HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » New NSA docs contradict 9...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 06:16 PM

New NSA docs contradict 9/11 claims

Source: Salon

TUESDAY, JUN 19, 2012 01:24 PM PDT
New NSA docs contradict 9/11 claims
“I don’t think the Bush administration would want to see these released," an expert tells Salon

BY JORDAN MICHAEL SMITH

Over 120 CIA documents concerning 9/11, Osama bin Laden and counterterrorism were published today for the first time, having been newly declassified and released to the National Security Archive. The documents were released after the NSA pored through the footnotes of the 9/11 Commission and sent Freedom of Information Act requests.

The material contains much new information about the hunt before and after 9/11 for bin Laden, the development of the drone campaign in AfPak, and al-Qaida’s relationship with America’s ally, Pakistan. Perhaps most damning are the documents showing that the CIA had bin Laden in its cross hairs a full year before 9/11 — but didn’t get the funding from the Bush administration White House to take him out or even continue monitoring him. The CIA materials directly contradict the many claims of Bush officials that it was aggressively pursuing al-Qaida prior to 9/11, and that nobody could have predicted the attacks. “I don’t think the Bush administration would want to see these released, because they paint a picture of the CIA knowing something would happen before 9/11, but they didn’t get the institutional support they needed,” says Barbara Elias-Sanborn, the NSA fellow who edited the materials.

.....................

Many of the documents publicize for the first time what was first made clear in the 9/11 Commission: The White House received a truly remarkable amount of warnings that al-Qaida was trying to attack the United States. From June to September 2011, a full seven CIA Senior Intelligence Briefs detailed that attacks were imminent, an incredible amount of information from one intelligence agency. One from June called “Bin-Ladin and Associates Making Near-Term Threats” writes that “(redacted) expects Usama Bin Laden to launch multiple attacks over the coming days.” The famous August brief called “Bin Ladin Determined to Strike the US” is included. “Al-Qai’da members, including some US citizens, have resided in or travelled to the US for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure here,” it says. During the entire month of August, President Bush was on vacation at his ranch in Texas — which tied with one of Richard Nixon’s as the longest vacation ever taken by a president. CIA Director George Tenet has said he didn’t speak to Bush once that month, describing the president as being “on leave.” Bush did not hold a Principals’ meeting on terrorism until September 4, 2001, having downgraded the meetings to a deputies’ meeting, which then-counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke has repeatedly said slowed down anti-Bin Laden efforts “enormously, by months.”

..................

One last thing is worth mentioning from the documents published today: Anyone with any doubt that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is dangerous to the United States is contradicting U.S. intelligence. “Violence between Israelis and the Palestinians, moreover is making Sunni extremists more willing to participate in attacks against US or Israeli interests,” the CIA wrote in February 2001. It is not the only piece of information revealed by the new documents that will be deeply uncomfortable for the Bush administration and hawks across the country.



Read more: http://www.salon.com/2012/06/19/new_nsa_docs_reveal_911_truths/singleton/



UPDATE
DOCS:
The Central Intelligence Agency's 9/11 File
Top Secret CIA Documents on Osama bin Laden Declassified

National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 381
Posted - June 19, 2012

Edited by Barbara Elias-Sanborn with Thanks to Archive Senior Fellow Jeffrey T. Richelson

For more information contact:
Barbara Elias-Sanborn - 202/994-7000

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB381/

222 replies, 36921 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 222 replies Author Time Post
Reply New NSA docs contradict 9/11 claims (Original post)
kpete Jun 2012 OP
Ian David Jun 2012 #1
harun Jun 2012 #4
patrice Jun 2012 #6
MrTwister Jun 2012 #82
leveymg Jun 2012 #103
libodem Jun 2012 #140
Kaleko Jun 2012 #154
leveymg Jun 2012 #156
Kaleko Jun 2012 #173
Rosa Luxemburg Aug 2012 #219
leveymg Aug 2012 #221
Blue_Tires Jun 2012 #115
emulatorloo Jun 2012 #2
nanabugg Aug 2012 #217
arcane1 Jun 2012 #3
baldguy Jun 2012 #5
pacalo Jun 2012 #9
baldguy Jun 2012 #18
pacalo Jun 2012 #77
clang1 Jun 2012 #147
boppers Jun 2012 #178
jwirr Jun 2012 #138
Old and In the Way Jun 2012 #12
Gregorian Jun 2012 #19
lib2DaBone Jun 2012 #56
Rosa Luxemburg Jun 2012 #76
olegramps Jun 2012 #116
boppers Jun 2012 #179
Ashgrey77 Aug 2012 #215
boppers Aug 2012 #216
Useless in FL Jun 2012 #17
Politicalboi Jun 2012 #24
wildbilln864 Jun 2012 #210
L0oniX Jun 2012 #7
Spitfire of ATJ Jun 2012 #23
90-percent Jun 2012 #113
shanti Jun 2012 #124
siligut Jun 2012 #8
zeemike Jun 2012 #10
Rosa Luxemburg Jun 2012 #26
stockholmer Jun 2012 #34
zeemike Jun 2012 #39
Rosa Luxemburg Jun 2012 #43
krkaufman Jun 2012 #45
Politicalboi Jun 2012 #55
Rosa Luxemburg Jun 2012 #66
Blanks Jun 2012 #71
stockholmer Jun 2012 #85
Old and In the Way Jun 2012 #86
stockholmer Jun 2012 #192
Old and In the Way Jun 2012 #193
stockholmer Jun 2012 #195
Old and In the Way Jun 2012 #196
ehrnst Jun 2012 #102
ehrnst Jun 2012 #110
jeff47 Jun 2012 #128
boppers Jun 2012 #180
cpwm17 Jun 2012 #141
mysticalchick Jun 2012 #148
KansDem Jun 2012 #151
zeemike Jun 2012 #37
apocalypsehow Jun 2012 #51
Politicalboi Jun 2012 #58
jeff47 Jun 2012 #126
Raster Jun 2012 #92
90-percent Jun 2012 #114
Major Nikon Jun 2012 #95
zeemike Jun 2012 #98
FiveGoodMen Jun 2012 #11
frylock Jun 2012 #13
Mnpaul Jun 2012 #14
Politicalboi Jun 2012 #28
demwing Jun 2012 #31
stupidicus Jun 2012 #15
Spitfire of ATJ Jun 2012 #16
JonLP24 Jun 2012 #25
krkaufman Jun 2012 #49
Spitfire of ATJ Jun 2012 #60
nashville_brook Jun 2012 #52
Spitfire of ATJ Jun 2012 #61
nashville_brook Jun 2012 #129
Rosa Luxemburg Jun 2012 #74
ehrnst Jun 2012 #117
Spitfire of ATJ Jun 2012 #146
Rosa Luxemburg Jun 2012 #163
Spitfire of ATJ Jun 2012 #169
Rosa Luxemburg Jun 2012 #170
Rosa Luxemburg Jun 2012 #167
Uncle Joe Jun 2012 #119
SammyWinstonJack Jun 2012 #120
Spitfire of ATJ Jun 2012 #145
rateyes Jun 2012 #20
Octafish Jun 2012 #204
rateyes Jun 2012 #207
JonLP24 Jun 2012 #21
Politicalboi Jun 2012 #22
snappyturtle Jun 2012 #32
Politicalboi Jun 2012 #63
Blanks Jun 2012 #36
LineLineLineReply .
Cooley Hurd Jun 2012 #38
Blanks Jun 2012 #44
former9thward Jun 2012 #53
Politicalboi Jun 2012 #65
Rosa Luxemburg Jun 2012 #70
Blanks Jun 2012 #87
ehrnst Jun 2012 #107
Blanks Jun 2012 #109
ehrnst Jun 2012 #112
Blanks Jun 2012 #123
ehrnst Jun 2012 #125
ehrnst Jun 2012 #130
Blanks Jun 2012 #137
cpwm17 Jun 2012 #177
Blanks Jun 2012 #184
cpwm17 Jun 2012 #188
Blanks Jun 2012 #189
Blanks Jun 2012 #186
jeff47 Jun 2012 #131
Rosa Luxemburg Jun 2012 #166
jeff47 Jun 2012 #174
Rosa Luxemburg Jun 2012 #175
jeff47 Jun 2012 #176
former9thward Jun 2012 #135
Rosa Luxemburg Jun 2012 #164
former9thward Jun 2012 #136
Qutzupalotl Jun 2012 #143
former9thward Jun 2012 #159
Qutzupalotl Jun 2012 #172
former9thward Jun 2012 #185
Qutzupalotl Jun 2012 #199
ehrnst Jun 2012 #106
Politicalboi Jun 2012 #62
Rosa Luxemburg Jun 2012 #73
ehrnst Jun 2012 #105
jeff47 Jun 2012 #132
Rosa Luxemburg Jun 2012 #27
Rain Mcloud Jun 2012 #33
tomp Jun 2012 #29
Rain Mcloud Jun 2012 #30
annabanana Jun 2012 #35
Motown_Johnny Jun 2012 #40
Politicalboi Jun 2012 #67
IthinkThereforeIAM Jun 2012 #133
sofa king Jun 2012 #79
Old and In the Way Jun 2012 #89
Stuart G Jun 2012 #41
Major Hogwash Jun 2012 #42
Rosa Luxemburg Jun 2012 #46
whatchamacallit Jun 2012 #47
Bolo Boffin Jun 2012 #181
Blue Owl Jun 2012 #48
nashville_brook Jun 2012 #50
PufPuf23 Jun 2012 #54
whatchamacallit Jun 2012 #59
PufPuf23 Jun 2012 #72
think Jun 2012 #83
longship Jun 2012 #57
creeksneakers2 Jun 2012 #88
ehrnst Jun 2012 #104
Hotler Jun 2012 #64
Politicalboi Jun 2012 #69
SammyWinstonJack Jun 2012 #122
CoffeeCat Jun 2012 #68
Old and In the Way Jun 2012 #91
CoffeeCat Jun 2012 #155
Old and In the Way Jun 2012 #157
Rosa Luxemburg Jun 2012 #171
CoffeeCat Jun 2012 #182
Rosa Luxemburg Jun 2012 #183
kpete Jun 2012 #75
Rosa Luxemburg Jun 2012 #78
Raster Jun 2012 #90
KansDem Jun 2012 #191
Old and In the Way Jun 2012 #197
KansDem Jun 2012 #201
AntiFascist Aug 2012 #218
Guy Whitey Corngood Jun 2012 #80
jimlup Jun 2012 #81
creeksneakers2 Jun 2012 #84
Old and In the Way Jun 2012 #93
ehrnst Jun 2012 #108
MrSlayer Jun 2012 #94
Z00 Jun 2012 #96
lunatica Jun 2012 #99
GeorgeGist Jun 2012 #100
TBF Jun 2012 #101
lunatica Jun 2012 #97
Ikonoklast Jun 2012 #111
HughBeaumont Jun 2012 #134
Uncle Joe Jun 2012 #118
wordpix Jun 2012 #121
joycejnr Jun 2012 #127
libodem Jun 2012 #139
cpwm17 Jun 2012 #144
bupkus Jun 2012 #150
pauldp Jun 2012 #153
cpwm17 Jun 2012 #161
KansDem Jun 2012 #142
bupkus Jun 2012 #149
cpwm17 Jun 2012 #162
bupkus Jun 2012 #187
cpwm17 Jun 2012 #190
bupkus Jun 2012 #198
dsteven9 Jun 2012 #200
MountainMama Jun 2012 #152
Spitfire of ATJ Jun 2012 #158
sakabatou Jun 2012 #160
underpants Jun 2012 #165
Hotler Jun 2012 #168
wildbilln864 Jun 2012 #194
librechik Jun 2012 #202
Rosa Luxemburg Jun 2012 #208
newspeak Jun 2012 #203
Rosa Luxemburg Jun 2012 #205
Bucky Jun 2012 #206
Laura PourMeADrink Jun 2012 #209
Berlum Aug 2012 #211
Octafish Aug 2012 #212
LanternWaste Aug 2012 #213
Berlum Aug 2012 #214
AntiFascist Aug 2012 #220
samsingh Aug 2012 #222

Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 06:19 PM

1. Haven't we been saying all this for 10 years? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian David (Reply #1)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 06:27 PM

4. Yup

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian David (Reply #1)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 06:47 PM

6. Yes, every aspect of 9/11 & the War on Iraq, 10 years here at the DU, not in "liberal" media. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian David (Reply #1)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 10:37 PM

82. It backs up totally what Sandy Berger,

 

Clinton's Security Council, said when meeting Bush officials like Condi Rice--

Al Qaeda was "Clinton's thing;" not theirs . . .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian David (Reply #1)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 08:21 AM

103. It's a total fiction that Bush and his nat'l security circle were "on leave" during August '01.

Last edited Wed Jun 20, 2012, 09:03 AM - Edit history (1)

9/11 happened because some very bad decisions were taken, not for lack of attention.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/leveymg/258

THEY KNEW: Tenet reveals late August '01 meeting w/Bush, Rummy, Condi, Gens. Meyers/Pace
Posted by leveymg in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Mon May 07th 2007, 11:31 AM

George Tenet's new book, At the Center of the Storm, reveals something extremely important about events in the final weeks before 9/11. For the first time, the former CIA Director admits he flew to Crawford in late August, just weeks before the attack by al-Qaeda cells known to be in the U.S., and briefed President George W. Bush personally about the threat.

This briefing followed a CIA PDB read to the President on August 6 in a meeting with Harriet Miers, then the President's lawyer, and an emergency meeting between Tenet and Condi Rice on July 10 on the same subject.

It also reveals that in order to cover up the last meeting, Tenet committed perjury before the 9/11 Commission when he denied meeting with Bush in the month before the attack. According to the White House website, Bush met in Crawford with Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, National Security Advisor Condi Rice, and the present and former Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Generals Meyers and Pace, on August 24, 2001. Actually, this is not the first time Tenet has referenced that meeting. During April 2003 testimony before the Commission, Tenet "misspoke" and let it slip that he had met with the President in the weeks leading up to 9/11.

The corporate media virtually ignored a couple wire service reports about Tenet's revelation, and practically no one followed-up on it, except two bloggers, one of whom was me.

Here's the relevant extract from Tenet's book: http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/050607....

“A few weeks after the Aug. 6 PDB was delivered, I followed it to Crawford to make sure the President stayed current on events,” Tenet wrote in his memoir, At the Center of the Storm. “This was my first visit to the ranch. I remember the President graciously driving me around the spread in his pickup and my trying to make small talk about the flora and the fauna, none of which were native to Queens,”


And, here's the article that I published nearly three years ago: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0406/S000...



UQ Wire: Tenet Lied Under Oath To 9/11 Commission
Wednesday, 9 June 2004, 1:37 pm
Press Release: www.UnansweredQuestions.org

Distribution via the Unanswered Questions Wire
Sign up for the wire at:
http://www.unansweredquestions.org/headlin...
Unanswered Questions : Thinking for ourselves.
NEWS RELEASE ----- NEWS RELEASE ----- NEWS RELEASE ----


TENET LIED UNDER OATH TO 9/11 COMMISSION ABOUT 8/24/01 MEETING WITH PRESIDENT - AGENCY COMPOUNDS MISREPRESENTATION


* CIA Statement Omits Key Date From List of Bush-DCI Meetings in Weeks Before 9/11
* What Did Bush, Tenet, Rumsfeld and Gen. Myers Talk About in Crawford, TX Three Weeks Before the Attacks - One Day After the Flt. 77 Hijackers Were Watchlisted by the CIA?

Washington, DC, June 7, 2004 - Former CIA Director George Tenet committed perjury in his April 14 testimony before the 9/11 Commission when he claimed he had not met with President Bush in the month before the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. That misrepresentation in Tenet's testimony was noted within hours by Agence France-Presse.

The following day, AP reported the CIA issued what was described as a correction after the Director "misspoke." The Agency asserted that its records showed Tenet meeting with Bush on August 17 and 31, and then on at least six occasions in September prior to Tuesday, the 11th.

However, that CIA announcement omits mention of the visit that then DCI Tenet apparently made to the President's Crawford, Texas ranch on August 24. The White House website on August 25 quotes a remark made by George W. Bush that he met with Tenet the previous day.

In a verbatim transcript, the President is quoted during an impromptu walking tour of Bush's Crawford, TX ranch that he had met the day before with CIA Director and newly appointed members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and National Security Advisor Rice were also present at a Presidential press conference in Crawford on the 24th, according to the White House press notice issued that day. In the August 25 transcript, the President Bush states to reporters and visitors:

THE PRESIDENT: " . . . Yesterday, we spent -- well, they arrived at 10:00 a.m. It took a while to get the press conference. We got back here at about 11:30 a.m. and met until 5:15 p.m. I think they left. That's the longest meeting I've had in a long time, on a very important subject . . .

Q When you have those business meetings, like the Joint Chiefs briefing, do you like to keep it separate from the living quarters on the ranch?

THE PRESIDENT: Actually, you know, what we call the governor's house, the place where you all came out during the -- that's where we went. Condi and Karen Hughes stayed there. And right across the street from that is a -- it's a nice looking government doublewide. (Laughter.) And that's where the mil aide, the nurse, the WHCA head, the doc, they stay.

The CIA briefings, I have on our porch, the end of our porch looking out over the lake. When Tenet came up, that's where we visited, out there.

You know, everybody wants to see the ranch, which I'm proud to show it off. So George Tenet and I -- yesterday, we piled in the new nominees for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the Vice Chairman and their wives and went right up the canyon. "http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20... >

The "very important subject" discussed for almost six hours by Bush with his core national security team would likely have been the CIA's action the day before placing four wanted Al-Qaeda terrorists on the "watchlist" of persons to be detained if located in the US. On August 23 the Agency sent "cables to the State Department, the FBI, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service, requesting that 'four bin Laden related individuals' including Almidhar and Alhazmi, be placed on the watchlist." (Washington Post, A8, September 21, 2002) Two of those - Khalid Almidhar and Nawaf Alhazmi - subsequently led the hijacking of American Airlines Flight 77 that slammed into the Pentagon.

The pair had been the subject of CIA-directed surveillance since at least late 1999, when they were followed by the CIA to an Al-Qaeda planning session in Kuala Lumpur, at which they were observed meeting with a ranking terrorist operations director and Mohamed Atta's roommate, Ramzi Binalshibh, who subsequently wired money to them from Germany. Binalshibh also sent funds to Zacarias Moussaoui, who in October 2000 stayed at the same Al-Qaeda safehouse in Malaysia while on his way to the United States. On August 15, Moussaoui was arrested by the FBI at a Minnesota flight school.

If Tenet did not take the opportunity to discuss these events with the President, he committed one of the worst acts of derelection of duty in CIA history. Former DCI George Tenet is generally held to be a thorough and responsible intelligence executive. It is simply implausible that Tenet and Bush did not discuss the 9/11 hijackers when they met in Crawford on August 24.

A special prosecutor needs to be appointed to investigate CIA Director Tenet's apparent perjury on April 14 and the Agency's material misrepresentation of fact in its statement the next day. The former CIA Director and the President need to reveal publicly, and under oath, what was discussed at their numerous meetings in the weeks before 9/11, and why this has been concealed.


ATTACHMENTS

1. Agence France-Presse report reprint (April 15, 2004)

INTERNATIONALTERROR-TENET-CIA CIA says Tenet did meet with Bush in August 2001

WASHINGTON, April 15 (AFP) The CIA today said that its director, George Tenet, personally briefed President George W. Bush in August 2001, countering a statement Tenet made to the commission investigating the September 11 attacks. "We looked at his schedule," a CIA spokeswoman told AFP. "Mr. Tenet did fly down to Texas and briefed the president on August 17." He also briefed Bush on August 31 in Washington, she added. Tenet briefed Bush at least six times in the first eight days of September 2001, as well, the spokeswoman said. And "the whole time that President Bush was in Texas," vacationing on his ranch, he had a senior CIA analyst with him and received a daily report from the CIA, she said. Tenet yesterday told the commission he did not meet with Bush in August 2001. "I didn't see the president. I was not in briefings with him during this time. He was on vacation; I was here" in Washington, he said. "In this time period, I'm not talking to him," Tenet added, noting that they had not even spoken by phone at the time. The month before the attacks has come under particular scrutiny after the inquiry discovered that Bush received a briefing on August 6, 2001 about al-Qaeda activities in the United States.

2. AP Wire Reprint (April 15, 2004)

KHOU.com Houston, TX

Tenet misspoke about not meeting Bush in August 2001

Associated Press

WASHINGTON, D.C. - CIA Director George Tenet misspoke Wednesday when he told a federal panel reviewing the Sept. 11 attacks that he did not meet with President Bush in August 2001. Under questioning by commissioner Tim Roemer, Tenet said he never spoke with Bush during the month before the attacks, a period marked by concern over possible terrorist strike. "He was on vacation and I was here," Tenet said, although he added that he could have picked up the phone and called the president at any time if he had felt the need to communicate with him. In fact, Tenet flew to Texas to brief Bush on Aug. 17, 2001, and briefed the president again on Aug. 31 when Bush returned to Washington, a spokesman for Tenet said later in the day. During the first eight days of September, Tenet briefed Bush at least six times, the spokesman said.

Copyright 2004 Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Further Sources:

For more information, go to: http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL031... <...>

For a more general introduction: http://www.democraticunderground.com/artic...

Acknowledgments and Notes on Sources:

1. The existence of the 8/25/01 White House press notice was first publicly noted by Michael Wright, whose cooperation is appeciated. His writings on 9/11-related topics are available at: http://www.jerrypippin.com/Wright_OP.htm

2. The AFP and AP wire stories appear in secondary outlets. The news accounts reprinted above are believed to be accurate, but others may wish to verify the veracity of the information by communication with the originating news agencies and their sources. Reproduction herein of those materials is covered by the Fair Use Doctrine, Title 17, Chap. 1, Sec. 107; this press release may be reproduced in whole or part.

3. No endorsement is made here of any conclusions, positions, or statements that other parties might have previously expressed about the facts referenced in this story. The opinions expressed above are solely those of the author.


************

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #103)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 02:21 PM

140. yep

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #103)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 04:12 PM

154. Great post.

Also, you show amazing patience to still keep writing here. Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleko (Reply #154)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 05:09 PM

156. Thank you for that.

I like it here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #156)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 10:22 PM

173. One of these days

in one of these threads, you have to tell us why.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #103)

Wed Aug 8, 2012, 11:05 PM

219. There should be an investigation

as new information becomes available. After November 2012?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rosa Luxemburg (Reply #219)

Thu Aug 9, 2012, 08:14 AM

221. If you can book Senate Hearing Room 226 and round up the Committee, I'll be there.

But, I'll leave that open on my calendar, just in case they have other plans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian David (Reply #1)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 09:54 AM

115. +1000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 06:19 PM

2. So now it all comes out.

So "Bush kept us safe," huh?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to emulatorloo (Reply #2)

Wed Aug 8, 2012, 06:27 PM

217. So, Condi...what will your speech at the convention be about? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 06:20 PM

3. Can you IMAGINE if Obama had spent the entire month of August 2009 on vacation???

They would have tried to impeach him before his first year in office was over.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 06:31 PM

5. LIHOP, anyone?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #5)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 06:53 PM

9. After the way he handled Katrina, I've decided it's more ineptness.

Republicans don't know how to lead.

I've been through two major hurricanes in my lifetime -- Betsy, during LBJ's presidency, & Katrina. LBJ helped to get our area back to normal very swiftly. I'll never forget the difference between the two aftermaths. Bush was cruel & very political, which was the last kind of leadership we needed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pacalo (Reply #9)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 07:24 PM

18. Who said their response to Katrina wasn't LIHOP as well?

It wasn't exactly a secret that NO wasn't prepared for a major hurricane, and the GOP had an abiding interest in weakening the Democratic Party's hold on urban areas generally. It still does. Gov. Piyush is proof of that.

National leaders - not necessarily the figureheads, and no matter what their political affiliation - are usually blessed with great ability & have great accomplishments behind them. There's no need for them to suddenly display unusual ignorance, stupidity & incompetence when simple unfeasance will do the job they want & need to be done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #18)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 10:25 PM

77. The aftermath under Bush's leadership was like living in a gulag situation.

National Guardsmen with assault rifles everywhere, having to line up at Wal-Mart (the only grocery store that was stocked up ) for groceries, checkpoints everywhere, curfews -- it was like living in a nightmare.

It could very well have been LIHOP. He certainly couldn't put politics aside in dealing with the Democratic mayor & governor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #18)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 03:29 PM

147. re: Who said their response to Katrina wasn't LIHOP as well?

 

Yep.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to pacalo (Reply #9)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 02:17 PM

138. They are business people. There is a distinct difference between running a business where you are

the last word and leading a country where you are supposed to represent all the people. This is one real problem I see with Rmoney and why he is so out of touch.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #5)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 07:02 PM

12. PNAC wrote the game plan for the ME in the '90s

They needed a new "Pearl Harbor" event to get their plans in motion - taxcuts and war! The way you let it happen is to make sure you (POTUS) don't let yourself know what's going on. You can't prevent what you don't know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Old and In the Way (Reply #12)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 07:27 PM

19. The PNAC is the context to which I judge what happened.

It's very hard to dispute that they didn't want what happened once you've read that document. In fact, they wanted it to happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Old and In the Way (Reply #12)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 09:13 PM

56. kick .. PNAC is alive and well today.. look at the mideast...

 

I think that most Americans know in their heart-of-hearts that 911 was an inside job.. designed to justify the WOT.

Its a terrible thing to live with and admit... (the cognitive dissonance) to acknowledge that there is a shadow govt or group of humans in the U.S. who would do what they did on on 911.

But they did do it.. and it happened.. can't change that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lib2DaBone (Reply #56)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 10:24 PM

76. Romney will be a pushover for them

He has already said that he will carry on the agenda.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rosa Luxemburg (Reply #76)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 10:04 AM

116. You are right on. It is scary what will transpire if he is elected.

Romney is just as inept as was Bush in dealing with the neo-cons. They are salivating just thinking that his winning will give them the green light to reignite their plans to dominate the Middle East by firstly bombing Iran into the stone age and then wiping out the Palestinians leaving Israel the dominate force in the chaotic Middle East.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Old and In the Way (Reply #12)

Thu Jun 21, 2012, 12:37 AM

179. PNAC in context reads a lot different.

It's shocking without context, and lame in context.

They did get their laptops upgraded a bit, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boppers (Reply #179)

Mon Aug 6, 2012, 01:35 PM

215. So some of the most powerful people in the United States,

have a acual manifesto for world domination and that's "lame" in context? It's acually the other way around it's not shocking without context since it's a thinktank. When you add the context of powerful people and world domination it's shocking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ashgrey77 (Reply #215)

Wed Aug 8, 2012, 06:23 PM

216. Some of the most powerful people in the world thought troops should get better laptops in the field.

Read the report. The whole thing. They're talking about IT upgrades. Not world domination, but upgrading military technology.

When you "add the context of powerful people and world domination", you are adding something that isn't in the original PNAC document.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #5)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 07:24 PM

17. +10000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #5)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 07:32 PM

24. How about

MIHOP. I will ALWAYS believe that. Too many holes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #5)

Sat Jun 23, 2012, 03:41 PM

210. Nope!

MIHOP!
Read "Rebuilding America's Defenses" and you will see why.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 06:48 PM

7. The network news on this will be pre-empted by the usual dog and pony shows.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #7)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 07:31 PM

23. Exactly.

If a bunch of insiders came forward and exposed how the Pentagon arranged the attack on 9/11 the news would be all about a bear running around in the suburbs, a flight delay because of some married couple arguing, and how Obama's poll numbers are tied with "what's his name"....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #7)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 09:48 AM

113. Dog and Pony shows?

That is SOOOOO 2011-ish.

What'z zappening in the modern day is the wild and crazy up and coming sport of the masses:

dressage

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101735587

NASCAR, it's been nice knowin' yah. Get back to bootlegging and rum running where you belong!

Let's get Obama re-elected and blow the lid off this MIHOP/LIHOP 9-11 once and for fucking all!

The prosecution of George W. for TREASON will make for marvelous TV, doncha think?

-90% Jimmy

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 90-percent (Reply #113)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 11:34 AM

124. obama

would never blow the lid off 9/11. he and the *ushes are buds!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 06:52 PM

8. Hindsight is 20/20

From June to September 2011, a full seven CIA Senior Intelligence Briefs detailed that attacks were imminent, an incredible amount of information from one intelligence agency.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 06:57 PM

10. At some point we need to apologize to the CTers.

Because it is not just a theory.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #10)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 07:33 PM

26. CTers?

what is a CTer?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rosa Luxemburg (Reply #26)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 07:49 PM

34. conspiracy theorist (aka a smear used all too often to shut down a person not towing

 

the 'company line'.

Off course there are many truly ridiculous and/or patently false people and theories when it comes to 9-11, but the vast majority of these psy-ops are simply disinfo designed to give a convenient brush with which to discredit legitimate scholarship and the massive lies that emanate from the official US government's version of what happened.

This short video sums up a lot of the legitimate questions about 9-11:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stockholmer (Reply #34)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 08:04 PM

39. Wow...that is the best summation of it I have ever seen.

and done quickly too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #39)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 08:34 PM

43. You wonder about Bush and the 'yellowcake' saga

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stockholmer (Reply #34)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 08:45 PM

45. Lost me almost immediately

I was genuinely curious to hear what the video might say, but the early distortions about how difficult the 9/11 attacks were to accomplish immediately turned me off.

The essential truth about the 9/11 attacks were that they were ridiculously simple to carry out, owing to our arrogance and greed. And bin Laden being in a cave somewhere is irrelevant, since he wasn't directly involved in the planning or execution of the attacks.

Wish the message could come from a foundation of truth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stockholmer (Reply #34)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 09:12 PM

55. That's a good one

Those are questions I want answered. But to ask such a thing is to be labeled a "twofer". Or if one points out that in ALL of the photo's and video from all 4 crashes, we see no seats. 800 plus seats nowhere to be found in ANY picture. DNA identified, but frames of burnt out seats or empty seats or occupied seats are nowhere.

I know it sounds crazy. But I bet no one here can find one picture of a seat. Please IM me if you do. Show me I'm wrong. Not all seats would have burned up. DNA is more fragile than seats. And that last picture of the video with Pentagon employees picking up evidence off the ground is very puzzling. Why would workers who work at the Pentagon not be guarding the Pentagon or DC from another attack? Why was Rumsfailed helping victims instead of doing his job? 40 minutes after the second tower attack, the highways near and around the Pentagon were still open. WHY?

Because they knew there would be no more "attacks", that's why.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicalboi (Reply #55)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 10:02 PM

66. Seats?

Maybe there weren't any - who knows?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicalboi (Reply #55)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 10:10 PM

71. They didn't even find a plane...

...where the 'let's roll' crew supposedly crashed; let alone seats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicalboi (Reply #55)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 11:11 PM

85. more questions

 

Last edited Wed Jun 20, 2012, 01:18 AM - Edit history (2)

1. Building 7 was reported on live BBC TV was having collpased when it was still plainly visible on the screen. It didnt collapse until 20 minutes later.

BBC Reports Collapse of WTC Building 7 Early-- TWICE



2. How were the calls from AA fights 77 (Pentagon crash) and Flight 93 (Pennsylvania 'Let's Roll' crash) made? Both were 757's. The Airphones were deactivated on AA 757's in January 2001, at the lastest, and cell phones couldnt be used at that height the planes were flying at the time almost all the calls were made.

http://tinyurl.com/yl8gz59


Did American 77 Have Onboard Phones?

 Statements from various representatives of American Airlines that its Boeing 757s did not have onboard phones, the most important of these being Chad Kinder, who, in response to the question whether it was true that there were no “seatback satellite phones on any Boeing 757 on September 11, 2001,” said: “That is correct; we do not have phones on our Boeing 757. The passengers on flight 77 used their own personal cellular phones to make out calls during the terrorist attack.”95

 A page, dated January 28, 2001, purportedly from the Boeing 757 Aircraft Maintenance Manual (757 AMM), which states: “The passenger telephone system was deactivated by ECO FO878.”96 Although the phones were physically removed from the planes in 2002, this document says that they were deactivated, so that they could not be used, almost eight months before September 11, 2001. The authenticity of this page is vouched for by an American Airlines employee who, although he wishes to remain anonymous, is known to Rob Balsamo of Pilots for 9/11 Truth.





 The following statement of American Airlines Public Relations Representative John Hotard: “An Engineering Change Order to deactivate the seatback phone system on the 757 fleet had been issued by that time .” Following this statement, Hotard emphasized that photographs showing seatback phones in American 757s after 9/11 would not prove anything, for this reason: “We did two things: issued the engineering change orders to disconnect/disable the phones, but then did not physically remove the phones until the aircraft went . . . in for a complete overhaul.”97

 The following statement by Captain Ralph Kolstad, who flew Boeing 757s (as well as 767s) as captain from 1993 until he retired in 2005: “he ‘air phones,’ as they were called, were . . . deactivated in early or mid 2001. They had been deactivated for quite some time prior to Sep 2001.” In response to a question about this statement, he added: “I have no proof, but I am absolutely certain that the phones were disconnected on the 757 long before Sep 2001. They were still physically installed in the aircraft, but they were not operational.”98

Given the fact that these four mutually supporting pieces of evidence come from completely different sources, they provide very strong evidence for the view that American 757s in 2001, and hence American Flight 77, did not have functioning onboard phones.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cell Phone Limitations

http://tinyurl.com/yc24883


Given the cell phone technology available in 2001, cell phone calls from airliners at altitudes of more than a few thousand feet, especially calls lasting more than a few seconds, were virtually – and perhaps completely – impossible. And yet many of the reported cell phone calls occurred when the planes were above 25,000 or even 40,000 feet24 and also lasted a minute or more – with Amy Sweeney’s reported call even lasting for 12 minutes.25

Three problems have been pointed out: (1) The cell phone in those days had to complete a “handshake” with a cellsite on the ground, which took several seconds, so a cell phone in a high-speed plane would have had trouble staying connected to a cellsite long enough to complete a call. (2) The signals were sent out horizontally, from cellsite to cellsite, not vertically. Although there was some leakage upward, the system was not designed to activate cell phones at high altitudes.26 (3) Receiving a signal was made even more difficult by the insulation provided by the large mass of an airliner.

Well-known Canadian scientist and mathematician A. K. Dewdney, who for many years had written a column for Scientific American, reported early in 2003 on experiments showing that these difficulties would have rendered impossible at least most of the reported cell phone calls from the 911 airliners.27 His experiments involved both single- and double-engine airplanes.

Dewdney found that, in a single-engine plane, successful calls could be counted on only under 2,000 feet. Above that altitude, they became increasingly unlikely. At 20,000 feet,

“the chance of a typical cellphone call making it to ground and engaging a cellsite there is less than one in a hundred.... he probability that two callers will succeed is less than one in ten thousand.”

The likelihood of 13 successful calls, Dewdney added, would be “infinitesimal.”28 In later experiments using a twin-engine plane, which has greater mass and hence provides greater insulation from electronic signals, Dewdney found that the success rate decayed to 0 percent at 7,000 feet.29 A large airliner, having much greater mass, would provide far more insulation – a fact, Dewdney added, that “is very much in harmony with many anecdotal reports ...that in large passenger jets, one loses contact during takeoff, frequently before the plane reaches 1000 feet altitude.”30 Dewdney concluded, therefore, that numerous successful cell phone calls from airliners flying above 30,000 feet would have been “flat out impossible.”31

Such calls would become possible only several years later. In 2004, Qualcomm announced a successful demonstration of a fundamentally new kind of cell phone technology, involving a “picocell,” that would allow passengers “to place and receive calls as if they were on the ground.” American Airlines announced that this new technology was expected to be commercially available in 2006.32 This technology, in fact, first became available on commercial flights in March 2008.33

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. The extraordinary amount of drills occuring on or around 9-11-2001. Biggest swarm in modern history, with many involving hijacked airplanes, some flown into hi-rises, and some of them planned before Bush was elected.

http://archives.kpfa.org/data/20110907-Wed1300.mp3 Radio Pacifica, Guns and Butter Show

THE 46 DRILLS, OPERATIONS, WAR GAMES, AND ACTIVITIES OF 9/11

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?29696-The-46-drills-operations-war-games-and-activities-of-9-11

THE 46 DRILLS, OPERATIONS, WAR GAMES, AND ACTIVITIES OF 9/11
1
PRE-9/11 PREPARATION
Drill Date Scenario
1 NORAD Between 1991 and 2001 Foreign hijacked airliner crashing into
famous US building

2 White House, Richard
Clarke
1998 Terrorists load Lear Jet with explosive,
attack Washington DC

3 NORAD 1999-2001 Hijacked aircraft hit many targets,
including WTC, MASCAL

4 Able Danger: DIA, USSOCOM,
LIWA
Dec. 1999-2001 Manipulate al Qaeda; data mining (patsy
control)

5 Stratus Ivy: DIA Dec. 1999-2001 (?) Operate on patsies “out of the box” (patsy
control)

6 Door Hop Galley: DIA (?) Dec. 1999-2001 (?) Still secret (patsy control?)

7 Proactive Pre-emptive
Operations Group (P2OG)
unknown “Stimulating reactions” of terrorists (patsy
control)

8 NORAD (NEADS)
Exercises: UN HQ, NYC
October 16, 2000 Terrorist crashes Federal Express plane
into UN HQ NYC

9 NORAD (NEADS)
Exercises: UN HQ NYC
October 23, 2000 Terrorist crashes Fedex plane with WMD
into UN HQ NYC

10 Pentagon MASCAL
exercise
Oct. 24-28, 2000 Commercial aircraft hits Pentagon,
MASCAL

11 FAA drill December, 2000 Scenario: a chartered flight out of Ohio
that had turned its transponder off

12 Positive Force ’01:
NORAD plus a dozen
agencies; worldwide
April 17-26, 2001 Continuity of government; attacks on
transportation; one scenario: terrorist
group hijacking commercial airliner and
flying it into Pentagon (Pentagon attack)

13 Unified Vision ’01: US
JFCOM; US CENTCOM;
US SOCOM: 40 agencies
May 7-24, 2001 Invasion of Afghanistan and Pakistan
(prepared Operation Enduring Freedom,
October 2001)

14 Red Ex (Recognition,
Evaluation, and Decision-
Making Exercise); NYC
OEM; FDNY; NYPD;
FEMA; FBI
May 11, 2001 Plane crashes and building collapses in
New York City (WTC attack, demolition)

15 Amalgam Virgo ’01: USCanada
multi-agency drill;
NORAD; SEADS; Coast
Guard, Army, Navy
June 1-2, 2001 UAV drone launched from rogue freighter
in Gulf of Mexico or cruise missile from
barge in Atlantic Ocean; Joint Based
Expeditionary Connectivity Center
(JBECC) mobile radar command center
tested. (Pentagon attack)

16 Mall Strike 2001,
Westmoreland County,
Pennsylvania (near
Shanksville); 600 local first
responders and
emergency managers
June 16, 2001 Toxic chemical agent and the simulated
release of radiation and radiological
contamination; (indoctrination of first
responders).

17 FAA Drill: FBI Miami field
office, Miami-Dade County
Police Department.
Summer 2001 Varig airlines Boeing 767 hijacked over
Florida

18 Ft. Belvoir, Davison Army
Airfield helicopter base
MASCAL
June 29, 2001 Scenario based on plane hitting Pentagon
(indoctrination of first responders).

19 US Department of
Transportation Hijacking
Exercise
August 31, 2001 US Dept. of Transportation Crisis
Management Center drilled hijacks;
simulated cell phone calls.

20 NORAD, NEADS (Vigilant
Guardian)
September 6, 2001 Tokyo to Anchorage flight hijacked by
“Mum Hykro” to Vancouver and San
Francisco

21 NORAD, NEADS (Vigilant
Guardian)
September 6, 2001 Seoul to Anchorage flight hijacked by “Lin
Po” to Seattle

22 NORAD, NEADS (Vigilant
Guardian)
September 9, 2001 UK to NYC flight hijacked, blown up

23 NORAD SEADS NEADS
(Vigilant Guardian)
September 10, 2001 Ilyushin IL-62 from Cuba hijacked by
asylum seekers, lands at Dobbins Air
Force Base in Georgia
ON 9/11
Drill Date Scenario

24 FBI training exercise in
Monterey, California for
FBI/CIA Anti-Terrorist
Task Force
Through 9/11 Diverts top FBI, CIA anti-terrorist and
special operations agents and heavy
equipment away from Boston, NYC,
Washington DC

25 NORAD annual readiness
drill, Cheyenne Mountain,
CO (Vigilant Guardian)
9/11 Full ‘battle staff’ levels to test entire
organization

26 Vigilant Guardian:
NORAD, NEADS, USCanada
9/11 Live-fly hijacking and air defense; hijack
multiplication, diversion and confusion

27 NORAD/JCS Vigilant
Warrior
Through 9/11 Reported by Richard Clarke

28 Operation Southern Watch Through 9/11 Diverts 174th Fighter Wing, New York Air
National Guard, to Sultan Air Base, Saudi
Arabia, to impose no-fly zone over
southern Iraq

29 Operation Northern Watch Through 9/11 Diverts 6 fighters from Langley AFB sent
to Incirlik AFB, Turkey to impose no-fly
zone over northern Iraq

30 Operation Northern
Vigilance
Through 9/11 Diverts fighters, 350 personnel to Alaska
and northern Canada to counter a
Russian bomber drill

31 Operation Northern
Guardian, Keflavik AFB,
Iceland
Through 9/11 Diverts fighters from Langley Air Force
Base (Virginia) deployed to Keflavik AFB,
Iceland to counter a Russian bomber drill

32 Red Flag, Nellis AFB,
Nevada: 100 pilots
9/11 Diverts most F-15s of 71st Fighter
Squadron, Langley AFB, VA; DC ANG’s
121st Fighter Squadron of Andrews Air
Force Base also depleted.

33 Andrews AFB local drill 9/11 Diverts 3 F-16s to North Carolina

34 National Reconnaissance
Office drill, Chantilly,
Virginia
9/11 Simulated plane crash into high-rise
government building; satellite imaging
(WTC attack)

35 Tripod II, New York City 9/11 Response to biochemical attack; run from
backup command center at Pier 92,
Hudson River.

36 Fort Meyer VA Education
Center training drill for
9/11 Assembled and indoctrinated Pentagon
first responders, local firemen.

