Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

[Tony Spencer <tony AT tonyspencer.com>]

Yeah, Thunderbird tagged it as SPAM for me too.  Weird.

Cristobal Palmer wrote:
> gmail tagged this as spam. I wouldn't have noticed the email if
> somebody else hadn't mentioned it.
>
> Take that however you like.
>
> -CMP
>
> On 12/11/06, Tony Spencer <tony AT tonyspencer.com> wrote:
>   
> > The Loose Change boys take on the Popular Mechanics editors in a face to
> > face debate if you can call it that.  Don't forget, the Popular
> > Mechanics editors are in on the conspiracy :)
> >
> > http://lippard.blogspot.com/2006/11/loose-change-vs-popular-mechanics.html
> >
> > And a spot on summary of the 'debate':
> > http://www.dylanknightrogers.com/2006/10/22/avery-bermas-get-0wned-on-democracynow/
> >
> > Finally Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stones explains to us exactly how this
> > conspiracy was conceived at the highest levels of our government.
> > Hilarious!
> > http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/11818067/the_low_post_the_hopeless_stupidity_of_911_conspiracies
> >
> > BUSH: So, what's the plan again?
> >
> > CHENEY: Well, we need to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. So what we've
> > decided to do is crash a whole bunch of remote-controlled planes into
> > Wall Street and the Pentagon, say they're real hijacked commercial
> > planes, and blame it on the towelheads; then we'll just blow up the
> > buildings ourselves to make sure they actually fall down.
> >
> > RUMSFELD: Right! And we'll make sure that some of the hijackers are
> > agents of Saddam Hussein! That way we'll have no problem getting the
> > public to buy the invasion.
> >
> > CHENEY: No, Dick, we won't.
> >
> > RUMSFELD: We won't?
> >
> > CHENEY: No, that's too obvious. We'll make the hijackers Al Qaeda and
> > then just imply a connection to Iraq.
> >
> > RUMSFELD: But if we're just making up the whole thing, why not just put
> > Saddam's fingerprints on the attack?
> >
> > CHENEY: (sighing) It just has to be this way, Dick. Ups the ante, as it
> > were. This way, we're not insulated if things go wrong in Iraq. Gives us
> > incentive to get the invasion right the first time around.
> >
> > BUSH: I'm a total idiot who can barely read, so I'll buy that. But I've
> > got a question. Why do we need to crash planes into the Towers at all?
> > Since everyone knows terrorists already tried to blow up that building
> > complex from the ground up once, why don't we just blow it up like we
> > plan to anyway, and blame the bombs on the terrorists?
> >
> > RUMSFELD: Mr. President, you don't understand. It's much better to sneak
> > into the buildings ourselves in the days before the attacks, plant the
> > bombs and then make it look like it was exploding planes that brought
> > the buildings down. That way, we involve more people in the plot, stand
> > a much greater chance of being exposed and needlessly complicate everything!
> >
> > CHENEY: Of course, just toppling the Twin Towers will never be enough.
> > No one would give us the war mandate we need if we just blow up the
> > Towers. Clearly, we also need to shoot a missile at a small corner of
> > the Pentagon to create a mightily underpublicized additional symbol of
> > international terrorism -- and then, obviously, we need to fake a plane
> > crash in the middle of fucking nowhere in rural Pennsylvania.
> >
> > RUMSFELD: Yeah, it goes without saying that the level of public outrage
> > will not be sufficient without that crash in the middle of fucking nowhere.
> >
> > CHENEY: And the Pentagon crash -- we'll have to do it in broad daylight
> > and say it was a plane, even though it'll really be a cruise missile.
> >
> > BUSH: Wait, why do we have to use a missile?
> >
> > CHENEY: Because it's much easier to shoot a missile and say it was a
> > plane. It's not easy to steer a real passenger plane into the Pentagon.
> > Planes are hard to come by.
> >
> > BUSH: But aren't we using two planes for the Twin Towers?
> >
> > CHENEY: Mr. President, you're missing the point. With the Pentagon, we
> > use a missile, and say it was a plane.
> >
> > BUSH: Right, but I'm saying, why don't we just use a plane and say it
> > was a plane? We'll be doing that with the Twin Towers, right?
> >
> > CHENEY: Right, but in this case, we use a missile. (Throws hands up in
> > frustration) Don, can you help me out here?
> >
> > RUMSFELD: Mr. President, in Washington, we use a missile because it's
> > sneakier that way. Using an actual plane would be too obvious, even
> > though we'll be doing just that in New York.
> >
> > BUSH: Oh, OK.
> >
> > RUMSFELD: The other good thing about saying that it was a passenger jet
> > is that that way, we have to invent a few hundred fictional victims and
> > account for a nonexistent missing crew and plane. It's always better
> > when you leave more cover story to invent, more legwork to do and more
> > possible holes to investigate. Doubt, legwork and possible exposure --
> > you can't pull off any good conspiracy without them.
> >
> > BUSH: You guys are brilliant! Because if there's one thing about
> > Americans -- they won't let a president go to war without a damn good
> > reason. How could we ever get the media, the corporate world and our
> > military to endorse an invasion of a secular Iraqi state unless we faked
> > an attack against New York at the hands of a bunch of Saudi religious
> > radicals? Why, they'd never buy it. Look at how hard it was to get us
> > into Vietnam, Iraq the last time, Kosovo?
> >
> > CHENEY: Like pulling teeth!
> >
> > RUMSFELD: Well, I'm sold on the idea. Let's call the Joint Chiefs, the
> > FAA, the New York and Washington, D.C., fire departments, Rudy Giuliani,
> > all three networks, the families of a thousand fictional airline
> > victims, MI5, the FBI, FEMA, the NYPD, Larry Eagleburger, Osama bin
> > Laden, Noam Chomsky and the fifty thousand other people we'll need to
> > pull this off. There isn't a moment to lose!
> >
> > BUSH: Don't forget to call all of those Wall Street hotshots who donated
> > $100 million to our last campaign. They'll be thrilled to know that
> > we'll be targeting them for execution as part of our thousand-tentacled
> > modern-day bonehead Reichstag scheme! After all, if we're going to make
> > martyrs -- why not make them out of our campaign paymasters? Shit,
> > didn't the Merrill Lynch guys say they needed a refurbishing in their
> > New York offices?
> >
> > RUMSFELD: Oh, they'll get a refurbishing, all right. Just in time for
> > the "Big Wedding"!
> >
> > ALL THREE: (cackling) Mwah-hah-hah!
> > ---
> > Come and play at the InterNetWorkers Web site!  
> > http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/
> > You are currently subscribed to InterNetWorkers mailing list
> > To unsubscribe visit http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/internetworkers
> >
> >     
>
>
>