My opinion about People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

[Psy]

Originally posted by wraith86+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(wraith86)</div>

Originally posted by Psy@
<!--QuoteBegin-wraith86

if they killed the people that made loose change it would prove they did it.

Not if they have not posted it on the internet yet. The US has the capability to moniter any electronics around the world. If they really did want to keep it a secret, then they would have been spending billions on monitering everyone's computer (recieving a sum of money back by charging people with possession of child pornography in the process) right after the attack. Dylan Avery is living proof that this was not the case.

it wouldve gotten out one way or another. and what about the full report the government said they were going to do and havent yet? or am i completely missing something here?[/b]

For that, I direct you to this relevant political cartoon:

[wraith86]

please dont tell me your getting your info from that dude that made the 100 bill with the glenn is an asshole. hes a complete fucking moron and cant fucking stop fucking cussing in his fucking sentences fuck shit eat my ass fuck.

[Psy]

Originally posted by wraith86
please dont tell me your getting your info from that dude that made the 100 bill with the glenn is an asshole. hes a complete fucking moron and cant fucking stop fucking cussing in his fucking sentences fuck shit eat my ass fuck.

Not entirely, but there's truth in his words (such as the electronic monitoring and that the US would have killed Dylan Avery if they wanted to keep it a secret). I am not agreeing with what he says or how he says things entirely, but that cartoon I took from his website directly relates to the point that I am trying to get across (otherwise I would have used it earlier if I agree so much with him). If you'd like me to use some political cartoons from http://www.cartoonstock.com, or use them yourself, then go right on ahead and do ask/do so.

[h3h3h3]

Psy it doesn't help your cause that you are avoiding the main points that are being raised.

Of course the makers of loose change are alive. The last thing the government would do is kill them, since it would make them martyrs and would legitimise their theories, correct or not. Saying that they are alive therefore they are wrong is just stupid. What any government would do (and has done) is censor as much information as possible. Conviscate footage, hide possible evidence, and instruct the media on what to report. You have not even had an investigation yet, this would be a scandal in any other country, but as we all know, democracy in the USA is a myth.

Bush is playing on the fact that 99% of Americans don't know very much about the middle east, and if confronted with a terrorist attack from the region, will accept any move for regime change. Here are some facts:

- The USA and UK invented evidence that Iraq was behind terrorism. Both countries still deny that it was a lie.
- The hijackers were mostly from Saudi Arabia, a western ally and the biggest exporter of oil in the world.
- There has been regime change in Afghanistan and Iraq (two countries not involved in 9/11) and no regime change in Saudi Arabia (intrinsically involved in 9/11).

Lets think for a second. Why would the coalition set out from the beginning to implicate certain countries in the "war-against-terrorism" whilst ignoring the single biggest culprit? Answer - there is no war on terrorism. This a media catchphrase to keep the American public onside, and it works. There is only a war for the safe control of oil stocks. If you read the reports written by Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and others before they took office, this was all part of a plan set in motion when Bush took office.

My conclusion: America probably did not run a false-flag operation, but they probably did have prior knowledge of the attack and intended on using it to gain public approval for an invasion of unpopular regimes.

[Psy]

I'll go back and digest your first post a bit more then, zero.

The other big hole in the official story is the pentagon. EVERYONE at the time knew there was no plane, i remember saying it wasn't a plane, everyone on TV said it too. There is no decent evidence that a plane ever went near, in fact all the evidence points to a missile, as Rumsfeld gratiously admitted in a freudian slip

On the contrary, there were several eyewitness reports and prior damage to telephone/electrical poles HITTING cars before the explosion as the plane was flying low to the ground. Also, I mentioned this in one of my other posts, but I'll remention it

Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts."

If you want to question his credibility, go ahead.

All camera evidence was removed and people were silenced. The one piece of evidence allowed was 5 frames of something that was not a plane. Planes also do not vapourise in explosions. I do not understand why the mainstream american media does not take this seriously, it is horrendous political bias.

