Search results

yeah, its amusing, if you thought more freely you'd maybe get the joke.

but your reference is from a people in the establishment and supports the gist of the official version. therefore it cannot be trusted. only sources that are against the official version are to be considered trustworthy, because obviously they are indepedent, and therefore true. even if they...

would you like to row back any further?

er, thanks? i mean, you've just proved my point: China, India and others have benefited from the mineral exploration of Afghanistan. US has carried the cost but hasnt supported any established commerical interests or created new ones. not very good fit to neocon agenda. least useful doesnt...

in an alternative narrative, thats the reason behind the attack. Bin Laden had an effective private army back in 1990 and when offering to provide this for the defense of his homeland, he was politly told to stay in his cave as the Americans would come instead (and the Saudi's didnt fancy a...

to what purpose do they want leverage to go to Afghanistan? feet are already on the ground in the Gulf bases and Saudi Arabia. i dont think you get the thrust of your own arguement, re neocon objectives. Afganistan is probably the least usful nation in the region, land locked, moutainous, far...

you keep saying this, but it did not give them the leverage they needed to invade Iraq. 9/11 leads to a military engagement that has little strategic purpose and is a distraction of the main trust of all that neocon objectives you draw upon. remember, China, India and Europe have walk away...

yes, that is exactly what is being proposed. you are blindly following the government and media in not accepting this.

the trouble is, most of what the CTers say is based on false information. they will claim authority from un-authoritative and non-expert sources, and build up a story that has to incorporate a massive interlinking of one CT to a dozen others - ie this event is part of a series of events going...

thanks for your insightfull respone. i suppose my terse point either flew over your head or challenges your beliefs so you'll just try and ignore it?

what your sarcam is ignoring is that two "facts" of the CT world are false: the buildings collapsed at freefall speed and no other steel framed building has collapsed due to fire. there may well be a coverup, even a conspiracy leading up to the event, but you and the CTers have got the wrong one.

China. now how do you work China into the script?

add to that the common claim that the buildings collapsed at "free fall speed". they dont. this is the basis for the whole premise of the demolition theory, yet its a lie that gets reguretated and repeated, bouncing round the resonating chamber of CT to be held unassailable as proof there must...

i dont think that rules out anything. clearly Bush and the US felt they had unfinished business with Iraq but it took 18 months to invade after 9/11, so i really dont see how the two are directly connected. of course, the US used Afganistan and 9/11 as part of thier build up but its not very...

so to be clear, you're saying that Bin Laden was responsible for the attack? my thought is 9/11 doesnt precede an invasion of Iraq, but of Afganistan. Iraq required a whole new justification, all that WMD stuff. so why 9/11? do you see how your narratives fail at the most basic analysis...

rich coming from someone who has failed to adress any question posed to them, prefering redirection and deviation into other areas.

i see the usual false stories and unfounded claims are being trotted out to support the "truth". is there a course in this stuff?

you're pretty sure? and you base the credibility of conspiracies on this? so you dont know if the claim was ever made by the architect, much less if it were claimed, that it was true. or even possible. but you twist your "pretty sure" into a statement that the event was impossible, based on...

to what, i dont have an all encompassing theory? ask a question i'll give my view if you care for it.

so, it would be a bad idea to have a fire due to the presense of so many firefighters, so they did a demolition instead? well done for contradicting your own theory.