Re: 9/11 Conspiracies(threads merged)
Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 4:27 am
Juan_Bottom wrote:heavycola wrote:Whereas your typical troofer mistake is to assume that because their travel plans were changed, these unnamed 'officials' (where were they travelling to? what were their jobs?) knew the twin towers were about to be attacked?
How do you make that assumption?
The evidence as presented is circumstantial. YES, EXACTLY! If these Pentagon officials, and Willie Brown too, Where concerned ENOUGH to cancel their own flights on Sept 11, then why where they taken completely by surprise by the attacks?
Did you read the rest of the Newsweek article, or just the bit Alex Jones cherrypicked? I posted it for you...
It's as if you have no critical faculties whatsoever when it comes to this stuff!
Look: There had been several indeterminate warnings about possible attacks in the months previously. Answer me this: the attacks took place on the eastern seaboard using fully fuelled planes, for obvious reasons. if 'they' knew about the attacks, why warn the mayor of san francisco - a city several thousand miles away - who, even if he had flown, would have missed the attacks by several hours and would only have been diverted?he would never have been in danger - so if 'they' knew, why warn willie brown? Answer please.
(my suggestion: the intel was so non-specific, as with the US navy in the arabian ports, that no one knew what was happening...)
And I have yet to actually see a lack of leadership. Even If I take your version of accounts. NORAD knew about these missing planes right away(original report lied), and Cheny himself was doing 'something.'
Circumstantial and tenuous evidence FTW!
Where is your evidence the original report lied?
What is this 'something'? Where is your evidence?