>i too was/am puzzled about why bush didn't make pr hay out of the > assassination attempt. the only answer i've been able to come up with > is that the attack was so almost completely successful in decimating > the constitutional line of succession that bush et co were scared > shitless. > > also, sorry, but to think the massoud hit was anything other than an > attack by his chief enemy seems to me to be ridiculous.
VMANN: well, it was curiously timed, was it not? they could have whacked massoud any old time. why right before "we" would need them on "our" side? > in re al qaeda and the cia: one of two things is the case. either a) > someone in the whitehouse picked up a phone and said, "hey, big o! > what it is! we need a little help!" > or: > b) knowing the u.s. had already begun to insert spec forces into > afghanistan in the summer of 2001, as revealed by woodward in his > first book after 9/11, they struck first. VMANN: wouldnt that be counter productive, though? why provide the "New Pearl Harbor?" > since im no more privy to the answer to that than anyone else, i > prefer b, for many reasons. 1 occam's razor. 2. extraordinary claims > require extraordinary proof. 3. it makes a hell of a lot more sense. > > i don't know about the terror drills. i DO know that, contrary to > ruppert's nattering, it was NOT NORAD but the FAA which dropped the > ball. also, pre-9/11, the FAA routinely protected the hijackers, or > rather, they protected the op they were participating in. VMANN: why do you say it was the FAA, and not NORAD, that "dropped the ball?" this seems to be contraticted in griffin's analysis of the "Commission Report." the Report wants to put it all on the FAA. > finally, there seems to be quite a lack of rigorous thought in some > of the other questions here. IF there was something amiss in the > collapse of the buildings, THEN the first scientists to be all over > it would not be red state dickwads from texas tech and utah state, > but from schools so affected, say, colombia, that they couldn't be > silenced, or from blue states that really hate bush, say, at harvard. VMANN: WHAT!? first of all, if the dickwad in question is from a "Red State" or is a "Red State Type" then what he says is more like a "statement against interest." because we would presume that he would be predisposed to SUPPORTING the Bush Party Line. secondly, HARVARD!? are you kidding me? perhaps kris could send you his book on Eastern Establishment Secret Societies. in my view, harvard would be more likely to be "in the loop" than bush himself was vis a vis the 9/11 attacks. > as for rodriguez, tarpley, etc: i again point to the logical > assertion that we are dealing with an EITHER/OR proposition. and > since, in the five fucking years since 9/11, there has been not a > SHRED of real evidence to the contrary, i again assert that the 9/11 > truth movement is disinformation designed to lead questioning away > from certain obvious and highly inconvenient facts about the heroin > trafficking the americans who were housing atta were at that same > time involved in. > > if that's not a big enough or dirty enough conspiracy for you, > then by all means continue nattering on.> daniel VMANN: im going to have to continue nattering on. 1: why are you positing the EITHER/OR proposition? either there were saudi hijackers OR there was government complicity? werent the alleged hijackers themselves government agents? where they not running dope for the CIA? trained at pensacola naval air station? etc? 2: there is not a SHRED of evidence to the contrary of WHAT? to the contrary that there was government complicity? i disagree, there seems to be abundant evidence. or evidence to the contrary that 9/11 investigators are trying to lead away from the "Neo-Iran/Contra Narcotics Angle?" I disagree with that as well. both griffin and tarpley reference it. dunno if nafeez mossodeq ahmed does, as im not done with his book yet. thanks again for taking the time, dude. just trying to hash out all possibilities and permutations. vigiluis haufniensis
