Just remember there are 44 months more for this dumb bastard to wreak havoc.
The only thing that stops the call for Lee Harvey Oswald Mk II is the thought that the guy with a (dicky) heartbeat away is
no clever words or wit from me,i'm just a clapped-out bricklayer from u.k. i just learned last summer about the illuminati/bush criminals and the 911 murders.it beggars belief how more people can't/won't see through this 'obvious' con trick.3 steel/concrete buildings can't possibly fall down that fast.an airliner can't disappear through a 16 foot hole.4 hi-jacked planes can't elude the most powerful airforce on earth.an old builder can see through the lies,where are the intelects?
thankyou for educating the world about the axis of evil bush blair and sharon,
i do not have a lot of tiome for arabs, but i will not see them bombed and burnt in their homes, the dresden of yesterday has become the fallujah of tomorrow,
and we will pay the price for being israels lapdog
Good post xympho. I love that quote from Oded Yinon, it makes it all so crystal clear. But don't forget, such a policy is seen as in Israel's interest but also American interest, for slightly different reasons. The Israelis might have first articulated it, but they certainly didn't have to work hard to sell it to the US power elite. Weak, fractured Arab states are a boon to DC too.
The "Tripod" defense (ignorance, stupidity, and incompetence) is used all the time by gov't agencies in the US, with great success. I can understand why the gov't would regularly use such a tried-and-true method, but why does the public so easily fall for it? Perhaps because it helps to bring the distant, elite power establishment down to earth somewhat, helps to humanize them in the eyes of the people, helps citizens to identify with them more? Or perhaps due to the long tradition of anti-authority and anti-government sentiment in the US. Viewing your rulers as flawed, fallible, ignorant, stupid, incompetent--it all makes them much less threatening to the average citizen. Would you rather be ruled by buffoons or by sinister, powerful, jack-booted thugs? Most Americans would opt for buffoons, I'd guess.
Re the above comment from Mr. Lambert:
I'm sorry to inform you that you are seriously misinformed. Allow me to shed a little light. Directly after 9/11 a crisis management PR team was put in place to obfuscate the actual events leading up to 9/11 and which occurred on that day. The fact seems to be that Bush & Co. allowed hijackers to board planes on 9/11. These hijackers had cleverly pretended that they were only going to hijack the planes, not crash them into buildings. Who knows where they got their money from. This was a well-planned operation, complete with cover stories for the hijackers (that's why they were all drinking liquor and dating locals). Bush & Co. allowed this to happen for a number of reasons: release of info regarding faked 2000 election, impending collapse of Enron, desire to invade foreign countries (Iraq, esp.) - maybe others. The stories planted on the net and the media by the PR team include the WTC bomb theory, the missle hit the Pentagon theory, and the cover-up of the military shoot-down of flight 93. Our military was betrayed on 9/11 from above - got it? This was a very clever operation, but it only succeded because Bush willingly turned a blind eye. That's why noone in the upper echelon of US government was forced to resign. Google "oilempire" for more on this.
uninvitedguest: WRONG. Thank you for playing, we have some nice parting gifts for you.
9/11 was a well-orchestrated military/intelligence operation, not a clumsy, half-assed cover-up of a well-intentioned "mistake" when the gullible, trusting US gov't authorities believed a group of ME terrorists when they said they'd ONLY hijack a few planes. Nothing else, no mass killing, TRUST us! LOL Good dawd, are you for real? You honestly expect people to buy that? Talk about your "incompetence" and "stupidity" defenses! I guess the CIA really is a bunch of kindergartners, who just can't quite figure out how the world works, huh? And even after they believed the Arab hijackers, no one thought it prudent to put a contingency plan in place to counter a possible double-cross? And why on earth would anyone think that a few hijackings alone would solve all the problems you allude to (2000 election controversy, Enron, etc.) let alone give BushCo carte blanche to launch wars of aggression anywhere it pleased? That's a lot to expect from a few hijackings that weren't supposed to end in crashes, building collapses, and thousands of deaths. But I guess those in the CIA aren't just child-like in their gullibility, but in their flights of fancy as well.
What a crock. Rowan Berkeley, are you reading this? If so, now you might have some idea why in a recent posting I mentioned that oilempire.us had been accused of spreading disinfo. Are you a little more sympathetic to that view now?
dear left dude - I don't think it is any longer necessary for the US govt. to mount such a weak defense of the masterminds of 9/11, as that they were in on a spoof gone bad. This seems to me the thinking of people who, in the face of so much evidence of sophisticated coordination on 9/11, still want to identify with and trust their leaders. Because if they don't - well, doesn't that just mean that America is no better than whatever country their ancestors emigrated from and that they are still peons and slaves? Too painful a thought for some, and so, in a
kind of false hope, they defend their --- king.
No, I hold far more responsible an entire class of academics and engineers who feed at the Defense trough and cannot ever take off on their own skepticism about the events. They go along to get along.
I also blame the 9/11 Commission for never showing how the events could have happened due to live fly drills going on that day, something brought out by other members of Congress who curiously seem to have been elected by little truth-hungry constituencies. Barney Frank, unfortunately, is not one of them. He's a little afraid to stick out his neck since he himself presides over a community split between leftists and yellow dog Zionists, and the latter are afraid of what might come about their relations with the Bush machine.
I think the culprits have been nailed, and they were working out of the Pentagon. It has taken me a long time to understand what might have occurred, and long time to suspend judgment over any given participant. But the motive, means, and opportunity have become clearer with time. The means is far more odd than one might suppose, and probably not necessary for outsiders to understand in any great detail.
By their fruits you shall know them. And with time, more and more of us do. We are lucky to be alive to say so, as so many have passed since their reign began.
Amen anonymous. We still need names and indictments though, no matter how far up the food chain it goes. We will have to wait forever for Congress to grow a pair. It's up to us peons to take these murdering traitors down.
Well... let's begin with corporate crisis management teams. I hope you believe that they do exist; they've been around since the days of Rockefeller. I hope you realize that a large fraction of internet chatter is just another means of 'product placement'
Second, let's consider what you seem to avoid: the leadup to 9/11. Enron was oncoming (and Bush knew); Bush & Co. were desperate to invade Iraq (well reported now), and the word about the fraudulent 2000 election was out there. They were desperately in need of a distraction.
Third, allowing hijackers to carry out a terrorist attack in the US is treason - about a high a crime as you can come up with. The goal of the PR team was to discredit any such suggestion using 'straw man' techniques - bombs in the WTC, etc.
Fourth, the shock on Bush's face on 9/11 was not faked. He went white. Also, do you think that they could have had a better plan for Bush's movements on 9/11 if the whole thing really was 'orchestrated'?
Fifth, Rumsfeld is 'zeroing in' on the Internet. Think about it a little. Also, highly emotional rants are characteristic of PR and government infiltration programs. Calm, rational discussion is a big no-no for PR experts, since their whole goal is to incite emotional responses, particularly fear and anger. Ever take a course in 'neurolinguistics', my friend? Calm, breathe, calm...
I agree with Ron Lambert. Period.
And the motive for the 9/11 "inside job"? PNAC
P.S. Not everyone responds well to threats, you know. Your not-so-subtle comment, "we have some nice parting gifts for you" is easily understood. Your Manchurian Candidate, GW Bush, is a drooling tool. Your empty-headed PR line is a load of bull, as is the official story. Your cunning is interesting to observe, but your intelligence is seriously lacking. Machiavelli was an idiot; try reading Sun Tzu.
uninvitedguest:
They would have employed a crisis management team no matter if the official story, my take on events, or your take on events is what actually happened. That is SOP for something of that magnitude. No one doubts that they were busy spinning tales on 9/11 and in its aftermath; the question is: Which tales? And for what purpose?
Yep, there was a lot of crap in the lead-up to 9/11 that reflected poorly on BushCo. Plus they desperately wanted a rationale for aggression in the ME. A distraction was needed. We agree on that. I only argue that your description of that distraction (hijackings but no crashes, no towering infernos in NYC, no mass casualties, no building collapses, etc.) is pretty low-key to give them the overwhelming distraction and justification for aggression that they wanted. They were looking for a new Pearl Harbor--a few garden variety hijackings wouldn't have given them that.
Your 3rd point is correct but there's plenty of looney fringe conspiracy theory out there to discredit even the good stuff (holograms of airplanes, anyone?) The basic theories of a missile at the Pentagon and some sort of controlled demolition at the WTC are sensible and well-supported by the evidence. The official story (to which your theory closely hews in the details) is not.
In re your fourth point--how do you know what was going on inside the Chimp's head? Maybe he blanched because he knew that this thing that had existed only in planning stages prior to that morning had actually transpired, and he thought, "oh shit!" Maybe he was totally out of the loop and the plot was hatched among a small number of plotters in the CIA/DIA/Pentagon (more likely)? In re his movements, if you examine in detail the full record of his movements that day, they're actually quite incriminating, not exculpatory.
As for your fifth point--yeah, what's that mean? I've noted elsewhere on this page that I feel there is controlled dissent, faux dissent, disinfo, etc. online. That disinfo could just as easily be the theories that you've espoused as mine--I mean, your theories are much less damning of the gov't, aren't they? A smart disinfo ploy would be to plant stories indicating some level of gov't complicity, but at a less horrible level (we only wanted hijackings, not mass murder, things went awry, those crafty Arabs tricked us!); then also plant wild-eyed looney conspiracy stories (holograms, remote control, Mossad did it all, "pods" on the planes that fired missiles into the WTC towers, etc.) to discredit the seekers after truth. The real truth probably (and IMO) falls somewhere in between.
In re your PS--thanks for the cheap insults. My "parting gifts" comment was a sarcastic joke, hearkening back to US game shows and their contestants. It wasn't a threat! Christ, your paranoia has gotten the best of you. I'm no gov't agent, and GW isn't my Manchurian Candidate! If anyone needs to calm down, it's you buddy. . .
Understanding that structures that collapse at a freefall rate, fall with no resistance is key to understanding that the official explanation for the collapse of WTC1,2&7 is incompatible with the known physical laws of linear motion.
A peer reviewed, scientific treaties has been put forward by Dr. Steven Jones, a Physics professor at BYU. He makes a convincing case that controlled demolition charges brought down those towers. There is a powerpoint presentation that can be downloaded if you want the full presentation of his evidence. http://www.st911.org/
God help us all, as elements of the government at the highest levels sure as hell conspired to commit mass murder.
I have never seen such a confederacy of dunces gathered in one place.
My God! Has the gene pool gone this bad?
There's no hope for us if any of you plan on having children.
*
43 has jock sniffers like Chris Matthews to constantly bail him out. If you mention the Oded Yinon quote you get the David Irving treatment by the "shared Judeo Christian values" crowd of politicians and pundits
Even less if you have any, Jeffrey.
Not to pour gasoline on the flames here, but I think that the posts that follow Mr. Lambert's heartfelt, direct and well-expressed comment share the most singular inability to read past one sentence without getting rabid. Read what he wrote, people, before you blast off.
Intrinsically, he wrote that even though he doesn't have a fancy education, he can see that the cover story for 9/11 was bogus. He then posed the question why people with pretensions of great knowledge and wisdom can't see what is so obvious. I agree with him.
Those of you who decided to barbecue the man without reading his words are part of the problem--not the solution. Simply obtaining knowledge isn't enough, you have to understand that it is those WHO DON'T GET IT that you should be informing.
MK
Madame Karnack--I don't want to pour any gasoline either, but please re-read the comments here. uninvitedguest is the only commenter who disagreed with Mr. Lambert, everyone else either backed him or commented on other things. If you read my comments, I was critiquing uninvitedguest for HIS critique of Mr. Lambert. No one here was "barbecu[ing] the man without reading his words." Even uninvitedguest read Mr. Lambert's comment prior to posting his own.
Yes, I see what you mean, 'mr left dude' (I do hate that nickname though)
Thx, Rowan.
Hehe, would "Esteemed Leftist Gentleman, Esquire" be more to your liking? 
Sorry, but I'm a man of my generation, 20-somethings. . .oh, alright, 30-somethings! hehe
Actually, there were two or three that chomped on poor Mr. Lambert. I think that one is missing. I was also strafing Mr. "confederacy of dunces." I mostly agreed with the points made and would have amplified with additional information, but I wanted to make sure that the flamers left the newly-aware alone. Your point, however, is well taken and I will be more careful with how I word things.
MK
'Karnak' is better than 'Karnack', but 'Carnac', I think, would sound maximally Agatha Christie-esque.
drake university college of pharmacy drake university college of pharmacy drake university college of pharmacy // make money kids make money kids make money kids
Commenting by HaloScan
