Creative Speculation?

[BeFree]

bushco was totally innocent when it comes to 9/11. Even though they proved themselves to be the worst criminals to ever be in the WH.

But when it came to 9/11, bushco was clean.

That there is some creative speculation, eh? Or just total BS?

[zappaman]

1. What is Bushco?

And they are certainly innocent of many things, guilty of others.
Maybe if you would answer "what is Bushco?" and "what specifically are they guilty of?", you might be able to further the discussion.

[BeFree]

2. Just for you, zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Last edited Tue Dec 27, 2011, 08:05 PM - Edit history (1)

bushco is the mafia like members of the bush administration who have proven to be the biggest fucking bunch of criminals who ever infested our government.

And they are guilty at the very least of allowing the alleged hijackers to roam the country. And ignore all the warnings.

At worst bushco was actively involved in the planning and execution of the attacks.

You have been here for years and you still don't know what bushco means to most of the world?

[zappaman]

5. I don't believe George Bush or the members of his administration were

actively involved in the planning and execution of the attacks of 9/11.
Do you?

[teddy51]

7. How would one prove that, one way or an other? I think Bush/Cheney were aware

of 911 long before it happened!

[FarLeftFist]

9. Well lets see, Bush received a document titled 'Bin-Laden Determined to Strike the U.S'...

And did NOTHING. Didn't even at LEAST tighten airport security. Thats like witnessing a crime and not reporting it. But much much worse.

[zappaman]

10. I don't believe George Bush or the members of his administration were

actively involved in the planning and execution of the attacks of 9/11.
Do you?

[FarLeftFist]

11. Can't say if I do or don't because I've never been convinced either way, but...

I do believe he used 9/11 to rationalize his inevitable invasion of the Middle East. And then there's the profits...

[teddy51]

13. I say Bush/Cheney and the neocon's had 911 planned long before Bush stole

the WH in 2000.

[Ohio Joe]

12. Did nothing?

Is that true? Is that what the PDB you mention says?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/images/04/10/whitehouse.pdf

70 full field investigations is nothing?

[FarLeftFist]

14. First you'll have to believe that piece of info, Second...

It clearly states numerous times that they were planning to HIJACK airplanes, yet, no beefed up security, no beefed up TSA screenings. All the TSA would have had to do was find a couple of boxcutters and 9/11 would have never happened. But Bush did nothing. Those field investigations have been going on since the 90's, they weren't Bush's doing. The document was to inform Bush but clearly he didn't give a shit. Imagine for a moment you're President and you receive a document stating that terrorists wanted to hijack airplanes and don't even bother thinking about securing the airports. FAIL.

[Bolo Boffin]

15. "It clearly states numerous times that they were planning to HIJACK airplanes..." It says nothing

of the sort.

I don't know why you would say otherwise. The PDF of the PDB is right there to verify what you say or show it wrong.

Twice it mentions hijacking, not "numerous times." The first time puts a report of trying to hijack a plane in with "some of the more sensational threat reporting," and further sequesters this threat with two caveats - the intelligence community had not been able to corroborate it, and the hijacking was to be used to help gain the freedom of the Blind Sheik and other prisoners. A hijacking of that sort would have to maintain control of the aircraft in order to force release of prisoners. The 9/11 attack, where passenger airplanes are diverted and used as missiles, would not fit the type of airline hijacking described in the PDB.

The other mention is that surveillance had picked up activity consistent with prep for hijacking or other types of attacks. Coming as it does under the heading of "hijacking as leverage for prisoner release," again the 9/11 hijacking and destruction isn't contemplated in this PDB.

What the PDB does show is that the intelligence community was desperately trying to convince the Bush Administration that Bin Laden did indeed intend to mount a terrorist attack in the United States. He was not just a concern in the domestic field. Condi Rice's "historical nature" comment is pure bullshit. Yes, it goes into a lot of history about Bin Laden -- in order to knock some heads together so they understood that some kind of attack would be happening within the United States. Bin Laden and Al Qaeda would eventually pull one off.

Every indication we have been given is that Bush and company blew this off. There's the Ron Suskind account of another attempt by the CIA after this PDB to convince Bush that something was not only in the works, but was imminent, and we got the famous quote: "OK, you've covered your ass."

One only can wonder what might have happened if the response to the Aug 6 PDB had been: "OK, find me the most specific threat indicators you can and put a shape around any possible attack inside this country." A directive like that might have caught the July 10 Phoenix memo about possible Al Qaeda operatives attending flight school in the area. The 9/11 pilots took lessons in Florida, but taking the Phoenix memo more seriously could have led to them being flagged. And of course Moussaoui's capture with the similar circumstances might have gotten a search of his laptop higher on the priority list.

If, if, if. Even at that point, the attack would be successful enough - without even the first plane being hijacked. The plan was set to go. They were that far along. That could have been shocking enough to the American public without the actual attacks and loss of life.

[BeFree]

16. Now that WAS Creative, bolo

Furthermore we can speculate that the intelligence community got word and had pretty good proof that the hijackings were about to take place, but since the politicians in charge made the decision that "No one could ever imagine" then that became policy. Oh wait. That isn't speculative, it actually happened.

[Bolo Boffin]

17. "had pretty good proof that the hijackings were about to take place"

You will be so good as to present your evidence supporting the specifics of this assertions? Thanks.

[BeFree]

18. Right

They didn't deliver eveidence an attack was imminent. But... if the policy had been in place to gather up the intelligence from the field, they would have been the first to alert the country. What they were best at was hiding stuff. Like the WMD, the stolen elections, clear skies. Oh wait, that's not speculation.

I speculate that I may be in the wrong group here.... I need to speculate more..... here we go..... bushco is innocent when it comes to 9/11. How's that for speculating? Is buscho is innocent of 9/11, speculation?

What do you speculate?

[Bolo Boffin]

19. The lack of evidence supporting your assertion is there for everyone to see.

And back off you are again to your Bushco was innocent smear tactics. When you decide to get serious, we'll continue.

[BeFree]

20. Bushco is innocent

There are people here trying to prove such a thing. Of course they are just speculating. But it isn't creative. Hell, buschco has been claiming they were innocent for years. Repeating bushco is not creative.

[zappaman]

23. What does "Bushco is innocent" mean?

And who here is "trying to prove such a thing"?
Answering these simple questions will help further the discussion.

[zappaman]

21. What is Bushco?

and what does "buscho is innocent of 9/11" mean?
If you could answer these questions, please, it would help further the discussion.

[BeFree]

22. read bolo's stuff

That should answer your question.

You do remember what bushco is, right?

[zappaman]

24. I did read Bolo.

Please answer the questions I posed to you.
thanks!

[BeFree]

25. bushco is not innocent

I have been trying to tell you that for years now.

But there is no evidence that you understand anything I say.

But.... if you can type these words and claim them as your own, then I may decide to waste a few more words on you....
[center][font+6]
bushco is NOT innocent when it comes to 9/11.

[zappaman]

28. "bushco is NOT innocent when it comes to 9/11."

Not innocent of what?
Really, why can't you answer simple questions?
If you would be more specific, you might get a discussion.
Could it be you don't want a discussion and just like playing silly word games?

[Grateful for Hope]

26. I have to say something here

You know full well the answer to this question and to the ones you continue to ask this member in thread after thread (i.e., what is Bushco?). You are not really interested in any answers, jmo, as much as you are interested in making a point as I see it.

Good discussion does not result from goading, and, jmo, this is what you are doing to this member.

Again, jmo.

On edit: Had to edit three times because my quotes around a quote resulted in a smiley. ugh.

[zappaman]

27. Really?

What is BUSHCO?
It's an entity?
Specifically, who is a member?
This question has never been answered and I will continue to ask it until it is.
Thank you for your concern.

[Grateful for Hope]

29. Concern?

No. Calling it like I see it? Yes.

[LanternWaste]

32. I tend to agree with you.

I tend to agree with you.

The obvious insincerity of many posters is not as well hidden as they'd like to believe, nor is the the bait they dangle as clever as they imagine.

[William Seger]

33. Disagree

In a formal debate, defining terms is the first step, to avoid talking past each other. Sloppy definitions often lead to sloppy thinking, and sometimes in dishonest debating and in propaganda, that's the intent.

In this case, blaming "bushco" for massive 9/11 hoaxing and subsequent massive cover-up appears to imply a "bushco" massively larger and more powerful than what one might take as the common definition. Asking for a definition might lead to illustrating that implausibility.

[zappaman]

34. Especially when a sentence has absolutely no meaning at all.

"bushco is NOT innocent when it comes to 9/11."

seriously, what in the hell does that even mean?

[getdown]

3. on what

do you base your assertion?

[BeFree]

4. And.......

That the vote counting machines placed in nearly every precinct in the country were put in place to make sure that every vote was counted as cast, and that errors could easily be discovered and fixed before the count was made public.

[zappaman]

6. What?

Maybe you could state more clearly what it is you are trying to say.

[Grateful for Hope]

8. Not sure what to think.

I highly doubt that bushco was taken by surprise by the attacks as they professed to be. Also, the fact that they capitalized on 9/11 to get us into the Iraq war makes them more suspicious, imo.

But, I don't think we will ever know the answer to this. I used to push for a new investigation, but that also seems very unlikely at this point.

It's a little depressing to me, but, it is what it is.

[felix_numinous]

31. Unfortunately we are left to speculate

amongst ourselves, because there has been, and apparently will never be, an independent investigation of 911. If GWBush had nothing to hide, why was there never an independent investigation?

Now after 10 years, people who want to have an intelligent discussion of the subject are ridiculed and bullied by self important (often paid) 'experts' who disrupt and inhibit any imaginative discussion....so it is frustrating. This country endured a terrifying event, and it is perfectly natural and human to want justice--to want to know who the fuck did this to us--and it is incredibly insulting to be called 'truthers' and lumped in with the craziest fringe groups.

As time goes on, forensic evidence will fade, eyewitnesses and culprits will die off, and we will be left with another JFK event--forever subject of argument and speculation, and that is really sad.

The message in all of these shock doctrine events seems to be: No one can stop us, we can pull these events off, no law can touch us.