To Truthers: If 9/11 was indeed an inside job, why would Bush kill these two people?

[Allen773]

This is a subject that I've never seen 9/11 Troofers approach. Among the 184 victims of the Pentagon crash were Barbara Olson, a prominent right-wing political/TV commentator who, in addition to being the wife of Ted Olson (the guy Bush owes his presidency via Bush v. Gore), was also a key investigator for the House during Clinton's Travelgate scandal: and Lt. Gen Timothy Maude, the Chief of Personnel for the U. S. Army and a key recruiter for the military, with him being a driving force behind the "Army of One" advertising campaign.

If I was plotting to murder my fellow citizens as a pretext for going to war, I'd imagine I'd move highly influential people who support me and/or could be of use to me out of harm's way.

So, Troofers,if Bush orchestrated 9/11, tell me why those two people died.

P.S. I apologize if this is in anyway, shape, or form insulting to the victims. I know the Troofers have no such concerns.

[Whiplash]

/CT mode

1) they were not in on it, and getting them out of harms way would raise supsicions.
2) having them die as well on that day lends credibility to it being a terrorist attack (or I should say, takes away credibility from the idea of an inside job, as you demonstrate! :) )

[Elizabeth I]

You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Lt. Gen Timothy Maude, the Chief of Personnel for the U. S. Army and a key recruiter for the military, with him being a driving force behind the "Army of One" advertising campaign.



That ad campaign was the biggest pile of crapola I have ever seen.

I tried the "army of one" thing on a 64 player Battlefield 2 server and the army of 63 kicked my ass. :(

[pomeroo]

/CT mode

1) they were not in on it, and getting them out of harms way would raise supsicions.
2) having them die as well on that day lends credibility to it being a terrorist attack (or I should say, takes away credibility from the idea of an inside job, as you demonstrate! :) )



To me, what lends credibility to the idea of a terrorist attack is the terrorists' stubborn pride in their victory. However you slice it, the inconvenient jihadists who refuse to stop bragging just because a handful of low-IQ wankers have conjured up a preposterous fantasy are an obstacle to be reckoned with.

[abenja1]

This is a subject that I've never seen 9/11 Troofers approach. Among the 184 victims of the Pentagon crash were Barbara Olson, a prominent right-wing political/TV commentator who, in addition to being the wife of Ted Olson (the guy Bush owes his presidency via Bush v. Gore), was also a key investigator for the House during Clinton's Travelgate scandal: and Lt. Gen Timothy Maude, the Chief of Personnel for the U. S. Army and a key recruiter for the military, with him being a driving force behind the "Army of One" advertising campaign.

If I was plotting to murder my fellow citizens as a pretext for going to war, I'd imagine I'd move highly influential people who support me and/or could be of use to me out of harm's way.

So, Troofers,if Bush orchestrated 9/11, tell me why those two people died.

P.S. I apologize if this is in anyway, shape, or form insulting to the victims. I know the Troofers have no such concerns.

The turthers would most likely say they were going to spill the beans on some dirty secret on Bush and Barbara was offed to sent a message to her husband.

[Quad4_72]

That ad campaign was the biggest pile of crapola I have ever seen.

I tried the "army of one" thing on a 64 player Battlefield 2 server and the army of 63 kicked my ass. :(



Lol. Should have got in a jet ;)

As far as the OP, twoofers don't really do the whole rational thing so this thread could be difficult for them.

[OldTigerCub]

Both of them are still alive and they are currently hiding with and/or supervising the captivity of the passengers of flights 11, 175, 77 and 93 at a FEMA concentration camp/reptilian overlord assimilation center. Their deaths were faked for all the reasons mentioned above.

[Whiplash]

To me, what lends credibility to the idea of a terrorist attack is the terrorists' stubborn pride in their victory. However you slice it, the inconvenient jihadists who refuse to stop bragging just because a handful of low-IQ wankers have conjured up a preposterous fantasy are an obstacle to be reckoned with.


Very true.. I think the problem is that truthers have proven that no amount of logical obstacles can stop them from reaching the conclusion they wish to. It's kind of sad to see people who just can't seem to get it. I'll never understand how people can stubbornly refuse to accept the overwhelming mountain of evidence.

[Unchained Spirit]

This is a subject that I've never seen 9/11 Troofers approach. Among the 184 victims of the Pentagon crash were Barbara Olson, a prominent right-wing political/TV commentator who, in addition to being the wife of Ted Olson (the guy Bush owes his presidency via Bush v. Gore), was also a key investigator for the House during Clinton's Travelgate scandal: and Lt. Gen Timothy Maude, the Chief of Personnel for the U. S. Army and a key recruiter for the military, with him being a driving force behind the "Army of One" advertising campaign.

If I was plotting to murder my fellow citizens as a pretext for going to war, I'd imagine I'd move highly influential people who support me and/or could be of use to me out of harm's way.

So, Troofers,if Bush orchestrated 9/11, tell me why those two people died.

P.S. I apologize if this is in anyway, shape, or form insulting to the victims. I know the Troofers have no such concerns.

A big glaring error in your thoughts is thinking that Bush *orchestrated* it. That idiot is lucky if he can tie his own shoes. It was *orchestrated* through PNAC & the neocons. Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rice, Libby, et al. Bush was just made aware of what was happening, and was told to just go along with it and follow Uncle Dick's lead... Incurious George is just a puppet to trot out on stage while the puppetmasters pull the strings behind the curtains.

One thing you must realize about the neocons is that, like mercenaries, they have no allegience to any flag, only to the highest bidder.... and everyone is expendable.

Answer just ONE question for me, please?

If they have nothing to hide, why would Bush & Cheney only agree to testify about 9-11 unless they were NOT under oath, there was NO transcript, and they *had* to be there together??

[Bobert]

Man I still get choked up over (I cant remember their names sorry) the guy who didn't want to call his wife because she was pregnant and he felt that by talking to her it may jeopardize the pregnancy.
I think I have that right but if anyone has a link to that story that would be appreciated.

[Whiplash]

If they have nothing to hide, why would Bush & Cheney only agree to testify about 9-11 unless they were NOT under oath, there was NO transcript, and they *had* to be there together??

I don't know if the above is true, but if it is, I think it's far more likely to conlude that they feared being found to have been culpable via incompetence or mistakes, than to have been found to have been involved or responsible.

[Allen773]

A big glaring error in your thoughts is thinking that Bush *orchestrated* it. That idiot is lucky if he can tie his own shoes. It was *orchestrated* through PNAC & the neocons. Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rice, Libby, et al. Bush was just made aware of what was happening, and was told to just go along with it and follow Uncle Dick's lead... Incurious George is just a puppet to trot out on stage while the puppetmasters pull the strings behind the curtains.

One thing you must realize about the neocons is that, like mercenaries, they have no allegience to any flag, only to the highest bidder.... and everyone is expendable.

Answer just ONE question for me, please?

If they have nothing to hide, why would Bush & Cheney only agree to testify about 9-11 unless they were NOT under oath, there was NO transcript, and they *had* to be there together??
Oh, that makes perfect sense. :rolleyes:

So tell me, how many people do you reckon were involved in this conspiracy, or knew about it? How many whistleblowers can you find?

I won't hold my breath...

[Bobert]

Bush was just made aware of what was happening, and was told to just go along with it and follow Uncle Dick's lead... Incurious George is just a puppet to trot out on stage while the puppetmasters pull the strings behind the curtains.
Ok great!!!!!!!!
Can you please provide some sort of PROOF?
Certainly you couldnt want people to call your post pure speculation and fantasy, would you?

[abenja1]

[QUOTE=Unchained Spirit;3778325]A big glaring error in your thoughts is thinking that Bush *orchestrated* it. That idiot is lucky if he can tie his own shoes. It was *orchestrated* through PNAC & the neocons. Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rice, Libby, et al. Bush was just made aware of what was happening, and was told to just go along with it and follow Uncle Dick's lead... Incurious George is just a puppet to trot out on stage while the puppetmasters pull the strings behind the curtains.

[\QUOTE]

And you know all this information how? Did Cheyney tell you perosnally?

[Allen773]

Oh BTW, Unchained Spirit.
Restored correct name. Please be civil, and do not use personal attacks to try and make a point

When I say "Bush", that doesn't necessarily mean Bush personally. That includes the people you mentioned, plus all of Ted Olson's friends and fellow ideologues (like his boss, John Ashcroft). I would have said "Bush administration", but I was typing in a hurry.

[Unchained Spirit]

I don't know if the above is true, but if it is, it's far more likely they feared being found to have been culpable via incompetence or mistakes, than to have been found to have been involved on any level.

Here's some links you can check out. Yes, it's true.... They refused to testify unless they were together, and they would not allow a transcript, record or stenographer.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/29/bush.911.commission/


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4862296/


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4663767/

These guys didn't even want to *form* the commission in the first place, and stonewalled for a year...

[Allen773]

Considering that there is documented evidence that they didn't take Al-Qaeda seriously (at least not as seriously as, say, Iraq), it makes perfect sense that they'd want to cover their asses afterwards.

[T.A.M.]

Yes because they did not want to be found to be bumbling incompetents.

TAM:)

[eromitlab]

First the truthists have to figure out what 9/11 plane Barbara Olson was "allegedly" on. I've heard them put her on 11 or 175 as much as 77, and they get her last name wrong half the time. Once they do that, they'll probably start rambling about her phone call to Ted and how it couldn't have happened.

[Unchained Spirit]

Ok great!!!!!!!!
Can you please provide some sort of PROOF?
Certainly you couldnt want people to call your post pure speculation and fantasy, would you?

One thing you'll learn about me, Bobert, is that I really don't give a rat's hairy behind *what* you, or anyone else for that matter, think of my post, or what you want to call it. I'll state my opinion, based on what I've read and researched, and you are more than welcome to agree, or disagree, with it because that means that you're exercising *your* right to *your* opinion. If we all thought alike and agreed on everything, it would be a pretty boring world, wouldn't it?


What you should do, if you're interested, is study the history of the Bush family, dating back to Prescott Bush. You'll see how this family has tried to subvert our government for 3 generations.


Studying the PNAC documents (and agenda) will shed some light also, as will familiarizing yourself with the names of the PNAC members.
http://www.pnac.info


Lastly, you can look into the history of Richard Bruce (Dick) Cheney, who tried to politicize the the Justice Department 30 years ago. You can read about it here:
"Cheney's political career began in 1969, as an intern for Congressman William A. Steiger during the Nixon Administration. He then joined the staff of Donald Rumsfeld, who was then Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity from 1969–70.<10> He held several positions in the years that followed: White House Staff Assistant in 1971, Assistant Director of the Cost of Living Council from 1971–73, and Deputy Assistant to the president from 1974–1975. It was in this position that Cheney suggested in a memo to Rumsfeld that the Ford White House should use the Justice Department in a variety of legally questionable ways to exact retribution for an article published by The New York Times investigative reporter Seymour Hersh."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney#Early_White_House_appointments

I really don't know how to provide more PROOF of my *opinion*, but then again, I don't *have to*, do I? All I can do is provide the ways and means of *how* I arrived at my *opinion*

Peace!

[Bobert]

Aaaaaaaaaaaah so according to your moral compus its ok to accuse someonie of mass murder based on on opinion and speculation.
Got it, thanks!
BTW "rat's hairy behind" is on tour this summer!
Well you did say though
based on what I've read and researched
Can you point me in the direction of where you read and researched that Bush knew of the plan for mass murder?

[steve s]

/CT mode

1) they were not in on it, and getting them out of harms way would raise suspicions.


Didn't the original Loose Change claim that some low-level government official must have been tipped off about the attacks because he canceled his flight for Sept. 11? Apparently the troofers think that this guy was important enough to have been warned, but that Olson and Maude weren't.

Steve S.

[A W Smith]

One thing you'll learn about me, Bobert, is that I really don't give a rat's hairy behind *what* you, or anyone else for that matter, think of my post, or what you want to call it. I'll state my opinion, based on what I've read and researched, and you are more than welcome to agree, or disagree, with it because that means that you're exercising *your* right to *your* opinion. If we all thought alike and agreed on everything, it would be a pretty boring world, wouldn't it?


What you should do, if you're interested, is study the history of the Bush family, dating back to Prescott Bush. You'll see how this family has tried to subvert our government for 3 generations.


Studying the PNAC documents (and agenda) will shed some light also, as will familiarizing yourself with the names of the PNAC members.
http://www.pnac.info


Lastly, you can look into the history of Richard Bruce (Dick) Cheney, who tried to politicize the the Justice Department 30 years ago. You can read about it here:
"Cheney's political career began in 1969, as an intern for Congressman William A. Steiger during the Nixon Administration. He then joined the staff of Donald Rumsfeld, who was then Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity from 1969–70.<10> He held several positions in the years that followed: White House Staff Assistant in 1971, Assistant Director of the Cost of Living Council from 1971–73, and Deputy Assistant to the president from 1974–1975. It was in this position that Cheney suggested in a memo to Rumsfeld that the Ford White House should use the Justice Department in a variety of legally questionable ways to exact retribution for an article published by The New York Times investigative reporter Seymour Hersh."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney#Early_White_House_appointments

I really don't know how to provide more PROOF of my *opinion*, but then again, I don't *have to*, do I? All I can do is provide the ways and means of *how* I arrived at my *opinion*

Peace!

One thing we have learned from truthers is they they continue to make poor choices and decisions in life. some are ex Aryan nation meth addicts. They follow instead of lead. Their poor self image leads them to blame others for their failings. They associate with the deluded who feel they are disaffected. They attach vast political conspiracy fantasies to events in the world they themselves have no control over but others who are more mainstream in their communities and become civic leaders do. They fail at life. They strive for attention.

Does this sound familiar UC?

[BenBurch]

That ad campaign was the biggest pile of crapola I have ever seen.

I tried the "army of one" thing on a 64 player Battlefield 2 server and the army of 63 kicked my ass. :(



Agreed.

"Unit cohesion" is the most important single factor in the success of a military unit.

[Whiplash]

Unchained Spirit, welcome to the forum!

(for probably the 15th time or whatever)

[Unchained Spirit]

Unchained Spirit, welcome to the forum!

(for probably the 15th time or whatever)

Thank you for the welcome, Whiplash, it's a pleasure to be here....

Peace within, Peace between, Peace among....

Unchained Spirit

[Sword_Of_Truth]

If they have nothing to hide, why would Bush & Cheney only agree to testify about 9-11 unless they were NOT under oath, there was NO transcript, and they *had* to be there together??

They do have something to hide, perhaps something very important. At the moment we don't know what it is. But more importantly, neither does Al-Queada.

They had to testify behind closed doors in order to keep the enemy from finding out what we (the Good Guys™) know.

[Horatius]

One thing you must realize about the neocons is that, like mercenaries, they have no allegience to any flag, only to the highest bidder.... and everyone is expendable.

Answer just ONE question for me, please?

If they have nothing to hide, why would Bush & Cheney only agree to testify about 9-11 unless they were NOT under oath, there was NO transcript, and they *had* to be there together??



And perhaps you could ask yourself one more question: If neocons "have no allegience(sic) to any flag, only to the highest bidder", why wouldn't Bush et al. have simply sworn the oath, and then lied their asses off? Are they evil enough to kill thousands of people to get the US into a war that would kill thousands more, but not quite evil enough to lie to a few people on a panel?

[Allen773]

Didn't the original Loose Change claim that some low-level government official must have been tipped off about the attacks because he canceled his flight for Sept. 11? Apparently the troofers think that this guy was important enough to have been warned, but that Olson and Maude weren't.

Steve S.
That would be former San Francisco mayor Willie Brown. Not exactly an archconservative supporter of the Bush administration...

So liberal, progressive Democratic mayor Willie Brown is warned by the necon Administration, but powerful pro-Bush lawyer and political commentator Barbara Olson isn't, because she's "expendable."

That makes a lot of sense.:rolleyes:

[chillzero]

I've move a bunch of posts to AAH. Stop this bickering and incivility, and keep to the thread topic. If you don't it will all to to AAH/

[boloboffin]

I've been told (way back in aught-two) that Barbara Olson was offed because Ted was tired of her and he wasn't married to her anyway. My contradiction of this position became proof positive to the poster that my liberal credentials was a lie and I was defending the Bush Administration's every evil by asserting that Barbara was actually married to Ted and perhaps they might have loved each other.

I do remember another poster who brought back a clip of CNN from later in the day, confidently stating that the anonymous woman live on the phone was actually Barbara Olson speaking hours after her "supposed" death. Some may not be aware (as this person was not) that Barbara Olson worked for CNN. My pushback on that was met with appropriate silence. Today, they'd say that CNN was in on it.

[Whiplash]

Today, they'd say that CNN was in on it.


Who isn't in on it, according to them?

[WildCat]

If they have nothing to hide, why would Bush & Cheney only agree to testify about 9-11 unless they were NOT under oath, there was NO transcript, and they *had* to be there together??
So Bush & Cheney were wiling to do the 9/11 attacks but wouldn't lie under oath? That's just silly.

[Brainster]

The last I heard of Barbara Olson she was smuggling Italian Lira along the Polish-Austrian border.

[beachnut]

AIt was *orchestrated* through PNAC & the neocons.
If they have nothing to hide, why would Bush & Cheney only agree to testify about 9-11 unless they were NOT under oath, there was NO transcript, and they *had* to be there together??
Funny, you say bush can't do it, he is not capable. Yet, you want to question the way he wants to appear before Congress. I guess you think Presidents should just do what Congress says; how congressional of you. (how purely political your post is)

If I was president I would not be questioned by Congress, except on my terms, unless there is some formal reason!!!!!! There is no reason for Bush and Cheney to testify before Congress on 9/11. So your Bush Question is real lame based on your own post. But as I read your posts, you are like Bush, and your lack knowledge is on 9/11 topics. I lumped you in with Bush since you can't get one thing right about 9/11; the evidence is in prior posts, so I base my judgment on your past posts which prove you are full of false ideas and failed conclusions. You are a perfect addition to 9/11 truth.


Funny stuff PNAC did it! Funny guy. You are like what you say Bush is like. I love a hypocritical moment with my irony.

At least you agree, Bush did not do it. But your other conclusion is an excursion into fantasy and would be a lie had a clue you lack evidence. But ignorance on this topic is bliss, as you merrily spew false information without support.

[gumboot]

Who isn't in on it, according to them?

Just them.

[Whiplash]

Just them.

Heh.. with all due respect however, they even think half of their own are "in on it" as "disinfo shills" ;)

[Unchained Spirit]

Funny, you say bush can't do it, he is not capable. Yet, you want to question the way he wants to appear before Congress. I guess you think Presidents should just do what Congress says; how congressional of you. (how purely political your post is)

If I was president I would not be questioned by Congress, except on my terms, unless there is some formal reason!!!!!!


My, what a good little dictator you'd make! I'd suggest that you learn the way things work among the co-equal branches of Government. Do you know anything about "checks and balances"? Please note that this isn't asking about your checkbook and bank account balance...

You are correct in one thing... ignorance *is* bliss.... and you come across as a pretty happy little guy...

[WildCat]

My, what a good little dictator you'd make! I'd suggest that you learn the way things work among the co-equal branches of Government.
Except you want to give Congress supremacy over the Executive branch. That's not "co-equal", is it?

[Allen773]

Update: upon further examination, it appears that several defense contractors (you know, the ones who lobbied and pushed for war with Iraq and have made quite a profit from the resulting war) were killed on AA 77 and in the Pentagon. These are among the people who would have benefited most from the War in Iraq. Yet, according to the Troofers, the neocons (who I utterly loathe myself, so don't try to paint me as Bush apologist or government shill, Troofers) had these people offed.

It really doesn't make any sense to kill supporters and benefactors of your own ideology and actions if you want to stage a false-flag attack to justify a war. But then again, when you argue with Troofers, it quickly becomes apparent that "sense" is a word that their parents seem to have forgot to have taught them.

[jhunter1163]

To carry this point a bit further, why wouldn't the government kill Avery, Bermas, and Rowe? Or Alex Jones? Or any prominent truther, just to send a message to the rest of them?

[gumboot]

Heh.. with all due respect however, they even think half of their own are "in on it" as "disinfo shills" ;)


They're not part of them.

[gumboot]

Re: Cheney and Bush testifying together...

Testifying privately, and not testifying under oath, were not abnormal in anyway. Only the FAA and NORAD officials testified under oath, and only because the Commission found their first testimonies (not under oath) to be false.

Further, most of the testimony was not given in public. There were only twelve public hearings, and the majority of the Commission's work was done in private because by nature of the subject much of what they looked at was sensitive material that cannot be disclosed to the public.

So the only thing about Bush and Cheney's testimony that is odd is actually that they testified together. Now this in itself isn't entirely strange - most officials testified in groups, not on their own - the Commission would have taken forever otherwise.

I personally think the main reason they testified together was because Cheney ordered the shoot down order without authorisation from Bush, and they needed to patch that up to make it look like Bush gave the order.

