Bullets 'n' Babes

I think we can all agree there will be massive international parties when Bush is thrown out, that is if Bush new boy McCain doesn't get in.

Oh, I believe that there were things hidden from the public re. 9/11, but I don't pretend to know what? And if there are half-truths in a documentary it renders the whole problematic for me. It's like if I make ten statements and four of them are false: hwo to you know which are false? and even then how can you believe the other six? Some posters here WANT there to be a conspiracy as it suits their politics. I just want the truth.

Markgway wrote:Oh, I believe that there were things hidden from the public re. 9/11, but I don't pretend to know what? And if there are half-truths in a documentary it renders the whole problematic for me. It's like if I make ten statements and four of them are false: hwo to you know which are false? and even then how can you believe the other six? Some posters here WANT there to be a conspiracy as it suits their politics. I just want the truth.

Why would we WANT a conspiracy!?

There are ALOT of BIG questions regarding 9/11 that have NEVER been answered, let alone explained.
People KNEW this was gonna happen. That's a FACT. They LET it happen.

I love 9/11 threads

bradavon wrote:Just because you may read more about it on the Internet than someone else it doesn't mean you know the truth any more than they do. It's not laziness it's just I have different priorities to you.

Do you really believe what you wrote here makes sense? Anybody who reads anything about any kind of subject automatically knows more about that respective subject than someone who never read anything about it.

Just because I don't like to constantly argue about it and disagree with everything the government (speaking loosely) says or does it doesn't mean I don't think about it.

It's totally alright not to talk about these matters and maybe even hushing them up. But in that case one shouldn't interfer in such discussions and talk like they are more expert on the issue than those who confront themselves with the subject on a daily basis. What's even worse is that some people here ridicule the ones who are discussing this subject in a serious way.

It sounds like you have more personal reasons than I do to be angry. Call me shallow but I'm afraid I have no direct/personal connections to the people of the Middle East so I cannot feel anything more towards these people than I already do. Which isn't any more or any less than I do to any other person on this planet I do not know.

Good for you. The majority of the people living in Europe however tend to sympathise with Americans far more which I can't even resent. Our daily life is embossed by the USA (Coca Cola, McDonalds, Ford, clothes, music, TV, movies, reality shows, MTV and so on). All these things make it a lot easier to us to relate to the USA, whether we want or not. And the nature of human beings just is to be afraid of strange things. Everything we do not know, we handle with caution. Hell, name me one Arabic TV show running on a European TV channel. Name me one Arabic music clip or the last Arabic author you read a book from. You don't remember? But I bet you remember when you last heard about a suicide attack. Put on CNN or BBC and you'll see. Do you get what I'm trying to say? In the subconsciousness of most Europeans there is the feeling that Muslims are a threat to the world, because the only knowledge they have about Muslims is what they see on local news channels.

I guess I am not as politically minded as you.

You should be a politician not work in film IMO.

My profession is definitely set in the world of film. But that doesn't mean I can't educate myself politically at the same time. During every single train ride I read political magazines. Why? Because I am simply interested what is going on in the world and I would like to know why certain thngs are happening and what stories we are fed with. If you know about history, the international correlations and their backgrounds and keep on following the ongoings in the world it is quite easy to see through the official stories of any kind of governmental decision. All you have to do is to educate yourself.

However most people find it too much to ask for to at least watch the news every evening. People don't bother with the news, let alone what is going on in the world and yet, out of some reason that is still unclear to me, most of them feel qualified enough to discuss such topics. They even go so far as to declare others, who happen to deal with and study these topics on a daily basis, as lunatic conspiracy theorisers.

At the end of the day I choose to not think about it 24/7. It doesn't mean I don't think about it but ultimately other things have more importance to me. Like being a good person, looking after my friends and family etc . . .

I deal with it and believe it INDEED IS very important. Does that mean by your logic that I am not a good person and I do not look after my family and friends?

Even if the official 9/11 story was true, going by the numbers it's Europe and the USA that are the real threat to the bigger percentage of the world's population.

I think we're all as bad as each other. No one nation, country or continent is completely blameless.

Fine, give me numbers and we will talk. Pick any century you like and tell me what nation has killed the most innocent civilians. I wonder if the numbers will identify Muslims as the biggest threat to the world.

Markgway wrote:Some posters here WANT there to be a conspiracy as it suits their politics.

Agreed.

McCain isn't a "Bush Boy". Where did that come from? In fact the Republican right don't like him because he's a more liberal Republican unlike Bush. No matter who wins the next election it will be someone to the left of Bush.

bradavon wrote:

Markgway wrote:Some posters here WANT there to be a conspiracy as it suits their politics.

Agreed.

...I wouldnt have expected anything less from you.

Bollotics, the net where everything thinks they know about any of this shit.

No they know what they read, second hand badly spun info at best.

romerojpg wrote:Bollotics, the net where everything thinks they know about any of this shit.

No they know what they read, second hand badly spun info at best.

So why did building 7 collapse? Why isnt this question EVER being answered?
http://www.wtc7.net/articles/kimball/th ... raper.html
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/cutter.html

Why are there so many signs of pre-knowledge!?
http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/stockputs.html

Etc etc etc.

I find it disturbing that so many people cant be bother with questioning what really happened. Disturbing, but not surprising, sadly.

About 300 ear and eye witnesses, including firemen, saying that the lobby of the second tower was already destroyed before the plane hit it are simply being ignored as well.

thelostdragon wrote:About 300 ear and eye witnesses, including firemen, saying that the lobby of the second tower was already destroyed before the plane hit it are simply being ignored as well.

I guess those america-hating bastards also really want this to be a conspiracy to suit their anti-western political ideas... (!)

Markgway wrote:McCain isn't a "Bush Boy". Where did that come from?

He's part of the same party is he not?

romerojpg wrote:Bollotics

Is that a mixture between bollocks and politics?

Wow, Marion Cotillard is less stupid than I thought.

Of course 9/11 was an inside job. Fact: you can't destroy two buildings of this size by throwing planes at them.
They had no reason to collapse (which means that they were blown-up from the inside).

Also, the Pennsylvania & Pentagon plane crashes were quite sloppy.
One cruise missile hits the Pentagon, one bomb hits a field and bingo: 2 added plane crashes. Yeah, right...

I dont have such doubts about the 2 buildings collapsing becaue of the planes. I think it's POSSIBLE. I'm not sure, but I'm open to that that's what happened.
I can even believe the pentagon-story, and the pennsylvania crash story. There were eyewitnesses, etc. Again, I'm not 100% convinced and there are still questions that NEED to be answered, but for the time being I can believe it. Somewhat.

Building 8 though, remains a mystery. That was a set-up, people knew about the 9/11 attacks, Giulliani stayed away from buiilding 8 even though that's where his HQ was for this kind of situation, lots of very important documents were destroyed when that building went down, evidence was very quickly removed from the scene of the crime and sold as scrap-metal etc.

Also the black boxes werent found.

People INSIDE KNEW that this was going to happen, on this specific day. That's a FACT. They LET it happen.

The goverment of the USA is guilty of murdering, or allowing to be murdered, nearly 3000 americans, in order to push their own personal agenda forward. I have no doubt about that.

Markgway wrote:McCain isn't a "Bush Boy". Where did that come from? In fact the Republican right don't like him because he's a more liberal Republican unlike Bush. No matter who wins the next election it will be someone to the left of Bush.

McCain still supports the Iraq war, last I read, but yes he is more liberal than Bush.
I'm sorry for LD's loss

Is LD saying potrayal of Muslims is too negative? OK, but when you look at who has carried out some attacks - eg Somalia, the attackers are radical Muslims/Islamists. Thus there's a negative portrayal by some of the media, and there's anger.. leading to a loop
9/11 theories will be debated for years I think, there are still theories about Diana's death.

bradavon wrote:

Markgway wrote:McCain isn't a "Bush Boy". Where did that come from?

He's part of the same party is he not?

Yes, but not every Republican (or Democrat for that matter) is exactly the same. If they were why bother having primary elections? Any old partisan will do.

They hold the same core values though, just like every Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat does.

In other words if McCain gets in our boys aren't going anywhere any time soon.

You're over-simplifying matters.

I know, but I don't have enough interest right now to expand on what I said.

McCain, like Bush, seems like Party-before-Country kinda politician.
Which isnt good.

Well maybe people are so fed up with Bush they'll vote Democrat instead.

grim_tales wrote:Well maybe people are so fed up with Bush they'll vote Democrat instead.

Ow... ofcourse.
I doubt there has ever been a better year for democrats to get their candidate into the White House, because the democrats leaved The White House with a huge surplus and relative peace, and then the republican warmongering monkeys came in, and fucked everything up big-time.

After Bush, you can pretty much elect a doorknob as president and it will do a better job than the last guy.

Has it been decided who will lead them yet? I heard there was a big turnaround for Clinton.