It's no conspiracy theory (4.00 / 31)
Anyone who doesn't think that 9/11 could have possibly been
prevented and that there were not people who knew what was going to
happen is a deluded idiot. The fact that a big attack (which was
actually supposed to happen in the summer of 2001) was impending was
well known throughout the government and military in 2000 and 2001.
There were people who identified some of the hijackers
beforehand, as is well documented, but upper levels of the government
refused to pay attention to it. Bush himself may not have been
warned "Hey, this Mohammad Atta guy wants to fly an airplane into the
WTC on September 11, 2001" but our government had enough information
that they could have either completely prevented it, or at least caught
some of the hijackers ahead of time, or even at the very least Bush
could have continued to fight against terrorism as Clinton did, as
Richard Clarke tried to get Bush to do.
by theboz on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 06:05:19 AM PDT
"I don't think anybody could have predicted (4.00 / 9)
that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World
Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon."
Why the hell does that deluded idiot still have a job?
Essential funk: 'Impeach the President' by the Honeydrippers
by pontechango on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 07:04:42 AM PDT
[ Parent ] yep... (4.00 / 3)
In this George W. Bizarro administration, that gets you promoted.
TexasDemocrat
Giggity giggity giggity...Iraq's a Quagmire
by TexasDemocrat on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 07:23:25 AM PDT
[ Parent ] BooMan.... (4.00 / 4)
Does 9/11 therefore amount to the PNAC's talk about "a new Perle[sic]Harbor?"
Ummm, just asking here, but what "Faustian bargain" did Bush make in
this affair? Guaranteed re-election? A chance to "top Pop"
in Iraq? All he had to do was go along and allow the act to come
down. Is this where this idea is going?
Which translates to, the WTC would still be standing and this wouldn't have happened if Gore had been allowed to serve in 2000?
This is Bizarro!
"same old fears, same old crimes-we haven't changed since ancient times.." "Iron Hand" Dire Straits
by boilerman10 on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:19:11 AM PDT
[ Parent ] Faustian bargain? (4.00 / 2)
"Originally developed by Motorola, Iridium LLC was
bankrupt in 1999 when the bin Laden group purchased it and renamed it
Iridium Satellite LLC. The company is centered in Leesburg, VA.
Since the bankruptcy takeover, the company has garnered a $72
million DOD contract..."
"Apparently, 600 Iridium Satellite phones were on route to
Florida on September 11 and were redirected to NYC to help with the
tragedy enroute. After September 11, there was some talk of Iridium
Satellite LLC`s "low-earth orbiting satellites to provide real-time
cockpit voice and flight data monitoring of commercial aircraft,
replacing the on- board "black boxes."
http://www.rmfdevelopment.com/political/IridiumSatellite.htm
"With normal communications methods crippled since the
attack on the World Trade Center, a previously under-achieving
satellite-based phone system linked with Osama bin Laden's family is,
ironically, experiencing a boom in business..."
"Iridium's ability to bypass cell-phone towers and
land-based telephone lines came in handy after terrorists rammed planes
into New York's World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Cellular phone
service in lower Manhattan failed when the towers that transmit signals
came crashing down along with the World Trade Center buildings. Land
lines proved useless after authorities shut off utilities to the area.
In Washington, cell-phone circuits were simply overloaded with panicked
residents' calls."
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24519
Soooo, whaddaya think? Call that a bargain, or just getting lucky?
...learn something new every day...
by nhwriter on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 10:04:22 AM PDT
[ Parent ] What if.... (none / 0)
Bin Laden's plot to attack the US on 9/11 is really about making his
family more money? We know about Iridium and that the Bin Laden's
are connected to the Carlyle Group. Could all of this have really
been a ruse by Bin Laden to make more money? Stanger things have
happened.
by Democratic Hawk on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 02:21:58 PM PDT
[ Parent ] YES $$$$$ (none / 0)
They made a ton of money on it. There were options on the stock
exchange that no one has collected on because of fear. A friend of mine
made 40K the day after betting against the dollar with the Euro. and I
am sure many otheres did too. Also the gold bugs took profits,you can
bet.
by abbeysbooks on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 03:48:16 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
|
|
|
Perle Harbor, brilliant (none / 1)
Where is that guy, anyway? He's been out of the limelight, so probably up to no good starting the war with Iran.
Clark '08
by DrReason on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 11:16:06 AM PDT
[ Parent ] Perle is busy with his lawyers (4.00 / 2)
He's no longer chairman of the Defense Policy Board, but still a
member, I think. As a director of Hollinger, Inc., he charged
with some sort of fiduciary misfeasance for authorizing the transfer of
of shareholder profits for the benefit senior executives.
From Judicial watch.
On March 28, 2003, Judicial Watch filed a complaint to the Office of
Government Ethics, the Office of the Defense Department Inspector
General, the Office of the Homeland Security Inspector General, United
States Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller
in the matter of Former Defense Policy Board Chairman Richard N. Perle,
Former President William Jefferson Clinton, Former Secretary of Defense
William S. Cohen, Former Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry
McAuliffe and Global Crossing.
Perle has served as a Director of Hollinger International since June
1994 and is the only outside director on the executive committee. He is
also Co-Chairman of Hollinger Digital Inc. and a Director of Jerusalem
Post, both of which are subsidiaries of the Company. He has served as a
director of GeoBiotics. On August 31, 2004, a special committee of the
Board of Directors investigating the alleged misconduct of the
controlling shareholders of Hollinger International submitted the
512-page Breeden Report to the SEC. In the report, Perle is singled out
as having breached his fiduciary responsibilities as a company director
by authorizing several controversial transactions which diverted the
company's net profit from the shareholders to the accounts of various
executives. Perle received over $3 million in bonuses on top of his
salary, bringing the total to $5.4 million, and the investigating
committee called for him to return the money. Top Hollinger executives
dismissed the report and have filed a defamation lawsuit against the
head of the investigating committee, former SEC chairman Richard C.
Breeden.
by Eiron on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 12:20:57 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
|
|
|
|
Strangely (4.00 / 3)
The scenario that happened on Sept 11th was mentioned in a spy novel and the pilot episode of the Lone Gunmen television series.
Pilot Episode Lone Gunmen
So, at least in the realm of fiction, someone was thinking about it.
by hypnyx on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:21:17 AM PDT
[ Parent ] It was also a central plot point (none / 0)
in Tom Clancy's 1994 book Debt of Honor.
-8.64, -8.64
This Far and No Further
by Black Max on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:30:04 AM PDT
[ Parent ] However, that was different (none / 0)
Japanese airliner, crashed into the Capitol.
But yes, the idea was the same. It's not that it's never been thought of.
The problem is that these morons in control never READ and can't put together a 30 piece jigsaw puzzle without instructions.
by mmacdDE on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:40:36 AM PDT
[ Parent ] Right. (none / 0)
If I remember the description (I haven't read the book), it was also
a radio-controlled plane, not a plane hijacked with (cough sputter)
boxcutter-wielding Islamic fanatics. But the idea of Condi
getting up there and telling us with a straight face, "Lawdy mussy, we
uns dint nevuh think that no ones gonna run no aeroplane into no
buildin" is ridiculous and inexcusable. "We dint know nuthin
about crashin no aeroplanes!"
(As is my Butterfly McQueen dialect for Condi, I guess, but it's meant as a slap at Condi directly, not as anything else.)
-8.64, -8.64
This Far and No Further
by Black Max on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:49:51 AM PDT
[ Parent ] Not hijacked (none / 1)
The pilot was the one who flew it into the Capitol. Payback for WWII, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, IIRC.
But definitely, for her to say that nobody ever thought of flying planes into buildings was totally ridiculous.
I'll bet Tom Clancy immediately sent her a copy of his book... ;-)
by mmacdDE on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 09:02:58 AM PDT
[ Parent ] Family honor, not about WW2 (none / 0)
The payback was specifically for his son who was killed during the
brief military conflict between the US and Japan chronicled in the
book.
---
If trickle down economics worked, Marie Antoinette wouldn't have lost her head
by sterno on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 04:47:53 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
|
|
Radio controlled (none / 1)
It is also a possible scenario that since many commercial airliners
can be controlled from the ground,that the high jackers found
themselves in a position where the controls were not in their control
and they were the patsys,as Oswald says he was.
by abbeysbooks on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 03:53:45 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
|
|
|
And it was also the central plot of a 1996 movie (none / 1)
Executive Decision starring Kurt Russell, then-unknown Halle Berry, and now-barely-known Steven Seagal.
Now only was the 747 intended to crash into Washington, DC, but it was
carrying WMDs in the form of biological agents - a bit more ambitious
than hitting a single building.
by cappy on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 10:07:14 AM PDT
[ Parent ] And it was mentioned as a possibility... (4.00 / 4)
...in Gore's FAA review.
And it was drilled for at NORAD often prior to 9/11.
James Dobson beats puppies.
by HollywoodOz on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 10:28:02 AM PDT
[ Parent ] Colombine (4.00 / 2)
The Colombine shooters also had left behind plans showing a Phase II
in which they intended to go from the high school to the airport,
hijack a plane, fly to New York and crash the plane into the Empire
State Building. I heard this on television and read it in several
places.
They could never have executed the plan (and, in the actual event,
decided to shoot themselves instead), but it is telling that even
morons of that calliber could imagine the possibility.
Clearly, from all of the references listed, the idea of crashing a
plane into a building was widely circulated in the popular culture.
What no one could have truly imagined in September 2001 was the degree
to which the Executive Branch of "the world's greatest superpower" was
occupied by over-matched, lazy, incompetent, corrupt, infantile
half-wits.
by Wide Awake on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 12:40:31 PM PDT
[ Parent ] No they aren't lazy and dumb at all (none / 1)
They didn't allow it to happen which was what I thought the minute I heard about it on 9-11. That they knew and allowed it.
No it is much worse than that.
by abbeysbooks on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 04:12:28 PM PDT
[ Parent ] Completely agree... (none / 1)
It's the worst crime that's ever been pulled on American soil...BY a
sitting president and his administration.
They HAD to come up with something that would rally the country to
war--the wrong war, eventually, of course, as we now know...
It had to be done to set The Plan in motion...how else can you explain
all of the research and facts about how the towers fell, the lack of
evidence at the Pentagon, etc...
Talk about wag the dog....sheesh!
by teachergurrl on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 07:38:19 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
|
|
|
|
Forewarning (none / 1)
And Ted (last name?) who worked on miniaturizing the atom bombs
wrote in The Curve of Binding Energy exactly where a briefcase sized
bomb could be place in the World Trade Center to bring it down! And I
am reading this in the mid eighties and thinking why are you telling
the world this?
by abbeysbooks on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 03:41:46 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
|
|
|
Al Qaeda already thought about it too (4.00 / 4)
In 1995, al Qaeda planned Operation Bojinka
to fly 11 airliners into various buildings all over the world (think
9/11 but much bigger) but it was stopped. Clinton knew about it,
as did other members of our government, which is why they took al Qaeda
seriously despite some of the Republicans' best efforts to prevent us
from adequately addressing terrorism. Unfortunately, the
Republican party said that Clinton's bombing raid in Afghanistan and
attempts to put people on the ground were an attempt to distract people
from the fact that he got head from a fat chick.
by theboz on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 11:10:54 AM PDT
[ Parent ] your comment is confusing (none / 0)
two separate parts of the Bojinka scheme
the 11 airliners were to ahve bombs planted on their first legs that
would blow up during flight on their 2nd legs -- in others words,
to be exploded in the air, not crashed into buildings.
There was a separate scheme to take a plane and crash it into CIA headquarters.
If you will take the time to read the details in the wikipedia article
to which you linked, you will see why your comment is incorrect.
Those who can, do.
Those who can do more, TEACH!
by teacherken on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 07:39:12 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
|
|
|
The threat was an old one. (4.00 / 2)
Plattsburgh (NY) AFB was closed becuase it was a favorite target of
Al Quaida (Syrians at that time) in the late 80's early 90's. I
lived there, and there were many times the base was on lockdown due to
potential terror threats to local malls and bars where military
frequented. They even put heavy equipment at the gates to prevent
truck bombs from storming through. The heavy equipment barriers
were there from about 1987 to when the base was closed in 1994.
The base intel had good connections with Montreal police and those ties were cut off when the base was closed.
I have said it from day one. NO ONE FARTS WITHOUT INTELLIGIENCE
KNOWING ABOUT IT. Not only CIA, or FBI, but all the branches of
military have their own intel, plus you have Secret Service, who keeps
an eye on the money, Customs and Border Patrol accumulating
relationships, information, the sheer amount of info accumulated is
mind-boggling.
by lilorphant on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:26:18 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
|
Why the hell does that deluded idiot... (4.00 / 7)
...still have a job?
Because millions of delude idiots voted for him!
I blame the American people almost as much as I blame Bush & Co. He
didn't get the job by osmosis. He got it because too many Americans are
easily maniputlated and seem to celebrate ignorance (I blame the media
for facilitating and exploiting that). And election tampering cannot be
blamed entirely, because if it wasn't close, the tampering couldn't
have put him over the top.
Even today, look at all the Americans that support this jerk (nearly
half), even after all we know now. It's shameful and depressing.
For Immediate Relief...
The George Bush Voodoo Doll©
by KingOneEye on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:34:08 AM PDT
[ Parent ] What about the press? (4.00 / 6)
I don't want to let the Bush voters completely off the hook, but
where the hell was the muckraking press post 9-11, or during the whole
2000 election for that matter. I know corporate control and bias
toward the wealthy and white is often mentioned, but I think their
biggest problem is that they only operate in NARRATIVES. They
don't seek out all the facts and try to find out what really happened,
they create a popular narrative "White Bride-to-Be, Abuducted by Mad
Minority" and stay with it at all costs. The snark below has
succumbed to this as well- Bush couldn't possibly have allowed the
attacks because it doesn't fit the narrative. If journalists were
more concerned with the facts (the how) rather than constructing
narratives through the motive (the why), we'd all be better off.
Or if they were at least concerned with breaking stories rather
than coddling their adminstration sources. From the moment NORAD
released their first timetable of the day, then changed it, we knew
something didn't fit. The facts didn't fit the narrative, so they
must be ignored.
Wojo
by jasonwhat on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 09:34:57 AM PDT
[ Parent ] Some of them tried (none / 0)
Time Magazine ran a really good article that set my research on 9/11
into motion. It was something to the effect of "Could 9/11 have
been prevented?" and while they came to the conclusion that it could
not have been, it was a good starting point for information on the
topic.
by theboz on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 11:24:45 AM PDT
[ Parent ] Absolutely it could have been (none / 1)
We had warning from our own intelligence,from the intelligence of
Germany,France and Israel for starters on it even down to the date.
Which was symbolic.
We had exercises scheduled for that day on just such an occurence. And
our code was broken and we knew it. Shades of Pearl and the Japanese
broken code.
The Lus8itania was a sitting duck with passengers on it for the Germans
so we could get in WWI. The Maine was blown up in Havana so we could go
to war with Spain over their colonies in the Americas.
And Lincoln was guarded by a flat footed drunkard,who was the most
incompetent of all his guards, on the night shift when he was most
vulnerable because he went to the theatre a lot.
And no one has any illusions about JFK and RFK anymore,do they?
by abbeysbooks on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 04:00:33 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
|
|
Where Are the Democratic Leaders (none / 0)
as well, since we're talking about responsibility.
I mean really!
Look at this new revelation, for instance.
A REPUBLICAN aired the issue, for chrissakes.
I want our leaders to LEAD.
I want our reporters to REPORT.
I want our representatives to REPRESENT.
Start telling the truth.
by Patricia Taylor on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:56:30 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
|
|
|
|
You know (4.00 / 20)
your argument would hold a lot more water if you had any evidence
that the Bush administration exploited the attacks for political and
financial gain...
"Unless we each conform, unless we obey orders, unless we
follow our leaders blindly there is no possible way we can remain free"
- Frank Burns
by Central Scrutinizer on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:34:26 AM PDT
[ Parent ] LOL (none / 0)
best snark ever
by gnat on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:37:21 AM PDT
[ Parent ] heh heh (none / 1)
and there's the teeny fact that the results of the Florida Ballot
Project, sponsored and run by a consortium of the country's leading
newspapers, was due to publish the results of their recount of 175,000
uncounted Florida ballots in September 2001. As one would
imagine, 9/11 completely "waylaid" the analysis of the results, and delayed the release of any media reporting on the project's findings.
When the results were finally released in November 2001, the results
were treated very gingerly by the very papers involved in the
consortium. e.g.
The yearlong review of the Florida election reveals that even if the
U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a recount of ballots, there is no clear
indication that Democrat Al Gore would have gained enough votes to
triumph over Republican George W. Bush.
A close examination of the ballots also suggests that more
Floridians attempted to choose Gore over Bush. But more Gore supporters
improperly marked their ballots, leaving Bush with more valid votes.
And here's the NYT noting that a close
examination of broader group of rejected ballots than those covered in
court decisions shows Gore might have won if courts ordered full
statewide recount of all rejected ballots, and if he pursued in court
action he publicly advocated of calling on state to count all votes.) (from the archive abstract)
Imagine the headlines that might have been if 9/11 hadn't happened. Turd Blossom would not have been pleased. . .
Oh and before anyone tries to BAN me - I'm not screamin' "conspiracy!".
Just contributing some facts to the record, maybe needlessly so
as I bet this was all amply blogged back in 11/01.
Reality addict - can't get enough of seeing it all clearly
by writeout on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 11:32:39 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
|
|
Books about this (none / 1)
The War On Freedom details the entire operation minute by minute. They knew just like Roosevelt knew.
You're Not Stupid takes it into even more nitty gritty detail. That
book says they not only knew they orchestrated it. and then goes on to
say how.
When Payne Stewart's plane lost contact with radio the intercept was there in 18 minutes.
90 minutes for the first intercept on 9-11? I have heard that Rummy got
auto control over NORAD for intercepts in the spring of 2001. Someone
very high up diliberately delayed the response. In Fahrenheit 9-11
isn't Cheney saying that the president needed to give the order to
shoot the planes down? No. It is auto for NORAD to do this if they
don't follow the commands of the intercept.
by abbeysbooks on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 03:22:47 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
|
|
This is news, 3 words (4.00 / 2)
the military knew
Looks like the CIA/FBI are fighting back on multi-fronts.
This above all: to thine own self be true,...
Thou canst not then be false to any man.-WS
by Agathena on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:38:56 AM PDT
[ Parent ] Also the military (none / 0)
they're pissed off too. Bush has destroyed them, and they'll stay destroyed for years.
by mmacdDE on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:42:32 AM PDT
[ Parent ] The strange thing is (none / 1)
My contacts in the military say the officer corps is still 90-95%
behind Bush and that his administration has done more for the military
and its morale than any recent president. I find this MINDBOGGLING but
that's what they're telling me.
Family values are for everyone
by LynnS on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 09:05:23 AM PDT
[ Parent ] Well (none / 0)
they are the military and he is the commander-in-chief. For there to be less than 90% official support would be tantamount to a coup.
"You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To
change something, build a new model which makes the existing model
obsolete."-Buckminster Fuller
by georg on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 10:02:24 AM PDT
[ Parent ] We are ripe FOR A COUP... (4.00 / 5)
if revelations like this keep coming.
As far as I am concerned, I've always figured that they let 9/11 happen so that they could expand and continue their game plan.
Which shows how expendable human life is to these people.
Nearly 3,000 people die in the towers, while thousands of Iraqis
and Afghans die in the wars of revenge and payback, and our men and
women die for lies.
I am going to say again: we are ripe for a coup. Some people are
taking a dimmer and dimmer view of these proceedings, because in
comparison to that wanker Tony Blair rounding up some suspects, we
haven't gotten any of these guys--bin Laden, Zawahiri--yet. In
fact, we let them escape.
And what does this all add up to?
An untypical Negro...since 1954.
by blksista on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 10:14:45 AM PDT
[ Parent ] Bin Laden (none / 1)
is the very convenient scapegoat. They don't want to catch him i8f
he 8is alive that is. In July 01 he was in the American hospital in
Dubai and visited by many people includeing the ranking CIA man there.
So we knew where he was and he was wanted at that time.;
Bernard Henri-Levy in Who Killed Daniel Pearl has evidence he was in
the religious fortress in Karachi(a number of times) after 9-11 which
was known by the Pakistani Security forces.
As to the coup,Gore Vidal wrote that there was a silent military coup
in this country with the assination of JFK. Now who wants to take them
on? Understand that the military is in control and they give the
orders. Now do you get that utterly confused face on Dubya in
Fahrenheit 9-11. He is scared shitless. Because now he knows what
lengths they will go to.
by abbeysbooks on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 03:32:45 PM PDT
[ Parent ] deep throat politics (none / 0)
Not to mention that Tora Bora was a stand down. Wave bye-bye boys, we're gonna let the Pakis airlift the motherfuckers out.
As to the other coup, some say that's the real Watergate story.
Nixon and Kissinger consolidated the NSC and cut the military out
during the Vietnam war. The Joint Chief of Staff got busted spying on
the administration. Making nice with China and troop withdrawl from
Vietnam during the cold war didn't sit well with the military brass or
the commie fevered at the CIA.
As for Kennedy, BushCo. didn't learn all of the lessons about what
happens when you fuck with the CIA. And, if Bush's pet goat face is
fear, it's fear of getting caught. He already knows what lengths
they'll go to - just look at who raised him.
by debraz on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 06:42:29 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why did it take (none / 0)
so long for us to find this out? Damn the 9-11 commission.
by Farlfoto on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:55:34 AM PDT
[ Parent ] 9/11 report was a WHITEWASH (none / 1)
It studiously avoided answering the question,
Could the 9/11 attacks been prevented?
This above all: to thine own self be true,...
Thou canst not then be false to any man.-WS
by Agathena on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 09:00:45 AM PDT
[ Parent ] The 0/11 commission report was a whitewash (none / 1)
that would have made Tom Saywer proud. The commission started
from the premise that the official story was true, and then set about
the business of exonerating everyone involved, ignoring rampant
evidence of gross incompetence at the very least. The other
possibilities are even more chilling. Read David Ray Griffin's
books with an open mind.
by Vagabond57 on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 09:17:11 AM PDT
[ Parent ] Bob Kerrey says (4.00 / 3)
that the 9/11 Commission could not come out and accuse Bush/Cheney of lying.
One big lie that the commission did prove was Cheney saying he notified
Bush before giving the order to shoot down a civilian airplane. There
is no record of such a call. According to the phone records, Cheney,
who had no constitutional authority to give such an order, called Bush
after he gave the order.
The commission set out to prove that 9/11 could not have been prevented. We know now that is not true.
This above all: to thine own self be true,...
Thou canst not then be false to any man.-WS
by Agathena on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 10:45:04 AM PDT
[ Parent ] On shooting it down (none / 1)
The intercept for a plane losing radio contact was automatic. I have
posted here elsewhere about this. On 9-11 it did not require either
Cheney or the president to give any orders. Any plane was to be shot by
the intercept if it failed to obey orders.
90 fucking minutes for an intercept that day! 18 for Payne Stewart's plane.
by abbeysbooks on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 04:05:33 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
|
Bushes Lies to the Commission (none / 0)
I have posted about this above or below.
No they couldn't accuse him without bringing the government down.
Read Harper's Nov 04 issue on an analysis of the commission report. Not so different from the Warren report about JFK.
by abbeysbooks on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 04:25:44 PM PDT
[ Parent ] Vanity Fair, Harpers, New York Review of Bks (none / 0)
they all called the report a whitewash and gave very
convincing reasons for it.
Warren Report: President Johnson said to Warren after he read the
report, "You are not your father's son." It was something that Johnson
regretted in his late years. It was another seriously flawed report.
This above all: to thine own self be true,...
Thou canst not then be false to any man.-WS
by Agathena on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 06:38:04 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
|
|
|
|
November 04 issue of Harper's (none / 1)
on the Commission report. Just before the election too. A great
analysis of it. When he gets to the part where they are interviewing
Bush in the Oval Office and he lies,and they know he is lying because
they have already had testimony from others that prove he is lying,they
don't know what to do at that point. They are faced with whitewashing
it or bringing the whole government down and they are in a state of
terror about it. A footnote separated by some forty pages more or less
addresses it slightly because they have to explain the discrepancy of
the different testimonies.
This is a brave article. Is he still alive?
by abbeysbooks on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 04:22:58 PM PDT
[ Parent ] Is it this? (none / 0)
Whitewash as Public Service
From Europe? Join the fun at the European Tribune!
by hesk on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:33:04 PM PDT
[ Parent ] Here's where Bush lied to the Commission (none / 0)
THE NOBODY TOLD ME SCAM
From the article:
There's little mystery about why the Commission is tongue-tied. It can't call a liar a liar.
The most momentous subject before the 9/11 Commission was: What did
President Bush know about the Al Qaeda threat to the United States,
when did he know it, and if he knew little, why so? The Commission
reports that on several occasions in the spring and summer of 2001 the
President had "asked his briefers whether any of the threats pointed to
the United States." The Commission further reports the President saying
that "if his advisers had told him there was a [terrorist] cell in the
United States, they would have moved to take care of it." Facing his
questioners in April 2004, the President said he had not been informed
that terrorists were in this country.
by leveymg on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 09:26:13 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
|
|
|
|
|
US Generals Warned Not to Fly (4.00 / 8)
According to a Newsweek report on September 13, "[t]he state of
alert had been high during the past two weeks, and a particularly
urgent warning may have been received the night before the attacks,
causing some top Pentagon brass to cancel a trip. Why that same
information was not available to the 266 people who died aboard the
four hijacked commercial aircraft may become a hot topic on the Hill."
[Newsweek, 9/13/01] Far from becoming a hot topic, the only
additional media mention of this story is in the next issue of
Newsweek: "a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel
plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns."
[Newsweek, 9/17/01]
Read the whole source timeline.
by debraz on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 09:11:34 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
|
I could have told you that already (none / 1)
A friend of mine who was in the Navy in 2000 was told that he should
reenlist because he would get to see some action after the impending
terrorist attack of 2001. I'm really suprised that this type of
thing hasn't been reported widely, but if regular NCOs were getting
told about this, I'd say it was pretty well known.
by theboz on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 09:50:50 AM PDT
[ Parent ] WTC 7 (4.00 / 5)
I used to dismiss the idea of any dirty dealings
wrt to 9/11.
Certainly facts like these worked to change my mind, but the lynch pin
for me was WTC 7. WTC 7 is the third building that came down in the
late afternoon of 9/11. No one knows exactly why it came down. To me it
looks like an implosion.
http://www.wtc7.net/videos.html
Buildings don't just collapse in on themselves like that. Implosions
are the work of highly trained engineers. The probability of WTC 7
imploding by chance is akin to that of a monkey typing out a
Shakespeare work by accident.
Here are some other implosions for reference:
http ://www.implosionworld.com/cinema.htm
I wrote a diary about this a few months ago:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/6/18/162145/172
etrans.blogspot.com
Tracking energy and transportation news.
by joel3000 on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 10:41:17 AM PDT
[ Parent ] Agreed. (none / 0)
I know this breaches the "forbidden conspiracy theory" ban, but fuck that.
I don't really have a professional understanding of the issues involved, but a siginficant portion of the incident really confuses me.
First off: i am positively convinced (though the reason why is very
drawn out) that the actual hijacking and crashing of the planes was
done by religious extremists set on terrorism through suicidal tactics.
But things gets pretty fuzzy after that. (IE, what happened to WTC7,
why did the main two towers collapse when they were designed to
withstand this sort of event safely, etc...)
The Shapeshifter's Blog -- Politics, Philosophy, and Madness!
by Shapeshifter on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 05:25:44 PM PDT
[ Parent ] Easy There! (none / 0)
I'm quoting you here:
(IE, what happened to WTC7, why did the main two towers
collapse when they were designed to withstand this sort of event
safely, etc...)
Surely, you don't mean to say what you did. (Or is it possible I
misunderstood your intent?) The WTC towers were built to
withstand collapse if certain parts failed, say a beam here or there,
due to their egg-crate-like construction. No building is built to withstand the impact AND explosion of tons of hurtling incendiary bomb.
The WTC towers were also built to withstand wind load hitting
them from the side -- that's why they, and other skyscrapers sway in
the wind. They're built to bend, rather than break.
The wonder is that the towers stood as long as they did in the face of the intense heat produced by the fires.
To aid in informing yourself and avoiding unnecessary reliance on conspiracy theories regarding their collapse, visit the PBS Nova site "Why the Towers Fell".
The real damage in the World Trade Center resulted from
the size of the fire. Each floor was about an acre, and the fire
covered the whole floor within a few seconds. Ordinarily, it would take
a lot longer. If, say, I have an acre of property, and I start a
brushfire in one corner, it might take an hour, even with a good wind,
to go from one corner and start burning the other corner.
That's what the designers of the World Trade Center were designing for
-- a fire that starts in a wastepaper basket, for instance. By the time
it gets to the far corner of the building, it has already burned up all
the fuel that was back at the point of origin. So the beams where it
started have already started to cool down and regain their strength
before you start to weaken the ones on the other side.
On September 11th, the whole floor was damaged all at once, and that's really the cause of the World Trade Center collapse.
And for joel3000 who implies a conspiracy for the implosion of Bldg. 7, I'm quoting your here:
Buildings don't just collapse in on themselves like
that. Implosions are the work of highly trained engineers. The
probability of WTC 7 imploding by chance is akin to that of a monkey
typing out a Shakespeare work by accident.
I suggest you take note of the following from that program:
Have you ever seen the demolition of buildings? They blow
them up, and they implode. Well, I once asked demolition experts, "How
do you get it to implode and not fall outward?" They said, "Oh, it's
really how you time and place the explosives." I always accepted that
answer, until the World Trade Center, when I thought about it myself.
And that's not the correct answer. The correct answer is, there's
no other way for them to go but down. They're too big. With anything
that massive -- each of the World Trade Center towers weighed half a
million tons -- there's nothing that can exert a big enough force to
push it sideways.
Be careful in leaping to conclusions and then to conspiracy theories. You often land in a "claptrap."
They burn our children in their wars and grow rich beyond the dreams of avarice.
by Limelite on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 06:10:51 PM PDT
[ Parent ] Heard it before... (none / 0)
There are some substantial, but complex, objections. I was writing
them up, but the post became so intricate and long that i just scrapped
it. I don't expect else anyone to treat that seriously, but i do not
feel this is a compelling explanation.
However, the person at your link (though, i think, somewhat specious in
reasoning) proposes the one explanation that i think is most
reasonable: the WTC simply was not capable of withstanding a fire its
own sprinklers could not put out. This person hides that assertion
behind a bunch of random things but that's what i'm reading.
Secondly, the WTC towers were
designed to withstand precisely the event: an aircraft crashing into
them and any subsequent fires. The specific scenario was a plane lost
in a fog and looking to land, but there is no reason an intentional
collision would be different. Another note: there was no explosion
anywhere (that i'm aware of), the fireball seen on impact is precisely
that. A rapid burn developing the characteristic "fireball" shape, not
an explosion.
Other points: WTC7 was not struck by an airplane. And the question,
barring foolish claims along the lines of "If an airliner had really
struck a skyscraper it would have knocked it over right there!", is not
"topple" versus "implode" but rather "collapse" versus "implode". I
don't, however, give a damn about how the main WTC towers fell apart
but only why. (WTC7 is a little different because it's more of a known
quantity.)
Finally, before assuming i'm spouting this conspiracy theory or that:
please understand that i am not proposing any particular theory for
what happened. Rather, as i stated above, i have questions and want
answers.
The Shapeshifter's Blog -- Politics, Philosophy, and Madness!
by Shapeshifter on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 02:18:20 PM PDT
[ Parent ] Something key to remember with the tower collapses (none / 0)
Is that the official concludes that the towers would have held had the fireproofing not been dislodged:
he NIST report concludes that a combination of factors caused both
buildings to collapse shortly after terrorists flew hijacked commercial
airliners into them on 11 September 2001. Computer simulations have
been used to help piece together the chain of events that unfolded
between impact and the collapse of each structure.
The report says the initial collisions severely damaged several of the
columns at the core of each building. Critically, they are also thought
to have dislodged fireproofing on both the columns and the floors - the
floors linked the inner columns to the supports on the outer structure.
"While the buildings were able to withstand the initial impact of
the aircraft, the resulting fires that spread through the towers
weakened support columns and floors that had fireproofing dislodged by
the impacts," says Sunder, who led the NIST investigation. "This
eventually led to collapse as the perimeter columns were pulled inward
by the sagging floors and [became] buckled."
"The reason the towers collapsed is because the fireproofing was
dislodged," according to Sunder. If the fireproofing had remained in
place, Sunder said, the fires would have burned out and moved on
without weakening key elements to the point of structural collapse.
It's also worth noting that the conclusion that the fireproofing was
dislodged was due primarily to computer simulations because they mysteriously hauled off all the steel from ground zero and had it melted down in China:
Fire Engineering Magazine, January 2002
$ELLING OUT THE INVESTIGATION
BY BILL MANNING
Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire?
Did they throw away the gas can used at the Happyland Social Club Fire?
Did they cast aside the pressure-regulating valves at the Meridian
Plaza Fire? Of course not. But essentially, that's what they're doing
at the World Trade Center.
For more than three months, structural steel from the World Trade
Center has been and continues to be cut up and sold for scrap. Crucial
evidence that could answer many questions about high-rise building
design practices and performance under fire conditions is on the slow
boat to China, perhaps never to be seen again in America until you buy
your next car.
Such destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of
government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific
investigation of the largest fire-induced collapse in world history.
I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation,
NFPA 921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing the
destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall.
Hoping beyond hope, I have called experts to ask if the towers were the
only high-rise buildings in America of lightweight, center-core
construction. No such luck. I made other calls asking if these were the
only buildings in America with light-density, sprayed-on fireproofing.
Again, no luck-they were two of thousands that fit the description.
Comprehensive disaster investigations mean increased safety. They
mean positive change. NASA knows it. The NTSB knows it. Does FEMA know
it?
No. Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official
investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil
Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered
by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far
afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained
from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by
ASCE investigation committee members-described by one close source as a
"tourist trip"-no one's checking the evidence for anything.
...
So yeah, this info is crucial when discussing the towers' collapses.
by glooperoo on Wed Aug 10, 2005 at 03:42:49 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
|
|
|
Easy There! (none / 0)
I'm quoting you here:
(IE, what happened to WTC7, why did the main two towers
collapse when they were designed to withstand this sort of event
safely, etc...)
Surely, you don't mean to say what you did. (Or is it possible I
misunderstood your intent?) The WTC towers were built to
withstand collapse if certain parts failed, say a beam here or there,
due to their egg-crate-like construction. No building is built to withstand the impact AND explosion of tons of hurtling incendiary bomb.
The WTC towers were also built to withstand wind load hitting
them from the side -- that's why they, and other skyscrapers sway in
the wind. They're built to bend, rather than break.
The wonder is that the towers stood as long as they did in the face of the intense heat produced by the fires.
To aid in informing yourself and avoiding unnecessary reliance on conspiracy theories regarding their collapse, visit the credible site of PBS Nova program, "Why the Towers Fell."
The real damage in the World Trade Center resulted from
the size of the fire. Each floor was about an acre, and the fire
covered the whole floor within a few seconds. Ordinarily, it would take
a lot longer. If, say, I have an acre of property, and I start a
brushfire in one corner, it might take an hour, even with a good wind,
to go from one corner and start burning the other corner.
That's what the designers of the World Trade Center were designing for
-- a fire that starts in a wastepaper basket, for instance. By the time
it gets to the far corner of the building, it has already burned up all
the fuel that was back at the point of origin. So the beams where it
started have already started to cool down and regain their strength
before you start to weaken the ones on the other side.
On September 11th, the whole floor was damaged all at once, and that's really the cause of the World Trade Center collapse.
And for joel3000 who implies a conspiracy for the implosion of Bldg. 7, I'm quoting your here:
Buildings don't just collapse in on themselves like
that. Implosions are the work of highly trained engineers. The
probability of WTC 7 imploding by chance is akin to that of a monkey
typing out a Shakespeare work by accident.
I suggest you take note of the following from that program:
Have you ever seen the demolition of buildings? They blow
them up, and they implode. Well, I once asked demolition experts, "How
do you get it to implode and not fall outward?" They said, "Oh, it's
really how you time and place the explosives." I always accepted that
answer, until the World Trade Center, when I thought about it myself.
And that's not the correct answer. The correct answer is, there's
no other way for them to go but down. They're too big. With anything
that massive -- each of the World Trade Center towers weighed half a
million tons -- there's nothing that can exert a big enough force to
push it sideways.
Be careful in leaping to conclusions and then to conspiracy theories. You often land in a "claptrap."
They burn our children in their wars and grow rich beyond the dreams of avarice.
by Limelite on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 06:14:33 PM PDT
[ Parent ] |
|
|
|
|
|