I believe your statement here is a bit contradictory. You state that all camera evidence was removed, yet the only evidence allowed was 5 frames of something that was not a plane. If all camera evidence was indeed removed, then there wouldn't be frames of anything. Planes do not vaporize. But they do explode into several thousand peices. I don't watch the news often because I don't believe in others influencing millions of peoples' opinions through one broadcast and it is to be seen as "right". From what I have seen of CNN and FOX news, the program revolves around Iraq and murders. There was a time where these "conspiracy theories" were mentioned (about the clips from the pentagon).

And worst of all, conspiracy or not, the American public and media let their government get away with not investigating 9/11 properly.

I believe that there is overwhelming evidence that there was not much of an investigation needed. There was a kid - in arab comminuties - that stated as he pointed out the window "Do you see those two buildings? They won't be standing there next week,[http://prisonplanet.com/student_spoke_of_attacks_before_sept_11.html]"
Another link worth looking at is http://prisonplanet.com/nsa_missed_a_big_warning.htm
Of course we, the American public, had no control over what information the government is confronted with. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20030804/dcorn The administrations were already confronted with such threats prior to 9/11, they just chose not to deal with them. There an 800 page report (written document about an investigation) conducted, which was released in July of the next year.

Whether or not the government planned it, you let them take advantage of the hysteria to go after any enemies in the middle east with no evidence linking them to the attacks. Britain is guilty too, but at least here, everyone hates Blair and he will be gone very soon. You must have bulletproof stupidity to still support Bush after everything.

I don't support him, quite in fact I have despised him up until now when he decided to listen to opposing to the opposing party's opinion. At least now I know, or is trying to get me to know, that he cares about other peoples' opinions and may develop a plan that involves a no-draft policy in the middle-east; or a possible end to the conflict.

Now, you're missing the point that I was trying to get across about Dylan Avery and his friends and family. If the government wished for no conspiracy theories to be public before 9/11, they would have invested billions into ensuring that this would not happen as they can moniter any computer - at least within their own jurisdiction.

For the next half of your arguement, I agree that that is a strong possibility [America probably did not run a false-flag operation, but they probably did have prior knowledge of the attack and intended on using it to gain public approval for an invasion of unpopular regimes]. But as I said before, there are two ways to look at everything. The US did have prior knowledge. But the US would not bomb themselves and say that it was four different airplanes, when the airplanes never actually reached their destination. Also, I believe that there may have been no policy change in Saudi Arabia because the terrorists were only based there, and the remaining ones [fled] to the countries where they knew they would be safer. Or, how about this, the US government was waiting for the Dam of the middle-east to burst so they could enact a plan previously set out. Or perhaps this is just a religous crusade (as Bush said "crusade" at least 4 times on his middle-east invasion speech) All of what I just said is pure assumption that can be supported by fact. To be honest, I am just here to see how things play out.

[h3h3h3]

ah i dont like the quotation jumbles, it will get messy if i try to requote your quotes.

Basically, there are experts contradicting other experts. The fact that there is even a debate warrants an inquiry. There are no direct eye witnesses to the supposed crash, only indirect. Am i questioning his integrity? All i know is that some experts are lying. The question is which opinion is wrong, and this is the purpose of an inquiry.

Over here recently we had a big investigation into the death of Diana (even though it was an obvious accident). The fact that there were some strange observations, and there was motive for a conspiracy was enough to warrant a massive investigation. Quite why the biggest terrorist attack since Pearl Harbour doesn't warrant one is quite bizarre. I'm not sure why you would say that. After all, it would end most conspiracy theories once and for all.

About the camera evidence. Yes all of it was removed immediately after 9/11. It was 5 years until the government released that footage of something hitting the pentagon, which by all accounts does not look like a plane. If there is no conspiracy, why not release the countless videos taken of the actual event? Again, the secrecy and censorship surrounding the event is the most important factor in the apparent conspiracy.

