Plantagenet wrote:I was just waking up and listening to NPR on 9/11. Alaska is four hours later then NYC, so it was morning. NPR started talking about it so I got up and turned on the TV during breakfast. Holy god, the live cameras showing the first tower burn caught the second plane smashing into the next tower.
Watching the jumpers trying to escape the heat from the burning jet fuel and then the towers collapsing was utterly horrible.
God bless the US Armed Forces for their heroic work in tracking down and killing and capturing as many of the Islamicist religious fanatics of Al Qaida as they can.
mos6507 wrote:Aw, Jeez...
... the notion that a mentally ill person with a documented history of violence (and who claimed to be hallucinating at the time) could get himself placed next to President Obama, putatively the most powerful person in the world, and then flash “gibberish” sign-language to the audience, is hilarious.
...
But consider the other scenario. Mr. Jantije (the “interpreter”) stabs Obama in the neck, fatally wounding him, and is instantly mowed down by gun fire from South African security and U.S. Secret Service agents. Jantije lies dead on the stage, his body riddled with bullets. Security men hunker down, anticipating another attack. Pandemonium ensues.
The next day the media report the facts as they know them. Jantije was a 34-year old schizophrenic, once wanted for murder, who had somehow finagled his way onto the stage, pretending to be an “interpreter.” No one can adequately explain how it happened. Obviously, egregious vetting errors had been made. Blame is assigned. Excuses are made. It becomes a jurisdictional shit-storm.
Except no one believes that story. With Jantije dead, conspiracy buffs are free to smirk at the preposterous notion that one guy, a mental patient no less, acted alone. Their version is far more sinister. Jantije was a CIA assassin, equipped with a phony medical record to deflect suspicion. Then, after the vile deed, instead of being whisked off stage as planned, Jantije is killed, Jack Ruby-style, guaranteeing he won’t talk.
As to why the CIA would want the president dead, pick your poison. Obama wanted to leave Afghanistan, which the military-industrial complex couldn’t abide. He wanted to reach out to Iran, which Israel couldn’t abide. He wanted to curtail electronic spying, which the NSA couldn’t abide. He wanted to limit the use of drones, which the military couldn’t abide. When it comes to CIA mischief, there’s never any shortage of theories.
...
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/12/16/ ... d-the-cia/
And Obama, to this day, kisses the Saudi King.
SeaGypsy wrote:Wake me up when this hits MSM headlines instead of peppersuniverse.
(Rabbit- this will get moved to 9/11 Redux- we have a consensus here since a few years ago to keep the whole topic in one place- I don't think anyone has invented a 'Godwin's Law' equivalent for 9/11- but as the mother of all great modern conspiracies- the topic is up there for such nuance. )
The mysterious destruction of Building 7 has become the Rosetta Stone of 9/11. Virtually all independent experts who have studied the case, including thousands of architects and engineers, agree that the government’s explanation – that a few small office fires somehow destroyed WTC-7 – is a non-starter. Building 7, these experts say, was obviously taken down in a controlled demolition, as Silverstein himself admitted. (A nationwide ad campaign called “Re-Think 9/11” will remind millions of Americans about Building 7 this September.)
Despite his confession to demolishing his own building, Silverstein has already received $861 million from insurers for Building 7 alone, as well as over $4 billion for the rest of the Trade Center complex. That $861 million for WTC-7 was paid on the basis of Silverstein’s claim that airplanes were somehow responsible for making Building 7, which was not hit by any plane, disappear at free-fall acceleration.
The insurance companies are not openly accusing Silverstein of insurance fraud, presumably because doing so would threaten to demolish the 9/11 cover-up and bring down the US and Israeli governments at free-fall speed. But they have gone so far as to call Silverstein’s demand for more money “absurd,” a considerable understatement.
The insurance companies claim that Silverstein’s demands amount to “double recovery.” They say that Silverstein was already paid $4.9 billion – vastly more than the paltry $115 million or so that he and his backers paid for the complex just weeks before it was demolished – so why is he asking for another $3.5 billion? Silverstein’s answer: He needs the money.
And does he ever. He was originally demanding an extra $11 billion, before Hellerstein capped it at $3.5 billion.
The insurers have not mentioned the fact that the World Trade Center Towers were condemned for asbestos in early 2001, just months before Silverstein bought them in July, six weeks prior to their demolition. They have not mentioned that Silverstein doubled the insurance coverage when he purchased the Trade Center. They have not mentioned that Silverstein hardballed his insurers to change the coverage to “cash payout.” They have not mentioned that Silverstein engineered his purchase of the Trade Center through fellow Zionist billionaire Lewis Eisenberg, Chair of the Republican National Committee and head of the New York Port Authority.
The insurance companies are not openly accusing Silverstein of insurance fraud, presumably because doing so would threaten to demolish the 9/11 cover-up and bring down the US and Israeli governments at free-fall speed. But they have gone so far as to call Silverstein’s demand for more money “absurd,” a considerable understatement.
Return to North America Discussion
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests