Yeah, I saw it. Can't say I pay too much attention to that though, bit harsh to judge him on what relatives have done.
Dude it isn't just family, it's a litany of criminals associated to the former president of the US and a future candidate. How can someone associated with that list be clean. Use logic ffs If something looks like an orange, tastes like an orange feels like an orange, it is in all probability an orange, if the media have not reported it is an orange that doesn't make it an apple
So are you saying I'm a criminal too then? I know at least two dozen lads that have either grown and/or sold drugs, stolen cars/bikes, burgled houses/sheds/garages, etc. Yet, I've never been arrested or been in trouble with the law (painted myself a right picture there )
it depends, are you involved in a business that can make use of their "skills"? Are you in a position to protect them while they commit those crimes for you and can you provide the great benefits for them for committing those crimes for your benefit? If so i would deem you dirty for sure
No, I work for a charity who has a aim (one of a few) of improving society by trying to prevent those things happening
But you get my point and it is politics, the very game corrupts those who started out not being but the Clintons are a right ****ing pair of scum
Sisu, stop taking such a childlike stance. There is not one leader, political, business, religious, etc. who is truly a very nice man or woman. To get to the top of a very slippery pole you need to employ skills that ensure that you are truly not a very nice person in the true sense of the term. All you can do is try and find a least worst option. So Galloway and Bush are reflections of each other.
maybe you are right, and dont be calling my stance childish for willing to discuss such things please dave, I am anything but. The point is for the most part, this is all hidden for us when making our choices, that's the main issue here if we are informed and we make our choices then we can only blame ourselves but.. if we are informed we can choose neither as well you know. Politics fail if no one votes.
I would be asking why practically all their planes were on 'training' on the exact day of the attack - training for the event of a terrorist plane hijack - but they afterwards claimed they had no way of imagining such an attack could take place Like I said, questions need answering.
READ what I said! I said your stance was CHILDLIKE i.e simplistic. I did NOT say your stance was CHILDISH i.e. ignorantly petulent. There's a hell of a difference between the two words.
Agreed plus they had/have the technology to see the slightest deviation of any flight headed to or over US airspace, and considering the highjackers took over the control of the aircraft's well before the murderous spree took place.
The same can be said of the 7 7 bombings, there was an operation running training on those exact stations that "went live" when the bombs went off, also worth asking why the police redirected the bus with the bomb on to a street not on the route prior to detonation. Questions no one will ask.
Which is what I've told you since day one! Listen, you'll find inconsistencies in ANY event and in ANYONE'S life. Your premise that the Saudis, in particular, are a shadowy presence behind many world events and are aligned to the US far right are pretty well confirmed. many suspect that they knew damn well something would happen, if not the basic details of 9/11. Chaff about exploding buildings and non-passenger planes hitting the Pentagon (funny how that changed from the conspiracy theorists original gambit that it was a missile as no plane was clear on the cctv - till it was proven that the camera didn't take enough frames per second to catch a three hundred mph plane) just obscures the truth. And isn't it funny that they got their bogeyman Saddam finally removed from their northern border, as they'd always planned, as a result of 9/11? When, if anything, the West should have invaded the West for their semi-official involvement in it. You do know the families of the 9/11 hijackers were/are paid pensions by arms of the Saudi royal family? Anyway, it's healthy to question events and those in power, but it's borderline paranoid psychosis to believe "They" pull the strings on every event that happens. That substitutes a quasi Socratic irony for religious acceptance of a higher force, imho. Btw, did you see the Adjustment Bureau last night? Right up your street, I thought!
You keep going at the stuff that is refutable easily due to lack of proof. The missile theory on the pentagon was mainly fueled by the strange disappearance of video camera footage from all locations around the pentagon. One piece of footage which was por quality low frame rate certainly looked like it was a missile. I tend to stick to the stuff you can prove, WTC 7 could not possibly have free fell without pancaking into its own footprint like it did. Sorry but there is plenty of technical info as to why that a fact Dongs. So, logic dictates that if WTC 7 didn't collapse then you have to question the whole attack.
Just listening to the Pete Santilli show here, Apple have an NYPD street team going around telling people to update their iphones On the web too http://topinfopost.com/2013/09/22/nypd-have-been-stopping-people-and-asking-them-to-upgrade-to-ios7 Apple have patents for tech that can enable remote disabling of wifi and camera on iphones in "sensitive areas" http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...-remotely-disable-protesters-smartphones.html
Sigh. Logic dictates that you won't read the ****ing link I posted, even though I have read and watched all those you sent me. So I'll post the ****er in full (the pictures, of course, will not copy, and I'll post the specific link for WT& separately for the graphics and suchlike). WTC 7 Update: Structure Magazine explains one probable cause of the WTC 7 collapse. "Single Point of Failure: How the Loss of One Column May Have Led to the Collapse of WTC 7" http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf Conspiracy theorists say World Trade Center 7 is the best proof for controlled demolition because it wasn't hit by airliners and only had a few fires. They also claim that there was a confession from the building owner who said he "pulled" it. But this is deceptive because while building 7 wasn't hit by an airliner, it was hit by the large perimeter columns of the Tower collapse. It was 400 ft away but the towers were more than 1300 ft tall. As the tower peeled open, it easily tilted over to reach building 7. Below is evidence showing that conspiracy theorists are wrong. As you can see from the graphic below, all the buildings just as far away from both towers as WTC7 were hit. The others were either very short buildings which didn't have to support a massive load above or had no fire. Only Building 7 had unfought fires and the massive load of 40 stories above them. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Update: The second paragraph above has been challenged by conspiracy theorists. For more information on this and a rebuttal read the update around the middle of the page. Below is a photo of the Bankers Trust building. As you can see, the building never caught fire so it was never in any danger of collapse. It also was constructed differently, with a web column design. The interior columns were not pushed out to the perimeter. Note the WTC columns laid out as if there were a path to the building. There are no concrete slabs attached to columns. This is yet another example of pancaking. With the floors pancaking straight down, the perimeter walls were free to lean over in tall sections before breaking off and coming down. That's what gave them distance. So we know the building should have been hit given the debris field above. But what of the damage to the building? Conspiracy sites say there were small fires. And what of Silverstein's comments in the PBS special? He used the term "Pull" to describe a decision made. Conspiracy theorists say "Pull" is a term used by demolition experts. This is one of those many half truths conspiracy theorists use to convince the ignorant. "Pull" is used when they "Pull" a building away from another with cables during demolition. Excerpts from Mark Roberts excellent piece "World Trade Center Building 7 and the Lies of the 9/11 “Truth Movement” Yes, that worker certainly does say they’re getting ready to “pull” building six. Then we have a quote from Luis Mendes, from the NYC Department of Design and Construction: “We had to be very careful about how we demolished building 6. We were worried about building 6 coming down and damaging the slurry walls, so we wanted that particular building to fall within a certain area.” Interesting. They needed to be sure that building 6 came down in a “controlled” way. But wait a second: the video clip that Alex Jones presents – the clip that’s shown on all the conspiracist websites –ends abruptly at this point. Huh? Where’s the money shot? Why’d they cut it there? Here’s why: Because the following scene shows how building 6 was “pulled”: with cables attached to the hydraulic arms of four excavators, not with explosive charges. “We’ve got the cables attached in four different locations going up. Now they’re pulling the building to the north. It’s not every day you try to pull down a eight story building with cables.” Narrator Kevin Spacey: “The use of explosives to demolish World Trade Centers 4, 5 and 6 was rejected for fear workers would risk their lives entering buildings to set the charges.”
