From my inbox, read and enjoy

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

IV. Why Did the President and His Secret Service Agents
Remain at the School?

Upon hearing that a plane had struck one of the Twin
Towers, President Bush reportedly believed that it was an
accident. It was not terribly strange, therefore, that he
decided to go ahead with the photo-op at the school in
Sarasota. Word of the second strike, however, should have
indicated to his Secret Service agents---assuming that
these strikes were unexpected---that the country was
undergoing an unprecedented terrorist attack. And yet he
was allowed to remain at the school for another half hour.

This behavior was very strange. The president's location
had been highly publicized. If the attacks were indeed
unexpected, the Secret Service, having no idea how many
planes had been hijacked, would have suspected that the
president himself was one of the targets: What could be
more satisfying to foreign terrorists attacking high-value
targets than to kill the president? For all the Secret
Service would have known, a hijacked airliner might have
been bearing down on the school at that very minute, ready
to crash into it, killing the president and everyone else
there---including the Secret Service agents themselves. It
is, in any case, standard procedure for the Secret Service
to rush the president to a safe location whenever there is
any sign that he may be in danger. And yet these agents,
after allowing the president to remain in the classroom
another 10 minutes, permitted him to deliver his regularly
scheduled TV address, thereby announcing to the world that
he was still at the school.

Would not this behavior be explainable only if the head of
the Secret Service detail knew that the targets did not
include the president? And how could this have been known
unless the attacks were being carried out by people within
our own government? The 9/11 Commission, far from asking
these questions, said only: “The Secret Service told us
they . . . did not think it imperative for [the president]
to run out the door.”[58] A serious inquiry into this
matter, therefore, remains to be made.

V. Why Did the 9/11 Commission Lie about Vice President
Cheney’s Activities?

One sign of the complicity of Vice President Cheney is the
fact that the 9/11 Commission evidently felt a need to lie
about the time of two of his activities: his entry into the
Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC) under the
White House and authorization to shoot down any hijacked
airliners.

It had been widely reported that the vice president had
gone down to the PEOC shortly after the second strike on
the WTC, hence about 9:15.[59] The most compelling witness
was Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, who
testified to the 9/11 Commission that when he entered the
PEOC at 9:20, Cheney was already there. The 9/11 Commission
Report, however, claimed that Cheney did not enter the PEOC
until “shortly before 10:00, perhaps at 9:58.”[60] Mineta’s
testimony was simply omitted from the final report of the
Zelikow-led 9/11 Commission. Why would the Commission go to
such lengths---telling an obvious lie and omitting publicly
available evidence---to conceal the true time of Cheney’s
entry into the PEOC?

One possible reason would involve the testimony of Mineta,
who said:

During the time that the airplane was coming in to the
Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say
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 . . . said, “Of course the orders still stand.
Have you heard anything to the contrary?”[61]

Mineta reported that this conversation occurred at about
9:25 or 9:26.

This testimony creates a problem for the official story.
Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld’s spokesman, in explaining
why the Pentagon was not evacuated before it was struck,
claimed that “[t]he Pentagon was simply not aware that
this aircraft was coming our way.”[62] The 9/11 Commission
supported this claim, alleging that there was no warning
about an unidentified aircraft heading towards Washington
until 9:36 and hence only “one or two minutes” before the
Pentagon was struck at 9:38.[63] Mineta’s account, however,
says that Cheney knew about an approaching aircraft more
than 10 minutes earlier. There would have been over
12 minutes for the Pentagon to be evacuated; 125 lives
could have been saved.

Mineta’s account also implies that Cheney had issued stand-
down orders. Mineta himself did not make this allegation,
saying instead that he assumed that “the orders” were to
have the plane shot down. But that interpretation does not
fit what actually happened--the aircraft was not shot down.
It would also make the story unintelligible: The young
man’s question whether the orders still stood would not
make sense unless they were orders to do something
unexpected---not to shoot the aircraft down. By omitting
Mineta’s testimony and stating that Cheney did not enter
the PEOC until almost 10:00, the 9/11 Commission implied
that Cheney could not have given a stand-down order to
allow an aircraft to strike the Pentagon.

The full brazenness of the Commission’s lie is illustrated
by the fact that it contradicts Cheney’s own account, which
can still be read on the White House website. Speaking on
NBC’s “Meet the Press” five days after 9/11, Cheney said:
“[A]fter I talked to the president, . . . I went down into
. . . the Presidential Emergency Operations Center. . . .
[W]hen I arrived there within a short order, we had word
the Pentagon's been hit.”[64] So he got there, as Mineta
said, some time before the Pentagon was struck, not 20
minutes afterwards.

The lie about Cheney’s entry into the PEOC was also
important to the controversy over whether the US military
shot down Flight 93. The 9/11 Commission, simply ignoring
a vast amount of evidence that the plane had been shot
down,[65] supported the official claim that it was not
shot down by claiming that Cheney, having not arrived at
the PEOC until almost 10:00, did not issue the shoot-down
order until after 10:10---which would have been seven or
more minutes after Flight 93 had crashed (at 10:03, accord-
ing to the official account). But in addition to the
evidence that Cheney had been in the PEOC since about 9:15,
we also have evidence---including statements from Richard
Clarke, who was the national coordinator for security and
counterterrorism, and Colonel Robert Marr, the head of
NORAD’s northeast sector (NEADS)[66]---that Cheney’s shoot-
down order was issued well before 10:00.[67]

The 9/11 Commission’s obvious lies about Cheney’s
activities give reason to suspect that it, under the
leadership of Philip Zelikow, was trying to conceal
Cheney’s responsibility for the Pentagon strike and the
downing of Flight 93.[68]

Incidentally, although Michael Bronner’s aforementioned
article and the movie United 93, on which he worked, were
obviously intended to bolster the official account about
this flight, they do not refute the conclusion that this
account is false. For one thing, the cell phone calls,
which play a central role in the drama, were
technologically impossible in 2001.[69] Moreover, Major
General Larry Arnold, who was the commanding general of
NORAD’s Continental Region at the time, said after seeing
United 93: “The movie trailer said the military was not
notified of UAL 93 until 4 minutes after it had crashed.
That is not true as we were notified a short time before
it crashed. . . . I advised Col. Marr to intercept UAL
93.”[70]

VI. Did the Bush-Cheney Administration Have Motives for
Orchestrating the 9/11 Attacks?

When prosecuting attorneys seek to prove the defendant to
be guilty as charged, they have to show “means, motive,
and opportunity.” It is clear that the Bush-Cheney
administration, including its Pentagon under the leadership
of Donald Rumsfeld, had---unlike al-Qaeda---the means and
the opportunity to orchestrate the events of 9/11. Of the
several motives that high officials in the administration
would have had, I will mention three:

Afghanistan: Zbigniew Brzezinski’s 1997 book, The Grand
Chessboard, said that establishing military bases in
Central Asia would be crucial for maintaining “American
primacy,” partly because of the huge oil reserves around
the Caspian Sea. But American democracy, he added, “is
inimical to imperial mobilization,” which requires
“economic self-denial (that is, defense spending) and
. . . human sacrifice (casualties even among professional
soldiers).” Explaining that the public had “supported
America’s engagement in World War II largely because of
the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor,”
Brzezinski suggested that Americans today would support
the needed military operations in Central Asia only “in
the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived
direct external threat.”[71]

Support for these operations was generated by the 9/11
attacks plus the claim by the Bush-Cheney administration
that these attacks had been planned in Afghanistan by
Osama bin Laden—-a claim for which the administration
refused to provide any proof[72] and for which even the
FBI admits that it “has no hard evidence.”[73]

-----------------------------------------------------------

A more specific motivation was provided by the “pipeline
war.”[74] The Bush-Cheney administration supported UNOCAL’s
plan to build an oil-and-gas pipeline through Afghanistan,
but the Taliban, being unable to provide sufficient
security, had become regarded as an obstacle. In a July
2001 meeting in Berlin, representatives of the
administration, trying to get the Taliban to share power
with other factions, reportedly said, “Either you accept
our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a
carpet of bombs.”[75] When the Taliban refused, the
Americans reportedly said that “military action against
Afghanistan would go ahead . . . before the snows started
falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the
latest.”[76]

Given the fact that the attacks on New York and Washington
occurred on September 11, the U.S. military had time to get
logistically ready to begin the attack on Afghanistan on
October 7.

