How else do you get a guy like this on your side?
Hijacked into terrorism war: Pakistan tells of US threat – World – smh.com.au — The beginning of the end for the Bush realtionship. Meanwhile the Taliban are retaking Afghanistan.
WASHINGTON: The Pakistani President, Pervez Musharraf, says the US threatened to bomb his country back to the Stone Age after the September 11 attacks if he did not help America’s war on terrorism.
General Musharraf says the threat was delivered by Richard Armitage, then the deputy secretary of state, to his director of intelligence.
“The intelligence director told me that [Mr Armitage] said, ‘Be prepared to be bombed. Be prepared to go back to the Stone Age’,” General Musharraf said in the interview to be shown tomorrow on the CBS network news program 60 Minutes.
It was insulting, the president said, “a very rude remark”.
When you realize thet GW Bush had never left the country and toured the world until he became President you can understand why our diplomacy process is a little weak.
This whole thread looks like someone just distributed internet terminals to inmates in an asylum.
pedro
Im not sure is that good or bad?
#35, Tom
Why couldn’t you have correctly quoted the President’s speech? Look, I dislike him as much or more then anyone else here, but c’mon, bullcrap is bullcrap and your post is bullcrap.
The entire paragraph.
For example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed described the design of planned attacks of buildings inside the U.S. and how operatives were directed to carry them out. That is valuable information for those of us who have the responsibility to protect the American people. He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a high — a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping.
Considering that Pakistan was the only country in the world that recognised the Talaban regieme in Afganistan, I could understand this threat being made at the time.
But, I tend to worry when this is all hearsay. Musharriff admits it was told to him by his Intel chief, who at the time was providing the Talaban intel about the U.S……and Armitage has said that it just flat out didn’t happen. Now, Armatige is a sneaky bastard, and he is known to be somewhat blunt in his approach at times, so it’s hard to say if he said this or not.
But John, it isn’t the beginning of any end for our present relationship with Pakistan……Bush and Musharriff were kissing eachothers butts on t.v. today.
As to CBS’s motive, it’s simple…..money…..seems they own the company that is bringing out Musharriffs book on Tuesday or Weds next week and they are using this little tidbit to pormo the 60 minutes interview and boost the book sales.
For all the smart people on here, I would have thought that someone would have figured it out, anytime a potential bomb shell like this appears out of no where, it’s usually because the person is about to release a new book.
Like your new name Fusion.
#33….crumudgen….the name calling always comes when there is nothing that can be said by one side or the other to prove or disprove their fondly held ideas.
While both sides tend to do it(i have on a few occasions, and i hate myself in the morning)….I find that some Liberals on this site tend to go for the jugular almost immediatly….even before their arguement is disproven by a nice Conservative 🙂
….even before their arguement is disproven by a nice Conservative
Comment by joshua — 9/22/2006 @ 5:52 pm
nice conservative??? where???
Probably talking about me.
serve the maximum sentence for all their crimes against the people of Planet Earth.
Call me when the Space Shuttle arrives, Rocky.
‘Back’ to the stone age.
Have you seen that place? He was obviously joking.
Musharraf has a book coming out soon. Could this possibly be… hype? Musharraf’s book is on my reading list, by the way, right below Rove’s book “The Dummies Guide to Pouring Salt in a Wound”.
Mr. Fusion,
I could have quoted the whole speech but decided the only important part was that there were possibly bombs set high up in building so people couldnt get down. Sound familiar? Is there any OTHER attack on the United States that people were trapped high up in buildings than 911, in which the official report is that they were brought down by planes? So where is the bullcrap? I correctly quoted him, just left out the beginning. What the hell difference does that make. Does anybody else seem bothered by his statement. Never has the government alluded that the buildings were brought down by any other method than planes and jet fuel. And what about WTC building 7? No plane, No jet fuel. No excuse. 50 story building collapses by fire.
Whatever. You totally missed the point. I beleive they are preparing an alibi that Al Queda wired the buildings for demolition, because they either dont know, (incompetence) or were complicit.
pedro
your #38 means nothing, it doesnt even make sense. You cant answer because you are ignorant, I feel sorry for you.
#50, Tom
You have used an underhanded trick that is totally stupid. You quoted someone out of context to make a case. That is wrong. Bush never said or meant what you want to attribute to him. You could have quoted the paragraph, but he wasn’t even talking about 9/11 !!!
As with ALL of the 9/11 conspirators, the evidence is being fabricated to make a case that just doesn’t exist. :
Bush never said or referred to blowing up the WTC.
There were no demolition charges.
WTC 7 was “pulled” to remove the firefighters as the building was in danger of collapse.
No F-16 shot down any airliner that day.
The hole in the Pentagon is much larger then a cruise missile
There is no report of a cruise missile hitting the WTC.
The WTC did not fall into it’s own footprint, the debris covered several blocks.
Besides WTC7, several other buildings were severely damaged by the collapse.
The exact path taken by the hijacked planes could not tracked by the FAA as the transponders were turned off and there were over 4000 planes in the sky at the time.
…
Now grow up and get a life.
