<p>FF, I don’t waste any time on 9/11 conspiracy either. But I am curious as to your (or Zoos’s, or anyone else’s) thoughts about the NORAD wargames, with relation to the unscrambled jets.</p>
<p>Allmusic, I don’t think war games are suspicious, in and of themselves, unless I’m missing something. There are war games from time to time, right? We also have HUGE practice drills for attacks that freak out the tourists beyond measure. Maybe I’m just a blase New Yorker (probably, in fact).</p>
<p>Like I said, I don’t spend any time on these things so I don’t know what the “claim” is. I feel that to spend time researching this is more than what the nuts who come up with this stuff deserve. I posted the PM links because I had heard that PM did a reasonable job of refuting the claims of the conspiracy nuts. Perhaps they (PM) address this issue as well (I didn’t read the entire article).</p>
<p>I was at Andrews on that dreadful day. When I entered the base, NYC had been hit and the signs were changed to ThreatCon Delta. I was allowed on base as I have a military ID card. Once the Pentagon was hit, nobody was allowed in and I was able to get off base just before they stopped letting people off the installation. Planes were up when I arrived, but they are always up. It doesn’t matter how many planes are scrambled if we don’t know where the hijacked plane is in the sky and once it is pinpointed, our jets aren’t close enough to intercept before the plane gets to its intended target.</p>
<p>There was well over an hour though.</p>
<p>It’s just a big hmmmmm.</p>
<p>I think the obvious potential motive is that Bush’s popularity ratings were in the tubes…and they went up right after because he had that image of the president dealing with a national disaster. And many would say he was looking for the excuse to attack Iraq.</p>
<p>Eireann. Are you really saying that the man killed 3000 people so that his approval ratings would rise?</p>
<p>zoosermom, he IS the devil afterall.</p>
<p>FF, I don’t need you to tell me. Hugo’s words were good enough for me!</p>
<p>Zoos and FF, we aren’t talking devils here. We’re talking weird inconsistencies and incongruities in the official 9/11 story. The way people avoid talking about these is to call those who question the official story whacky nutjobs. Now SOME of those questioners are whacky nutjobs, but not all of us, and I prefer not to have that guilt by association. Thankee.</p>
<p>Allmusic, we were referring to the comments by Hugh Chavez at the UN where he called Bush the devil. Not anything on CC. Sorry if that wasn’t clear!</p>
<p>I definitely don’t think you’re a nutjob. I totally respect your questions and point of view. I do think the comments by Chavez were humorous in a twisted sort of way. But that’s no reflection on you or any other poster. Just a side comment in the middle of a serious discussion.</p>
<p>Do you think Bush engineered/caused/arranged the 9/11 attacks and, if so, what do you think was his reason?</p>
<p>Jones already embarrassed himself and BYU years ago when he jumped on the Cold Fusion bandwagon (remember that nonsense?). Now with basically accusing the Bush administration of murdering 3000 Americans, I guess that was just too much. Muddled research and conclusions then, the same now.</p>
<p>Time to bring Prof. Jones back to earth…</p>
<p>The only reason Bush needs for doing anything is for God to tell him what to do. He didn’t need to kill people and create a war to create an excuse to invade Iraq. He could have drummed up the whole WMD “threat” without 9/11.</p>
<p>How and when do you wire 2 giant buildings with explosives, and then set them off in such a perfect synchronized fashion to create the (false) impression that the buildings are collapsing? How do people dream this stuff up? It would make more sense to me that aliens visited this planet 911,000 years ago and hid underground, and then emerged from their hiding place and shot the twin towers with ray guns.</p>
<p>NJres, I, too, wonder how people dream this stuff up. As for the idea that the buildings were wired for explosives, do the conspiracy theorists think this was done before or after the planes hit?! Did GWB just get ‘lucky’ that the terrorists hijacked the planes and flew them into the buildings he had ready to collapse? I’m not a fan of the current administration but even I find those suggestions ridiculous. Not to mention that, after observing this administration over the past six years, I cannot imagine them having the ability to even come close to pulling off something like this, even if they wanted to do so!</p>
<p>Right - Bush (who the libs dismiss as a bumbling idiot) masterminded one of the most complex conspiracies in world history, murdering 3000 americans, most of it broadcast live on TV, so he could pre-emptively start a war with Iraq, which would make him so popular he would easily win a 2nd term, and he and Dick Cheney would enrich themselves with huge oil profits</p>
<p>I guess the fact that the Iraq war nearly cost him a 2nd term - was part of the grand conspiracy - to avoid arousing suspicions</p>
<p>As for the occupants of the 4 jets that took off at Logan, Newwark, and Dulles - apparently they were secreted away -and as some conspirators are now claiming, they were simply “gassed”</p>
<p>As the church lady would say: “HOW CONVENIENT”</p>
<p>Zoos, I don’t think Bush engineered the 9/11 attacks at all (although knowing that a guy in a cave planned and orchestrated such a sophisticated feat is nearly as outlandish). I am just troubled by the incongruities, that’s all.</p>
<p>“Zoos, I don’t think Bush engineered the 9/11 attacks at all (although knowing that a guy in a cave planned and orchestrated such a sophisticated feat is nearly as outlandish). I am just troubled by the incongruities, that’s all.”</p>
<p>I understand. Thank you for stating your viewpoint so politely.</p>
<p>I didn’t say I agreed with the theory. I don’t think Bush engineered it. I just said that that would be a motive had he engineered it, as many are accusing him of.</p>
<p>Zoosermom - This is why I don’t respond to your ostensibly “sincere” questions anymore. You ask a question with an obvious answer, claiming to be sincerely interested, someone gives you the obvious answer, and then you go off on them. Let’s reconstruct:
No, she was saying that Bush predictably benefitted politically from the events. You expressed a lack of comprehension of what motive Bush would have for participating in a conspiracy; benefit = motive; Bush benefitted. Eireann didn’t claim she believed the theory, she simply answered your question. You went off on Eireann. Such a typical exchange.</p>
<p>I agree with Fundingfather: 9/11 conspiracy = Bigfoot/Kennedy assassination/Bermuda Triangle. Same level of “proof”, similar understandable motivation for finding “anomalies” in a confusing and complex event which people want to have make simple sense. But I also agree with TheDad that the large body of “inaccuracies” emitted from the Bush Administration pores fuel on the flames. At this point it’s understandable that reasonable Americans approach any statement made by this Administration with a healthy degree of skepticism.</p>
<p>Kluge I didn’t go off on anyone. I asked her if she believed something that she had posted. Where do you get the idea that you can play fast and loose with someone else’s posts and thoughts? I asked her a question and she answered it politely. Specifically show me what you perceived to be “going off on” her. And you don’t get to interpret. You get to read.</p>
<p>Oh and Kluge? As I’ve posted several times in the last week or so, I have been meeting people every day who absolutely and literally believe that Bush ordered the attacks on 9/11. I was asking Eriann if she believed that (because it’s not an unusual position here and now). She saw the question mark, answered politely and that was it. What was your necessity to get involved and twist things?</p>