aren't these just a teensy bit biased? :bugeye:
WTC Collapses
- Thread starter scott3x
- Start date
- Status
aren't these just a teensy bit biased? :bugeye:
you're right, I think this would be better:
What is your favourite color cause of collapse?
1. blue.
6. Iraqi terrorists in order that the US get rid of Saddam
3. thermite planes.
7. The Council on Foreign Relations.
4. I hate Scott.
I assume that Stryder put the poll up. I certainly didn't 
. I like the idea of a poll, although I agree that the questions could use some work. I just voted, obviously for the controlled demolition bit; and yes, I do believe that they were done in order to bolster the arguments for going to war against Afghanistan and then Iraq, but it may be best not to put that in because it can distract from the strongest argument- namely all the evidence that the buildings were taken down by controlled demolitions instead of by the planes.
. I like the idea of a poll, although I agree that the questions could use some work. I just voted, obviously for the controlled demolition bit; and yes, I do believe that they were done in order to bolster the arguments for going to war against Afghanistan and then Iraq, but it may be best not to put that in because it can distract from the strongest argument- namely all the evidence that the buildings were taken down by controlled demolitions instead of by the planes.
I assume that Stryder put the poll up. I certainly didn't
Only a mod can put up a poll after a thread is already started.
Scott, you will be happy to know that I agree with you on the point that the US Government looked me square in the eye and cold lied to me about why we went to war in Iraq. When we first started the war in Iraq, there was no mention of 9/11. They told us that Saddam had an active WMD program, and it was critical that we go in and stop it. Only problem, when they did go in, there wasn't an active WMD program going on. It wasn't until we found no WMDs that they started making the Al qaeda/Iraq bogus connection, trying to come up with an excuse for invading a soverign country for nothing, except to remove it's leader...and grab some oil.
We don't need to blow up buildings to need an excuse to start a war. We started the war in Iraq based on some faulty intelligence on WMDs and that was pretty much it.
The only reason we went to war in Afghanistan was for revenge. American's were pissed after 9/11 and we wanted to kick someone's ass for blowing up our buildings...and Afghanistan is where Al qaeda was at. Why would America want that shit hole country anyway? The Soviets couldn't control Afghanistan, because the native population has a reputation for it's zeal and determination. There are lot of other countries that would be much easier to occupy and have a lot more oil.
Yeah, it did. My impression was that it failed to connect Al-Qaeda to Saddam, but they still kept on pushing that he had WMD and was thinking of using it on the U.S. soon.
Apparently Colin Powell bought into it too and I remember reading at one point that he might not have supported the war if he'd known that what he was saying was bogus; he retracted it later though.
Maybe we should have a poll like this:
1- The official story regarding the WTC Collapses is the sacred truth. Questioning it is blasphemous.
2- The official story is more or less right. No need to investigate further.
3- The official story is questionable in some areas. An independent investigation should be made.
4- The official story is full of holes. An independent investigation should be made.
5- The official story is a half baked farce. The twin towers and WTC 7 were taken down by controlled demolitions. An independent investigation is long overdue.
1- The official story regarding the WTC Collapses is the sacred truth. Questioning it is blasphemous.
2- The official story is more or less right. No need to investigate further.
3- The official story is questionable in some areas. An independent investigation should be made.
4- The official story is full of holes. An independent investigation should be made.
5- The official story is a half baked farce. The twin towers and WTC 7 were taken down by controlled demolitions. An independent investigation is long overdue.
well you want to pick things up from where they make you happy. realistically, at the earliest, you would need to look at the first gulf war. which was due entirely to saddam invading a neighboring country and the u.s\allies certainly did not take it upon themselves to help.
how do you know what may have happened to wmd's that saddam did have? there was ample time to move them and the only proof there is is that he did have them at one time and did use them.
The invasion of iraq was very fast but the aftermath and the real problems started afterwards. for some reason people dont want to see iraq succeed but to feel this way to support a scenario or satisfy some animosity is very selfish and a disservice to the people effected.
well whatever makes you happy.
Scott, this is not a zeitgeist thread. if you look there are a few zeitgeist threads, but i found the movie extremely simplistic. i do know the appeal to simpletons. to be fair i am very cynical, and honestly the only time i feel\felt as though i am being brainwashed or an attempt at it is being made is when i look at 'movies' like that.
Last edited:
Just curious, Scott. How much of that video do you believe? Do you believe in the Illuminati? ..or did you just post the video for the one Tucker Carlson quote?
There was one line in the teaser, that went something like this: "You would think that a situation like this would be on the front page of every newspaper...until you realize the people behind this movement are the same people behind the main stream media." Do you believe the government controls every main stream media outlet, Scott? Do you think the US government has enough influence to quiet all media outlets in the Western world? I guess someone forgot to tell Woodward and Bernstein and the Washington Post when they helped bring about the impeachment of President Nixon, back in the 70's. The video did say this has been going on for 60 years.
The first Gulf War was caused as John points out by Saddam sending troops to occupy Kuwait. This caused Both English and US troops to be sent to oust Saddam from Kuwait.
During that time it was proven that Saddam had build vast "Super-guns" from pipework meant for shipping oil. Saddam had already at that point tested poison gas attacks in the northern Shite controlled territories of Iraq and it was suggested that he was likely preparing weapons for a war that could allow bombs to be launched at neighbouring countries.
With that the coalition of the time forced Iraqi occupants of Kuwait to flee, they even had the support of some of the Iraqi people for Saddam's removal. Saddam's soldiers at his expressed permission set alight to oil derricks during their retreat to slow down coalition forces.
Once the Iraqi's were back over their border, the pursuit was called off. This was under Bush Senior. For the years that followed Iraq had UN weapons inspectors sent to inspect their weapons to make sure that Saddam wasn't up to anything that could be a threat and during those years Saddam gave those weapons inspectors the run around. Often stating where they could or could not go and when.
He was also extremely outspoken about Bush Senior, Which itself left ignored could symbolise some weakness.
I would guess before Bush could push on dealing with him once and for all, Clinton was voted in. Clinton didn't pick up the gauntlet which would suggest that perhaps Bush Senior would forever wish he'd finished operations up by perhaps removing Saddam.
Once Bush Junior was in though, He had the opportunity to clean up those things that his Father had possibly complained about not being able to do. Obviously it does add to the bias that it was his intention to deal with Iraq but to be honest they really should of finished the job the first time round because during the time in between, Saddam exterminated or made disappear anyone that was a threat to him through Hit Squads.
This is why the second time round, the coalition forces weren't greeted with the same support because we left those previous supports to hang out to dry.
During that time it was proven that Saddam had build vast "Super-guns" from pipework meant for shipping oil. Saddam had already at that point tested poison gas attacks in the northern Shite controlled territories of Iraq and it was suggested that he was likely preparing weapons for a war that could allow bombs to be launched at neighbouring countries.
With that the coalition of the time forced Iraqi occupants of Kuwait to flee, they even had the support of some of the Iraqi people for Saddam's removal. Saddam's soldiers at his expressed permission set alight to oil derricks during their retreat to slow down coalition forces.
Once the Iraqi's were back over their border, the pursuit was called off. This was under Bush Senior. For the years that followed Iraq had UN weapons inspectors sent to inspect their weapons to make sure that Saddam wasn't up to anything that could be a threat and during those years Saddam gave those weapons inspectors the run around. Often stating where they could or could not go and when.
He was also extremely outspoken about Bush Senior, Which itself left ignored could symbolise some weakness.
I would guess before Bush could push on dealing with him once and for all, Clinton was voted in. Clinton didn't pick up the gauntlet which would suggest that perhaps Bush Senior would forever wish he'd finished operations up by perhaps removing Saddam.
Once Bush Junior was in though, He had the opportunity to clean up those things that his Father had possibly complained about not being able to do. Obviously it does add to the bias that it was his intention to deal with Iraq but to be honest they really should of finished the job the first time round because during the time in between, Saddam exterminated or made disappear anyone that was a threat to him through Hit Squads.
This is why the second time round, the coalition forces weren't greeted with the same support because we left those previous supports to hang out to dry.
Tony Szamboti
Registered Senior Member
Exactly.
Remember the "Mohammed Atta was observed by Czech intelligence meeting with an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague in March of 2001" talking point. We now know that little diddy came right out of Dick Cheney's office. I admit I fell for it and kept wondering when they were going to have Czech authorities vouch for it. They never did and no proof was ever produced for it. So how did they know it happened to begin with? There were a number of implications that Saddam may have been behind 911 before we went into Iraq. It was only after not being able to show any links at all that the Bush administration finally admitted he had nothing to do with it.
Tony Szamboti
Registered Senior Member
There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein was a bad guy and a few years ago, before studying what really happened on 911, I had exactly the same thoughts on Saddam Hussein and Iraq that you do. I couldn't believe Bush senior made General Schwarzkopf stop before he could completely destroy the Republican Guard. I also couldn't believe he let the Iraqis fly combat helicopters which they were murdering thousands of Kurds and Shiites with after flushing them out of their villages into the open. I also couldn't understand why we didn't back the Kurds and Shiites revolt then. The line about keeping Hussein in as a hedge against Iran is nonsense. Who has Iran ever invaded?
However, in 2002 we are talking about whether or not he was an imminent threat to the United States, which would be the only reason to justify invasion. Have you read Vincent Bugliosi's book "The prosecution of George W. Bush for murder"?
In a classified National Intelligence Estimate report in October 2002 U.S. intelligence agencies in unison told George W. Bush that Saddam Hussein was not an imminent threat to the national security of the United States. Just days later George W. Bush told us, the American people, the exact opposite. In that same week the Bush White House released an unclassified version of the NIE, which became known as the white paper. In it they had deleted the paragraphs which stated that Saddam was not deemed to be an imminent threat. This unclassified Bush White House version is what was given to the American people and the Congress. Congress authorized Bush to use force against Iraq the next week.
The events of Sept. 11, 2001 appear to involve upper level Kuwaitis, who are known to have purchased the security company that handled the security for the twin towers and then installed George W. Bush's brother and cousin on it's board of directors. They also involve upper level Saudis who probably provided most of the intelligence agents who became the patsies. Nobody can deny that both of these groups wanted Saddam out of the picture. However, since he was not truly a threat to the United States something had to be manufactured to gain support to move on him. Isn't it interesting that the 19 hijackers all came from countries on friendly terms with the United States? 15 were Saudis, 1 Egyptian, 1 Lebanese, and 2 from the United Arab Emirates. Al-Queda apparently couldn't get Iraqis or Afghanis. Do you ever wonder why?
In my opinion, 911 was a big investment the primary purpose of which was related to OIL. One was gaining control of the Afghan oil and gas pipeline to the Caspian area and the other to gain control of Iraq's vast oil reserves, by using the fear generated by 911 to garner support to remove Saddam by implication with his alleged support of international terrorism (other than Palestinians) in conjunction with his having WMD. This is why the nebulous War on Terror theme was used so they could invade wherever they wanted if they justified it by going after terrorists or even terrorism potential. This is why the Axis of Evil had Iraq in it. That is why the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive invasion was created. 911 was the seeding event which allowed all of this to be possible.
We now know that the alleging of Iraqi's throwing babies out of incubators in Kuwait in 1990 was a lie told to Congress and the American people by the Kuwaiti ambassador's daughter. She was coached on what to say. We also now know that Kuwait was slant drilling into Iraq. I am not saying I now endorse Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, I don't, but I am saying we were not told the whole story and were even lied to on some things there also.
Unfortunately, there is no question that the twin towers and WTC 7 were taken down via controlled demolitions, so it appears that the aircraft impacts were causal ruses to allow the blaming of outsiders. People from Iraq and Afghanistan had nothing to do with it, as none of them were hijackers and the FBI has stated it has no solid evidence against Bin laden for 911. Furthermore, foreign terrorists could not have had the access required to set charges in those buildings. This all points to 911 being an inside job designed to garner our support for the use of the U.S. military for these oil objectives of the few.
The sad part is that we could probably be energy independent at this point with Alternative energies, like Brazil, if oil interests did not have a stranglehold on our government for years. Thankfully people seem to be waking up and that seems to be slowly changing.
Last edited:
Saddam was manipulated into invading Kuwait by the US and the Kuwaitis.
The Kuwaitis were waging economic war on Iraq in order to provoke him. In addition to the slant drilling during the iran-iraq war, they broke their agreed OPEC quotas and oversupplied the market to bring down the oil price. Iraq needed the higher oil price to recover from the iran-iraq war. The Kuwaitis had every opportunity to negotiate legitimate greviances to a settlement, but they refused at every opportunity.
Damning documents were found in Kuwait after the invasion that implicated the Kuwaitis in deliberate manipulation of iraqs deteriorating economy, these documents showed that the CIA were involved at the highest levels with the Kuwaiti rulers advising of "appropriate means of pressure" on iraq - the Kuwait foreign minister fainted when he was confronted with the documents by the Iraqi Foreign minister.
In the days prior to the invasion Saddam Hussein was told by ambassador April Glaspie that the US had no position on the Iraq-Kuwait dispute which was clearly false. The Kuwaiti royals had evacuated all their gold and rolls royces etc well before the iraqi buildup and invasion.
We were also told that the Iraqis were deploying on the border of saudi arabia and threatening the saudi oil fields, this was also a lie.
"In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies" - Winston Churchill.
..by the way, Winston Churchill was the first person to gas the Kurds.
The Kuwaitis were waging economic war on Iraq in order to provoke him. In addition to the slant drilling during the iran-iraq war, they broke their agreed OPEC quotas and oversupplied the market to bring down the oil price. Iraq needed the higher oil price to recover from the iran-iraq war. The Kuwaitis had every opportunity to negotiate legitimate greviances to a settlement, but they refused at every opportunity.
Damning documents were found in Kuwait after the invasion that implicated the Kuwaitis in deliberate manipulation of iraqs deteriorating economy, these documents showed that the CIA were involved at the highest levels with the Kuwaiti rulers advising of "appropriate means of pressure" on iraq - the Kuwait foreign minister fainted when he was confronted with the documents by the Iraqi Foreign minister.
In the days prior to the invasion Saddam Hussein was told by ambassador April Glaspie that the US had no position on the Iraq-Kuwait dispute which was clearly false. The Kuwaiti royals had evacuated all their gold and rolls royces etc well before the iraqi buildup and invasion.
We were also told that the Iraqis were deploying on the border of saudi arabia and threatening the saudi oil fields, this was also a lie.
"In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies" - Winston Churchill.
..by the way, Winston Churchill was the first person to gas the Kurds.
I don't think he actually did, I think he suggested that Gas could be used.
i believe saddam was fully capable of transferring WMD to the terrorists.
- Status