Questions for the OCTers....

and it is my hope that we can have some healthy dialogue here, instead of the usual surge of ad hominem attacks. Very naive of me, I know.

These are general questions, and I know that the answers are most likely to have variables attached; but I would like to hear all of you out.

1. Do you believe the entire 9/11 Commission Report?

2. Do you believe that the report was composed by an impartial group of people?

3. Have you perused the PNAC website? If so, did you read the Mission Statement; its list of members; the September 2000 piece where it makes reference to "a new Pearl Harbor"; their letter to President WJ Clinton?

4. Do you believe that the 2000 election was rigged to ensure GW was the new president?

5. Do you believe that the 2004 election was rigged to ensure GW continued his presidency?

6. Do you believe that the Freemasons and Skull & Bones societies are powerful forces in politics?

7. Do you perceive the relationships between the Bush/bin Laden/Bandar families as being just a bit disturbing?

8. Do you ever wonder why the US has been so lucky to have not been attacked again since 9/11?

9. Do you question why bin Laden has not been formally charged with the 9/11 attacks, even though BushCo has stated repeatedly that he, in fact, is the culprit?

10. Do you see the correlation between the PNAC (its members and September 2000 manifesto), the Bush Administration (who was chosen to run the show), the overwhelming fact that all of them make their billions from war, and that what they needed in order to achieve the PNAC agenda, just HAPPENED to occur a few months after they took office?

If you're so inclined to answer these questions, I would appreciate you explaining how you've come to the conclusions you've reached.

1. Do you believe the entire 9/11 Commission Report? I don't think anyone here on DU believes the entire 911 report. It is just to what extent

2. Do you believe that the report was composed by an impartial group of people? I believe that they were impartial but not given all the information that they requested

3. Have you perused the PNAC website? If so, did you read the Mission Statement; its list of members; the September 2000 piece where it makes reference to "a new Pearl Harbor"; their letter to President WJ Clinton?
I cannot believe you are making me "defend" PNAC. But what they actually say is "further, the process of transformation even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new pearl harbor. "
Then says "absent a rigorous program of experimentation to investigate the nagure of the revolution in military affairs as it applies to war at sea, the Navy might face a future, as un prepared for war in the post-carrier era as it was unprepared for war at the dawn of the carrier age"

They are clearly not advocating a new pearl harbor but that we should be putting money into defense to prevent one and new defense technology.

4. Do you believe that the 2000 election was rigged to ensure GW was the new president? Yes, but not by * himself. Additionally I think that rigging was limited to florida. Also if Gore was able to win his own home state of Tennessee, Florida would have been moot. No president to my knowledge has won without winning his home state.

5. Do you believe that the 2004 election was rigged to ensure GW continued his presidency? No, I think Kerry ran a horrible campaign, did not react to the swift boat ads

6. Do you believe that the Freemasons and Skull & Bones societies are powerful forces in politics? No

7. Do you perceive the relationships between the Bush/bin Laden/Bandar families as being just a bit disturbing? I think the relationship between the Bush family and the Saudi government is the disturbing factor. Bill Bennett is an arch conservative, but to we condemn his brother bob bennett who is a liberal for Bill's actions? No, everyone must be judged individually

8. Do you ever wonder why the US has been so lucky to have not been attacked again since 9/11? I think that Al qaeda blew its wad on 911. It was something that took years to plan out, pull off.

9. Do you question why bin Laden has not been formally charged with the 9/11 attacks, even though BushCo has stated repeatedly that he, in fact, is the culprit? yes.

10. Do you see the correlation between the PNAC (its members and September 2000 manifesto), the Bush Administration (who was chosen to run the show), the overwhelming fact that all of them make their billions from war, and that what they needed in order to achieve the PNAC agenda, just HAPPENED to occur a few months after they took office?
Do you believe that PNAC runs the country? Do you believe that Clinton was a dupe of them (after all it was he who warned bush about OBL and al qaeda about possible attacks in the US)

Obviously they are not openly "advocating" a new Pearl Harbor - they are, however, admitting that they don't expect the "revolution in military affairs," which they consider absolutely necessary, to happen fast enough without a Pearl Harbor as a catalyst.

This doesn't indict them; it does show a mindset in which a Pearl Harbor would be considered a good thing.

Let's keep in mind that this "revolution" they desire means building the next generation of weapons of death - weapons of mass destruction, in the current parlance. Their idea of an "American Century" involves long-term, full-spectrum military dominance in all regions of the world. They reject the idea that the U.S. should ever have to negotiate or partner with other countries to secure what they define as its interests. (Allies are welcome, of course, insofar as they are loyal followers - a coalition of the willing.) They want a world where the U.S. is the undisputed military hegemon by globally and in each and every region.

Nothwithstanding how widespread it is as an ideology among the power elites, this set of beliefs is a pipe dream and, furthermore, violently psychopathic. This same group lobbied Clinton to initiate an immediate invasion of Iraq in 1998 and recognize the INC as the government-in-exile, claiming he posed a danger with his weapons of mass destruction programs (which had, by that very date, been destroyed utterly, putting the sanctions regime to question).

Maybe you should produce that quote, Jack.

The PNAC document doesn't say that. In fact, the PNAC document spends quite a few pages outlining an expected path to military tech reorganization without a Pearl Harbor catalyst.

Coming in while I'm still editing, as often the case.

Do I have "fast enough" in quotes? No. I have my interpretation of what they say in the Pearl Harbor sentence, you apparently have yours. Barnacle.

Unfortunately you didn't edit anything that would change what I've said.

Your interpretation of what they said is erroneous, Jack. It's based on poor reading comprehension. Go look at the quote again.



What does the report recommend, Jack? A new Pearl Harbor or a decades-long, two stage process?

And I didn't say it did, so your question is misleading.

As recommendations, the report advances a shopping list of mass-destruction weapons systems and "forward deployments" around the world that would indeed swallow Americans' surplus value for decades. You choose to describe this in the same kind of faux-neutral language ("two-decades, two-stage process") that the report uses, which is a legitimating device. I refuse to accept these euphemisms.

Starting on the first page forward, the report repeats certain ideas throughout:

"America" is dominant. (I'll put "America" in quotes once, to emphasize it's their idea of America, not mine). It must stay dominant. Its role as world police (imperial hegemon) is a good thing, without reservations.

America's dominance relies and must continue to rely on military power, including full-spectrum dominance (outer space, cyberspace, infotech, "revolution in military affairs") and the ability to fight and win two major regional wars simultaneously. Assuring this and preventing the rise of a challenger demands a vigorous military build-up that starts today. (All this is a rehash of the Cheney-Wolfowitz world domination plan of August 1990, a.k.a. the first draft of the Defense Policy Guidelines of 1992, which are cited in "RAD.")

America's dominance is dangerously undermined by the Clinton-era cuts in military spending (modest as these were), which the report suggests are irresponsible. After all, it's called "Rebuilding America's Defenses," hence the implication that these "defenses" have somehow become rundown. (Never mind that under Clinton the U.S. was still blowing more resources on the imperial military than the next 25 countries combined, and pursuing the usual interventionism in many places where we had no business.)

Threats are everywhere, especially Iraq, North Korea, probably Iran, and, one day, China. Negotiations should be avoided or proceed always from hardline, no-compromise positions.

The moment of the report's publication is repeatedly described as exceptional - as an opportunity. The program recommended in "RAD" and by PNAC must begin soon, lest this opportunity pass and America one day find itself in decline. The process of transformation may be a long one, but beware if it doesn't start now.

But there is resistance, unfortunately not everyone sees the world and the dangers in the same way. It is in this context that I understand the Pearl Harbor comment - oh, one day all the doubters will realize how wrong they were!

(Surprisingly, the report actually advises against two particularly egregious boondoggles of the MIC profiteers: the Crusader 40-ton tank (!) and the Joint Strike Fighter; PNAC in Power, a.k.a. the Bush regime, will later try to get both anyway, but Rumsfeld finally drops the especially absurd Crusader program.)

Now let's not pretend there is no context to all this. The authors of the report and the PNAC signatories are veterans of the Bush Sr. regime and of Iran Contra, in a marriage with a claque of pro-Likud intellectuals whose main emphasis is hardline Middle East policy. PNAC's other activities include lobbying Clinton to immediately initiate military action for regime change in Iraq (as opposed to the "low-intensity" bombing Clinton had maintained for years).

At the time of the report, their party is attacking Clinton as the fat man who cares more for cigars than his country's protection. America is getting weak, it is getting vulgar, it needs traditional values and higher military budgets, but its people have been corrupted (they actually support this Clinton!). They have to be dragged along because it's in their higher interests.

After coming to power in a stolen election and judicial coup, the new Bush regime will draw its key military and foreign policy officials from among the PNAC signatories and report writers. In effect, they will be the regime at least until Rumsfeld's fall, or until the NIE mutiny of late 2007.

They will arrive warning about how defense has been neglected, and how there is an imminent danger of a Pearl Harbor (which is what Rumsfeld did from the moment of his arrival at the Pentagon, distributing a report about why Pearl Harbor happened to the Senate Armed Forces Committee). America had best follow the program or very bad things will happen.

They will come in intending, fervently desiring, planning and preparing to invade Iraq (and then attack Iran) from day one forward, by any means necessary. This regime will also negotiate with the Taliban and prepare an invasion of Afghanistan that will lack for a casus belli, although it is approved on September 9th.

So let's not pretend the Pearl Harbor comment does not have a context, or carry a clear suggestion. The significance of this one quote can be exaggerated. It is not a recommendation, it is not quite a direct threat, but it is expressive of a not particularly covert wish.

You drew the parallels and put it into words much better than I could ever have attempted.

Thanks.

I used the words I did in the question to help direct your attention to the language being used in the PNAC document. Acceptance of the concepts is not to be implied by a simple acknowledgment of the concepts being used.

For example, Rumsfeld did indeed warn about a Pearl Harbor event from the moment he arrived at his confirmation hearings.

A "Space Pearl Harbor".

Whether you or I think such an event likely doesn't go to the point of establishing what Rumsfeld thought. How would such an event, or preparations for such an event, or the military transition and transformation envisioned to counter such an event, have stopped the 9/11 attacks?

After the 9/11 attacks, were the F-22s magically not in production and inventory anymore? Have a decision to stop making aircraft carriers been made recently? Both are examples cited in the "Pearl Harbor" paragraph from the PNAC document.

Putting it shortly, was a 9/11-style attack one of the anticipated "Pearl Harbor" scenarios ever put forth before the fact to justify military transformation by any PNAC signatory? If you've got evidence of such a thing, now would be the time to produce it, because funnily enough, the Bush Adminstration is fairly well on record pooh-poohing such an event for ten months.

And could we describe any of them as covertly wishing such an event, perhaps even directly threatening such an event, when Donald Rumsfeld said precisely the opposite at his confirmation hearing?



That's a fairly overt wish that such an event never happen.

You write fairly well and persuasively when you look at the facts comprehensively. It's when you avoid facts and statements like the one above that your rhetorical points unravel. Nobody at PNAC wanted 9/11 or any such event to happen. They only ever raised the specter of such a thing to hasten their own agendas meant to prevent such things from happening. The discussion of such agendas are a different subject, and one you will have to seek elsewhere to find a defender. (Especially language like "defense deficit" in the PNAC document - that's a particularly odious debate device to me and smacks of William Kristol.)

But the only clear suggestion from the context of the PNAC document is that Pearl Harbors are best avoided.

"Nobody at PNAC wanted 9/11 or any such event to happen."
So you're saying Cheney didn't want 911 to happen?

I'd be surprised to learn he cares, wildbill.

I doubt very strongly that Cheney wanted 9/11 to happen. I doubt very strongly that any Bush Administration official wanted 9/11 to happen. If you think that's a defense of these people, I can't help that. It is simply being fair. Cheney has sinned many times, as have all the Bush Adminstration officials, and they are rightly to be despised. But you have to come up with a lot more evidence, even a scrap of evidence, before I'd accept that they wanted 9/11 to happen. It's not there.

Anyone who suggests they do know is projecting his or her own personal bias. But, it certainly is not difficult to imagine Cheney foaming at the mouth for such an event given the profits that Halliburton has realized since the start of the Iraq war.

http://shoestring911.blogspot.com/2007/07/before-911-donald-rumsfeld-was.html



That looks pretty simple to me, Hope.

I do give you that.

But, unfortunately, there was that little Patriot Act (how many pages does it contain?) that was waiting in the wings right after 9/11. The fact that it was so complete so quickly after 9/11 occurred does tend to make me think that what they were afraid of was how the populace would handle perceived severe aggression against our country. They resolved that little issue by being "forward-looking", and drafting the Patriot Act well in advance of the actual attack.

Of course this is only my opinion, and, I do know that you will not agree. But, let's face it, we really don't know what they were thinking.

Peace.

If they so wanted a new Pearl Harbor not to happen, how do you furthermore explain their barely restrained joy when it did?

Immediately they were calling 9/11 an "opportunity" to accomplish "things related and not" - the "trifecta," no less (and if that's Bush's idea of a joke: fuck him). No time lost in exploiting it for all it was worth as an enabling event on all fronts - again suggesting that this may have been how they thought of it before it happened.

