The Ultimate Con

It was Bush. Who else could it have been?:laugh:

 

Which Bush are you alleging? George W, the one in charge of the country or Marvin Pierce who was on the board of directors of the company responsible for WTC security?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by poncho
I think he's saying he didn't watch the video. :laugh:

If the title of the video, "The Ultimate CON"...spiracy weren't enough to give one a clue...

The very first words spoken in the video were:

"This is an attempt to prevent the American people from knowing the facts about how we could have prevented 911 and people are covering it up today."

That should be enough to get the blood of any self respecting conspiracy theorist cooking.

Judging by the usual assortment of conspiracy theory defenders on the thread, it was.:thumbs:

 

Who said that? Was it Alex Jones? Or Poncho?

 

I do believe it was a congressman of the United States of America named Curt Weldon. Congressman Weldon was the Vice Chairman of the House Armed Service Committee and a Republican. You'd think that would get the blood of any self-respecting American to pay attention.

 

Why?

There are conservatives who are conspiracy theorists, too.

I think I know at least one on this board. Any guesses who?

 

I have heard the so-called theory about the news teams reporting a building collapse before it happened and that is where it all fails for me.

You really think that Bush has people working for his agenda all over the world in various news teams? These presenters are not high political figures, they are ordinary people with shiny white teeth and a good reading voice.

 

You're right to call that a "so-called theory" as the issue you describe is pure unadulterated, documented, provable, observable, F A C T.

BBC Reported Building 7 Collapse 20 Minutes Before It Fell

It's not that "Bush has people" it's that Bush and others are working for a unique group of people, who report to a narrower and narrower chain of command with Lucifer at the top of that "pyramid" for lack of a better word. Everyone within that chain reports to someone. Just like any organization, orders come from the top and each layer below follows through on those orders. The BBC was given a script to follow and they followed it, they just jumped the gun as they were supposed to do that story, after the Solomon Brothers building collapsed, not report that it collapsed while it was still visible in the background.

 

Standard journalistic technique. Start by outlining your theme and getting the attention of the viewer. Opening statements set the tone.

Fellow conspiracy theorists are reeled in. Thinking people have heard it all before and find better things to do.

 

The BBC in cahoots with the President. That's rich.:laugh:

 

And you are unable to counter any of the news reports in the 10 minute video. That speaks volumes about the lack of substance to your stance.

 

Unable?

Uninterested is a better word.

Hard evidence would help...interest me.

 

Reporters in the foreground often have video from the control center playing in the background. Who said that the scene in the background was live?

 

Lower left of the screen there is a caption that says "live". Jane is in New York and there is smoke in the background from the buildings that were demolished prior to the Solomon Bros. building going down.

 

Maybe, or maybe just acting cowardly to not watch the 10 minute video.

 

Need to go to the producer of that segment. "Live" could have been on the screen when that segment was recorded. The reporter could be "live". I'm not convinced. Five people see an automobile collision involving two cars. A third car comes along and collides with those two. You'll get eight different accounts of what happened, at least.

p.s. Rumsfield didn't say the 2.3 trillion was missing. He said it couldn't be accounted for. That's pretty horrible bookkeeping, at worst.

 

Wow. That's a greater conspiracy theory than mine. Run with it. :thumbs: