Friday, September 19, 2003

Here's one of the funniest things I've seen in a long time. You just can't make stuff up that's this good. It's an article that has been approvingly circulated in some paleoconservative circles called "Why Don't We Have Answers to These 9-11 Questions? and apparently originated in the Philadelphia Daily News.

Try to keep in mind as you peruse some of these that there are real paleoconservatives who think this is big stuff. Art Bell is now their leader. Here's a sampling of some of these "unanswered questions," which appear in bold type, followed by actual text from the article:

* Why did Attorney General John Ashcroft and some Pentagon officials cancel commercial-airline trips before Sept. 11?
CBS said, "Ashcroft has been advised to travel only by private jet for the remainder of his term." Newsweek later reported that on Sept. 10, 2001, "a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns."
Rabe's explanation: Why? Isn't it obvious? Because Ashcroft planned the 9-11 attacks! Now of course, as the mastermind of the plot, one would have expected Ashcroft to know exactly which planes were going to be hijacked and just avoid them to keep himself above suspicion, but hey, sometimes terrorists like Ashcroft are irrational.

* Why did the NORAD air defense network fail to intercept the four hijacked jets?
Why didn't the fighters that were finally scrambled at Otis Air Force Base in Massachusetts and Langley Air Force Base in Virginia fly at top, supersonic speeds? Why didn't fighters immediately take off from Andrews Air Force Base, just outside Washington, D.C.? Why was nothing done to intercept American Airlines Flight 77, which struck the Pentagon, when officials knew it had been had been hijacked some 47 minutes earlier?
Rabe's explanation: Because NORAD wanted the attacks to happen! "Hey guys, the Pentagon is about to be attacked, so we want you to head out there. But fly slow!"

* Why did President Bush continue reading a story to Florida grade-schoolers for nearly a half-hour during the worst attack on America in its history?
Why did Bush read a children's story about a pet goat and stay in the classroom for more than a half-hour after the first plane struck the World Trade Center and roughly 15 minutes after Chief of Staff Andrew Card told him that it had been a deliberate attack?
Rabe's explanation: Could it be that when the first plane hit the first building, it wasn't yet the "worst attack on America in it's history"? Could it be that it did not become the "worst attack" until over an hour later when the towers began collapsing? Could it be that nobody in the world knew that it was a deliberate act of terrorism until the second plane hit? Nope. The reason Bush stayed seated in the class is because he had so deliberately and precisely planned the attacks that he was expecting them and forgot to pretend to be suprised! Though even the Menendez brothers knew enough to pretend to be shocked at the shotgun deaths of their parents, President George W. Bush is so stupid that he forgot to act suprised when the attacks he masterminded against his own country actually transpired!

* Why did 7 World Trade Center collapse?
7 World Trade Center, a 47-story building, was not struck by an aircraft on Sept. 11, yet the building mysteriously collapsed at 5:20 p.m. that afternoon.
Rabe's explanation: Isn't it obvious? That's where Bush and his cronies met to hatch and execute the plan! They had to destroy the evidence of their conspiracy, so as long as everything else in the area was on fire and there was lots of chaos, they had the building rigged with silent explosives and detonated them in front of an international viewing audience.

Here's my personal favorite:

* Where is Dick Cheney's undisclosed location?

Ummm, I believe that information has not been disclosed.

There's more, but you get the idea. You'll want to read the article yourself, print it up, and possibly take it to parties with you. It's that good!

I once again defy anyone to make a cogent distinction anymore between the ultra-ultra-conservative movement and Noam Chomsky.

No comments: