I guess William Rodriguez is just a big lying sack of shit! He was by no means some armchair jerkoff on a mission when he arrived at work on the morning of 911 and began his day trying to save the life of some maintenance worker who was blown up in the basement of the north tower about a minute before Atta's plane plowed into the 90th or so floor
Is Webster Tarpley jerking off at his computer? My hat is off to him. I hope I have the desire and drive to do that when I'm his age. And I guess the Silverstein statement is just one of those things. As far as an attempt on Bush on the morning of 911 - if that were the case, then how the fuck could the secret service let him sit there like a bump on a log for a good half hour while planes were flying all over bumblefuck without a flight plan? Wouldn't they have rushed him off to safety? Wouldn't the attempt on his life come across as a very powerful propaganda tool for any and all future actions to be taken against Afghanistan and Al Qaida? There was zero media coverage of this. Why? And I guess physicists like Steven Jones who have basically committed professional suicide in order to pursue the truth are just wasting their time and whacking their wickers in self flagellation! If none of this makes sense. If I am completely off the wall, then I am going to sit down, shut the fuck up, and get out of the way. Good luck and happy hunting. --- In cia-drugs@yahoogroups.com, "Vigilius Haufniensis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > in my humble but always-forcefully stated opinion, it's EITHER/OR: > either 19 arab suicide hijackers struck one of the most successful > blows against a supposedly all-powerful adversary in the history of > warfare, OR somebody pushed a button somewhere, and everything went > BOOM. > this either/or premise seems especially true given that i know, as > the result of investigation, and not jerking off at my computer while > thinking out loud, that george w bush was the target of an > assassination attempt at 6 a.m on the morning of sept. 11 2001. > > > VMANN: agreed, but what do you make of the "ANGEL IS NEXT" warning touted > by webster tarpley, and which seems to explain bush's movements on that day? > the assassination of the leader of the northern alliance the previous friday > was accomplished in the same way that this attempt was made. why, in your > view, did they "pull" building 7? > > > > > it thus seems logical that it was the monumental stupidity, > arrogance, and incompetence of the administration of the worst > president in american history that is the cause of the successful > attack, and not an unproven plot. > > > VMANN: what's your view of the alleged NORAD stand down? > and the numerous "drills" that were being conducted that day? also, the FBI > seems to have "spiked" numerous investigations BEFORE the attacks, to enable > them to happen. just as afterward, they seem to have been actively covering > up. is this because of the "saudi connection?" bush did sign W199 (EYE) to > protect the bin ladins, who are saudis. also, what is your response to the > warnings recieved by the mayor of san francisco, and the seeming warning to > ashcroft, who stopped flying commercial before the attacks. and the general > who begged off duty for that morning? > > > > > afterwards, these same individuals conspired to cover-up the > complicity of their administration's largest source of revenue and > succor, the SAUDIS, in the funding of the attack. > lost in all the 9/11 truth bullshit are a few simple facts. if the > attack was premeditated to facilitate and justifiy an invasion of > iraq, the desperately incompetent planning for securing that country > and its oil afterwards would have received far more attention than it > did. > > > VMANN: well, i think that the invasion of afghanistan was more pressing > than iraq at the time. many people seem to be of the opinion that the real > goal in iraq is fragmentation and expen$ive "low intensity" conflict. > > > > > in contrast, THE biggest geopolitical result of the 9/11 attack has > been the removal of u.s. troops from saudi arabia, which was promised > before they arrived by the first pres bush, but which the u.s. never > quite got around to doing afterwards. in fact, this is the only > instance since ww2 when u.s. troops have left a country they > occupied. > > > VMANN: is that more significant than the military involvement (and > subsequent poppy cultivation) in afghanistan and the enormous transfer of > wealth into the coffers of the carlyle group, bechtel, halliburton, > blackwater, etc for military expenditures? > > > > > finally, in addition to the eminently believable eyewitness testimony > about the pentangon being hit by a superbly-flown boeing aircraft > which i believe had a saudi military pilot at the controls, > a close watching of the two french brothers documentary on the wtc > attack reveals that those on the ground were actually surprised that > wt7 stood AS LONG AS IT DID! > > > VMANN: the designers of the complex would disagree. what is your take on > the stephen jones analysis vis a vis thermite and thermate in the debris, > and the reports of william rodriquez, who states that there were explosions > in the towers even before the planes hit? > > > > > SURE, this eyewitness testimony may have been inserted after the > fact, but in the absence of any carcasses of passengers of the 4 > planes (jettisioned over the ocean, except to those of us too blind > to see) begin lapping against the breakwaters of east coast ports, i > find that it too is eminently believable. > finally, several posters got it EXACTLY right: open televised hearing > that questioned under oath rudi dekkers, wally hilliard, and pascal > schreier is the only thing that will ever reveal the ultimate truth. > > > VMANN: im all for that. > > > > and that, again, in my humble opinion, is EXACTLY the outcome all of > the 9/11 scholarly mormons and idiots bullshit is designed to > forestall. > thomas pynchon said it best: "if they can get you to ask the wrong > questions, they don't have to worry about the answers." > > > VMANN: who's against getting these people before a "tribunal?" > thanks for taking time to address us. > vigilus haufniensis >
