Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

LIHOP Doubters

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 » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Sophree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-04 08:40 PM
Original message
LIHOP Doubters
Question for all you DUers who still have blinders on about LIHOP:

How is it possible that the most powerful military in the history of the world was unable to protect its OWN HEADQUARTERS nearly an hour after a 2nd plane slammed into the World Trade Center when it was clear that we were under attack?

"There must have been a military order. There is no other logical explanation."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
swag Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-04 08:43 PM
Response to Original message
1. It was stunning to see the old Gore Vidal scenario from his
"Goat Song" essay in "Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace" validated - no intercept jets were scrambled. "Because there were four highjackings at the same time."? That's an interesting excuse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-04 08:44 PM
Response to Original message
2. and sacrifice so many of their own?
Not a military order.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sophree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-04 08:49 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. Chickenhawk Dick Cheney is not military.
The order to stand down came from him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shanti Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-04 09:57 PM
Response to Reply #5
19. exactly
and cheney doesn't give a rat's ass about the masses. we are disposable. look how he handled asbestos.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tom_paine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #5
25. Very probably.
A million of us could die, and Dick Cheney would not give a rat's ass about anything except "economic losses".

The man is a monster and would have worked very well in Heydrich's place at the Nazi roundtable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sir_captain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #25
45. Dick Cheney is surely an awful human being...
but I'm not sure even he deserves that comparison
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 09:27 PM
Response to Reply #45
210. Yes, he really does.
Edited on Wed Mar-24-04 09:27 PM by aquart
To achieve his goals in the Middle East and Caspian Basin, millions would have to be killed. Millions. I say that puts him in heavy contention for the comparison.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #25
119. He would rejoice at a million casualties because he would
then trumpet the million jobs he just "created"!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sterling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #2
31. Interesting that it hit the empy side huh?
One out offive chance is it? Never mind the plane did a 360 around the building to hit that side either. Nothing to see here, move along.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #31
64. And the side that had recently been renovated and reinforced.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hang a left Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #31
71. That is the freaky part. You truly have to up your ante to MIHOP
when you consider this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treepig Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #31
141. indeed, the 360 thing is interesting
just like the football coach who took over a long-time losing team and promptly promised to turn the program around by 360 degrees.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sliverofhope Donating Member (858 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 10:00 PM
Response to Reply #141
217. Weird
Have Sibel Edmonds and Robert Wright, Jr been called before the commission?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #2
63. Two words: Pearl Harbor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrWeird Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-04 08:44 PM
Response to Original message
3. Incompetence.
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sophree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-04 08:55 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. You seriously buy that?
Our military is not incompetant, even if the people in the White House are- and I concede that B*shco is.

But I mean come on! The Pentagon's sole purpose is to defend this country. I will never believe that they couldn't scramble jets with at least 50 minutes notice. Never.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TomNickell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-04 09:24 PM
Response to Reply #8
14. Yes.
How do you get the whole military to NOT defend their own hdqtrs?

Issue orders--ignore that 767 about to kill you?

I've asked this question before, the conspiracists always blow it off. How do you get the military to NOT follow standard procedures or common sense without leaving behind a trail of witnesses and paper that even the NYT couldn't miss?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
never cry wolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-04 09:54 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. You don't need the whole military
If any group is "top down" it is the military. A pilot won't scramble unless ordered to, his CO won't order it unless he is told to, etc., etc. Order, discipline and following the orders of your direct superior are ingrained and if you disobey orders or overstep your authority you are fucked. You are sworn to it.

It is also very insular. The CO at one Air Force base does not necessarily know what orders the CO at another Air Force base has been given. If a CO had been watching the news and saw the collisions and didn't get a call to scramble he probably had the authority make sure his planes were ready but not to put them in the air. Not getting that call he may assume the order went elsewhere.

In any event, NORAD would have to make the call to scramble and they would have to have had prompt notice from the FAA. All they had to do was stall a bit. It's not like they had soldiers on the roof of the Pentagon with surface to air missiles ready to shoot anything coming at them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sophree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #14
24. You issue a Stand Down order
From the top.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zero Gravitas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #8
29. and your background
in strategic air command is... ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #29
97. And what's your background?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zero Gravitas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #97
112. my background is irrelevant
the poster said "I will never believe that they couldn't scramble jets with at least 50 minutes notice. Never."

So I wonder what his/her background is that he/she knows so much about how the USAF deploys its aircraft. I have no idea if they keep fully armed aircraft sitting at the end of a runway with the engine running all the time, or whether they'd have to spend a couple of hours preparing and arming a jet or anything in between, so I'm just wondering how the poster knows that 50 minutes is an unreasonably long time.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sophree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #112
116. My knowledge of fighter-readiness
Comes from a few sources, but mainly from the book "The War on Freedom." If you haven't read it, you should.

Airplanes that veer off coarse are routinely intercepted by military aircraft, even on days when there have not been consistent, ever more urgent warnings of an impending terrorist attack and/or hijacking.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobthedrummer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #116
117. For God's sake the USAF even scrambles for UFO reports
that is the historical record and doctrine.
Military careers were made or broken on response time to potential threats in our airspace.
But not on 9/11.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #112
122. Standard NORAD procedure is to have interceptors ready to take-off...
...within five minutes of receiving an order to do so. Additionally, the FAA is responsible for notifying NORAD immediately whenever a plane strays of course, and/or refuses to answer to communications, and/or turns off the transponder. The delay between the time that the FAA knew they had a problem and the time that NORAD was notified to get birds int the air was as much as 35 minutes

Here is some additional information on the events of 911 as they concern the interceptors:

NORAD
The Air Defense Network

<http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/norad/background.html>

Air Defense
Multiple Failures of the Air Defense Network to Protect New York City and the Capital

<http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/defense/index.html>

Chapter 4. FAA/NORAD/PACAF PROCEDURES FOR CONTROL
OF AIR DEFENSE AIRCRAFT

<http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/MIL/Ch4/chp4.htm>

Stand Down
Exposing NORAD's Wag The 911 Window Dressing Tale

<http://www.standdown.net/>

IGNORAD
The Military Screw-up Nobody Talks About

<http://www.attackonamerica.net/ignorad.htm>

911 Timeline
The Most Comprehensive Minute By Minute Timeline On 911

<http://www.911timeline.net/>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leanings Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #122
126. Yeah, but only from alert bases.
The two bases pulling alert that day were Otis and Langley. The speed thing doesn't make too much sense either; once you kick up to afterburner fuel consumption goes up by a factor of 10. That means when you get to the scene you've got no loiter time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #126
130. Wrong. There were seven bases on alert on 911...
33 USAF Bases Were Within Range On 911

**7 Air Stations Were On Full Alert Covering The Continental United States (5 of these 7 Air Stations were within range of the four airliners hijacked on 911)

**28 More Air Stations Were In Range Of The 4 Hijacked Airliners On 911


<http://www.standdown.net/USAFbases.htm>

Excerpt:

"The Air National Guard maintains seven alert sites with 14 fully armed fighters and pilots on call around the clock. Besides Tyndall AFB, alert birds also sit armed and ready at; Homestead Air Reserve Base (ARB), Homestead, Florida; Langley AFB, Hampton, Virginia; Otis Air National Guard (ANG), Falmouth, Massachusetts; Oregon ANG, Portland, Oregon; March ARB, Riverside, California; and Ellington ANG, Houston, Texas."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leanings Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #130
139. OK
which two of those seven bases were the closest on 9/11? Portland? Houston? No, no, I think that'd be Langley and Otis. I didn't mean to suggest that they were the ONLY two bases in the US with an active AAA. But the suggestion that five of those seven were within "range" is just stupid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #139
145. Of the seven bases mentioned in the article, only Portland and Riverside..
...were physically out of range, with Ellington a borderline case.

Here are the distances from Washington, DC to the following bases:

Langley (Hampton, VA) = 134 miles
Otis (Falmouth, MA) = 385 miles
Panama City, FL = 778 miles
Homestead, FL = 948 miles
Ellington (Houston, TX) = 1221 miles

At a max speed of 1400 mph, five of the above noted bases could have put interceptors in the air and reached Washington, DC. Why weren't they scrambled as well?

And why were none of the following bases activated? We're told that they were in "Stand Down" status...

"Maybe some of these Air station could have managed to get fighters up just as fast as the 180th Fighter Wing. Why weren't they? Stand Down.

Andrews AFB 11 miles SE of Washington D.C.
Bolling AFB 3 miles south of US Capitol
Dover AFB Dover, DE
Hanscom AFB 17 miles northwest of Boston, MA
McGuire AFB 18 miles southeast of Trenton, NJ
Wright-Patterson AFB Dayton, OH
Cape Cod, MA AFS
New Boston, NH AFS"


...and then we have the following event taking place on 911 from an airfield in "inactive status":

"The following happened on September 11, 2001; At 10:01 a.m. the FAA ordered the 180th Fighter Wing out of Swanton, Ohio to scramble their F-16 fighters. Although the base has no fighters on stand-by alert status, it manages to put fighters in the air 16 minutes later, a "phenomenal" response time - but still 11 minutes after the last hijacked plane has crashed.

One interesting aspect is that NORAD has explained that it didn't scramble fighters from bases nearer to the hijacked planes because they only used bases in the NORAD defensive network. Yet the 180th Fighter Wing out of Swanton, Ohio wasn't part of that network, so why weren't planes at other bases scrambled at 8:20 or 8:40 or 8:43 or 8:46:26 or 9:02:54 or 9:24 or at the very least at 9:37?"


There are way too many questions about the events of 911, and IMHO, none of them are "stupid". You, of course, are welcome to your own opinions.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leanings Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #145
151. Is this a serious contention?
That aircraft should have been scrambled from Houston? Let alone the fact that the entire US would have been left undefended for any further contingency. Do you think those aircraft would have had any fuel remaining to loiter or otherwise affect the outcome of the situation?

The reason I called the idea that those bases were within "range" stupid is that "range" doesn't simply mean that the aircraft goes there at full throttle and then crashes into the ground. At that speed of 1400 mph, an Eagle can go for about 8 minutes. Even getting above Mach 1 requires getting into afterburner. That's one of the supposed advantages of the F-22: supercruise.

The sloppiness of these sources doesn't reflect too much credit upon them: "at 10:01 a.m. the FAA ordered the 180th Fighter Wing out of Swanton, Ohio to scramble their F-16 fighters..." Oh, the FAA ordered them to scramble? Huh. I never heard of that contingency. So a Guard base got a couple of fighters up an hour and a half after all this was on CNN. Did they happen to have some flight training scheduled that day, maybe? Do you have any idea of how long it takes to preflight an aircraft, suit up a pilot, warm up an APU, get munitions out of their storage bunkers, fuel the plane, load the ordnance...this stuff about how Andrews should have had fighters up in 30 minutes after the FAA realized something was going on is just poppycock to anyone who is even remotely familiar with the subject material.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sophree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #122
135. Thanks for posting that.
:-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mouse7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #112
144. Navy carrier fighters forgotten in discussion (carrier on standby)
There is always a carrier task force off the East Coast on standby for anti-submarine duty. That carrier task force was there on standby on 9/11 because it was routed to NY and on station off the coast of NY within 24 hours. You cannot get a carrier task force on station off NY from a standing start at it's home pier in anything less than a coupke of days. You have 5000 sailors who have families that must be gathered from all over town, food to load up, etc.

Now a carrier task force on standby means fighters and anti-sub aircraft warmed up and ready. Just because the Cold War is over doesn't mean that nuclear missile subs and attack subs have disappeared. Carrier task forces on standby have their full combat allotment of ammunition on-board.

F-18s are dual use aircraft. They are good at both air combat and conducting strikes against a host of targets. F-18s would have been part of the allocation of aircraft that were warmed up on standby. They could have had 4 armed Hornets over the Pentagon within a minimum of 15-20 minutes after an order was given.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leanings Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #144
146. Which carrier?
Hadn't heard this one before. Link?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mouse7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 04:54 PM
Response to Reply #146
158. The carrier that was off the coast of NYC 9/12 AM
I can't remember which carrier was the leading the task force that was off the coast of NYC by the morning of 9/12 off the top of my head. I've read the order and seen it in print... can't remember whoch one it was at this moment.

Give me a bit to look it up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mouse7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 08:11 PM
Response to Reply #158
183. The USS Kennedy, homeported in Mayport FLA
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/where.htm

The Kennedy arrived off the coast of NYC for CAP duty on 9/12. The Kennedy COULD NOT have made it from it's pier in Mayport FLA to the coast off NYC by 9/12. That means the Kennedy was underway, and off the East Coast on the morning of 9/11.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leanings Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 08:39 PM
Response to Reply #183
188. It doesn't mean that the Kennedy was under way.
Here's another link:

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/images/image-cv28.html


(Photo Caption)The Atlantic Ocean, Sept. 13, 2001 — The aircraft carrier USS John F. Kennedy (CV 67) takes on fuel during an underway replenishment at sea (RAS) with the Military Sealift Command ship USNS John Lenthall (T-AO 189). Coming alongside Lenthall is the cruiser USS Hue City (CG 66). Kennedy and elments of her battle group got underway shortly after the September 11th terrorist attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. U. S. Navy photo by Photographer's Mate 1st Class Dominick Haen. <010913-N-9719H-002> Sept. 13, 2001

See where it says "Kennedy and elments of her battle group got underway shortly AFTER the September 11th terrorist attack"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mouse7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 09:26 PM
Response to Reply #188
209. Photographer's Mate caption versus math and common sense
Edited on Wed Mar-24-04 09:27 PM by mouse7
You cannot make a carrier task force leave N. Florida and get to the coast off NYC in a day. The Navy said The USS Kennedy was on station off NYC to conduct CAP on September 12.

By the way, if the Kennedy was in port on Sept. 11th as you claim, why would it need to be re-supplyed on Sept. 13th? It would only need to be replentished IF IT HAD BEEN AT SEA for a significant period leading up to the order to go off the coast of NYC.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leanings Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-25-04 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #209
233. Because it left somewhat unexpectedly? n/t
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mouse7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #146
159. Here's the 9/12/01Navy Wire Service story and CNN
Edited on Wed Mar-24-04 05:24 PM by mouse7
NWS12sep-2. Navy Secures Ports, Provides Relief in Wake of
Terrorist Attacks
By Jerome W. Mapp, Navy Wire Service
WASHINGTON (NWS) -- Simultaneous terrorist attacks at
the World Trade Center in New York, and the Pentagon
locally, prompted an immediate security and relief effort by
the U.S. Navy.
As the U.S. Navy positioned ships off the coasts of
Washington, D.C., and New York, the hospital ship USNS
Comfort (AH 20) prepared to sail from its berth at
Baltimore, Md., to embark Navy medical personnel at Earle,
N.J., before setting sail for the coast of New York. Comfort
has a crew of 61 civilian mariners and more than 700 Navy
medical and support personnel.
Comfort contains 12 fully-equipped operating rooms, a
1,000-bed hospital facility, radiological services, a
medical laboratory, a pharmacy, an optometry lab, a CAT scan
and two oxygen-producing plants. The ship also has a
helicopter deck capable of landing large military
helicopters, as well as side ports to take on patients at
sea.
In Norfolk, Va., USS George Washington (CVN 73) set sail
in support of defense and humanitarian efforts off the coast
of New York.
Other ships in support include USS Leyte Gulf (CG 55),
USS Monterey (CG 61), USS Hue City (CG 66), USS Vicksburg
(CG 69), USS Vella Gulf (CG 72), USS Ramage (DDG 61), USS
Ross (DDG 71), USS Detroit (AOE 4), USS Bataan (LHD 5) and
USS Shreveport (LPD 12).
George Washington will respond to tasking from the North
American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) in providing air
defense to the city.
Pacific Fleet ships underway and ready to respond to any
tasks in support of national defense at sea to contribute to
the air and sea defense of the U.S. West Coast and Hawaii
include USS John Stennis (CVN 74), USS Mobile Bay (CG 53),
USS Valley Forge (CG 50), USS Decatur (DDG 73), USS Stethem
(DDG 63), USS Higgins (DDG 76), USS Russell (DDG 59), USS
Fife (DD 991), USS Rentz (FFG 46), USS Sides (FFG 14), USS
Thatch (FFG 43), USS Ford (FFG 54), USS Rodney M. Davis (FFG
60), USS Salvor (ARS 52) and USNS Yukon (T-AO 202).
Navy and Marine Corps installations around the country
are at the highest states of alert. They are taking
increased force protection measures to ensure the safety of
military and civilian personnel at these installations.
Persons attempting to enter military bases can expect
significant delays and increase of traffic as Navy security
forces implement additional security procedures.
For more information about Navy ships, go to
http://www.navy.mil.

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/news/navywire/nws01/nws010912.txt

Here's a CNN report from 9/12...

All U.S. military sites around the world have gone to ThreatCon Delta, which means that a terrorist attack has occurred or an attack at a specific location is likely, Pentagon officials said.

Two aircraft carriers left the Navy base in Norfolk, Virginia, to boost air defense for New York and Washington.

The Navy's Pacific Fleet has deployed an aircraft carrier, two guided missile cruisers, five destroyers and five frigates armed with missiles to protect the West Coast and Hawaii, according to a Navy official, who asked not to be identified.

http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/pentagon.terrorism/

So... you have CNN reporting two carriers to be involved in defending NY air space, Navy discusses the USS GW leaving Norfolk. That leaves one off New Your that didn't have to leave Norfork post 9/11. That's the task force that's on standby doing routine anti-sub duty the morning of 9/11.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leanings Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #159
163. I just don't think so.
I've never heard of carrier task forces doing anti-sub picket duty off of the East Coast, but I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. But the only two aircraft carriers near the East Coast on September 11 were the Kennedy and the Washington. They were both at Norfolk on that day-

"The Pentagon says five warships and two aircraft carriers will leave the U.S. Naval Station in Norfolk, Virginia, to protect the East Coast from further attack and to reduce the number of ships in port. The two carriers, the USS George Washington and the USS John F. Kennedy, are headed for the New York coast. The other ships headed to sea are frigates and guided missile destroyers capable of shooting down aircraft."

http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/chronology.attack/

The next closest was the Truman, which was conducting an exercise off of Puerto Rico.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/where.htm

I'm also not sure, from what I know of ASW, that the theoretical carrier task force would have alert fighters. E-2s and S-3's and helos, yeah, but not air to air assets. What's the point? Hornets are great for anti-ship work with Harpoons but I've never heard of them being used in an ASW role. Who's got carriers in the Atlantic that might present a threat to ASW missions that would require a CAP? The Brits?

Sorry, bub, nothin' jibes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sterling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 07:11 PM
Response to Reply #163
165. You really think it takes an hour to scamble fighters?
Or that the plane that hit DC even need a plane to intercept to stop it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leanings Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 07:40 PM
Response to Reply #165
170. Is this comment directed at the carrier issue?
I'd welcome some enlightenment on where that came from.

Yes, I've got a pretty good idea of how long it takes to scramble fighters. I spent two years at Langely AFB as an SP, and a substantial portion of that time was spent at the same Alert Aircraft Area that scrambled those ANG F-16s out of there. I saw those fighters get scrambled a couple of times for false alarms and drills. I know a couple of the guys who were working the security posts at the AAA that morning and have talked to them about it.

I've also got a little bit of an inkling of how chaotic that morning must have been, attempting to track the progress of four different aircraft, trying to figure out what was going on in NY and over PA and DC, getting news from CNN before higher headquarters, worrying about other contingencies that might arise, having difficulties relaying messages from FAA control towers to higher headquarters to NORAD and then back downchannel to individual bases and alert areas and air traffic controllers and pilots that are already in the air, with all this subject an uncertain national command authority. This was not the sort of intercept that we were set up to make. I am not at all surprised at the amount of time that it took to get those aircraft up, and I don't think that anyone who is familiar with how that operation might work is either. That's why the sources sited for this particular conspiracy theory talk about planes being deployed from Florida and traveling on afterburner to get from Langley to DC and USAF aircraft being ordered to scramble by the FAA; because they don't have any idea of what they speak.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mouse7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 08:08 PM
Response to Reply #170
179. You have experience with AIR FORCE aircraft, not carriers
US Carriers ALWAYS have patrol aircraft at least on standby when underway. That means fueled and armed, with pilots sitting in the ready room.

The USS Kennedy is listed as arriving for Combat Air Patrol duty off the NYC coast on 9/12. The Kennedy is home ported in Mayport FLA. That means it HAD TO BE UNDERWAY off the east coast on the morning of 9/11.

That means there were armed F-18s that were available to defend DC.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leanings Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 08:40 PM
Response to Reply #179
190. When was your DOS?
See below.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mouse7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 09:03 PM
Response to Reply #190
202. When did you learn how to read? Can't even read basic Navy presser
The Navy Press Release DID NOT list the Kennedy in the group of ships leaving Norfolk on 9/12.

Since you've tried to lie about a press release I supplied earlier in this thread, I'm going to have to have to call you on being blatently biased and trying to manipulate information to suit your argument against LIHOP.

I'm not sure what you're motives are, but now that you've shown you're willing to lie about the info presented, you clearly have an agenda and have no standing left on this discussion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leanings Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-25-04 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #202
231. I've no standing?
Edited on Thu Mar-25-04 01:17 PM by leanings
Leave aside for a minute the question of whether or not the JFK was at Norfolk, a contention which I believe any reasonable soul would concede is at least somewhat supported by the evidence I've provided. You've provide zero evidence supporting your original assertions that: a. The Kennedy was within range of Washington DC. b. The Kennedy was on ASW duty. You've also faily utterly and repeatedly to offer any documentation or other evidence to support several claims you've made regarding normal US Navy doctrine, i.e. alert aircraft, the very existence of an ASW patrol. The deductions you've made from what little circumstatial evidence that you have presented, namely the fact that the JFK is homeported in FL and was off of NYC on the 12th, are at best extremely weak. You can just as easily make a case that the JFK was off of Nova Scotia on the 11th rather than near DC using the reasoning and evidence you've provided.

And I haven't lied or misconstrued anything in the slightest. When I referred to a Navy press release, it wasn't the one cited by you. I presume that CNN and the several other sites which used similar wording in their timelines (you can google it if you want) based their information off of a press release. On edit: re-reading what I posted last night I can see where you got the impression I was trying to say the press release you posted referred to two carriers leaving Norfolk. Sorry-that was confusion on my part. I meant to refer to the CNN article. That having been said, the press release you've posted does not mention the Kennedy. Every other source I've seen, however, does refer to two carriers leaving Norfolk. The Navy could have very well ommitted the Kennedy by accident, seeing as how it's not based in Norfolk. Or the Kennedy might just have been in the vicinity of Norfolk. Or the news outlets might have gotten that wrong entirely. There is, however, absolutely no evidence that the JFK was on ASW duty somewhere in range of DC.

You've also made great hay out of your expertise in naval warfare. Again, what was your DOS?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sterling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 08:39 PM
Response to Reply #170
189. No
Sorry but I don't know you so I have no way to know if you actually have any expirience with the bases in question.


I am just stunned that you actually believe DC could not have been defended.

The case is very weak for why it took so long to respond to NY but DC is just too much to consider.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leanings Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 09:06 PM
Response to Reply #189
203. You can believe what you wish
altho I can email you my resume if you really want.

So just make your argument on the basis of the facts available. Start with the emplaced SAM systems in DC, or why the AF's alert aircraft program actually WAS properly equipped to deal with four commercial airliners flying on interior lines?

I understand why people invent conspiracy theories. It's difficult to acknowledge how imperfect systems built by imperfect human beings can be. But, Christ, just look at the Columbia disaster. One of the most intricately planned and thoroughly observed and monitored and closed systems known to man. A big honking chunk of it comes off and smashes a gaping hole in the wing. And for all the planning and telemetry and observation and technical skill and money and resources and experience involved, nobody catches it and the thing burns up over Texas.

Things fall apart. The center does not hold. It's not necessarily the scheming of evil genius. In fact, it very rarely is. It's usually the FAA tower operator who holds on a minute or two extra to make sure his equipment isn't on the fritz and his boss who wants to make sure of what's going on before he brings down a shitstorm and the guy who's in the crapper while his phone is ringing off the hook and a hundred other human frailties.

But that's hard to accept. When we don't understand lightening is a natural electrical phenomenon we say gods hurl it down from mountaintops.

I've got an open mind, and I've been thru a whole hell of a lot more material on this thing than I should have wasted my time on, and it don't hold water. Period. Again, feel free to believe whatever makes you feel happy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mouse7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 09:17 PM
Response to Reply #203
207. I believe it's hard to use unarmed airliners to defeat US airpower
Edited on Wed Mar-24-04 09:17 PM by mouse7
Gee... it's so insane to think it would be difficult to use unarmed airliners to defeat the combined weight of US AIR Force, Navy, and Marine aircraft up and down the East Coast.

That's so crazy... Thousands of US fighter planes and not one of them can stop an attack against the Pentagon with more than an hour's notice.

Yeah... we're so goofy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sterling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 09:32 PM
Response to Reply #207
212. And no surface to air either?
You know we don't even have to get a plane in the air to protect our airspace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sterling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 09:31 PM
Response to Reply #203
211. I didn't invent this.
nice try though.

What exactly does this have to do with what we are discussing?

"Things fall apart. The center does not hold. It's not necessarily the scheming of evil genius. In
fact, it very rarely is. It's usually the FAA tower operator who holds on a minute or two extra
to make sure his equipment isn't on the fritz and his boss who wants to make sure of what's
going on before he brings down a shitstorm and the guy who's in the crapper while his phone is
ringing off the hook and a hundred other human frailties.

But that's hard to accept. When we don't understand lightening is a natural electrical
phenomenon we say gods hurl it down from mountaintops."

Maybe that is your understanding of lighnting but it was never really an issue as far as I am concerned, lighting is not so hard to grasp.

Strawman duscussions are really onesided don't you think?


"I've got an open mind"

If you say so




," and I've been thru a whole hell of a lot more material on this thing than
I should have wasted my time on,"




Funny how little of it sunk in.




"and it don't hold water. Period. Again, feel free to believe
whatever makes you feel happy.'"



I will at least give you credit that you have made an effort to discuss one small element of this story but frankly your points don't really ad up and most of the time you dodge the core issues at hand in favor of antidotal story telling or straw man arguments.

Maybe your time discussing this has been a waste of time. It was interesting to hear your point of view from my perspective though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leanings Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-25-04 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #211
234. You've provided nothing.
Other than total conjecture.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mouse7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 07:58 PM
Response to Reply #163
175. Ahhh... you believe carriers on stand-by are without air-to-air assets?
So, you think they just send out carriers on ASW duty without F-18 and ammo for F-18s? You know better. If a carrier is on duty doing any task, it has fighters always on stand-by. That's US Naval doctrine. A US carrier will never do any task without fighter pilots in the ready room and patrol aircraft prepared. F-18s are the standard US Naval aircraft used in patrol duty.

By the way... the USS Kennedy looks like the carrier in question that was on patrol. The Navy left out the Kennedy from the list of ships it announced deploying in it's 9/12/01 press release I posted. Yet somehow, it's listed as being on station for CAP off NYC on the 9/12 on your globalsecurity.org link. The Kennedy isn't homeported in Norfolk. It's homeported in Mayport FLA. Are you going to try to claim the USS Kennedy made it from sitting at it's pier in N. Florida to off the coast of NYC by 9/12?

Look up US Naval Doctrine. If a US carrier is underway, it's got patrol aircraft on standby. That means armed and fueled aircraft and pilots in the ready room. The Kennedy was CLEARLY underway when ordered to NY in order to make it to the NY coast by 9/12. That means there were armed F-18s that could have been sent to DC to defend the Pentagon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leanings Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 08:13 PM
Response to Reply #175
185. Again, I've never seen any evidence
that carriers do regular ASW patrols off of either coast. That link has a pretty comprehensive listing of where the carriers have been for the last several years, and I don't see it mentioned. I tried googling it and didn't come up with anything. So you gotta start by showing me that's an SOP.

In the press release you posted the Navy said TWO carriers left Norfolk. One was the GW. If the Kennedy was on ASW duty, which carrier left Norfolk besides the GW? In the CNN article I posted, it clearly states that the Kennedy and the GW left Norfolk. The Kennedy was involved in an exercise shortly thereafter. I would surmise that it made a portcall at Norfolk for one reason or another. Seeing as how it was in dire need of maintenance (the captain was relieved of his command in Dec), it's not a stretch to imagine why they might have stopped at the largest shipyard in the world. I can't provide you with a specific reason, but both press releases clearly point to the Kennedy and the GW being sortied from Norfolk and there is no evidence of other carriers being in the area.

If you'd like to show me a document outlining the naval doctrine which mandates combat air patrols or even alert aircraft in home waters during peacetime, I'd be glad to read it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mouse7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 08:53 PM
Response to Reply #185
198. You clearly know Air Force, NOT Navy info
The Kennedy would go to it's own home port for mantainance. Do you know what a clusterf*ck it would be to try to supply a carrier task force from a different stateside homeport? Yes it is a stretch to believe that a carrier task force would "stop" into a differnt homeport to re-supply. Carrier task forces don't "stop into" anything. Do you even know the massive task it is to supply a carrier task force?

If there were an emergency, a carrier group can go into another Naval base no problem. You deal with massive supply messes voluntarily in emergencies. Before 9/11, that sort of thing would never happen. Never.

You wrong on both releases saying the Kennedy was in Norfolk. The ONLY thing that even suggests it is the CNN quote that says "two carriers." The Navy Press release does not list the Kennedy in the group of ships leaving Norfolk.

You need to find your own links to Naval Doctrine. Google. It's a good thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leanings Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 09:02 PM
Response to Reply #198
200. I don't know how much plainer this could be.
And I don't know why you keep insisting that you know more about the Navy than I; I certainly haven't seen any evidence of it.

Here, read this carefully:

"The Pentagon says five warships and TWO AIRCRAFT CARRIERS will leave the U.S. Naval Station in Norfolk, Virginia, to protect the East Coast from further attack and to reduce the number of ships in port. The TWO CARRIERS, the USS George Washington and the USS JOHN F. KENNEDY, are headed for the New York coast."

That's the CNN link. It pretty clearly states that two carriers left Norfolk, and they were the GW and the JFK. Unless you're ESL, I don't think it could possibly be any more clear than that.

You haven't posted a single article on naval doctrine or stratagem or anything else that supports your comments in the slightest. I'm getting a sneaking suspicion that you're talking out of your ass. So I'm going to bid you adieu, and if you come up with anything remotely resembling some sort of support or proof or evidence of your contentions then I shall gladly peruse it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 09:09 PM
Response to Reply #200
205. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Sterling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 08:42 PM
Response to Reply #175
191. It is safe to say there were many ways to protect DC
and America that day. Why were none of them used? It is certain at least the could have used SAM systems to shoot down the DC plane from the ground IF no aircraft could respond.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leanings Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 09:03 PM
Response to Reply #191
201. It's safe to say that you're not aware any SAM systems in DC.
Or anything else that contradicts in any way anything I've said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sterling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 09:35 PM
Response to Reply #201
213. Actually I am
It was widely reported after the incident of the plane crashing into the WH under Clinton's watch. It is also common sense that we would protect the skies around DC.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leanings Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-25-04 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #213
232. Well?
Where are the launchers? Where are the control centers? Where are the radar arrays? What type of systems are they?

The gov only employs so many types of SAMS. Stinger, Avenger, Patriot-of what do we speak, here? Unless you're trying to make the "Oh, you don't know what kinds of evil lurk beneath" argument, that perhaps James Bond's Austin Martin is parked in the White House garage or that the dome of the Capitol slides back to reveal a giant chemical laser.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TankLV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 11:17 PM
Response to Reply #112
225. They don't quite. But you are close. Think fire house.
I renovated many older Alert Crew quarters at Hickham Airfield in Honolulu. We had to know EVERYTHING in order to give them exactly the result they wanted (some of the "quarters" were from WWI! - essentially overly repaired quanset huts).

There is always someone "in the house" ready to scramble to the jets parked just a few feet away.

Take about a couple minutes, tops.

Saw it happen on drills.

Had high security clearance in those days.

Anyone to claim otherwise has an agenda or excuses to protect a certain squatter in OUR White House.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skypilot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #8
33. This might sound awful but...
...on Sept.11 I was more stunned that the Pentagon had been struck than I was that the WTC towers had. Even after the first tower collapsed I couldn't stop thinking to myself, "The Pentagon? The Pentagon? How the HELL did the Pentagon get hit?" That was BEFORE I found out exactly what time the Pentagon was struck and realized that it was almost a full hour after the first attack. When I found that out I was even more outraged and suspicious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
camero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-04 08:47 PM
Response to Original message
4. Another point
Someone with a "football" that can launch nuclear missiles in less than 30 seconds couldn't mobilize a response to a domestic attack within an hour.

They could have done it. When there's a will, there's a way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Droopy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-04 08:53 PM
Response to Original message
6. Insulting my intelligence is no way to win me over
There are a lot of things we just don't know about that day. Why is one considered to have blinders on when being skeptical of a THEORY for which there is no hard evidence?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
swag Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-04 08:56 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. Correct you are
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, as they say.

Nevertheless, many questions need answering, and they could be answered by a diligent investigation of things like chains of command.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 09:39 PM
Response to Reply #9
214. The extraordinary claim is that they couldn't scramble in time.
That doesn't even touch believability.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sophree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-04 09:02 PM
Response to Reply #6
12. Didn't mean to insult your intelligence.
And I'm not telling anyone to accept any/all LIHOP theories without skepticism.

It's a difficult question to answer if you refuse to consider the possibility. And I notice you haven't attempted to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #6
67. Are you accepting the theory offered by the NeoCon Junta?...
Because they don't have any proof to support their version, either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Droopy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #67
87. What I'm saying is that
four planes were highjacked and three of them were crashed into buildings. That's really all we can say for sure. There is no evidence for LIHOP. Only specualtion and conjecture. Give me some hard evidence to back up your claims. Like how about an air force official giving testimony that he was ordered to stand stand down. Then you've got something to talk about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #6
80. How did you manage to think that your intelligence...
...had been insulted?

Additionally, there is a lot more evidence to support LIHOP/MIHOP than there is to support the official "19 hijackers were Al Qaeda" theory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Droopy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 01:36 PM
Original message
The original poster clearly said
"For those of you who still have blinders on". I take that as an insult that I cannot think for myself and come to a different conclusion. I thought I made this clear in my post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sophree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 01:44 PM
Response to Original message
110. I didn't mean it that way
I just think that some people just don't want to know what really happened that day, sort of a hands over their ears kinda thing. It wasn't a jab at anyone's intelligence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 01:50 PM
Response to Original message
115. So, stating that you have "blinders on" is insulting your intelligence?...
Yes, you made it quite clear what you were thinking, but never before today have I ever heard that particular interpretation.

Additionally, I think the only reason you took it that way was to attempt to pick a fight. Is that a correct interpretation of your remarks in this thread?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Droopy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #115
120. The original poster asked non-believers to post on this thread
Then proceeded to say that if we don't see things his/her way, then we have blinders on. That's insulting. I'm not trying to pick a fight here, but I will not stand by and not comment when somebody makes such a statement. A better statement for the original poster to make would have been, "For those of you who are still skeptical of LIHOP, consider this."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #120
124. No, you're definitely picking a fight when you take offense at a comment..
...that is used very frequently on this board with barely a ripple. In fact, you are the very first poster I've ever seen on ANY forum that has taken offence to that particular comment.

If you're that sensitive to the way other posters write, parhaps this forum is not the best place for you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Droopy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #124
133. I'm not picking a fight
You simply have blinders on regarding my point of view. You do not want to see that I have a valid point.

There, how does it feel?

The term "blinders" on this board typically refers to people who are ignorant in their ways. I've been here a year and the term is usually used to refer to those who support the Bush administration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #133
138. That phrase has been used for as long as I can remember...
Edited on Wed Mar-24-04 02:39 PM by Media_Lies_Daily
...and certainly long before the advent of the Internet. I have never seen it used before today where the recepient of the remark actually felt they had been personally insulted.

Additionally, the phrase has always been used, IMHO, as a way to ask the recepient to look at an issue in a broader way. This has been applied to any number of people since DU was begun, and certainly not just to those supporting the Bush administration. In fact, when the Democratic primaries were just getting started, the phrase was used very frequently...and toward other Democrats.

Feel free to argue your point as long as you wish, but my observations remain unchanged despite the apology you received and definitely did not deserve.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Droopy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #138
142. I've had enough of this
I know the term "blinders" did not originate here at DU, but it is usually reserved for people who are willfully ignorant. I don't know any person on this board who is willfully ignorant. And I don't recall anybody on this board referring to other board members in such a way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #142
147. Definition of the term "blinders" from Dictionary.com...
1. blinders A pair of leather flaps attached to a horse's bridle to curtail side vision. Also called blinkers.

2. Something that serves to obscure clear perception and discernment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

And are you also stating now that Sophree had no reason to apologize to you based on your latest comment? You stated the following:

"...it is usually reserved for people who are willfully ignorant. I don't know any person on this board who is willfully ignorant. And I don't recall anybody on this board referring to other board members in such a way."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leanings Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #147
153. Here's another good one:
Ock·ham's razor also Oc·cam's razor ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kmz)
n.
A rule in science and philosophy stating that entities should not be multiplied needlessly. This rule is interpreted to mean that the simplest of two or more competing theories is preferable and that an explanation for unknown phenomena should first be attempted in terms of what is already known. Also called law of parsimony.

Seems folks around here have run out of blades.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sophree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #120
125. You are right.
That would have been a better way to say it. I apologize.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #125
132. IMHO, you have posted nothing for which you should have to apologize.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Droopy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #125
136. Apology accepted
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lastknowngood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-04 08:54 PM
Response to Original message
7. be advised the protocol is automatic unless countermanded
at no time has a single plane that has lost contact with the tower been without intercept escort after 20mins. Thats the history as long as the NORAD doctrine was implemented. At no time in our history has there been a plane off course and not intercepted until 911. After more than two hours planes were still not intercepted within restricted airspace in the capital. It is either the worst failure of the national air defense or they were ordered to stand down. Why has no one asked for a detailed explanation? The only answer is that both parties Dem and repug know and have approved the cover up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
never cry wolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-04 09:00 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. Do you have any links or documentation for that?
Edited on Tue Mar-23-04 09:01 PM by steviet_2003
Not playing devil's advocate, I am pretty much fully LIHOP, but if true what you stated:

at no time has a single plane that has lost contact with the tower been without intercept escort after 20mins. Thats the history as long as the NORAD doctrine was implemented.

That is HUGE!

I'd love to have some documentation to send out to others. It is also definitely a question the 9-11 panel should be asking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-04 08:58 PM
Response to Original message
10. "There must have been a military order. There is no other logical explanat
besides incompetence????????? which this administration has surely exhibited thru out its time in office, i mean consistantly and repeatedly.

btw i am opened minded to whatever....there are questions i have to before during and after, so not argueing with you on it, just answered your question
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TomNickell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-04 09:20 PM
Response to Original message
13. ROFLMAO!
That's a good one! HEE HEE HEE!

Whew! A good horselaugh to end the day!

The Pentagon was attacked and hundreds of military people were killed, and more might have been. And that proves the military knew all about the attacks!!!!

ROFLMAO! Good one!

HEE HEE HEE.

You heard the one about the Army guys shooting themselves in the head? HEE HEE HEE HO HO HO.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TankLV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-04 09:27 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. 2 words: Payne Stuart
The ball is in your court now. Your serve.

You didn't answer the previous posters.

NEVER - we repeat - NEVER BEFORE IN OUR HISTORY HAS THERE BEEN A FAILURE TO SCRAMBLE NORAD WHEN A PLANE HAS STRAYED OFF COURSE.

NEVER.

FYI - Payne Stuart's plane strayed off course a not too long before 911 and they had mulitple jets - wingtip to wingtip - escort it almost immediately.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zero Gravitas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #15
44. not so
It was several hours before an armed fighter was trailing Stewart's plane. It is not true that armed aircraft quickly scrambled in response to the Stewart incident, IIRC the first planes to check out Stewart's jet happened to be in the area but were unarmed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbyboucher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #44
57. Several hours?
Baloney. Next time you try to refute an argument, have your facts straight.

Main Entry: several
Function: pronoun, plural in construction
: an indefinite number more than two and fewer than many <several of the guests>

How long was it? I remember listening to that fateful trip being played out live on the radio.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zero Gravitas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 01:40 PM
Response to Reply #57
106. Facts
http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2000/AAB0001.htm

Aprox. 15 minutes after they realized Stewart's pilot was not responding they directed an already airborne unarmed fighter to check out Stewart's plane.

Aprox. 1 1/2 hours after loss of contact 2 Oklahoma ANG planes were directed to intercept the plane and they reached it aprox. 15 minutes later.

Finally 2 ND ANG planes intercepted it over 2 hours after loss of contact.

As I recall only the NDANG planes were armed, the others being training flights that were in the general area of Stewart's jet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TankLV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 11:11 PM
Response to Reply #44
223. Nothing in my statement was in error.
Thanx for the links confirming it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbyboucher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #13
37. "The plane is 50 miles out", "The plane is 30 miles out".
"The plane is 10 miles out, does the order still stand??????"

You're reply is typically childish. "Typical of who" you ask?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Indiana Democrat Donating Member (718 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #37
113. You're making all kinds of friends on this thread, aren't you?
Give it up, dude...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #113
137. To be honest, there are a lot less posters in this thread claiming...
...that conspiracies don't exist. Maybe the reverse is true...maybe you should give it up.

Dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solomon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #13
46. Are you forgetting that the air defenses were undergoing an
anti-terrorism attack drill not only the SAME DAY as the terrorist attack, but during the SAME TIME it was happening. How did that happen?

Here's what happened. They knew about the hijackings, but some were told that the hijackings would be "traditional". With the patsies who were set up, only carrying boxcutters, it would be a simple thing to storm the planes at minimal loss of life. Big heroes. We need the Patriot Act, we gotta invade, etc.

To help facilitate this "traditional hijacking", the government staged a drill, so they could deny a stand down order or explain a stand down order. They did this in my opinion, because they didn't want any lone heroes fucking up the plot once the hijackings were under way.

Unfortunately, somebody took advantage of the small window to run those planes into buildings instead of flying around landing somewhere.

Also unfortunately, this means one of two things: either there's a mole high up in our defense department, or, somebody on the inside tipped off the "perpetrators" that the air defenses would be down.

Someone else mentioned that this is the reason Barbara Olson was on one of the planes. They were supposed to be traditional hijackings. What a great story she would have penned for the heroic and successful takedown of the "terrorists".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hang a left Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #46
89. I always wondered why she was allowed to get on that plane
"Someone else mentioned that this is the reason Barbara Olson was on one of the planes. They were supposed to be traditional hijackings. What a great story she would have penned for the heroic and successful takedown of the "terrorists"."


That is an interesting theory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sir_captain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #89
98. The poor woman died
Can't we leave her alone?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hang a left Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #98
108. She was a bitch for one thing.
Maybe her husband asked if he could get her a seat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #98
128. "Poor woman"? She was a NeoCon attack dog. She said things about...
...people on the air that I would never in a million years say to anyone at all.

She created her reputation, and unfortunately for her, it has become her legacy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sir_captain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #128
134. Look, I'm not debating her personally
but she had the horrible misfortune of being on a hijacked plane that then crashed. I just feel that one ought to show a little respect for the dead, but maybe that's just me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #134
148. If she had shown even one iota of respect for any of the Democrats on...
Edited on Wed Mar-24-04 03:38 PM by Media_Lies_Daily
...whom she pounded on a daily basis, I might tend to agree.

Should I also "show a little respect" for Hitler and Stalin since they are also dead?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sir_captain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #148
154. Oh come on
She may have been an attack dog who we all disagree with, but to compare her to Hitler and Stalin only serves to make you look ridiculous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sophree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #13
101. It's not what I would call a funny situation.
And you're mischaracterizing what I'm saying, while conveniently ignoring the facts.

It's the time that ellapsed that is suspect.

(All info from unansweredquestions.org) Flight 77 that crashed into the Pentagon is my prime concern. A case could be made that the military was caught off guard and just could not scramble jets in time to intercept Flights 11 and 175. Flight 77, however, crashes into the Pentagon

8:13 am Flight 11 (WTC1) hijacked.

NORAD is alerted of the hijacking at either 8:31 or 8:40 am.

8:43 NORAD is alerted that flight 175 (WTC2)

8:46 Flight 11 slams into WTC1

Flight 77 goes off coarse, also at 8:46 am.

8:56 Flight 77 turns off its transponder and is never heard from again

9:03 am Flight 175 hits 2nd Trade Center Tower.

http://www.unansweredquestions.org/timeline/main/flight77.html

"9:24 a.m. The FAA notifies NORAD that Flight 77 "may" have been hijacked and appears to be headed toward Washington. <9:24, NORAD, 9/18/01, 9:24, AP, 8/19/02, 9:25, CNN, 9/17/01, 9:25, Washington Post, 9/12/01, 9:25, Guardian, 10/17/01> This notification is 34 MINUTES after flight control lost contact with the plane and well after two planes have crashed, and even then the FAA only says "may"? Is such a long delay believable, or has that information been doctored to cover the lack of any scrambling of fighters? CNN notes that "after the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) warned the military's air defense command that a hijacked airliner appeared to be headed toward Washington, the federal government failed to make any move to evacuate the White House, Capitol, State Department or the Pentagon." A Pentagon spokesman says, "The Pentagon was simply not aware that this aircraft was coming our way." Even Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and his top aides in the Pentagon remain unaware of any danger up to the moment of impact 14 minutes later. Most senators and congresspeople are in the Capitol building, which is not evacuated until 9:48 (see 9:48 a.m.). Only Vice President Cheney, National Security Advisor Rice and possibly a few others, are evacuated to safety a few minutes after 9:03 (see (After 9:03 a.m.)). Yet, since at least the Flight 11 crash, "military officials in a command center on the east side of the urgently talking to law enforcement and air traffic control officials about what to do." Is it believable that everyone in the Pentagon outside of that command center, even the Secretary of Defense, would remain uninformed?"

9:33-9:38 am- Flight 77 crosses the Pentagon airspace at about 7000 feet, comes within a few miles of the White House, makes a turn and heads back toward the Pentagon.

9:38 Flight 77 crashes into the Pentagon with no fighters/interceptors in sight.

"9:38 a.m. NORAD states the fighters scrambled after Flight 77 took off from Langley at 9:30, 129 miles away, yet when Flight 77 crashes they are still 105 miles away. If so, that means they must have flown north 24 miles in 8 minutes - an average of about 180 mph!"

There are MANY suspect times provided by NORAD throughout its account.

Even if fighters really were scrambled to protect Washington, DC at 9:30, that is still 44 minutes after the 2nd Trade Tower is hit and 44 minutes after Flight 77 shows its first signs of having been hijacked. It is an hour and 15 minutes after the first plane (Flight 11) was hijacked.

There are 52 minutes between the time of the 2nd Trade Tower being hit and the Pentagon being struck.

A $400 billion/year military that cannot protect its own headquarters from an air attack with AT LEAST (I'd wager its longer) a 52 minute warning? This defies all common sense. If my skepticism of the "Incompetance Theory" makes me a loony conspiracy theorist, so be it. I call bullshit.







Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gasperc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-04 09:35 PM
Response to Original message
16. why wasn't an evacuation ordered?
radar was tracking them for almost two hours, it was well known that an airliner was heading for DC, even if the evacuation was given just minutes before final impact, many many lives could have been saved. Yet people died working at their desks, no alarms, warnings, nothing. Did they beleive the building was truly invincible? And I'm not talking about shooting down the plane, simply a guy, somewhere, looking at a radar screen and saying hey an airplane is headed straight for DC, Issue a civil alert, something?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sterling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #16
34. What about SAM or other AA missles
They do have those around DC. Why were none of them used. No plane needed turn a wheel. This goes deeper than most want to admit?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leanings Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #34
123. They do now
didn't then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sterling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 07:26 PM
Response to Reply #123
168. Yes they in fact did.
Remember the WH was hit by a plane when Clinton was in office.It was reported then that we have those systems in place and the plane that got through only made it because it was small and "under the radar". That was a mistake they were embarassed about then.