[eromitlab]

To carry this point a bit further, why wouldn't the government kill Avery, Bermas, and Rowe? Or Alex Jones? Or any prominent truther, just to send a message to the rest of them?

If they did that, that would just validate their nuttiness and make them part of the newest and most-revered group, Martyrs for 9/11 Twoof. Plus it would reinforce their beliefs about government boogeymen killing indiscriminately and would probably lead a couple of the nuttier ones to retaliatory violence. Better to just let nuts like LTW and AJ rant under the stars to their small flock of nutbags and show everyone else how loony they are.

[Tweeter]

Bush was in a classroom so he couldnt of killed them.

[funk de fino]

Bush was in a classroom so he couldnt of killed them.

Its "have" not "of"

Do you need more remedial?

[Allen773]

Bush was in a classroom so he couldnt of killed them.
Ah, I see. Hope you don't call Bush a murderer now, because as far as we know, he's never actually personally killed somebody.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Maybe it wasn't Bush. Maybe it was a rogue faction. Maybe the rogue faction included Hillary!!!! (Barbara Olson was an arch enemy, after all).

[Allen773]

Maybe it wasn't Bush. Maybe it was a rogue faction. Maybe the rogue faction included Hillary!!!! (Barbara Olson was an arch enemy, after all).
Overlooking the fact that Hillary lost several supporters and friends, including FDNY Chaplain Mychal Judge, you may be on to something there.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

If I was president I would not be questioned by Congress, except on my terms, unless there is some formal reason!!!!!! There is no reason for Bush and Cheney to testify before Congress on 9/11.

I disagree. Major crimes were committed surrounding 9/11. Either:

A) it was an inside job

or

B) the American people were defrauded out of trillions of dollars, taken from their treasury to build an effective intelligence and defense system, neither of which worked AT ALL regarding 9/11.

So, yes, I think their certainly was a reason to question Bush and Cheney. And many others too.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Overlooking the fact that Hillary lost several supporters and friends, including FDNY Chaplain Mychal Judge, you may be on to something there.

OK, so her plan wasn't foolproof.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Ah, I see. Hope you don't call Bush a murderer now, because as far as we know, he's never actually personally killed somebody.

Here is a potboiler you might want to read. Have fun!
http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=39&contentid=1396&page=2

And another:
http://www.opednews.com/thoreau1103bush_rape_suicide.htm

[Bobert]

I disagree. Major crimes were committed surrounding 9/11. Either:

A) it was an inside job

or

B) the American people were defrauded out of trillions of dollars, taken from their treasury to build an effective intelligence and defense system, neither of which worked AT ALL regarding 9/11.

So, yes, I think their certainly was a reason to question Bush and Cheney. And many others too.
WOW peddling the "trillion dollars missing" lie?
Part of the fantasy that you peddle is that there shouldnt have been anyway for this to happen given our national defenses but guess what?
Any rational person would see that it was near impossible to prevent what occured on 9-11 strong defense or not.
NEXT!

[skepticalcriticalguy]

WOW peddling the "trillion dollars missing" lie?
Part of the fantasy that you peddle is that there shouldnt have been anyway for this to happen given our national defenses but guess what?
Any rational person would see that it was near impossible to prevent what occured on 9-11 strong defense or not.
NEXT!

Umm, no. Reread my post. It has nothing to do with the "trrillions missing from the Pentagon budget" stuff. But we were defrauded. 19 drunks figured out how to beat the mighty US military and the CIA. I don't think my tax money was spent properly, and I want it investigated.

Based on your statement that "Any rational person would see that it was near impossible to prevent what occured on 9-11 strong defense or not", you are thereby saying that it's pointless to increase defense spending. Correct?

[Allen773]

Umm, no. Reread my post. It has nothing to do with the "trrillions missing from the Pentagon budget" stuff. But we were defrauded. 19 drunks figured out how to beat the mighty US military and the CIA. I don't think my tax money was spent properly, and I want it investigated.

Based on your statement that "Any rational person would see that it was near impossible to prevent what occured on 9-11 strong defense or not", you are thereby saying that it's pointless to increase defense spending. Correct?
You've have been paying attention, have you? There have been several public and private investigations into 9/11 from Commissioners, journalists, FBI investigators, and others.

And the intelligent, highly capable, and highly motivated men who planned and executed the attacks were certainly not "drunks."

And I don't know about you, but I think defense spending should be decreased. It is rather disturbing that our war machine gets the biggest budget.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

You've have been paying attention, have you? There have been several public and private investigations into 9/11 from Commissioners, journalists, FBI investigators, and others.

And the intelligent, highly capable, and highly motivated men who planned and executed the attacks were certainly not "drunks."

And I don't know about you, but I think defense spending should be decreased. It is rather disturbing that our war machine gets the biggest budget.

Actually, several investigations have found that, yes, they were drunks. But you'll just debunk the journalists who reported it by calling them "liars!!!!"

You're right; those hijackers were so intelligent that they knew they could outsmart the entire US defense system that day. (Almost like, maybe, they had somebody inside.) The same defense system we paid trillions for. Thus the fraud.

[Boone 870]

Actually, several investigations have found that, yes, they were drunks. But you'll just debunk the journalists who reported it by calling them "liars!!!!"

Are you referring to Daniel Hopsicker? How did he fair in the lawsuit brought against him by Makram Chams?

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Are you referring to Daniel Hopsicker? How did he fair in the lawsuit brought against him by Makram Chams?

Nope. I'm referring to Brendan Farrington of the Associated Press, as reported by CBS News on September 14, 2001.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/14/national/main311268.shtml

"In Daytona Beach, Kap said he told FBI investigators the men in his bar spent $200 to $300 apiece on lap dances and drinks, paying with credit cards. Kap said he gave the FBI credit card receipts, photocopied driver's licenses, a business card left by one man and a copy of the Quran - the sacred book of Islam - that was left at the bar."

It was all over the Florida news media, in several papers. About the The Sarasota strip clubs and Daytona.

Also read about them partying and gambling on a Sun Cruz Casino boat in St. Pete, I believe, but that might have been Hopsiker. I can't recall.

[beachnut]

... 19 drunks figured out how to beat the mighty US military and the CIA. ...

They cut throats and took planes, no one in the US had a clue before 9/11 this would happen (Clancy wrote about a plane impacting the Congress, but that guy used his own 747; UBL is a cheap murderer!), not even you! Looks like you were not prepared. The only people who took action in time, those on flight 93, they figured out 9/11 in minutes, you have had over 6 years, and still you have no clue what happen on 9/11. Minutes vs years, so sad!

Do you think guys from a culture that PROHIBITS alcohol (some have secret drinking cache!) may not be able to handle their drinking. Talk about cheap drunks; if your story is true, who cares! Muslims drink (I hope the holy man with stick is not reading this, there could be raids soon), and some of us speed on the highway, oh my!

What a bunch of bunk. A 2001 news story, but you offer zero follow up! Good job.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

They cut throats and took planes, no one in the US had a clue before 9/11 this would happen (Clancy wrote about a plane impacting the Congress, but that guy used his own 747; UBL is a cheap murderer!), not even you! Looks like you were not prepared. The only people who took action in time, those on flight 93, they figured out 9/11 in minutes, you have had over 6 years, and still you have no clue what happen on 9/11. Minutes vs years, so sad!

Do you think guys from a culture that PROHIBITS alcohol (some have secret drinking cache!) may not be able to handle their drinking. Talk about cheap drunks; if your story is true, who cares! Muslims drink (I hope the holy man with stick is not reading this, there could be raids soon), and some of us speed on the highway, oh my!

What a bunch of bunk. A 2001 news story, but you offer zero follow up! Good job.

Beachnut, your crap grows tiresome. Even your own have put you on ignore. Learn some grammar. And spelling.

I'd love to argue your point, but I can't really decipher what your point is.

[LashL]

Beachnut, you're crap grows tiresome. Learn some grammar. And spelling.


Ahem. You should be careful about throwing stones in that glass house of yours, skepticalcriticalguy.

:rolleyes:

[skepticalcriticalguy]

They cut throats and took planes, no one in the US had a clue before 9/11 this would happen (Clancy wrote about a plane impacting the Congress, but that guy used his own 747; UBL is a cheap murderer!), not even you! Looks like you were not prepared. The only people who took action in time, those on flight 93, they figured out 9/11 in minutes, you have had over 6 years, and still you have no clue what happen on 9/11. Minutes vs years, so sad!

Do you think guys from a culture that PROHIBITS alcohol (some have secret drinking cache!) may not be able to handle their drinking. Talk about cheap drunks; if your story is true, who cares! Muslims drink (I hope the holy man with stick is not reading this, there could be raids soon), and some of us speed on the highway, oh my!

What a bunch of bunk. A 2001 news story, but you offer zero follow up! Good job.

Actually, it WAS followed up. By Hopsiker. But he might have gotten a couple facts wrong along the way in his career, so nothing he reports can be true. Debunked! GIMME FACTS!

Oh, and by the way, the writers of The Lone Gunmen pilot episode from July of 2001 thought of the scenario too.
http://www.google.com/search?q=lone+gunmen+9%2F11&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a


You say "looks like you were unprepared." Umm, Beachnut? Who is this "you?" Are you referring to the US military and intelligence agencies? Or me personally? Please answer; I await your reply.

I thought you were American; am I wrong? Please answer that also.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Ahem. You should be careful about throwing stones in that glass house of yours, skepticalcriticalguy.

:rolleyes:

Correction made, and credit given to you, LashL. Thanks bro.

[beachnut]

Actually, it WAS followed up. By Hopsiker. But he might have gotten a couple facts wrong along the way in his career, so nothing he reports can be true. Debunked! GIMME FACTS!

Oh, and by the way, the writers of The Lone Gunmen pilot episode from July of 2001 thought of the scenario too.
http://www.google.com/search?q=lone+gunmen+9%2F11&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a


You say "looks like you were unprepared." Umm, Beachnut? Who is this "you?" Are you referring to the US military and intelligence agencies? Or me personally? Please answer; I await your reply.

I thought you were American; am I wrong? Please answer that also.
We were not ready, you were not ready. Blame yourself too! Even if you are not an American. I heard no blame game from passengers on 93, they took action. So if you want to blame people for 9/11 before 9/11, take some credit yourself, unless you were not born yet.

Drinking does not matter. Why does drinking changes 9/11? Looks like they were not drunks. Why did you call them drunks? Can you prove your statement?

You are saying drunks got the best of us.

[beachnut]

Beachnut, your crap grows tiresome. Even your own have put you on ignore. Learn some grammar. And spelling.

I'd love to argue your point, but I can't really decipher what your point is.
Exactly. You can't figure out my stuff, which is indicative of you not figuring out 9/11. I expect someone who can't figure out 9/11 to have problems with my poor writing, those who can decipher my posts, have no problem with reality, just my writing. But they can decipher my writing, just like they can connect real evidence to solve 9/11; you can't do either! What is new?

Are you trying to expose a smoking gun without tying it to anything?

Were they drunks as you stated, or just as drunk once as they ever were, like the country song?
Were they only drunk once?
Lap dances, were they celebrating how evil the great Satan people were, by seeing it first hand?
How many times were they drunk?
Where else did their CCR show up, were they drunk again?
What does this have to do with Bush not doing 9/11, and the OP?
Got any proof they were drunks?
Were you just making up small talk?

Are you saying our 19 terrorist on 9/11 were like Kid Shelleen, only capable of doing the deed while completely drunk?

You were only talking, saying drunks (calling the terrorist names) got the best of our super military, and all the rest.

Darn, you may be wrong, the passengers on Flight 93 beat them up! So we did stop them after "we" (the heroes of 93) learned the rules. So the drunks did not win, they lost after "we" learned the rules. Got any more false ideas on 9/11?

[funk de fino]

Nope. I'm referring to Brendan Farrington of the Associated Press, as reported by CBS News on September 14, 2001.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/14/national/main311268.shtml

"In Daytona Beach, Kap said he told FBI investigators the men in his bar spent $200 to $300 apiece on lap dances and drinks, paying with credit cards. Kap said he gave the FBI credit card receipts, photocopied driver's licenses, a business card left by one man and a copy of the Quran - the sacred book of Islam - that was left at the bar."

It was all over the Florida news media, in several papers. About the The Sarasota strip clubs and Daytona.

Also read about them partying and gambling on a Sun Cruz Casino boat in St. Pete, I believe, but that might have been Hopsiker. I can't recall.

So a story that does not name any hijackers in a bar in Florida the night before the attacks (check their timelines it does not fit) is your evidence for claiming 19 drunks attacked the US.

WOW, what a truly brass neck you have to use that username.

Most of these reports have been debunked years ago. How sad.