Ahhhh, now it's tha "Deep State"! Oooooo..............

[BigElCat]

I don't know how it happened, but it wasn't a jet fuel fire, IMHO.

And it justified taking down Saddam, even though they were Saudis.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by BigElCat

I don't know how it happened, but it wasn't a jet fuel fire, IMHO.

And it justified taking down Saddam, even though they were Saudis.

A furnace is a box in which heat input exceeds heat output. Furnaces get hotter and hotter as long as that condition applies. The burning jet fuel turned the buildings into furnaces.

[Pio1980]

I tried scanning thru this resource and wasn't persuaded that there wasn't anything that can counter the damage and fire scenario.
Checking motivation for alternate explanations didn't carry the day from Al Quaida being the actors.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11...iracy_theories

Again, Occam's Razor, who benefits with the least risk?
Like OK City, someone with a grudge and a plan.
And, what's with Saddam and Iraq?
If we were going to do them a favor by deposing him, we certainly owed them a better outcome then break stuff, kill people, grab the oilfields and let them figure it out themselves.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by BigElCat

I don't know how it happened, but it wasn't a jet fuel fire, IMHO.

And it justified taking down Saddam, even though they were Saudis.

The aggressive imperialist neocon Iraq adventure was never justified in any way. That the nation went along with it was if anything a greater moral failure than the election of Trump, since a lot of intelligent people who should have known better, including a lot of media figures and Democratic politicians, went along with it. The feeling that it would be good to kick some butt after 9/11 was what carried popular opinion, to the nation's shame.

[Dondilion]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

The aggressive imperialist neocon Iraq adventure was never justified in any way. That the nation went along with it was if anything a greater moral failure than the election of Trump, since a lot of intelligent people who should have known better, including a lot of media figures and Democratic politicians, went along with it. The feeling that it would be good to kick some butt after 9/11 was what carried popular opinion, to the nation's shame.

The DNC preferred Trump...it wanted a easy opposition candidate - a sure thing. The same media that is now bellyaching about Trump gave him a lot of time and opportunity.

They knew him; he was not an unknown quantity.
Where the morality argument gets murky and insincere is: A large subset of the people who wear the morality hat support fervidly the Clintons.

[donquixote99]

Thanks for expanding on your thoughts.

Clearly in hindsight anyone who angled for a Trump nomination as an anti-GOP strategy made a huge mistake. But both Trump and and course and events leading to his election were novel, unprecedented.

Hillary is not a perfect angel, but understand that a person not infected by the right wing demonization does not regard her as a hate object. Good with the bad, she is vastly better than Trump. If you think saying that makes me evil, you're wrong.

[Pio1980]

I went with Hillz because the alternative was an untrustworthy incompetent unqualified con-man bullshit artist, who is now the POTUS proving me 100% on point.

[Pio1980]

Dp, nt.

[Dondilion]

After three years Trump has stood doggedly on his campaign platform.

[Dondilion]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Thanks for expanding on your thoughts.

Clearly in hindsight anyone who angled for a Trump nomination as an anti-GOP strategy made a huge mistake. But both Trump and and course and events leading to his election were novel, unprecedented.

Hillary is not a perfect angel, but understand that a person not infected by the right wing demonization does not regard her as a hate object. Good with the bad, she is vastly better than Trump. If you think saying that makes me evil, you're wrong.

I could never associate you with evil. If my input transmit that, I apologize.