I don't think that what happened on 9-11 qualifies as a small plane flying low under the radar. They had plenty of time to use the systems they have admitted are in place.John Judge has stated that they have had that capability since the 60's.

Why wouldn't they?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leanings Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 07:56 PM
Response to Reply #168
174. Stingers.
Not emplaced SAMS, like a Patriot or Hawk battery, something you could use to take a passenger jet from a considerable distance. They just ain't there. This isn't a movie where a battery of surface to air missiles pop out of the White House lawn. If those systems were in place, why were Avengers brought out after 9/11 and parked around the Pentagon? Where are these phantom "systems"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sterling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 08:46 PM
Response to Reply #174
194. So stingers at least.
They would have done the job but we do have systems with greater range that do not have to be on the lawn of the WH. I am sure you know this.


John Judge has stated many times that he has seen such equipment on the grounds of the Pentagon as early as the 1960's.

Why would we leave DC undefended for over an hour? Impossible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leanings Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 08:55 PM
Response to Reply #194
199. They wouldn't have done the job.
And I spent two years working in security in the DC area AFTER I got out of the military and didn't see anything of the sort. You don't have to believe that and I don't care if you do, but for don't wink wink nudge nudge me here; at least make some kind of reasonable guess as to the who what when where and why of these phantom SAMs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TankLV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 11:28 PM
Response to Reply #123
227. I believe paraniod ronnie ray-gun had them installed during his occupation
Anyway, they have been there for a long time. Trained shooters, and anti-aircraft shit on top of OUR White House for awhile now. Think I read it in Newsweek years ago - when I was a news junkie without the benifit of computers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leanings Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-25-04 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #227
235. How many buildings are there in DC
where you can see the top of the White House. I can think of at least two that I've been up on. I sure didn't see any AA up there. Has anyone else? Don't you think if it were there, a pic or two might be available? Do you have any news sources to site?

I don't doubt that MANPADS might be out there, available when needed. But there's zippo evidence of permanent emplacements that I can find.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shanti Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-04 09:55 PM
Response to Original message
18. sophree
that is the FIRST thing that came to my mind when i saw the 9/11 images. i couldn't BELIEVE that a country as strong as ours would allow ANY of it to happen. i was dumbfounded. it's nice to know that i wasn't the only one with these thoughts.

it made me a believer in LIHOP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Aquarian_Conspirator Donating Member (148 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 10:42 PM
Response to Reply #18
222. To be honest...
I suspected it from the moment I heard. I initial fear was less, "what will the terrorists do next!", and much more, "what will *Bush* do next!". Sure enough, we got an endless war, both abroad and at home.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Indiana Democrat Donating Member (718 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-04 09:58 PM
Response to Original message
20. Prove to me there is no Santa Claus.
That's a question for all DUhers who still have blinders on about Santa...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selwynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-04 10:25 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. DING DING DING DING DING!
We have a winner.

Show me some positive evidence, not negative conjecture (ie. why WASN'T this done, why DIDN'T this happen, etc.) and I'll get more interested...

For the record, I personally hold a very weak LIHOP, and since we all like acronyms here I call it WLIHOP. That is to say I believe the administration really didn't care to make domestic security from terriorism a top priority because a new perl harbor wouldn't be "bad" for the nation in their minds.

Incompetance isn't the correct word - people feel like your saying the government was just too stupid to handle the threat. The correct term is "depraved indifference."

And that's what I believe. The Bush Administration showed willful and depraved indifference towards the entire situation. Becuase I believe this much, I am not - and contray to what a lot of people think - never have ruled out a more active conspiracy of direct covernment involvement to "let it happen." I am not ruling it out. I just don't think there is enough to say it is conclusively obvious that this is true.

But the depraved indifference part (which again, it certainly different from "incompetance") I believe is fairly demonstratable. Note the actual evidence being shown to the public people people like Oneil and Clark.

Sel
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sterling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #22
36. Funny
You seem to understand that Bush and his gang are "evil" enough to let US citizens die to further their agenda but yet don't see why they would want a little more control over the "event"? 9-11 happened at the perfect time to impliment the PNAC agenda. The PNAC agenda is a long term do or die plan. You don't see the connection?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sangh0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #22
55. Show you some positive evidence??
No problem! Show me the full investigation of what happened on 9/11, and I'll show you the evidence
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Indiana Democrat Donating Member (718 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #55
79. LOL!
No amount of evidence will convince those who believe in conspiracies. It never does.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #79
94. No amount of evidence will ever convince those who don't believe...
...in conspiracies. It never does.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Aquarian_Conspirator Donating Member (148 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 07:55 PM
Response to Reply #94
173. Yes, isn't it funny...
how easily all of the coincidence theorists arguments can be thrown right back in their faces because they are operating under the assumption that they are already proved right? They can not see the forest, for the trees.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Aquarian_Conspirator Donating Member (148 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 07:59 PM
Response to Reply #22
176. Positive evidence? Oh, I'll show you positive evidence!
How's this for starters?

1. 1991-1997 - Major U.S. oil companies including ExxonMobil, Texaco, Unocal, BP Amoco, Shell and Enron directly invest billions in cash bribing heads of state in Kazakhstan to secure equity rights in the huge oil reserves in these regions. The oil companies further commit to future direct investments in Kazakhstan of $35 billion. Not being willing to pay exorbitant prices to Russia to use Russian pipelines, the major oil companies have no way to recoup their investments.

2. January 1995 - Philippine police investigating a possible attack on the Pope uncover plans for Operation Bojinka, connected to World Trade Center (WTC) bomber Ramsi Youssef. Parts of the plan call for crashing hijacked airliners into civilian targets. Details of the plan are disclosed in Youssef's 1997 trial for the 1993 WTC bombing.

3. Dec. 4, 1997 - Representatives of the Taliban are invited guests to the Texas headquarters of Unocal to negotiate their support for the pipeline. Subsequent reports will indicate that the negotiations failed, allegedly because the Taliban wanted too much money.

4. Feb. 12, 1998 - Unocal Vice President John J. Maresca -- later to become a special ambassador to Afghanistan -- testifies before the House that until a single, unified, friendly government is in place in Afghanistan, the trans-Afghani pipeline needed to monetize the oil will not be built. http://www.house.gov/international_relations/105th/ap/wsap212982.htm>

5. August 1998 - After the U.S. cruise missile attacks on Al Qaeda targets in Afghanistan in retaliation for the African embassy bombings, Unocal officially withdraws from participation in the CentGas trans-Afghani gas pipeline project.

6. 1998 - The CIA ignores warnings from Case Officer Robert Baer that Saudi Arabia was harboring an Al Qaeda cell led by two known terrorists. A more detailed list of known terrorists is offered to Saudi intelligence in August 2001 and refused.

7. April 1999 - Enron with a $3 billion investment to build an electrical generating plant at Dabhol, India loses access to plentiful LNG supplies from Qatar to fuel the plant. Its only remaining option to make the investment profitable is a trans-Afghani gas pipeline to be built by Unocal from Turkmenistan that would terminate near the Indian border at the city of Multan.

8. July 4, 1999 - President Clinton signs Executive Order 13129, which freezes Taliban assets in the U.S. and prohibits trade between the Afghan fundamentalist regime and U.S. entities.

9. 1998 and 2000 - Former President George H.W. Bush travels to Saudi Arabia on behalf of the privately owned Carlyle Group, the 11th largest defense contractor in the U.S. While there he meets privately with the Saudi royal family and the bin Laden family. http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/carlyle.html]

10. March 2000 - An FBI agent, reportedly angry over a glitch in Carnivore that has somehow mixed innocent non-targeted emails with those belonging to Al Qaeda, destroys all of the FBI's Denver-based intercepts of bin Laden's colleagues in a terrorist investigation.

11. 2000 (est.) - The FBI refuses to disclose the date of an internal memo stating that a Middle Eastern nation had been trying to purchase a flight simulator.

12. August 2000 -- Suspected Al Qaeda operatives wiretapped by Italian police made apparent references to plans for major attacks involving airports, airplanes and the United States according to transcripts obtained by the Los Angeles Times. The Times suggests that the information might not have been passed to U.S. authorities (hard to believe), but it did report that Italian authorities would not comment on the report. The Times also noted that "Italian and U.S. anti-terrorism experts cooperate closely."

13. Oct. 24-26, 2000 - Pentagon officials carry out a "detailed" emergency drill based upon the crashing of a hijacked airliner into the Pentagon.

14. January 2001 - The Bush Administration orders the FBI and intelligence agencies to "back off" investigations involving the bin Laden family, including two of Osama bin Laden's relatives (Abdullah and Omar) who were living in Falls Church, Va. -- right next to CIA headquarters. This followed previous orders dating back to 1996 that frustrated efforts to investigate the bin Laden family.

15. Jan. 30, 2001 - Sept. 11 hijacker Ziad Jarrah was questioned in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). A number of UAE, Middle Eastern, European, and U.S. sources were cited in this CNN report, which said the CIA requested Jarrah be interrogated because he had been in Afghanistan and was suspected to have ties to terrorists. An unnamed CIA spokesman said the other sources' claims that the agency knew anything about Jarrah before Sept. 11 were "flatly untrue." Jarrah's Jan. 30 detainment at the airport in Dubai, UAE came six months after he took flying lessons in the U.S. Jarrah was released because "U.S. officials were satisfied," said the report. http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/08/01/cia.hijacker/index.html>

16. Feb. 13, 2001 - UPI terrorism correspondent Richard Sale -- while covering a trial of bin Laden's Al Qaeda followers -- reports that the National Security Agency has broken bin Laden's encrypted communications. Even if this indicates that bin Laden changed systems in February, it does not mesh with the fact that the government insists that the attacks had been planned for years.

17. May 2001 - Secretary of State Colin Powell gives $43 million in aid to the Taliban regime, purportedly to assist hungry farmers who are starving since the destruction of their opium crop in January on orders of the Taliban regime.

18. May 2001 - Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, a career covert operative and former Navy Seal, travels to India on a publicized tour, while CIA Director George Tenet makes a quiet visit to Pakistan to meet with Pakistani leader Gen. Pervez Musharraf. Armitage has long and deep Pakistani intelligence connections. It would be reasonable to assume that while in Islamabad, Tenet, in what was described as "an unusually long meeting," also met with his Pakistani counterpart, Lt. Gen. Mahmud Ahmad, head of the ISI.

19. June 2001 - German intelligence, the BND, warns the CIA and Israel that Middle Eastern terrorists are "planning to hijack commercial aircraft to use as weapons to attack important symbols of American and Israeli culture." http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/f_a_zeitung_story.html]

20. June 8, 2001 - Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) publishes a story headlined, "Central Asia: Charges Link Russian Military to Drug Trade." According to the article, figures for 1999 published in a report by the United Nations Drug Control Program (UNDCP) revealed that 80 percent of the heroin consumed in Western Europe originated in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The UNDCP report also revealed half of the drugs in that 80 percent traveled through Central Asia. A study by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace published in March 2000 said Russian soldiers headquartered in Tajikistan were suspected of helping drug traffickers by providing them with transportation facilities. This was confirmed by a Russian intelligence officer who told the Moscow News weekly, "You can come to an arrangement so that the search of military transport planes remains purely formal. The same goes for train convoys carrying military cargo ."

21. July 2001 - FBI agents in Arizona write a memorandum warning about suspicious activities involving a group of Middle Eastern men taking flight training lessons in Phoenix. The memorandum specifically mentions Osama bin Laden and warns of connections to terrorist activities.

22. summer 2001 - The National Security Council convenes a Dabhol working group as revealed in a series of government e-mails obtained by the Washington Post and the New York Daily News.

23. summer 2001 - According to a Sept. 26 story in Britain's The Guardian, correspondent David Leigh reported that "U.S. department of defense official, Dr. Jeffrey Starr, visited Tajikistan in January. The Guardian's Felicity Lawrence established that U.S. Rangers were also training special troops in Kyrgyzstan. There were unconfirmed reports that Tajik and Uzbek special troops were training in Alaska and Montana."

24. summer 2001 (est.) - Pakistani ISI Chief Gen. Ahmad (see above) orders an aide to wire transfer $100,000 to Mohammed Atta who was, according to the FBI, the lead terrorist in the suicide hijackings. Ahmad recently resigned after the transfer was disclosed in India and confirmed by the FBI. The individual who makes the wire transfer at Ahmad's direction is Ahmad Umar Sheik, the lead suspect in the kidnapping and murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl.

25. summer 2001 - The online newswire online.ie reports on Sept. 14 that an Iranian man phones U.S. law enforcement to warn of an imminent attack on the WTC in the week of Sept. 9. German police confirm the calls but state that the U.S. Secret Service would not reveal any further information. http://www.online.ie/news/viewer.adp?article=1512332.
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/online_ie_story.html ]

26. summer 2001 - Jordanian intelligence, the GID, makes a communications intercept deemed so important that King Abdullah's men relay it to Washington, probably through the CIA station in Amman. To make doubly sure the message got through it was passed through an Arab intermediary to a German intelligence agent. The message: A major attack was planned inside the U.S., and aircraft would be used. The code name of the operation was "The Big Wedding." "When it became clear that the information was embarrassing to Bush Administration officials and congressmen who at first denied that there had been any such warnings before Sept. 11, senior Jordanian officials backed away from their earlier confirmations." This case was authenticated by ABC reporter John K. Cooley.

27. summer 2001 (est.) - The National Security Agency intercepts telephone conversations between bin Laden aide Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Mohammed Atta and does not share the information with any other agencies.

28. June 26, 2001 - The magazine indiareacts.com states that "India and Iran will 'facilitate' U.S. and Russian plans for 'limited military action' against the Taliban." The story indicates that the fighting will be done by U.S. and Russian troops with the help of Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.

29. summer 2001 - Russian intelligence notifies the CIA that 25 terrorist pilots have been specifically training for missions involving hijacked airliners. This is reported in the Russian press and news stories are translated for FTW by a retired CIA officer. (Note: The story currently on the Izvestia web site has been edited to delete a key paragraph.) http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/izvestia_story_pic.html]


30. July 4-14, 2001 - Osama bin Laden receives treatment for kidney disease at the American hospital in Dubai and meets with a CIA official, who returns to CIA headquarters on July 15.
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/Le Figaro_osama_dubai.html

31. July 15, 2001 - Members of the G8, meeting in Genoa, Italy, discuss the Taliban, pipelines, and the handing over of Osama bin Laden. According to Pakistani representative Ambassador Naiz Naik, the U.S. delegation, led by former Clinton Ambassador to Pakistan Tom Simmons warned of a "military option" if the Taliban did not change position.

32. July 2001 - Immediately after the G8 Summit three American officials -- Tom Simmons (former U.S. ambassador to Pakistan), Karl Inderfurth (former assistant secretary of state for South Asian affairs) and Lee Coldren (former State Department expert on South Asia) -- meet with Pakistani and Russian intelligence officers in Berlin and tell them that the U.S. is planning military strikes against Afghanistan in October. A French book released in November, "Bin Laden - La Verite Interdite," discloses that Taliban representatives often sat in on the meetings. British papers confirm that the Pakistani ISI relayed the threats to the Taliban.

33. July 2001 - The G8 summit at Genoa, Italy is surrounded by anti-aircraft guns, and local airspace is closed off after Italian and Egyptian officials (including President Hosni Mubarak) warn American intelligence that airliners stuffed with explosives might be used to attack President Bush. U.S. officials state that the warnings were "unsubstantiated." (But I wonder if they would have taken away the anti-aircraft artillery?)

34. July 26, 2001 - CBS News reports that John Ashcroft has stopped flying commercial airlines due a threat assessment. Ashcroft told the press that he didn't know anything about what had caused it.

35. Aug. 2, 2001 - U.S. ambassador to Pakistan, Christine Rocca (a former CIA officer), meets in Islamabad with a Taliban ambassador and demands the extradition of bin Laden. This was the last known meeting on the subject.

36. August 2001 - The FBI arrests an Islamic militant linked to bin Laden in Boston. French intelligence sources confirm that the man is a key member of bin Laden's network and the FBI learns that he has been taking flying lessons. At the time of his arrest the man is in possession of technical information on Boeing aircraft and flight manuals.

37. Aug. 11 or 12, 2001 ‚ U.S. Navy Lt. Delmart "Mike" Vreeland, jailed in Toronto on U.S. fraud charges and claiming to be an officer with U.S. naval intelligence, writes details of the pending WTC attacks and seals them in an envelope, which he gives to Canadian authorities.

38. August 2001 - As reported in the IHT both a French magazine (name not given) and a Moroccan newspaper simultaneously report that a Moroccan agent named Hassan Dabou had penetrated Al Qaeda to the point of getting close to bin Laden, who was "very disappointed" that the 1993 bombing had not toppled the WTC. Dabou was called to the U.S. after reporting this, which curtailed his ability to stay in touch with the organization and gather additional intelligence that might have prevented the attacks. Though not proved beyond a doubt, these stories have been met with a wall of silence.

39. August 2001 - Russian President Vladimir Putin orders Russian intelligence to warn the U.S. government "in the strongest possible terms" of imminent attacks on airports and government buildings.

40. August 2001 - President Bush receives classified intelligence briefings at his Crawford, Texas ranch indicating that Osama bin Laden might be planning to hijack commercial airliners.

41. late-August 2001 - Prince Turki, the pro-U.S. head of Saudi intelligence (also known to be close to bin Laden), is replaced by his more neutral half-brother, Prince Nawwaf who is an ally of Crown Prince Abdullah. http://www.saudinf.com/ - Thanks to Prof. Peter Dale Scott>

42. August/September 2001 - The Dow Jones Industrial Average drops nearly 900 points in the three weeks prior to the attack. A major stock market crash is imminent.

43. August/September 2001 - According to a detailed 13-page memo written by Minneapolis FBI legal officer Colleen Rowley, FBI headquarters ignores urgent, direct warnings from French intelligence services about pending attacks. In addition, a single Supervisory Special Agent (SSA) in Washington expends extra effort to thwart the field office's investigation of Zacarias Moussaoui, in one case rewriting Rowley's affidavit for a search warrant to search Moussaoui's laptop. Rowley's memo uses terms like "deliberately sabotage," "block," "integrity," "omitted," "downplayed," "glossed over," "mis-characterize," "improper political reasons, "deliberately thwarting," "deliberately further undercut," "suppressed," and "not completely honest." These are not terms describing negligent acts but rather, deliberate acts. FBI field agents desperately attempt to get action, but to no avail. One agent speculates that bin Laden might be planning to crash airliners into the WTC, while Rowley ironically noted that the SSA who had committed these deliberate actions had actually been promoted after Sept. 11.

44. Sept. 3-10, 2001 - MSNBC reports on Sept. 16 that a caller to a Cayman Islands radio talk show gave several warnings of an imminent attack on the U.S. by bin Laden in the week prior to 9-11.

45. early-September 2001 - An FBI internal document, based upon field notes from Minnesota field agents discloses that the agents had been investigating and had questioned the "20th hijacker," Zacarias Moussaoui. The field notes speculate that Moussaoui, who had been taking flight lessons, might crash an airliner into the WTC. Interestingly, the field agents' requests to obtain a search warrant for his personal computer were denied. French intelligence confirms to the FBI that Moussaoui has ties to terrorist groups and may have traveled to Afghanistan. The agents also had no knowledge of the Phoenix memo (See Item #18). One news story states that agents were in "a frenzy," absolutely convinced that he was "going to do something with a plane." .

46. Sept. 1-10 2001 - In an exercise, called Operation "Swift Sword" and planned for four years, 23,000 British troops are steaming toward Oman. Although the 9-11 attacks caused a hiccup in the deployment, the massive operation was implemented as planned. At the same time two U.S. carrier battle groups arrive on station in the Gulf of Arabia just off the Pakistani coast. Also at the same time, some 17,000 U.S. troops join more than 23,000 NATO troops in Egypt for Operation "Bright Star." All of these forces are in place before the first plane hits the WTC.

47. Sept. 4-5, 2001 - A freshman at Brooklyn's New Utrecht High School who had recently emigrated from Pakistan reportedly predicts the destruction of the World Trade Center a week prior to the 9-11 attacks, according to the JournalNews newspaper in White Plains, N.Y. Citing "three police sources and a city official familiar with the investigation" as well as confirmation from the FBI that the bureau had received this information, the paper reported that in the midst of a heated class discussion the student pointed to the World Trade Center from a third story window and said, "Do you see those two buildings? They won't be standing there next week." New York City Board of Education spokeswoman Catie Marshall confirmed for the JournalNews "that school officials reported the matter to police within minutes of the Sept. 11 attack" and students told the paper that "FBI agents and NYPD detectives descended on the school on Sept. 13 to interrogate the student and others in his class," which was "an English class for Arab-American students." http://www.thejournalnews.com/newsroom/101101/11warumors.html>

48. Sept. 5, 2001 - "Five hundred websites -- many of them with an Arab or Muslim connection -- crash when an anti-terrorism taskforce raids InfoCom Corp. in Texas," reported Britain's the Guardian on Sept. 10, 2001. A taskforce of approximately 80 federal agents and officials from the FBI, Secret Service, INS, Customs, Bureau of Diplomatic Security, IRS, and Commerce Department occupied InfoCom's office building in the Dallas suburb of Richardson, Texas for four days, "copying every hard disc they could find." InfoCom hosts many websites for Middle Eastern clients and is located across the street from the Holy Land Foundation, a charitable organization which has been alleged to have connections with terrorist groups. InfoCom's vice president of marketing, Ghassan Elashi, is also the chairman of the Holy Land Foundation. http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,549590,00.html>

49. Sept. 7, 2001 - Florida Governor Jeb Bush signs a two-year emergency executive order (01-261) making new provisions for the Florida National Guard to assist law enforcement and emergency-management personnel in the event of large civil disturbances, disaster or acts of terrorism.

50. Sept. 6-7, 2001 - Put options (a speculation that the stock will go down) totaling 4,744 are purchased on United Air Lines stock, as opposed to only 396 call options (speculation that the stock will go up). This is a dramatic and abnormal increase in sales of put options. Many of the United puts are purchased through Deutschebank/A.B. Brown, a firm managed until 1998 by the current executive director of the CIA, A.B. "Buzzy" Krongard. http://www.ict.org.il/, Sept. 21, 2001 (Note:The ICT article on possible terrorist insider trading appeared eight days *after* the 9/11 attacks.); The New York Times; The Wall Street Journal; The San Francisco Chronicle, Sept. 29, 2001>

51. Sept. 10, 2001 - Put options totaling 4,516 are purchased on American Airlines as compared to 748 call options.

52. Sept. 6-11, 2001 - No other airlines show any similar trading patterns to those experienced by United and American. The put option purchases on both airlines were 600 percent above normal. This at a time when Reuters (Sept. 10) issues a business report stating, "Airline stocks may be poised to take off."

53. Sept. 6-10, 2001 - Highly abnormal levels of put options are purchased in Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, AXA Re(insurance) which owns 25 percent of American Airlines, and Munich Re. All of these companies are directly impacted by the Sept. 11 attacks. FTW, Oct. 18, 2001, http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/oct152001.html]

54. 2001-2002 - It has been documented that the CIA, the Israeli Mossad, and many other intelligence agencies monitor stock trading in real time using highly advanced programs reported to be descended from Promis software. This is to alert national intelligence services of just such kinds of attacks. Promis was reported as recently as June 2001 to be in Osama bin Laden's possession and, as a result of recent stories by Fox, both the FBI and the Justice Department have confirmed its use for U.S. intelligence gathering through at least summer 2002. This would confirm that CIA had additional advance warning of imminent attacks. FTW, Oct. 26, 2001, - http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/11_19_01_magic_carpet.html
FTW, Vol. IV, No. 6, Sept. 18, 2001 - http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/sept1801.html;
FTW, Vol. III, No. 7, Sept. 30, 2000 - http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/pandora/052401_promis.html]

55. Sept. 9, 2001 - President George W. Bush is presented with detailed war plans to overthrow Al Qaeda, according to U.S. and foreign sources speaking to NBC News.

56. Sept. 10, 2001 - This item has been removed solely at the request of the party previously named in this entry. Recent court proceedings – which occurred after the news story we had cited - have indicated that there was no connection between the story listed here, the person named therein and the attacks of 9-11-01. At the request of the previously named party, FTW has replaced the $1,000 reward with a $1,000 donation to The Childrens Defense Fund on behalf of the named party and the issue is now amicably resolved without any hard feelings between that party and FTW.

57. Sept. 10, 2001 - According to Newsweek, a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly cancelled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns.

58. Sept. 10, 2001 - The Houston Chronicle reports the FBI was notified of a fifth grader from a Dallas suburb who told his teacher, "Tomorrow, World War III will begin. It will begin in the United States, and the United States will lose." The Chronicle was unclear on specifically when Garland, Texas school district officials told the FBI about the incident, but it was some time between Sept. 13, 2001 and the story's publication date of Sept. 19, 2001. http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/metropolitan/1055222>

59. Sept. 10, 2001 - San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown receives a call from what he described as "his security people at the airport" eight hours before the terrorist attacks "advising him that Americans should be cautious about their air travel," as reported by the San Francisco Chronicle. Brown was scheduled to fly to New York from San Francisco International Airport. He told the Chronicle the call "didn't come in any alarming fashion, which is why I'm hesitant to make any alarming statement." http://www.sfgate.com/today/0912_chron_mnreport.shtml>

60. Sept. 11, 2001 - The National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), the federal agency that runs many of the nation's spy satellites, schedules an exercise involving a plane crashing into one of the agency's buildings. "On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001," according to a website advertising a homeland security conference in Chicago run by the National Law Enforcement and Security Institute, CIA official John Fulton and his team "were running a pre-planned simulation to explore the emergency response issues that would be created if a plane were to strike a building. Little did they know that the scenario would come true in a dramatic way." Fulton is the head of the NRO's strategic gaming division. http://www.nlsi.net, http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20020821/ap_wo_en_ge/us_sept_11_plane_exercise_1>

61. Sept. 11, 2001 - After the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon occur, National Public Radio's congressional correspondent David Welna reports, "I spoke with congressman Ike Skelton, a Democrat from Missouri and a member of the Armed Services Committee, who said that just recently the director of the CIA warned that there could be an attack -- an imminent attack - on the United States of this nature. So this is not entirely unexpected." http://www.thememoryhole.org/updates.htm>

62. Sept. 11, 2001 - United Air Lines flight 23, scheduled to fly from New York City to Los Angeles was delayed after four Muslim passengers began demanding that the plane take off immediately. This happened apparently after the first plane had hit the WTC. The passengers were thrown off the flight.

63. Sept. 11, 2001 - Gen. Mahmud of the ISI (see #16), friend of Mohammed Atta, is visiting Washington on behalf of the Taliban. He is meeting with the Chairmen of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, Rep. Porter Goss, R-Fla., and Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla.,

64. Sept. 11, 2001 - Employees of Odigo, Inc. in Israel, one of the world's largest instant messaging companies with offices in New York, receive threat warnings of an imminent attack on the WTC less than two hours before the first plane hits. Law enforcement authorities have gone silent about any investigation of this. The Odigo research and development offices in Israel are located in the city of Herzliyya, a ritzy suburb of Tel Aviv that is the same location as the Institute for Counter Terrorism, which eight days later reports details of insider trading on 9-11.

65. Sept. 11, 2001 - For 50 minutes, from 8:15 AM until 9:05 AM, with it widely known within the FAA and the military that four planes have been simultaneously hijacked and taken off course, no one notifies the President of the United States. It is not until 9:30 that any Air Force planes are scrambled to intercept, but by then it is too late. This means that the National Command Authority waited for 75 minutes before scrambling aircraft, even though it was known that four simultaneous hijackings had occurred.

66. Sept. 11-12, 2001 - Nearly a month before the first reported outbreak, White House officials start taking the powerful antibiotic Cipro to treat anthrax. By the end of the year it will be known that the Ames strain of anthrax used in the attacks against Sens. Leahy and Daschle was produced by CIA programs coordinated through Fort Detrick, the Batelle Memorial Institute and the Dugway Proving Ground.

67. Sept. 13, 2001 - China is admitted to the World Trade Organization quickly, after years of unsuccessful attempts.

68. Sept. 14, 2001 - Canadian jailers open the sealed envelope from Mike Vreeland in Toronto and see that is describes attacks against the WTC and Pentagon. The U.S. Navy subsequently states that Vreeland was discharged as a seaman in 1986 for unsatisfactory performance and has never worked in intelligence.

69. Sept. 15, 2001 - The New York Times reports that Mayo Shattuck III has resigned, effective immediately, as head of the Alex Brown (A.B.) unit of Deutschebank.

70. Sept. 29, 2001 - The San Francisco Chronicle reports that $2.5 million in put options on American and United airlines are unclaimed. This is likely the result of the suspension in trading on the New York Stock Exchange after the attacks, which gave the Securities and Exchange Commission time to be waiting when the owners showed up to redeem their put options.

71. Oct. 10, 2001 - The Pakistani newspaper The Frontier Post reports that U.S. Ambassador Wendy Chamberlain has paid a call on the Pakistani oil minister. A previously abandoned Unocal gas pipeline project from Turkmenistan, across Afghanistan, to Pakistan is now back on the table "in view of recent geopolitical developments."

72. Oct. 11, 2001 - The Ashcroft Justice Department takes over all terrorist prosecutions from the U.S. Attorneys office in New York, which has had a highly successful track record in prosecuting terrorist cases connected to Osama bin Laden.

73. mid-October 2001 - The Dow Jones Industrial Average, after having suffered a precipitous drop has recovered most of its pre-attack losses. Although still weak and vulnerable to negative earnings reports, a crash has been averted by a massive infusion of government spending on defense programs, subsidies for "affected" industries and planned tax cuts for corporations.

74. Oct. 29, 2001 - The Bush Administration drafts "an executive order that would usher in a new era of secrecy for presidential records and allow an incumbent president to withhold a former president's papers even if the former president wanted to make them public," wrote the Washington Post. The order also required members of the public to prove "at least a demonstrated, specific need'" for a president's papers to be released. Critics contend this would overturn the 1978 Presidential Records Act, which releases documents after 12 years. The White House maintained that a Supreme Court decision in 1977 allows presidents various privileges for their records. http://washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A20731-2001Oct31?language=printer>

75. Nov. 21, 2001 - The British paper The Independent runs a story headlined, "Opium Farmers Rejoice at the Defeat of the Taliban." The story reports that massive opium planting is underway all over the country.

76. Nov. 25, 2001 - The Observer runs a story headlined "Victorious Warlords Set To Open the Opium Floodgates." It states that farmers are being encouraged by warlords allied with the victorious Americans are "being encouraged to plant as much opium as possible."

77. Dec. 4, 2001 - Convicted drug lord and opium kingpin Ayub Afridi is recruited by the U.S. government to help establish control in Afghanistan by unifying various Pashtun warlords. The former opium smuggler who was one of the CIA's leading assets in the war against the Russians is released from prison in order to do this.

78. Dec. 25, 2001 - Newly appointed Afghani Prime Minister Hamid Karzai is revealed as being a former paid consultant for Unocal.

79. Jan. 3, 2002 - President Bush appoints Zalmy Khalilzad as a special envoy to Afghanistan. Khalilzad, a former employee of Unocal, also wrote op-eds in the Washington Post in 1997 supporting the Taliban regime.

80. Jan. 4, 2002 - Florida drug trafficking explodes after 9-11. In a surge of trafficking reminiscent of the 1980s the diversion of resources away from drug enforcement has opened the floodgates for a new surge of cocaine and heroin from South America.

81. Jan. 10, 2002 - In a call from a speaker phone in open court, attorneys for Mike Vreeland call the Pentagon's switchboard operator, who confirms that Vreeland is indeed a naval lieutenant on active duty. She provides an office number and a direct dial phone extension to his office in the Pentagon.

82. Jan. 10, 2002 - Attorney General John Ashcroft recuses himself from the Enron investigation because Enron had been a major campaign donor in his 2000 Senate race. He fails to recuse himself from involvement in two sitting federal grand juries investigating bribery and corruption charges against ExxonMobil and BP Amoco, which have massive oil interests in Central Asia. Both were major Ashcroft donors in 2000. http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/04_04_02_elephant.html]

83. Jan. 23, 2002 - Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl is kidnapped in Pakistan. Pearl is reported dead on Feb. 21. Lead suspect Ahmad Umar Sheik, former colleague of Gen. Ahmad, is arrested on Feb. 12 and named as the lead suspect in the kidnapping and murder. Legal sources close to the Pakistani government tell FTW that Pearl was investigating the ISI.

84. Feb. 9, 2002 - Pakistani leader Gen. Musharraf and Afghan leader Hamid Karzai announce their agreement to "cooperate in all spheres of activity," including the proposed Central Asian pipeline. Pakistan will give $10 million to Afghanistan to help pay Afghan government workers.

85. Feb. 18, 2002 - The Financial Times reports that the estimated opium harvest in Afghanistan in the late-spring 2002 will reach a world record 4,500 metric tons.

86. mid-April, 2002 - World Bank chief James Wolfensohn, at the opening of the World Bank's offices in Kabul, states he has held talks about financing the Trans-Afghanistan gas pipeline. He confirms $100 million in new grants for the interim Afghani government. Wolfensohn also states that a number of companies have already expressed interest in the project.

87. May 13, 2002 - The BBC reports that Afghanistan is about to close a deal for construction of the $2 billion gas pipeline to run from Turkmenistan to Pakistan and India. The story states, "work on the project will start after an agreement is expected to be struck" at a summit scheduled for the end of the month. Unocal will build the pipeline.

88. May 2002 - A number of sources report progress on both oil and gas pipelines. Regional sources state that Unocal will re-emerge as a pipeline contender after withdrawing from the CentGas pipeline project in 1998. Unocal denies plans to revive the gas pipeline but curiously neglects to mention whether or not it has any interest in the oil pipeline, which local sources say is moving ahead.

89. May 30, 2002 - Afghanistan's interim leader, Hamid Karzai, Turkmenistan's President Niyazov, and Pakistani President Musharraf meet in Islamabad to sign a memorandum of understanding on the trans-Afghanistan gas pipeline project. The three leaders will meet for more talks on the project in October. The Turkmen-Afghan-Pakistani gas pipeline accord has been published and can be viewed at the following website: http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/nts22622.htm.

90. May 16, 2002 - White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer states unequivocally that while President Bush had been warned of possible hijackings, "The president did not -- not -- receive information about the use of airplanes as missiles by suicide bombers."

91. May 19, 2002 - Former FBI Agent Tyrone Powers, now a professor at Anne Arundel Community College states on radio station KISS 98.7 that he has credible evidence suggesting that the Bush Administration did in fact allow the Sept. 11 attacks to further a hidden agenda. http://www.indymedia.org - May 20, 2002>

92. May 31, 2002 - FBI Agent Robert Wright delivers a tearful press conference at the National Press Club describing his lawsuit against the FBI for deliberately curtailing investigations that might have prevented the 9-11 attacks. He uses words like "prevented," "thwarted," "obstructed," "threatened," "intimidated," and "retaliation" to describe the actions of his superiors in blocking his attempts to shut off money flows to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. These are not words of negligence. They are words describing deliberate and malicious actions.

93. June 4, 2002 - Air Force Lt. Col. Steve Butler, who had called President Bush a joke and accused him of allowing the Sept. 11 attacks to happen, is suspended from his post at the Defense Language School in Monterey, Calif. and could face a court martial.

94. June 14, 2002 - Common Dreams website publishes an account from a former member of the 1/118th Infantry Battalion of the South Carolina National Guard: "My unit reported for drill in July 2001 and we were suddenly and unexpectedly informed that all activities planned for the next two months would be suspended in order to prepare for a mobilization exercise to be held on Sept. 14, 2001. We worked diligently for two weekends and even came in on an unscheduled day in August to prepare for the exercise. By the end of August all we needed was a phone call, which we were to expect, and we could hop into a fully prepared convoy with our bags and equipment packed." http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0614-02.htm>

95. June 17, 2002 - Reuters reports that Butler's case has been resolved without the necessity of a court martial. (I guess so. There's enough material here to prove him right. -- MCR)

96. July 2, 2002 - Motions from Zacarias Moussaoui are unsealed in federal court, indicating that Moussaoui wants to testify before both a grand jury and Congress about the Sept. 11 attacks. Moussaoui claims to have information showing that the U.S. government wanted the attacks to happen.

97. July 3, 2002 - The first-ever shipment of Russian oil, 200,000 metric tons, arrives in Houston. .

98. July 6, 2002 - Afghan Vice President Hajji Abdul Qadir is assassinated by Afghan warlords. The New York Times reports that Qadir may have been assassinated by opium warlords upset by Qadir's efforts to reduce the rampant opium farming and processing that has taken place since the U.S. occupation. Qadir had been overseeing a Western-backed eradication program, according to the Times. However, the opium warlords of the region are same ones sponsored, protected, and in some cases released from prison by the CIA and who have been protected by President Bush's special envoy, Zalmay Khalilzad. It is reported that the raw opium is being refined near U.S. bases at Kandahar.

99. July 26, 2002 - White House security prevented the legal watch-group Judicial Watch from serving Vice President Cheney with a lawsuit filed on behalf of Halliburton shareholders. Before becoming vice president Cheney was CEO of Halliburton, which has filed for bankruptcy.

100. Aug. 2, 2002 - The FBI asked members of the House and Senate intelligence committees to take lie-detector tests as investigators try to determine who leaked information to CNN about communications in Arabic that made vague references to an impending attack on the United States. The communications were intercepted by the National Security Agency on Sept. 10 but weren't translated until Sept. 12. http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/08.03A.fbi.lie.det.p.htm>

101. Aug. 5, 2002 - The Associated Press reported Russia's major role over the last five years in the trafficking of Afghan heroin into Europe.

102. Aug. 16, 2002 - A Knight Ridder story discloses that members of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's staff have created a special planning unit for an invasion of Iraq. The unit is composed primarily of civilians and was spearheaded by conservative members of Rumsfeld's staff, such as Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz. The story was headlined, "White House Methodically Preparing for Iraq Campaign."

103. Aug. 28, 2002 - The Globe and Mail of Canada reports Afghanistan will become the world's top producer of opium this year, surpassing Southeast Asia.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sterling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 08:48 PM
Response to Reply #176
195. And not one point will be addressed
Because we all know, "there is not a shred of evidence". :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbyboucher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #20
39. Wait, did Santa crash a plane into the Pentagon?
Did I miss something?

Save that stupid shit for the choir.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Indiana Democrat Donating Member (718 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #39
72. The "Stupid Shit" comes from the conspiracy kooks.
I was making a point. And it looks like it touched a nerve!! :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbyboucher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #72
78. You couldn't touch a nerve of mine if
you crawled up my ass and starting squirming your way to the top. You don't got the tools to strike a nerve.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Indiana Democrat Donating Member (718 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #78
82. Well, I certainly made you get personal.
That's a sure sign of nerves being touched. :)

But feel free to posture anyway you would like here if it makes you feel better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbyboucher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #82
93. It ain't personal,
just business. Keep breathing sand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sir_captain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #78
84. Come on
What's the point of saying stuff like that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Indiana Democrat Donating Member (718 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #84
90. He's lashing-out.
Don't worry about it...I don't. I just laugh because they're so obvious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbyboucher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #90
99. Nice vector,
There's alot of sand to breathe in Iraq, you should enlist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sir_captain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #99
103. Simply insulting people
is never going to convince anyone of your points. What's the point?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbyboucher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #103
107. What insult?
Disparaging his nerve-touching prowess?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sir_captain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #90
100. Yeah...
it's just sad that people cannot be more respectful of each other and their disagreements.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbyboucher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #100
104. Try to follow along,
more carefully. It wasn't an opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbyboucher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #84
102. I'm trying to save his life.
You can suffocate by breathing sand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Aquarian_Conspirator Donating Member (148 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 09:07 PM
Response to Reply #72
204. I think we can remain civil enough to refrain from...
calling people with a different point of view, "conspiracy kooks". No one here is saying anything that unbelievable. It's not like conspiracies don't happen. In fact, to suggest that a shadowy terrorist organization based on the other side of the world *conspired* to launch the most devastating terrorist attack in US history, and that they were able to conspire so secretly and so efficiently that they were able to hide completely from the view of the most sophisticated intelligence apparatus in all human history, is a whopper of a conspiracy theory in it's self. Such a conspiracy is a feat considerably more impressive then that of a handful of right-wing conspirators at the helm of said intelligence apparatus using their authority to hinder it's ability to foil said terrorist plot. But, mark my words, I will never call you a "conspiracy kook".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sterling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 09:40 PM
Response to Reply #204
215. Maybe we can ask Skinner to make people observe the rules?
It would be great to see an even handed approach when it comes to this issue. I can't see how calling people "kooks" is anything less than a personal attack?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Aquarian_Conspirator Donating Member (148 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 09:45 PM
Response to Reply #215
216. Indeed, It is a personal attack
I know it's not always easy to refrain, but we must.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hang a left Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #20
95. Well I have personally been doing his job for several years now.
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TinaTyson Donating Member (186 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-04 10:23 PM
Response to Original message
21. Here is a counter-query.
September 11, 1973 was the day Allende was killed.
As far as I know the terrorists did not do that on purpose, however, would the Whitehouse purposely pick a date with such memories attached to it?

No way it was MIHOP at least.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sterling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #21
42. What is up with that? Why 9-11 what does that mean?
Anything important about that date?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Must_B_Free Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 08:08 PM
Response to Reply #42
180. it means "State of Emergency"
911 is the emergency phone number call.

I think the christian reconstructions used it as a signal to say that "america is in trouble" and they are going to fix it.

The symbolic death of 3000 people is used a couple of times int he bible to signify conscription into a new order. In this case it was GHWB's New World Order.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
They_LIHOP Donating Member (151 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 08:12 PM
Response to Reply #42
184. 9/11/1991 ... that was the day Poppy said...
"This Aggression will not stand. This agression against Kuwait..."

or whatever it was, it was along those lines.

I know cause in the movie "The Big Lebowski", when the Dude is writing a check at the beginning for his milk, that is the date on the check!!! And you can see Poppy on TV, making his speech at the same time...

It's quite strange, really. Why is there a TV on at a Grocery store, right by the checkstand? Of course, this movie came out long before 9/11/01.

10 year anniversary of the date poppy said "this aggression will not stand"...

Strange...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FlashHarry Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-23-04 10:27 PM
Response to Original message
23. If LIHOP, then why did BushCo press for the Iraq connection?
One of the main accusations from Clarke is that BushCo was hell-bent on invading Iraq from day-one. So much so, that right after 9/11, they were trying like hell to pin it on Hussein. This was all internal--not for public consumption. If they "let it happen on purpose," why was the Iraq connection even an issue? I don't buy it.

I think they were just criminally incompetent. I think LIHOP/MIHOP makes us look like conspiracy nuts, further marginalizing our cause. There. I said it. I'll shut up now. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #23
28. "WE" were marginalized before 9-11...
...or didn't you notice?

- Why do you care what the other side thinks about us? They hated us yesterday and they'll hate us tomorrow...no matter what we do.

- I believe it's a disservice to our country and party to call those asking hard questions 'conspiracy nuts' or 'kooks'. That plays into the opposition's gameplan of making anyone who questions anything they do as partisan or mentally ill. Stop helping the opposition.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sterling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #28
49. Read PNAC
The plan was to make a pretext that would apply to ANY country in the ME that gets uppity. Thus Osama provides a kinda Muslim strawman patsy that by the leep in logic provided by the PNACers means we can shoot firt and ask questions pater.

This is a long term plan with lots of potential foes. 9-11 had to serve as the pretext to get them all, and it has, has it not?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #23
52. Iraq is the reason for LIHOP
They wanted to invade Iraq from day 1 of the Bush admin (actually the plan to invade Iraq was devised some 10 years before -see PNAC). But of course they needed a 'good' reason. The fact that Saddam was a dictator wasn't enough reason to start the war, nor was the fact that Iraq had "lots of good targets".
It was not much of a problem to have the public believe there was a connection between 9-11 and Saddam - untill truth did catch up to the lies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FlashHarry Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #52
65. That still doesn't answer my question.
If the admin. is all-powerful and either "let" or "made" it happen, why were they rushing like hell to pin the attacks on Hussein? If it was all part of their master plan, that contingency would have been taken care of, no? The conversations Clarke refers to were private. There was no PR spin involved. The picture Clarke paints is of an administration in chaos post 9/11.

Believe me, I used to think that LIHOP was possible. But now, in light of the Clarke revelations, I think it's more of a case of gross negligence and incompetence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #65
76. Again, read the PNAC document about "Rebuilding America"...
...When you get to the paragraph that discusses the need for another Pearl Harbor to galvanize public support for obtaining the NeoCon objectives in the Middle East, let us know what you believe then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FlashHarry Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #76
143. I've read it. It still doesn't wash with the facts.
Why was there discord within the Bush administration with regards to where to place the blame for 9/11? They were of course trying to present a unified front to the public--this internal discord was never meant to be made public. If it was all part of a master plan, why did the president ask if it could be pinned on Hussein, as if he didn't know what was going on. The only LIHOP theory that would dovetail with the facts is the possibility that 9/11 was somehow engineered by the Vice President's office and that Bush was "out of the loop."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 03:35 PM
Response to Reply #143
149. I guess it doesn't mean much to you that "Rebuild America" was...
Edited on Wed Mar-24-04 03:36 PM by Media_Lies_Daily
...written in September 2000 by current members of the NeoCon Junta.

<http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf>

Excerpt from page 63:

"Further, the process of transformation,
even if it brings revolutionary change, is
likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a
new Pearl Harbor."


Additionally, you answered your own question...Junior phrased the question about Saddam as if he didn't know what was going on. In the intelligence world, that tactic is called "plausible deniability".

Junior is NEVER "out of the loop"...he knows exactly what's going on. Why did he continue to calmly sit in the elementary school classroom for another 30 minutes after Andy Card told him that the SECOND plane had struck the WTC?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
They_LIHOP Donating Member (151 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 08:17 PM
Response to Reply #149
186. Junior could EASILY be out of the loop...
And it was nowhere near 30 minutes he sat there, dude.

Not to defend the guy, but get your facts straight at least...

You'll never find a remotely credible source that says it was more than 7 minutes he stayed.

That was 7 minutes too long, and highly suspicious (as well as the Press Conference he gave when he should've been 'leading', AND the fact that he said he saw the FIRST plane hit the WTC live when it wasn't on TV that day at all, AND...), but it wasn't 30 minutes...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sophree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #143
171. He knew what was going on
And didn't care. He wanted to pin it on Saddam no matter what the actual evidence was. "Not good enough. Try again."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sterling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #65
164. Not chaos, but spinning and manipulating
Edited on Wed Mar-24-04 06:59 PM by Sterling
Right after 9-11 was when the real test started. the test to see if they could form an opinion in the public’s mind of the event that fit their agenda. We all helped them by letting them play up the "war on terra" and acting like frightened children that had no ability to think for themselves.

Remember the PNAC agenda calls for a vague and broad war against the countries of the ME. It was a challenge to spin the "event" so as to include any country that we did not like.

What Clarke is pointing out is that Bush had started the spin job among his staff members that are not part of the” inside" team. The inside team were the ones who were on a full court press to fit the "event" into their agenda.
me does not exonerate them. In fact it proves they had a preconceived agenda that 9-11 was the intended catalyst for. Remember it’s not the whole government that is in on the plan. Just the core group. The rest must be manipulated like the public. That is the process Clarke describes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sophree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 07:53 PM
Response to Reply #164
172. Great post.
It's also important to remember that the * Administration is not "One." It is a group of individuals, each with their own personal agenda. Similar goals, with varying obsessions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sterling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 07:59 PM
Response to Reply #172
177. Right, they are not gods either.
They can't just snap their fingures and control peoples minds. This thing is way more flimsy than people realize.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Heyo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 11:49 AM
Response to Original message
26. Flame me if you want...
MIHOP and LIHOP are kook theories....

You can argue some intelligence personel dropped the ball if you want....

.. but MIHOP and LIHOP are a joke.

Heyo
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbyboucher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #26
40. The jokes on you pal.
Obviously.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sterling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #40
51. Actually the joke is on all of us.
This guy just does not know it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbyboucher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #51
66. Sad but true.
If only I could breathe sand too. I have this oxygen dependency though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JHB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 12:13 PM
Response to Original message
27. I take it you're unfamiliar with the military acronym SNAFU...
...Situation Normal -- All F*cked Up.

Arrogant fools always plan to win the last war, not the next one, and they didn't use jetliners last time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abaques Donating Member (253 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 12:44 PM
Response to Original message
30. What a poor premise to support your position...
LIHOP means nothing without real hard evidence to back it up. You are attempting to advocate for your position not by asking the question you asked. Speculate all you want, but until you have real evidence and not just supposition and fabrications you will be dismissed by the populace just like the UFO people outside Area 51 are.


"There must have been a military order. There is no other logical explanation."

Suprise
Incompetence
Systematic Failure
Technical Failure


There, I just presented four logical explanations besides millitary order. Each one of those would win the Occam's Razor test when compared to millitary order.

Find some real evidence to back up your claims.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sterling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #30
54. Well if you had never actually looked into it
Suprise
Incompetence
Systematic Failure
Technical Failure

Might seem reasonable. The facts however show that is not the case.
Go here, come back when you are more familiar with the subject matter. There is nothing worse than uninformed people that are so opinionated they border on insulting.


Cooperativeresearch.org
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abaques Donating Member (253 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #54
69. I would argue that the premise of the thread starting post was insulting..
And please do not lecture me on what I do and do not know.

Millitary Orders might seem reasonable also, but there are no facts that back up that case.

Look, I fully believe that the Bush administration was negligent in their duties both on and before 9-11-01, but I have never seen any affirmative evidence suggesting that LIHOP or MIHOP happened. Alot of evidence that is fabricated or that happens to ignore relevant details. But the most common argument seems to be that because the attacks were successful, meaning that our millitary defenses were breached, then it must be a conspiracy. Sorry, but that just does not follow logically.


Real evidence that affirms a conspiracy. Find that and then come back here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sterling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #69
118. I am not lecturing
Edited on Wed Mar-24-04 02:04 PM by Sterling
Have you been to cooperativereaserch.org


You say:
"Alot of evidence that is fabricated or that happens to ignore relevant details"


Please be specific. I don't want to have to "assume" anything about what you know or do not know?

"But the most common argument seems to be that because the attacks were successful, meaning that our millitary defenses were breached, then it must be a conspiracy"


Actually this is not THE most common arguement. In fact it is only a part of THE arguement. Go to coopertiveresearch.org. I think you will see the "arguement" is well developed and based on more than just someones personal worldview.

It is on you to show us what you know, so far that does not seem to ad up to any specifics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sophree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 08:07 PM
Response to Reply #69
178. If you actually look at all the facts
They contradict the Official Story, as well as the Incompetence Theory.

The point of my argument, which IS only a very small part of the entire body of evidence, is not that our defenses were breached. It is the extremely long amount of time elapsed between the time when there was absolutely no doubt about whether we were under attack and when the Pentagon was hit.

This, along with the rest of the evidence, makes it very difficult to make a believable case for anything OTHER than a Stand-down Order.

Or maybe you believe that conspiracies never happen, our government would never do that, Senators and Presidents don't have men killed, etc., etc.?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Aquarian_Conspirator Donating Member (148 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 10:10 PM
Response to Reply #69
218. I agree that Sophree crossed the line...
when he suggested those who do not agree with him have blinders on. I hope he apologizes so we can move beyond that.

As for evidence that the Bush administration, in the very least, had prior knowledge of 9/11, check out my post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&a...

Here is another good starting place:

The White House had (at least ) 28 Advanced Intelligence Warnings Prior to 9/11
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/SMI402A.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TankLV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 11:39 PM
Response to Reply #30
228. Of course, we could briefly mention "Star Wars".
If even a shred of the tinfoil doubters reasons are true, and they have their own reasons to believe that, then why could we ever trust "Star Wars" to protect us?

Kinda also shoots the hawks arguments for creating THAT money hole!

I believe the evidence as presented here on DU over these past few years overwhelmingly prooves LIHOP - incompetence, negligence, etc. all dovetail & nicely support LIHOP, too.

I'm just sooo close to MIHOP.

This bunch that STOLE OUR White House is capable of ANYTHING.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zero Gravitas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 12:46 PM
Response to Original message
32. When a shred of evidence appears
I'll consider it, but so far all I've seen is people saying:

1) Bush is evil and would do anything if it met his ends;
2) I don't understand why ________ did/didn't happen;
3) therefore Bush let 9/11 happen on purpose.

I'm sorry but I just don't think that is a logical argument, I've seen no evidence of anything other than the Bush Regime's incompetence and arrogance and Chimpy's personal cowardice.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sterling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #32
35. Um that is not the other sides arguement
"1) Bush is evil and would do anything if it met his ends;
2) I don't understand why ________ did/didn't happen;
3) therefore Bush let 9/11 happen on purpose."

No wonder you don't understand. Just keep fighting those strawmen.

Your arguement is no one is that evil. Boy that is valid, not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zero Gravitas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #35
50. You misunderstand my position.
My argument is not that "no one is that evil". My argument is that there is no evidence that supports LIHOP. Its the LIHOPers who are saying "Bush IS that evil, therefore he did it even though there is zero evidence to support that claim".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #50
58. there is plenty circumstantial evidence to warrant an investigation
- high placed officials not flying shortly before and on 9-11.
- obvious insider trading (on an unprecedented scale)
- inexplicable stand-down of the military on 9-11
- an adminstration that is obviously lying and misleading

and much more
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sangh0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #50
59. No, we understand exactly how you are ignoring the evidence
so you can continue repeating "there is no evidence"

We have motive.
We have connections
We have shown they are capable of doing this
We have shown intent
We have shown deception
We have shown an unwillingness on their part to investigate

You have NOT shown incompetence or anything to support anyof the other possible excuses for 9/11. *YOU* are the one without evidence
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sir_captain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #59
61. Innocent until proven guilty
Even in your list, you admit that you haven't shown any direct evidence of complicity. I agree that there is troubling circumstantial evidence, but with an accusation this large, that just doesn't cut it. Our judicial system presumes innocence for a very good reason.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sterling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #61
70. Our "system" would have them on trial for this by now
IF they were actually subject to our "system".

Think about it like a cop or a DA. The evidence out there would give you enough to prosecute. No there has been no trial you are right. There needs to be one, can we at least agree on that?

I would never suggest that Bushco not get their day in court but as of yet they have not even had to faced the questions that would have already had most of us in front of a grand jury.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sir_captain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #70
75. Yes, we can agree that there should be an investigation
I don't see how anyone could really object to that
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sangh0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #61
150. Only in a court of law, Sir
As an opinion, none of us here are required to observe that standard in forming our opinions.

Our judicial system presumes innocence for a very good reason.

And our political system presumes guilt for a very good reason
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sir_captain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #150
155. No, of course not,
but it also means that those who don't share your opinion should not be treated like they're morons, no?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sangh0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #155
156. It depends
When all of the available evidence suggests one thing, and no evidence suggests the other, than some people might deserve being treated like a moron.

Most of us do not live inside a courtroom. We form our opinions on the basis of the preponderance of evidence (which is also how it's done in ALL courtrooms, except the criminal courts) and those with an alternate method often deserve the contempt of others
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sir_captain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #156
161. Here's the problem
You are still talking about *opinion.* In your opinion, the evidence you see is satisfactory. In the opinion of others, it isn't. I respect your right to your opinion and do not choose to have contempt for you; i think you're wrong to have contempt for those who disagree with you, but then, maybe that's just me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noiretextatique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 07:18 PM
Response to Reply #61
166. the coup established their guilt
and they used "our judicial system" to commit the crime. whatever they did after that is tainted by the original criminal conspriracy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zero Gravitas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #59
114. huh?
you have shown none of those things and more importantly you haven't shown a shred of evidence to support your assertions. Even if all of the things you mention were true, you STILL wouldn't have any evidence to support your theory. I don't need to show any evidence as I am not the one making the accusations.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sangh0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #114
152. That's more than you have shown
You haven't presented any evidence of imcompetence, or for any of the other excuses that have offered by those who disbelieve LIHOP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noiretextatique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 07:21 PM
Response to Reply #152
167. thanks for pointing this out, snagh0
Edited on Wed Mar-24-04 07:21 PM by noiretblu
those clamoring for LIHOP and MIHOP evidence the loudest haven't presented a shred of evidence in support of their claims.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Minstrel Boy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #50
60. Keep telling yourself there's no evidence
if you must.

Osama Bin Laden
Family business ties to the Bush dynasty and long-time intelligence asset. In October 2001, French intelligence leaked that Osama had met the CIA station chief while receiving medical treatment at the American Hospital in Dubai. During the Afghanistan campaign Tommy Franks says his capture is not an objective. When he is reportedly near capture in Tora Bora, US forces are ordered to not advance, and troops witness a helicopter flying in from Pakistan to his reported location, and flying back again.

Saudi Arabia
One of Bush’s early financiers Khalid bin Mafouz, Osama’s brother-in-law, is also a prominent financier of al Qaeda. James Baker, Bush’s consiglieri, is representing Saudi royals in a class-action suit brought by 9/11 families. After Bush takes office, the FBI is ordered off tracking Saudi money to al Qaeda.

Pakistan
Pakistan’s intelligence service, the ISI, is a long-time regional proxy of the CIA, and its principal agent for dealing with Mujaheddin groups during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. It’s revealed in the Fall of 2001 that Pakistani ISI chief Mahmood Ahmed had authorized a $100,000 wire transfer to Mohammed Atta. This same Ahmed was in Washington for a week, meeting with top US officials, at the time of the attacks. After the revelation he takes an early retirement. There is no report of him ever having been questioned by US authorities.

The Hijackers
They were well known to American and foreign intelligence services, and yet could enter and leave the United States at will. Several lived with an FBI informant in San Diego. Fifteen of them entered the US through Jeddah, which, according to State Department official Michael Springman, had been a CIA gateway to the US for al Qaeda operatives to receive training in the US. At least five of the 9/11 hijackers studied at secure US military instalations, and three listed their residence as Pensacola Naval Station. Mohammed Atta attended the International Officers School at Maxwell Air Force in Alabama, and Saeed Alghamdi studied at the Defense Language Institute in Monterey. The Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs at Monterey, Steve Butler, later wrote "Bush knew of the impending attacks on America," and was threatened with court martial and lost his position.

Investigations blocked
The spring and summer of 2001 FBI agents not only had investigations of flight schools blocked by head office but - according to former Congressional counsel David Schippers, FBI Special Agent Robert Wright and other FBI sources - a number of agents in New York had learned details of an attack on lower Manhattan, down to the proposed dates, names of the hijackers and targets, and yet the FBI command cut short their work, and threatened them with prosecution under the National Security Act if they went public. Schippers took the information to Ashcroft's office six weeks before the attack, and was repeatedly rebuffed.

Foreign warnings
The summer of 2001 Washington received, from the highest levels of intelligence services and governments, a dozen or so warnings pointing to a spectacular attack on American soil, using hijacked aircraft as weapons, targetting landmarks.

Commercial flights cancelled
John Ashcroft was told to stop flying commercial airliners in July of 2001 for security considerations. On September 10, senior Pentagon officials cancelled commercial flights for the next day, presumably, said Newsweek, for the same reasons.

Insider trading
In the days before 9/11 the market shows strong indication of persons trying to profit from the attack, including an unusually high number of put options on stocks which would be adversely affected. Jonathan Winer, an ABC News consultant says that "It’s absolutely unprecedented to see cases of insider trading covering the entire world from Japan, to the U.S., to North America, to Europe." Another analyst said "I saw put-call numbers higher than I've ever seen in 10 years of following the markets, particularly the options markets." It is known that the United States has Promis software, and that it is used to monitor and analyze stock transactions for unusual patterns.

The lack of air response
The Pentagon was hit nearly 90 minutes after the first hijacking was determined. Fighters which were eventually scrambled did not fly from the nearest ready bases, and flew at a fraction of their speeds.

Unexplained skill and minimizing of damage
The pilot of the Pentagon crash, Hani Hanjour, couldn't handle a Cessna in mid-August, yet on September 11, we're told to believe, he flew a commercial jet for the first time at excessive speed, into a 270 degree spiralling decent and hit the one side of the Pentagon which was virtually empty, and had been hardened to withstand attack.

The bin Ladens fly
While the rest of America is grieving and all flights are grounded, the White House authorizes the flights of the bin Laden family and Saudi royals out of the country. This before they could be questioned by the FBI.

Anthrax
Who was targetted with the most lethal spores? Democratic leaders, engaged in opposing the Patriot Act. Where has the anthrax been traced to? Fort Detrick. And the investigation stopped dead.

The 9/11 Commission
For more than a year the White House resisted even appointing a commission. Then gave it an unreasonable deadline and a laughable budget, and wanted it chaired by Henry Kissinger. As it is, Thomas Kean is another Texas oil man with ties to the bin Ladens, and most of the commissioners save for Max Cleland have track records of covering up and whitewashing. And Cleland is gone. The White House stonewalls, refuses to hand over documents, and runs out the clock, while Condolezza Rice balks at testifying under oath.

Motive
George Bush's diary entry for September 11, echoing the words of PNAC's call for a "catalyzing event" one year earlier: "The Pearl Harbor of the 21st Century took place today."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sterling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #60
74. I too get a laugh out of the "no evidence" crap
I always respond with:
cooperativeresearch.org

If they are not willing to inform themselves as to what we are actually talking about what is the point in taking them seriously?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sterling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #50
62. I see it differently
I think there are plenty of facts that would lead a reasonable person to suspect the government was involved in 9-11. Some of them have been brought up in this thread. Most of them can be found at:
cooperativeresearch.org


I find that the anti LIHOPers tend to want to pretend that these facts are not part of the discussion. As I personally have laid these out on DU for about 3 years now I have not the energy to repost them in their entirety. That is why sites like cooperativeresearch.org were created, so that there is a solid database to send people who are truly interested in discussing facts can go to get up to speed on the issue.

I don't think you will ever bother to take that step sadly. If you did you might be like the large percentage of DUers who once insulted those who suggested the idea that know understand the reality of the situation.

The whole "no facts" bit is tired though and easily disproved by a visit to coopertiveresearch.org




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sir_captain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #32
41. Careful there ;-)
I had an entire thread essentally calling me a Republican yesterday because I didn't buy LIHOP hook, line, and sinker. As far as I could tell, they wanted to change our justice system to guilty until proven innocent. It's really ironic how DU has its own little set of thought police who won't respect respectful disagreement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TankLV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 11:52 PM
Response to Reply #32
229. Unfortunately, you choose to see what you want, in spite of the
Edited on Wed Mar-24-04 11:53 PM by TankLV
total amount of interisting facts concerning the events before, during, and after that horrible day.

If you were paying attention (hense, not supporting the "blinders" argument) you would know that the argument has been:

1) fact one - timeline evidence, video evidence, etc., to,
10,000) fact ten thousand - more of the above.

Conclusion: It cannot be just "cooincidence" or simple incompetance, but much more.

You just are not reading all of the incredible research people have brought to this forum - not necessarily all on this post - it would not be big enough to hold all of the evidence that has been collected.

You just choose not to read and see.

The line of argument is NOT the one that has been presented by you. Not by a long shot.

The main problem is, just why had no investigation been done? Why the stonewalling and delays and refusal to cooperate? That alone (just one of the MINOR reasons to support LIHOP, BTW) should raise the suspicions of anyone. But no one has asked any pertinent questions.

And, I keep asking: Why is it that when a democrat is under ivestigation, they search and find the most partisan, repuke to lead the investigation, and when a repuke deigns to be questioned, they search and find the most partisan repuke to lead the investigation?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 01:00 PM
Response to Original message
38. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
sir_captain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #38
43. Nicely put
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbyboucher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #43
53. My arse!
Playing the "this makes us looks silly" card is sooo boring. "Incompetence" just ain't gonna cut it. There are too many obvious problems to the story.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #43
86. Compared to what, exactly?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbyboucher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #38
47. What does my waist have to do with anything?
Some of us have read a great deal on this subject and want some answers to some very obvious questions. Breathe sand all you want, it ain't gonna change the fact that the "da playas got played"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bridget Burke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #47
81. Hey, I've got an 18-inch waist!
Just like Scarlett O'Hara.

(At times, I can lie like a Republican.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbyboucher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #81
109. Ooh, very saucy.
Very saucy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #38
68. there won't be any actual evidence untill there's an investigation.
for now there is plenty reason for suspicions.

see
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bombtrack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #68
96. I've read that website, and I haven't been convinced
but clearly the softly anti-semitic websites they link to have
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sterling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 07:38 PM
Response to Reply #96
169. Oh I see see we all must hate the jews.
Sorry just saying you have been there and don't think much won't cut it. What can you show for your efforts. Is there athing untrue on the site?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sterling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 08:51 PM
Response to Reply #96
196. Still waiting?
What falsehoods did you find on the site? you say you have read everything on the site? Yet have nothing of note to comment on either way? Why do you even bother with this stuff then?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chimpymustgo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #38
77. It's paranoid, but it ain't crazy.
We don't know what happened on 9/11 - but we sure have lots of questions. The one thing that has struck me was how the event was reacted to:

Four planes go off course - flying halfway across the country - TURNING AROUND, and flying back, TRANSPONDERS TURNED OFF - and military jets aren't scrambled?

President's Bush's reaction was uncategorically weird. Knowing a major American landmark has been hit by a plane, he goes into the school room, and jokes and reads with the kids. Then hearing that a SECOND one has been hit - HE JUST SITS THERE FOR ANOTHER 20 MINUTES.

Think about your own reactions that day. How do you think you would have reacted if you were an air traffic controller? Head of NORAD? The President of the United States?

The only question is LIHOP or MIHOP. And I'm starting to lean toward MIHOP. The plane that hit the Pentagon made a 360 degree turn (by a guy who'd never flown a plane before, right) - and then slammed into a nearly empty side (one of FIVE). They just HAPPENED to hit the part of the Pentagon that had the fewest number of people.

I've always wondered about the Twin Towers being struck BEFORE 9:00. Wouldn't OBL want to kill as many Americans as possible? So you strike AFTER 9, when everybody's at work.

These are just a couple of thoughts. There are so many things that just don't add up from that day. Too many questions. And absolutely no desire by this misadministration to get any answers.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #38
83. Not any more extraordinary than the so-called "evidence" produced...
...by the NeoCon Junta that Al Qaeda and OBL were responsible for 911.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shanti Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #38
85. then why post to threads like these
if you are just going to slam them?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Indiana Democrat Donating Member (718 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #38
88. I'm a firm believer that most of the nutters are disruptors.
Or at least I hope so...I don't want to live in a world with so many of them if they're really serious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skypilot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 01:07 PM
Response to Original message
48. A lot of people on this thread are saying...
Edited on Wed Mar-24-04 01:24 PM by skypilot
...that incompetence is to blame. I don't buy that for one reason (or three actually). Bush, Rumsfeld, and Dick Myers all claimed that they thought the first WTC crash was an accident. With what we know now about the intelligence and the "chatter" and the warnings and George Tenet practically freaking out anticipating an attack on us, it defies my comprehension how these three could see the devastation at the WTC, shrug it off as an accident and then just go about their business. If someone had been warning me for at least two months that someone was out to get me and then my house blew up I wouldn't think that maybe I'd left the oven on and that it was probably just an "accident". It takes a suspension of disbelief that I can't quite muster to believe that no red flags immediately went up for these three considering everything that was coming down the pike prior to 9/11. And all three said they saw coverage on TV. How the hell can you see something like that and hear the reports of people jumping from one of the tallest buildings in the world and then just walk away to go to a photo-op, meeting, etc? Not to mention that the combination of WTC, fire, smoke, and people dying should have immediately made people (especially the people who are supposed to defend this country) think of Feb.1993. You're going to tell me it didn't?

On edit: I, in fact, had originally assumed that massive incompentence was to blame. I believed this for close to a year after 9/11. It was after I started reading more about it an seeing how many people were making the "I thought it was an accident" claim that I began to suspect that something more sinister was at work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbyboucher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #48
73. Nice post. There are way too many red flags
that must be ignored ignore for the official story to be swallowed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 08:18 PM
Response to Reply #48
187. as if they were all following a SCRIPT
the scripts were very good though, they anticipated just what the average joe would think after such a shocking event.

they leave their fingerprints all over everything by trying to SCRIPT everything.

bush showed 0 reaction when told of the 2nd plane... i don't care who you are you would have at LEAST reacted.

then there is the little problem of S.O.P.

:hi:

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goforit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 01:14 PM
Response to Original message
56. Yep....Mihop all the way!!!!.Hey, lihoppers, I don't want top believe
our US Presidents, Bush I and Bush II, would ever attack our
own homeland to benefit in conquering all the Oil- rich countries of the world. It truely is unfathomable.

But all the evidence is pointing in that direction.......
and if Osama whom always mysteriously vacates at the most
opportune time......then he is getting his tips from our own.
And who else better than the guy who trained him...Bush I.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
notadmblnd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 01:35 PM
Response to Original message
91. did you see this?
One of the commissioners, the woman on the commission, asked Rumsfeld about air defense plans and what they were. He confessed that planes are supposed to be sent up to intercept hijacked planes. The inference here is that THEY WERE SENT UP ON 9/11, and that a SHOOTDOWN ORDER WAS ISSUED, BUT THAT THE PILOTS DID NOT RECEIVE SAID ORDER!!!

This is huge! This means somebody either deliberately did not convey that order, there was a huge collosal fuckup (EXTREMELY unlikely given the severity of the circumstances), or A STANDOWN ORDER WAS ISSUED BY SOMEONE

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1274379
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sophree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #91
121. Your thread was what prompted me to ask this question again.
And Rummy's testimony.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Minstrel Boy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 01:35 PM
Response to Original message
92. If it was an intelligence failure, shouldn't there be reprimands and
Edited on Wed Mar-24-04 01:41 PM by Minstrel Boy
firings?

Actually, people have lost their jobs. The whistleblowers. Those who make a case for official complicity. People like the State Department's Michael Springman, FBI agent Robert Wright, Lt Col Steve Butler and more.

And what about those who actively and agressively impeded investigations which could have uncovered and prevented the attacks in the summer of 2001? People like Dave Frasca and Marion Bowman of the FBI's "Radical Fundamentalist Unit"? People whose actions were so seemingly contrary to the public good that, according to whistleblower Colleen Rowley, field agents "joked" that al Qaeda must have "moles" at FBI headquarters? Promoted.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sophree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #92
140. Exactly
That's the other important point here. If incompetence is to blame, why was no one fired? Why were people in charge of air defense that day PROMOTED????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mandate My Ass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 01:40 PM
Response to Original message
105. Addressed by unanswered questions dot org
On June 20th 2002, John Judge made some startling revelations at the press briefing for unanswered questions. His parents worked at the Pentagon for decades and he'd been inside on several occasions both as a child and an adult. He still lives in DC and had some observations of events which don't add up re: 9/11 and the Pentagon response to it.

http://www.unansweredquestions.org/transcript.shtml#john

<snip>

This is an airspace that's under constant surveillance. There were some quotes that came out shortly afterwards. This Pentagon spokesperson said, "We had no mechanism to respond." I would suggest that if you're an investigative reporter that you will find out that they have a very extensive mechanism to respond. That they don't only respond in the case of a crisis emergency like this but they respond when any commercial aircraft goes off course, even for a period of a few minutes. They have interceptors that go up to find out what's happening, why it's off course, if communication to the tower is broken, and that these are procedures that don't need any order from the President. They don't need any order from the Pentagon or anything else. These are standard FAA and NORAD procedures. It was in the press that by 9:00, I'm sorry, by 8:25, they knew that an unprecedented situation, or at least relatively - this is the first I heard of the four planes in 1970 - but certainly relatively unprecedented situation - four simultaneous hijacked planes. And so there should have been some response already, just knowing that by 8:25. That didn't seem to occur. But certainly they knew that they were under a terrorist attack of some kind and a plane was coming to DC.

<snip>

In addition to that, my parents used to take me to lunch during the day in the center area of the Pentagon in the courtyard in the middle. And I remember asking my father when I was young what certain things were there. And there were surface to air missile batteries in that area that defend the building. It's also the case after the Piper Cub that flew into the Whitehouse hit that a surface to air missile battery was built on the Whitehouse lawn in order to protect that building. This plane came into the restricted airspace. It flew over the Whitehouse and the Capital and then it took a 270 degree looping turn coming down from 5,000 feet. Nothing in its way. The simplest thing in an operation you'd think it would go to the nearest side of the Pentagon. But it went out of its way to hit the empty side of the Pentagon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobthedrummer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 01:44 PM
Response to Original message
111. Consider PNAC when discussing LIHOP-one of the many reasons to
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElementaryPenguin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 02:21 PM
Response to Original message
127. Ding, ding, ding! Bingo, Sophree!
Without question, this is one of the most powerful smoking guns going re: 9-11!!

It ISN'T possible - and there IS no other "logical explanation!"

:puke:
:argh:
:mad:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robertpaulsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 02:22 PM
Response to Original message
129. I'm probably opening a whole 'nother can of worms, but...
we still haven't found out who killed Kennedy.

Conspiracies happen, folks. And the Kennedy assassination was definitely MIHOP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rayantoky Donating Member (4 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 02:27 PM
Response to Original message
131. SORRY not LIHOP but MIHOP
Edited on Wed Mar-24-04 02:34 PM by rayantoky
All you brilliant minds out there I'm sure are adept at surfing the web. How can anyone believe at this stage that the whole thing wasn't a conjob?
Patsies=Arabs. No jet at the Pentagon. (tons of proof). No black boxes. Controlled demolition at the WTC. May not have been jets at the towers. How did the plane 'melt' into the South tower? No shake, no broken wings, plus a missile exiting. This commision thing at most is a limited hangout.No Congress is going to expose the ciminals running the show. They are all complicit. WakeTheF*ckUp. There were no hijackers. Contact me for links to the truth.
Ray
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leanings Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #131
160. Yep, yep
and that whole moon landing thing? Total bullshit. Done at a Disney studio in Orlando. Oh, yeah, Walt was on the Trilateral Commission too! The Jews control the banks! The CIA has mind control satellites that make every homeless man in the US do their evil bidding! The Freemasons are poisoning the wells! White people were created 60,000 years ago by an evil scientist! If you want to know the truth...well, don't contact me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rayantoky Donating Member (4 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #160
162. You destroy the purpose of this list with your inane comments.
You have no proof of any plane at the pentagon. Where are the remains?Vaporized? The passengers?
Vaporized. No suicide hijackers.Okay?
Do not underestimate the minds of these villains.
And you are right, we certainly never put a man on the moon. But Oswald DID kill Kennedy.
http://www.gallerize.com/Gallerize.News.htm hologram link among others.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sir_captain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 11:12 PM
Response to Reply #162
224. Projected holograms?
I must say, this really stretches the bounds of believability. Anyone else even heard of this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shooga Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 04:50 PM
Response to Original message
157. also interesting how a part of the ...
... building which was undergoing construction (far away from RUMMY's office) was hit.



rummy, rummy,
so evil, so chummy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Must_B_Free Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 08:10 PM
Response to Reply #157
182. and cheney refers to himself as
"the evil genius in the corner"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
x-g.o.p.er Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 08:10 PM
Response to Original message
181. So a government that is so incompetent that it can't account for billions
of dollars in several federal budgets, and is lead by one of the dimmest people to ever hold public office (the opinion of many on this site) was clever enough to mastermind and successfully cover-up what would be the greatest crime in our nation's history?

Really, I want Bush defeated more than anyone, but that is just preposterous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sophree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 08:43 PM
Response to Reply #181
192. Yeah, that's what we're saying.
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Aquarian_Conspirator Donating Member (148 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #181
193. Hold on there, cowboy!
Don't try to stick words in my mouth, or you'll get bit. Your rationalizing your own position by making our position seem far more bizarre and irrational then it actually is. Show me where anyone proposing LIHOP or MIHOP has said that Bush "masterminded" anything! Few things offend me as much as those with weak arguments building straw men of weaker arguments so they can play debate Godzilla and reign victorious over their own imaginary opponent.
Bush isn't the mastermind of anything, his only roll was to get elected and bring a cabal of less electable personalities with him so that the PNAC's extremist agenda could be foisted upon the world through the power of the Federal government. Bush's job is to look like a leader while everyone else does the dirty work. It's similar to Reagan's position. Rumsfeld, Chaney, Rove, Wolfawitz, and others, are the real "masterminds" of any white house policy, let alone those policies connected to 9/11.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Minstrel Boy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 08:52 PM
Response to Reply #181
197. The government can't account for TRILLIONS. Did they just lose it?
Edited on Wed Mar-24-04 08:53 PM by Minstrel Boy
Do you think the Pentagon doesn't know into which black bag its missing trillions have vanished? You call skimming trillions from the books incompetence?

By the way, did you read today's story of the press conference by FBI translator Sibel Edmonds?

She claims John Ashcroft asked her to alter her pre-9/11 intercepts, because they contained specific information regarding the attacks, including place, date and perpetrators, and that planes would be used as weapons. She's been under a gag order for two years.

By the way, which senior official stopped flying commercial the summer of 2001 for security reasons?

Preposterous. And true.

http://www.tomflocco.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=50
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0304/032404c1.htm
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=442067&mesg_id=442067
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Aquarian_Conspirator Donating Member (148 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 09:13 PM
Response to Reply #197
206. Yeah, right!
Uh, boss, sorry, but there's $300 missing from the register today. I guess we'll just call it "incompetence". Right? Heh-heh

What? In my pocket? Oh, that's just my, uh... I think I hear my mom calling me. See ya later!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sterling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 09:20 PM
Response to Original message
208. ?
"There must have been a military order. There is no other logical explanation."

WHy is this in quotes?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thinkergratis Donating Member (2 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 10:20 PM
Response to Reply #208
220. you know, you can lead a horse to water...
Edited on Wed Mar-24-04 10:45 PM by thinkergratis
but you can't make it drink...

9/11 the result of incompetence and intelligence failures ?

i suppose pearl harbor was the result of incompetence too...or so we thought anyways. anyhoot, there's just sooo much incompetence running rampant within the government corridors of dc, that the pnac was actually hoping some of that incompetence would spill over on their watch. looks like they got what they wanted right ?

no way...i still don't believe our governent would let something like that happen to the american people. allow an act of terrorism to take place on our soil ? so they can further their own agenda ? no way...

yeah, i suppose you're right. i mean...that's just something way too sinister to fathom. or is it ? i'll tell ya this much, apparently somebody knew something.

i mean, c'mon...four planes hijacked by 19 radical islamists with boxcutters ? or shall i say...radical islamists with impeccable flying skills ?

wait, i mean 15 hijackers...

or was there 11 ? shucks...i seem to have lost count...

still thirsty ?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Aquarian_Conspirator Donating Member (148 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 10:38 PM
Response to Reply #220
221. ha-ha-ha-ha-ha
Your wit runneth over.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Aquarian_Conspirator Donating Member (148 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 10:17 PM
Response to Original message
219. Sophree
As someone who agrees with your point of view, I think you should use more tact in the future. If your goal is to have people listen to you without bias, then referring to there "blinders" is an abrasive and counter productive way to open your post.

For some reason I'm not allowed to send private messages, so I had to
make this a public message.

regards,

Jesse
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TankLV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-25-04 12:12 AM
Response to Reply #219
230. Sophree - keep your "blinders" on!
The ones protesting this term, the ones with the "blinders", fit that description to a tee, for despite the evidence presented on DU over the years, and despite their attempts to mis-state and misquote and put things in peoples' mouths that they didn't say, STILL "choose" believe what they choose to believe.

The "blinders" description, just like the term "sheeple" that accurately describes a large sector of the american public, is a very appropriate term.

The fact that it upsets these same people, means is must have hit a nerve of truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stepnw1f Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 11:24 PM
Response to Original message
226. Somebody Ordered A Stand Down
Modern day Pearl Harbor.
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 Tue Apr 16th 2024, 06:08 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) 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