Iraq: Some key members of the Bush-Cheney administration---
including Paul Wolfowitz, Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Donald
Rumsfeld, and Dick Cheney himself---had in the late 1990s
been active members of an organization, the Project for the
New American Century (PNAC), that advocated attacking Iraq
to remove Saddam Hussein, establish a strong military
presence, and control the oil.[77] PNAC’s Rebuilding
America’s Defenses, released late in 2000, reiterated the
idea of a permanent military presence in the Gulf region,
saying that the “unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the
immediate justification,” but “the need for a substantial
American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue
of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”[78]

Immediately upon taking office, both Paul 0’Neill and
Richard Clarke have revealed, the Bush administration was
intent on taking over Iraq. The only question was “finding
a way to do it,” as O’Neill put it. “The terrorist attacks
of September 11,” said Bob Woodward, “gave the U.S. a new
window to go after Hussein.” Although no Iraqis were among
the alleged hijackers, the Bush administration was able to
use 9/11 as a pretext to attack Iraq. Given the state of
fear created of fear created in the American psyche by
9/11, the administration needed only to fabricate evidence
that Saddam was acquiring nuclear weapons while also
suggesting that he had been involved in 9/11.[79]

Increased Military Spending: A second possible motive was
provided by PNAC’s more general goal of increasing America’s
military superiority sufficiently to establish a global Pax
Americana. This goal had already been asserted in the 1992
draft of the “Defense Planning Guidance,” written by
Wolfowitz and Libby under the guidance of Cheney, who was
completing his tenure as secretary of defense.

In 2000, Wolfowitz and Libby were participants in PNAC’s
project to produce Rebuilding America’s Defenses, in which
this goal showed up again. This document also contained an
idea perhaps derived from Brzezinski’s book: After saying
that the desired Pax Americana “must have a secure
foundation on unquestioned U.S. military preeminence”
and that such preeminence will require a technological
transformation of the US military, it added that this
process of transformation will “likely be a long one,
absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event--like a new
Pearl Harbor."[80]

When 9/11 came, it was immediately treated as “the Pearl
Harbor of the 21st century,” as Bush reportedly called it
that very night.[81] It was also characterized as, in
Bush’s words, “a great opportunity,”[82] with Rumsfeld
adding that 9/11 created “the kind of opportunities that
World War II offered, to refashion the world.”[83] This
idea then showed up in the previously mentioned Rice-
Zelikow document, The National Security Strategy of the
United States of America for 2002, which brazenly said:
“The events of September 11, 2001 opened vast, new
opportunities.”[84]

A central dimension of the desired technological
transformation of the military was the weaponization
of space, euphemistically called “Missile Defense.”
(One neocon, Lawrence Kaplan, has candidly said:
“Missile defense isn’t really meant to protect America.
It’s a tool for global domination.”[85]) In January of
2001, the Commission to Assess U.S. National Security
Space Management and Organization, which was chaired
by Rumsfeld, published its report. Speaking of the need
for massive funding for the U.S. Space Command, the
Rumsfeld Commission asked whether such funding would
occur only after a “Space Pearl Harbor.”[86]

On the evening of 9/11 itself, Rumsfeld held a press
conference. Senator Carl Levin, the chair of the Senate
Armed Services Committee, was asked: “Senator Levin, you
and other Democrats in Congress have voiced fear that you
simply don’t have enough money for the large increase in
defense that the Pentagon is seeking, especially for
missile defense. . . . Does this sort of thing convince
you that an emergency exists in this country to increase
defense spending?”[87] Congress immediately appropriated
an additional $40 billion for the Pentagon and hundreds
of billions more later, with few questions asked.

