Fa-Q wrote:Ok first off:
Why would Bush pick the second and third largest buildings in NY to do this.
First of all, I wouldn't dream of giving that southern drip so much credit. He barely spoke for the country let alone run it or anything close to an operation like this.
Why would they pick the three largest buildings in NY? - Very obviously to create a very noticeable national disaster. You would have a stronger argument if the buildings were three small, unprotected, obscure buildings.
These were three of the most highly protected buildings in New York. In fact, Dick Cheney even published a report pre-9/11 saying something to the effect of, to justify a new invasion they would need a national disaster on the scale of Pearl Harbour. In fact, the report I believe was even called The New Pearl Harbour.
It's public record, go look it up. Absolutely shocking. And that's exactly what was created. A Pearl Harbour for our times.
Fa-Q wrote:Why would Bush destroy both buildings...why not just one of them, that's enough of an excuse to go to war.
Again, take Bush out of it - The guy is a futile piece of the puzzle, he had no clue what he was doing. Forget Bush, think bigger. From now on I'll assume his name out of the equation.
Okay, you've made an error here - There were THREE buildings destroyed. Very interesting that you, like many think there was only two (the towers) destroyed. There were three. Buildings WTC 1 + 2 = The Twin Towers AND WTC 7.
WTC 7 wasn't hit by a plane and fell in 7 seconds - Free-fall speed. Again, in the exact same fashion - Smooth, symmetrical, straight down to the ground. Absolutely blindingly obvious controlled demolition.
That's why you're not aware of it. Because after day 1, they stopped showing footage of WTC 7 collapsing, because every single news reporter was commenting on how much it looked like it was purposely brought down, how it wasn't hit by a plane. It's the smoking gun.
Now, why would he destroy all THREE? - Firstly, the towers - Because they wanted to create a very memorable national disaster. These two picturesque buildings were staples in American business doings. Absolute modern visions of New York and new-America. Standing right next to each other, towering above all - Taking these two down together would be the perfect disaster to stain in the World's consciousness.
As for WTC 7 - Well, there was actually nobody in this building. But what was in this building was dozens of law suits incriminating many of the Bush Administration and others in numerous Wall Street scandals. So you can bet your bottom dollar they weren't sad to see every particle of that structure and everything inside turn into dust. It irradicated a lot of criminality in seconds.
Then of course - Even more obviously is the money they made from these buildings collapsing. I can't recall he guy's name exactly, but a new leaser of the towers signed a lease just months before 9/11 happened, protecting himself, insurance wise for BILLIONS against terrorist attacks.
Again, this is not my opinion, it's not guesswork - This is public record, a fact, you can go check it out yourself. He became the richest man (literally) in the World, overtaking Gates, when those buildings hit ground zero. They were insured for absolute billions on these structures.
So the only people that profited from these buildings coming down were people inside the Government. Those are just a few reasons, it's really not very hard to find many more, it's glazingly obvious that everybody involved or affected had many separate corrupt agendas.
Fa-Q wrote:Why would Bush put the economy in the toilet in his first year of office. For oil? No one wants oil that bad.
You're trying to downput the capture of a GIGANTIC oil supply as a little thing.
2001 was the beginning of the true economic downturn. Nobody felt the true effect of it until years after but his advisors and economists within the Government and Wall Street would of had a very good idea that shit was about to rain strong.
With that said, creating an absolutely crucial, national tragedy, big enough to automatically justify an illegal invasion and blind people with panic in order to take out Sadam and capture a fucking gigantic supply of oil is by no means something small.
It makes absolute sense, it means continued power and domination for America, for many years to come. With resources ever scarce, it matters very much who's in control over the next 20 years and as per usual, America will be absolutely ruthless in their metholodgy of taking control.
Whilst still pretending to be the good guys.
Fa-Q wrote:Why is there more evidence pointing towards it not being Bush then evidence towards him.
There isn't. Quite clearly you haven't looked at any of the evidence else you'd realize what an absolutely ridiculous statement that is.
You're leading with conclusions based on nothing other than your own assumptions and emotionally-driven, blind trust in Government, totally oblivious to objective facts.
Evidence for controlled demolition is absolutely overwhelming and irrefutable. If you don't think so then you haven't looked at any of it and / or understood it. That's just the Science, just the absolute physics and chemistry which proves beyond reasonable doubt that all three towers were blown up.
As for evidence of the Government being involved - Besides the obvious implication of... Well, these buildings were three of the most highly protected buildings in New York so... The idea that Al-Queda would have access or even have the ability to plant nano-thermite through all three structures is INSANITY. It could of only been the Government.
Again, you're ignoring facts. Fuck what you think they may have done, nano-thermite - That was in all three buildings. You can't just pretend that's not there or sweep it away. That's a fact. It's an explosive used by the military.
Then there is plenty of circumstantial evidence which could easily explain when and how they fitted these structures.
For example... IN order to bring down the Towers or any high-riser built in this manner - You'd have to put explosive chargers on all of the outer steel collum structures okay.
Now, just eight months before 9/11 - A construction company headed by... I believe George Bush's cousin or one of his relatives - Did an unorthodox, random 'elevator rennovation' on the buildings. This went on for months and it was apparently updating of the elevators.
Now, the elevators are all on the outer collum structures. These workspaces were sectioned off and strangely had armed guards covering them, they were unviewable to the public or workers inside. If you were going to do this, these spots are the EXACT places you would need to put the thermite.
Fa-Q wrote:Your foolish to think Bush did it. He has to deal with 3-7 more years of a terrible economy after. If he did it in his last year in office on either term then I could see maybe. People just like to hate on Bush but look what the first black president is doing to our once great country. Ironically the first black president wants to enslave the rest of us.
No, you're absolutely foolish to be coming to your conclusion with obviously, no real investigation on your part.
Blind trust in your Government, absolutely unforgivable stupidity.
Taking down those towers allowed for the following
- A national disaster, big enough to be branded The New Pearl Harbour, which Cheney himself bizarrely said is what America would need, before 9/11, to go to war.
- Blind justification to make unfounded links between Sadam / Al-Queda and 9/11. Nobody questioned it, just a few images of turbaned bad guys on TV and a few papers and the story is sold. Upto 70% of Americans thought Saddam was behind 9/11 immediately after. Not because there was a single scrap of evidence, just because it's easier to believe. Blind belief in media.
- An illegal invasion allowing assassination of a political rival but still, a very very evil man who absolutely should of been taken out in 91.
- Capture of a huge oil supply at the very beginning of what would be assumed to be a huge economic downturn, putting America at the forefront of an essential resource. Control, power, for many years to come at a crucial point in political times.
Also - Before 9/11, Bush had the lowest approval rates in history. He was without doubt one the least respected, most hated presidents thus far and without a disaster like this, of which people would assume he (because of his family links and war history), would be equipped to handle, there's no doubt he would not have survived another term.
9/11 allowed Bush to survive the re-election in 2004 and flush America further down the tube, for another 4 years with his oafish idiocy.
It also made many of his unseen, corrupt buddies very very rich, allowed his family further luxury and continued power and allowed half of the Bill of Rights to be torn up. With the new justifcation of "anti-terrorism", a shit load of human rights were taken away from Americans. Illegal searches, random stops, you fucking name it.
Make no mistake, America profited like a mother fucker from 9/11 and they were absolutely, 100% behind it. Try looking into things before coming to silly conclusions based on nothing.
