OK, then present your evidence. Who says this? Who overruled who and what is the evidence of it? It could have been a simple foul-up, of which we have many precedents. People in government have been peddling influence for thousands of years. It does not automatically follow that they would conspire to kill Americans in an act of terror to enhance prospects for corruption that are already high. High risk for low reward. Again, this is not evidence, just supposition. If you are saying "it could have happened" we all agree that it is possible. If you are saying that is automatically follows that this must have happened, then nobody agrees. You have taken counsel of your fears, which is not evidence of anything relevant.
Seems to me that you're the dishonest one here. I never made anything up. You, on the other hand. . .
what have i made up? again, like i said, truthers imply things without defending their points. "Well, there is pretty substantial evidence that FDR knew about Pearl Harbor before it happened. Apparently, there was major opposition to the U.S. getting involved in WWII before the attack. FDR badly wanted in, and the suggestion is that he knew about it and did nothing to stop it so that he could gain support for involvement. Take that for what you will. Maybe W did learn something about history..." - contained chaos, truther, implying that george bush had prior knowledge of 9/11.
Oh, I readily admit that I think that the govn't had prior knowledge of impending terror attacks. What I have never believed, however, is that they played a part in orchestrating it, which is the defining trait of "truthers". It'd be difficult to believe the first one if you believe the second one.
your fdr reference not only implies prior knowledge but it also implies that the attacks were purposely not prevented in order to justify whatever it is you think the government wanted to justify. yunno, a conspiracy to allow a massive murder of americans in order to accomplish political goals. ludicrous.
Well, you think it’s ludicrous because you think that GWB is the most honest prominent politician that you’ve ever seen, which puts you on about equal footing with truthers in terms of credibility. When you consider the efforts that it took for our government to enact measures to take care of those who suffered health problems as a result of the attacks (Zadroga Act), I’m inclined be a little more skeptical of their compassion.
Well, it's simple enough. Start with Chertoff....did he or did he not profit from the use/sale of the body scanner equipment? He did profit from it. It's a total conflict of interest. If you cannot admit this much then I have to suggest you are being naive or disingenuous. The evidence for this is in the artice I linked. Are you suggesting the information in the article is inaccurate?
I would like to take this opportunity to clarify that I don't think the US government had official meetings where 9/11 was discussed, planned and given the go ahead with financing, etc. all official business. I think it was done by people who have influential positions within the government acting together with no official papertrail. It's a "shadow government".....
