Building doesn't collapse

redcliffsw · November 28, 2010, 06:16:59 PM

Good question, Frawin.

I'd like to see the answer for that one...

sixdogsmom · November 28, 2010, 07:17:58 PM

Red and Frank, Might I suggest that you both Google "The War In Iraq And Big Oil"? You will see dozens of articles; most avering that Big Oil is the winner in Iraq.

Varmit · November 28, 2010, 07:59:03 PM

Actually I did read it. And it is precisely the fact that the FBI cannot say for sure who the hijackers are that lends doubt to their ability to pin 9/11 on al quadea and osama bin laden. I mean, I can take credit for the Kennedy assasination, doesn't mean I did it. You say that the evidene presented by me and others doesn't make sense. Well, we think the same way about the gov'ts story. Just a few things that don't make sense...

1. Fighter jets (very few) scrambled to protect the white house and pentagon that a) go in the wrong direction b) supposedely are unclear of their mission c) cannot locate a target

2. The Pentagon and the White house, both protected by some of the most advanced radar on the planet cannot locate a passenger jet

3. That our gov't, who cannot decide wether or not to buy toilet paper without a 6 month committee, spends more on the "clintongate" investigation than on the investigation covering the biggest attack since pearl harbor

4. The Secert Service after leaning of the second tower impact allows the president to stay at an unsecured location

5. Bush admits to seeing the first tower impact on television when in fact no such footage was released until the following day

6. NORAD and the WTC security just happened to be war gaming the possibility of terrorists using passenger jets on the very day the event occured

7. And this one I haven't researched that well but, William Cooper was shot outside his home, by Eager County police, just 2 months after predicting 9/11

If you don't like the evidence presented by Loose Change or Alex Jones watch the Esoteric Agenda. Either way all I'm saying is that we should be willing to keep an open mind and consider different alternatives and decide for ourselves. The hardest thing we will ever do is question our own core belifes and ask ourselves why we believe them.

frawin · November 28, 2010, 08:04:04 PM

SDM, you need to read all of the articles, not just the ones from the liberal left. Big Oil Companies are the only ones with the resources and expertise to develop the oil fields. Big oil companies have developed nearly all of the worlds oil. If the Iraqi oil fields were not developed at all the big oil companies would benefit more from the higher world oil prices that would come. Exxon and others know if they don't do it, the Russians, Chinese and others eventually would and then we would be buying it from them. Just because Exxon develops the fields it doesn't mean they will get the oil for nothing, they will still have to buy it at the market price. They will get a portion of the oil or equal monetary value for the investment of producing the fields. America has had the cheapest and the most plentiful supplies of energy in the world and it is because the Big American Oil companies took the risk and developed the worlds oil. Who would you have do it, Chrysler or GMC who don't have enough capital to stay in business. Do you have any idea how much capital it takes to develop fields like Iraq and other Middle Eastern fields and how long it takes to get a return on your money.

sixdogsmom · November 28, 2010, 08:20:16 PM

But, Frank; may I remind you that we were told that the reason we were entering Iraq was because of the threat of weapons of mass destruction. Oil was not in the equation according to the Bush/Cheney administration.

Varmit · November 28, 2010, 08:25:58 PM

Hey, speaking of WMD's...where did they all go?

jarhead · November 28, 2010, 08:34:45 PM

Varmit,
My guess would be Bekaa Valley in Lebanon but who really knows. After all we gave that worm a good years warning and a lot can be hid in a year or carted off to another country

Varmit · November 28, 2010, 09:18:36 PM

I won't disagree with you there Jarhead, but that is not what we were told. The American people were told that we invaded iraq because saddam had WMD's. Not that he was hiding them or had moved them, but that he without a doubt had them. An outrigh lie. Now you would think that with the tech. that we have (satillites able to read car license plate numbers etc) you'd think that we'd be able to tell if he was moving them. More importantly, you'd think that we'd use that tech. to confirm reports that he had them in the first place. Kinda makes one wonder what else the gov't lied about...

frawin · November 29, 2010, 08:37:59 AM

Teresa, I have a great amount of respect for you , your intelligence and your tenacity in checking things out, but I think this subject looks like an elaborate story put together by Obama and his group of henchmen to get Obama elected again in 2012. He is running scared and they will stoop to any level and this just might be what it takes.

frawin · November 29, 2010, 09:12:03 AM

Quote from: sixdogsmom on November 28, 2010, 08:20:16 PM
But, Frank; may I remind you that we were told that the reason we were entering Iraq was because of the threat of weapons of mass destruction. Oil was not in the equation according to the Bush/Cheney administration.

Is that some diversionary tactic or what, I don't see what that has to do with what my comments were about the oil production. I certainly never indicated we went into Iraq for the oil.