GWB obviously didn't gain much from Hurricane Katrina, so was quite unlikely to have wanted to plan it but you can ask yourself: who stood to gain the most?

It's pretty obvious that the Democrats have made the most mileage out of that particular disaster, therefore that establishes a motive. The levees were rigged with explosives. Someone reckoned they saw it and that there was explosive residue found at the scene.
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/04/337935.shtml

Then again, there are a lot of oil refinieries near New Orleans, so it could have been a GWB plot to increase the price of gas or the property developers that wanted the poor districts. Whatever.

All we need to do now is figure out just how they did it.

If anyone's wondering why the first of the two almost identical posts above have not been deleted, it's because Graham Young declined my request for him to delete my own post. He castigated me thus:

James,

There is a limit to how much I am going to do to clean-up others mistakes.
In this case I'm going to decline.

Graham

---

I have to say, I am a bit mystified as to what other mistakes he has been cleaning up. Looking back there seem to be a lot of abusive posts from people who've explicitly stated they had no intention whatsoever of treating this discussion seriously.

And I have been told by a number of people that Graham's overall diligence in either cleaning up such messes or preventing them from being made in the first place has been such that they don't even bother with OLO

---

It seems as if Bugsy's erstwhile righteous indignation ("Now f@ck off and leave me alone, you raving nutter.") at my having allegedly provoked him into returning to "this pissy thread" has quickly dissipated.

Furthermore, he appears to have turned the tables on me by having employed humour.

Bugsy has pretended to take seriously what I intended as sarcasm in order to show up the sort of logic that someone like myself, who holds to the deluded notion that the the US Government must have carried out the September 11 attacks, would have applied to the Hurricane Katrina disaster.

I feel devastated.

I don't know if I will ever be able to hold my head high on this forum again.

Bugsy wrote, "George Bush ... did not plan 9/11."

Bugsy knows this because Bugsy has personally looked at the airport surveillance tapes that George Bush has refused to release to Ellen Mariani and has seen with his own eyes Ellen Mariani's husband Neil Mariani and all the other passengers that George Bush told us boarded the doomed flights 11 and 175 boarding the planes just as George Bush said they did.

And Bugsy has personally obtained copies of the passenger lists for the doomed flights that George Bush has refused to release to Ellen Mariani and seen with his eyes that the passengers who boarded those flights are exactly the same passengers that George Bush told us they were.

And Bugsy has personally viewed all the complete air traffic control records for Flight 11 and Flight 175 that George Bush has refused to release to Ellen Mariani and verified that the flights flew exactly in the same manner that George Bush told us they had. (see again http://www.thepowerhour.com/articles/emlawsuit.htm)

---

Newsflash, Bugsy: A lie repeatedly stated doesn't suddenly become the truth.

---

Actually Bugsy, as George Bush is widely understood to be the front man for Dick Cheney who makes all the real decisions, I would concede that George Bush probably did not personally plan the 9/11 attacks, but he had to have known about them in advance.

How else is George Bush's bizarre behaviour upon learning of the attacks to be explained? Why did he and his security agents depart from standard procedure and not immediately take him away from a location that was known in advance to the public and hence to the terrorists who were carrying out the attacks the time? Why did he continue to read nursery rhymes to children unless he already knew that he was not a target?

I watched some of the movie "United 93" shown on free to air television last night. It purported to tell the story of how the passengers in the hijacked Unite Airlines flight 93 overpowered the hijackers and prevented them from reaching its target, that is the U.S. Capitol building. This motivated me to read the chapter in the PDF (1.7MB) version of David Ray Griffin's "The New Pearl Harbor" (2004) at http://www.vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres5/GRIFFIN-Newpearlharbor.pdf

The chapter presents very compelling evidence that suggests that Flight 93 may have been deliberately shot down at the point which the passengers were taking control of the aircraft back from the hijackers. Had the passengers gained control of flight 93, there is every reason to expect that the qualified pilot amongst the passengers would have been able to land Flight 93 intact and there would have been a live hijacker to be interrogated.

On the strength of that chapter alone, it is worth purchasing a hard copy of that book.

---

If anyone knows where David Ray Griffin's hypothesis has been refuted, please let me know.

Further to my above point that George Bush and his security agents departed from standard procedure after being told that America was under attack, see the stills from the video of George Bush reading a children's story at http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/bush-911.htm A truncated version of this footage that has been available online since June 2002 shows Bush for only 2 minutes, 10 seconds after being told. This new footage more than doubles this length of time.

As one blogger commented recently: "The leaders were warned repeatedly that such attacks were coming, yet chose to do nothing -- even during the actual attacks -- as Bush sat reading about a goat rather than responding as 'Commander in Chief' to a coordinated attack on the nation. This was treason, in plain sight (thanks to the personal camcorder of one of the teachers at Booker elementary school)." (http://911blogger.com/node/18269)

I see, dagget, you are now conducting a conversation with yourself. I am continually amazed at the nonsense you will regurgitate. Is there anything you are actually ever skeptical about, besides of course the official version (which is always false because THEY are all liars)?

Are you prepared to believe EVERY conspiracy theory, now matter how bizarre and unsupported? Or have you actually encountered an idea that even you find a little far fetched?

We get that you don't like George Bush, hell who does? Not even his dad it seems. But are you seriously suggesting that you can deduce Bush's complicity in these attacks from his initial reaction to the news?

It seems you are in urgent need of a bullsh!t detector. In fact I'm surprised someone hasn't convinced you that the CIA is listening to your thoughts and that your posts here are putting you in mortal danger.

Does it never strike you as ironic that people believe just as fervently in UFO's or fairies. Has it occurred to you that there is NO WAY of convincing those people that UFO's and fairies don't exist, even though they are clearly NUTS.

I have a question for you.

Why would a gov't which was so capable and so evil, allow themselves to look so bad by telling the truth about the lack of WMD's in iraq after the invasion? Surely such capable and evil people, who could pull off the largest and most complex conspiracy in history, could come up with some fake WMD's? And don't even suggest for a minute that they couldn't do it, because your whole conspiracy depends upon their ability to do ANYTHING