Vive Le Canada

Cellucci Caught In Flight 93 Lie?

Posted on Monday, February 28 at 02:23 by Anonymous
Maybe though, Cellucci misspoke on the subject. Well it turns out that Rumsfeld also had a similar slip of the tongue and later re-tracted his statements, changing his position to coincide with the crash theory: CNN http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/12/27/rumsfeld.flt93/ "Was it a slip of the tongue? Was it an error? Or was it the truth, finally being dropped on the public more than three years after the tragedy" asked a posting on the Web site WorldNetDaily.com. Some people remain skeptical of U.S. government statements that, despite a presidential authorization, no planes were shot down September 11, and rumors still circulate that a U.S. military plane shot the airliner down over Shanksville, Pennsylvania. This Flight 93 story is getting harder and harder for these guys to get straight - or is it just that - a story? http://grandinite.blogspot.com/2005/02/cellucci-misspoke-on-flight-93.html

Contributed By


Topic


Article Rating

 (0 votes) 

Options




Comments

  1. by hoopoe
    Tue Mar 01, 2005 5:49 pm
    Is Celluci seriously trying to say if Canada had signed onto Bush's BMD and a missile was flying towards a US location such as Washington (more likely than a single missile being targeted at Canada) that the decision would then be left to our Prime Minister until it left Canadian airspace? Does he expect anyone to believe this bullshit?

    Congratulations to Prime Minister Martin for saying no to this nonsense. Let the US waste $1 trillion on a system that will never work and doesn't address their security concerns anyway, never mind ours.

  2. by Anonymous
    Tue Mar 01, 2005 6:55 pm
    My main concern is that it doesn't make any sense whatsoever. The buzz words that we continously hear from the South is terrorist this, and terrorist that....
    The chances at this stage that terrorists would use ICBM are pretty damn slim I would say.
    It just another way for some defense corporations to make a buck by creating an invisible enemy.

    Oh, and yes.... Cellucci can put his head where the sun never shine and look for Bush in there.

  3. by Anonymous
    Tue Mar 01, 2005 7:12 pm
    Naturally a Canadian thinks it won't work. Probably that is why we have 2% of the worlds technology and the US has 75%. And you can look it up. The only Canadians that believe in new technology are probably US citizens now working for Microsoft and don't understand "it probably wont't work".

  4. by Anonymous
    Tue Mar 01, 2005 7:30 pm
    People certainly take things seriously around here. I thought this website was not for any real purpose but just to have a little fun. This website is likely very quiet in the summer as probably about 90% of the folks are down in Charleston, Williamsburg, New York City or California having a great time. Lighten up a little and not to worry as we don't have any responsibilities in the world anyway.
    Enjoy yourself. We've never had it so good.

  5. by Wraun
    Tue Mar 01, 2005 8:27 pm
    I don't see the lie.... Bush did give orders for all the planes to be shot down. Maybe it <b>was</b> a Canadian general who ordered the scrambling of the jets... So it must be the Canadians fault that they weren't shot down, right? That dumb Canucklehead sent the jets in the wrong direction... yeah, sure, that's it Wally!<p>---<br>Canada for Canadians

  6. by hoopoe
    Wed Mar 02, 2005 8:48 pm
    Actually, most credible American scientists have said it won't work. About the only ones who say it will work for the defence industry.

    As to the 2% of technology, most of this is in the form of military hardware that doesn't really contribute to the wealth of a country. The problem with this is that unless it gets used this type of activity can't continue to support an economy. Now that the cold war is over, you Americans are looking for any excuse to use your hardware. If you really want to see a country that has done something economically valuable with technology outside of military uses, look to Japan and not the US.

  7. by hoopoe
    Wed Mar 02, 2005 8:54 pm
    This site is for political discussion bonehead. I guess Americans have to tie everything into some form of entertainment before they have any interest in it.

    Charleston and Williamsburg? They may be fine places to live but why would anyone want to go to such boring places as a tourist? As for the other two, while there may be something of interest there you also run a high risk of getting mugged or shot since those who don't live there don't know which neighborhoods belong to blacks, hispanics, whites, etc. I would choose a city like Montreal over these anytime.

  8. by Anonymous
    Wed Mar 02, 2005 9:53 pm
    Stupid troll - <a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/">http://www.ucsusa.org/</a><br />
    <br />
    go educate yourself



view comments in forum


You need to be a member and be logged into the site, to comment on stories.



Latest Editorials

more articles »

Your Voice

To post to the site, just sign up for a free membership/user account and then hit submit. Posts in English or French are welcome. You can email any other suggestions or comments on site content to the site editor. (Please note that Vive le Canada does not necessarily endorse the opinions or comments posted on the site.)

sitemap | feeds | privacy | copyright | contact
canadian bloggers | canadian news