you guys really think the bush administration is intelligent enough to pull this off? I hate the fucker, but even if he would do this(which i have my doubts) does he have the intelligence and organizational ability to pull it off.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-15 18:47
It's not him personally. It's whoever benefits the most.
>>13
So the world is a network or conspiracies orchastrated individually by the people that benifit the most from any particular one. You live in a small and paranoid world my friend. Where nobody in control makes a mistake and they are all miraculously well organized and nobody ever tells a secret.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-16 12:43
>>12
Maybe he doesn't, but I wouldn't doubt other people he knows do. I'm sure Bush is just a posterboy. The real brain is hidden behind the curtain somewhere.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-16 12:52
Your mom
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-16 13:21
WTC Building 7 just happens to get "destroyed by falling debris" when it exhibits a typical pancake demolition collapse. The towers themselves collapse in a very short time, when the fires were already dying down, and then show molten steel, smoke plumes ejected from windows ten stories below, and a rapid descent in ten seconds at near free fall speed, like the floors belows weren't even there. The rubble had twisted, melted steel that smoked for days. The remains of the tower were quickly shipped off before analysis could be done, and flight recorders were confiscated.
Dick Cheney and co just happen to be making money off of Halliburton contracts in Iraq, Afghanistan and New Orleans. The food for oil program just happened to make a lot of individuals rich. Condaleeze Rice has an oil tanker named after her for no particular reason. Larry Silverstein just happened to get a great insurance policy on the towers in case they were destroyed before they were attacked.
It goes on and on, and it has nothing to do with being evil. It's about greed and corruption. It's about the importance of making money for individuals over the importance of making money for nations. To the friends of Bush, it's all about "how much can I make during this term," with the next president being left to pay off debts and try to fix any problems.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-16 14:13
>>18
Stop pretending to be a engineering and architechture genius. Ok, the truth is that nothing on that scale has ever happened before. WTC is the first building ever to collapse in that fashion, and threw rubble into many of the outlaying buildings, 1 of them happened to collapse.
Nobody has ever poored thousands of gallons of jet fuel into a sky scraper and set it ablaze before. We have no way to know the exact heat it reached, but it is safe to say a shit load. Collapse is completely possible.
Halliburton makes money from all manner of construction and building contracts. If my appartment burned down tomorow they or one of their subsidiaries might be involved in the rebuilding and make money. that is their job. It doesn't mean they caused the fire. They made lots of money from clintons actions over the years as well in hurricanes and disasters, nobody blames clinton. Cheyney did not decide to attack Iraq to make money. And the New Orleans thing is stupid, nobody just decided to throw a hurricane there, experts have been saying for years one day a hurricane is going to put New Orleans under watter. I mean it is built surronded by the sea, below sea level for God's sake.
"It goes on and on, and it has nothing to do with being evil. It's about greed and corruption." Anyone as greedy and corrupt as you are accusing them is evil. They deserve to be tried and executed if they really did all that shit. But there is nothing beyond circomstantial evidence that they happened to make a profit on several of the things. Now he is a politican, and a "good 'ol boy" which leads to a certain ammount of corruption and dishonesty in itself. however, this does not start wars and commit terrorist acts and cause hurricanes.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-16 14:21
>>19
don't bother. he's just a deluded marxist crackpot.
Clinton was a shithead... but the reason nobody blames him for corruption (in this instance, and with Halliburton) was because Cheney's company was given no-bid contracts... and was the vice president at the same time.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-16 19:39
There are many no bid contracts done by the government all the time. Sometimes it is because of only one company having the infastructure to take care of a massive job, but more often it is more simply because the companies plan it that way.
Example:
Lets say you and I each own the two largest construction companies in a city. The city is building a stadium, and breaking it into individual contracts of construction such as electrical work and plumbing. Now we could each try to cut the price of the other company and make a little money in the job, but what if we got together and agreed that your company would do the electrical job and mine the plumbing? This would mean being the only two companies capeable of doing the massive job, You could bid whatever you wanted to get on the electrical job, and I could charge whatever I wanted on the Plumbing job, and we could both make massive profit and not get in one anothers way. So I make $10,000 per toliet seat, and you make $10,000 per light switch, we both get rich. Simular situations happen with every job the government gives out, other companies becides Haliburton got no bid jobs if you look it up.
That is stupid. The government indiscriminately go for whoever provides the best deal...period. No-bid contracts are a symbol of corruption, imo.
Regardless of whether this is often the case or not, doesn't excuse it.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-16 21:37
Jews
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-17 2:45
>>23
I am not denying that no-bid contracts sometimes come from corruption. However this requries further evidence. For instance why does no other company bid, the govenment almost always makes the job open for bids, so why is it that so often only one company makes a bid. My example tends to fit into the relm of possibility much more often than your vast corporate-political conspiracy. I don't excuse It I simply demand non-circomstantial evidence of wrong-doing.(innocence until guilt is proven and all that stuff you guys preach) And there is no solid evidence that the no-bid contracts of haliburton where any more done by cheyney than any of the hundreds of other no-bids across the nation. The government does go for whoever provides the best price, but often times only one company offers a bid on a particular project, as my example can explain the reason for.There are massive projects where they end up hireing every company in an area(pentagon reconstruction contracted with almost every construction firm in the D.C. area due to size and rush of the job). Most projects are put up for public bid, with 10%(I believe but it may be more) tagged for small businesses. However companies know that they can make much more profit by letting everyone have their piece, and so they often do.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-17 2:48
>>23
And we are still away from the point, even if the constrution jobs were corrupt, that doesn't mean the terrorist attacks were done by Bush.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-17 13:12
>>26
Sure. But many would say if he's lieing about one thing, he's likely generally not an overall trustworthy person, and thus shouldn't be in office.
