Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Creative Speculation

In reply to the discussion: Creative Speculation? [View all]

Bolo Boffin

(23,796 posts)
15. "It clearly states numerous times that they were planning to HIJACK airplanes..." It says nothing
Wed Dec 28, 2011, 11:18 PM
Dec 2011

of the sort.

I don't know why you would say otherwise. The PDF of the PDB is right there to verify what you say or show it wrong.

Twice it mentions hijacking, not "numerous times." The first time puts a report of trying to hijack a plane in with "some of the more sensational threat reporting," and further sequesters this threat with two caveats - the intelligence community had not been able to corroborate it, and the hijacking was to be used to help gain the freedom of the Blind Sheik and other prisoners. A hijacking of that sort would have to maintain control of the aircraft in order to force release of prisoners. The 9/11 attack, where passenger airplanes are diverted and used as missiles, would not fit the type of airline hijacking described in the PDB.

The other mention is that surveillance had picked up activity consistent with prep for hijacking or other types of attacks. Coming as it does under the heading of "hijacking as leverage for prisoner release," again the 9/11 hijacking and destruction isn't contemplated in this PDB.

What the PDB does show is that the intelligence community was desperately trying to convince the Bush Administration that Bin Laden did indeed intend to mount a terrorist attack in the United States. He was not just a concern in the domestic field. Condi Rice's "historical nature" comment is pure bullshit. Yes, it goes into a lot of history about Bin Laden -- in order to knock some heads together so they understood that some kind of attack would be happening within the United States. Bin Laden and Al Qaeda would eventually pull one off.

Every indication we have been given is that Bush and company blew this off. There's the Ron Suskind account of another attempt by the CIA after this PDB to convince Bush that something was not only in the works, but was imminent, and we got the famous quote: "OK, you've covered your ass."

One only can wonder what might have happened if the response to the Aug 6 PDB had been: "OK, find me the most specific threat indicators you can and put a shape around any possible attack inside this country." A directive like that might have caught the July 10 Phoenix memo about possible Al Qaeda operatives attending flight school in the area. The 9/11 pilots took lessons in Florida, but taking the Phoenix memo more seriously could have led to them being flagged. And of course Moussaoui's capture with the similar circumstances might have gotten a search of his laptop higher on the priority list.

If, if, if. Even at that point, the attack would be successful enough - without even the first plane being hijacked. The plan was set to go. They were that far along. That could have been shocking enough to the American public without the actual attacks and loss of life.

Creative Speculation? [View all] BeFree Dec 2011 OP
What is Bushco? zappaman Dec 2011 #1
Just for you, zzzzzzzzzzzzzz BeFree Dec 2011 #2
I don't believe George Bush or the members of his administration were zappaman Dec 2011 #5
How would one prove that, one way or an other? I think Bush/Cheney were aware teddy51 Dec 2011 #7
Well lets see, Bush received a document titled 'Bin-Laden Determined to Strike the U.S'... FarLeftFist Dec 2011 #9
I don't believe George Bush or the members of his administration were zappaman Dec 2011 #10
Can't say if I do or don't because I've never been convinced either way, but... FarLeftFist Dec 2011 #11
I say Bush/Cheney and the neocon's had 911 planned long before Bush stole teddy51 Dec 2011 #13
Did nothing? Ohio Joe Dec 2011 #12
First you'll have to believe that piece of info, Second... FarLeftFist Dec 2011 #14
"It clearly states numerous times that they were planning to HIJACK airplanes..." It says nothing Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #15
Now that WAS Creative, bolo BeFree Dec 2011 #16
"had pretty good proof that the hijackings were about to take place" Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #17
Right BeFree Dec 2011 #18
The lack of evidence supporting your assertion is there for everyone to see. Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #19
Bushco is innocent BeFree Dec 2011 #20
What does "Bushco is innocent" mean? zappaman Dec 2011 #23
What is Bushco? zappaman Dec 2011 #21
read bolo's stuff BeFree Dec 2011 #22
I did read Bolo. zappaman Dec 2011 #24
bushco is not innocent BeFree Dec 2011 #25
"bushco is NOT innocent when it comes to 9/11." zappaman Jan 2012 #28
I have to say something here Grateful for Hope Dec 2011 #26
Really? zappaman Jan 2012 #27
Concern? Grateful for Hope Jan 2012 #29
This message was self-deleted by its author Grateful for Hope Jan 2012 #30
I tend to agree with you. LanternWaste Mar 2012 #32
Disagree William Seger Mar 2012 #33
Especially when a sentence has absolutely no meaning at all. zappaman Mar 2012 #34
on what getdown Dec 2011 #3
And....... BeFree Dec 2011 #4
What? zappaman Dec 2011 #6
Not sure what to think. Grateful for Hope Dec 2011 #8
Unfortunately we are left to speculate felix_numinous Jan 2012 #31
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Creative Speculation»Creative Speculation?»Reply #15