Reply #20: I don't know what to think of him

[gaja]

So his grandfather was a senator and he isn't related to Al Gore (according to new documents)

I watched some of his movies like Caligula for example.
I don't know if he cares about accuracy, but there some mistakes in the movie

He knows that the US is a police state and there is only one party, that is encouraging.


He wants that that the connections between Osama etc to be investigated, He says everybody is telling lies.
I think that is a valid point.

One assumption he has is that, his father wrote the law that NORAD can intercept hijacked air planes automatically. And he says he can't understand why they weren't intercepted (President busy, Cheney in bunker)

Well, we know that in June the rules for hijacking were changed and DoD must get approval from the Secretary of Defense.
http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/oddities/2001.html#June1,2001-DoD_hijacking_rules

And we have Minneta's testimony and Flight 77 and Cheney's reaction
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Z2c8IKemYI


He said in the interview that that the founding fathers disliked tyranny and they disliked democracy. Interesting!

He says he is buying the incompetence theory....

He is buying incompetence for Katrina.... someone should play him the clip
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/09/04/worst-abandonments/
were they are talking about cutting communications line (done by FEMA)

Here his interview
http://www.kuow.org/mp3high/m3u/WeekdayB/WeekdayB20061109.m3u




in the interview with Alex Jones he stated the same

GV: Well, there was a big story in the India Times, which is a very good newspaper, and it was about 9/11. And, we had just found out that Mohammad Atta, who was a Saudi Arabian guy, seemed to be working for Osama bin Laden, as far as anybody knows. That's probably true. That he was in charge of the planes that crashed into the New York buildings. Well, the story is really more complicated.

What struck me was immediately-- my father was Director of Air Commerce under Franklin Roosevelt. My father, who has been one of the original Army-Air Force flyers in World War I. He had put in a lot of sort of safety things. In the event of a hijacking of a passenger liner or any plane that they knew about, that fighter planes would be scrambled-- that is, sent up into the air immediately within minutes in order to force the plane down, to change course or shoot it down if you had to. And you don't need orders from the President, the Vice President or anybody else. That's the law.

Well, they didn't go up after 9/11. Everybody knew what happened. And the planes still were still on their way to Washington to hit the Pentagon, and suddenly from Otis Air Base comes one fighter plane. Otis Air Base is in Massachusetts-- it might just as well have been in Canada. That was the only fighter plane, which, according to law, they all should have been up there. And not one went up. Well, that could have only happen if somebody told them to stand down-- not to respond to what was after all their sworn duty.

That's, the Times of India broke the story and then that well-known radical rag, The Wall Street Journal, also wrote about it. I thought by then places like New York Times would have waked up, but the New York Times is incapable of waking up to anything important.

I think he knows what he is talking about
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20061113_growing_up_with_gore_vidal/

When I asked my grandparents about the newspapers, they replied in unison, “If you read it in the papers, it isn’t true.” But then populists have never had a good press in Freedom’s Land. I was also warned never to answer the questions of strangers, and, of course, I always did.

70 years ago he was asking his grandparents about truth in newspapers and today he is asking why the New York Times isn't printing the truth? C'mon

And not always telling what you think when strangers ask you is his philosophy, it seems. Or am I misreading his statements?