9/11 Security: failure or deliberate?

[geggy]

http://bozzysworld.com/images/rumsfeld.jpg

June 2001 The decade-old procedure for a quick response by the
nation's air defense was changed. NORAD's military commanders could no
longer issue the command to launch fighter jets because approval had to
be sought from the civilian Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing7/for_the_record_ashley.pdf

Full length video of W. Bush's whereabout during the WTC attack:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/special/photoessay/images/attack_3.jpg

"I am very aware of the cameras." Bush recalled later. "I'm trying to
absorb that knowledge. I have nobody to talk to. I'm sitting in the
midst of a classroom with little kids, listening to a children's story
and I realize I'm the Commander in Cheif and the country has just come
under attack."

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/bushbook.mov

North tower was struck at 8:46 am. W. Bush was in his limo on the way to the elementary school shortly before 9 am. He arrived the classroom at approx. 9 am. Whose responisbility was it to relay information to Bush that the north tower of WTC had been bombed?

Dick Cheney's whereabout on 9/11:
http://www.geocities.com/iseepee57/cheney1.jpg

Transportation Secretary Mineta arrives at the White House bunker containing Vice President Cheney and others at 9:20 a.m.. In later testimony, he recalls that Cheney is already there when he arrives.

This supports accounts of Cheney reaching the bunker not long after the second WTC crash, but the 9/11 Commission concludes Cheney doesn’t arrive until a few minutes before 10:00 a.m.. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5233007

While we do not have photographic evidence that the secret service has performed their duty to protect Cheney, we do have photographic evidence that the secret service did not follow the same prodecure for Bush.

Rumsfeld's whereabout on the morning of 9/11:
The National Military Command Center (NMCC) inside the Pentagon was the nerve center of the military’s response to the attacks on 9-11. But the lead military officer that day, Brigadier General Montague Winfield, told the commission that the center had been leaderless.“For 30 minutes we
couldn’t find [Secretary Rumsfeld].” Where was Rumsfeld on 9-11? I
put the question to the commission's vice chair, Lee Hamilton, following
the release of the report the commissioners call “the definitive
account of 9-11.”

“We investigated very carefully Mr. Rumsfeld’s actions,” said
Hamilton. “He was having breakfast with Congressional leaders, and
they hear a plane has hit the Pentagon, and he runs out.”

“He had to have been told before the Pentagon was hit that two trade
centers were hit and the country was under attack,” I suggested.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/update/2004/07/07_400.html

Numerous reports confirming that the time of first deployment of fighter
jets on 9/11 was after the pentagon hit:
The day before this announcement, acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff Richard Myers in congressional testimony stated that the first
fighters got airborne only after the Pentagon was hit at 9:37 a.m. [US
Congress, 10/13/2001]

NORAD spokesman Marine Corps Major Mike Snyder also claimed no fighters
launched anywhere until after the Pentagon was hit.

New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani later testifies before the 9/11
Commission that he found out from the White House at about 9:58 a.m.
that the first fighters were not launched toward New York City until
twelve minutes earlier—9:46 a.m. [9/11 Commission, 6/19/2004]

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a091401noradaccount

NORAD's official time sheet for United flight 175 (sept 18, 2001):
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/03/NORAD_Logo.jpg/250px-NORAD_Logo.jpg

DIRECTORATE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, NORTH AMERICAN AEROSPACE DEFENSE
COMMAND,

250 S Peterson Blvd, Suite 116, PETERSON AFB, CO 80914-3190

(719) 554-6889 Website: http://www.norad.mil/

NORAD’s Response Times

United Airlines Flight 175 – Boston enroute to Los Angeles

[b]FAA Notification to NEADS 0843

Fighter Scramble Order (Otis ANGB, Falmouth, Mass. Same 2 F-15s as
Flight 11) 0846

Fighters Airborne 0852

Airline Impact Time (World Trade Center 2) 0902 (estimated)

Fighter Time/Distance from Airline Impact Location approx 8 min****/71
miles

From the 9/11 commission report:
http://blog.salamandersoftware.co.uk/Images/911-Commission-Report.jpg

Military Notification and Response. The first indication that the NORAD
air defenders had of the second hijacked aircraft, United 175, came
in a phone call from New York Center to NEADS at 9:03.The notice
came at about the time the plane was hitting the South Tower.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.htm

American Airline 77/Pentagon Hijackers...

Khalid al-Mihdhar, Majed Moqed, Nawaf al-Hazmi, and Salem al-Hazmi were all on the plane, all of whom had ties to Al Qaeda.

Khalid al-Mihdhar: Fought along side Bosnian muslims in 1995, in Afghanistan against the Northern Alliance, and with Chechnyan muslims in 1998. Was randomly selected for extra screening during boarding, records show he stayed at a hotel in Herndon, VA the night before.

Majed Moqed: Also proven to be on the flight, and an picture taken in Green Belt, MD (right near DC) places him there with Hani Hanjour on 9/2/01.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/88/HanjiMajedATM.jpg

Nawaf al-Hazmi: Also fought in Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Chechnya. Malaysian officials who recorded proceedings at the Al Qaeda summit that same year in January reported him talking at length on potential terrorist activities. Below is a picture of him being checked at Dulles on 9/11:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c4/Nawaf-Dulles-Searched.jpg

Salem al-Hazmi: Brother of nawaf, and Travelocity shows that <b>they both bought tix for Flight 77 in August online.</b>

How was it that, if they were implicated in some of the terrorist acitivites and in fact were on FBI's terrorist watch list, they were be able to buy plane tickets online using credit cards with their real name without red flag signaling indicating they're on FBI's terrorist watch list in the file of Travelcity's computer? How were they able to gain VISA for entry into the US?

Hani Hanjour: Hani Hanjour goes to the Freeway Airport in Bowie, Maryland, about 20 miles west of Washington. He wants to rent a single engine Cessna airplane. However, when two instructors take him on three test runs, they find he has trouble controlling and landing the plane. One instructor has to help him land. Due to his poor skills, therefore, he is not allowed to rent one of their planes without more lessons. Further, while Hanjour appears to have logged over 600 hours of flying experience and possesses a valid pilot’s license (though it has in fact expired), he refuses to provide contact information: He gives no phone number and only gives his address as being a hotel in Laurel. In spite of Hanjour’s lack of flying skills, chief instructor Marcel Bernard later claims, “There’s no doubt in my mind that once [Flight 77] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it.” [Washington Post, 10/15/2001; Capital News, 9/19/2001; Gazette (Greenbelt), 9/21/2001; Newsday, 9/23/2001] However, on 9/11, in piloting Flight 77 into the Pentagon, Hanjour would have needed to do much more than simply point the plane at a target. Because Flight 77 at first seemed to overshoot its target, the Washington Post will note that “the unidentified pilot executed a pivot so tight that it reminded observers of a fighter jet maneuver. The plane circled 270 degrees to the right to approach the Pentagon from the west, whereupon Flight 77 fell below radar level... Aviation sources said the plane was flown with extraordinary skill, making it highly likely that a trained pilot was at the helm...” [Washington Post, 9/12/2001] One Washington flight controller will later comment, “The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane.” [ABC News, 10/24/2001] One law enforcement official who will study Flight 77’s descent after 9/11 will call it the work of “a great talent ... virtually a textbook turn and landing.” [Washington Post, 9/10/2002] Remarkably, the 9/11 Commission will overlook the numerous accounts of Hanjour’s terrible piloting skills (see April 15, 1999; January-February 2001) and state that 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed assigned the Pentagon target specifically to Hanjour because he was “the operation�s most experienced pilot.” [9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 530]

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&the_alleged_9/11_hijackers=haniHanjour

Why did they change one of the hijackers' name from Mosear Caned http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/14/bn.01.html to Hani Hanjour in the same day without explaining who Caned was and why he appeared on the original list of hijackers? http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/14/fbi.document

Moreover, why was Hani Hanjour's name not on the AA77 passenger manifest?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/graphics/attack/hijackers.html

Keep in mind, the first WTC bombing occured in 1993 and the Oklahoma city bombing occured few years later. Intelligence failure with total incompetence or was the security system preceding and on 9/11 designed to fail???

[CptColumbo]

Short answer: Incompetence.

And welcome back Geggy.

[Ladewig]

If Cheney, Rumsfeld and the others did everything that you state or imply and if they were caught, then they would almost certainly be tried and executed for treason and mass murder. What was the motivation for them to risk their lives in order to commit this most heinous of crimes?

[Apollyon]

As far as changing the hijacker's names, the "they" you refer to is CNN, correct? Because the transcript you linked specifically notes:

So this is a good starting point. Again, this list not officially released yet by the Justice Department. We obtained this list of name through sources

The media frequently gets things wrong in their rush to scoops. As an example, refer to the Katrina reporting when we were hearing about murders and rapes in the Superdome, and a long list of travesties, the vast majority of which were ultimately shown to be untrue.

You have to take reporting with a grain of salt and the changing of the hijacker's names doesn't appear to demonstrate any great conspiracy whatsoever.

[gumboot]

I don't think 9/11 was a security failure myself. I think it was a policy failure.

-Andrew

[JPK]

Welcome back Geggy.

Intelligence failure with total incompetence or was the security system preceding and on 9/11 designed to fail???
Are these my only two options? Care to predict the next terroist attack that will occur in the USA? Do you believe that a 100% fool proof security system can be put into place?
JPK

[Pardalis]

geggy boy!

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/888644a1708e391c3.gif

[Pardalis]

Oh, and in answer to your question: failure.

BTW, we do know what Rumsfeld, Bush and Cheney look like.

[Apollyon]

I don't think 9/11 was a security failure myself. I think it was a policy failure.

-Andrew
The 64 dollar question is, whose policy failed?

[Ducky]

http://bozzysworld.com/images/rumsfeld.jpg

June 2001 The decade-old procedure for a quick response by the
nation's air defense was changed. NORAD's military commanders could no
longer issue the command to launch fighter jets because approval had to
be sought from the civilian Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.




Absolutely not correct. please refer to this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1725134#post1725134) to understand why. The document in questions did not in any way take away first response capability from NORAD in immediate threat situations. It simply established a chain of command in non-immediate requests.

In fact, the document you refer to specifically states that In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC will, with the exception of immediate responses as authorized by reference d, forward requests for DOD assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval.
and if you were educated on the subject, you'd know that reference d is DOD Directive 3025.15, 18 February 1997, “Military Assistance to Civil Authorities” which gives explicit permission to respond to immediate threats without the approval of the Secretary of Defense.

[Polaris]

That top photo of Rumsfeld is obviously an actor. Look at the nose, maaan! It's an actor, probably hired by al-Qaida to play the part of Rumsfeld, because al-Qaida's always been a conspiracy for them all to commit suicide by America. And everybody knows that Secretaries of Defense are forbidden from wearing ties with gray in them - since they should only deal in black and white. And where are his glasses? All previous photos or Rumsfeld show him with glasses. It's obviously a fake Rumsfeld.

[Stellafane]

That top photo of Rumsfeld is obviously an actor. Look at the nose, maaan! It's an actor, probably hired by al-Qaida to play the part of Rumsfeld, because al-Qaida's always been a conspiracy for them all to commit suicide by America. And everybody knows that Secretaries of Defense are forbidden from wearing ties with gray in them - since they should only deal in black and white. And where are his glasses? All previous photos or Rumsfeld show him with glasses. It's obviously a fake Rumsfeld.

Actually, it's Rumsfield all right -- suddenly discovering a misplaced microphone has been left standing upright in his chair.

[hellaeon]

Welcom back geggy. I must correct you when you say the WTC was bombed on 9/11. Also, since your implying sinister behaviour, what did you expect these people to do. What would be a sufficient behaviour to not warrant them as suspect?

And please tell me why they did orchestrate all this. Whats the outcome?


FAA Notification to NEADS 0843



Military Notification and Response. The first indication that the NORAD
air defenders had of the second hijacked aircraft, United 175, came
in a phone call from New York Center to NEADS at 9:03.The notice
came at about the time the plane was hitting the South Tower.


S E C O N D aircraft. In other words, they knew of a SECOND AIRCRAFT at 9:03.

This is not a 'discrepancy' between official timeline reports as your trying to highlight. You fail to read the sentence before the one you bolded just data mining for the bits you want to piece together your story. Geggy, please READ things properly. Its just silly little oversights like this that make you seem deliberate in your ignorance, not innocent.

Why is this so hard to fathom. I think the response time was incredible considering within an hour or so of the first incident occuring and the traffic controller noticing something was wrong the place was on high alert.

[Ginarley]

It is really very simple. A group of people hijacked planes and flew them into buildings deliberately to kill people. 911 is their fault, blame them. You can try all you want to pin blame on America for getting attacked but the guts of the matter is that the group of people that organised this attack are 100% to blame. If you are claiming that members of US administration were part of the attack itself then thats quite different.

However a poor defence is all too easy to blame and the media loves doing that because we are conditioned to look to those in charge for responsibility - but seriously, how many people would have taken the 911 threat seriously before it happened? Every one of us would have laughed and said "never happen". It is like saying the Sri lankans should have moved to higher ground just in case there was a tsunami... perhaps we should make a rule that no-one can ever live within 5km of the coast? Or that no person be allowed on a plane ever again? Or that no person be allowed in a tall building ever again? Life is risk.

Those people that seek to end life are bad people - blame where blame is due!

[aggle-rithm]

Actually, it's Rumsfield all right -- suddenly discovering a misplaced microphone has been left standing upright in his chair.

"It was a one in a million shot, Doc! One in a million!"

[Sword_Of_Truth]

If Geggy and Childlike Emperess had a love child, would he be Christophera?

[aggle-rithm]

It is really very simple. A group of people hijacked planes and flew them into buildings deliberately to kill people. 911 is their fault, blame them. You can try all you want to pin blame on America for getting attacked but the guts of the matter is that the group of people that organised this attack are 100% to blame. If you are claiming that members of US administration were part of the attack itself then thats quite different.

However a poor defence is all too easy to blame and the media loves doing that because we are conditioned to look to those in charge for responsibility - but seriously, how many people would have taken the 911 threat seriously before it happened? Every one of us would have laughed and said "never happen". It is like saying the Sri lankans should have moved to higher ground just in case there was a tsunami... perhaps we should make a rule that no-one can ever live within 5km of the coast? Or that no person be allowed on a plane ever again? Or that no person be allowed in a tall building ever again? Life is risk.

Those people that seek to end life are bad people - blame where blame is due!

I was just thinking the other day: What if, by some chance, the Feds had managed to foil the terrorist attack? Would we be going around saying, "Whew! That was close!"

Nope. We would be saying, "Yeah, right. Like they ever could have pulled that one off!"

And, in fact, terrorist plots are being foiled all the time. There's no way of knowing whether they WOULD HAVE been successful or not. However, people tend to think, "If it didn't happen, then what's the big deal?"

[aggle-rithm]

If Geggy and Childlike Emperess had a love child, would he be Christophera?

I always assumed Christophera already had parents. Shows what I know.

[Pardalis]

It is really very simple. A group of people hijacked planes and flew them into buildings deliberately to kill people. 911 is their fault, blame them. You can try all you want to pin blame on America for getting attacked but the guts of the matter is that the group of people that organised this attack are 100% to blame. If you are claiming that members of US administration were part of the attack itself then thats quite different.

However a poor defence is all too easy to blame and the media loves doing that because we are conditioned to look to those in charge for responsibility - but seriously, how many people would have taken the 911 threat seriously before it happened? Every one of us would have laughed and said "never happen". It is like saying the Sri lankans should have moved to higher ground just in case there was a tsunami... perhaps we should make a rule that no-one can ever live within 5km of the coast? Or that no person be allowed on a plane ever again? Or that no person be allowed in a tall building ever again? Life is risk.

Those people that seek to end life are bad people - blame where blame is due!

Wow, quite a post!

[Gravy]

I wish I could welcome you back like some others here, geggy, but that's not how I feel. Your presence on this forum is very unwelcome to me, because you've made almost 200 posts filled with misinformation and ignorance and you've showed no signs of learning.

By the way, the issues in your post above have been covered here before, several of times in response to your posts. Please get a grip.

[delphi_ote]

The three punctuation marks you placed at the end of your last sentence were very persuasive, but I'm not quite convinced. Think maybe you could work a little more useless text and images in there, geggy? Or you could add another dozen incoherent non sequiturs?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I always assumed Christophera already had parents. Shows what I know.

Christopherb, maybe?

[Gravy]

Christopherb, maybe?
:D

:D

:eye-poppi

[Pardalis]

Quite a frightfull idea to contemplate isn't it ? geggy reproducing...

[Cheap Thrills]

"It was a one in a million shot, Doc! One in a million!"
Jerry: Who would order a license plate that says "Assman"?

George: Maybe they're Wilt Chamberlain's.

Jerry: It doesn't have to be someone who gets a lot of women. It could be just some guy with a big ass.

Kramer: Yeah, or it could be a proctologist.

Jerry: Yeah. Proctologist.

George: Come on! No doctor would put that on his car.

Kramer: Have you ever *met* a proctologist? Well, they usually have a very good sense of humor. You meet a proctologist at a party, don't walk away. *Plant* yourself there, because you will hear the funniest stories you've ever heard. See, no one wants to admit to them that they *stuck* something up there. Never! It's always an accident. Every proctologist story ends in the same way: "It was a million to one shot, Doc. Million to one."

[gumboot]

The 64 dollar question is, whose policy failed?


Well there is that...

I'm inclined to lay the blame at the Clinton Administration, but those who think the US somehow created terrorism would probably lay the blame at some earlier government.

-Andrew

[gumboot]

I was just thinking the other day: What if, by some chance, the Feds had managed to foil the terrorist attack? Would we be going around saying, "Whew! That was close!"

Nope. We would be saying, "Yeah, right. Like they ever could have pulled that one off!"

And, in fact, terrorist plots are being foiled all the time. There's no way of knowing whether they WOULD HAVE been successful or not. However, people tend to think, "If it didn't happen, then what's the big deal?"


Great point...

Afterall, the intelligence agencies foiled Operation Bojinka in 1995, which would have been much worse than 9/11, but even after that no one really considered terrorism much more than a nuisance.

-Andrew

[delphi_ote]

I'm inclined to lay the blame at the Clinton Administration, but those who think the US somehow created terrorism would probably lay the blame at some earlier government.
Making this about Republican/Democrat is the worst way to treat this issue. You're lowering yourself to the Looser's level.

[Ducky]

The three punctuation marks you placed at the end of your last sentence were very persuasive, but I'm not quite convinced. Think maybe you could work a little more useless text and images in there, geggy? Or you could add another dozen incoherent non sequiturs?


Not just non-sequiturs, there's some blatant falsehoods. See my post about the NORAD orders/chain of command.

[delphi_ote]

Not just non-sequiturs, there's some blatant falsehoods. See my post about the NORAD orders/chain of command.
Who has time for facts these days? Stop living in the past, man!

[gumboot]

Making this about Republican/Democrat is the worst way to treat this issue. You're lowering yourself to the Looser's level.


I didn't think I was... I'm not an American, and I really have no interest in Republican/Democrat issues.

I believe that US policy, specifically foreign policy and policy towards terrorism, made infiltration of the US by terrorists much easier than it needed to be. Clinton happened to be the president during this period, so it was the policies of his administration that I am referring to.

I really couldn't care less which particular political party he belonged to.

-Andrew

[Hellbound]

Making this about Republican/Democrat is the worst way to treat this issue. You're lowering yourself to the Looser's level.

I have to agree with gumboot to a degree. I don't think he was making it a party issue.

During Clinton, there were extensive drawdowns and cutbacks to defense and intelligence...part of the reaason our current military operations are costing so much (we have to build back up as well as pay for the war). Not to mention that he did not seem to place as high a focus on finding and punishing the terrorists when attacks did occur.

There's room for disagreement here, but it's not a party issue. Just a policy one.

[valis]

Well there is that...

I'm inclined to lay the blame at the Clinton Administration, but those who think the US somehow created terrorism would probably lay the blame at some earlier government.

-Andrew

I would argue that this war started in 1979 with the Iranian hostage crisis and that every administration bears some blame.

Also to blame are the people of the United States including myself. When terrorist attacks took place overseas I complained about the way they were handled but did I do anything? Did I write a letter to a Congress person or attend a meeting demanding the Government do something to stop the problem? We had plenty of chances, embassys bombed, the first World Trade Center bombing and the targeting of American citizens overseas. As I recall we all allowed the situations to be handled as individual police matters. In the polls before the 2000 elections I would wager terrorism did not even show in the top ten voter concerns.

True the Government should show leadership and is privy to more information that the average schmo; but we could see plainly that radical Islam wanted to kill us and we were content to look the other way as long as it took place far away.

[fuelair]

Part of the problem is that given the people involved, it is easy to accept Cheney and Rummy making those kinds of plans to advance themselves - and leaving Shrub out in the cold. They are just that kind of guy.....

PS : but I don't think that is what happened, just that they make it easy for people to believe.

[valis]

Part of the problem is that given the people involved, it is easy to accept Cheney and Rummy making those kinds of plans to advance themselves - and leaving Shrub out in the cold. They are just that kind of guy.....

PS : but I don't think that is what happened, just that they make it easy for people to believe.

I'm sorry but Shrub should be spelled President Bush or President of the United States or Mr. Bush or George W. Bush or some variation.

I did not much care for President Clinton as a person but he is still President Clinton.

Assuming of course that you are an American he is the President; you can always work to put someone else in that spot next time around.

[delphi_ote]

I would argue that this war started in 1979 with the Iranian hostage crisis and that every administration bears some blame.

Also to blame are the people of the United States including myself. When terrorist attacks took place overseas I complained about the way they were handled but did I do anything? Did I write a letter to a Congress person or attend a meeting demanding the Government do something to stop the problem? We had plenty of chances, embassys bombed, the first World Trade Center bombing and the targeting of American citizens overseas. As I recall we all allowed the situations to be handled as individual police matters. In the polls before the 2000 elections I would wager terrorism did not even show in the top ten voter concerns.

True the Government should show leadership and is privy to more information that the average schmo; but we could see plainly that radical Islam wanted to kill us and we were content to look the other way as long as it took place far away.
Well said. That is what I was trying to get at.

Pointing at anyone except the terrorists and saying, "It's their fault this happened!" is a huge oversimplifcation. In the end, you're blaming someone for a horrible crime because you'd rather neglect the complexity of this event.

[Apollyon]

Well there is that...

I'm inclined to lay the blame at the Clinton Administration, but those who think the US somehow created terrorism would probably lay the blame at some earlier government.

-Andrew
There's a huge slippery slope in regard to that question. Mistakes of one sort or another have been made straight down the line, going way past Jimmy Carter. We could also blame Truman. If we really wanted we could blame the UN. Or we could blame the Brits because of the British Mandate, except the US was part of that whole League of Nations thing too.

We love to blame something or someone, don't we? There's almost this urgent human desire to assign blame.

Ultimately though I don't feel that any particular political policy is to blame. imo, the problem boils down to human nature. 9/11 was a result of who and what human beings are and have been since time immemorial. Until humanity changes this will continue to happen.

[Ducky]

geggy? Hello? Gonna respond to getting your rear end handed to you again?

[gumboot]

There's a huge slippery slope in regard to that question. Mistakes of one sort or another have been made straight down the line, going way past Jimmy Carter.


Sorry, I'm not trying to blame the US government for the attacks in any way. I thoroughly hate modern society's need to blame someone other than the perpetrator for everything that happened. If a bystander is hurt by a criminal during a police chase, it's always the police's fault, etc.

The only people in the entire world to blame for 9/11 are the 19 Hijackers that took over those planes and the organisation that sent them. They could have decided not to. They could have decided that it was wrong. They did not.


But...

I understood this thread was about 9/11 Security, not blame for the event. Obviously security didn't prevent the perpetrators from acting, because 9/11 happened. The question is, was it a failure or deliberate? I think neither. As I said, I blame policy. But I'm blaming policy for the security situation within which 9/11 happened, I'm NOT blaming policy for 9/11.

In consideration of valis' post, I would ammend that the security situation was not specifically a result of government policy, but of the entire country's "policy". Even, the entire western world's "policy".

I remember after the London Bombings, Tony Blair made a very simple and very true observation:

(apologies the wording may not be exact, as I am taking this from memory)

September 11 was a wake-up call for the world. The problem is we all just went back to sleep again.

To me this sums up what I meant by "policy". I now realise that official policy of the US administration is too narrow a focus - their policy was nothing but a reflection of the way western society thought at the time.

Because we love freedom and hate war and death, we don't want to accept that there's evil extremist organisations and cults and people out in the world who want to destroy us, and who are willing to make every attempt to do so.

We have seen it for decades, in countries around the world, but it was easy to ignore it because it was so far away. Even when it happened to our own people, like in Somalia, we could just pack up and leave, and go back to pretending it didn't exist.

But it does. And on Sept 11 we had a wake up call because it was in our own backyard and we COULDN'T ignore it.

Except after 9/11, once the hype had died down, most of the world just went back to pretending again. And each time the monster reared its head again, in Bali, in Madrid, in London, we cried in shock and alarm, as if we had never expected such a thing to ever happen. And when it happened in Afghanistan, and later in Iraq, people cried "it only happened because we're there" because, of course, there's no way people would blow up civilians and cause such carnage otherwise. People like that don't really exist. It doesn't happen anywhere else. I know it doesn't, because when it does, I ignore it, and pretend it didn't happen, and so on... So then the call to run away began, just like every other time we sent people somewhere, and suddenly we had to confront that nasty thing we're trying to ignore.

But, as each of these events died down, when the news report about the car bomb in Baghdad ended, when the aid appeal ads for London stopped, we went back to pretending again. And most of the world is still pretending.

-Andrew

[delphi_ote]

We love to blame something or someone, don't we? There's almost this urgent human desire to assign blame.
Blame. The. Hijackers.

It's not that hard to figure out who is at fault, people. These guys woke up on that fateful September morning planning to murder as many people as they could before they died and outperformed even their own horrible expectations. They lived, breathed, slept, and ate a plan to kill innocent people for years.

Equating that kind of evil with mere incompitence or negligence is an injustice to the accused and makes light of the nightmare we all witnessed again and again on our televisions.

[delphi_ote]

Except after 9/11, once the hype had died down, most of the world just went back to pretending again. And each time the monster reared its head again, in Bali, in Madrid, in London, we cried in shock and alarm, as if we had never expected such a thing to ever happen. And when it happened in Afghanistan, and later in Iraq, people cried "it only happened because we're there" because, of course, there's no way people would blow up civilians and cause such carnage otherwise. People like that don't really exist. It doesn't happen anywhere else. I know it doesn't, because when it does, I ignore it, and pretend it didn't happen, and so on... So then the call to run away began, just like every other time we sent people somewhere, and suddenly we had to confront that nasty thing we're trying to ignore.
You're arguing against a strawman and again turning this into a political discussion.

[Apollyon]

Gentlemen,

We are in agreement.

I was boiling the reasoning down to its very essence. imo, the problem rests with humanity, within our very nature. You are discussing how that problem manifests itself.

It's an issue of rage, which we all have, and how we control that rage within.

There is no apologism whatsoever in what I said. I'm not making excuses for their behavior. If anything I'm damning them even more for failing to tame that which much of humanity has already learned how to confine within far more narrow boundries.

[gumboot]

You're arguing against a strawman and again turning this into a political discussion.


What is the strawman I am arguing against?

And I thought this was a thread about 9/11 Security. That is relatively political, isn't it? A lot of people are trying to turn this into a thread about blame for 9/11, which is off-topic.

I think it's all pretty clear that we are in absolute 100% agreement about who is to blame for 9/11.

-Andrew

[Aussie Thinker]

It a strange sense I am glad we keep going back to sleep after terrorist attacks.

If we stay “alert” and continue to cut back human liberty in a never ending quest to “squash” terrorism we have already LOST !

That is exactly what “they” want. They want us to live little paranoid pathetic lives like they do.

Sure I want to get rid of terrorism but in the end the only way is to show up their lifestyle is with an example of how people should live !

[delphi_ote]

What is the strawman I am arguing against?
You created your opponent here and inserted an argument into his mouth:
And when it happened in Afghanistan, and later in Iraq, people cried "it only happened because we're there" because
You put more words in your strawman's mouth and attacked your imaginary opponent here:
there's no way people would blow up civilians and cause such carnage otherwise. People like that don't really exist. It doesn't happen anywhere else. I know it doesn't, because when it does, I ignore it, and pretend it didn't happen, and so on...
And then you suddenly decided to have your strawman talk about Iraq:
So then the call to run away began, just like every other time we sent people somewhere, and suddenly we had to confront that nasty thing we're trying to ignore.
That's fairly textbook strawman.
And I thought this was a thread about 9/11 Security. That is relatively political, isn't it? A lot of people are trying to turn this into a thread about blame for 9/11, which is off-topic.
9/11 security? You said you think this is about policy.
A lot of people are trying to turn this into a thread about blame for 9/11, which is off-topic.
Wait a minute. You're not talking about blame for 9/11?
I don't think 9/11 was a security failure myself. I think it was a policy failure.
I'm inclined to lay the blame at the Clinton Administration...
That's fairly black and white, gumboot. You blame a specific group of people for the policy failure that "was" 9/11.

And while I'm pointing out strawmen, you finished that post with a nice example (with an added flourish of well poisioning):
... but those who think the US somehow created terrorism would probably lay the blame at some earlier government.

[fuelair]

I'm sorry but Shrub should be spelled President Bush or President of the United States or Mr. Bush or George W. Bush or some variation.

I did not much care for President Clinton as a person but he is still President Clinton.

Assuming of course that you are an American he is the President; you can always work to put someone else in that spot next time around.

You are free to feel that way - but he was not legally elected to the office, so you can call him what you want, but it is not MY president.

Clinton was, of course, elected.

[Regnad Kcin]

Blame. The. Hijackers.

It's not that hard to figure out who is at fault, people. These guys woke up on that fateful September morning planning to murder as many people as they could before they died and outperformed even their own horrible expectations. They lived, breathed, slept, and ate a plan to kill innocent people for years.

Equating that kind of evil with mere incompitence or negligence is an injustice to the accused and makes light of the nightmare we all witnessed again and again on our televisions.Well said, delphi.

[psy kick]

Norad could always before bring up planes to see what was wrong. But after an hour and a half of knowing 4 planes were hijacked, and 2 crashed, they still couldn't reach them in time? nah.
Not to mention the pentagon is a no fly zone and jets would've been up in seconds knowing a hijacked plane was headed that way.
And none of the 4 planes sent the 4 digit code for hijacking?

Too hard to believe.

[gumboot]

9/11 Security? You said yourself this was about policy. That's fairly black and white, gumboot. You blame a specific group of people for the policy failure that "was" 9/11.


I think you have misread me. I wasn't very clear. Given that this discussion is about 9/11 security I would assume it a given that I was talking about 9/11 security.

I disagreed that "9/11 security" (the topic of the thread) was "failure or deliberate" (the two options in the thread topic). I maintained that "9/11 security" was a "policy failure".

Initially I directed that policy failure at the Clinton Administration because it was during that period that I saw most reason to identify policy (specifically foreign policy as I mentioned) that resulted in "9/11 security".

After a post by another commenting on the values of the west I ammended my argument to be a "policy failure" by the west. I acknowledged that "policy" wasn't really the right word - which I tried to illustrate by the "going to sleep" analogy used by Blair.

In simplified terms:

My opinion is that the west has a "policy" (call it what you like) regarding how we perceive the rest of the world, specifically Islamic terrorists. I think this "policy" doesn't reflect the real world, and that 9/11 made that undeniable to the west. I think since then the west has made every effort to continue to cling to our "policy" that does not reflect the real world, but that events around the world that involve the west (for example Afghanistan and Iraq, where western armies/reporters/aid workers etc... are located in significant numbers) continually show the failure in this "policy". Yet despite this we continue to adhere to that "policy".

I understand that subjects like Iraq and Afghanistan are very politically sensitive, and I suppose this "policy" of the west is naturally going to be reflected in the foreign policies of various western nations. So in an indirect way, yes, I was talking about politics. But not directly, and not specifically.


And while I'm pointing out strawmen, you finished that post with a nice example (with an added flourish of well poisioning):


Do you deny that some people believe the USA created terrorism? I am merely acknowledging that what I had expressed before that was my personal opinion on that matter, and that others had other opinions.

I'm not trying to present an "argument" or convince anyone that I am right. I am merely expressing my opinion. Were I attempting to present an argument I would provide evidence and examples, rather than broad generalisation.

As "Aussie Thinker" pointed out there is a very valid reasoning for considering that the "policy" of the west is a good policy and not a failure at all.

Considering who it was that started the thread, and the obvious intention behind it, I thought it silly to delve into specific arguments and evidence, since most of us seem to agree, and Geggy is unlikely to listen to any argument instead. So I took it as an opportunity to offer some personal musings on the subject of "9/11 security" and how it came to be.

Obviously I shouldn't have done that, and I apologise.

-Andrew

P.S. And I apologise for confusing things by using words like "policy" I'm just not sure how to phrase it. "Attitude"?

[Regnad Kcin]

I'm sorry but Shrub should be spelled President Bush or President of the United States or Mr. Bush or George W. Bush or some variation.

I did not much care for President Clinton as a person but he is still President Clinton.

Assuming of course that you are an American he is the President; you can always work to put someone else in that spot next time around.You are free to feel that way - but he was not legally elected to the office, so you can call him what you want, but it is not MY president.

Clinton was, of course, elected.As was Mr. Bush, at least in 2004.

I, no fan of the man, must side with valis in this small matter. Like the circumstances or not, dismiss him or not, he was sworn into office and holds it to this day. (Bush that is, not valis.) I certainly don't mean to lecture, but denying people the respect of their office diminishes you, not them.

And I say this to you...with respect.

[Regnad Kcin]

Norad could always before bring up planes to see what was wrong. But after an hour and a half of knowing 4 planes were hijacked, and 2 crashed, they still couldn't reach them in time? nah.
Not to mention the pentagon is a no fly zone and jets would've been up in seconds knowing a hijacked plane was headed that way.
And none of the 4 planes sent the 4 digit code for hijacking?

Too hard to believe.Well, considering your post contains numerous falsehoods, I agree, it is too hard to believe.

[gumboot]

Well, considering your post contains numerous falsehoods, I agree, it is too hard to believe.


Amen.

-Andrew

[psy kick]

Well, considering your post contains numerous falsehoods, I agree, it is too hard to believe.Maybe you should refute them, then.

[Regnad Kcin]

Fine. One at a time.

Show proof the Pentagon is a "no fly zone."

[gumboot]

Norad could always before bring up planes to see what was wrong.


In the ten years prior to 9/11 NORAD was only involved in one domestic intercept, which was Payne Stewart's learjet in October 1999. It took the NORAD fighter 82 minutes to intercept the learjet. In contrast with the 9/11 aircraft, Stewart's learjet remained in transponder contact throughout.





But after an hour and a half of knowing 4 planes were hijacked, and 2 crashed, they still couldn't reach them in time? nah.


NORAD was first notified of a hijacking at 0838hrs - less than 10 minutes before the North Tower was hit by AA11. The two F-15s were taking off at the time. The notification of a second hijacking (UA175) then came in, so these two F-15's then made for New York. They were about 70 miles away when UA175 hit.

The third notified hijacking was UA93, and F-16s from Langley were launched, however before they took off they were notified of ANOTHER hijacking - AA77. The pilots were not given an intercept course for the new target, but assumed this new intercept order superceeded the first one, so they followed standard procedure for clearing urban airspace quickly. Given that NORAD was designed to intercept aircraft coming from OUTSIDE the USA, the standard departure plan for Langley fighters was to travel on heading 090 (east) for 60 miles (referred to as the 90:60 flight plan). This took them over the Atlantic Ocean.

By the time the mistake was realised there was no way the F-16s would reach Washington DC in time. An Air National Guard C-130H over Washington DC was directed to look for AA77, and they identified the aircraft moments before it hit the Pentagon.

The two F-16s from Langley were meanwhile directed to take up position between UA93 and Washington DC as it was believed the capital was the terrorists' target. They set up this CAP (Combat Air Patrol), however the passengers in UA93 attempted to storm the cockpit so the terrorists drove the aircraft into the ground.

Assumably, had UA93 continued as planned the F-16s would have shot it down before it reached Washington DC.

Not to mention the pentagon is a no fly zone and jets would've been up in seconds knowing a hijacked plane was headed that way.



The Pentagon is on the approach path for a major airport. It is not a no-fly zone. The United States does not have no-fly zones, it has areas that are restricted airspace. Such as above Area 52, and above the White House. And we know how ineffective it is to practically enforce those restrictions.

As for your "up in seconds" the fastest response for standby fighters is to be in the air 15 minutes after being notified. It takes several minutes just to get the engines up to running temperature.




And none of the 4 planes sent the 4 digit code for hijacking?


No. There is every reason to believe that the terrorist took over the cockpits first. Funnily enough the terrorists chose not to send out a hijacking distress call because for some strange reason they didn't want anyone to know there was one.

-Andrew

EDT. fixed quotes

[Ducky]

How exactly do you plan to enforce a "No-fly Zone" over a building that is a mile from Reagan Airport?

Here, a nice map for you to see how close they are:

http://www.visitingdc.com/airport/reagan-national-airport-map.htm

[Regnad Kcin]

Geez, gumboot & fowlsound, and I was gonna have some fun with him/her!

[gumboot]

This picture here (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB165/911flights450.jpg) is a good illustration of the volume of traffic that the Air Traffic Controllers had to sort through to identify the hijacked aircraft once their transponders were turned off.

The caption for the image is:

Air traffic in the northeast United States at 8:47 am ET, September 11, 2001

-Andrew

[gumboot]

Geez, gumboot & fowlsound, and I was gonna have some fun with him/her!

Sorry...:o

-Andrew

[psy kick]

No. There is every reason to believe that the terrorist took over the cockpits first. Funnily enough the terrorists chose not to send out a hijacking distress call because for some strange reason they didn't want anyone to know there was one.

Oh my. What a coincedence! All the terrorists took over all 4 aircraft in a split second.
The planes were still being tracked by controllers as off course for over 40 minutes.
You'll believe anything, no matter how convoluted, yes?
And when Bush said he saw the first plane fly into the tower before he went into the classroom. Another good one! Since the footage of it wasn't shown til later.
And so on and so on.
Skeptics? So gullbile!

[Ducky]

Oh my. What a coincedence! All the terrorists took over all 4 aircraft in a split second.
The planes were still being tracked by controllers as off course for over 40 minutes.
You'll believe anything, no matter how convoluted, yes?
And when Bush said he saw the first plane fly into the tower before he went into the classroom. Another good one! Since the footage of it wasn't shown til later.
And so on and so on.
Skeptics? So gullbile!


Not going to acknowledge our refutation of your no-fly zone bit?

Just like every other CT that comes here. Ignore everything that doesn't fit in your theory. You are ignoring that we refuted you on the no fly zone topic. Pay attention, we will refute you on everything else you ask us to. We will do this because we require evidence. When the evidence doesn't fit our theory, we change our theory.

All you have to do is provide evidence for your theory. You haven't done so. You asked us to refute you. We did.

Ok I'll move along to the next bit.

Check the link in gumboot's post and see the air traffic the morning of 9/11. That's how many planes they were tracking.

Now tell me how they would track a plane in that mess when the transponder is turned off.

[Regnad Kcin]

Maybe you should refute them, then.Will you acknowledge the refutations provided by fowlsound and gumboot?

[gumboot]

Oh my. What a coincedence! All the terrorists took over all 4 aircraft in a split second.


What makes you think that?

All I said was there was evidence to suggest the terrorists took over the cockpits first, and assumably they did so before the pilots had time to do anything (unsurprising, they would have been caught by surprise).




The planes were still being tracked by controllers as off course for over 40 minutes.

I'm not sure what you actually mean by this statement.




You'll believe anything, no matter how convoluted, yes?

No.



And when Bush said he saw the first plane fly into the tower before he went into the classroom. Another good one! Since the footage of it wasn't shown til later.


It's quite common for people to say "I saw X on TV" when they didn't actually see X, they saw people talking about X.

-Andrew

[Ducky]

Don't expect too much Reginald. Like all CTers that troll here looking for "pwnage" I suspect after thoroughly being destroyed and refuted psy kick will run away and cry to his forum about how mean we've treated them, if not make up outright lies about being banned, like Christophera has done. (http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=5637&st=45&#entry102445)

[gumboot]

Don't expect too much Reginald. Like all CTers that troll here looking for "pwnage" I suspect after thoroughly being destroyed and refuted psy kick will run away and cry to his forum about how mean we've treated them, if not make up outright lies about being banned, like Christophera has done. (http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=5637&st=45&#entry102445)


At least their behaivour is consistent, even if their theories aren't.

-Andrew

[psy kick]

Now tell me how they would track a plane in that mess when the transponder is turned off.The way they always did from the beginning.

[Ducky]

The way they always did from the beginning.


The beginning of what? flight? Yes the Wright Brothers were tracked by sight.


You didn't answer the questions chief.

Nor did you acknowledge the refutations offered by me and gumboot.

Do you agree we refuted your no fly zone theory?

[gumboot]

The beginning of what? flight? Yes the Wright Brothers were tracked by sight.



I just had this image of hundreds of towers across the USA filled with FAA minions holding binoculars and radios, trying to spot which aircraft is which...

-Andrew

[Zep]

The way they always did from the beginning.By telegraph??? :boggled:

[Mancman]

NORAD was first notified of a hijacking at 0838hrs - less than 10 minutes before the North Tower was hit by AA11. The two F-15s were taking off at the time. The notification of a second hijacking (UA175) then came in, so these two F-15's then made for New York. They were about 70 miles away when UA175 hit.


Also worth noting that the F15s that took off from Otis AFB were flying towards NYC at supersonic speeds, without verbal authorization to fly so fast.


"And none of the 4 planes sent the 4 digit code for hijacking?"

Typical CT trash. Would the pilots have time to punch in a 4 digit code when a gang of crazed kamikaze maniacs burst into the cockpit with sharp weapons? Of course not.

[gumboot]

Also worth noting that the F15s that took off from Otis AFB were flying towards NYC at supersonic speeds, without verbal authorization to fly so fast.



Good point. As I understand it the rules for intercept are to use cruising speed or something. I read an interview with the lead pilot and he said he had a bad feeling about it so he just opened it right up, full afterburner.

-Andrew

[valis]

That is exactly what “they” want. They want us to live little paranoid pathetic lives like they do.


No what they want is to either kill or convert every non-Muslim on the face of the planet. They also want every Muslim to practice their twisted version of Islam.

[valis]

By telegraph??? :boggled:

No air traffic used to be tracked by the use of navigation way points. The planes would report when they reached a certain point and would either have to hold or be cleared to the next one based on other traffic. In theory you can still control all traffic this way. At least as recently as the 1980s Air Traffic Controller were expected to be able to control IFR traffic in this fashion without the use of radar. If you flew cross country in the 50s or 60s at least part of your flight would have been controlled in this way. Instead of a radar target the controller would only have a piece of paper with your flight info, a radio and a mental picture.

Obviously in such a system the saftey margins must be kept higher since the controllers cannot 'see' the planes on radar. Radar has allowed for a huge increase in the amount of air traffic but there was a time instrument flights were handled without it.

Not that any of this really applies to the subject at hand.

[R.Mackey]

Oh my. What a coincedence! All the terrorists took over all 4 aircraft in a split second.
The planes were still being tracked by controllers as off course for over 40 minutes.
You'll believe anything, no matter how convoluted, yes?
And when Bush said he saw the first plane fly into the tower before he went into the classroom. Another good one! Since the footage of it wasn't shown til later.
And so on and so on.
Skeptics? So gullbile!
If you're hoping for an intelligent discussion, you might want to speak to others with more respect. Your claim that the Skeptics are "gullbile" [sic] is unsubstantiated, because it isn't clear that anyone believes the things you've just claimed.

But to address your strange list of claims...

1. "All the terrorists took over all four aircraft in a split second." I actually would believe the takeovers could be synchronized to within a few minutes, a "split second" from the perspective of out-of-contact air traffic controllers. Surely they could have coordinated and all carried wristwatches. Just how long does taking over an aircraft take?

2. "The planes were still being tracked by controllers as off-course for over 40 minutes." There is a comprehensive log of tracking data in open literature, but for now suppose your claim is true. So what? There are thousands of planes in the air at any one time. Just because you track a plane doesn't mean you can just reach out and grab it, it gives you a rough estimate of position and speed. And you can't mean to suggest that we should shoot down every single plane that ever went off course.

3. "Bush said he saw the first plane fly into the tower before he went into the classroom." Sorry, you'll have to substantiate this one, I've never heard that before and doubt its veracity. But supposing it is true, I'd believe that W the oratorial genius simply slipping up is a more credible explanation than concluding he was part of the conspiracy.

It seems to me that belief in this vast, evil, coordinated conspiracy is the "convoluted" belief, yes? You'll believe it, no matter how convoluted, is that true? Just what do you believe? Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Tailgater]

Another monday morning quarterback question...

The US can't even monitor overseas calls and bank transactions without being crucified by the media and you expect them to monitor every person that flys in the air 24/7 (pre-911 even)?

No one had ever crashed a plane into a building before. If you were president, would you start shooting down planes full of people? I bet if they did, you would start saying we should of had some super anti-terrorist group on call across the country with Steven Seagal and Kurt Russel to foil the plan and that shooting them down was a conspiracy to hide something else.

Even if the President knew the first plane had already hit, no one knew there would be a second or why the first one had hit the building.

[Tailgater]

As a frequent traveler, i used to be surprised how open the cockpit was to the public before this. If you asked if the kids could go see it in mid-flight, the pilots wouldn't think twice about people being close to them. Tells you the mindset of people and air travel then.

I'm going to blame psychic friends network for not telling us what would happen.

[CurtC]

As a frequent traveler, i used to be surprised how open the cockpit was to the public before this.
I know a lady who showed interest in the flight deck during flight, and she was invited to sit in the little fold-away jump seat in the cockpit, during the landing. And she wasn't even that cute!

[aggle-rithm]

The way they always did from the beginning.

I've never been an air traffic controller, but I considered it as a career once, and got to go into the control room and watch them work.

Those guys are BUSY. Just because one or two planes are doing something suspicious doesn't mean they can forget about all the other planes in the area. Also, how could they possibly foresee the gravity of the situation?

And, don't forget, planes get bumped from one jurisdiction to another pretty quickly as they approach those highly populated areas. There was likely some confusion as to who needed to follow up on tracking these flights.

When I was observing, the controller showed me an incoming flight without a transponder. This, he said, was probably a private plane; he would find out for sure by contacting it.

Now, consider what would happen if a transponder quit in the middle of a flight. He probably wouldn't be watching that particular flight the whole time, but would look away for a while, then look back to find that the transponder info was no longer on the screen. The possibilities are: 1) This is the same flight, with the transponder turned off, 2) this is another flight that was undetected before, and the original flight is not longer appearing on radar. The second possibility might seem more likely if he tried to contact the plane and got a different voice than the one he had heard before.

Regardless of what happened, it was definitely not a cut-and-dried situation. I would have hated to be in the air traffic controllers' shoes that day.

[Ducky]

I see geggy is still too chicken to debate us, and psy kick has yet to acknowledge the refutations.

Such as it is with the trolls.

I see it's degenerated into character assasination and name calling of the JREF in general over on the loosers forum. Nobody likes a sore looser.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I see geggy is still too chicken to debate us, and psy kick has yet to acknowledge the refutations.

Such as it is with the trolls.

I see it's degenerated into character assasination and name calling of the JREF in general over on the loosers forum. Nobody likes a sore looser.

I'd say great minds think alike, but I don't have a great mind; so I don't know how this happened http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1736392#post1736392

[Aussie Thinker]

Vallis,

No what they want is to either kill or convert every non-Muslim on the face of the planet. They also want every Muslim to practice their twisted version of Islam.

No.. realistically they KNOW this is an impossibility.. and it is just an excuse. What is true is they are stinking mad that through mismanagement, corruption and evil and incompetent leaders they are mired in poverty and fundamentalism.

They cannot accept that this is their own fault and have to blame the west (especially the US as they are the most successful). They really want to just drag us down to their level !

Psy Kick

And when Bush said he saw the first plane fly into the tower before he went into the classroom. Another good one! Since the footage of it wasn't shown til later.

Even if true you think Dubya gets things right ????

I heard him once say “Americans just want to put food on their families”.. what conspiracy does that one fit into.

Dubya is at best a very average intelligence.. at worst a bit of a moron. I was stunned he dealt with the crisis as well as he did

[Gravy]

Oh my. What a coincedence! All the terrorists took over all 4 aircraft in a split second.

Flight 11 Hijacking time 8:15 a.m. approximately
Flight 175 Hijacking time 8:42 a.m.
Flight 77 Hijacking time 8:54 a.m.
Flight 93 Hijacking time 9:28 a.m.

Source: 9/11 Commission Report pages 12-13

Give it a read.

[gumboot]

Regardless of what happened, it was definitely not a cut-and-dried situation. I would have hated to be in the air traffic controllers' shoes that day.



Great points.

In fact, the more I think about it, given NORAD's timeline for notification, is pretty damn impressive that the FAA and NORAD were able to respond as quickly as they did. That is some sharp minds.

It wrenches my heart just imagining the two F-15 pilots blasting through the air towards New York, then getting the call that they are too late, the second plane has hit the WTC...

:(

-Andrew

[gumboot]

No.. realistically they KNOW this is an impossibility.. and it is just an excuse. What is true is they are stinking mad that through mismanagement, corruption and evil and incompetent leaders they are mired in poverty and fundamentalism.


Bear in mind these guys happily slaughtered thousands of civilians and themselves for "Allah". I think it would be tricky to evaluate what they "realistically know".




Dubya is at best a very average intelligence.. at worst a bit of a moron. I was stunned he dealt with the crisis as well as he did

I feel sorry for him. He's just not a great public speaker. I've heard he's dyslexic... (anyone able to confirm that?). Also a bit unfair because his predecessor, Clinton, was such an incredibly good public speaker. He might be stupid as well, but I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt. I've done a LOT of public speaking/performing, and I have seen incredibly intelligent people crumble before the pressure. And yet the pressure they faced wasn't even remotely what a major political leader has to face (let alone such a contraversial and stressful position as POTUS).

-Andrew

EDT. Fixed pesky quote thing

[Aussie Thinker]

Gumboot...

Good point.. but I was referring to the "bosses" not the dupes they send out to die for Allah !

Maybe I am a bit hard on Dubya... I just expect a LOT from the leader of the free world. (BTW Good point about Clinton... he was a ripper at Public Speeches and that also makes W look bad by comparison)

[gumboot]

Good point.. but I was referring to the "bosses" not the dupes they send out to die for Allah !




Ah right. Yeah. Such is the way of mankind.
"Destroy the infidel crusaders who rape innocent Palestine" probably works better as a recruiting slogan than "We are really bitter and jealous".

-Andrew

[Gravy]

I feel sorry for him. He's just not a great public speaker.
I don't. He's had decades of practice at public speeking, but often doesn't seem to be in command of the material.

Just heard on the news that "breaking news about OBL is about to be reported. Gonna go find out what that is. Hmm, maybe he's been dead since 2001!

eta: Oh, it's just that audiotape released today. He should ask for a good video camera for Christmas.

[Ducky]

Hello? Psy kick? Geggy?

Still waiting on your "pwnage"!

Cowards.

[fuelair]

As was Mr. Bush, at least in 2004.

I, no fan of the man, must side with valis in this small matter. Like the circumstances or not, dismiss him or not, he was sworn into office and holds it to this day. (Bush that is, not valis.) I certainly don't mean to lecture, but denying people the respect of their office diminishes you, not them.

And I say this to you...with respect.

And - even if he was a legal president, resident whatever - he's at least partially responsible for deaths and maiming of our soldiers in Iraq for fairly clear reasons. By the by (and it has no relationship to my personal feelings/beliefs) I am not alone in this - although a bit hard to verify I would venture a suspicion that 20+ percent of the US population shares this belief (that he isn't actually president except by occupation and deserves no respect of position for that reason). I simply cannot accept him as the real, elected legally President and therefore he is nothing to me but a thief with powerful puppeteers.

[Pardalis]

geggy? Where art thou?

[Regnad Kcin]

And - even if he was a legal president, resident whatever - he's at least partially responsible for deaths and maiming of our soldiers in Iraq for fairly clear reasons.Which has no bearing on the issue.

By the by (and it has no relationship to my personal feelings/beliefs) I am not alone in this - although a bit hard to verify I would venture a suspicion that 20+ percent of the US population shares this belief (that he isn't actually president except by occupation and deserves no respect of position for that reason).Anywhere from 2 to 2-infinity can "share a belief;" it doesn't make it true.

I simply cannot accept him as the real, elected legally President and therefore he is nothing to me but a thief with powerful puppeteers.So who then is president at the moment?

Look, you, "20+ percent" of Americans, and who knows how many others don't care for the man or his policies. As is everyone's right. But he's the president. And denying him the civility of title does nothing to advance whatever point you hope to make, instead reflecting poorly on your manners.

And to repeat (sorta): I say all this as one who voted for each of his opponents, and feel that his team demonstrated condemnable conduct in the aftermath of Election 2000.

[gumboot]

And - even if he was a legal president, resident whatever - he's at least partially responsible for deaths and maiming of our soldiers in Iraq for fairly clear reasons.


By that logic FDR is partially responsible for the death of 400,000 Americans and maiming of many more during WW2.

So FDR is therefore unworthy of respect? The man often ranked as one of the USA's top three presidents?

-Andrew

[Ducky]

To geggy/psy kick:

Are you going to come back and answer our refutations?

I await your answer.

If you do not, you just show yourselves for the cowards you are. It also shows how sleazy you are as you take a giant crap over the graves of the victims and heroes of 9/11.

[Huntster]

I don't think 9/11 was a security failure myself. I think it was a policy failure....

It was both.

And much, much more.

[Huntster]

... but seriously, how many people would have taken the 911 threat seriously before it happened?...

Everybody who remembered the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center?

Every one of us would have laughed and said "never happen".

Those are the folks who forgot 1993.

It is like saying the Sri lankans should have moved to higher ground just in case there was a tsunami... perhaps we should make a rule that no-one can ever live within 5km of the coast?

No need. No use.

Everybody who has a clue has a clue. Everybody else doesn't.

Or that no person be allowed on a plane ever again?

No need. No use.

I hate airplanes. Military and commercial. I ride in them only when necessary.

Hell, the TSP has only made it worse.

Or that no person be allowed in a tall building ever again?

How about "no tall buildings" anymore?

Life is risk.

Yup.

Those people that seek to end life are bad people - blame where blame is due!

Yup.

And after the blame is appropriately assigned, go get them.

Those who get in the way ought to be run over.

[valis]

Vallis,
Dubya is at best a very average intelligence.. at worst a bit of a moron. I was stunned he dealt with the crisis as well as he did

Sorry but even if you say he was given special treatment because of who his Father was he still managed to complete flight school and handle an F-102 without killing himself. I doubt that someone of average or below intelligance could manage that.

[gumboot]

Sorry but even if you say he was given special treatment because of who his Father was he still managed to complete flight school and handle an F-102 without killing himself. I doubt that someone of average or below intelligance could manage that.

Fighter pilots need to have excellent mathematics, physics, and hand-eye co-ordination skills.

Having an important Daddy will not get you past a Pilot Selection Course.

-Andrew

[Huntster]

Fighter pilots need to have excellent mathematics, physics, and hand-eye co-ordination skills.

Having an important Daddy will not get you past a Pilot Selection Course.

-Andrew

Unfortunately, it can get you past a Pilot Selection Course.

It won't get you through combat.

[Dcdrac]

Catastrophic failure and complete incompetence simple as that.

Command and control failure, intenecine inter agency rivlary, political leadership all blinded by idiotic idealogy and we all know where it lead.

[Ladewig]

However a poor defence is all too easy to blame and the media loves doing that because we are conditioned to look to those in charge for responsibility - but seriously, how many people would have taken the 911 threat seriously before it happened? Every one of us would have laughed and said "never happen".

Wasn't there an international conference in Europe in early 2001 in which the security measures included surface-to-air missiles because their intelligence indicated that a hijacked plane might be used to attack the conference?

Also, after Frank Corder accidentally crashed his light aircraft into the White House in September of 1994, the federal government took steps to change White House security to prevent other aircraft from approaching the White House and Congress.

[gumboot]

Also, after Frank Corder accidentally crashed his light aircraft into the White House in September of 1994, the federal government took steps to change White House security to prevent other aircraft from approaching the White House and Congress.



I may be wrong, but as far as I am aware the restricted airspace over the White House was already in place when this happened...

I have often seen it cited as an example of the problems with practically preventing something like 9/11 once the aircraft are in the air (in other words you have to stop the terrorists from getting on the plane, otherwise there's not much you can do)

-Andrew

[Ladewig]

I may be wrong, but as far as I am aware the restricted airspace over the White House was already in place when this happened...

I have often seen it cited as an example of the problems with practically preventing something like 9/11 once the aircraft are in the air (in other words you have to stop the terrorists from getting on the plane, otherwise there's not much you can do)

-Andrew

Disclaimer:I'll admit that my knowledge of this topic is limited and I am open to corrections

Yes, it was restricted airspace, but didn't this event redefine the response levels?

[Ronin]

I think it wasnt a problem with security it was a problem with our government being corrupt as all hell.The reason that the security failed is because it was set up to fail.Now i know how you anti-truth seekers like to talk crap but not look at the facts first so ima give you something that you cant dispute if you take the time to actually look it up.The morning of 9/11 there were more drills than any other time in US history on that day.Why you ask?Its a method of warfare thats been used for quite some time.If your a king whos going to kill the queen you'll send her loyal troops as far away as possible on some training or false mission.The government didnt have enough bull to send all our jets and such away so they made an insane amount of drills.Guess where the anti-terrorist people for US were that day,california...training.There based out of NY im pretty sure what a coincedence with the whole california thing and having had history books have this kinda tactic smeared all over them.Shame some people cant erase history or they might just given me an argument on the tactic.Aslo with the drills,cant argue with what your saintly government admits to.Bob was a regular man made by God and as in all men he had the capability of evil.Then he became part of the US government and became more of a saint than Jesus himself never again lying or sinning.Wake the hell up /slap
I bet some of these crap talkers would tell me that america was also discovered ROFL!!If you do please do not reply to this post as we will all become even more ignorant in the field of common sense.Thank you.
P.S. If i spelled something wrong sue me the check will be in the mail.

[Ladewig]

I think it wasnt a problem with security it was a problem with our government being corrupt as all hell.

Would you explain how high up this corruption went?

Also, would you explain what motivated these corrupt government agents: money, sex, power, something else? Also, did Osama directly or indirectly pay these folks or was someone else bankrolling these traitorous actions.

[Regnad Kcin]

I think it wasnt a problem with security it was a problem with our government being corrupt as all hell.The reason that the security failed is because it was set up to fail.Proof, please. Not just a blanket statement.

Now i know how you anti-truth seekers like to talk crap...Poisoning the well. I don't know about anyone else, but I like to "talk" facts, evidence, and proof. Not conjecture, supposition, and wild-assed guesswork.

...but not look at the facts first so ima give you something that you cant dispute if you take the time to actually look it up.Since you are making the claim, it is up to you (never mind the polite thing to do) to provide the evidence.

The morning of 9/11 there were more drills than any other time in US history on that day.Again, proof would be nice.

Why you ask?Its a method of warfare thats been used for quite some time.If your a king whos going to kill the queen you'll send her loyal troops as far away as possible on some training or false mission.The government didnt have enough bull to send all our jets and such away so they made an insane amount of drills.Guess where the anti-terrorist people for US were that day,california...training.You seem sure of your allegations. I'll guess you have the proof close at hand.

There based out of NY im pretty sure...You're "pretty sure?" Wouldn't you like to be "very sure," if not "precisely correct" before launching into flights of fancy regarding kings and queens and such?

...what a coincedence with the whole california thing and having had history books have this kinda tactic smeared all over them.Shame some people cant erase history or they might just given me an argument on the tactic.If this "tactic" you speak of is "smeared all over" history books, can you please provide one cite to support your claim?

Aslo with the drills,cant argue with what your saintly government admits to.This is the "more drills than any other time in US history" thing, right? I'm eager to read your source.

Bob was a regular man made by God and as in all men he had the capability of evil.Then he became part of the US government and became more of a saint than Jesus himself never again lying or sinning.Wake the hell up /slapEr, okay...

I bet some of these crap talkers would tell me that america was also discovered ROFL!!If you do please do not reply to this post as we will all become even more ignorant in the field of common sense.Thank you.Er, okay...

P.S. If i spelled something wrong sue me the check will be in the mail.Spelling, grammar, punctuation, composition. If you choose to waltz through life with a laissez-faire attitude about such simple things, can you be counted on to get the larger ones correct?

Welcome to the forum.

[Tailgater]

Bob was a regular man made by God and as in all men he had the capability of evil.Then he became part of the US government and became more of a saint than Jesus himself never again lying or sinning.Wake the hell up /slap
I bet some of these crap talkers would tell me that america was also discovered


Huh? Can you explain this? I'd like to here more about america not being discovered.

[Polaris]

No what they want is to either kill or convert every non-Muslim on the face of the planet. They also want every Muslim to practice their twisted version of Islam.

In their eyes, "every Muslim" is a non-Muslim except those who already practice Wahhabism/Deobandism.

[Polaris]

Good point.. but I was referring to the "bosses" not the dupes they send out to die for Allah !

But a lot of those dupes aren't idiots either. Most Islamic terrorists are educated, usually in engineering or physics - some applied science involving a lot of problem-solving. There's a school of thought, to which I subscribe, that deduces the reason for this is that European and Middle Eastern universities (based on European ones for historical reasons) focus less on humanities and liberal arts than a straight-shot immersion in one's major. The result is that some Muslims, usually in the engineering dept., or something similar, are alienated by their surroundings, put off by the permissiveness of university life which they see as sinful, and are drawn into Islamic societies as a safe haven (many of which are comprised of rabid fundamentalist swine who fled their home countries to the free-speech of the West they ironically hate). The result is that their alienation turns into hatred, disgust and simultaneous feelings of superiority/victimhood. Because they are engaged in problem-solving in their studies, they are able to formulate schemes to engage in complex terrorist attacks.

Low-class, poverty-stricken Islamic fundamentalists might grab an AK47 and shoot up an employment line, like in Iraq. But the majority of attacks seem to be directly or indirectly guided by the hand of educated people. As nearly all modern terrorist campaigns have been - the poor are too busy working and surviving to get philosophical AND have time to put it into revolutionary practice.

[Polaris]

I don't. He's had decades of practice at public speeking, but often doesn't seem to be in command of the material.

Just heard on the news that "breaking news about OBL is about to be reported. Gonna go find out what that is. Hmm, maybe he's been dead since 2001!

eta: Oh, it's just that audiotape released today. He should ask for a good video camera for Christmas.

Maybe we can send him one - put an engraved dedication on it: "To Osama from Ahmad Shah Massoud."

[senorpogo]

Sorry but even if you say he was given special treatment because of who his Father was he still managed to complete flight school and handle an F-102 without killing himself. I doubt that someone of average or below intelligance could manage that.

Not to mention he graduated with a BA in history from Yale and an MBA from Harvard Business School.

[gumboot]

The morning of 9/11 there were more drills than any other time in US history on that day.

And extraordinary claim. What were the drills on that day, and what was the nature of those drills?






The government didnt have enough bull to send all our jets and such away so they made an insane amount of drills.Guess where the anti-terrorist people for US were that day,california...training.There based out of NY im pretty sure


The "government" had 14 fighters on alert status in North America - the same as they always do.

Which "anti-terrorist" people are you referring to? There's a lot of them, and they're based all over the plane.

Had they been in NYC what could they have done to prevent two airliners hitting the WTC?

-Andrew

[Ducky]

I think it wasnt a problem with security it was a problem with our government being corrupt as all hell.The reason that the security failed is because it was set up to fail.

That's a great hypothesis. What supporting evidence are you going to provide?

Now i know how you anti-truth seekers like to talk crap but not look at the facts first so ima give you something that you cant dispute if you take the time to actually look it up.

Oh good. For a second there I thought you were going to follow suit with your other looser friends and make sweeping claims and generalizations without any supporting facts. Nice to know you are going to provide evidence.

The morning of 9/11 there were more drills than any other time in US history on that day.

Evidence? What drills? What branches of military were involved? What were the names of the drills?

Why you ask?

No, I asked "who, what, where, and how." Before I get to why you're going to have to provide some evidence and facts.

Its a method of warfare thats been used for quite some time.If your a king whos going to kill the queen you'll send her loyal troops as far away as possible on some training or false mission.The government didnt have enough bull to send all our jets and such away so they made an insane amount of drills.

Again, that's a great hypothesis. Where's your evidence and corroborative facts?

Guess where the anti-terrorist people for US were that day,california...training.

Who? Names please. What department of the government did they work for? Were they military? Names and ranks please. Also evidence of their actually being in California please.

There based out of NY im pretty sure what a coincedence with the whole california thing and having had history books have this kinda tactic smeared all over them.

How are you so sure "they" are based out of NY? Who are they? What department/military branch are they?

Shame some people cant erase history or they might just given me an argument on the tactic.

Please use intelligible sentences and clearly state your ideas so the rest of us are able to respond. That sentence simply does not make sense.

Aslo with the drills,cant argue with what your saintly government admits to.

Whoever said the government was saintly? What the hell are you talking about?

Bob was a regular man made by God and as in all men he had the capability of evil.Then he became part of the US government and became more of a saint than Jesus himself never again lying or sinning.Wake the hell up /slap

Please do not post drunk or stoned. It makes responding to your posts all that much more difficult. Also, just for your information, irc commands don't work on a forum such as this one, so please spare us your immaturity by attempting to be l33t in your insults.

I bet some of these crap talkers would tell me that america was also discovered ROFL!!If you do please do not reply to this post as we will all become even more ignorant in the field of common sense.Thank you.

What does this have to do with 9/11? Do you dispute America's discovery by European explorers?

P.S. If i spelled something wrong sue me the check will be in the mail.

Thank you for remaining mature in your discussion. Your post is a stunning example of logical fallacies and post hoc reasoning, as well as a few ad hominen attacks while begging the question.

How about providing evidence?

[Gravy]

What a poorly-informed person Ronin is! It would be interesting to know where he/she got all that bad info.

[fuelair]

By that logic FDR is partially responsible for the death of 400,000 Americans and maiming of many more during WW2.

So FDR is therefore unworthy of respect? The man often ranked as one of the USA's top three presidents?

-Andrew

Oh, I must have missed the part where Roosevelt sent all those men in to get even with the meanie who threatened to kill his Daddy. And sent them in on an excuse that was wrong. And did not do the best possible job(actually a pathetic one) of preparing before putting American lives in danger. I missed Roosevelt doing all that somewhere. Guess I just don't read enough history. I apologise (that's sarcasm, by the way).

[CptColumbo]

Oh, I must have missed the part where Roosevelt sent all those men in to get even with the meanie who threatened to kill his Daddy. And sent them in on an excuse that was wrong. And did not do the best possible job(actually a pathetic one) of preparing before putting American lives in danger.
Are you saying FDR wasn't prepared or GW Bush?
I missed Roosevelt doing all that somewhere. Guess I just don't read enough history. I apologise (that's sarcasm, by the way).
Perhaps you should write a more serious response, then we might understand it better. Leave comedy to the professionals, and to situations that warrant them.

IMO the Bush administration suffered from a problem that has plagued presidents since the first, the old-boy-network. Where people not necessarily the best person for the job are given a high ranking position in the government, usually to pay them (or someone else) back for something they did during the campaign (or another time). As Pres. Abraham Lincoln said, "There are too many pigs for the tits." While this is a great way to pay back supporters, it may not be the best way to run the executive branch. I'm not saying this is only a problem the presidency has, but I believe that it is a contributing factor to some of the incompetence shown in the events leading up to 9/11. Another problem I feel the administration had, that contributed to not preventing the events of 9/11, was the rivalry and miscommunication between departments. IMO this has been around as long as the nepotism. The FBI not sharing information with the NSA and CIA, and vice-versa. The INS not sharing information with the FBI, and vice-versa. Ideally, the Dept. of Homeland Security will put an end to this, but time will tell, and we probably won't know how good or bad a job they are doing until they fail, and monday morning quarterbacks use hindsight to criticise them.

