Well, I've already asked you if you felt 9/11 was the result of a lot of incompetency. You said no. You've already made clear about al Qaeda, but haven't shed much light on your thoughts about our government. They were clearly warned ahead of time. The light was blinking red. Men in the CIA were wanting to quit to avoid the fallout they knew was coming. What are your thoughts on all of that?
Sometime in the next few months, a criminal is going to hurt someone you care about. It will be very bad. Given that information, what do you do? Will it be a friend? A relative? A neighbor? How will they be hurt, exactly? Now multiply that to the size of the US, and add a hundred other 'warnings' about vague future events coming in constantly. What do you do? As for the government, I don't trust them. Never have, it's how I was raised.
I understand the point you are making, I do, but how do you explain their success when Clinton was in office? They "turned "it" on" and saved the day. Why didn't Bush tell the CIA to blow through their budget and do it, you know, prevent 9/11? I mean, there seems to have been nothing done. Unless I have just missed them, I've never heard of any bells and whistles Bush and Cheney pulled out prior to 9/11 happening. For all accounts, they sat on the intelligence that was given to them. We both know that prior to 9/11 Bush and Company were well aware of everything - except for the date and time supposedly. Planes as weapons was known. The want to hijack American aircraft's was known. The WTC as a target was known. al Qaeda infiltrating our country was known. As to you not trusting the government, why do you trust their reports?
As usual, you make a lot of (*)(*)(*)(*) up. Was it known in intelligence circles that planes COULD be used as weapons? Yes. Was this information ever passed on to Bush? Nope. Did the PDB state the hijackings would be using the planes as weapons? Nope. Does the President have to issue a command to the CIA or FBI to stop a terrorist attack or investigate a threat? Absolutely not. You also like to pretend like the threats you mentioned were the only threats made against the US when the reality is that thousands of threats are being investigated at any point in time. Yet you think the CIA should have been on top of it even though it is the FBI's job since it is inside the US. You also like to play Monday morning quarterback where you connect most of the dots that could not be connected at the time and then pretend that these were known quantities back then. If Clinton was so good, please explain the 1993 WTC bombing, the Cole bombing, the two embassy bombings, the OKC bombing, and the Khobar towers bombing. How do you claim that as success? Why do you constantly fall sucker for truther sites and videos when they are constantly outright lying to you and making you look like a fool when you repeat their lies as though they are truth?
what lies? So then what you are saying is that its excusable because bush didnt get it. I am not aware the agencies are required to get bushs permission to act on a threat. cite it. until then its still criminal breach
You haven't even made 1, so I would assume 2,000 is a bit beyond your ability. I am anyone, and I have no idea if what you are saying is even English. I think you live in an alternate world where you are under the impression that if you say something, it's automatically real. It's not, most of what you say are lies, and completely off target. Wow...you certainly have a high opinion of yourself. I've actually noticed this among truthers, it appears that you guys believe you are in some secret group. Like you are privy to information the American public is not. Here's a little bit of a hint...you're not. You see things that aren't there, and make up "facts" to try and support yourself. However, whenever your ideas are proven to be complete bull(*)(*)(*)(*) you take your ball and go home.
Koko, as usual, your claims are disjointed, full of (*)(*)(*)(*), and basically worthless, except occasionally when you accidentally agree with a post. In other words, typical truther fodder. For instance, you claim agencies aren't required to get the President's permission to act on a threat which is EXACTLY what I said. Maybe you should try actually READING what other people post, although the outcomes can be quite entertaining as we watch you swing from your own rope. Maybe you should school Jango on the fact a President doesn't have to order the intelligence (CIA) or law enforcement (FBI) arms of our federal government to do their jobs. He seems to be hopelessly caught up in pretending Bush had to do something. The rest of your tripe is just the typical truther BS. I rarely even respond to you anymore as you rarely post anything worth more than a snort or a laugh.
Interesting that these people pull off this giant conspiracy, yet they can't or won't silence people like you? Have they even tried?
sure I have. says who? cite it. yeh actually if I say it is real then it is. doesnt mean troughers can see past their cash cows. well anyone who says something as foolish as make up facts pretty much says it all
they work in court when I sue people does that count? LOL so great balls o fire we agree on one thing then LOL unless he takes charge LOL Lots of LOL
what makes you think it was a conventional conspiracy? isnt that a bit tarded in todays worl of 160+ iq agencies? Why not tell us how easy it "really" is so you are more believable. So give us the low down how a 160iq would do it rather than a 60.
Shakespeare must have known someone like Koko when he wrote "it is a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
I know most people that will actually give this a look, are mostly awake to the false left vs. right dichotomy, but if anyone wants to know why I hate Obama with a passion despite thinking the other side is worse........ Look no further than Obama's actions to silence whistle blowers. Whether is be NSA, CIA, or FBI, Obama has shown his turn coat traitor colors with his actions on whistle blowers!
The newest intelligence briefings that were released show Bush was briefed on the planes being used as weapons. Feel free to bust this shills face with this little fact. As far as debating what Bush knew, and this patriot911 guy, it would behoove you to go get real familiar with what was actually released a couple weeks ago, because Patriot911 is still playing out of the old playbook!
LOL. If you have sued anyone and won I am Abraham Lincoln. Why would this "bust" anyone? It's widely known. Doesn't mean he could have prevented the attacks. Tell me this: If I tell you, "Someone is going to stab you with a sharpened pen," does that mean you know where, and when, and who, and how? Does that mean you can prevent yourself from suffering that attack?
Maybe I missed it, but could please link (or re-link, again I apologize if I missed it) to the source of the new information that was released a couple of weeks ago? Mostly because every truther that says "new information released" generally refers to stuff that was debunked in the mid 2000's (2002-2007). Also, you all need to come up with a new word other than shill. I've covered this thoroughly in other threads. No one cares, outside of these forums (and a few other forums), about your ideas. It's been 11 years since 9/11 has happened and the truth movement has come up with nothing. Absolutely no evidence, whistleblowers, or any other solid basis for accusing the government of performing 9/11. Truthers are a fringe few. There are more people that care about Jersey Shore than 9/11, sadly. The government isn't paying anyone to keep you guys under wraps, your only lack of motivation and laziness does it all by itself.
Yeah if you didn't let anyone with pens near you. Your argument fails.. The attacks were preventable. The fact is they let terrorists bring weapons onto planes. Simple as that. Now they don't, but back then, they did. You can't argue that they had no choice but to continue to let people take weapons onto planes despite decades of violent hijacking history. You've said this 9/11 couldn't have been prevented, it's just one of those things like mosquitos we have to live with, many times, and each time you say it, it's wrong.
Not applicable with airplanes, the country is dependent on them. I can't disagree, I don't know the details on if the government had specific information on the times and dates of the attacks. I don't believe they did, and generic tips don't help. They generally cause more confusion. You also make it state as if the terrorists had a special pass that no one else had in order to get their box cutters and mace on board. This was common practice, everyone was able to bring those items onto planes with them. As far as my research has led me I haven't discovered any other instance of a hijacking done by box cutter or mace. Meaning no one had done this before. Decades of violent hijacking history? Can you please locate how many of these hijackings have taken place using box cutters and mace? More generic yet, how many violent hijackings in the last....20 years. A factual number with a source please. You don't know that, this is bare assertion. You don't know it could have been prevented anymore than we know if it couldn't have been.
One quick observation. 9/11 could have been prevented if the rules and regulations post 9/11 were implemented pre 9/11. BUT. Do you honestly think the public would have put up with the grief and aggrivation prior to 9/11 just on the claims by the government that the new rules and regulations are to stop terrorists? You would have had many people (especially business travelers) up in arms over what many would consider an infringement of their civil liberties over a bunch of fear mongering claims by people out of touch with reality. Can you, with a straight face, tell me people would accept post 9/11 rules and regulations prior to 9/11?