The government does not need to invest billions to control the conspiracy's. All it needs is to increase patriotic fervour, and have a control on what the media says. There has been a huge increase in patriotism since 9/11, anyone who questions the official truth is "un-American". The 2 biggest news outlets, CNN and FOX news both deny coverage to any alternative theories, and on the rare times they do, attempt to ridicule theories instead of debating them. Having witnessed news services in the UK, Europe, and USA, to me it is obvious that the white house has an impact on media coverage in the USA. Why does the mainstream American media not reflect what is a large internet-based fervour? They didn't waste time when it came to the Snakes on a Plane internet fad.

My point about the war-on-terror demonstrates this point. In a couple of sentences I showed why this war is illogical and does not achieve the aims it set out to do. Yet most Americans are totally unaware of this. They do not know about how Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are where terrorists come from, and these two countries are allied with the USA. One middle-eastern country morphs into another, and aslong as the USA is at war in the region, somehow they are safer at home.

It is reminiscent of the endless wars in the book 1984, the country is always at war with some other country. The population never knows the real reasons why, they simply believe that the fight is making them safer and thus they do not question it. It is frighteningly true today.

I am not really believing any story, conspiracy or official version. I am concerned with the TRUTH only, and frankly it has been hidden suspiciously deep. Oh, and surprised I didn't mention this, but Bush and his cronies are all fundamentalist religious people. I do not trust irrational people at the best of times, especially not when their reasons for going to war are "God instructed me". When you get religious fanatics on either side of a war, it will only cause trouble since they are by nature, illogical and of lower intelligence.

[OrcTank]

eye witnesses to the pentagon have contradicting stories such as some saw a bowing plane some saw a private jet and some saw a helicopter. the evidence at that crash site automatically eliminates the eye witness testimony that they saw a bowing jet and leaves it to a small jet or missile.


the only reason bush listened to the other side now is because he has to. after this last november elections bush is left is little power now as the democrats have taken the senate and the house. the president would be impeached but there are only 2 short years left of his reign so i doubt they will waste their time on him.

and zero you need to watch Fahrenheit 911 and see the connection to saudi arabia. and from current news reports it looks like the saudis run the show. vice president dickhead visited and reports say he was told that america can not leave iraq yet, and then the conflict with Britain and arms dealings.

[h3h3h3]

Originally posted by OrcTank
eye witnesses to the pentagon have contradicting stories such as some saw a bowing plane some saw a private jet and some saw a helicopter. the evidence at that crash site automatically eliminates the eye witness testimony that they saw a bowing jet and leaves it to a small jet or missile. *


the only reason bush listened to the other side now is because he has to. after this last november elections bush is left is little power now as the democrats have taken the senate and the house. the president would be impeached but there are only 2 short years left of his reign so i doubt they will waste their time on him.

and zero you need to watch Fahrenheit 911 and see the connection to saudi arabia. and from current news reports it looks like the saudis run the show. vice president dickhead visited and reports say he was told that america can not leave iraq yet, and then the conflict with Britain and arms dealings.

I have seen that film, I know that Saudi Arabia is where many terrorists come from, I pointed out that it is illogical how the USA is not interested in targeting the real source of terrorism, instead of just regimes who are unfriendly to the USA like Iraq and Afghanistan. Isn't it funny how Bush is so keen on spreading democracy, but will turn a blind eye to his buddy Musharraf of Pakistan. It doesnt matter if you are a tyrannical dictator, aslong as you suck up to Bush

It just reinforces the idea that the whole war has nothing to do with fighting terrorism, it is about installing USA-friendly governments in strategic countries that control a lot of Oil, and 9/11 was the perfect pretext to do it.

[Arca_]

hi my name is diego

[Z3non]

Originally posted by Arca_
hi my name is diego

1+1 = 2?