This is some f*cked up sh*t:

[King of the Americas]

Do NOT read if you wish to encourage faith and confidence in your federal government:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/essayaninterestingday.html

[ssibal]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
Do NOT read if you wish to encourage faith and confidence in your federal government:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/essayaninterestingday.html

I guess this proves the September 11 attack was really a U.S. conspiracy to build a pipeline in Afghanistan and take over the world.:rolleyes:

[Mike B.]

I keep reading waiting for the horrible evidence...but this article is long and says NOTHING!!! :mad:

[King of the Americas]

...have yet read the entire piece.

Feel free to refraine from responding until you have.

[hal bidlack]

KoA,

are you arguing that the site is real, and that the Govt is just covering this all up? Or are you poking fun at a site that seems a bit over the top? I'm not quite clear on your meaning.

[King of the Americas]

...that this site offers questions to the 'reported' events of 9-11 and what happened around our President before and after the time of the attacks.

Everything 'seems' to be properly annotated and 'checkable'.

My own personal belief is that there is a sincere disconnect between print media, television news, and the public opinion as to the 'true' events surrounding 9-11.

There seems to be plenty of evidence that there were failures in many instances between institutions and people in our government that day...

THAT's what I think the piece suggests.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
...have yet read the entire piece.

Feel free to refraine from responding until you have.

I would not recommend you accepting Randi's million dollar challange.

[aerocontrols]

I recommend Bill Herbert's (http://mckinneysucks.blogspot.com) discussion of Mike Rupert's Timeline, located in 4 parts (He never finished the fifth, and who can blame him?) on the left side of his webpage at the link above.

MattJ

[CFLarsen]

KOA,

Let me see if I understand this:


The US government is utterly incompetent.
The US government is heavily involved in a massive cover-up and is quite possibly deeply involved in the attacks on 9/11.


(scratching my head) KOA, do you see something wrong with that picture?

Just look at Dubya's face before and after he is told the news. There is no way he knows about the towers before he walks into the classroom. If he did, he's the best actor in history.

[King of the Americas]

"He [Mike Ruppert] and the publishing firm Feral House -- whose alluring titles include Hot Girls of Weimar Berlin, The Imp #4, and The Satanic Witch (by church of Satan founder Anton Lavey -- have had a falling out, and Mikey needs is shopping for someone else to print his drivel."

---

This sounds and looks a lot like a personal attack piece and not an analysis of the findings at hand, but I'll keep reading.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by King of the Americas

This sounds and looks a lot like a personal attack piece and not an analysis of the findings at hand, but I'll keep reading.

I didn't direct you to his blog, I directed you to the links at the left.

MattJ

[King of the Americas]

Then the question is: "WHY didn't he know, and when he DID finally know, why didn't he 'act'?"

---

In retort to your 2 points:

The US government is utterly incompetent.

The US government is heavily involved in a massive cover-up and is quite possibly deeply involved in the attacks on 9/11.

I'd say given the evidence at hand this looks like more of a probability than merely a possibility.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
Then the question is: "WHY didn't he know, and when he DID finally know, why didn't he 'act'?"

It didn't take 30 minutes for the news to travel from New York to Florida? That's quite fast, considering that you don't just walk up to the President and grab him by the collar.

"Act"? What did you want him to do? He got the hell out of there and started what he should do: Gather information. That's what should be done first in a situation like that, and it had better be the right information. You don't go off on a wild goose chase, KOA.

What would you have done? Kept a cool head? I don't think so. In fact, what did you do? Don't tell me that you weren't horrified at the news. Don't tell me that you weren't shocked profoundly.

Originally posted by King of the Americas
I'd say given the evidence at hand this looks like more of a probability than merely a possibility.

So, how do you reconcile the two points? How can a government both be incompetent and pull off something like this?

[shemp]

I really hate it when I feel the need to defend the U.S. government, but here's my feeling about your two points:

1. The U.S. government is made up of people. People make mistakes. A lot of mistakes were made that day. A lot of bad decisions were made that day. A lot of decisions were made that day with politics in mind. A lot of decisions were made that day that are probably now regretted by the people who made those decisions.

2. If there's a cover-up, it's much more likely to be a cover-up of incompetency than a cover-up of complicity.

I think the report is useful as a historical record, in compiling evidence of such mistakes. But all of this is available in pieces in one place or another. I don't see anything really new here.

[King of the Americas]

...only to find this section and only this section that addressed and discussed the real point that the link I provided makes:

"For those of you new to this series, you can read the first three parts here, here, and here. As promised, this installment addresses his most idiotic claims ...

56. September 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 an event that has never happened in history. [Sources: CNN, ABC, MS-NBC, The Los Angeles Times, The New York Times.]"

---

Still looks like personal attacks that ignore the presenatation provided about the President did on 9-11.

Edited to add:

The "here, here, and here" links above also ignore and or do NOT address the 'record' of the President's actions or inactions on 9-11.

[King of the Americas]

I'd like to echo the sentiment presented by "shemp".

Moreover, if you'd like to know how 'I' would have done it, and hwat 'I' believe to have happened before having read the linked material read this:

What's more important?
(Fri May 16 10:43:16) from the thsmb.com

Message:

-Reading a story to children.

-Organizing and directing military leaders as they defend the U.S. from an attack that is going on at this very moment.

---

Lately, there has been a lot of talk about what the President was doing, and what he did when he found out that we were under attack on 9-11.

I say given the President's state of mind, and place in the power structure, I think he did everything he could to help America, at that moment. I mean let's face facts, he's not the brightest candle in the box, and there really is very little he could have done or said that would have made us any safer, or any attacks less effective. The President did what he was BEST at doing, reading children's books to people who didn't mind if he stumbled over a few words.

Moreover, I think his lack of direct action says a lot about who is really running the show. I mean, this President's staff isn't exactly new to this game or The White House. I can just hear them now, "No need to bother the President even though we are under the worst attack in our nation's history, leave him be to finish his story to the kids."

If 'I' were President, and my father's staff WASN'T running things...I think I would have excused myself saying something like, "Well kids, as Leader of the Free World I got to go right now because duty calls, but I will return to finish this story later, during less pressing times."

I mean, do ANY of us want our Leader reading children's stories, while we are under attack from an unknown source???

OR

Are we actually okay with it, knowing full well HE isn't really making the important decisions anyway?

By the way, 'I' just got my 3rd correspondence from this sitting President. Two of the letters had a stamped signature, but the third appears to be real. So, either 'I' am important enough to the leader of the free world to occupy his time stamping or signing letters to, or this is a figure head President who's only job is to be a good PR guy...either way I am not sure any of this invokes confidence in my government or its leadership.


-- King of the Americas

[Frostbite]

Perhaps that's because they didn't expect the hijackers to be suicidal. They prolly upped the security in all of US and Canadian airports for when the planes returned but didn't expect for the hijackers to crash them. I'm just thinking this, no idea what happened really...

[King of the Americas]

Read the ENTIRE piece provided in the original link.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
Read the ENTIRE piece provided in the original link.

This sounds exactly like when you tried (in vain) to persuade Howard Stern to read one of your lengthy...."essays". He kept asking you why he should read it, and you wouldn't tell him. Or couldn't.

If you cannot sum up the meaning of a text, you haven't understood it yourself. And if you won't sum up the meaning of a text, you are just wasting other people's time.

[King of the Americas]

Pardon ME, but my motive for addressing Howard Stern was NOT to tell him what I wrote about, it ws to get HIS OPINION about the work.

Before I was on the Show, I was assured that the ENTIRE cast had read the material. When I found out that NONE of them had, I refused to provide them any 'ammo' to slam me with. The convversation ened with him saying he'd read my material and call me back.

It WOULD be nice if you knew what the hell you were talking about, before you accuse me of "wasting other people's time".

The account linked above is an interesting one. Had you read it, maybe you'd be a bit more of a help in this discussion.

[CFLarsen]

KOA,

Pray tell, what is the point of having a lot of people reading your stuff, if you cannot at least give them a hint what it is about?

Would you read any lengthy piece without having the slightest idea what to expect, just because people told you to?

What "ammo" are you talking about? Why are you so paranoid about facing the publicity you seek so desperately? You pop up at various times with the most silly claims, all completely lacking any kind of evidence. When trounced (and this happens every bloody time!), you disappear with complaints that nobody understands you. Then, weeks or even months after, you resurface with yet another silly claim.

As for this article, it WOULD be nice, if you could actually say what your point is. I have other things to do than to read everything that is put before me.

I simply don't have the time. But I'm happy that you do. I just wish that you also understood what you read.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
Pardon ME, but my motive for addressing Howard Stern was NOT to tell him what I wrote about, it ws to get HIS OPINION about the work.


No, your motive was free publicity and self-promotion. If you had been interested in his opinion (though I can't imagine what value Howard's opinion could possibly have), you wouldn't have contacted him on the air. You would have contacted him in a way that he could respond without turning you into a form of entertainment.

Only an idiot would call up Howard Stern on the air for a political discussion. Howard knows this, and he treated you accordingly. Your posts are nothing more than a cut-rate attempt to do the same thing--draw attention for loony theories that aren't otherwise attention-worthy--and again the response is the correct and appropriate one.

If it's any consolation, I find you very amusing.

[King of the Americas]

The Show called ME, that morning and I was informed by Stuttering Jon that Howard & the rest of the crew HAD read my work, and was prepared to discuss its contents.

Moreover, I wasn't JUST contacting him for an opinion, but rather 'assistance' in getting my idea into the hands of someone who could help me and my endeavor for Peace.

Always and forever, the 'mis-informationist'.

[aggle_rithm]

I read the ENTIRE piece. Here's my take on it:

Surface-to-air missiles were placed on the roof of the resort [Sarasota Herald-Tribune,

9/10/02], and an Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) plane circled high overhead.

[Fighting Back: The War on Terrorism - From Inside the Bush White House, by Bill Sammon,

10/02, p. 25] It's not clear if this type of protection was standard for the president or

whether security was increased because of possible threats.

Of course, doing a little research to FIND OUT if this type of protection was standard would

be out of the question...


At about the same time Bush was getting ready for his jog, a van carrying several

Middle Eastern men pulled up to the Colony's guard station. The men said they were a

television news crew with a scheduled "poolside" interview with the president. They asked for

a certain Secret Service agent by name. The message was relayed to a Secret Service agent

inside the resort, who hadn't heard of the agent mentioned or of plans for an interview. He

told the men to contact the president's public relations office in Washington, DC, and had the

van turned away.

I would imagine that such wacko attempts to get close to the President are pretty common.

That's why they have Secret Service.

If this were part of the terror plot, it would have been a pretty stupid move. An

assassination would have put the entire country on heightened security alert a day before the

hijackings were planned. The element of surprise would have been lost.

Nearly three hours after the incident at the Colony, another Longboat Key resident

reported a run-in with possibly the same men. At about 8:50 (when reports of the first World

Trade Center crash were first broadcast), while standing on the Sarasota bay front waiting for

the presidential motorcade to pass by, this man saw two Middle Eastern men in a dilapidated

van "screaming out the windows 'Down with Bush' and raising their fists in the air." The FBI

questioned the man, but it's not known if this was the same van that had visited the

Colony.

The first rule of terrorism: Keep a low profile!

The plane did not obey the order and its transponder was turned off. Air traffic

control manager Glenn Michael said, "we considered it at that time to be a possible

hijacking." [AP, 8/12/02, emphasis added] According to FAA regulations, that was the correct

decision: "Consider that an aircraft emergency exists ... when ... there is unexpected loss of

radar contact and radio communications with any ... aircraft."

Of course, it's a possible hijacking. It's also a possible equipment failure, a possible

communication problem, or any number of other possibilities. The odds were, based on what was

known then, that it wasn't anything serious. After all, it had been a very, very long time

since a plane had been hijacked in the US.

If air traffic controllers believed Flight 11 had been hijacked at 8:13, NORAD should

have been informed immediately, so military planes could be scrambled to investigate. However,

NORAD and the FAA both claimed NORAD was not informed until 8:40 - 27 minutes later.

If only they'd been scrambled sooner! They might have been a few miles closer when the attack

occured! Still wouldn't have changed anything.

If they had intercepted the plane, would they have shot it down? Based on the knowledge that

they had then? I don't think so. Remember how the Soviet Union was condemned after they shot

down a KLA airliner that strayed into their airspace.


Is NORAD's claim credible? If so, the air traffic controllers (including Mr. Michael)

should have been fired and subject to possible criminal charges for their inaction. To date,

however, there has been no word of any person being disciplined at any institution at any

level for what happened on 9/11.


Again, based on what was known at the time, how could anyone have predicted what was going to

happen? Even in a relaxed work environment, it can take some time to figure out what is going

on when things don't go as planned. Saying someone SHOULD have done something, after the

fact, is 20/20 hindsight.

If NORAD's claim is false, and it was indeed informed within the time frame outlined in

FAA regulations that Flight 11 may have been hijacked, that would mean NORAD did absolutely

nothing for almost thirty minutes while a hijacked commercial airliner flew off course through

some of the most congested airspace in the world. Presumably, that would warrant some very

serious charges. Again, no one associated with NORAD or the FAA has been punished.


Unless I'm mistaken, NORAD's job is to track nuclear missiles, not regulate domestic flights.

Once again, BASED ON WHAT WE KNEW AT THE TIME, there was no reason to believe that a hijacked

airliner posed a threat to national security. And, of course, there was no rock-solid

evidence at the time that any plane HAD be hijacked.

Around the same time the Flight 11 hijackers were stabbing passenger Daniel Lewin - at

8:20 a.m. - Bush's briefing ended and he said good-bye to the Colony's general

manager.


I'm sure this was in Bush's day planner:

8:20 AM -- End briefing. Stand idly by while hijackers stab airline passenger hundreds of

miles away.


Why does it matter when Bush left the resort and arrived at the school? Because this is

the crucial time when Bush was first told, or should have been told, of the attacks. Official

accounts, including the words of Bush himself, say Bush was first told of what was happening

in New York City after he arrived at the school. [Telegraph, 12/16/01, CBS, 9/11/02] However,

this statement does not stand up to scrutiny. There are at least four reports that Bush was

told of the first crash before he arrived at the school.


So Bush may or may not have been told about a plane crash. Rarely does a plane crash require

the immediate attention of the President. Only after the second WTC crash was it apparent

that this was an attack, and it was then that Bush's full attention was placed on the

situation.


Claims of Bush's ignorance become harder to believe when one learns that others in his

motorcade were immediately told of the attack.


Yes, but it wasn't KNOWN to be an attack at that time.


A reporter who was standing nearby later said, "From the demeanor of the President,

grinning at the children, it appeared that the enormity of what he had been told was taking a

while to sink in."


These were children, and Bush is a politician. What did he expect the President to do?

Scream, "WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!"?


Bush was asked: "How did you feel when you heard about the terrorist attack?" Bush

replied, "I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the

tower " ...

There was no film footage of the first attack until at least the following day, and Bush

didn't have access to a television until 15 or so minutes later...
Unfortunately, Bush has never been asked - not even once - to explain these statements. His

memory not only contradicts every single media report, it also contradicts what he said that

evening.


Bush misremembered several trivial details, such as how he first heard of the attacks. So?

We all do that. Human memory is very unreliable.

Military pilots must have "permission from the White House because only the president

has the authority to order a civilian aircraft shot down." [CNN, 10/26/99] But if retaliatory

strikes needed to the authorized, Bush was not available. If one of the planes had to be shot

down to save more lives on the ground, Bush was not available. Although several fighters had

been dispatched to defend New York City, the pilot of one of the planes flying to catch Flight

175 later noted that it wouldn't have mattered if he caught up with it, because only Bush

could order a shootdown, and Bush could not be reached in the classroom.


WHAT!?! He couldn't be reached in the classroom?! Where was it, in the Himalayas? Did he have

to travel there by camel? Did the Secret Service just drop him off at the school and say,

"Pick you up in a few hours"?

Just a few paragraphs earlier, the page said:

Given all this, how could Bush have remained ignorant? Could he have been out of the

loop because he was in a car? No. The previous night, Colony Resort manager Katie Klauber

Moulon toured the presidential limousine and marveled "at all the phones and electronic

equipment." [Sarasota Magazine, 11/01] Karl Rove, Bush's "chief political strategist," who

presumably was riding with Bush, used a wireless e-mail device on 9/11 as well. [Newsweek,

10/14/02] There seems to have been ample opportunity and the means to alert Bush.


...So what, again, is the basis for the claim that he could not be reached in a classroom...?

Nearly every news account fails to mention when Bush left the classroom after being

told America was under attack. Three mention 9:12 a.m. [New York Times, 9/16/01 (B),

Telegraph, 12/16/01, Daily Mail, 9/8/02] Remaining in the classroom for approximately five to

seven minutes is inexcusable, but the video of Bush in the classroom suggests he stayed longer

than that. The video contains several edits and ends before Bush leaves the room, so it also

doesn't tell us exactly how long he stayed. One newspaper suggested he remained "for eight or

nine minutes" - sometime between 9:13 and 9:16, since Card's arrival is uncertain. [Tampa

Tribune, 9/1/02]


Yep, things would have been different if he had left five minutes earlier!


Once he was out of the classroom, did Bush immediately leave Booker? No. He stayed in

the adjacent room with his staff, calling Vice President Cheney and National Security Advisor

Rice, and preparing a speech. [Telegraph, 12/16/01, St. Petersburg Times 9/8/02] Incredibly,

even as uncertain information began to surface, suggesting that more planes had been hijacked

(eventually 11 planes would be suspected) [CBS, 9/11/02], Bush was allowed to make his remarks

at 9:30 - exactly the time and place stated on his advance schedule. [Federal News Service,

9/10/01, see the transcript of his speech here]


One more time...with WHAT WAS KNOWN AT THE TIME, the attack seemed to have been focused on the

World Trade center. It was unthinkable, even at that point, that this could be a coordinated

attack carried out at multiple geographic locations. Shortly thereafter, the Pentagon was

attacked, and, for the first time, the possibility that the President was in danger arose.

Why hasn't Bush's security staff been criticized for their completely inexplicable

decision to stay at the school?

Isn't that your job?

And why didn't Bush's concern for the children extend to not making them and the rest

of the 200 or so people at the school terrorist targets?


...? So if Bush had left immediately, the school would not have been targeted? Did the

terrorists have some sort of homing beacon placed on Bush so they could target him wherever he

was?


No media report has suggested that the possible shooting down of hijacked airplanes was

discussed at this time, however. It appears the discussion was not broached until after 9:55.

[Washington Post, 1/27/02, CBS, 9/11/02]


Obviously. Before 9/11, such a thing was unthinkable.

At about 9:26, it was either FAA head Jane Garvey or FAA administrator Ben Sliney (and

not Bush) who decided to halt all airplane takeoffs in the US. [Time, 9/14/01, USA Today,

8/13/02] Additionally, no evidence has appeared suggesting Bush had a role in ordering any

fighters into the skies.


If the President had to make ALL decisions regarding the different federal agencies, we would

run into problems very quickly. The FAA had the authority to act, so it acted. It was an

extraordinary action, one that had never been taken before, but one which was probably a

planned contingency within the FAA. It is not the sort of thing the President would order.


But, incredibly, Air Force One took off without any military fighter protection. This

defies all explanation. Recall that at 9:03 a.m., one of Bush's security people said, "We're

out of here. Can you get everyone ready?" [Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 9/10/02] Certainly, long

before Bush left the elementary school at 9:35 a.m., arrangements would have been made to get

fighters to Sarasota as soon as possible. Not only would it have been advisable to protect Air

Force One, but it would have been only sensible as another way to protect Bush on the ground

from terrorist attack even before he left the school.


After criticizing the President for hanging around the school too long, he now expects him to

wait around for a military escort. Think about this. While Air Force One is one the ground,

it is a sitting duck. When it takes off, what are the terrorists going to do? How would they

find it? If they found it, what would they do with it? It's one thing to crash into a

building, but another thing entirely to overtake and crash into a 747 with an experienced

pilot behind the wheel.


If we assume the fighters flew at a speed of 1,100 mph, the same speed Major Gen.

Arnold said fighters used to reach New York City earlier in the day when traveling a

comparable distance [MSNBC, 9/23/01 (C), Slate, 1/16/02], the fighters should have reached

Sarasota in about 10 minutes. Yet they took around two hours to reach Air Force One from when

they were likely first needed, shortly after 9:00.


...And what would they do when they got there? The decision to get Air Force One airborne had

not been made yet. Jets flying at 1100 mph run out of fuel very fast. Trying to coordinate a

rendezvous like this is more complicated than it might seem. With spur-of-the-moment

decisions being made, it would be extremely difficult for the fighters to arrive at just the

right moment to escort Air Force One on takeoff. If the fighters don't know how long they

might be aloft, they might sacrifice speed for fuel efficiency. After all, at the time it was

not known that the President's plane could be in danger.


Sandra Kay Daniels, the teacher whose second-grade classroom Bush visited on 9/11, told

the Los Angeles Times that after Card informed Bush of the second crash, Bush got up and left.

"He said, 'Ms. Daniels, I have to leave now.' ... Looking at his face, you knew something was

wrong. I said a little prayer for him. He shook my hand and left." Daniels also said, "I knew

something was up when President Bush didn't pick up the book and participate in the lesson."

[Los Angeles Times, 9/11/02] However, the Booker video clearly shows that Bush did follow

along after being told of the second plane.


So a second-grade teacher is in on the conspiracy? I think faulty memory, again.

Bush himself took part in the historical revisionism. In an extensive video interview

shown on CBS's "60 Minutes," he again repeated his bizarre belief that he was watching

television when the first crash took place. CBS also revived the false story that terrorists

had broken Air Force One's secret codes, even though it was CBS who debunked that same story

nearly a year earlier.