Sure, you can assume most politicians, and likely his successor will/would be corrupt as well, but it's not an excuse to NOT punish outright and blatant corruption when it is right before your eyes.
Not to mention all the Iraq bullshit. Bush shifted his story so much, and, while I don't think he outright LIED to the public, I would say I think he intentionally mislead them--with regard to 9/11, WMDs, etc, taking advantage of their emotions resulting from 9/11 and using them as an excuse for his war.
This alone is plenty of reason not to vote for him, imo.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-18 2:36
If President Bush was, as you imply, the only person in the United States who knew there were no WMD and managed by shear force of personality to entice both houses of Congress to vote in favor of armed intervention then I'd say he must be an extraordinarily gifted politician.
By the way, President Bush isn't running for office. You missed your chance to not vote for him.
Bush flew those planes into the wtc, he parachuted out and in 5 minutes was in another plane. He then trebuche'd 4 or 5 coke machines laiden with explosives to collapse the towers. He also snuck into the the architect for the wtc's office and replaced the gravitational constant for a slightly different gravitational constant so he would think that the weak building was safe.
>>19 You don't need to be an engineer or architect to know that Tower 7 shouldn't have just free fallen to bits in a manner very similar to controlled demolition while not a single plane had flown into it. What the fuck seriously... the whole building just went down because some debris and shit fell on it from the other towers? THE WHOLE BUILDING JUST COLLAPSED?
Bullshit.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-20 22:58
>>28
President Bush isn't the only problem. There are PLENTY of pro-war dems. We should vote them all out.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-21 4:51
>>condoleeza rice has an oil tanker named after her cuz she fucking worked for chevron ahnd obviously did a damn good job. So before she left they named a tanker after her, Goddamn you are dumb
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-21 7:43
>>38
Actually, yes you do. The same way you needed to be an engineer to know that the titanic could sink. You also needed to be an engineer to know that wind would make a suspension bridge move like a flag.
That was not some debris, do you know the weight of the towers? And we aren't talking throwing sand at the building, we are talking some big chunks in cases.
y did they blow up building seven? If it was really an issue wouldn't it make more sence to put anything you wanted destroyed in the 2 towers? I mean it's not like they would have run out of room in them.
If the towers were blown up in the foundation they wouldn't have collapsed from the top. I mean if you blew up the roots of a tree how would it collapse do you think?
Ok, if you were going to blow up the towers and make it look like a terrorist attack what would you need? Presisely placed explosives that would take down the towers while still appearing to be demolished by the attack, also requires percision in explosive mass. Precise placement also requires knowing exactly what level the plane would hit at, what angle, and how much fuel they would be carrying. If the explosive is on a timmer you need to know the exact time the plane will hit.(actually not a very difficult thing as all flights left on time that day), most likly if they were used it was a remote detonation.
Assuming you have all of this: Why not blow up and collapse the building minutes or even seconds after the planes hit?
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-21 9:10
>>41 speaks the truth >>38 is filling this discussion with asshattery and idiocy
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-21 15:23
That the Bush administration has close ties to the oil industry is an understatement. You could say the administration is motivated by and makes decisions based on the success of the oil industry, which in turn benefits the administration. Bush doesn't just hire people based on qualifications, he hires people who are deeply tied to certain industries and happen to be close acquaintances, ie cronyism. The Bush administration is a group of people with specific goals based on making the most money while in office, not just being in office for its own sake.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-21 15:42
You need to understand that jet fuel does not burn at a temperature that can melt steel.
Steel weakens at about 1000 degrees and melts at about 2000 degrees. Even if the steel was weakened, it would not cause a footprint collapse of a skyscraper at near freefall speed. It would more likely twist or topple. Even so, the steel would take longer than one hour to weaken or melt from a jet fuel fire.
The bulk of the explosion occurred outside of the tower during impact. Firefighters reported the fire in the building was under control. The survivors in the tower were standing in the hole where the plane hit, waiting to be rescued. Yet the fuel would have to be hot enough to melt steel and continue burning in order to destroy the other floors and cause it to collapse without any resistance from those floors. If the fire had weakened the steel and simply died down before collapse, then the resistance of the floors below the impact would have slowed down the collapse, taking much longer to fall, and likely toppling to one side as the rubble from each floor piled underneath.
Instead, you have to believe the tower can collapse as if all floors below the impact simply weren't there. Jet fuel cannot melt through and destroy 100+ floors leaving molten steel at the bottom. If the floors naturally collapsed, they would provide resistance, and yet they didn.t
Bomb charges would cause large explosions to erupt if they were meant to destroy the tower. But more likely, they were used to set off thermite. Thermite has the ability to burn at over 2000 degrees and can easily melt through steel and any number of floors, as it goes straight down and melts through everything in its path.
Weakened/buckled steel doesn't let an entire building fall straight down at near freefall speed in ten seconds with no resistance from other floors.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-21 20:18
>>46
The impact dented the girders, it was then heated to a weak point where one poly crystal slipped past another causing a resonance cascade that resulted in the snapping of the support, the increase in weight casused the other weakenned sections of steel to give way, the weight of the portion of seperated building falling on the lower section caused that part ot collapse. After this the un-heated steel structure was affected only by the collapse of the outer frame.