I think this proves the gangster style behavior of all officials involved. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82ialxI0SvE"]'Evidence proves 9/11 story is a lie' Buildings Were Taken Down by Controlled Demolition - YouTube[/ame] Where is this stuff in any official reports? Oh wait they are official lies I almost forgot.
As I was going through the links, I couldn't help but notice that some of them no longer work Then I came to the one that links to the following site. http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2008/02/lehman-commission-purposely-set-up-so.html What jumped out at me was this quote. Unfortunately, that is terribly misleading because what PNAC actually said was the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century Clearly more misleading truth blogger BS. Haven't watched the video yet or read the rest of the links (that work) but I will give it a shot.
what you dont understand that? LOL the punch line is: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing eventlike a new Pearl Harbor"
Well, if that's the important part and it is so incriminating, then why did he replace this. with this Clearly misleading to make his point. I guess it all comes down to what "transformation" means. Why don't you look it up in your 1828 dictionary.
In my opinion, there is ample evidence that gov't agencies deliberately mislead, lied to and committed perjury before the 9/11 commission. I would very much support a new independent investigation of 9/11. However, I don't think that the dishonesty of these agencies is necessarily evidence that the gov't was actually behind the 9/11 attacks. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101300.html The washington post article linked in the OP summarizes the reasons Air Force officers were referred to the DOJ. There are quite a few articles that suggest that the North Eastern Air Defense Sector was never in position to intercept or engage any of the high jacked flights. Consequently, air force officers committed perjury when they testified that they would have been in position to shoot down some of the flights if they had gotten timely information from the FAA. I think this article helps to explain the motive for why some agencies lied to the 9/11 commission- agencies lied to mask the incompetent manner in which they acted on or before 9/11.
It depends what kind of "transformation" or "change" they were referring to when they said that. Reading the quote in its FULL context (which is rather complicated and goes well outside just the one line) it is somewhat more clear. They actually explain exactly what the transformation they mean outside this mere one liner. "...Thus, this report advocates a two-stage process of change – transition and transformation – over the coming decades. In general, to maintain American military preeminence that is consistent with the requirements of a strategy of American global leadership, tomorrow’s U.S. armed forces must meet three new missions: • Global missile defenses. A network against limited strikes, capable of protecting the United States, its allies and forward-deployed forces, must be constructed. This must be a layered system of land, sea, air and spacebased components. • Control of space and cyberspace. Much as control of the high seas – and the protection of international commerce – defined global powers in the past, so will control of the new “international commons” be a key to world power in the future. An America incapable of protecting its interests or that of its allies in space or the “infosphere” will find it difficult to exert global political leadership. • Pursuing a two-stage strategy for of transforming conventional forces. In exploiting the “revolution in military affairs,” the Pentagon must be driven by the enduring missions for U.S. forces. This process will have two stages: transition, featuring a mix of current and new systems; and true transformation, featuring new systems, organizations and operational concepts. This process must take a competitive approach, with services and joint-service operations competing for new roles and missions. Any successful process of transformation must be linked to the services, which are the institutions within the Defense Department with the ability and the responsibility for linking budgets and resources to specific missions." This is what they said in the same breathe basically, this quote was from very soon after the new pearl harbor line, on the same topic as what they were talking about when they said the line, i.e. the transformation. The transformation they are referring to looks like its purpose is: "to maintain American military preeminance", and the associated three point plan to do so is the actual transformation/change. It's not too far off what the website claimed, but it does differ in that the RAD document wasn't talking about the new pearl harbor for public galvanization specifically (could just mean getting politicians to sign off on missile defense, cyberspace fortification and introduction of new systems and tactics and such, as outlined, or getting their own people down at the DoD motivated to take these streamlining/overhaul measures, etc.) Nevertheless it is clear that the authors clearly recognized a pearl harbor type event as able to expedite transformation in these defense policies. To claim this means they actually PLANNED such an event, or said we must have such an event, or that they desired such an event, is a stretch that goes beyond the words they said in the document, and is therefore speculative (but possible).. But what is there is acknowledgement of the potential for such a tragic type event to speed up their goals relating to defense policy.
...and what better way to insure our entry to allow an attack on Pearl Harbor. But that's another story for another thread. Prior to Pearl Harbor, America didn't have the "stomach" for another world war. After Pearl Harbor, they did. 9/11 was essentially the same thing in it's objective. Ultimately, we invaded a country, Iraq, for literally NO REASON other than as a result of 9/11 (a country which, by the way, DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH 9/11).
Boy Bush was mad because Saddam threatened Daddy Bush. That's one big reason they invaded. The hijackers? They could only recruit from the "friendly nation" pool of operatives, Saudi Arabia. Iraq didn't qualify.
You have any evidence for this claim? At least you've finally admitted that there were, indeed, highjackers on those flights. I mean, if 'they' just made them up, 'they' could have said they came from any country 'they' chose. Good admission on your part.
That is mostly my opinion there sport, based on things I've read over the years. Don't get your panties too knotted up.
Why don't you go put some time in, in one of your other forums? Yes...my opinion. I think I just stated that. Now go play.
This is currently the only forum I post in. Can you or can you not provide any source for your statements?
Currently, as in at least a month, perhaps more. On a regular basis, only this one. There you go, dodging the topic at hand an trying to swing the subject over to make it about me. Again. Can you or can you not provide any source for your statements?
Then post one that you think is credible, and let everyone else decide for themselves. You have at least admitted that there were, indeed, highjackers on those flights. I mean, if 'they' just made them up, 'they' could have said they came from any country 'they' chose. Good admission on your part.