So? Does it make the SLIGHTEST BIT OF DIFFERENCE how Bush learned of the first crash?

How is this historical revisionism? Does he really think that one day history books will read:

"The President was watching television when it happened"?

It's doubtful that the Independent Commission investigation will look critically at

what Bush did on 9/11 and why he did it. Despite the contradictory reports, no one in the

mainstream media has yet demanded clarification of the many obvious inconsistencies and

problems of the official version. Anyone even asking questions has been quickly insulted as

anti-American, accused of bashing the president in a time of war, or branded a conspiracy nut.


Why do we need clarification of a hodge-podge of mundane details? I don't think it's

anti-American, I just think it's a waste of time.

The ridiculous thing about this whole article is that it make the presumption that a huge,

unweildy organization such as the executive branch of the US government can be expected to

react with great precision and speed to an completely unforseen disaster. Even when

large-scale operations involving the military and numerous other agencies are PLANNED, it is

still almost impossible to get everything just right. 9/11 was a chaotic time, and it is

unreasonable to expect a robotic, synchronized response.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by King of the Americas

Moreover, I wasn't JUST contacting him for an opinion, but rather 'assistance' in getting my idea into the hands of someone who could help me and my endeavor for Peace.

In other words, you were looking for free publicity, just like I said. I find it strange you post that as a denial, when just a second ago you said,

Originally posted by King of the Americas


Pardon ME, but my motive for addressing Howard Stern was NOT to tell him what I wrote about, it ws to get HIS OPINION about the work.

Which is it?

Always and forever, the 'mis-informationist'.

And as always, you are forever the backpeddler. But you remain amusing. Keep up the good work, KOA.

[ssibal]

About Bush saying he saw the first plane hit the tower, I think that has more to do with his grammatical skills than his memory. If you read the transcript it is pretty obvious what he was trying to say.

[King of the Americas]

I found MUCH to disagree wht you about in your retorts.

One of the most irritating remarks was this one:

"Bush misremembered several trivial details, such as how he first heard of the attacks. So?

We all do that. Human memory is very unreliable. "

*Are you telling me or suggesting that the Leader of the Free world can't and or doesn't remember how he found out about the 9-11 attacks!?

I, the simple man that I am didn't have a speaking engagements that day, nor any speeches to memorize, but I AM able to recall how I found out we were attacked. Moreover, I think given the weight of this event, I say you'd be hard pressed to find ANY American who 'isn't exactly sure' how they heard about 9-11.

What I see in your retort is 'excuses' for the lack of accuracy in the telling of the 9-11 tale.

I AM working on a full response, line per line of your work, but jus to address your closing statement:

"Why do we need clarification of a hodge-podge of mundane details? I don't think it's

anti-American, I just think it's a waste of time. "

*It is a waste of time to know and understand the True nature of the events of 9-11 and how our leader 'handled the situation'. Okay...

The ridiculous thing about this whole article is that it make the presumption that a huge,

unweildy organization such as the executive branch of the US government can be expected to

react with great precision and speed to an completely unforseen disaster."

*I disagree with your stance that this was an "completely unforseen disaster. SEVERAL people have written about this possibility in memos delivered to The White House prior to 9-11.

"Even when large-scale operations involving the military and numerous other agencies are PLANNED, it is

still almost impossible to get everything just right. 9/11 was a chaotic time, and it is

unreasonable to expect a robotic, synchronized response. "

*Funny, that is EXACTLY what I expect from the most powerful government in our world's history.

[hal bidlack]

Well, I'll tell you this much. My sense of time about the attack on the Pentagon is all out of whack.

I was watching the TV about the NYC situation, and then walked up the hall to the cafeteria. That's when the plane hit us. We were evacuated out, and I remember the smoke against the sky, and I worked security at the crash site, recovered part of the airplane, helped a bit with the wounded, etc., but I can't really put a time line on it, it all runs together.

I remember standing at my security post, lifting the yellow tape so an ambulance could get out, and I remember the cop coming by saying another airplane was 20 minutes out, and headed at us. I remember standing there, very scared, as I thought the next impact point could be at my post. And I remember a moment of stark terror when I heard a jet. I swung my head up, and saw that it was an F-16. I then felt relief because another airliner could not get to me. Then, I immediately felt a wave of overwhelming guilt, as I realized that I was happy an F-16 would be able to shoot down a plane full of innocent people. All those emotions happened within 30 seconds, but I can't possibly tell you how long I stood there before being sent away, how long after the attack the F-16 showed up, and at what point I heard the most horrible sound I've ever heard-the roof falling in on people. So, my point is that I was live and up close to 9/11 and have absolutely no sense of time for those hours. I think it quite reasonable that others are the same.

And on a purely personal note, I've very tired of folks like the ones who made this website dragging 9/11 into loony stories and improbable consperacies. To me, and my admittedly biased view, this smacks of dishonoring the memory of the dead and wounded.

[King of the Americas]

aggle_rithm
Scholar

Registered: Apr 2003
Location:
Posts: 113
Long, boring
I read the ENTIRE piece. Here's my take on it:



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surface-to-air missiles were placed on the roof of the resort [Sarasota Herald-Tribune,

9/10/02], and an Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) plane circled high overhead.

[Fighting Back: The War on Terrorism - From Inside the Bush White House, by Bill Sammon,

10/02, p. 25] It's not clear if this type of protection was standard for the president or

whether security was increased because of possible threats.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Of course, doing a little research to FIND OUT if this type of protection was standard would

be out of the question...

*Okay, but let's continue...


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At about the same time Bush was getting ready for his jog, a van carrying several

Middle Eastern men pulled up to the Colony's guard station. The men said they were a

television news crew with a scheduled "poolside" interview with the president. They asked for

a certain Secret Service agent by name. The message was relayed to a Secret Service agent

inside the resort, who hadn't heard of the agent mentioned or of plans for an interview. He

told the men to contact the president's public relations office in Washington, DC, and had the

van turned away.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I would imagine that such wacko attempts to get close to the President are pretty common.

That's why they have Secret Service.

If this were part of the terror plot, it would have been a pretty stupid move. An

assassination would have put the entire country on heightened security alert a day before the

hijackings were planned. The element of surprise would have been lost.

*I don't know how often these kinds of things happen, but that it did happen on this day is an interesting point, when placed along-side the rest of the evidence presented.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nearly three hours after the incident at the Colony, another Longboat Key resident

reported a run-in with possibly the same men. At about 8:50 (when reports of the first World

Trade Center crash were first broadcast), while standing on the Sarasota bay front waiting for

the presidential motorcade to pass by, this man saw two Middle Eastern men in a dilapidated

van "screaming out the windows 'Down with Bush' and raising their fists in the air." The FBI

questioned the man, but it's not known if this was the same van that had visited the

Colony.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The first rule of terrorism: Keep a low profile!

*Did you get that from the Al-caeda handbook? I don't see ANY reason to believe that ALL terrorists are or act 'intelligently'.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The plane did not obey the order and its transponder was turned off. Air traffic

control manager Glenn Michael said, "we considered it at that time to be a possible

hijacking." [AP, 8/12/02, emphasis added] According to FAA regulations, that was the correct

decision: "Consider that an aircraft emergency exists ... when ... there is unexpected loss of

radar contact and radio communications with any ... aircraft."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Of course, it's a possible hijacking. It's also a possible equipment failure, a possible

communication problem, or any number of other possibilities. The odds were, based on what was

known then, that it wasn't anything serious. After all, it had been a very, very long time

since a plane had been hijacked in the US.

*I don't think the issue is what is possible at that moment. The issue or point being made is what the Rules say to do in just such a situation.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If air traffic controllers believed Flight 11 had been hijacked at 8:13, NORAD should

have been informed immediately, so military planes could be scrambled to investigate. However,

NORAD and the FAA both claimed NORAD was not informed until 8:40 - 27 minutes later.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



If only they'd been scrambled sooner! They might have been a few miles closer when the attack

occured! Still wouldn't have changed anything.

If they had intercepted the plane, would they have shot it down? Based on the knowledge that

they had then? I don't think so. Remember how the Soviet Union was condemned after they shot

down a KLA airliner that strayed into their airspace.

*Again, you missed the point. Nothing was 'scrambled', TO have been scrambled 'sooner'.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is NORAD's claim credible? If so, the air traffic controllers (including Mr. Michael)

should have been fired and subject to possible criminal charges for their inaction. To date,

however, there has been no word of any person being disciplined at any institution at any

level for what happened on 9/11.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Again, based on what was known at the time, how could anyone have predicted what was going to

happen? Even in a relaxed work environment, it can take some time to figure out what is going

on when things don't go as planned. Saying someone SHOULD have done something, after the

fact, is 20/20 hindsight.

*I disagree. The Rules state that you do C if A & B occure. The piece draws attention to the 'delay' in following those Rules.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If NORAD's claim is false, and it was indeed informed within the time frame outlined in

FAA regulations that Flight 11 may have been hijacked, that would mean NORAD did absolutely

nothing for almost thirty minutes while a hijacked commercial airliner flew off course through

some of the most congested airspace in the world. Presumably, that would warrant some very

serious charges. Again, no one associated with NORAD or the FAA has been punished.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Unless I'm mistaken, NORAD's job is to track nuclear missiles, not regulate domestic flights.

Once again, BASED ON WHAT WE KNEW AT THE TIME, there was no reason to believe that a hijacked

airliner posed a threat to national security. And, of course, there was no rock-solid

evidence at the time that any plane HAD be hijacked.

*Other than the Rules that say you should 'believe' a plane is hijacked if their transpoder is turned off and they are refusing communication attempts.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Around the same time the Flight 11 hijackers were stabbing passenger Daniel Lewin - at

8:20 a.m. - Bush's briefing ended and he said good-bye to the Colony's general

manager.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




I'm sure this was in Bush's day planner:

8:20 AM -- End briefing. Stand idly by while hijackers stab airline passenger hundreds of

miles away.

*I don't think that was the point being made either... The point friend, is that he is being briefed about a possibility, while the real thing is going on, and yet he remains ignorant about the actual event for sometime.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why does it matter when Bush left the resort and arrived at the school? Because this is

the crucial time when Bush was first told, or should have been told, of the attacks. Official

accounts, including the words of Bush himself, say Bush was first told of what was happening

in New York City after he arrived at the school. [Telegraph, 12/16/01, CBS, 9/11/02] However,

this statement does not stand up to scrutiny. There are at least four reports that Bush was

told of the first crash before he arrived at the school.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




So Bush may or may not have been told about a plane crash. Rarely does a plane crash require

the immediate attention of the President.

*When the plane is an airliner, and it crashes intot he cornerstone of western capitalism... I THINK that should send up a red flag, and call for some kind of action OTHER than reading with children from the President.

Only after the second WTC crash was it apparent

that this was an attack, and it was then that Bush's full attention was placed on the

situation.

*And what the piece argues is that it SHOULD have been much sooner.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claims of Bush's ignorance become harder to believe when one learns that others in his

motorcade were immediately told of the attack.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Yes, but it wasn't KNOWN to be an attack at that time.

*I disagree. There is plenty of evidence to believe that plenty of people were aware of a hijacking as well as the knowlege that it was indeed an attack of some kind.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A reporter who was standing nearby later said, "From the demeanor of the President,

grinning at the children, it appeared that the enormity of what he had been told was taking a

while to sink in."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




These were children, and Bush is a politician. What did he expect the President to do?

Scream, "WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!"?

*Of course not, but simply excusing oneself to tend to more improtant matters than reading a story about a goat with children doesn't seem that much of a stretch for the Leader of the Free World.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bush was asked: "How did you feel when you heard about the terrorist attack?" Bush

replied, "I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the

tower " ...

There was no film footage of the first attack until at least the following day, and Bush

didn't have access to a television until 15 or so minutes later...
Unfortunately, Bush has never been asked - not even once - to explain these statements. His

memory not only contradicts every single media report, it also contradicts what he said that

evening.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Bush misremembered several trivial details, such as how he first heard of the attacks. So?

We all do that. Human memory is very unreliable.

*Already responded to above.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military pilots must have "permission from the White House because only the president

has the authority to order a civilian aircraft shot down." [CNN, 10/26/99] But if retaliatory

strikes needed to the authorized, Bush was not available. If one of the planes had to be shot

down to save more lives on the ground, Bush was not available. Although several fighters had

been dispatched to defend New York City, the pilot of one of the planes flying to catch Flight

175 later noted that it wouldn't have mattered if he caught up with it, because only Bush

could order a shootdown, and Bush could not be reached in the classroom.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




WHAT!?! He couldn't be reached in the classroom?! Where was it, in the Himalayas? Did he have

to travel there by camel? Did the Secret Service just drop him off at the school and say,

"Pick you up in a few hours"?

Just a few paragraphs earlier, the page said:

*I think what the writer means, is that he wasn't in a situation room atmopshere FOR him to be able to comment on show and what should be shoot down.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given all this, how could Bush have remained ignorant? Could he have been out of the

loop because he was in a car? No. The previous night, Colony Resort manager Katie Klauber

Moulon toured the presidential limousine and marveled "at all the phones and electronic

equipment." [Sarasota Magazine, 11/01] Karl Rove, Bush's "chief political strategist," who

presumably was riding with Bush, used a wireless e-mail device on 9/11 as well. [Newsweek,

10/14/02] There seems to have been ample opportunity and the means to alert Bush.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




...So what, again, is the basis for the claim that he could not be reached in a classroom...?

*Again, I think it would be unreasonable to have the President answer a direct question about whether or not to shoot down an airliner, in front of a room full of elementary school kids.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nearly every news account fails to mention when Bush left the classroom after being

told America was under attack. Three mention 9:12 a.m. [New York Times, 9/16/01 (B),

Telegraph, 12/16/01, Daily Mail, 9/8/02] Remaining in the classroom for approximately five to

seven minutes is inexcusable, but the video of Bush in the classroom suggests he stayed longer

than that. The video contains several edits and ends before Bush leaves the room, so it also

doesn't tell us exactly how long he stayed. One newspaper suggested he remained "for eight or

nine minutes" - sometime between 9:13 and 9:16, since Card's arrival is uncertain. [Tampa

Tribune, 9/1/02]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Yep, things would have been different if he had left five minutes earlier!

*I guess we'll never know. But AGAIN, the point is addressing the delay and appearant inaction taken by the President after hearing we were under attack. As the Commander in Chief, shouldn't he have at the very least shortened the photo-op???

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once he was out of the classroom, did Bush immediately leave Booker? No. He stayed in

the adjacent room with his staff, calling Vice President Cheney and National Security Advisor

Rice, and preparing a speech. [Telegraph, 12/16/01, St. Petersburg Times 9/8/02] Incredibly,

even as uncertain information began to surface, suggesting that more planes had been hijacked

(eventually 11 planes would be suspected) [CBS, 9/11/02], Bush was allowed to make his remarks

at 9:30 - exactly the time and place stated on his advance schedule. [Federal News Service,

9/10/01, see the transcript of his speech here]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




One more time...with WHAT WAS KNOWN AT THE TIME, the attack seemed to have been focused on the

World Trade center. It was unthinkable, even at that point, that this could be a coordinated

attack carried out at multiple geographic locations. Shortly thereafter, the Pentagon was

attacked, and, for the first time, the possibility that the President was in danger arose.

*Appearantly, you are suffering from the same kind of information gap that the President was suffering from, in appearance. This discussion is about what WAS known by whom, and how the President reacted to the situation as it unfolded. To hear that the WTC was hit by an airliner...given the prior memos and warnings, and the fact that when it happened several other planes were KNOWN to be off course... Sorry guy I see some real problems with your WHAT WAS KNOWN AT THE TIME crap.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why hasn't Bush's security staff been criticized for their completely inexplicable

decision to stay at the school?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Isn't that your job?

*OUR job, my friend.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And why didn't Bush's concern for the children extend to not making them and the rest

of the 200 or so people at the school terrorist targets?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




...? So if Bush had left immediately, the school would not have been targeted? Did the

terrorists have some sort of homing beacon placed on Bush so they could target him wherever he

was?

*I think the point is that if a bully beats down your brother right in front of you, you shouldn't stand among children, as he points to you and says "You're next."


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No media report has suggested that the possible shooting down of hijacked airplanes was

discussed at this time, however. It appears the discussion was not broached until after 9:55.

[Washington Post, 1/27/02, CBS, 9/11/02]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Obviously. Before 9/11, such a thing was unthinkable.

*That is why there are rules in place that say exactly how to deal with these situations.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At about 9:26, it was either FAA head Jane Garvey or FAA administrator Ben Sliney (and

not Bush) who decided to halt all airplane takeoffs in the US. [Time, 9/14/01, USA Today,

8/13/02] Additionally, no evidence has appeared suggesting Bush had a role in ordering any

fighters into the skies.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




If the President had to make ALL decisions regarding the different federal agencies, we would

run into problems very quickly. The FAA had the authority to act, so it acted. It was an

extraordinary action, one that had never been taken before, but one which was probably a

planned contingency within the FAA. It is not the sort of thing the President would order.

*It is clear that you aren't familiar with the Rules of Engagment for Military against its own civilians.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But, incredibly, Air Force One took off without any military fighter protection. This

defies all explanation. Recall that at 9:03 a.m., one of Bush's security people said, "We're

out of here. Can you get everyone ready?" [Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 9/10/02] Certainly, long

before Bush left the elementary school at 9:35 a.m., arrangements would have been made to get

fighters to Sarasota as soon as possible. Not only would it have been advisable to protect Air

Force One, but it would have been only sensible as another way to protect Bush on the ground

from terrorist attack even before he left the school.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




After criticizing the President for hanging around the school too long, he now expects him to

wait around for a military escort. Think about this. While Air Force One is one the ground,

it is a sitting duck.

*The fact is that while on the ground Air Force One is capable of withstanding a direct nuclear attack. In the air, it is much more vunerable to an airborn attack without fighter excort.

When it takes off, what are the terrorists going to do? How would they

find it? If they found it, what would they do with it? It's one thing to crash into a

building, but another thing entirely to overtake and crash into a 747 with an experienced

pilot behind the wheel.

*Again, at this point is wasindeed inclear what wasin the air, as well as what its intentions were. On the ground was the safest place for AF-1, without fighter escort.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If we assume the fighters flew at a speed of 1,100 mph, the same speed Major Gen.

Arnold said fighters used to reach New York City earlier in the day when traveling a

comparable distance [MSNBC, 9/23/01 (C), Slate, 1/16/02], the fighters should have reached

Sarasota in about 10 minutes. Yet they took around two hours to reach Air Force One from when

they were likely first needed, shortly after 9:00.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




...And what would they do when they got there? The decision to get Air Force One airborne had

not been made yet. Jets flying at 1100 mph run out of fuel very fast. Trying to coordinate a

rendezvous like this is more complicated than it might seem. With spur-of-the-moment

decisions being made, it would be extremely difficult for the fighters to arrive at just the

right moment to escort Air Force One on takeoff. If the fighters don't know how long they

might be aloft, they might sacrifice speed for fuel efficiency. After all, at the time it was

not known that the President's plane could be in danger.

*I disagree, at this point is was known that our government ans its institutions WERE under attack. You fail to address the inconsistancy in scrambling some jets at top speed, while the ones sent to the aid of AF-1 slumber along at an 'efficient pace'.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sandra Kay Daniels, the teacher whose second-grade classroom Bush visited on 9/11, told

the Los Angeles Times that after Card informed Bush of the second crash, Bush got up and left.

"He said, 'Ms. Daniels, I have to leave now.' ... Looking at his face, you knew something was

wrong. I said a little prayer for him. He shook my hand and left." Daniels also said, "I knew

something was up when President Bush didn't pick up the book and participate in the lesson."

[Los Angeles Times, 9/11/02] However, the Booker video clearly shows that Bush did follow

along after being told of the second plane.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




So a second-grade teacher is in on the conspiracy? I think faulty memory, again.

*Please find me ANYONE who can say, "Oh yeah, I met with the President that day, but I am kinda of unclear as to what else happened that day, or when it happened.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bush himself took part in the historical revisionism. In an extensive video interview

shown on CBS's "60 Minutes," he again repeated his bizarre belief that he was watching

television when the first crash took place. CBS also revived the false story that terrorists

had broken Air Force One's secret codes, even though it was CBS who debunked that same story

nearly a year earlier.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




So? Does it make the SLIGHTEST BIT OF DIFFERENCE how Bush learned of the first crash?

*ABSOLUTELY. Why? Because HE is our elected *sniker* leader, and we expect him to know, and be involved in planning and reacting to an attack on our homeland.

How is this historical revisionism? Does he really think that one day history books will read:

"The President was watching television when it happened"?

*I don't know what the books will say tomorrow. The point you failed to address is the disconnect present in what actually happened, and what television, print media, and the President says happened when it happened and what the President was aware of.

[King of the Americas]

So the 'elapsed time' may have excaped your memory, but did HOW you found out about the attack do so as well?

Time misplacement is common. Making up or not remember HOW you heard or was informed about THIS event is NOt a common thing.

[King of the Americas]

KOA,

Pray tell, what is the point of having a lot of people reading your stuff, if you cannot at least give them a hint what it is about?

*You are misrepresenting my stance. I was told Howard and his crew READ my material, and I wasn't calling to tell him what was in the material nor was I doing to to tell him why it was important he read it.

The link above recounts, in annotated style what events unfolded and the reports that stated when it did so, around 9-11 and the President's actions.

And YES, I usually read stuff that 'several people' suggest I read, usually.

[Mike B.]

Hey KOA, you were on Howard Stern?

Can I watch you on the E channel?

[hal bidlack]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
So the 'elapsed time' may have excaped your memory, but did HOW you found out about the attack do so as well?

Time misplacement is common. Making up or not remember HOW you heard or was informed about THIS event is NOt a common thing.

