240 and other conspiracy fiends

[Cavalier22]

Here is a good article detailing the method of conspiracy guru Alex Jones, who many 9-11 CT's look to for guidance.  He is either a conspiracy nut, or a good businessmen who gives the small portion of the population who lives for these grandiose conspiracies what they want. Or, as I suspect, he is a combination of both.

  To refute some of this article I'm sure you will bring up a vague prediction of his that turned out "right"; but, will you also bring up the countless wild predictions and accusations he makes on a weekly basis that never materialize? I didn't think so.  Please realize you are ridiculous and wasting your time and energy on these bogus theories.



The Lidle Crash "Conspiracy" 
By Jon Sanders
FrontPageMagazine.com | October 17, 2006

Alex Jones dishes out mad conspiracy stew and the paranoiacs (even college professors) lap it up. But the formula is simple, and somebody is going to profit off these poor fools: everything that happens is orchestrated by a Grand Conspiracy, which can be determined post hoc — and any facts that don't fit the conspiracy, well, the Grand Conspiracy was so clever, it even knew to plant those red herrings! It is the ultimate Procrustean bed.

I have had my encounters with Alex Jones and his ilk. After my FrontPage Magazine article criticized one college professor for her course preaching the 9/11 Bush/Zionist plot, I was inundated with the most bizarre, angry, vicious, and paranoid e-mails from the conspiracymongers put onto my column by Jones — whose web sites and videos were used by the professor as her primary sources. Jones even invited me on his radio program, and immediately before he introduced me to his audience, he made a remark about being "CIA funded, like some of these writers are." Not being CIA funded, I know firsthand how Jones makes up wild stories to continue to feed his audience conspiratorial red meat.

Breaking through the conspiracymonger's mindset is a nearly impossible job, because a Grand Conspiracy theory almost always insulates itself from any self-test or falsifiability. When all events are assumed to be orchestrated, then each single event counter to the theory is invariably assumed to be hoaxed to put the diligent "truth-seeker" off the scent. I have tried, with some success, in personal communication with honestly seeking 9/11 doubters to communicate the tools for proper skepticism and how they must also be used on the theories themselves.

I have also tried to illustrate before the fact how a conspiracy theorist might react to events. Furthermore, a recurring theme in the 9/11 and other Grand Conspiracy theories is that "Eyewitnesses said X but the government and the controlled media are saying Y — obviously they're trying to hide the truth, which is X." I have tried to point out in new events how eyewitness accounts to a sudden, surprising catastrophe are often conflicted, erroneous, and wildly variable in the confusion that immediately follows.

So, was the Lidle crash a government psy-op?

Yesterday, following the tragic plane crash in New York City that claimed the life of New York Yankees pitcher Cory Lidle, I wrote about the inevitable conflicting reports and how a conspiracymonger might treat them. I wrote:

It's been a few hours since this accident hit the news reports, but Fox News notes this: "The Federal Aviation Administration said that the small aircraft was fixed wing, but earlier reports indicated that it may have been a small helicopter."

Hot Air has basically live-blogged the catastrophe; you can read how many reports have come in that have later proven to be erroneous. As I've pointed out before, there will always be confusing and conflicting details from people on the scene when something like this happens. But conspiracymongers make no allowance for initial confusion during an event — in fact, they exploit that confusion to build a case after the fact for government (or whomever) "suppressing the truth."

So in this instance, should it become a cause célèbre in kookdom, the tinfoil hats would start churning out bug-eyed rants about "The FAA is LYING about 10/11! Eyewitnesses report seeing black helicopters hitting the buildings! We're living in a wag-the-dog police state! It's time to panic!"

I couldn't resist checking, and sure enough, Alex Jones had already started in on a  governmental conspiracy angle. In an article entitled "Manhattan Plane Crash Simple Accident Or Suspicious Psy-op?," Jones and co-author Paul Joseph Watson had speculated in the first paragraph,

Is this a government psy-op intended to invoke memories of 9/11 as the mid-term elections approach?

Shortly after my post, the news broke about Lidle. I wondered what Jones et al. would have to say about that. Would they suggest that Lidle was in on the plot? Would they propose that the late Yankees pitcher was a tool of the Neo-Cons, or would they suggest that he's perhaps alive and well in a Secret Government Bunker sharing drinks with the 9/11 hijackers, and Elvis and Amelia Earhart, too?

No, what Jones and Watson did was even more hilarious. They changed the article, wiping out all traces of their immediate thoughts that it could be a government psy-op campaign to influence the mid-term election. The new article instead accused others of "hysterical reactions" — to wit, 

Fox News' Neil Cavuto … bizarrely put the pilot error of the Yankees' Cory Lidle into the context of how it would affect the upcoming mid-term elections.

Yes, what Fox News (you realize, of course, that Fox is the medium of the supposed Bush/Zionist plot) put "in the context" of how it would affect the elections, Jones and Watson had put in a blaring headline as a potential "government psy-op" campaign. Which they later tried to put down the Internet memory hole.

Unfortunately for them, in their original reworking of the article, they had forgotten to change the lead paragraph. So while the new headline said "Fox News Spins Plane Accident; Says It Could Affect Election," their second sentence still spun the plane accident: "Is this a government psy-op intended to invoke memories of 9/11 as the mid-term elections approach?"

That is what I happened upon shortly after my original post, and it's what I took a screenshot of, figuring that Jones and Watson would later discover their mistake. I took another screenshot this morning of the rewritten article. I highlighted the "hysterical" portions of each.

The article before its complete revision:

http://www.johnlocke.org/site-docs/images/AlexJonesbefore.jpg

The article after revision:

http://www.johnlocke.org/site-docs/images/AlexJonesafter.jpg


I hope the 9/11 "truth" profs and their acolytes see this and realize. This is your truth guru at work.

I expect, however, that any reaction will be either along the lines of "The Zionists in charge of the CIA had Sanders make this up in a feeble effort to derail Jones and the 9/11 truth movement" or "Jones is controlled opposition; the ultimate tool of the regime." Well, I suppose it could be both, too.

Also, with regard to my initial prediction, I see there's already an article on Jones' site bearing the headline "Some Eyewitnesses Claim Crash Was Helicopter."

[240 is Back]

Alex Jones is a pundit.  He points out just how this accident might be spun.  he ASKS A QUESTION in his headline - he doesn't state as fact. 

The real question should be, why didn't this building collapse from small fires, as World Trade Center 7 did on 9/11. 

Cavalier, you're attacking the messenger and not the message.  Methinks it's a last ditch effort to avoid facing the fact that NORAD stood down on 9/11.  Al Q could not have done that. 

Why is it, that the govt/media info machine will jump all over Alex Jones for one changed line on his website, but they're A-okay with monster testimony conflicts under oath at the 9/11 trials?  Which is more important? 

Ya don't have to like Alex Jones, but he called the white house 2 weeks before 9/11 and begged them to call off the upcoming terrorist attack.  He encouraged his listeners to do the same.  It's on videotape.  he predicted it, and they don't like him for it.

[Cavalier22]

If a messenger has no credible, what about his message?

Gov't media info machine? So, anyone who attempts to discredit a conspiracy theory or a theorist is immediately part of the "gov't media info machine"

[Cavalier22]

I have a slow day at work....prove to me that NORAD stood down on 9/11 as part of the plot.  And hopefully you have more than one sergeant who would not be in a position to hear, let alone understand the ramifications of or reasons for, orders from the High Command to senior officers.

[Clubber Lang]

Alex Jones is a pundit.  He points out just how this accident might be spun.  he ASKS A QUESTION in his headline - he doesn't state as fact. 

The real question should be, why didn't this building collapse from small fires, as World Trade Center 7 did on 9/11. 

Cavalier, you're attacking the messenger and not the message.  Methinks it's a last ditch effort to avoid facing the fact that NORAD stood down on 9/11.  Al Q could not have done that. 

Why is it, that the govt/media info machine will jump all over Alex Jones for one changed line on his website, but they're A-okay with monster testimony conflicts under oath at the 9/11 trials?  Which is more important? 

Ya don't have to like Alex Jones, but he called the white house 2 weeks before 9/11 and begged them to call off the upcoming terrorist attack.  He encouraged his listeners to do the same.  It's on videotape.  he predicted it, and they don't like him for it.

did norad stand down or were they in a situation they werent capable of controlling?? there is a difference. if you havent already take a gander at the play by play report of NORAD and FAA actions on 911 by the 911 comission.

[240 is Back]

If a messenger has no credible, what about his message?

Gov't media info machine? So, anyone who attempts to discredit a conspiracy theory or a theorist is immediately part of the "gov't media info machine"

Alex Jones predicted 9/11 and begged the white house to do something about it.  The White house, despite being warned by 12 foreign governments, claims they had no clue.  Who would you rather trust? lol...

he can be attacked for his overly-emotional, frantic appraoch to smell a conspiracy or a spin immediately - that is fine.  he does get a little obnoxious.  He does work his ass off to fish out a conspiracy.  There turned out to be no conspiracy that day.  But the guy has dedicated his life to punching holes in official govt stories, and calling them out when they uses tragedies like this one to their political advantage.

I ENCOURAGE everyone to try to discredit the conspiracy theorists' ideas.  You don't think 911 is an inside job? then PLEASE give us credible explanations for why WTC7 fell!  PLEASE tell us why NORAD didn't launch fighter jets, and the FAA destroyed recordings of interviews done with their people that day explaining how the failures occurred.  PLEASE - I want to sleep better at night.  I would, if i believed the official story. 

Most conspiracy theorists / skeptics start out as strong pro-govt people.  They TRY to prove the official story, then suddenly they start to realize that there are some glaring errors. 

Cav, what's your take on JFK?  There is a documentary floating on here that pretty convincingly shows the secret service let it happen that day.  You should watch it.  If you agree that yes, they let the prez get killed, then you might be open to the possibility that maybe they'd let 3000 "nobodies" die.

[240 is Back]

I would love to break it all down, but man i have a pile of work.  For now -


With a minute-by-minute chronology from 7:59 a.m. till 10:06:05 a.m., this article will dismantle the Wednesday September 18, 2001 North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) Press Release. This press release encompasses the (supposed) response times of the United States Air Force on Tuesday, September 11, 2001.

This article will explain to you exactly what happened for the almost one hour and fifty-three minutes that elapsed between the time American Airlines Flight 11 lost voice contact with air traffic control and was hijacked at 8:13:31, till the time United Airlines Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville, Pennsylvania at 10:06:05.

IGNORAD

The Military Screw-up Nobody Talks About


by Scott Shuger, January 16, 2002

For all its successes, the U.S. anti-terror war was conceived in sin, the sin of U.S. government negligence. As much post-9/11 journalism has pointed out, there was the foreign-policy error of abandoning post-Soviet Afghanistan after having infused it with weapons, the CIA's failure to act more forcefully on tips and intercepts regarding al-Qaida operatives overseas, and the FBI's and INS's similar failings regarding suspicious characters already in the United States. And the FAA's (and the airlines', the airports', and security firms') breakdown on airport security. However, there has been a good deal less focus on another federal fubar, that perpetrated by the Air Force's North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD).

The NORAD home page declares its mission to include "the detection, validation, and warning of attack against North America whether by aircraft, missiles, or space vehicles." It may seem ungallant to say the obvious, but since no one else has, I will: At the aircraft part of this mission, NORAD sucks.

How does NORAD explain its failure to intercept any of the hijacked airliners on 9/11? Its commander, Gen. Ed Eberhart, pointed out in congressional testimony that the FAA has the primary responsibility for hijackings in U.S. airspace, that NORAD can only help respond once the FAA notifies it, and that on 9/11 the FAA delayed precious minutes before doing so. Eberhart has also said that while before 9/11, NORAD had practiced responding to a hijacked plane trying to slam into a target in the United States, the exercises assumed that the flight had originated overseas, giving intercepting jet fighters more time. More important, he also said that even if his aircraft had practiced the domestic scenario, it wouldn't have mattered. Why? "I really think that, for sure in the first two instances, and probably in the third, the time and distance would not have allowed us to get an airplane to the right place at the right time."

It's certainly true that the FAA didn't give the Air Force the speediest heads up: Newsday reported that the FAA delayed 29 minutes (!) before telling the military about the third (!) suspicious plane, the one that ultimately hit the Pentagon. And before 9/11, a domestic-hijacked-airliner-suicide attack was admittedly not the most probable of worries. But it's simply wrong to say that therefore, there probably wasn't anything NORAD could have done to change history.

According to NORAD's official 9/11 time line, the FAA notified NORAD at 8:40 a.m. Eastern time that there was something peculiar going on with American Flight 11. But NORAD didn't issue an order for fighters to scramble until 8:46 a.m., the time when American Flight 11 hit the first WTC tower. Six minutes later, at 8:52 a.m., two F-15 fighters responded to the order by launching from a base 153 miles from New York City. They still were not on the scene at 9:02 a.m. when the second airliner, United Flight 175, hit the second WTC tower. They wouldn't get there for another eight minutes, at 9:10 a.m. A NORAD senior officer, Major Gen. Larry Arnold, told NBC that when the fighters took off, they were flying straight to New York City. He also said that they were going "about 1.5 Mach, which is, you know, somewhere—11- or 1,200 miles an hour." But note that the F-15 fighters took 18 minutes to cover those 153 miles, which comes out to more like 510 mph. Yet, according to the Air Force, the F-15 has a top speed of 1,875 mph. So, you have to wonder, why were they flying at less than a third of what they're capable of?

According to NORAD, the FAA notified it at 9:24 a.m. that there was something suspicious with American Flight 77. Two F-16 fighters were immediately ordered launched, and they got airborne at 9:30 a.m. The New York Times reports that at first, they were headed to New York at "top speed" reaching "600 mph within two minutes," before vectoring toward Washington instead. These planes didn't arrive in the vicinity of the Pentagon until 9:49 a.m., 12 minutes after American Flight 77 hit it. (They then stayed in the skies above Washington to protect against the fourth errant airliner, United Flight 93, with orders to shoot it down if necessary, a command mooted by an apparent passenger insurrection that caused that plane to crash in a Pennsylvania field.) The F-16s covered the 130 miles of their journey in 19 minutes, which would be an average speed of about 410 mph. Now, that's artificially low because these fighters spent several minutes flying toward New York, but even allowing for this, you don't come up with anything like what the Air Force (which may know better than the New York Times) says is the plane's top speed of 1,500 mph. So, again, why didn't NORAD feel the need for speed? It wasn't because of FAA regulations prohibiting supersonic flight over land in U.S. civil airspace. A NORAD spokesman told me that fighters violate that speed restriction "when circumstances warrant."

That is, in both cases where NORAD launched fighters, a closer look suggests that it's just false that there was nothing they could have done. For one thing, they could have flown faster.

But the flawed time/distance argument isn't NORAD's only excuse. Gen. Arnold told NBC that even if U.S. jets had intercepted the airliners, "No one would have known the intent of the hijackers. And without that, I don't think anyone would have been able to order them to shoot down that—that aircraft."

That may be true, but it's misleading. Arnold leaves out other tactics the jet fighters could've tried. According to a Boston Globe article, when intercepting aircraft, NORAD practices a graduated response. The approaching fighter doesn't immediately shoot down the bogey: It can first rock its wingtips to attract attention, or make a pass in front of the plane, or fire tracer rounds in its path. So even though on 9/11, the NORAD pilots working the first three airliners didn't have shootdown authority (they got it only after the Pentagon was hit), they would or should have been ready to try these other techniques, which might well have spooked or forced the hijackers into turning, which might have given the fighters a chance to force them out to sea. And even if the hijackers decided instead to fly right into a fighter in their way, wouldn't an airburst have killed fewer people than two collapsed flaming skyscrapers did?

