hahaha, I doubt it.

 

He's using 'IT' as a reference to what he said.....I think...

 

I dunno :(

Did you two just agree on something?

 

we agreed it was obvious, he just cant see what is obvious. which is truly sad, because it does not take much to see whats going on.

Honestly, your complete lack of knowledge of what happened on 9/11/2001 is shameful.

 

If it had happened in the UK I would have made it my duty to find out the truths which were hidden away from public view. As I have done with the 7/7 London Bombings AND with 9/11.

 

It's nothing to do with theories anymore. Don't you get it?

 

There's so many MAJOR areas where the government have lied....but you just want to ignore it. I don't know what else I can say? I'm not crazy, I'm not mad, I'm not a "nut job", I'm not ANY of those things.

 

It's CLEAR that the government have covered up the events. You hear that? IT IS CLEAR.

 

It shouldn't be about persuading you.........you should already know that there have been MASSIVE lies to cover their backs.........It's beyond me why every single person on earth who wasn't involved can't see the truth of that awful day. The biggest lie ever sold in our lifetime. You need to understand, you really NEED to stop being so, what you call 'patriotic' towards your leaders! They've lied, cheated and killed people....all in the name of MONEY, POWER and DOMINANCE of our lives and the world. They are criminals....big, ultimate gangster style crooks.

 

Now if you don't want to know about why your so-called leaders of your country are doing all this then that's the biggest problem you have in your life.

Honestly, your complete lack of knowledge of what happened on 9/11/2001 is shameful.

 

If it had happened in the UK I would have made it my duty to find out the truths which were hidden away from public view. As I have done with the 7/7 London Bombings AND with 9/11.

 

It's nothing to do with theories anymore. Don't you get it?

 

There's so many MAJOR areas where the government have lied....but you just want to ignore it. I don't know what else I can say? I'm not crazy, I'm not mad, I'm not a "nut job", I'm not ANY of those things.

 

It's CLEAR that the government have covered up the events. You hear that? IT IS CLEAR.

 

It shouldn't be about persuading you.........you should already know that there have been MASSIVE lies to cover their backs.........It's beyond me why every single person on earth who wasn't involved can't see the truth of that awful day. The biggest lie ever sold in our lifetime. You need to understand, you really NEED to stop being so, what you call 'patriotic' towards your leaders! They've lied, cheated and killed people....all in the name of MONEY, POWER and DOMINANCE of our lives and the world. They are criminals....big, ultimate gangster style crooks.

 

Now if you don't want to know about why your so-called leaders of your country are doing all this then that's the biggest problem you have in your life.

 

 

what is shameful is your lack of simple common sense. and lack of understanding for this world

That's all you've got. "you haven't got commen sense"....oh give it a rest will you.

 

What a loser you'll become in this if you continue to dismiss it with such ignorance.

http://www.911revisited.com/video.html

 

Hour long video documenting the hundreds of individual accounts and evidence of explosions within the towers on 9/11.

 

It collapsed to dust!.....watching this footage really shows every inch being exploded. Watch the buildings!

 

It can be upsetting.

I saw this written in the newspaper a couple weeks ago

 

" I don't favor the Bush administration by any means, but the theory that the United States government purposely brought down the World Trade Center is the most ridiculous idea I have ever heard - even worse than the moon landing hoax bullshit.

 

But, for the sake of argument - say in some weird bizzare twilight zone world the US government did plan and execute the destruction of the WTC themselves. The first thing to ask is WHY?! Why would such a strong government put themselves under such high stakes for the sake of invading a country in anarchy which was run by a terrorist organization? There's no logic there. Granted the attacks did give the Bush administration an "excuse" to go into Afghanistan, but if they really wanted to, they could have gone in on the justification that they were liberating the people from totalitarian rule - terror attack on US soil to provoke the invasion or no. Bush was already president - he didn't have to worry about re-election and he's commander in chief. He doesn't need support from other countries OR the American people, for that matter, to send troops overseas.

 

Another thing to ask is why they would put themselves at such an economic risk. 9/11 was horrible for the economy. The WTC was the center of the United States' capitalist economy (exactly the reason why Al Queda chose it as a target). There was potential for the economy to crumble, and it basically did for a while. Nobody was traveling, airlines went bankrupt, the cost of rebuilding. If a government was planning a costly war, they would not give themselves an economic kick in the balls weeks before they were to launch an invasion. Anyone with any grasp of economics would understand that."

 

And

 

"Were the attacks the work of Al-Qaida? Yes.

 

Was the Bush administration involved? No.

 

Has the Bush administration used 9/11 to further its own agenda? Yes. "

That artice is terrible.

 

Whoever wrote needs to be sacked.

 

saying "most ridiculous idea I have ever heard - even worse than the moon landing hoax bullshit." doesn't address the hundreds of lies by the Bush administration concerning the events of 9/11.

 

What an idiot.

I just saw on PrisionPlanet this 'news story'

 

"Al-Qaeda was something made up by Bush to attack the Twin Towers so that he could go in and start a war"

I just saw on PrisionPlanet this 'news story'

 

"Al-Qaeda was something made up by Bush to attack the Twin Towers so that he could go in and start a war"

 

another prime example at why prisonplanet is one of the worst "news" sites out their....they dont rely on facts but theories...shitty ones at best.

I just saw on PrisionPlanet this 'news story'

 

"Al-Qaeda was something made up by Bush to attack the Twin Towers so that he could go in and start a war"

 

Does it say those exact words?

 

Al-Qaeda is a CIA funded front, yes.

 

But it wasn't created to for the sole purpose of attacking the twin towers. It was blamed on them, I'll give you that.

 

 

And Nick....I've decided you should actually give up your ignorant ways and actually learn something worthwhile.

I know's there's lots of people like you and it's easy to go along with that sort of flow....but man, you one ill American.....and when I say 'ill' I don't mean in a good way.....I mean in a very bad way. yuck.

 

^ And as bad as it sounds, this really isn't a dig at 'you' --- it's a punch, aimed right at your suppressed thoughts....trying to give them a litttle kick-start you know.....because you HAVE TO know deep within you that this whole thing stinks and it's clearly an inside job......it's just those thoughts have been blocked by the evil of the mass media and their long running efforts to capture the minds of everybody and programming in an instant reaction to the questioning of the people who "rule" us.......and this reaction is "You nutjob!" or "Your with the terrorists!" or anything along those lines.

So why would the CIA want to do 9/11??

Does it say those exact words?

 

Al-Qaeda is a CIA funded front, yes.

 

But it wasn't created to for the sole purpose of attacking the twin towers. It was blamed on them, I'll give you that.

 

 

And Nick....I've decided you should actually give up your ignorant ways and actually learn something worthwhile.

I know's there's lots of people like you and it's easy to go along with that sort of flow....but man, you one ill American.....and when I say 'ill' I don't mean in a good way.....I mean in a very bad way. yuck.

 

^ And as bad as it sounds, this really isn't a dig at 'you' --- it's a punch, aimed right at your suppressed thoughts....trying to give them a litttle kick-start you know.....because you HAVE TO know deep within you that this whole thing stinks and it's clearly an inside job......it's just those thoughts have been blocked by the evil of the mass media and their long running efforts to capture the minds of everybody and programming in an instant reaction to the questioning of the people who "rule" us.......and this reaction is "You nutjob!" or "Your with the terrorists!" or anything along those lines.

 

 

I never go along with the "flow" i go along with facts and common sense.

 

you seem to defend the president of iran who is a complete nutjob...and you dont use any common sense or facts to back up your stories. you believe EVERYTHING is some conspiracy theory that the goverment is behind, simple not true. i have an extremely open mind, just opened to logic, reason, common sense and facts....

although Gareth pat buchanan has a book i really want to read about mexico trying to reconquer the west and about a america and mexico becoming a nation and how bush is letting it happen and how the mexican govermernt is encouraging poor mexicans to migrate to the US.

 

I kinda think this is true, im going to do alot more reading on this, but im really starting to dislike bush. with the mess up in iraq hurting us because iran is more ofa threat and this immagration issue....

^^^ yep, it's going to get bad for you guys. The North American union.....I hope you can stop it.

 

 

And on the 9/11 stuff....come on....stop just using the "dont use any common sense or facts to back up your stories" line......please?

 

I've always supplied evidence whenever I have posted.....and I am a very logical person....it's just that I read the news that most people are hidden from.

 

9/11 actually WAS an inside job and it's something alot of people are going to have to deal with eventually, you do know that?? why not make it sooner rarther that later......before it's too late.

WTC 7 Click photo for larger Hi-Rez version

 

New WTC Complex Photos Highlight Bizarre Building 7 Collapse

Buildings 5 and 6, closer to towers burned throughout but did not collapse

 

Paul Joseph Watson | August 23 2006

 

Previously unseen photos provided to us by a fireman who was at ground zero on 9/11 highlight the implausible implosion of WTC Building 7 in comparison with buildings closer to the towers that sustained significantly more fire and debris damage yet did not collapse.

 

 

Above is a map showing the relative position of the buildings in the WTC complex. Though Building 7 was hit by flying aircraft parts, it was not significantly effected by the collapse of the towers due to it being shielded by buildings 5 and 6 - which despite being closer to the towers and suffering far more extreme fires - did not collapse.

 

Click photo for larger Hi-Rez version

Building 7 to the right of the picture as Building 5 burns in the left background. From this image, which building seems the more likely to collapse? The 47 story behemoth with limited fire in a few floors - or a nine story shell completely engulfed by fire and flames from top to bottom? Yet it was Building 7 and not 5 that collapsed on the afternoon of September 11.

 

Click photo for larger Hi-Rez version

The burned out husk of Building 5 two days after 9/11. Building 5 sustained massive damage from flaming aircraft parts which ignited fires that burned for hours. In addition, the collapse of the north tower scraped down the side of 5 but its modest nine floors did not structurally collapse.

 

WTC 5

 

Here is a separate image revealing the extent of the fires in WTC 5. Despite raging infernos and debris gouging huge holes in the building, and in comparative size significantly more severe fires than the twin towers or Building 7 - the building stood while the other three all collapsed.

 

WTC 6

 

In addition, Building 6, which was even closer to the north tower (seen here moments before its subsequent planned demolition months later), suffered even more extreme fire and debris damage, but the building did not fall down implosion style like the towers and Building 7.

 

Click photo for larger Hi-Rez version

A wider perspective shot of the rubble of Building 7. The Fiterman Hall

building and the U.S. Post Office building across the street show little damage. Building 5 in the background is completely charred but still stands.

 

Click photo for larger Hi-Rez version

The rubble of WTC Building 7 lies in front of the Fiterman Hall building. The building has fallen in its own footprint - another sign of controlled demolition.

 

Click photo for larger version

Here are a couple of shots for the no planers and 'blue screen' advocates - aircraft engine parts and a truck designated to store them. Claiming that no planes hit the WTC towers is damaging to the movement's credibility and it is one of the first things that debunkers like Popular Mechanics seize upon when building straw man hit pieces.

 

Click photo for larger version

 

Please click here to download a zip file of the complete portfolio of these images.

 

RELATED: 9/11: WTC Building 7

 

RELATED: Silverstein Answers WTC Building 7 Charges

 

RELATED: Silverstein, FDNY Decided to 'Pull WTC 7': An In-Depth Analysis

Bush Now Says What He Wouldn’t Say Before War: Iraq Had ‘Nothing’ To Do With 9/11

 

Thinkprogress | August 23, 2006

 

President Bush was in the midst of explaining how the attacks of 9/11 inspired his “freedom agenda” and the attacks on Iraq until a reporter, Ken Herman of Cox News, interrupted to ask what Iraq had to do with 9/11. “Nothing,” Bush defiantly answered. Watch it.

 

VIDEO HERE

 

To justify the war, Bush informed Congress on March 19, 2003 that acting against Iraq was consistent with “continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.”

 

As ThinkProgress has repeatedly documented, Vice President Cheney cited “evidence” cooked up by Douglas Feith and others to claim it was “pretty well confirmed” that Iraq had contacts with 9/11 hijackers.

 

More generally, in the lead-up to the war in Iraq, the administration encouraged the false impression that Saddam had a role in 9/11. Bush never stated then, as he does now, that Iraq had “nothing” to do with 9/11. Only after the Iraq war began did Bush candidly acknowledge that Iraq was not operationally linked to 9/11.

 

Full transcript:

 

BUSH: The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East.

 

QUESTION: What did Iraq have to do with it?

 

BUSH: What did Iraq have to do with what?

 

QUESTION: The attack on the World Trade Center.

 

BUSH: Nothing. Except it’s part of — and nobody has suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a — Iraq — the lesson of September 11th is take threats before they fully materialize, Ken. Nobody’s ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq.

 

And...Here's a good comment.....

 

Zogby poll, feb 28, 2006:

 

90 (that’s ninety) percent of US troops in iraq think they are there in ‘retaliation for saddams role in 9-11′

 

1. Hey chimpy (Bush) - didn’t they get the memo?

2. Shall you tell them or shall I?

3. Who do you ask to be last to die for a mistake?

 

Comment by TerrytheTurtle

Going on from the last post....John Stewart has a take on the press-conference

 

VIDEO: Jon Stewart dissects Bush's latest 'desperate soundbites'

That's hysterical, I saw that on the Daily Show (I had read the transcript of the press conference before the show, actually).

 

 

All I can do is *facepalm*

Also, very interesting pictures. Thanks so much for them, and the links.

That's hysterical, I saw that on the Daily Show (I had read the transcript of the press conference before the show, actually).

 

 

All I can do is *facepalm*

 

Likewise. I also *facepalm* as soon as he said that. I couldn't (and still can't) believe he actually did. Geez, as soon as I saw that I'm like... I hope his approval ratings drop because of it or something. What a jerk.

GOP candidate says 9/11 attacks were a hoax

 

ALBERT McKEON/Nashua Telegraph | August 24 2006

 

A Republican candidate for this area’s congressional seat said Wednesday that the U.S. government was complicit in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

 

In an editorial board interview with The Telegraph on Wednesday, the candidate, Mary Maxwell, said the U.S. government had a role in killing nearly 3,000 people at the World Trade Center and Pentagon, so it could make Americans hate Arabs and allow the military to bomb Muslim nations such as Iraq.

 

Maxwell, 59, seeks the 2nd District congressional seat. The Concord resident opposes the incumbent, Charles Bass of Peterborough, and Berlin Mayor Bob Danderson in the Republican primary Sept. 12.

 

Maxwell would not specify if she holds the opinion that the government stood by while terrorists hijacked four domestic airliners and used them as weapons, or if it had a larger role by sanctioning and carrying out the attacks.

 

But she implicated the government by saying the Sept. 11 attacks were meant “to soften us up . . . to make us more willing to have more stringent laws here, which are totally against the Bill of Rights . . . to make us particularly focus on Arabs and Muslims . . . and those strange persons who spend all their time creating little bombs,” giving Americans a reason “to hate them and fear them and, therefore, bomb them in Iraq for other reasons.”

 

She said this strategy “would be normal” for governments, citing her belief that the British government – and not the Germany military – sank the Lusitania ocean liner in 1915. The deaths of Americans on the cruise liner helped galvanize U.S. support to enter World War I, and benefited England, she said.

 

In turn, the Sept. 11 attacks “made the ground fertile” for more stringent laws, such as the Patriot Act, and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, Maxwell said.

 

Near the end of the interview, Maxwell pounded her fist on the table and asked editors of The Telegraph why they weren’t publishing more stories about the government’s role in the terrorist attacks or proliferation of nuclear weapons.

 

Maxwell has no political experience. She lived abroad for the past quarter-century with her husband, George, a pediatrician, and only recently returned to the U.S., she said.

 

In the hour-long interview, Maxwell spoke at length about Constitutional law, U.S. law, nuclear weapons proliferation, and other domestic and foreign policy issues.

 

Maxwell said the U.S. should withdraw from Iraq. She also questioned whether Congress authorized the war and said its members can’t explain that 2002 vote. (Congress authorized the use of force to defend this country’s security and enforce United Nations resolutions on Iraq.)

 

“Legally, we shouldn’t have gone to Iraq if Congress can’t explain why,” she said.

 

Maxwell described herself as a strict Constitutionalist, a candidate who wants to bring the country “back to basics.” The Constitution grants more power to the legislative branch than the other two branches, but Congress has allowed the executive and judicial branches to diminish its influence, she said.

 

She also said the U.S. shouldn’t immerse itself in the international community by signing trade and security pacts. These agreements have weakened national sovereignty, she said.

 

Who's The Man In The WTC Rubble?

Previously unnoticed eerie figure provokes questions

 

Paul Joseph Watson | August 25 2006

 

At first glance he is camouflaged against the gray ash and rubble of the debris from the twin towers, but a closer look shows an eerie figure that has prompted a rash of e mail questions - is he a survivor, a victim or even a statue?

 

In conducting analysis of photos we first published on Wednesday showing surrounding buildings in the WTC complex and other images taken by an anonymous rescue worker, the significance of this shot completely escaped us until we began to receive numerous e mails highlighting its notoriety.

 

 

Click the photo for an enlargement.

 

The figure appears to be sat upright with a square piece of debris, which could be a briefcase or a laptop, in front of him and his legs appear to be buried underneath rubble. He is covered in gray ash and dust as is every other object in the shot.

 

The figure is obviously human in appearance but is it an unfortunate victim or a statue?

 

A cursory Google search provided the answer. The figure was a bronze statue named Double Check, created by sculptor J. Seward Johnson, that sat on a park bench near the towers. The discovery of the statue shown below two days after the attack was subject of a CNN piece in December 2001. The statue became a shrine to victims of 9/11.

 

 

Still from a distance, the figure in the rubble must have been an eerie sight even if rescue workers were aware that it was just a sculpture. We are satisfied that we were able to clear this up for many curious readers.

^ This was creepy as I had spotted the man and was going to email about it but obviously some others had beaten me to it.

That is really creepy.......