When I referred to Operation Northwoods, it was to solidify my point that the American gov't wouldn't hesitate to kill their own people; this was the same thing Loose Change was alluding to when they mentioned it. The fact that JFK was murdered some time after killing Op. Northwoods (and former pres. Eisenhower, who b4 becoming president was a military general serving under Vannevar Bush investigating Roswell, did America the greatest favor ever in warning of the Military Industrial Complex juss before JFK took office) and popular journalist Hunter S. Thompson was killed when he was the 1st person to openly declare his disdain for 9/11's official story, reinforce this belief to myself; unless of course you believe Hunter really killed himself despite having a solid family life and was paid lots of money for writing whatever he wanted.
The people criticising Loose Change 2nd Edition don't:
-sufficiently explain how jet fuel knocked down the two towers (ask any right thinking chemist: it's impossible...at least those who aren't on the take or been effectively intimidated don't suscribe to that theory - even the law of physics state that the buildings would've had to have been directly hit at their foundations to fall at all, failing a controlled demolition of course)
-sufficiently contend the surviving firefighters hearing timed explosions (and is on physical record via their recorded communications), which have proven to be exactly like that of controlled demolitions
-explain the lack of federal investigation regarding all the evidence of insider trading of airline & other stocks that was recovered in data recovery operations (indications that people knew something was coming); this while knowing a fundamental rule when investigating white collar crime (as the Twin Towers were primarily financial buildings) is to follow a 'paper trail,' be it hard copy or electronic
-effectively say anything vs. Loose Change's view on the collapse of Building 7 @ 5:21pm that day, which housed Guliani's personal bunker, and data regarding the Enron case (which was the biggest news in the days leading up to 9/11/01)
And that's all juss the tip of the iceberg off the top of my head. There are also other factors which 9/11 Loose Change 2nd Edition didn't cover, that further contend against the official story that the gov't provided. And then there's factors that should arouse everyone's suspicions, such as how the Republicans spent more than 10x the money in trying to impeach Clinton than they did on the 9/11 Commission's research; and the incredibly suspicious death of Bryan C. Jack, who was the best accountant the Pentagon had, one who was skilled enough to be able to find the discrepancies unto learning about military planes being subbed in for commercial airliners. And other factors etc.
Really, the greatest asset that those who support the official story have is that the Bush Admin, FBI, CIA, NSA, Supreme Court, and now the Obama Admin all have too much to lose w/the truth coming out, and hence no re-opening of the investigation despite the 9/11 Commission not making any scientific sense at all (or logical sense regarding the true spirit of the law, or even sense based on the Constitution).
It all comes down to who you'd rather believe. As far as I'm concerned, the 9/11 'truthers' have incredibly more substance to their claims than those that try to debunk them. Especially when you consider that you can research most of the points Loose Change 2nd Edition addressed, all for yourself using the internet.
Back to the main subject of this thread, after further reading and deliberation, I now feel that there isn't any way how Israel should give up their borders, especially in the current political climate of the region (it shouldn't even be up for discussion, in light of all what's going on there). Doing so would do nothing but give more advantage to all the plethora of people that want them dead. I felt that way from the start, but didn't solidify my stance until I had more data. I now have everything I need to make an informed decision, and there's no way Israel should give away any part of their land.
What's more, if you add the addendum of Obama's speech today on Sunday, he's maintaining that USA's support for Israel is 'ironclad' (even though his previous words, if followed, do nothing but give them less advantage to the threats they've always faced w/little-to-no let-up). The thing is that if Israel follows through w/Obama's talk to reduce their borders, the only way Israel then has a chance to fend for itself vs. all those who want them dead is to have America's military there helping; basically another occupation, for all intents & purposes. Israel would no more be a free nation in such a scenario, having their existence being contigent upon America's military having permanent bases there (and thus allowing Obama to manipulate them any which way he pleases, as he seeks to do w/everything else under his rule).
Last edited by bladeofBG; 05-24-2011 at 02:19 AM.