View Full Version : What to make of this? (former Bush insider)

04-15-2007, 08:07 AM

04-15-2007, 08:51 AM
I've said before that I believe the WTC was taken down by demolition, not a smokey fire from an airplane that hit off center. Demolition is the only way that both buildings, and building 7, would have come straight down.

But when I voiced this thought, you Jack, told me I was a fool to think so. What am I to say to you now?


04-15-2007, 09:37 AM
Then why did building seven come down, two blocks away, hours after the towers fell, with the puffs of demolition blasts showing in the video. The demolition blast puffs are also visible in footage of the towers coming down, and pneumatic forces can't explain them. Nor can a smokey, asymetric fire explain the uniform structural failure needed to bring a building straight down. There's plenty of other video and other evidence too. The "debunkers" such as Popular Mechanics always seem to start by misrepresenting the evidence, which makes it much easier to then dismiss.


04-15-2007, 10:44 AM
"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot." Mark Twain

You keep going Dan, As a pilot with thousands of hours I find it hard to believe Arab flight school flunkies could navigate, set up and fly a combat approach with such precision in a heavy 757 (3 times).

Next point, Flight 93. Shotdown? 8 Mile debris field?

After that... Who Gave the order for the fighters to stand down?

Who knew simulations of planes attacking the pentagon and the twin towers would be running that morning and who ordered them.

And , the greatest criminal act in the history of the US.
And only the most cursory investigation.

Top that off with the BBC reporting building 7 falling a full twenty minutes before it happened and FEMA miraculously there the night before with a full team of investigators and you get the picture.

Having relations who were on site that day relate their story and the fact that they are still afraid to talk about it and you get the picture. There is a lot of truth still to come.

Ian McColgin
04-15-2007, 11:53 AM
Watson manages to admit that Gold does not say the September 11 terror attack was an inside job. Gold’s point that Bush wanted war with Iraq has been well documented anyway. Watson then levies the astonishing charge that “Popular Mechanics, the government's foremost mouthpiece for selling the official 9/11 story.” And wanders on that Hunt proved that the government killed Kennedy – any Kennedy. One wonders why he did not get into the conspiracy to kill Ted at Chappaquiddick, a conspiracy that went wrong, did prevent Ted from being President, but then also led to Ted being the most effective Senator in US history, a more powerful and legacy laden role than President ever could have been, but I digress, rather as the article digresses from reality.

This sort of drivel gives conspiracy theory a bad name.

Bob Adams
04-15-2007, 12:01 PM
I start to believe I am involved in a forum with rational, intelligent people, then I read a thread like this. Jeez.

04-15-2007, 12:51 PM
I wasn't endorsing the 9/11 conspiracy folks, just interested in the observations of an insider about the war with Iraq.

If it was a conspiracy carried out by the guv'ment then we are well and truly screwed, and things are much more strange and out of control than we think. I find that hard to believe, no matter the anomalous stuff around that day.

On the other hand, talking about conspiracy, have you heard about the recent revelations around JFK's assassination? Supposedly there's a document in the hand of E. Howard Hunt, written on his death bed, confessing that while he wasn't directly involved rogue elements of the CIA, with the blessing of Lyndon, carried it out. The shooter on the grassy knoll was a Corsican Mafia hit man. This made a splash a couple weeks ago on the conspiracy blogs, and then it fell off the radar pretty quickly. Don't know why. Supposedly Hunt's son has the document. I say let's see it, have it examined.

I'm not a JFK nut, but did read into the voluminous material out there a few years ago. A lot didn't smell right about the official story. Hell, a congressional investigation in the early seventies concluded there was more than one shooter, and that the mob was tied up in it somehow.

Down the rabbit hole!

04-15-2007, 03:16 PM
To propose with a straight face that the WTC collapse was a conspiracy of anyone other than the Muslim mass murderers who caused it is shocking and pathetic irrationality, offensive to anyone with any connection to the attack. This should include all Americans, whether they hate their own free country or not.

mechanical engineer

Don Olney
04-15-2007, 03:32 PM
You crackpots ought to take your scrambled brains over to The View and sit next to Rosie O'Donnell.

04-15-2007, 03:42 PM
It stings to consider the possibilities, don't it?

Always consider the evidence is my mantra. The collapse of WTC 7, with someone on the radio saying "pull it."Not some wacky theory, fact.

Consider the Israeli agents witnessed dancing on the other side of the river as the towers collapsed. CNN.

Not jumping to any conclusions, but the cadre that immediately say, "What a bunch of wackos" are not very interested, or interesting.

WTC 7 was not hit except by some stray debris. Yet it was on the ground a few hours after the big ones. Look into it, don't prejudge.

04-15-2007, 03:53 PM
I'm not propounding anything. WTC 7 came down with very little outside provocation. That, near as I can figure, is a fact. Look into it. The official scenario is hinky as hell.

04-15-2007, 04:16 PM
I can't find what you are after, Norm. I looked.

The fact is WTC 7 collapsed without rational explanation. It wasn't badly hit.

I don't know, don't really care.

Larry P.
04-15-2007, 04:27 PM
The fact is WTC 7 collapsed without rational explanation. It wasn't badly hit.

No Jack that is not the fact. That is what Norman is trying to say. Bldg 7 was hit with debris, was burning for hours and ultimately fell.

Art Read
04-15-2007, 06:00 PM
"Hey! I got an idea... Let's fabricate a terrorist attack on the US to give us an excuse to take over all that middle eastern oil." "Good idea! How about a couple of planes into the World Trade Center?" "Yeah! And the Pentagon too!" "Sounds good, but... hmmm... You think that's enough?" "Good point... How about an empty field in Pennsylvania and then, just for good measure, we'll drop a nearby, building at the Trade Center complex." "Yeah... but one that's just 'a little' damaged, and maybe, I don't know, a few hours later than the Towers..." "Perfect! Set it up!" "Oh, by the way, should we leave a wing or something visible on the Pentagon lawn for the news cameras?" "Naw... I mean, how could anybody question whether or not a plane actually hit the building when one is obviously missing that didn't crash or land somewhere else?" "Well... Maybe. How about we put the wife of a high level government official on board just to make it, you know, 'look good'"? "If you insist... While you're at it, you might as well go ahead and sneak a secret CIA "contracter" team into all those buildings for a few months to plant some carefully prepared demolition charges in structurally strategic spots just to make sure they fall down right. Like, at night maybe, between security guard shifts... Maybe hire some outside talent like those folks from the Discovery Channel that are always bringing down those Vegas Casinos..." "OK! I'm on it, boss!" "Don't forget now, we gotta 'silence' everybody involved once it's done." "Don't worry boss. Gonna be a bad year for 'car accidents'..."

(Do you people who actually waste energy even "wondering" about ANY sort of US complicity in that attack ever actually LISTEN to yourselves!:confused: )

04-15-2007, 08:25 PM

I went to the link you posted and didn't find what you were after. I didn't look very hard.

I'm not endorsing the x files here, just wondering about the anomalies. No steel framed building ever, before 9/11 collapsed because of fire.

04-16-2007, 04:18 AM
You actually believe all that?

Don't you realize that for such a thing to be true, you have to be able to concieve of a consipracy involving hundreds and hundreds of people, not one of whom had misgivings and decided to come clean?

As bizarre as these ridiculous conspiracy theories are, it's ten time MORE ridiculous to think that hundreds and hundreds of people could maintain an airtight secret and hide every bit of truly palpable evidence.

But, then again, life has convinced me that it's possible for people to believe absolutely ANYTHING without the sightest shred of objective evidence.

I don't believe the party line, I don't know what to believe.
Lots of holes in the story. I do know something went terribly wrong that day.
It is our duty to question the authority's on this matter.
Most Americans forget that and go along to get along.
If I get lumped in with the conspiracy theorists for questioning the official story, that gives me a strong indication I am barking up the right tree.
Think about the fact that we knew most of the story before close of business that day. isn't that a little odd?
Besides that no one so far has challenged the quick questions I posed. I am just looking for answers.
When half the country has doubts I would say you have a problem.
Common sense will win out.

04-16-2007, 07:23 AM

What I make of it is that it doesn't take much to construct an argument out of "hints" and "intimations".

Gold is saying the religious whackos and neocons are ruining the party, not that 9/11 is an inside job. If that's your thesis then there couldn't be a better example of what excessive mental masturbation can do to a person.

The review talks about Golds book and a topic that's been over a hundred times. My sense is that the article is drawing conclusions that aren't in the book,,but I haven't read the book and safe to say you haven't either.

Jack, you do recognize that Gold isn't hinting or intimating, it's the writer of the article?

ie. the title and last paragraphs.
Former Bush Speechwriter Hints at 9/11 Inside Job
he is one small step away from intimating that the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon were an inside job.

It took insiders like E. Howard Hunt nearly 50 years to spill the beans on the fact that Kennedy was killed by the government, and yet we already have a plethora of respected individuals sounding the clarion call about 9/11 being an inside job, and in the very least - as in the case of Victor Gold, slamming the fairy tale that is upheld as the government's official story.

04-16-2007, 07:28 AM
I'm not propounding anything. WTC 7 came down with very little outside provocation. That, near as I can figure, is a fact. Look into it. The official scenario is hinky as hell.

you are as hinky as hell, you can't tell the difference between Victor Golds book and an article that conflates various conspiracy theories.


After four decades as a Republican insider, Victor Gold reveals how the holy-rollers and the Neo-Cons have destroyed the GOP. Now heís fighting to get his party back. As a man who served as press aide to Barry Goldwater and speechwriter and senior advisor to George H. W. Bush (in addition to coauthoring his autobiography), Victor Gold is absolutely furious that the Neo-Cons and their strange bedfellows, the Evangelical Right, have stolen his party from him. Now he is bringing the fight to them. Invasion of the Party Snatchers is a blistering critique not only of the Bush-Cheney administration but also of the Republican Congress. Gold is ready to tell all about the war being waged for the soul of the GOP, including the elder Bushís opinion of his sonís work domestically and abroad, the significance of the newly elected Congress, and how Goldwater would have reacted to it all. Gold reveals, among other explosive disclosures, how George W. has been manipulated by his vice president and secretary of defense to become, in Lenin's famous phrase, a "useful idiot" for Neo-Conservative warmongers and Theo-Conservative religious fanatics. Although there have been other books by dissident Republicans attacking the Bush-Cheney administrationís betrayal of conservative principles, none have been by an insider whose political credentials include inner-circle status with Barry Goldwater and George H. W. Bush.

04-16-2007, 07:31 AM

You and I should sit down over coffee some day.

04-16-2007, 07:32 AM
I start to believe I am involved in a forum with rational, intelligent people, then I read a thread like this. Jeez.

this is the America Rove and Cheney could count on. Events in another country, involving another culture/language could be reduced to good/evil, us/them. It's a level of thinking appropriate to 9-11yr olds. ie, "who is stronger, Mighty Mouse or Super Man?". It's the level of discourse that people resort to when rational thinking doesn't satsisfy not knowing. The problem here is that Jack isn't part of a disadvantaged class seeking magical answers "the man is keeping me down" or a homogenous culture promoting a priveleged status, Saudi culture.
It's frigging sad given all the information available he seeks out bs then hides behind ambivalent statements. "I'm not promoting anything,,",,"I'm just wondering..",,"just an observation..."

WMD = they must be something extra special bad that anyone with a trigger finger could have.
Links to Al Qaeda=the terrists that brung us 9/11
Saddam is a bad man=whew, that solves that, sure wouldn't want to be stuck knee deep in a quagmire not being able to identify the enemy.

So many questions, so little interest in finding answers.