After 9/11, NORAD said it adjusted to the new realities. In October, Gen. Eberhart told Congress that "now it takes about one minute" from the time that the FAA senses something is amiss before it notifies NORAD. And around the same time, a NORAD spokesofficer told the Associated Press that the military can now scramble fighters "within a matter of minutes to anywhere in the United States."

But lo and behold, earlier this month when 15-year-old student pilot Charles Bishop absconded with a Cessna and flew it into a Tampa skyscraper, NORAD didn't learn of it until it overheard FAA radio calls about the situation, and it wasn't able to launch its fighter jets until 15 minutes after Bishop had already crashed into the building. Those fighters didn't arrive on the scene until 45 minutes after Bishop took off.

Source: http://slate.msn.com//?id=2060825

[Dos Equis]

If a messenger has no credible, what about his message?

Gov't media info machine? So, anyone who attempts to discredit a conspiracy theory or a theorist is immediately part of the "gov't media info machine"

I've tried to make this point before too.  If you cannot trust the messenger, you should be very cynical of the message.  Credibility is very important. 

[Cavalier22]

as for JFK, as I said on another post I have read a good amount of material on it (unlike 9/11) and really don't know what to think.  The more I read, the more theories out there that initially seemed reasonable but were later disproved, the more I don't know what to think.  Most likely the answer is LHO acted alone, or at least was the lone shooter as audio evidence only points to 3 shots.   He could easily have been duped into doing this shooting by other factions (mafia, CIA, Soviets, etc)

I once read a book on the subject written by 2 ballistics evidence who in 250 pages came to the conclusion (from ballistics and secret service recordings among other things) that a fatal shot was fired by a panicked secret service agent directly behind the car!  ALl I can say is that there is a lot of intersting stuff out there but in the end I will never be fully convinced either way as it stands.

[240 is Back]

I've tried to make this point before too.  If you cannot trust the messenger, you should be very cynical of the message.  Credibility is very important. 

How can you consider GWB to be more credible than Alex Jones?

I mean seriously - Jones is annoying and loud-- but he predicted 911, he has called out the govt for numerous lies and constitutional rights violations.  He is looking out for our rights.

Bush on the other hand, has been caught in many lies, I don't think that is in doubt at all.  Bush fought the 911 investigation. 


Who do you trust more to tell you thr truth about 911?  The guy who predicted it, begged them to stop it, and has spent the last 5 years pointing out holes in the official story?

or, the guy who ignored 12 warnings from foreign leaders about it, acted oddly on the day (my pet goat), and fought an investigation tooth and nail?

[Cavalier22]

NORAD stood down when that 15 year old kid hijacked the Cessna. Interesting side note as I sift through the data.

[240 is Back]

I understand, guys.  You WANT Jones to be wrong.  In question format, he gets a tad dramatic during a developing story, then corrects it, and people act like it's a huge story.  Suddenlty, he has no credibility?  You must be joking.  He is all about accountability, and has spent his life pointing out lies we've been told by the govt.

I can understand - If JOnes is right, it means people in power here let Americans die then covered it up.  That's monster scary shit.  I don't wanna face it either.  If you find one drama moment on his part to outweigh the fact he accurately predicted 911 and has fought hard to educate people on the lies we've been told about it, that's cool.  

But if you're brave, look at the info on his site.  He points out human rights violations.  He points out govt lies.  he points out the monster pile of proof that bush knew about 911, that NORAD stood down, that controlled demolition brought down the towers, and that they've covered it up.

Who do you trust?

[240 is Back]

NORAD stood down when that 15 year old kid hijacked the Cessna. Interesting side note as I sift through the data.

Yep.  That kid took off and nailed a building right away, and it was right next to mcdill AFB in tampa, I believe.

On 9/11, they knew the first plane had been hijacked at 8:21, according to the  Commission.  The last plane crashed at 10:06 AM.

115 minutes.

[Cavalier22]

So, were the WTC  buildings taken down by demolition?

The World Trade Center (WTC) twin towers were destroyed by controlled demolitions.

This is how the collapses may have appeared to non-experts, but demolition experts point out many differences:

-Demolition professionals always blow the bottom floors of a structure first, but the WTC tower collapses began at the upper levels, where the planes hit the buildings.
-Non-experts claim that debris seen blowing out of windows was evidence of explosive charges, but experts identify this as air and light office contents (paper, pulverized concrete, etc.) being forced out of windows as floors collapsed on each other.
-Demolition firms had very sensitive seismographs operating at other sites in Manhattan on September 11.  None recorded any explosions during the tower collapses.
-Clean-up crews found none of the telltale signs of controlled demolitions that would have existed if explosive charges had been used.
-Cutting away walls, insulation, plumbing, and electrical conduits to place numerous charges on the towers’ structural columns in advance would not have gone unnoticed.

[240 is Back]

FAA destroyed tapes.   I don't know if that strikes you as odd, but they did.  ANd this year, new pentagon info was released showing outright lies on their part during 911 commish about timeline.  

it's a clusterfcuk of information, but you don't destroy recordings if you have nothing to hide.

it might be easier to START with WTC7 and look at how and why it fell.  Remember, if you can find ONE part of the 911 attacks that was an inside job, we have to make connection that there was complicity between our country and terrorists.

[240 is Back]

So, were the WTC  buildings taken down by demolition?
-Demolition professionals always blow the bottom floors of a structure first, but the WTC tower collapses began at the upper levels, where the planes hit the buildings.

Look at the video in slow mo - the destruciton of the building outpaces the falling debris.  Therefore falling debris does not cause the collapses below.  What else could?   WTC1/2 were not standard- they ejected debris to mask the leveled blasts below.  WTC7 WAS a controlled demo- can you argue that?

-Non-experts claim that debris seen blowing out of windows was evidence of explosive charges, but experts identify this as air and light office contents (paper, pulverized concrete, etc.) being forced out of windows as floors collapsed on each other.

Sorry- those blasts come long before the collapsing debris arrives, and they only occur on the two sky lobbies - the monster strong floors which supported the two top chunks of the buildings.  These floors would have to be completely blasted in order for the falling shit not to pause for a moment.  Extra blsts needed here.

-Demolition firms had very sensitive seismographs operating at other sites in Manhattan on September 11.  None recorded any explosions during the tower collapses.

And LCSO recorded many blasts 14 seconds BEFORE the collapse.  And cameras all over recorded 9, then 3, giant explosions before each tower fell.

-Clean-up crews found none of the telltale signs of controlled demolitions that would have existed if explosive charges had been used.

We have pics from GZ of 45 degree cut metal, meteroid (powdered concrete and molten steel), and 50 foot pools of molten steel.  Doesn't happen from collapses.

-Cutting away walls, insulation, plumbing, and electrical conduits to place numerous charges on the towers’ structural columns in advance would not have gone unnoticed.

It didn't.  Watch 911 mysteries on google video- documentary interviewing many surviving employees who listed many strange faces, machinery, concrete dust in the 6 weeks before.

[Cavalier22]

Well, answer this.

If planting demolitions indeed took place, why wouldn't the plotters just blow up the buildings without going through the process of letting terroirst hijack the planes, having NORAD/FAA stand down, having the pentagon get hit, shooting a jet down in penn?

To say it would be far easier is an understatement.  Hell, just have some terrorist dupe leave a truck full of explosives in teh basement but at a better spot to take out the whole building. Far less people involved, unbelievably less complicated, same end result.

[Cavalier22]

Also, I work in a 14 story building....over a month period there are many many strange faces doing various things around the buildling.  Construction, repair, A/C, renovation.  I could only imagine what went on at the WTC to keep that place in good shape and state of teh art.

[240 is Back]

Well, answer this.

If planting demolitions indeed took place, why wouldn't the plotters just blow up the buildings without going through the process of letting terroirst hijack the planes, having NORAD/FAA stand down, having the pentagon get hit, shooting a jet down in penn?

To say it would be far easier is an understatement.  Hell, just have some terrorist dupe leave a truck full of explosives in teh basement but at a better spot to take out the whole building. Far less people involved, unbelievably less complicated, same end result.

Of course it would have been easier.  But IF it was an inside job, what would be the purpose?  To scare people.  To terrify them.  And planes crashing, buildings falling, all in front of our eyes, is terrifying.   Americans watched the whole thing unveil - a complete psy op designed to scare and inspire anger. 

And you said the plane shootdown in PA - do you accept it was a shootdown that we were lied to?  Or do you believe that it did a nosedive? Ya know debris was found 8 miles away.  Sounds like a shootdown in the air to me.  That of course would mean the govt lied about that. 

[Dos Equis]

How can you consider GWB to be more credible than Alex Jones?

I mean seriously - Jones is annoying and loud-- but he predicted 911, he has called out the govt for numerous lies and constitutional rights violations.  He is looking out for our rights.

Bush on the other hand, has been caught in many lies, I don't think that is in doubt at all.  Bush fought the 911 investigation. 


Who do you trust more to tell you thr truth about 911?  The guy who predicted it, begged them to stop it, and has spent the last 5 years pointing out holes in the official story?

or, the guy who ignored 12 warnings from foreign leaders about it, acted oddly on the day (my pet goat), and fought an investigation tooth and nail?

What are the "many lies" Bush has told? 

[240 is Back]

What are the "many lies" Bush has told? 

Seriously?

I'm not even gonna give you a link.  Go type 'Bush lies' into www.google.com and choose your site.  There are many.  Clinton was the King of all Liars, so it's not a political thing.  But IMO Bush doesn't have a lot of credibility. 

[Cavalier22]

Well, even if it was an inside job it did not have to be so complicated. So many things could have gone wrong, and more importatnly the more people had to know about it.  If this theory is correct than thousands of people would have direct knowledge of it, and it would have got out.

[Cavalier22]

I don't doubt jets were prepared to shoot down flight 93 in penn if they got closer to DC.  But in this CT scenario, why shoot it down at all?  Why not let it hit the white house. That would have made 9/11 many many times more powerful of a day.

[240 is Back]

Well, even if it was an inside job it did not have to be so complicated. So many things could have gone wrong, and more importatnly the more people had to know about it.  If this theory is correct than thousands of people would have direct knowledge of it, and it would have got out.

1) Chances are that some were on that plane of saudis and others that was flown out under FBI order on Sept 13th.

2) Chances are that some of those involved might have been killed. Easiest way to keep a secret!

3) Seeing as the pres. of pakistani intelligence wired Atta 100,000 right before the attacks, it's safe to say there might have been some paki intel guys here providing services.  They'd have no problem killing some of us, right? And if they bragged over there it's not like FOX news is gonna play it here.

4) Seeing as $2.3 Trillion dollars went missing the day before 9/11 (Rummy announced it), that's a lot of money to pay off those involved.   And since they know should they run their mouths, they'll likely be killed, it should have been an easy decision.  plus

5) It is very possible that a Canadian general at NORAD had United 93 shot down in Penn.

Reversing all previous statements, The Washington Envoy to Canada, Paul Cellucci told his Canadian audience that a Canadian general at NORAD scrambled military jets under orders from Bush to shoot down flight 93

Read into the article below for the following section:
"He compared the situation to one that occurred during the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the U.S. He noted that it was a Canadian general at Norad who scrambled military jets under orders from Bush to shoot down a hijacked commercial aircraft headed for Washington."

Cellucci's statement thus reverses all of Washington's previous statements about Flight 93. (Other than the two times that Rumsfeld admitted that Flight 93 was shot down..)

http://www.infowars.com/articles/world/canada_missle_reject_perplexes_us.htm
Cache:
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2005/02/23/pf-940281.html

[Dos Equis]

Seriously?

I'm not even gonna give you a link.  Go type 'Bush lies' into www.google.com and choose your site.  There are many.  Clinton was the King of all Liars, so it's not a political thing.  But IMO Bush doesn't have a lot of credibility. 

I'm not asking for a link, which I probably wouldn't read anyway.  I'm asking for your assessment.  You made the statement that Bush has been "caught in many lies."  Which lies are you talking about?  And please don't cut and paste.