SR1419
Senior Member.
Wrong again Harvey!
Definition of LIE
intransitive verb
1
: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
9/11: PNAC Motive and Opportunity as evidence of an inside job
- Thread starter Oxymoron
- Start date
- Status
Wrong again Harvey!
Definition of LIE
intransitive verb
1
: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
SR1419
Senior Member.
Good to know you're a fan.
SR1419
Senior Member.
Just remember Harvey- change comes from within. There is hope for you yet.
And it's not likely because...? These people have the power; and the judiciary in their pocket; and own the media (or friends do); and the law enforcement agencies - of which there are quite a lot in your country - puts the Nazi and The NKVD to shame.....? Something like that?
SR1419
Senior Member.
You want to read some apologia...
check this bad boy out...its pretty ridiculous :
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-042005.pdf
check this bad boy out...its pretty ridiculous :
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-042005.pdf
umm...not so much.WHATEVER THE RESULTS OF THAT SEARCH, it will continue to be the case that
the war was worth fighting, and that it was necessary. For the people of Iraq, the war put
an end to three decades of terror and suffering....The prospects for war in the region have been substantially diminished
by our action
Corruption probably plays a part, and not wanting to rock the boat - but largely it's more like why Mafia bosses don't get arrested, and why energy investment scams don't get prosecuted. You can't get arrested for something someone else did if there's no direct evidence linking you, and you can't get arrested simply for making a "mistake".
Do they have a catalogue??
Grieves
Senior Member
Agreed. But it does warrant a level of scrutiny and investigation. When those are lacking, suspicion is inevitable. When those appear to be not just lacking, but actively suppressed and opposed, what is one supposed to think? Apparently not much. The media, the authorities, all were loudly espousing this idea it was Osama Bin Laden and his nefarious band of cave-dwellers solely responsible for the attack as though it were undeniable fact only a couple of days after the attack, long before the rubble had even cooled. Money-trails weren't investigated, investigations of 'insider-trading' were called off, and the Administration took very strange precautions in evading the answering of questions on the record. There's a great deal of highly suspicious behaviors and choices surrounding 9/11, both prior too and in the wake of the event.
Just because these highly suspicious actions don't mean those who perpetrated them were 'automatically responsible' for 9/11, don't they at least warrant some consideration? Are you able to concede that investigations surrounding the potential complicity if not direct participation of Americans in the attacks failed to take place to the degree which they should have?
I think there was a huge, extensive, detailed investigation into who was responsible. Thousands of FBI agents were involved, and I feel very sure that they were all strongly motivated to discover who was responsible.
It was obvious very quickly who the hijackers were. Things followed fairly quickly from there:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_for_the_September_11_attacks
For several months after the 9/11 attacks, no one, nor any group, claimed responsibility for the attacks, so the primary responsibility fell solely upon the hijackers, all of whom were killed and all of whom left no message or any claim of responsibility behind at explaining why they had carried the attacks out. As the media covered the 9/11 attacks unfolding, many quickly speculated that Osama bin Laden was behind the attacks.[20] On the day of the attacks, the National Security Agency intercepted communications that pointed to Osama bin Laden,[21] as did German intelligence agencies.[22] This helped rule out other immediate suspects, such as Croatian nationalists, who had bombed Grand Central Terminal on September 11, 1976.[23]Authorities in the United States and Britain also obtained electronic intercepts, including telephone conversations and electronic bank transfers, which indicate that Mohammed Atef, a bin Laden deputy, was a key figure in the planning of the 9/11 attacks. Intercepts were also obtained that revealed conversations that took place days before September 11 between bin Laden and an associate in Pakistan. In those conversations, the two referred to "an incident that would take place in America on, or around, September 11" and they discussed potential repercussions. In another conversation with an associate in Afghanistan, bin Laden discussed the "scale and effects of a forthcoming operation." These conversations did not specifically mention the World Trade Center or Pentagon, or other specifics.[24]
The investigators were quickly able to link the 19 men to the terrorist organization al-Qaeda, also by accessing material in their intelligence agency files. The New York Times reported on September 12 that: "Authorities said they had also identified accomplices in several cities who had helped plan and execute Tuesday’s attacks. Officials said they knew who these people were and important biographical details about many of them. They prepared biographies of each identified member of the hijack teams, and began tracing the recent movements of the men." FBI agents in Florida investigating the hijackers quickly "descended on flight schools, neighborhoods and restaurants in pursuit of leads." At one flight school, "students said investigators were there within hours of Tuesday’s attacks."[25] The Washington Post later reported that "In the hours after Tuesday’s bombings, investigators searched their files on [Satam] al-Suqami and [Ahmed] al-Ghamdi, noted the pair’s ties to [Nabil] al-Marabh and launched a hunt for him."[26]
Based on the evidence, authorities in the United States quickly asserted that Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda organization were solely responsible for the attacks, and other suspects were ruled out. The Government of the United Kingdom reached the same conclusion.[27] Although he denied the attacks at first, Osama bin Laden had since claimed full responsibility.
