Tuesday, April 17, 2007

1) I am not a fear monger or a conspiracy theory nut job, except when it comes to Kennedy's assassination (one guy and a magic bullet that changes direction. even I am not that gullible).

But today I happened across an entry in dailykos regarding who knew that the French warned of imminent air attack. The time lines presented were somewhat surprising in that Ashcroft refused to fly after that time. Tells me somebody said something. But I am still open to the fact that warnings were general in nature and NBD. Mr. "Don't Show Me Boobs" is kind of weird after all.

But, in the comments section--someone posted that there were war games (probably headed by Cheney) that day were being run and that there were 22 "hijacked airplanes" on the FAA's screens that day. (google war games + 9/11 + Cheney and see what you get) And East Coast fighter planes were in Canada tracking a phantom long-range nuclear bomber (this in the era of ICBMs and subs???) so there was confusion as to if and what may be the real hijacked planes and that there were no interceptors available. It makes sense that the media could not actually tell us for a while how many hijacked planes there really were. No one knew because of the bogeys.

So we warned of an imminent attack that week. War games happened to fall on the day of the attack, confusing the issue. These are facts. So either this administration are the unluckiest SOBs on the planet, except for the FEMA command sight was set up the night before as part of the war games. Or someone was complicit in the plan. Or there were tremendous security leaks letting terrorists know when there would be radar confusion.

I don't know what to think. I would never want to believe that someone could be complicit in planning the attacks to further a political agenda. My heart would break that people could be that unscrupulous. Unlucky--can't be that unlucky. Security leak, probable. or maybe a combination of all of the above. God help us all (if you believe in that) if this was a plan involving officials of the U.S. government.

rojomojo

No comments: