Yes, so far-fetched.
Clayton -
I am arguing that 9/11 being planned by Bush – and you’re babbling on about how planes being used as weapons …
This is called a strawman.
It doesn’t matter whether it is a spoon or boxcutter … it’s deadly when the person knows how to handle it. I don’t want to judge the people who choose not to fight a maniac in which they didn’t know what was going to happen. I don’t know what my mother would have done? She’d be frightened and worried. What would you have done? It is so easy to scoff on the internet about those passengers refusing to fight those who went to training in terrorist-camps with their “boxcutters” …
What are you expecting the US government to do? You wanted them to shoot down the plane in mid-air? You state that they waited an hour – with very little context. I don’t think you realise how little can be done at so many miles of the ground. There are no traffic police in the air. Do you want the US government to have stopped them before? But that requires the US government to scan every-single person for every-single potential dangerous weapon and maintain stringent surveillance. But that curbs on individual liberty and freedom. So, in conclusion, what exactly are you expecting the US government to do?
A “rogue network” … I sometimes wonder how damaging movies like the Bourne Identity can be to normal smart people – in which fiction becomes blurred with reality – in a desperate attempt to blame the US government for evils.
It totally does matter if it was a spoon or a boxcutter. To say othwerwise is simply idiotic. I’m not trying to judge them, but i am saying that boxcutters don’t screw up 30 years worth of air defense protocol. That took Donald Rumsfled…
It also has to do with the motivations that the NeoCons had. You ignore motive even though courts would not…If i blew up my house a few months after i put a huge insurance policy on it and blamed it on muslim fanatics when there is an police station and court (administration) full of zionist neocons, I’m pretty sure i could get away with it.
Yes, the standard protocol is to shoot down suspected hijacked (missle oriented) planes. So, that is exactly what I would expect them to do. You realize that the U.S. government was running 26 different terror defense drills (either starting, ending, or running) on that morning? It amazes me that cognitave dissonance is so pervasive on the internet. But i guess it goes with the “know it all” attitude.
That paragraph also shows that you have no idea what air defense means in the US…
What do you think they do if there are hijacked planes? Just jack off and wait for them to blame the arabs?
“Miles over the ground” – haha i guess jet fighters don’t go the speed of sound…probably would have been impossible for them to find the hijacked planes, even though they ordered all planes grounded, so it would be difficult for the fighters to see the only jet airliners that were still flying…
Did larry silverstien not admit that WTC7 was demolished? - There was no mention of WTC7 in the 9/11 Commission because the fires were put out by like 1PM…
“The senior counsel to the 9/11 Commission – John Farmer – says that the government agreed not to tell the truth about 9/11, echoing the assertions of fellow 9/11 Commission members who concluded that the Pentagon were engaged in deliberate deception about their response to the attack.”
We all know Bush and Cheney had to testify together and not under oath because they knew about it and were lying t othe public about it.
If you know anything about the history of the CIA and, specifically, in the 1950’s, then you’d know the Bourne Identity is actually based on a real thing. It’s is way exageratted, but nevertheless.
Here is some more evidence of the sustained criminal behavior of Cheney and Rumsfeld. Are you familiar with the concept of a limited hangout? This is what they covered up… Here is the wiki
Here is a white paper if you have any inclination to read. (I assume most people do not)
Also, it does not take a few thousand people to pull something like 9/11 off. It takes a few hundred. The whole CIA and FBI didn’t have to be in on it. They were misdirected and obstructed by the insiders at every step. You refuse to do research and instead try to compare people who do to people who watch too many movies…“blurring the line of reality” hahahah. Just keep thinking that. It seems more movie-esque to say that the “good guys” got attacked by the “bad guys” who hate freedom and women in the workplace!
My guess is that you are hopeless and probably don’t think there is anything fishy about the 7/7 bombings in England either.
I have no idea who planned 9/11 nor do I doubt that the network of individuals which the CIA was referring to as “al-Qaeda” could have been involved - as proxies, decoys, dupes, etc. Also, while I do not accept the official “story” of 9/11, I am not a “truther”, I’ve never held a sign in protest or uttered slogans to the effect that we must be given the truth etc. and, for the most part, my arrival at rejection of the official explanation as a lie has been through a chain of reasoning entirely separate from those proposed by 9/11 truthers.
It was actually Rothbardian analysis of the State that led me to believe that the official explanation of 9/11 is a lie. The logic is brutally simple. First, understand the true nature of the State. It is a mafia with social currency or legitimacy. Once you realize this, you have broken out of the Matrix and everything becomes clear. The State - or to be more old-fashioned, the Prince - wields a weapon of immense power that no one else has… a legitimized, territorial monopoly on law and force. This weapon is funded by forcibly collected revenues (taxes). It is wielded against enemies foreign and domestic to ensure the flow of existing tax revenues and attempt to secure new tax revenues. Almost every war without exception in human history has been waged with one of these two motives at root. Innumerable wars against foreign or domestic enemies have been started through murder, subterfuge (including false flag attacks), pugnaciousness and a million other methods. A Prince (or State) only starts a war when he expects to gain from it. This is borne out by the historical record - the aggressor usually wins (suggesting that the war was calculated to be won). States have murdered their own citizens (subjects) by the droves whenever it has suited their purposes. There is no genuine sense of solidarity between a State and its subjects. The idea that the US government would have the means and motive to kill thousands of its own citizens in the pursuit of some other objective is a matter of course. It is not a surprise or something that should be shocking. It has already done it countless times.
From this, all else follows.
Clayton -