i think i've been saying this all along

jverne

jverne

Newbie
Joined
Aug 6, 2004
Messages
4,302
Reaction score
0
bush ignored warnings for 9/11

i'm not a conspiracy theorist or anything...but it doesn't take a rocket scientists to figure it out that the Bush administration would greatly benefit from a terrorist attack such as 911.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/08/06...es-bin-laden-determined-to-strike-in-us-memo/


i just sort of pisses me off...that alot of people here so blindly supported the bush administration at the time. god damn it...wheres mecha now, when i've proposed to challenge me later in the future when more evidence pops out.
 
It's always been like that. It's just a number of idiots who purposefully neglect the evidence of ignorance or even purposeful intent to do nothing about the warnings. Some folks just don't want to hear it because it ruins their pretty little picture of a friendly government that's always supposed to be out to protect them.
 
Are you calling Bush incompetent? I hope you can back up that allegation.
 
i'm actually suspicious that Bush or another high governing official (Cheney) purposely tried to ignore the warnings.

i'm mean come on, it's not that big leap of faith.

people even believed and still do that the iraq war isn't about the oil...i mean seriously...there is evidence that the oil companies lobbied the war. i've posted a thread sometime ago clearly showing the evidence.

i'm not saying bush did 911, but certainly wasn't too keen on stopping it.
 
The problem is that governments around the world are opportunists, in that if a problem benefits them, then they will ignore the problem
 
DEATH eVADER said:
The problem is that governments around the world are opportunists, in that if a problem benefits them, then they will ignore the problem
Click to expand...

so we can all agree, that bush purposely ignored warnings for 911?...because that is almost as bad as plotting it...well almost :)
 
I can just see all Alex Jones robots jacking off every time something like this comes up.
 
Hell, I don't like the guy, but I'm willing to bet a whole ton of stuff like this comes across any president's desk, and it's usually just someone trying to scare the US without backing it up.

Theres a direct link in the article to the memo itself.

The short version is that it's just a memo saying that Bin Laden wants to attack the US, and the FBI and CIA are investigating. Thats it....no mention of any specific threat or even a vague idea of the timing. About the most specific it gets is:
"Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York."
Click to expand...
Now try to think about all the assumptions you would have to make between that kind of vague mention of a threat at the end of a memo, and the WTC attack. And even if you did jump to the worst conclusion and imagine that happening, the whole point of the memo is supposed to be that it is being investigated. I'm not surprised he didn't freak out and call an immediate press conference or anything.
 
Direwolf said:
Hell, I don't like the guy, but I'm willing to bet a whole ton of stuff like this comes across any president's desk, and it's usually just someone trying to scare the US without backing it up.

Theres a direct link in the article to the memo itself.

The short version is that it's just a memo saying that Bin Laden wants to attack the US, and the FBI and CIA are investigating. Thats it....no mention of any specific threat or even a vague idea of the timing. About the most specific it gets is:

Now try to think about all the assumptions you would have to make between that kind of vague mention of a threat at the end of a memo, and the WTC attack. And even if you did jump to the worst conclusion and imagine that happening, the whole point of the memo is supposed to be that it is being investigated. I'm not surprised he didn't freak out and call an immediate press conference or anything.
Click to expand...


well yes i partially agree with you, it's a vague threat, but still.
evidence is slowly dripping out, i wonder what might come next.

considering the situation, i wouldn't call Bush innocent. i have a feeling he might be involved more than he'd like.
 
Yeah, but making serious assumptions about that sort of thing is dangerous. Down that road madness lies.

(Not that I'd be amazed if it was true. But I'd never assume that it is without evidence.)
 
Direwolf said:
Yeah, but making serious assumptions about that sort of thing is dangerous. Down that road madness lies.

(Not that I'd be amazed if it was true. But I'd never assume that it is without evidence.)
Click to expand...

agree...but considering past events...it is possible to make a logical assumption
 
I honestly don't care if he knew or not. It happened, that's all that matters.
 
Acepilotf14 said:
I honestly don't care if he knew or not. It happened, that's all that matters.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter that we have an incompetent president, who used such an event for his own agenda? Completely contradicting what he said he would do when he was elected?
 
delusional said:
It doesn't matter that we have an incompetent president, who used such an event for his own agenda? Completely contradicting what he said he would do when he was elected?
Click to expand...

Well, duh, that's what presidents are supposed to do.
 
delusional said:
It doesn't matter that we have an incompetent president, who used such an event for his own agenda? Completely contradicting what he said he would do when he was elected?
Click to expand...

Sounds like every leader, ever.
 
I notice we're all talking about this with the benefit of hindsight. So the bush administration got a memo from the CIA saying that bin ladens organisation was going to attack the US with no mention of how they were going to do so and that they were investigating. If i remember correctly someone within the CIA also issued a report to their seniors that the best way to attack the US mainland would be to fly planes into important buildings although i cant find the information right now. Since the CIA is such a large organisation could it simply be that no one person within the CIA saw both documents because the to put it simply, the right arm of the organisation didnt know what the left arm was doing? Whats the more likely scenario? That someone willingly knew of the attack beforehand and let almost 3000 of their own citizens die? Or without the benefit of hindsight could it be down to one word only.... Incompetence?

Try to remember that the phrases 'American intelligence' aswell as 'British intelligence' can quite easly seem oxymoronic at times...
 
[Matt] said:
I notice we're all talking about this with the benefit of hindsight. So the bush administration got a memo from the CIA saying that bin ladens organisation was going to attack the US with no mention of how they were going to do so and that they were investigating. If i remember correctly someone within the CIA also issued a report to their seniors that the best way to attack the US mainland would be to fly planes into important buildings although i cant find the information right now. Since the CIA is such a large organisation could it simply be that no one person within the CIA saw both documents because the to put it simply, the right arm of the organisation didnt know what the left arm was doing? Whats the more likely scenario? That someone willingly knew of the attack beforehand and let almost 3000 of their own citizens die? Or without the benefit of hindsight could it be down to one word only.... Incompetence?

Try to remember that the phrases 'American intelligence' aswell as 'British intelligence' can quite easly seem oxymoronic at times...
Click to expand...

same with Pearl harbor,basically
 
[Matt] said:
I notice we're all talking about this with the benefit of hindsight. So the bush administration got a memo from the CIA saying that bin ladens organisation was going to attack the US with no mention of how they were going to do so and that they were investigating. If i remember correctly someone within the CIA also issued a report to their seniors that the best way to attack the US mainland would be to fly planes into important buildings although i cant find the information right now. Since the CIA is such a large organisation could it simply be that no one person within the CIA saw both documents because the to put it simply, the right arm of the organisation didnt know what the left arm was doing? Whats the more likely scenario? That someone willingly knew of the attack beforehand and let almost 3000 of their own citizens die? Or without the benefit of hindsight could it be down to one word only.... Incompetence?

Try to remember that the phrases 'American intelligence' aswell as 'British intelligence' can quite easly seem oxymoronic at times...
Click to expand...

and this is better than your average conspiracy theory...how?
 
I thought you said there was new evidance. We've known about this memo for years.

I don't think what he did was intentional. That would have required some planning on their part. He's just a ****ing moron. Anybody willing to say that Bush somehow planned or anticipated what happened gives him way too much credit and must not have been paying attention over the last 8 years.
 
jverne said:
wheres mecha now, when i've proposed to challenge me later in the future when more evidence pops out.
Click to expand...

I buried him in the back yard after I'd chewed him up and spat him out :dozey:

Also I have to say that what Matt says is probably fairly correct. Governments are generally inept at the best of times, and the idea that government Agencies are efficent machines is a myth generated by film and television dramas. Offices are full of internal politics, bullshit and incompetents to **** up the efficiency aspect, and that is true throughout the world. If your lucky maybe 1 in 10 people in an office are actually remotely competent and know what the **** they are doing, and possess an actual talent. The rest are either deadweight that slipped in and management are too polite to fire, or muddle their way through the day to day, and do just enough to justify a pay cheque.
 
9/11 truthers like jverne are like pedos-social outcasts.
 
I am willing to bet that Obama will turn out to be the same dissapoinment that Bush was.
 
jverne said:
bush ignored warnings for 9/11

i'm not a conspiracy theorist or anything...but it doesn't take a rocket scientists to figure it out that the Bush administration would greatly benefit from a terrorist attack such as 911.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/08/06...es-bin-laden-determined-to-strike-in-us-memo/


i just sort of pisses me off...that alot of people here so blindly supported the bush administration at the time. god damn it...wheres mecha now, when i've proposed to challenge me later in the future when more evidence pops out.
Click to expand...
:LOL: Say wut? Dead givaway right there.
 
This guy invaded a country on false claims and didn't get a single thing right the whole time...you seriously find it surprising he ignored information of an attack on our country?
 
anybody calling me a conspirator is an idiot. plotting something or just letting something happen is a different thing.

i'm not saying bush planned the attacks, but i think he just didn't care, or possibly even wanted them since it would benefit his other plans. he probably didn't expect that 3000 people would die but nonetheless he acted wrong IMO.

considering he had plans and was pushed by oil companies to get a hold on the oil in iraq, i wouldn't expect anything innocent from him.
 
jverne said:
anybody calling me a conspirator is an idiot.
Click to expand...
There's nothing wrong with being a conspirator.
It's even more foolish to believe everything the mass media tries to spoon feed it's listeners tbh.
Your not in the wrong to ask questions jverne, so don't be so defensive. :upstare:
 
Saturos said:
There's nothing wrong with being a conspirator.
It's even more foolish to believe everything the mass media tries to spoon feed it's listeners tbh.
Your not in the wrong to ask questions jverne, so don't be so defensive. :upstare:
Click to expand...

i'm not sure if you're trying to be sarcastic, but let's presume you aren't.

i'm just logically inducting facts and events.
the bush administration lied many times on purpose.

how much of a moral leap is sending 4000 people to die in Iraq based on lies or throwing a blind eye for warnings of 9/11 which sadly caused 3000 people to die?

i'm not saying bush wanted them to die or something...the term "casualties of war", i think, is appropriate here. it seems he/they had little regard on how much people would die, or at least this wasn't their main concern.
 
social outcast shew! shew!

*throws tomato at jverne as he goes in to the dark alleyway*
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top