| To: TigerPaw who wrote (1051) | 5/9/2003 11:49:52 AM | | From: rrufff | | | | Someone with the profile of Ashcroft, again I don't like him, gets tons of threats. It is more logical that he avoided public flights for reasons of personal safety than to avoid being on a 9/11 flight.
Really TigerPaw - you are outdoing yourself on this one. |
| | Moderate Forum | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: rrufff who wrote (1053) | 5/9/2003 11:55:40 AM | | From: TigerPaw | | | | I don't think the neocons knew which planes to avoid. They just needed an event.
fromthewilderness.com
On August 11 or 12 of 2001, the date is uncertain, after trying to verbally alert his Canadian jailers to the coming World Trade Center attacks, he wrote down key information and sealed it in an envelope which he then had placed in jailers’ custody. This event is not disputed by Canadian authorities. The letter specifically listed a number of targets including The Sears Towers, The World Trade Center, The White House, The Pentagon, The World Bank, The Canadian parliament building in Ottawa and the Royal Bank in Toronto.
A chilling sentence follows the list of targets, "Let one happen. Stop the rest!!!"
|
| | Moderate Forum | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2) |
|
| To: TigerPaw who wrote (1055) | 5/9/2003 12:02:23 PM | | From: rrufff | | | | TigerPaw - you back yourself into a hole with your posts and continue to dig deeper.
The internet is great to find message board poster who pretend to be authors so that posters like you can repeat their strange comments and pretend that it is factual.
You have not refuted my post and, in fact, skirted the issue. It is more logical that Ashcroft avoided planes as a result of threats to his personal safety than any advance knowledge of 9/11.
Even if there is some truth to this totally whacked out theory of yours, Ashcroft is probably the least respected by the inner circle. He was almost jettisoned several times. There's no way he would be "in on" the conspiracy. |
| | Moderate Forum | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: tsigprofit who wrote (1054) | 5/9/2003 12:22:20 PM | | From: The Philosopher | | | | The reason is because it's a non-story except to conspiracy addicts.
We have those on both sides of the aisle, BTW. Remember the people who believed that Clinton ordered the murder of Foster and of a number of other people back in Arkansas? They're still after it.
On the other side, we have TigerPaw who sees not commies under every rock as McCarthy saw, but right wing conspiracists under every rock.
It's a cheaper addiction than drink, I guess. |
| | Moderate Forum | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| |
