English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

14 answers

I think Cheney and Rumsfeld were.

2006-07-13 07:18:40 · answer #1 · answered by BeachBum 7 · 1 0

There are some theories that the government knew about the planned attack and chose not to stop it.

There are also rumors that as soon as the attack took place, U.S. government planes escorted prominent Saudi Arabian citizens out of our country.

Another rumor is that George H.W. Bush and many of his former cabinet members (including James Baker), formed a consulting firm called The Carlyle Group, right after Bush left office. Allegedly, one of the primary investors in this firm, with a $2.5 million stake, was the binLaden family of Saudi Arabia. It is reasonable to presume that the 9-11 attack was perpetrated as an excuse for George W. Bush to "finish" what his daddy had started in Iraq during Desert Storm. The Saudis, of course, would be in agreement to this because Saddam Hussein tried to invade their country at that time (an eye for an eye). LimpDick Cheney, in turn, could take all of Iraq's OIL (with the cooperation of the new Iraqi government, which he helped to install), and make himself and his buddies at Halliburton, Bechtol, Exxon-Mobil and other corporations even more obscenely wealthy than they already are; it would also give the U.S. a monopoly on all that OIL swimming underneath Iraq's sands. So illegally and unconstitutionally invading Iraq had nothing to do with ridding the country of a despot and replacing the government with a democracy; it all had to do with OIL. If that's not the case, why isn't America invading all the other dictatorships around the world? Because the other dictatorships have no OIL, so let the genocide continue!

Predictions:

Iran will be illegally invaded next, because Cheney also wants all its OIL. All Rumsfeld has to do is come up with a reasonable excuse (since weapons of mass destruction might not work again).

There will be NO TROOP WITHDRAWALS from Iraq until Cheney has a rock-solid, iron-clad arrangement in place to take all of Iraq's OIL.

Could the U.S. government be an accomplice in the 9-11 attack? Could the first moon landing on July 20, 1969 have been nothing more than a cheap movie production? Could John F. Kennedy have been murdered by Fidel Castro, the Mafia, or our own government? Could Marilyn Monroe have been drugged and murdered by the Kennedy family? Oh, what wicked tales we weave!

The problem is: NONE of those theories are all that far-fetched.

Remember after the Iraq war began, Donald Rumsfeld was asked, at a press conference, about the consequences of so many war fatalities. His arrogant, smug, and insensitive response was: "STUFF HAPPENS!" If one of our top government leaders can have that kind of cold attitude toward the deaths of other human beings in Iraq, what would prevent him and his cohorts from having the same kind of calloused disregard for the deaths of a few thousands people in the World Trade Center's twin towers? -RKO- 07/13/06

2006-07-13 07:35:22 · answer #2 · answered by -RKO- 7 · 0 0

no longer something that we are informed by employing the media must be believed. Capitalism is imploding (Margret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan and Rupert Murdoch are to blame: It takes about thirty years for the end results of fairly undesirable politics to achieve!). the three best businesses contained in the U. S. are oil, media and guns production: This truth is amazingly significant! large company have taken over contained in the U. S.. large company earnings ranges are dropping, and the in ordinary words way that earnings margins ought to correctly be inspired for those industries even as capitalism is in this sort of mess, is by employing taking the rustic into open global war! because the Democrats are a lot less prepared to commence yet another global genocide than the Republicans are, they're being destroyed by employing the vast company media; with a by no potential-ending diatribe of extremely depressing "information" comments about the failing monetary device and corruption. even as the Republicans get decrease back into potential, you could guess your living house on it that the rustic will be taken into yet extra wars. Many 1000's individuals militia workers will die, many 1000's of thousands of non-US human beings will ie, regardless of the indisputable fact that the earnings margins individuals large company will develop, it extremely is all that concerns in this society!

2016-11-06 08:07:45 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

Why else was there no rapid response from the Air Force to prevent further strikings by the hijacked aircraft?

FAA knew these flights were off course and not responding to controllers. After the first attack, Air Force planes should have intercepted the others.

Why did they not? You tell me...why not?

2006-07-13 07:20:45 · answer #4 · answered by jimvalentinojr 6 · 0 0

The U.S. government is a terrorist organization. They orchestrated the whole thing. If you don't believe they would do that, you better wake up from your fantasy world.

Do an internet search for the video "loose change." It is surprisingly unbiased, and explains everything quite well.

2006-07-13 07:22:37 · answer #5 · answered by Gnarly Bro 1 · 0 0

Without doubt, before, during , and after 9/11

2006-07-13 07:16:39 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

This is really getting old. There are tons of people who say Bush did it, and then when asked for evidence, they don't have even one tiny little shred. I don't like Bush, but he isn't smart enough or clever enough to pull off anything like 9/11.

2006-07-13 07:21:00 · answer #7 · answered by commonsense 5 · 0 0

It's the daily march of the Tin Foil Brigade.

2006-07-13 07:38:43 · answer #8 · answered by kelly24592 5 · 0 0

Yes.. By not controlling our borders. You think it would have taught them SOMETHING>

2006-07-13 07:17:49 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

That is riduculous to ask.

2006-07-13 07:19:30 · answer #10 · answered by DT 2 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers