HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » NYT BOMBSHELL: Significan...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 12:18 AM

NYT BOMBSHELL: Significantly MORE 9/11 NEGLIGENCE Than Has Been Disclosed




The Deafness Before the Storm


IT was perhaps the most famous presidential briefing in history.




On Aug. 6, 2001, President George W. Bush received a classified review of the threats posed by Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network, Al Qaeda. That morning’s “presidential daily brief” — the top-secret document prepared by America’s intelligence agencies — featured the now-infamous heading: “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” A few weeks later, on 9/11, Al Qaeda accomplished that goal.


On April 10, 2004, the Bush White House declassified that daily brief — and only that daily brief — in response to pressure from the 9/11 Commission, which was investigating the events leading to the attack. Administration officials dismissed the document’s significance, saying that, despite the jaw-dropping headline, it was only an assessment of Al Qaeda’s history, not a warning of the impending attack. While some critics considered that claim absurd, a close reading of the brief showed that the argument had some validity.


That is, unless it was read in conjunction with the daily briefs preceding Aug. 6, the ones the Bush administration would not release. While those documents are still not public, I have read excerpts from many of them, along with other recently declassified records, and come to an inescapable conclusion: the administration’s reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed. In other words, the Aug. 6 document, for all of the controversy it provoked, is not nearly as shocking as the briefs that came before it.


The direct warnings to Mr. Bush about the possibility of a Qaeda attack began in the spring of 2001. By May 1, the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that “a group presently in the United States” was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be “imminent,” although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible.But some in the administration considered the warning to be just bluster. An intelligence official and a member of the Bush administration both told me in interviews that the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat. Intelligence officials, these sources said, protested that the idea of Bin Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist, conspiring with Mr. Hussein, an Iraqi secularist, was ridiculous, but the neoconservatives’ suspicions were nevertheless carrying the day. In response, the C.I.A. prepared an analysis that all but pleaded with the White House to accept that the danger from Bin Laden was real.





cont'


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/the-bush-white-house-was-deaf-to-9-11-warnings.html

296 replies, 58714 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 296 replies Author Time Post
Reply NYT BOMBSHELL: Significantly MORE 9/11 NEGLIGENCE Than Has Been Disclosed (Original post)
Segami Sep 2012 OP
gkhouston Sep 2012 #1
deutsey Sep 2012 #111
jillan Sep 2012 #2
burrowowl Sep 2012 #6
jillan Sep 2012 #15
Rosa Luxemburg Sep 2012 #225
Sherman A1 Sep 2012 #80
smirkymonkey Sep 2012 #217
ladym55 Sep 2012 #240
BlueStreak Sep 2012 #23
avaistheone1 Sep 2012 #56
krawhitham Sep 2012 #64
avaistheone1 Sep 2012 #67
JHB Sep 2012 #101
caraher Sep 2012 #172
JHB Sep 2012 #187
BlueStreak Sep 2012 #155
tclambert Sep 2012 #181
RainbowOverTexas Sep 2012 #145
lexx21 Sep 2012 #292
LadyHawkAZ Sep 2012 #27
get the red out Sep 2012 #130
tavalon Sep 2012 #138
bbgrunt Sep 2012 #146
ellenfl Sep 2012 #166
LadyHawkAZ Sep 2012 #171
ellenfl Sep 2012 #174
get the red out Sep 2012 #185
ensemble Sep 2012 #213
get the red out Sep 2012 #221
ensemble Sep 2012 #223
get the red out Sep 2012 #264
Honeycombe8 Sep 2012 #28
Beartracks Sep 2012 #53
Arugula Latte Sep 2012 #149
loyalsister Sep 2012 #186
ProudToBeBlueInRhody Sep 2012 #69
speedoo Sep 2012 #76
JHB Sep 2012 #105
Overseas Sep 2012 #249
gussmith Sep 2012 #73
regnaD kciN Sep 2012 #91
JHB Sep 2012 #106
global1 Sep 2012 #115
Doctor_J Sep 2012 #121
Catherine Vincent Sep 2012 #162
thelordofhell Sep 2012 #3
Scootaloo Sep 2012 #19
DemocratsForProgress Sep 2012 #62
Nostradammit Sep 2012 #86
olegramps Sep 2012 #126
Iwasthere Sep 2012 #4
Comrade_McKenzie Sep 2012 #11
kestrel91316 Sep 2012 #31
Major Hogwash Sep 2012 #39
StrictlyRockers Sep 2012 #47
calimary Sep 2012 #87
StrictlyRockers Sep 2012 #154
kenny blankenship Sep 2012 #280
snappyturtle Sep 2012 #131
RoccoR5955 Sep 2012 #134
jeff47 Sep 2012 #177
RoccoR5955 Sep 2012 #193
jeff47 Sep 2012 #201
RoccoR5955 Sep 2012 #212
jeff47 Sep 2012 #258
RoccoR5955 Sep 2012 #265
jeff47 Sep 2012 #266
RoccoR5955 Sep 2012 #269
jeff47 Sep 2012 #273
RoccoR5955 Sep 2012 #277
jeff47 Sep 2012 #284
Thegonagle Sep 2012 #290
RoccoR5955 Sep 2012 #293
WinkyDink Sep 2012 #237
jeff47 Sep 2012 #259
RoccoR5955 Sep 2012 #270
jeff47 Sep 2012 #275
RoccoR5955 Sep 2012 #276
jeff47 Sep 2012 #283
RoccoR5955 Sep 2012 #287
jeff47 Sep 2012 #294
Thegonagle Sep 2012 #289
Mapletonian Sep 2012 #203
WinkyDink Sep 2012 #238
librarylu Sep 2012 #245
jeff47 Sep 2012 #260
TahitiNut Sep 2012 #248
kestrel91316 Sep 2012 #254
TahitiNut Sep 2012 #267
Jawja Sep 2012 #109
Rosa Luxemburg Sep 2012 #251
Arugula Latte Sep 2012 #179
snappyturtle Sep 2012 #184
WinkyDink Sep 2012 #239
librarylu Sep 2012 #247
parazito86 Sep 2012 #296
kenny blankenship Sep 2012 #281
99th_Monkey Sep 2012 #60
cpwm17 Sep 2012 #85
99th_Monkey Sep 2012 #92
cpwm17 Sep 2012 #95
99th_Monkey Sep 2012 #98
RoccoR5955 Sep 2012 #135
William Seger Sep 2012 #137
ensemble Sep 2012 #216
librarylu Sep 2012 #246
William Seger Sep 2012 #268
ProfessorGAC Sep 2012 #139
ensemble Sep 2012 #218
ProfessorGAC Sep 2012 #288
freedom fighter jh Sep 2012 #229
William Seger Sep 2012 #272
freedom fighter jh Sep 2012 #291
William Seger Sep 2012 #295
madrchsod Sep 2012 #164
newfie11 Sep 2012 #168
jeff47 Sep 2012 #178
99th_Monkey Sep 2012 #211
jeff47 Sep 2012 #256
RoccoR5955 Sep 2012 #250
jeff47 Sep 2012 #257
SammyWinstonJack Sep 2012 #113
deutsey Sep 2012 #114
ProfessorGAC Sep 2012 #140
deutsey Sep 2012 #142
newspeak Sep 2012 #147
JHB Sep 2012 #196
RoccoR5955 Sep 2012 #194
dreamnightwind Sep 2012 #200
JackRiddler Sep 2012 #278
NYC_SKP Sep 2012 #5
TwilightGardener Sep 2012 #7
sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #34
TwilightGardener Sep 2012 #41
caseymoz Sep 2012 #42
sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #54
polly7 Sep 2012 #99
jillan Sep 2012 #48
dogday Sep 2012 #226
leveymg Sep 2012 #104
Angry Dragon Sep 2012 #8
Historic NY Sep 2012 #9
Cha Sep 2012 #10
newspeak Sep 2012 #148
Cha Sep 2012 #190
Bennyboy Sep 2012 #12
Cha Sep 2012 #13
Rosa Luxemburg Sep 2012 #232
RoccoR5955 Sep 2012 #279
vanlassie Sep 2012 #14
Slit Skirt Sep 2012 #26
tama Sep 2012 #84
intheflow Sep 2012 #103
HughBeaumont Sep 2012 #122
ladjf Sep 2012 #128
KansDem Sep 2012 #129
noiretextatique Sep 2012 #191
Hell Hath No Fury Sep 2012 #199
WillyT Sep 2012 #207
dogday Sep 2012 #228
City Lights Sep 2012 #274
Arctic Dave Sep 2012 #16
Ghost in the Machine Sep 2012 #17
Sheepshank Sep 2012 #18
abelenkpe Sep 2012 #38
young_at_heart Sep 2012 #20
grasswire Sep 2012 #37
Hey Jude Sep 2012 #21
TwilightGardener Sep 2012 #32
longship Sep 2012 #46
Berlum Sep 2012 #97
newspeak Sep 2012 #150
eppur_se_muova Sep 2012 #158
sakabatou Sep 2012 #231
WinkyDink Sep 2012 #242
Sedona Sep 2012 #22
RoccoR5955 Sep 2012 #132
JHB Sep 2012 #198
Overseas Sep 2012 #252
Slit Skirt Sep 2012 #24
NCcoast Sep 2012 #25
jillan Sep 2012 #36
Slit Skirt Sep 2012 #29
Art_from_Ark Sep 2012 #63
oldtime dfl_er Sep 2012 #30
speedoo Sep 2012 #75
jillan Sep 2012 #33
grasswire Sep 2012 #35
robbob Sep 2012 #167
The_Casual_Observer Sep 2012 #40
grasswire Sep 2012 #43
TwilightGardener Sep 2012 #44
MercutioATC Sep 2012 #45
Hissyspit Sep 2012 #51
Hissyspit Sep 2012 #52
PopeOxycontinI Sep 2012 #58
cpwm17 Sep 2012 #72
MercutioATC Sep 2012 #61
Hissyspit Sep 2012 #65
MercutioATC Sep 2012 #81
Hissyspit Sep 2012 #88
MercutioATC Sep 2012 #169
snappyturtle Sep 2012 #176
Hissyspit Sep 2012 #209
WinkyDink Sep 2012 #241
William Seger Sep 2012 #159
Nostradammit Sep 2012 #90
polly7 Sep 2012 #255
Overseas Sep 2012 #253
Indi Guy Sep 2012 #49
PopeOxycontinI Sep 2012 #59
moondust Sep 2012 #50
avaistheone1 Sep 2012 #55
Firebrand Gary Sep 2012 #57
ProudToBeBlueInRhody Sep 2012 #66
speedoo Sep 2012 #78
Hissyspit Sep 2012 #89
PufPuf23 Sep 2012 #68
Ian62 Sep 2012 #70
hollysmom Sep 2012 #71
Ian62 Sep 2012 #74
BeyondGeography Sep 2012 #77
myrna minx Sep 2012 #79
DemocratsForProgress Sep 2012 #82
Segami Sep 2012 #108
Waiting For Everyman Sep 2012 #83
snappyturtle Sep 2012 #182
Kaleko Sep 2012 #286
malaise Sep 2012 #93
mfcorey1 Sep 2012 #94
Berlum Sep 2012 #96
MadHound Sep 2012 #100
Berlum Sep 2012 #102
underpants Sep 2012 #107
JHB Sep 2012 #110
leveymg Sep 2012 #112
underpants Sep 2012 #210
Ganja Ninja Sep 2012 #116
hunter Sep 2012 #165
Blue Meany Sep 2012 #117
Spitfire of ATJ Sep 2012 #170
KurtNYC Sep 2012 #118
Botany Sep 2012 #119
Doctor_J Sep 2012 #120
Octafish Sep 2012 #123
leveymg Sep 2012 #127
Rosa Luxemburg Sep 2012 #234
blm Sep 2012 #124
panader0 Sep 2012 #125
Crowman1979 Sep 2012 #133
riderinthestorm Sep 2012 #136
clangsnwhoops Sep 2012 #141
Rider3 Sep 2012 #143
Gabi Hayes Sep 2012 #180
samsingh Sep 2012 #144
valerief Sep 2012 #151
JPZenger Sep 2012 #152
EOTE Sep 2012 #153
StrictlyRockers Sep 2012 #160
patrice Sep 2012 #156
RepublicansRZombies Sep 2012 #157
EOTE Sep 2012 #161
progressivebydesign Sep 2012 #163
Blue Owl Sep 2012 #173
Slit Skirt Sep 2012 #175
DearAbby Sep 2012 #183
Kablooie Sep 2012 #188
colsohlibgal Sep 2012 #189
NMlib Sep 2012 #192
matt819 Sep 2012 #195
The Doctor. Sep 2012 #197
Mapletonian Sep 2012 #202
Ford_Prefect Sep 2012 #204
grok Sep 2012 #205
WinkyDink Sep 2012 #215
WillyT Sep 2012 #206
NAO Sep 2012 #208
Rosa Luxemburg Sep 2012 #227
WinkyDink Sep 2012 #214
Kurovski Sep 2012 #219
GOPGoindown Sep 2012 #220
Vinnie From Indy Sep 2012 #222
benld74 Sep 2012 #224
sakabatou Sep 2012 #233
7wo7rees Sep 2012 #230
Rosa Luxemburg Sep 2012 #236
WinkyDink Sep 2012 #235
gael Sep 2012 #243
Major Hogwash Sep 2012 #244
lamp_shade Sep 2012 #261
blkmusclmachine Sep 2012 #262
Gabby Hayes Sep 2012 #263
MoonRiver Sep 2012 #271
Octafish Sep 2012 #282
Supersedeas Sep 2012 #285

Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 12:27 AM

1. So: who has known about this, and for how long? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gkhouston (Reply #1)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 08:11 AM

111. Exactly...There used to be a link circa 2001/2002 that I sent to Bushbots

when they'd crow about thanking God that Bush was in power when 9-11 happened...it was a very long list of links to articles from around the world prior to 9-11 about intelligence agencies warning that something bad was in the works. I think it used to be on Buzzflash.com.

Here's a link I found that is similar to the one I remember, but it's not the one I'm thinking of:
http://www.buzzflash.com/perspectives/911bush.html

This link contains references to the kind of articles I remember being in the main link I'm talking about:
http://www.historycommons.org/essay.jsp?article=essaytheytriedtowarnus

The page I'm thinking about may still be out there, but the point is many of us knew as early as 2001 that Bush had more warnings that something was happening than just that summary he ignored in August.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 12:27 AM

2. THIS bombshell just lost the election for Romney. This is worse then what they did to the economy..

They had US citizens willfully murdered.

The republican party is toast.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Reply #2)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 12:29 AM

6. Repukes do not read the NYT

And really probably don't care

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to burrowowl (Reply #6)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 12:41 AM

15. I don't think this story is going to go away. It's going to reach far and wide.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Reply #15)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 09:51 PM

225. Saudi Arabia!

So how did they know the US (NORAD was running exercises on 9/11 and they were able to infiltrate the system. Heads should roll.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to burrowowl (Reply #6)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 03:57 AM

80. Agreed

And that the story is from the NYT it will be immediately discredited by the Republicans and those who will vote that way in November. Assuming the reporting and story is 110% accurate, it will make absolutely no difference to them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to burrowowl (Reply #6)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 08:37 PM

217. In fact, I do not think they read at all, They get all the info they need from Fox.

Morons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to burrowowl (Reply #6)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 10:19 PM

240. And remember a percentage of Ohio Repukes

Think that Rmoney had something to do with the death of Bin Laden ... so that should tell us just how informed your average Repuke is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Reply #2)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 01:07 AM

23. Fortunately for Romney, the majority of Republicans think Romney killed bin Laden.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #23)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 02:34 AM

56. lol

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to avaistheone1 (Reply #56)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 02:50 AM

64. Not funny

http://www.salon.com/2012/09/10/15_percent_of_ohio_gopers_credit_romney_with_bin_ladens_death/

62% are “not sure” whether Obama or Romney deserves more of the credit or flat out that Romney is “more responsible” for bin Laden’s death than Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krawhitham (Reply #64)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 03:06 AM

67. omg. They are really THAT stupid.

Freaking frightening~

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to avaistheone1 (Reply #67)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 07:14 AM

101. I don't disagree, but I think a chunk of that number...

...is more "NOT Obama" than actual pro-Romney. They don't think of themselves as "not sure", but they "know" that Obama doesn't deserve credit, so Romney was the leftover choice. Kind of like the primaries.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JHB (Reply #101)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 01:42 PM

172. Except for one thing...

"Not Sure" was also a choice

The breakdown was

Obama more responsible: 86% Dems, 38 % Repubs, 64% Indeps
Romney more responsible: 1% Dems, 15% Repubs, 1% Indeps
Not sure: 13% Dems, 47% Repubs, 36% Indeps

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caraher (Reply #172)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 02:49 PM

187. I covered that...

They don't believe they are "not sure", leaving Romney as the default "sure, but not Obama" answer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to avaistheone1 (Reply #67)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 12:18 PM

155. No. They are that racist. Nobody is that stupid.

A lot of people are that racist. A lot more then I every would have guessed, it seems.

OK, I'll give you 10% of them that didn't understand the question, maybe couldn't hear very well, or just didn't want to be bothered by another poll.

But that still leaves about half the Republicans for which there is no plausible explanation other than racism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to avaistheone1 (Reply #67)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 02:17 PM

181. If only we could harness the power of stupidity, we'd have an endless source of energy.

Republicans seem to have succeeded at harnessing the voting power of teh stupid. If only their scientists would direct that power toward good instead of evil. (Ha! Republican scientists! I made myself laugh with that one.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krawhitham (Reply #64)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 11:40 AM

145. in North Carolina

71% are “not sure” whether Obama or Romney deserves more of the credit or flat out that Romney is “more responsible” for bin Laden’s death than Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainbowOverTexas (Reply #145)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 07:59 AM

292. Maybe in the more "special" areas of my state

where the family trees do not fork they might think that, but in the more populous areas such as RTP we certainly do NOT think that way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Reply #2)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 01:11 AM

27. No one who doesn't already believe it will believe it

Too much disinformation and too many completely bizarre theories have been spread out over too many years. This will be dismissed as one of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LadyHawkAZ (Reply #27)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 10:14 AM

130. I agree

All the insane CT's have muddied the water enough that this kind of information will be quickly dismissed.

Is it to wonder if a lot of CTs are a result of a conspiracy to make up conspiracies to hide the truth?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to get the red out (Reply #130)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 10:43 AM

138. Bingo

Simple black ops, no one even needed to be killed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to get the red out (Reply #130)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 11:47 AM

146. I believe that black ops have been used for many years to

discredit any discussion of actual CT's. The fact that the OFFICIAL version of 911 is actually a conspiracy theory is part of the irony. It's no wonder that so many people today are immune to facts and will mentally close down when anything they don't want to believe is presented to them with facts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to get the red out (Reply #130)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 12:59 PM

166. what's a 'ct'? eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellenfl (Reply #166)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 01:38 PM

171. conspiracy theory n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LadyHawkAZ (Reply #171)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 01:50 PM

174. ah, thanks. my mind was blank! eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellenfl (Reply #166)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 02:24 PM

185. Conspiracy Theory

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to get the red out (Reply #130)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 08:21 PM

213. Yes, blame the people...

who question the bullshit we have been feed. Nice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ensemble (Reply #213)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 09:27 PM

221. I don't blame anybody but the top

People who question haven't done anything wrong, sometimes though I think some people have been fed total BS to throw a wrench into anyone finding out exactly what happened, or what went wrong in a way to be able to put the blame where it belongs in the eyes of the whole country. Disinformation, for lack of a better word.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to get the red out (Reply #221)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 09:48 PM

223. so the people who question the official story...

are government plants? Perhaps some, but I don't think that is true of most of them. I think many "truthers" see inconsistencies in the official story that suggest government involvement, or at least that they have something to hide. I don't think a real investigation is being hampered by them - if anything a real investigation would tend to reduce wild stories.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ensemble (Reply #223)

Wed Sep 12, 2012, 07:29 AM

264. No, not most

But it doesn't take many totally over the top stories being put out there to confuse the whole issue and allow the only acceptable view to become that ANY interest in digging deeper is just conspiracy theory. We are so conditioned to call unsanctioned information conspiracy theory that I don't think it's hard to do that.

I think we are in agreement more than not on this issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Reply #2)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 01:11 AM

28. No. To the Republicans, this is ancient history. And they have never blamed Bush, & won't.nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #28)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 02:15 AM

53. They CAN'T blame Bush! They don't even remember him! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beartracks (Reply #53)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 12:00 PM

149. Remember who?

The luminous Saint Ronnie's brilliant glow is obscuring all memories of those who came after...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beartracks (Reply #53)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 02:27 PM

186. Good

The blame should fall on the neo-cons (including Cheney) who still have influence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Reply #2)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 03:08 AM

69. There's no bombshell here, it's old info in an opinion piece

We know the Bush administration fucked up. Republicans and neo-cons pooh-pooh it. Voters were tone deaf to it in '04.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProudToBeBlueInRhody (Reply #69)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 03:43 AM

76. It is not "old info".

The article talks about pre 9/11 warnings from the CIA that were not known to exist before.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProudToBeBlueInRhody (Reply #69)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 07:24 AM

105. 2 things: 1) the author referes to unreleased breifings...

...which make it clear that the "Determined to strike" briefing was not an isolated note bubbling up out of nowhere. There was a sustained string of warning signs that were being dismissed by some of the very same neocon advisors who are on Romney's team.

2) That was '04, this is now. If the Republicans are going to make hay over teleprompters and czars, things that were settled as normal business back in the 80s, it's just dumb not to smack Romney over this much more substantial matter. In '04 you could still convince the faithful of the "cakewalk". Now, after dragging on for a decade and neocon drumbeats against Iran? Very different circumstances, politically.

Don't count on the same apathy without even trying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProudToBeBlueInRhody (Reply #69)

Wed Sep 12, 2012, 12:07 AM

249. It may be a bombshell to lots of people who dared not look too closely when the experience was still

so raw.

And we didn't know exactly who knew what when.

Here we see a lot more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Reply #2)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 03:18 AM

73. Good to Hear

Jillan, history did not recently occur with the reprint of this story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Reply #2)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 05:12 AM

91. But Robme had nothing to do with any of that..

...so, unfortunately, he's immune.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to regnaD kciN (Reply #91)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 07:26 AM

106. Not if you highlight all the neocons among his foreign policy advisors

Pick them up and club him with them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JHB (Reply #106)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 08:24 AM

115. Gov. Rmoney You Have Many Advisors On Your Staff That Ignored The Threats Of 9/11 Before....

it happened. They were George Bush's advisors. They had insight and information from intelligence briefings that said that Al Quida and Bin Laden where planning attacks on our country and they didn't advise George Bush to do anything to try and stop this. Isn't that bad judgement on your part that you are including these same people that could have prevented 9/11 as your foreign advisors? Shouldn't the American People be concerned about your judgement - if you are using the same people to advise you?

This is one way to club him with it. All of MSM should be asking him this question. It should be asked of him at the upcoming debates. Put Rmoney on the defensive about this. Keep the pressure on him with this and then ask him about his sheltering his money in other countries. Ask him where are his tax returns.

This guy is not qualified to even be on the stage with President Obama - let alone be given the chance to run for the presidency. He will be a puppet just like G. W. Bush.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Reply #2)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 09:09 AM

121. Unfortunately our bipartisan president will never mention any of this.

Even Republican treason, it seems, does not warrant "looking back"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Reply #2)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 12:30 PM

162. Conservatives are working overtime

They're being defensive by mentioning everything up but the kitchen sink just to protect Bush. The #1 excuse is "Osama was handed to Clinton on a silver platter" nonsense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 12:27 AM

3. That picture of bush is a picture of total failure

Failure to keep America and her people safe because he couldn't take his eye of the guy that threatened his daddy for one fucking second.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thelordofhell (Reply #3)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 12:53 AM

19. "Failure" implies his goal was something other than what happened. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #19)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 02:45 AM

62. Thank you.

You stated it perfectly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #19)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 04:54 AM

86. Nicely Done!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thelordofhell (Reply #3)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 10:07 AM

126. I believe that a significant factor was his administration was dominated by PNAC neo-cons.

Bush was a puppet. Nothing more than an empty brainless suit. Just a common garden variety nincompoop.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 12:28 AM

4. Not quite an inside job

... but they saw these threats as an HUGE opportunity, imo

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iwasthere (Reply #4)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 12:38 AM

11. Yep, I wouldn't be surprised if they let it happen on purpose. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade_McKenzie (Reply #11)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 01:16 AM

31. I have believed this (LIHOP) almost since day one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #31)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 01:31 AM

39. You, me, and half of the people in this country.

There is just too much evidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Hogwash (Reply #39)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 01:59 AM

47. Way, way, way too much evidence.

The more you study this subject, the more you realize how ridiculous and unbelievable the story that we have been told is. I suspect this is just the tip of the iceberg.

The public has a right to know this stuff!!! And NOT thirty years later!!

So mad right now that I have been lied to!!!!!! That Bush guy...wow! Worst pResident ever!! He wrecked this country for a decade, ruined our reputation overseas, wasted trillions on two useless wars, allowed Wall Street deregulation to crash the market down to half its value, and on and on and on.

I could list off the top fifty worst policies of the Bush years, and right at the top will always be that he did not keep us safe from the worst attack in the United States ever in our history. FAIL!!!


We will not forget. We will not forgive. We are legion. Expect us.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StrictlyRockers (Reply #47)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 04:56 AM

87. Compounded by the way he and his warmongering ghouls exploited the attack for political gain.

FAIL INDEED!!!



And we WON'T forget. And we'll always know. Wherever he goes, for the rest of his days, duhbya will be in the proximity of people who look at him with the deepest revulsion in their eyes. People who KNOW. People who remember. People who had far more understanding of what happened than he or his minions might expect.

War criminal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Reply #87)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 12:15 PM

154. Very well said, calimari.

Do you think that Shrub is going to read that NYT article today? Do you think he is going to have to go change his shorts after he realizes that the bottom just dropped out of his already very low popularity ratings? BETTER STAY IN TEXAS, MORAN!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Hogwash (Reply #39)

Wed Sep 12, 2012, 01:14 PM

280. But that kind of "conspiracy" talk is verboten here.

It wasn't forbidden years ago, but then something strange happened to this place and this party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #31)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 10:15 AM

131. I didn't suspect fowl play on day one but over time the 'explanations' didn't

hold up. This was the second major step in destroying the country....step one being the tax cuts for the rich earlier in 2001. My viewpoint was hard to wrap my head around because it was so heinous and yet the formal reports didn't add up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #31)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 10:23 AM

134. At the very LEAST LIHOP

I believe MIHOP because:
1) Bush was low in the polls, and needed some incident to boost his likability
2) PNAC was looking for a "New Pearl Harbor," so that they could steal oil.
3) Bush was warned way in advance, before the August briefing, according to Condi
4) Bush had no support in NY, or PA, so a few dead Americans for his "cause" was a small sacrifice to him.
5) Cheney was at the White House, and ordered fighters to stand down

I could go on, but I won't, for fear of being banned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RoccoR5955 (Reply #134)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 02:04 PM

177. 6) It happened before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-25_Empire_State_Building_crash

Short version: in 1945, a B-25 flew into the Empire State Building when it got lost in fog. 14 people died, the building was not structurally damaged.

If you remembered that incident (Rumsfeld's old enough. Cheney might be. The rest could have read about it), then you might expect the same to happen - people on the plane die, and the people on the floor hit by the plane die, but other than that it's not a big deal.

Since you can't consult a structural engineer, you won't find out buildings are much lighter today, and planes fly much faster. So you LIHOP because you think 'only' a hundred or so will die.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #177)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 04:46 PM

193. Not to mention, never, before or since has a similar building

caught fire, then collapsed.
I watched them build those towers, back in the day.
I don't think that you will ever convince me that it was done solely with planes.
I mean the girders that they used were quite massive. It's hard to believe that a plane hit would topple them.
There's also the matter of Building 7.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RoccoR5955 (Reply #193)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 05:42 PM

201. Fire hot

You don't need to sever the girders. You just need to weaken them.

Heat steel, it gets soft - that's why tempering has to be done carefully in order to actually strengthen the steel. With several thousand tons of building on top, it doesn't take much to start a chain reaction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #201)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 08:15 PM

212. Kerosene burns at 800 degrees F.

The steel was rated to weaken at 1600 degrees F.

The steel myth is a common one. Sorry to see that you have again been deceived by what NIST wants you to believe.

Kerosene burns at a maximum of 800 degrees F. At high temperatures, smoke from fires gets toward the whiter shade, because of all the carbon that is burnt. When a flame is as black as the flames of the WTC was, it was not at its maximum temperature.

And don't tell me that it was a plane that hit the Pentagon, as there was no footprint of the wings, nor was there any debris from the wings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RoccoR5955 (Reply #212)

Wed Sep 12, 2012, 04:06 AM

258. House fires regularly get to 2000 degrees. Nothing in a house burns at 2000 degrees.

Paper and wood burns at 451 (according to the book. Not actually true, but close 'nuff). Various plastics burn also in the hundreds of degrees.

House fires regularly reach 2000F. Why? It's not just the heat input, but also the heat output. If that 800 degrees of heat isn't dissipating as fast as it's being applied, the temperature will continue to rise.

And don't tell me that it was a plane that hit the Pentagon, as there was no footprint of the wings, nor was there any debris from the wings.

Because wings are so much more durable than granite. Surely they'd survive the impact!!

Didja notice just how shallow the main impact was? And that was about 90% of the mass of the airplane. You think the remaining 10% is gonna cut a deep gash through stone and reinforced concrete?

When the Souix City crash happened, did the plane carve perfect wing-sized gashes in the runway? No? Then why do you expect similar material at the Pentagon to behave differently?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #258)

Wed Sep 12, 2012, 08:26 AM

265. Plastics

Plastics typically burn for a long time.
Not to mention that it takes quite a while for house fires to get to that temp.
How long did the towers burn.

Also, at the Pentagon, where did the engines go? Where was the footprint of the TITANIUM engines?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RoccoR5955 (Reply #265)

Wed Sep 12, 2012, 10:03 AM

266. According to your WTC theory, burning for a long time is irrelevant.

You were just claiming that kerosene and an office fire can't possibly get to 1600 degrees no matter how long it burns.

Also, at the Pentagon, where did the engines go? Where was the footprint of the TITANIUM engines?


There have been many plane accidents where the plane basically noses down and flies straight into the ground. In those situations, there's nothing recognizable as "aircraft" at the crash site. Nothing that looks like an engine, nothing that looks like wings, nothing that looks like a plane's tail. It's all annihilated due to the extreme force of the impact and only experts can figure out what the hunks of metal used to be.

The strike on the Pentagon is such a crash, rotated 90 degrees. Because the Pentagon is basically a rock shaped like a building.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #266)

Wed Sep 12, 2012, 10:46 AM

269. If there was such extreme force and impact

Why weren't the wire spools in the front of the Pentagon not knocked over from the force?

Here are some photos: http://www.serendipity.li/wot/crash_site.htm
These aren't the ones that I remember seeing on TV, but when I saw it on the news that afternoon, I asked just that question. Can you answer it for me? To me, it only stands to reason that if a plane hit the Pentagon, with so much force, the shock wave from that force would have knocked over a six foot tall spool of wire. I smelled something fishy back then. I still smell something fishy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RoccoR5955 (Reply #269)

Wed Sep 12, 2012, 11:12 AM

273. Because that poster is an idiot.

From the page you linked:

And note the cable spools standing on edge. Gee, you'd think that a Boeing 757
crashing and exploding right next to them would at least have knocked them over.


First, there wasn't an explosion, there was a crash. Yes, it created a fireball, but not a concussive wave as strong as a high explosive would create.
Second, those spools weigh a lot. It's difficult for a person to tip one over with their bare hands with the wire still on it, as in those pictures.
Third, they were in the general area, but not right next to where the impact happened.

To me, it only stands to reason that if a plane hit the Pentagon, with so much force, the shock wave from that force would have knocked over a six foot tall spool of wire

And what, exactly, is your alternative scenario? The common claim is that it was a missile strike. Which would end in a large, high explosive explosion with a strong pressure wave. Which according to you, would knock over the spools.

So either you're wrong about the spools, or you've proven that absolutely nothing happened at the Pentagon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #273)

Wed Sep 12, 2012, 01:04 PM

277. Are you saying that

I am an idiot?
I saw these spools on TV.

You mean to tell me that when a plane hits a building at 700+mph there is no shock wave?


I don't know what the alternate scenario is. I just ask questions, and want answers that add up. Many of the "answers" that I have been told don't add up, so I ask more questions.

BTW- Have you googled "5 dancing Israelites" yet, and asked yourself what that's about?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RoccoR5955 (Reply #277)

Wed Sep 12, 2012, 03:16 PM

284. I'm saying that you alternate scenario requires the spools to fall over too.

I saw these spools on TV.

I'm not saying they don't exist. I'm saying your analysis of how they behave is utterly wrong.

You mean to tell me that when a plane hits a building at 700+mph there is no shock wave?

No, I said less than a high explosive.

That's what makes an explosive a high explosive - the intensity of the shockwave. Nothing in a plane crash creates a shockwave as intense as a high explosive.

I don't know what the alternate scenario is. I just ask questions, and want answers that add up.

The fact that you aren't actually bothering to do any "adding" kinda indicates otherwise.

Something made the hole in the Pentagon. For the plane to not "add up", you'd have to find something else to make that hole. Otherwise, you are denying the hole was created.

Have you googled "5 dancing Israelites" yet, and asked yourself what that's about?

With your track record so far, I don't think that would be a productive use of my time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RoccoR5955 (Reply #212)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 07:10 AM

290. Wrong. Even at 800 degrees, steel loses significant strength.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thegonagle (Reply #290)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 08:02 AM

293. Why? Because NIST says so? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #201)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 10:15 PM

237. "Popular science" was a paid-for LIE. Steel does not melt from airplane fuel. Period.

Don't even suggest that it was the office paper supplies!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #237)

Wed Sep 12, 2012, 04:09 AM

259. Astandard house fire regularly reaches 2000 degrees.

None of the components of a standard house burn hotter than 1000.

It's not just heat input, but also heat output. If the heat doesn't go away as fast as it's coming in, the material will continue to get hotter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #259)

Wed Sep 12, 2012, 10:48 AM

270. The steel was rated to 3600 degrees F

Can you explain why some girders were bent in a U shape, without any cracking at only 2000 degrees F?
Can you explain why firemen saw rivers of molten metal in the basement?
Can you explain why there were fires for a month after on the pile, and why the ground was still 1000 degrees F for a month?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RoccoR5955 (Reply #270)

Wed Sep 12, 2012, 11:28 AM

275. No, it wasn't.

Because the melting point of steel is around 2500 degrees F. The exact temperature depends on the alloy.

Can you explain why some girders were bent in a U shape, without any cracking at only 2000 degrees F?

Because you're wrong about the steel being "rated to 3600"

Can you explain why firemen saw rivers of molten metal in the basement?

This may come as a shock to you, but different metals melt at different temperatures. For example, aluminum melts at about 1200F. And someone happened to deposit a plane built from aluminum in the middle of the building. Decorative metals melt at even colder temperatures.

Can you explain why there were fires for a month after on the pile, and why the ground was still 1000 degrees F for a month?

Rubble is an excellent insulator. This has been known for a very long time.

Can you explain any of those questions with your demolition theory? Those U-shapes wouldn't happen, neither would the molten metal, nor would the fires. Because except for leading edge of the shaped charge explosions, demolition is basically ambient temperature.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #275)

Wed Sep 12, 2012, 01:00 PM

276. Not 2500, but 2750 degrees F

The steel used in the beams of the WTC was trucked in especially for that job and had more strength than your run of the mill steel.

I know fire chiefs in NYC who never ever saw steel melt or collapse as it did then. Not before or since, and these guys are quite experienced at what they do.

How do you explain thermite remnants found at the site? What of the melted concrete?

And Building 7? How do you explain its collapse? Do you stand by the official story that it was because of one beam?

BTW- Why was all the physical evidence removed from the site, before it was examined? Why was there no physical evidence, only computer simulations in the Pop Mech and NIST analysis?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RoccoR5955 (Reply #276)

Wed Sep 12, 2012, 03:08 PM

283. So not 3600 as you previously claimed

And you seem to have missed the "depending on the alloy" part of my post.

I know fire chiefs in NYC who never ever saw steel melt or collapse as it did then.

Please list all the similar fires in NYC.

Again, for that statement to hold any validity there has to have been a lot of similar fires so that we can establish what's "normal". There hasn't been a lot of similar fires. So we have no idea what's "normal" in this kind of situation and should not consider the WTC an anomaly - we have no baseline to compare to.

What we do know is when a plane crashes into the ground (a glancing blow, as opposed to nose-down), the fire usually melts the aluminum fuselage. So all the stuff about liquid metal and reacted aluminum would be completely consistent with a plane crash.

How do you explain thermite remnants found at the site?

Thermite is a metal powder, mostly aluminum. I wonder if there were any other large hunks of aluminum reacting in that situation. Perhaps something that started out vaguely airplane-sized and shaped.

What of the melted concrete?

Fire hot.

And Building 7? How do you explain its collapse?

I frankly don't care. Most of the people who bring up building 7 are as utterly wrong about the towers as you are (ex. 3600 degree steel). As such I really don't care to sort through the mountain of bullshit to find out what actually happened there. Since they're utterly wrong about WTC 1 and 2, I have no reason to believe their accusations about WTC 7.

Btw, this is a good reason why one shouldn't help create such a mountain of erroneous bullshit - one turns away large number of people once they figure out they're wrong. There could've been something nefarious, but no one will ever know because of the massive errors pushed about the towers.

Why was all the physical evidence removed from the site, before it was examined?

Examined for what? Plane hit building->Fire rages->Floor on fire collapses->Building falls down. Don't need a Nobel prize to figure out what happened.

Why was there no physical evidence

You mean that pile of rubble you were just complaining about? The one where you talked about thermite residue and U-shaped steel?

only computer simulations in the Pop Mech and NIST analysis?

Did you expect us to rebuild the towers so we could instrument them and then crash another plane into them? No? Then computer simulations are what you're gonna get.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #283)

Wed Sep 12, 2012, 04:48 PM

287. Physical evidence

is necessary to do forensics. There was very little evidence. Not enough to do proper forensics
Fire may be hot, but rubble isn't that much of an insulator to keep temps at 1K degrees F for a freakin' month
Concrete doesn't turn molten from a building fire.
You ask a NYC fire chief when a building has collapsed before or since the WTC "collapsed."

No, I don't expect to rebuild the towers, but look at the goal of the 9/11 commission report. It was to give an explanation of the official events of the day, the way that the politicians on the commission wanted to craft it. That was the responsibility of organizations like NIST. Heck, they had their jobs at the whim of Bush/Cheney. Don't you think that they would manipulate the "facts" to suit the end result? Do you really think that they would look at the thing to see if it could be reproduced in real life, even with a scale model, and real world physics? You know that computer simulations can be made to do whatever you want them to do, don't you? You don't think that they adjusted their computer models to come out the way they wanted them to? Nah, never happen.
I still don't believe how many people are gullible enough not to know that about computer simulations, and trust them. I guess that that computer stuff is so magical to them, because they don't understand it. Which makes it easy to pull one over on them.
But hey, how many people actually voted for Bush? I guess that there are people who are that gullible.

Did you know that when Max Cleland resigned from the commission in '03, he stated that the White House was covering things up.

What were they covering up? The whole thing?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RoccoR5955 (Reply #287)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:19 PM

294. My point is you claim foresics were not done just after you talk about the results of forensics.

Talking about "Thermite Residue" means you're talking about forensics.

And again, what, exactly, did you want tested?

We have video of the plane impacts. So we know the plane impacted. We have video of the fire. So we know there was a fire. We have video of the collapse starting in the floor on fire. So we know the collapse was caused by the fire - demolition charges would have been incinerated before they could explode.

Fire may be hot, but rubble isn't that much of an insulator to keep temps at 1K degrees F for a freakin' month

The Earth is basically rubble. The Earth's core is about 10,000 degrees F. There is no significant source of heat to maintain that temperature. It's mostly left over from when the Earth was formed. The only "cool" part of the Earth is the crust, which is relatively thin and greatly resembles rubble.

If rubble was a terrible insulator, how come it's such a great insulator?

You spend a lot of time demanding scientific tests, and then you pull something out of your ass like this as "proof". If you want to provide proof, you're going to have to show, with numbers, that rubble couldn't be that good an insulator.

Concrete doesn't turn molten from a building fire.

Depends on the concrete and fire. There isn't one kind of concrete, and there's a wide variety of fires. Lightweight concrete, such as what was used in the WTC for everything except the foundation, "burns" at lower temperatures than run-of-the-mill concrete. Or more specifically, the stuff they put in it to make it lightweight burns.

Don't you think that they would manipulate the "facts" to suit the end result?

This is science. If you think they're wrong, show your math. If all you have is a creepy feeling, then you don't have any evidence.

You are doing the equivalent of saying "Global Warming isn't real because it snowed today".

I still don't believe how many people are gullible enough not to know that about computer simulations, and trust them.

Well, don't you think it's odd that none of the MIHOP people have produced a computer simulation showing the official story couldn't have happened? According to you, it would be plenty easy to manipulate the simulation to do so. Yet they just talk about 3600 degree steel and "Thermite residue". Shouldn't they produce a simulation showing the official story is bunk, and another simulation showing Thermite charges could 1) survive the impact and an hour of raging inferno and then 2) take down the building?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #201)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 07:08 AM

289. Exactly right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #177)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 05:59 PM

203. My Aunt Dibby was in the Empire State Building

working as a young secretary when this happened. She survived.

Glad I can add a personal anecdote to this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mapletonian (Reply #203)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 10:17 PM

238. She survived in a building that wasn't hit? Who didn't?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #238)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 11:30 PM

245. Who didn't?

Um, some 14 people in the Merriott Hotel for starters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #238)

Wed Sep 12, 2012, 04:11 AM

260. Ya might wanna read more carefully.

We were talking about an incident in 1945 where the Empire State Building was hit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #31)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 11:46 PM

248. Hell, yes. I predicted it a FULL YEAR before it happened.

I'm a charter member of the Grassy Knoll Society, LIHOP Chapter.

There's not an iota of doubt that Cheney/Bush got their sorry asses out of the line of fire ... and KNEW damned well something was coming.

They WANTED the excuse for having their own fucking war! No fucking question whatsoever!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TahitiNut (Reply #248)

Wed Sep 12, 2012, 01:07 AM

254. In the fall of 2000 before the election dispute was settled I saw how vicious the

Bush crowd was and I clearly remember saying to myself (and aloud to friends) that they would have us at war within a year. They were saying all sorts of things about Saddam Hussein then and you could just see them salivating at the prospect of war in the Middle East.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #254)

Wed Sep 12, 2012, 10:14 AM

267. I posted my prediction to Usenet in September 2000.

It was on an ISP newsgroup (AtHome cable ISP) that I stated several times that, if elected, Bush would have us in a MAJOR SHOOTING WAR in the Middle East before the end of 2001 and it would be precipitated by an event so outrageous that the U.S. would be caught in a wave of "patriotic fervor" that short-circuited any reason and rational processes. I predicted that it would be in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Iran, or Syria, in order of likelihood.

I was as CERTAIN of this as I was certain that the sun would rise the next day. It was, in my view, COMPLETELY predictable.

When the morning of 9/11/2001 came, I had NO DOUBT whatsoever that THIS was my prediction coming true. None.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade_McKenzie (Reply #11)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 08:10 AM

109. I believe in "let it happen"

To this day. And unfortunately, the Bush's "divide and conquer" strategy of gaining power has allowed this high treason against the American people to go unpunished.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jawja (Reply #109)

Wed Sep 12, 2012, 12:10 AM

251. He is a very friendly with the Saudis

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade_McKenzie (Reply #11)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 02:12 PM

179. The look on Bush's face ...

"Cheney tol' me somethin' wuld happen but dont worry 'bout it ... but this is real bigger'n I thunk!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arugula Latte (Reply #179)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 02:22 PM

184. exactly. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snappyturtle (Reply #184)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 10:18 PM

239. Seconded.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade_McKenzie (Reply #11)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 11:42 PM

247. I've been thinking....

.....the same thing. Let it happen to justify invading Iraq or any oil-rich Arab country of their choice.

Similar charges were made about Pearl Harbor, of course.

Or, maybe they just were so complacent about our strength they didn't think anyone would dare attack us on our home turf (again).

There was a very eerie moment on a show on 9/11 I just watched where a caller at the time told a radio show host we'd have to bomb Baghdad.............People wanted revenge and we got it even if it was against the wrong people.

In another clip Osama Bin Laden said he did it so we'd stop killing their children. That didn't quite work, did it?

I AM SO SICK OF WAR!!!!!!!!!!!!! I was born during one and there will probably be one going on when I die. Can't they just have reality TV war shows and leave the rest of us out of it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to librarylu (Reply #247)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 11:04 AM

296. Spam deleted by Warren DeMontague (MIR Team)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade_McKenzie (Reply #11)

Wed Sep 12, 2012, 01:44 PM

281. Me neither.

I'd be surprised that any adult could be surprised by that, after witnessing with the rest of us how the Bush-Cheney cabal lied us into war with Iraq, destroyed the civil liberties protections of our Constitution (permanently, it would appear) and inaugurated a campaign of torture, assassination and global imperial conquest which has yet to turn any corner, reverse itself or glimpse any light at the end of any tunnel. Is a "government" of the people which does all this to its own people and to others capable of allowing -or even provoking with deliberate forethought- an attack which furnishes its excuse for unlawful power grabs? You bet your sweet Reichstagsgebäude it is!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iwasthere (Reply #4)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 02:41 AM

60. Except that still doesn't explain buildings free-falling down into their own tracks, esp. WTC7.

Or how all that concrete got literally "pulverized"
into dust.

This PBS video, called "EXPLOSIVE EVIDENCE" has
been going viral on Youtube, et. al. It was recently
broadcast on a PBS affiliate local station, and is getting
quite a bit of attention on the interwebs of late.

http://video.pbs.org/video/2270078138

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #60)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 04:43 AM

85. The scientific community, common sense, and gravity say you're wrong.

Liberals are supposed to be pro-science.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #85)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 05:17 AM

92. So you obviously did not watch the video, right? ~nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #92)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 05:52 AM

95. Richard Gage is a well known huckster

He's not a scientist. He's a liar.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #95)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 06:21 AM

98. Yah, Gage sounds like a real nutcase

Not.

"Richard Gage, a San Francisco Bay area based architect, founded Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth in 2006. Gage, who is a member of the American Institute of Architects, has worked as an architect for twenty years and was involved in the construction of numerous fireproof steel-frame buildings. He became convinced of the need to create an organization that brings together architects and engineers when he listened to an independent radio station interview with theologian David Ray Griffin.

The organization is collecting signatures for a petition that demands an independent investigation with subpoena power of the September 11 attacks, specifically the collapse of the World Trade Center towers and 7 WTC. By March 2011, nearly 1,500 architectural and engineering professionals and 11,500 other supporters had signed the petition. According to the organization, the identities and qualifications of all licensed architects and engineers whose names are being published on its website as well as those of other supporters who are listed separately are subjected to verification before acceptance. Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth publishes The Blueprint, a periodic e-mail newsletter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architects_%26_Engineers_for_9/11_Truth

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #98)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 10:25 AM

135. You forgot the "sarcasm" tag

In case people really think you meant it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #98)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 10:32 AM

137. I used to think he was a nutcase

... but now, there's really no doubt that he's just a huckster and a fraud. By now, after losing debate after debate, Gage knows exactly what's wrong with his "explosive evidence" but doesn't care, as long as gullible people will continue contributing to his AE911truth scam. The truth is, not one of these "1,500 architectural and engineering professionals" has come up with a single technical argument or shred of evidence that holds water with genuine experts, and believing this "controlled demolition" nonsense requires completely ignoring the actual evidence. The truth is, scientific controversy is not settled by YouTube videos and blogs, even if they weren't filled with half-truths, distortions, and serious omissions. The proof that Gage is a complete fraud is that there is no real scientific controversy about the question of controlled demolitions on 9/11.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #137)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 08:31 PM

216. Please post some links...

honest request.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ensemble (Reply #216)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 11:32 PM

246. The Purdue Site

This is the best one I've ever found:

http://www.purdue.edu/uns/x/2007a/070612HoffmannWTC.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ensemble (Reply #216)

Wed Sep 12, 2012, 10:40 AM

268. For Richard Gage debunking?

A good place for that, specifically, is DU'er Bolo Boffin's site: http://ae911truth.info

Chris Mohr is an investigative journalist who has spent a great deal of time looking into Gage's claims and is one of the people who have publicly debated Gage. Here is the introduction to the multi-part summary of his rebuttal:


Gage has also debated scientist Dave Thomas four times, three of which are online, which I highly recommend. An earlier debate which Gage lost badly was against Mark Roberts, who is sort of a walking-wiki of 9/11 debunking. Another good one was against Ron Craig, a professor of pyrotechnics and explosives at Ryerson University and fire and explosion investigator. Gage has also debated Michael Shermer, founder of Skeptic Magazine (who made many good points, but he has not specialized in digging through Gage's mountain of crap). Gage's own site has links to most of these debates, but you can also easily google for these and more with something like http://www.google.com/search?q=richard+gage+debate. The thing to keep in mind with all of these debates is that, while these were generally conducted in the same way that debates over subjective opinions are conducted, that format is really inadequate for scientific debates about objective facts. So, if you hear claims of fact in any of these debates that seem to be important to your conclusions, you should always attempt to verify or falsify them independently. Doing this, you will see why I claim that Gage lost all of these debates, badly, regardless of how you judge presentation and relative debating skills. Gage has the links to those debates because he thinks he came off looking good, and he appears to be completely unconcerned about facts and logic.

There are some good general sites that cover major "truther's" claims, including Gage's. If you think "truthers" have some good evidence or arguments, do yourself a favor and see what these sites have to say about them:

http://www.debunking911.com/
http://911myths.com

There are many, many more, and they aren't hard to find with google.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #98)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 10:43 AM

139. He's A Grandstanding Buffoon

Every single on of his proposals have been disproven through testing. Sheesh, you can watch the debunking on two different documentaries that appear on the history or science channels.

And, tall, internally skeletized building do fall in their own track. Their design to do just that.

Gage is just an attention whore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProfessorGAC (Reply #139)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 08:43 PM

218. don't know if Gage is credible or not but...

if your best rebuttal is "history or science channels"... that's pretty weak.
They are generally going to support the state's story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ensemble (Reply #218)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 06:13 AM

288. Really Silly

Why would the producer's of the documentary take the state side, and why would the technologists in it care, if they're getting paid by the movie maker anyway, whether the outcome supports one side of the other?

And, in many of those, the minutes of movie time provided the "truthers" exceeds the rebuttal time, absent the actual experiments.

So, no; it's not weak. Assuming that just because it's on TV, it's questionable it, however, weak.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProfessorGAC (Reply #139)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 09:58 PM

229. Got an example or two of something he's said that's been disproven?

Tall buildings are not designed to "fall in their own track," or to fall in any other way, unless they are demolished. They are designed to stand up, until they are demolished.

Yes, building designs do include provisions to ensure that if a building has to collapse it will collapse in the safest possible way. But still, buildings are designed to stand, not to fall unless demolished. There must be a reason why these buildings fell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freedom fighter jh (Reply #229)

Wed Sep 12, 2012, 11:03 AM

272. Of course there's a reason these building fell

... and it's no mystery to real experts. The bottom line in all three collapses was the loss of structural integrity. When that happens, all the theoretical calculations about safety margins become completely meaningless because the structural components can no longer work together to resist collapse. The specific factor involved in all three collapses was that columns need to be braced horizontally to resist buckling, and if that lateral support is lost, their load-carrying capacity drops drastically. Despite the fact that Richard Gage starts every lecture by attempting to con his audience into accepting an "appeal to authority" fallacy, claiming his AIA membership as proof of his own authority, he seems to be completely oblivious to this aspect of structural mechanics. That is because he does not have any actual training or experience in structural mechanics, physics, controlled demolitions, or fire science. In fact, he has very little experience in architectural design: Whereas architects typically concern themselves with things like exterior design and floor plans, not structural engineering, Gage himself actually spent most of his career as a project manager, not even as a design architect.

If you want specifics about the plethora of Gage mistakes, I highly recommend DU'er Bolo Boffin's site at http://ae911truth.info.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #272)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 07:31 AM

291. Please name a "real expert" or two.

But why do I argue? Yes, of course there was a loss of structural integrity. Yes, it looks like there was buckling, at least in the towers, and it would make sense that that happened because of a loss of bracing -- after all, it's bracing that prevents buckling.

But what's this business about safety margins being meaningless? To prevent loss of structural integrity and ensuing collapse is what safety margins are *for*. Are you saying the design theory is flawed? What would be your basis for that?

There was, as you say, a loss of structural integrity. There had to be a cause for that. Fire doesn't begin to explain it, but there is lots of evidence of explosives, from observations of what looked like explosions from the outside to testimony of first responders saying there were massive explosions -- not vague booms in the distance but explosions that threw them across rooms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #98)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 12:40 PM

164. the guy who was responsible for the design of the attack was.....

an egyptian architect! he knew where the achilles heal was in the twin towers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #60)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 01:10 PM

168. Thanks for posting this

It confirms my suspicions. How the bush and company folks can sleep at night I don't know. Everyone should see this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #60)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 02:06 PM

178. Where, exactly, would the force come from to tip the building over?

Gravity's pulling straight down.

What is supposed to have pushed the building sideways so that they wouldn't fall straight down?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #178)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 08:15 PM

211. I'm not certain that I'm clear on what you are asking

I don't recall any reference to buildings "falling sideways", but maybe
you can help by telling me how many minutes/seconds into the video
where there is such a reference to buildings falling sideways, and I'll
take a look, so I can better understand what you are asking?

But even without that help, i can say that no one has EVER seen a
high-rise steel frame structure collapse straight down at free-fall speed
into it's own footprint from a fire, leaving only fragments of steel
I-beams, and a pool of molten metal below ground, with all the
concrete literally pulverized into a fine powder that covers the streets
for hundreds of yards in every direction from the site. Not. Ever.

When serious fires DO happen in steel frame high rises, and there is
some kind of collapse, it tends to fall sideways, or tilt, due to the
resistance of the mass of materials underneath the fire.

In other words, the ONLY cases where buildings have collapsed at
free fall speed down into their own footprint perfectly symmetrically
have collapsed because they were subjected to deliberate controlled
demolition, i.e. they were blown up with explosives carefully placed
to produce that result, so surrounding buildings were not to much
effected.