Conclusion: The Preeminent Importance of 9/11

The above evidence, plus the fact that all the “evidence”
that seems to implicate the alleged hijackers, such as
cellphone calls, airport photos, and discovered luggaqe
and passports, appears to have been fabricated, leads to
the conclusion that 9/11 was a false-flag operation
orchestrated by the Bush administration for primarily
imperial reasons.[88]

If this conclusion is correct, then exposing the falsity of
the official account of 9/11 should be high on the agenda
of all people committed to reversing the present policies
of the U.S. government, for at least four reasons.

First, 9/11 has provided the pretext for at least most of
the malevolent and destructive policies carried out by
the Bush-Cheney administration since that day. When any
objection is raised to this administration’s illicit
policies---from illegal invasions to torture to illegal
spying to weaponizing space to talk of a nuclear first
strike---the answer is always the same: “The critics fail
to understand that the world changed on 9/11.” Until the
truth about 9/11 is exposed, it will remain a blank check
for virtually anything desired by this administration.

Second, the truth about 9/11 is one truth that the American
people would not tolerate. They have proven remarkably,
even disturbingly, tolerant of many other things---such as
the clear indication from the Downing Street memo that the
Bush administration planned to “fix” the intelligence
about Iraq’s WMDs---that should have led to demands for
impeachment.[89] But the American people simply would not
allow an administration to stay in power after learning
that it had orchestrated the attacks of 9/11.

Third, the orchestration of the attacks of 9/11 goes
far beyond any previous instance of “high crimes and
misdemeanors” that have previously been cited as cause
for impeachment. The attacks were---in the words of Bush,
Cheney, and Rumsfeld themselves---heinous crimes. Any U.S.
citizens who participated in planning, carrying out, and/or
covering up these attacks are guilty of treason, as defined
by Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution, because these
attacks were acts of war against the United States---again,
according to the assessment of Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld
themselves. If this treason is not publicly uncovered and
prosecuted, there is little hope for the survival of the
democratic forms we still have. If we fail to have a
serious investigation of the prima facie evidence for such
treason---especially given the fact that this evidence,
once examined, is overwhelming[90]---we will in effect be
telling the perpetrators that they can get away with
virtually anything.

Finally, to reverse the policies of the Bush-Cheney
administration will require more than simply removing
this administration from office---something that could be
legitimately done for any number of reasons. The attacks
of 9/11 were orchestrated to further the project of
creating an American empire of truly global scope and,
as we saw earlier, this has been a long and bipartisan
project. Differences have involved strategy, emphasis,
and demeanor more than the goal itself. The replacement
of the Bush-Cheney administration by a Democratic
administration for some reason other than 9/11 would
probably simply result in a reversion to the subtler,
more sophisticated, and hence more effective form of
imperialism that the United States previously exercised.[91]

What needs to be publicly recognized is that the bipartisan
global domination project is, as I have put it elsewhere,
“propelled by fanaticism based on a deeply perverted value
system.”[92] Those who read books and magazines about U.S.
imperialism know that there has long been abundant evidence
for this assessment. But the public revelation of the truth
about 9/11 could have an educative value extending far
beyond the circles of those who read policy-oriented books
and magazines. If Americans came to see that the attacks
of 9/11 were, in the minds of those who planned them,
justified by the goal of creating an all-encompassing
empire, this realization could lead to widespread revulsion
against the goal itself and the values implicit in it---
values that are diametrically opposed to basic values
embedded in all the world’s religions and ethical systems.

------------------------------------------------------------

[58] The 9/11 Commission Report, 39.

[59] Griffin, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and
Distortions, 241-44.

[60] The 9/11 Commission Report, 40.

[61] 9/11 Commission, Public Hearing, May 23, 2003. YouTube
has Mineta’s exchanges with Hamilton and Roemer, during
which these statements were made.

[62]“Air Attack on Pentagon Indicates Weaknesses,” Newsday,
September 23, 2001.

[63] The 9/11 Commission Report, 34.

[64] “The Vice President appears on Meet the Press with Tim
Russert,” Camp David, September 16, 2001.

[65] See Griffin, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and
Distortions, 238-39. Additional evidence came from Paul
Cellucci, Washington’s envoy to Canada in February of 2005.
Seeking the convince Canada to support the missile defense
shield, he told his Toronto audience that a Canadian
general [Captain Michael Jellinek] was in charge of NORAD
on 9/11 when it scrambled military jets to shoot down a
hijacked aircraft headed for Washington (Colin Perkel and
Beth Gorham, “Missile Rejection Perplexes U.S.,” Canadian
Press, Feb. 23, 2005).

[66] Clarke reports that he received the authorization from
Cheney shortly after 9:45, when the evacuation of the White
House began (Against All Enemies: Inside America’s War on
Terror [New York: Free Press, 2004], 7-. According to
James Bamford and an ABC News program entitled “9/11”
(September 11, 2002), Colonel Marr, after receiving
Cheney’s shoot-down order, “sent out word to air traffic
controllers to instruct fighter pilots to destroy the
United jetliner” (Bamford, A Pretext for War [New York:
Doubleday, 2004], 65-66).

[67] See Griffin, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions
and Distortions, 237-40.

[68] Why exactly the military and the White House denied
shooting down Flight 93, rather than taking credit for
preventing a second attack on Washington, is unclear. But
the very fact that they have steadfastly denied shooting
down Flight 93 suggests that this was a criminal act,
which needed to be covered up.

[69] See Michel Chossudovsky, “More Holes in the Official
Story: The 9/11 Cell Phone Calls,” Aug. 10, 2004) and A. K.
Dewdney, “The Cellphone and Airfone Calls from Flight
UA93,” Physics 911. However, the technology of “voice
morphing,” through which the calls could have been faked,
was sufficiently developed at the time, as explained in a
1999 article by William Arkin (“When Seeing and Hearing
Isn’t Believing,” Washington Post, Feb. 1, 1999). I discuss
this issue at considerable length in Debunking 9/11
Debunking.

[70] Larry Arnold, “MG Larry Arnold on UAL Flight 93,”
NavySEALs.com, June 8, 2006.

[71]Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American
Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives (New York: Basic
Books, 1997), 24-25, 35-36, 212.

[72] Secretary of State Colin Powell promised to prepare
a White Paper presenting this proof but never did. And
although the Taliban said that it would hand bin Laden
over if the United States presented evidence of his
involvement in 9/11, Bush rejected the request (“White
House Warns Taliban: ‘We Will Defeat You,’” CNN.com,
Sept. 21, 2001).

[73] Ed Haas of the Muckraker Report, being puzzled by
the fact that the FBI’s list of the attacks for which bin
Laden is wanted does not include 9/11, asked Rex Tomb,
Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI, why not.
Tomb, reported Haas, said: “The reason why 9/11 is not
mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because
the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11”
(“FBI says, ‘No Hard Evidence Connecting Bin Laden to
9/11’” Muckraker Report, June 6, 2006).

[74] See Ahmed Rashid, Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and
Fundamentalism in Central Asia (New Haven: Yale University
Press, 2001), chaps. 12 and 13, entitled “Romancing the
Taliban: The Battle for Pipelines.”

[75]Julio Godoy, “U.S. Taliban Policy Influenced by Oil,”
Inter Press Service, Nov. 16, 2001.

[76]This according to Niaz Naik, the highly respected
Pakistani representative at the meeting, as reported in
George Arney, “U.S. ‘Planned Attack on Taleban,’” BBC
News, Sept. 18, 2001. According to a story in the Guardian,
“Threat of U.S. Strikes Passed to Taliban Weeks Before NY
Attack” (Sept. 22, 2001), one of the American
representatives confirmed that this discussion of military
action did occur.

