Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Coleman
as the dude's bias is totally obvious,
|
Well, it is a commentary, however I encourage you and everyone to dispute the facts he has laid out.
[quote:69796] I really don't think Bush would EVER knowingly allow 9/11 to happen JUST SO HE CAN PUSH AN AGENDA. [/quote:69796]I don't understand this. Why not? He's a good guy?
It has been proven for a fact that intelligence was altered to provide justification for the invasion of Iraq. Do a search for "Downing Street Memo". The info is out there, you just have to find it.
Here's the memo:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 07,00.html
http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/
If the Iraq war was basically made up, why is it not possible for the same to be true for 9/11?
Also something else to consider is that Bush himself doesn't have to know about something for the government to be involved. There are many other people in high places.
Edit:
One of the easiest things I can do to show that the official story isn't all that bulletproof is refer you to this link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 559151.stm
If some of the hijackers are alive, that means they didn't crash the planes into the WTC and Pentagon, which means the official story isn't entirely true, which means someone is lying.
Edit 2:
Another simple question we can ask is "Why did WTC 7 collapse?"
If WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed from the impact and burning fuel of the planes, why did WTC 7 collapse when no plane hit it?
[img]http://www.wtc7.net/docs/streamers.jpg[/img]
These are just a couple beginning questions. When you dig deeper, you will see hundreds of questions that haven't been answered that deserve an explination.
[quote:69796]The second the last paragraph is just all the same; it puts huge blame on the opposite side and resorts to making bogus assumptions.[/quote:69796]
The second to last paragraph really has nothing to do with the article, and I agree, it's stupid. It never happened, so why talk about it. The other things have happened, though.