Proving nothing in itself - showing a mindset.

I do remember the "joy" that you speak of. Lots of joy. But, you are right. This is suggestive of a mindset, and does not constitute proof of complicity.

Go round up every self-help book author in existence who ever said "Problems are opportunities."

You really should listen to yourself every once in a while. Rumsfeld is on record, expressing openly that he didn't want a Pearl Harbor to happen. Do you have anything besides innuendo to counter that?

In that, if they really expected a decades long transition, there would have been no need to include that statement concerning a "New Pearl Harbor":

"The process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor".

Of course, none of us can know what was actually on their minds when they wrote that, so, this is just my opinion.

William Pitt wrote a very good article about PNAC in September of 2003:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/091503A.shtml

would show that they in fact DID expect a decades-long transition and transformation process.

I don't see how anyone can credibly argue otherwise.

and if I could ask you some questions to your answers LOL....

1. If you believe that pretty much everybody feels that the 9/11 Commission Report isn't entirely truthful, then isn't it also safe to think that if the truth is being covered up, no matter how small the detail, that they may be dishonest about ALOT of the details? Thinking along the lines of "A chain is only as strong as its weakest link", if they have lied about one aspect of the attacks, they have lost all credibility.

4. Yes, Florida. With family ties to Jeb Bush (PNAC member) and political ties to Katherine Harris, it seemed the likely state to cause the fracas. Wouldn't you agree?

6. Can I ask you why?

10. To answer your question - YES. The PNAC runs the country. All I gotta do is look at the list of members of the PNAC and match them up with BushCo.

1) the 911 commission report isn't entirely truthful not because the commission is lying but because people that answered the questions of the committee were not being entirely truthful. ie how incompetent the current regime is.
4) but do you agree that if Gore had won his home state florida would not have mattered?

6) I have seen no proof of a secret cabal controlling the country. I think also you don't realize what the free masons are about.

If anybody knows of one, I have a retaining wall I'd like built.

damn spelling errors. ;)

isn't that ignoring the problem at hand? Florida has a large demographic of minority democrats, and a pretty sizable electoral vote number. Reading up on the history of Harris - ay-yi-yi - and parlay that with his bro being the gov, he couldn't ask for a better manipulation situation.

I guess my point in asking the original question, is to find out if OCTers see what the generic CTer sees.

This is how I see it: We got a RW "think-tank" with ALOT of pull, dating back to the Reagan Administration. They form in 1997 and try to push Clinton. They want to be the top power of the world, but they can't do that until they get just the right person in there. They need someone who will benefit financially, but doesn't have the mind to execute the plan. They need someone who will hand over the reins, no questions asked. Charm the hell out of them, George, and we'll handle the rest.

To me, it's so very obvious; but I asked these questions because I want to understand how other people see things.

6. As for the freemasons, I know a bit about them, but could stand to learn alot more; however, I've read quite a bit and learned alot about the Skull & Bones secret society. I can't ignore their influence and involvement in the high levels of intelligence.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I'm not an OCTer, so I won't answer, but you can pretty much imagine what my answers would be -- like yours.

The only place I would probably disagree with you is on the Skull & Bones stuff. I don't think, based on fairly close first hand observation, that that is how elites work.

Why would they network through a tiny, obscurantist organization like S&B when there are larger, more powerful, more inclusive structures -- alumni organizations of Ivy League schools; Harvard, Yale and Princeton (and other university) Clubs in each city; the Ford, Rockefeller and Carnegie foundations, and the "ad hoc" "commissions" created and funded by them; the Council on Foreign Relations; the Foreign Policy Association; the international law committees of the major bar organizations; and so forth.

In other words, the bigger and more inclusive the organization, the more it can "reach out" to various powerful interests, forces, individuals and even popular movements, to "solve problems." By being small and exclusive, S&B limits its own power and reach. The American elite (outside of Bush and the neo-cons) don't try to create a small group to rule the world, so much as vast networks to co-opt it.

There's a great, funny independent film called "The American Ruling Class" -- a truly weird hybrid of documentary interviews, mockumentary, musicals, comedy, and scripted drama and parody, all narrated by an incredibly sarcastic and snarky Lewis Lapham (former long time editor of Harper's). It is, in my view, the most accurate description of how the American ruling class actually works.

The basic premise of the film is that rather than being an exclusive, inbred, pedigreed set of rich families, the American Ruling Class is a constantly shifting, expanding network that thinks of itself as a "meritocracy," and that "anyone may be invited to join the elite, if it helps the elite retain power." Lapham uses his own blue blood and power connections to interview some of the most powerful people in America, and the film shows some elites (like James Baker) blatantly lying about how the system works, but interviews other elites who provide remarkably blunt, honest descriptions of the system -- including a hedge fund manager, the scion of a WASP family that has had money since the 1700s, and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. There is even a fantastic cameo by Barbara Ehrenreich who initially plays a waitress, and then steps out of character to explain that she is "Barbara Ehrenreich," do research for her next book on the condition of the working class.

If you want to know how the system works, don't worry about S&B. Think "Yale Club of New York" and see "The American Ruling Class."

Ehrenreich was working on "Nickeled and Dimed"?

and "Bait and Switch" by her.

I'm a bit confused, though, by your comment about S&B being too small, but also say that there are larger networks such as Yale alumni organizations. Isn't that, in effect, what S&B is?

I can't say that I see any particular link between S&B and 9/11; however, there is a direct link between them and the CIA (large amount of S&B members became CIA operatives/officers). Also, the S&B was founded by William H. Russell, of the infamous Russell family. Their interests were all about opium - and the ties between opium smuggling and the S&B appear to be prevalant even now (I'm basing that opinion on articles I've read, as well as the book "The Unauthorized Biography of George Bush" by Webster Griffin Tarpley and Anton Chaiken).

I believe it's worthy to note that President John Quincy Adams stated his displeasure and distrust in this society and its influence in American politics.

To a CTer like me, I look at the long history of the Bush family's involvement in the S&B as well as the opium industry - and then I think about our supposed reason why we're in Afghanistan, it just doesn't settle with me. Afghanistan produces obscene amounts of opium. I can't help but think that opium is the real reason we're there.

I know I could be way off base on this, but all it takes for me is one look at the long list of former and current members of the S&B. I recognize way too many of the names on that list, and not because of their financial notoriety (although that is the case with some); but because of their positions in US government over the last almost two centuries.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/02/60minutes/main576332.shtml

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Skull_and_Bones_members

When a potential member of the elite is 18, 19, 20 or so, no one knows for sure what he or she may end up doing. Plenty of people with great educations end up deciding that the corporate or government sector is boring or unfulfilling. Choosing a group to network with at that age is something of a crap shoot.

S&B has gotten a lot of attention because of its bizarre rituals, but really it isn't that much different from other secret societies and not so secret societies at other ivy league institutions -- the Harvard Final Clubs or the Princeton Eating Clubs, for example -- not to mention the very public ways that the universities encourage networking by groups smaller than the entire undergraduate college such as the Harvard system of "Houses", like Dunster, Elliot, Kirland, Mather, Winthrop, etc., or the Yale http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yale_College">"Residential Colleges", like Berkeley, Calhoun, Davenport, etc., within Yale College. The Yale secret societies, Harvard Final Clubs and Princeton Eating Clubs are designed to let the richer, whiter, predominantly male undergraduates self-select their elite networks, while the Harvard Houses and Yale Residential Colleges are a bit more democratic, forcing everyone into one or another smaller college unit. S&B is hardly any more remarkable than any of the other societies, and is probably less specialized. The only societies that consistently dominate a field, ironically, are the entertainment oriented societies, with Harvard Lampoon alumni and Harvard Hasty Pudding disproportionately dominating comedy and other forms of the light entertainment business.

The problem is that 20 or 30 years on, if a member of an elite organization has a "problem" he needs to solve and needs a "contact," there are much broader networks to call on. His fellow secret society members or residential college members may not be able to provide precisely the help he needs. So the elites tend to have more pragmatic, flexible, open ended organizations that are capable of infinite expansion and co-optation.

Suppose, for example, it's 1988 and you, as CEO of a company with branches in South Africa need to reach out to moderate members of the African National Congress. S&B isn't much help, and frankly neither is Dunster House. But by providing "help" to the ANC in Lusaka, introducing their members to American corporate executives and bankers, university presidents and foundations officers, through an "ad hoc" committee of concerned corporate citizens, funded by American foundations, and assisted by the Council on Foreign Relations, you can "reach out" to the people you need. Within a few years the struggling South African ex-pats you "helped" with strategic access, resources and information are running the country.

Similarly, I doubt that S&B was an incubator of the intelligence community. What most of those early OSS and CIA types had in common was that they went to Yale, in general, not that they were necessarily S&B. In more modern times, university types and young professional intelligence operatives tend to be recruited by grown ups -- not by fellow classmates -- often through security-related courses, especially advanced seminars, and by the occasional off-hand open offer by intelligence professionals doing fellowships in other kinds of institutions.

That's just my opinion, of course. I think that if an elite S&B alumnus needs to get help, and the right person happens also to be a member of S&B, that's probably very helpful to him. The same would hold true if the happened to both know each other from Elliot House. But to a certain extent, I think S&B is a red herring. The entire university industrial complex is a system for recruiting corporate, government and intelligence elites and focusing on one small secret society is missing the forest for the trees.

and I appreciate you placing what you know, and your thoughts, into this post.

This is exactly what I was looking for (posts stating opinions based on research, without ridiculing others).

Thank you. :)

Hamden and sabbat have given this a good start - honest answers based on what they've learned. And not lambasting me in the process.

Hard to find in here, it seems. ;)

if you would treat people who honestly disagree with you with more respect than your sneering labels and juvenile put-downs. If you'd like civil and honest debate, start by doing it yourself.

"Sneering labels and juvenile put-downs?"

and I was directing it at him, not you. I have no idea why you are jumping in here.

By the way, read a number of his posts and tell me what I said is not true.

Her posts are very respectful.

Boy, did I screw up. I'm not a very good multi-tasker sometimes and I really intended that comment for someone else. My npologies.

...and fooled everyone in the world but the Truthers?

Do you think international bankers financed a plot to shut down Wall Street?
Do you think the Bushes would use family friends to pull off the job?

Why do you think the administration panicked on 9/11 (if they knew it was coming)? Why didn't they arrange to make Bush look good?
Why didn't they frame Saddam for 9/11, if they did it so as to invade Iraq?
Why didn't the administration do any follow-up attacks?
If they can stage big terror attacks, why do they keep relying on lame terror alerts based on old information?
Why didn't they stage a big one before the 2006 elections?
Why does the seismology clearly indicate no explosions on 9/11?
Why has no one come forward with a tell-all book?
Why has no one taken out the Truthers, who are revealing the details of the secret plot every day?
Why have there been no published, peer-reviewed engineering studies that back the inside job theory? Or engineering seminars on the topic?

Could incompetent cowards really pull off a mass murder?

Why do Truthers attack one another all the time and say the other Truthers are fake?
Why can't any two Truthers agree on the theory?
If there's so much evidence, why are there so many versions of the story?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

that we are on entirely different pages.

I do NOT see the Bush Administration as being incompetent - not at all.

They knew what they wanted - years ago; found themselves a puppet, rigged the election to make sure the puppet got in the White House, and executed their plan. TO PERFECTION. Incompetent? Hell no. They're fucking brilliant in that capacity.

They got EXACTLY what they wanted, as stated in the PNAC wishlist.

No, I do not think "the most incompetent administration EVER" pulled off the "trickiest hoax EVER."

If you one day define or employ honest, relevant, unloaded terms that come anywhere near, either to reality or to what I think, I'll let you know.

"Do you believe the most incompetent administration EVER pulled off the trickiest hoax ever..."no I believe the people behind the most incompetent administration EVER were involved in 911.


"Do you think international bankers financed a plot to shut down Wall Street?
don't know

"Do you think the Bushes would use family friends to pull off the job?
would use family friends to help cover it up

Why didn't they frame Saddam for 9/11, if they did it so as to invade Iraq?
they did try to implicate Saddam

If they can stage big terror attacks, why do they keep relying on lame terror alerts based on old information?
keep fear alive

Why has no one come forward with a tell-all book? Just wait, more will come

Why has no one taken out the Truthers, who are revealing the details of the secret plot every day?
they try to keep the Truthers out of the MSM

Why have there been no published, peer-reviewed engineering studies that back the inside job theory? Or engineering seminars on the topic?
there have been


Could incompetent cowards really pull off a mass murder?
the 19 Magic titty bar hopping, cocaine snorting, fly school drop-out
cave arabs or the Bush regime bozos, ? ....niether

Why do Truthers attack one another all the time and say the other Truthers are fake?

Truthers don't have the absolute truth, just some evidence, speculation
and their own pet theories, ....

the Plane-rs vs the no Plane-rs

Why can't any two Truthers agree on the theory?
more than 2 ....
there are many groups that do agree on a theory

It was called the Anthrax attack(s) and it remains unsolved (although authorities have traced the "footprints" right up to our own people).

In addition, there are those who believe that Flight 587 was also the result of a terrorist attack, but it was covered up.