HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Good Reads (Forum) » The Deafness Before the S...

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 07:26 AM

The Deafness Before the Storm: New York Times

Evidently the neocons at Bush's white house knew more than we have been told about the threat from Bin Laden
__________________________________________________________________________________________________

By KURT EICHENWALD

Published: September 10, 2012

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/the-bush-white-house-was-deaf-to-9-11-warnings.html?_r=1

IT was perhaps the most famous presidential briefing in history.


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

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

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

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

97 replies, 17808 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 97 replies Author Time Post
Reply The Deafness Before the Storm: New York Times (Original post)
Stuart G Sep 2012 OP
rfranklin Sep 2012 #1
on point Sep 2012 #2
truebluegreen Sep 2012 #4
BlueMTexpat Sep 2012 #20
AnotherMcIntosh Sep 2012 #13
heaven05 Sep 2012 #16
Warpy Sep 2012 #54
RoccoR5955 Sep 2012 #3
Slit Skirt Sep 2012 #9
Jerry442 Sep 2012 #10
caseymoz Sep 2012 #11
AnotherMcIntosh Sep 2012 #14
caseymoz Sep 2012 #34
AnotherMcIntosh Sep 2012 #36
caseymoz Sep 2012 #49
Slit Skirt Sep 2012 #73
shanti Sep 2012 #83
BlueStreak Sep 2012 #17
caseymoz Sep 2012 #32
BlueStreak Sep 2012 #37
caseymoz Sep 2012 #48
RoccoR5955 Sep 2012 #65
BlueStreak Sep 2012 #68
Slit Skirt Sep 2012 #19
truth2power Sep 2012 #25
Slit Skirt Sep 2012 #26
caseymoz Sep 2012 #35
truth2power Sep 2012 #39
caseymoz Sep 2012 #42
truth2power Sep 2012 #74
patrice Sep 2012 #30
Shagman Sep 2012 #31
truth2power Sep 2012 #41
caseymoz Sep 2012 #38
Slit Skirt Sep 2012 #43
caseymoz Sep 2012 #53
Slit Skirt Sep 2012 #77
Th1onein Sep 2012 #67
Slit Skirt Sep 2012 #76
Th1onein Sep 2012 #93
RoccoR5955 Sep 2012 #70
Th1onein Sep 2012 #29
Slit Skirt Sep 2012 #33
caseymoz Sep 2012 #40
Slit Skirt Sep 2012 #44
TrogL Sep 2012 #47
Slit Skirt Sep 2012 #58
TrogL Sep 2012 #79
Slit Skirt Sep 2012 #85
TrogL Sep 2012 #89
Slit Skirt Sep 2012 #95
Th1onein Sep 2012 #61
Slit Skirt Sep 2012 #78
caseymoz Sep 2012 #56
Slit Skirt Sep 2012 #59
Th1onein Sep 2012 #63
TrogL Sep 2012 #80
Th1onein Sep 2012 #97
Th1onein Sep 2012 #60
TrogL Sep 2012 #46
Slit Skirt Sep 2012 #50
TrogL Sep 2012 #82
Slit Skirt Sep 2012 #87
TrogL Sep 2012 #90
Slit Skirt Sep 2012 #94
Slit Skirt Sep 2012 #55
TrogL Sep 2012 #84
Slit Skirt Sep 2012 #88
TrogL Sep 2012 #91
Th1onein Sep 2012 #64
TrogL Sep 2012 #81
Th1onein Sep 2012 #96
riderinthestorm Sep 2012 #12
Slit Skirt Sep 2012 #22
barbtries Sep 2012 #15
BlueStreak Sep 2012 #18
barbtries Sep 2012 #23
Slit Skirt Sep 2012 #24
SkyDaddy7 Sep 2012 #57
RoccoR5955 Sep 2012 #71
Slit Skirt Sep 2012 #72
KurtNYC Sep 2012 #5
tanyev Sep 2012 #6
rock Sep 2012 #7
caseymoz Sep 2012 #8
clangsnwhoops Sep 2012 #21
jsr Sep 2012 #27
patrice Sep 2012 #28
Jerry442 Sep 2012 #45
Raster Sep 2012 #52
still_one Sep 2012 #51
Slit Skirt Sep 2012 #75
toddwv Sep 2012 #62
Th1onein Sep 2012 #66
pscot Sep 2012 #69
Slit Skirt Sep 2012 #86
TrogL Sep 2012 #92

Response to Stuart G (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 07:36 AM

1. That is exactly why they had to politicize 9/11 and viciously attack any critics...

 

They were so guilty of negligence or LIHOP that Bush and Cheney would have been driven from office and possibly convicted of treason if the facts of their foreknowledge had ever seen the light of day.

That's why Bush sat in that Florida classrom with that stunned looked after asking "Was it the terrorists?" He was contemplating just how fucked he really was.

Cheney knew what had to be done and along with Rove rallied the right wing noise machine to brand any questioning of their leadership as unpatriotic in "time of war."

How did they know that they should start taking Cipro? I suspect they knew that the anthrax attacks were coming. How did they know that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stuart G (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 08:01 AM

2. Unfortunately incompetence is not a war crime, But torture and the Iraq invasion are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to on point (Reply #2)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 08:21 AM

4. Willful ignorance should be nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebluegreen (Reply #4)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 10:29 AM

20. It's only willful ignorance when Dems are in office.

The GOP gets a free ride.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to on point (Reply #2)


Response to on point (Reply #2)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 10:17 AM

16. and

incompetence and add malfeasance

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to on point (Reply #2)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 07:17 PM

54. Anything that contradicts an ideologue's dogma is discarded

These people were rigid ideologues who thought Saddam Hussein was a huge threat and bin Laden was just a small time crook. That's why the anti terrorism task force was demoted and shoved aside in favor of men like Rumsfeld.

That's also why they ignored anything about bin Laden in those memos.

This is why we need to keep ideologues out of office. Our lives depend upon it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stuart G (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 08:21 AM

3. Weren't "Truthers" telling us about this since, oh, 2002? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RoccoR5955 (Reply #3)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 09:46 AM

9. THANK YOU!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RoccoR5955 (Reply #3)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 09:54 AM

10. Even now the truth of the Reichstag Fire is unknown.....

...but it is less important than it used to be because as we all know now that whether or not the Nazis actually did it, they could have, and they would have, and they exploited it ruthlessly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RoccoR5955 (Reply #3)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 09:55 AM

11. No.


Truthers were saying it was a deliberate conspiracy, a government job, and if anything, their theory says the Bush Administration, or at least, the professional ops part of the government, was super-competent, able to orchestrate the most elaborate, convoluted, god-like conspiracies, and cover them up in the bizarre ways.

In other words, the total opposite of what the NY Times has just reported. Also, I thought Truthers maintain al Qaeda was out of the loop.

The total debacle of Iraq is more representative of our government's level of competence, which definitely didn't surge under the Bush-Cheney co-presidency.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Reply #11)


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #14)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 01:32 PM

34. That's my understanding of who "truthers" are.


Do I misunderstand that definition? I just called them "911 conspiracy theorists" but I thought he was referring to the same people. I know there's another group who just wanted the government to release the rest of their documents, but in general, they weren't making any conjectures about it that I know of.

Since, one would assume, everybody wants the truth, but there are some people who want "truther," or ultra-truth, or the truth behind the truth, I presumed the conspiracy theorists are what he was referring to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Reply #34)


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #36)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 06:14 PM

49. Pearl Harbor was different from 911

Last edited Tue Sep 11, 2012, 07:40 PM - Edit history (1)

Getting to the last part first, I'm talking about theories where the government actually destroyed the towers. Besides that, I don't know what you're asking.

It's not true that some government officials knew Japan was going to invade Pearl Harbor.

Though, yes, the evidence was there. I suggest reading Leonard Mlodinov's The Drunkards Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives. See what he has to say about the advanced evidence of Japan's invasion, and how it was lost in the noise. The evidence was only obvious in hindsight, as everything always is.

That's fundamentally different from what happened with 911. Nothing was lost in the noise. They brought it to the President and told him directly. And he ignored it. The officials did their job. The executive was snoozing, or vacationing.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Reply #49)

Wed Sep 12, 2012, 09:03 AM

73. the executive was/is a puppet

look at Rumsfeld, Rice, Cheney, FBI chief...those people and the people below them. They enabled it, perhaps participated in it. Definitely participated in the scrambling of the NORAD planes to confuse them.

Do you really think it is a coincidence that the day the towers were going down, they were practicing for the EXACT same scenario, so as to confuse between training and real world?

after all we have seen in the last decade..please open your mind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Slit Skirt (Reply #73)

Wed Sep 12, 2012, 05:16 PM

83. yes

that was just too much of a coincidence for me to believe, as well. there were many such "coincidences" that day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Reply #11)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 10:20 AM

17. The NYT article doesn't prove whether it is incopentence or willful ignorance

The "truthers", as you call them, had a diverse set of suspicions. But the one thing that was common to all of them is that the American public has not been told anything like the whole truth, and that is 100% consistent with this NYT article.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #17)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 01:22 PM

32. It just happens that they couldn't find the briefs

. . . that uncovered the "real" conspiracy? Willful ignorance doesn't make sense. Just from human nature. Nobody sets things up so that their country is attacked, not unless they're double-agents. Even Hitler, the biggest bastard in history, just faked an invasion of Germany to start a war with Poland. He didn't wait for Polish Partisans to do something. That would be trusting his plan's outcome to his enemies, which is exactly what our government would have been doing.

I really think the Bush administration could have lied its way into a war with Iraq with or without the attacks, or I think that was their policy. It would have taken longer, but if that was one of there keystone policies, and they were willing to lie enough, they could have done it.

It doesn't make any sense in other ways that they would have allowed the attack. If for no other reason than there were some extremely important, wealthy businesses in those buildings. At least a couple of one percenters were killed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Reply #32)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 02:14 PM

37. The PNACers suggested EXACTLY that

"Nobody sets things up so that their country is attacked"

I agree nobody with an ounce of humanity and decency would. But there are a lot of evil people out there.

Nobody would authorize torture either. But they did.

Nobody would invade Iraq on false premises. But they did.

Nobody would send their Secy of State to tell a dozen big lies to the UN. But they did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #37)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 05:54 PM

48. No, NOBODY . . .


. . . period-- acts like that. At all. Zilch. Zero. Impossible. I don't know how to say it more clearly. Snidely Whiplash and Boris Badenoff do not exist in real life. They're the Big Foot of human personalities, and they ride on the Loch Ness monster. Don't argue back about it unless you have a live specimen with you. And if you have two together in the same department, they should buy lottery ticket. Not having an ounce of decency has almost nothing to do with it. They must also have a tactical sense so bad they put their pants on over their heads each morning, and a pair of balls that makes them looks down a barrel of a gun to see how fast the bullet comes out. You're talking a caricature of evil that could only exist in a fictitious world. Like Blofeld.

That's still the case even if it's plausible that somebody would lie to get their way, invade a country and torture. Those are irrelevant. Those behaviors have been sighted, and were sighted eons before 9-11. You wouldn't need a Convention against Torture unless it was well-known human behavior, in any country. The first doesn't belong with the others.

However, this is not proof that it didn't happen. (There's always a first time.) All it says is, don't hold your breath waiting for this to be confirmed. And certainly don't make it your first theory. Put it down low on the list.

What are the PNACs and why are they so bad? Was that meant to insult me? I think it was, since it appears to be associated with NeoCons. But remember, my dear Goodwin, even Hitler was right about something, and he is on record as telling the truth occasionally.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Reply #48)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 08:18 PM

65. PNAC = People for a New American Century

They stated that we needed a "new Pearl Harbor" in order to secure the oil in the Middle East.
Remember that if you want to find out more, Google is your friend.
And also remember that Dick Cheney had told planes in pursuit of hijacked flights to stand down. This is a fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RoccoR5955 (Reply #65)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 09:50 PM

68. And on the very morning of 9-11, Donald Rumsfeld

told colleagues that there would be an event in the next year that would essentially allow us to build up our military and have carte blanche to do with it as we pleased. These are my words, not Rumsfeld, but his meaning was clear enough.

I have no interest in a debate between:

a) The administration actively coordinated the events of 9-11

and

b) The administration was well aware that an attack was planned and they did nothing to prevent. Instead of working to thwart the attack, their efforts went into preparations to EXPLOIT the event.

Those really are the two choices, and they are both pretty much the same degree of evil as far as I am concerned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Reply #11)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 10:25 AM

19. That is not entirely true

"truthers" were people like me. Everyone was asleep, and it was the truth movement that forced a 9/11 commission. The Jersey girls were part of that movement. That commission was fought against by that administration and we ended up getting a sliver of the truth

The "truthers" were (and still are) seeking the truth, because the official story doesn't pass the smell test. You can be condescending all you like, but the "truth" is, we took attacks similar to yours, and turned the other cheek and kept movin on. Now things are starting to come forth and everyone is acting so surprised. This information is out there and has been for quite some time. Some people would like us to keep quiet by calling us names and tell us to put our tin-foil hats on or put them away. This is how the truthers have been discredited. But think of this, that is how the neocons, republicans and rw hate machine discredit liberals. It is disheartening the way some of the left has treated that movement.

It is time to wake up to some harsh truths about what happened on 9/11. We are only the messengers and investigative work should be applauded...god knows our media isn't doing it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Slit Skirt (Reply #19)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 11:25 AM

25. Thank you, slit skirt, for speaking out. I feel the "truth" of 9/11 will come out,

even though probably not in my lifetime.

The fact that DU has chosen to sweep it under the carpet doesn't make it any less true.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truth2power (Reply #25)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 11:35 AM

26. yes, we must stick together and keep fighting

3,000 people died...they got away with it....when will be the next one?..and there will be a next one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truth2power (Reply #25)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 01:44 PM

35. A conspiracy in DU to sweep it under a rug?


You presume a conspiracy on DU because one guy says that the 911 conspiracy is a hoax?

I'm sorry, that's so funny, I'm wondering if that isn't satire. You've done more than I can to explain why the 911 conspiracy is hogwash, and why it has legs, because some people are prone to see powerful, conspiracies where there aren't any. It's a mindset that's not related to evidence in the real world. Fear looking for evidence to rationalize itself.

Not to say there aren't real conspiracies. I think a conspiracy caused the financial crisis in '08.

But the 911 is more informed by Hollywood than anything in real life. It's Mission Impossible, where the bad guys are winning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Reply #35)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 02:28 PM

39. Which conspiracy are you talking about? The official 9/11 narrative presupposes a conspiracy...

CONSPIRACY a combination of two or more persons to commit a criminal or unlawful act, ...or a combination of two or more persons by concerted action to accomplish an unlawful purpose...

--- Barron's Law Dictionary



OBL & friends. Fits the definition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truth2power (Reply #39)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 03:00 PM

42. You skipped a part of my post,

The part that says, "Not to say there aren't real conspiracies. I think a conspiracy caused the financial crisis in '08."

The definition of conspiracy isn't the issue.

Then you cite OBL et al. The fact that Truthers believe there was a conspiracy of some sort also isn't my issue.

And if that doesn't answer what you wrote, what is your point?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Reply #42)

Wed Sep 12, 2012, 10:14 AM

74. You seem to be making the definition of conspiracy an issue...

"The fact that truthers believe..." So the official narrative can't be defined as a conspiracy? I just wish people would be accurate, that's all.

As to the rest, I'm not going to be drawn into "whining about DU" or its admins. as it's sometimes termed. This is their board. They can run it as they see fit.

My point was NOT that Skinner and Elad entered into a conspiracy, since that would mean they did something illegal, and it's not illegal to prohibit talking about 9/11 in a particular venue, or to consign such discussions to a place infested with disinformation artists.

"Sweeping under the rug" was by way of saying, "Let's all show how mainstream we are."

The truth will be known, someday, but I don't expect to live long enough to see it, sadly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Slit Skirt (Reply #19)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 11:48 AM

30. Count me too. I'm perfectly capable of recognizing wild stuff when I hear it, but I always knew

that we don't know the truth and have always been glad these people were committed to the questions, even if some of what they were producing requires more rigorous analyses.

They have performed a real service to this country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Slit Skirt (Reply #19)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 01:15 PM

31. I stood on a street corner ...

in 2003, protesting the invasion of Iraq. People honked and shouted and gave us the finger. I knew then that it was a disaster in the making. I knew then that we weren't being told the whole truth behind 9/11. If the neocons didn't cause it, they expected something like it to happen, and they were ready.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Shagman (Reply #31)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 02:37 PM

41. "stood on a street corner". As did I. Along with two other women. And, yes, people honked

and shouted and gave us the finger, exactly as you've described.

In addition, one man sped through the intersection, screaming out his car window, "Go back in the kitchen". I kid you not!

I wonder if his mother knows that he holds women in such low esteem. How sad.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Slit Skirt (Reply #19)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 02:24 PM

38. I'm not condescending.


For now, you take credit, but soon you'll have to say these disclosed memos are the cover story for the government having blown up the towers with a controlled explosions, because that's the story Truthers embraced. That's definitely not what's negligence implies.

The information that's been revealed here is evidence of negligence. This is emphatically not what the Truthers predicted. Covertly blowing up buildings is not anything like negligence. Hell, I predicted shocking negligence would be uncovered and I'm not a Truther. So, no, you get no credit.

Demanding answers is an honorable thing. The people who demanded disclosure are to be praised for that.

Making wild conjectures before you have the answers based no evidence and weak inferences is not honorable. People do that out of fear, and soon, the fear is informed by nothing real, but by more fear. Soon, it begins to sound exactly like something a paranoid schizophrenic come up with. In fact, it will then attract paranoid schizophrenics, who are relieved to have something to attach their fears to, even if the details might not match. As more join a movement like the 911 conspiracy theorists, it gets less informed by facts and more delusional.

No sorry, Truthers haven't been discredited by name-calling and innuendos about tin-foil hats. Those are things said to them after they've been discredited. The way Truthers have been refuted is that their theories are insane, their evidence was easily rebutted, and it requires a world resembling a Hollywood movie to bring off the schemes they infer. Unfortunately, once somebody believes something, they can't be separated from the belief without anguish. Unconsciously they know this, so it takes more than mere evidence to do it. They would never admit this is why they're still believing.

And this is where many intelligent people find themselves with conspiracy theories. Which is why you should be skeptical in the first place.

And I honestly think the NYT obtained these memos regardless of you, not because of you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Reply #38)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 03:27 PM

43. you have it all mixed up...

and there you go again attacking truthers. Yes, I participated in the truth movement, and had we not pushed the information wouldn't be there. No one is making wild conjectures, based on no evidence. That is what is wrong with people of your opinion, you don't listen and quite frankly you don't want to know. if you did you wouldn't use words like wild conjecture, paranoid schizophrenics. You once again just proved my point. Name calling, suggesting our theories are insane...you should be ashamed of yourself.
Start thinking for yourself, do some investigating and understand that the official story is not what happened.

I never claimed to be the one who made all the changes..your so silly. It sounds like I touched a nerve.

A corrupt government is much more plausible than 19 guys in a cave out doing the CIA, FBI, Pentagon, NORAD, FAA, and a whole host of other agencies.... ..come on get real. Remember Hitler's strategic instructions in Mein Kompf? FDR quoting it and calling Republcans on their lies. This had become the mantra of Lee Atwater, Karl Rove and Dick Cheney.

Hitler’s strategy was simply don’t tell a small lie, because the larger and more outrageous the lie is then the easier it will overwhelm the person being lied to. They will come away with the opinion that the lie is so huge that it can’t possibly be a lie…of course there are only a few people who will believe the lie in the first place…they are the people too biased and lazy to find out the true information. This is the Republican base…

Time to get your head out of the sand.....


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Slit Skirt (Reply #43)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 07:16 PM

53. I didn't attack, at all.

I informed you that the tinfoil hat remarks were not the arguments against you. Wild conjecture and paranoid schizophrenics are insults? I didn't say you were schizophrenics, I warned they would be attracted you your movement, and their delusions would then misinform you. Wild conjecture, I'll resort to analogy: if a pitcher throws the ball ten feet above the plate, does calling it wild pitch insult him?

Let me explain exactly why I don't believe in a US government conspiracy to commit 9/11. It's mathematical theorem called Baye's Theorem. The way it applies here is this: the arrow of inference (if you know logic) isn't always reversible. If you have US government conspiracy, you might expect some things to occur, such as having Building 7 collapse. But if Building 7 collapses, that doesn't mean it's caused by a US government conspiracy. Even if you have a whole bunch of things like this, where steel seemingly melts at low temperatures, that still doesn't point to a conspiracy. In both of those, there are several other things other things it can be. Because statistically, there are several other things that could be the cause, the odds of all of them pointing to a conspiracy are vanishingly small. Even if a government conspiracy is one of the possibilities in every piece of evidence.

The best evidence is the most direct and immediate. So, what did we have directly and immediately? We saw planes hit buildings, and we have the fact that Mohammed Atta and his friends weren't motivated to conceal what they did after the fact.

For comparison, if you see Patty shoot John on a video, and you have the pistol, and the bullet, but then you notice on the video that the smoke coming off the pistol looks odd, you don't make the inference that Patty's brother Tom must have done it. Not even if Tom didn't like John dating his sister. You then don't make jumps and say, oh, Tom poisoned John and made it look like Patty did it. Yet, this is exactly what you've done.

The FBI, CIA, Dick Cheney and the Pentagon also don't add up to government committed scenario. You apparently think that if you take all those together, they add up to a conspiracy. No. Mathematically speaking, they don't. They don't give you anything. And since the universe speaks math, I agree with it.

I like your Jack Nicholson "Truth? You can't handle the truth . . ." riff.

Wrong, I can handle it. I actually wish what you say happened. if anything a US government conspiracy to commit 9/11 implies a much easier world than the one we have. First, once we uncover the conspiracy, (and we will, because we can make wild guesses and count on being right about catching them), you can count on radical reform. Whereas with anything less, we're going to get something far less radical.

Second, the whole universe would be much easier. It's one where I could look at liquid pouring from the building, say it must be a conspiracy, and count on being right, without having anything like skills. Fuck, I'd take that universe in a second.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Reply #53)

Wed Sep 12, 2012, 01:35 PM

77. nice try

do your homework..you are much more naive than you think......


no riff's here, just an acknowledgement that people are in denial...you are right there with them.
your examples are laughable...explain the dust.....how did we get all dust from the buildings? no objects from a collapse, just dust like from an explosion. The laws of physics and the free fall time.


I could go on forever...but you will never open your mind

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Reply #38)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 08:35 PM

67. "Making wild conjectures before you have the answers based no evidence and weak inferences....

is not honorable." Really? Now, they are making "conjectures" (about the laws of physics, for goodness sake!). And they have answers that are "based on no evidence and weak inferences." Are you serious? You mean that eyewitness accounts are not evidence? The laws of physics are not evidence? The videos are not evidence?

You know what I'm sick of? I'm sick of very good evidence, evidence that would be allowed in a court of law, in it's entirety being called a "conspiracy theory." Many men and women have been sent to their deaths, or have lost their freedom based on lesser evidence, but ALL of this evidence, taken together, simply because it conflicts with the "official" story is somehow a "conspiracy theory"?

Give us a break. If that's not condescending, then nothing is.

Somebody, on the inside, who had access (and I don't think it was the terrorists) wanted those buildings to come down. All the way down. I don't know why; I don't pretend to know the whole story. I don't know how they did it. I don't make THOSE conjectures, you see (although you seem to credit those who don't believe the official story with just those types of conjectures, for some reason). But those buildings didn't collapse from planes hitting them. Never in the history of steel buildings has that happened. NEVER. And, in one day, not one, not two, but THREE of them (and one that hadn't even been hit by a plane!) came down and set a record.

Uh huh. Riiiiight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Th1onein (Reply #67)

Wed Sep 12, 2012, 01:26 PM

76. great response!

I too am sick of this evidence being called conspiracy theory. I should make a list (brief) of all the "coincidences". It would be pages and they still wouldn't get it. We had a coup..that is all. If they would wake up, we might be able together save this country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Slit Skirt (Reply #76)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 02:14 AM

93. The Truth Will Out

Time passes, and people feel more free to talk. A majority of the American people think that 911 was an inside job. They believe, rightly, that their government isn't telling them everything. But time will tell, and the truth WILL out.

