Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

It's LIHOP at most. MIHOP is bullshit.

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
 
boolean Donating Member (992 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 04:23 PM
Original message
It's LIHOP at most. MIHOP is bullshit.
Just watched loose change again, and I'm sorry, I can't buy this conspiracy shit anymore. Especially after having read the debunking site to loose change. I also saw the other video with the mysterious helicopter that goes behind the smoke to shoot the WTC towers down.

Guys. Spare me. Really.

A conspiracy of this magnitude would have been exposed within a week. EVERYONE would've had to be in on it. From the firemen all the way up to the White House. The air traffic control workers. The investigators and the engineers and the physicists. All those people who supposedly bought put options. There are too many people that would've had to come together to pull such a thing off.

Now, does that mean there are certain things that the higher ups would like covered up? Absolutely. There is no doubt in my mind that there are many, MANY things that chimpy and cheney and the rest of them don't want exposed to the public. I do NOT buy the official story by any stretch of the imagination. These assholes fought the 9/11 commission tooth and nail. They have something they're hiding, and I want to know what it is.

But there is no way they planned it. No way they MADE it happen. It's possible they knew it was going to happen and turned a blind eye. THAT, I can believe. "Osama determined to attack in the US" comes to mind. At the very least, it was incompetence on the grandest of scales, and at the most, it was LIHOP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
salvorhardin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 04:30 PM
Response to Original message
1. Absolutely they're hiding something
There is no doubt in my mind that there are many, MANY things that chimpy and cheney and the rest of them don't want exposed to the public. I do NOT buy the official story by any stretch of the imagination. These assholes fought the 9/11 commission tooth and nail. They have something they're hiding, and I want to know what it is.


That's a statement I can get behind 100%. Greed, hubris, incompetence, croneyism. Those are the defining factors of the Bush administration and I don't think you need look much beyond them to find the truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 04:33 PM
Response to Original message
2. It had to be an inside job
It was too big an operation for anyone else to do it. There are enough rapture ready Bushbots and agent provocateurs in the world to pull this shit off. They've done it plenty of times before, just nothing this big.

That is why all of the top Bush Administration officials reacted to the attack in the same way. They all ignored the attack until after the Pentagon was hit. Every single one of them. That is no coincidence. That is a planned response. They all played dumb. They didn't have a clue. They didn't think there was anything they could do about it. Bullshit. They knew exactly what was going on and almost all of them watched it while it happened on TV. They lied and people died.









Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Exactly...
They did it! Period! I don't know exactly how but I'm convinced they did do it.
Read about Able Danger!
Read about PNAC (www.newamericancentury.org )
Incompetence? No! That's what they want some to believe.
Read Dr. Steven Jones's report!
Do you fly?
Try to use your cell when you're 10000 ft in the air! Just try it.

The there's this...click here!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 04:53 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. What do cell phones have to do with it?
Are you saying you didn't know planes have phone service that you pay for with a credit card?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 04:57 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Family members claimed they got phone calls
from the planes and they knew who it was because the recognized their phone number on their caller ID. If you were using a skyphone you cell phone number wouldn't come up on the receiving end.

You sure do buy the OCT don't you?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. I worry about you
I'm just tryin to pull you back from the edge. lol.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Oh please
Spare me the faux concern.

I'm quite rational, thank you.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 04:48 PM
Response to Original message
3. And Furthermore!
What makes anyone think that a capture in the act wouldn't have sealed chimpy's legend as the greatest terraist fightin preznet of all time and still justified (with lies attached) the Neocon plan to our ignorant fellow Murikans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quickesst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #3
15. Whoa...
before wandering off on another tangent, I'd like to hear your response to DoYouEverWonder's statement concerning the cell phones. I think everyone who flies knows their are airphones, and simply writing the statement does not make it a fact they were used on 9/11. Thanks.
quickesst
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. I haven't had a chance to read
the testimony or other claims on cell phones. But why would the families lie? I don't get the conspiracy mind. Really.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quickesst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 07:51 PM
Response to Reply #17
24. Fair enough...
just that you let it just hang out there, and I thought some closure on the exchange was called for. Thanks.
quickesst
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #17
74. Who says the families lied? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #74
83. I dunno know. Whats the conspiracy all about?
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 07:29 PM
Response to Reply #83
114. The suggestion is that the cell phones could not have worked
at 30,000 feet and that therefore there was something hinkey about the
phone calls.

That doesn't mean the families lied. You are making unwarranted
assumptions that benefit the official story. Most people do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 07:34 PM
Response to Reply #114
115. But I didn't even bring up the cell phones! lol.
And I made no assumptions that you know of.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 07:34 PM
Response to Reply #114
116. "Unwarranted assumptions that benefit the official story"
In your judgement, but not necessarily in the judgement of others. I think some of the assumptions you make are unwarranted. We'll never resolve that issue, I think our only choice (if we are to continue with a healthy dialogue) is to ensure that all parties are aware that they are only assumptions, and not proven facts. When anyone decides that one is equal to the other in my experience it devolves into a shouting match.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue Belle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #15
82. Hell... half the time I can't get my cell phone to work...
Unless I'm sitting perfectly still in one spot with at least 4 bars of signal. There's no way in the world it would work on a plane 10,000 feet in the air going 200 mph.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #3
70. Capture in the Act would have sealed chimpey's legend?
Ummm, I think not. How scary can a bunch of 5'5" guys with box cutters be?

Imagine if the Navy had detected Yamamoto's aircraft carriers and headed off
Pearl Harbor. Would that have achieved Roosevelt's geopolitical goals?

Bush had to suffer his day of infamy to justify the illegal invasions of two
sovereign nations (the world kind of gave him a pass on Afghanistan), the looting
of the public treasury, and the destruction of Constitutional rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #70
75. There was already a history of infamy
'93
Embassy bombings
USS Cole

How scary is a 767 flying into your office at 500 knots?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #75
79. You raised the issue as "capture in the act"
That means before the 767 flies into my office at 500 knots.

I said they had to let it happen to justify the wars and the
fascism. You said they didn't have to let it happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #79
81. see post 80
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

ww were posting at the same time but thats pretty much my answer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #70
80. Additional thoughts
The 911 attack did not work exactly to the neocon plan, who ever wanted to invade Afghanistan? Certainly not Cheney, Rumsfeld or Bush. 911 forced them to do so, and made doing both Iraq and Afghanistan harder as a result. The WMD lies were always there and were going to be used with or without 911.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CJCRANE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #80
86. It wasn't 9/11
that forced them. It was that they didn't have their echo chamber set up back then. Wes Clark was asked if he could link 9/11 to Iraq and said no.

B*sh and Rumsfeld wanted to go straight for Iraq but were persuaded to deal with al-Qaeda first by Richard Clarke, Colin Powell and Tony Blair.

If you read the PNAC strategy it states that they could never invade Iraq without a "cataclysmic event" that gave them the political will. That's just how things work in Washington. B*sh was coasting along with low 40's approval before 9/11 (let's face it - he didn't even win the popular vote, or the real vote, if the Florida elections had been clean), there was no way he had the "political capital" to suddenly go into a war.

Don't forget that even 9/11 wasn't quite enough to get the Dems to knuckle down, someone threw in the anthrax for good measure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #86
88. There are easier ways to start wars
against the likes of Sadaam. I can't subscribe to your theory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CJCRANE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #88
90. That's not my
theory. That's the theory of the members of PNAC, all of whom are in or connected to the B*sh administration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #90
92. I assume they didn't specify taking down the WTC
attacking the pentagon and other attacks on the "homeland". (I'll never feel comforable saying homeland). Is that not so?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CJCRANE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #92
96. They didn't specify
the particular landmarks, but the earlier attack on the WTC, and other intelligence made it pretty obvious what was on the target list.

(The PNAC document specified a "Pearl Harbor-like event").
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #96
98. Gotta link?
I would enjoy looking at it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CJCRANE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #98
100. PNAC:
www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.p...

See Page 26, second half, re: need for American forces in Iraq.

See Page 63 for the mention of "like a new Pearl Harbor".

(The document is in Acrobat by the way).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #100
102. deleted
Edited on Tue Aug-22-06 04:52 PM by Jim4Wes
see my other post
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #100
103. I don't think I agree with your characterization
Edited on Tue Aug-22-06 04:59 PM by Jim4Wes
I refreshed my memory about PNAC letter to Clinton while DU was inaccessible. I think you ignore this 1998 letter which clearly states their position was as follows: (paraphrased) military action can be justified in the near term and removal of Sadaam in the long term, due to failure of the current policy of inspection regime.

I also think you are taking the other phrase out of context. It was not seen as a requirement to move forward with their agenda, it was contemplated to affect the plan in the event something were to happen.

So you are creating a statement of policy in effect where none existed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sinti Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #80
94. Actually, we were going to invade Afghanistan either way
It had been in the planning for a while. They wanted a pipeline to go through there, Russia, India and Iran were also in the "coalition of the willing" for that one. They planned on a "limited military engagement" there, and that's pretty much what they got. We don't exactly have hundreds of thousands of boots on the ground there, just enough corporate enforcers to keep the pipeline going. The pipeline had been planned for quite some time, and the Taliban wasn't cooperating, they probably wanted more money or something.


http://www.indiareacts.com/archivefeatures/nat2.asp?rec... ;ctg=policy

http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/ne...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/207183.stm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 07:06 PM
Response to Reply #80
112. Well...
If they didn't want to invade Afghanistan, what were they doing

1) with a finished plan for the invasion placed on Bush's desk on Sep. 9th?

2) threatening the Taliban with a carpet of gold or a carpet of bombs in June 2001, as they were refusing a pipeline deal?

3) telling Pakistani and Indian representatives to the back-channel talks with the Taliban in June that they planned to invade in mid-October (which they did)?

4) dispatching massive forces to the area (UK and US) just before 9/11?

5) dispatching CIA with cash to various Afghan warlords prior to 9/11?

How about you go learn about what you think you're talking about before revealing your ignorance?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 07:29 PM
Response to Reply #112
113. Where do you get your facts Jack?
Be happy to check your sources.

I don't doubt there was a military plan prepared for Afghanistan, it was a contingency and it was undoubtedly begun during the Clinton admin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 07:54 PM
Response to Reply #112
117. Hey Jack read this excerpt from: Against All Enemies
Edited on Tue Aug-22-06 08:11 PM by Jim4Wes
By Richard A. Clarke page 237

On September 4, 2001, the Principals Committee meeting on al Qaeda that I had called for "urgently" on January 25 finally met. In preparation for that meeting I urged Condi Rice to see the issue cleanly, the Administration could decide tha al Qaeda was just a nuisance, a cost of doing business for a superpower (as Reagan and the first President Bush had apparently decided about Hezbollah and Libya when those groups had killed hundreds of Americans), and act accordingly, as it had been doing. Or it could decide that the al Qaeda terrorist group and its affiliates posed an existential threat to the American way of life, in which case we should do everything that might be required to eliminate the threat. There was no in-between. I concluded by noting that before choosing from these alternatives, it would be well for Rice to put herself in her own shoes when in the very near future al Qaeda had killed hundreds of Americans: "What will you wish then that you had already done?"

The Principals meeting, when it finally took place, was largely a nonevent. Tenet and I spoke passionately about the urgency and seriousness of the al Qaeda threat. No one disagreed.

Powell laid out and aggressive strategy for putting pressure on Pakistan to side with us against the Taliban and al Qaeda. Money might be needed, he noted, but there was no plan to find the funds.

Rumsfeld, who looked distracted throughout the session, took the Wolfowitz line that there were other terrorist concerns, like Iraq, and whatever we did on this al Qaeda business, we had to deal with the other sources of terrorism.

--------

He, Clarke, goes on to recount how he doubted anything would be done soon and no money was budgeted for any such new operations to take down al Qaeda. CIA was saying they needed more funding to take on new missions. (Edited last paragraph for accuracy)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bushatbooker Donating Member (227 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 05:02 PM
Response to Original message
9. Really? Well maybe you can answer this then
Where's all the fuel?...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boolean Donating Member (992 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 07:21 PM
Response to Reply #9
22. It burned!
Edited on Mon Aug-21-06 07:22 PM by boolean
You have no idea when those pictures were taken. You don't know how long it took first responders to get there. (Apparently, it was in a rural area, was it not?) You don't know how long it would take the fuel to burn off. You don't know the exact physics of how the plane crashed. You people look at pictures and all of a sudden you're automatic experts in all sorts of disciplines that take years of study and experience for one to even be remotely considered as qualified.

Look, it's a picture of WTC 7 with a hole! All of a sudden I'm a structural engineer!

Yet the actual experts that were on site, studying the impact of the planes, dissecting the crashes, coming to their own conclusions...They must all be wrong. Or, THEY MUST BE IN ON IT!

And that's my point. There are too many fucking people that would have to be in on the conspiracy here.

LIHOP, no problem. I can get down with that. MIHOP? Bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 01:32 AM
Response to Reply #22
52. No, they aren't all in on it. That's the big red herring. The big fish.
and a sucker fish at that.

But they don't all need to be in on it to allow bush and Cheney to refuse to testify to the commission under oath, for instance, or to testify together, for instance.

They don't all need to be in on it for the commission to allow the Pentagon to lie repeatedly, the FAA to lie repeatedly, and to allow Norad to lie repeatedly.

They don't have to all be in on it to not even look at the possibility that 3 steel frame buildings experienced complete collapses for any other reason than fire, and being poked way up high with a airplane (excepting #7.) They didn't even investigate. But that certainly doesn't mean that they are all in on it.

Let me ask you this. Do you believe all German officials were in on the Reich stag fire, or the decision to open multiple fronts, IE attack Russia, the so called final solution, or the plans for world domination?

I don't believe they were. They didn't need to be. They just did what they were told, didn't ask too many questions, and before they knew it, voila.

If someone is capable of believing that 19 Arab foreigners are capable of pulling off 9/11, then why wouldn't they also believe that 19 well placed Americans would also be capable of pulling it off?

Please ask yourself why only 19 Arabs could do this, but not 19 Americans? Especially 19 politically powerful Americans.

Thank you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bushatbooker Donating Member (227 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #22
69. Nothing major burned at Shanksville site
the grass around the crater is not even singed. Care to explain that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrokenBeyondRepair Donating Member (642 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 05:27 PM
Response to Original message
10. "It's possible they knew it was going to happen and turned a blind eye."
..and they need to be held accountable; which won't happen w/o thorough investigation
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Old and In the Way Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 05:33 PM
Response to Original message
11. I see no criminal breathing space between MIHOP and LIHOP.
One is active, the other is passive. Results are the same...they committed treason.

And, I'm sorry, but I cannot buy that 4 teams of Arabs on 4 separate flights could pull off such a spectacular attack on 9/11. Manipulated patsies? Yes. Radical fundie suiciders? Nope.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Honestly friend, I'll never understand
Edited on Mon Aug-21-06 05:51 PM by Jim4Wes
how some here view simple hijackings with multiple perpetrators on board as being difficult to carry off. Its nothing like the difficulty in alternate conspiracy theories I am reading (of course not much substance in those just hand waving.)

1. Keep this a secret only with our other terraist buddies
2. Collect money from rich buddies
3. Order tickets ahead of time (4 tickets please)
4. Hide knife blades inside other harmless metal object
5. Board plane
6. Assemble knife blade into plastic handle
7. Threaten to kill people if they don't do as we say
8. Turn off autopilot
9. Steer plane per practice sessions of many months (years?)
10. Praise to Allah!


Wow.

Now where is the corresponding list for any of the alternate theories?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrgerbik Donating Member (652 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. - and somehow convince
the entire US defense system to stand by as everything unfolded?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. convince them to stand by?
From what I gather it was pretty unusal for fighter jets to be called in for actual intercepts, and the time would wile away as people tried to decide what to do. I know you have a lot of faith in our military as do I, but these were commercial airliners and there hadn't been any domestic hijackings in years. I wonder even if the planes were in range whether they would have been given the go for shoot down in time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrgerbik Donating Member (652 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 12:42 AM
Response to Reply #14
46. also...
the freakish occurrence that war games that were very similar to the events of 9/11 were being held ON THAT SAME DAY (The same for the London bombings). Wow, what a mind-blowing coincidence eh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 08:26 AM
Response to Reply #14
59. You sound like
you write for Condi Rice. Gee no one ever imagined they would turn airplanes into missiles and fly them into buildings?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 09:39 AM
Response to Reply #59
63. thats a creative interpretation of what I said.
I do not dismiss the incompetence. There is a difference between holding people accountable and falsely accusing them of a hidden conspiracy. But this conversation is about to get really stupid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue Belle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #14
84. They didn't have a problem calling jets in for Payne Stewart's plane...
and it took them less than 20 minutes to find it. Apparently the private jets of PGA golfers are more of a security concern then huge commercial jets making U-turns over the most densly populated region of the United States.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #84
95. 911myths says 76 minutes
More discussion of it here if your interested. http://www.911myths.com/html/payne_stewart.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue Belle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #95
101. The official investigation indicates otherwise...
http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2000/AAB0001.htm

<SNIP> At 0933:38 EDT (6 minutes and 20 seconds after N47BA acknowledged the previous clearance), the controller instructed N47BA to change radio frequencies and contact another Jacksonville ARTCC controller. The controller received no response from N47BA. The controller called the flight five more times over the next 4 1/2 minutes but received no response.

About 0952 CDT,7 a USAF F-16 test pilot from the 40th Flight Test Squadron at Eglin Air Force Base (AFB), Florida, was vectored to within 8 nm of N47BA.8 About 0954 CDT, at a range of 2,000 feet from the accident airplane and an altitude of about 46,400 feet,9 the test pilot made two radio calls to N47BA but did not receive a response. About 1000 CDT, the test pilot began a visual inspection of N47BA. There was no visible damage to the airplane, and he did not see ice accumulation on the exterior of the airplane. Both engines were running, and the rotating beacon was on. He stated that he could not see inside the passenger section of the airplane because the windows seemed to be dark. Further, he stated that the entire right cockpit windshield was opaque, as if condensation or ice covered the inside. He also indicated that the left cockpit windshield was opaque, although several sections of the center of the windshield seemed to be only thinly covered by condensation or ice; a small rectangular section of the windshield was clear, with only a small section of the glare shield visible through this area. He did not see any flight control movement. About 1012 CDT, he concluded his inspection of N47BA and proceeded to Scott AFB, Illinois.


http://www.wanttoknow.info/991026dallasmorningnews

<SNIP>Instead, according to an Air Force timeline, a series of military planes provided an emergency escort to the stricken Lear, beginning with a pair of F-16 Falcons from the Air National Guard at Tyndall Air Force Base, Fla., about 20 minutes after ground controllers lost contact.

An F-16 and an A-10 Warthog attack plane from Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., took up the chase a few minutes later and were trailing the Lear when it climbed abruptly from 39,000 to 44,000 feet at 9:52 a.m. CDT.

Fifteen minutes later, the F-16 intercepted the Lear, the pilot reporting no movement in the cockpit.

At 10:44 a.m., the fighters from Eglin diverted to St. Louis for fuel. Fifteen minutes later, four Air National Guard F-16s from Tulsa, Okla., took up the chase, accompanied by a KC-135 refueling tanker.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 04:54 PM
Response to Reply #101
104. Check the time zones, you are overlooking
that minor detail.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue Belle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #104
106. Did you read all the post?
I didn't overlook the time zone. Check the highlighted area.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #106
107. 9:52 CENTRAL - 9:33 EASTERN = 1 HR 19 minutes n/t
Edited on Tue Aug-22-06 06:01 PM by Jim4Wes
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue Belle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #107
108. 9:52 Central = jets deployed...
Edited on Tue Aug-22-06 06:10 PM by Blue Belle
9:54 Central Jets try to make contact with Stewarts plane...
10:00 Central Jet does a visual inspection of Stewarts plane...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #108
109. Why did it take 1 hr and 19 minutes
from the time they lost contact until an intercept?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue Belle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 06:09 PM
Response to Reply #109
110. I don't know...
my argument isn't in the rate at which the jets were called in... the argument was the rate at which the jets could get to Stewart's plane.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #110
111. How long did it take for them to reach Stewart's plane?
Pentagon officials said the military began its pursuit of the ghostly civilian aircraft at 10:08 a.m., when two Air Force F-16 fighters from Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida that were on a routine training mission were asked by the FAA to intercept it. The F-16s did not reach the Learjet, but an Air Force F-15 fighter from Eglin Air Force Base in Florida that also was asked to locate it got within sight of the aircraft...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/daily/oct99/crash26.htm

- Make7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue Belle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 08:07 PM
Response to Reply #111
118. Aparently it depends on which report you want to read...
or which time zone is indicated... I'm not sure which time zone your account is referencing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 08:25 PM
Response to Reply #118
120. Obviously the WP article is referencing Eastern Daylight Time. (EDT)
Edited on Tue Aug-22-06 08:28 PM by Make7
Edited to specify Washington Post article in subject line.

If the NTSB report states that an attempted radio communication failed at 09:33:38 EDT and the fighter pilot began a visual inspection of Stewart's plane at about 11:00 EDT, then the Washington Post's reported notification time must necessarily be somewhere between those times. Therefore the Washington Post is reporting that the FAA notified the military at 10:08 EDT.

So how quickly was the military able to do the intercept?

- Make7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Old and In the Way Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 01:41 AM
Response to Reply #120
129. What if the 9:33 EDT entry is a mistake?
The post referencing the report above notes everything in terms of CDT....except for the initial response time. I don't think it takes 80 minutes to find a plane that has its transponder on. Given the timing, if the actual reported time is in error (9:33 CDT vs. 9:33 EDT), the time line makes more sense.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 02:19 AM
Response to Reply #129
137. That would seem to make less sense to me.
From the NTSB report (note the time zone changes):

On October 25, 1999, about 1213 central daylight time (CDT), a Learjet Model 35, N47BA, operated by Sunjet Aviation, Inc., of Sanford, Florida, crashed near Aberdeen, South Dakota. The airplane departed Orlando, Florida, for Dallas, Texas, about 0920 eastern daylight time (EDT).

  <- snip ->

About 0725 EDT, an instrument flight rules flight plan was filed with the St. Petersburg Automated Flight Service Station for the second flight of the day, MCO to DAL, which would operate under 14 CFR Part 135. The flight plan indicated that N47BA was scheduled to depart MCO about 0900 EDT; follow a route over Cross City, Florida, to 32 degrees, 51 minutes north and 96 degrees, 51 minutes west; and proceed directly to DAL. The requested altitude was 39,000 feet.2 The flight plan also indicated that there would be five persons on board (two pilots and three passengers) and 4 hours and 45 minutes of fuel.

According to a witness, the accident airplane departed SFB about 0754 EDT. The flight arrived at MCO about 0810 EDT. An Aircraft Service International Group employee at MCO stated that after the airplane arrived, the captain told him that they were picking up passengers and did not require additional fuel. According to this witness, the passengers arrived about 30 minutes later and boarded the airplane. The Sunjet Aviation director of operations indicated that an additional passenger who was not on the original charter flight request boarded the accident airplane at MCO. Several bags were placed on board the airplane, including what the Aircraft Service International Group employee described as a big golf bag weighing about 30 pounds.

According to ATC radio transmissions, the flight departed MCO about 0919 EDT bound for DAL. At 0921:46 EDT, the flight contacted the Jacksonville Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC) and reported climbing through an altitude of 9,500 feet to 14,000 feet.3

At 0921:51 EDT, the controller instructed N47BA to climb and maintain FL 260. N47BA acknowledged the clearance by stating, "two six zero bravo alpha." At 0923:16 EDT, the controller cleared N47BA direct to Cross City and then direct to DAL. N47BA acknowledged the clearance. At 0926:48 EDT, N47BA was issued instructions to change radio frequency and contact another Jacksonville ARTCC controller. N47BA acknowledged the frequency change.

At 0927:10 EDT, N47BA called the Jacksonville ARTCC controller and stated that the flight was climbing through an altitude of FL 230. At 0927:13 EDT, the controller instructed N47BA to climb and maintain FL 390. At 0927:18 EDT, N47BA acknowledged the clearance by stating, "three nine zero bravo alpha." This was the last known radio transmission from the airplane.4 The sound of the cabin altitude aural warning5 was not heard on the ATC recording of this transmission.6

At 0933:38 EDT (6 minutes and 20 seconds after N47BA acknowledged the previous clearance), the controller instructed N47BA to change radio frequencies and contact another Jacksonville ARTCC controller. The controller received no response from N47BA. The controller called the flight five more times over the next 4 1/2 minutes but received no response.

About 0952 CDT,7 a USAF F-16 test pilot from the 40th Flight Test Squadron at Eglin Air Force Base (AFB), Florida, was vectored to within 8 nm of N47BA.8 About 0954 CDT, at a range of 2,000 feet from the accident airplane and an altitude of about 46,400 feet,9 the test pilot made two radio calls to N47BA but did not receive a response. About 1000 CDT, the test pilot began a visual inspection of N47BA.

http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2000/AAB0001.htm

The Washington Post reported that Pentagon officials said that the FAA requested an intercept at 10:08am. If we assume that the times on the NSTB report should be CDT then the FAA requested assistance either at 9:08am (before the plane took off) or at 10:08am (after the plane had already been intercepted).

On the other hand, the NTSB report looks like it is referencing time zones to reflect the location where the actual reported event took place. The take-off and ATC communications were EDT, the intercept and crash were CDT.

- Make7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Old and In the Way Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 02:39 AM
Response to Reply #137
141. Well, I guess the times are correct...but, still, 80 minutes to intercept?
It would make more sense that someone confused the timezone changes in the report....I'd think 20 minutes would fit in the timeline. Wouldn't someone be questioning why it took 80 minutes for the AF to intercept?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 03:06 AM
Response to Reply #141
143. From the Associated Press report of October 1999:
10/30/99 - Updated 01:00 AM ET

Chronology of events

By The Associated Press

A preliminary chronology developed by the Air Force of events surrounding the crash Monday of a Learjet who passengers included professional golfer Payne Stewart. Material in quotations is verbatim from the chronology. All times are Eastern.

9:09 a.m. Plane leaves Orlando, Fla.

10:08 a.m. "FAA requested emergency escort." F-16 from Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., was airborne on routine mission when diverted to provide the initial escort.

10:52 a.m. "Aircraft jumped to 44,000." (Pentagon spokesman Kenneth Bacon said the plane was "porpoising," fluctuating between 22,000 and 51,000 feet. This may be because it was on auto pilot.)

11 a.m. "Emergency track has five souls on board. Still no contact."

11:14 a.m. Responsibility for escorting plane is transferred from Southeast Air Defense sector to Western Air Defense sector.

  ...

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/golf/stewart/stewfs13.htm

How does this case compare to the response times of other intercepts over the continental U.S.?

- Make7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Old and In the Way Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #143
152. This cronology seems to conflict with the NTSB account
Blue Belle posted above. But it makes more sense to me. Seems like tracking response times would be important to AF...but I've never seen a detailed account of AF intercepts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #152
154. Well, it did say it was from "a preliminary chronology" in the article.
I don't think any of the accounts of this incident that I have seen coincide 100%, although the odds are that the final NTSB report is more accurate than the early press reports.

The only other intercept account I have seen was a FAA report that had far less detail than there is for this Payne Stewart incident. I would like to see a few pre-911 intercept reports just to get an idea of the actual response times, but I haven't had much luck locating any on the internet.

- Make7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QuettaKid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 08:02 AM
Response to Reply #14
150. there were 67 intercepts
in the 9 months leading up to 9/11. Not very unusual at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 08:56 AM
Response to Reply #150
151. intercepts or scrambles?
Do you have a source for that claim?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #150
161. But how many were over the US landmass?
I think you will find that those intercepts were on aircraft approaching US airspace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boolean Donating Member (992 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 07:14 PM
Response to Reply #13
20. So now you're saying...
So now you're saying that the entire US defense system was in on it? This is the kind of thing I'm talking about. THERE ARE TOO MANY PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THIS CONSPIRACY. If it really was MIHOP, by now a whistleblower would've come forward.

They would've had to have people to create the fake planes.
They would've had to have people to execute the passengers.
They would've had to have people to fake the cell phone calls.

Etc etc etc...

A conspiracy of such magnitude cannot exist, period. It's kind of like that anti Semitic notion that came out a few weeks after that the Jews didn't show up to work on that day. Because they all knew it was coming. Thousands of people. In on a conspiracy.

Come on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Old and In the Way Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 08:31 PM
Response to Reply #20
29. If 19 Arab foreigners could create a sucessful conspiracy ,
imagine what 19 people in control of our government could do. Which group do you think has a better chance of pulling it off?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 08:36 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. I have to say...
that I don't have much faith in the intellectual capacity of certain members of our government. Condi and the Shrub, for example, I wouldn't trust to tie their own shoelaces.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #30
73. Condi and W tie their shoelaces just fine. They only trip on them if
Edited on Tue Aug-22-06 01:59 PM by petgoat
doing so benefits them, their program, their cronies, or Texas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #30
97. The prisons are full
of stupid people.

The criminal mind usually has limited intellectual capabilities. That doesn't mean they aren't good at doing bad things. It's just that's all they are good at.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CJCRANE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #97
99. Plus
criminals generally continue committing crimes until someone stops them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SofaKingLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 02:08 AM
Response to Reply #97
134. .
Edited on Wed Aug-23-06 02:09 AM by SofaKingLiberal
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 08:36 PM
Response to Reply #29
31. So its that easy to balance the two?
I mean the 19 in our govt. Who do you think was in on it (I'll take 15 for starters).

Did these conspirators know anyone who died in the attack?

Do they have no conscience at all? Or concern about prison or execution? Are they secretly Muslim fanatics?

Who piloted the planes and why?

What was the gain for this that they could not get some other (legal) way?


I'm sure I'll have more questions after you answer those.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Old and In the Way Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:15 PM
Response to Reply #31
37. The same people lied about the causus belli in their invasion of Iraq.
Their actions have gotten almost 3000 Americans killed. Why would I take their word about what happened on 9/11? People have killed people over a few dollars....what would some people do to steal (or transfer) billions?

The people in charge of our government on that day slow walked / obstructed the public investigation while cleaning the crime scene of evidence. When they finally couldn't hold off the public's demand for an inquiry, they got to choose the team leaders (Kean and Hamilton) and they set their ground rules for testifying.

Sorry, but I can't take their word on what happened on 9/11. They had the means and the motive to see a 9/11 happen. These people are pathological liars with their own agenda. I don't know what really happened on 9/11, maybe you do. I do know this. I'll never take this administration's word for what happened on 9/11. Maybe if we had gotten an independent and objective commission that was not beholden to the Bush family...I could have accepted their findings. Unfortunately, I think the window for this to happen now is long gone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrgerbik Donating Member (652 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 12:58 AM
Response to Reply #20
48. IMO
The fake plane theory is incorrect. It's a theory, treat it as such.

Also two words: compartmentalized and orders.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #20
72. Yes, the entire air defense was in on it. It's called "war games".
Six simultaneous war games completely disrupted the air defense.
It included the injection of false blips on the radar screens.
Because war games are classified, nobody's allowed to talk about
them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #72
164. Because the NSA wiretaps are secret, nobody's allowed to ...
Edited on Wed Aug-23-06 06:00 PM by hack89
talk about them - right? The CIA, Pentagon and the NSA have been leaking like sieves - you really think that the fact that the war games were secret would stop someone from anonymously leaking the information?

There is no evidence that false blips were injected into FAA ATC radars. NORAD command and control screens perhaps - that happens all the time. But not FAA radars - that is way too dangerous to even contemplate.

Besides, it would have made no difference - the NEADS radars were so old they would not display synthetic contacts, only raw video returns from actual aircraft.

Back at the NEADS Operations Center, identification technicians were sorting thousands of green dots on their radar scopes, looking for American Flight 11. Since terrorists had turned off the Boeing 767's transponder, FAA controllers could only tell NEADS technicians where the flight had last been seen. The NEADS radar screens showed "primary" or "skin-paint" returns, the raw radar pulses reflected from an aircraft's surface.


http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/defense/aviati...

Radar is the NEADS controllers' most vital piece of equipment, but by 9/11 the scopes were so old, among other factors, that controllers were ultimately unable to find any of the hijacked planes in enough time to react. Known collectively as the Green Eye for the glow the radar rings give off, the scopes looked like something out of Dr. Strangelove and were strikingly anachronistic compared with the equipment at civilian air-traffic sites. (After 9/11, NEADS was equipped with state-of-the-art equipment.)

In order to find a hijacked airlineror any airplanemilitary controllers need either the plane's beacon code (broadcast from an electronic transponder on board) or the plane's exact coordinates. When the hijackers on American 11 turned the beacon off, intentionally losing themselves in the dense sea of airplanes already flying over the U.S. that morning (a tactic that would be repeated, with some variations, on all the hijacked flights), the NEADS controllers were at a loss.

"You would see thousands of green blips on your scope," Nasypany told me, "and now you have to pick and choose. Which is the bad guy out there? Which is the hijacked aircraft? And without that information from F.A.A., it's a needle in a haystack.


http://www.vanityfair.com/features/general/060801fege01
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 05:28 PM
Response to Reply #20
176. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
frylock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #13
78. and somehow have the foreknowledge of multiple planned exercises..
dealing specifically with hijackings.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Old and In the Way Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 01:21 AM
Response to Reply #78
127. I wonder if 77, 93, 11, and/or 175 were involved with the wargames?
What would the odds be of the hijackers picking not only the day of our largest military exercise, but possibly flights that day that were involved in the wargames?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #127
166. Who said it was the largest?
they pale in comparison with exercise like Foal Eagle, Cope North, RIMPAC, Tandem Thrust, JTFEX and Red Flag to name a few.

Any day of the week there are numerous military exercises going on all over the world - some small while some are huge. There was nothing out of the ordinary on 9/11.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #12
16. Because then they would have had no way to know
that it was going to be okay to fly around for over 2 hours and that they didn't have to worry about US air defenses getting in their way.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 06:38 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. Have you really checked your facts?
I am sure there is plenty of info just like this from the popular mechanics article (oh yeah you don't trust them)

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842...

On 9/11 there were only 14 fighter jets on alert in the contiguous 48 states. No computer network or alarm automatically alerted the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) of missing planes. "They had to pick up the phone and literally dial us," says Maj. Douglas Martin, public affairs officer for NORAD. Boston Center, one of 22 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regional ATC facilities, called NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) three times: at 8:37 am EST to inform NEADS that Flight 11 was hijacked; at 9:21 am to inform the agency, mistakenly, that Flight 11 was headed for Washington (the plane had hit the North Tower 35 minutes earlier); and at 9:41 am to (erroneously) identify Delta Air Lines Flight 1989 from Boston as a possible hijacking. The New York ATC called NEADS at 9:03 am to report that United Flight 175 had been hijacked--the same time the plane slammed into the South Tower. Within minutes of that first call from Boston Center, NEADS scrambled two F-15s from Otis Air Force Base in Falmouth, Mass., and three F-16s from Langley Air National Guard Base in Hampton, Va. None of the fighters got anywhere near the pirated planes.

Why couldn't ATC find the hijacked flights? When the hijackers turned off the planes' transponders, which broadcast identifying signals, ATC had to search 4500 identical radar blips crisscrossing some of the country's busiest air corridors. And NORAD's sophisticated radar? It ringed the continent, looking outward for threats, not inward. "It was like a doughnut," Martin says. "There was no coverage in the middle." Pre-9/11, flights originating in the States were not seen as threats and NORAD wasn't prepared to track them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. Why do we spend billions on stealth technology
when all you have to do is turn off your transponder?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. Air traffic controllers are people like you and me
They are trained to do a job a certain way. I doubt the training required them to pass a 911 scenario. Perhaps a superior controller could have kept track of the planes better in crowded skies. Who knows. I know I have heard or read before that they complain about overcrowded patterns and they worry about collisions and their ability to track all the planes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salvorhardin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 08:19 PM
Response to Reply #19
28. I don't think most people realize how crowded air traffic over NY is
This company makes a product that allows you to see air traffic in real time. They have demos on their site.
http://www.passur.com/sites.htm

Here's a reduced size screen capture I did on November 1, 2005 for JFK around 3PM.


Now if a plane turned off its' transponder and all you had was radar to go by, how would you tell one plane from another?

The ATC system was not meant to track planes that didn't want to be tracked. It's a cooperative system between the planes and the hardware and the controllers. Unless the plane is over an isolated area where there's very little air traffic it becomes very difficult to pick out one plane from the crowd without the transponders to tell the air traffic control system who's who.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 08:20 AM
Response to Reply #28
58. Flight 11 went off course up near the NE corner
of upstate NY and then flew south. They were only in the area shown on your map for the last few minutes of the flight. The rest of time they were in relatively open air space. If the flight control can't track even one of four planes going off course, the Houston, we've got serious problems, even if it is a high traffic area.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salvorhardin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #58
65. And once again
You completely miss the point. Congratulations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #28
77. How would you tell one plane from the other?
I guess the one without the transponder would be the one without the
transponder. I guess your theory is kind of like the idea that a naked
woman can hide in a crowd of clothed women because somehow her nakedness
makes her invisible.

Nice map. Now how many of those planes are 35 miles n. of JFK?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 12:32 AM
Response to Reply #18
44. you're not seriously using chertoff's
cousin's 911 hit piece to support your contentions are you? Good grief!
Look here please!

You should research "operation mockingbird" a bit IMO.

an excerpt/

This means that Hearst paid Benjamin Chertoff to write an article supporting the seriously flawed explanation that is based on a practically non-existent investigation of the terror event that directly led to the creation of the massive national security department his "cousin" now heads. This is exactly the kind of "journalism" one would expect to find in a dictatorship like that of Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 12:36 AM
Response to Reply #44
45. Instead of just attacking the author because of bloodline
Why not provide some substance to counter the claims.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 12:55 AM
Response to Reply #45
47. Obviously you've ...
made up your mind. It matters not to me what you believe. I think they had to be involved bigtime! Others believe that too.
Still others will have to make up there minds. They just have to be shown that the government has lied to them.

What do you think of Jone's research? Are you familiar with it?
What do you believe was the heat source that caused the "high temperature sulfidation of steel"?
Are you familiar with Hopsicker's research? What of that?
We can't base opinions on limited perspectives. We should consider all the facts.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 01:06 AM
Response to Reply #47
49. I read as much of Jones
Edited on Tue Aug-22-06 01:07 AM by Jim4Wes
as I could bear. He's a nutcase.

There should be no surprise that steel has been exposed to sulfur compounds and high temperatures. This is could be expectated in a major building fire in my opinion. Or the steel could have been substandard. I work in plastics, sulfur is in all kinds of materials. To zero in on a common chemical as evidence of a secret plot is absolutely baseless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 01:45 AM
Response to Reply #49
53. Baseless? That's odd!
Detectives do it all the time to solve murders! Sometimes it's the only good evidence!
Ever seen CSI?
It was high temperature sulfidation in molten steel. The sulfer was throughout the samples. The fires weren't hot enough to melt the steel. Let alone have molten steel be found a month later. What was the heat source?
kerosene, paper, wood?

As for the authenticity of the samples. That has yet to be proven. But suspician is warranted IMO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 01:47 AM
Response to Reply #53
54. Molten steel a month later?
Where?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 02:29 AM
Response to Reply #54
56. Ok, weeks later I should have said...
Edited on Tue Aug-22-06 02:36 AM by wildbilln864
Click here!
and here!


on edit: sorry forgot one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 09:24 AM
Response to Reply #53
62. Suspicion is not warranted
It actually discredits in some ways the mainstream political movement you attach yourself to. Its not difficult to understand, when you accuse elected officials of murdering their own countrymen in a conspiracy you should get more of your facts straight first. Not later. Pictures of glowing material from a fire ravaged building (the fire of a non-suspicious nature) don't cut the mustard. Neither do rantings about how ridiculous the NIST study was by a man without credentials in that field.

There is no evidence of an alternate group of conspirators that calls for any investigation. There is no question in the minds of qualified experts as to what disaster initiated the collapse of the twin towers.

People who look for conspiracies in areas where information is understandably incomplete can certainly create an image of a conspiracy that is nothing but an illusion. It just doesn't have any real substance behind it. I think any not fully understood event can be turned into a conspiracy that people who have mistrust of authorities (to the extreme) will be willing to latch onto.

Just because facts are not readily available does not indicate a conspiracy. Do you disagree with that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 01:51 AM
Response to Reply #49
55. Why do you say Dr. Jones is a nutcase. What specifically led you to that
conclusion?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 08:58 AM
Response to Reply #55
60. The cold fusion Doc?

I found this discussion has already covered the subject and I can't improve much on it.
http://newsbusters.org/node/5987
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 09:19 AM
Response to Reply #60
61. For me, it was first his paper on "evidence" that Christ visited America.
There are a few threads in this forum and in Religion/Theology about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jkd Donating Member (151 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #61
85. Mormons believe that Christ visited America.
That would also dismiss Senate Minority Leader Reid as well because he believes the same. What are your objections to Professors Jones' 13 points?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #85
89. We're all aware of that.
They believe it even though DNA evidence proves once and for all that they are not related to Native Americans. It's because faith is more important than empirical knowledge to some people. People like steve e jones.
If you read my statement in post 61 carefully, you'll see it says "his paper on "evidence" that Christ visited America". I didn't so much have a problem with the notion that Jesus visited America, but rather the "evidence" that Jones presented to support the notion. The paper is a crock of poor reasoning and wishful thinking specifically designed to reinforce what he (and his superiors at his Mormon university) already believed. Familiar with Confirmation Bias?

If Reid wrote a paper that pretended to provide evidence for something that was actually a bundle of wishful thoughts, invincible ignorance, and sloppy reasoning, I wouldn't be afraid to say so. Has he?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 08:22 PM
Response to Reply #89
119. The vast majority of Democratic candidates in this country believe a
guy died and was resurected 3 days later through devine intervention.

Guess you have no candidates you can vote for?

Or maybe they are just lying to get elected?

Glad to know you consider

Kerry
Clinton
Clark
Gore
Biden
Carter
et al to be either wackos or lying hypocrites.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 02:26 AM
Response to Reply #119
139. Why bother interrupting with a reply
if you're reply ignores the subject at hand?
Have you find some heretofore unknown value in straw arguments?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 10:51 PM
Response to Reply #139
169. Your argument is plain silly. Lots of people adhere to a religious
faith.

If that disqualifies them from the possibility of making a contribution in your opinion, well so what?

I notice the only time you woory about what a person writes is when they don't agree with you on 9/11.

It's pretty much a one way street with you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 02:59 AM
Response to Reply #169
173. Which argument?
I notice the only time you woory about what a person writes is when they don't agree with you on 9/11.

What you've "noticed" doesn't relate to reality. Of my 7000 posts here, I'd bet less than 6% are in this forum. If you'd like to talk about religion, I'll see you in the appropriate forum.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 08:39 PM
Response to Reply #89
121. is this paper online? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jkd Donating Member (151 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 11:05 PM
Response to Reply #121
123. Yes
Here is the reference: http://www.physics.byu.edu/faculty/jones/rel491/handste... . You will note from the link that the paper was written in conjunction with a religion class at BYU. The paper was written for students who already had convictions that the Book Of Mormon was scripture. It was not a scientific paper nor was it an academic paper in Mr. Jones area of expertise. What are your objections to Steven Jones' contentions in his paper concerning the WTC?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carefulplease Donating Member (749 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 11:29 PM
Response to Reply #123
124. Jones on Christ and the World Trade Center.
The paper was written for students who already had convictions that the Book Of Mormon was scripture. It was not a scientific paper nor was it an academic paper in Mr. Jones area of expertise. What are your objections to Steven Jones' contentions in his paper concerning the WTC?


My own objection to his WTC paper would be that it is not a scientific paper (despite its containing many buzz words) nor is it an academic paper in Mr. Jones area of expertise. My objections to many of the contentions contained therein would be that they are based on false premises or invalid arguments.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jkd Donating Member (151 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 01:43 AM
Response to Reply #124
130. Help Please
I first saw Steven Jones on C-Span several weeks ago. He seemed out of place at that L. A. conference. What was this professor from conservative Brigham Young University proposing? I couldn't believe what I heard.

I went to the BYU website to find out more about this Mr. Jones; there was this paper right on the Church School website. Any instructor who deviates from orthodoxy at BYU is history, that's been my observation in the past. But here is a paper that says that President Bush and his close circle are responsible for the deaths of over three thousand people at the World Trade Center.

My first impression was to call the university and express my concerns. Then I pondered, why would the Y choose this subject to show how much academic freedom it would tolerate, unless the university and church officials somehow secretly concurred with the author? Apparently this paper has been there for many months.

Therefore, I decided to read the paper. I found the arguments quite compelling, but I do not have a scientific background. I have been a member of Democratic Underground for some time, but have confined my reading and comments to the election forum. I didn't even know DU had a September 11 forum until two days ago. So I don't really know what criticism has been directed to the 13 points Dr. Jones presented. If this has been discussed in depth on this forum, would someone please give me a link. Thank you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carefulplease Donating Member (749 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 02:03 AM
Response to Reply #130
132. Hello Jkd...
Jones main personal contribution to the debate concerns the thermite/thermate hypothesis. This has been discussed recently on DU here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

and even more recently here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Jones's theories are also regularly discussed in these forums:

http://www.bautforum.com /
(in the "Conspiracy Theories" section)

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php ?
(in the General Discussions/Off-Topic section)

You might find some of these discussions tedious. This is a useful critical page start with:

http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm

Many here will claim that the site is biased, but then so is Jones's own paper and you've already read it. So this should provides some balance ;-)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jkd Donating Member (151 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 02:22 AM
Response to Reply #132
138. Thanks for the links
I'm pretty careful myself. Some on the election forum considered me a naysayer. I just have to weigh the pro's and con's.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 02:29 AM
Response to Reply #138
140. They're good.
Please pay special attention to Jones' peers who are experts in the appropriate field have to say about his paper:
www.debunking911.com/jones.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 05:06 PM
Response to Reply #123
160. What are my objections?
I think his comments on the collapse of the Tower are ridiculous and that he is not qualified to be an expert on it, and he has a dubious record as a scientist period. As for my other comments on the collapse you can look at the other posts of mine over the last few days or the thread I started recently on "analysis of the WTC collapse". My thoughts are spread around in several posts there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jazz2006 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 04:13 AM
Response to Reply #44
175. They aren't cousins.
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrgerbik Donating Member (652 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #18
66. That article is full of shit.
On 9/11 there were only 14 fighter jets on alert in the contiguous 48 states. No computer network or alarm automatically alerted the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) of missing planes. "They had to pick up the phone and literally dial us," says Maj. Douglas Martin, public affairs officer for NORAD. Boston Center, one of 22 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regional ATC facilities, called NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) three times: at 8:37 am EST to inform NEADS that Flight 11 was hijacked; at 9:21 am to inform the agency, mistakenly, that Flight 11 was headed for Washington (the plane had hit the North Tower 35 minutes earlier); and at 9:41 am to (erroneously) identify Delta Air Lines Flight 1989 from Boston as a possible hijacking. The New York ATC called NEADS at 9:03 am to report that United Flight 175 had been hijacked--the same time the plane slammed into the South Tower. Within minutes of that first call from Boston Center, NEADS scrambled two F-15s from Otis Air Force Base in Falmouth, Mass., and three F-16s from Langley Air National Guard Base in Hampton, Va. None of the fighters got anywhere near the pirated planes.

The idea that Air Traffic Control had to "pick up the phone and literally dial" NORAD -- a routine procedure in handling unresponsive aircraft -- does not begin to explain the long gaps between ATC being aware of off-course and non-responsive jetliners and NORAD acting. Standard procedure was for ATC to notify NORAD if they were unable to contact such an aircraft within three minutes.



Why couldn't ATC find the hijacked flights? When the hijackers turned off the planes' transponders, which broadcast identifying signals, ATC had to search 4500 identical radar blips crisscrossing some of the country's busiest air corridors. And NORAD's sophisticated radar? It ringed the continent, looking outward for threats, not inward. "It was like a doughnut," Martin says. "There was no coverage in the middle." Pre-9/11, flights originating in the States were not seen as threats and NORAD wasn't prepared to track them.


When the jetliners' transponders were switched off, their blips on the ATC screens lost their identifying data, and would stand out against the remaining blips, which were labeled. When these guys knew something was up and if you were one of them, wouldn't you make it paramount to focus on those blips? To me, this seems like this fits into their job description.

So.. this article "admits" that the US defensive radar system works like a doughnut - thats some pretty sensitive information to be throwing around, considering how every other piece of evidence is a security threat and sealed from public view. Where IS all the money that is spent on NORAD and the US defense system (We did have "the Soviet threat" to set all this up, no?) going? On doughnuts?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #66
68. As I understand it
THere were some immediate changes made to improve the sorry state of affairs that existed pre 911. But what do you want me to say.... the incompetence on the part of the FAA was staggering. But that organization has always been highly political and more of an arm of the airline industry than a good regulating body in my opinion.

I am not sure how hard it would be to spot a plane with no transponder. Keep in mind they are directing traffic at the same time to prevent collisions. I think it is fair to assume it would be difficult but not impossible.

As for the regulations and whether they were regularly followed maybe there is additional information somewhere. Most likely deflection of blame is what you find though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #18
76. "Duhhhh, that sounds logical." Until you look at the facts.
Ah, so the ATC's were distracted by 4500 identicial radar blips? Do you really
fall for this crap?

They told NEADS that flight 11 was 35 miles n of JFK. How many of those 4500
blips were 35 mi n. of JFK?

And NORAD's radar was like a doughnut? Read the Vanity Fair article. It quotes
Major Nasypany was saying he couldn't find the planes in a haystack of domestic
blips. Michael Bronner says it was a haystack of 3000 blips. But PM's expert
says NORAD's radar system was a doughnut.

So which was it? Too much noise or not enough?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 06:34 AM
Response to Reply #76
149. I guess the ATC's
were part of the, I mean, your plot. Paid off in advance or something? I mean that might make more sense than just being incompetent and poorly prepared for multiple hijackings with the transponder switched off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 05:44 PM
Response to Reply #76
162. Here is an excellent post from DailyKos that shows ...
Edited on Wed Aug-23-06 06:01 PM by hack89
where the radars were. Interesting comments from a guy who worked as a military liason to the FAA

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/13/3335/57833
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #162
163. where is the link hack?
sounds interesting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #163
165. Sorry - here you go.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #165
167. awesome, thanks.
I have trouble navigating DailyKos for some reason.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 06:15 PM
Response to Reply #165
168. Yo, this FAA controller article at DKos needs its own thread
Very thorough information on protocols and equipment and procedures before 9/11. see the post I am replying to for the link.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pauldp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 08:09 PM
Response to Reply #12
26. Your numbers 1 and 2 are in serious doubt for one thing.
Edited on Mon Aug-21-06 08:17 PM by pauldp
1. Keep this a secret only with our other terraist buddies
2. Collect money from rich buddies

Actually it looks like 911 funds came from Pakistan.
Specifically Pakistani intelligence. The same intelligence agency our CIA helped build in the 80s
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/uncomp/...
So we have evidence of a state sponsor with ties to our own intelligence agencies.
And then it looks like Pakistani officials bribed the 911 commission to cover it up.
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1060313/asp/nation/story_...

Unfortunately it is not as simple as you think.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 08:18 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. I am not sure how this changes anything
Factions within Pakistan intelligence were known to be allies with the Al Qaeda and the Taliban. It does not incriminate the US Government in a 911 conspiracy even if the funds were wired as indicated in the story.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pauldp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #27
32. It changes EVERYTHING.
The credibility of the 911 Commission is blown to hell once again,
and it sure seems like it wasn't just their "terrorist buddies" who knew.

You are absolutely right about this:
"Factions within Pakistan intelligence were known to be allies with the Al Qaeda and the Taliban."

Pakistan is lauded by the Bush administration as our "ally" in the war on terror,
yet we have evidence they paid for 911. That is STATE SPONSORSHIP. Something
the 911 Commission claimed didn't exist.
But we are now trusting Pakistan to hunt Bin Laden. Why is the Bush administration covering
for them?

It is baffling to me how the absurdity and the seriousness of this issue is lost on people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:02 PM
Response to Reply #32
34. In the very article you cite there are multiple sources
for the funds to the terrorist cells lets not over emphasize the Pakistan connection in terms of support.

The problems in Pakistan are known. The reason for allying with them are also known. We attempt to sway influential/powerful people in Pakistan to help us track the terrorists. Meanwhile they try to show they are not so anti-Muslim so their countryman don't kill them. Could we do a better job with the Pakistan situation? Probably if we still had other Arab countries faith and hadn't warred on Iraq and now the new action in Israel. We have probably lost any chance of putting more pressure on Bin Laden at this point unless he fucks up and leaves his hiding place.

But none of that implicates Bush in a 911 conspiracy. Or you need to clarify how. Hopefully without making me laugh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pauldp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 02:35 AM
Response to Reply #34
57. Would you agree it might implicate the ISI ?
and that it is more evidence undermining the credibility of the 911 Commission?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 05:45 PM
Response to Reply #57
105. Are there political (diplomatic) considerations
that may have affected what the 911 commission published? Very possible. I don't quite get where you are going though. The cost of the preparation and attack as we know it was not that great. I don't see a justification to take down Pakistan, nor would I recommend it as they are of course nuclear. Pakistan should be delt with via diplomatic agreements that keep them engaged and keep pressure on them to avoid radical influences. But we can only do so much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pauldp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 02:16 AM
Response to Reply #105
136. "diplomatic considerations" - how about bribery?
Edited on Wed Aug-23-06 02:18 AM by pauldp
The Calcutta Times and Friday Times articles
clearly mention bribery of the 911 Commission,
by Pakistani officials. I suppose you could call bribery
a political consideration. The point is that if Pakistan
was involved in funding 911 and bribing the 911 Commission
then we have a VERY different situation than what
you suggest in items 1 & 2 of your overly simple list.
Given Pakistani involvement in BCCI and Iran Contra, and the
long history of the CIA and Pakistan supporting the madrasas,
and radicle Islam, I'd say these new revelations need to be
investigated fully, not swept under the rug and ignored by the press
and dismissed as political sensitivity. IMO the 911 Commission
is now devoid of any credibility, do you have reason to think otherwise?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrgerbik Donating Member (652 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 02:33 AM
Response to Reply #27
171. Al-Qaeda is a myth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sinti Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 08:57 PM
Response to Reply #12
33. Simple hijackings? Love your list, Jim.
Edited on Mon Aug-21-06 08:58 PM by Sinti
I wish it were that simple.

1. Keep this a secret only with our other terraist buddies


Manageable, no doubt, for a logical person, but they didn't manage to do this. The FBI and DIA were all over them. How, though, do you obstruct those faithful FBI officers Robert Wright (looking into terrorist financing), Colleen Rowley (looking into the network), and the chief of terrorist investigations John O'Neill from investigating? Did the terrorist obstruct, impede, and shut down those investigations? John O'Neill quit his job because they wouldn't let him do his job. How do you get Anthony Shaffer's superiors to tell him that Atta and his friends are "off limits." Did al Qaeda infiltrate our DoD?

2. Collect money from rich buddies


Rich buddies include the head of ISI (Pakistani version of CIA), our good friend Prince Bandar's wife (that's Bandar Bush), and the bin Laden family themselves (the ones that supposedly disowned Usama). The money came from ISI, the Saudi royal family, the bin Ladens, and a guy named Khalid bin Mahfouz (friend of poppy's CIA from the old BCCI days). SA and Pakistan, Two of our closest allies in the GWOT.

3. Order tickets ahead of time (4 tickets please)


No problem, unless you're on a known terrorist watch list or two. If they Ashcroft hadn't told the people below him that he "didn't want to hear any more about this," we could have gotten them at this point and at the very least deported them.

4. Hide knife blades inside other harmless metal object


I didn't hear they hid the blade inside anything else, but seems simple enough.


5. Board plane


Though you're on a known terrorist watch list or two.


6. Assemble knife blade into plastic handle
7. Threaten to kill people if they don't do as we say


I believe that this is exactly what happened on board.

8. Turn off autopilot


No, they turned off the transponder. It frightens me to know that all a hijacker has to do to if he wants to circumvent the most expensive military in the world is flip a switch on a transponder and they can't be found. That's a very frightening thought, and if that were the case I'd want my money back. It's not the case, in fact, a plane sending back no identifying signal (transponder) would be a big screaming red flag. They'd get a couple of urgent calls from the tower, no answer=jets scramble.

What about the "inputs" that were present due to the training exercises that were supposed to start an hour later? The newly released tapes give the impression that the professionals on duty that morning were already experiencing, or though they were experiencing, inputs.


9. Steer plane per practice sessions of many months (years?)


They had years, and I'd put my hand to the fire a lot more training than what the official story claims.

10. Praise to Allah!


Allah had nothing to do with this. Everyone, including the 9/11 Omission Commission knows it.

You can choose to be blind, but don't expect the rest of us to dowse our eyes with acid and join you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:07 PM
Response to Reply #33
35. OK, I'll add incompetence to the list (should have put that in there)
But I don't see any other issues you have raised.


The apparent facts are that one FBI agent had imagined the plot could be in play but did not get any support from superiors to raise the red flag. Its all incompetence. THere is no secret plot in our government pre sept 11 to allow the attack to succede. If you disagree, please say so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sinti Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 10:09 PM
Response to Reply #35
40. One FBI agent? No, sir. Not one FBI agent.
"The apparent facts" - may I ask, where do you get your facts from?

The FBI's leading expert on Al Qaeda, John O'Neill, quit because they would not let him do his job.

http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/sept11/features/55...

Acting FBI Director Tom Pickard warned Ashcroft and was told that "he did not want to hear about this anymore".

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5271234 /

Harry Samit of the FBI was obstructed in his investigation that could have stopped it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11923151 /

Colleen Rowley of the FBI was also stopped

http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020603/memo.html

Robert Wright of the FBI was stopped in his investigation, and his supervisor was promoted after the fact.

http://www.laweekly.com/news/news/another-fbi-agent-blo... /

Then there's Able Danger - the DIA's investigation which was effectively shut down. When Congress tried to look into this, and Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer testified they put him on administrative leave and destroyed 2.5 terabytes worth of information regarding Able Danger.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05226/553271.stm

http://www.timesherald.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=1472023...

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1205/120705nj1.htm


This scratches the surface.

This is a Pattern. It is not "incompetence."

Apparently you have no problem with the fact that the money supporting the terrorists came from mostly good friends of the Bush Crime Family, and if that's okay with you - well...


Like I said, you are welcome to choose to be blind, but do not expect the rest of us to dowse our eyes with acid and join you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #40
41. Theres two different categories to look at when it comes to
intelligence. One is specific information that could have stopped the 911 attack. That sir was what I was talking about. You prefer to lump together the lack of planning and attention overall to the terrorist problem. THat is a separate issue. Neither of these issues IMO show a desire to allow a specific attack. It shows tremendous incompetence that could be called criminal, but its not pulling the trigger so to speak. All I am doing is trying to separate the two.

You want to assign a conspiracy to certain dumb ass beaurocratic decisions, and lack of foresight. The Bushies wanted to spend money on big ticket items for their friends in the defense industry. It wasn't a decision to allow a terrorist attack it was a piss poor job of setting priorities mixed with corruption.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sinti Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 10:31 PM
Response to Reply #41
42. This was not ignoring the overall problem. These were direct leads
They could have easily stopped the actual attack had they followed any one of these leads. Did you read even one of the links?

If I step on your foot once and apologize, you can say it was an accident. If I do it again, and again, and again - you are safe to assume I intend to. This is my position.

How about the money links? How do you feel about those? Does it bother you that we're such good friends/allies with the very people who funded the terrorists, and that the 9/11 Commission agreed not to tell us who paid for the terrorists?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 10:52 PM
Response to Reply #40
43. Like I said
You combine different issues to create an illusion. No doubt a sad statement on the intelligence and law enforcement and political leadership. But you imagine some kind of singular collusion, as if Dick Cheney and Ashcroft were orchestrating this, instead of separate breakdowns by several assholes acting for all intents and purposes independently. I could go on and argue these but, I am watching the show on 911 right now. And I do not think you and I will get any closer to agreement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #12
71. It's not the hijacking that's difficult. It's reaching the target
without interference from the greatest military force the world has ever seen,
including the HQ of said military force.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 07:45 PM
Response to Original message
23. Divide & Conquer.
It was criminal negligence resulting in a criminal cover up at minimum. In the end, what's the big difference between that and LIHOP or MIHOP other than your own personal threshold for cognitive dissonance?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 08:08 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. But what things didn't come out
What do you think they are covering up?

Negligence as far as the CIA and FBI dropping the ball? That already came out.

Negligence that Der Feurher and his cabinet refused to take head of warnings from Clinton admin and Richard Clarke? All that has come out.

It has become a he said she said who do you choose to believe joke.

Or are you thinking there was more to cover?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Old and In the Way Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 02:04 AM
Response to Reply #25
133. We really don't know all the information that Bush was privvy to with
reagrds to warnings and prior knowledge. Most of it is still classified. The little peaks we do get, like the 8/6/01 PDB (which this administration fought tooth and nail to keep from the public), shows us that that there were tangible clues. Then we find out that Bush says after the briefing...."OK, you've covered your ass". WTF, does that mean? At the very least, what I see is a pattern of willful disregard. Combine that with the need for a "New Pearl Harbor" to get the New American Century underway, it makes me wonder how active their intent was not to be forewarned. If a person sees an arsonist lighting a fire to a tentement building, but doesn't bother to call it in...is he/she criminally liable? I think so. But because we can't see the entire body of information that might prove culpability, it is difficult to make a criminal case. The little we do know should be enough to demand a full and independent investigation. But because we have a Republican majority more interested in protecting its political power than seeing justice served for the 3000 who died on 9/11, that won't happen unless we take back Congress.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #133
158. I agree in large part
except you are taking the "new Pearl Harbor" comment out of context as I said up thread aways.

I agree with not till we take back Congress.

I agree with willful disregard.

I think we should not push some of the fringe conspiracy theories, it will lead to people tuning us out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sinti Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:09 PM
Response to Original message
36. "Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested would be impossible"
Where have I heard that before? Oh yea... thanks Octafish! Great find.


CIA Instructions to Media Assets re: Assassination of President Kennedy

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:19 PM
Response to Reply #36
38. Interesting you brought up the Kennedy assassination
I have also been interested in a thread on that today. So let me get this straight. If the document you linked to is really authentic (I have my doubts) then you have something that should be of great concern. However it does not implicate the government in either conspiracy theory though (death of JFK or 911). Certainly not court of law type of evidence. But you don't need that to go around spreading nonsense. Neither do Freepers, they do the same to our party politicians all the time, aint this fun!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:26 PM
Response to Reply #36
39. The only place that quote appears in this thread is in your post. ( n/t )
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirandapriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 01:24 AM
Response to Reply #36
50. Ah yes, Sinti, I noticed that too.
I hear quite a few of those here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ezlivin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 10:14 AM
Response to Reply #36
64. Manhattan Project - large scale conspiracy successfully carried out
Stealth aircraft - how many knew about that?

Area 51 - Employees are flown there in "plain" aircraft, for cryin' out loud. Do you know what happens in that sprawling complex?

Secrets involving hundreds or even thousands of people have been successfully kept before. Naturally, you don't hear about them until years afterward.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 09:05 PM
Response to Reply #64
122. You're kidding, right?
The Manhattan Project was riddled with informants.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirandapriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 01:36 AM
Response to Reply #64
128. If you hear about them at all! eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 01:24 AM
Response to Original message
51. Sorry, all the evidence says MIHOP
starting with the Trade Center. Highrises don't blow themselves to bits because Osamas hate our freedoms.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
planeman Donating Member (316 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 12:31 PM
Response to Original message
67. EXACTLY!
Edited on Tue Aug-22-06 12:31 PM by planeman
That is the intricate world we live in.Shit happens.9/11 could only have been achieved the way we were told it was achieved.I have no doubt that the inadequecies and ineptitudes of the U.S goverment facilitated the conspiracy hatched by AlQuida.Hence the coverup(28 pages blanked out from that report).
Arab extremists carried out 9/11.Something the conspiracy theory crowd here should get used to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughBeaumont Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 12:21 AM
Response to Reply #67
125. "9/11 could only have been achieved the way we were told"
That sand taste pretty good to you? Is it good enough to make some silicon?

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #67
159. They may have been the hired hands
but that doesn't mean that BushCo wasn't behind the attack.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 03:32 PM
Response to Original message
87. your assertion is patently absurd
for example, the Iraq invasion, occupation and war profiteering black hole is a far more complex and wide-reaching conspiracy than 9-11 was and no one from the inside is coming forward to expose the crimes. conspiracies happen all the time. the fact that they are complex or have major consequences does not "prove" that they don't exist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #87
91. No, yours are.
Did I just see you claim that nobody has come forward to expose the crime of the Iraq invasion and war profiteering(halliburton)?

You can't be serious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #91
93. no one involved
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 02:46 AM
Response to Reply #93
142. So, anyone in the government who eventually spoke out
you will say "wasn't involved"? That's a pretty handy back door you've built for yourself.

gwbush himself said yesterday that Saddam had nothing to with 9/11, for the most recently extreme example.
Would you say Richard Clarke wasn't involved?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 03:11 AM
Response to Reply #142
144. Richard Clarke is a critic of the Iraq war
he was not involved in planning or execution or in the PNAC plans that led to it.

There is one PNACer who now says it was a mistake, but he's not accusing the perpetrators of crimes or exposing a criminal conspiracy.

We're not talking about criticism. We're talking about exposing a conspiracy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 03:23 AM
Response to Reply #144
145. Right, and he's an example of an insider who came forward.
He's just one. Have you not been paying attention to any news other than 9/11 CTs for the past 5 years?
How many people who are paid by the government have spoken out about the invasion of the Mid-East and halliburton? C'mon, man. That's why your assertion is the absurd one. You claim that it's to be expected that nobody has come forward to expose the 9/11 conspiracies as mentioned in the OP.

Is it also to be expected that people believe conspiracy theories without any evidence for doing so?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 03:26 AM
Response to Reply #145
146. paid by the government and becoming a critic
is not at all the same thing as coming forward with evidence of a conspiracy.

Have you not been paying attention to reading comprehension or logic for the past 5 years?

oh. yeah.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 04:08 AM
Response to Reply #146
147. You must not be familiar with his book, or dozens of his interviews.
What Clarke has done amounts to accusing the bush admin of conspiracy to wage an unjust war and conspiracy to cover up criminal negligence. I guess I'm not surprised that awareness of Clarke seems to ride pretty low in CT circles, because CTists deny the existince of Al Queda as ignorantly as bush did.

Most disturbing of all are Clarke's revelations about the Bush administration's lack of interest in al Qaeda prior to September 11. From the moment the Bush team took office and decided to retain Clarke in his post as the counterterrorism czar, Clarke tried to persuade them to take al Qaeda as seriously as had Bill Clinton. For months, he was denied the opportunity even to make his case to Bush. He encountered key officials who gave the impression that they had never heard of al Qaeda; who focused incessantly on Iraq; who even advocated long-discredited conspiracy theories about Saddam Hussein's involvement in previous attacks on the United States.
http://www.cbcdc.org/bookclarke.php



In the TV interview, Clarke criticized Bushs record in the war on terrorism, saying the Bush administration showed little interest in pursuing Al Qaeda in the eight months between Bushs inauguration and September 11, 2001. Afterwards, he said, top officials like Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld pushed for Iraq to be the target of US military action, despite the absence of any connection between Saddam Hussein and the terrorist attacks.

Clark related one incident, on September 12, 2001, when Bush took Clarke and several aides aside in the White House Situation Room and told them to review evidence that the Iraqi president was involved in the attacks on New York and Washington. This was not a demand to be thorough and explore all possible avenues of investigation, Clarke recalled. Bush spoke testily and was intimidating. Clarke told 60 Minutes, He never said, Make it up. But the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said Iraq did this.

Clarkes interview and book are a scathing attack on the entire national security leadership of the Bush administration. I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that hes done such great things about terrorism, he said. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/justif...


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 06:21 AM
Response to Reply #147
148. Also I posted an excerpt at post 117
from Clarkes book. But no one is responding to that debate point. :cry:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #148
157. Yeah, Clarke isn't mentioned much in the dungeon.
I think it's probably because
"awareness of Clarke seems to ride pretty low in CT circles, because CTists deny the existince of Al Queda as ignorantly as bush did."

Some people would rather not face inconvenient and unpleasant truths.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #147
153. I have his book
he is a critic of policy, not an exposer of conspiracy

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #153
156. "Having" and "being familiar with" are not equal.
He very clearly discusses a conspiracy to wage an unjust war.
And again, Clarke isn't the only person paid by the bush admin who has come forward to expose the illegal march to war. Are you as familiar with Paul O'Neill as you are with Richard Clarke?

Suskind said O'Neill and other White House insiders gave him documents showing that in early 2001 the administration was already considering the use of force to oust Saddam, as well as planning for the aftermath.

"There are memos," Suskind told the network. "One of them marked 'secret' says 'Plan for Post-Saddam Iraq.'"

Suskind cited a Pentagon document titled "Foreign Suitors For Iraqi Oilfield Contracts," which, he said, outlines areas of oil exploration. "It talks about contractors around the world from ... 30, 40 countries and which ones have what intentions on oil in Iraq."

In the book, O'Neill is quoted as saying he was surprised that no one in a National Security Council meeting asked why Iraq should be invaded.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this,'" O'Neill said.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/10/oneill.bush /
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 12:44 AM
Response to Reply #156
170. he disagrees with their policy of pursuing war against Iraq
he has facts which might be of interest to a prosecutor

but he is not a whistleblower. he makes no claim that crimes were committed.

you should have chosen Joseph Wilson as an example. He was an involved participant who claims that emperor beavis lied to Congress, which is a crime.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 02:49 AM
Response to Reply #170
172. Ok, add Joseph Wilson to Clarke and O'Neill.
That sum still doesn't equal the real total of people who work for the government that have fearlessly spoken out about the horrendous bushadmin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 04:05 AM
Response to Reply #172
174. my post wasn't about people fearlessly criticizing the Bush's
it was about members of a criminal conspiracy coming forward with evidence of the criminal activities at the heart of the conspiracy.

When the bookkeeper comes out and says, "My ex-boss was stupid and made bad decisions and was an asshole and an incompetent," that's criticism. That's what O'Neill and Clarke, et al have done. What we have not seen is the bookkeeper coming out and saying, "On February 10, my ex-boss ordered me to falsify the tax records and to illegally transfer funds from the company's bank account into his private account."

Dozens of former government employees have come forward with criticism of the bush cabal's actions (and inaction) on 9-11 that is similar to your examples of Iraq war critics. What the OP claims is that we do not have specific evidence from members of the cabal's (and their accomplices) conspiracy to make 9-11 or elements of 9-11 happen. The claim that because the conspiracy would necessarily have been large that someone someone certainly would have come forward by now is illogical. The further claim that because noone has come forward with evidence of the conspiracy that therefore there is no conspiracy is specious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirandapriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 01:45 AM
Response to Reply #87
131. Yes, good point.eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Old and In the Way Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 02:09 AM
Response to Reply #87
135. It's only a hidden conspiracy when the government won't investigate
these abuses. You ae correct, there are plenty of conspiracies underway to defraud the taxpayer. But this Republican Congress has no interest in investigating these crimes...so these conspiracies are free to continue.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sven77 Donating Member (645 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 12:32 AM
Response to Original message
126. from the Wiki-based "Demopedia"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cessna Invesco Palin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 01:14 PM
Response to Original message
155. Awesome.
Welcome back!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jazz2006 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 05:20 AM
Response to Original message
177. kick.
just because.
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 Thu Dec 18th 2014, 01:40 PM
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