Originally posted by {b.s.e.}
Labeling it a Government Conspiracy is misleading. A rogue faction within the political system, conspiring with the corporate elite is much more accurate.
Speaking to you people generates the idea that you don't actually want to know, or refuse to think for yourself. There are so many things that are wrong in the Official Story, it's a matter of looking past the Popular Mechanics lies and into the media suppression of Building 7.
People all over the world are waking up to this. It was mentioned in Japanese Parliament. These are intelligent people, unswayed or hyponotised by the boobtube and a foreign nation's government's lies.
These are the people I look to for advice and insight. Not government shills and corporate sellout s.:disbelief
The problem with this conspiracy theory are several...
1. There are no coincidences. Everything is intentional and is the result of some secret cabal of evil men bent on world domination.
2. The use of truth molded to fit the conspiritorial view of what happened. Conspiracy theorists have already made up their mind. Therefore, any actual facts are interpreted through the lens of a conspiracy.
The links you posted to me, do nothing to confirm a 9/11 conspiracy. The 9/11 timeline gives me a verifiable timeline. Great. Doesn't prove a government conspiracy though. The Japanese parliament transcript. He just rehashes the 9/11 truther theories, and proves nothing. I have also looked at the engineer/archetects for 911 truth. If they want to investigate themselves, by all means, I support them. An independent 911 commission. I support that also. Until then, nothing has been proved without a doubt by the 911 truth movement. Zip. Nada. Null. Zero.
Krypton
quote:
Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Academia is the new religious dogma in case you didn't notice.
At least in academia, there is room for constructive, rational, organized debate grounded in reality. Trying to debate with colorut is like bashing my head into a brick wall. Hmm, kind of like trying to debate with fundamentalist theists...:rolleyes:
{b.s.e.}
quote:
Originally posted by Krypton
At least in academia, there is room for constructive, rational, organized debate grounded in reality.
Right, if I've come across as a bit zealous, or ambitious in my posts I apologise. As it stands, I've made a valid point [one pertaining to the common perception of reality]: The time it took the WTC Building 7 was roughly that which is calculated to be free fall speed. Free fall speed is only witnessed in a controlled atmosphere, with no resistance from matter on its path from A to B, unassisted by any force than gravity.
That being said, regardless of my understanding of calculus, the Law of Conservation of Momentum is sound as , and I do not need to know the numbers behind it. It is proven. Beyond a theory, like the Pancake Theory. lol
How can the Laws of Physics be used to explain this situation other than in the way that is suggested by the Law of Conservation of Momentum? A systematic collapse would imply that the fire was exactly the same raging temperature all through the building, and all of the steel gave way at the exact same time. That is another incorrect assertion of logic, because we know that symmetry does not exist in nature, and a fire-instigated collapse would be much more asymmetrical and uncontrolled. Where there is a pattern, there is the hand of man.
Krypton
quote:
Originally posted by {b.s.e.}
Right, if I've come across as a bit zealous, or ambitious in my posts I apologise. As it stands, I've made a valid point [one pertaining to the common perception of reality]: The time it took the WTC Building 7 was roughly that which is calculated to be free fall speed. Free fall speed is only witnessed in a controlled atmosphere, with no resistance from matter on its path from A to B, unassisted by any force than gravity.
That being said, regardless of my understanding of calculus, the Law of Conservation of Momentum is sound as , and I do not need to know the numbers behind it. It is proven. Beyond a theory, like the Pancake Theory. lol
How can the Laws of Physics be used to explain this situation other than in the way that is suggested by the Law of Conservation of Momentum? A systematic collapse would imply that the fire was exactly the same raging temperature all through the building, and all of the steel gave way at the exact same time. That is another incorrect assertion of logic, because we know that symmetry does not exist in nature, and a fire-instigated collapse would be much more asymmetrical and uncontrolled. Where there is a pattern, there is the hand of man.
I don't see you as a ranting and raving idiot, so even though I completely disagree with you, I still respect your opinion. Here you are giving your personal thoughts on the subject, with sources you believe help your case, unlike our resident plagiarizers who are incapable for formulating their own opinions but rely on those of others, even though they claim to be open-minded individuals.
/rant
I just think you're wrong. I do however believe, the government failed to prevent the attack, and that is wholly their fault. Independent 911 commission, I support that. I do not however support any notion that the towers were rigged to explode. There is not, any conclusive evidence whatsoever, that that happened. All you've got is questionable indirect evidence, which we must assume conspiracy first, to interpret this inconclusive so-called evidence. Sorry man, but that won't cut it.
Take the "bomb" sounds for example. That could be ANYTHING. No one saw them, not one person is implicated in setting them, or detonating them, only "boom" noises. Well, "boom" could be anything. It could be water tanks exploding, gas tanks exploding, pipes exploding, structural failure, etc. etc. No has yet come forward with any "piece of the bomb". Nothing. No one has admitted to planting bombs, or even accused anyone else of doing so. You've got nothing. Additionally, why fly commercial jets into the buildings if they were going to bomb them? What was it for? Special effect? Think about it. Occam's Razor man. There is no rational answer to that question. Why? Well, there were no bombs!;)
shaolin_Z
I'm just curious if the intellectually honest proponents of the pancake theory and Al-Qaeda conspiracy theory have any arguments other than the appeal to authority logical fallacy and juvenile ad hominen trolling tactics :). You guys seem to get all bent out of shape when people don't buy your fallacy laden arguments:
quote:
An appeal to authority or argument by authority is a type of argument in logic called a fallacy. It bases the truth value of an assertion on the authority, knowledge, expertise, or position of the person asserting it. It is also known as argument from authority, argumentum ad verecundiam (Latin: argument to respect) or ipse dixit (Latin: he himself said it). It is one method of obtaining propositional knowledge, but a fallacy in regard to logic, because the validity of a claim does not follow from the credibility of the source. The corresponding reverse case would be an ad hominem attack: to imply that the claim is false because the asserter lacks authority or is otherwise objectionable in some way.[1]
Originally posted by Krypton
I don't see you as a ranting and raving idiot, so even though I completely disagree with you, I still respect your opinion. Here you are giving your personal thoughts on the subject, with sources you believe help your case, unlike our resident plagiarizers who are incapable for formulating their own opinions but rely on those of others, even though they claim to be open-minded individuals.
/rant
I just think you're wrong. I do however believe, the government failed to prevent the attack, and that is wholly their fault. Independent 911 commission, I support that. I do not however support any notion that the towers were rigged to explode. There is not, any conclusive evidence whatsoever, that that happened. All you've got is questionable indirect evidence, which we must assume conspiracy first, to interpret this inconclusive so-called evidence. Sorry man, but that won't cut it.
Take the "bomb" sounds for example. That could be ANYTHING. No one saw them, not one person is implicated in setting them, or detonating them, only "boom" noises. Well, "boom" could be anything. It could be water tanks exploding, gas tanks exploding, pipes exploding, structural failure, etc. etc. No has yet come forward with any "piece of the bomb". Nothing. No one has admitted to planting bombs, or even accused anyone else of doing so. You've got nothing. Additionally, why fly commercial jets into the buildings if they were going to bomb them? What was it for? Special effect? Think about it. Occam's Razor man. There is no rational answer to that question. Why? Well, there were no bombs!;)
I know you think I'm wrong, but unfortunately 2+2 does not equal 5, as they have you believing right now. There are so many eyewitnesses to testify secondary and tertiary explosions, everyone just chooses to overlook what they have to say, in favour ignoring logical thought process and analytical thought.
No one sees history as context in daily life and common reality, but you can be sure that they have been planning this for a long time. A Project For A New American Century outlines the NeoCon's agenda pretty well; A new Pearl Harbour indeed. Let alone think that those who failed to see Project Northwoods to fruition would let their idea go to waste; Kennedy and any resistance long since dead.
A deliberate failure of defense, killing many many Americans. Not only did the American Government know about 9-11 and fail to prevent the attack, they watched it unfold, protecting the hijackers as they made their way toward their *chuckle* destiny. One of the hijackers is even reported to have lived with an FBI informant.
The Bush administration has lied on every front about the Attack. Whether we're talking about Bush 'forgetting' where he actually saw the attack, claiming he saw the first plane strike the towers, when in fact the first impact was not shown live on television. Or SecDef Rummy lying about how no one would have ever conceived of terrorists using planes against them as weapons - of course we all know differently by now.
If you're wondering why the planes, let's think of it this way: they knew it was going to happen, but they knew that the WTC had been designed to withstand several plane crashes - and we should know by now that it has survived a pretty devastating fire in '75. LINK
When could they have set the place up for demolition? It is possible that in 1996, when Securacom took over WTC security and installed a new $8.3 million security system, that the explosives and charges were also put in place. Sitting on the board of Securacom was the director Marvin Bush, George Bush’s younger brother.
Now, we all know that the FBI aided and abetted the attacks on the WTC in '93, and if not, you should.
So, in light of the corruption of past administrations, why should you give the current one credit whatsoever? Wouldn't it be a bigger leap in judgement to take their word? :wtf:
culorut
Great post b.s.e., sums it up very nicely.
{b.s.e.}
quote:
Originally posted by culorut
Great post b.s.e., sums it up very nicely.
I forgot to mention the Gulf of Tonkin Incident lie.
I doubt they noticed. ;)
Ideology
quote:
Originally posted by {b.s.e.}
I know you think I'm wrong, but unfortunately 2+2 does not equal 5, as they have you believing right now.
First of all, I'm going to point this out. Stop with this, "I know the truth and you're a blinded bot" bull. It's really getting old.
[quote]There are so many eyewitnesses to testify secondary and tertiary explosions, everyone just chooses to overlook what they have to say, in favour ignoring logical thought process and analytical thought.
There are eyewitnesses to hearing blasts. No one saw the bombs. No one saw the explosion of a bomb. No one knows who set the supposed bombs. You have nothing. All you have is hearsay. What people think they heard. Guess what? In a court of law, hearsay is not evidence. Neither is it satisfactory for you to use it either.
quote:
No one sees history as context in daily life and common reality, but you can be sure that they have been planning this for a long time. A Project For A New American Century outlines the NeoCon's agenda pretty well; A new Pearl Harbour indeed. Let alone think that those who failed to see Project Northwoods to fruition would let their idea go to waste; Kennedy and any resistance long since dead.
We go back to the use of actual truth used in support of unsupported conspiracy theories. I loath the Project for a New American Century. But guess what. That's not a secret conspiracy. They even have a website, you should check it out. The neocons have no kept their agenda secret. They advocate regime change in Muslim countries, which just so happens to be the greatest oil producing region of the world. Now, are you advocating the notion that Neocons (whose philosophy wasn't even in existance in the early 1960's) killed Kennedy? What's you evidence?
quote:
A deliberate failure of defense, killing many many Americans. Not only did the American Government know about 9-11 and fail to prevent the attack, they watched it unfold, protecting the hijackers as they made their way toward their *chuckle* destiny. One of the hijackers is even reported to have lived with an FBI informant.
The American government knew that OBL was planning an attack inside America. That much is true. But what is your evidence to assert they knew IN DETAIL the 911 operation? They failed in protecting, that much is also true, but that is simply a failure. That is not evidence for a conspiracy. As for NORAD's supposed stand down, I don't know enough about that to comment right now.
quote:
The Bush administration has lied on every front about the Attack. Whether we're talking about Bush 'forgetting' where he actually saw the attack, claiming he saw the first plane strike the towers, when in fact the first impact was not shown live on television. Or SecDef Rummy lying about how no one would have ever conceived of terrorists using planes against them as weapons - of course we all know differently by now.
The Bush Administration are liars. I don't know if they lied about 911 though. Have they used it to push forward their grandiose vision for the Middle East, yes? Remember, Al-Qaeda's #1 goal is not the destruction of America, but it is the creation of an Sunni Islamic revolution in the Middle East region. Attacking America (which supports oppression in the ME), provokes America into retaliating against Muslims, thereby stoking Muslim resentment, and furthering the Islamists cause. 911 was designed to provoke America into a response that would anger Muslims so much that they would enlist en masse to the Islamic Revolution, overthrow their oppressive governments, and install Islamic states throughout the region.
Bush says a lot of stupid stuff. He mis-speaks like no other President in our history. But to say, this is evidence there is a 911 conspiracy, based on a misquote, is ludicrous.
quote:
If you're wondering why the planes, let's think of it this way: they knew it was going to happen, but they knew that the WTC had been designed to withstand several plane crashes - and we should know by now that it has survived a pretty devastating fire in '75. LINK
That article has nothing to do with this discussion. It's about Venezuela...:rolleyes:
You still didn't answer the question. If they wanted to bomb the WTC into destruction, why have 737's crash into them? Did they do it just for kicks, for that added special effect? Are you going to tell me, they were remotely controlled? That there weren't suicidal hijackers on board? I'm listening.
quote:
When could they have set the place up for demolition? It is possible that in 1996, when Securacom took over WTC security and installed a new $8.3 million security system, that the explosives and charges were also put in place. Sitting on the board of Securacom was the director Marvin Bush, George Bush’s younger brother.
So all you've got is what you think is possible. Sorry sir, that is not admissable in a court of law. What evidence do you have to prove Securacom planted explosives in 1996. So what you're saying is, before the New American Century was even founded, some cabal of evil madmen were planning this from the mid 1990's? That is hardcore speculation if I ever saw it...:wtf:
quote:
Now, we all know that the FBI aided and abetted the attacks on the WTC in '93, and if not, you should.
Are you expecting me to accept this notion just because you say so?
quote:
So, in light of the corruption of past administrations, why should you give the current one credit whatsoever? Wouldn't it be a bigger leap in judgement to take their word? :wtf:
For a government which can't even balance its own budget, I'm surprised you give them this much credit for carrying out, if true (which it isn't), the most sophisticated, secretive, false flag operation in the history of the world. You sir, give far more credit to our government than I myself ever could have...;)
{b.s.e.}
quote:
Originally posted by Ideology
There are eyewitnesses to hearing blasts. No one saw the bombs. No one saw the explosion of a bomb. No one knows who set the supposed bombs. You have nothing. All you have is hearsay. What people think they heard. Guess what? In a court of law, hearsay is not evidence. Neither is it satisfactory for you to use it either.
The explosions and their witnesses are a facet on this chunk of coal yet to be made a diamond. Clearly there are other factors which should be cause for just as much concern as reports of explosions nowhere near the fire, or the plane crash. ;)
quote:
We go back to the use of actual truth used in support of unsupported conspiracy theories. I loath the Project for a New American Century. But guess what. That's not a secret conspiracy. They even have a website, you should check it out. The neocons have no kept their agenda secret. They advocate regime change in Muslim countries, which just so happens to be the greatest oil producing region of the world. Now, are you advocating the notion that Neocons (whose philosophy wasn't even in existance in the early 1960's) killed Kennedy? What's you evidence?
Haven't you noticed that they don't care if people know what they are doing? The stiff-arm is in full effect. Clinton almost lost his presidency over a blow job, how has Bush remained in Office so long after his venomous lies to Congress propelled the Nation into a horrible war, costing so many lives? The NeoCons themselves are the offshoot of the initial corruption of the Republics during Kennedy's brief stint as human/President. Just Google "Nixon and Prescott Bush" and see what sort of results you get.
quote:
The American government knew that OBL was planning an attack inside America. That much is true. But what is your evidence to assert they knew IN DETAIL the 911 operation? They failed in protecting, that much is also true, but that is simply a failure. That is not evidence for a conspiracy. As for NORAD's supposed stand down, I don't know enough about that to comment right now.
September 17, 2001 Posted: 11:21 AM EDT (1521 GMT)
In a statement issued to the Arabic satellite channel Al Jazeera, based in Qatar, bin Laden said, "The U.S. government has consistently blamed me for being behind every occasion its enemies attack it.
"I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons," bin Laden's statement said.
"I have been living in the Islamic emirate of Afghanistan and following its leaders' rules. The current leader does not allow me to exercise such operations," bin Laden said.
Asked Sunday if he believed bin Laden's denial, President Bush said, "No question he is the prime suspect. No question about that."
Ten years of messages and interviews with al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden have been leaked. Translated by the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the documents were posted in September.One message includes bin Laden's denial of having anything to do with the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York City, Washington, D.C. and Pennsylvania. "Following the latest explosions in the United States, some Americans are pointing the finger at me, but I deny that because I have not done it. The United States has always accused me of these incidents which have been caused by its enemies. Reiterating once again, I say that I have not done it, and the perpetrators have carried this out because of their own interest/"
quote:
The Bush Administration are liars. I don't know if they lied about 911 though. Have they used it to push forward their grandiose vision for the Middle East, yes? Remember, Al-Qaeda's #1 goal is not the destruction of America, but it is the creation of an Sunni Islamic revolution in the Middle East region. Attacking America (which supports oppression in the ME), provokes America into retaliating against Muslims, thereby stoking Muslim resentment, and furthering the Islamists cause. 911 was designed to provoke America into a response that would anger Muslims so much that they would enlist en masse to the Islamic Revolution, overthrow their oppressive governments, and install Islamic states throughout the region.
Al Qaeda doesn't exist, my good man, not in the context which you believe it does. It is a ghost name that anyone can use, because the US needs terrorists. Think about it: If people just blow up without a name to represent their deed, it is just anarchy, or wanton radical destruction.. it might even be interpreted in a poor political way for the United States. If you are interested in learning more about the Al Qaeda, watch The Power of Nightmares, it's available on googlevid in full.
quote:
Bush says a lot of stupid stuff. He mis-speaks like no other President in our history. But to say, this is evidence there is a 911 conspiracy, based on a misquote, is ludicrous.
Bush takes orders through a microphone in his ear, you haven't noticed that? lol
quote:
That article has nothing to do with this discussion. It's about Venezuela...:rolleyes:
You still didn't answer the question. If they wanted to bomb the WTC into destruction, why have 737's crash into them? Did they do it just for kicks, for that added special effect? Are you going to tell me, they were remotely controlled? That there weren't suicidal hijackers on board? I'm listening.
Certainly I have answered that question: If you're wondering why the planes, let's think of it this way: they knew it was going to happen, but they knew that the WTC had been designed to withstand several plane crashes. They also knew from their experience in 93 that it would take more than a truck bomb to collapse a tower. In regards to the FBI's involvement, [[ LINK REMOVED ]]
.
quote:
So all you've got is what you think is possible. Sorry sir, that is not admissable in a court of law. What evidence do you have to prove Securacom planted explosives in 1996. So what you're saying is, before the New American Century was even founded, some cabal of evil madmen were planning this from the mid 1990's? That is hardcore speculation if I ever saw it...:wtf:
George Bush Sr. announced the New World order Sept. 11, 1991/ :wtf: Not to mention, his dad and Rockefeller's father were all about the Nazi rise to power. World domination seems to be a past-time for these lot.
quote:
For a government which can't even balance its own budget, I'm surprised you give them this much credit for carrying out, if true (which it isn't), the most sophisticated, secretive, false flag operation in the history of the world. You sir, give far more credit to our government than I myself ever could have...;)
This my argument from the other thread, it serves more purpose over here.
quote:
Furthermore, the Conservation of Energy applies to falling bodies as well. When an object falls, it converts the potential gravitational energy (derived from its height above ground) into kinetic (speed) energy. If the object has to use some of its energy on something else, like air resistance, there will be less energy available as kinetic energy; lengthening the time it spends falling.
Let's use the example of a brick falling from the top of the tower, even just the energy required to move air out of the way is enough to slow the free fall time from 9.2 seconds to 12 seconds. The fact that the buildings were observed to fall at essentially free fall speed, means that all of the gravitational potential energy of the building was in fact converted to the kinetic energy of falling. The fall speed accounts for all of the gravitational potential energy available. There is no gravitational energy available to break steel, crush concrete, eject dust or do anything else but just fall.
Trancer-X
quote:
Originally posted by Ideology
There are eyewitnesses to hearing blasts. No one saw the bombs. No one saw the explosion of a bomb. No one knows who set the supposed bombs. You have nothing. All you have is hearsay. What people think they heard. Guess what? In a court of law, hearsay is not evidence. Neither is it satisfactory for you to use it either.
So we've been told. Perhaps that's what they want us to think and maybe that's why the Kean-Zelikow Commission deliberately failed to report upon the events surrounding the destruction of WTC7 in which there were three eyewitnesses (two of whom were Barry Jennings and Michael Hess - both heard in the following videos) who were rescued from it shortly after parts of it's lower floors and lobby were reduced to rubble.
quote:
We go back to the use of actual truth used in support of unsupported conspiracy theories.
Truth seems hard to come by these days and I wonder why that is?
It's interesting, though, that some people are so critical of those asking important and otherwise yet to be fully answered questions while they themselves somehow remain completely unskeptical of and/or blindly contented by an official report that was published by administration insiders who themselves later said, "We were set up to fail." A report which is so filled with holes that it probably wouldn't even fare two minutes if it were unofficially held amidst the ceaselessly questioning and provokingly thoughtful realm that is often erroneosly labeled as "conspiracy theory."
quote:
I loath the Project for a New American Century. But guess what. That's not a secret conspiracy. They even have a website, you should check it out. The neocons have no kept their agenda secret. They advocate regime change in Muslim countries, which just so happens to be the greatest oil producing region of the world. Now, are you advocating the notion that Neocons (whose philosophy wasn't even in existance in the early 1960's) killed Kennedy? What's you evidence?
I haven't been here for a few days so I haven't read anything about anyone saying or proposing that the Neocons killed Kennedy but what evidence do YOU have to back up the rest of your statement regarding them? Or are you just going by hearsay?
quote:
The American government knew that OBL was planning an attack inside America. That much is true. But what is your evidence to assert they knew IN DETAIL the 911 operation? They failed in protecting, that much is also true, but that is simply a failure. That is not evidence for a conspiracy. As for NORAD's supposed stand down, I don't know enough about that to comment right now.
To be more precise, certain elements within the American government knew about a proposed attack and that many people were told not to come to work on 9/11 has already been pretty well documented.
I believe that Rumsfeld lied to us about not knowing of any possible plot to use hijacked jets as those plans had been well established and were almost even carried out in 1995 under the failed Bojinka Plot
quote:
The Bush Administration are liars. I don't know if they lied about 911 though. Have they used it to push forward their grandiose vision for the Middle East, yes? Remember, Al-Qaeda's #1 goal is not the destruction of America, but it is the creation of an Sunni Islamic revolution in the Middle East region. Attacking America (which supports oppression in the ME), provokes America into retaliating against Muslims, thereby stoking Muslim resentment, and furthering the Islamists cause. 911 was designed to provoke America into a response that would anger Muslims so much that they would enlist en masse to the Islamic Revolution, overthrow their oppressive governments, and install Islamic states throughout the region.
Bush says a lot of stupid stuff. He mis-speaks like no other President in our history. But to say, this is evidence there is a 911 conspiracy, based on a misquote, is ludicrous.
How convenient for him that his constant misspeek can so easily be used as an excuse.
I still wonder what to make of his speech at the White House Rose Garden where he was talking about explosives being placed in the towers, though. That didn't sound to much like misspeech to me.
Here's what he said:
"Khalid Sheikh Mohammed described the design of planned attacks of buildings inside the U.S. and how operatives were directed to carry them out. That is valuable information for those of us who have the responsibility to protect the American people. He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a high -- a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping."
You still didn't answer the question. If they wanted to bomb the WTC into destruction, why have 737's crash into them? Did they do it just for kicks, for that added special effect? Are you going to tell me, they were remotely controlled? That there weren't suicidal hijackers on board? I'm listening.
Perhaps it was for addional shock value? I can't say that anyone knows for certain (outside of those who planned it.) Maybe it was so they could also set up more of their police state infrastructure in our airports? I mean, what are checkpoints on the ground if people can fly right over them? Our no-fly lists can now prevent people from flying altogether ;)
quote:
So all you've got is what you think is possible. Sorry sir, that is not admissable in a court of law. What evidence do you have to prove Securacom planted explosives in 1996. So what you're saying is, before the New American Century was even founded, some cabal of evil madmen were planning this from the mid 1990's? That is hardcore speculation if I ever saw it...:wtf:
There are literally hundreds and maybe even thousands of circumstantial items which could be construed as evidence, evidence which many of us wish would be further investigated and not simply swept under the rug as they seem to have done (and continue to do.)
Also, not all of us are pointing fingers at any one particular group so please don't try to pigeonhole all those who question the "official theory" as being in one. Skepticism isn't an ideology. It's universal.
quote:
For a government which can't even balance its own budget, I'm surprised you give them this much credit for carrying out, if true (which it isn't), the most sophisticated, secretive, false flag operation in the history of the world. You sir, give far more credit to our government than I myself ever could have...;)
As I and many others have repeatedly said, it definitely wasn't "our government" as it was probably more like a rogue faction operating from behind, above, or within it. IMO, it could have even been the same people who were behind the drug smuggling operation which was at the center of the Mena, AK and Iran/Contra scandal's - which are other issues altogether (and which has been covered by noted individuals such as J. Orlin Grabbe, etc.)