Well, in fairness to the President, I found out about it when a big friggin airplane crashed into my building, not when one of many possible aides whispers into my ear.

and I'll edit this to add, after having read your comments in the very, very long post above, that you seem to demonstrate very little actual understanding of military operations. For example, to suggest that AF1 could withstand a nuke on the ground but is more at risk in the air is to misunderstand about as much as is humanly possible. This analysis suggests a stunning lack of understanding of how we operate. In an emergency situation, the very first thing we want to do is get POTUS airborne. I shall not comment further on your 'analysis' other than to say that while you may want to continue to argue your point, you should really check your data more carefully. You are way, way off. Nothing personal :), just a comment on your data, not you.:)

[King of the Americas]

It was years ago, I was a guest by phone. Sorry, no camera time for me.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Mike B.
Hey KOA, you were on Howard Stern?

Can I watch you on the E channel?

No, but if you PM me I can get you an MP3 of his call. Only ask for it if you want to know what the voice of idiocy truly sounds like.


EDITED TO ADD: In retrospect, it would be fair for me to ask KOA's permission before I offered this sound file to anyone who asked for it.

But then again, since KOA thinks copyright laws are the antichrist and all ideas in all media should be for all the people without charge, I won't bother to ask.

Irony provided free of charge.

[King of the Americas]

And with all due respect to your position, I don't think you were in a position of leadership, expected to Command a Nation, and thus NEED to be fully informed about what is going on in regards to an attack under way.

How 'soon' to you think Donald Rumsfeld was briefed upon where these planes were headed, and the possibility that we were under attack?

And WHAT should the Commander in Chief been doing after he found out about the possibility of an attack?

Reading a story about a goat with children...?

Pardon me, sir. But THAT just doesn't sit well with me..

[renata]

Although the footage of the first plane hitting WTC was not available until a few days after the attack, the footage of the burning building was available within minutes. It is possible Bush saw that, and misspoke when he said he saw the plane actually hit the tower.

As to how people's reactions to the news: I was driving in to work, and heard on NPR that a plane hit WTC, no other news were available. I assumed it was one of those tiny single engine tourist planes, felt bad for the pilot, and started working. I tried checking CNN, but all the news sites were unavailable due to heavy traffic. Even then I did not think twice about. I finally found out when a coworker ducked into my office and asked whether I heard from my parents, who work in NYC. I was not sure why she was asking, and she told me the story. It took me 8 hours to reach my mother, who works 2 blocks from the WTC. Worst 8 hours of my life. It took me weeks to track down all my friends in NY. A high school schoolmate was at WTC. He had 8 month old twins. People who speculate on the disaster purely for self promotion make me ill.

[hal bidlack]

Do you wish to stand by your statement that AF1 is safer on the ground than in the air? and that it can withstand a nuke on the ground?

[King of the Americas]

Admittedly, I will conceed that I am much less than fully briefed about AF-1 and where it is safe.

My understanding about procedure and AF-1 capabilities comes solely from things like the History Channel's Airforce Onethe Flying Command Center.

I have nothing further to add, other than to say that I THOUGHT the documentary mentioned that AF-1 'always flys with fighter escorts'. However, I am completely comfortable recanting my statements, and referring to your superior knowledge upon the subject.

IS AF-1 capable of withstanding a direct nuclear attack?

[aggle_rithm]

I don't think the issue is what is possible at that moment. The issue or point being made is what the Rules say to do in just such a situation.


I must have missed something. What are these Rules you keep talking about?




*I think what the writer means, is that he wasn't in a situation room atmopshere FOR him to be able to comment on show and what should be shoot down.



Oh, I see. What...? :confused:




*I think the point is that if a bully beats down your brother right in front of you, you shouldn't stand among children, as he points to you and says "You're next."


Hmm... maybe I'm dense, but I completely missed that point.


*That is why there are rules in place that say exactly how to deal with these situations.


....where?



*It is clear that you aren't familiar with the Rules of Engagment for Military against its own civilians.


?????





*The fact is that while on the ground Air Force One is capable of withstanding a direct nuclear attack. In the air, it is much more vunerable to an airborn attack without fighter excort.



I think you're confused here. Air Force One is shielded against the EM pulse of a nuclear attack, but a direct blast would pretty much incinerate it.

[hal bidlack]

well, let me say it this way: do you know of any vehicle that can withstand a direct hit with even a small nuke?

And my larger point would be, that if this represents the level of your research, perhaps you would be wise to be a tad less certain of your conclusions. Again, nothing at all personal, just a comment on data and data analysis.

[aggle_rithm]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
[B]aggle_rithm

The first rule of terrorism: Keep a low profile!

*Did you get that from the Al-caeda handbook? I don't see ANY reason to believe that ALL terrorists are or act 'intelligently'.



No, I got that from "24".

My point was not that ALL terrorists act intelligently. However, it is safe to say that all the terrorists involved in the 9/11 attack acted in a very competent manner, given the unfortunate results of their efforts. If the other bozos were planning an assasination, it was clearly unrelated and therefore irrelevant.



Sandra Kay Daniels, the teacher whose second-grade classroom Bush visited on 9/11, told

the Los Angeles Times that after Card informed Bush of the second crash, Bush got up and left.

"He said, 'Ms. Daniels, I have to leave now.' ... Looking at his face, you knew something was

wrong. I said a little prayer for him. He shook my hand and left." Daniels also said, "I knew

something was up when President Bush didn't pick up the book and participate in the lesson."

[Los Angeles Times, 9/11/02] However, the Booker video clearly shows that Bush did follow

along after being told of the second plane.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


*Please find me ANYONE who can say, "Oh yeah, I met with the President that day, but I am kinda of unclear as to what else happened that day, or when it happened.


I never said the teacher or President Bush were unclear about what happened. That's the tricky thing about memory. Our confidence in memory has no bearing on the accuracy of memory.

There was a memory study done right after the Challenger explosion in which a number of college students were asked what they were doing when the shuttle exploded. Some time later, they were interviewed again, and almost all thier memories had altered over time. Some students were very perplexed because they had very clear recollections of where they were and what they were doing, but found that these recollections were false.

[King of the Americas]

I don't think the issue is what is possible at that moment. The issue or point being made is what the Rules say to do in just such a situation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




I must have missed something. What are these Rules you keep talking about?

*I believe the original author suggested such 'Rules' are present in the Procedural Manuals at NORAD and or the air controller infrastructure.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


*I think what the writer means, is that he wasn't in a situation room atmopshere FOR him to be able to comment on show and what should be shoot down.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Oh, I see. What...?

*"Pardon me, Mr. President we have an inbound aircraft that has been hijacked headed for the capitol, and we have an F-16 lock on. Does the pilot have permission to fire on the civilan aircraft?"

The President, "But the father didn't like the goat..." "What did you just say? Don't worry kids, they ask me this kind of stuff all the time. [To the advisor] SURE blow them out of the sky. [To the class] Now where were we with this goat?"

By 'not available for counsel', the writer means that you usually DON'T address these kinds of issues witht he President while he is engaged in a photo-op with a bunch of kids.




quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*I think the point is that if a bully beats down your brother right in front of you, you shouldn't stand among children, as he points to you and says "You're next."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Hmm... maybe I'm dense, but I completely missed that point.

*No one called you dense, but if this is a self admission I won't disagree with you. My self-admittedly dense friend is that WHEN the President found our that our country was underattack, BEING its Leader HE could very well have been a target also. KNOWING this, staying longer meant that he was indeed endangering the kids he was surrounded by.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*That is why there are rules in place that say exactly how to deal with these situations.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



....where?

*AGAIN, according to the original author, in the Procedural Manual at NORAD the FAA.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


*It is clear that you aren't familiar with the Rules of Engagment for Military against its own civilians.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



?????

*I am not sure what "?????" means in this instance. Are you suggesting that you don't know what must take place before our military is used to attack a civilan target?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



*The fact is that while on the ground Air Force One is capable of withstanding a direct nuclear attack. In the air, it is much more vunerable to an airborn attack without fighter excort.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




I think you're confused here. Air Force One is shielded against the EM pulse of a nuclear attack, but a direct blast would pretty much incinerate it.

*I have admitted such, and conceeded this point to Hal already.

[King of the Americas]

College students remembering the Challanger explosion, and Our President's recollection of the 9-11 events are on somewhat of different levels, don't you think?

Moreover, his memory of how he found out and what he said he saw when he claimed to have seen it, is only PART of the inconsistancy. His action, or inaction as it were is much more of an issue besides him and his faulty memory, although they can't be overlooked.

[RandFan]

KOA,

I have read all of the posts in the thread. I have followed the link and read the entire article and also the other articles posted for rebuttal. I have also thought carefully about your arguments and the arguments presented in the article and not dismissed you out of hand.

My conclusion: I'm not impressed. The evidence provided is about as good as any conspiracy theory page on the web today. From the magic bullet to the protocols of Zion.

It is interesting though. Something to think about:

Free Thinking in a Dirty Glass (http://billmon.org.v.sabren.com/archives/000101.html)

Pretty thin gruel for a good conspiracy theory, I suppose. But as the Wood and Thompson point out, the real scandal is the fact that so little of what the President and his administration did on 9/11 has been properly explained or documented.

Other than putting out a few false stories to justify Bush's peripatetic wanderings, the White House has been content to leave things that way. And it wants the independent 9/11 commission it was forced to create to adopt the same don't ask, don't tell policy. So conspiracy theorists take heart: We may never know what really happened. The author thinks that Bush was simply unable to deal with what was happening at that time. He assigns Bush's inaction to "a profound weakness".

I don't think so. Who knows but there is nothing there for a conspiracy or proof that Bush was profoundly weak. People are human, even presidents and in the days that followed the President rose to the occasion and I was very proud of how he reacted to the situation.

In the final analysis there simply is no proof that there was a conspiracy. If you choose to believe that there was a conspiracy then there is probably little I can do to dissuade you. Could you perhaps check out Examining Famous "Conspiracies" (http://www.debunker.com/conspiracy.html) by Robert Sheaffer of The Debunker's Domain (http://www.debunker.com/default.htm). I will let you decide if you think the president was weak or why he acted the way he acted. The truth is we just don't know. Anything else is speculation.

RandFan

[GrapeJ713]

Originally posted by shemp
I really hate it when I feel the need to defend the U.S. government, but here's my feeling about your two points:

1. The U.S. government is made up of people. People make mistakes. A lot of mistakes were made that day. A lot of bad decisions were made that day. A lot of decisions were made that day with politics in mind. A lot of decisions were made that day that are probably now regretted by the people who made those decisions.

2. If there's a cover-up, it's much more likely to be a cover-up of incompetency than a cover-up of complicity.

I think the report is useful as a historical record, in compiling evidence of such mistakes. But all of this is available in pieces in one place or another. I don't see anything really new here.

Good Gravy, I just was thinking exactly what Shemp said. I concur and agree completely with Shemp! Scary

[Jim_MDP]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
KOA,

Pray tell, what is the point of having a lot of people reading your stuff, if you cannot at least give them a hint what it is about?

You pop up at various times with the most silly claims, all completely lacking any kind of evidence. When trounced (and this happens every bloody time!), you disappear with complaints that nobody understands you. Then, weeks or even months after, you resurface with yet another silly claim.

Familiar, isn't it?

Like another past member with an "ology" to promote.

Speak not his name...I think he occasionaly does a search to see if he's been mentioned. :rolleyes:

[coalesce]

I have to agree with consesus here: interesting reading, but way too many disparate dots to connect. Bring us a smoking gun, and then I'll believe. Until then, it's all pops and whistles down here.

Michael

[peptoabysmal]

Presuming this is a credible news source, I would have done the same thing if I were President and had to speak to a class of school children. Better than running off and getting them all upset about America being under attack.

Or are you talking about the various SNAFU's? This kind of thing happens in any government caught with it's pants down. WHen you get hardened to such thing catastrophy that you snap to and do everything by the book, that's when you gotta worry, because it's happening too frequently.

[The Fool]

Conspiracy theorists, If not for them It would be very much harder to get a good laugh....

[CFLarsen]

aggle_rithm,

A word in your ear? :)

Email me at webmaster@skepticreport.com, at your convenience.

[Kodiak]

Have fun, KOA... :rolleyes:


Exhaustive collection of 9/11 conspiracy theories (http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/conspiracism-911.html)

[aggle_rithm]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Have fun, KOA... :rolleyes:


Exhaustive collection of 9/11 conspiracy theories (http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/conspiracism-911.html)

That "pop" you hear is KOA's brain exploding.

Just kidding, KOA. Seriously, I'm sorry if the article did not get the response you wanted. However, most of the posters on this forum are well educated and have good critical thinking skills. They're unlikely to be taken in by this sort of transparent gobbledygook. I could go on arguing about it for days, but it would be a waste of energy, much like the article itself.

[King of the Americas]

...this post has ran its course, and served its purpose, at least to me.

My conclusive feelings about the link provided is that I didn't and don't find evidence that leads me to believe that these attacks were KNOWN about, and 'allowed' to continue..

The f*cked up sh*t I was referring to that I am still quite puzzled about is what the President did, why he did it, and when he did it, aswell as what he ne when he knew it.

I just got done reading the leftover responses from yesterday, and have not visited any of the links provided, so I may have to amend this statement...

Given the nature of the attacks, and that the FAA KNEW there were no less than 4 planes hijacked and headed off course within minutes of the hijacking, and known for SURE after the first plane hit the WTC, the President SHOULD have been briefed fully and NEEDED to be prepared to lead a nation. He did NOT need to be reading a story about a goat with children.

At the very least, he should have excused himself and been in the loop, prepared to give an order to possibly bring down a civilian plane inbound for the capitol. I mean, to say that he did the RIGHT thing by NOT 'rushing out the room upseting 16 kids' is the biggest load of complete and utter crap that I have every heard, period. Let's see, causing 16 kids to worry OR fulfilling the oath and duty of the Office of the President of the United States...? I think someone priorities were clearly WAY F*CKED up that day.

My biggest problem with most of the responses to this post was that out of 19 pages of text, few found any reason to think this was indeed "some f*cked up sh*t". Even less found any 'problem' with the President NOT acting like the Commander in Chief. In my first post about this topic, that appeared on another board, I offered the possibility that the President really isn't THE guy behind most of the intelligent leadership decisions that take place anyway, so it was probably a GOOD thing that he was doing what he does best during the 9-11 attacks- reading children's books with people who wouldn't mind or notice that he stumbled over a few words.

A couple of posters questioned the validity of the piece provided in the link. I may be wrong, but I found that each and every statement about what was happening, was annotated to whom gave the description as well as the source it was printed in.

I found the piece to be not one person's view or idea of what happened, but actually a compilation of bits and pieces of eyewitness accounts of the actual event, strung together in time line form that outlines the succeses and failures of the Administration before, during, and shortly after the attacks.

To Conspire- To plan together secretly to commit an illegal act. To join or act together.

I DO think some people worked together to keep the President from acting like such. However, I can't and wouldn't assign motive to those acts, so I won't call this a "conspiracy". That being said, I think that it is easy to see that the sh*t hit the fan, our pants were down, and instead of pulling them up...this Administration and its lead faltered, stumbled, f*cked around, and FAILED in its duties.

---

To Randfan:

YOU WROTE:

"The author thinks that Bush was simply unable to deal with what was happening at that time. He assigns Bush's inaction to "a profound weakness".

I don't think so. Who knows but there is nothing there for a conspiracy or proof that Bush was profoundly weak.

*You don't think President Bush sufferes and WAS severely suffering from "a profound weakness" before, during and shortly after the attacks??? So how WOULD you characterize his ability to lead and direct a nation at the this time? I find that there was a complete and utter lack of competency in the communication outlets between this Administration, The F.B.I., the C.I.A., the FAA, NORAD, the Pentagon, and the actual events.

In fact, I see nothing BUT the demonstration of a profound weakness in this leaderhsip infrastructure. Moreover, I am completly at a loss to see any kind of 'strength, wisdom, or intelligence' demonstrated what so ever. However, please feel free to point out the evidence that lead YOU to believe such.

"People are human, even presidents and in the days that followed the President rose to the occasion and I was very proud of how he reacted to the situation."

*I guess this is all about perspective. YOU and my father would probably agree whole heartedly about what a fine job the President did, and how 'well' he rose to the challenge. To the contrary, what 'I' saw was a nation and the rest of the administration rally around an individual, as a show of ultimate unity. Who COULDN'T have smiled, looked brave, and read a speech or two, while visiting rescue workers, with literally hundreds of millions people behind him and or standing shoulder to shoulder with him in absolute support!?

I believed before this, that this sitting President was THE prime example of a figure head President. A creation of Karl Rove, that was much less than a shadow and less than comparable to a Xerox copy of the former President Bush. After having read this material, my original beliefs have been re-enforced, and not at all absolved.

A 'majority' of Americans see this Commander in Chief as a stong leader.

However, I think if the honest truth was known about what he knew, when he knew it, and what he did after he knew it, that the majority of rational minded people would see that on that day he did NOT act strong, intelligent, or like the Commander in Chief. Moreover, they'd see and finally understand that THIS President, really is much less 'in charge' than previously thought.

[King of the Americas]

Taken from the link Randfan provided above, "Free Thinking in a Dirty Glass":

"Pretty thin gruel for a good conspiracy theory, I suppose. But as the Wood and Thompson point out, the real scandal is the fact that so little of what the President and his administration did on 9/11 has been properly explained or documented.

Other than putting out a few false stories to justify Bush's peripatetic wanderings, the White House has been content to leave things that way. And it wants the independent 9/11 commission it was forced to create to adopt the same don't ask, don't tell policy. So conspiracy theorists take heart: We may never know what really happened.

For me, though, the telling detail is that image of Bush in the classroom, reading The Pet Goat and desperately trying to stall the crushing responsibilities waiting for him just outside the door.

The truth, I suspect, is that Bush was petrified. Certainly, that's the impression I had when I saw him read his first, brief statement. He looked on the verge of tears.

All of us were terrified that day. A lot of us cried. The difference is that Bush was the Commander in Chief -- like it or not, our leader. Leaders are supposed to feel, or at least look, confident and resolute. Think Churchill in the Blitz, Roosevelt after Pearl Harbor, or John F. Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

But the look I saw on Bush's face the morning of 9/11 was the same look I saw on his face the night of his first debate with Al Gore. It was a look that said: "What have I gotten myself into?" It revealed a profound weakness, a kind of "mini-me" inadequacy.

Bush may not understand, but his handlers do, that this has to be concealed from the public at all cost. Since 9/11, it sometimes seems as if the entire White House press operation is now devoted to that job.

All the footage of Shrub chowing down with the troops, reviewing the troops, saluting the troops and (even more importantly) being saluted by the troops, all the endless, mindless promotion of Bush as America's Maximum Warrior -- culminating with that absurd circus stunt aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln -- all of it is designed to erase the memory of that morning, when the real President Bush's prodigal son cowered in a Florida classroom, desperately hoping the world outside would just go away.

Not much a cover up, really --- no great crime or a conspiracy. No assassinations, no secret Swiss bank accounts. A "mini-me" scandal for a "mini-me" president."

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
I just got done reading the leftover responses from yesterday, and have not visited any of the links provided, so I may have to amend this statement...

Excuse me? You demand that we read your links, but you can't find the time to visit any of ours?

And you wonder why people think you are an attention-hog, a biased conspiracy freak and a garden-variety creduloid - among other, not so nice things?

[King of the Americas]

I didn't say I WOULDN'T read them just because someone said I should. I said I haven't YET.

I cna say, that I HAVE, now completed my review of all of the linked material. Although most of the conspiracy stuff doesn't interest me at all.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
I didn't say I WOULDN'T read them just because someone said I should. I said I haven't YET.

So, how can you speak of this post "serving its purpose" (and to you, no less) and have "conclusive" feelings about it? You have freely admitted that you have not taken the time and effort to see if you could be wrong.

It's so much easier to go on believing that you are right, isn't it?

Originally posted by King of the Americas
I cna say, that I HAVE, now completed my review of all of the linked material. Although most of the conspiracy stuff doesn't interest me at all.

You post something like that without bothering to read it yourself??

[King of the Americas]

Upon review, the links provided had NO value in the points I made in my conclusive statement. Moreover, my statement conclusion spoke to the responses I got, NOT to the links provided.

Is THIS really valuable?

I mean, come on. You are poking the goat with this kind of crap. I read/reviewed the material provided in the links that was pertinate to the discussion at hand. I believe it was YOUR ignorant ass who said that you wouldn't read something just because someone asked or told you to.

If you don't have anything forther to add to this debate, *ABOUT THE PRESIDENT AND HIS ACTIONS SURROUNDING 9-11, then by all means:

Feel free to SHUT THE F*CK UP.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
Upon review, the links provided had NO value in the points I made in my conclusive statement. Moreover, my statement conclusion spoke to the responses I got, NOT to the links provided.

Is THIS really valuable?

I mean, come on. You are poking the goat with this kind of crap. I read/reviewed the material provided in the links that was pertinate to the discussion at hand. I believe it was YOUR ignorant ass who said that you wouldn't read something just because someone asked or told you to.

If you don't have anything forther to add to this debate, *ABOUT THE PRESIDENT AND HIS ACTIONS SURROUNDING 9-11, then by all means:

Feel free to SHUT THE F*CK UP.

KOA,

You are always a pleasure to debate. Not much of a challenge, but you are always good for a laugh.

[aggle_rithm]

Originally posted by King of the Americas


The f*cked up sh*t I was referring to that I am still quite puzzled about is what the President did, why he did it, and when he did it, aswell as what he ne when he knew it.



Oh, so it wasn't referring to your paranoia, non-sequiturs, and garbled syntax? Just when I thought I had a handle on this thread...

[aggle_rithm]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Excuse me? You demand that we read your links, but you can't find the time to visit any of ours?

And you wonder why people think you are an attention-hog, a biased conspiracy freak and a garden-variety creduloid - among other, not so nice things?

I found it odd that KOA insisted that we read the WHOLE article carefully, and then, when we did, he was upset that we found nothing of value in it. Sorry, but you can't squeeze blood from a turnip...

[RandFan]

KOA,

I can't make you believe me. I can only tell you the truth. I read all of the material. I even took the time to find some additional material and included information that was not quite flattering to the president.

In the end I do not agree with you. I think you are quite unfair and take allot of liberty with your speculation. I am VERY proud of the President Bush and the way he handled things after 911.

I will admit that I am not certain as to his actions during the reading of the story. You seem to think that we must come to the same conclusion that you have. There is insuficient evidence for me to do so. Sorry.

I have gone out of my way to listen to you and consider and respect your opinion and I will continue to do so.

That being said, you have to be prepared to accept other peoples honest opinion. I am giving you my honest opinion. I think Bush may very well have been overwelmed on that day. He might have very well acted in an irational maner. I don't know if he did. But if he did I don't fault him. Because, from what I do know for a fact, Bush handled the situation in a way that makes me very proud and grateful that it was him who was at the helm and not myself or someone else. If that fact bothers you then I am sorry. I can only tell you the truth.

I respect your opinion. I hope you can respect mine.

[aggle_rithm]

I did some checking, and found that it is NORAD's responsibility to monitor domestic aircraft in North American space. So I was wrong on that point.

Unfortunately for conspiracy theorists, NORAD did not take on this responsibility until AFTER 9/11/2001. This puts a rather large hole in the argument that NORAD wasn't pulling its weight that day.

[King of the Americas]

You Wrote:

"You seem to think that we must come to the same conclusion that you have. There is insuficient evidence for me to do so. Sorry."

*And what conclusion is there 'insufficient evidence FOR'?

That the President what...?

You are giving me all this, I just don't 'believe' or 'see' it as you do, crap. I want evidence of something specific, that leads you to draw a solid conclusion.

My contention is that at the moment the President KNEW and was informed that We were in fact, 'under attack'...his immediate Duty was to the post of Commander in Chief. He took an oath to protect and serve the Constitution, and the People of the United States.

What are you contending he did, when he did it?

Are you saying that he 'accomplished' and faithfully fulfilled the Office and Duties his post?

I mean, aren't we past, emotional feelings about patriotism and uniting together...? Can't we be honest about what actually happened, and keep our emotions out of it? Just clear, sincere observations of the events?

However, if you want to 'feel' the way you do , I won't judge you for it. Each of us must do what we must, for our own sake. I suggest you require 'evidence' of something BEFORE coming to a conclusion.



:cool:

[King of the Americas]

So what EXACTLY is your contention...?

I mean, at what time do YOU believe what happened, and who KNEW about it?

4 planes were off course, and had their transponders turned off, and were refusing comunication attempts, at what time???

WHO knew this happened, WHO did they tell, and what time did they do so?

[aggle_rithm]

WHO cares? I just don't see the relevance to any of today's problems.

[Ike]

Granted, I only read about half of the article, then got bored and scrolled through the rest, but really, what I got from all of this, is that there is a huge communication problem in government. However, this is to be somewhat expected. For information to go all the way from the street to the president, it obviously has to go through several people. My estimate, the news probably went through about 10 people on its way to the Prez. Most likely, each person along that path had to make a decision about what was really important to tell the next guy, so that guy could make some decision, like who is the next appropriate person to pass the news to. Obviously in the minutes after some event like this, you do not want to be sending speculations to the president. Thus, each person in the chain (or some people in the chain) probably cut out what they thought might be speculation (I know when I first heard of the first incident, I thought it might be a hijacking, but knew that this was only speculation too...some of these people may have even thought that the president surely had already been informed too) Maybe post 9-11 these kinds of kinks in the communication process were hammered out a little better, and thats probably why no one was fired.

In my opinion, it is highly likely that for military type info, there exist channels for the information to get to the president very quickly, but pre 9-11 I doubt that anyone ever had the idea that similar channels were nessecary for non military information. (labeling the plane attacks as non military info is debatable, but I think the people who had the most info to convey were probably the FAA, which is not a part of the military) This kind of attack was a nightmare for all of us, but I imagine for the government it was a little bit worse, as I think no one knew off the top of their heads what the protocols that may or may not have existed were, and many people were unsure of what to do with the information they already had.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
Do NOT read if you wish to encourage faith and confidence in your federal government:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/essayaninterestingday.html

What is the article trying to say, that the US govenment and various agencies were complacent prior to and including 9/11?

This is not news.


The details of that particular day as described in this article are no different from any other day prior to 9/11, the only thing that differed that day was the attack on the towers and on the Pentagon.

[RandFan,Jr.]

Hi everyone,

It's me, RandFan. I had my account disabled because I was spending way too much time here. I'm using my son's nic so I can respond to a few posts. I got allot of work done today so I think that is ok. I don't have his password so I won't be tempted tomorrow.

King of the Americas
You seem to think that we must come to the same conclusion that you have. There is insufficient evidence for me to do so. Sorry."

King of the Americas
And what conclusion is there insufficient evidence FOR'?

That the President what...? Whatever it is that you are insinuating.

You are giving me all this, I just don't 'believe' or 'see' it as you do, crap. I want evidence of something specific, that leads you to draw a solid conclusion. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO DRAW A SOLID CONCLUSION!!!!!

What is it that you don't get about that?

My contention is that at the moment the President KNEW and was informed that We were in fact, 'under attack'...his immediate Duty was to the post of Commander in Chief. He took an oath to protect and serve the Constitution, and the People of the United States. And you have provided NO proof that he failed to do just that. ALL YOU HAVE IS SPECULATION!!!

What are you contending he did, when he did it? I'm contending that I don't know exactly what happened. I'm contending that he did what was needed when it was needed. I'm contending that you are speculating all kinds of $hit because it is self serving. I'm contending that you have provided no reason for me to conclude that the President did anything wrong.

Is there anything about that that is unclear?

Are you saying that he 'accomplished' and faithfully fulfilled the Office and Duties his post? As I understand it, YES!

Are you still confused? I don't know exactly what happened. You have given us a time line that suggests any number of things.

1. That due to incompetency there was a failure of the President to act.

2. That there was a failure of the system.

3. That President Bush was frozen by fear and unable to act.

4. That there was a conspiracy.

5. Some combination of the previous plus other issues and factors that we DON'T know about.

6. None of the previous factors. The President acted in the manner that he did for perfectly rational reasons. We just DON'T know what they are.

Fact: All 6 are logically possible.

Fact: Even some of the presidents critics do not share a consensus as to which of the possibilities are likely.

I mean, aren't we past, emotional feelings about patriotism and uniting together...? Apparently you are not past your issues. Apparently you are unable or unwilling to look at this event in a rational and logical manner.


Can't we be honest about what actually happened, and keep our emotions out of it? Just clear, sincere observations of the events? Well, to tell you the truth I don't think that you are sincere. A number of people have shown why the events could be interpreted to any number of things.

We don't claim to be able to read the minds of Bush or the other that were involved with this event. You on the other hand "know" what happened. If that is what you want to do then fine but don't expect us to buy into your specious reasoning.

However, if you want to 'feel' the way you do , I won't judge you for it. Oh THAAAANK YOUUUUUU for not judging me for being skeptical of your interpretation of events. I don't base my conclusions on feelings. I base them on the facts.

The facts are that I DON'T know. And your attempts at bullying us into agreeing with you are fallacious.

Each of us must do what we must, for our own sake. I'll look at the evidence in an objective manner thank you.

I suggest you require 'evidence' of something BEFORE coming to a conclusion. I have NOT come to any conclusion as to your "evidence". Because there is insufficient evidence for me to come to a conclusion.

I know what the President DID and based on what he DID I AM very proud of him. I can judge for myself and the objective evidence leads me to conclude that while there may be some questions as to the initial events I am very proud of what he DID DO.

I hope that clears things up.

[aggle_rithm]

Let's put this whole thing in perspective.

Just over sixty years ago, the Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor. Some history books say they achieved "strategic surprise", but that is not true. Military planners had discussed the possibility of a surprise attack at Pearl Harbor since 1925. Many people in the military saw an attack on Pearl Harbor as imminent in 1941. Chester Nimitz, in fact, turned down an appointment to run the Pearl Harbor base because he KNEW an attack was coming, and he KNEW that whoever was in charge would be blamed for it.

A few days after Pearl Harbor, we were caught completely off guard by a Japanese attack on the Phillipines. How? We KNEW they were coming, and we knew WHEN they were coming. The unpreparedness was, in this case, inexusable.

Would King of the Americas be willing to trash President Franklin Roosevelt over this? This isn't a case where bad things MIGHT have happened because of the President's actions/inaction (Air Force One or the elementary school MIGHT have been attacked). In this case, they DID happen.

(Of course, bad things did happen on 9/11, but not, I think, as a result of the President's actions or inaction.)

The point is that history doesn't emphasize the lapses in judgement early in a new, catastrophic situation. Most of the history of WWII emphasizes our eventual, spectacular success. The intelligence failures early on were just burps in the wind.

[King of the Americas]

Okay, so basically you're saying you were OK with a little incompetitency, and that there might very well have been one and or more breakdowns in communication.

I am NOT.

Moreover, my point is that when you take an Oath to protect and serve the Constitution and the People of the United States, and Duty calls you into action. If you cower in your foxhole, whole the rest of the Unit advances, you can and should be held accountable for your inaction. In some cases a 'dishonorable discharge' is even in order.

Now given that, when the President was told, "A second plane has hit the WTC, we are under attack." What did he do?

Did he ask, "Are there any other planes headed off course?" Did he give any direct orders as to what should be done to other planes that were acting in a similar manner?

aggle_rithm doesn't CARE that some men weren't at their posts shortly before, during and after the 9-11 attacks. I guess that's where I must disagree. Our government's MOST basic purpose is to defend our nation and our people from attack. And when our President instead chose to turn from this duty to Educate 16 children by reading with them a book about a goat...

Sorry, but I care about that. I think that for the Commander in Chief to put the Do Not Disturb sign on a door in a time of crisis is... I don't even know the words for it.

But I know it isn't right and good, and we should think about that and what it means.

[hal bidlack]

2 more cents from me...

KA, I again gently repeat, that if your evidence of the actions of the President (and lack there of) is as solid as your evidence that AF1 is safer on the ground, then I respectfully urge you to do a bit more research.

As to military actions, I think you may have a warped view of how that works. You seem to think that we need the President to actually say, "ok, you guys can go fly now" after the attack. The military's job is national defense. While the fighters would have needed authorization to fire on an airliner, they did not need POTUS to say "take off." I'm being coy here on purpose, as I do not intend to go into the details. Simply put, your fundamental premise is, in my professional view, flawed and shows an energetic mind, but one hampered by much less than all the facts of the case.

[King of the Americas]

Holy crap, and I thought 'I' visited here too often...

---

Now back to 9-11.

You say no evidence. I say at the Moment the guy leaned in and said, "...we are under attack." HE KNEW. There IS evidence HE KNEW because we have a picture, in fact film coverage from mor ethan one agnle that this happened. Moreover, it is recorded that this happened at a very specific time. How the f*ck is that not evidence to you!?

Are you suggesting that the President had his mind on the book he was reading and did 'get' or 'pick up' on what he was just told?

"Mr. President, we are under attack." WHAMMO- YOU are the Commander in Chief, put down the goat book and begin getting briefed and giving orders. You don't get to take a 'time out' just so that you don't upset a few kids, and or you are just thinking about what to do next. MOREOVER, knowing that we were under attack, as our Leader don't you think he was a target? Placing yourself and remaining among children, while the danger could be possibly pointed at YOU...!? What the hell is that?

Your contention is what again, exactly? That you don't know!?

Do you know anything about that day? Perhaps you were in a comma, and don't racall, and or haven't done ANY reading about the events of the day?

How do you NOT know, and use THAT as a defense!?

If you don't know, look and find out, read! Then say, something intelligent about what you found. Don't sit ther eand go, "Well I don't know, but I think the President is a fine fella, and I think he did a good job." What the hell does that accomplish!?

Look, when they wanted to hang ol'Clinton for getting a BJ in the Oval Office, I could kinda understand that. I mean I think that is kinda the ultimate is using company time for personal business. And for that he was impeached, or something like that , but he remained in office. I am NOT saying we should vote the President OUT of Office, but if he f*cked up, and or did NOT show up at his post on time and in uniform...then you damn right he should have a mark on his record, persay. In fact, I would claim that this is NOT the first time this man has been guilty of this. While in the National Guard he was in fact AWOL from some months.

So, in the end, I guess I am gonna say you are an ignorant fool. Ins o mauch that the facts are right before your eyes. Documents and photos alike, all lined up from one point to another. And you IGNORE them...Why?

You don't 'believe' their accuracy?

Well, then how the hell do you know what is going on, enough to respond to this post?

[King of the Americas]

It JUST SO HAPPENS, that my fianee's father was one of the radar tower operators out there. HE says that they picked up on a radar signal, but that they summized that it MUST have been a radar glitch because the signal was too big to be an attack of that size.

The signal was actually interpretted as a 'large flock of birds', and thus the alarmed was not sounded, until one of these birds laid an egg.

Crazy, huh?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
Holy crap, and I thought 'I' visited here too often...

Yes, well....if you say so yourself...

Originally posted by King of the Americas
You say no evidence. I say at the Moment the guy leaned in and said, "...we are under attack." HE KNEW. There IS evidence HE KNEW because we have a picture, in fact film coverage from mor ethan one agnle that this happened. Moreover, it is recorded that this happened at a very specific time. How the f*ck is that not evidence to you!?

Where is this film coverage? I am not saying it isn't there, I would just like to see and hear it for myself.

Originally posted by King of the Americas
Are you suggesting that the President had his mind on the book he was reading and did 'get' or 'pick up' on what he was just told? "Mr. President, we are under attack." WHAMMO- YOU are the Commander in Chief, put down the goat book and begin getting briefed and giving orders. You don't get to take a 'time out' just so that you don't upset a few kids, and or you are just thinking about what to do next. MOREOVER, knowing that we were under attack, as our Leader don't you think he was a target? Placing yourself and remaining among children, while the danger could be possibly pointed at YOU...!? What the hell is that?

First of all, that's a perfectly reasonable thing to do, in a moment of crisis: Keep cool. Think about what to do. Don't cause a panic - especially among kids.

Second, the place was swarming with Secret Service guys. Everywhere the president goes, he is a potential threat to those around him. What do you want, lock up the president in a bunker in the mountains?

Originally posted by King of the Americas
Your contention is what again, exactly? That you don't know!?

It's perfectly OK to say "I don't know". It is also perfectly OK to say "I don't care". And it is most certainly perfectly OK to say "I don't want to listen to your crap, KOA!"

Originally posted by King of the Americas
Do you know anything about that day? Perhaps you were in a comma, and don't racall, and or haven't done ANY reading about the events of the day?

I was in New York City that day. I have all too vivid recollections of that day. As a (then) New Yorker, I have probably heard, seen and listened to more "9-11"-stuff than you ever will. You want to go head-to-head with me about knowledge of 9-11?

Originally posted by King of the Americas
How do you NOT know, and use THAT as a defense!?

Maybe because people don't see anything wrong with the way the president acted? Can you respect the opinions of other people, or do you have to force your own down their throats?

Originally posted by King of the Americas
If you don't know, look and find out, read! Then say, something intelligent about what you found. Don't sit ther eand go, "Well I don't know, but I think the President is a fine fella, and I think he did a good job." What the hell does that accomplish!?

Listen, KOA, you are closing your eyes to the fact that people simply don't find your "evidence" compelling at all. We even have a military guy, Bidlack, who can tell you "inside" information about how the military works. Does that leave any impression on you?

Originally posted by King of the Americas
Look, when they wanted to hang ol'Clinton for getting a BJ in the Oval Office, I could kinda understand that. I mean I think that is kinda the ultimate is using company time for personal business. And for that he was impeached, or something like that , but he remained in office.

Clinton was impeached but acquitted. What does that tell you? That he was guilty? Should an acquitted man leave office?

Originally posted by King of the Americas
I am NOT saying we should vote the President OUT of Office, but if he f*cked up, and or did NOT show up at his post on time and in uniform...then you damn right he should have a mark on his record, persay. In fact, I would claim that this is NOT the first time this man has been guilty of this. While in the National Guard he was in fact AWOL from some months.

You seem to regard this as a movie. Can't you simply realize that this is not a big problem to others?

Originally posted by King of the Americas
So, in the end, I guess I am gonna say you are an ignorant fool. Ins o mauch that the facts are right before your eyes. Documents and photos alike, all lined up from one point to another. And you IGNORE them...Why?

Nobody is "ignoring" anything. It's just that nobody seems to find your material all that compelling.

Originally posted by King of the Americas
You don't 'believe' their accuracy?

I know that you have made a very lousy case for yourself.

Originally posted by King of the Americas
Well, then how the hell do you know what is going on, enough to respond to this post?

Yes, that's fine. I think it is time for your nap now.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
It JUST SO HAPPENS, that my fianee's father was one of the radar tower operators out there. HE says that they picked up on a radar signal, but that they summized that it MUST have been a radar glitch because the signal was too big to be an attack of that size.

"IT JUST SO HAPPENS"? I haven't heard that one since kindergarten!!

And what's so wrong with that assumption? Were we not all amazed at the size and force of the attacks? Did you expect this, KOA?

Originally posted by King of the Americas
The signal was actually interpretted as a 'large flock of birds', and thus the alarmed was not sounded, until one of these birds laid an egg.

Crazy, huh?

Not at all. What do you think they would have expected? Radar images are not like a TV screen, KOA. You have to interpret what goes on.

Go ask daddy about that.

[King of the Americas]

Can and or should the Commander in Chief give order in front of kids?

If there was a plane headed for the Capitol and the Pentagon, shouldn't he have beena ble to give the order to bring them down?

Hey, I don't know everything about everything, but I know enoung to ask the right questions TO find out what I want to know. And right now, I want to know how ANYONE can look at the pictures and film we have of the President getting word, and then staying to finish the book about the goat, and still say "What evidence?"

Having never served in the armed forces, I can only say I am underinformed, but not uninformed.

[RandFan,Jr.]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
So, in the end, I guess I am gonna say you are an ignorant fool. Ins o mauch that the facts are right before your eyes. Documents and photos alike, all lined up from one point to another. And you IGNORE them...Why?

You don't 'believe' their accuracy?

Well, then how the hell do you know what is going on, enough to respond to this post? KOA, I simply do not have the time to respond to you line by line. Thankfuly CFLarsen has taken the time. My thanks to him.

You aren't even taking the time to read and think about what it is that I am saying. You are puting words in my mouth and making assumptions about things that you don't know.

I don't know exactly what Bush knew. Raming planes into buildings is quite unconventional and it wasn't evidence that we were "under attack" in the traditional sense. It was evidence that there was a concerted act of terrorism.

Make of it what you will. I'll let you have the last word. Let me just say that in the past I have made a good faith effort to listen to you and consider your arguments.

If you can't have the decency to treat me in kind then I don't care to respond to you any more.

Good bye.

[King of the Americas]

Okay, so your contention is that when they told the President, "..we are under attack.", he really didn't know and or believe them."

Got it.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
Can and or should the Commander in Chief give order in front of kids?

If necessary, sure. But he could wait a few moments, couldn't he?

Originally posted by King of the Americas
If there was a plane headed for the Capitol and the Pentagon, shouldn't he have beena ble to give the order to bring them down?

Nobody knew for sure where these planes were going at the time. So your point is moot.

Originally posted by King of the Americas
Hey, I don't know everything about everything, but I know enoung to ask the right questions TO find out what I want to know. And right now, I want to know how ANYONE can look at the pictures and film we have of the President getting word, and then staying to finish the book about the goat, and still say "What evidence?"

Problem with you is, that you are extremely reluctant to admit that you are wrong. And you have this burning desire to be "in-the-know", even though what you know is wrong.

Originally posted by King of the Americas
Having never served in the armed forces, I can only say I am underinformed, but not uninformed.

You are the most shining example of the validity of the phrase "A little knowledge is very dangerous".

[King of the Americas]

I KNOW how a radar works, and I can clearly understand, especially witht he kind of instruments they had, how such a mistake could have been made. However, 'I' wouldn't say it was their fault. Failing to hail the call of duty...well that is anothing thing all together.

At least those men were at their posts to see and try to interpret the signal they were getting. THEY were actively seeking MORE information about the sighting, NOT ignoring what they had as it weren't important.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
Okay, so your contention is that when they told the President, "..we are under attack.", he really didn't know and or believe them."

Got it.

Two planes crash into two buildings and you expect the president to immediately jump out of his seat and rush away to a bunker as if he was preparing for World War 3? To say that the president knew anything more than the fact that two planes had crashed into the WTC is nothing but speculation. I do not know what the president believed when he was told "we are under attack" but the only information he had was that two planes had crashed into two buildings. I do not mean to trivialize the attacks but that is not a good enough reason for the president to enter WW3/"I am a target" mode.

[RandFan,Jr.]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
Okay, so your contention is that when they told the President, "..we are under attack.", he really didn't know and or believe them." NO! That is not my contention. Stop putting words in my mouth. I DON'T know what he was told. I would assume that he was told what we understood to be true at the time and that an act of terrorism had been perpetrated on the US. The extent of which was unknown.

He could have been told "It looks like the terrorism is limited to planes and specific targets. We are assesing the situation and will need a few more minutes to give you a complete picture."

The truth is I DON'T know. And you DON'T know. You are being an A$$h@le. If you choose to look at the facts and conclude that the president was incompetent that is your perogative.

I'll tell you what I do know. I know that events like this are often cloudy and full of confusion. The President needs accurate information to make decisions. He has an entire staff and the Pentagon to assess the situation so that he can make decisions.

You raise some valid questions and your thread is quite appropriate. But you want me to come to a conclusion based solely on incomplete information and dismiss the information that I do know and that was Bush's actions following the intial reports and confusion.

So that is it. I'm not going to respond again. If you want to be a prick and put words in my mouth that is fine. I wash my hands of you.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
I KNOW how a radar works, and I can clearly understand, especially witht he kind of instruments they had...


Great. I was a radar operator in the Air Defense Artillery of the US Army. Exactly how does a radar work, and which type of radar(s) are you referring to?

Range Only?

Continuous Wave Acquisition?

Pulse Acquisition?

Identification Friend or Foe (IFF)?

High Intensity Illumination?

[lyghtningbyrd]

I thought that was an interesting article that didn't deserve all the bashing it recieved here.

It was slightly less objective than it should have been - clearly the writer(s) express negative opinions of the President and his staff's behavior, which shouldn't be the case, but it doesn't mean it's necessarily illegitimate. Also, there were a couple of "side-note/FYIs" that only served to erect suspicion of conspiracy in the reader, which shouldn't have been done.

Here's my thing: Yes - it's important to know all the facts of history and the quotes and times, etc. But that's HISTORY not the present.. When something like that happens, and the government and president feel they have to lie about certain things to cover their mistakes, it's not always deceitful or evil.

I'm pretty sure people like you and me and probably everyone in the JREF community/Skeptic community is mature enough to handle every bit of truth in the world, but we are NOT mainstream America. If most of the folks in America thought for a second on 9/11 or the months and months afterwards, that George Bush was weak, or slow to act, or indifferent-seeming, or anything negative, it would've scared the crap out of everyone.

Everyone was scared, even the president, in fact probably more than most people...

I'm just glad there's plenty of sides to every story, even if some people go to far...

[aggle_rithm]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
It JUST SO HAPPENS, that my fianee's father was one of the radar tower operators out there. HE says that they picked up on a radar signal, but that they summized that it MUST have been a radar glitch because the signal was too big to be an attack of that size.

The signal was actually interpretted as a 'large flock of birds', and thus the alarmed was not sounded, until one of these birds laid an egg.

Crazy, huh?

I had a little trouble following this post. Are you saying that the only possibilities were a radar glitch or an "attack of that size"?

There really isn't enough information here for me to make a reasoned response, but I would guess that the radar operators saw a large aircraft with no transponder signal and became confused. Lack of a transponder signal usually means a small private plane.

(I don't claim to be an expert on radar, but I did look into training for air traffic control a long time ago, and spent some time observing the controllers at work.)

[aggle_rithm]

Originally posted by King of the Americas

Moreover, my point is that when you take an Oath to protect and serve the Constitution and the People of the United States, and Duty calls you into action. If you cower in your foxhole, whole the rest of the Unit advances, you can and should be held accountable for your inaction. In some cases a 'dishonorable discharge' is even in order.


It is extremely reckless for a high-level military leader to put himself in harm's way by advancing with "the rest of the Unit". It is doubly reckless to do so when he does not even know who is attacking, or why.

The last President who actually "advanced with the troops" was George Washington, during the Whisky Rebellion. Does that make everyone who succeeded him a coward?

[King of the Americas]

And when did it happen. The 9-11 Commission will be holding hearings on this today on C-Span, tune in for details.

---

RandFan, claims to NOT 'know' what Bush was told after the second plane hit the second tower. I find this ignorantly irresponsible, since Ari Fleisher has said repeated that at about 9:05-07 AM the second plane hit the tower, and the President was told, "A second plane has hit the WTC, we are under attack." To say that you don't KNOW what they told the President, and that no one else does either is IGNORING this well publicized fact.

So, I find that the President did NOT 'act' immediately upon hearing that we were in fact under attack, from what ever source. Now, by 'act', I mean that he didn't begin getting briefed. No one, especially ME is suggesing that because he didn't put himself in a WWIII bunker, he didn't do his job. However, what I AM suggesting is that a book about a goat, SHOULDN'T be the #1 priority of our Commander in Chief when he found out that we were under attack, period.

It seems that there is a complete LACK of specific knowledge about the 9-11 events, among common persons, but HERE at the JREF Board, THAT is supposed to be different.

There are 3 VERY specific, and very KNOWN facts that I would like to present and discuss.

One at 8:48 Flight 11 hit the first WTC Tower.

Two at 9:03 Flight 175 hit the second tower.

Three at 9:38 Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

IF the Presient ACTUALLY heard that we were "...under attack." at 9:07, that gives him a half a hour to 'act' in order to protect the United States and its people. By acting, I don't mean giving orders to scramble jets, and giving them permission to shoot down civilian planes. No, of course not, he shouldn't do this until AFTER he is fully briefed and has had time to consider everything.

HOWEVER, what he does is NOT to respond in this manner. He seemingly ignores the fact that we ARE "...under attack.", and instead he reads a book along with children about a goat.

A half a hour is a LOT of time to get briefed, and begin making phone calls. How far away is the Pentagon from a Military Airfield? How long would it have taken to scramble jets to intercept the airliner headed for the Pentagon, after placing ONE call to the FAA to ask, "Hey, I heard a couple of planes hit the WTC, are there any more planes off course?"

This is what DIDN'T happen. And where I see a clear and present LACK of neccessary action that should have been taken.

This is NOT a matter of opinion. The President did NOT 'act' when he found out that we were under attack. AGAIN, this is NOT a matter of opinion.

[CFLarsen]

KOA,

Do you have any idea how many potential targets there are in the US?

Do you have any idea what it takes to protect them all?

Do you have any idea how to do a little research before you go off on a half-baked crusade?

Do you have any idea how to understand the data you find?

What, precisely, is your gripe? That the President didn't act the way you wanted him to? That things did not go according to your wishes and fantasies?

Sorry to drag you back to Planet Earth. You have shown illusions of grandeur before, and you certainly haven't stopped.

[King of the Americas]

Do you have any idea how many potential targets there are in the US?

*No. However, I am almost POSITIVE that 3 of the MOST important ones to protect would be The White House, Congress/the Senate, and the Penagon.

Do you have any idea what it takes to protect them all?

*Again, No. However, I AM almost positive, that knowing we were "...under attack.", it MIGHT have been a pretty good idea to send 'fighter' to investigate any other planes that were off course and had turned off their communication ports.

Do you have any idea how to do a little research before you go off on a half-baked crusade?

*Yes, and I am STILL doing research. Do YOU have any idea how to attack people's contentions and NOT the people themselves?

Do you have any idea how to understand the data you find?

*Yes, and I am working on getting better at it.

What, precisely, is your gripe? That the President didn't act the way you wanted him to? That things did not go according to your wishes and fantasies?

*When you fell off the stupid truck yesterday, did it run over your head? MY GRIPE is that the President 'didn't act' when his Oath & Duty f*cking called him to! After hearing were were "...under attack.", you gotta put down the kiddie book and get to work. Wishes and fantasies...!? Pardon me, but will you please go back to SHUTING THE F*CK UP.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
*No. However, I am almost POSITIVE that 3 of the MOST important ones to protect would be The White House, Congress/the Senate, and the Penagon.

Let's see: You don't know how many potential targets there is, yet you have no problems complaining that the President didn't do enough (or so you claim) to protect them.

How should he have protected those targets?

Originally posted by King of the Americas
*Again, No. However, I AM almost positive, that knowing we were "...under attack.", it MIGHT have been a pretty good idea to send 'fighter' to investigate any other planes that were off course and had turned off their communication ports.

Let's see: You don't know what it takes to protect them all, yet you have no problems complaining that the President didn't do enough (or so you claim) to protect them.

Originally posted by King of the Americas
*Yes, and I am STILL doing research. Do YOU have any idea how to attack people's contentions and NOT the people themselves?

Yes, actually. Can you? Look a little further down...

You're "still" doing research, yet you have no problems complaining that the President didn't "act" fast enough (for your liking)?

Originally posted by King of the Americas
*Yes, and I am working on getting better at it.

Keep working, because you really suck at it.

Originally posted by King of the Americas
*When you fell off the stupid truck yesterday, did it run over your head? MY GRIPE is that the President 'didn't act' when his Oath & Duty f*cking called him to! After hearing were were "...under attack.", you gotta put down the kiddie book and get to work. Wishes and fantasies...!? Pardon me, but will you please go back to SHUTING THE F*CK UP.

Do you have any idea how to attack people's contentions and NOT the people themselves?

I think it is not only time for your nap, but also for your medication.

[Psiload]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
And when did it happen. The 9-11 Commission will be holding hearings on this today on C-Span, tune in for details.

---

RandFan, claims to NOT 'know' what Bush was told after the second plane hit the second tower. I find this ignorantly irresponsible, since Ari Fleisher has said repeated that at about 9:05-07 AM the second plane hit the tower, and the President was told, "A second plane has hit the WTC, we are under attack." To say that you don't KNOW what they told the President, and that no one else does either is IGNORING this well publicized fact.

So, I find that the President did NOT 'act' immediately upon hearing that we were in fact under attack, from what ever source. Now, by 'act', I mean that he didn't begin getting briefed. No one, especially ME is suggesing that because he didn't put himself in a WWIII bunker, he didn't do his job. However, what I AM suggesting is that a book about a goat, SHOULDN'T be the #1 priority of our Commander in Chief when he found out that we were under attack, period.

It seems that there is a complete LACK of specific knowledge about the 9-11 events, among common persons, but HERE at the JREF Board, THAT is supposed to be different.

There are 3 VERY specific, and very KNOWN facts that I would like to present and discuss.

One at 8:48 Flight 11 hit the first WTC Tower.

Two at 9:03 Flight 175 hit the second tower.

Three at 9:38 Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

IF the Presient ACTUALLY heard that we were "...under attack." at 9:07, that gives him a half a hour to 'act' in order to protect the United States and its people. By acting, I don't mean giving orders to scramble jets, and giving them permission to shoot down civilian planes. No, of course not, he shouldn't do this until AFTER he is fully briefed and has had time to consider everything.

HOWEVER, what he does is NOT to respond in this manner. He seemingly ignores the fact that we ARE "...under attack.", and instead he reads a book along with children about a goat.

A half a hour is a LOT of time to get briefed, and begin making phone calls. How far away is the Pentagon from a Military Airfield? How long would it have taken to scramble jets to intercept the airliner headed for the Pentagon, after placing ONE call to the FAA to ask, "Hey, I heard a couple of planes hit the WTC, are there any more planes off course?"

This is what DIDN'T happen. And where I see a clear and present LACK of neccessary action that should have been taken.

This is NOT a matter of opinion. The President did NOT 'act' when he found out that we were under attack. AGAIN, this is NOT a matter of opinion.

Are you saying that the president had adequate time on 9/11 to assess the situation, and take action which would have prevented the attack on the Pentagon? Thirty minutes to hear and digest all of the details regarding the chaos and confusion of 9/11, and order the deaths of a plane load of innocent civilians? Thirty minutes?

[RandFan,Jr.]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
RandFan, claims to NOT 'know' what Bush was told after the second plane hit the second tower. I find this ignorantly irresponsible, since Ari Fleisher has said repeated that at about 9:05-07 AM the second plane hit the tower, and the President was told, "A second plane has hit the WTC, we are under attack." To say that you don't KNOW what they told the President, and that no one else does either is IGNORING this well publicized fact. You are not listening. I don't deny that the president was told that we are "under attack". Has anyone said that this was the ONLY thing that was told to the president?

So, I find that the President did NOT 'act' immediately upon hearing that we were in fact under attack, from what ever source. Now, by 'act', I mean that he didn't begin getting briefed. Do you know that he wasn't told "we are getting everyone ready for a conference call and need about a half hour to get everything ready for a briefing"?

YOU DON'T KNOW!

No one, especially ME is suggesing that because he didn't put himself in a WWIII bunker, he didn't do his job. However, what I AM suggesting is that a book about a goat, SHOULDN'T be the #1 priority of our Commander in Chief when he found out that we were under attack, period. We were not being attacked in the traditional sense. You are putting meaning to the phrase and Bush may well have understood that it was a terrorist attack and that it was going to take a few minutes to prepare the plane and get things ready so that Bush could deal with the situation. Again, competent people were doing the preparatory work so that the president could make decisions.

AGAIN, YOU DON'T KNOW TO WHAT EXTENT THE PRESIDENT WAS BRIEFED!

It seems that there is a complete LACK of specific knowledge about the 9-11 events, among common persons, but HERE at the JREF Board, THAT is supposed to be different. The White House has not released all of the pertinent information for us to KNOW.

There are 3 VERY specific, and very KNOWN facts that I would like to present and discuss.

One at 8:48 Flight 11 hit the first WTC Tower.

Two at 9:03 Flight 175 hit the second tower.

Three at 9:38 Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

IF the Presient ACTUALLY heard that we were "...under attack." at 9:07, that gives him a half a hour to 'act' in order to protect the United States and its people. By acting, I don't mean giving orders to scramble jets, and giving them permission to shoot down civilian planes. No, of course not, he shouldn't do this until AFTER he is fully briefed and has had time to consider everything. You are assuming that the intelligence gathering apparatus was completely up to date and prepared to brief the president. Is it at all possible that the President was told "there is come confusion and we need about a half an hour to prepare to brief you"?

HOWEVER, what he does is NOT to respond in this manner. He seemingly ignores the fact that we ARE "...under attack.", and instead he reads a book along with children about a goat. And you presume to know everything that the president was told. You presume to understand how the system works that it can be prepared to brief the president in 10 minutes.

A half a hour is a LOT of time to get briefed, and begin making phone calls. Briefed on what? Calls to who?

In such confusion it is easy for me to understand why it would take a half an hour to access the situation fully in order to prepare the president. 1/2 an hour to get the advisors and everyone together to properly brief the president is not out of line. Again, it was not a "traditional" attack. Planes being flown into towers is not bombs or missiles or troops coming ashore. I would think that it would take at least half an hour to prepare to brief the president.

How far away is the Pentagon from a Military Airfield? How long would it have taken to scramble jets to intercept the airliner headed for the Pentagon, after placing ONE call to the FAA to ask, "Hey, I heard a couple of planes hit the WTC, are there any more planes off course?" Not the presidents job.

You are using hindsight and making assumptions about things that you don't know.

This is what DIDN'T happen. And where I see a clear and present LACK of necessary action that should have been taken. That IS YOUR opinion. Thank god you are not the president.

This is NOT a matter of opinion. The President did NOT 'act' when he found out that we were under attack. AGAIN, this is NOT a matter of opinion. You presume much. I think it does raise some questions but we don't know what was going on behind the scenes. We do not know what policies or contingencies the President had. You don't know that the President already knew that he had a half hour before he could do anything constructive and felt it necessary to let his subordinates do their jobs to best prepare him to do his.

You presume because your bias will not let you ask simple questions like, "are there any other possibilities?". Your bias will not allow anything other than the false dichotomy of "the president is incompetent" or there was a conspiracy. You lack the critical thinking skills to view the situation in an objective manner. I have conceded that the situation raises questions. I don't pretend to know that the president wasn't scared or overwhelmed.

I simply don't know.

[CFLarsen]

I get a feeling that KOA has most of his "knowledge" about how the Presidency is run from watching movies and TV.

He most certainly does not have it from actual, real information.

Oh, well....:rolleyes:

[Kodiak]

Again...


Originally posted by King of the Americas
I KNOW how a radar works, and I can clearly understand, especially witht he kind of instruments they had...


Great. I was a radar operator in the Air Defense Artillery of the US Army. Exactly how does a radar work, and which type of radar(s) are you referring to?

Range Only?

Continuous Wave Acquisition?

Pulse Acquisition?

Identification Friend or Foe (IFF)?

High Intensity Illumination?

Phased Array?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I get a feeling that KOA has most of his "knowledge" about how the Presidency is run from watching movies and TV.

He most certainly does not have it from actual, real information.

Oh, well....:rolleyes:

Same goes for his knowledge of radar, evidently...

[hal bidlack]

KoA,

I'll try one more time: the Air Force does not need to get a phone call from POTUS to launch fighters. I won't go into details, of course, but I assure you your entire basic premise is *wrong.* You have 'facts' that you yourself admited came from the Discovery Channel.

As a career AF officer, and as a former temp staffer on the NSC, I assure you, you are completely, fundamentally, and factually way off base.

[King of the Americas]

You Wrote:

"Are you saying that the president had adequate time on 9/11 to assess the situation, and take action which would have prevented the attack on the Pentagon? Thirty minutes to hear and digest all of the details regarding the chaos and confusion of 9/11, and order the deaths of a plane load of innocent civilians? Thirty minutes?"

*What I am saying is 30 minutes is a BUNCH of time 'not' to be getting briefed on how many other planes were in the air, and off course while refusing communication attempts...

How fast CAN we get the right information into the right hands to make the right call...? Lots of varibles go into that answer, but given that the Agent had his radio turned off... I really don't know how to accurately characterize what the President did or DIDN'T do that day. All that I CAN say is that he wasn't getting any information, and wasn't asking any imporant questions.

He was reading a story about a goat...

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by hal bidlack
You have 'facts' that you yourself admited came from the Discovery Channel.

No?!? I didn't even catch that!! Dawg, I' psychic!! :D

Originally posted by hal bidlack
As a career AF officer, and as a former temp staffer on the NSC, I assure you, you are completely, fundamentally, and factually way off base.

"Base". Haha. Get it! :)

What, you not a navy boy? With those legs, man, you could have been an admiral by now! ;)

Oops....sorry for derailing the thread.

[King of the Americas]

Okay...I 'think' I am starting to feel'ya on this one...

The President, really isn't JUST the Commander in Chief, he is also George W. Bush who always HAS enjoyed a good children's book- the 'person'. And knowing FULL WELL we were under attack, he had 'the other guys' on the job, and there was no need for him to be concerned with the matter, persay.

W O W.

Now THAT is exactly what I said in the first place. G.W. was doing exactly what he does BEST when the poop hit the fan:

"Reading to and or with people who didn't mind if he stumbled over a word or two."

:cool:

[King of the Americas]

I think that is more a topic for the Science Section.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
*What I am saying is 30 minutes is a BUNCH of time 'not' to be getting briefed on how many other planes were in the air, and off course while refusing communication attempts...

It's a BUNCH of time in a movie. Not in real life.

Originally posted by King of the Americas
How fast CAN we get the right information into the right hands to make the right call...?

It can go fast, and it can go not so fast. There are, as you say, many variables, but you seem to believe that everything should have gone as smooth as in those movies you clearly have seen too many off.

Originally posted by King of the Americas
Lots of varibles go into that answer, but given that the Agent had his radio turned off... I really don't know how to accurately characterize what the President did or DIDN'T do that day. All that I CAN say is that he wasn't getting any information, and wasn't asking any imporant questions.

"That day", the president got a lot of information and was asking enough questions to give a lot of orders.

Originally posted by King of the Americas
He was reading a story about a goat...

Could you please describe the scenario that - according to you - should have happened, in those 30 minutes? Who should have called who, asking what, ordering what?

[King of the Americas]

NOW HOLD UP...

Let's get specific, here.

What exactly am I way off base on?

But wait, if YOU are the specialist here I have some specific questions for you:

---

1.) What is the nearest military airport to the Capitol?

2.) What is the top speed of an F-16 & F-15, after they ARE in the air?

3.) Who can give an order for a fighter to take down a civilian plane?

---

Now you got problems with what I said, then 'exactly' what is it you protest to?

Vague statements like your's are useless here.

[CFLarsen]

KOA,

Could you please describe the scenario that - according to you - should have happened, in those 30 minutes? Who should have called who, asking what, ordering what?

[Psiload]

KotA wrote:

*What I am saying is 30 minutes is a BUNCH of time 'not' to be getting briefed on how many other planes were in the air, and off course while refusing communication attempts...

Yes, but thirty minutes is still not enough time for the President to have done anything that would have significantly effected the outcome of the events of 9/11, right? So, in essence, all you're doing is monday morning quarterbacking a moot point.

How fast CAN we get the right information into the right hands to make the right call...? Lots of varibles go into that answer, but given that the Agent had his radio turned off...

...we have one more irrelevant detail. There, I'll finish that thought for you.

I really don't know how to accurately characterize what the President did or DIDN'T do that day. All that I CAN say is that he wasn't getting any information, and wasn't asking any imporant questions.

Your inability to accurately characterize has never concerned you before, why let it stop you know?

He was reading a story about a goat...

That seems a pretty rational and constructive course of action given how the rest of the country at large seeemed to be busily carrying out the policy of:

When in danger, or in doubt.
Run in circles, scream and shout

[King of the Americas]

Good question, and to answer you as specifically as I know how:

WHEN 'I' heard a CNN news reporter say, "We seem to be under attack.", I started to ask questions myself like "Holy s**t, who the hell is behind this!?" "What else are they going to hit?" "How many OTHER planes are in the air and off course!?!?"

I am just a normal guy watching the news, so I don't HAVE access to the kind of outlets that can answer these questions. However, I think that 'someone' should, and if that is anyone it should be our Commander in Chief.

IF 'I' were told, as the Commander in Chief, that we were "...under attack.", I would immediately put that hat on and starting thinking and acting like I was the Commander in Chief.

I say that by NOT doing so, and instead taking that time to read a book about a goat...well, I say that is some f*cked up sh*t.

I mean is that really what we want President Bush doing while we are under attack from an unknown source?

Actually...THAT's the punchline. He WAS doing what he did best, asking the questions he was good at answering-reading and talking about a book about a goat. This skit would get a LOTTA laughs if it were on Saturday Night Live. The problem is, that is wasn't...

This is how it really happened, and this is really what the President was doing while the 9-11 attacks transpired, and I am not so sure it was a 'good thing'.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
And knowing FULL WELL we were under attack, he had 'the other guys' on the job, and there was no need for him to be concerned with the matter, persay.


Where did you get the idea that the president knew fully well that we were under attack? All he KNEW was that two planes had crashed into two buildings.

[King of the Americas]

We'll have to wait for "Hal" to answer my questions before we actually SEE 'if' any of the attack on 9-11 could have been averted.

He has already noted that the President doesn't have to be consulted to 'scramble jets'. And in fact, that this is a pretty common thing done rather quickly by people much lower in the chain of command.

30 minutes...a half a hour.

This isn't Star Trek, when the Commander sends a direct command, and all the starships attack the perfect target with one shot. However, I don't think this is the wild west, when we gotta wait for the pony express to deliver a hand written note.

I think first we have to define what we are capable of, and drilled on daily. Then ask who was in the air at the time of the 'known' attack, and how 'fast' they could have arrived at the scene? THEN ask who cold have given what order to whom, after asking what questions...

30 minutes to ask questions, and get answers...that were instead spent in the company of children.

[King of the Americas]

You took that out of context.

Someone else floated the idea that 'maybe' the President DID know about what was happening, and that he had them getting together a group to full catch him up on realtime events, in 30 mintues or so.

'I' do NOT contend that the President was fully aware of anything.

[CFLarsen]

KOA,

You really, really need to realize that you do not run this planet. And you also really, really need to start learning about how the world works.

First step could be to actually listen to those who know more than you. I don't suppose we'll hear much from you in the next hundred years or so.

You are seriously suffering from illusions of grandeur. You still refer to yourself as "*I*". WTF is that all about?

Get over yourself.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
You took that out of context.

Someone else floated the idea that 'maybe' the President DID know about what was happening, and that he had them getting together a group to full catch him up on realtime events, in 30 mintues or so.

'I' do NOT contend that the President was fully aware of anything.

But you have been claiming throughout this thread that he was aware the U.S. was under attack and did nothing. Why criticize him if you do not know if he was fully aware of anything?

[King of the Americas]

I did say 'fully aware'...

Moreover, that was supposed to be a punchline. It IS clear that the President was informed/TOLD outright that we were under attack shortly after 9:00 am. And after he found this out he read a book about a goat.

So was he fully aware of anything...?

Man, I don't know, but this sure smells foul to me, any way you slice it.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
Man, I don't know

You got that right.

Originally posted by King of the Americas
but this sure smells foul to me, any way you slice it.

In that case, you have not listened to one single thing people have said here.

[King of the Americas]

Are you and "Jocko" related?

The two of you share behavior patterns.

You just can't seem to keep your eye on the ball, and instead keep pointing out the flaws in the pitcher's uniform.

WHAT am I incorrect about?

Please feel free to make a point, SHUT UP or simply GO AWAY.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
Are you and "Jocko" related?

I have no idea who "Jocko" is.

Originally posted by King of the Americas
WHAT am I incorrect about?

Oh, brother....I haven't got THAT much time!!

Originally posted by King of the Americas
Please feel free to make a point, SHUT UP or simply GO AWAY.

My point - which I have been making quite many times now - is that you are not capable of realizing that you do not run the planet, that you do not have any idea of how to distinguish facts from fiction, and that you are a poor listener and a very poor learner. You are simply convinced that you are right, so why bother listen and learn?

I will not "go away", nor will I "shut up". You have to realize that you do not run the pl...oh, wait. I said that already.

[jj]

Originally posted by hal bidlack
KoA,

I'll try one more time: the Air Force does not need to get a phone call from POTUS to launch fighters. I won't go into details, of course, but I assure you your entire basic premise is *wrong.* You have 'facts' that you yourself admited came from the Discovery Channel.

As a career AF officer, and as a former temp staffer on the NSC, I assure you, you are completely, fundamentally, and factually way off base.

Hal, to the extent you CAN answer the question, what authority does exist in terms of shooting down an airliner that is bearing down on the Pentagon, White House, Capitol Building, etc, assuming that the intent can be at least guessed, although not proven.

I realize you may not be able to answer the question.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
Are you and "Jocko" related?

Hey, leave me out of this. I ducked this BS thread a while ago.

The two of you share behavior patterns.

I can name two: reliance on our own education & common sense, and a profound distaste for your affected regal crap.

I'm in good company, it seems.

You just can't seem to keep your eye on the ball, and instead keep pointing out the flaws in the pitcher's uniform.

This sounds like we're about three posts away from you taking your little conspiracy ball and going home in a huff. Not a moment too soon, either.

WHAT am I incorrect about?

Would you like that list in order of significance, or alphabetically? Hell, if you really wanted an answer to that question you would have read some of the hundred-odd posts that shoot your ridiculous theory full of holes.

A shorter subject is what you're correct about.


Please feel free to make a point, SHUT UP or simply GO AWAY.

Call the royal executioner! The King is displeased with the court! OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!

You always bring a smile to my face, King. I hope all those people who requested the MP3 of you on the Stern show are abel to take you more in cotext now.

After all, putting a voice to your idiocy is like the cherry on a moron sundae.

[CFLarsen]

Oh.

Hi, Jocko. Nice to meet you! :)

[Jocko]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Oh.

Hi, Jocko. Nice to meet you! :)

Pleasure's all mine. I guess I should have warned you about the futility of trying to educate the King. As you see, he already knows everything.

That's why he's the King, right?

If you're interested, I can share a little MP3 of the King's debate skills in action as he tries to turn Howard Stern into an unpaid spokesman. It's quite amusing. PM me your email if you're interested.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Jocko
Pleasure's all mine. I guess I should have warned you about the futility of trying to educate the King. As you see, he already knows everything.

I'm way ahead of you. I have "battled" with Lil'Albie for some time. Always with the same result: The "King" was severely trounced.

Originally posted by Jocko
That's why he's the King, right?

Only in his own (fertile, I admit) mind.

Originally posted by Jocko
If you're interested, I can share a little MP3 of the King's debate skills in action as he tries to turn Howard Stern into an unpaid spokesman. It's quite amusing. PM me your email if you're interested.

Again, I am way ahead of you. Been there, heard that a long time ago. :)

[Jocko]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


I'm way ahead of you. I have "battled" with Lil'Albie for some time. Always with the same result: The "King" was severely trounced.

Again, I am way ahead of you. Been there, heard that a long time ago. :)

I am duly impressed. I just toy with him for the entertainment value, myself, but it it's quite telling that he is now officially an international idiot.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Jocko
I am duly impressed. I just toy with him for the entertainment value, myself, but it it's quite telling that he is now officially an international idiot.

Heavens, no. This guy has never seen anything else of the world than his own nose.

Sad thing is, he will never learn. Has he lived, then?

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
Are you and "Jocko" related?

The two of you share behavior patterns.

You just can't seem to keep your eye on the ball, and instead keep pointing out the flaws in the pitcher's uniform.

WHAT am I incorrect about?

Please feel free to make a point, SHUT UP or simply GO AWAY.

KOA, you fool you are incorrect in about everything!

In all of your vast TV watching did you ever study the September 11th timeline? In case you have not, here is a brief excerpt:

0846 - The first plane crashed into the WTC (originally thought to be an accident).
0903 - The second plane crashed into the WTC (definitely showed that the first crash was not an accident).
0943 - The third plane crashed into the Pentagon (clearly showed that the attackers were organized, dedicated, and numerous).
1010 - The fourth plane crashed into rural Pennsylvania (showed that the attackers may not be all that organized after all).

So at best, by the time it was established that there were suicidal terrorists who were using large passenger planes as weapons, these same planes were already hijacked and on the way to their respective targets.

Therefore, about the only outcome that could have been practically changed would have been to shoot down the third plane before it crashed into the Pentagon. While this may seem like a trivial exercise in hindsight, it was right after the worst terrorist attack in US history; no one wanted to risk shooting down the wrong plane; there was less than 40 minutes to locate and identify the correct plane; and at least one fighter jet would have to be positioned to actually destroy this plane. At the very least, this is a very tough task.

Is any of this getting through?

[Jocko]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Heavens, no. This guy has never seen anything else of the world than his own nose.

Sad thing is, he will never learn. Has he lived, then?

Actually, by "international idiot" I meant that one may travel from any corner of the United States to Denmark, and still meet someone who will smile knowingly when you say, "Geez, did you see Albert's latest theory? What a friggin' idiot."

He is so consumed with the need to be noticed... to be relevant... to just matter to someone, I imagine that the real world terrifies him something awful. After all, reality doesn't indulge one's delusions, no matter how elaborate.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Jocko
Actually, by "international idiot" I meant that one may travel from any corner of the United States to Denmark, and still meet someone who will smile knowingly when you say, "Geez, did you see Albert's latest theory? What a friggin' idiot."

Ah....I get it. Sadly, I encountered Albie when I was living in the US. Can't say he commands all that much attention outside the US. Not that he commands all that much within the US.... :)

Originally posted by Jocko
He is so consumed with the need to be noticed... to be relevant... to just matter to someone, I imagine that the real world terrifies him something awful. After all, reality doesn't indulge one's delusions, no matter how elaborate.

Yeah, well...I suppose we should bear with him. He does have his crosses to bear...

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
I KNOW how a radar works, and I can clearly understand, especially witht he kind of instruments they had...


Great. I was a radar operator in the Air Defense Artillery of the US Army. Exactly how does a radar work, and which type of radar(s) are you referring to?

Range Only?

Continuous Wave Acquisition?

Pulse Acquisition?

Identification Friend or Foe (IFF)?

High Intensity Illumination?

Phased Array?


Originally posted by King of the Americas
I think that is more a topic for the Science Section.

I checked the Science Section, KOA, and you haven't posted a response there either.

Feel free to respond either in this thread (JREFfers are very tolerant of minor thread derailments), in the Science Section as you suggested, or even PM me with your response. Of course, you could also admit that you indeed have no working knowledge of radars (if that would happen to be the case)...

[RandFan,Jr.]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
Okay...I 'think' I am starting to feel'ya on this one...

The President, really isn't JUST the Commander in Chief, he is also George W. Bush who always HAS enjoyed a good children's book- the 'person'. And knowing FULL WELL we were under attack, he had 'the other guys' on the job, and there was no need for him to be concerned with the matter, persay. No, I DON'T KNOW. Again, you are putting words in my mouth. I'm saying that it is plausible that they told him that it would take half an hour for the intelligence to come in so that they could be best prepared to brief him. If this was the case it would have been the same with any president. Of course Bill wouldn't have read the book. He was far too cynical for that. He would have known that some one would have accused him of no acting so he would have pretended like he was doing something.

Like the time he came to California after the earthquake. He rolled up his shirt sleeves. Yeah, like he was really going to lift debris from someone trapped under the ruble.

[aggle_rithm]

This whole discussion about Bush's failure to immediately spring to action reminds me of a John Wayne movie, "The Searchers". At one point, a group of men realized that their home town, miles away, was under attack. A young man in the group wanted to ride back immediately, while John Wayne's character said, "No, we have to rest and water the horses." The young man swore at him and rode off.

The next day, of course, the young man was staggering across the plain, carrying his saddle. His horse had died. John Wayne blew past him on his horse.

The moral of this story...well, you can figure it out.

[King of the Americas]

To Kodiak:

Why are you busting my balls about this Radar crap? I am really not all that interested in discussing my knowledge or lack thereof of how Radar works. YOU claim to be the knower of all that is Radar, GOOD FOR YOU. But the 'function' of Radar, really has very little to do with what the President did or didn't do on 9-11. Moreover MY knowledge about the topic has even less to do with the issue at hand.

So, if you aren't interested in discussing the President and 9-11, then I really have nothing for you at this time.

Sorry.

---

To Crossbow:

So, shooting down the 3rd plane was too hard, because it was too difficult to figure out 'which' plane was off course...?
I guess we may never know huh? BECAUSE the President was reading a freaking book about a goat, while he COULD have been trying to figure out which plane WAS threatening to attack.

We are just going to have to wait for "Hal" to answer my 3 questions from page 3 before we can figure out if immediate action could have spared the Pentagon.

Besides, I am PRETTY sure that the FAA and or NORAD could have 'figured out' which planes were and weren't hijacked- off course, refusing communication attempts, with their homing beacon turned off.

---

To Aggie:

Okay, so now you are comparing a western movie to the actions of a 21st century President... :rolleyes:

Look, I am NOT saying he needed to take immediate action to order the shooting down of everything in the sky. But, to NOT begin getting information and asking questions...

In the situation you provided it would be like a guy coming up to John Wayne's character and saying I have urgent news from the town, "The bad guys have attacked, and..."

Wayne interupts, "Hold on there cow-poke, I need a moment to absorb that whilst I finish this little dittie. Why don't you take a few minutes to configure your statement, while I finish entertaining these fine people."

My contention is that it is NOT 'Okay' to read a book about a goat with 16 kids, when you are the Commander in Chief AND we are under attack.

There are questions he should have been asking, so that people COULD have given him the information he needed to make an accurate decision.

Please tell me how the problem would have been made worse by having the President excuse himself to begin ACTING like the Commander in Chief. What harm could have been caused by having him asking questions about what was going on, and getting briefed on who was doing what where, when, and how???

---

To Hal:

I am still waiting for you to answer the 3 questions I posed yesterday. Are you still trying to find the answers to these questions? I thought you WERE the guy who knew all this stuff?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
To Kodiak:

Why are you busting my balls about this Radar crap? I am really not all that interested in discussing my knowledge or lack thereof of how Radar works. YOU claim to be the knower of all that is Radar, GOOD FOR YOU. But the 'function' of Radar, really has very little to do with what the President did or didn't do on 9-11. Moreover MY knowledge about the topic has even less to do with the issue at hand.

So, if you aren't interested in discussing the President and 9-11, then I really have nothing for you at this time.

Sorry.


Your hypocricy knows no bounds, KOA.

Your manic skepticism and conspiratorial attitude toward the President and 9-11 is completely contradicted by your unwillingness to back up a claim you made concerning your ability to evaluate and understand how air traffic radar influenced what happened on 9-11 and how the President reacted that morning.

How sad... :(

[King of the Americas]

PLEASE tell me how discussing the differences, and spects of "Exactly how does a radar work, and which type of radar(s) are you referring to?

Range Only?

Continuous Wave Acquisition?

Pulse Acquisition?

Identification Friend or Foe (IFF)?

High Intensity Illumination?

Phased Array?"

...PLEASE connect the dots for me on this. Moreover, please tell me how my avoiding this issue is hypocritical?

I am trying to address the President's inaction, and you want to talk about technical systems!?

Is 'Radar' the central hub factor in this discussion!? And if so, how?

[CFLarsen]

Kodiak, allow me to step in with the facts. You can take it from there. :)

Originally posted by King of the Americas
It JUST SO HAPPENS, that my fianee's father was one of the radar tower operators out there. HE says that they picked up on a radar signal, but that they summized that it MUST have been a radar glitch because the signal was too big to be an attack of that size.

The signal was actually interpretted as a 'large flock of birds', and thus the alarmed was not sounded, until one of these birds laid an egg.

Crazy, huh?

And later:

Originally posted by King of the Americas
I KNOW how a radar works, and I can clearly understand, especially witht he kind of instruments they had, how such a mistake could have been made. However, 'I' wouldn't say it was their fault. Failing to hail the call of duty...well that is anothing thing all together.

At least those men were at their posts to see and try to interpret the signal they were getting. THEY were actively seeking MORE information about the sighting, NOT ignoring what they had as it weren't important.

Kodiak's question is highly relevant. The radar is the only time you have (relatively) direct access to any kind of information. That's why it's central to your whole argument.

[Jocko]

Not to interrupt the action, but a while back I predicted that KOA was about 3 posts away from packing it in. We've had two increasingly strident posts since.

I predict that he will hold his breath till he turns blue with his next post. Would that qualify my for Randi's mil if I'm right?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Jocko
Not to interrupt the action, but a while back I predicted that KOA was about 3 posts away from packing it in. We've had two increasingly strident posts since.

I predict that he will hold his breath till he turns blue with his next post. Would that qualify my for Randi's mil if I'm right?

No, that event you are describing is a natural law. :)

[King of the Americas]

"The radar is the only time you have (relatively) direct access to any kind of information."

*Could you rephrase this statement, because I don't understand it as is.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
..

To Crossbow:

So, shooting down the 3rd plane was too hard, because it was too difficult to figure out 'which' plane was off course...?
I guess we may never know huh? BECAUSE the President was reading a freaking book about a goat, while he COULD have been trying to figure out which plane WAS threatening to attack.

We are just going to have to wait for "Hal" to answer my 3 questions from page 3 before we can figure out if immediate action could have spared the Pentagon.

Besides, I am PRETTY sure that the FAA and or NORAD could have 'figured out' which planes were and weren't hijacked- off course, refusing communication attempts, with their homing beacon turned off.

---

...

Ugh KOA, you idiotic boob the president cannot just go around shooting down airplanes that he cannot communicate with! That is what the Soviets did with Flight 007 and look at what happened there!

The plane may be having radio problems, the plane may be having some sort of emergency, the pilots may be distracted dealing with a situation on the plane, or any number of other things. He was a pilot after all, so he does know about the problems involved with in-flight communications.

Simply being out of communication with an airplane does not mean that airplane has been hijacked by suicidal terrorists.

Have you ever flown a plane? Bush has, I have quite a few times, I doubt that you ever have so I expect that you know even less about avaition than you do about Radar.

[King of the Americas]

Listen carefully...

There are a number of criteria that one must address upon considering whether or not a plane is hijacked. ONE of which is 'not responding to communication attempts'.

AGAIN, I am NOT saying the President should have ordered ANY plane(s) be shot down.

In fact, the ONLY thing I am saying is that he should have put down the f*cking kiddie book, and began asking some serious questions like:

"Who do we think is attacking us?"

"How many other planes are severely off course, with their tracking beacons off, AND refusing communication attempts?

"How many fighters do we have in the air, right now, that can investigate the planes that ARE off course?"

In all sincereity, you are doing a pretty crappy job of addressing the issue of the President's inaction.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
So, shooting down the 3rd plane was too hard, because it was too difficult to figure out 'which' plane was off course...?
I guess we may never know huh? BECAUSE the President was reading a freaking book about a goat, while he COULD have been trying to figure out which plane WAS threatening to attack.


Since when was it the president's job to figure out which plane out of thousands is threatening to attack?

[King of the Americas]

As far as 'I' know, ONLY the POTUS can order the shooting down of a civilian craft, so while the JCS and others might counsel the President, it is ultimately up to him 'which' plane gets shot down.

AGAIN, he didn't get anywhere NEAR making this decision when he needed to. While 2 planes were headed toward their targets, he wasn't getting briefed upon how many others threats there were. He wasn't asking any questions of a serious nature, and he wasn't in contact with anyone who COULD have done anything to react to these attacks. He was reading a kiddie book about a freaking goat!

[ssibal]

Originally posted by King of the Americas

In all sincereity, you are doing a pretty crappy job of addressing the issue of the President's inaction.

What inaction? The president acted, just not as quickly as you think he should have. And it would not have made a difference, even asking those questions would not have made a difference. And given that all he knew was that two planes had crashed into the WTC, I cannot see how those questions would have popped into his head.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
AGAIN, he didn't get anywhere NEAR making this decision when he needed to. While 2 planes were headed toward their targets, he wasn't getting briefed upon how many others threats there were. He wasn't asking any questions of a serious nature, and he wasn't in contact with anyone who COULD have done anything to react to these attacks. He was reading a kiddie book about a freaking goat!

Because he DID NOT KNOW that two planes were heading towards their targets. How hard is that to understand?

[hal bidlack]

Have not looked at this thread in several days, but KoA's PM to me about the questions reminded me of it. I've read a bit more, and again must say the same thing:

KoA, you just don't get it. You are totally, completely, and fundamentally in error about your basic assumptions. I've tried to aim you in the right direction, but you will not be aimed. You seem intent on continuing to function from ignorance.

There are many questions about 9/11 that should be answered. And as you know, I have a particularly personal reason for caring. But your laser focus on POTUS and the actions the surround his notification show a complete lack of understanding. Your continued protestations show an unwillingness to learn, and that I find tough to take. So, this was my final post on this subject to you.

[Psiload]

Originally posted by Crossbow


Ugh KOA, you idiotic boob the president cannot just go around shooting down airplanes that he cannot communicate with! That is what the Soviets did with Flight 007 and look at what happened there!

The plane may be having radio problems, the plane may be having some sort of emergency, the pilots may be distracted dealing with a situation on the plane, or any number of other things. He was a pilot after all, so he does know about the problems involved with in-flight communications.

Simply being out of communication with an airplane does not mean that airplane has been hijacked by suicidal terrorists.

Have you ever flown a plane? Bush has, I have quite a few times, I doubt that you ever have so I expect that you know even less about avaition than you do about Radar.
Let's not forget about the USS Vincennes incident... the accidental shooting down of Iran Air Flight 655 with the loss of 290 innocent passengers.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
As far as 'I' know, ONLY the POTUS can order the shooting down of a civilian craft, so while the JCS and others might counsel the President, it is ultimately up to him 'which' plane gets shot down.

AGAIN, he didn't get anywhere NEAR making this decision when he needed to. While 2 planes were headed toward their targets, he wasn't getting briefed upon how many others threats there were. He wasn't asking any questions of a serious nature, and he wasn't in contact with anyone who COULD have done anything to react to these attacks. He was reading a kiddie book about a freaking goat!

This comment was not addressed to me, however after some four pages of this thread I think KOA is finally showing what is really bothering him.

