B. Thomas Cooper - Editor
I've been reading through the 9/11 Commission Report, and it really doesn't do much to address some of the hard questions. It seems almost unconscionable to suggest the Bush administration could have been complicit in the events of 9/11, and yet, a great many Americans believe it to be true. Then again, one need not be a physicist to realize the official version of the story simply doesn't stack up.
Much like a house of cards, both towers tumbled to the ground in a matter of minutes, defying the laws of physics. The impact of the aircraft, and the subsequent explosion of jet fuel has been blamed for compromising the integrity of the structures, but leaves us with more questions than answers. If indeed, the towers fell due to structural failure, why then would building seven also fail? It was not struck by aircraft, nor was it built in the same manner as the towers. How does a building three blocks long collapse from a localized debris fire? Obviously, it doesn't.
Perhaps you are not familiar with the World Trade Center complex prior to 9/11. As such, it would be easy to overlook the obvious contradictions concerning the event. Throughout history, no other buildings have failed in a similar manner and yet, we are expected to believe that this fluke of physics occurred not once, but three times, in a single location.
Could the Bush administration have somehow been involved in orchestrating these events? Frankly, the jury is out. We know for a fact, however, that the administration of Dwight Eisenhower drew up plans for similar attacks on US soil to bolster support for invasions of the USSR and Cuba. The covert operation, known as Operation Northwoods' was wholly rejected by subsequent administrations, but a precedent had been set. The US government had proven beyond doubt, a capability to kill innocent Americans.
911 Report
Could 9/11 be another Operation Northwoods'? Unfortunately, it appears entirely possible. Just as the North tower was beginning to list to one side, a series of explosions occurred at street level, causing the building to buckle from beneath, bringing it straight down. These explosions could not have been the result of exploding fuel, as heat rises. Furthermore, we watched in terror as the jet fuel erupted into flames. What then, could have caused the explosions at street level?
We may never know the truth about 9/11, but we certainly know the official explanation is flawed and unacceptable. Could George W. Bush and his administration have knowingly murdered thousands of Americans? One can only wonder.
B. Thomas Cooper - Editor
Sound Foundation Entertainment - National Newswire - The Infinite Echo - Impeachment Now! - Sound
.gif)
1 comment:
Knun,
First off, I haven't deleted any of your comments, although there are some I have yet to read and post. I have been away from my desk for most of the weekend.
As for protocol, fret not. I support your first amendment rights. You are welcome to express yourself as you wish, however, I don't always feel obligated to respond to your satisfaction.
As for 9/11, fear was the plan and the plan succeeded. You are afraid, and as such, the terrorists win, hands down.
Since you claim to have read the report, I assume you realize there were no Afghanis or Iraqis involved. There were 15 Saudis, two Egyptians, One Yemeni, and one from Sudan.
We claimed to attack Afghanistan because they would not hand over bin Laden, which of course has proven a load of shit. It was all about a natural gas pipeline.
Meanwhile, we accused Saddam Hussein of having WMD's which also proved to be false. However, the US has slaughtered thousands of innocent people as a result. Still no bin Laden and no wmd's.
For you to support a bad war on false premise is unconscionable. You are pro-life and pro murder? No Knun, you are a foolish hypocrite with big gaping holes in your ethical fabric. Truth be told, you are a nice guy, but your support for Bush makes you complicit in the deaths of thousands. You cannot talk your way around it. Not to the left, not to the right.
As for the aircraft flown into the towers, I have found evidence suggesting they could have easily been prototypes of the Boeing KC-767 Air Tanker. Do I think the Bush administration could have been involved? I hope not, but I haven't ruled it out.
Riddle this...
Prior to the US invasion of Iraq, George W. Bush claimed he spoke directly with God, adding that God not only encouraged Bush to invade Iraq, but assured Bush the US would suffer no casualties in the process.
What you fail to grasp is either God lied to Bush, or Bush lied to you. You need to sort it out and get it right. You may think you can win this little debate with me, but if I were you, it wouldn't be me I was concerned with. You've got bigger issues. Like it or not, it is you who has blood on your hands, and it won't wash clean. I may be a
jackass, but this is one jackass who will go to the glue factory with clean hands. The pen has always been mightier than the sword. I'll do my dirty work with words.
Never has a just war been waged. Never has a noble cause been accomplished through bloodshed. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
"Pride commeth before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall."
There will never be question as to whose side of the fence I'm on. There are no excuses for war I will accept. Preemptive invasion on false premise? How cheaply will sell our souls.
None of the 9/11 hijackers entered the USA through the Mexican border. They all flew in from Europe. Some terrorists have entered through Canada, but none have crossed in from Mexico. Yet, I never hear you utter a word about closing the border with Canada. I haven't heard you demand a fence between the US and Canada to prevent another 9/11.
In closing, I normally don't write conspiracy related articles, as they tend to undermine credibility.
However, I was approached about writing articles on the moon landings and 9/11. I kept each article brief, and simple. I have researched each subject and in each case, uncovered evidence contrary to official versions.
This is the grist that drives such conspiracies. I know when I contacted NASA concerning the debris left behind on the moon, they reacted quite strangely. I asked some rather basic questions, and they responded with a diatribe on conspiracy theories. I was not inquiring about conspiracy theories.
Personally, I won't be thanking Bush for breaking US and international law by invading Iraq.
I won't be thanking him for urging the insurgency to "bring it on". I won't be thanking him for taking liberties with our young soldiers who owe it to their loved ones to come home in one piece. I won't thank him for burdening our children with horrific national debt. I won't be thanking him for the damage he has done to Americas reputation throughout the world.
I won't thank him for violating our constitution, and I won't thank him for torturing our enemies. I won't thank him for spying on my neighbors, and I won't thank him for stoking the fires of fear.
I'm just not that kind of thankful.
However, I am thankful you insist on keeping up the conversation. It's good for both of us to fight this through, and that is why I support it.
Thanks for reading my articles. Contrary to what you may believe, my friends don't read my work.
Brad
Post a Comment