight, buy off every aviation/demolition/mechanical/civil engineer in the civilized world, and pay off everyone who was involved, why the HELL can't they yank a video down off the internet thirty seconds after it's been posted? Why can't they keep tabs on anybody who starts asking around about 9-11? Why didn't those two nutjobs who filmed "Loose change" die of a car accident, or a drug overdose, before uploading the film onto the internet?

The answer: The Government isn't doing anything of the sort.

noir wrote:The bigger thing i've never been able to get my head round is why you voted Bush back in after he presided the biggest defence failure in american history

Maybe because 9-11 WASN'T a defense failure. NOTHING in the system was designed to prevent such an attack. A plane switches off the transponder over the east coast, you need to go through FIVE THOUSAND identical blips on the radar to track it down. What REALLY doesn't help is the fact that the air traffic control equipment dates back to WWII tech.

Bush stepped in, rallied the country, kicked in the Taliban's teeth, and did a smashing good job around the time of the 2004 election, thank you very much.

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:IF it's Loose Change, I am just going to post a video response.

it's from RussiaToday.

It's about a very recent thing that's been leaked.

well if the government did kill the loose change people wouldn't it just arouse more suspicion to them? Like all conspiracies we'll probably never know.

an why are you trusting the Russian media on a US government leak?

tiny tim wrote:an why are you trusting the Russian media on a US government leak?

It has more credibility than a lose change video.

Rasq wrote:Why can't they keep tabs on anybody who starts asking around about 9-11? Why didn't those two nutjobs who filmed "Loose change" die of a car accident, or a drug overdose, before uploading the film onto the internet?

Maybe because they're relying on people like you to put forth such arguments?

tiny tim wrote:an why are you trusting the Russian media on a US government leak?

its in english lol

tbh I don't know why its called russia today. none of the content is in russian and only a tiny piece (almost smaller than america's media russia coverage) covers russia at all.

KristallNacht wrote:Cause there were no competent competitors.

A blind amoeba would of been better than Bush.

Sadly no blind amoebas have ever made it that far in politics. Except for Teddy the blind amoeba, but we all know what happened there.

it would have been.

but John kerry wasn't a blind ameoba

No, but he was a little more competant than Bush.

Not to mention the fact that Bush had supposeldy tampered with the votes the first time.

And he'd sent you into two costly wars.

And you still voted him back.

For the last time, Bush DID NOT rig the election.

No, I'm pretty sure they were both of comparable mental capacity.

Yep, I remember that devil bush sending us into war when EVERYONE didn't want to, I remember it juuuuuuust like it was yesterday.

You didn't think Bush slithered into the ballot boxes like an evil santa klaus and replaced all the good presents with the bad? BLASPHEMY!

uummm..... not sure if youre agreeing with me or not there...

Agreeing

I just wish for once people would look at what Bush did RIGHT instead of blowing up everything he did wrong.

Bush resisted the urge the censor the media. I would not have been able to do so in his position.

(because they were so critical of him later on)

indeed.

who in there right mind looking at the situation logically would have not gone to war
after being attacked and having mass casualties (bigger than any single attack on the US ever) after no provocation
after being threatened
after (although not very good thoughts) thinking they have WMDs
and hey look someone who wants massive change said

Obama warned that al-Qaida is actively planning attacks on the United States from secret havens in Pakistan. He said he was setting new benchmarks and sending in 4,000 more troops, hundreds of civilians and increased aid for a six-year war that has seemed to be easing in Iraq


hmm maybe bush wasnt crazy after all maybe the media sucks and he didnt handle it the best way possible

ReconToaster wrote:

Rasq wrote:Why can't they keep tabs on anybody who starts asking around about 9-11? Why didn't those two nutjobs who filmed "Loose change" die of a car accident, or a drug overdose, before uploading the film onto the internet?

Maybe because they're relying on people like you to put forth such arguments?

Which would really only work if I had something to go on. Which I do. Solid facts.

Vigil wrote:

KristallNacht wrote:Cause there were no competent competitors.

A blind amoeba would of been better than Bush.

You say that now. How 'bout then?

Vigil wrote:No, but he was a little more competant than Bush.

Not to mention the fact that Bush had supposeldy tampered with the votes the first time.

Bullocks. Never been proven. That theory is to Democrats as "Obama is a closet Muslim" is to Republicans. Pure vindictiveness giving life to an urban legend.

Vigil wrote:And he'd sent you into two costly wars.

Neither of which were costly or going sour at the time.
Seriously, people, I can understand why you don't like Bush, but can we AT LEAST try to look at things four-dimensionally here?

BBJynne wrote:Bush resisted the urge the censor the media. I would not have been able to do so in his position.

(because they were so critical of him later on)

Oh, yeah.
If I'd been in his position, there would've been a lot of people blackbagged or sandbagged. Starting with Micheal Moore.

How about "Successfully rallied the nation after the worst attack in sixty years*, and then went on to kick an oppressive regime out of it's home country, freeing the Afghani people."

"Tried to get the Democrats in Congress to take care of the housing bubble and put regulation on Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac."

*How you count Pearl Harbor depends. While the Japanese did kill more people in that attack, Hawaii was a territory, not a state.

kslidz wrote:who in there right mind looking at the situation logically would have not gone to war
after being attacked and having mass casualties (bigger than any single attack on the US ever) after no provocation
after being threatened
after (although not very good thoughts) thinking they have WMDs

you mean.

After being attacked by a group with no affiliation to the group we wanted to go to war with.
After not being threatened by anyone aside from same group with no affiliation to the target of our war.
AND after being shown into pretty much every nook and cranny of the country to affirm that there were no WMDs.


The government even released documents showing that 1. they had been given great details about the 9/11 attack before it happened, as WELL as documents showing they deliberately mislead the public to believe there was a connection between 9/11 and Iraq when none existed.