Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

9-11 was a FLOP

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-30-06 09:50 AM
Original message
9-11 was a FLOP
9-11 wasn't MIHOP

9-11 wasn't even LIHOP

9-11 was a major and deliberate F.L.O.P. A Failure to Lead on Purpose.

Need proof? Here:


Where was the top leadership in command of US Defense on the morning of 9-11? Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Tenet, Myers, Rice, Wolfowitz, Libby, and the rest. Did you know, that almost every single of one watched the attack on TV while it went down? Did you know that for over 1 hour, these officials not only watched the attack, they did nothing to respond to it. They launched no defense or response to the ongoing terrorist attack until AFTER the Pentagon was attacked.


By 9:00 AM at the latest all of them knew that a terrorist attack was in progress. Here is what they said and did while the attack was going down.


Bush left the Colony Hotel at 8:30 AM. He arrived at Booker Elementary at 9:00 AM. For a half hour during the attack Bush is unaccounted for. When Bush arrived at Booker he acknowledged that he already knew about the first plane hitting the WTC. Bush later claimed to have seen the first plane hit, before anyone else in the US saw the replay of the video they found later that day. It seems Bush probably watched the attack in his limo.



Bush continued to watch the attack from Booker.




It was not until after 9:30 AM that Bush responded to the attack publicly and he used the opportunity for a photo op.




Cheney & Rice watched the attack on CNN from Cheney's office in the WH. According to Cheney - At about 9:35 a.m. a Secret Service agent said to him, in a tone that brooked no dissent, "Sir, we have to leave now." The agent grabbed the vice president by the back of his belt and aimed him at the door. "They practice this," says Cheney. "You move. Whether you want to be moved or not, you're going. They don't exactly pick you up and carry you. It's more like they propel you forward." Cheney was unflappable about his hasty exit. As he was swept through the outer office, the vice president reached out and grabbed a magazine, a copy of that week's Economist, off the table. "I'm always carrying something in case I get hung up someplace," Cheney explains. "I've got to have something to read."




Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were having a meeting in Rummie's office in the Pentagon. Tori Clark interrupted to tell them that a plane had hit the WTC. They turned on the TV and watched the attack. Wolfowitz's response was 'there didn't seem to be much to do about it immediately and we went on with whatever the meeting was.' It wasn't until the Pentagon was attacked at 9:38 AM, when Rumsfeld ended the meeting to go see what had just hit the building. He was unaccounted for until 10:00 AM, when he decided he really should go to Command and Control.




Myers saw the news on TV while he was waiting to go into Senator Cleland's office for a meeting. He told Cleland's secretary not to disturb him. He didn't know about the Pentagon being attacked until he came out of the meeting at around 9:40AM.

I could go on but I think you should be starting to get the picture by now?

The hijackings began before 8:30 AM. By 8:45 AM the first tower is hit. 9:05 AM the 2nd tower is hit. 9:38 AM the Pentagon is hit. Yet, for over 1 hour not a single top WH or DOD official responded appropriately. Every single one of them sat on their hands for as long as possible. The deliberately ignored the attack while it was in progress.

9-11 was a FLOP. A FAILURE to LEAD ON PURPOSE.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-30-06 03:28 PM
Response to Original message
1. Nice to see a thread that requires no tinfoil
dropping like a rock.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirandapriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-30-06 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. I didn't see it til now
cuz the CSPAN ones are getting a lot of attention.
I agree with what you are saying and I will take it further, I hope without mangling your intent: I think there has been a concentrated effort to get people to mistrust/not think they can depend on the government and not feel safe. It happened in New Orleans, I think that was a FLOP too, they want people to get the idea: the government is not going to take care of you. I also can't count the number of times I've heard: the gov't won't be able to help you if you get the "bird flu". NPR said that a number of times. I think it is a set up for a new world order where everything is privatized in the hands of a few and people can no longer expect help from natural disasters. (I'm getting a little Alex Jonesish here)
And, of course it gave us the idea that terrorists can easily fool our military and airport security the way it is and the ONLY way we will be safe is to give up our civil liberties and all become potential suspected terrorists ourself, never speak out against the gov because "it might be misinterpreted as an act of terror....", etc..


I think the "incompetence" theory is bogus because that is what the Bush admin WANTs you to think, they want you to think the government is incompetent (it was after all a remnant Clinton military and "weak" on terror, defense, etc...) and that we need "additional" security and laws to "protect" us. It is exactly what they want us to think that they were incompetent that is why the mishandlers of 911 were promoted and given medals rather than made accountable.
Did I misrepresent your intent?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-30-06 06:54 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Yes, I agree the 'incompetence'
Edited on Sun Jul-30-06 06:54 PM by DoYouEverWonder
is all an act.

They want people to believe Bush is dumb and that Rummie is an aw shucks kind of guy. I'm not even so sure how bad Cheney's health really is. While everyone thought Cheney was on his back in an undisclosed location, he travels around the country raising money and putting together his evil schemes.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirandapriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-31-06 02:16 AM
Response to Reply #4
9. They have made incredible accomplishments
Unfortunately it only benefits them and their backers. Incompetence is a myth of huge proportions - FLOP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-31-06 02:07 AM
Response to Reply #1
7. I feel your pain. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrgerbik Donating Member (652 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-30-06 05:08 PM
Response to Original message
3. good points
but I like the earlier stated HIHOP - Helped it happen on purpose - which may or may not be in line with a failure to lead.

I believe the talking heads of government are just puppets (and sometimes patsies) to a globalist agenda which has been pushed for years. Perpetrated almost exclusively by ultra-wealthy money changers and corporate entities who all have something to gain from the "Novus Ordo Seclorum" agenda.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-30-06 06:55 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. 9-11 isn't the only times BushCo has done a deliberate FLOP
They did the same thing with Katrina, the Invasion of Iraq and the current ME fiasco.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-31-06 02:08 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. Did you catch 60 Minutes last night regarding the redacted science
of Global Warming?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-31-06 07:33 AM
Response to Reply #8
11. No, I missed it
I try to avoid turning on the TV as much as possible, so please tell me what was redacted?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-01-06 12:20 AM
Response to Reply #11
18. The info that would compell energy industry to evolve, basically.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirandapriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-01-06 04:21 AM
Response to Reply #18
21. This part is scary
from the 2nd cbs article
"Is it fair to say at this point that humans control the climate? Is that possible?

"There's no doubt about that, says Hansen. "The natural changes, the speed of the natural changes is now dwarfed by the changes that humans are making to the atmosphere and to the surface."

Those human changes, he says, are driven by burning fossil fuels that pump out greenhouse gases like CO2, carbon dioxide. Hansen has a theory that man has just 10 years to reduce greenhouse gases before global warming reaches what he calls a tipping point and becomes unstoppable. He says the White House is blocking that message. "

well, it all is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sinti Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-31-06 01:52 AM
Response to Original message
6. Just a kick n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-31-06 04:57 AM
Response to Original message
10. semantics
"failure to lead" - "lead" as in: prevent the attack, i dare to presume.

so: "failure to prevent the attack, on purpose". In other words: "let it happen".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-31-06 07:39 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. Failure to lead DURING the attack
which to me is worse then doing nothing to prevent the attack in the first place.

Bushco's failure to lead during the attack was a dereliction of duty. They willfully, through negligence or culpable inefficiency failed to perform their expected duties.

This is why our defense system failed so miserably that day. Why for over 1.5 hours, hijacked planes could fly freely around the country. Because the key people at the top command went AWOL when we needed them most.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-31-06 09:37 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. What would the desired result of leadership have been,
if not to prevent the attacks achieving the goals?

Contrary to what you seem to suggest ("Bushco's failure to lead during the attack"..."key people at the top command went AWOL"), the military does not need direct commands from the very top of the government in order to defend the country. I'd be stupid to arrange the chain of command like that because they are not military strategists, and what if he/they are unavailable when their 'leadership' is most needed? That's why there are standard procedures, to deal with all kinds of situations including what occurred on 9-11.

There's a lot wrong with Bush and the administration, but there's also a lot wrong in all kinds of government agencies. Focusing on Bush exclusively is unproductive, all it does is reaffirm the notion that Bush's being the "commander in chief" means that he really is some sort of hands-on top General.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-31-06 06:45 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. Yes it would be stupid to arrange the chain of command like that
Edited on Mon Jul-31-06 06:47 PM by DoYouEverWonder
But that is what Rummie did. In June 2001, the Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff issued new rules of engagement.


CJCSI 3610.01A, dated June 1, 2001,

In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC will, with the exception of immediate responses as authorized by reference d, forward requests for DOD assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval. DOD assistance to the FAA will be provided in accordance with reference d.

http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.p...

Rummie knew this. Rummie knew the response would be 'hampered' if no one could find him during the attack when every minute could have made a difference. General Myers also purposely 'hampered' the response to the attack. He was the Acting Chief of Staff that day. He knew this. He knew that a plane had flown into the first tower. He knew an attack was in progress. Yet he told Cleland's secretary not to interrupt them. So we have the top civilian and the top military officer both AWOL for the attack.

Yes, the military did try to respond. Flight 77 was intercepted by a C130. Flight 93 was also intercepted by a C130. But those pilots did not have enough info from Command & Control to know what the hell they were dealing with and it is likely that the military did shot down Flight 93.

What happened on 9-11 was like cutting the head off of a snake. The rest of the body will function on a muscular level for awhile, but it not very effective without a brain to use it and control it anymore. That's why guys like Rumsfeld and Myers get the big bucks has they say. They are the ones who are supposed to put all the Intel and data together and make the big decisions. As we have seen over and over again since then, the US Military does not make good decisions on their own. They need good leaders for that and what we have right now is a sick gang of mfers who want to destroy the military and the country. Not a good combination.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gbwarming Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-01-06 12:58 AM
Response to Reply #15
19. Bull.
Did you ever get around to reading refernce D which specifically grants commanders authority to act without notification in an immediate emergency?

http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf2/d302515p...

4.4. The Secretary of Defense retains approval authority for support to civil
authorities involving: use of Commander in Chief (CINC)-assigned forces (personnel,
units, and equipment) when required under paragraph 4.5., below; DoD support to civil
disturbances; DoD responses to acts of terrorism; and DoD support that will result in a
planned event with the potential for confrontation with specifically identified individuals
and/or groups or will result in the use of lethal force. Nothing in this Directive
prevents a commander from exercising his or her immediate emergency response
authority as outlined in DoD Directive 3025.1 (reference (g)).


AND

4.5. With the exception of immediate responses under imminently serious
conditions
, as provided in subparagraph 4.7.1., below, any support that requires the
deployment of forces or equipment assigned to a Combatant Command by Secretary of
Defense Memorandum (reference (j)), must be coordinated with the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff....

AND FINALLY

4.7.1. Immediate Response. Requests for an immediate response (i.e., any
form of immediate action taken by a DoD Component or military commander to save
lives, prevent human suffering, or mitigate great property damage under imminently
serious conditions) may be made to any Component or Command. The DoD
Components that receive verbal requests from civil authorities for support in an exigent
emergency may initiate informal planning and, if required, immediately respond as
authorized in DoD Directive 3025.1 (reference (g)).
Civil authorities shall be
informed that verbal requests for support in an emergency must be followed by a written
request. As soon as practical, the DoD Component or Command rendering assistance
shall report the fact of the request, the nature of the response, and any other pertinent
information through the chain of command to the DoD Executive Secretary, who shall
notify the Secretary of Defense,
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and any other
appropriate officials. If the report does not include a copy of the civil authorities'
written request, that request shall be forwarded to the DoD Executive Secretary as soon
as it is available.
---

Get it? Unit commanders were specifically AUTHORIZED to act in an emergency without notifying Rumsfeld or anyone else until "as soon as practical".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-01-06 04:07 AM
Response to Reply #15
20. Then still, the fact that they *made it so* is at least as relevant
as the fact that they didn't "lead" that day.
It is only stupidity or incompetence if you presume they have good intentions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Virginia Dare Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-31-06 12:05 PM
Response to Original message
14. This is one piece of the 9/11 puzzle...
that hasn't really been solved yet for me. What was the true intent in terms of the leadership vacuum? Was it really a failed coup attempt, and if so, what and who interrupted it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-31-06 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. I believe the true intent
was for BushCo to have their 'Pearl Harbor' to kick off their war against everything.

In regards to a failed coup, I'm not sure what you are getting at?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Virginia Dare Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-31-06 07:14 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. Yes, I agree with that...
but I also wonder if it was a broader attempt to get Congress out of the way as well. I suppose in some sense, if that was their goal, it was somewhat successful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-02-06 06:47 PM
Response to Original message
22. I think the release of the tapes from 9-11 today
is more proof that when the Sec of Def and the Acting Chief of Staff went AWOL during the attack, the system couldn't function properly and they were unable to respond effectively.

The Military Response on 9-11 was like a ship without a captain and a navigator. The rest of the crew is doing their best to sail the ship but the rudder is broke and they're taking on water.

The leadership vacuum created confusion and they did it deliberately in order to allow the attack to succeed.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Grateful for Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-02-06 06:55 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. If this is true (and we don't know one way or the other)
then there is very little difference between LIHOP and MIHOP -- if any. Actually, there never really was a qualitative difference. If the attacks were allowed to happen, then, whoever allowed them were accessories to the crime.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-02-06 06:57 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. I think I would call them worse things then that
Treason would be on the top of my list.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Dec 20th 2014, 01:46 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC