Any responses from anyone to Marvin Bush?
Interesting article on Marvin Bush.
For those non-conspiracy theorists ... uh, doesn't this seem unusual?
This article in Counterpunch points out the irony, and how badly Clinton would've gotten it if his brother's company was in charge of security at WTC on 9/11...
More food for thought, IMO.
(You guys know I think Bush was in on the gig. That's why for me it's not a coverup type of 'Oh My God' discovery, it's more of 'aha, another piece to stick into the puzzle.
What started me off was
a) the strange falling of the towers, looking like a planned demolition
b) president sitting stupidly for minutes
c) no jets scrambling in response
d) mysterious flight 93 'take-down' (IMO)
e) grabbing the tapes of the Pentagon missile hit (agents were grabbing tapes WITHIN 10 MINUTES of the attack!)
There's a lot of other stuff that makes me EXTREMELY DUBIOUS of this not being an inside job, but a-e was a solid enough start...)
But in America, some of us like to believe our Monarchy has noble values...
posted by R·E @ 9:03 PM
5 Comments:
Sam, an open mind does the devil's work. Once you close it off you can cite randomness in a continuing haze of confirmation bias
No further comment.
Sam, thanks for your response.
a) there's actually quite a lot of disagreement on why the WTC fell. Here's a listing of arguments. I haven't checked this list, but I do see that a number of Physics and Engineering professors disagreed that the towers would fall from plane attacks.
The argument that the buildings collapsed from internal explosions has been put forward from numerous sources.
d) Passengers on the planes being able to call is somewhat unusual, but not indicative of any conspiracy, IMO.
However all the black boxes 'vanishing' from these plane crashes is more puzzling. Most likely, the black boxes were retrieved and are top secret, and I want to know why.
Security at the towers has nothing to do w/the planes, but a lot to do with the possible placement of bombs weeks prior.
Clinton was clearly grilled far more harshly for lying under oath about his 'sex scandal' (which IMO was contrived anyway) than Bush has been for his pushing false evidence re: Iraq's WMD's, giving out Valerie Plame's ID, voter fraud in Ohio & Florida, violating the Geneva Convention w/pre-emptive attack, torturing civilians in Iraq and secret prisons, violating civil rights in Cuban prisons, not acting quickly for New Orleans calamity, giving billion $'s of 'no-bid contracts' to Haliburton, going AWOL as a youth, etc etc.
My point is there are so many VALID areas Bush could be impeached on, vs Clinton getting impeached for nothing significant IMO.
Is what I just said REALLY that unclear?
can someone make a joke out of the phrase "bathed in impermissible taint."
You ever watch Mr. Show? One episode had a guy with the best taint in the porn business: "It's insane this guy's taint!"
Sam, thanks for your comment.
> Maybe I just don't get how you seem to find the truth by through speculation.
Gotcha. Well, when I studied US History way back at UCSD '92, the teachers made a few points I had to learn:
a) we never really know history, we just know people's interpretation of reported events
b) history is told by the winners
c) often more accurate explanations of events don't 'come out' until years have passed and people either 'break' from holding info for so long, or the guilty are dead.
But when people are pressured via research, ie impeachment proceedings and subpoenas, some truths will come out faster!
And there is a lot of BS around the 9/11 event. There are a lot of signs of intelligence manipulation, blowing up the buildings, and more. The coverup story isn't even that solid, you can now find many books quoting the same info -- that there is deliberately falsified info all around the event.
It's a 'wag the dog' phenomena, and most Americans are too content to care -- and the implication of the event could be far broader than we know. Some political scientists call 9/11 a 'cold coup' where American military overthrew the US government, in fact.
I invite you to look deeper and dispute me on the points I (and now A) outlined.
I'm not saying any of this with anger or resentment, but out of the invitation to have a dialogue on these topics.
There are so many interesting historical events that people are incorrectly informed about -- and intentionally, for instance, Bikini Island nuclear test victims, significance of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, whether USA knew about Pearl Harbor before the attack, Tuskegee experiments, and more.
I was blown away in college when I learned about a lot of these 'coverups'.
A, thanks for the slurry of links and commentary. Impressive linking, bro!
I'm following up, takes awhile.
Post a Comment
<< Home