Author Laurie Mylroie writing in the conservative political magazine The American Spectator in 2006 argued that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his family are the primary architects of 9/11 and similar attacks, and that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's association with Osama bin Laden is secondary and that Al-Qaeda's claim of responsibility for the attack is after the fact and opportunistic.[28] In an opposing point of view, former CIA officer Robert Baer, writing in Time magazine in 2007, asserted that George W. Bush Administration's publicizing of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's claims of responsibility for 9/11 and numerous other acts was a mendacious attempt to claim that all of the significant actors in 9/11 had been caught.[29]
They have a whole department:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor.../1406725/Al-Qaeda-may-hit-nuclear-target.html
Khalid, who was indicted by a New York court in 1996 for a plot to blow up US airliners, said al-Qa'eda began planning "a martyrdom operation inside America" two and a half years before September 11.
"We first thought of striking at a couple of nuclear targets but decided against it for fear it would go out of control," he said.
"It was eventually decided to leave out nuclear targets - for now.
"The attacks were designed to cause as many deaths as possible and havoc and to be a big slap for America on American soil. We were never short of potential martyrs. Indeed we have a department called the Department of Martyrs."
He said that the department would remain active "as long as we are in jihad against the infidels and the Zionists.
"We have scores of volunteers. Our problem at the time was to select suitable people who are familiar with the West."
Jazzy
Closed Account
I want you to want to change your own mind, then. Try to avoid being hypocritical by quoting people whose actions you don't follow, for instance.
It would be if you ever listened.
You lie.
That's what everyone says when they've spent a week in the cooler.
Lol!!!!! You couldn't make it up - except someone did!
Surely 'design', not just plain old corruption?
The FBI never wanted OBL for 911. So how come there were Bin Laden 'Wanted' posters put up in New York within hours of the attacks? - presumably an act by emerging US citizen Sherlocks who'd worked out the whole ghastly wheeze straight off the bat. Bravo!
A combination of the same reason people put flags everywhere, and the same reason that Sikhs we being beaten up in smalltown America. People were angry. There was a great sense of jingoism and mighty vengeance at the time. If someone heard the "arabs" were responsible, then that was all they needed. OBL was already on the FBI most wanted list.
That poster was published in The Post on Sept 18th, 2001.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/poster_boy_for_evil_gets_boot_2jfZvAl0uE16GLOD1TpeEP
Last edited:
Grieves
Senior Member
I mean investigation into the potential for complicity in the attacks within the united states, Mick. Indeed authorities were extremely rapid in their investigation where identifying the terrorists as AlQueda and Bin Laden as their ringleader was concerned. Given the nature of the attacks, the extremely suspicious activity on the stock market, and the evasive behavior of many individuals, one would think rooting out who might have been betting/working against America from within would be of near paramount importance.
That poster was published in The Post on Sept 18th, 2001.
Another sample of press/establishment goals being inextricable....more falsehoods - it's the currency.
Here's a senior member of the US govt at the time being questioned by a real journalist - and in denial, at best.
Feith was a signatory to PNAC, wasn't he? Either he has the intellect of a lychee - or he's lying. Hard to tell. I've seen the interview.The following was transcribed from a Flashpoints broadcast of portions of journalist John Pilger's documentary film Breaking the Silence:
Truth and Lies in the War on Terror
http://pilger.carlton.com/
PILGER: Isn't there a problem for us in the West of honesty about the reason for going to war in Iraq � and that was weapons of mass destruction?
FEITH: I don't think that was a lie. We went to war in large part because of the concern that weapons of mass destruction in the ... in the hands of the Saddam Hussein regime ... a regime that used such weapons ... in particular nerve gas...
PILGER: ... and was supplied by the United States and Britain with these weapons of mass destruction ...
FEITH: No, I don't believe that's accurate.
PILGER: Well, yes they were. Most, most of the weapons of mass destruction from Saddam Hussein weren't built by him. The machine tools and the ingredients for his biological weapons all came from other countries, many of them from this country and Britain.
FEITH: I don't think that's right. I think, I really think that the...
PILGER: Well, it's on the record...
FEITH: Well...
PILGER: ... in the Library of Congress...
FEITH: I think that... I think that the premise of your question is wrong.
[...]
PILGER: Why is it wrong for dictators and terrorists to kill innocent civilians, and right or excusable for the United States to do exactly the same.
FEITH: Well, the United States doesn't do it, and if we did it it would be as reprehensible as... as what the terrorists do.
PILGER: The United States doesn't kill... innocent civilians?
FEITH: No, the United States does not target civilians.
PILGER: Hmm. Those of us on the outside who look at September 11, where 3,000 people died in that tragedy, but then look at the thousands who have died since, wonder about double standards here. Could you address that?
FEITH: I think that the... I think that the... numbers that you're... talking about are... are questionable, so let's... let's leave aside your...
PILGER: Why are they questionable?
FEITH: I... I don't accept your assertion that we've killed thousands of... of innocent people. But... let me get...
PILGER: There's a lot of... There's a lot of studies... and examination of facts on the ground that suggest indeed thousands. I mean in Iraq at the moment... there are studies that are talking about 10,000. But I don't want to get into numbers, but certainly thousands seems a fair figure.
FEITH: I don't... I don't know that that's true, and... and I don't accept the assertion.
Last edited by a moderator:
In any 'right' thinking world, G, ofcourse you're right. Unfortunately, the naked ape hasn't managed to scale those dizzying heights of common sense just yet.
SR1419
Senior Member.
Its a Tabloid...and its not false. He was wanted.
Nope. not a signatory.
No, not a signatory, but some kind of bridge between them and the Israel lobby.
Handy snippet from http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Project_for_the_New_American_Century
Handy snippet from http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Project_for_the_New_American_Century
Their Dr Strangelovesque dream came true!The PNAC was co-founded by William Kristol and Robert Kagan in 1997[2], with roots in the 1992 Pentagon. PNAC's original 25 signatories were an eclectic mix of academics and neo-conservative politicians, several of whom have subsequently found positions in the presidential administration of George Walker Bush. PNAC is noteworthy for its focus on Iraq, a preoccupation that began before Bush became president and predates the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. In 1998, the group wrote a letter to President Bill Clinton, Mississippi Senator Trent Lott (then Senate Majority Leader) and Newt Gingrich (then Speaker of the House of Representatives), demanding a harder line against Iraq. By then, the group had grown in numbers, adding individuals such as former Reagan-era U.N. Ambassador Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, and long-time Washington cold warrior/pro-LikudRichard N. Perle.
According to William Rivers Pitt, "Two events brought PNAC into the mainstream of American government: the disputed election of George W. Bush and the attacks of September 11th. When Bush assumed the Presidency, the men who created and nurtured the imperial dreams of PNAC became the men who run the Pentagon, the Defense Department and the White House. When the Towers came down, these men saw, at long last, their chance to turn their White Papers into substantive policy."[3]
Several original PNAC members, including Cheney, Khalilzad and the Bush family, have ties to the oil industry. Many other members have been long-time fixtures in the U.S. military establishment or Cold War "strategic studies," including Elliott Abrams, Dick Cheney, Paula Dobriansky, Aaron Friedberg, Frank Gaffney, Fred C. Ikle, Peter W. Rodman, Stephen P. Rosen, Henry S. Rowen, Donald H. Rumsfeld, John R. Bolton, Vin Weber, and Paul Dundes Wolfowitz. It should not be surprising, therefore, that while the group devotes inordinate attention to Iraq, its most general focus has been on a need to "re-arm America." The prospect of mining oil riches may explain part of the group's focus on Iraq, but this motivation has been buried under the rhetoric of national security and the need for strong national defense.
To justify a need to "rearm" the country, however, reasons must be found. In the more peaceable world of the late 1990s, with no rival super-power in sight, Iraq and "ballistic missile defense" against "rogue states" were the main games in town. The group's links to advocacy for ballistic missile defense came through Donald Rumsfeld, who in 1998 chaired a bi-partisan commission on the "US Ballistic Missile Threat" and Vin Weber, a registered lobbyist for Lockheed Martin and other Fortune 500 companies.
I said
which is right. Don't tell Jazzy though, he's got this theory...it was so secret only he, Osama and Occam knew about it.
That's a first then. Do you think you'll ever run out of excuses?
32:25 and 40:10 into this. There's a bit more from him at 42:40 as well, where he tries to explain himself, and then his minder stops the interview.
Everyone should watch the whole film. I didn't know it was available on yt. I paid to see it.
SR1419
Senior Member.
Its not an "excuse"- its simply points out the fact that the "wanted posters" were merely the typical of the over-the-top tactics of tabloids catering to populist themes to attract readers.
..and he was wanted by the FBI for 9/11 - even if the Most Wanted List wasn't updated to include that event.
So, once again, you are wrong.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/27/AR2006082700687.html
The curious omission underscores the Justice Department's decision, so far, to not seek formal criminal charges against bin Laden for approving al-Qaeda's most notorious and successful terrorist attack. The notice says bin Laden is "a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world" but does not provide details.
The absence has also provided fodder for conspiracy theorists who think the U.S. government or another power was behind the Sept. 11 hijackings. From this point of view, the lack of a Sept. 11 reference suggests that the connection to al-Qaeda is uncertain.
Exhaustive government and independent investigations have concluded otherwise, of course, and bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders have proudly taken responsibility for the hijackings. FBI officials say the wanted poster merely reflects the government's long-standing practice of relying on actual criminal charges in the notices.
"There's no mystery here," said FBI spokesman Rex Tomb. "They could add 9/11 on there, but they have not because they don't need to at this point. . . . There is a logic to it."
ad_icon
David N. Kelley, the former U.S. attorney in New York who oversaw terrorism cases when bin Laden was indicted for the embassy bombings there in 1998, said he is not at all surprised by the lack of a reference to Sept. 11 on the official wanted poster. Kelley said the issue is a matter of legal restrictions and the need to be fair to any defendant.
"It might seem a little strange from the outside, but it makes sense from a legal point of view," said Kelley, now in private practice. "If I were in government, I'd be troubled if I were asked to put up a wanted picture where no formal charges had been filed, no matter who it was."
Bin Laden was placed on the Ten Most Wanted list in June 1999 after being indicted for murder, conspiracy and other charges in connection with the embassy bombings, and a $5 million reward was put on his head at that time. The listing was updated after Sept. 11, 2001, to include a higher reward of $25 million, but no mention of the attacks was added.
Don't forget about the REAL Iraqi crime... selling oil in Euro's. I mean... who would be dumb enough to do that... Oh yeah, Iran.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrodollar_warfare
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrodollar_warfare
http://falkvinge.net/2012/10/06/the-us-invaded-iraq-because-it-wouldnt-have-survived-otherwise/The phrase petrodollar warfare refers to a hypothesis that one of the driving forces of United States foreign policy over recent decades[when?] has been the status of the United States dollar as the world's dominant reserve currency and as the currency in which oil is priced. The term was coined by William R. Clark, who has written a book with the same title. The phrase oil currency wars is sometimes used with the same meaning.
In 2000, Iraq converted all its oil transactions under the Oil for Food program to euros.[2] When U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003, it returned oil sales from the euro to the USD.[3]
The Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran takes this theory as fact. As retaliation to this policy seen as neoimperialism, Iran has made an effort to create its own Iranian Oil Bourse which has sold oil in Gold, Euros, Dollars, and Japanese Yen since its opening. The theory is supported historically by Iranian intellectuals as a move made by the American elites after World War II with the Bretton Woods Act,
So, back to Iraq and the United States invasion. What could Iraq possibly have done from the other side of the planet that warranted a global campaign of lies to build political support for a military invasion that still kills people, one decade later? Why was it rational for the US Administration to spend one trillion or so dollars – more accurately described as “a shitload of money” – on going to war with a small country on the other side of the planet, one that had nothing at all to do with the September 11 attacks? On observing the facts on the table, it was perfectly rational to do so, all the deaths and suffering notwithstanding. It was likely a matter of life and death for the US as a nation:
Iraq had suddenly started selling its oil for Euros instead of for US Dollars.
The United States invaded three years later, which was about the necessary time to build public global opinion (based on false pretexts, also technically known as “lies”, about weapons stockpiles) for a full-scale ground invasion. It also had considerable help from the lack of nuance following the September 11 attacks in 2001 in pushing aggression against a country that was unrelated to those attacks.
Feith at 35:25. 40:00 (but worth watching for one minute before too, for context) and 43:20, when a colonel sitting in ends the interview when Feith is pressed on civilian casualties!
Also - 20:00 - 22 mins is Pilger talking to William Kristol, one of the founders of PNAC, which gets a mention -
A must watch!
Also - 20:00 - 22 mins is Pilger talking to William Kristol, one of the founders of PNAC, which gets a mention -
A must watch!
Bolton at least is not pretending to be anything other than an arrogant nationalist. He lets his evil just shine though and does not care who knows it.
I wish the conspiracy theorists would not waste time with the silly stuff, and actually focus on real issues like this.
It's almost as if conspiracy theories are spread to suck up some of the the naturally distrustful, and delegitimize them.
But that's just a conspiracy theory
I wish the conspiracy theorists would not waste time with the silly stuff, and actually focus on real issues like this.
It's almost as if conspiracy theories are spread to suck up some of the the naturally distrustful, and delegitimize them.
But that's just a conspiracy theory
Does this mean we agree on something!!
F&£% me!
I need a lie down
F&£% me!
I need a lie down
xenon
Active Member
This was a "conspiracy theory" until it was declassified. Imagine that- Koppel babbled on for 444 days and never once mentioned the elephant in the room. Who says the Feds can't keep a secret?
1953 US/UK Iran Coup (4 min)
http://youtu.be/ZNCE6qFHi18
Oh- and here's another thing that isn't talked about so much in this country (think they talk about it in Iran?)-- but it isn't a "Conspiracy theory":
Iran Air Flight 655 was a civilian jet airliner shot down by U.S. missiles on 3 July 1988 as it flew over the Strait of Hormuz at the end of the Iran–Iraq War. The aircraft, an Airbus A300 B2-203 operated by Iran Air, was flying from Bandar Abbas, Iran to Dubai, United Arab Emirates. While flying in Iranian airspace over Iran's territorial waters in the Persian Gulf on its usual flight path, it was destroyed by the United States Navy guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes (CG-49). All 290 onboard including 66 children and 16 crew perished. The incident is ranked ninth among the deadliest disasters in aviation history. It was the highest death toll of any aviation incident in the Indian Ocean and the highest death toll of any incident involving an Airbus A300 anywhere in the world. The Vincennes had entered Iranian territorial waters after one of its helicopters drew warning fire from Iranian speedboats operating within Iranian territorial limits http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655
If no one talks about it, did a Jet really crash? Did a Coup really happen?
Cairenn
Senior Member.
It was ALL over the news when it happened. It was an tragic mistake by an over aggressive captain.---It isn't talked about now because it happened over 20 years ago.
I wonder why you choose only that part of the Wikipedia article? Not quite as devastating to the US if you post all the facts?
"The Flight 655 incident was a year after the 17 March 1987, Iraqi Air Force attack on the U.S. Navy guided-missile frigate USS Stark (FFG-31). U.S. naval forces had also exchanged gunfire with Iranian gunboats in the fall of 1987, and the U.S. Navy guided-missile frigate USS Samuel B. Roberts (FFG-58) had struck an Iranian sea mine in April 1988. Two months before the incident the US had engaged in Operation Praying Mantis resulting in the sinking of the Iranian frigate Sahand. Tensions were therefore high in the Strait of Hormuz at the time of the incident with Flight 655.
In 1996, the United States and Iran reached "an agreement in full and final settlement of all disputes, differences, claims, counterclaims" relating to the incident at the International Court of Justice.[5] As part of the settlement, the United States agreed to pay US$61.8 million, an average of $213,103.45 per passenger, in compensation to the families of the Iranian victims. However, the United States has never admitted responsibility, nor apologized to Iran"
Why don't folks talk about this one?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Cathay_Pacific_Douglas_DC-4_shootdown
I had cousins that died on that one.
I wonder why you choose only that part of the Wikipedia article? Not quite as devastating to the US if you post all the facts?
"The Flight 655 incident was a year after the 17 March 1987, Iraqi Air Force attack on the U.S. Navy guided-missile frigate USS Stark (FFG-31). U.S. naval forces had also exchanged gunfire with Iranian gunboats in the fall of 1987, and the U.S. Navy guided-missile frigate USS Samuel B. Roberts (FFG-58) had struck an Iranian sea mine in April 1988. Two months before the incident the US had engaged in Operation Praying Mantis resulting in the sinking of the Iranian frigate Sahand. Tensions were therefore high in the Strait of Hormuz at the time of the incident with Flight 655.
In 1996, the United States and Iran reached "an agreement in full and final settlement of all disputes, differences, claims, counterclaims" relating to the incident at the International Court of Justice.[5] As part of the settlement, the United States agreed to pay US$61.8 million, an average of $213,103.45 per passenger, in compensation to the families of the Iranian victims. However, the United States has never admitted responsibility, nor apologized to Iran"
Why don't folks talk about this one?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Cathay_Pacific_Douglas_DC-4_shootdown
I had cousins that died on that one.
Jazzy
Closed Account
Here's some historical context, thanks to WIKI.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airliner_shootdown_incidents
Using deadly weapons to shoot down passenger aircraft is like stamping on a puppy. "Fire and forget"?
IMO the captain was wrongly decorated for his part which was valorously carried out, but in a situation of his own making. However the system he was in was fatally flawed. Those mostly responsible (ship's system and battle orders) apparently evaded any recrimination.
I hope and expect that this event had beneficial repercussions, for we are all responsible in the end.
I think it is exactly the same as why Mafia bosses don't get arrested. But obviously the Mafia bosses are the very ones who should be arrested.
If someone hires an assassin they are as guilty as the assassin. War by proxy is as bad as direct war. Installing puppet governments to oppress the people is no different to U.S forces doing it.
The American people as well as people in Europe and Commonwealth are routinely lied to in order to demonise the 'enemy' and justify the atrocities carried out in our name.
Jazzy
Closed Account
That's because they are human, and this state of affairs is part of the human condition.
People everywhere are routinely lied to. It happens, or has happened in Germany, Russia, Italy, Japan, China... in fact could you tell me where it hasn't happened? Perhaps Switzerland or Sweden?
You are quixotically railing against your surroundings, aren't you? Can you cure the human condition?
Correctly observing this, of course, offers no insight to the thread. But your slanted one-sided view does worse.
I wouldn't significantly disagree with what you say here... but 'we' are supposed to be the good guys. Yes I am railing against the wrongs that our governments do and it is probably futile, so in that sense it is somewhat quixotic but the 'monsters' are real and not windmills. I don't like it and at least I can say that I think it wrong.
Jazzy
Closed Account
Well, I agree with you. But it doesn't get us anywhere.
U
Unbiased
Guest
Those who refuse to question the gaping holes in the official 9/11 story, whether the overall story be true or not, and the obvious inconsistencies in Larry Silversteins revelations, whether he is trying to state the truth or not, do not deserve the liberty that they do not fight for. Also those who do not seek the truth, be it different from the official narrative or not, are part of the problem, as opposed to part of the solution, and at the same time are possibly doing the many victims of 9/11 a disservice by possibly allowing the deaths of these people to be in vain.
- Status
Similar threads
