For those who support the war on terror
- Thread starter iblazethatkush
- Start date
Balzerismo
Active Member
The troops are doing their jobs. Period.
The thing that gets me is how our War on Terror all started, with FOUR planes striking America in 2 or so hours (Ok three made it to their targets, thank god the Generals disobeyed commands from Cheyney to stand down and called M-16's to shoot the third one down, otherwise we'd be seeing more bullshit in the name of security.. this is where the Ben Franklin quote comes in.)
Because we all know PRIOR to the Department of Defense introducing new instructions in June of 01 any aircraft off course for more then 15 minutes would be shot down. Period (once again). They then needed direct approval to shoot down an aircraft from Bush, cheyney or the SoD, which never came. The questions go on and on from Silverstein's insurance policy signed 3 months before 9/11 specifficaly covering acts of terrorism to tons of reports of explosives from eyewitnesses and firefighters who had almost finished putting the fires out... It's fucking unbeleivibly stupid how full of shit these people in power are..
The War on Terror, im afriad, will come in the form of either another "terrorist" attack, the invasion of Iran, or more likely both.
The thing that gets me is how our War on Terror all started, with FOUR planes striking America in 2 or so hours (Ok three made it to their targets, thank god the Generals disobeyed commands from Cheyney to stand down and called M-16's to shoot the third one down, otherwise we'd be seeing more bullshit in the name of security.. this is where the Ben Franklin quote comes in.)
Because we all know PRIOR to the Department of Defense introducing new instructions in June of 01 any aircraft off course for more then 15 minutes would be shot down. Period (once again). They then needed direct approval to shoot down an aircraft from Bush, cheyney or the SoD, which never came. The questions go on and on from Silverstein's insurance policy signed 3 months before 9/11 specifficaly covering acts of terrorism to tons of reports of explosives from eyewitnesses and firefighters who had almost finished putting the fires out... It's fucking unbeleivibly stupid how full of shit these people in power are..
The War on Terror, im afriad, will come in the form of either another "terrorist" attack, the invasion of Iran, or more likely both.
medicineman
New Member
Whats your point?
medicineman
New Member
Yeah, when the right decides it needs another attack to win. Hopefully the people won't be duped this time.
medicineman
New Member
Definently did to yours,~LOL~. Maybe you have to have a mind to start with. I'm not convinced those two did, but I could be convinced they might have been told to play along with the real powers plans to create this excuse for war. Creating enemies is in Dictator 1-A. You have to have enemies to create fear to create power to create laws to take away the rights of citizens and enrich the real powers that control the monetary rules and banks. Did I lose you? A plan to get us into war had to be created because the Bankers wanted more money and power, The puppet Bush was a perfect dummy for the bankers. War=profit, always has, always will.
Wavels
Well-Known Member
Med there are many industries far more "profitable" than the "war" industry!
Try looking up the EPS on the "war" companies and compare them to high tech companies.
You are, as usual, hopelessly incorrect!!!
I would say its because of all the bullshit you talk. You left wingers never seem to know what the truth is. You just seem to repeat crap from other idiots or from the true sources who are very bent.
Please come back with some proof of what you say.
iblazethatkush
Well-Known Member
How do you explain WTC #7 falling? It was never hit by a plane. Oh right, fire caused them to fall, the first three buildings in the history of our planet
. If it was fire than how come the tower that got hit last fell first? Also, why did the towers fall at slower than free-fall speed? If you can answer any of these questions I'll take you more seriously. There's plenty more, but try to find a rational answer for these to start.
medicineman
New Member
Do I look like the CIA? Is this a college assignment? I don't think so. Fuck your proof. there is as much proof for the case as against it. I am not your google rat. If you like proof so much, prove me wrong. You right wingers continue to drink the Bush koolaid without even asking questions. This is the epitomy of stupid. You think the CIA didn't supply arms to the taliban, Prove me wrong. You think they didn't give them stinger missles to bring down Russian helicopters, prove me wrong. I saw the tape of a Taliban shooting down a russian Helo with a stinger on TV. That's pretty conclusive, where do you think those hundreds of thousands of AKs came from? BTW that tape was made years ago when the Russians had invaded Afghanistan. The CIA agents made the tape. I'm sure it is long gone by now.
ViRedd
New Member
So then, is it safe to assume that you belong to the Rosie O'Donald school of thought that steel doesn't melt?How do you explain WTC #7 falling? It was never hit by a plane. Oh right, fire caused them to fall, the first three buildings in the history of our planet
Vi
iblazethatkush
Well-Known Member
It is scientifically impossible for a building to self-implode on itself after being on fire for 45 minutes. What about that building in Hong Kong that was on fire for over three hours and was still structurally intact.
And please stop picking out one line of my quotes that u can think of a smart-ass comment to. Answer the questions.
ViRedd
New Member
Ummm ... I'm not trying to be a smart ass at all. What's wrong with picking out one line if I think that line is incorrect or needs a response?
On that building in Hong Kong ... have you done a comparison of construction methods between the Hong Kong building and the Trade Center towers? And, do you have a link to connect me to the "scientific" study that proves it impossible for a building to implode upon itself? And, the towers weren't exactly "set on fire," now were they? As I remember, they were both hit by the impact of a newly fueled 727 traveling at @ 500 miles per hour.
Vi
iblazethatkush
Well-Known Member
I'll be back with proof when I got time to find some for you, I'm about to leave to go out to dinner.
But, I was hoping you would say something about the towers getting hit by planes. That may explain #1 and #2 falling, but what about WTC #7. The one they never talk about in the news. It was not hit and it fell in the same fashion as the other two. The official explanation is that the fire spread to that building and caused it's implosion. Can you at least agree with me that that explanation is a tad bit fishy?
stonedroach
Active Member
Sounds just like Rosie, did you happen to see that freeway overpass in L.A. that collapsed because of a burning fuel truck recently? Must have been Bush Chaney
iblazethatkush
Well-Known Member
OK your comparing the WTC to a freeway overpass.
Everybody can ignore w/e this retard has to say from this point forward.
stonedroach
Active Member
concrete and rebar same thing
stonedroach
Active Member
Read Popular Machanics Debunking 911 Miths
ViRedd
New Member
Hey, Blaze ...
I would be interested in reading any data you may have on Building #7. Keep in mind though, if you're getting it off of the Internet, anyone, anywhere ... and at anytime, can post anything they want to post on the Internet. The fact that you can find conspiratorial theories on the Internet doesn't make it true. So ... show me some real scientific truths. Thanks ...
Vi
I would be interested in reading any data you may have on Building #7. Keep in mind though, if you're getting it off of the Internet, anyone, anywhere ... and at anytime, can post anything they want to post on the Internet. The fact that you can find conspiratorial theories on the Internet doesn't make it true. So ... show me some real scientific truths. Thanks ...
Vi