Bush should have cancelled his appointment with the class and dealt with the problem immediately and because he did not, KOA views this as a mistake.

I doubt that even if Bush did what KOA wanted him to do that it would have made any difference because by the time the news was confirmed, the other two planes were already hijacked and heading off to their respective targets. However, if Bush would have acted in the way KOA wanted him to, then KOA may have been pleased with Bush.

Oh well, it is too late now to worry about that. I guess Bush will just have to go on living with the displeasure of KOA. I really, really, really doubt that Bush will worry too much about that.

[King of the Americas]

What inaction!?

We are under attack from an unknown source, and INSTEAD of getting briefed on the situation, he is reading a f*cking kiddie book!

[King of the Americas]

You've said, 'I don't get it', before. But YOU are the one not willing to provide the information we need to ALL get it.

How many miles is Langley from the Pentagon?

How fast could a fighter jet HAVE gotten to the scene from 100 miles away fromt he Pentagon?

Who is the ONLY person who could have ordered the downing of a civilian plane on 9-11?

[ssibal]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
What inaction!?

We are under attack from an unknown source, and INSTEAD of getting briefed on the situation, he is reading a f*cking kiddie book!

And the president knew we were under attack? All he knew was that two planes had crashed into the WTC.

[King of the Americas]

NO.

I do NOT view this as a simple 'mistake', but rather a Dereliction of Duty. A 'mistake' is fumbling over the use of the word "crusade" to describe our military actions of the middle east. A 'mistake' would be ordering the downing of all planes off course without investigating which were truly dangers to our security.

NOT acting like the Commander in Chief upon hearing we were "under attack" is much more than a simple mistake. 'Hiding' in a classroom full of kids while our nation is under attack...

THAT is some seriously screwed up stuff. If you are going to argue that a kiddie book about a goat WAS the #1 priority of the Commander in Chief once he found out that we WERE under attack, then I truly have no words for that.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by ssibal


And the president knew we were under attack? All he knew was that two planes had crashed into the WTC.


8:45 a.m. First jet, American Airlines Flight 11 crashes into the north tower of the World Trade Center.

9:03 a.m. A second hijacked airliner, United Airlines Flight 175 crashes into the south tower of the World Trade Center.

9:10 a.m. President Bush is first told of the collision of two airliners with the World Trade Center.

9:17 a.m. The Federal Aviation Administration shuts down all New York City area airports.

9:21 a.m. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey orders all bridges and tunnels in the New York area closed.

9:30 a.m. President Bush, speaking in Florida, says the country has suffered an "apparent terrorist attack."

Seems like pretty swift and decisive action if you ask me...

[King of the Americas]

The President was 'informed' that the second plane hit the second tower at 9:05-07, AND at this point he was told that we "...were under attack."

Kodiak, so you find that the President was NOT informed of the 1st plane hitting the tower at all, UNTIL after the second plane hit?

Where did you get the "9:10" time frame? ALL of the reports that 'I' have read say that the President was informed that a 'second' plane has hit the WTC, and that were wereindeed under attack several minutes BEFORE that.

[c0rbin]

Yes! My turn.

KOA said:
while he COULD have been trying to figure out which plane WAS threatening to attack.

CrossBow made an excellent reply and even used an adjective that was both accurately descriptive of it subject AND produced delightful images in my brain [golf clap].

Now, KOA, despite his penchant for donning airforce jumpsuits, the President, certain fantastical alien-invasion movies aside, does not jump in the cock-pit, share some heavy-metal high fives with Goose and dog fight threats to the nation.

You nimrod. If you and Lucianarchy had a baby it would never have the courage to exit the womb and then waste time creating dip-sh*t theories as to how aliens conspire with dead relatives to keep it in there.

Please. Don't have sex with Lucianarchy.

[King of the Americas]

Sticks and stones may break bones, but the President was still hiding among children reading a book about a goat, while we were under attack.

Moreover, his kiddie book break was nothing less than abandoning his Duty as Commander in Chief.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
Sticks and stones may break bones, but the President was still hiding among children reading a book about a goat, while we were under attack.

Moreover, his kiddie book break was nothing less than abandoning his Duty as Commander in Chief.

Are you saying that Bush's egregious failure to duck into the nearest phone booth to change into his cape and mask was akin to the classical (if inaccurate) image of Nero fiddling as Rome burned?

Edited to add: Perhaps someone ought to bring a class-action lawsuit against Verizon for their gross negligence in not having provided a phone booth that could be reached in less than 30 minutes. I think you're just the guy to spearhead this effort, KOA.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
Sticks and stones may break bones, but the President was still hiding among children reading a book about a goat, while we were under attack.

Moreover, his kiddie book break was nothing less than abandoning his Duty as Commander in Chief.

Wow, I never thought that I would ever help defend George W. Bush, but here goes:

KOA if you really think that, then make an appointment with your local member from the US House of Representatives to see about getting an impeachment.

At the very least I expect he will give you a polite good bye and if that person was me I would throw you out the door.

[c0rbin]

Sticks and stones may break bones, but the President was still hiding among children reading a book about a goat, while we were under attack.

Moreover, his kiddie book break was nothing less than abandoning his Duty as Commander in Chief.


There is not a smilie to express the convulsive laughter that issued from my office when I read this.

I too used to question the smarts of the President until he demonstrated the utter brilliance of hiding on national television.

An amazing thing, that.

You love the punishment, admit it.

You really meant to say "Sticks and stones may break my bones...thank you sir may I have another?"

[Psiload]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
Sticks and stones may break bones, but the President was still hiding among children reading a book about a goat, while we were under attack.

Moreover, his kiddie book break was nothing less than abandoning his Duty as Commander in Chief.
The harder you try and educate him, the deeper he slides into ignorance. It's bizarre. It's like his critical thinking circuits are wired backwards.

It gets to the point where it useless to even try. You just gaze in perplexed wonder, and say... http://h4h.com/louis/spock3.jpg Fascinating.

[c0rbin]

Psiload, that Spock was perfect.

I laughed again and again.

[King of the Americas]

I don't think Nero ordering the burning of Rome, is the same thing as Bush reading a kiddie book while we were under attack?

---

To Crossbow:

I don't think that is beyond comprehension, however given the fact they are alotted to spend 14 million on the 9-11 investigation I doubt they'll uncover the same amount of 'dirt' that the 80 million they spent investigating Clinton's BJ got them.

I think there is clear evidence that the President acted wrongly when he didn't immediately take action as the Commander in Chief, once he KNEW we were being attacked.

And I WILL write a letter or two to this affect, to my Representative soon.

[RandFan,Jr.]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
I think there is clear evidence that the President acted wrongly when he didn't immediately take action as the Commander in Chief, once he KNEW we were being attacked.

And I WILL write a letter or two to this affect, to my Representative soon. At the risk of being presumptuous I think I speak for everyone when I say, "that's nice".

[Jocko]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
I don't think Nero ordering the burning of Rome, is the same thing as Bush reading a kiddie book while we were under attack?

No, no, no.

I meant, are you intimating that Bush deliberately brushed off news of the attack so he could remain engrossed in his book? That he did to as an act of escapism, as Nero supposedly played the fiddle and refused to give orders during the sacking of Rome?

I hope you've at least heard of THAT little fable in your "worldly travels," no?

Come on, King, if anyone should be able to identify escapism, it's you. Is that what you're saying? You think the president was paralyzed by fear or simple apathy?

Edited to add: You keep intimating that there is some blank that we are all too dense to fill in for you. Why not just spit out your point and be done with it?

[Jocko]

Originally posted by King of the Americas


And I WILL write a letter or two to this affect, to my Representative soon.

Better spell "effect" correctly, first. And crayon is a definite first-class ticket into the nearest waste paper basket. But keep the random caps and misapplied quotations. That's pure gold, baby.

Hey, here's a thought. Why not call Howard Stern and get him on board with this great idea? Make sure you do it while he's on the air- you know, when he's the most serious.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
I don't think Nero ordering the burning of Rome, is the same thing as Bush reading a kiddie book while we were under attack?

---

To Crossbow:

I don't think that is beyond comprehension, however given the fact they are alotted to spend 14 million on the 9-11 investigation I doubt they'll uncover the same amount of 'dirt' that the 80 million they spent investigating Clinton's BJ got them.

I think there is clear evidence that the President acted wrongly when he didn't immediately take action as the Commander in Chief, once he KNEW we were being attacked.

And I WILL write a letter or two to this affect, to my Representative soon.

Good for you!

I would appreciate it if you keep the Forum informed of your progess considering that you were the one who started this.

[King of the Americas]

Interesting question...

WHAT was going through the President's mind, as he was reading the book about the goat...

After seeing the photo of him getting the 9:05 message, I saw a "What the hell did I get myself into"-look, but is someone else's characterization.

I think that he really didn't know what hell to do, and it was more of a procrastinating kind of thing. Like he KNEW he did badly on the test, but was unwilling to turn it over to see what he actually made on it, kind of thing.

Scared, or frightened...?

I am not sure, the only thing I DO know is that he wasted some 30 mintues, while people's lives were at stake, filling his thougths with a kiddie book about a goat. Further reports also have him, "...clearly trying to stretch out the moment", in that even after he finished the story, he "milled about the room pontificating on his education policy".

I think you used the right word, after all.

INSTEAD of acting like the Commander in Chief, he played nanny for as long as he possibly could.

So, "Yes, I'd call that escapism."

[RandFan,Jr.]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
Interesting question...

WHAT was going through the President's mind, as he was reading the book about the goat...

After seeing the photo of him getting the 9:05 message, I saw a "What the hell did I get myself into"-look, but is someone else's characterization.

I think that he really didn't know what hell to do, and it was more of a procrastinating kind of thing. Like he KNEW he did badly on the test, but was unwilling to turn it over to see what he actually made on it, kind of thing.

Scared, or frightened...?

I am not sure, the only thing I DO know is that he wasted some 30 mintues, while people's lives were at stake, filling his thougths with a kiddie book about a goat. Further reports also have him, "...clearly trying to stretch out the moment", in that even after he finished the story, he "milled about the room pontificating on his education policy".

I think you used the right word, after all.

INSTEAD of acting like the Commander in Chief, he played nanny for as long as he possibly could.

So, "Yes, I'd call that escapism." Well that is your opinion. That and a handfull of spit is worth roughly a handful of spit.

It is possible that you are right. Objectivity forces me to accept that possibility. Your bias and lack of objectivity prevents you from considering any other posibility.

That is why you aren't a leader and Bush is. Bush doesn't dream up schemes to put dirt from death valley on top of some mountain for no practical purpose. You on the other hand, do. And we are supposed to care what your opinion is?

[King of the Americas]

...just PM'ed me, to clarify that he can't and or won't provide me with 'classified information', but assures me that I am wrong none the less...even though he refuses to tell me HOW I am wrong or what I am wrong about.

Interesting that a moderator for the JREF board would use the argument, "You are wrong, but 'I' won't provide evidence to prove it."

My Questions that he couldn't answer were about the top speed of an averagely loaded fighter, how long it would take them to travel a 100 miles at an upper end rate of speed, and WHO was the only one to have authority to shoot down a civilian plane on 9-11.

He WAS able to provide me with the closest military airport to the Pentagon, Langley.

After a couple of searches I found that an F-16 could easily do 1500 mph, and even faster. Given that Langley is sure to have a few of these things on stand-by, at 66% thrust a fighter could have easily intercepted an airlner, IF it were already airborn and flying over a base as close to the Pentagon as Langley.

So what does this mean?

That given 30 minutes, the President COULD have given an order that could have possibly averted the Penagon attack.

Langley is less that 75 miles away from the Pentagon, and Hall has already noted that the President doesn't have to order the scrambling of jets.

30 minutes is almost TWICE as much time as a fighter would need to get there, NOT even at its 'top speed'.

[RandFan,Jr.]

You know, if Bush did have a moment of uncertainty and I concede that it is possible, I don't think it was something as egregious as you have made it out to be.

History is replete with such examples of people who have stumbled but then have risen to face their worst fears. You look at Bush and only conclude that he was not up to the job for reading a book for 30 minutes. Assuming the worse, can this alone be an indictment of a man? What if he faced his fears, overcame them and rose to inspire a nation to respond.

I don't judge a person by his lowest point, I judge him by his highest. You choose to only see the worst possible scenario and assuming it is true you choose to only see the worst possible in the person.

CROWD: U.S.A.! U.S.A.!

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. I want you all to know --

Q Can't hear you.

THE PRESIDENT: I can't talk any louder. (Laughter.)

I want you all to know that America today -- that America today is on bended knee in prayer for the people whose lives were lost here, for the workers who work here, for the families who mourn. This nation stands with the good people of New York City, and New Jersey and Connecticut, as we mourn the loss of thousands of our citizens.

Q I can't hear you.

THE PRESIDENT: I can hear you. (Applause.) I can hear you. The rest of the world hears you. (Applause.) And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon. (Applause.).

In the ensuing weeks the President was resolute. Too resolute for some. He did not waiver. He did not cower. He came up with a plan and implemented it. Because of his actions he has enjoyed high poll marks.

I know this means nothing to you. You hate Bush and this little example fits in your world view that he is incompetent.

I just want you to know that we are not all so cynical and lacking in objectivity. That we are able to judge him by his totality and not this single incident that we don't truly know what was in his mind. I'll leave that to you and Uri Gellar.

I also want to note that not everyone who has responded to you agrees with my sentiments. A number of them do feel Bush is not a particularly great or even good president and I respect those views. However I think most if not all would agree that this one event should not be the basis for an indictment of Bush. In other words you have failed to make the case to anyone but yourself.

RandFan

[King of the Americas]

Bush is President because his father was.

---

What 'other' possibilities do YOU suggest happened.

I provide 2, only once of which being that Bush was practicing a little 'escapism'.

My other contention is that Bush really ISN'T running things, and that he was doing exactly what he was best at, during and shortly after the attacks.

What exactly IS your contention?

I mean, it is easy to attack me personally, over and over again. However, you haven't provided any evidence to contradict my own, so what gives?

[RandFan,Jr.]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
Bush is President because his father was.

---

What 'other' possibilities do YOU suggest happened.

I provide 2, only once of which being that Bush was practicing a little 'escapism'.

My other contention is that Bush really ISN'T running things, and that he was doing exactly what he was best at, during and shortly after the attacks.

What exactly IS your contention?

I mean, it is easy to attack me personally, over and over again. However, you haven't provided any evidence to contradict my own, so what gives? This is just not true. I have given you a number of posibilities. You simply choose to ignore them.

[RandFan,Jr.]

A possibilty that I have given you before KOA. A possibility that you refuse to acknowledge because of your hatred and bias.

Mr. President "We are under attack. Two planes have hit the World Trade Center. We are gathering together your cabinet and are preparing a briefing by conference call with the joint chiefs of staff. It will take about 30 minutes to get everyone together and analyze the inteligence so that you can make a proper decision. We will need you to break and come with us in half an hour.

[King of the Americas]

I am well aware of the unwavering support the Presidnet has and has gotten. I am also well aware of the 'passes' for his failures he has gotten.

I have given him 'partial kudoes' for the way he *cough*rose*cough* to the occasion, but as I stated before, he had 200 million people standing behind him, who the hell COULDN'T have rose to the occasion!?

I don't hate President Bush, but I am willing to call him on the carpet for his inadiquacies, especially when they lead to a direct attack on our nation's military headquarters.

Quite frankly, I don't know why you or anyone else would have a problem 'identifying' and analyzing President Bush's leadership skills during THE time of crisis.


You Wrote:

"...if Bush did have a moment of uncertainty and I concede that it is possible."

IF...?

Pardon me, but IF he had left the class room and began ACTING like the Commander in Chief, all those who died in the Pentagon that day might still be alive.

What 'I' find difficulty in, is that this whole damn thing is NOT being talked about in the news, becauseof the nationalistic patriotism that has sweep the U.S.

The President DID show weakness and an absolute hesistancy, that could very well have led to a worse attack result, than would have IF he had acted sooner. This has been all but ignored, and even defended.

This is a pity.

[King of the Americas]

You Wrote:

Mr. President "We are under attack. Two planes have hit the World Trade Center. We are gathering together your cabinet and are preparing a briefing by conference call with the joint chiefs of staff. It will take about 30 minutes to get everyone together and analyze the inteligence so that you can make a proper decision. We will need you to break and come with us in half an hour.

..."In the meantime, you just read the goat book, and try to keep your mind on more important matters." :rolleyes:

The REALLY f*cked up sh*t is that your okay with that!!!:eek:

---

Edited to add:

By the by, there is NO EVIDENCE what so ever to suggest ANYONE told him this. Mr. Card, (confirmed by Air) said ONLY that "A second plane has hit the WTC. We are under attack."

IF what you say is TRUE, then why didn't Ari say THAT was what was told to the President!? It 'sounds' a lot better than what is presently out there.

[aggle_rithm]

Originally posted by King of the Americas

To Aggie:


Don't call me Aggie, please. I went to the University of Texas. :p

Okay, so now you are comparing a western movie to the actions of a 21st century President... :rolleyes:


Not really. I was comparing the actions of a character in a western movie to the actions of a 21st century President. And don't roll your eyes at me!! ;)

Sorry this isn't a more thoughtful and reasoned post, but I suspect such a post would be wasted.

This thread is growing wearisome. I think I'll take up a more meaningful activity, such as collecting pocket lint. :o

[RandFan,Jr.]

RandFan
Mr. President "We are under attack. Two planes have hit the World Trade Center. We are gathering together your cabinet and are preparing a briefing by conference call with the joint chiefs of staff. It will take about 30 minutes to get everyone together and analyze the intelligence so that you can make a proper decision. We will need you to break and come with us in half an hour.

..."In the meantime, you just read the goat book, and try to keep your mind on more important matters." If my above quote was correct then Bush's actions were not out of line. There was nothing for him to do for a few minutes. He had a staff preparing everything for him and he knew that he had some time so he did what he had gone to the school to do. His mistake was not realizing that there are hateful people in this world that will interpret everything in a negative and cynical light. People like your self.

Odd you complain about being attacked personally yet you have no compunction in attacking the President.

The REALLY f*cked up sh*t is that your okay with that!!! The only thing f*cked up here is a guy who thinks he can turn the world upside down or something to that effect by moving a handful of dirt yet attacks the president. THAT is f*cked up sh*t.

By the by, there is NO EVIDENCE what so ever to suggest ANYONE told him this. Mr. Card, (confirmed by Air) said ONLY that "A second plane has hit the WTC. We are under attack."

IF what you say is TRUE, then why didn't Ari say THAT was what was told to the President!? It 'sounds' a lot better than what is presently out there. Hold on there, first you say it is "f*cked up" then you say it sounds better. Which is it? Better f*cked up?

Ari does not tell us everything that the President was told. I don't know I don't care. I don't know what the President was told or what the President knew or what contingencies the President had to deal with emergencies. Different leaders have different styles. Bush might have had a perfectly good reason for doing what he did. He might not have had a good reason. It doesn't really matter except it has given ammunition to malicious people with out any objectivity to assail him.

I have given him 'partial kudoes' for the way he *cough*rose*cough* to the occasion, but as I stated before, he had 200 million people standing behind him, who the hell COULDN'T have rose to the occasion!? YOU!

I don't hate President Bush ahhhh******** This reminds me of a speech by a white supremacist who said that he "didn't hate black people". It made me wonder what else the guy lies about.

Quite frankly, I don't know why you or anyone else would have a problem 'identifying' and analyzing President Bush's leadership skills during THE time of crisis. Bush was superb, I am very proud of his actions. On the other hand, I don't know why you would not have a problem analyzing you’re a$$ from a hole in the ground.

Pardon me, but IF he had left the class room and began ACTING like the Commander in Chief, all those who died in the Pentagon that day might still be alive. I don't think that there is any proof of that. You are making assumptions. Hindsight is 20/20 and you are playing Monday morning quarterback. Considering the source, you, then I guess it doesn't really matter does it?

What 'I' find difficulty in, is that this whole damn thing is NOT being talked about in the news, because of the nationalistic patriotism that has sweep the U.S. The world is not full of hateful little minds.

The President DID show weakness and an absolute hesistancy, that could very well have led to a worse attack result, than would have IF he had acted sooner. You have made the case that he could have done something. You have not made the case that most reasonable people in his position would have done something different. I'm glad no one will have to ever suffer under your leadership.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
Kodiak, so you find that the President was NOT informed of the 1st plane hitting the tower at all, UNTIL after the second plane hit?

Where did you get the "9:10" time frame? ALL of the reports that 'I' have read say that the President was informed that a 'second' plane has hit the WTC, and that were were indeed under attack several minutes BEFORE that.


Here is where I got my timeline from (http://911neverforget.tripod.com/neverforgotten/id19.html)

[Kodiak]

I just realized what KOA is doing...

It's called "arm-chair quarterbacking"!

You're nothing but a half-a$$ed amateur with delusions of grandeur.

Respond to my questions about your supposed knowledge of radar, and I might be forced to reevaluate...

[Crossbow]

KOA:

Do yourself a favor and follow the advice that President Clinton's mentioned the other day on C-SPAN.

If you find yourself in hole,
Stop digging.

[lyghtningbyrd]

Hey RandFan, Jr... sorry this is off-subject, but have you noticed how many obvious, terrible spelling mistakes there are in your signature footer? Just wondering, because you articulate your arguments so very well without making spelling mistakes to my knowledge, yet even for a 14 yr old, the signature contains several obvious errors.

Just wondering if you noticed that..

[King of the Americas]

Pardon ME, but an "Aggie" can be seenand noticed as such by their reasoning skills, and not always their cap color.

You didn't strike me as a "Horn".

What did you study?

