Dear Wurm...

But he's amusing. Wurm is kind of unique in being the most ultra left-wing American on the forum. Also the stuff about him operating from an "undisclosed" but "secure" location is a hoot.
I confess I don't know how in this world Wurm is going to pin down the latest terrorist plot on good old Junior at Crawford. There is no way Bush could possibly have managed to plant all those extremists in London and give them a nod and a wink to do the evil work of the Bushites. If 9/11 was a Bush neo-con conspiracy, how is Wurm going to explain away the latest fracas?
Maybe, just maybe Wurm will change track and re-assess his theories.

Felt_Rider said:

Ha!!!! that's a good one.

I would be more apt to think, "dillusional and full of hatred."

I wonder what bike Wurm rides? I also wonder if Wurm could whoop George Bush Junior in a Time Trial? Amazingly, Bush is said to be getting pretty good at cycling and has had coaching from Lance - expertise lacking in Wurm's corner.
I'd like to see Wurm vs Bush in a TDF stage.

Carrera said:

But he's amusing. Wurm is kind of unique in being the most ultra left-wing American on the forum. Also the stuff about him operating from an "undisclosed" but "secure" location is a hoot.
I confess I don't know how in this world Wurm is going to pin down the latest terrorist plot on good old Junior at Crawford. There is no way Bush could possibly have managed to plant all those extremists in London and give them a nod and a wink to do the evil work of the Bushites. If 9/11 was a Bush neo-con conspiracy, how is Wurm going to explain away the latest fracas?
Maybe, just maybe Wurm will change track and re-assess his theories.

Give him enough time to he will find something on the web to cut & paste supporting his ongoing hate message.

I wonder if GW Bush also hired Ramzi Yousef in 1993 to set off the bomb in the parking garage of the World Trade Center just to make Bill Clinton look bad. I bet in worm's world GW is also guilty of that bombing.

Wurm appears to be self-taught. He's very into conspiracy theories but he seems to spend most of his time searching the internet for articles written by other conspiracy theorists.
Boogers, however, seems to me to be worse. I'm convinced in Booger's case there's a third-party source of indoctrination (probably the folks he shares a house with, Imans, or Clerics, maybe).
Boogers likewise exhibits known syndromes of cult-indoctrination recognised in cases of converts to the Moonies, Children Of God or even Branch Davidians. That is, if you argue and tie him down to just one specific point and provide evidence that 1 plus 1 = 2, he'll concede but then go back to his former belief that 1 plus 1 = 4. You'll never step ahead in the argument with a cult convert.
Wurm probably indoctrinated himself and remains rational, although I confess he does exhibit mild symptoms of paranoia.

Felt_Rider said:

Give him enough time to he will find something on the web to cut & paste supporting his ongoing hate message.

I wonder if GW Bush also hired Ramzi Yousef in 1993 to set off the bomb in the parking garage of the World Trade Center just to make Bill Clinton look bad. I bet in worm's world GW is also guilty of that bombing.

I just might have seen Wurm over here on T.V. It was over a year ago. The guy was plump with glasses. He insisted Bush had killed thousands of his own people at the WTC. This American guy on TV's theory was that Bush was using 1984 - like an eternal war that had to be fabricated to attain world domination.
Personally, I just think 9/11 caught everybody out, plain and simple. Waco Texas was the same. Despite countless warnings the Department of Tobaco and Firearms didn't know Koresh was going to flip and commit mass suicide to bring about Armageddon.
There are crackpots in this world and sometimes they just catch us all out.

Felt_Rider said:

Give him enough time to he will find something on the web to cut & paste supporting his ongoing hate message.

I wonder if GW Bush also hired Ramzi Yousef in 1993 to set off the bomb in the parking garage of the World Trade Center just to make Bill Clinton look bad. I bet in worm's world GW is also guilty of that bombing.

Crappy, we've all seen your delusional ramblings on Israel/Mid East posted here ad nauseum. I hardly think that entitles you to the right to point fingers at anyone.

IF you or any of your right-wing cohorts have any answers to the many insufficiently addressed lies and "coincidences" about 9-11, please post them. Until then, you have zero credibility.

Carrera said:

I wonder what bike Wurm rides? I also wonder if Wurm could whoop George Bush Junior in a Time Trial? Amazingly, Bush is said to be getting pretty good at cycling and has had coaching from Lance - expertise lacking in Wurm's corner.
I'd like to see Wurm vs Bush in a TDF stage.

hey, why are you so interested in someone like wurm? Perhaps you two have more in common than you would like to admit?

Anyone noticed the ole soap box has perked up a bit lately...?

mind you, this is the first time i have surfed the forums while under the influence of strong alchohol..

****hic hic** ** **

Evidently you missed the drama I wrote based on Rocky where Wurm fights George W Bush in the ring.

2FAST4U said:

hey, why are you so interested in someone like wurm? Perhaps you two have more in common than you would like to admit?

Most of my posts are accelerated by Gold Labels which I'm fond of. Today the damned shop was closed so I have no alcohol at all to drink. :o
I just hope all the cycling I do smooths over my fondness for guiness, gold labels and other beverages. I'm drinking too much but, yes, this site is fun when you've had a few draughts.

MountainPro said:

Anyone noticed the ole soap box has perked up a bit lately...?

mind you, this is the first time i have surfed the forums while under the influence of strong alchohol..

****hic hic** ** **

limerickman said:

....or go for a hearing test.

Hearing is just fine. Got any other theories?

limerickman said:

You'd be the first one on here preaching about citizens rights etc.

The British Police arrested people.
What does arrest mean?
Does it mean that those people have been charged?
No.
Does it mean that those people have been tried?
No.
Does it mean that those people have been convicted?
No.

As of now, all we have is theBritish Police making arrests.
I suggest that you hold fire unless and until, we see people charged/tried/convicted.

And one thought about 9/11.
Plenty of people doubt the veracity of the case made by the US gov. in terms of what happened that day.

Perhaps the humour was lost on you....

WRT 9-11 - plenty of people doubt it but someone has yet to come up with damning evidence showing bushco did it. Years on they are still only able to stand behind the "we can prove the governement was lying" type evidence.

I completely agree some of the details are dodgey but what does that mean? That the governement did it? No - it shows that they're not completely innocent.

Kinda like Lance/Floyd/Ivan and Jan....

Wurm said:

Sorry to disappoint you Crappy, but I've never been given to "conspiracy theories". However, with 9-11 the writing's on the wall. Anyone with the common sense of a small soap dish can see that the gov'ts version of events is a fabrication.

Ask the survivors and their families, and much of the rest of NYC.

Ok so you and I have square danced around the issue of bushy lying.

Let's say he is lying and the whole thing is a government fabrication...

What is the truth? Whodunnit?

Eldron said:

Perhaps the humour was lost on you....

WRT 9-11 - plenty of people doubt it but someone has yet to come up with damning evidence showing bushco did it. Years on they are still only able to stand behind the "we can prove the governement was lying" type evidence.

I completely agree some of the details are dodgey but what does that mean? That the governement did it? No - it shows that they're not completely innocent.

Kinda like Lance/Floyd/Ivan and Jan....

The discussion about doping in cycling is much less serious than the issue of loss of life.

I have read and re-read a lot of information about Sept 11th.
There are considerable doubts about what the US goverment said that happened that day.
And it is these very inconsistencies which give credence to those who think and believe that something else was at play throughout all of this.

From a guerilla warfare viewpoint, Sept 11th is an anomaly.
And I will tell you why and please hear me out.

Planes were hijacked and were used to murder people on 9/11.
Since then - there has been no attack within the USA by the group who were deemed to have committed that attack.

This is very unusual.
It's very unusual for a number of reasons.

I can think of no other paramilitary group - anywhere - which has engaged in only one attack in the homeland of the country it's opposes.
Every other paramilitary grouping from FARC to ETA to IRA, has engaged a number of attacks within the country of the goverment it opposes.
It is standard papramilitary practice to "bring the war to the enemy's door".
It is standard practice to repeat attacks as frequently as possible - in order to dishearten the enemy and to put doubt in to the minds of that country's citizens.
That's what ETA/Provos/Farc did and do.

For Al Qaeda to only commit one terrorist act on one day "at the enemy's door" - especially given it's (AQ's) call to arms - makes 9/11 look highly questionable.

Of course, the US goverment will claim that their security policy has ensured that no terrorist attacks have taken place since, within the USA.
Objectively this claim would be true - but not for the reasons which the US might try to put forward ie better security.

Any paramilitary org, which is serious in it's objectives - will have a series of different plans/attacks and operatives in place to do carry out it's orders within the country of it's enemy.

We know from past experience that draconian levels of security and draconian powers such as internment could not prevent the Provos from bringing the war in to the heart of London and indeed Westminster itself.
(for example, recall the rocket attack on 10 Downing Street in 1992 - the killing of Airey Nieve in the House of Commons in 1979 - the blowing apart of the Baltic Exchange in 1996).

One would have to surmise that if AQ wished to bring the war to America - they could have easily done so since 9/11.
AQ appear to be as ideological driven as the Provos - probably more so in fact.

It is therefore astonishing that AQ have only attack the US on home soil, once.
Which begs the question - it could be the case that AQ were not responsible for 9/11?
And if not - who was?

Eldron said:

WRT 9-11 - plenty of people doubt it but someone has yet to come up with damning evidence showing bushco did it.

The reason for that is the 9-11 Commission produced an enormous falsehood, a patently bogus report that was claimed to be the honest result of a factual, thorough investigation, but it is actually anything but.

Let us not forget that Bu$hCo opposed any 9-11 investigation, until the outcry from the survivors and victim's families became too loud. That is a fact.

It is also a fact that 1) Bush & Cheney were not sworn under oath for their secret testimony, and 2) nearly every hand-picked member of the 9-11 Commission had prior ties to Bu$hCo, constituting blatant conflicts of interest.

If an independent investigation was begun by a special prosecutor, (such as the one being conducted by Fitzgerald into the Plame outing) and Congressional hearings were held where certain key witnesses would be given immunity, and where Congress had subpoena power to force the release of "secret" documents, videos, and other evidence that the Pentagon and Administration have suppressed, AND if the Main-Stream Media would do their jobs like they were more apt to do during the Nixon years instead of being propaganda shills for their right-wing owners - the world might then have the truth.

If that were ever to occur, I am willing to bet my life that not only the vast majority of the Bush Admin., but also many in gov't agencies such as the FBI, CIA, NORAD, FAA, Pentagon (military), as well as many in Congress (both Dem & Repig) would be up on a whole slew of very serious charges.

I have never thought 9-11 was an event manufactured solely by the Bu$hCo 'inner circle', but they are the ones ultimately responsible, up to and including the highest Cabinet Sec'ys such as Colin Powell and Rumsfeld, then Director's Condi Rice of NSA, Tenet of CIA, and Mueller of FBI, Gen. Myers of the Joint Chiefs, Bush, Cheney, and all that were part of the White House at that time.

limerickman said:

The discussion about doping in cycling is much less serious than the issue of loss of life.

I have read and re-read a lot of information about Sept 11th.
There are considerable doubts about what the US goverment said that happened that day.
And it is these very inconsistencies which give credence to those who think and believe that something else was at play throughout all of this.

From a guerilla warfare viewpoint, Sept 11th is an anomaly.
And I will tell you why and please hear me out.

Planes were hijacked and were used to murder people on 9/11.
Since then - there has been no attack within the USA by the group who were deemed to have committed that attack.

This is very unusual.
It's very unusual for a number of reasons.

I can think of no other paramilitary group - anywhere - which has engaged in only one attack in the homeland of the country it's opposes.
Every other paramilitary grouping from FARC to ETA to IRA, has engaged a number of attacks within the country of the goverment it opposes.
It is standard papramilitary practice to "bring the war to the enemy's door".
It is standard practice to repeat attacks as frequently as possible - in order to dishearten the enemy and to put doubt in to the minds of that country's citizens.
That's what ETA/Provos/Farc did and do.

For Al Qaeda to only commit one terrorist act on one day "at the enemy's door" - especially given it's (AQ's) call to arms - makes 9/11 look highly questionable.

Of course, the US goverment will claim that their security policy has ensured that no terrorist attacks have taken place since, within the USA.
Objectively this claim would be true - but not for the reasons which the US might try to put forward ie better security.

Any paramilitary org, which is serious in it's objectives - will have a series of different plans/attacks and operatives in place to do carry out it's orders within the country of it's enemy.

We know from past experience that draconian levels of security and draconian powers such as internment could not prevent the Provos from bringing the war in to the heart of London and indeed Westminster itself.
(for example, recall the rocket attack on 10 Downing Street in 1992 - the killing of Airey Nieve in the House of Commons in 1979 - the blowing apart of the Baltic Exchange in 1996).

One would have to surmise that if AQ wished to bring the war to America - they could have easily done so since 9/11.
AQ appear to be as ideological driven as the Provos - probably more so in fact.

It is therefore astonishing that AQ have only attack the US on home soil, once.
Which begs the question - it could be the case that AQ were not responsible for 9/11?
And if not - who was?

I think you are looking to deep for your answer here...The simple explanation is as follows: AQ is not stupid. #1 They know that Americans as generous as we are would not tolerate another 9/11. If it were to happen, Bush's approval ratings would go up as the country would rally around him and scream from the rooftops to nuke the middle east and not rest until every muslim in the world was a pile of ash.

#2 Further, I find in difficult to believe that these are your thoughts on this matter...Why would AQ attack other countries yet, not try to strike the U.S.??? The most hated country in the world (in their AQ's eyes and the don't want to attack it?) What is your theory DR?

limerickman said:

Which begs the question - it could be the case that AQ were not responsible for 9/11?
And if not - who was?

That is my question also. I'm still in the "terrorists did it" camp.

@wurm - so basically your answer is: someone in the US did it and because bushy is the leader it's his fault?

Eldron said:

@wurm - so basically your answer is: someone in the US did it and because bushy is the leader it's his fault?

Apparently you have trouble with reading comprehension.

I specifically named several of who I think are the culprits, based on the evidence I've seen - including Chimpenfuhrer and the rest of the top-level goons of his admin. Cheney was running the attack from the PEOC.(see below)

Now, have you any other canards to toss about today?

Quoted post said:

Cover Stories of the People in Charge

Vice President [censored] Cheney was in the White House during the attack. He said he learned of the attack from a clerical secretary.

Interestingly, Cheney, in an interview with Tim Russert on NBC, indicated that the President made the decision that day to scramble fighter jets. This is very unusual, as it is contrary to standard operating procedures, and raises the question of whether and why the President delayed the scrambling of jets. Here is the text of Vice President Cheney's comments on NBC: 1

Tim Russert: "What's the most important decision you think he (President Bush) made during the course of the day?"
VP Cheney: "Well, the, I suppose the toughest decision was this question of whether or not we would intercept incoming commercial aircraft ... We decided to do it." Here Cheney cleverly attempts to confuse the listener into thinking that "intercept" means "shoot down". In fact the routine procedure of interception consists of flying fighter jets to within close proximity to the off-course aircraft, and attempting to make visual contact with whoever is in the cockpit.

As the attack unfolded, news reports stated that Cheney had been whisked to a secret and secure location -- later revealed to be the Presidential Emergency Operating Center in the basement of the White House. ["The VP is in a 'secure, undisclosed location.'"] Cheney was with National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, directing the response to the attack. Or was he directing the attack? The testimony of Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta is suggestive in this regard.

MR. HAMILTON: We thank you for that. I wanted to focus just a moment on the Presidential Emergency Operating Center. You were there for a good part of the day. I think you were there with the vice president. And when you had that order given, I think it was by the president, that authorized the shooting down of commercial aircraft that were suspected to be controlled by terrorists, were you there when that order was given?

MR. MINETA: No, I was not. I was made aware of it during the time that the airplane coming into the Pentagon. There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, "The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to, "The plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the vice president, "Do the orders still stand?" And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?" 2 Hamilton indicates that "the orders" were to shoot down commercial aircraft. But Mineta's account makes more sense if "the orders" were not to shoot down any such aircraft. The repeated questioning of Cheney by the junior officer whether "the orders still stand" had to be about whether the order NOT to destroy them still stood. Given the two prior attacks against the Twin Towers using the commercial airliners as weapons, an order to destroy the plane approaching the Pentagon would be the only order to give and would not be subject to question by a junior officer as the plane approached. Furthermore, had Cheney's order been to fire on the plane approaching the Pentagon (which first came near the White House), the anti-missile anti-aircraft capacity of the Pentagon (or White House), would have sufficed to take out that plane, and certainly to have attempted to take out that plane. Neither occurred, and since Mineta does not speak of a last-second change by Cheney, the only supportable conclusion is that Cheney's order was NOT to defend the Pentagon, an order so contrary to both common sense and military defense that it, and it alone, explains the repeated questioning by the junior officer.

2FAST4U said:

I think you are looking to deep for your answer here...The simple explanation is as follows: AQ is not stupid. #1 They know that Americans as generous as we are would not tolerate another 9/11. If it were to happen, Bush's approval ratings would go up as the country would rally around him and scream from the rooftops to nuke the middle east and not rest until every muslim in the world was a pile of ash.

Maybe I am looking at this deeply - but if you consider what other paramilitary groups do (and have done), a once off attack such as 9/11 is an anomaly for a group who have such an ideology.

Paramilitary activity is all about "bringing the war to your enemy".

I'm not suggesting that AQ are required to match what happened at 9/11.
What I am suggesting is that AQ in not carrying out one single incident since 9/11 on US soil is an anomaly - for a paramilitary organisation.

In respect of the US and it's engagement in the "war on terror" since 2001.
I think it's far to say that 9/11 gave Bush the excuse to enact what he and cronies had been formulating in 1997-1999 and their plan for a new world order.

The problem for your country - is that it needs to recognise that it (like every other country before) can never prevail in a guerilla war.

2FAST4U said:

#2 Further, I find in difficult to believe that these are your thoughts on this matter...Why would AQ attack other countries yet, not try to strike the U.S.??? The most hated country in the world (in their AQ's eyes and the don't want to attack it?) What is your theory DR?

DR?
Who or what is DR?

As regards my thoughts on 9/11 : I try to keep an open mind as to what happened that day.
The more one reads from the enquiries about what happened that day - it is not unreasonable to question the US goverments statements about what happened that day.

Eldron said:

That is my question also. I'm still in the "terrorists did it" camp.

@wurm - so basically your answer is: someone in the US did it and because bushy is the leader it's his fault?

We both live in countries where guerilla warfare raged for the past 30 odd years.
You and I both know that guerilla tactics don't go in for "once off spectaculars" (as they're euphemistically referred to as).
Guerilla warfare is born out of the "long war mentality".

Personally I don't know who was responsible for 9/11.
Yes we know that name of the people blamed for the attack and we have official enquiries which have thrown up doubt about the official version regarding what happened that day.