Former Reagan Deputy and Colonel Says 9/11 is "Dog That Doesn't Hunt"
Former Deputy Secretary of Defence under Ronald Reagan, Col. Ronald D. Ray, has dismissed the White House version of events on 9-11 as a "conspiracy theory" and described the official version of events as, "the dog that doesn't hunt."
He questioned how the attack was possible on a nation that spends half a trillion dollars a year on defence and yet was somehow, despite spending all that money, unable to protect the Pentagon."Half a trillion dollars a year and a bunch of guys over in a cave in Afghanistan were able to penetrate that half a trillion dollar network that's supposed to provide Americans with national security."
He gave many examples of various false flag operation previous American administrations had allowed in particular the Israelis attempt to sink USS Liberty.
"I'm astounded that the conspiracy theory advanced by the administration could in fact be true and the evidence does not seem to suggest that's accurate," he said.
Ray highlighted the existence of Project Bojinka and the fact that Bush administration officials claimed ignorance of a plot to attack the World Trade Center with planes despite limitless precursors to suggest otherwise.
Ray dismissed the validity of the assertion that the Bush administration is fighting a genuine war on terror.
"If the war on terror is real then the first thing that would have happened within a matter of weeks after 9/11 would have been we'd have closed the borders off."
"You have no national security if your borders are not secure."
I'm no conspiracy theorist but I don't think you have to be to question why so many parts of the government's version of events don't stack up.
Why was this day the only day in history when steel structured buildings fell as a result of fire? Why did building 7 fall at all considering it was never hit?
The questions are innumerable and the 9-11 commission didn't even ask half of them, far less answer them.
Click title for full article.
11 comments:
Boy, Kel. You are more extreme than I imagined. You seem to be arguing the conspiracy mongers have a point. That is absurd. You are a shining example of how loony the left is becoming (with the help admittedly of a few nutjobs like Ray).
The very premise of his argument is unbelievably silly: we spend so much money on defense that it isn't possible that anything like 9/11 could happen the way it is said to have happened. First of all, what proportion of that annual half-trillion dollars we spend on defense is even remotely related to counterterrorism measures: a miniscule percentage. Secondly, spending a lot of money on something doesn't guarantee that nothing will ever go wrong. We spend plenty of money on highway safety - accidents happen anyway. Britain, Spain, and other countries undoubtedly spend plenty of money on counterterrorism measures yet they haven't been able to avoid terrorism either.
Just today, I heard someone bring up the ridiculous "documentary" Loose Change as an example of the "unanswered questions" (actually questions conspiracy-minded people would prefer to pretend are unanswerable) surrounding 9/11. I had to point them in the direction of a website the systematically debunks the films' claims:
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/
Tommy,
I am in no way an extremist and have pointed out that I am not some kind of conspiracy theorist.
However, the plane that supposedly went into the Pentagon left no wreckage of any kind.
Firefighters on the ground said that there was no plane in there.
Shortly after the incident FBI officers collected CCTV footage from a nearby petrol station and hotel and have never released either of that footage.
The footage that they did release showed what appeared to be a rocket attack rather than a plane hitting the Pentagon.
I'm only saying that I find it hard to counter some of the conspiracy theorists arguments, as there are very large holes in some of the governments story.
Nor has anyone ever adequately explained to me why building seven fell.
You seem willing to accept what you have been told at face value. Maybe you can answer me then. Why did building seven fall? Why was there no wreckage at the Pentagon? Why won't the government simply release the CCTV footage and shut everyone up?
It would be a very simple matter to end all this speculation. Why won't they do it?
You seem willing to accept what you have been told at face value. Maybe you can answer me then. Why did building seven fall? Why was there no wreckage at the Pentagon? Why won't the government simply release the CCTV footage and shut everyone up?
I'm not about to waste my time systematically debunking 9/11 conspiracy claims any more than I am going to spend my time debunking Holcaust conspiracy theories.
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html
I suggest you read more from this site:
http://www.911myths.com/
And yes, anyone who thinks there are "serious unanswered questions" about the 9/11 incident is as much an extremist as somebody who thinks there are "serious unanswered questions" about the Holocaust.
The only one is who is being gullible is you, Kel. Even after the 9/11 conspiracy theorists have had 99% of their claims completely debunked, the foolish keep coming back to try and find some sliver of evidence that there was a conspiracy or a coverup (or as you like to coyly put it, "unanswered questions").
Enjoy your reading, David Irving, Jr., you really have lost it. I won't be back.
I notice that once again, Tommy, you use links and other people's arguments rather than attempt to construct one of your own.
I also note that you attempt to grab the moral high ground by stating that you "won't waste time systematically debunking 9/11 conspiracy claims." Which is a strange stance as you entered this comments section of your own free violition and began this exchange in the first place. I feel your stance is false and the reason you will not debate this is because you have no answers to the questions.
I did watch the video you asked me to watch, however, as I'm sure you are aware, it did not address any of my points. No doubt, without a link to refer me to - which is your usual form of making an argument - you simply found that task too tiresome.
However, there can be no excuse for you to compare anyone who asks questions regarding the official 9-11 story with Holocaust deniers. You have often employed disingenous arguments, but that was a particularly nasty one.
This is quite the most disgustingly dishonest argument you have yet made. And you've made quite a few of those.
Nevertheless, I am sorry that you won't be back as I have enjoyed our exchanges and thought it brave that you came here and expressed an opposite viewpoint.
If you ever wish to return you will be more than welcome.
Hey Kel,
Thanks for posting on 9/11. It takes big horse balls to step up. I had an extended email exchange with a guy like Tommy. The rhetoric is very similar. They make hifalutin statements, rather than combing through facts with a fine point. People raise great questions worth considering, and it's the job of the anti-conspiracy nutjobs like Tommy to actively ignore the questions. They fully advocate facing West when all the action is East. They are afraid of mental conflict; they cannot bear the tension of inner conflict. They lack strength of character. They are fully assimilated, and they are blaring common examples of just how comepletly fucked the American psyche is. There is a website called choosereality.org. All they advocate is reality. While they are actually a response group to fundamental Christianity, I think their message also applies to 9/11 deniers like Tommy and my former email opponent. They are immune to Enquiry, Evidence, and Reality. Doublethink is their chief line of defense. Ad hominem attacks are their main weapon. Their minds are intensely packed with U-turns and forks in the road. There is no such thing as right and wrong to them. There is only the State. These individuals are fully owned subsidiaries of U.S.A., Inc.
I am going to post my entire email discussion that I had with my own version of Tommy. I'll delete the name, out of fairness. But I think it will be highly instructive. We can use the exchange as a test subject. Why do 9/11 conversations go wrong? Why is the issue so polarized? Why is no middle ground allowed to exist? How come you can only choose between two camps: the State or the Loony Bin? Where does cognitive dissonance come into play? What other psychological barriers exist to defend against bald realities?
This stuff is deep and it demands dissection. Check back on my blog tomorrow; my test subject should be up then.
Congrats again on having a backbone. Even if you end up concluding a different opinion than mine, I applaud the fact that you are a thinking individual.
Thanks, Musclemouth.
And I haven't even arrived at a different opinion from your own, I am still too full of questions to which I don't have answers to have even constituted an opinion, although I do start out as someone opposed to conspiracy theories which only makes Tommy's reaction all the more bizarre.
He seems to be saying that even asking the questions I am asking is somehow to become a closet Holocaust denier.
In his world it would appear that curiousity is a crime and that one must always accept the state's version of events - even if those same events don't logically stack up - check that, especially if those same events don't stack up.
It's an argument for serfdom which I don't accept.
And I will be checking out your blog, as always, this morning.
Yes, curiosity has almost been criminalized. I am becoming a sort of curiosity freak lately. I find myself becoming intolerant of any conversation that doesn't somehow blow one's mind to pieces. Small talk is death talk.
I did post the email exchange I was talking about...but after compiling it, I found out it was 25 pages long! That was more than I imagined. So if you don't have the time to read all of it, I can't begin to blame ya. But once you skim it, you'll see the similarities between Tommy and my "John Doe". Just know I've been there too. You're not alone in committing the crime of inquiry.
Musclemouth,
I did read your email exchanges with John Doe 1 and 2. Strangely enough there was a John Doe used to post here and it made me wonder if it was the same person.
There was also a lot of stuff that you have found that I was completely unaware of. The size of the insurance policy and the fact that new management only took over two months earlier certainly made my eyes bulge.
What I found fascinating in both your exchange with the two John Doe's, and in my exchange with Tommy, is that you are dismissed as a lunatic for even asking questions. This is an odd characteristic especially as a majority of Americans do not believe the story as it is being told to them, so your position is not as marginalised or kooky as your opponents like to imply.
Also, as I've said before, I do not think it is incumbent on you or anyone else (though I think you're doing a fantastic research job) to be able to fully explain every aspect of this before you are allowed to say that some parts of this story stink.
The John Doe's seem to be arguing that you have to accept the entire story as put out by government or you're claiming that the government murdered thousands of their own citizens.
I don't know if they did that, I simply know that some strange things happened. Like, John Ashcroft stopped flying commercial jets in the summer of 2001 citing "security threats". What info was he basing this on?
I feel, in questioning what I am being told, simply because it doesn't fully add up is a healthy curiosity rather than proof that I am "a Holocaust denier".
Keep up the good work. I'll be following it keenly.
Awesome. Thanks for the encouragement on that. I've been working on this 9/11 research for about 3 months straight, almost without a break to catch my breath. It's so thick, you have to follow it one tiny strand at a time in order to corroborate facts. I'll be glad when I can present a waterproof case. Might take years.
I'm not sure you'll ever have a waterproof case but proving that enough strands of the governments case don't make sense should be enough to force some kind of public enquiry.
Operative word is "should". I agree.
Post a Comment