Fur Flying at Alternet! Join in the Fun!
the point is...
[Report this comment] [Ignore this user] Posted by: dustdevil on Apr 2, 2008 6:37 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5
The 911 attacks took years of planning to pull off successfully. Bush and Cheney were installed as heads of our government to see that it worked as planned. The most likely accomplice to this plan was Israel and most of the players were Zionists. Over a trillion dollars went missing at the Pentagon while Zionist Dov Zackheim was comptoller. Before Bush appointed him, he was a top executive for a corporation that produced remote control systems for airliners. For the plan to work, there had to be moles in all agencies of our government.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
I mostly agree
[Report this comment] [Ignore this user] Posted by: realtruther on Apr 3, 2008 10:20 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But it's not quite as clear cut as placing moles everywhere. Sure, many people involved are moles. I suspect Cheney and Rumsfeld had a MUCH better idea of what they were getting into than Bush, for example. What happens once the stuff goes down and people start wondering what the heck is going on, is that many realize there is indeed a conspiracy afoot and don't feel like playing the hero, especially seeing how the media are playing in lockstep with the traitors/infiltrators. In this category of unwilling coconspirators I would place Condi Rice, Colin Powell, Dubya, George Tenet, and a few others who don't come to mind. In other words, the MODERATES who would not have gone along with the plot if they had known beforehand what it would entail.
Here's a hypothetical to broaden people's imagination--WHAT IF the original plan was to use the cover of the war games to fly some empty drones into the WTC towers, with everyone promised that the towers would be empty (though deaths could be claimed nonetheless). No one really gets killed and presto, we have our Pearl Harbor. Unbeknowst to those who decide to go along with that, moles on the inside use the knowledge of the plan to privatize the WTC and rig it for demolition, and also to detonate a bomb at the Pentagon. Once the stuff goes down, how could the original planners explain that while they MEANT to do something similar, they lost control of the situation? Think outside the box, man...
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »]
- gretavo's blog
- Login to post comments
off topic, but had to share
Had a very snide would-be debunker approach me during lunch. Didn't know squat about 9/11, claimed that bin Laden confessed and that when people confess to crimes, the case is always closed. Ah, OK. Went through insider trading (he said he didn't trust conspiracy theorists so he would have to verify my claims on that score), Mineta/Clarke versus Cheney on PEOC times (he was of course clueless) until finally he asked--so you think what it was the government? da jooz?
Playing slightly dumb (deaf I guess) I said the government and what was that last one? Uh, well you know, everything I see about this is how it was da jooz bla bla. So I asked him if he thought the muslims did 9/11. Of course not he said. Oh, OK, so if some Jews were involved in 9/11, you wouldn't say it was da jooz whodunit. Uh, right. And many neoconservatives happen to be Jewish. Well a few of them yeah. Well, everything I've seen is just a rehash of the Protocols of Zion, and...
Wait, the what? I said? The Protocols? But what are you saying, the Protocols are where da jooz confessed to plotting a global conspiracy, case closed! What? No no, it was forged by the Czar's secret police you idiot!
Ahhhhh, but bin Laden's confession...
He was caught, and I could tell he knew it as he grudgingly grinned and nodded. Our conversation ended shortly thereafter on a slightly acrimonious note because he just had to get in the last insult... :)
Hollow cries of a LIHOPer
"Griffin's voice morphing
"Either he lied or he was duped by someone using voice-morphing technology to pretend to be his wife."
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8514
voice-morphing? Anyone can invent bogus stories about phone calls, but suggesting voice-morphing just doesn't seem remotely plausible to me.
I like Griffin's work very much, but no one is above criticism as long as its done in a constructive way. We don't need to speculate about voice-morphing unless there is actually some compelling evidence (i.e. not wild speculation) that it was used. The facts about 9/11 speak for themselves, there is no need to muddy the waters with unprovable theories.
One successful way to manage a cover-up is to have a lot of conspiracy theories going around, when the (conspiracy) facts are enough to hang people for treason.
But hey, what do I know? Perhaps I should quote Mr. Griffin himself:
"Do you have a personal theory of what really happened on Sept. 11?
No, and I made a big point of not developing such a theory, and even encouraging members of the movement not to do this, because insofar as there are antagonisms and disputes within the movement, they're related primarily to those things, where people say, well, here's what hit the Pentagon, and others say that's not true. I put my focus on evidence that the official story is false, and that evidence is so abundant and overwhelming, to make the case you don't have to prove what really happened and who did it and so on. It's like if you had a murder trial, and Jones is accused of murder. The defense attorneys can prove that Jones didn't do it without having a theory about who really did. All you have to do is a good alibi and lack of evidence and so on. Likewise, we can show that there is no evidence that al Quaeda did it, there's no way they could have done it, when you look at the details-for example, bringing the buildings straight down at virtual freefall speed. There is a sketch of a theory, that it was an inside job, that explosives were used in the buildings. But what kind of explosives exactly? When they were they put in there? How many were there? All those things some people want to get into. Or the critics say, you've got to have a theory. No, you don't have to have a theory. When you develop a theory, that's what the debunkers love, they want to say, that's nonsense and take attention away from all the evidence we have marshaled to show the official story is false."
http://www.vcreporter.com/cms/story/detail/conspiracy_theologian/5834/
_______________
Arabesque: 911 Truth
Submitted by Arabesque on Wed, 04/02/2008 - 10:49pm."
http://www.911blogger.com/node/14688
Poor, Arabesque, the LIHOP theory continues to crumble around him & all he can think to do is suggest that pointing out the obvious (phone calls were faked therefore recipients were either duped or are lying.) just isn't a good tactic for promoting 9/11 truth. I feel sorry for the Shills, they really do have their work cut out for them.
r u kidding me?
He's got a horde of Kossacks that are going to be lining up to lap up his lihop santorum*...
*it's the second definition.