re: "sorpio69" "a 60'd era poster"

Definitely sounds like your drunk, pal.

Now, step away from the keyboard and go sleep it off somewhere.

Many thanks for this link to a very fascinating exchange:

The Ultimate 9/11 'Truth' Showdown: David Ray Griffin vs. Matt Taibbi

http://tinyurl.com/mn8etn

re: yet [Bush] didnt make a single one of the hijackers Iraqi.

Obviously no need to, since he was manifestly able to shift the focus to Iraq and Saddam with no problema whatsoever.

To the American mind, a Muslim is a Muslim. They're all terrorists, dontchya know.

In any case, most Americans couldn't find America on a map, much less any specific country in the middle east.

re: Go kneel on your mat and pray to allah.

As I suspected, you're incapable of thinking.

Duty calls.

Anyone who wants to respond to one of my actual posts (not some lame "9/11 Truther" blather), have at it.

I'll try to respond later.

re: You don't know what the terrorists expectations were

I know what they could NOT have been, as posted.

The fact is, it is always inferred, if not outright stated, that "the terrorists wanted to bring down the towers".

Ask yourself: If the WTC towers had not collapsed, could Bush have yet seduced the nation into the Iraq War?

My answer: Nope.

re: The buildings falling were a bonus that most likely caused some high fives wherever you were.

My, how convenient for Bush's well-docmented desire from Day 1 of his reign of terror to invade Iraq, which is exactly how he used the collapse of the towers.

That is not even arguable.

Talk about murderous fucks.

Your response is convoluted, to say the least.

Drunken rambling is more like it.

This thread is about the events of 9/11 and the official version of events, not healthcare.

With that said, I apply skepticism to anything and everything the government says or does.

As pointed out, in the case of 9/11, there seems to be a shitload of posters here who REFUSE to apply any critical thought to the government's version of events. In most cases, these are simply sorry Bush/Cheney apologists who fear that to ask such questions may bring the subsequent actions taken by Bush/Cheney into question.

It is clear that the 9/11 commission was hampered -- indeed, that Bush wanted NO investigation. It is also clear that many well informed, highly intelligent individuals have serious, legitimate questions about the government's conclusions in many aspects of this case.

These kinds of not-as-clever-as-you-would-like-to-believe comments do not constitute reasoned argument.

Ask yourselves: Why, when it is clear that the government routinely lies (SEE: WMDs, Iraq War, etc.), are you yet so rabid in your belief that in this ONE instance, by gosh, where the fact of it propelled us into a war without end, some serious departures from the rule of law and diminishing of civil rights, and an enhanced police state atmosphere, there is no disputing the what the government says?

Hmmm?

No, that's not the case, as the first building was still fully intact when the second plane hit the second tower. Granted, some may have already fallen to their deaths, but there was not some kind of a steady stream of falling bodies.

In any case, "you ignorant fuck", this does nothing to explain the point raised, that neither hijacker could have been motivated by the belief that their actions would bring down the towers.

re: I believe conspiracy theories about JFK and Clinton but not this

Unfortunately, the official verision of events is the biggest conspiracy theory of them all.

What has always troubled me is this:

Clearly, there could have been no reasonable expectation on the part of the 9/11 hijackers that slamming aircraft into the upper floors of the WTC would reduce them to dust. Indeed, the buildings were designed to absorb such impacts. Any study of the buildings would have revealed this basic fact. Thus, the suicide pilots could not have known or even conceived that the buildings would collapse. So much for this part of the story, at least, as a motive to explain their actions.

Imagine yourself as the second hijacker approaching the WTC. What do you see when you look out the window? Yes, a big hole and some black smoke pouring out of the other WTC, but that's it. The building is otherwise still fully intact. Indeed, you would have to entertain the belief that as a result of attack number one, both towers would have been evacuated. So, what are you thinking? "Gee, maybe I can make a big hole in that other (very possibly empty) building"???