1. Neolib: There were no demolition charges.
Is this your professional opinion, or what. Many firefighters report explosions going off in the building prior to the collapse. They were there, you werent.
In this clip you will hear a discussion between New York Firefighters from September 11 where they describe the WTC and the fact that it looked like detonators were planted in the towers.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/032404firefightersdiscuss.html
2. Neolib: WTC 7 was “pulled” to remove the firefighters as the building was in danger of collapse.
wrong again
The FEMA report on the collapses, from May, 2002, also says about the WTC 7 collapse: “no manual firefighting operations were taken by FDNY.”
Dr. Shyam Sunder, of the National Institutes of Standards and Technology (NIST), which investigated the collapse of WTC 7, is quoted in Popular Mechanics (9/11: Debunking the Myths, March, 2005) as saying: “There was no firefighting in WTC 7.”
I’d go on to your other “facts” but people like you bore me. Your either stupid, scared, or just plane too lazy to do the research yourself. If you dont want to do your homework you should just shut your mouth.
Look it up.
Mr. Neolib: Your statements:
“There were no demolition charges. ”
“WTC 7 was “pulled” to remove the firefighters as the building was in danger of collapse. ”
I looked up Toms link to Fema and NIST both govt agencies quoting that there were no firefighters in building 7 when they gave the order to pull it, (or at all) and they seem to be correct. So clarify for me why they pulled the building and how can they pull a building that quickly. As a retired firefighter I know they are not demotlitions people, and wouldnt have the expertise to bring a 50 story building down. And since it takes weeks to wire a building for demolition your arguments falls flat on its face.
So which is it? First you state there were no demolition charges, then you say the building was pulled. I am confused.
Tom, you need not to get so excited. I see your point but tone it down a hair.
Building 7 does indeed seem to be a smoking gun.
When did he claim that they blew up the building? Where’s Fusion’s contradiction?
AB
The confusion seems to be the use of the word “pulled”. Again if the order is given to pull the building, and there were no firefighters to “pull” form the building, then I have to assume “pull” means to bring the building down in the classic defintion of demolition. What would your interpretation of the word mean, in this context.
Either they were pulling the firefighters out or they brought the building down. If they brought the building down, how did they do it so quickly.
So I am asking what you think he meant by the use of that word.
5:20 PM: Building 7 of the World Trade Center collapses. [CNN, 9/12/01] Though the media claims fires brought the building down, the building’s owner Larry Silverstein later recounts the story of the collapse of this 47-story skyscraper in a PBS documentary America Rebuilds, “I remember getting a call from the fire department commander…I said…maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it. And they made that decision to pull, and then we watched the building collapse.” [PBS Documentary]
It sounds like it was taken down, doesnt it?
You’re a moron, Mark.
He was saying “pull” as in pull out – that is, pull the firemen out of the building.
IBC
I’m the Firefighter not the moron:
The FEMA report on the collapses, from May, 2002, also says about the WTC 7 collapse: “no manual firefighting operations were taken by FDNY.”
Dr. Shyam Sunder, of the National Institutes of Standards and Technology (NIST), which investigated the collapse of WTC 7, is quoted in Popular Mechanics (9/11: Debunking the Myths, March, 2005) as saying: “There was no firefighting in WTC 7.”
I quote sources, quote me a source, dont insult me.
Wow. This thread went from liberal hate to conspiracy kooks. A connection between the two, perhapse?
Back on topic…
After sifting through the bullshit, the only intelligent reply to my comments was from OhForTheLoveOf. To respond, it’s interesting that Armitage doesn’t want anything to do with this, and I agree that it would be a feather in his cap (to the right, at least) if he did do this.
I still buy the story, and I still see this only as a move by Musharraf to solidify his power base.
I’m the Firefighter not the moron:
The FEMA report on the collapses, from May, 2002, also says about the WTC 7 collapse: “no manual firefighting operations were taken by FDNY.”
Dr. Shyam Sunder, of the National Institutes of Standards and Technology (NIST), which investigated the collapse of WTC 7, is quoted in Popular Mechanics (9/11: Debunking the Myths, March, 2005) as saying: “There was no firefighting in WTC 7.”
I quote sources, quote me a source, dont insult me.
Comment by Mark — 9/23/2006 @ 8:51 pm
Thankfully most firefighters are not the moron you present yourself as.
First, you didn’t link to your sources. Don’t expect me to do the work for you. But let’s go to the Popular Mechanics story.
…NIST’s Sunder tells PM. “On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom–approximately 10 stories–about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out.” NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7’s upper stories and its southwest corner. …
But NIST’s analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of “progressive collapse,” a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or “kinks,” in the building’s facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.
According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building’s failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. “What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors,” Sunder notes, “it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down.”
http://tinyurl.com/llds4
Now, if FEMA and NIST are wrong about previous damage and fire bringing down WTC 7, then couldn’t they also be wrong about about NYFD having at one time been in the building? Silverman said they were there and you want to accept his statement that he said “pull the building”. So who did he tell that to if not a NYFD Commander fighting WTC 7’s fire.
Editor,
I apologize that this has gotten off topic and my last post is so long.
Neolib
Man your a jerk.
Neolib
windbag