[77] See Paul D. Wolfowitz and Zalmay M. Khalilzad, “Saddam
Must Go,” Weekly Standard, Dec. 1997; PNAC, “Letter to
President Clinton on Iraq,” Jan. 26, 1998; and PNAC,
“Letter to Gingrich and Lott,” May 29, 1998. The signers
of the latter two letters included Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld.

[78] The Project for the New American Century, Rebuilding
America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a
New Century, September 2000.

[79] For Paul O’Neill, who was secretary of the treasury
and hence a member of the National Security Council, see
Ron Susskind, The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the
White House, and the Education of Paul O’Neill (New York:
Simon & Schuster, 2004), and O’Neill’s interview on CBS’s
“60 Minutes”. Richard Clarke, confirming O’Neill’s charge,
said: “The administration of the second George Bush did
begin with Iraq on its agenda” (Against All Enemies, 264).
Woodward’s statement is in his Bush at War (New York:
Simon & Schuster, 2002), 83. I have discussed the way in
which 9/11 was morphed into a pretext to attack Iraq in
“Imperial Motives for a New Pearl Harbor” (in Christian
Faith and the Truth behind 9/11).

[80]Rebuilding America’s Defenses, 50-51.

[81]Washington Post, January 27, 2002.

[82]Bob Woodward, Bush at War (New York: Simon & Schuster,
2002), 32.

[83] “Secretary Rumsfeld Interview with the New York
Times,” October 12, 2001. Condoleezza Rice made a similar
statement (Chalmers Johnson, The Sorrows of Empire, 229).

[84]The National Security Strategy of the United States
of America, Sept. 2002 (www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html).

[85] Lawrence Kaplan, New Republic 224 (March 12, 2001),
cover text; quoted in Bacevich, American Empire, 223.

[86]Report of the Commission to Assess U.S. National
Security Space Management and Organization
(www.defenselink.mil/cgi-bin/dlprint.cgi).

[87] Department of Defense News Briefing on Pentagon
Attack, 6:42 PM, Sept. 11, 2001.

[88] “False-Flag Operations, 9/11, and the New Rome: A
Christian Perspective,” in Kevin Barrett, John B. Cobb Jr.,
and Sandra Lubarsky, eds., 9/11 and American Empire:
Christians, Jews, and Muslims Speak Out (Northampton:
Olive Branch, 2007).

[89] For an analysis of the memo and the press coverage,
see Mark Danner, “Why the Memo Matters,” New York Review
of Books, July 14, 2005.

[90] In calling the evidence “overwhelming,” I mean the
total evidence now available (much of which is contained
in my five books on 9/11), not merely the brief summary
given here.

[91] See David Ray Griffin, John B. Cobb, Jr., Richard
Falk, and Catherine Keller, The American Empire and the
Commonwealth of God (Louisville: Westminster John Knox,
2006).

[92] “9/11 and the American Empire: How Should Religious
People Respond?” Originally on BookTV (C-Span 2), April
30, 2005; text published at 9/11 CitizensWatch, May 7,
2005. A somewhat revised version, entitled “9/11, the
American Empire, and Common Moral Norms,” is in Griffin
and Scott, eds., 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals
Speak Out. I have used the term “demonic” for this value
system in “The Divine and the Demonic,” chap. 8 of
Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11.

------------------------------------------------------------

Summarise your dissertation into one short paragraph and you may get some responses, dude. Too much detail to make head or tail of just what point you are trying to make.

where is your evidence as you always ask when it concerns OBJ.

CAT FIGHT

Sorry, I forgot to add that those that cannot read and assimilate should disregard the content, my mistake.

where is your evidence

Interesting reading Afam, but the crux of this whole discussion seems focused on the Mineta testimony and some phone calls that may or may not be fake.

As always there is always some irregularity or inconsistency that makes Conspiracy Theorists shout 'eureka!', but I really doubt that Bush/Cheney orchestrated the attacks of 9/11.

granted that the actions after such as Iraq and Afghanistan have been premised more on the ideological leanings of the two and a drive to control world oil resources rather than any hard evidence of terrorism, I believe it to be a little far fetched to think the US attacked itself.

So what do we make of the claims of the Osama and others regarding the incident? all lies and fabrications as well?

One possibility may be that the pentagon strike was allowed to happen to further 'worsen' the American rage, a stroke of Genius on Cheney's part to promote his clearly hawkish tendencies. But that is really as far as it goes in my opinion

@Poster

Summarise your dissertation. We don't want to have serious migraine running through all that "Phd thesis".
I had to scroll through after I got some way through and I do alot of reading.

Just give a summary in a few sentences. Remember your WAEC O'Level? Summary is usually one of the essay questions and I want to believe you passed it.

For your information, it is not enough to write a write-up. When you make it easy for all to read, then you may elicit some intelligent responses otherwise, there is no need posting.

why should he summarize someone else's thoughts and ideas?
He might project his own ideas or thinking into such a summary, his intention is to elicit responses and discussion based on the original author's thoughts and reasoning, not his own.

If that is too much work for you to do, I suggest you move on to other threads, This issue is obviously beyond your reasoning level if all you reduce it to is childish insults concerning WAEC. People read whole books and dissertations to make discussions, but if that is beyond the realm of your understanding and you need to be spoon fed, go seek that elsewhere.

@debosky,

I agree that it won't be easy for anyone to imagine that the US attacked itself but when some inconsistencies exist as illustrated by Cheney's time wahala one begins to think otherwise.

The author raised a lot of issues that are mind boggling and believe me even Americans themselves are becoming tired of Bush who I see as someone that is very unintelligent.

The world watches as he is thinking seriously about attacking Iran even when the 2 previous campaigns have been failures.

@funloving,

Did anyone force you to read this thread? Go to the jokes or gossip section if you find the thread too difficult for you to comprehend.

The inconsistencies are there no doubt, but I believe Bush used a combination of serendipity and sheer opportunism to ride on the back of 9/11 to achieve preconceived goals.

Cheney has been shady from day 1, so I am not surprised, so was Bush's initial victory anyways.

There was so much disorder and disarray after the initial events that I don't think we'll ever get a true picture of what exactly happened in those tumultuous minutes immediately after the first 'attack'.

@Afam
Your Bush Derangement Syndrome don dey get worse? 

You once implied that the Jews had fore-knowledge of the attacks.Are you saying they collaborated with Bush?

I-man:

@Afam
Your Bush Derangement Syndrome don dey get worse?

Your Bush Loving Syndrome nko? Getting better or worse?

I-man:

You once implied that the Jews had fore-knowledge of the attacks.Are you saying they collaborated with Bush?

Hmmmm, everyday I wake up and with more information coming out into the public domain I am now more inclined to have all options on the table as regards 911. Don't trust Bush and would be surprised if you trust him.

This thread deserves a *rolleyes*

Mr. copy and paste.
why not concentrate on ur obj and forget our bush.
a man whose house is on fire does not go after rats.
it is funny that u derive joy in finding faults in developed countries of the world, in the most democratic countries of the world, in the most civilized people and generations of our time as against the much rotten, dilapidated and much backward, uncivilized, inhuman, undemocratic, under-developed, corruption binded and unrealistic part of the world where we belong.
even in ur dreams, how can u look above the sholders of obj to condem bush? reffer me to any of ur posts where u directly condem obj's administration.
afam, make out time and discuss with someone living in the uk and america or even dubai, if they want to be frank to u, they will tell u that u are existing in a mini hell(nigeria) unfortunately unexposure has made u not to think beyond where u are.
pls if not for anyother thing find ur way to cotonou which is even trackable and appreciate the fact that our leaders are coursed.
a nigerian saying bad about developed countries is just like kettle calling pot black.
afam, find ur way to a country where electricity never blink without notice, where drievers are sure of smooth rides without pot-holes, where ur cars are as saved as the air u breath, where police will attend to ur distress call in less than 5 minutes, where constructions and reconstructions are the order of the day. all these are real situations though u will find them hard to believe but they are all real.
all ur life, u have been existing in a country where men finds joy in been addressed as politicians, where a medical doctor's target is to be a politician, where an administration starts and ends with political issues and no project.
obj started with senate president down to third term then ended with atiku now we are in for etteh and her contract.
the amerca u always condem have grown and in every administration, they place their economy above everyother thing.
to crown it all, you did not make ur own points at the end of the long unimportant copy and paste so it is difficult to know where u belong

chidichris,

You are in Dubai, so you are one exposed Nigerian according to you.

But in all honesty, rather than become as exposed as you are (remember say if you carry monkey go US e never change the fact say na monkey e still be) I will gladly catch the next flight back to Enugu and from the airport head straight to village and start farming.

It will be far better than what you have become, a clueless and confused Nigerian who finds it supremely difficult to even understand what he is talking about.

There is still time for change, you will be more useful to yourself as a bus driver or conductor (that is if you will even understand basic road signs).

How many times have people informed you that you are ill informed and that you lack basic comprehension of issues.

It is people like you that made the former information minister to state that Nigerians abroad are inconsequential.

Afam
You lack ideas and cannot make a useful argument, check all your posts they all lack cohesion. If you leave in Nigeria and love the situation of things in nigeria as you praise OBJ that means you have not been outside Nigeria for your lyf and see how other countries that practice real democracy as we claim in Nigeria you will understand that the so called politicians in Nigeria dont like you and your generation yet unborn. Catching the next flight to Enugu is only a big thing in Nigeria to a well governed country its a normal means of transportation.

I am actually tripping with this your post full of ideas.

I see you as another slowpoke, what is all these nonsense about praising OBJ?

It seems that anyone that does not agree with any trash some of you put down here is now a supporter of OBJ.

For heaven's sake the man is no longer the president of Nigeria, move on with your life.

Afam,
in all and all, i accept my position as a fool or monkey whatever but as long as you remain where u are, u are less than a blind man.
you keep on copying things and pasting here.
all the information u post here against bush and isreal nothing positive about them have been sent to your box, that qualifies u as a prophet of doom.
it is less than madness for a self-acclaimed wise man to compare our situations in nigeria to that of usa talkless of finding faults in them.
look at the latest sex scandal in the us against a man who has been a senator for over 30 years.
ordinary accusation has made him to resign but relate it to our speaker who is under fire, relate it to atiku who went through hell, relate it to borishade who messed up different ministries.
needless arguing with you afam as all our arguements with you here still sound to you as the stories of my book of bible stories which we used to read in those days because for all i care, u have never seen an iran man before, neither have u come in touch with an american man or an isreali all your life so u still based ur life on imaginations.
i for the sake of maturity request you to grow up. be matured in your arguements. just take ur time and go through your posts and convience yourself that you have not be able to address ur points one by one in any case. you in most cases over look points and go straight to your insults.
in all, i try to deliever one or two points before relating u to your real life story but u are just either retarded in ur brains or u are working here as a paid labourer. it is possible because like i have said here on several occasions, i don't trust u. u have things in common with chris uba, alex ekwueme, jim nwobodo and the wonderful pius okadigbo. if you are confussed about these few names and other ones i will outline on demand then inform me and i will lecture u more of these names and their political relevance in the ibo race and nigeria as a whole.
obj is no longer our president yet he is.
he can't do without nigerian leadership and its benefits.
i must remind u that the bloods of all who died in anambra and oyo between 1999 and 2007 as a result of political mayhem will remain on his head.

E no go better for person wey do you this thing, even if person curse you say you go be olodo for life you no fit reject am or even go for deliverance.

You are certainly the most confused human being I have encountered online in my life, you are a danger to yourself in my opinion.