[delphi_ote]

Another problem I feel the administration had, that contributed to not preventing the events of 9/11, was the rivalry and miscommunication between departments. IMO this has been around as long as the nepotism. The FBI not sharing information with the NSA and CIA, and vice-versa. The INS not sharing information with the FBI, and vice-versa. Ideally, the Dept. of Homeland Security will put an end to this, but time will tell, and we probably won't know how good or bad a job they are doing until they fail, and monday morning quarterbacks use hindsight to criticise them.
My magic 8 ball says "outlook not so good."

[Ducky]

So now geggy, psy kick and Ronin have all posted in this thread and run away without responding to anyone that has analyzed and questioned their posts.

Cowards. Come back and respond. Come on Ronin, you said you would provide irrefutable stuff!

What, can't respond to us? Afraid of our "cult"? Let's see it cters. Let's see the best you got!

[valis]

Fighter pilots need to have excellent mathematics, physics, and hand-eye co-ordination skills.

Having an important Daddy will not get you past a Pilot Selection Course.

-Andrew
That's bascially what I was saying. Giving the benefit of the doubt to the 'Bush is an idiot' crowd maybe he could have gotten into flight training because of his connections. And maybe he would have been cut a little tiny bit of slack here and there; but if he was truly stupid he could not have gotten to where he did.

[valis]

Oh, I must have missed the part where Roosevelt sent all those men in to get even with the meanie who threatened to kill his Daddy.

I have never understood this point of view. He didn't threaten, he tried to kill a US President. That doesn't bother you? Assuming you are American. If someone tried to kill Presidents Carter or Clinton I would consider it an act of war and be all for eliminating them.

Is it just okay to knock off US Presidents just because they are no longer in office? Hussein signs a surrender treaty and then trys to kill the President he signed it with and we should do what? Lob a few cruise missles and talk tough?

If he had killed the first Pres. Bush would that have been grounds for war?

[gumboot]

I have never understood this point of view. He didn't threaten, he tried to kill a US President. That doesn't bother you?


That's something I find odd.

I can't stand NZ's current Prime Minister. I hate her party's policies and quite frankly think they are utterly corrupt and destroying the nation. But she's our Prime Minister. If someone tried to kill her, I'd be thoroughly pissed off. If it was a political act from another country, I'd be calling for invasion (well, hypothetically... the reality is we're incapable of invading anyone... but you get the point).

-Andrew

P.S. Aside from all that, do people honestly genuinely believe that Bush decided to invade Iraq purely because Saddam tried to kill his Dad?

[Belz...]

http://bozzysworld.com/images/rumsfeld.jpg

Oohh, how I missed you, geggy!

"I am very aware of the cameras." Bush recalled later. "I'm trying to
absorb that knowledge. I have nobody to talk to. I'm sitting in the
midst of a classroom with little kids, listening to a children's story
and I realize I'm the Commander in Cheif and the country has just come
under attack."

Actually, I probably would've had the very same reaction.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Great points.

In fact, the more I think about it, given NORAD's timeline for notification, is pretty damn impressive that the FAA and NORAD were able to respond as quickly as they did. That is some sharp minds.

It wrenches my heart just imagining the two F-15 pilots blasting through the air towards New York, then getting the call that they are too late, the second plane has hit the WTC...

:(

-Andrew

Superman could hardly have done much better.

T+ 0:00:00 Alerted to hijackings
T+ 0:05:00 pretending to have stomach ache as Clark Kent and making for the bathroom to vomit, ducking out on lunch date w/ Lois
T+ 0:05:30 Departs Daily Planet from bathroom window
T+ 0:06:00 Supersonic climb to high altitude to scan for aircraft over eastern seaboard
T+ 0:10:00 Superspeed scanning of several hundred airliners (average day over the eastern US) using x-ray & telescopic vision to locate hijackers
T+ 0:15:00 Hypersonic interception of first aircraft
T+ 0:18:00 Entry into aircraft at altitude (taking care not to critically damage the aircraft) and non-lethal incapacitation of hijackers
T+ 0:19:00 Departure of first aircraft, supersonic climb to altitude to search for 2nd aircraft

Almost 20 minutes for the Man of Steel to eliminate one group of hijackers. And that's assuming that the pilots weren't killed and are able to take over and deliver the passengers safely to the nearest airport. otherwise, the Last Son of Krypton would have to carry the plane to a safe landing wich would suck up more precious time.

[Belz...]

I always assumed Christophera already had parents. Shows what I know.

Not yet, actually. He moves back through time, as opposed to the rest of us. This is why he can actually start by his conclusion and move backwards towards the premises without violating any laws of logic...

[Belz...]

Oh my. What a coincedence! All the terrorists took over all 4 aircraft in a split second.

I see you're in the habit of ignoring every statement except the one you can make fun of.

Very smart of you.

[Belz...]

P.S. If i spelled something wrong sue me the check will be in the mail.

That, the lack of structure and of sound arguments pretty much sums up your post.

[Pardalis]

Is it me or has there never been any articulate discussion with a conspiracy theorist so far? Maybe Mutton-Head but he left so abruptly.

[Belz...]

Is it me or has there never been any articulate discussion with a conspiracy theorist so far? Maybe Mutton-Head but he left so abruptly.

Pardalis, you could've at least used the CANADIAN astronaut in the "Molson Canadian" commercial for your avatar! ;)

[CptColumbo]

Pardalis, you could've at least used the CANADIAN astronaut in the "Molson Canadian" commercial for your avatar! ;)
There are Canadian Astronauts? :o

[Gravy]

There are Canadian Astronauts? :o
They were told there was an unlimited supply of beer and poutine on the moon.

[Pardalis]

Why would I put a Canadian astronaut as my avatar on the eve of the fourth of July? :confused:

[Ginarley]

Wasn't there an international conference in Europe in early 2001 in which the security measures included surface-to-air missiles because their intelligence indicated that a hijacked plane might be used to attack the conference?

Also, after Frank Corder accidentally crashed his light aircraft into the White House in September of 1994, the federal government took steps to change White House security to prevent other aircraft from approaching the White House and Congress.

Yep - but I guarentee there were many many other scenarios considered and reacted to as well. Thanks to something like 911 a great many what-ifs related to airplane and terroist security were raised. No-one bothers to mention that these issues were probably lost among a thousand other possibilities that officials and so forth had to consider and deal with on a day to day basis.

On a slight tangent, any major event redefines perception after it occurs. Facts like those mentioned above (and in thousands of other places), while interesting, are incredibly menial out of the context of the major event we call 911. Just because there was a major event related to it doesn't make the fact any less menial - just that it appears so. The 911 literature, criticisms and conspiracy theories are perhaps history's worst example of this. The amount of evidence mounting for a conspiracy is a direct function of the number of people looking. Id suggest that with similar effort (and desire) one could provide ample evidence that there was nothing that realistically could have been done.

[Belz...]

There are Canadian Astronauts? :o

Very funny.

They were told there was an unlimited supply of beer and poutine on the moon.

No. Just a 6-pack was promise enough.

Why would I put a Canadian astronaut as my avatar on the eve of the fourth of July? :confused:

Woah. Sorry, there. Beign Canadian myself, I don't tend to notice when the 4th comes by.

[fuelair]

Are you saying FDR wasn't prepared or GW Bush?

Perhaps you should write a more serious response, then we might understand it better. Leave comedy to the professionals, and to situations that warrant them.

IMO the Bush administration suffered from a problem that has plagued presidents since the first, the old-boy-network. Where people not necessarily the best person for the job are given a high ranking position in the government, usually to pay them (or someone else) back for something they did during the campaign (or another time). As Pres. Abraham Lincoln said, "There are too many pigs for the tits." While this is a great way to pay back supporters, it may not be the best way to run the executive branch. I'm not saying this is only a problem the presidency has, but I believe that it is a contributing factor to some of the incompetence shown in the events leading up to 9/11. Another problem I feel the administration had, that contributed to not preventing the events of 9/11, was the rivalry and miscommunication between departments. IMO this has been around as long as the nepotism. The FBI not sharing information with the NSA and CIA, and vice-versa. The INS not sharing information with the FBI, and vice-versa. Ideally, the Dept. of Homeland Security will put an end to this, but time will tell, and we probably won't know how good or bad a job they are doing until they fail, and monday morning quarterbacks use hindsight to criticise them.

Sorry for your problem understanding the comments: each point was one where Roosevelt operated functionally and Bush operated with extreme incompetence. Of course, I am operating under the difficulty of being predjudiced by facts.

[geggy]

Is it really possible that 19 hijackers, including the four pilots, with $3.98 boxcutters were able to defeat the $1.4 trillion dollars defense system in the US? In 2001, $350 million were spent on defense, totalling more than what China and Russia have spent that year combined...

Complete timeline of military exercises from 1991 to 2001...

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&before_9/11=militaryExercises

War games exercises on the morning of 9/11 "Northern Vigilance Military Operation" (boston globe):

http://www.boston.com/news/packages/sept11/anniversary/wire_stories/0903_plane_exercise.htm

Armed pilots banned 2 months prior to 9/11:

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27647

FAA whistleblower, Bogdan Dzakovic, "System that was deliberately designed to fail":

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0819/p12s05-altv.html

With cheney and halliburton, bush and carlyle proven to have been making millions off the war in the middle east, ask yourself, who benefited the most the the 9/11 attacks?

"For every devastation, there is an opportunity..."

[Class]

Is it really possible that 19 hijackers, including the four pilots, with $3.98 boxcutters were able to defeat the $1.4 trillion dollars defense system in the US? In 2001, $350 million were spent on defense, totalling more than what China and Russia have spent that year combined...

Yes it is entirely possible because the hijackers used those $3.98 box cutters and bomb threats to take over four passenger airlines and three of them hit their targets, with one being overtaken and crashed in a field in Pennsylvania.

Nothing like 9/11 had ever happened before, no one was expecting them to ram these planes i