Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pocon1
So some of you are saying that bush is behind all of this. When Bush was just a little shrub, he was a cheerleader in prep school. Then he went to college, where his family name got him in and through school. Then he started a business looking for oil in texas. He could not find any, (In Texas!) so the company failed. Then he tried again, failed too. Meanwhile, he got a dui and was later accused of snorting coke as a young adult. Then he organizes a group where he is a minority shareholder that buys a baseball team. Then his family name buys him a governorship, then the presidency. Then in a nine month period, his iq shoots up 200 points, he develops machiavellian mad crazy skills, and murders several hundred Americans (or thousands, if you add the wtc).
So is this the Bush we are talking about? The one who displayed moderate competency for the first 40 years of his life? Cause I don't buy it.
|
While I am a Bush supporter, This was basically what I was going to say. I've read the whole thread, and several of the links, and have this to add:
1. Either Bush is the deer in the headlights, scared until he decides what to do guy in the Mchael Moore Film, or he is a diabolical mastermind, but not both. He's not a good enough actor to play both the deer in headlights act, the cheerleader to the fireman and recovery workers, and to get choked up and shed real tears, all about a plot that he or his supporters hatched.
2. Bin Laden took credit for the attacks.
3. The disputed evidence of the pentagon plane, I'll grant you, is interesting, but I've seen no such dispute of the World Trade Center planes, other than the "ghost plane" thing, which, if anything, just shows that a big plane could impact a large building and not act or explode the way we think it might. This, in turn, lends credibility to a big plane hitting the pentagon and not acting or exploding the way we (who have seen explosions most often from Hollywood) think it might.
4. If the evil conspirators wanted to hatch a plot like this, I'll grant you that a portion of the pentagon that was largely unoccupied would make a good target. The conspirators would presumably have been American, and American military at that, and while they wanted justification for increasing the military, or conquering the Middle East, or whatever, they wouldn't want to really kill lots of Americans, right? But then why would they have attacked the world trade center, too? I'm sure that an attack on the pentagon alone would have been huge news, and enough fror the evil plotters to justify whatever they wanted to do, why would they also attack the twin towers?
5. Okay, assuming that the trade center attacks were "real" and the Pentagon attack was fake, why would they have chosen a plane with the wife of the Solicitor General of the United States, Charles Olson, on it to do this? He and Bush are friends (I know, that could just be more fuel on the fire, so to speak, for the conspiracy theorists. Wanted to teach him a lesson or something, yeah, right.)
6. Further, assuming the world trade center attacks were real and the pentagon attacks were fake, there are a whole slew of plot "holes" that must be accounted for.
what did they do with the real plane?
how did the federal government, that can't do anything fast, plan this complex operation within a few hours?
What fighter pilot flew the f16? Even the most brainwashed would never volunteer to crash his plane into the pentagon! And for all this to happen, it would have had to have been a skilled pilot. Oh, it was remote controlled? flying at that speed and that low to the ground? Why haven't we used such technology for our most important missions before? And how did they signal it to fire a missile in the fraction of a second when it would be blocked from view and in an instant before it crashed?
While a Bush supporter, I am certainly not his biggest fan. But I don't think he, or anyone else working for the federal government, either would or could have pulled this off. I'm not convinced!