Originally posted by: noto12ious
Bush implicates himself:
George Bush has stated, on more than one occasion, that he saw the first (1st) WTC tower struck by a plane, on TV, before he entered that Florida classroom at 9 a.m.
http://911blimp.net/aud_BushImplicatesBush.shtml
Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
Originally posted by: noto12ious
Bush implicates himself:
George Bush has stated, on more than one occasion, that he saw the first (1st) WTC tower struck by a plane, on TV, before he entered that Florida classroom at 9 a.m.
http://911blimp.net/aud_BushImplicatesBush.shtml
yes, because we ALL know Bush is the best speaker with words EVER
and what is there to say that there arent gov't cameras on some of the more important buildings 24/7??? i mean if he does have this "special satellite system" why couldnt they have forced him to watch it almost instantly after it occured on live camera that the gov't had installed?
i can see the gov't installing cameras around the WTC, GG Bridge, Whitehouse/Pentagon/ etc...
Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
wait wait, im not addressing it?
you are trying to ignore MY original post with facts that NEGATE that.
do that then i wont ignore your trolling links.
how many frickin bookmarks do you need before you try and do your OWN investigation with ideas that arent written down and handed to you?
Originally posted by: noto12ious
Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
wait wait, im not addressing it?
you are trying to ignore MY original post with facts that NEGATE that.
do that then i wont ignore your trolling links.
how many frickin bookmarks do you need before you try and do your OWN investigation with ideas that arent written down and handed to you?
You sound upset. You should be.
Your original post negating this? Where? I'd like to see it
Norman Mineta's damning testimony was intentionally omitted from the 9/11 Commission Report because it implicates Cheney's complicity, and destroys the government's official timeline
how many frickin bookmarks do you need before you try and do your OWN investigation with ideas that arent written down and handed to you?
There's something wrong with pointing out the facts? Cry more.
Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
Originally posted by: noto12ious
Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
wait wait, im not addressing it?
you are trying to ignore MY original post with facts that NEGATE that.
do that then i wont ignore your trolling links.
how many frickin bookmarks do you need before you try and do your OWN investigation with ideas that arent written down and handed to you?
You sound upset. You should be.
Your original post negating this? Where? I'd like to see it
Norman Mineta's damning testimony was intentionally omitted from the 9/11 Commission Report because it implicates Cheney's complicity, and destroys the government's official timeline
how many frickin bookmarks do you need before you try and do your OWN investigation with ideas that arent written down and handed to you?
There's something wrong with pointing out the facts? Cry more.
im not negating it, i dont want to watch it, ive watched enough, and you still have YET to convince me, or even make me THINK that the planes were inside jobs.
1/2 the stuff on the 200+ smoking guns ive negated with other posts of my own.
Originally posted by: noto12ious
Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
Originally posted by: noto12ious
Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
wait wait, im not addressing it?
you are trying to ignore MY original post with facts that NEGATE that.
do that then i wont ignore your trolling links.
how many frickin bookmarks do you need before you try and do your OWN investigation with ideas that arent written down and handed to you?
You sound upset. You should be.
Your original post negating this? Where? I'd like to see it
Norman Mineta's damning testimony was intentionally omitted from the 9/11 Commission Report because it implicates Cheney's complicity, and destroys the government's official timeline
how many frickin bookmarks do you need before you try and do your OWN investigation with ideas that arent written down and handed to you?
There's something wrong with pointing out the facts? Cry more.
im not negating it, i dont want to watch it, ive watched enough, and you still have YET to convince me, or even make me THINK that the planes were inside jobs.
1/2 the stuff on the 200+ smoking guns ive negated with other posts of my own.
Haha. You don't want to watch it? That says it all...you know Mineta's testimony destroys the official story and implicates Cheney in the process... you're just in denial and can't admit it.
Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
Originally posted by: noto12ious
Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
Originally posted by: noto12ious
Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
wait wait, im not addressing it?
you are trying to ignore MY original post with facts that NEGATE that.
do that then i wont ignore your trolling links.
how many frickin bookmarks do you need before you try and do your OWN investigation with ideas that arent written down and handed to you?
You sound upset. You should be.
Your original post negating this? Where? I'd like to see it
Norman Mineta's damning testimony was intentionally omitted from the 9/11 Commission Report because it implicates Cheney's complicity, and destroys the government's official timeline
how many frickin bookmarks do you need before you try and do your OWN investigation with ideas that arent written down and handed to you?
There's something wrong with pointing out the facts? Cry more.
im not negating it, i dont want to watch it, ive watched enough, and you still have YET to convince me, or even make me THINK that the planes were inside jobs.
1/2 the stuff on the 200+ smoking guns ive negated with other posts of my own.
Haha. You don't want to watch it? That says it all...you know Mineta's testimony destroys the official story and implicates Cheney in the process... you're just in denial and can't admit it.
no, i read the article, and did not watch the video... reason being: im lazy, dont want to open IE, because FF is messed up and wont play videos, and i feel an article should be enough to inform me of the main ideas.
your particular bolding of specific parts of the article show how certain quotes can be taken out of context and made to fit any twist/turn you want... also, since i have said that i would watch if not for lack of interest, since you are so interested, please, you are in denial that some of your facts get shot down, and cant admit it.
please please please, since you are trying to prove someone guilty, you have to show how they are guilty by proving the defenses defense wrong/incorrect. but you ignore it.
Originally posted by: noto12ious
Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
Originally posted by: noto12ious
Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
Originally posted by: noto12ious
Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
wait wait, im not addressing it?
you are trying to ignore MY original post with facts that NEGATE that.
do that then i wont ignore your trolling links.
how many frickin bookmarks do you need before you try and do your OWN investigation with ideas that arent written down and handed to you?
You sound upset. You should be.
Your original post negating this? Where? I'd like to see it
Norman Mineta's damning testimony was intentionally omitted from the 9/11 Commission Report because it implicates Cheney's complicity, and destroys the government's official timeline
how many frickin bookmarks do you need before you try and do your OWN investigation with ideas that arent written down and handed to you?
There's something wrong with pointing out the facts? Cry more.
im not negating it, i dont want to watch it, ive watched enough, and you still have YET to convince me, or even make me THINK that the planes were inside jobs.
1/2 the stuff on the 200+ smoking guns ive negated with other posts of my own.
Haha. You don't want to watch it? That says it all...you know Mineta's testimony destroys the official story and implicates Cheney in the process... you're just in denial and can't admit it.
no, i read the article, and did not watch the video... reason being: im lazy, dont want to open IE, because FF is messed up and wont play videos, and i feel an article should be enough to inform me of the main ideas.
your particular bolding of specific parts of the article show how certain quotes can be taken out of context and made to fit any twist/turn you want... also, since i have said that i would watch if not for lack of interest, since you are so interested, please, you are in denial that some of your facts get shot down, and cant admit it.
please please please, since you are trying to prove someone guilty, you have to show how they are guilty by proving the defenses defense wrong/incorrect. but you ignore it.
What's with your excuses? You are correct in the fact that you can't negate Mineta's testimony... the government sure didn't try...they just intentionally omitted it However, you're failing to realize the significance of Mineta's testimony.
As another posted stated before:
In its final report the 911 commission gives the time for the arrival of the Vice President to the PEOC as 9:58, an almost 38 minute difference from Mineta's public testimony, and at the least 20 minutes later than the Vice President himself claimed on national television. Now you tell me who here is in the last throes of telling the truth?
Well, i just proved the defense wrong The official version of events is a blatant lie, covered up with the help of the 9/11 Commission:thumbsdown:
Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
Originally posted by: noto12ious
Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
Originally posted by: noto12ious
Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
Originally posted by: noto12ious
Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
wait wait, im not addressing it?
you are trying to ignore MY original post with facts that NEGATE that.
do that then i wont ignore your trolling links.
how many frickin bookmarks do you need before you try and do your OWN investigation with ideas that arent written down and handed to you?
You sound upset. You should be.
Your original post negating this? Where? I'd like to see it
Norman Mineta's damning testimony was intentionally omitted from the 9/11 Commission Report because it implicates Cheney's complicity, and destroys the government's official timeline
how many frickin bookmarks do you need before you try and do your OWN investigation with ideas that arent written down and handed to you?
There's something wrong with pointing out the facts? Cry more.
im not negating it, i dont want to watch it, ive watched enough, and you still have YET to convince me, or even make me THINK that the planes were inside jobs.
1/2 the stuff on the 200+ smoking guns ive negated with other posts of my own.
Haha. You don't want to watch it? That says it all...you know Mineta's testimony destroys the official story and implicates Cheney in the process... you're just in denial and can't admit it.
no, i read the article, and did not watch the video... reason being: im lazy, dont want to open IE, because FF is messed up and wont play videos, and i feel an article should be enough to inform me of the main ideas.
your particular bolding of specific parts of the article show how certain quotes can be taken out of context and made to fit any twist/turn you want... also, since i have said that i would watch if not for lack of interest, since you are so interested, please, you are in denial that some of your facts get shot down, and cant admit it.
please please please, since you are trying to prove someone guilty, you have to show how they are guilty by proving the defenses defense wrong/incorrect. but you ignore it.
What's with your excuses? You are correct in the fact that you can't negate Mineta's testimony... the government sure didn't try...they just intentionally omitted it However, you're failing to realize the significance of Mineta's testimony.
As another posted stated before:
In its final report the 911 commission gives the time for the arrival of the Vice President to the PEOC as 9:58, an almost 38 minute difference from Mineta's public testimony, and at the least 20 minutes later than the Vice President himself claimed on national television. Now you tell me who here is in the last throes of telling the truth?
Well, i just proved the defense wrong The official version of events is a blatant lie, covered up with the help of the 9/11 Commission:thumbsdown:
so now, why do you believe Minenta to the other two sources???
this is a game of "pick your poison" and right now you have no reason for me to believe Mineta to Cheney/PEOC
Originally posted by: noto12ious
Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
Originally posted by: noto12ious
Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
Originally posted by: noto12ious
Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
Originally posted by: noto12ious
Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
wait wait, im not addressing it?
you are trying to ignore MY original post with facts that NEGATE that.
do that then i wont ignore your trolling links.
how many frickin bookmarks do you need before you try and do your OWN investigation with ideas that arent written down and handed to you?
You sound upset. You should be.
Your original post negating this? Where? I'd like to see it
Norman Mineta's damning testimony was intentionally omitted from the 9/11 Commission Report because it implicates Cheney's complicity, and destroys the government's official timeline
how many frickin bookmarks do you need before you try and do your OWN investigation with ideas that arent written down and handed to you?
There's something wrong with pointing out the facts? Cry more.
im not negating it, i dont want to watch it, ive watched enough, and you still have YET to convince me, or even make me THINK that the planes were inside jobs.
1/2 the stuff on the 200+ smoking guns ive negated with other posts of my own.
Haha. You don't want to watch it? That says it all...you know Mineta's testimony destroys the official story and implicates Cheney in the process... you're just in denial and can't admit it.
no, i read the article, and did not watch the video... reason being: im lazy, dont want to open IE, because FF is messed up and wont play videos, and i feel an article should be enough to inform me of the main ideas.
your particular bolding of specific parts of the article show how certain quotes can be taken out of context and made to fit any twist/turn you want... also, since i have said that i would watch if not for lack of interest, since you are so interested, please, you are in denial that some of your facts get shot down, and cant admit it.
please please please, since you are trying to prove someone guilty, you have to show how they are guilty by proving the defenses defense wrong/incorrect. but you ignore it.
What's with your excuses? You are correct in the fact that you can't negate Mineta's testimony... the government sure didn't try...they just intentionally omitted it However, you're failing to realize the significance of Mineta's testimony.
As another posted stated before:
In its final report the 911 commission gives the time for the arrival of the Vice President to the PEOC as 9:58, an almost 38 minute difference from Mineta's public testimony, and at the least 20 minutes later than the Vice President himself claimed on national television. Now you tell me who here is in the last throes of telling the truth?
Well, i just proved the defense wrong The official version of events is a blatant lie, covered up with the help of the 9/11 Commission:thumbsdown:
so now, why do you believe Minenta to the other two sources???
this is a game of "pick your poison" and right now you have no reason for me to believe Mineta to Cheney/PEOC
Who am I going to believe? Mineta who testified under oath, or Cheney, who didn't, and would only testify privately behind closed doors. Tough choice!
The 9/11 Commission report denies Cheney's presence in the room with Mineta around 9:30, and moves Mineta's story about the plane approaching the Pentagon to 45 minutes later, and makes it about flight 93 instead. GG. Coverup.
.
Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
Originally posted by: noto12ious
Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
Originally posted by: noto12ious
Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
Originally posted by: noto12ious
Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
Originally posted by: noto12ious
Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
wait wait, im not addressing it?
you are trying to ignore MY original post with facts that NEGATE that.
do that then i wont ignore your trolling links.
how many frickin bookmarks do you need before you try and do your OWN investigation with ideas that arent written down and handed to you?
You sound upset. You should be.
Your original post negating this? Where? I'd like to see it
Norman Mineta's damning testimony was intentionally omitted from the 9/11 Commission Report because it implicates Cheney's complicity, and destroys the government's official timeline
how many frickin bookmarks do you need before you try and do your OWN investigation with ideas that arent written down and handed to you?
There's something wrong with pointing out the facts? Cry more.
im not negating it, i dont want to watch it, ive watched enough, and you still have YET to convince me, or even make me THINK that the planes were inside jobs.
1/2 the stuff on the 200+ smoking guns ive negated with other posts of my own.
Haha. You don't want to watch it? That says it all...you know Mineta's testimony destroys the official story and implicates Cheney in the process... you're just in denial and can't admit it.
no, i read the article, and did not watch the video... reason being: im lazy, dont want to open IE, because FF is messed up and wont play videos, and i feel an article should be enough to inform me of the main ideas.
your particular bolding of specific parts of the article show how certain quotes can be taken out of context and made to fit any twist/turn you want... also, since i have said that i would watch if not for lack of interest, since you are so interested, please, you are in denial that some of your facts get shot down, and cant admit it.
please please please, since you are trying to prove someone guilty, you have to show how they are guilty by proving the defenses defense wrong/incorrect. but you ignore it.
What's with your excuses? You are correct in the fact that you can't negate Mineta's testimony... the government sure didn't try...they just intentionally omitted it However, you're failing to realize the significance of Mineta's testimony.
As another posted stated before:
In its final report the 911 commission gives the time for the arrival of the Vice President to the PEOC as 9:58, an almost 38 minute difference from Mineta's public testimony, and at the least 20 minutes later than the Vice President himself claimed on national television. Now you tell me who here is in the last throes of telling the truth?
Well, i just proved the defense wrong The official version of events is a blatant lie, covered up with the help of the 9/11 Commission:thumbsdown:
so now, why do you believe Minenta to the other two sources???
this is a game of "pick your poison" and right now you have no reason for me to believe Mineta to Cheney/PEOC
Who am I going to believe? Mineta who testified under oath, or Cheney, who didn't, and would only testify privately behind closed doors. Tough choice!
The 9/11 Commission report denies Cheney's presence in the room with Mineta around 9:30, and moves Mineta's story about the plane approaching the Pentagon to 45 minutes later, and makes it about flight 93 instead. GG. Coverup.
.
ah yes, because Oath means they arent lying? Oath means they dont have an underlying want/need to try and oust another gov't official???
im done. until you refute MY post i will not say ONE thing in this thread again
Originally posted by: BrokenVisage
Even more damning to the 9/11 Commission was the fact that it actually tried to convince us that WTC7 was brought down by fires when Silverstein even admitted to saying ?pull it? because of fire damage (which looked minimal to me at the time, but what do I know).
Wait, so that means there had to be explosives at the base level of WTC7 to begin with in order to ?pull it?? what the fvck are explosives doing on the base level of WTC7 in the first place?? There is your proof of the 9/11 Commission being incompetent at best, and fabricating the truth at worse.
There is your evidence that there were explosives in at least one of the 3 WTC buildings that went down. Just do a Google on ?WTC7 collapse video? as I?m sure most of you haven?t even seen the footage of it (Even I just saw it for the first time last night).
It?s clear from a mile away that file didn?t make that building collapse (which is a shame, it would?ve been the first ever) so what do you defenders of the truth have to say about this?
Here we have a building that collapsed before any of the twin towers did and it wasn?t even hit by a plane. Here we have direct evidence from the building owner himself that one building was intentionally demolished at his command. Here we have this greedy Jew wanting to make his billions on that terrorism insurance policy he recently signed. Here we have proof of explosives being used. If this isn?t a smoking gun to you people that something is seriously wrong with how this investigation was conducted by our government then I don?t know what else to say at this point.
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: BrokenVisage
Even more damning to the 9/11 Commission was the fact that it actually tried to convince us that WTC7 was brought down by fires when Silverstein even admitted to saying ?pull it? because of fire damage (which looked minimal to me at the time, but what do I know).
Wait, so that means there had to be explosives at the base level of WTC7 to begin with in order to ?pull it?? what the fvck are explosives doing on the base level of WTC7 in the first place?? There is your proof of the 9/11 Commission being incompetent at best, and fabricating the truth at worse.
There is your evidence that there were explosives in at least one of the 3 WTC buildings that went down. Just do a Google on ?WTC7 collapse video? as I?m sure most of you haven?t even seen the footage of it (Even I just saw it for the first time last night).
It?s clear from a mile away that file didn?t make that building collapse (which is a shame, it would?ve been the first ever) so what do you defenders of the truth have to say about this?
Here we have a building that collapsed before any of the twin towers did and it wasn?t even hit by a plane. Here we have direct evidence from the building owner himself that one building was intentionally demolished at his command. Here we have this greedy Jew wanting to make his billions on that terrorism insurance policy he recently signed. Here we have proof of explosives being used. If this isn?t a smoking gun to you people that something is seriously wrong with how this investigation was conducted by our government then I don?t know what else to say at this point.
He ment pull the firefighting effort and let it burn, which is what they did.
No the building wasn't hit by a plane, but debris from the falling WTC1 likely caused structural damage to the south side of the building to an extent yet unknown to most. There are pictures of some pretty significant damage to the southwest corner of the building and reports of more severe damage to the center of the south side from the firefighters at the scene.
The building also had some interesting engineering done by the use of cantilevered steel supports to build over a ComEd substation at its base. That could have effected the way the building collapsed. I'll wait to see what the NIST report on WTC7 says when it comes out later this year.
I know the greedy jew argument is attractive for your sort, but lets look at the facts first.
Originally posted by: noto12ious
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: BrokenVisage
Even more damning to the 9/11 Commission was the fact that it actually tried to convince us that WTC7 was brought down by fires when Silverstein even admitted to saying ?pull it? because of fire damage (which looked minimal to me at the time, but what do I know).
Wait, so that means there had to be explosives at the base level of WTC7 to begin with in order to ?pull it?? what the fvck are explosives doing on the base level of WTC7 in the first place?? There is your proof of the 9/11 Commission being incompetent at best, and fabricating the truth at worse.
There is your evidence that there were explosives in at least one of the 3 WTC buildings that went down. Just do a Google on ?WTC7 collapse video? as I?m sure most of you haven?t even seen the footage of it (Even I just saw it for the first time last night).
It?s clear from a mile away that file didn?t make that building collapse (which is a shame, it would?ve been the first ever) so what do you defenders of the truth have to say about this?
Here we have a building that collapsed before any of the twin towers did and it wasn?t even hit by a plane. Here we have direct evidence from the building owner himself that one building was intentionally demolished at his command. Here we have this greedy Jew wanting to make his billions on that terrorism insurance policy he recently signed. Here we have proof of explosives being used. If this isn?t a smoking gun to you people that something is seriously wrong with how this investigation was conducted by our government then I don?t know what else to say at this point.
He ment pull the firefighting effort and let it burn, which is what they did.
No the building wasn't hit by a plane, but debris from the falling WTC1 likely caused structural damage to the south side of the building to an extent yet unknown to most. There are pictures of some pretty significant damage to the southwest corner of the building and reports of more severe damage to the center of the south side from the firefighters at the scene.
The building also had some interesting engineering done by the use of cantilevered steel supports to build over a ComEd substation at its base. That could have effected the way the building collapsed. I'll wait to see what the NIST report on WTC7 says when it comes out later this year.
I know the greedy jew argument is attractive for your sort, but lets look at the facts first.
Anyone know why NIST was not allowed to examine a single piece of steel from WTC7?
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
skeptic magazine this month tears apart a book called 9/11: A Date That
Will Live in Infamy. it basically has all the nutty conspiracy bs you've seen in this thread.
and really, give up on wtc7. you think the towers with potential casualties of tens of thousands each were not enough and they just had to blow up an insignicant building? its just absurd
9/11:
A Date That Will Live in Infamy
review by Richard Morrock
David Ray Griffin?s fanciful tale of Bush administration complicity in the 9/11 terrorist attack is a perfect example of the kind of conspiratorial thinking discussed by George Case in Skeptic Vol. 11 No. 4. There isn?t much to be learned about the fateful events from Griffin?s silly book, but he gives us some useful insight into the origins of paranoia.
Most writers on a subject do what is called research on the material, which means reading books, conducting interviews, and tracking down documents. This consumes far too much time and effort for conspiracy buffs like Griffin. His approach consists of asking disturbing questions, ignoring the actual evidence, speculating about the possible answers, assuming the worst-case scenario, and then drawing up his indictment of the administration based on his assumptions, even where they are in flagrant contradiction to widely-known facts.
Starting with the dubious ?who benefits argument??, Griffin concludes that since President George W. Bush profited in terms of political capital from the 9/11 attacks, he had to be behind them. Given that premise, he argues that the U.S. government masterminded the whole catastrophe from beginning to end, with the al-Qaeda hijackers being either innocent bystanders or U.S. secret agents. The planes that hit the World Trade Center ? Flights 11 and 175 ? were actually piloted by remote control, with their command center at No. 7 WTC, the 45-story office building across a narrow side street from the North Tower. In addition, the impact of the planes did not cause the buildings to collapse; that was the work of controlled explosions set off inside the Towers. As for the Pentagon, it was a guided missile or, no, maybe a military plane that hit the building, with Flight 77 disappearing inside the smoke and flames. And Flight 93, which crashed in Shanksville, PA, was actually shot down by the U.S. military because the passengers were on the brink of taking it over. The Bush administration didn?t want the hijackers taken alive, Griffin insists, because they presumably could have proven their innocence. How strange that 20th hijacker Zacarias Moussaoui should have been kept alive after the 9/11 events, not to mention the mastermind of the affair, Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, captured in Pakistan and now in U.S. custody.
One of the points Griffin raises is why the South Tower collapsed half an hour before the North Tower, although it was struck 15 minutes later. From this alleged discrepancy in the official story, Griffin concludes that the government had planted explosives in the WTC the previous weekend, using a power blackout as cover, and had dynamited the buildings. He never considers the other explanation: the South Tower collapsed faster because the plane impacted on a lower floor, and more floors were therefore set on fire. Any glance at the photograph of the second impact will show this.
He fails to explain why the government would have waited nearly an hour to explode its bombs in the South Tower, which would have allowed many people to escape; the North Tower didn?t collapse for one and 3/4 hours, and nearly all of the WTC workers who died were in the impacted floors or above. Did Bush?s remote control have a low battery?
Griffin actually does claim that No. 7 WTC, which collapsed at 5:20 pm, was blown up by explosives, and this is taken as proof that Washington was behind it. But what would the motive be? Blowing up an already-evacuated office building after thousands had died in the Twin Towers would seem like a waste of dynamite, not to mention office space. Did Bush think that public opinion had not been sufficiently inflamed by the 3,000 deaths? Do most Americans even know that a third office building, far smaller than the Towers, was also lost on that day? Griffin never explores that possibility that No. 7 was demolished because it had been contaminated by the white dust from the nearby North Tower. Explosives were used because, at 45 stories, No. 7 was too tall for a wrecking crane.
Jet fuel is kerosene, argues Griffin. Kerosene could not have caused a fire hot enough to melt steel, which happened at the Twin Towers. Perhaps Griffin has never attended a barbecue, where kerosene is used to ignite charcoal briquettes, and the charcoal fire then cooks the food. Something similar happened at the Twin Towers, where the jet fuel ignited carpets, furniture, books and papers, which then produced enough heat to bring down the burning floors; their impact on the floors below produced the force that led to the Towers? collapse.
There is the question of what Bush knew on the morning of 9/11 and when he knew it. Some have claimed that Bush was lying when he said he saw the first impact on the Twin Towers, since there had been no live coverage of that attack; the second impact, about 15 minutes later, was covered by cameramen photographing the fire from the first. It would seem likely that when Bush watched the second crash on TV, as he waited to enter the 2nd-grade classroom in Florida where he was planning to read My Pet Goat, he mistakenly thought he was watching the first. Not until about 20 minutes later was he informed that there were two crashes, indicating a terrorist attack rather than an accident, and at that point he started to look worried. About six or seven minutes later, he left the school.
