9:11 Press For Truth {Bush Lie Won't Stand} (What Bush Knew Before America!!)
Reply to: see below
Date: 2008-05-09, 3:26PM EDT
19 hijackers directed by Osama bin Laden took over 4 commercial jet liners with box cutters, and while evading the air force defense system (NORAD)for up to 1:35 minutes ,hit 75 % of there targets. In turn World Trade Center 1,2,7 collapsed at a free fall speed through fire in a pancake fashion. While the plane that hit the Pentagon vaporized upon impact(not even an engine, nor seat, nor wing was found, but we're suppose to believe that a 20 foot hole in the side of the Pentagon was large enough for a commercial jet liner to fit into?)7 , as did the plane in Shanksville P.A.(and there...not one single shred of evidence that a commercial jet liner was there, NOT ONE!) The 911 commission do not ever mention building 7 they also find there were no warnings sines for this act of terrorism what so ever. Thus we had no warnings by multiple governments failures, to prevent an adequate defense.
Everyone knows who did 911 , the military industrial complex of the u.s , with some help from british m16 and mossadomites. British m16 terrorizes internationally, m15 , domesticly.
Are we "winning" in Iraq yet - and if we do, - - - - - - - ?
If the Lord's willing, and the creek don't rise, and we do "win" in Iraq in the next 100 years, can anyone here please tell me what is it we will have "won" ?
And the same about our mission in Afghanistan ?
So far, all we seem to have accomplished on these missions is increase the size/strength/presence of al Qaeda, unite the Arabs and followers of Islam against us, lose a majority of World respect and support, nearly bankrupt ourselves, and cause the price of oil to skyrocket .
We deal with and accept SO MUCH corruption from elected officials in this country, the bribes, the sex scandals, etc. etc. Obviously in the case of 9/11, the sheer magnitude and loss of life make it not only an unacceptable crime but an UNFORGIVABLE one. So why would our own government HIDE THE TRUTH if not directly involved??
From the following link, find “9/11 Truth Videos” down the left side, then scroll down to the William Rodriguez speech. He was the last person to escape the North Tower alive but only after his remarkable efforts to help others. It is the most amazing account of true heroism I have ever heard, EVER. If you’re not pissed off about 9/11 after watching it…check yourself for a pulse.
Here are some very informative videos not included in the above site. Keep in mind…the basis for a new investigation need not be proof of the actual perpetrators but rather, ANY proof of FOUL PLAY and ANY proof of a COVER UP. Just think about how you might view someone known to be hiding evidence in a murder case. Wouldn’t they immediately become a suspect??
This first video gives a great analysis of how the BBC, in their piece on 9/11, abandoned the objectivity they’ve been known for and was guilty the same way the Commission was by starting with the conclusion first and then building the case around it.
I also want to add that the BEST BOOK on this right now is Griffin’s “9/11 Contradictions”. Much of the focus has been on the specific sites that were attacked but where there is equal shock and confusion is with the multiple accounts that have been given, some varying greatly, as to where Cheney, Rumsfeld and General Meyers for example, were that morning and in what manner they reacted. Griffin tackles these amazing contradictions as well by breaking the entire day down into 25 critical questions that if investigated, would reveal WHAT REALLY HAPPENED.
The FACT is if we don’t speak out against this…then THIS IS the America we deserve. Ignoring such inhuman behavior is no different than supporting it…which isn’t true all the time but for MURDER AND TREASON I’d say it applies.
As far as I can tell, there have been TWO conspiracy theories advanced to explain the events of that day: the government's and the cynic's.
Only if you look at it simplistically can you really consider it to be ONLY two theories - i.e. (1) the government told us the truth or (2) the government did not tell us the truth. However, if the government did not tell us the truth, then there really are a whole host of issues that arise. Did the government intentionally not tell us the truth? Was there negligence in the investigation? Were there criminal acts? If so, then done by whom and for what purpose? I think you can quickly see that if the government did not tell us the truth, then the number of possible alternative explanations can increase dramatically.
The thing is though, nowadays, we don't seem all that predisposed to needing proof. Look how easily our government was able to conflate 9/11 with an imperative to wage war on Iraq. Had we never travelled down that road I don't think the cynic's theory would have gotten as much traction as it has.
But the point you need to realize is that one can NEVER get proof if there is insufficient investigation! It is like asking a prosecutor to prove that someone is guilty of murder without gathering any fingerprints, DNA samples, ballastic tests, etc. In other words, if a major crime has happened, then it's generally accepted practice to collect as much evidence as possible and to conduct as thorough an investigation as possible. So when we have had the BIGGEST crime of the century, then shouldn't there be a VERY thorough investigation? The fact that the Bush Administration has been so reluctant to allow such an investigation should really raise eyebrows. If they have nothing to fear, then why not encourage more investigation? Just look at it in terms of costs - we spent only $15 million to investigate 9/11.
By comparison, we spent $40 million investigating the shuttle disaster and more than $30 million investigating Whitewater and many millions more to investigate Monica Lewinsky.
So what do you consider more worthy of an investigation: the loss of 3000 lives through a major terrorism incident that leads to an expensive war OR a stain on a dress?
Right!
While Clinton was trying to kill OBL, he was ridiculed and chastised by Republicans for "wagging the dog."
Furthermore, I defy any of you Republican revisionists to find a single reference anywhere to any Republican advocating any effort of any kind to get OBL until after 9/11. Never happened.
It was only after 9/11 that they talked about OBL, and only to blame Clinton.
We were hit on Bush's watch.
Period.
Tell us what efforts Bush made to get OBL before 9/11.
In fact the efforts to get bin Laden ceased the day Bush walked into the White House, and Bush and Rice ignored multiple explicit warnings that bin Laden was coming.
9/11 is on the heads of Bush and the Republicans 100%.
Even worse, all these year later, they still haven't gotten him. Is that Clinton's fault too?
You guys are pathetic. And you're liars, too.
Right!
While Clinton was trying to kill OBL, he was ridiculed and chastised by Republicans for "wagging the dog."
Furthermore, I defy any of you Republican revisionists to find a single reference anywhere to any Republican advocating any effort of any kind to get OBL until after 9/11. Never happened.
It was only after 9/11 that they talked about OBL, and only to blame Clinton.
We were hit on Bush's watch.
Period.
Tell us what efforts Bush made to get OBL before 9/11.
In fact the efforts to get bin Laden ceased the day Bush walked into the White House, and Bush and Rice ignored multiple explicit warnings that bin Laden was coming.
9/11 is on the heads of Bush and the Republicans 100%.
Even worse, all these year later, they still haven't gotten him. Is that Clinton's fault too?
You guys are pathetic. And you're liars, too.
Location: What Bush Knew Before America!!
it's NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests