What's so different about the US government than any other government? Governments are known to sacrifice people including their own (sometimes in economic ways, sometimes in other ways), especially the big ones. I tend to believe that they are/ were all the same: The US, the British Empire, the USSR, the Nazi Germany. All these are known to have relied heavily on slave labor as well as to have conducted the worst, biggest crimes against humanity, in full accordance with their size. People falsely associate humanity with civilization. But being civilized and technologically evolved does not mean you have to be humane at the same time. Look at the Nazi. They were decades ahead of the rest of the world. They were one of the most civilized nations. Yet they set up very organized exterminating machines at an industrial scale that were by no means meant for the Jews alone. Looking at USA historically we see that it's the one to have used nuclear weapons of mass destruction on Japanese civilians. But even more were killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. We also note that throughout the lengthy history of the far right movement known as the Ku Klux Klan, organized, secret racism branched itself up to some of the highest governmental levels. It's curious that so few people today speak about the atrocities done to the black American population until the 50s and 60s when most of the police would turn a blind eye to the random killings yet everybody speaks about the crimes conducted in the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany around the same decades. Looking at the Bush administration we see that they were very far to the right as well. PNAC's manifesto is basically a bible advocating for war, destruction of 'the enemies' and direct, explicitly expressed rule of the whole world. Nothing short of what the Nazis, Napoleon or the USSR wanted. The only difference is that they learned from these ones in the past (or so they thought) and decided to go the subtle way about it (this strategy goes back decades at least), stay passive in the face of criticism (unlike USSR or 3rd Reich) and sell the freedom of speech thing, because over the history it was learned that only in that way will people drop suspicion. Only when a thing is no longer forbidden will it become uninteresting. But once you read PNAC's manifesto, it all becomes so clear to you as to what happened on 9/11. Once you read it you will know 9/11 better than you know what your name is. They did just like Raskolnikov gave himself away by writing his article about the 'superior being' before committing the murders. It straight self-incriminates about 9/11. Nowadays that document seems to be such a taboo. I see that it's gone from everywhere. You can no longer find it very easily on the whole internet. How come? Isn't that interesting? So the question is... what makes you think the last government wouldn't do it?
But the question is... what makes you think that? When a murder happens in a big house, the first ones to be questioned by the police are the owner of that house and the family living there. That's how the logic of an investigation goes. This is something that happened in USA's own backyard yet they accused some people on the opposite side of the planet. 48 minutes passed between the transponder on Flight 11 was turned off and the 2nd plane hit WTC2. 48 minutes.... No response... This proves any foreign power could have disguised nuclear heads inside airliners and destroyed all America at a bargain price up until 2001. Wake up people.
whats your security clearance that you think you are qualified to say that or are you a fly on the wall? It was already approved by the joint chiefs of staff. Operation Northwoods US PLANNED TERROR ATTACKS ON CITIZENS http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/northwoods.html
lol!!! let us know when you find classified DOD documents detailing the govt. conspiracy to fly 4 planes into buildings on 9-11-01 and blaim Arabs.
Hahahahhaa nice one. But it was more than money. Some people are obsessed with power and the ability to rule the world. But anybody who will try to rule the world will fail, like in the past. Whether you try it in a direct, violent way, or whether you try it in a subtle, gradual way, you always lose eventually. The will of the rest of the people to be independent is simply too strong. The laws of nature prevent that. That mystical sect that heavily influenced the Bush administration thinks has won. It already is building the fabled anti-missile shield here in Romania. But in the end, that won't make a difference. It only will bring potentially more destruction.
Can you explain why? Do you know how much attention the defence system pays to everything including the airliners? By 2001 USA had no rivals in the world. No one that could take USA head on in a conventional assault and same had been for a long time until then. More than anything they always pay attention to unconventional, subtle, guerilla means of attack. When you're big you always protect from the small. USA defence knows even if an airliner has deviated by a centimeter. Would you expect a Russian or Chinese naval attack on USA as of 2001? Yes... the official version of 9/11 totally 'proves' that foreign powers could have launched a massive unconventional attack on US soil via fake passenger jets loaded with nuclear explosives and biological weapons, which is impossible.
you might want to look up what a strawman argument is LOL Lok in the same place you found footprint LMAO
one begets the other. If someone had the most money in the world they could move governments. Now if they had their pals inserted in several places, they would want more money for their pals that they do not have to pay out of pocket. As this good ole boy old moneyed aristocratic system grows and expands so does the need to fleece more sheep. money begets power
Strawman argument: a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. No one has argued that the US govt wouldn't do it. The OP is a strawman argument.
Then who is he addressing, himself? The OP presupposes that someone thinks the US govt wouldn't do it. No one here has ever made that claim. Hence: strawman argument.
since when is an OP limited to "here"? Starting to duck for cover already I see. 7% do not feel the US government was behind the attacks. Its pretty safe to bet he is referring to those whom believe the US was not involved.
According to the graph you didn't provide a source for, 85% don't believe the US govt was behind the attack. (Way to misread a chart, Jojo) But that's not the argument of the OP: the OP argument isn't 'didn't' but 'wouldn't'. I limited the OP to 'here' because of the use of the pronoun 'you' instead of 'they'. The OP remains a strawman argument.
Wouldn't do it? Of course any administration will consider many different plans domestic and foreign that might benefit either the populace in general or only the Party leadership or only a handful of well-connected insiders intimate with the president's private thoughts and desires. The question is, however, how practical is 'it' and can they absolutely guarantee that all their tracks will be covered? These are not people who will risk getting found out when it comes to doing genuinely despicable or even treasonous things. The amount of planning and the sheer numbers of outsiders required by any group or faction inside the U.S. government to put the 9-11 events into play is mind-boggling and so the risk of it being proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that it was a government conspiracy would be too great to risk it. We ARE NOT talking about people with a great deal of personal courage here. We are for the most part talking about people who have NEVER broken a sweat in their lives outside of an air-conditioned gym. We are talking about people who were -- for the most part -- willing to use family connections to get out of being drafted during the Vietnam War. We ARE NOT talking about personal-risk-takers. So no; your scenario is not in the cards for the reasons just listed. But some other self-serving atrocity? Sure, you bet!
It 'proves' no such thing......And 9/11 was essentially a home invasion, in which some of the occupants were killed,and police don't normally suspect the homeowner ....that's why it's spurious
typo semantics the chart proves the propaganda machine is finely tuned and working well, and the majority of the people suspect anyone but the US.
nope thats OSHugger logic. Grand presumptions that this magic invisible fire weakened steel despite the fact there was no damage what so ever through out most of the building. just look at all that ZERO damage on the south side
yeah, keep on trying to convert people into Truthers by telling them there was no fire and no damage, and no planes at the WTC. I'm sure that will work great.
go ahead put the picture in paint and draw a nice circle around all that fire that you cant see in WTC2! then repost it but wait so I can finish my coffee first LOL
