Personally I, as do many more, firmly believe that UA93 was shot down by the American Government, so as to prevent it being flown into the White House. Of course I could point you to many sites that substantiate this claim, where as you could point me to many the debunk it. The truth is........we will probably never know the truth and in our lifetime we will just have to believe what each of us believe.
Why would you believe that without any evidence? Are you really comfortable with the potential insult to the staggeringly brave people on that flight if, by chance, the official version is right? And of course, we have the questions of why lie about it and the sheer logistics of covering it up. Anyway, I do suspect that it would now be policy to shoot down a plane believed to have been hijacked with the intention of crashing it in a heavily populated area. But it makes no sense in the case of the Malaysian jet, which (probably/possibly) crashed into the ocean a thousand plus miles from the nearest land therefore posing no threat to anybody. So the only reason to shoot it down would be to kill everyone on board. I suspect that this is a mystery because the investigation and actions by the Malaysian authorities have been incompetent from the word go. Hopefully soon we, and more importantly the families of those onboard, will know.
Don't be silly, they were all a bunch of heroes who sanctified their lives, the police never told a single lie about Hillsborough and there are still WMDs in Iraq, they just haven't found them yet! Remember, be a drone and never question anything.
There will always be speculation around the water cooler as to what happened with this flight. I would not be that surprised if the only cover ups are to mask incompetence - as Stan alludes to - rather than to conceal some further reaching, sinister conspiracy. Each to their own, of course, but I struggle with the appeal of scouring the internet for myriad angles, theories, conspiracies and cover-ups; for me it feels a little like rubbernecking.
I know this is pointless because you are a monomaniac but there is a material difference between UA93 and Hillsborough/WMDs - the latter two have been exposed/investigated by reputable journalism and eventually, formal inquiries. Proper journalists have never felt it necessary to waste their time on trying to 'prove' anything about UA93. Paranoid, lonely and wrong is no way to go through life, son. Question everything certainly, but please use some commonsense in the process.
with saddam spending as much time as possible trying to be the hard man in the desert he was the one alluding to the fact he had wmds the fact bush and blair chose to believe him is understandable imo
I quite liked the comment made that the Yanks should have known exactly what Saddam had as they sold much of it to him in the first place.
Yeah but the head in the sand lot will deny that while theres no denying they armed them to fight the russians in afghanistan. It also makes you wonder that if they armed them before and after the worst terror attack in US history, what was their connection at the time and why did they get into bed with them again so soon after? It would be like us arming the IRA.
Kiwi, if I thought you really believed what you've just written, I'd be extremely worried about the state of your mind.
Now, now, we've been through this before. Times change, what might have seemed sensible 30 years ago now looks like a big mistake, but that was not foreseeable at the time, when the USSR and Iran were seen as the threats. They may well be supplying some parts of the Syrian opposition (its a heterogenous grouping, not just religious nutters) just like Putin is supplying Assad, and its very likely that will all get worse as well. According to you the Americans attacked themselves on 9/11, so your second point stretches even the idiot logic you usually employ. Inconsistency, classic sympton of paranoia.
The Soviet Union and Iran were never a threat. The Soviet Union, as is Russia today, was completely surrounded by the US and its allies. Very easy to see on any map. As for 9/11 being an inside job I don't really believe that. More like US backed al-Qaeda operatives acting alone or in some kind of cell structure. The US has backed so many dodgy dictators and dodgy far-right insurgancies down the decades that the **** hits the fan fairly frequently. Ukraine being the current misjudgement, that Kelly really comes across as a complete idiot.
Crimea was a brilliant peace of US hypocrisy. They arm a far right group to try and overthrow a democratically elected gov. That fails and they have a democratic vote to join Russia. Kerry then say they can't "invade" a country based on lies. So according to them, a bunch of Saudis attacking and made up lies about WMD is OK to invade Iraq but a legitimate vote to decide if Crimea to join Russia is wrong. Hilarious.
That's kinda the point. If he had any, he'd already used it on the kurds. The rest was a convenient excuse on Bush's part.
On Saddam in Harrow, some surprising comments in the Fail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...tml?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490
"Harrow Council leader Susan Hall said: This is a restaurant that leaves a nasty taste in my mouth." Lebanese food can do that to you...
Malaysian PM says now its a criminal investigation and was downed by someone at the controls. Looks like they are going with my theory. http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/mi...mystery-becomes-criminal-investigation-n53701
