Building 7 was the most obvious example of the 3 that fell

They were commercial airlines...

 

There were no WMDs in Iraq. What does that have to do with 9-11?

 

NIST has stated that it found no corroborating evidence to suggest that explosives were used to bring down the buildings. NIST did not conduct tests for explosives residue as noted above, such tests would not necessarily have been conclusive.

 

two objects the exact same size but weigh differently will fall the same speed...but two objects the same weight but different size will fall at different speeds..the larger one falls slower...basic physics

 

I don't know Margot you tell me. Because 911 was the sole impetus that garnered congressional support for an Iraqi invasion.

So please tell me WTF 9/11 had to do with Iraq.

Please don't tell me it was just take down bad guy Saddam. Because he was mean and nasty and a little ill tempered.

 

The PNAC had been lobbying to attack Iraq and take down Saddam since the end of Clinton's term.

Their letters are available.

 

Uhhuh and the PNAC are responsible for congress and the people of the USA all supporting an attack on Saddam??? Does that sound credible at all??? no.

Here is the story of the mystery of the great Barry Jennings, Deputy Director of Emergency services and was in Building 7. He is also the black man covered in soot in the earlier video, but here is his story below

[video=youtube;nO9Tsigk5fc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nO9Tsigk5fc[/video]

Yep he's dead.

So who are you going to believe, the people who were there or the written word delivered by unknown entities for mass conception on channels long known as purveyors of lies.

 

Regime change in Iraq was the policy of the U.S. long before the end of Clinton's term.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act

Beyond that, 9/11 was not "the sole impetus" for the authorization for the use of Military force in Iraq. The resolution listed:

Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, including interference with U.N. weapons inspectors.
Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."
Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt on former President George H. W. Bush and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.
Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
Iraq paid bounty to families of suicide bombers.
The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, and those who aided or harbored them.
The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
The governments in Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia feared Saddam and wanted him removed from power.
Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.

See that one I highlighted in bold? Seems like that one's still all the rage among certain circles these days.

 

I opposed the war on Iraq.. and FYI.. Saddam paid money to Palestinian families that lost property or loved ones to Israel.

 

Uhuh and If I brought up that little resolution without a 9/11 it goes NOWHERE and you know that, I know that and the world knows that. Just because I write on a napkin that I punched my brother in the face because I hate unicorns kinda wreaks of BS.

- - - Updated - - -

Regime change was only on the table after Iraq under Saddam failed to conquer Iran for the US. In which case we KNEW he used mass chemical weapons against the Iranians and DID NOT CARE!

 

Ah.... the motive and means?

so how long you gonna dodge responding to the pentagon light pole mower? heh heh

at first you were so enthusiastic and shocked and now total silence.

I guess a twoofer threw a wrench into your works again! LMAO

 

No,It wasn't the 'sole impetus'....

 

Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. Bush wanted to take Saddam out and one up his father.

 

it would take months to set up charges for each floor the way they believe..each floor would have to be separate..98 or so separate systems..easier way would be to take out bottom floor and the whole tower would come down..and maybe smack these idiots in the head and knock some smarts in them..but i doubt it..they are awfully hard headed

 

<cough> what a load of horse (*)(*)(*)(*)......Saddam paid money to the families of suicide bombers for attacks IN Israel..

 

Is this what you think passes for rational discussion? The only thing that *reeks of BS is your strawman. We can deal in facts, or we can deal in your fantasies. Frankly, I prefer the former. The resolution and the conditions of the resolution are facts. They are the former. What you think would have happened if things were different is the latter.

Regime change was on the table since the failure of the '91 agreement. The attack on the Kurds happened before the first Gulf war. We attempted to lobby the U.N. for regime change during Desert Storm, and they voted NO. We honored that vote, but enforced a no fly zone. from '92 to '03. We never left the gulf. There was always a presence there. In fact, it's one of the reasons why Osama declared war on us.

Between then and the last war there were two other military actions: Desert Strike, and Desert Fox. So your characterization of our involvement in Iraq is a little more like the unicorn you wrote about, than the truth.

 

So we are in the business of killing MILLIONS to one up our own relatives? And you are ok with this to the point that indiscriminate mass murder is ok and hunky dory if state sanctioned by the president in a game of one up manship? Do you realize how insane that sounds..

 

<sigh> the iran-iraq conflict was over 10 YEARS prior to the passage of the Iraqi liberation act



try again,sock.

 

Bush wanted to strike out at someone for 9-11.. and Saddam was on his to do list. I resigned the Republican party.

He created a void in the ME...

 

You are arguing with Margot2's speculation, not reality.

You're also missing the point.

Do you realize how insane it sounds to say that 9/11 was self inflicted in order to attack Iraq?

 

Really,they could have done something like the USS Stark for a lot less...

 

You still have not addressed the fact that we were OK with Saddam using Chem weapons against Iran. Self inflicted wounds are carried out all the time in varying scales to stimulate the populace. Take for instance Marius and his decimation of his legions after their failure to stop The Slave revolts started by Spartacus. Or when Vercingetorix released 5-6000 women and children from the Alesia fortification in hopes that Rome would be forced to kill them or feed them. Either way it was of benefit to the Gaul. How about the Lusitania?? It is a fact that there were munitions, MANY munitions stowed below deck and the civilians on board had NO IDEA. Gulf of Tonkin??? The Spanish sure as hell did not attack the Maine either but there was war to be had. You have a VERY short memory, besides ALL war is self inflicted death and that is the truth.


Edit: Not Marius, it was Crassus. Although Marius probably used Decimation at some point versus the Gauls.

 

Lots of people want to believe that 9-11 was a self inflicted inside job. There is no evidence to support that.

 

Who's we?

So you're point is that it's insane to want to one up your father, but not insane to cut off your foot so that you can start a fight with someone? Great debate skills there.

The choices were:

1. Continue the Clinton policy of starving the Iraqi people into submission and occasionally launch a few airstrikes to keep Iraq in line.

2. Remove Saddam from power through force.

3. Become Friends.

What do YOU think should have been done?

 

There is plenty of evidence to support that as there is plenty of evidence to support that pearl harbor was known about ahead of time.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8932197/Pearl-Harbour-memo-shows-US-warned-of-Japanese-attack.html

Yet here we are assuming to trust those who deserve no trust.