OrionWorks wrote: > A slow news day. > > The following questions are probably directed for Jones, but anyone > can chime in. > > I've been reading this subject thread off and on for some time, and > I'm curious about a couple of things... > > Is it the implication that Cheney either directly or indirectly was > responsible for destroying the WTC and/or surrounding buildings? > > If indirectly, then how far down the chain of command? > > WHO DID IT? > > WHY? > > As the famous saying of a prior "gate" scandal goes (slightly altered > here): What did the VP know and when did he know it?
If you ignore all the arguments about whether there were airplanes, and just look at the facts which can be substantiated and which nearly everybody agrees on, then there are some very interesting issues with the events that day. The Pentagon plane (flight 77) (assume for the moment that it was a plane, please, and not a global foxbat or ICBM or UFO or spitball or mass hallucination) was not stopped. There is testimony from I-forget-which honcho who was actually talking to Cheney in the bunker shortly before the plane hit that made it sound very much like Cheney *knew* it was coming, and had given orders to let it through. "It's 50 miles out sir, do the orders still stand?" -- "Have you heard anything different??" -- that's a line from a song, but it's lifted directly from sworn testimony before Congress. As I recall, the person who reported it said he had no idea what Cheney and the other party were talking about at the time; it's only in retrospect that the conversation is suggestive of something bad going down. (I will dig up a link if anyone's interested enough to ask.) The failure of SAC and/or NORAD and/or any other organization to respond in time to the planes which hit the WTC (again, please, for the moment let's just set aside the [goofball] theory that there were no planes) has been talked about a lot, and the evidence that there was a stand-down of NORAD throughout the entire Northeast U.S. is frustratingly confusing and vague but it appears that there may have been such a stand-down. If there was, it appears that the orders came directly from Cheney. (Not sure where to find this but I think GlobalResearch.ca, which is one of the saner "fringe" sites, had something on it.) There is evidence that some laws had been changed just a few months earlier giving Cheney the authority to order the stand-down. Before the change, NORAD was not under the control of the VP, and he could not have done it. That, too, is suggestive but not conclusive. Of course this also strongly suggests that the hammer used to knock down the WTC *was* the airplanes, and they *were* critical to the plan, Steve Jones and the iron sphericals notwithstanding; the disturbing part is that there may have been complicity on the part of Dick Cheney and others in government that day. As to the plane which went down in Pennsylvania (yes there *was* a plane, it went straight down and splattered at cruising speed, there were eyewitnesses, if you don't believe there was a plane there don't bother me about it I've heard too much c*** on this subject already and I'm sick of listening to fools who can't even research the evidence on the internet carefully enough to find the straight story on their own) ... there is some interesting but inconclusive evidence that it was SHOT DOWN, presumably by the USAF. Why did they get just one of the planes? I dunno -- funny, it was the one headed for the White House; but nobody but me seems to think that's odd. Specifically, while there is nothing *conclusive* (like, nobody actually saw the F-16 that may have done it) the evidence from witnesses says that the plane suffered a "mid-air trauma" some time *before* the crash, and was dropping pieces long before it hit the ground. I mean, big heavy pieces, like engine parts. The official report dismisses this as being due to stuff that got blown up from the crash site but after reading what witnesses think they saw, and reading about how far the debris "bounced", I'm ... well, not so sure. And now I'll bow out again, since I probably have managed to disagree with all sides of the discussion at this point. :-) > > Regards, > Steven Vincent Johnson > www.OrionWorks.com > www.zazzle.com/orionworks >
