The call for Bush impeachment just got bigger....

[tRiGgEr 5,000+ posts]

Wasn't the focused reason for invading Iraq over WMD? not 9/11. I don't remember anyone claiming it to be for 9/11. Link?

 

[HiAmplidude 10+ year member]

I think the original point of this thread is: Bush (his administration) is unfit to run this great country...

And to that point, I whole-heartedly agree.

And, if the recent polls aren't mistaken, so do 68% of the rest of Americans.

Nearly all career polititians scare the b'jeebus out of me with their level of power in corrupt hands, but Bush is like the poster child for how to be as bad as you possibly can and **** at hiding it.

 

[4runnercrazy 10+ year member]

Unfortunately a select few have.
You wonder why Bush doesnt sink money into education? Because any smart person can put 2 and 2 together and figure out what happened Sept 11.

BTW, the CIA took out JFK. I cant believe people bought the Oswell story.

Do research people, do research. Your country has been hijacked.

J

another victum to micheal moore and CNN

 

[4runnercrazy 10+ year member]

THIS ARTICLE IS FROM 1992

As is EXACTLY what is happening today with September 11.

Oh but wait there is more...

Sept 11 just gave America a new reason to keep the CIA, so it doesnt look like that will happen soon. Now who was behind Sept 11? 16 crazy terrorists? Maybe, but unlikely. The government? Suddenly it seems more likely than most people originally thought- dont you think?

Maybe a combination of both? Perhaps the government, specifically the CIA, had something to do with training and funding these terrorists to do such an act? Wouldnt take that much of a stretch of the good ol noggin to consider that scenario given what the CIA has been shown to do in the past. Specifically with their involvement in destabilizing other nations. There is not a shadow of doubt in my mind that the CIA or other government branches are fully capable of conspiring a 9/11.

J

i guess your right the CIA ran their own ****ing planes into the WTC just cuz they got bored one day............im sorry im sooooooo blind

D-Bag

 

[4runnercrazy 10+ year member]

Wasn't the focused reason for invading Iraq over WMD? not 9/11. I don't remember anyone claiming it to be for 9/11. Link?

it was for both, 9/11 cuz they killed alot of our americans and we had to make sure there were no more terroists attacks and WMD's cuz they could freaken wipe us all out

 

[tRiGgEr 5,000+ posts]

it was for both, 9/11 cuz they killed alot of our americans and we had to make sure there were no more terroists attacks and WMD's cuz they could freaken wipe us all out

Prove that it was due to 9/11. Saddam was not the cause/effect of 9/11.

 

[4runnercrazy 10+ year member]

Prove that it was due to 9/11. Saddam was not the cause/effect of 9/11.

saddam was not the pure cause/effect of 9/11 your right but there are still links between al-qeada and saddam

 

[4runnercrazy 10+ year member]

holy crap am i the only freaken republican here?!?@?!?!

 

[HiAmplidude 10+ year member]

holy crap am i the only freaken republican here?!?@?!?!

I'm a registered Republican. No, I did not vote for the dumbass either time.

My opinion stands.

I think the original point of this thread is: Bush (his administration) is unfit to run this great country...
And to that point, I whole-heartedly agree.

And, if the recent polls aren't mistaken, so do 68% of the rest of Americans.

Nearly all career polititians scare the b'jeebus out of me with their level of power in corrupt hands, but Bush is like the poster child for how to be as bad as you possibly can and **** at hiding it.

 

[tRiGgEr 5,000+ posts]

saddam was not the pure cause/effect of 9/11 your right but there are still links between al-qeada and saddam

Like I said, proove it. You can run off @ the mouth and continue repeating yourself. But your argument holds no wieght unless you can provide proof.

Shit I'm sure bush has links to al-qeada but we aren't blaming him for 9/11. Well not the sane people...

 

[AcidicDreams 10+ year member]

Like I said, proove it. You can run off @ the mouth and continue repeating yourself. But your argument holds no wieght unless you can provide proof.
Shit I'm sure bush has links to al-qeada but we aren't blaming him for 9/11. Well not the sane people...

saddam was collateral damage after 9/11... we prob should have taken on someone like Iran but with Iraq next door which has/had the potential for a much friendlier population that was already used to living in a secular manner Iraq was the better target.... besides that bastard has been asking for it since the last time we kicked his arse

 

[HiAmplidude 10+ year member]

Nm

 

[IamDeMan 5,000+ posts]

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

ZOMG! Like the governement didn't scare them into wrtiing that up that way or anything theorist douchebaggery>

 

[Randy Savage 5,000+ posts]

Prove that it was due to 9/11. Saddam was not the cause/effect of 9/11.

We wouldn't be in Iraq had it not been for 9/11, plain and simple.

 

[wilzyx 5,000+ posts]

3) You'll remember that the aircraft only hit the ground floor of the Pentagon's first ring. Can you find debris of a Boeing 757-200 in this photograph?
You'll recall from the discussions above that the hijacked airliner did not "only hit the ground floor of the Pentagon's first ring" — it struck the Pentagon between the first and second floors and blasted all the way through to the third ring. Because the plane disappeared into the building's interior after penetrating the outer ring, it was not visible in photographs taken from outside the Pentagon. Moreover, since the airliner was full of jet fuel and was flown into thick, reinforced concrete walls at high speed, exploding in a fireball, any pieces of wreckage large enough to be identifiable in after-the-fact photographs taken from a few hundred feet away burned up in the intense fire that followed the crash (just as the planes flown into the World Trade Center towers burned up, and the intensity of their jet-fuel fires caused both towers to collapse).

this is off that dumb site Iamdeman posted. this is the same theory that the government told us and that has been disproved by many many physicists and engineers. the jet fuel could never burn long enough to heat the metal at that temperature to melt it, and for the entire plane, for the exception of debris on the lawn small enough to be carried by hand, to be completely melted is just too convenient.