His "feelings" trump all objective inquiries?
Sorry dude, but you're commenting about something you don't know the backstory to.
GB had his "feelings hurt" 10 years ago when we first started talking about it.
Since then, he has supported policies resulting from 9/11 that have resulted in the untimely deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people.
However, none of them were his friends, so he doesn't give a **** about them.
boisterous hubris, arrogance, self deception, conspiracy, mud slinging mixed with a heavy dose of self righteousness.
If you have a better explanation, let's hear it.
It was and I did.
But the post says:
It was and I did. You asked what facts led me to believe the Al Qaeda theory of 9/11, so I picked out one part of the story and gave you some of them.
Again, you edit my post to try to change my meaning. Cheap and transparent.
Because it was, and remains, an abstract question to which you demand a concrete answer. With regards to the named six BushCo members, I gave my answer.It was clear and I made it clearer, but you still refuse to answer. Why?
I do mean Marvin, I apologize. What a big, screwed up family. That said, you have been pushing the pre-wiring claim at least as long as we've been discussing it (http://www.buffalorange.com/showthre...The-WTC-Towers) and then claiming they were struck by remote-controlled planes (Post 6 in that thread).Who said 'Neil Bush allowed demolition crews to pre-wire the towers or Neil Bush was an integral part of the plan? Not me. And yes, Fredo was as morally bankrupt as the rest. He just wasn't as competent. you sure you don't mean Marvin Bush?
Now you're disclaiming it. Again.
Have you ever eaten at Randy's Donuts? It's in Inglewood, California on Manchester. Their food is delicious and the large donut on the roof is an iconic image of L.A. There have been reviews of it in the L.A. Times, it's appeared in several movies, it's easily visible on Google Earth, and parodies of it have appeared everywhere from the Simpsons to Grand Theft Auto.Yes. I didn't know gameboy's colleague and we, and presumably he, have only been TOLD what it is. So, I want to know how he can assure us his colleague dies in that crash. Crazy as it seems, the possibility of lying exists.
If you haven't eaten there, how do you KNOW it exists? I mean, movies can be faked, articles can be planted, and the people who have eaten there could all be lying (including me! *gasp*). Have you just been told?
At some point, everybody must rely on other people's accounts to verify information. I cannot personally verify every fact with my own eyes and experiments, and neither can you. To discount gameboy's explanation even after he posted a link, just because he didn't pull Mr. Burlingame's DNA out of the wreck with his own two hands is ridiculous. And then you counter with:
How do you KNOW human remains were found around the collapsed buildings? Did you verify they were human remains yourself? Did you verify their position yourself? How do you KNOW Osama claimed Flight 93 was shot down? Did you watch the video? Do you speak his Arabic dialect or did you rely on someone else's translation?Not true. I have challenged the official story in many ways that still stand irrefuted, like Gordon Ross' analysis of the WTC collapse, the human remains around the collapsed buildings and Osama Bin Laden's statement that Flt 93 was shot down to name 3.
You demand that other people personally verify things to consider them facts but make no such demands on your own sources.
I can invent motives for any number of people or nations. Every repressive regime in the world benefited because they could use the pre-text of terrorism to crack down on their own citizens. Every defense contractor benefited by trying to drink from the firehose of money that opened. Nearly any ex-soldier and cop could re-invent themselves as a terrorism "expert" and chase speaking fees and second careers. Some dickhead made a fortune selling Osama urinal cakes and miniature plastic flags. None of that is proof that they caused it, just that they are ruthless profiteers.However, that still doesn't render Cui Bono, ie. motive, inconsequential. If you have two suspects and one has an undeniable motive of power and money and the other is accused by the first suspect of having an ideological religious agenda as a motive, well, I'd have to say the whole of human history says the first motive is far more likely than the second.
Explanation of what, specifically?Concluding that America has a lot of blood on it's hands because Americans are racist dumbasses is an entirely objective analysis.
If you have a better explanation, let's hear it.
Billszone 2013 Prediction Contest winner!
ive noticed every shiva thread becomes less and less about the topic at hand, and more and more about how people argue and debate.
Do you think that all ruthless profiteers, and especially those ruthless profiteers whose fortunes depend on death and destruction, would shrink from a little engineered carnage to pump up the bottom line and make the world safe for free-market capitalism?