I hope this is at least somewhat helpful. Remember .. Google is
your friend, and you may want to check out "controlled demolition",
what it looks like on youtube, "what happened to WTC 7?", etc..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #211)

Wed Sep 12, 2012, 03:45 AM

256. Read your own subject line.

Except that still doesn't explain buildings free-falling down into their own tracks

Gravity's pulling straight down.

For the falling building to not fall straight down, something has to provide a force to make it not fall straight down. Something would have to push it sideways.

But even without that help, i can say that no one has EVER seen a high-rise steel frame structure collapse straight down at free-fall speed into it's own footprint from a fire

Please list all the other incidents similar to 9/11.

To make such an assertion, there has to be dozens of incidents showing that this isn't the normal failure mode. There aren't. Especially because the WTC's structural design was unique - nobody built a skyscraper that way before or after it was built.

The WTC was built during the development of a central core structural system, where each floor is cantilevered out from the central core. And the engineers weren't sure it would work. So they put in another structural system on the outside of the building too. That's why there was all that steel between the windows.

The WTC proved the central core system would work, so they never built another structure with the same redundancy.

When serious fires DO happen in steel frame high rises, and there is some kind of collapse, it tends to fall sideways, or tilt, due to the resistance of the mass of materials underneath the fire.

No. It tilts because one side of the building failed first. That side collapses first, pulling the rest of the building in that direction. But that's construction where the structural members are near the outside of the building.

That wasn't the case at the WTC.

There were two structural systems: the outside curtain and the central pillar. Each was capable of holding up the building. The outside curtain was destroyed by the plane impact. That left the central core system. So why didn't the building "fall sideways"? Because all of it's structural support was in the center of the building.

Controlled demolition is fundamentally impossible. Not because the Bush administration was full of wonderful people, but because of what it would require - months of cutting massive holes in the walls, partially cutting the structure with cutting torches and placing explosives.

It doesn't matter how little you know about demolition, you will notice when work crews rip large chunks of drywall off your office walls and start using blowtorches on what's inside.

Plus, demolished buildings don't fall the way the WTC did. You can't trust that your explosives will remain in-place or in-tact when the building starts falling. So they blow all the floors at once, and the whole building falls down at once. The WTC was a progressive collapse from the top of the building.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #178)

Wed Sep 12, 2012, 12:10 AM

250. The force to tip the building over would have come

from the force of the plane hitting it.
Some of us did not retain High School Physics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RoccoR5955 (Reply #250)

Wed Sep 12, 2012, 03:47 AM

257. That would be possible in an instant collapse. But the buildings didn't collapse immediately. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iwasthere (Reply #4)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 08:20 AM

113. LIHOP

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iwasthere (Reply #4)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 08:22 AM

114. Yeah, I've been torn mostly between the LIHOP theory

and the possibility that they were bending over backwards so far to schmooze the Taliban for a gas pipeline (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/west_asia/37021.stm) they wanted that Bush et al., shrugged off these warnings because they arrogantly assumed that their prospective business partners would surely prevent any such attacks from happening.

I still can't shake the suspicion that it was an inside job (especially when I see some videos claiming that the buildings were brought down by planned demolition), but I don't know.

Regardless, I believe we don't know the real the story behind what happened.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to deutsey (Reply #114)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 10:46 AM

140. I Think You're Missing Occam's Razor

To me the most obvious possible cause is completely incompetence. That's not letting anybody off. People at the highest levels of government in the world's most powerful country are not allowed to be this incompetent.

I know we can't throw people in jail for incompetence, but avoiding LIHOP or schmoozing the Taliban hypotheses doesn't mean i'm excusing their lack of ability to do the right thing.

I think it's nearly as damning to suggest they were too arrogant and stupid to prevent it than to suggest anything more involved.
GAC

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProfessorGAC (Reply #140)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 11:01 AM

142. I've considered that too

I have tried over the years to see jaw-dropping incompetence as the reason for what happened, but there are also many questions (reasonable and unsettling questions) that make me wonder.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProfessorGAC (Reply #140)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 11:48 AM

147. I'd buy incompetence

if they hadn't gained so much from the event. Remember when little boots stated that laura and him had a good year-remember when he stated more than once publicly he hit the trifecta-remember when he stated publicly that he really didn't think about OBL? he and his cronies got their trifecta and a reason to raid the treasury.

I think of operation northwoods, and think there are people in this country who are true corrupt sociopaths and consider us collateral damage and cannon fodder (kissenger's words). Now those who believe in "the end justifies the means", how far would they go for an agenda? And, of course, what means and whose end?

However, if it is incompetence, the american people are the ones who have suffered from the consequences, along with the civilians in the ME.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to newspeak (Reply #147)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 04:51 PM

196. Shameless opportunism is not incompatible with arrogant...

...groupthink-induced incompetence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProfessorGAC (Reply #140)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 04:48 PM

194. Not missing Occam's Razor. I'm afraid some of us are missing

Cheney's blood pump. (I don't think he ever had a heart.)
If he can shoot someone in the face, he can assist in the destruction of a building for his own betterment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProfessorGAC (Reply #140)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 05:08 PM

200. This is not a situation to be explained with Occam's Razor

Regardless of what anyone thinks about 9/11, there was a vast labyrinth of shadowy alliances, plans, and hidden agendas, both in U.S. security circles and in the Middle East. We're talking about a complete realignment of U.S. policy here, one that had been telegraphed by PNAC itself, and that was ready to roll as soon as an appropriate provocation occurred. There is absolutely no reason to assume that the simplest explanation would apply to 9/11, too many spooks and too much at stake.

How 'bout those anthrax attacks? Occam's Razor for them too? And the subsequent attempt by our government to frame the wrong guys for it? No, I don't think so, there is a lot more going on here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iwasthere (Reply #4)

Wed Sep 12, 2012, 01:07 PM

278. "LIHOP" is a form of inside job.

If government officials charged with defense of the country knowingly fail to act to prevent an attack, while simultaneously also planning a global agenda of wars and repressive measures they intend to implement immediately afterward by using the attack as the pretext, then they are assuming responsibility for the attack. They have decided in favor of it. They are the government, they are not mere bystanders who fail to act as good Samaritans. They are abusing their position to assure that the attack happens. This is morally indistinguishable from planning the attacks in the first place.

This was obvious after 9/11, when a slogan like "Bush Knew" was still incendiary. One of the more unfortunate developments since then (partly due to elements within the 9/11 truth community who created a false polarization around their most extreme and impossible theories) is that liberal opinion has practically come to accept some level of LIHOP, but to do so without any strong moral outrage, to view it as somehow constituting the opposite of "conspiracy," or as "not as bad."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 12:29 AM

5. Recommended.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 12:33 AM

7. The neocons really thought that bin Laden was trying to protect Saddam Hussein?

Or, is that their cover story for ignoring the warnings and getting their second Pearl Harbor?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #7)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 01:21 AM

34. Bin Laden hated Saddam Hussein. And I'm sure they knew that. They counted on the ignorance

of the American people to believe they were all best buddies though, and it worked.

Saddam Hussein was terrified of Al Queda, of the Fundamentalists like Bin Laden. He was a secular leader and as such considered to be an Infidel by Bin Laden.

I doubt this was news to the neocons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #34)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 01:32 AM

41. They struggled mightily to make a connection between OBL and Hussein in the aftermath.

I'm just surprised that they had started well before 9/11 happened.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #34)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 01:34 AM

42. I disagree.


Look at the mess they made out of Iraq for every step beyond the conquest, I don't one should put any stupidity beyond them. Consider some of the obvious mistakes they made. It's like they never took Middle East 101.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Reply #42)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 02:18 AM

54. Well, I think Rumsfeld and Cheney certainly knew. They knew Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin

Laden very well. They were part of the Nixon and Reagan administrations and they helped create both of them. There is no way they did not know that Saddam Hussein was viewed as a traitor by Al Queda. The CIA certainly knew. They studied those cultures, that is how they were able to develop their torture programs.

Bush I agree, probably didn't have a clue, but Cheney and Rumsfeld certainly did. They simply lied about it counting on the ignorance of the average American.

I make no such excuses for them that they were simply ignorant fools stumbling around trying to do the right thing. They were outright liars who had been involved in the ME for decades. And they lied to the American people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #54)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 06:55 AM

99. +1 nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #34)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 02:05 AM

48. Don't be so sure - Bush did not know the difference between Sunni and Shia - while he was CiC while

standing in front of a Mission Accomplished banner in the early days of the war.

They didn't care - they just wanted their power and riches.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #34)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 09:52 PM

226. Saddam saw that his control would be

jeopardized if he allowed these Fundamentalists in his country. Saddam was nothing but about control, total and complete control over his country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #7)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 07:24 AM

104. "Neocons in the Pentagon" refers to a disinformation group, OSP, who also fabricated Iraq & Iran WMD

Last edited Tue Sep 11, 2012, 08:29 AM - Edit history (3)

evidence to serve as justification to go to war with Baghdad, and in the alternative, Tehran. This story, if accurate, means that 9/11 now appears to have also been part of their work.

OSP is the Office of Special Plans set up by Paul Wolfowitz under the management of Douglas Feith, David Wurmser and Richard Perle. While it wasn't formally given that designation until September 2002, and was officially closed down the following June, what officers at the DIA called "the cell" came in with Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz and were already an effective, cohesive policy center within the Office of Secretary of Defense and the newly-created Undersecretary for Intelligence, Stephen Cambone.

Another key component of the cell was the Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA), an agency whose size and budget were classified. The CIFA was created by a directive from the Secretary of Defense (Number 5105.67) on February 19, 2002 and finally shut down in 2008. A lot of the bogus Iraq WMD intel came out of CIFA and its contractors, including the aluminum tubes studies cooked up by MZM.

More: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=166938&mesg_id=166938

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 12:34 AM

8. Administration of Fools

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 12:37 AM

9. Its still makes me f--king mad.....they thought they were so superior to everyone.

They blew off the intelligence briefings from the transition team because they thought they were so superior to the Democrats. The chatter was out there, the info was collected and given to them but it was ignored, cutting brush & taking a vacation was more important. I wonder if the "statute of limitations" has run out. They criticized Clinton for shooting into empty tents but he was on the hunt for sometime, they called it wagging the dog. They didn't even listen to the NSA or other intelligence employees.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 12:38 AM

10. My how times have Changed! It was the NYT and Judy

Freaking Miller who were PUSHING for WAR ON IRAQ ..along with all the Major tv Stations..Drum March To WAR

Good to know.. 11 Years LATER.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #10)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 11:56 AM

148. yeah, let's not forget that some of our corporate owned networks

also have interest in defense. when people say that the networks give the public what they want, I call bullshite. They shove down our throats what they want us to see and hear. and those who don't get with the program, like donahue, are out. I still can't stomach some of the reality shows-mean, shallow, and just plain trashy stupid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to newspeak (Reply #148)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 04:00 PM

190. I stopped watching all "news" on

tv in Nov 2002 and now I don't own a tv. I watch the shows I want to, online..a week later or whenever.

They're producing their narrative "news" without me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 12:38 AM

12. FUCK that fucking fuck.............

 

he knew and either had a hand in it or knew it was coming. there is no other point of view here. RELIGIOUS WHACKJOB.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 12:40 AM

13. And, Later Along Comes President Obama and

Actually GETS bin laden.

And, the neo cons are tap dancing all over the f****** place to not give him ANY credit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #13)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 10:08 PM

232. If Bush had 'found' Bin Ladin then it would have been all over the media for months

the media decide what is relevant to voters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rosa Luxemburg (Reply #232)

Wed Sep 12, 2012, 01:07 PM

279. If the administration wanted them to have it out there

But they decided not to, because they failed to bet bin Laden at Bora Bora. Was this on purpose, or by accident?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 12:40 AM

14. LIHOP.

At Best.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vanlassie (Reply #14)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 01:10 AM

26. agree

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vanlassie (Reply #14)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 04:33 AM

84. +1

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vanlassie (Reply #14)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 07:23 AM

103. Absolutely.

You beat me to posting the very same thing.

Freaking war criminals!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vanlassie (Reply #14)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 09:12 AM

122. After reading Paul Thompson's "The Terror Timeline" . . .

. . . if one cannot come away with being AT LEAST in the LIHOP camp, then I have no hope for them. You cannot tell me that administration had absolutely no idea this was coming, not even for a second.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vanlassie (Reply #14)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 10:10 AM

128. Yes. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vanlassie (Reply #14)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 10:12 AM

129. Agree...

But when are Bush and his co-traitors held accountable?

Oh, yeah..."Impeachment is off the table."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vanlassie (Reply #14)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 04:08 PM

191. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vanlassie (Reply #14)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 05:01 PM

199. They needed their "new Pearl Harbor" --

and they got it.

LIHOP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vanlassie (Reply #14)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 07:24 PM

207. + 1,000,000,000... What You Said !!!

Exactly.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vanlassie (Reply #14)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 09:56 PM

228. Even after this article from the Times

You would be surprised how some would title LIHOP as a conspiracy theory. Hell I don't trust my government about much, why would I believe anything they had to say about 9/11. If that makes me a kook, then so be it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vanlassie (Reply #14)

Wed Sep 12, 2012, 11:14 AM

274. Yup. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 12:43 AM

16. Go back to sleep.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 12:49 AM

17. Operation Northwoods Version 2.0

Read these two posts I did last week:

Details of Operation Northwoods:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1135&pid=3439

Neocon PNAC'ers in high government offices on 9-11: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1135&pid=3446

Check it out for yourselves, then draw your own conclusions..

Peace,

Ghost

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 12:49 AM

18. And STILL there are idiots out there claiming Bush will be vindicated by future doc releases

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sheepshank (Reply #18)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 01:27 AM

38. Same ones that think there are WMD yet to be found....nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 12:55 AM

20. I could never understand how Bush and his wife could sleep that night

They were awakened at 11:08 and rushed to the bunker but it was a false alarm. My husband and I simply could not relax enough to sleep for some time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to young_at_heart (Reply #20)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 01:24 AM

37. they even laughed about it n.t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 12:57 AM

21. If Bush had not stolen the election

 

You can be assured that as early as May 2001, President Gore would have ordered that all Middle Eastern/Muslim men in the country be rounded up and detained for questioning and all aviation be grounded until bin Laden and Al Qaeda was searched out and destroyed.

This entire disaster could have been averted!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hey Jude (Reply #21)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 01:17 AM

32. Repeated warnings-not investigated, not publicized, but ignored. No heightened alert. No chance

for law enforcement or airport security to be extra vigilant. No chance for ordinary Americans to open their eyes and ears and possibly save themselves or those around them. It's sad that anyone wants to defend the Bush administration, especially now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hey Jude (Reply #21)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 01:49 AM

46. How fascist of you.

Round up all Moslems? There's this minor detail of the First fucking Amendment, to say nothing of the Fourth fucking Amendment. You may recall that these are both part of a document called the fucking Bill of Rights.

Round up the Moslems? I think you are confused. That's what the Republics are trying to do.

If you doubt what I write here, I invite you to take it up with the residents of Dearborn, MI, or with Congressman Keith Ellison.

I am an atheist, but I have had enough of religious bias here. Maybe we ought to round up all the bigots instead. Naw! That would violate the principles on which our country was founded also.

Bye.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hey Jude (Reply #21)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 06:01 AM

97. No Way. The Republicans would have opposed every move to protect America

As the record shows.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hey Jude (Reply #21)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 12:06 PM

150. read up on fbi agents like colleen rowely

there would have been no need to "round" up moslem men-the alleged high jackers were already under scrutiny. you ever wonder why it didn't take them that long to know the names? And, I remember that it was very immediate when they confiscated the records from the flight school in florida that the high jackers utilized.

president gore would have had all airports on high alert and he and his security wouldn't have just blown off agents like rowley.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hey Jude (Reply #21)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 12:20 PM

158. Enjoy your stay ! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hey Jude (Reply #21)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 10:07 PM

231. Right, just like the Japanese in WWII

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hey Jude (Reply #21)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 10:25 PM

242. President Gore would have read his Briefings. And he would have thwarted Cheney's plans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 01:00 AM

22. Not really "news"

Richard Clarke has been saying this stuff for a decade.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Clarke

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sedona (Reply #22)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 10:15 AM

132. Yes. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sedona (Reply #22)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 04:59 PM

198. So? Keep on them about it...

...especially since all the neocons are angling for jobs in a Romney administration. That makes it a campaign issue too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sedona (Reply #22)

Wed Sep 12, 2012, 12:10 AM

252. But it was too painful for many to hear at the time.

Now they may be more open to considering just how very much the Bush Gang knew and when they knew it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 01:09 AM

24. They knew it was coming

That's why they put surface to air missiles on the hotel where Bush was staying in Sarasota. At the time, that was not SOP when a president stays at a hotel. Been in the business for years and have had plenty of Presidents stay. The SAMs were documented in Paul Thompson's timeline, written in the Sarasota newspaper.


This should not be a surprise to anyone. It is time to get your head out of the sand if it is

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 01:09 AM

25. If I were Obama I'd have these briefings declassified in a heartbeat

Let them fly. The Bushies deserve the all of the humiliation that can be heaped on them. And a fair number of those people are positioned to be on the Romney cabinet. The past isn't the past at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCcoast (Reply #25)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 01:22 AM

36. I don't think he has the balls to do this - and he should. THIS should be the end of the Republican

Party. Never, ever, ever should these people be in power again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 01:13 AM

29. look what we got out of it...

perpetual war and less civil rights....

you damn straight they let it happen.


Hell, they were splitting up the oil fields in January 2001.."Cheney's energy task force"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Slit Skirt (Reply #29)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 02:47 AM

63. And one of the first things bu$h did when he occupied the White House

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 01:14 AM

30. at least this means

we probably have seen the last of the speculation about Condoleeza Rice ever running for anything again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldtime dfl_er (Reply #30)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 03:42 AM

75. It's time to charge her with perjury.

She certainly lied about the pre 9/11 intelligence, and I'm pretty sure she did so under oath.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 01:21 AM

33. The real question here is what is going to be done about this? Are we just going to turn away?

I am fuming!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 01:22 AM

35. this article hasn't hit freerepublic yet....

....but I did capture this post from another thread about 9/11:

To: Cincinatus' Wife
In all of the shows about 911, avoid “Secrets of 911” on The Military Channel. Looked OK at first until they came to a part where one of the “experts” said that if only intelligence agencies shared information it could have been avoided. He inferred that they had a choice to ignore the Gorelick Wall. He knew darn well it was there. Later they came to a part declaring that President Bush was given specific information on Bin Laden in his daily briefing. I turned it off right then.

7 posted on Monday, September 10, 2012 12:46:12 AM by Hillarys Gate Cult (Liberals make unrealistic demands on reality and reality doesn't oblige them.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #35)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 01:01 PM

167. Love it!

"They were saying stuff that was true that I don't want to hear!!! Turn it off!!! Don't watch it!!!! Lalalalalalalalala I can't HEAR you!!!"

They old saying is still true; there is none so blind as he who will not see. Does this fool actually believe that Bush did NOT receive a briefing titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in USA"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 01:31 AM

40. To make amends for this bush sent $600 checks to everybody

And started a couple of wars. It was the least he could do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 01:35 AM

43. doesn't NYT have a comments section?

I'd like to read what some others are thinking about this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #43)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 01:38 AM

44. Some articles don't have comments--I wish this one did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 01:49 AM

45. Must be hot tub night...

 

...this OP would have been moved to the Dungeon in the past, especially in view of some of the silly "LIHOP" responses.

Bush may have been an idiot, but LIHOP is ridiculous. The system broke down...it's that simple.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MercutioATC (Reply #45)


Response to MercutioATC (Reply #45)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 02:13 AM

52. Not hardly. Neo-cons practically flat-out said they wanted this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

Post-9/11 call for regime change in Iraq

On September 20, 2001 (nine days after the September 11, 2001 attacks), the PNAC sent a letter to President George W. Bush, advocating "a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq," or regime change:

- snip -

"New Pearl Harbor"

Section V of Rebuilding America's Defenses, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", includes the sentence: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor" (51).
Though not arguing that Bush administration PNAC members were complicit in those attacks, other social critics such as commentator Manuel Valenzuela and journalist Mark Danner, investigative journalist John Pilger, in New Statesman, and former editor of The San Francisco Chronicle Bernard Weiner, in CounterPunch, all argue that PNAC members used the events of 9/11 as the "Pearl Harbor" that they needed––that is, as an "opportunity" to "capitalize on" (in Pilger's words), in order to enact long-desired plans.


MIHOP, yeah, pretty ridiculous. LIHOP? NOT AT ALL.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Reply #52)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 02:39 AM

58. Damn, Hissyspit


These fuckers are BOLD. That shit is still on the website:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

then do a search in adobe reader for "new pearl harbor"

It's still there, same place it was 11 years ago. Wow. Just...wow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PopeOxycontinI (Reply #58)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 03:16 AM

72. They are war-mongers and they don't think they have anything to hide

since they did not cause or allow 9-11 to happen. In their retarded view the PNAC stuff is perfectly reasonable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Reply #52)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 02:44 AM

61. From a practical standpoint, LIHOP and MIHOP are the same thing

 

Both would require co-opting hundreds of people (hourly-wage government employees).

It simply didn't happen that way. I don't understand why a group of people like the DU community has such a hard time believing that the policies in place just didn't work, but that's what happened. A lot of good people did their best working with the system that existed, but that system was inadequate. Nobody let it happen on purpose or made it happen on purpose, the system in place at the time just didn't do what it was supposed to do.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MercutioATC (Reply #61)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 02:58 AM

65. No they're not.

LIHOP would not require co-opting hundreds of people. That's like saying it took co-opting an entire country to lie us into the Iraq War.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Reply #65)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 03:58 AM

81. I don't mean to condescend, but you don't understand the mechanics of it.

 

I've been an air traffic controller for more than 21 years. UAL93 went down in my airspace. Hundreds of people would have to go along with the lie if there was, in fact, a lie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MercutioATC (Reply #81)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 04:59 AM

88. And I was standing in the plaza at the World Trade Center on August 11, 2001

the weekend of the Aug. PDB, telling me girlfriend that they would try it again.

LIHOP is not a specific conspiracy. It's a spectrum of possibility. It could involve active involvement in the system, but it could involve passive reaction to foreknowledge. So it doesn't necessarily involve "mechanics," such as you are arguing (which I don't believe it did). It involves a mindset among those in charge at the highest leadership level. We seem to be arguing the definition.

The direct warnings to Mr. Bush about the possibility of a Qaeda attack began in the spring of 2001. By May 1, the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that “a group presently in the United States” was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be “imminent,” although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible.

But some in the administration considered the warning to be just bluster. An intelligence official and a member of the Bush administration both told me in interviews that the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat. Intelligence officials, these sources said, protested that the idea of Bin Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist, conspiring with Mr. Hussein, an Iraqi secularist, was ridiculous, but the neoconservatives’ suspicions were nevertheless carrying the day.

In response, the C.I.A. prepared an analysis that all but pleaded with the White House to accept that the danger from Bin Laden was real.

“The U.S. is not the target of a disinformation campaign by Usama Bin Laden,” the daily brief of June 29 read, using the government’s transliteration of Bin Laden’s first name. Going on for more than a page, the document recited much of the evidence, including an interview that month with a Middle Eastern journalist in which Bin Laden aides warned of a coming attack, as well as competitive pressures that the terrorist leader was feeling, given the number of Islamists being recruited for the separatist Russian region of Chechnya.

And the C.I.A. repeated the warnings in the briefs that followed. Operatives connected to Bin Laden, one reported on June 29, expected the planned near-term attacks to have “dramatic consequences,” including major casualties. On July 1, the brief stated that the operation had been delayed, but “will occur soon.” Some of the briefs again reminded Mr. Bush that the attack timing was flexible, and that, despite any perceived delay, the planned assault was on track.

Yet, the White House failed to take significant action.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Reply #88)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 01:34 PM

169. I'll certainly agree with "LIH" (Let It Happen)

 

It's the "On Purpose" that I don't believe.

There was certainly incompetence involved, at many levels. That doesn't necessarily mean that there was intent to let it happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MercutioATC (Reply #169)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 02:01 PM

176. Except to do so served the nefarious intent to bring down this nation.

This heinous event was the perfect avenue for the Patriot Act, The Military Commissions Act, the dept of homeland security, TSA, ad infinitum.....besides the gigantic expansion and wealth associated with the military defense industry. TOO perfect. imho

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MercutioATC (Reply #169)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 08:01 PM

209. Well, that's just it. Intent is extremely hard to prove.

But I don't have any problem at all believing it quite possible, if not probably, and I am not a conspiracy theorist. I have six years of post-graduate higher education and am quite rational.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MercutioATC (Reply #81)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 10:22 PM

241. Naivete. Did you happen to read of the REVELATIONS about what the US did re: Katyn Forest?

How many men do you think kept that cover-up for SEVEN DECADES?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MercutioATC (Reply #61)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 12:24 PM

159. LIHOP and MIHOP are very different

Last edited Tue Sep 11, 2012, 12:55 PM - Edit history (1)

Besides being completely contradictory, there's about three orders of magnitude difference in plausibility between LIHOP and MIHOP, not to mention the evidence gap that's nearly as wide. If you must have a conspiracy theory, LIHOP has the advantage of at least being somewhat plausible, since it only requires that a fairly small group of people do nothing, whereas the standard MIHOP/Rube Goldberg scheme of fake hijackings and controlled demolitions has hundreds of people actively doing outrageously complicated and risky things (when something far less complicated and risky would have produced the same presumed result), which doesn't even tickle the needle on any rational plausibility meter. Furthermore, LIHOP is at least supported by some circumstantial evidence such as the failure to act on the PDBs, whereas standard MIHOP theory is directly contradicted by credible evidence that "truthers" blithely declare to be faked for no reason whatsoever except that it directly contradicts their beliefs.

The only equivalence between LIHOP and MIHOP is that most "truthers" are willing to believe just about anything except the "official story." This is the direct result of starting with the assumption that the government was involved somehow or other, and then trying to rationalize that belief as if it were a valid conclusion.

The telling feature of the "truth movement" is that after 11 years, they haven't found enough "truth" to even convince each other what happened.

(Edit: I didn't mean to imply that you are a "truther.")

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Reply #52)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 05:08 AM

90. At what point do MIHOP and LIHOP diverge?

The same cabal that funded the Taliban, turned their heads the other way when known terrorists were learning to fly in Florida and scheduled war games at NORAD on the fateful day, at what point do their actions cease to be considered merely to have let it happen and start to be considered to have made it happen?

Let's say I am the president of a bank and I have been lodging a bank robber in another country for years, giving him money to arm all his friends, and then fail to report him when I know he's been staying in this country. Then I make sure the alarm system down at the bank is all fucked up and I jam the police radio frequency. Then, after the bank thief has done his thing I saunter in and grab all the remaining loot and blame the losses on the bank robber.

Did I make that happen or let it happen?

No offense, just wondering out loud...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Reply #52)

Wed Sep 12, 2012, 02:03 AM

255. I've always wondered why they felt it important to tell the Saudi ambassador it was a go

before even Powell knew for sure.

"But, it turns out, two days before the president told Powell, Cheney and Rumsfeld had already briefed Prince Bandar, the Saudi ambassador.

"Saturday, Jan. 11, with the president's permission, Cheney and Rumsfeld call Bandar to Cheney's West Wing office, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Myers, is there with a top-secret map of the war plan. And it says, 'Top secret. No foreign.' No foreign means no foreigners are supposed to see this," says Woodward.

"They describe in detail the war plan for Bandar. And so Bandar, who's skeptical because he knows in the first Gulf War we didn't get Saddam out, so he says to Cheney and Rumsfeld, 'So Saddam this time is gonna be out, period?' And Cheney - who has said nothing - says the following: 'Prince Bandar, once we start, Saddam is toast.'"

After Bandar left, according to Woodward, Cheney said, "I wanted him to know that this is for real. We're really doing it."

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18560_162-612067.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MercutioATC (Reply #45)

Wed Sep 12, 2012, 12:17 AM

253. The most expensive national security system in the world breaking down is not that simple.

It deserves to be examined. What failed? And how, and when?

Who knew what and why did they not act?

If it was indeed ineptitude, the sheer magnitude of that ineptitude calls out for solemn re-examination.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 02:09 AM

49. Definitave proof that it was at the very least LIHOP...



And


(watch on Youtube & check out all 8 segments)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indi Guy (Reply #49)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 02:40 AM

59. Hell yeah, Indi Guy

and...that PNAC shit is still up at its original location

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 02:09 AM

50. "Sorry boys, we're busy doing tax cuts now."

"We'll get to that el kayduh thing later. That was a Clinton thing."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moondust (Reply #50)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 02:33 AM

55. Too damn true!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 02:35 AM

57. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 03:04 AM

66. This is an op-ed piece. There is nothing new here

I think we all know the Bush administration dropped the ball and was certainly not as vigilant nor prepared about terra until after 9/11.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProudToBeBlueInRhody (Reply #66)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 03:50 AM

78. Wrong.

Read the piece. It talks about pre 9/11 intelligence from the CIA not known to exist before.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProudToBeBlueInRhody (Reply #66)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 05:01 AM

89. Wrong.

Last edited Tue Sep 11, 2012, 05:37 AM - Edit history (1)

There is more detail than we've previously known, best as I can tell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 03:07 AM

68. Charlie Rose Show on PBS the evening of 9/11/01.

with Steven Emerson, Tom Clancy, John Edwards, Judith Miller, Samuel Berger, Richard Holbrooke, Wesley Clark and Ephraim Sneh
in Current Affairs

on Tuesday, September 11, 2001

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/2955

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 03:11 AM

70. Known Foreign Intelligence warnings prior to 9/11

 

http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/main/foreignwarnings.html

A brief extract

CAYMAN ISLANDS, WARNING #2: Three al-Qaeda agents are part of a plot "organizing a major terrorist act against the US via an airline or airlines"

August 29, 2001: Three men from either Pakistan or Afghanistan living in the Cayman Islands are briefly arrested in June 2001 for discussing hijacking attacks in New York City (see June 4, 2001). On this day, a Cayman Islands radio station receives an unsigned letter claiming these same three men are agents of bin Laden. The anonymous author warns that they "are organizing a major terrorist act against the US via an airline or airlines." The letter is forwarded to a Cayman government official but no action is taken until after 9/11 and it isn't known when the US is informed. Many criminals and/or businesses use the Cayman Islands as a safe, no tax, no questions asked haven to keep their money. The author of the letter meets with the FBI shortly after 9/11, and claims his information was a "premonition of sorts." The three men are later arrested. Its unclear what has happened to them since their arrest. FTW

EGYPT, WARNING #1: An undercover agent learns 20 al-Qaeda agents are in the US, four have received flight training

Late July 2001 (D): CBS later has a brief mention in a long story on another topic: "Just days after Atta return to the US from Spain, Egyptian intelligence in Cairo says it received a report from one of its operatives in Afghanistan that 20 al-Qaeda members had slipped into the US and four of them had received flight training on Cessnas. To the Egyptians, pilots of small planes didn't sound terribly alarming, but they on the message to the CIA anyway, fully expecting Washington to request information. The request never ." This appears to be one of several accurate Egyptian warnings based on informants (see June 13, 2001 and August 30, 2001). Could Egypt have known the names of some or all of the hijackers? Given FBI agent Ken Williams' memo about flight schools a short time before (see July 10, 2001), shouldn't the US have investigated this closely instead of completely ignoring it?

GERMANY: Terrorists will use airplanes as weapons to attack "American and Israeli symbols"

June 2001: German intelligence warns the CIA, Britain's MI6, and Israel's Mossad that Middle Eastern terrorists are planning to hijack commercial aircraft to use as weapons to attack "American and Israeli symbols, which stand out." A later article quotes unnamed German intelligence sources who state the information was coming from Echelon surveillance technology, and that British intelligence had access to the same warnings. However, there were other informational sources, including specific information and hints given to, but not reported by, Western and Near Eastern news media six months before 9/11. FTW

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 03:15 AM

71. John O'Neill knew

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 03:27 AM

74. This is a VERY surprising development that Obama

 

should choose to "leak" this information now.

Of course the information was already known to anyone who bothered to look.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 03:49 AM

77. Somebody could have imagined...

BushCo just sucked at everything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 03:54 AM

79. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 03:59 AM

82. Thank you.

This is important.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratsForProgress (Reply #82)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 07:56 AM

108. I think so!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 04:18 AM

83. The only bombshell is that it's being believed now.

At the time, not so much. As others said, this is old news. So is a lot of other even more alarming stuff like this regarding 9/11 which is still being ignored and denied. The only shock to me is that Dems refused to discuss it. Rethugs denying it is predictable, but the Dems doing it is a total failure of "the loyal opposition" role. If anybody really bothered to look objectively at the evidence, there is no way in hell this wasn't an inside job. None. Zero. And no way in hell it wasn't known to be coming beforehand -- there were numerouis warnings by disparate people. Why do you think those warnings were ignored? Stupidity? Didn't "connect the dots"? Busllhit. Bottom line... they got away with it.

If you want to see some hair-raising stuff, look into the work of Dr. Judy Wood (who is or was a DUer btw).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Waiting For Everyman (Reply #83)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 02:21 PM

182. Thank you. This is what I believe also. Like I said up thread.....it was just

all too perfect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Waiting For Everyman (Reply #83)

Wed Sep 12, 2012, 03:59 PM

286. The mass hypnosis induced by the 9/11 searing event is wearing off

at long last. It took 11 years for a majority of Americans to regain enough common sense to smell the stench of outrageous deception. Now they're considering LIHOP... Okay, that's a start. But how about letting Mencken's famous saying become a thing of the past and joining the rest of the world citizens? Hey, it's inevitable in the long run.

"The men the American people admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth."

- Henry Louis Mencken

Thanks for your courageous post, WFE. The other day I was trying to remember the name of the engineer who had collected the most baffling pieces of evidence that need to be included in any sincere investigation. You gave it to me: Dr. Judy Wood. Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 05:22 AM

93. But but but

George Bush kept you safe

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 05:28 AM

94. This is what happens when rethugs cheat, elect an incompetent, focus on their own fat

pockets, make decisions that increase their fat pockets like unnecessary wars that require parts from firms owned by republicans, ignore warnings that affect the very lives of other Americans, coverup, coverup,, coverup and coverup. To hell with all of them. I am so pissed that over 3000 lost their lives because a President with third grade intelligence didn't take heed to what was clear as the nose on his face. Just collecting my thoughts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 05:54 AM

96. The freaking Republicans FAILED America so miserably

Last edited Tue Sep 11, 2012, 07:16 AM - Edit history (1)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 07:02 AM

100. LIHOP, quite possibly,

 

In my opinion it is more likely MIHOP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #100)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 07:20 AM

102. One or the other

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 07:28 AM

107. one official suggested that the staff put in for a transfer ....

On July 9, at a meeting of the counterterrorism group, one official suggested that the staff put in for a transfer so that somebody else would be responsible when the attack took place, two people who were there told me in interviews.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underpants (Reply #107)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 08:10 AM

110. Speculation on my part: did this sort of situation help along the torture?

Not making accusations, just putting a popped-up thought into words:

By this account, by July the people in these agencies who were being hamstrung by the indifference of the Bush White House were looking for ways to get clear before the shit inevitably hit the fan.

The reason John Yoo and the other composed the Torture Memos was to establish a legal framework for "enhanced interrogation" because the people in the CIA and other agencies initially resisted because they felt that they would be hung out to dry if/when it became public ("a few bad apples").


I recall a lot of CIA agents fired under Carter were bitter that they were made the scapegoats for carrying out the policies that had come down to them. I suspect there was some memory of that in those communities, and they wanted to avoid a repeat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JHB (Reply #110)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 08:17 AM

112. You are exactly right. CTC head Cofer Black (later at Blackwater) set up and ran the torture and

rendition operations. See, The CIA Officer Who Oversaw Torture, http://journals.democraticunderground.com/leveymg/337

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JHB (Reply #110)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 08:03 PM

210. I think this was proactive CYA

But having read Jane Mayer's "The Dark Side" Yoo was just a willing soldier. He cited his own law school writings as precedent and background. He also was their prescription doctor - he wrote any prescription they wanted. The oddest part was the John Ashcroft came out of the administration as the sane one - WOW - but they didn't even go to the AG to tell him that they needed Yoo they went straight to Yoo. He teaches at Berkley now....which is nice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 08:28 AM

116. Now if they would only admit it was Bush/Cheney behind the Anthrax attacks. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ganja Ninja (Reply #116)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 12:43 PM

165. They had to retrieve something from the mail...

... and I'm guessing they did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 08:36 AM

117. I assume this is why there had to be story about Obama not attending briefings much of

the time: to minimize the damage from this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue Meany (Reply #117)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 01:38 PM

170. Exactly, the false equivalence meme CNN loves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 08:48 AM

118. when you refuse to believe experts that isn't "negligence"

when you have your own agenda which is not responsive to reality that isn't "negligence."

when you insist you were right in spite of events and invade Iraq and find no WMD and say "mission accomplished" -- that isn't "negligence."

it is arrogance (and denial).

(and Romney has more denial and arrogance than Bush ever did.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 08:50 AM

119. Sept. 11, 2001 brought to us all by the US Supreme Court

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 09:08 AM

120. Treason, murder, deriliction of duty

On Jan 23 I want the president to announce that indictments will be sought against everyone in the executive branch in 2001.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 09:12 AM

123. Pentagon pushed back, huh?



PNAC traitors are going to hell. After prison.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #123)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 10:09 AM

127. Some of the "uniforms" on the JCS staff did. Mr. Licky Comb is a Bush political appointee,

and probably shouldn't be referred to as "Pentagon."

Wolfowitz, Feith, Cambone, et al. are traitors. They committed treason. There really is no other term to describe what they did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #123)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 10:09 PM

234. These guys should be in jail

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 09:28 AM

124. BTW, History can also thank John Kerry. He kept taking GHWBush to court to get PDBs released

during his BCCI investigations, and won that battle of access for congress and American citizens.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 09:52 AM

125. Google Marvin Bush

The day after bush was elected he gave Marvin, his brother, a 50 million contract to provide security for the towers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 10:23 AM

133. You can thank PNAC for this.

And the idiot they brought into the White House.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 10:29 AM

136. So DUer "truthers" are no longer being smeared as "conspiracy theorists" consigned to the dungeon?

Just kidding, kinda

For so long anyone on DU who believed in LIHOP or MIHOP was shamed as a CTer and the threads locked or put into the dungeon. Are these now being allowed to stand?

And why? Because now a so called MSM paper is finally getting on the "truther" bandwagon? I know people have tried to slam anyone who tried to investigate the official 9-11 story as "truthers" but I wonder now if that pejorative will take on the same cache as "Obamacare".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 10:47 AM

141. Bush responsible

Because he ignored the warnings,I hold George W Bush responsible for 9/11 and the deaths of 3000 people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 11:24 AM

143. Want to really blow your mind?

Read Richard A. Clarke's book, "Against All Enemies." Your jaw will be dropped throughout the whole book.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rider3 (Reply #143)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 02:15 PM

180. the opening chapter of that book is as compelling a passage

as you'll ever read

years and years later it still resonates as a monument to utter>>take your pick here>>incompetence, or treason

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 11:38 AM

144. i believe President Gore would have stopped the attacks before they occured

these repugs are stupid, lazy bastards who ignored real evidence. they r incompetant. their stupidity allowed this attack to happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 12:09 PM

151. It wasn't negligence. Everything went as planned. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 12:09 PM

152. This story was buried, and didn't show up on today's NY Times homepage.

I wouldn't have found the article unless I saw the author mention it on MSNBC this morning and unless I then also did a word search to find it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 12:11 PM

153. So this won't get locked as promoting CTs?

Not that I disagree with anything in this article, in fact, the bulk of it I've known for more than a decade. I'm just utterly confused as to what's allowed and not allowed in GD. An OP stating pretty much exactly this was locked for promoting CT, yet this stands because... it's from the NYT? So we're allowed to state that Bush was insanely incompetent on 9/11, but as soon as we state that he was INTENTIONALLY incompetent, that's when we get censored? This makes little sense to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #153)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 12:25 PM

160. I agree that DU's censorship policy is whack.

I refused to participate in this forum because I found it so disgusting that we are only allowed to discuss what they feel is appropriate. We certainly can't allow the site to be tainted with forward thinking ideas outside the norm.

I boycotted this site for several years because of the censorship policy on 9/11 truth. I'd like to think that it's become a little better. I just donated for the first time in several years. But that will stop again, possible for many, many more years, if we are not allowed to discuss what is true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 12:18 PM

156. Why didn't the Congressional "investigation" pursue the questions more fully? link:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 12:19 PM

157. So Bush ignored the message "Bin Laden determined to attack", Does it really matter??

 


If Bush were paying attention, what would he have done exactly?

Ordered NORAD and the FAA to do their jobs?

It is not the president's job to 'protect the nation', that is the job of our military who have the greatest equipment and technology on earth.

WE spend more on our military than all other nations combined.

Who here thinks there was no plan in place to protect the nation in the case of a plane veering off course, shutting off a transponder, and eventually an obvious hijacking?

Why did it take over an hour to protect the pentagon with Andrew's Airforce base 10 miles away?

How is it possible that Rumsfeld had no idea the nation was under attack until a plane hit the pentagon over and hour after the WTC?

There is a common excuse that the transponders were shut off? Does the enemy usually notify their victims of an attack by leaving their transponder on?

No, that is why we have RADAR!

Rumsfeld was asked about RADAR during the 9/11 commission, he said the problem was that we were 'looking outward'. Seriously.


This whole 'Bush didn't do anything' is a distraction. Bush didn't have to do anything.

If NORAD and the FAA followed standard procedure, which is to send interceptors in the air within 5 minutes of a plane veering off course or shutting off a transponder....the very first attack on the WTC could have and should have been prevented, as well as all the subsequent

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RepublicansRZombies (Reply #157)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 12:28 PM

161. How many times are you going to post this?

Yes, we get it. The president is utterly powerless, I mean, it's silly to expect him to actually be able to do something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 12:32 PM

163. Thought about this last night before reading the article. There was NO way that this was a surprise.

And there you have it, it was not. The CIA, who was not replaced when Bush took office, were right. the Hart/Ruddman Report was right. It was shelved by Cheney, who said that he would create his OWN report. It was ignored by Condi Rice, who should have known better. They were so focused on the oil in Iraq and the poppies in Afghanistan, that they refused to act. (I'm being charitable that they were simply so corrupt and inept, and that the Wolfowitz' and others really did believe the shit they were spewing.)

Though I've never been a "truther" on this. I have always wondered WHY the President was in Florida reading a book to kids that day. He NEVER did public appearances like that. EVER. Not before, and not since. Considering now that we have a normal President in office with a functioning balance of Intelligence and Defense, we can see how detailed those daily briefings are, and how much detail the threats provide. How could Bush and Cheney, et al, IGNORE the CIA???

Okay. And this is the other thing that I don't say often. Somewhere in the back of my mind, I think... Does it ever occur to others that the whole "9/11" marketing potential was just too convenient for the republicans? That date would have little meaning for a guy living in a cave in wherever OBL was at that point. But it made for a huge branding opportunity for Bush and the Neocons that wanted to bomb iraq and afghanistan so that the 76 pipeline could go through. Had they chosen 5/30 or 2/3 would it have been less of a marketing opportunity for the repubs? That's always bugged me.

Who knows, or will we ever know? If the neocons let this happen for their own gain, and perhaps not cluing in Bush about it at all... But Cheney sure the fuck knew, if anyone did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressivebydesign (Reply #163)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 01:43 PM

173. After getting a memo titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S."...

What kind of fucking idiots (I'm talking about Bu$h/Cheney) would hold war exercises that leave our most vulnerable airspace unprotected that morning, and what are the odds the "terrorists" would hijack planes and attack right within that 3-hour window?

Of course those motherfuckers knew and nobody will ever convince me otherwise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 01:52 PM

175. read Paul Thompson's 9/11 timeline

you can only conclude LIHOP or MIHOP...

and that damn photo is nothing other than a photo op

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 02:21 PM

183. Well there goes the Election

only ignorant people or racists, would vote in a person with no experience...we see now the result. Obama is the only sane choice, following this revelation. Oh let it be so.

This may take down the GOP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 03:00 PM

188. Could they have ignored it ON PURPOSE because Neocons WANTED an attack to occur?

I know this is tin foil hat stuff but with the extreme views of Neocons I feel it could actually be truth.

Perhaps they WANTED the attack to happen.

They desperately wanted to eliminate Sadaam Hussein.
This was documented in letter they sent Clinton, begging him to attack immediately.
Clinton refused.

They knew that if we were attacked by anyone from the Middle East they could create a Sadaam connection and thus have an excuse to attack him.

They might have deliberately pushed Bush to ignore the warnings, hoping an attack would occur so they could start the war with Iraq.

I really don't put this beyond them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 03:27 PM

189. Too Many Take The Official Narrative As Total Truth

As has been pointed out, visit Thompson's 9/11 timeline. Virtually every point has a link you can check.

One of the smoking guns for me is Condi before the sham 9/11 whitewash commission, when she said that no one could have imagined planes flying into buildings. That is a total lie, they were warned by at least 15 countries, some of the warnings pretty specific. Even Syria warned us. High Ranking military types were told to avoid commercial flights that weekend. Rushdie's security team kept him out the air, etc, etc.

Check the pilot's 9/11 page and see their opinion on the chances of skinny guys who had trained on a Cessna flying precise routes, at beyond normal speed, with huge jet planes.

Do research people, question everything. Part of the overall problem in the US is low info citizens, many of them taking Fox News as fact based truth. I'm not sure what the real story is about 9/11/01, I'm just sure it isn't the official one. Oh, google Rumsfeld 9/10/01 and see his presser that day and feel your eyebrows raise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 04:23 PM

192. pretty sure Big Dawg

Warned W that Al Quaeda was number one threat to national security when he turned the reins over. Can't even imagine the frustration and sadness the Clintons feel regarding 9/11.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 04:49 PM

195. What's troubling. . .

What's most troubling about this development is not the revelation itself. It's the fact that this information has been known by the Obama Administration from its inauguration and they did nothing to take any action against the Bush administration. Sure, we - the public - knew about the August 6 memo. They - the administration and the intelligence community - knew that the Bush administration had fare more advance knowledge, even if they didn't have the date or, for that matter, the specifics. If they had taken the preponderance of intelligence seriously, they would have been looking for the various dots to connect. They failed to do so and thus were not looking for the intelligence that might have revealed the 9/11 plot.

It is this greater failure - not the failure to take action after the single August 6 report - that warrants action against the Bush administration and their neocon advisers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 04:53 PM

197. Yeah, "negligence".

 

-.-

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 05:48 PM

202. I Can't Believe

any thinking person didn't see this coming...

In March of 2011 the taliban began blowing up the ancient Buddhas of Bamiyan. They were bent on destroying a culture. I knew at the time, this can't be good. I was outraged! And I live in northern Maine, for cryin' out loud...

Then, 4 months later, in July, Atty Gen John Ashcroft began to refuse to fly commercial.

I'd also like to confirm that Mossad was all set up to videotape the whole tragedy, hours before.

These are things I read ten yrs ago. Can anyone on DU clarify? I'd really like to know...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 06:55 PM

204. Old News that regretably misses the mark. Bush, Condi, et al were warned in specific terms

about Bin Laden and Al Qaeda when they took office by out-going Clinton staff and by the FBI. They treated the reports as Liberal Folly.

There was considerable evidence well prior to the above account of both an on-going threat and plans to "complete" the previously failed attack on WOT. Several european security agencies had repeatedly warned Bush et al up to several days before September 11 of an attack and of activities and communication between Al Qaeda agents.

At the very least the Neo-Cons saw this situation as a likely "New Pearl Harbor" event to exploit by allowing if not encouraging it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 07:13 PM

205. good! lets crucify BUSH! not being prepared is not an EXCUSE!

 

Promising too much is also an offence!

you don't deliver what you promised (en-large), its time you got voted out of office(of course unless you believe the incumben't speil that the other is the devil himself which he(the person in power) is not)

democracy is a BITCH...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grok (Reply #205)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 08:25 PM

215. Oh, brother. Yeah, there's an equation for ya.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 07:23 PM

206. HUGE K & R !!!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 07:37 PM

208. Even if you dismiss "conspiracy theories", Bush REALLY WANTED 9/11 to happen

I read Senator Al Franken's book "Lies etc" back in 2004 and it was abundantly clear that Bush was warned over and over and he forcefully declined to talk about it or even attend the meetings scheduled by the Clinton national security team that were supposed to be regular through the spring and summer of 2001.

The 9/11 commission report barely hinted at the level of information available to Bush - part of the purpose of the document was to help Bush not look so bad for his re-election campaign.

I wonder what the "9-11 Truth" folks will make of these new disclosures.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NAO (Reply #208)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 09:53 PM

227. It was convenient

the voters all rallied around him (except me)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 08:23 PM

214. What happened to the goat?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 09:20 PM

219. K&R. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 09:23 PM

220. Bush and Romney Security Advisers

Does anyone have a list of Bush' neoconservative security advisers, who basically ignored the intelligence warnings, to compare with current Romney/Ryan foreign policy and security advisers?

Read somewhere there might be quite a few that Romney has plans for his administration and that should be brought to light.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 09:42 PM

222. LOL! Warned?????

These "warnings" were merely the "coming attractions" for this group of murdering psychopaths. The PDB's were the appetizers being served to a group that was looking forward to feasting on the trillions of dollars they could steal. The MIC and others had to deal with the unfortunate loss of the Soviet Union as the bogey man with which to scare the ignorant American public. No fear, no money!! Al Queda and Osama would fill in quite nicely for the loss of an enemy after the cold war. In short, it wasn't negligence that kept the GW Bush Admin from acting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 09:51 PM

224. Worse President AND Administration in the History of this country

They lied
They continue to lie
They had an adgenda
They successfully implemented that agenda
They are traitors to this country
Nuremburg would not be good enough for them
Up against the wall is too good for them

What a waste of 8 years for this country

My opinion

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benld74 (Reply #224)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 10:09 PM

233. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 10:03 PM

230. I'm just glad this discussion isn't being moved to the gawdammed dungeon

Ask questions. They lead to other questions!
Cui bono?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 7wo7rees (Reply #230)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 10:11 PM

236. George tenet knows more than he is letting on

I guess he fears for his life

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 10:10 PM

235. I'm shocked. SHOCKED! (How many people suggesting this for a decade were accused of "tin-foil"?)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 10:49 PM

243. This wasnt negligence,

not when Cheney had his closed energy meeting in the white house in the second week of W's first term, where all the major oil companys were dividing up Iraq.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 10:55 PM

244. The author of this piece in the NYT was on Anderson Cooper tonight!!!

He ripped Ari Fleischer a new Limbaugh on Cooper's program tonight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Hogwash (Reply #244)

Wed Sep 12, 2012, 05:07 AM

261. I watched. He was very very good and reduced Fleischer to a bumbling idiot. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Wed Sep 12, 2012, 06:44 AM

262. He Knew. Never Forget.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Wed Sep 12, 2012, 07:24 AM

263. As they say in Texas.......

"The Bushes know you won't believe your eyes."

But maybe the Bushes couldn't believe their own eyes this time. Clinton spent the last year of his second term playing Paul Revere, warning that spectacular terror attacks (including bio-chemicals) were imminent, and reportedly got in Dubya's face about it several times. But just as he did as governor, Dubya was already screwing-off and perhaps drinking heavily again. Meanwhile, the national press was already covering its own rear for helping Dubya get elected and decided they'd better blame Clinton for the attacks.

In any event, I do remember being shocked at the lax security when we flew through New York City to and from Europe just weeks before the attacks. I could have easily taken two or three pistols onboard because the TSA didn't bother to look inside the large, lead-lined film bag in my carry-on. One security guard noticed the bag on the X-ray machine, asked if it contained film and waved me on through. By then I was getting so worried that I actually offered to open the bag, but the guard got angry because he wanted to get back to his conversation with another guard. I and my family were the only ones in line and, perhaps like Dubya, they didn't want to be bothered.

Oddly enough, just the day before, NORAD sent out squadrons of fighter jets in response to what turned out to be a very noisy meteorite that apparently broke up over upstate New York and surrounding states. We were in the air approaching NYC and spotted the jets in a big hurry north. Saw another squadron flying high over the city from our hotel room. Some of the local television stations and national news networks halted normal broadcasts to cover the suspicious explosions. Even had NORAD responded to the hijacked planes six weeks later I don't know what they could have done, except shoot them down and risk a crash in populated areas.

By the time we got home from that trip, even Alex Jones knew something was up. He was on public access television yelling his lungs out about an imminent attack by terrorists. In retrospect, his was not just a lucky guess. Even Alex appeared to have been tipped off by someone inside U.S. intelligence.

All in all, Good Grief!!!!!!! Can we now have an actual investigation into the 911 attacks? How much longer can our democracy survive sham investigations like the Warren Commission, IranContra, IraqGate and many etceteras, because now we believe our eyes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Wed Sep 12, 2012, 10:54 AM

271. LIHOP!

Come on, news media, just SAY IT! You KNOW it's true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Wed Sep 12, 2012, 01:52 PM

282. Is it NEGLIGENCE when you say: 'All right. You've covered your ass, now."?

The Covered-Up Meeting

By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Monday, October 2, 2006; 1:12 PM

The "State of Denial" in the title of Bob Woodward's new book describes President Bush's ongoing refusal to see the true consequences of the war he launched in Iraq.

But one of the book's most notable revelations suggests that the Bush White House was in another state of denial more than five years ago, this one about the threat of terrorism before September 11, 2001.

If the omniscient narrator of Woodward's book is to be believed, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice waved off warnings that should by any reasonable standard have put the government on high alert for an al-Qaeda attack.

And in what looks like a potential administration cover-up, Rice and the other participants in that meeting apparently never mentioned it to anyone, including investigators for the 9/11 Commission.

SNIP…

And a month later, as Ron Suskind reported in his book, "The One Percent Doctrine," an unnamed CIA briefer flew to Bush's Texas ranch to call the president's attention personally to the now-famous Aug. 6, 2001, memo titled 'Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.' According to Suskind, Bush heard the briefer out and replied: "All right. You've covered your ass, now."

CONTINUED…

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2006/10/02/BL2006100200537.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Wed Sep 12, 2012, 03:32 PM

285. Condi Rice will not have her integrity impugned with the facts.

Biggest breach in National Security on U.S. soil since Pearl Harbor, and the National Security Advisor at the time gets a free pass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread