Full Version: Bush didn't USE 9/11
This is what I believe based on the evidence. The Neocons planned and executed 9/11 as part of the PNAC agenda.
Shhhhh.....of course you are right....but shhhhhh....
I don't know, they don't strike me as that smart, they are evil, but smart, nope. I'll concede they knew about it, and let it happen for political gain.
At the very least they used it.
Which amounts to a crime of opportunity.
Like "smash & grab" on acid.
Which amounts to a crime of opportunity.
Like "smash & grab" on acid.
Bushco is not competent enough (but they are evil enough) to have executed 9/11. 
I wouldn't confuse Bush with those who pull his strings.
They were told of another attempt at taking down the towers. Clinton had stopped them from doing this once before. The evidence is there, they knew, they planned this, they are terrorists of the worst kind. They then dismantled our government. It continues this very day. As they said at the practice impeachment, they will be found guilty and hung.
I would give Cheney credit for being in on the planning. Bush might have been informed once the plan was put in play.
But I wouldn't give that retarded chimp credit for helping to plan it.
But I wouldn't give that retarded chimp credit for helping to plan it.
Ahh, the good old days when if evil men of power wanted to commit crimes they had to do it secretly.
Today Bush and Cheny could drive right up to the Sears Tower with a couple of tanks, blast it until it fell over, hop out of the tank and announce to the press that the Chinese did it and America was now at war with China.
The headlines in tomorrows papers would read ... "Sears Towers fall in terrorist attack. China blamed. America at war".
Today Bush and Cheny could drive right up to the Sears Tower with a couple of tanks, blast it until it fell over, hop out of the tank and announce to the press that the Chinese did it and America was now at war with China.
The headlines in tomorrows papers would read ... "Sears Towers fall in terrorist attack. China blamed. America at war".
QUOTE (RandiLover @ Sep 11 2008, 12:54 PM) 
They were told of another attempt at taking down the towers.
Told? Everyone was told! It was the last line of that friggin' HBO movie, with Ramzi Yousef in a helicopter circling the towers and saying, "Next time, we'll bring them both down."
For Bush or anyone else in that administration to claim they couldn't see this coming should have been your first clue just how completely full of shit these people are.
QUOTE (5by5 @ Sep 11 2008, 03:53 PM)
I wouldn't confuse Bush with those who pull his strings.
Enterprise-ing, isn't it...
Proof?
Poof. Melted down and sold to China as scrap.
QUOTE (5by5 @ Sep 11 2008, 04:10 PM)
Poof. Melted down and sold to China as scrap.
Prove this statement?
QUOTE (Hannibal @ Sep 11 2008, 01:12 PM)
Prove this statement?
It's rather well-known that Giuliani put all the metal scrap from the WTC on a garbage boat that went to China where any evidence we could have done metallurigal tests on, was then melted down.
QUOTE (Angron @ Sep 11 2008, 12:26 PM)
Shhhhh.....of course you are right....but shhhhhh....
Exactly.
40% of Americans believe there's a coverup of what actually happened on 9/11 ... but we're not allowed to discuss it, even on Liberal hangouts like this one (for sure not on left-leaning media outlets, like Huffington, ThinkProgress, etc.).
That's strrricttlyy VERBOTTEN!!!
We have to wait 20 years at least until most of the direct participants are dead, just like the Kennedy assasination, so that any verification is impossible.
It's all about turning it into a cold case.
It's all about turning it into a cold case.
QUOTE (shoeshoe @ Sep 11 2008, 01:51 PM)
Exactly.
40% of Americans believe there's a coverup of what actually happened on 9/11 ... but we're not allowed to discuss it, even on Liberal hangouts like this one (for sure not on left-leaning media outlets, like Huffington, ThinkProgress, etc.).
That's strrricttlyy VERBOTTEN!!!
40% of Americans believe there's a coverup of what actually happened on 9/11 ... but we're not allowed to discuss it, even on Liberal hangouts like this one (for sure not on left-leaning media outlets, like Huffington, ThinkProgress, etc.).
That's strrricttlyy VERBOTTEN!!!
40% believe we dont know the whole truth, is that what you mean?
a cover up as to the whole truth, surely 40% is not alleged to think that cheney planned or even knew about it...i am in that 40%, I think we have been lied to, but I have no idea as to what...
QUOTE (5by5 @ Sep 11 2008, 01:53 PM)
We have to wait 20 years at least until most of the direct participants are dead, just like the Kennedy assasination, so that any verification is impossible.
It's all about turning it into a cold case.
It's all about turning it into a cold case.
we can both agree we need a real investigation...but, think about this...what chance is there of even having karl rove indicted for his role in siegelman's deal, let alone a real 911 investigation...we would be lucky to get one of them for their crimes, let alone all of them
QUOTE (shoeshoe @ Sep 11 2008, 01:51 PM)
Exactly.
40% of Americans believe there's a coverup of what actually happened on 9/11 ... but we're not allowed to discuss it, even on Liberal hangouts like this one (for sure not on left-leaning media outlets, like Huffington, ThinkProgress, etc.).
That's strrricttlyy VERBOTTEN!!!
40% of Americans believe there's a coverup of what actually happened on 9/11 ... but we're not allowed to discuss it, even on Liberal hangouts like this one (for sure not on left-leaning media outlets, like Huffington, ThinkProgress, etc.).
That's strrricttlyy VERBOTTEN!!!
Says who?
There is a whole 9/11 section which is specially *gloves off*, because it gets so rowdy. Discussion of the issue is not the problems, it's the Holocaust denial and anti-Semitic crankage that sadly but invariably becomes a part of the so-called "discussion".
QUOTE (Randys @ Sep 11 2008, 01:55 PM)
we would be lucky to get one of them for their crimes, let alone all of them
Gotta start somewhere.
Push that pebble down the hill, and pretty soon you have an avalanche.
QUOTE (brotherdavid @ Sep 11 2008, 02:26 PM)
Great friggin' photo, Bro.
QUOTE (adamquestor @ Sep 11 2008, 03:24 PM)
This is what I believe based on the evidence. The Neocons planned and executed 9/11 as part of the PNAC agenda.
Whether or not they did it, we know for sure they exploited it and misused it.
I may sound like a broken record on this, but we can prove this, even if we can't prove what you believe.
I'd stick to focusing on what we can prove.
QUOTE (5by5 @ Sep 11 2008, 03:34 PM)
At the very least they used it.
Which amounts to a crime of opportunity.
Like "smash & grab" on acid.
Which amounts to a crime of opportunity.
Like "smash & grab" on acid.
which btw, something i thought about, if they truly wanted to put us in "camps" as the CT's are quick to point out, we would have been there post 9/11 for the "good of the country".
think about it.
we would have been so riddled with grief we would have been willing to do anything, so interrogation and confinement would have worked then.
so the internment thing is bollucks in that respect.
complacency on 9/11 is miles away from planning.
there i said it.
QUOTE (5by5 @ Sep 11 2008, 04:17 PM)
It's rather well-known that Giuliani put all the metal scrap from the WTC on a garbage boat that went to China where any evidence we could have done metallurigal tests on, was then melted down.
No, it isn't. Can you show proof that anyone put the hundreds of thousands of tons of scrap metal from WTC on a garbage boat that went to China?
Can you show proof that the multiple agencies that claim they ran metallurgical and forensic tests on the remains of WTC are lying?
Or is it just a belief you have, because you want it to be true?
I purposely did not watch TV most of the day and spent it registering another 10 or 15 voters instead. But, in my readings, I came across this article and, more importantly, Michael McCoy"s list of unanswered questions relating to 9/11.
Here's the link to the article on OpEd News
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Day-of-In...080910-604.html
an example:
There are quite a few more you can read for yourself.
Here's the link to the article on OpEd News
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Day-of-In...080910-604.html
an example:
QUOTE
Smoke and mirrors vs brass tacks
I offer, for the sensible, level-headed person that resides in all of us, the reasonable questions surrounding the 911 attacks that We the People should be asking, yet whos overlords deem to be off limits.
Upon closer examination, many critical, yet lesser known aspects of the crime are poison to key officials and key agencies. The events leading to the attacks, the failures to intervene militarily during the attacks and especially, the stunning secrecy surrounding each aspect of the crime in the aftermath - when agencies and officials are called to account is where the demons reside - in the details.
Why were the repeated, urgent and specific warnings of an unprecedented terrorist attack ignored by the Bush inner circle? With the CIA director George Tenet later proclaiming that the US intelligence system was "blinking red", why was antiterrorism expert Richard Clarke removed from Bush's inner circle by Condoleezza Rice in the months before the attacks?
In the first eight months of the Bush administration, with unprecedented warnings coming from at least eleven foreign intelligence agencies in addition to over 40 Daily Presidential Briefs with urgent warnings, the bombing of the USS Cole and the bombings of two US embassies abroad yet to be addressed, why did the Bush administration reduce antiterror funding - right up until the attacks of 911?
Why did the Bush administration ardently oppose ANY investigation from the start? Why did both Bush - and later Cheney - contact the democratic Congressional leadership to warn that "the democrats would pay a high price" for an investigation into 911 of too much depth'?
Why was a team of legal specialists assembled by Bush insiders to select the members that would make up the 911 Commission? Why was the 911 Commission staffed with well-engrained, political insiders - all steeped in conflicts of interest in their official duty, supposedly "to offer the fullest possible account of the 911 attacks"?
With subpeona power, why did the 911 Commission receive, (and not object), when they received less than 3,000 of the 12,000 documents that it requested from the White House?
Why did the arrangement that compelled National Security Advisor Rice to testify before the Commission include provisions excluding sworn testimony from Rice's deputy Stephen Hadley, Bush's political adviser Karl Rove, or any other White House officials?
Why were decades long Bush family ties with the bin Laden family and the Saudi Royal family completely suppressed throughout the congressional investigation and deliberately omitted by the 911 Commission?
(A twenty-eight page, highly detailed report of these critical connections was reviewed and suppressed by both "investigative committees", as per White House demands.)
Why were numerous key FBI and intelligence officials surrounding the events of 911 gagged - even threatened, while key military, intelligence and political officials that utterly failed were ALL promptly promoted?
Why was the San Diego FBI "asset", with whom two of the hijackers would live before 911, sequestered by the FBI in a secret location and prevented from testifying before the Commission?
Why did Bush agree to "meet with" the 911 Commission only with Dick Cheney at his side? Why were no cameras, transcript or recordings allowed? Why did neither agree to be sworn? Why were all notes taken by the Commission members confiscated by the Secret Service when Bush and Cheney concluded their "meeting" with the Commission?
Why was Pakistan's Intelligence Chief Mahmud Ahmed not questioned when it was confirmed that he personally authorized a $100,000 wire transfer to lead hijacker Mohammed Atta in the days before the 911 attacks?
I offer, for the sensible, level-headed person that resides in all of us, the reasonable questions surrounding the 911 attacks that We the People should be asking, yet whos overlords deem to be off limits.
Upon closer examination, many critical, yet lesser known aspects of the crime are poison to key officials and key agencies. The events leading to the attacks, the failures to intervene militarily during the attacks and especially, the stunning secrecy surrounding each aspect of the crime in the aftermath - when agencies and officials are called to account is where the demons reside - in the details.
Why were the repeated, urgent and specific warnings of an unprecedented terrorist attack ignored by the Bush inner circle? With the CIA director George Tenet later proclaiming that the US intelligence system was "blinking red", why was antiterrorism expert Richard Clarke removed from Bush's inner circle by Condoleezza Rice in the months before the attacks?
In the first eight months of the Bush administration, with unprecedented warnings coming from at least eleven foreign intelligence agencies in addition to over 40 Daily Presidential Briefs with urgent warnings, the bombing of the USS Cole and the bombings of two US embassies abroad yet to be addressed, why did the Bush administration reduce antiterror funding - right up until the attacks of 911?
Why did the Bush administration ardently oppose ANY investigation from the start? Why did both Bush - and later Cheney - contact the democratic Congressional leadership to warn that "the democrats would pay a high price" for an investigation into 911 of too much depth'?
Why was a team of legal specialists assembled by Bush insiders to select the members that would make up the 911 Commission? Why was the 911 Commission staffed with well-engrained, political insiders - all steeped in conflicts of interest in their official duty, supposedly "to offer the fullest possible account of the 911 attacks"?
With subpeona power, why did the 911 Commission receive, (and not object), when they received less than 3,000 of the 12,000 documents that it requested from the White House?
Why did the arrangement that compelled National Security Advisor Rice to testify before the Commission include provisions excluding sworn testimony from Rice's deputy Stephen Hadley, Bush's political adviser Karl Rove, or any other White House officials?
Why were decades long Bush family ties with the bin Laden family and the Saudi Royal family completely suppressed throughout the congressional investigation and deliberately omitted by the 911 Commission?
(A twenty-eight page, highly detailed report of these critical connections was reviewed and suppressed by both "investigative committees", as per White House demands.)
Why were numerous key FBI and intelligence officials surrounding the events of 911 gagged - even threatened, while key military, intelligence and political officials that utterly failed were ALL promptly promoted?
Why was the San Diego FBI "asset", with whom two of the hijackers would live before 911, sequestered by the FBI in a secret location and prevented from testifying before the Commission?
Why did Bush agree to "meet with" the 911 Commission only with Dick Cheney at his side? Why were no cameras, transcript or recordings allowed? Why did neither agree to be sworn? Why were all notes taken by the Commission members confiscated by the Secret Service when Bush and Cheney concluded their "meeting" with the Commission?
Why was Pakistan's Intelligence Chief Mahmud Ahmed not questioned when it was confirmed that he personally authorized a $100,000 wire transfer to lead hijacker Mohammed Atta in the days before the 911 attacks?
There are quite a few more you can read for yourself.
QUOTE (Ishmael @ Sep 11 2008, 09:30 PM)
Michael McCoy"s list of unanswered questions relating to 9/11.
Here's the link to the article on OpEd News
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Day-of-In...080910-604.html
an example:
There are quite a few more you can read for yourself.
Here's the link to the article on OpEd News
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Day-of-In...080910-604.html
an example:
There are quite a few more you can read for yourself.
All excellent questions, that deserve in depth answers.
QUOTE (Hannibal @ Sep 11 2008, 09:45 PM)
All excellent questions, that deserve in depth answers.
Agreed. Too bad it's in the comments section, because I'm more interested in what he had to say than the woman in the above article ranting that the plot of 9/11 was revealed in a 1997 Simpsons episode.
QUOTE (Seeker1 @ Sep 11 2008, 04:44 PM)
I'd stick to focusing on what we can prove.
Aww, now where's the fun in that.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.