If this evidence constitutes a conspiracy theory, then we have a whole helluva lot of people in our prisons that have been sent there based on a conspiracy theory. There is enough evidence here to base a very good criminal circumstantial case on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Slit Skirt (Reply #19)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 11:52 PM

70. Thanks for that, I couldn't have said it better. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Reply #11)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 11:45 AM

29. They were COMPLICIT in the attack

I've seen the videos of the World Trade Center buildings spewing molten steel. You just don't get molten steel at the temperatures generated by the fire that the planes hitting those buildings caused. It just does NOT happen. Molten steel is caused by thermite burning. And if you look at the buildings right before the collapses, you can see the flashes of light that come with controlled demolition. There were dozens of eyewitness reports of explosions before the collapse, and even some of explosions BEFORE the planes even hit the buildings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Th1onein (Reply #29)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 01:31 PM

33. Absolutely

now engineers have discovered nano-thermite (explosives) in the rubble and on the steel, and too much to be a coincidence. I think over 1000 engineers have signed a petition to have a further investigation.

and how much a coincidence was it that little bro' Marvin Bush security company was in charge of security of towers and American Airlines and Dulles airport?

Marvin P. Bush, the president’s younger brother, was a principal in a company called Securacom that provided security for the World Trade Center, United Airlines, and Dulles International Airport. The company, Burns noted, was backed by KuwAm, a Kuwaiti-American investment firm on whose board Marvin Burns also served.
According to its present CEO, Barry McDaniel, the company had an ongoing contract to handle security at the World Trade Center "up to the day the buildings fell down <snip>

On the weekend of 9/8, 9/9 there was a 'power down' condition in WTC tower 2, the south tower. This power down condition meant there was no electrical supply for approx 36 hrs from floor 50 up... "Of course without power there were no security cameras, no security locks on doors and many, many 'engineers' coming in and out of the tower."

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911security.html


anybody that says we need to wear tin foil hats, I respond by saying get your head out of the sand..or get your head out of your ass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Th1onein (Reply #29)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 02:31 PM

40. The raw steel evidence has been refuted.


End of story.

I'm not going to attempt to convince you. I'm just informing you that doesn't persuade me, that makes me roll my eyes to still hear it after it's been refuted, literally, for years. Anybody with ears would have heard it by now.

So, no, I'm not providing a link. I don't have time, period. That information is out there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Reply #40)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 03:30 PM

44. then don't respond if you don't link it

I am suppose to believe you? give me a break. If you don't have time excuse yourself from this conversation. The evidence is there and it is solid. I will believe the thousands of engineers over you anyday. It hasn't been refuted for years...at all. Quite frankly I think you are somewhat misinformed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Slit Skirt (Reply #44)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 05:41 PM

47. Please list the "thousands of engineers"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TrogL (Reply #47)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 07:42 PM

58. I don't have the list of people

and for you to expect me to is kind of silly. Here are some articles on the petition and who signed generally speaking...you will see that even the military has gotten involved


Over 1,000 architects and engineers have signed petition to reinvestigate 9-11 destruction

http://www.ae911truth.org/news/41-articles/100-over-1000-architects-and-engineers-have-signed-petition-to-reinvestigate-9-11-destruction.html


http://www.militaryofficersfor911truth.org/

As officers in the U.S. military, we took an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Regardless of our current status -- active duty, reserves, retired, or civilian -- that oath remains in force. Therefore it is not just our responsibility, it is our duty to expose the real perpetrators of 9/11 and bring them to justice, no matter how hard it is, how long it takes, how much we have to suffer, or where it leads us. We owe this to those who have gone before us who executed that same oath, and we owe it to those who are following that same oath today in Iraq and Afghanistan. We believe the official account of 9/11 as defined in the 9/11 Commission Report is grossly inaccurate and fatally flawed. It is imperative that we have an accurate understanding of 9/11 so that those responsible can be identified and brought to justice in order that they and similarly-minded people never again commit such heinous crimes. It is also imperative that we have an accurate understanding of 9/11 so that governmental policies resulting from 9/11 are based on truth rather than deception.

We join with other organizations of professionals, such as Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, Firefighters for 9/11 Truth, Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth, and Lawyers for 9/11 Truth, and millions of individual citizens in demanding a thorough, impartial, open and transparent reinvestigation of the terrorist acts of 9/11.

http://www.examiner.com/article/over-1000-architects-and-engineers-have-signed-petition-to-reinvestigate-9-11

Over 1000 architects and engineers have signed petition to reinvestigate 9/11
"At some level of government, at some point in time, there was an agreement not to tell the people the truth about what happened." John Farmer, Senior Counsel to the 9-11 Commission in his book The Ground Truth (4)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Slit Skirt (Reply #58)

Wed Sep 12, 2012, 03:39 PM

79. OK, that's engineers who would like it investigated. I'm with them.

Now show me the list of engineers who believe gravity falls sideways and all the other nonsense you have to believe in order to be a truther.

I like...

The twin towers were designed to take the impact of a 707.
The twin towers were hit by a heavier aircraft.
The towers collapsed in the direction gravity pulls (down).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TrogL (Reply #79)

Wed Sep 12, 2012, 05:46 PM

85. You are becoming a little insulting

truthers are people who seek the truth...somehow you have a problem with that. Those engineers are in that group. You don't have to believe in anything or everything to be a truther. What a silly statement to make.

It is obvious you know nothing about this very important movement.

Below are links to the architects that designed these buildings. Included are statements about how they were designed to withstand an impact from a jetliner. That is EXACTLY why other engineers have joined in the cause...that and the fact that there was nanothermite found everywhere..so much so that it couldn't be a coincidence.

No one said they were hit by a heavier aircraft..quit making stuff up

Of course the towers collapsed downwards...do you think they should've elevated to space? The free fall speed in which they fell, the fact that the entire building ended up as dust and not rubble, and the fact that there was nanothermite all over the place should tell you the original story can't be true.

Guess what? it was the truthers attention to the inconsistencies in the official story and the contradiction towards the real evidence that got engineers involved in questioning the official story
The official story doesn't pass the smell test..ok? Unbelievable that you are ok with engineers but not truthers...shame on you for treating your fellow progressives so shabbily. We are doing a service to this country, and all along informing people who are severely misinformed like yourself.

Here is some information

The World Trade Center Building Designers: Pre-9/11 claims strongly implicate Towers should have remained standing on 9/11
http://www.nowpublic.com/world/world-trade-center-building-designers-pre-9-11-claims-strongly-implicate-towers-should-have-remained-standing-9-11#ixzz26IDfpptp

One of these hypothetical examples was put to the test in the 1993 WTC bombing. This attack prompted more discussions about the safety of the WTC towers. In response to these concerns, WTC building designer John Skilling explained that they “looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side… A previous analysis carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without collapsing.”
This statement indicates that the designers considered Boeing 707 airplane impact speeds of 600 mph. It seems likely that the designers considered this impact speed for the reason that the cruse speed of a Boeing 707 is 607 mph. In comparison, both of the planes that hit the WTC Towers on 9/11 were Boeing 767’s. The FEMA report indicates that Flight 11 flew at a speed of 470 mph into the North Tower, and the second plane flew at a speed of 590 mph into the South Tower. Not only were these speeds anticipated by the building designers, the Boeing 707 is similar in size to the ones flown into the towers on 9/11. According to Jim Hoffman, the planes used on 9/11 were “only slightly larger than 707s and DC 8s, the types of jetliners whose impacts the World Trade Center's designers anticipated.”


September 11, 2001|By Blair Kamin, Tribune architecture critic.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2001-09-11/news/0109120023_1_columns-and-beams-world-trade-center-steel-columns
The World Trade Center, a symbol of American economic might, survived one terrorist attack in 1993 and even was designed to withstand the impact of a 707 jetliner. But both towers collapsed Tuesday morning after planes rammed into them, stunning structural engineers who had expected the buildings to withstand such a blow.

Do your homework....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Slit Skirt (Reply #85)

Wed Sep 12, 2012, 10:12 PM

89. We're looking at the same sites

"only slightly larger" does mean slightly larger.

A couple of paragraphs down we have "Structural engineers, shocked by the building's collapse, pointed to fire as the likely cause of the structural failure.".

Please don't cherrypick your quotes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TrogL (Reply #89)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 05:31 PM

95. welll 1700 of them want a new investigation

cause fire from a plane can't melt that steel and there was nanothermite found all over


have a good day

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TrogL (Reply #47)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 07:56 PM

61. Okie, dokie: Ever heard of the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth?

It's composed of 1,600 architectural and engineering professionals. I'm sure if you go to their website and do a little digging, you can get their names, but it's a well known group. Is there some reason you want individual names?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Th1onein (Reply #61)

Wed Sep 12, 2012, 01:39 PM

78. oohh....snap!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Slit Skirt (Reply #44)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 07:33 PM

56. Didn't I just say, I'm not interested in convincing you?

I'm declaring my opinion. If my telling you it has been refuted doesn't make you curious enough to look, in the Internet age, then lack of information isn't the problem. It might not seem like it right now, but I don't have a lot of time. I do have a real job, and no part of it involves compensating for lack of curiosity.

Plus, every time I've chased down sources for people, they either write something that shows they didn't read it, or they never post back. I presume with the latter, they lost interest.

I did say, also, in a previous post, that once you believe something, it takes more than mere evidence to change your mind, because you can't change it without some anguish. Which is why one should be skeptical. Believing is easy, backpedaling is a bitch.

Never mind. I've declared my opinion. So I'm gone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Reply #56)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 07:47 PM

59. opinion is one thing

to vilify or accuse people of being delusional who are not about to accept the official story seems a bit extreme.

Over 50% of Americans believe the official story is not accurate. Why not let the investigation continue and prosecute the war criminals and treasonous basterds?

oh and btw..you could never convince me even if you wanted to..the truth is on our side.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Reply #56)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 08:14 PM

63. Your opinion is squat without something to underpin it. If you are talking about debunking....

Is this an example of debunking the molten steel theory: http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm ? Sorry, little too much opinion masquerading as fact in that one. Let's try another one: http://www.democraticunderground.com/11351372 This video "explains" the molten steel by saying that it was, instead, molten aluminum from the plane. But there a problem with that explanation: WTC 7, which was not hit by a plane, also had molten steel! Or, would you like to refer to the Popular Mechanics version of debunking the molten steel idea, here: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/engineering/4213805 (and the original link to the original story inside), which says, simply, that there WAS no molten steel:

(Oh! My lyin' eyes! Here's the youtube video showing the molten steel:

)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Th1onein (Reply #63)

Wed Sep 12, 2012, 03:45 PM

80. Looks like burning embers to me

Remember that there was an entire office full of furniture, papers and god knows what on fire directly behind it.

The entire video is so grainy that it could be anything. Distinguishing between steel, aluminum and office crap would be impossible, I'd be surprised if it was steel because I would expect that to go down, not sideways. That's why I'm thinking something light.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TrogL (Reply #80)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 01:27 AM

97. Yeah, right.

Try this one:


&feature=related



Sorry, but that's molten metal. My brother builds metal buildings and has to cut the beams quite often. He took one look at this and said it was molten steel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Reply #40)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 07:47 PM

60. I've not heard it refuted and I've done A LOT of research on this. Particularly looking for

debunking info. Seen absolutely NOTHING on it. I guess you can't prove a negative, though, right? Is that what you're counting on and why you won't post a link to back up your assertions?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Th1onein (Reply #29)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 05:39 PM

46. As usual, you're awash in undivided middle

Link to videos, please. I follow this kind of thing and I've never seen them.

Eyewitness testimony is practically useless. That's why there's forensics.

All cows are brown.
My dog is brown.
Therefore my dog is a cow.

Controlled demolitions have flashes of light.
The trade center had flashes of light.
Therefore the trade center was a controlled demolition.

The flashes of light I see are reflections of the sun as the windows collapse as the weight of the upper portion cracks them.

Oh, and while I'm at it.

Controlled demolitions go straight down.
The towers went straight down.
Therefore the towers were a controlled demolition.

Gravity goes down. What direction would you like it to go?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TrogL (Reply #46)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 07:06 PM

50. all naysayers are right

therefore you are right...wtf...
It is obvious you know nothing about controlled demolitions.

go look for yourself...google it. There are hundreds of videos slow motion showing discharges before the collapse. We are not talking about flashes. We are talking explosions.

eyewitness testimony is practically useless ..that's why there's forensics....
that is why they shipped that steel off to China lickety split...

Tell that to the firefighters and first responders.

and yes the towers collapsed as if it were a controlled demolition. If there weren't explosions, why wasn't there anything left other than dust and bent steel...nothing. no remnants of tables, computers etc etc. Just dust ..just like in an explosion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Slit Skirt (Reply #50)

Wed Sep 12, 2012, 03:54 PM

82. Looks like more than dust to me

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TrogL (Reply #82)

Wed Sep 12, 2012, 05:51 PM

87. that's all the steel

check out interviews...nothing but steel and dust Remember the cloud that came down the streets?
geesh

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Slit Skirt (Reply #87)

Wed Sep 12, 2012, 10:14 PM

90. I'm seeing more than steel there.

Take a computer, drop it from who knows how high, then drop the rest of a building on it, yeah, it's going to be pretty much unrecognizable. Same with particleboard office furniture, assuming any survived the fire.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TrogL (Reply #90)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 05:29 PM

94. yeah..ok

I am over this conversation..have a good day

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TrogL (Reply #46)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 07:23 PM

55. Link to videos?

you have been exposed sir...if you followed "these types of things" you would know that these videos are plastered all over the internet.

no flashes of lights...explosions....

Yes controlled demolitions land in their footprint...yes you are correct.

how did the forensics turn to dust exactly...no computers, phones, desks, toilets, sinks...nada....just dust...like in an explosion. Dust so deadly and fine that people are dying of cancer from it.

they found nanothermite...do you know what that is? So much of it that it couldn't possible be just a coincidence.

eyewitness testimony is practically useless...tell that to the firefighters and first responders who all came back with stories of explosions..even before the towers fell.


It is amazing to me how people just take the mainstream media story and accept it...you know why?

because the other option is unimaginable, and when you walk through that door there is no turning back.

Do your homework and stop expecting others to do it for you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Slit Skirt (Reply #55)

Wed Sep 12, 2012, 05:29 PM

84. Who said I'm accepting the mainstream theory?

I'm into LIHOP. I don't think the MIHOP people have made their case but I'm willing to listen to them try.

I've seen the videos plastered all over the internet. You cannot "see" an explosion. You see flashes of light and billows of smoke. Everything else is interpretation.

I would imagine the majority of the dust is from concrete used within the building and ash from all the crap that was burning. In my back yard I've got a firepit. If I don't keep it covered, the ash gets into everything and that's just from the wind. Now imagine dropping it out of the sky. I've also got a sidewalk that was improperly poured and is breaking up. Just standing on it is enough to create dust. I've also got some old concrete blocks some of which I've dropped and they've shattered. Now try this from who knows how many hundreds of feet up.

I've already posted a picture showing the wreckage is a LOT more than than dust and twisted metal.

Here's the thing. To get the effect PNAC wanted, they didn't need the towers to fall down or anything else. As soon as those aircraft deviated from their flight paths, they had the excuse the needed to do whatever they wanted. Everything else was gravy. If the planes crashed, fine. If the towers got damaged, even better. I doubt if they even expected them to fall down. With the level of training the pilots had, I'm surprised they even hit them. It'd look pretty damn stupid if the airliners missed entirely and then the towers fell down. Then you'd have my wholehearted support for CD.

Here's another thing. The delay between the planes hitting and towers falling down? I help out at a friend's farm. He doesn't get around very well so I do all the work with the trees; chopping them down, cutting them up, dealing with the stumps. Trees don't fall straight down because the trunk is in the way, so I have to make cuts in certain exactly places to control where the tree is going to fall and often the tree isn't balanced where I want it to go so I have to give it a helping hand. I'll make my cuts and then all I can do is wait. I'll hear the tree cracking and groaning as individual fibres break until it reaches the point where it can't keep itself in the air. If I know it's going to go where I want it, it gives me lots of time to get the hell away so if it kicks back, I don't get caught. Other times, I'll hear it ready to go and give it that last little push that sends it where I want it instead of it landing on my truck or a shed or something. Seeing those towers there reminded me of that. They weren't built like a tree, they were built more like a Jenga game. When the final beam broke, the whole damn thing went at once.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TrogL (Reply #84)

Wed Sep 12, 2012, 05:54 PM

88. stop right there

you can see the explosions...you have to watch for them. They appear just below the "cloud"
glad you are not excepting the official story....quit attacking people who are into mihop...it is not such a reach

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Slit Skirt (Reply #88)

Wed Sep 12, 2012, 10:16 PM

91. MIHOP has nothing to do with CD

An example of MIHOP would be the Bushies paid the Saudies to have somebody fly the planes into the towers. Another example, the Bushies told NORAD to stand down, then told the Saudies the skies were open.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TrogL (Reply #46)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 08:18 PM

64. The towers' collapses defied the laws of physics.

Simple as that. They went down, at free fall speed, through the path of most resistance. The pancake theory, which is THE official theory, doesn't make sense, given the laws of physics.

You can believe whatever you want to believe, but for my money? I'm betting on the laws of physics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Th1onein (Reply #64)

Wed Sep 12, 2012, 03:50 PM

81. FINALLY somebody who agrees that gravity goes down.

How do you know the building was falling at freefall speed? Is there a nearby object falling freely to compare it against?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TrogL (Reply #81)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 01:20 AM

96. I have a tendency to believe the experts/engineers on things like that.

Don't know why. Maybe it's because they usually know better than someone on a message board.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RoccoR5955 (Reply #3)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 09:55 AM

12. Yup, anyone who even whispered LIHOP or MIHOP was shut down, and the thread sent to the dungeon

It was all a "conspiracy theory" doncha know...!!!111!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #12)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 10:35 AM

22. that is correct

the next time you see a truther you should thank them...at least they had the courage to question the official story. If it wasn't for them we would have had NO investigation of the biggest crime against the US ever. Shit the whole crime scene wasn't even investigated before they shipped that steel to China ASAP

19 guys in a cave thwarting CIA, Pentagon, FBI, Security at the towers, NORAD and a whole other hosts of agencies is somehow "more comfortable and easier" to believe than corruption at the highest levels.

Look what we got from 9/11...The Iraq war, Afghanistan, (military industrial complex happy and rich) Oil (Cheney's energy task force)
and our civil rights slowly being taken away.......I don't know about you...but I smell a coup

..and considering the fact that the US has tried others...Gulf of Tonkin, Northwoods, it is not such a far reach with Cheney at the helm and Bush dumber than shit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RoccoR5955 (Reply #3)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 09:59 AM

15. at least

i clearly recall an outgoing member of Clinton's admin practically begging on his knees to get Rice and the rest of the hubris filled gw admin to listen to them. Was it Clark? i'm having a senior moment and can't remember the name but i remember the circumstance. and i'm at work can't look it up.

911 did NOT have to happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to barbtries (Reply #15)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 10:24 AM

18. Yes, that sounds like Clarke.

A question I have is whether the administration just ignored this one issue or whether Bush basically blew off every PDB. I mean, if you don't pay attention to this issue, what issue will you pay attention to?

On the other hand, if they did deal with other matters raised to the PDB level, that raises the question why this particular area was ignored.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #18)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 10:47 AM

23. it sure does.

lotta questions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to barbtries (Reply #15)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 10:49 AM

24. I know what you are referring to....it was Gary Hart

Gary Hart, the former Colorado senator and two-time democratic presidential candidate, joins us in our firehouse studio. He was the youngest member of the Church Committee that investigated illegal wiretapping, CIA assassination plots and other abuses of governmental power. He also met with Condoleezza Rice five days before 9/11 and warned her of a terrorist attack.

The Canadian headlines read, "Hart predicts a terrorist attack"–that’s Gary Hart, the former Colorado senator and two-time democratic presidential candidate who co-chaired the U.S. Commission on National Security with former Republican senator Warren Rudman. Hart had given his speech in Montreal. Interestingly enough, he was addressing the Air Transportation Association.

He then flew to Washington and met with Condoleezza Rice in the White House. He issued the same warning. It was September 6, 2001. Rice said she’d talk to the Vice President. Five days later, four planes were hijacked. Three ripped into the Pentagon and world trade towers. 3,000 people died.

http://www.democracynow.org/2006/3/28/fmr_democratic_senator_and_presidential_candidate

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RoccoR5955 (Reply #3)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 07:36 PM

57. NO, not at all...

The 9/11 Truthers have been from the start (2005) been 100% about thinking of every thing one can think of to say "9/11 was an inside job" & go with that! NOTHING they have said has been enlightening or adds one bit of value to the legitimate calls for another investigation into what led up to 9/11...If anything, they have made calls for another investigation look silly like most conspiracies do to a real life serious incident!

9/11 Truthers are no different than Young Earth Creationist...Both make up their own facts & completely ignore evidence that goes against their preconceived ideas!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SkyDaddy7 (Reply #57)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 11:59 PM

71. Read the "official account,"

ask questions, then say that?
No we are asking questions, because the "official" story does not add up. We want the truth about this, we deserve it.
Then google "Northwoods," and read the wikipedia entry on it. Then ask more questions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SkyDaddy7 (Reply #57)

Wed Sep 12, 2012, 08:56 AM

72. SkyDaddy7...you do not know what you are talking about

If it weren't for the movement and the Jersey girls..we would have never had a 9/11 commission...and everyone knows it was just a sliver of the truth.

Truthers started in 2001..I know, I was part of it.


You like many, jump to conclusions without knowing facts. Why do the left fear another investigation? Would it be because it would compromise your own paradigm?

We have people in this country that looked the other way, or enabled it, then created a story of fear to go into Iraq for "freedom" (which is equivalent to oil) and took our civil liberties away. They tortured, sent our children and fathers and mothers to war (several tours) many killed. 9/11 was the catalyst for a coup.

Those people need to go to jail...and if found guilty of treason, suffer the consequences.

Everyone forgets the bigger picture. The USA was compromised and taken over by criminals and thieves. We need to take our country back and go after the bastards that created this monster.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stuart G (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 08:50 AM

5. seems more like "selective hearing"

(than "deafness")

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stuart G (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 08:55 AM

6. "All right. You've covered your ass now."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stuart G (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 09:43 AM

7. "it was only an assessment of Al Qaeda’s history"

Or to quote W in another matter (concerning the Constitution), "it's only a piece of paper." Apparently meaning it's good enough to wipe your ass on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stuart G (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 09:44 AM

8. Always much suspected.

Why else suppress documents in the investigation? Definitely not to protect intelligence they were saying they didn't have. There had been indications about how negligent the Bush administration was, such as how much vacation time the Dubya took, and how "carefully" he pondered his decisions. What was so incredible about Bush was how Republicans bent over backward insisting there was nothing wrong with the guy, that his ignorance, his laziness, and his carelessness were something normal. Repubs knew the guy was a fuck-up, and really had to grin-and-bear-it with Bush, especially in the 2004 election.

The liberals were right again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stuart G (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 10:29 AM

21. Bush responsible

I hold George W Bush responsible for the deaths of 3000 people on 9/11 due to his negligence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stuart G (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 11:40 AM

27. A real must-read

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stuart G (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 11:42 AM

28. Trying to remember whether the line of questioning during the hearing re 8/6 briefing included any

sense that the information they should have been interested in would have been distributed across a series of briefings, not just something that would pop up suddenly in just that one briefing.

It would be interesting to see which Congressional members asked what kind of questions that day.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stuart G (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 04:28 PM

45. Conspiracies

It's important to use your common sense when people talk about conspiracy theories. After all, what credulous fool could possibly believe that a giant energy company could be a hollow shell held up by phony bookkeeping, or that a superpower could invade another country based on intelligence from a handful of self-dealing foreign agents of questionable mental stability, or that banks would collude to provide mortgages to people who couldn't possibly pay them off while law enforcement turned a blind eye, or that a tiny handful of people could simply fabricate financial information vital to the entire world? I mean, c'mon!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jerry442 (Reply #45)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 07:11 PM

52. Welcome to DU! I've found that whenever anyone derisively states "conspiracy theory," what they....

...really mean is: DON'T LOOK OVER HERE.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stuart G (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 07:10 PM

51. Fuck the ny times. They are 11 years too late. In that time through Judy miller and others they

pushed us to invade a country based on a lie, and through that action killed at least a million people, and destabilized the middle east


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #51)

Wed Sep 12, 2012, 11:27 AM

75. thank you..nice reality check

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stuart G (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 07:57 PM

62. Those briefings would make a lovely "October Surprise."

Maybe it would shut Dick Cheney up for a while.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to toddwv (Reply #62)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 08:21 PM

66. October Surprise.......I was thinking the same thing, toddwv.

Let the briefings be declassified! What are they worried about, if they have nothing to hide?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stuart G (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 10:23 PM

69. An administration that will live in infamy!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stuart G (Original post)

Wed Sep 12, 2012, 05:49 PM

86. Considering some of the responses this post has been getting....

I believe this is appropriate at this time





can I get an "amen"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Slit Skirt (Reply #86)

Wed Sep 12, 2012, 10:17 PM

92. Amen!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread