I was talking to someone the other day who believes that 9-11 was a cooperative effort between the Bush administration, CIA, oil buddies etc... and Osama et al.
There is a documentary out there that alleges that the buildings were cleared out and timed explosives were put in place. There are theories about the impossibility of melting steel causing the collapse of the buildings. There is apparently a CNN reporter on film stating that building #7 had collapsed, though it was pictured behind her at the time, only to collapse later. Someone who owns one of the buildings apparently has ties to the Bush family. And on and on.
In order for this conspiracy to be true, one has to believe that Bush, his family, and no doubt hundreds of others would be willing to incinerate a few thousand Americans in the hopes of cashing in later with war and oil profits. I simply can't believe (given the evidence that I have seen thus far) that hundreds of the wealthiest and most powerful individuals in the world would take the risk of getting caught, disgracing themselves, their family and their country to get rich. They are already rich.
Anyway, my question. Do you think that, given the exact same set of facts and theories, the 9-11 conspiracy believers would still be believers if you substituted Clinton for Bush as the main villian?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Questioning the truthers Denis?
You are really going to attract the nutburgers now.
such an intelligent, thought provoking conversationalist that Real Debate is...
anyways, The left and right will never agree on the 9-11 theories.
But i think what's been made drastically clear is the horrendous lack of oversight of government contracts that have been given to "providers" of services in Iraq.
These contractors have grossly overcharged the american taxpayer to the tune of billions. Right wingers are quick to not "waste money" on social programs, but not as quick to stop government contractors from overcharging the US taxpayer. Denis, Real Debate, GOP Folk, could you shed light as to why this selective oversight occurs?
Substitute Clinton for Bush and you get the same subset of conspiracy theorists spouting the same stuff, and instead of the Bush haters, you get the Clinton haters saying the same stuff. Taken together these make up the fringe, but they are loud, and their rhetoric style seems to be borrowed by otherwise sensible people because it gets them attention.
What if you look upon 9-11 as an attack against the capitalist world and the currency system, not an attack upon America.
There were people in the towers that were not Americans.
The tactic of attempting to attribute conspiracy theory adherants to the 'left' is a ploy used by the right to defame the beliefs of those whom oppose the right.
This trick question is not worth responding to, as it is a trick question...
Anon is correct. This is a trick question. If someone could believe that Bush is capable of participating in 9-11 but Clinton couldn't, then the facts or theories put forth would be irrelevant while a perceived insight into the mind or soul of Bush or Clinton would be all that mattered.
What matters is a 'true' Democracy...which is a joke now...
Post a Comment