[King of the Americas]

If my above quote was correct then Bush's actions were not out of line. There was nothing for him to do for a few minutes. He had a staff preparing everything for him and he knew that he had some time so he did what he had gone to the school to do. His mistake was not realizing that there are hateful people in this world that will interpret everything in a negative and cynical light. People like your self.

Odd you complain about being attacked personally yet you have no compunction in attacking the President.

*If your above quote is 'correct'...!? You know a real skeptic would require actual evidence of something before 'believing in it'. What you are suggesting is that we dismiss what is KNOWN, and accept something that you pulled out of your ass and have NO EVIDENCE of... Sorry, I am going to have to pass on that contention, until you DO have some evidence to back up your speculation.

The only thing f*cked up here is a guy who thinks he can turn the world upside down or something to that effect by moving a handful of dirt yet attacks the president. THAT is f*cked up sh*t.

*"...or something to that effect."...? Maybe you should know what the hell you are talking about BEFORE you open that trap of your's.

Hold on there, first you say it is "f*cked up" then you say it sounds better. Which is it? Better f*cked up?

*It is 'f*cked up' that while we were under an attack that COULD have been averted, our Commander in Chief was reading a book about a goat to a bunch of kids. I felt it would 'sound better' if they HAD released the story that he was just taking a half hour break, while they were assembling his staff.

Ari does not tell us everything that the President was told. I don't know I don't care. I don't know what the President was told or what the President knew or what contingencies the President had to deal with emergencies. Different leaders have different styles. Bush might have had a perfectly good reason for doing what he did. He might not have had a good reason. It doesn't really matter except it has given ammunition to malicious people with out any objectivity to assail him.

*'I' DO care what my leaders say, do, and are told, as well as when they are told. Moreover, their 'actions' after given counsel are even more so important. I pity you because you are a mindless follower. "It doesn't matter WHAT my leader does, I will always love and support them, no matter WHAT anyone says about them." God help YOU, my friend.

YOU!

*Yes, and I have even written numerous letter noting my support for him.

ahhhh******** This reminds me of a speech by a white supremacist who said that he "didn't hate black people". It made me wonder what else the guy lies about.

*I wish you could understand and even hold two thoughts in your head at the same time. One, I believe the President 'f*cked up' on 9-11, and even could be considered 'abscent' his post of Commander in Chief. Two, I HOPE and pray daily that the President IS able to successfuly protect and defend the United States of America from ALL enemies.

Bush was superb, I am very proud of his actions. On the other hand, I don't know why you would not have a problem analyzing you re a$$ from a hole in the ground.

*My problem is that you have NO evidence of this, other than your misguided perception of who and what he is.

I don't think that there is any proof of that. You are making assumptions. Hindsight is 20/20 and you are playing Monday morning quarterback. Considering the source, you, then I guess it doesn't really matter does it?

*Actually, there IS ample evidence to suggest that the attack ont he Penagon COULD have been averted. "Hal Bidlack" has a mountian of it, but isn't willing or able to share it. Langley Air Force Base in Virginia is less than 10 minutes from the Capitol and the Pentagon via jet fighter. At 9:05 The Commander in Chief was informed that we were under attack. The FAA knew there were no less than 4 planes hijacked and headed off course. Had the President 'acted' against these attacks, instead of taking the kiddie book break, there is no reason to believe that the attacks couldn't be averted.

The world is not full of hateful little minds.

*All that 'I' want is for the scribes to ACCURATELY capture the events of today and yesterday. What President Bush did, why he did it,a nd hwat he knew while he was doing it is PARAMOUNT. That you would characterize those of us who ARE trying to find the truth as 'hateful little minds'...is sad and pityful.

You have made the case that he could have done something. You have not made the case that most reasonable people in his position would have done something different. I'm glad no one will have to ever suffer under your leadership.

*Well, the ONLY thing I could assure my voters is that if and when we DO come under attack, that AS SOON AS I HEAR OF IT, I will without hesistation begin to act to protect us from it. And even if I am reading an autographed copy of the greatest American novel to the graduating class at Harvard, I will put the f*cking book down and get to work.

[King of the Americas]

I am not sure if you noticed or not, but there was no evidence provided on that site as to HOW they arrived at those given times.

I mean 'I' could set up a site, and say the President found out about the attacks BEFORE they actually happened, but that wouldn't make them true or valid.

I was actually hoping for much more from you.

[RandFan,Jr.]

If my above quote was correct then Bush's actions were not out of line. There was nothing for him to do for a few minutes. He had a staff preparing everything for him and he knew that he had some time so he did what he had gone to the school to do. His mistake was not realizing that there are hateful people in this world that will interpret everything in a negative and cynical light. People like your self.

*If your above quote is 'correct'...!? You know a real skeptic would require actual evidence of something before 'believing in it'. What you are suggesting is that we dismiss what is KNOWN, and accept something that you pulled out of your ass and have NO EVIDENCE of... Sorry, I am going to have to pass on that contention, until you DO have some evidence to back up your speculation. Further evidence of your inability to think critically and objective.

1. I never dismissed what is KNOWN?

2. My example was to prove that you are making a false dichotomy. The example is only a hypothetical and does not have to be real to prove that you are WRONG!

3. I never said I "belived" it.

4. You are the one speculating the extent of what the president did or did not know and what contingencies were in place. And what was the limit of what the president could do based on the information that was at hand.

5. The president could only speculate that there were other planes that were going to be used for terrorists purposes. It makes little sense to start blowing planes out of the sky on the basis of the information at hand.

Hell, can you imagine the outcry if it turned out that a plane had lost communication and was having difficulty and it appeared hostile and Bush ordered it shot out of the air? (There is a LOT of precedent for this. See KOA flight 007)

All that 'I' want is for the scribes to ACCURATELY capture the events of today and yesterday. What President Bush did, why he did it,a nd hwat he knew while he was doing it is PARAMOUNT. Then why do you make conclusions when you don't have ALL of the evidence. It makes not sense what you are saying. Why not ask objective question rather than make leading remarks? You don't give a damn about the truth or history you just decided what happened and refuse to accept that there could be other possibilities.

YOU are the one that is closed minded. I have stated that you could be right on a number of occasions. My objectivity demands that I admit that you might be right.

Your ignorance on the other hand prevents you from accepting any other possibilities.

That you would characterize those of us who ARE trying to find the truth as 'hateful little minds'...is sad and pityful. The title of this thread speaks volumes. When you couple that with the fact that you are drawing conclusions in hindsight using incomplete information and casting aspersions on the president then it is quite easy to conclude that you ARE a HATEFUL LITTLE MIND.

Well, the ONLY thing I could assure my voters is that if and when we DO come under attack, that AS SOON AS I HEAR OF IT, I will without hesistation begin to act to protect us from it. Oh, I don't doubt for one second that you would go off half cocked and shoot down an airliner full of innocent people before you had ALL of the information.

Again, I can be thankful on a daily basis that this country does not have some pathetic half wit running the world.

"...or something to that effect."...? Maybe you should know what the hell you are talking about BEFORE you open that trap of your's. Maybe you should find out everything that the president knew or didn't know before you attack him.

"...or something to that effect."...? Maybe you should know what the hell you are talking about BEFORE you open that trap of your's. Oh, well please take this time to illuminate all of us.

According to the Loser Hall Of Fame (http://www.geocities.com/rollerball_1999/)

A.J. [KOA] is a self-proclaimed profit of humanity with megalomania and delusions of grandeur. Soon after high school he was disabled by a drunk driver and has since used his time on the library computer to inflict his pompous self-righteous attitude on the world via the Internet. While A.J. doesn't believe in college, claiming that is the route of the mediocre and unimaginative, he consistently spouts nuggets of wisdom that he claims to be "...never having been dreamt of let alone attempted.." One example of this was his attempt to "Turn the world upside down", by moving some dirt from the top of Mt. Everest to the floor of Death Valley. He hasn't actually accomplished this but when it does it will somehow be a major event in the history of mankind on this planet. So it was moving some dirt from the mountain to Death Valley. BFD, what the hell is the difference. BTW, every year through the process of glaciers, wind and rain thousands if not millions of cubic yards of dirt are moved from the tops of mountains to the bottom of the oceans which is much lower than death valley. So your little stunt would not be without precedent and it certainly would have no practical value.

[lyghtningbyrd]

I am a 14 year old boy with a huge imagination.I love to wright about fantasy. Fantasy is so tight.I love Fantasy pictures. I probebly love (literally) every single song (rap, hip hop, soft, heavy metal, clasic, etc.) exept that i absolutly, positivly, utterly HATE Country, ech.

What is up with this? I'm sorry, but this is driving me crazy... This looks like something a 10 yr. old would WRITE. (not wright) Funny thing is, you don't make spelling mistakes in your posts. What's the deal?

[RandFan,Jr.]

Originally posted by lyghtningbyrd
Hey RandFan, Jr... sorry this is off-subject, but have you noticed how many obvious, terrible spelling mistakes there are in your signature footer? Just wondering, because you articulate your arguments so very well without making spelling mistakes to my knowledge, yet even for a 14 yr old, the signature contains several obvious errors.

Just wondering if you noticed that.. Hi lyghtningbyrd,

I'm actually RandFan. RandFan,Jr. is my son. And you are right his spelling is atrocious.

I lack self control when it comes to the forum and had my account disabled so I would concentrate on my computer programing rather than spend my time here. I don't know his password so once I log off I can't log on unless he is home. I got allot of work done last week so I had him log on for me today and haven't logged off.

I appreciate that you think I articulate my arguments well.

FWIW My son Jared is a hell of a lot smarter than his spelling indicates. He placed 2nd and 3rd on his 5th and 6th grade science projects respectively. I think that he is just lazy when it comes to his spelling.

Thanks again,

RandFan.

[RandFan,Jr.]

Originally posted by lyghtningbyrd
What is up with this? I'm sorry, but this is driving me crazy... This looks like something a 10 yr. old would WRITE. (not wright) Funny thing is, you don't make spelling mistakes in your posts. What's the deal? Well I do make some mistakes...

RandFan
It makes not sense what you are saying. ...but I understand your point. I hope the mystery is dispelled.

[lyghtningbyrd]

Yes the mystery is dispelled. Thank you.

[King of the Americas]

If my above quote was correct then Bush's actions were not out of line. There was nothing for him to do for a few minutes. He had a staff preparing everything for him and he knew that he had some time so he did what he had gone to the school to do. His mistake was not realizing that there are hateful people in this world that will interpret everything in a negative and cynical light. People like your self.

*Cynical light...? Providing evidence to and discussing the President's Derelection of Duty through hesistancy and or ignorance that caused the lives of hundreds in the Pentagon to be lost, is NOT cynical. There were those who said to investigate President Clinton was to be cynical, but I said to know what truly happened was neccessary. The difference is that one of them was actually a criminal (in)action, and one was an extra maritial affair.

Further evidence of your inability to think critically and objective.

1. I never dismissed what is KNOWN?

*Saying that what Ari and others have actually said is NOT 'true', is in fact 'dismissing what is known'.

2. My example was to prove that you are making a false dichotomy. The example is only a hypothetical and does not have to be real to prove that you are WRONG!

*Realizing and coming to a solid conclusion about what was told to you is NOT making a false anything. We know what happened, because it took place on T.V. right in front of us, and we were told what happened over and over again, how could ANYONE possibly forget? What we are arguing here is the 'characterization' of his actions, and not the actions themselves. What I am saying is what he did was wrong, and some are trying to validate them as 'good and those of a strong leader'. And thus the rub...

3. I never said I "belived" it.

*You are promoting IT over my findings and those of the press who have published these things. What DO you believe if not mine own premise?

4. You are the one speculating the extent of what the president did or did not know and what contingencies were in place. And what was the limit of what the president could do based on the information that was at hand.

*Speculation...? Hark doth mine ears deceive me. There ARE 'knowns' in which there is LITTLE to speculate on, that we CAN draw conclusions from. Langley Air Force Base is placed to provide hard air cover to D.C. and indeed the Pentagon, within minutes. Hal BidLack HAS confirmed that the President doesn't have to order jets to scramble, but that ONLY he could have ordered a civilian plane be brought down. Speculation is not needed to claim that there was a conspiracy of inaction and or ignorance.

5. The president could only speculate that there were other planes that were going to be used for terrorists purposes. It makes little sense to start blowing planes out of the sky on the basis of the information at hand.

*Actually, the President has lines of communication open and available to those who can see and communicate with every plane in the air. At the moment the second plane hit, and he was advised that we were under attack, it was known that at least 2 other planes were severely off course, had their homing beacons off, and refusing communication attempts. No one is saying that he SHOULD have ordered any other planes shot down. But to NOT find out and be able to shoot down those threatening attacks on our nation's military headquarters and our capitol...? 30 mintues to read and discuss a children's book about a goat, while the nation is under direct attack...and NOT order the 'close investigation' of each and every plane off course and in route to an expected target...? The President didn't need to speculate, but that his thoughts were on a goat in a book, rather than the safety and security of our nation is troubling to me. Moreso, that no one is talking about tese facts, and touting this man as a string and noble leader who is without flaw or failure...seems ever so disingenuous.

Hell, can you imagine the outcry if it turned out that a plane had lost communication and was having difficulty and it appeared hostile and Bush ordered it shot out of the air? (There is a LOT of precedent for this. See KOA flight 007)

*There are 3 Criterion for realizing whether or not a plane has been hijacked ~3~ Did you get that "=3=". Refusing communication, being severely off course, AND have their homing beacon turned off, then it CAN BE considered hijacked and be 'monitered' by fighter jets. If it is found to BE hijacked only the President can order its downing.

Then why do you make conclusions when you don't have ALL of the evidence. It makes not sense what you are saying. Why not ask objective question rather than make leading remarks?

*What do you mean ALL of the evidence? I have ENOUGH evidence to see that there was a line of behavior of hesistancy and or ignorance that was one of the leading causes in the loss of life at the Pentagon, period. Not enough evidence...? What MORE evidence do I need? What is missing? How LONG it takes to get fighters in the air? How long it takes them to get where they are going? Who can order their downing?

You don't give a damn about the truth or history you just decided what happened and refuse to accept that there could be other possibilities.

*You are clearly wrong.

YOU are the one that is closed minded. I have stated that you could be right on a number of occasions. My objectivity demands that I admit that you might be right.

Your ignorance on the other hand prevents you from accepting any other possibilities.

*No, the knowledge and facts I have collected lead me to this conclusion, of which I believe to have supreme validity in comparison to the other 'possible' conclusions you and others have raised.

The title of this thread speaks volumes. When you couple that with the fact that you are drawing conclusions in hindsight using incomplete information and casting aspersions on the president then it is quite easy to conclude that you ARE a HATEFUL LITTLE MIND.

*Please point out the 'incomplete information' that I am using in hindsight to draw inaccurate conclusions upon. Casting aspersions...? If you are a thief, is it wrong to say so in a public court or venue? As far as 'I' know slander is saying something false or malicious. What the President did, and what is caused is NOT up for debate and or specualtion. We KNOW what he did, and I am saying that what he did was wrong, and should be considered a Dereliction of his Duties as Commander in Chief. There are no falsehoods, mischaracterizations, or inaccuracies in these findings. If you are going to say that by addressing these events and making them known to others is being a hateful little minded person, then I say YOU are a conspirator against the truth!

Oh, I don't doubt for one second that you would go off half cocked and shoot down an airliner full of innocent people before you had ALL of the information.

Again, I can be thankful on a daily basis that this country does not have some pathetic half wit running the world.

*AGAIN, 'I' wouldn't have ordered the downing of any civilian plane that wasn't off course, refusing communication attempts, and had it homing beacon turned off. However, I WOULD be sending fighter jets to investigate each and every plane that filled each of these criterion and was headed to a known target. And on that day, knowing we were under attack, I very well could and would have ordered the shooting down of a civilian plane on an obvious suicide mission toward another civilian or military target.

Maybe you should find out everything that the president knew or didn't know before you attack him.

*All that you or I can go on, is what has been released by the White House, and what is known by the public scribes. Anything MORE than that would truly be 'speculation'.

Oh, well please take this time to illuminate all of us.

According to the Loser Hall Of Fame


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A.J. [KOA] is a self-proclaimed profit of humanity with megalomania and delusions of grandeur. Soon after high school he was disabled by a drunk driver and has since used his time on the library computer to inflict his pompous self-righteous attitude on the world via the Internet. While A.J. doesn't believe in college, claiming that is the route of the mediocre and unimaginative, he consistently spouts nuggets of wisdom that he claims to be "...never having been dreamt of let alone attempted.." One example of this was his attempt to "Turn the world upside down", by moving some dirt from the top of Mt. Everest to the floor of Death Valley. He hasn't actually accomplished this but when it does it will somehow be a major event in the history of mankind on this planet.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So it was moving some dirt from the mountain to Death Valley. BFD, what the hell is the difference. BTW, every year through the process of glaciers, wind and rain thousands if not millions of cubic yards of dirt are moved from the tops of mountains to the bottom of the oceans which is much lower than death valley. So your little stunt would not be without precedent and it certainly would have no practical value.

*I have read on some White Supremists' Websites that claim and hold the stance that "Martin Luther King was a worthless niger who needed to be shot." Does that make it true? So some half wit-coattail riding loser wants to mischaracterize and demean my actions and or comments, like I give half an oat what my detractors say or are saying!? The truth behind that and any of my other 'doings' can be found through ME. Anything else is second-hand.

My 'stunt' with the Peak of Everest, and dirt from Death Valley was in RESPONES to a friend's challenge to 'turn the world upside down'. It was a bet, persay. In our youth we read a story about how a man challenged a giant to a 'feats competition'. For example, the giant said "I'll bet you can not put one foot on your lands and one foot on mine, as I am doing right now." In response the young man removed some dirt from his pocket out of his garden. He put it on the ground and then he placed one foot upon it and one on the giant's, thereby accomplishing the feat. There were two other feats that the young man accomplished with a little creative thinking, and such was the case in my response to an 'Impossible Feats Challenge'. Others were to "Frame Eternity like a picture", "Put a rainbow anywhere I wish", "turn time into a 3 diminsional object that will slowly consume the Universe", and a couple of others that I forget.

If you want the truth, go straight to the horse's mouth, and NOT someone who just works in the stables tossing ****.

[Tricky]

LOL! Are you still pushing that old "Mt. Everest" and "Death Valley" thing KOA? That was demolished months ago. Remember?
Putting highest to lowest would turn the world inside out, not upside down. You are still thinking the earth is flat. (hint: It's not.)
Death Valley is not the lowest point on the crust Earth, even if you consider only that part of the crust which is not under water.

Get some new aphorisms.

[King of the Americas]

Just 5 words, baby...


"Please Pull Your Head Out."

I wasn't pushing anything, I was clarifying someone's misconceptions of me and my doings.

What point was there in your post?

[Whomp]

After reading five pages of this clap, I have found the reason KOA is upset!
And you all missed it.

KOA hates goats!

:cool:

[Tricky]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
Just 5 words, baby...


"Please Pull Your Head Out."
AAUGH! I am spitted on the skewer of your devastating repartee!:(
Originally posted by King of the Americas
I wasn't pushing anything, I was clarifying someone's misconceptions of me and my doings.

I apoligize. I should have said "presenting" rather than "pushing". I am merely amused to find that you still think this story is terribly clever.

And I was just wandering by to see what you were up to. I normally skip your rants.

[King of the Americas]

"If'a youra insights were the works of a flea, they would be no less nor no more noticable."

*A'say ancient Hoedibeck Philosopher*

I am not exactly sure what he meant, or how it refers to your finding, but... if THAT is all you got out of 4 pages, and THAT is what you choose to respond to and make a post out of then I say... "Dude, you're f*cked."

I think goats are just fine for kids and story time. I just don't think THAT should be the priority, while we are under attack for the Commander in Chief.

I'd prefer NOT to get respones like your's no matter how funny you think they are, simply because I find that they are a destraction.

[Crossbow]

Ugh! What can one say that will reach KOA?

- When some people dig themselves into a hole, they stop digging.
- When other people dig them themselves in a hole, they put away the shovel and get out the ladder.
- And there there are a few people (guess who?) who try to dig themselves out of the own hole by using a bigger shovel!

[King of the Americas]

And when some people are faced with cold hard facts that disprove their own stance, SOME PEOPLE resort to personal attacks and mischaracterizations of the argument presented.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
And when some people are faced with cold hard facts that disprove their own stance, SOME PEOPLE resort to personal attacks and mischaracterizations of the argument presented.


"Facts".... "Proof".... Hey, Albert- when's your birthday? I'm going to pick up a large-print-with-lots-of-pictures kid's dictionary for you so you can understand a few of these words you keep tossing so carelessly about.

[King of the Americas]

...my first stone wall- the local paper I subscribe to refuses to run any material that addresses this issue.

NOT suprising, in these days.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
...my first stone wall- the local paper I subscribe to refuses to run any material that addresses this issue.

NOT suprising, in these days.

Yeah, it's getting so a delusional megalomaniac can't even get a public forum in a privately-owned newspaper these days. Reform is clearly overdue.

I thank God that your lack of charisma prevents you from pulling a David Koresh or a Jim Jones.

Then again, I doubt you possess the intellect to successfully mix Kool-Aid anyway.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
...my first stone wall- the local paper I subscribe to refuses to run any material that addresses this issue.

NOT suprising, in these days.

I am not surprised at their lack of interest.

Any word on those impeachment proceedings against the president that you wrote your local congressman about?

[King of the Americas]

The mailing campaign HAS began, but I have had no responses, yet.

[aggle_rithm]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
The mailing campaign HAS began, but I have had no responses, yet.

Most people don't respond to junk mail.

[King of the Americas]

...but I don't mail junk (unsolicited, unpersonalized, copies of paper propaganda), and I don't send spam (forwarded stuff to several different people).

My letters are all personalized, and written to THAT person about a specific issue, and my e-mails usually match this philosophy.