GOP CONGRESSMAN SEES THE LIGHT!!!

[Azselendor]

Atrocities, the problem with your Evil-Clintonian and Gore theory is that it doesn't take it account the Bush Sr's relationship with Bin Laden. Mainly the part where as head of the CIA, Bush Sr screwed the taliban and bin laden's fledgling group. It also misses all the businesses and individuals that stood to gain from such an event.

I don't see bush's administration being responible for 9/11 (except in ignoring the warning signs and later exploiting it more than george lucas with a prequel) as Bush really just wanted to get Saddam and please is saudi backers and religion base.

I don't see Clinton's administration being behind it because he had nothing to gain. Think about it and there is nothing clinton or the democrats could gain from it.

The 2000 Election with Gore is something to be looked at - but not until after the current leadership and party drones are out. I'm reminded of Lyndon Johnson's congressional run and there was questions about ballot issues. In particular, one picture from that event was a group of lyndon johnson supporters standing on/against a ballot transport box grinning.


But back to the point.

Using lex parsimoniae, law of succinctness, and applying it to this. Which requires fewer assumptions to be true.

1.) The theory that Terrorist, seeking to invent 9/11/01 as a terrible tragedy by destroying the economic, military and political centers/landmarks of the united states over religious differences they have with us. (ie. Terrorist view America as Evil Incarnate)
2.) The Theory that terrorist did the same as Theory 1 as revenge against bush - not knowing the outcome of the 2000 elections when they sent the plan into motion.
3.) Bush Administration plotted and organized the attack to push forward a neo-conservative agenda and religious-right agenda in america to steer the country towards the leave-it-beaver style america of the 1940's while eroding basic freedoms - not knowing the outcome of the 2000 elections when they sent the plan into motion (unless it was rigged).
4.) Clinton's Administration plotted and oganized the attack for some unknown reason or as suggested, target the NRA or Israel (who prefers clinton over bush anyday of the week) and did so not knowing the outcome of the 2000 elections (unless it was rigged).
5.) Al Gore planned and organized the attack for some bizzare reason that not even al gore could fathom. etc. etc. etc.

[Azselendor]

On a side note, Slaughtermeyer's sites appear to be individual conspiracy theorist presenting their own "Truthology" as fact when it's really some guy playing connect the dots with the back of cereal box.

The Vanity Fair link is nothing more than a review and contains no verification of the facts.

[Atrocities]

Whereas the PM site has facts and even has many world renowned structural engineers providing their expert opinions based upon facts that can and have been verified by both on site evidence, video tape evidience, scientific evidence, witness statements, construction record, design records, structural engineering reports, computer anyalists, and so so much more. What do these conspiracy people have? Nothing. They have nothing but hersay, half baked rumors, Charlie Sheen, and a whole host of other non-informed people. No structural enginering experts, well none that actually have a reputation, experience, or are even known or respected within the structural engineering community. They have, and I hate to say this, people who appear to be little more than crack pots, conspiracy theory fanatics, mentally ill, and grossely mis-informed people along with a single professor, who I might add, also happens to believe that Bill O'Reilly is out to kill him. Need I say more?

They have no real facts. What facts they think they have evaperate into nothingness upon even the most mild scrutiny.

[Slaughtermeyer]

If "the PM site has facts and even has many world renowned structural engineers providing their expert opinions based upon facts that can and have been verified by both on site evidence, video tape evidience, scientific evidence, witness statements, construction record, design records, structural engineering reports, computer anyalists, and so so much more," why can't the NIST come up with an explanation for why WTC building 7 collapsed?

When Dr. Sunder of the NIST was asked why the fate of the building was barely mentioned in the final report, he replied "“But truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7.”
http://newyorkmetro.com/news/features/16464/index6.html

[Atrocities]

Slaughtermeyer, I cannot answer your question about Building 7 except to speculate that perhaps it was not discussed because it is simply not important. As to whether or not it collapsed on 9/11 or later is unknown to me. I do recall that several of the other WTC buildings did suffor considerable damage during the collapse of WTC 1 and 2. Given the proximity of WTC 7 to WTC 1 and 2, it is more likely than not, that its collapse, if indeed it did collapse on 9/11 on its own, was as a direct result of damage it sustained during the collapse of WTC 1 and 2.

There is absolutely no evidence what so ever that supports that WTC 7 was intentionally destroyed on 9/11 by the US Government. None.

[Slaughtermeyer]

But there is evidence that WTC 7 was intentionally destroyed on 9/11, because the owner admitted that it was destroyed. You can hear Larry Silverstein's admission that the building was "pulled" (demolition industry lingo for imploded) about 3 1/2 minutes into the following documentary:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...56054823827684

[Atrocities]

Like I said, I don't know about WTC 7. Thanks for the info though, it certianly does beg the question WTF. While I don't subscribe to the theory that the Government was behind 9/11, questions do remain as to whether or not our Government was aware of, or in some sick, however small, way duplicit in those events. Like I said, I would be more willing to accept these theories if they squarly identified the Clinton Gore administration over George Bush.

I am sure if I took the time to look into the WTC 7, I would find that the evidence supports what I said later. Either the building was taken down after 9/11 because of damage to its structure, or it collapsed one 9/11 because of damage it sustained during the collapse of WTC 1 and 2.

Either way, I sincerely doubt that the US Government was behind the attacks on 9/11.

BTW - I was a caller today on the John Gibbson radio show. William from Vancouver. It aired at 3:47 to 3:49 pm PST. When asked about this conspiracy theory, I had to laugh, and laugh I did. And it was broadcast.

[Noah_Vaile]

I pity the fool. I mean really, how stupid is this stuff? Very very very. I am constantly amazed that anyone can repeat it without just falling down and laughing at themselves. Or having to be prepared to give resuscitation to others who are choking with laughter at them. I suppose anyone who expounds this tripe should, just as a civic minded thing to do, learn and be prepared to give CPR.

[Atrocities]

Noah_Vaile said:
I pity the fool. I mean really, how stupid is this stuff? Very very very. I am constantly amazed that anyone can repeat it without just falling down and laughing at themselves. Or having to be prepared to give resuscitation to others who are choking with laughter at them. I suppose anyone who expounds this tripe should, just as a civic minded thing to do, learn and be prepared to give CPR.

ROTFLMAO - I have to say it, if they gave out and award for putting things into context, you my friend would have won it hands down with this statement. Job well done.