Well, why wasn?t he, or his staff, concerned about his being targeted by the terrorists? Doesn?t that prove, as Griffin indicates, that Bush was aware he was in no danger, and therefore involved in the attack? Not necessarily, given that both attacks were in New York, a thousand miles from Florida, and the attack on the Pentagon hadn?t happened yet. Furthermore, it is unlikely that the hijackers could have singled out the Sarasota elementary school; all of their targets were highly visible landmarks which could be identified from many miles away, whereas urban areas have numerous indistinguishable schools.
Why wasn?t the Air Force ordered to shoot down Flight 77 as it streaked through the sky on its way to hit the Pentagon? The official 9/11 Commission story is that planes were sent north to intercept Flight 11, with the White House and Pentagon unaware that it had already crashed in New York, and that the threat was coming from another plane, heading in from the west. Griffin believes that Vice President Dick Cheney, in charge of the situation in Washington while Bush was flying to Nebraska in Air Force One, deliberately avoided intercepting Flight 77 so that the Pentagon would be struck. One wonders what Donald Rumsfeld, still in his office at the Pentagon, might have had to say about that! Griffin asks why the Pentagon wasn?t evacuated, but never considers the fact that the government had no idea which target in the Washington area had been selected by the terrorists. Nor does he concern himself with the political fallout if an enemy attack on United States soil had been followed by our military leadership fleeing in panic from their still-intact offices.
Then there is the matter of the disappearing wreckage at the Pentagon, of which conspiracy buffs have made much. Photographs taken in the immediate aftermath of the impact show no sign of airplane debris. That must mean that it was a missile that hit the Pentagon, implicating our diabolical government once again. Official accounts indicate that Flight 77 smashed through several of the concentric rings that make up the Pentagon, so that the wreckage all came to rest well inside the building.
Flight 93, which crashed in rural Pennsylvania as the passengers attempted to wrest it back from the hijackers, may actually represent the one instance where Griffin does cast some light on the matter. The original official story had it that the passengers made their way into the cockpit, but that the plane crashed during the brief struggle. Later, it was announced that the passengers never made it through the door, and the government speculated that the pilot, Ziad Jarrah, downed the plane as the desperate fight broke out in the passenger compartment. Of course, given the fact that Jarrah planned to sacrifice his life for this mission, it doesn?t seem likely that he would have aborted it while there was still some chance of success. Griffin indicates that open cell phone lines recorded two explosions during the fight, followed by the sound of rushing wind; he reports an eyewitness saying that the plane disintegrated in the air, and mentions that one engine was found a mile and a half from the rest of the debris.
This is proof to Griffin that the Air Force downed Flight 93 with a missile, making the government responsible for the deaths of the heroic passengers who nearly foiled the fourth hijacking. He backs up this improbable claim by mentioning that someone saw a white military plane in the sky near the hijacked flight, overlooking the detail that military planes on such a mission would travel in formations of two or more, and that they are rarely white.
Griffin also mentions that the Flight 93 hijackers declared that they had a bomb when they took over the plane, but that the passengers regarded this as a bluff. He never considers the possibility that the hijackers were not bluffing, and that they set off the bomb (more likely two) when they were rushed by the passengers. This would account for the explosions, the sound of the wind on the cell phones, the crash of the plane, the engine landing more than a mile from the fuselage, and the peculiar path of the flight in the last few minutes before it crashed. In the map in the 9/11 report, Flight 93 makes a U-turn in northern Ohio after being hijacked, and then heads southeast, in a straight line, aiming directly for Washington. While over western Pennsylvania, it veers to the left and then makes a clockwise semi-circle, as if Jarrah has suddenly found it impossible to steer. Was this the result of a missile, a fight in the passenger compartment, or the desperate hijackers setting off their bombs?
The 9/11 attacks made Americans feel helpless, even more so than our defeat in Vietnam. Theories of administration complicity in 9/11, based on total denial of even the most self-evident facts, serve as a defense against these admittedly uncomfortable feelings, and allow us to feel omnipotent once again. Our government is all-powerful and all-knowing; a bunch of Middle Eastern fanatics couldn?t possibly take us by surprise, could they? Better a government that?s totally evil than one which leaves us helpless in the face of foreign terrorists.
Looks like you owned yourself again... since you ARE posting in this thread again... (I already addressed your Pentagon post many days ago). haha.Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
im done. until you refute MY post i will not say ONE thing in this thread again
Originally posted by: noto12ious
Nice, the skeptic article actually raises more questions that the Commission should've answered... and exposes the material to a wider audience. Awesome