37 Timely Alert II, Fort
Monmouth, New Jersey
9/11 Indoctrination of WTC first responders.

38 World Trade Center
Emergency Drill, Fiduciary
Trust Co., 97th floor,
South Tower
9/11 Meeting called to assemble and silence
unreliable outside contractors?

39 Global Guardian,
STRATCOM: Offutt AFB,
Nebraska; Barksdale AFB,
Louisiana; Minot AFB,
North Dakota; Whiteman
AFB, Missouri.
9/11 Nuclear warfighting; Armageddon.
(deterrence of Russia and China during
invasion of Afghanistan and Pakistan)

40 Amalgam Warrior 9/11 Large live-fly air defense and air intercept,
tracking, and surveillance drill; air defense
against foreign retaliation.

41 Crown Vigilance, Air
Combat Command
9/11 No details known.

42 Apollo Guardian, US
Space Command
9/11 No details known.

43 AWACS drill, ordered by
NORAD commander Gen.
Larry Arnold
9/11 Two AWACS aircraft from Tinker AFB,
Oklahoma sent over Washington DC and
Florida; surveillance of capital and
president during coup.

44 Global Guardian Computer
Network Attack
9/11 Enemy forces “war dialed” STRATCOM’s
telephone and fax systems; “bad insider”
has access to key C³ system (missile
launch option)

45 STRATCOM Strategic
Advisory Committee, Offutt
AFB, Nebraska; Andrews
AFB, MD; Wright-
Patterson AFB, Dayton,
Ohio.
9/11 Three E-4B National Airborne Operations
Center planes (Doomsday or Looking
Glass) airborne; passengers include Brent
Scowcroft; Warren Buffet at Offutt.
(Committee. of Public Safety option?))
After 9/11
Drill Date Scenario

46 Amalgam Virgo ‘02 Scheduled for June 2002 Air defense, interception, surveillance,
and pursuit drill; Delta 757 with real Delta
pilots, actors as passengers, FBI as
hijackers - deviated from Salt Lake City to
Hawaii; Canadian police to hijack DC-9
near Vancouver BC.

------------------------------------------------

the best 9-11 timeline on the net:

http://www.historycommons.org/project.jsp?project=911_project

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stockholmer (Reply #85)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 11:23 PM

86. A simple question relating to point 3: was 11, 175, 193, or 77 involved in the hijacking drills?

I believe there was live simulations of hijackings with counter-hijacking methods to thwart these simulations planned under this umbrella exercise....like RC systems? Might that explain why a lot of folks from Raytheon's RC Division were onboard UA11 that day?

Because if 1 or more of these planes were involved, what are the chances that the hijackers would have picked this day and those plane(s) involved in this exercise? It'd be a miracle of coincidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Old and In the Way (Reply #86)

Thu Jun 21, 2012, 06:19 PM

192. none were part of the live drills that day but..................

 

Flight 77 which took off from Dulles airport in Washington D.C., was piloted by Capt. Charles Burlingame who was a Navy fighter pilot and once worked on anti-terrorism strategies in the Pentagon (the same area of the Pentagon that got hit), and one of the many unusual passengers on this flight.

"At Dulles Airport, Capt. Charles Burlingame, who had been a Navy F-4 pilot and once worked on anti-terrorism strategies in the Pentagon, was steering his 757, American Airlines Flight 77, down the runway for the long flight to Los Angeles." - Washington Post (09/16/04)

"Mark Burlingame said his brother was in the Navy Reserve and had worked in the same area of the Pentagon where the airliner crashed." - Newsday

this and much more at:

http://killtown.911review.org/911smokingguns.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stockholmer (Reply #192)

Thu Jun 21, 2012, 06:55 PM

193. Curious how you know this.

"none were part of the live drills that day" And how would we know if they were? I doubt that info would ever have leaked out of the Rumsfield's Pentagon. Would be just a little too coincidental, no? The Raytheon connection to UA11 and the war game sims gaming anti hi-jacking scenarios has always bothered me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Old and In the Way (Reply #193)

Thu Jun 21, 2012, 07:39 PM

195. sorry, I should have said none that I know of, I apologize

 



As for the 'official' 9-11 fable put out by the USA government, that, IMHO, is the true conspiracy theory, requiring so much willful denial of events and pure hard evidence that it boggles the mind. I do not pretend to know exactly how it happened, but I would bet my life that it didn't happen the way the official line says it did.

9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out, Full-length, Pre-Release-v1.3; Low-Res.



http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/629-world-premiere-tour-911-explosive-evidence-experts-speak-out-final-edition.html

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Government Admits Flight 93 Shot Down


In the prosecution of Bin Laden's driver at Gitmo, the government just made an interesting admission.

Prosecutor Timothy Stone made the admission in his opening remarks:


"If they hadn't shot down the fourth plane it would've hit the dome," Stone, a Navy officer, said in his opening remarks."



The quote originally appeared in a Reuters article, http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/07/23/us-guantanamo-hearings-hamdan-idUSN2230096620080723 which was then edited to omit the quote. It still appears in the version of the article posted in the Brisbane Times (Australia) and other newspapers.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/world/the-fourth-plane-wouldve-hit-the-dome/2008/07/23/1216492500620.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stockholmer (Reply #195)

Thu Jun 21, 2012, 07:50 PM

196. Thanks...and I couldn't agree more with this point:

"I do not pretend to know exactly how it happened, but I would bet my life that it didn't happen the way the official line says it did. "

That's really where I come down on the issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicalboi (Reply #55)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 08:09 AM

102. I can answer a couple of your questions.

Anyone collecting or cleaning up debris at the Pentagon had to have a security clearance - at a very high level. A friend of mine was one of those people - he was called to come over to the Pentagon, given a hazmat suit, and instructed to start picking up any debris that might be classified. He was not trained to provide security - he was instructed to only search the ground for items that could be classified. So that would explain some of the personnel that you described.

Rumsfeld was running around the building telling everyone to find some link to Iraq.

The highways near and around the Pentagon are major arteries out of DC. DC is surrounded on 3 sides by water. To shut down those arteries would have prevented any evacuation of the city - which had started already. By the time I had made it out of the city into Arlington later that day, roads heading into DC were indeed blocked. I walked from the Metro past the blockade of National Guard, and saw a US Postal worker with a truck asking them what he was supposed to do with his truck full of mail if he could not get to the post office three blocks away.

I don't know about the seats. My neighbor Lennie was in one of them. He was on the phone with his wife in the last minutes of his life.

Edited to add: I'm aware of the controversy surrounding the number of cell phone calls made from flight 77. I only know what Karen told me much later.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicalboi (Reply #55)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 09:27 AM

110. About DNA, and why it may have been more likely to have survived a blast than metal

DNA could survive an explosion, as lightweight fragments of bone, skin get blown away from the point of impact, and subsequent fireball.

There was DNA collected from the tops of buildings around the WTC.

The majority of the plane bodies in the WTC were consumed in the building collapse. However there are fragments of plane all over the place around the Pentagon, Jet engines landed on the street in NYC.

In the Pentagon, the plane hit the pavement first, then entered the building penetrating 3 of the rings - and causing damage to all 5. The roof over the plane held for about 35 minutes, thanks to the then recent reinforcements to that side of the building. This saved many lives due to evacuation. Then the roof collapsed and several stories of flaming debris and reinforced concrete caved in on the what was left of the burning wreckage.

Some small personal effects - and DNA - of passengers were found strewn away from area of the crash (some found by my friend), likely due to the blast on impact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicalboi (Reply #55)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 12:03 PM

128. Not all seats would have burned up

Show me the evidence for this claim.

DNA is more fragile than seats

It's also not strongly bolted to the airplane, and bits of light material containing DNA can be blown away from an explosion.

And that last picture of the video with Pentagon employees picking up evidence off the ground is very puzzling.

A building full of classified, and you're wondering why they're going around trying to collect stuff that came out of the building?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicalboi (Reply #55)

Thu Jun 21, 2012, 12:45 AM

180. You know about google, right?

"But I bet no one here can find one picture of a seat."

Here, have two:

Seats:


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stockholmer (Reply #34)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 02:31 PM

141. This Video was discussed in Creative Speculation several month ago

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1135588

Much of what is in the video isn't accurate or doesn't support the "truther" claims.

Perhaps you could visit that group and discuss the video in more detail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stockholmer (Reply #34)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 03:41 PM

148. Thank you for sharing that

... hadn't seen it but have been totally on-board with all of it since the beginning when my spidey sense caused me to ask that same question to my husband the night it happened. I remember saying "You don't think anyone would allow this to happen or cause it to happen on purpose, do you?" and 10 years later, that question is still out there.

Wonderful video. Reposted on FB and expect some fireworks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stockholmer (Reply #34)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 03:59 PM

151. Pardon my ignorance...

...but what is the significance of the photo at 3'10"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rosa Luxemburg (Reply #26)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 07:56 PM

37. Conspiracy theorist.

You know...anyone that does not believe the official story about anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #10)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 08:59 PM

51. Why? Not one word in either the OP nor the extended article supports MIHOP or

LIHOP or any version thereof. Not. One. Word.

This is why CT'ers have such credibility problems: they simply declare things to be the way they believe them to be, facts be damned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #51)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 09:30 PM

58. Why can't we ask

Why the Pentagon didn't protect itself or DC? Why can't we see another video of the Pentagon attack. We KNOW they have camera's EVERYWHERE. They are supposed to be working for us. Looking out for us. The second tower attack happened at 9:03, the Pentagon was hit around 9:46. What did they the Pentagon DO? How could our biggest defense building get hit by a passenger plane? Who is to BLAME?

They tell us don't blame anyone and go shopping. So we are the nuts? Don't you want what you pay for to work for you. (Pentagon). And if they fail, don't you want accountability? Or is that blurry video enough for you? It boggles my mind that people accept this and go on like it's the truth. Now imagine Obama's Pentagon getting hit. Do you think the Repukes are going to sit back and not blame anyone?

What "facts" do you have that supports the Pentagons actions that morning? Where were the missiles that should have protected the air space of DC? Who is supposed to take care of that? Oh, the Pentagon. Think about all the money we give them, and when they fail us, they say don't blame anyone, or you're unpatriotic if you do.

Does it make sense that our defense building gets attacked? Does it make sense that our defense building didn't even defend itself? Does it make sense or Secretary of Defense was helping victims rather than doing his job? How did he know it was over? How come he wasn't with the VP and SOS discussing what to do next behind closed doors? You guys who believe the Bush "story" don't expect much from your government if you're willing to be so lax as they are. The theft of the 2000 election was their preview.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicalboi (Reply #58)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 11:51 AM

126. Your questions are very easily answered

By law, the military can't attack anyone inside the US, unless there is an invasion of the US. That's why there was a huge controversy when W created "Northern Command" - it's supposed to plan for military operations inside the US, but it would be illegal to perform such operations.

So even if there were any SAMs at the Pentagon, it would not be legal to fire them.

Not to mention that a SAM doesn't make the plane go "poof" like in a video game. Shooting down the plane would make the plane crash into civilians. The military would rather absorb the hit on a heavily reinforced military building than let it destroy a very large number of lightweight civilian buildings. Compare the damage and deaths between the WTC and the Pentagon, and you'll see why.

Where were the missiles that should have protected the air space of DC?

Strapped under the wings of F-15s flying in from Cape Cod. They hadn't arrived yet when the plane hit. And they weren't being sent to intercept the plane anyway because nobody knew it was there.

Before 9/11, our air defense doctrine was to intercept aircraft over the ocean before they reached the US. So our defenses were set up to do that, not respond to an attack originating inside the US. Because the threat model was Soviet bombers, not commandeered civilian aircraft.

As part of this doctrine, radar systems inside the US were not built to detect aircraft. They were built to trigger transponders in aircraft. This requires much lower power radar, so there's major benefits for doing it this way. More powerful radars were essentially "pointed" outside the US, looking for incoming bombers.

Since the 9/11 hijackers turned off the transponders, there was no way to know exactly where the aircraft were. They weren't in the view of the more powerful radars. So no one knew the plane was flying towards the DC area, so it couldn't be intercepted.

AWACS aircraft were put into the air as the situation unfolded, because they have radar that can detect aircraft with transponders turned off. That's why it was possible to send fighters to intercept the plane that crashed in the corn field. But AWACS aircraft were not "on standby", so it took a bit to get into the air (gotta find the crew, fuel the aircraft, figure out where exactly to fly the plane, and so on).

How come he wasn't with the VP and SOS discussing what to do next behind closed doors?

Because he's largely unnecessary for such a response. The Secretary of Defense is a bureaucrat. His primary job is to pay the bills and oversee the civilians that work for the DoD.

The people who actually know something about military strategy are the Joint Chiefs of Staff. They would be the ones consulted on a military response, and in fact they were the ones consulted on a military response.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #10)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 11:46 PM

92. No it isn't and never was.

I've had many such posts thrown in the dungeon because I dared question the "official story," and I have maintained for years that eventually and little-by-little, the truth will come out.

Dick Cheney* knew more about 9/11 than Saddam Hussein.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Raster (Reply #92)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 09:50 AM

114. Dick Cheney* knew more about 9/11 than Saddam Hussein.

Thank you for my next bumper sticker!

-90% jimmy

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #10)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 12:05 AM

95. So because Bush lied about something everyone knew he lied about...

that means everything the foil hatters said was right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #95)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 07:36 AM

98. Did I say that?

Everything would also include the ton of disinformation that is created to cover up the lie...and in fact is the reason for the disinformation...to give us all the ability to say what you said...you mean you believe that alien reptiles rule this world?...if you believe one you must believe them all.
The best way to hide the truth is to cover it with a pile of shit.

The reason for the lie was to cover up the truth that 9/11 was a false flag operation designed to get us into a permanent war...and the facts are there and are numerous.but if you are afraid of being accused of wearing a tin foil hat you will never look at them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 07:00 PM

11. Ridiculous!

Anyone who didn't believe the official explanation from the Bush White House is an idiot, a twoofer, belongs in the dungeon with all the other kooks.

Someone says that on DU nearly every day.

This report must be wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 07:03 PM

13. i'll take a LIHOP with a large limited hangout to go..

please drive thru.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 07:13 PM

14. They also fired the #1 Al Qaeda expert

"unauthorized use of a government vehicle" my ass.

RIP John O'Neill
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mnpaul (Reply #14)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 07:36 PM

28. Check this out

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicalboi (Reply #28)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 07:45 PM

31. Sorry, audio is too annoying

gives me a headache

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 07:20 PM

16. People tend to forget

The Republicans were claiming the Clinton administration was exaggerating the treat of Islamic terrorism to distract the country from the Lewinski scandal. They railed about a million dollar missile taking out a ten dollar tent and called them "Monica Missiles". The movie "Wag The Dog" was all about a president using a war to distract everyone from his criminality and the Republicans kept repeating that crap until it became a FACT in their bubble. Any word about terrorism coming from any agency was seen as former Clinton loyalists trying to cover for their ex-boss. The attitude was one of, "Didn't you get the memo? That whole "terrorism" thing is over. We're in charge now.". Bush probably thought it was also a personal insult and purely a political move to try to pin anything on a member of the bin Laden family because of his ties to them.

Their focus was on finding an excuse to invade Iraq for multiple reasons:

Bush could stop the criticism against his family for not "finishing the job" during Desert Storm.

The Neocons were all set to go with their plan to take power over the world's oil and Cheney was carving up Iraq like a side of beef with oil company execs.

Then there was Bush's good buddies the Saudis who saw Saddam was trying to get the sanctions lifted by fully cooperating with the UN. Iraq was about to become a major threat by opening up untapped reserves that would flood the market and drop the price of oil globally which would make Saudi and Texas oil less profitable.

9/11 came at just the right time. Bush's poll numbers were at an all time low because of his domestic policies and ties to Ken Lay and his defending the accounting tricks in the Enron scandal. His tax cuts for the rich were wildly unpopular and he was pushing unneeded and unwanted Reagan Era SDI programs even though the Soviet Union didn't exist anymore. To top it off, word was about to come out that Gore actually got more votes in Florida so Bush didn't really win the election after all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #16)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 07:33 PM

25. +1

I recall an article I read many years ago (but after 9/11) about what you mentioned and the image of Bin Laden had lighting that appeared to be a halo over his head.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #16)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 08:56 PM

49. great summary

especially that first paragraph.

I really think it was a matter of Bush's legacy... the guy and his admin were simply incompetent -- where not innately incompetent, practically incompetent due to ideological tunnel vision.

And like all good vulture capitalists, opportunistic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krkaufman (Reply #49)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 09:45 PM

60. The very fact that they claimed Clinton was trying to distract

acknowledges they admit war can be reduced to a tool to deceive the public.

I have NEVER accused Dubya of being behind 9/11 but I HAVE accused him of being the type that would go along with it if the Pentagon and Cheney told him it would lead to an invasion of Iraq.

Let's face it. The Pentagon was facing actual extinction as a Cold War relic.

Being included in the attack guaranteed their participation and continued survival.

In hindsight though,....think about it....

Bush and company claimed al Qaeda was a powerful organization in 70 different countries and was described like they were the real life version of Ian Flemming's "Spectre" when they were little more than a biker gang. A failed one at that, having only a handful of members who'd been sent of to the ends of the earth. For THAT the Pentagon got a huge budget increase and pulled the dust cover off of some of their dream toys.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #16)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 09:00 PM

52. he hit the "trifecta"

in his own words.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Reply #52)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 09:47 PM

61. he hit the "trifecta"

So did the Saudis.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #61)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 12:04 PM

129. for reals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #16)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 10:21 PM

74. The British seem to suggest that bush and blair had already decided to invade Iraq

long before the 9/11 attacks. I forget where I read that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rosa Luxemburg (Reply #74)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 10:21 AM

117. Rumsfeld was running around the Pentagon that day

telling everyone to find a link to Iraq.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #117)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 03:18 PM

146. Meanwhile Cheney was in the situation room

being told something was going to hit Washington and was ordering a stand down.

The Pentagon has AUTOMATIC defenses that had to be SHUT OFF for a plane to get through.

What got me was the guy they claim was the pilot previously worked in the Pentagon and took part in a simulated attack of a plane hitting the Pentagon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #146)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 08:05 PM

163. I don't understand

If there were exercise going on that day it would make sense. They wouldn't know if it were friend or foe. I was always led to believe that the Pentagon was like a fortress and could detect 'enemy' aircraft. It does sound like someone did shut off the defenses on 9/11/01?

Which pilot worked in the Pentagon?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rosa Luxemburg (Reply #163)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 09:19 PM

169. Charles Burlingame

Of course the original Washington Post article about him taking part in exercises where an airliner hits the Pentagon have been conveniently scrubbed.

As have a LOT of articles from that time that don't fit the sanctioned version of events.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #169)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 09:25 PM

170. That's interesting

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rosa Luxemburg (Reply #74)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 08:26 PM

167. Just found this

Even before Bush's administration came to power an article written by his then national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, warned that "nothing will change" in Iraq until Saddam was gone, Sir Peter Ricketts, a former chairman of the joint intelligence committee (JIC) and now the Foreign Office's top official, told the inquiry.

"We were aware of these drumbeats from Washington and internally we discussed it. Our policy was to stay away from that part of the spectrum," added Sir William Patey, then head of the Middle East department at the Foreign Office.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/nov/24/iraq-war-chilcot-inquiry

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #16)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 10:47 AM

119. + 2, Welcome to D.U. Spitfire

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #16)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 10:48 AM

120. How convenient.....

To top it off, word was about to come out that Gore actually got more votes in Florida so Bush didn't really win the election after all.


Weren't those results to be made public on Sept 12?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SammyWinstonJack (Reply #120)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 03:11 PM

145. Yup.

Ain't that a hell of a coinkydink?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 07:28 PM

20. will the docs be posted online? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rateyes (Reply #20)

Fri Jun 22, 2012, 02:15 PM

204. Hiya, rateyes!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #204)

Fri Jun 22, 2012, 10:01 PM

207. hey octafish

thanks

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 07:30 PM

21. No surprise there

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 07:31 PM

22. WARNING! WARNING!

LOL! Yes and Osama bin Laden told the Pentagon to stand down and do NOTHING for 40 minutes after the second tower was attacked. Was Osama the President? LOL! Oh but let's not blame anyone. Even our Billion dollar defense building has it's flaws after all. I bet on 09/10/01 anyone could have strolled through the lawns of the Pentagon without even being noticed.

Apparently though, someone did, and they stole 2.3 Trillion dollars. Oh My! Too bad the Pentagon doesn't have ANY camera's to catch the thief. They surely couldn't catch a passenger jet. LOL!

9/11 happened just as planned for the most part. Most believe their "story". And they made sure to make doubters like myself look crazy. But in reality, they expect us to believe in crazy shit. Like the Pentagon did NOT protect us. How does a Billion dollar outfit not protect itself? How come nobody's heads rolled? Why are so many satisfied with a blurry video of the Pentagon? Is it too much to ask for others without being called a nut?

Shouldn't we hold them accountable for their failure? Why does our defense building get a pass? There's a reason for ignoring all the "warnings". They needed Osama alive to make him the boogy man.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicalboi (Reply #22)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 07:46 PM

32. I so believe your lasst sentence! Always thought that myself. Osama was the ticket to the wars. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snappyturtle (Reply #32)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 09:48 PM

63. We ALWAYS need

Monsters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicalboi (Reply #22)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 07:51 PM

36. ...and a hole in the side of the pentagon

that the plane that hit the building wouldn't fit through.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blanks (Reply #36)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 08:00 PM

38. .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cooley Hurd (Reply #38)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 08:40 PM

44. I don't believe all the conspiracy theories.

Just the ones that make the Bush administration look bad.

...I guess that is all of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blanks (Reply #36)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 09:02 PM

53. So if not the plane then what happened to Flight 77?

Were the passengers shipped off to Gitmo? For the rational snopes has a good article on this exposing how stupid these conspiracy theories are about the Pentagon attack. http://snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.asp

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #53)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 09:58 PM

65. It's stupid to ask questions?

The flight list didn't have the "terrorist" names on it. The DNA was identified but the plane melted? How does DNA survive, but no reconstruction of a plane? The FAA usually does reconstructions. How come no reconstructions were done on 9/11 planes? Remember flight 800 to Paris? Why do you accept a blurry video of the Pentagon attack with all the camera's available? Is that acceptable to you that our defense building can't even defend itself?

And why didn't these "friendly" pilots "terrorist" not fly out of NY? I guess flying over military bases was easier than hijacking a plane after take off from JFK and turning it around. But, you go on. We're the stupid ones after all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicalboi (Reply #65)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 10:09 PM

70. I always have this burning question

Nobody seems to be able to answer this but how the Pentagon - military fortress of the world was actually attacked? Surely they had some missile defense? It is very worrying if they didn't. Where did our tax dollars go? If I had been the Commander in Chief I would have fired all the military commanders including Norad chiefs. There was no excuse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rosa Luxemburg (Reply #70)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 11:23 PM

87. The fighters are supposed to be scrambled...

...in something like 15 minutes. That, coupled with the fact that they were actually conducting exercises, should have easily had fighters in the air in the time between when the first tower was hit and when the second was hit.

My wife insists that they shot the plane down in Pennsylvania, they may have shot the pentagon with a missile. I'm not saying I think that's what happened, but that is actually more consistent with the damage to the pentagon than a plane hitting it.

We'll never know the truth; we may as well have some fun guessing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blanks (Reply #87)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 08:32 AM

107. Tell your wife my neighbor was on that "missile" that hit the Pentagon.

And my boss, who was stuck in traffic next to the Pentagon, saw a commercial aircraft hit the Pentagon that morning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #107)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 09:24 AM

109. I'm not sure why I would tell her that...

...since that seems like a stupid thing to say to someone who thinks they shot down the plane in Pennsylvania.

I don't want to seem cold, but I don't know you. I don't know your boss and I didn't know your neighbor.

I could tell you that I shot a missile at the pentagon so I know that one hit it, and you couldn't disprove it.

It's a perfectly reasonable question to ask why the hole in the side of the pentagon wasn't big enough for the plane to go through and expect a reasonable explanation. If you believe that a plane hit the pentagon, because the facts that are in front of you support it; I won't try to convince you otherwise.

There were pictures of the hole and measurements of the opening on the documentary that i saw and the official description of the incident doesn't match the scene on the ground.

The real question is why didn't your boss see fighters, because they should have been in the air by the time the pentagon was hit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blanks (Reply #109)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 09:45 AM

112. I'm not sure what documentary you saw.

Here is some explanation for why the hole appeared smaller than you would have expected. The wings collapsed in.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.asp


I said that because your wife thinks that a missile and not a plane hit the Pentagon. My neighbor was on Flight 77, and it never reached its destination, and my boss saw the plane hit - she called our office right after she called 911, so we knew that a plane had hit the Pentagon - way before anything could be faked. I believe that a plane hit the Pentagon because there are many, many other eyewitness accounts of a large, commercial airliner going into the Pentagon.

Many collected here with links to the sources:
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/bart.html

There are tall office buildings and apartments there. There was not a mass hallucination in Arlington, VA the morning of 9/11.

If a missile hit the Pentagon at the same time, why hasn't anyone said that they saw one - and could identify it as clearly as the eyewitnesses identified a large aircraft?

No one saw fighters because there weren't any. Why? I don't know. I can't tell you that. I heard them a short time later.

If you want to ignore the photos of the plane wreckage around the Pentagon, fine. Please tell me how they managed that within seconds of the "missile" hitting and the mass hypnosis of people on I-395, Washington Blvd, and in the high rises around the Pentagon.








Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #112)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 11:28 AM

123. I can see that the miscommunication is my fault.

My wife believes the plane in Pennsylvania was shot down. The first time I said that I didn't make that clear.

I would have thought when I pointed it out the second time that you would have noticed that the pentagon theory is not hers; but rather from the documentary that I saw.

I'm not trying to upset you here, but in this day and age; it doesn't take an army of people to come up with all of the information that it takes to make something believable. I don't necessarily believe the documentary that I saw either (for the same reason) but really... There aren't any decent video cameras around the pentagon?

The fighters weren't scrambled immediately; even though (and I haven't heard that this is even disputed) they were actually running a training scenario identical to the events that were unfolding.

At least wild bat shit crazy conspiracies keep us wondering how the largest office building in the world (and it is dedicated exclusively to defense) was caught completely defenseless by a couple of guys with box cutters.

Surely you can understand how someone who lives far, far away would question the story that the people in charge gave us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blanks (Reply #123)


Response to Blanks (Reply #123)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 12:15 PM

130. I understand - and we won't ever know everything that happened that day.

I'm not an expert on what happens when planes crash into buildings - or what kind of hole they do or don't make. I never will be. I don't know why there wasn't more than one Pentagon video camera aimed at the spot where the plane hit.

But in the absence of any proof that people I know and respect were hypnotized into thinking that they saw a plane go into the Pentagon, and the continuing absence of Lennie, who got onto Flight 77 the morning of 9/11, I will believe that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon on the morning of 9/11.

That's simply not a part of the story that I have reason to disbelieve. The evidence I have overshadows all other evidence that others say show that none of that happened.

For me to believe that a plane did not hit the Pentagon on 9/11, I would have to forget or refute what I know about my boss, and my friend Lennie. Those things are more certain to me than people who are trying to construct an alternate reality, despite huge amounts of evidence provided by many, many non-government sources. Not all documentaries are accurate, nor are all conspiracy theories. Does the documentary you saw address teh issue of all the independently interviewed eyewitnesses at all? How does it explain them away? Were they lying? Crazy? Was the plane they saw a hologram? A missile in an American Airlines suit?

You won't find many people here in Arlington who doubt that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. There are just too many people here who were on I-395, on Washington Blvd, or at the Pentagon when it happened. And they pretty much say the same thing - big two engine plane, coming in low, taking out light poles, making contact with the ground before 'disappearing' into the Pentagon in a ball of orange flames. There weren't camera phones then, and to hear a plane coming in low in that area is common - National Airport is less than a mile away, so many people weren't alarmed soon enough to pull out a digital camera, turn it on, then get a photo of the plane hitting.

I could believe that the Bush Adminstration was incompetent enough for 9/11 to happen. I don't think that we have been told the whole story. I may even be a LIHOP. But that's no reason to dismiss the corroborating stories of hundreds when what they saw disproves a particular conspiracy theory. Maybe the hijackers were actually Super Secret CIA Operatives - but A PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON ON 9/11.

I don't know enough about the Pennsylvania flight to validate any theories that it was shot down. I guess I would need to disregard the interview I saw with the wife that was on the phone one of the passengers and the operator that talked with one of the passengers. That doesn't make me dumb, or some sort of sheep.

But thinking that my boss (who was a Democratic Committeewoman) and missing neighbor were part of a Bush Administration cover-up for a missile going into the pentagon - that would require me to be really unbalanced.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #130)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 01:47 PM

137. Everyone has gotten kind of fired up.

Let's talk about the JFK assasination.

Just because I don't live in the area and haven't bothered to do any follow up research; doesn't mean I believe it.

The 'hole in the side of the pentagon' was just the easiest one to come up with. I've always wondered why there hasn't been some kind of scale model of the world trade center buildings. I've never seen anything that is burning somewhere in the middle cause it to collapse straight down. If that's what happened a scale model would prove it.

Probably the oddest thing to me about the whole thing is that we allowed the whole 911 thing to dominate our national discussion for so long. I heard 'not since 911' so many times; I thought I was going to be sick. Yeah, it was tragic, and some effort needed to be made to prevent incidents like this from happening in the future, but being so emotional about it that a whole country would support invading a country that had nothing to do with it; never made any sense to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blanks (Reply #137)

Thu Jun 21, 2012, 12:23 AM

177. A scale model wouldn't work

An object's mass is approximately proportional to its size in three dimensions, and its strength is approximately proportional to its cross sectional area, which is in two dimensions. So a scaled down object would be proportionately much stronger and collapse very differently; and that is only part of the reason that the results would be meaningless.

The very different behavior of collapsing large buildings from what we experience in normal life is part of the reason some people can be made to believe 9-11 conspiracy scams.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #177)

Thu Jun 21, 2012, 12:00 PM

184. OK, so an analysis on an individual column

Because I don't believe that if you took the first floor that failed (directly below the floor that was hit) it would collapse under the weight of the upper floors even weakened by heat.

Additionally, let's suppose that happened on one of the buildings. Both buildings (actually all 3) failed practically identically. Regardless of where the 'fire' was started on the building.

I'm a civil engineer. I don't have a lot of structural experience, but I took all the required fundamental course work which included mechanics of materials, structural analysis and concrete design. I'd like to see some kind of analysis that I can buy into. I watched it collapse on TV and I thought at the time that it was way more likely to slough off to the side than it was to collapse straight down.

...and i mean come on, a building collapsed straight down because some burning debris landed on the roof. If enough people say that they saw a big plane hit the pentagon; I can back off without shame, but they're gonna have to try a little harder on the world trade center before I can buy into it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blanks (Reply #184)

Thu Jun 21, 2012, 03:45 PM

188. Normally the only place on DU that 9-11 conspiracies can be discussed is in Creative Speculation

Creative Speculation group: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1135

I'm not sure what you're saying in the first sentence. Do you mean: "took (out) the first floor"?

Both towers fell at the locations where the burning debris collected from the aircraft collisions. It is well established that fires do cause steel structures to collapse. That is why the steel in buildings is fire proofed (which was dislodged by the aircraft). Once one story collapsed, it would have taken a miracle to stop a full collapse. No miracles were forthcoming.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #188)

Thu Jun 21, 2012, 04:12 PM

189. Perhaps it is time to move on then

I need to look into it a little more anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #130)

Thu Jun 21, 2012, 12:44 PM

186. You asked several times...

...and it was kind of rude of me to not answer. I think the documentary that I saw was:

911:The Plane Truth.

I'm pretty sure that was it. I watched it several months ago. I wasn't going to watch it again just to be certain. The description matches what I remember.

I just want to add: the fact that a lot of people saw what looked like an airliner hit the pentagon doesn't automatically mean that your neighbor was on whatever it was that hit it. His plane could have been crashed somewhere else. The question is: did they want us to see an airliner hit the pentagon, so they made one crash into it (one with no seats). The difficulty of the maneuver and the experience of the pilot are other issues.

Also, the woman who talked on the phone to her husband in Pennsylvania 'the lets roll guy' that plane could have been shot down by fighters shortly after the phone call.

It's like UFOs. I don't believe a lot of the explanations that they give for UFOs; that doesn't mean I believe that they're UFOs, I just don't believe the explanation.

Is our government capable of pulling off such a huge deception coupled with a willingness to sacrifice a (statistically) small number of people. A lot of things happened just prior to the Japanese hugely successful bombing run in Hawaii in 1941; that are highly questionable.

We won't willingly go to war unless it's personal and being opposed to war can be made to seem unsympathetic to the victims families and unpatriotic. The events of September 11, 2001; just like the events of December 7, 1941 filled the bill.

So I'm suspicious of everything involved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rosa Luxemburg (Reply #70)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 12:17 PM

131. Air defense is done via aircraft

The Pentagon doesn't have air defenses. Air defense for the US are accomplished via aircraft. The idea was to shoot down the bad guys over the ocean instead of shooting them down over the US.

There's another large problem with your thesis: Shooting down a plane doesn't make it go "poof". If there were SAMs at the Pentagon, and they had shot down the airplane, the out-of-control mostly-airplane would have plowed into a bunch of civilian buildings. If we assume the military knew the plane was coming, but would not be able to intercept the plane over un- or lightly-populated land, the best response would be to let it hit the relatively tough Pentagon instead of a bunch of lightly-constructed civilian buildings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #131)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 08:23 PM

166. Surely

surely the Pentagon could recognize a friend or a foe. If not, this is VERY worrying.

In the 9/11 commission report it stated that fighter planes were 100 miles out in the Atlantic Ocean. Were they on exercise?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rosa Luxemburg (Reply #166)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 10:47 PM

174. What does this have to do with Friend or Foe?

Some background. Air traffic control radar just triggers a plane's transponder. It isn't powerful enough to see a plane without a transponder (for good reasons that are outside this discussion). The 9/11 hijackers turned off the transponders, so the planes were invisible to air traffic control radars.

Military radars are more powerful, so that they can see aircraft without transponders. However, we built those to look outside the US. Because the threat model was bombers flying into the country, not commandeered domestic aircraft.

But friend-or-foe is irrelevant here. A SAM fired at the plane heading for the Pentagon would have caused the plane to crash on civilian buildings in Arlington or DC. Those buildings are lightly constructed. The Pentagon is 100% reinforced concrete with extensive fire suppression systems not present in civilian buildings. If you are gonna pick a building to get hit, you want it to hit the Pentagon and not a civilian building - just compare the death toll from the Pentagon and the WTC.

In the 9/11 commission report it stated that fighter planes were 100 miles out in the Atlantic Ocean. Were they on exercise?

The Air Force or Air National Guard intercepts every large aircraft that approaches the US. They do things like confirm that the tail number matches what's on the flight plan, it's the right kind of plane, and so on. Passengers and crew don't see this because the fighters approach from the rear and make a point of not getting close enough to spook anyone.

Long story short, there's always fighters 100mi out in the Atlantic. And Pacific. And the Gulf of Mexico.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #174)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 11:24 PM

175. Unlikely

I think it is very unlikely that the military would have let a 'foe aircraft' crash into the Pentagon! This actually killed people in the Pentagon!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rosa Luxemburg (Reply #175)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 11:52 PM

176. Their other option was what, exactly?

First, they couldn't see it until very shortly before the crash. Because there's no military radar site pointed in that direction and the transponder was off. So their ability to respond is limited to very shortly before the crash.

Second, there aren't any SAM sites protecting the Pentagon. So they had nothing to shoot at the plane once they saw it.

Third, the military can not conduct hostile operations inside the US absent an invasion. It's against the law. That's why there was such an uproar when W created Northern Command. It's job is to plan and execute operations in the US that are illegal. That's also why the national guard (aka state militia) responds to natural disasters instead of the army. While it's unlikely someone would be prosecuted for responding on 9/11, it does explain why there isn't more of a defense of the Pentagon.

So, what exactly were they supposed to do about the plane?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rosa Luxemburg (Reply #70)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 01:19 PM

135. The Pentagon doesn't have missile defenses.

It never has and does not now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #135)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 08:20 PM

164. I don't believe that

How could that possibly be?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicalboi (Reply #65)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 01:23 PM

136. It is stupid to suggest something other than Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

It shows you you no common sense or logic. There was very little left of the plane to reconstruct. There were small parts of the plane outside the Pentagon on the lawn. Again if not Flight 77 what happened to the passengers? Were they trussed up and sent to Gitmo where they remain to this day?????

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #136)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 02:59 PM

143. The missile-hitting-the-Pentagon is an example of disinfo mentioned above.

Even the person I believe first or loudest suggested it (Mike Ruppert) has since retracted it, once the Pentagon released sequential shots of, gasp, a plane about to hit the Pentagon. But nothing seems to die on the internet, even when it should.

Nevertheless, there is enough evidence of foreknowledge (such as the put options) to make me a MIHOP/LIHOP believer. You just have to wade through an enormous amount of bullshit now.

Simplest explanation? Cheney knew it was coming, so he scheduled the distracting training exercises for the week he believed the attacks would happen, stationing the fighter jets that were supposed to protect the eastern seaboard far away instead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Qutzupalotl (Reply #143)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 06:31 PM

159. That would involve scores of people if not hundreds.

So all these people have remained part of the conspiracy to the greatest crime of the century. Nonsense. The simplest explanation is terrorists took over a plane and crashed it into the Pentagon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #159)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 10:10 PM

172. That wouldn't explain the foreknowledge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Qutzupalotl (Reply #172)

Thu Jun 21, 2012, 12:28 PM

185. Apparently you think the VP can just pick a phone and order something.

Anyone who has been in the Air Force would be laughing at your post. It just doesn't happen that way but believe whatever CT you need to believe to get you through the day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #185)

Thu Jun 21, 2012, 09:11 PM

199. Read "Crossing the Rubicon." nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #53)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 08:29 AM

106. Yes - I would love to know what happened to my neighbor, as would his wife and kids

He was on flight 77. And my boss was on 395 in traffic and saw something that looked an awful lot like a commercial aircraft hit the Pentagon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blanks (Reply #36)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 09:47 PM

62. Yep

But since many think the more we talk about buildings falling 10 stories a second due to fire turns them off, or my no seat theory or the engine near the firefighter at the Pentagon was too small. But just look at the incompetence of the Pentagon. This is our DEFENSE building. They couldn't defend it, but that is acceptable without any questions being asked. But of course if we ask those questions, it would put "National Security" at risk you see.

It makes no sense that our defense building couldn't defend itself no matter which way you look at 9/11. And those that don't care for answers, just don't care. They're just one more clown who never spent time investigating 9/11 like some of us. Perhaps they are afraid of being fooled all these years. Kind of like the rude awakening the Repukes will get when Faux implodes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicalboi (Reply #62)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 10:17 PM

73. Weird

Yes, they must have all been on vacation that day. It still worries me that the Pentagon isn't defended properly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blanks (Reply #36)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 08:26 AM

105. I would like to know what happened to the passengers on Flight 77.

As would my neighbor Karen, whose husband was on that flight. And I'd like to know what my boss saw hit the Pentagon on the way to work that morning if it wasn't a plane.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blanks (Reply #36)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 12:20 PM

132. Because wings are so strong they can cut through reinforced concrete.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 07:35 PM

27. UBL was the right wing bogey (boogey) man

no wonder they didn't want him 'found' wasn't he really a CYA agent called 'Tim?'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rosa Luxemburg (Reply #27)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 07:47 PM

33. Tim Osman

 

in the '80's when he trained rebels in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union,a nice little conflict known as the Bear Trap for the young du'ers.
There used to be some grainy video of the training featuring the heroic instructor Tim Osman,i wonder what happened to that tape?
Perhaps in 20 years or so with the warren commission stuff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 07:37 PM

29. to date there has still not been a thorough investigation of the 9/11 attacks.

still too many unanswered questions to rule out MIHOP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 07:38 PM

30. Looks like We hit the trifecta!

 

Now watch this drive!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 07:49 PM

35. Does the phrase "hair on fire" ring any bells?

This is just reinforcing what we've been saying all along. More people are accepting what we've been hollering for years and years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 08:25 PM

40. A full year before 9/11 Bush was not in office.


^snip^

Perhaps most damning are the documents showing that the CIA had bin Laden in its cross hairs a full year before 9/11 — but didn’t get the funding from the Bush administration White House to take him out or even continue monitoring him






The remarks about the reports from June to September 2001 are more interesting. The previous statement seems to be trying to push blame to the Clinton administration.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #40)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 10:03 PM

67. 2.3 Trillion was

Announced missing at the Pentagon on 09/10/01. That would make a good pay off. But who did they pay?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicalboi (Reply #67)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 12:46 PM

133. Yes, the Office of Naval Intelligence was about to release/execute their findings...


... they had been investigating a money trail for over a year(s), and it had to do with securities coming due at Cantor Fitzgerald offices in the WTC. I am not kidding, do some googling of "office of naval intelligence 9-11 securities". And the Office of Naval Intelligence just happened to be the area hit, by whatever...

[link:http://www.wanttoknow.info/911/black_eagle_trust_fund|

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #40)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 10:34 PM

79. It's a mis-telling of an old story.

Which in turn is something of a distraction as reported here:

http://tinyurl.com/cg5647s

The point, as I have been making for most of a decade, is that they knew exactly where bin Laden was in the Spring of 2001. President Clinton handed President Bush Osama's home address. If you know where he lives, you don't need the goddamned remote drones to have missiles on them. You send in the D-boys and finish them all for sure.

So what was the one thing that the Bush Administration could do to ensure that bin Laden's operation was greenlighted? Pull the drones and leave him alone for eight months.

And that is the one thing that they did. What a coincidence, to be held alongside a dozen others that one by one will stop being coincidences and start being a list of criminal acts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #40)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 11:38 PM

89. I believe Bush also took the subs tasked with killing OBL off station in the Gulf.

And lets not forget the shitcanning of the Hart-Rudmin Bipartisan report on terrorism and steps needed to make air flight more terrorist -proof...like lockable cockpit doors. And Cheney's planned acquisition of Iraqi National Oil....one needs to see what these jokers were up to in the 90s and then what they were/weren't doing in the 9 months leading up to 9/11/01.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 08:27 PM

41. k & r thanks for posting...nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 08:33 PM

42. Bush is a traitor.

Can we at least agree on that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 08:46 PM

46. By the way, can we see these documents now that they have been declassified?

That means all of the declassified documents. The public has the right to see them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 08:50 PM

47. The usual suspects should be along soon

to put their "sensible" spin on this. Making sure there is always an interpretation that preserves the official line.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #47)

Thu Jun 21, 2012, 04:43 AM

181. But not before the other usual suspects get here to complain about the first set

of usual suspects. Making sure there is always the wink and the nudge and the say no more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 08:53 PM

48. K & FUCKING R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue Owl (Reply #48)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 08:58 PM

50. + fucking 1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 09:08 PM

54. Anothe plausable deniability release of info far too late.

The USA goes down the created faux reality rabbit hole.

Hoppity Hop.

Olly oily oxen free.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PufPuf23 (Reply #54)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 09:38 PM

59. Yep. Too bad your perception will be rewarded with derision

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #59)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 10:12 PM

72. A third Star Member blocked me since this post.

Two did immediately at the onset of DU3.

But made some other posts in the past hour that reflect on the apologists.

All I want is the moral "reality" was taught as a child and worked to support even after I saw the cracks and games of the facade.

People should be honest and good to the Earth and each other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PufPuf23 (Reply #72)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 11:07 PM

83. I wouldn't worry about a thing ;) They want you to think you are wrong without

having to make a stand. Screw them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 09:18 PM

57. A year before 9/11?

It is true that the Bush administration didn't target OBL. Why? Because there was no Bush administration a year before 9/11. Clinton was President a year before 9/11.

With mistakes like that, why bother clicking through to read the rest.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #57)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 11:35 PM

88. Its not a mistake

A year before 9/11, under Clinton, Bin Laden was spotted by drones. The drones didn't carry arms then. There was an effort to arm the drones, but that effort suddenly ended when Bush took office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #57)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 08:22 AM

104. My understanding was that they were monitoring.

Last edited Wed Jun 20, 2012, 09:07 AM - Edit history (1)

And the Bush administration didn't fund the continuance of the level of surveillance needed.

"The agency submitted a proposal to the National Security Council staff in December 2000 that would have significantly expanded the program. “It was too late for the departing Clinton Administration to take action on this strategic request,” however. It wasn’t too late for the Bush administration, though. It just never did."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 09:54 PM

64. Now is not the time to point fingers. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hotler (Reply #64)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 10:05 PM

69. LOL!

Go shopping.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hotler (Reply #64)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 11:02 AM

122. Wouldn't want to play THE BLAME GAME, now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 10:04 PM

68. Anyone else get the feeling

...that whomever orchestrated 9/11, made sure that Bush Jr was out of town for the month leading up to the deed?

What are the chances that Bush would disappear into the brush for an entire month??? Can you imagine Obama taking off for a month? They needed Bush out if there.

The neocons/PNACers spelled it out in their manifesto, which they were kind enough to put online at www.newamericancentury.org

Please remember, as Karl Rove said, They're "history's actors" and they'll continue destroying this country with their plot--and we'll be left to examine what they do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CoffeeCat (Reply #68)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 11:46 PM

91. Only 1 guy in our government can pull the levels and get the government to react.

POTUS. They made sure he had plausible deniability by spending 40% of his time between Inauguration and 9/11 on vacation. And they made sure that no cabinet level discussions would be had on the subject of terrorist threats and an action plan to deal with it. You can't order the military, CIA, and FBI do do anything if you don't allow yourself to know what is going on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Old and In the Way (Reply #91)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 04:29 PM

155. I'm sorry, but I just don't believe that...

I hear what you are saying. However, I think that our government has been completely taken over by corporatists in both parties and the neocons. They're all running it. I think the President is inconsequential. Yes, he is our figurehead and he does have some power. However, I truly think that the elitists/corporatists/neocons/warmongers have commandeered our government. The President only has so much power.

I think these elites also act on their on in our Justice Department, CIA, NSA and other government agencies.

I will never forget what happened during the BP oil spill. BP was using our Coast Guard (and they were armed) to keep reporters from shooting pictures of oiled wildlife. They were blocking access. I saw the video and pictures as did many others. This was not sanctioned by Obama. Somehow BP was able to use their power to use our government Coast Guard. Furthermore, our EPA specifically told BP to stop using Corexit. BP flat out ignored that order. Without repercussions.

Folks, something has happened in this country. We often get glimpses of the reality, like what happened with BP. People from powerful corporations and banks--and all bought-and-paid-for politicians have taken over our government. They control it all. We are not in charge. The President is not as powerful as these people.

I think that's why the Republicans nominate these dolts to be their party nominees. They need idiots who don't give a rip and are too dumb to do anything about it. Bush Jr was a complete shithead that they could manipulate, control and send on month-long vacations so they could pull off their crimes. Now, they want someone just as dumb--Romney, in the hotseat.

I do think that Obama is able to fend off some of their shenanigans. It's better with a Dem than it is with one of their lemming henchmen in the White House, but really--they are like the mafia, calling the shots and running the show like psychopaths.

I really feel that this is what it's come down to. All you have to do is look at the current state of so many things in this country. Corporations have their way--even if it kills us, harms us, makes us sick, steals our money or destroys our democracy. Big Pharma gets to poison us and kill us, Big Ag gets to serve us unhealthy food that makes us sick, health-insurance companies get to decide when we die and are treated (based on what makes them the most money!), banks get to implode our country and steal our homes while getting billions in bailouts. The list goes on and on and on.

All of this...is no accident. Corporations paid for this abusive power. It's just sick.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CoffeeCat (Reply #155)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 05:22 PM

157. I don't think we completely disagree.

A President can take action - but it may serve corporate interests more than the interests of the people living in the Gulf (as in the BP spill). Presidential inaction and incompetence gave us the Katrina disaster. But 9/11 is an entirely different circumstance. My point here is that, not only did the Bush administration do proactive things to make the terrorist attack easier (taking subs off station in the Gulf, tasked to put a missle up OBL/AQ's tailpipe and shitcan the Hart-Rudman recommendations on terrorism)...but they willfully avoided any cabinet meetings where the subject of terrorism could be discussed. By purposefully making sure that Bush was "out of the loop", no action would be taken....like, suspending the War Game simulations coincidentally planned for 9/11. Or putting airports on a heightened level of awareness. Nothing was done in spite of the warnings that were getting more clear and imminent. A President can't react if he doesn't know...and this President was purposefully kept in the dark about the warnings until the 8/6/01 PDB, which Bush disdainfully told the briefer, "OK, you covered your ass."

Now maybe Bush was the patsy on this - his classroom demeanor on 9/11/01 seems to bear this out. The fact that he did not jump on a full-blown, "all resources to get answers" investigation on 9/12/01 leads me to believe he was certainly culpable for allowing the cover-up to proceed. Gross criminal negligence or an act of treason to allow such an event to happen on US soil. Take your pic...either way, he should be held as a criminal and prosecuted for the 3000 lost lives on that day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Rosa Luxemburg (Reply #171)

Thu Jun 21, 2012, 08:45 AM

182. Precisely...What the hell is Rupert Murdoch

doing, involved in U.S foreign policy--especially involving matters of war. What the hell.

The neocons absolutely needed to get into Iraq. They even begged Bill Clinton to do it, when he was president. He said no. Iraq was their foothold into the Middle East. The PNAC plan spells it out and even lists their target countries--Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya.

There is a whole behind-the-scenes world that we don't get to see. Our corrupt politicians have sold out to these criminal, psychopathic thugs in these corporations. They all attend cocktail parties and discuss how they're going to rule the world. They have utter disdain and contempt for us, because they think we are fools. They lie to us constantly and prop up the illusion of democracy to the masses. No wonder "We The People" have lost so much while the once per centers dance on their stock portfolios.

There's a party going on and we're not invited. They're clinking their cocktail glasses in OUR house and we're paying for their parties--but the joke is on us.

Our politicians are a bunch of scumbag sell outs. Corporations will always try to exert power and influence. That's expected. What's not expected is that our elected representatives will sell out like a bunch of weak pansies and spend all of their waking hours lying and destroying our democracy--just because they were too spineless to resist the corruption of a bunch of psychopath clowns with big egos. It's a stupid shame.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CoffeeCat (Reply #182)

Thu Jun 21, 2012, 11:16 AM

183. You are right

I wonder what his role was with bush?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 10:21 PM

75. Bush Knew.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Reply #75)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 10:27 PM

78. I often wondered

I think if I had been in his position I would have run to a phone and addressed the nation immediately after being told about the planes crashing into the WTC. Even if it was deemed to be unsafe to leave the school. (After all don't they have satellite phones?)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Reply #75)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 11:44 PM

90. That was jet number TWO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Raster (Reply #90)

Thu Jun 21, 2012, 04:36 PM

191. Yes! The first jet he said he saw hit the WTC, then he said he heard about it.

He "saw" it--



He "heard" about it (0'52")--



Which was it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KansDem (Reply #191)

Thu Jun 21, 2012, 07:55 PM

197. Remember...he saw the 1st one and thought, "that's one bad pilot"

Really? After the 8/6/01 PDB with a terror threat assessment against NYC landmarks...he really thought that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Old and In the Way (Reply #197)

Fri Jun 22, 2012, 10:15 AM

201. He should be arrested and questioned...

...along with Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the rest.

It's looking more and more like there was foreknowledge of 9/11 and that his pals, the Saudi Royal Family, were in on it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KansDem (Reply #201)

Wed Aug 8, 2012, 09:29 PM

218. Don't forget his pals in the bin Ladin family...

who may have helped him with his failed oil venture. The Bin Ladins were supposedly the second most powerful family in Saudi Arabia and several may have maintained ties with Osama even after he began his career as a terrorist, so he may not have been the total "black sheep" of the family he was made out to be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 10:37 PM

80. I wonder if the networks will talk about this nonstop for weeks. The same way they would if Obama

farted in public. I'm not holding my breath though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 10:37 PM

81. Not new information for us but still important to document it!

Thanks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 11:09 PM

84. Bush insisted our greatest threat was from a missile

sent by a rogue state. That fit well with Bush's ambition to sell us a missile defense system. Suggestions of a terrorist theat interfered with Bush's position.

Bush had the personality and used the methods associated with incompetent managers. He couldn't allow questions or disagreements because those could illuminate his stupidity. So like most incompetent managers, he was a bully. "I can ask them questions, but they can't ask me questions," Bush said.

The word must have gone out early in the administration that Bush didn't want to be told about terrorism or see anything being done about it. His subordinates must have feared him. Efforts that were taking place were halted. Others that were scheduled never took place. According to 9/11 Commission testimony, when asked about Al Queda, Bush demanded that before anything else was done he needed a plan that would eliminate Al Queda permanently. There was no testimony before the commission that anybody dared to tell Bush his demand was impossible. Instead, he was given a plan at the last minute that was no different than anything before it, but was called a plan to get rid of Al Queda permanently.

9/11 might not have happened if it weren't for Bush's stupidity and terrible management techniques. Bush was fortunate that the media and the Republicans demanded that everyone rally around Bush after 9/11, and Democrats were too afraid to dared to point the finger at Bush, even though the Washington Post ran an article months after 9/11 that told much of the story, with Richarde Clarke as a source. When Richarde Clarke went before the 9/11 Commission years later, he was treated like a sensational current development.
The Post article was ignored. Nobody in power has ever put the facts together and asked the questions necessary to prove how much 9/11 was the fault of George Bush.

This was why the right wing and the media went into hyper-uproar over Jamie Gorelick. Testimony revealed that Attorney General Ashcroft had instructed the FBI director not to inform Ashcroft about terrorism. The question should have been asked, why? Why wouldn't Ashcroft not want to be told? The only time I've ever seen somebody not want to be told something in a work setting is when the individual knows that if he was told about that something, he would have to take an action he didn't want to take. In this case, if Ashcroft was notified about terrorism, he'd have to tell Bush, and Bush would have seen that as a threat to his authority and punished Ashcroft. So Ashcroft took himself out of the loop.

Instead of being questioned about why he didn't want to be informed by the FBI director, Ashcroft misdirected all the attention with an attack on Jamie Gorelick.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 11:49 PM

93. 3000 people died on 9/11/01 and no justice served.

At the very least, criminal negligence...at worst, an act of treason committed by a dimwit sociopath.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Old and In the Way (Reply #93)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 08:33 AM

108. Not to mention the 2000+ Americans dead in resulting wars since. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 11:52 PM

94. I still don't care what anyone says, they WANTED it to happen. The new Pearl Harbor.

 

I don't know if it was let or if it was make but they knew and they did not act to stop it. They used it to get every single disgusting thing they wanted. Used it to get wars, used it to get rid of civil liberties, used to it to steal billions. If you think a few thousand people mean a thing to those power hungry scumbags, you're insane. They would have happily killed ten times that number. Probably wished it was a much higher number.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)


Response to Z00 (Reply #96)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 07:39 AM

99. Hahahahaha!

What a waste of a 1st post. Just a flat wet sounding fizzle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Z00 (Reply #96)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 07:40 AM

100. Enjoy your stay.

Or learn to use the sarcasm smily.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Z00 (Reply #96)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 08:06 AM

101. "You guys?" In the interest of being welcoming

these are the Terms of Service for the website: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

I know you are just responding to a post but please be aware we do not talk about conspiracy in the main forums:

Don't go overboard with the crazy talk.

Democratic Underground is not intended to be a platform for kooks and crackpots peddling paranoid fantasies with little or no basis in fact. To accommodate our more imaginative members we tolerate some limited discussion of so-called "conspiracy theories" under the following circumstances: First, those discussions are not permitted in our heavily-trafficked Main forums; and second, those discussions cannot stray too far into Crazyland (eg: chemtrails, black helicopters, 9/11 death rays or holograms, the "New World Order," the Bilderbergers, the Illuminati, the Trilateral Commission, the Freemasons, alien abduction, Bigfoot, and the like). In addition, please be aware that many conspiracy theories have roots in racism and anti-semitism, and Democratic Underground has zero tolerance for bigoted hate speech. In short, you take your chances.


You may be able to post some of your musings in the Creative Speculation forum: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1135

Welcome to DU!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 07:33 AM

97. I wish this would be able to get some traction

But I doubt it.

Still, I feel somewhat vindicated. To me it was just a matter of logic and common sense. Especially in light of PNAC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 09:32 AM

111. One must believe either one of two things:

Bush/Cheney was incredibly, stupendously incompetent.

Bush/Cheney knew exactly what they were doing.


Either choice is profoundly terrifying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ikonoklast (Reply #111)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 12:47 PM

134. I'm going with option #2.

Cheney really is a profoundly terrifying individual and will remain now and forever a dark mark on American politics. Nothing but a shadowy, slippery serpent; a behind-the-scenes fixer and deal maker war criminal.

Only a relative or a total asshole would mourn him when he eventually takes the trap door to Hell 20 years from now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 10:28 AM

118. All that BS afterward, Homeland Security, Patriot Act etc. etc. were just power grabs by

the Bush Maladministration and the Republicans to cover their own negligence and incompetence.

Had they done their job with the tools they already had, they damn sure should have known.

The Republicans love a big authoritarian, corporate supremacist, police state and they used 9/11 to create one.

Thanks for the thread, kpete.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 10:53 AM

121. 8 mos. into the job * takes a one-mo vacation from protecting US

Whatta guy

I don't know anyone else who could get time off a new job lie that, paid or unpaid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 11:56 AM

127. Hindsight?

For Bush and Co., that was more like misplaced foresight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 02:18 PM

139. Told you so

Creative speculate, THAT.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libodem (Reply #139)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 03:05 PM

144. Absolutely none of these support the "truther" claims that the US Government conducted 9-11

To the contrary:

The 1998 Raw Intelligence Report on UBL's Plans to Hijack an Airplane that Became an Item in the December 4, 1998 President's Daily Brief .

The report details how bin Laden was planning "new operations against the United States (U.S.) targets in the near future. Plans to hijack a U.S. aircraft were proceeding well. Two individuals from the relevant operational team in the U.S. had successfully evaded security checks during a trial run at "New York airport
.


Detailed Reports on Al-Qaeda Organization

"The spike in the network's activity stems in part from changes in Bin Ladin's practices. To avoid implicating himself and his Taliban hosts, Bin Ladin over the past two years has allowed cells in his network, al-Qa'ida, to plan attacks more independently of the central leadership and has tried to gain support for his agenda outside the group. – The network also has benefited from a sharp increase in mujahidin recruitment since the resumption of the conflict in Chechnya in 1999, which exposed a new generation of militants to terrorist techniques and extremist ideology through training at al-Qai'da-run camps in Afghanistan. – Violence between Israelis and the Palestinians, moreover is making Sunni extremists more willing to participate in attacks against US or Israeli interests."


These CIA documents are not at all consistent with "truther" claims made in the Creative Speculation group. These documents contradict claims that the US Government conducted 9-11. These documents show that the CIA had evidence that al-Qaida was planning attacks and that al-Qaida was partly motivated by the I/P conflict.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #144)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 03:55 PM

150. Wrong. These documents show that

 

The U.S. government, i.e., the Bush administration, had multiple credible reports of threats and instead of reacting to those credible threats THEY CHOSE TO TAKE THE LONGEST VACATION IN U.S. PRESIDENTIAL HISTORY.

This is by definition complicity and by common sense collusion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bupkus (Reply #150)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 04:09 PM

153. Or it could have just been criminal negligence/incompetence

UNBELIEVABLE colossal criminal negligence that just so happened to result in the "catastrophic catalyzing event" that PNAC was hoping for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bupkus (Reply #150)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 07:41 PM

161. "Truthers" In the Creative Speculation group make claims such as:

Last edited Thu Jun 21, 2012, 08:02 AM - Edit history (1)

Al-Qaeda didn't commit 9-11; An airplane didn't hit the Pentagon; WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 were all demolition jobs. These documents completely contradict those claims.

What I wrote is completely correct. These documents support what is already known: Al-Qaeda did 9-11.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 02:42 PM

142. Bush say he first saw the 9/11 attacks, then he said he heard about them

First, he says he saw the first plane hit the WTC--



Then, he says he was notified the first plane had hit the WTC (National Geographic interview, 0'50")--



Which is it?

The fucker is lying...

The "official" 9/11 Commission Report is the real conspiracy theory.

How much more of this are we going to tolerate?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 03:52 PM

149. I'd just like to say to all the people who criticize "9/11 conspiracy theories" as NUTS

 

That you all sure look like cashews right about now.

9/11 was an inside set-up job designed to create the very fascist surveillance state through fear and "security" based attacks on constitutional rights that we are living in today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bupkus (Reply #149)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 07:56 PM

162. Keep believing that if you like

But nowhere in the documents is there any support for demolitions instead of terrorists and airplanes taking down the buildings. Nowhere is there support for the claim that the NY Fire Department or the US Military were in on 9-11, or any other falsely accused innocent...etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #162)

Thu Jun 21, 2012, 03:28 PM

187. You forgot to mention

 

Is there support to prove the U.S. government, i.e., the Bush administration, had far advance warning of an attack AND WENT ON THE LONGEST VACATION IN U.S. PRESIDENTIAL HISTORY?

That's OK though. Mr. Cheney was in charge while "W" read "My Pet Goat" and we all know how much we can trust Mr. Cheney, right?

Wake up. You made several incorrect assumptions of what my beliefs about 9/11 are yet you failed to mention the salient points. 9/11 was an inside job designed to elicit the precise effects we as a nation are suffering today. Loss of basic rights. Everyone treated as if we're all terrorists while the worst bunch of autocrat scum destroy the very fabric of our society in the name of security.

Fuck freedom. Fuck democracy. Fuck your rights. Be very afraid. Or the unthinkable just might happen again. Because they've already gotten away with it once.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bupkus (Reply #187)

Thu Jun 21, 2012, 04:14 PM

190. The people who believe what I listed are the ones normally called "conspiracy nuts"

Still, you can't support your claim that "9/11 was an inside job".

There are numerous conspiracy theories concerning 9-11. Some more crazy than others. I listed some. None have real evidence.

LIHOP is far less crazy than MIHOP. Some small LIHOP scenarios are plausible, but I've seen no real evidence for any.

Just because one doesn't like the Bush administration, doesn't mean that everything bad that can be imagined about them is true. That's what the right-wing does. That's how they got the birther movement. Apparently the left does it also.

Most likely it's incompetence by the Bush administration and US intelligence, plus the too stupid to care approach to government in the modern Republican Party that allowed 9-11 to happen. Also it was the US Government that provoked the attack in the first place. We do have 20/20 hindsight now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #190)

Thu Jun 21, 2012, 08:47 PM

198. Considering the Bush family's history of consorting with the enemy (Nazis)

 

Their secret CIA ties (Poppy Bush headed the CIA but that's still classified information so that must be a conspiracy theory too, right?), their ties to Saudi royalty (Saudi Arabia, you know, where the hijackers came from), the results of the attack, the way Bush used the attack to further his agenda, cause fear and panic, usurp constitutional rights, used the attack to excuse an unprovoked attack against Iraq and so much more, I consider the people who refuse to or are simply unable to connect the dots to be the conspiracy nuts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bupkus (Reply #149)

Thu Jun 21, 2012, 10:29 PM

200. I've signed to agree and that I always

...believed that the heinous tactics and actions of the last administration was a ploy to begin this war.
The longest I've seen, ever.

$2.3MM accounting miscalculation is a farce and every liar and lie told should be held accountable in the worst way!

I can't forget the day that GA State Rep. Kinney, questioned Rumsfeld regarding NORAD and the KBR faulty construction and
"human trafficking" un-vetting contracting going on that he arrogantly shrugged off as if he and his regime were untouchable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 04:03 PM

152. I have always....

tended to be a LIHOP thinker on 9/11.

Friends of friends of mine were killed that day. I lived in northern Virginia and that was an awful, awful day.

When I got home that night and watched the newscast recapping the day's events, I watched the towers fall, felt sick, but thought, "That looks like a controlled demolition, almost." To this day, I think that was extremely odd, uncanny, etc.

Was the plane in PA shot down? I have no idea.

I also remember when Bush took office, it seemed like whatever Clinton had done, he was going to do the exact opposite and I remember being disgusted at that. So, I am not surprised they called off the dogs on terrorists.

I don't know the real story of 9/11 and maybe never will, but I always thought it was weird how those buildings fell and I've always thought they LIHOP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 06:15 PM

158. Here's a cartoon from the paper I scanned right after 9/11

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #158)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 06:45 PM

160. Perfect

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 08:23 PM

165. Negligence and incompetence - is there any part of Bush's life that wouldn't lead you to that ?

"a full year" if mentioned will be used by Fox News et al (MSM will follow) to cloud the picture as partly being Clinton's fault.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 09:18 PM

168. Kicking. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Jun 21, 2012, 07:26 PM

194. They needed that "new Pearl Harbor event"

PNAC(Bush's cabinet" wrote about in 2000!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Jun 22, 2012, 12:34 PM

202. I've been watching a few days and NOT A SINGLE MENTION on the mainstream TV news

(the only news that makes a difference) of this highly relevant information. (AFAIK) If anyone ever thought the coup was not successful and continuing, here is your evidence. "They" are still in place and covering up for Bush.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to librechik (Reply #202)

Fri Jun 22, 2012, 11:26 PM

208. Not in the foreign media either

must be big stuff

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Jun 22, 2012, 02:14 PM

203. with some of the conjectures, it seems like "throwing the baby out with the bathwater"

Talk about explosives used on the towers or a missile at the pentagon, takes away from the impact of the actual event. We do know that colleen rowley, an FBI agent and other agents warned about the alleged terrorist movements. Apparently, she was told to give the report to her bosses. Was anyone into doing a "heads up" on what was going to come down or did they sit on it? We know that parts of clinton's terrorist task force gave the * administration a "heads up" that terrorism would be their main focus. But, why focus on terrorism, when you're actually focused on taking saddam out and cutting up the oil fields for your global friends? Using our money and lives, of course.

The terrorists apparently were trained in a flight school down in florida. After 9/11, those files were confiscated by authorities. Have we read anything about those files? Ashcroft was more focused on arresting prostitutes, chong and covering the statue of justice; than worrying about terrorists. We know that little boot's was given the august report, while he was on one of his very long vacations.

Right after 9/11 (very next day), an immigration officer was interviewed on the telly, and stated publicly that those coming from SA were given fast track admissions in the country (I remember the interview).

OBL seemed to be little boot's best buddy. I mean, nothing like having a video made with OBL saying he'd rather have kerry as president--oooh, OBL afraid of little boots? Or was he safer with little boots. Of course, knowing that we really do have some very ignorant people in this country, like those who denigrate a man who served his country by wearing a purple band aid (so faux patriotic)-they'd believe a bogus video. must vote for little boot's because OBL likes Kerry. How stupid can you be?

Little boots and his band of sociopaths truly hit the trifecta BECAUSE of 9/11. A coup happened in this country before 9/11-yes, the papers were going to expose the vote count on 9/12. Gee, how lucky can a group of cretins get? Or was it luck. If you think any of these guys, the same who aided the death squads, who supported pinochet, gave a thought about allowing the murder of thousands of people for an agenda, I've got a bridge to sell ya.

Little boots and his friends, to me, have bankrupted this country for their own gain and the gain to their global corporate friends. It is unprecedented for a president to declare war and cut taxes to pay for that war, while giving your best buds, like halliburton, lucrative war profiteering contracts. And while they've been shoveling money in the war, and some of our money has gone accounted; our people suffer, our infrastructure suffers. It looks like OBL's goal may be realized (with the help of some of our own)-bankrupt the american people and turn the country into a money funneling police state, while cutting aid to its' citizens.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to newspeak (Reply #203)

Fri Jun 22, 2012, 02:25 PM

205. Companies like Halliburton and subsidaries made a profit out of Iraq

Congress appeared to turn a blind eye? Helpless or bullied?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Jun 22, 2012, 02:47 PM

206. There goes the Obama administration again...

hiding behind the truth and using reality as a blunt political instrument to gain reelection. I tell ya, this so-called public servant is constantly pursuing his radical moderate agenda while he secretly carries out attacks against former US allies

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Jun 22, 2012, 11:46 PM

209. Sounds SO much more FISHY now. I hope Romney picks Condi...longshot but, as long

as I live I will blame her. She said, Well, we heard there might be a highjacking, but
we thought it was going to be a regular highjacking...never knew they'd fly into buildings

No shit, Condi (re: buildings)...but, the most UNBELIEVABLE thing is that she inadvertently admitted
to was that she didn't do a damn thing about a "regular highjacking".

IF THOSE GUYS HAD NEVER BEEN ON THE PLANE, THERE WOULD NOT BE A 9-11, and no
Afghanistan war, and no Iraq war.

May you all burn in hell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Aug 6, 2012, 10:49 AM

211. on August 6 - a day that will live in infamy - Republicans ignored the clear warning

BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO STRIKE

And the rest of the ugly history has -- for certain -- been lied about and obscured by Republicans ever since, while a corporate media on bended knee has FAILED to do any serious looking at this Republican horror story and its unending consequences for America.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Berlum (Reply #211)

Mon Aug 6, 2012, 11:56 AM

212. ''All right. You've covered your ass, now.''

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Aug 6, 2012, 12:41 PM

213. My own conspiracy theory is TSTPIFH...

My own conspiracy theory is TSTPIFH... (Too Stupid To Prevent It From Happening). I'm not a clever person, so I hold to that until I believe it warrants rejection, and believe that more often than not, ignorance is as great a shaper of history as is evil.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LanternWaste (Reply #213)

Mon Aug 6, 2012, 01:12 PM

214. TLPIFH ?

Too lazy to Prevent it from happening?

Remember, AWOL Bush is the MOST OVER VACATIONED PRESIDENT in world history.

I could go with those theories, but there is far too much evidence to show that the Republican Cabal was deeply involved in various ways...Their cover-up efforts are massively stanky...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Aug 9, 2012, 05:20 AM

220. I suspect that the truth is far more complicated than a simple LIHOP theory...

the Bush family was likely very concerned about not wanting to offend the Saudis and having Osama bin Ladin hunted down and assassinated may have been frowned upon, prior to 9-11. The plan may have been to allow bin Ladin to further establish his cred as the leader of Al Qaeda, which would then draw terrorists in like a magnet and allow the US to fight a more centralized and very real enemy. The execution of this plan would be left up to the shadowy elements that often cross the boundaries of intelligence services.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Aug 9, 2012, 09:55 AM

222. kick this a thousand fing times

President Al Gore would have prevented 911.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread