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 into buildings.

[Ducky]

Geggy, are you going to address the refutations to your assertions on page 1 and 2 of this thread?

[geggy]

Tuesday, December 20, 2005
Nationwide spying could have averted 9/11: Cheney

WASHINGTON: US Vice President Richard Cheney suggested Sunday that the September 11 attacks could have been averted, if the government could have order surveillance of phone calls and emails without warrants.

In his first comment on a new rights controversy that has hit the US administration, Cheney said: "It's the kind of capability if we'd had before 9/11 might have led us to be able to prevent 9/11."

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2005%5C12%5C20%5Cstory_20-12-2005_pg4_7

Spy Agency Sought U.S. Call Records Before 9/11, Lawyers Say

June 30 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. National Security Agency asked AT&T Inc. to help it set up a domestic call monitoring site seven months before the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, lawyers claimed June 23 in court papers filed in New York federal court.

``The Bush Administration asserted this became necessary after 9/11,'' plaintiff's lawyer Carl Mayer said in a telephone interview. ``This undermines that assertion.''

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=abIV0cO64zJE&refer=

[twinstead]

Geggy, are you going to address the refutations to your assertions on page 1 and 2 of this thread?

Of course not; that's not what 'truth seekers' do.

[Hutch]

Ah geggy, nice to see you've dropped by again. Others will undoubtedly make further comments, but let me try to make a few comments on your stuff...

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...

Well, considering the vast percentage of that money was spent either on items that could not have the slightest effect on a hijacking (Aegis Cruisers and nuclear subs can't fly, nor can M1A1 Tanks. B1 and B2 Bombers can fly, but I don't think they would be much help in this instance. And the defense system, as mentioned before, wass directed toward an external threat, not an internal one, then yes, I do think it was possible.

Complete timeline of military exercises from 1991 to 2001... http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&before_9/11=militaryExercises

Which shows the military does a lot of practicing, even in peacetime (and by no means is that a complete list of Military exercises, merely those that would be noticed after a tragedy like 9-11)

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

And quoting from that article:

..But the cause wasn't terrorism -- it was to be a simulated accident.

Officials at the Chantilly, Va.-based National Reconnaissance Office had scheduled an exercise that morning in which a small corporate jet would crash into one of the four towers at the agency's headquarters building after experiencing a mechanical failure.

The agency is about four miles from the runways of Washington Dulles International Airport.

Seems like a coincidence-albeit a tragic one-of considering something that could possibly occur. Unless you have something about the National Reconnasssance Office being part of the Great Scheme...The NRO deals with spy satellites--I would be interested in how you make the connection with the 9-11 plot.


Armed pilots banned 2 months prior to 9/11:

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

Of course, the reason the rule (which had come into effect in 1961) was rescinded was:

..."In the past, FAA regulations permitted pilots to carry firearms in the cockpit provided they completed an FAA-approved training program and were trained properly by the airlines," FAA spokesman Paul Takemoto told WND in a voice-mail message. "That was never put into effect because no requests for those training programs were ever made. …"
bolding and underlining mine.

So the airlines must have been in out it to, geggy, since they didn't take advantage of the rule allowing weapons for 40 years..

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

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

OK, I have read the clip, which is in regards to a 2005 National Geographic special. Without some context I cannot make a judgement on this item. Perhaps others have seen the special or know more about Mr. Dzakovic than I.


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..."

I think I'll need to see some evidence that those above have been making those said millions. After all, the President and VP normally make their tax information public, IIRC, and such riches should be fairly obvious...

Press on.

[Foster Zygote]

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...

Where was that $1.4 trillion spent? Could it have been expended on preparations for the sort of conventional attacks that the defense department expected and was fashioned to deal with?

One of the bloodiest events in the history of humanity was ignited by a melodramatic teenager with a cheap gun named Gavrilo Princip. This spark fell on a stupid, dangerous political situation created by powerful but small minded men who made all the wrong choices in dealing with it.

More recently we've had melodramatic religious nuts who worship a cult of hate and death who struck during a stupid, dangerous political situation created by powerful but small minded men who've made all the wrong decisions...

Did the Bush administration use the tragedy of September eleventh to further their agenda regarding Iraq? There's certainly a very strong case that can be made pressing those charges. But did they have to manufacture the situation themselves? No, it was enough that they knew how to exploit it. And even if they hadn't incompetently ignored the warnings there is no guarantee that the plot could have been stopped, but we'll never know because they didn't even try.

Steven

[Regnad Kcin]

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...Since you are apparently so fond of questions (rather that direct evidence to support your assertions), I have a couple questions for you:

- Are you really this dense?

- Really?

Here's another, while I'm at it:

- Really?

[gumboot]

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



Geggy,

You're really not doing your cause much good... look at the above sentence...

We have a series of factors here...

1) War game exercises on morning of 9/11
2) "Northern Vigilance" military operation
3) Boston Globe article (linked)

Now, what are you trying to claim with all this?

The first one... well I know of one "War game" exercise that was scheduled for 9/11, it is called "Warrior" and it's held every year about the same time. It really had nothing to do with 9/11. It was a NORAD exercise. They have 4 major ones a year.

The second, Northern Vigilance... and? NORAD usually carry out such operations when the Russians move their long range bombers somewhere for an exercise. Are you saying the Russians were in on 9/11? That they purposefully held their exercise, knowing that NORAD would move its aircraft in response? Oh wait, but it didn't affect the 14 fighters on ready-alert protecting North America. Oops. There goes that theory.

So there's one left.

An exercise by a local government department that involved a plane crashing into their building. Pretty great coincidence wasn't it? I mean, what are the odds? Clearly it means something! What, exactly, does it mean, Geggy?

What role would the Chantilly National Reconnaissance Office play in 9/11? How did this exercise so confuse staff at Chantilly NRO that they were incapable of carrying out their vital role in preventing a terrorist attack.

The same article says that the staff were all sent home. Could that be part of the evil plot to disable these personnel who were so vital to America's defence?

Or could it, maybe, just be that actually the Chantilly NRO had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11 or any sort of terrorist response, thus meaning there was no possible explanation for why them carrying out such an exercise would have any significance whatsoever. Okay, I'm out on a limb, I know it. I'm merely speculating here.

But let's say my wild idea is right... what would all that mean?

Aw gee, I think that would mean it was just a COINCIDENCE.

-Andrew

EDT. Fix Quote

[60hzxtl]

Now lets take the "stand down" to the next step.

Suppose the fighters had been able get to intercept range.

Suppose they had been able to lock on to the flights - get them in their sites.

Next step? Fire at will? Ask for confirmation? You are a pilot, not acting on your own (not like on TV) not driving a hot rod with a phoenix missile. Who is certain enough of the situation to give you the order to fire?

Can you imagine the hue and cry over shooting an American owned airliner out of the sky, over the US, without knowing in advance that it was headed to the WTC., the Pentagon, or the Capital / WhiteHouse, and then have to prove to these same idiots who have video tapes showing an airliner hitting a building that you "knew" it was about to do something bad?

How about this one - you fire your missile, you destroy the airliner over, oh say Hoboken - where to the pieces come down?

Oh, I'm just asking questions.

[Belz...]

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?

Yes.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

...
Well, considering the vast percentage of that money was spent either on items that could not have the slightest effect on a hijacking (Aegis Cruisers and nuclear subs can't fly, nor can M1A1 Tanks. B1 and B2 Bombers can fly, but I don't think they would be much help in this instance. And the defense system, as mentioned before, wass directed toward an external threat, not an internal one, then yes, I do think it was possible.
...

Consider also that Al-Qaeda was not the only person/group to come up with the idea of using an airliner as a weapon. Stephen King did it in Running Man (as Richard Bachman) where the main character, now mortally wounded, flies a plane into the HQ skyscraper of the TV show Running Man. iirc, Tom Clancy also made use of the idea in one of his books (though not one on my shelf so I can't recall which it is). So, while the idea itself was not unique, it had been limited to the realm of fiction and this was the first time it had been implemented irl.

[Hutch]

Tom Clancy also made use of the idea in one of his books (though not one on my shelf so I can't recall which it is).

Debt of Honor, IIRC. Target was the Congress and the pilot was on a Kamakazi(sic) mission.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Debt of Honor, IIRC. Target was the Congress and the pilot was on a Kamakazi(sic) mission.

Danke, I've only ready the Clancy novels where Clark was a major figure (Clear and Present Danger, Rainbow Six, and Without Remorse)

[gumboot]

So, while the idea itself was not unique, it had been limited to the realm of fiction and this was the first time it had been implemented irl.


Given things like Operation Bojinka, I think there was reasonable enough cause for couter-terrorism efforts to address the threat of an airliner being used directly as a suicide weapon.

I think this is the "truth" that many CTers pin this sort of argument (failure of NORAD defences) to. Their logic step is:

1) They knew terrorists wanted to use planes as weapons
2) They should have addressed this threat
3) NORAD did not stop the threat
4) Therefore defences were stood down

The problem is they have missed a step between 2 and 3. Yes, maybe the government should have addressed this particular threat. But that doesn't mean they did.

You can't address *every* threat. You address the most likely. There are many possible (and totally mundane non-conspiratorial) reasons why no steps were made to address the threat of using an airliner as a weapon.

-Andrew

[geggy]

Cia disbanded unit set up to hunt for bin Laden: http://today.reuters.com/News/CrisesArticle.aspx?storyId=N05339821

FBI: "No hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11": http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html

FBI's most wanted: http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Cia disbanded unit set up to hunt for bin Laden: http://today.reuters.com/News/CrisesArticle.aspx?storyId=N05339821

FBI: "No hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11": http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html

FBI's most wanted: http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm

So, I see you are just going to continue to post random things rather than address the refutations/rebuttels of your previous random things.

[Belz...]

Cia disbanded unit set up to hunt for bin Laden: http://today.reuters.com/News/CrisesArticle.aspx?storyId=N05339821

FBI: "No hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11": http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html

FBI's most wanted: http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm

Is it time to post recipes, now ?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Howabout kittens?
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v225/ArkanWolfshade/qq_kitty.jpg

[delphi_ote]

Cia disbanded unit set up to hunt for bin Laden: http://today.reuters.com/News/CrisesArticle.aspx?storyId=N05339821

FBI: "No hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11": http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html

FBI's most wanted: http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm
Once more time for the reading impaired:
In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world.
Please stop with this canard. He was added to the FBI list in 1999 for this crime. 9/11 hadn't happened yet.

[Belz...]

Howabout kittens?
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v225/ArkanWolfshade/qq_kitty.jpg

I'm sorry; you're only allowed to post never-before-seen kittens!

That one's way overused.

[Orb]

Here's a recipe to help that crow go down a little easier gegs:

Crow Casserole

6 Crow breasts
1 quart sauerkraut
6 strips bacon
1/3 cup chopped onions

Brown the crow breasts in a skillet, when browned, place them in a
casserole dish on top of a 1 1/2 inch layer of sauerkraut. Lay a strip
of bacon on each breast and sprinkle the onion on them. Next layer over
them again the sauerkraut and some of it's juices. Bake at 350 deg, for
2 hrs. Enjoy!

[geggy]

Who benefited from 9/11?

Stockholder/former CEO Cheney's Halliburton record profit 2005: http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=13189

Bushes/bin Ladens' Carlyle Group profits:
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=13189

Afghanistan produces record breaking opium poppy crop 2005: http://usinfo.state.gov/gi/Archive/2005/Mar/05-369889.html

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

[Abbyas]

I got paid the week after 9/11 even though I didn't work. I benefited in that way.

Does that mean I did it?

[Pardalis]

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

... to make insane conspiracy theories up"

[Pardalis]

geggy, since you are with us (in a manner of speaking), could you explain to me your "controlled-demolition-made-to-look-like-a-collapse-from-the-top" theory once and for all?

[twinstead]

... to make insane conspiracy theories up"

I'm kind of a newbie to this stuff, but are there really people out there who think that what geggy posted and the links he provided actually constitutes evidence of a conspiracy?

If I ever find myself in front of a judge in a courtroom please don't let people like geggy be on the jury.

[geggy]

Retards...

geggy, stop calling names. It's not nice. If you can't play nice, you need to find another sandbox to play in.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

So, I see you are just going to continue to post random things rather than address the refutations/rebuttels of your previous random things.

QFT, or QED for that matter.

[Pardalis]

Retards...

Celui qui le dit celui qui l'est! Gna gna! :D

[The_Fire]

Retards...

*Raises eyebrow* really mature and evidence based, geggy.....really mature.....

[geggy]

I can't believe I didn't see long time ago that I'm just wasting my breath on you...

Please do read...

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_jay_esbe_060713_in_defense_of_the_co.htm

adios

[Pardalis]

Good riddance.

[The_Fire]

Good riddance.
Don't hold your breath........ETA: We are simply not that lucky....

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

...
Humans evolved brains that are pattern-recognition machines, adept at detecting signals that enhance or threaten survival amid a very noisy world. This capability is association learning--associating the causal connections between A and B--as when our ancestors associated the seasons with the migration of game animals. We are skilled enough at it to have survived and passed on the genes for the capacity of association learning.


Unfortunately, the system has flaws. Superstitions are false associations--A appears to be connected to B, but it is not (the baseball player who doesn't shave and hits a home run). Las Vegas was built on false association learning.
Consider a few cases of false pattern recognition (Google key words for visuals): the face of the Virgin Mary on a grilled cheese sandwich; the face of Jesus on an oyster shell (resembles Charles Manson, I think); the hit NBC television series Medium, in which Patricia Arquette plays psychic Allison Dubois, whose occasional thoughts and dreams seem connected to real-world crimes; the film White Noise, in which Michael Keaton's character believes he is receiving messages from his dead wife through tape recorders and other electronic devices in what is called EVP, or Electronic Voice Phenomenon. EVP is another version of what I call TMODMP, the Turn Me On, Dead Man Phenomenon--if you scan enough noise, you will eventually find a signal, whether it is there or not.

Anecdotes fuel pattern-seeking thought. Aunt Mildred's cancer went into remission after she imbibed extract of seaweed--maybe it works. But there is only one surefire method of proper pattern recognition, and that is science. Only when a group of cancer patients taking seaweed extract is compared with a control group can we draw a valid conclusion.

We evolved as a social primate species whose language ability facilitated the exchange of such association anecdotes. The problem is that although true pattern recognition helps us survive, false pattern recognition does not necessarily get us killed, and so the overall phenomenon has endured the winnowing process of natural selection.
...

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=13&articleID=000EB977-12BE-1264-8F9683414B7FFE9F

[twinstead]

I can't believe I didn't see long time ago that I'm just wasting my breath on you...

Please do read...

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_jay_esbe_060713_in_defense_of_the_co.htm

adios

Yikes. I CAN believe you exhibit the typical attitude of a paranoid conspiracy theorist that everybody who disagrees with you is either stupid or in on the plot.

I'm glad you think your stuff is slam dunk. It's not.

[kookbreaker]

I'm kind of a newbie to this stuff, but are there really people out there who think that what geggy posted and the links he provided actually constitutes evidence of a conspiracy?

If I ever find myself in front of a judge in a courtroom please don't let people like geggy be on the jury.

Yes, its true. Haliburton made a profit. What more possible proof could you possibly need that Bush lt the fuse that blew up the WTC all by himself. Profits = conspiracy. Follow the money, man, follow the MONEY.

And buy my new DVD on the conspiracy, only $17.95...

[Orb]

Don't forget a Twoofer T-shirt!

[Pardalis]

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=13&articleID=000EB977-12BE-1264-8F9683414B7FFE9F

"The brain is a flawed organ, that’s why we need science." (Steven Novella, MD, co-founder and President of the New England Skeptical Society)

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Yes, its true. Haliburton made a profit. What more possible proof could you possibly need that Bush lt the fuse that blew up the WTC all by himself. Profits = conspiracy. Follow the money, man, follow the MONEY.

And buy my new DVD on the conspiracy, only $17.95...

You may be on to something. The fatal flaw many serial criminals commit is leaving a calling card, or bragging to the authorities as a matter of taunting; a way to show how much better they are than the investigators as it were. Perhaps Avery and company are the NWO pulling the puppet strings of the President. Hey, I'm just asking questions here.

[Belz...]

Who benefited from 9/11?

Terrorists. Apparently they were more successful than they could've hoped for.

Stockholder/former CEO Cheney's Halliburton record profit 2005: http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=13189

Bushes/bin Ladens' Carlyle Group profits:
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=13189

Afghanistan produces record breaking opium poppy crop 2005: http://usinfo.state.gov/gi/Archive/2005/Mar/05-369889.html

And this means what ? Newspapers and other media also benefited from 9/11. Are they in on it ?

Dylan Avery benefited from 9/11. Is he in on it ?

[Belz...]

I'm kind of a newbie to this stuff, but are there really people out there who think that what geggy posted and the links he provided actually constitutes evidence of a conspiracy?

If I ever find myself in front of a judge in a courtroom please don't let people like geggy be on the jury.

You'd be amazed how many people think correlation equals causation.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Terrorists. Apparently they were more successful than they could've hoped for.



And this means what ? Newspapers and other media also benefited from 9/11. Are they in on it ?

Dylan Avery benefited from 9/11. Is he in on it ?

And anyone who received life insurance payments from the policies of people killed that day.

[Belz...]

Retards...

Stop talking to yourself and answer Pardalis' question.

[Belz...]

I can't believe I didn't see long time ago that I'm just wasting my breath on you...

Please do read...

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_jay_esbe_060713_in_defense_of_the_co.htm

adios

Wow. I've read about two paragraphs and he's managed to make both "post hoc..." and "...ad populum" fallacies.

[Belz...]

And anyone who received life insurance payments from the policies of people killed that day.

Gee, darn. I guess geggy's site is correct:

Most Americans believe in the 9/11 CT...


... BECAUSE THEY ARE ALL IN ON IT!

[Mancman]

Dylan Avery benefited from 9/11. Is he in on it ?

Zing! :D

[Regnad Kcin]

Retards...He, Who Will Not Answer Questions (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1622345&postcount=3030)

...Btw, my IQ is not below 90 if that is what your assumption is, it's actually much higher...What is your I.Q.?

Also, not that you''ll answer, what do you do for a living?

[delphi_ote]

Retards...
Will you finally admit to your error regarding the wanted poster, or are you going to keep spreading this disinformation?

If you continue to tell people Bin Laden is not wanted for 9/11, you realize how hypocritical that is in light of your belonging to a "truth" movement, right?

[JPK]

Good evning delphi_ote.
Will you finally admit to your error regarding the wanted poster, or are you going to keep spreading this disinformation?

If you continue to tell people Bin Laden is not wanted for 9/11, you realize how hypocritical that is in light of your belonging to a "truth" movement, right?
I might have missed it but has Geggy ever admitted to an error? That is of course the first step in learning something. It would seem he is unable to learn, which is sad, or unwilling to learn, even sadder and unacceptable.
JPK

[delphi_ote]

Good evning delphi_ote.

I might have missed it but has Geggy ever admitted to an error? That is of course the first step in learning something. It would seem he is unable to learn, which is sad, or unwilling to learn, even sadder and unacceptable.
JPK
Hey, JPK. I have to say I've always liked your little salutation at the beginning of your posts. There's something very classy about it.

You're right. geggy has never admitted to being wrong, so I have no reason to expect him to be mature enough to do it this time. I realize I'm probably tilting at windmills. Usually with conspiracy theories, you have to play whack-a-mole with the various myths that are presented, and the believer pops up a different myth to be hammered. That's just the way the game is played.

But this mole has already been soundly wacked so many times, and proof against the claim is on the very poster linked to support the claim. Written in plain English. It is obviously false, but it's brought up again and again. For people who claim to do so much "research," I'd hope at least one of them would've read the whole poster. Especially geggy, since he seems to have a lot of time on his hands.

For once, I'd like an answer. How can geggy say he's part of a "truth" movement when obvious facts (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Text_of_2004_Osama_bin_Laden_videotape) don't change his opinion and when he won't disown a myth that's so easily disproven (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Dec2001/d20011213ubl.pdf)? He's run his mouth around here enough. It's time for him to either own up to leading us on a wild goose chase or hit the road. If he's really dedicated to the truth, let's see it.

[JPK]

Once again, good evening delphi_ote
Hey, JPK. I have to say I've always liked your little salutation at the beginning of your posts. There's something very classy about it.


Although when I misspell evening, as I did in the previous post, it loses a bit of it's classiness. (note to self. spell check is your friend!!!)

JPK

[Stellafane]

Retards...

I've often seen a post without a signature, but this is the first time I've seen a signature without a post.

[CptColumbo]

Geggy,
I try to find the good in every person...


uh...


I like your sig.

[geggy]

Alright let me back up. In response to the austrilian mate's "refutal"...

In norad's timesheet, it was confirmed that FAA had contacted NEADS of the hijacking of AA11. Fighter jets were deployed and airborned to go after the hijacked AA11. They did not make it in time as AA11 had hit the first tower. At the same time of the hit, FAA contacted NEADS of the hijacking of UA175. Get this...TWO MORE fighter jets were deployed and airborned to go after UA175. Does this make any sense to you? Why couldn't have NORAD simply contact fighter jets which were originally going after the AA11 of the UA175 hijacking since they already have been airborned and may as well been half way to NYC? Is that why, 3 years later in the commisssion report, the timing of FAA contacting NEADS of the hijacking of UA175 had been changed from 8:46 to 9:03? Sounds plausible? To me, clearly yes.

Thanks for the correction on the article claiming that a different wargame exercise was being performed when I said it was the Northern Vigilance. So that makes it 2 wargame exercises being performed on that morning. Coincidence? Nah. Seems logical to me that these exercises were designed to confuse FAA and NORAD from which is real event and which is not.

True that the arming of pilots never came into full effect for 40 years. The bsuh administration seemed eager to put the banning of armed pilots in full effect just 2 months prior to the attacks. Too convinient for me to consider it a coincidence.

To me, they're all clearly connected.

And lastly, Belz, imagine if you were planning an attack on a famous landscape building, shouldn't you think of a way in the planning to defeat US's defense system, which by the way is the most advanced than any other countries?

Let me guess, you'd say no...

[Dcdrac]

I will speel it out one last time it was complete and utter incompetance on the part of the administration and federal agencies from the bottom to the top, no plotting nothing, jsut catastrophic failure. Let the victims rest in peace.

[geggy]

List all of the agencies who have failed prior and preceding to 9/11 to prevent the attacks and tell me whether you think it's all a coincidence or not...

[kookbreaker]

In norad's timesheet, it was confirmed that FAA had contacted NEADS of the hijacking of AA11. Fighter jets were deployed and airborned to go after the hijacked AA11. They did not make it in time as AA11 had hit the first tower. At the same time of the hit, FAA contacted NEADS of the hijacking of UA175.
Get this...TWO MORE fighter jets were deployed and airborned to go after UA175. Does this make any sense to you?


It makes sense in that what you say is crap.

NORAD was informed at 08:38 and 08:43 that flights 11 and 175 were hijacked. The fighters set to intercept Flight 11 were launched at 8:52, 7 minutes after the Flight 11 hit. The planes were then assigned to UA175. The next set of planes launched were after 9:30 and were trying for the UA77

Do have some evidence to back up your claims of extra airplanes being launched?

[Pardalis]

geggy, why should we have to answer your questions when you don't even bother answering ours?

[twinstead]

Do have some evidence to back up your claims of extra airplanes being launched?

I'll second that. Let's see evidence of this.

[DavidJames]

List all of the agencies who have failed prior and preceding to 9/11 to prevent the attacks and tell me whether you think it's all a coincidence or not... Hi...

1. Who do you think is responsible for the 911 attacks?
2. Do you have any evidence besides "coincidences"?
3. Would you be okay with being accused publicly of murder based on "coincidences"?

Modified #3.

[Regnad Kcin]

geggy:

What is your I.Q.?

What do you do for a living?

[geggy]

It makes sense in that what you say is crap.

NORAD was informed at 08:38 and 08:43 that flights 11 and 175 were hijacked. The fighters set to intercept Flight 11 were launched at 8:52, 7 minutes after the Flight 11 hit. The planes were then assigned to UA175. The next set of planes launched were after 9:30 and were trying for the UA77


How did you know all that? Where did you get the information from?

[Dcdrac]

Geggy let this rest and let the victims rest in peace, this is futile nonesense.

[Pardalis]

geggy, what usually makes the distinction between a coincidence (which is by definition a fortuous and simultaneous occurence of two seperate and unrelated events) and something that was designed and planned?

I'll give you a hint...

EVIDENCE

[geggy]

Kookbreaker...how did you know all that? Where did you get your information from...?

[twinstead]

How did you know all that? Where did you get the information from?

I'd suggest you answer the questions posed to you first...

[Mancman]

You may be on to something. The fatal flaw many serial criminals commit is leaving a calling card, or bragging to the authorities as a matter of taunting; a way to show how much better they are than the investigators as it were. Perhaps Avery and company are the NWO pulling the puppet strings of the President. Hey, I'm just asking questions here.

Or perhaps all of these conspiracy productions are exercises in mind control. The government has put together obviously flawed and easily refutable films (Loose Change, 911 in Plane Site etc) and recorded how many people have been swayed by them, in order to further their knowledge of how to use various forms of media to brainwash the American public.

They're also looking for any signs of brainwashing being more effective on certain demographics when they can relate to the hosts in some way. These hosts by the way are merely paid actors on the government pay roll.
Teens, drug addicts and Mcdonalds workers are conned more effectively by Loose Change, the middle aged, golfers and vagrants are best brainwashed when Dave VonKliest is the host, and Alex Jones movies work best on mental patients.

Hey, I'm just asking questions! :p

[kookbreaker]

How did you know all that? Where did you get the information from?

You first.

[Belz...]

Well met, Delphi.

Here's hoping that your day is bright and pleasant.

Congratulations on all your great posts so far.

I sincerely hope that all your future enterprises meet with success.

May the truth always enlighten your endeavours,

Hey, JPK. I have to say I've always liked your little salutation at the beginning of your posts. There's something very classy about it.

I agree. ;)




How was that ?

[kookbreaker]

Kookbreaker...how did you know all that? Where did you get your information from...?

I beleive I asked you a question, why don't you answer it.

[Belz...]

To me, they're all clearly connected.

Of course. A lot of sportsmen believe that a certain gesture or action right before a match will affect their chances of winning, because they've seen the two connected once. Since they can "connect" the "dots", they've decided to play it safe and ALWAYS make that gesture or whatnot before a match, which I'm sure you'll aree, has no real bearing on the results.

Sometimes, connecting dots just gives you a meaningless picture.

And lastly, Belz, imagine if you were planning an attack on a famous landscape building, shouldn't you think of a way in the planning to defeat US's defense system, which by the way is the most advanced than any other countries?

Of course. Before 9/11, I'd use boxcutters because they're much easier to pass through security, and I'd ensure enough coordination between the various hijacking teams to make sure that the US defense response time is too long to stop my plans.

Wait, I guess that's exactly what they did...

[Belz...]

List all of the agencies who have failed prior and preceding to 9/11 to prevent the attacks and tell me whether you think it's all a coincidence or not...

Here. I'll go up to someone I know, in the middle of a crowd, and slap him upside the head. Give me a list of all the people who could've stopped me.

Coincidence ?

How did you know all that? Where did you get the information from?

It's called research, geggy. You should try it sometimes, rather than just making stuff up.

[geggy]

Kookbreaker why was the time of FAA contacting NEADS changed in the commission report from 846 to 903?

Kookbreaker is it evivence enough to make someone a suspect for changing their stories and time of place?

Kookbreaker how did you know all that? Where did you get your information from? Did you actually do some research? Woot

[DavidJames]

Hi Geggy

1. Who do you think is responsible for the 911 attacks?
2. Do you have any evidence besides "coincidences"?
3. Would you be okay with being accused publicly of murder based on "coincidences"?

[kookbreaker]

Kookbreaker why was the time of FAA contacting NEADS changed in the commission report from 846 to 903?

Kookbreaker is it evivence enough to make someone a suspect for changing their stories and time of place?

Kookbreaker how did you know all that? Where did you get your information from? Did you actually do some research? Woot

I believe I asked you a question. How about answering it, OK?

[geggy]

Saudi arabia, US, pakistan, and possibly or most likely Israel.

Too many evidence pointing each one of the suspects I've listed above, but you choose to ignore it, instead continue to believe that bin laden was responsible even though FBI said there are no hard evidence connecting him to 9/11. If you think otherwise, please do list them. There is a phone number to the office of FBI in one of the articles I posted in this thread, maybe you can call them up and ask why there are no evidence pointing bin laden's guilt..

If the coincidences are connected to one and other that form a pattern then yes.

[Ducky]

Saudi arabia, US, pakistan, and possibly or most likely Israel.

Too many evidence pointing each one of the suspects I've listed above, but you choose to ignore it, instead continue to believe that bin laden was responsible even though FBI said there are no hard evidence connecting him to 9/11. If you think otherwise, please do list them. There is a phone number to the office of FBI in one of the articles I posted in this thread, maybe you can call them up and ask why there are no evidence pointing bin laden's guilt..

If the coincidences are connected to one and other that form a pattern then yes.


Have you called and asked them why there is no evidence pointing to Bin Laden's guilt?

I seriously suggest you do that. They will be very happy to educate you to the oppsite of your claims.

[kookbreaker]

When are you going to tell us about this second set of planes, geggy?

Even the CT websites make little to no mention of a second set of planes being launched in the manner you describe.*

Why do you claim that we 'choose to ignore' evidence when in fact you do not present any?


Some websites mention a pair of fighters were on a practice bombing mission over the Pine Barrens during the initial alerts. However, these were already in the air and were effectively unarmed. Even CT websites acknowledge they couldn't do much from their position. Ergo relevenve to geggy's claim is zero.

[Pardalis]

Saudi arabia, US, pakistan, and possibly or most likely Israel.

Too many evidence pointing each one of the suspects I've listed above, but you choose to ignore it, instead continue to believe that bin laden was responsible even though FBI said there are no hard evidence connecting him to 9/11. If you think otherwise, please do list them. There is a phone number to the office of FBI in one of the articles I posted in this thread, maybe you can call them up and ask why there are no evidence pointing bin laden's guilt..

If the coincidences are connected to one and other that form a pattern then yes.

THE FRIGGIN' HIGHJACKERS TRAINED IN THE FRIGGIN' ALQAEDA CAMPS IN AFGHANISTAN, AND RECEIVED MONEY FROM THAT FREAKIN' ORGANISATION WHICH IS RUN BY OBL!

[Pardalis]

If the coincidences are connected to one and other that form a pattern then yes.

You have to show PROOF of that connection.

[CurtC]

True that the arming of pilots never came into full effect for 40 years. The bsuh administration seemed eager to put the banning of armed pilots in full effect just 2 months prior to the attacks. Too convinient for me to consider it a coincidence.
It never "came into full effect" because no pilots ever wanted to carry weapons. Why would the Bush administration consider it important to prevent pilots from carrying weapons, when in 40 years no pilots were carrying them?

It's not a good idea to simply look for coincidences to draw conclusions from, but this isn't even a decent coincidence.

[twinstead]

I still think the problem is simply that geggy started with the belief that there was a conspiracy, be it because of ideology or whatever, and is looking for evidence of it after the fact.

That is the absolute worst kind of investigation. You'll see boogey men under every bed that way.

Geggy, do you consider yourself objective?

[Regnad Kcin]

Still working on that 50 years, eh geggy? 50 years (if you are, indeed 27) or so until you die. And if you continue on in the manner you've exhibited, you'll never be satisfied. Perhaps it'll eat at you day in and day out. If only "they" would listen, right?

Have a nice life.

[Axiom_Blade]

Still working on that 50 years, eh geggy? 50 years (if you are, indeed 27) or so until you die. And if you continue on in the manner you've exhibited, you'll never be satisfied. Perhaps it'll eat at you day in and day out. If only "they" would listen, right?

Have a nice life.

I would think that most would get tired of 9/11 after awhile and switch to something else, or at least diversify. You know, there's a lot of "unanswered questions" and strange coincidences around the moon landing and the Holocaust, too. (Not even getting into the Reptoids and the Stargods! (http://stargods.org/))

[Belz...]

Saudi arabia, US, pakistan, and possibly or most likely Israel.

Too many evidence pointing each one of the suspects I've listed above,

Those aren't suspects. These are countries.

[gumboot]

Thanks for the correction on the article claiming that a different wargame exercise was being performed when I said it was the Northern Vigilance. So that makes it 2 wargame exercises being performed on that morning. Coincidence? Nah. Seems logical to me that these exercises were designed to confuse FAA and NORAD from which is real event and which is not.


Geggy, there was ONE wargame that was relevant - "Guardian". It involved two command centres (and no operational units) - US Space Command ("Vigilant") and US Strategic Command ("Global").

As this (http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/031505_mckinney_transcript.shtml) transcript shows, the two CPXs actually improved NORAD response.


Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Richard Myers
These are command post exercises; what that means is that all the battle positions that are normally not filled are indeed filled; so it was an easy transition from an exercise into a real world situation. It actually enhanced the response; otherwise, it would take somewhere between 30 minutes and a couple of hours to fill those positions, those battle stations, with the right staff officers.

The key is Geggy, no one but you is saying the exercise confused NORAD. NORAD are saying their response was FASTER thanks to the exercise. Please provide evidence that NORAD or the FAA were confused by the exercise.

The only confusion I am aware of is that which revolved around the intercept orders for the F16s scrambled from Langley AFB to intercept UA93 and then AA77. That confusion had nothing to do with any form of exercise, and more to do with the ATCs inability to locate AA77 on their secondary radar screen.

-Andrew

[gumboot]

And lastly, Belz, imagine if you were planning an attack on a famous landscape building, shouldn't you think of a way in the planning to defeat US's defense system, which by the way is the most advanced than any other countries?

Let me guess, you'd say no...


They did think of a way to defeat the US's defence system. They attacked from inside. NORAD is a perimeter defence - it looks for foreign targets from outside. It is not set-up, and does not drill, for addressing domestic threats.

The US upholds itself as a bastion of freedom, and at the same time its population are quite paranoid about government control. It means you get a country with very poor capabilities of addressing threats from inside its borders - because Americans don't WANT their government to be able to address threats from inside.

The problem with that is it was fairly easy for the terrorists to get inside. Once inside, they enjoyed the same freedoms as any other American resident.

Outside, in the rest of the world, the US Government agents have reasonable freedom to do what they think needs to be done to address threats. But inside the US their hands are tied. The terrorists KNEW this - just look at this example:

In September 1992 two Al Qaeda operatives – Ahmad Ajaj (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Ajaj) and Ramzi Yousef (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramzi_Yousef) – enter the US with suitcases stuffed with fake passports, fake IDs and a cheat sheet on how to lie to US immigration inspectors, plus two handwritten notebooks filled with bomb recipes, six bomb-making manuals, four how-to videotapes concerning weaponry, and an advanced guide to surveillance training. Yousef is not stopped, however Ajaj is arrested at JFK Airport in New York and charged with passport fraud.

While in prison for six months Ajaj will go on to co-ordinate the 1993 WTC Bombing. See how, in this example, all the government could pin on him was passport fraud? In America you were ALLOWED to carry around things like bomb-making manuals. It is your RIGHT to do so. In Afghanistan the CIA might kidnap guys with such items on them and torture them or god-knows-what. But in a US airport? Their hands were tied. As this earlier example shows, Al Qaeda KNEW this. And they exploited it to devastating effect.

-Andrew

[Pardalis]

Very clever gumboot

:)

[Belz...]

A nice, thorough response, Gum. Nicely done.

[Regnad Kcin]

Re: gumboot, post #221.

See, geggy? That wasn't so difficult, now was it?

[valis]

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...


Is it really possible that a Iraqi intent on murder could defeat the entire defenses of the US military and kill US soldiers by setting off a roadiside bomb? According to the LA times the US has spent 290 Billion US dollars on the war so far.....

I don't understand the reasoning.

[Cylinder]

Kookbreaker why was the time of FAA contacting NEADS changed in the commission report from 846 to 903?

I am assuming you are referring to UA 175. When do you claim the change was made? Both my print edition - purchased the day it was released - and the PDF edition (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec1.pdf) currently offered at the GPO site agree. Start at page 21:

0842: UA 175 aircrew report to New York Center controller a suspicious transmission from AA-11. "Minutes later" UA 175 makes an authorized turn.

0847: AA 11 strikes WTC1. UA 175 changes transponder code twice.

0851: NYC controller notices transponder change. By a strange twist of fate (*COUGH* Haliburton *COUGH*) The controller assigned to UA 175 was also tasked with helping Boston Center locate AA 11.

0852: NYC controller attempts to contact UA 175.

0853: NYC controller states "we may have a hijack."

0855: NYC controller notifies New York Center manager that UA 175 is a suspected hijack.

0858: NYC controller assigned to UA 175 informs another NYC controller “we might have a hijack over here, two of them.”

0901: NYC controller asks New York terminal approach controller for help locating UA 175.

0902: NYC manager notifies FAA Command Center in Herndon, VA that they have "several situations" and suggests getting the military involved.

Terminal: I got somebody who keeps coasting but it looks like he’s going into one of the small airports down there.

Center: Hold on a second. I’m trying to bring him up here and get
you—There he is right there. Hold on.

Terminal: Got him just out of 9,500—9,000 now. Center: Do you know who he is?

Terminal: We’re just, we just we don’t know who he is.We’re just picking him up now.

Center (at 9:02): Alright.Heads up man,it looks like another one coming
in.

The calls of 9500 and 9000 were UA 175's altitude. The controllers were watching UA 175's descent to its target.

0903: UA 175 strikes WTC 1.

0903: New York Center manager con acts NEADS concerning UA 175.

0905: New York Center declares ATC-Zero. From this point on, no other civilian aircraft were permitted to depart from, arrive at, or travel through New York Center’s airspace.

[Cylinder]

Get this...TWO MORE fighter jets were deployed and airborned to go after UA175. Does this make any sense to you?

Where's the evidence that NEADS launched an intercept for UA 175? The Commission Report disagrees. NEADS mission commander released the Otis fighters from the NYC exclusion and ordered a CAP over NYC.

Mission Crew Commander, NEADS: This is what I foresee that we probably need to do.We need to talk to FAA.We need to tell ’em if this stuff is gonna keep on going, we need to take those fighters, put ’em over Manhattan.That’s best thing, that’s the best play right now. So coordinate with the FAA.Tell ’em if there’s more out there, which we don’t know,let’s get ’em over Manhattan.At least we got some kind of play.

[Cylinder]

Geggy, are you claiming that Langley F-16s were launched to intercept UA 175?

If you read the footnote 137 of the Commission Report, you'll see that those were placed on battle station to backup Otis if tankers could not be found in time. They were never tasked or vectored for an intercept of UA 175. They were actually launched at 0924 to looked for AA 11, which FAA notified them was heading toward DC.

137. Because the Otis fighters had expended a great deal of fuel in flying first to military airspace and then to New York, the battle commanders were concerned about refueling. As NEADS personnel looked for refueling tankers in the vicinity of New York, the mission crew commander considered scrambling the Langley fighters to NewYork to provide backup for the Otis fighters until the NEADS Battle Cab (the command area that overlooks the operations floor) ordered “battle stations only at Langley.

”The alert fighters at Langley Air Force Base were ordered to battle stations at 9:09. Colonel Marr, the battle commander at NEADS, and General Arnold,the CONR commander, both recall that the planes were held on battle stations, as opposed to scrambling, because they might be called on to relieve the Otis fighters over New York City if a refueling tanker was not located, and also because of the general uncertainty of the situation in the sky.According to William Scott at the commission’s May 23,2003, hearing,“At 9:09, Langley F-16s are directed to battle stations, just based on the general situation and the breaking news, and the general developing feeling about what’s going on.” [i]See NEADS audio file, Mission Crew Commander, channel 2, 9:08:36; Robert Marr interview (Oct. 27, 2003); Larry Arnold interview (Feb. 3, 2004). See also Colonel Marr’s statement that “[t]he plan was to protect New York City.” Filson, Air War Over America, p. 60.

Also, I think what you claim was a change by the Commission Report is actually you or your source misunderstanding the timeline. 0846 was when NEADS scrambled for AA 11 at the request of Boston Center. 0903 was the time that New York Center notified NEADS of UA 175.

[twinstead]

Also, I think what you claim was a change by the Commission Report is actually you or your source misunderstanding the timeline

I suspect it's just his source, because I think geggy is just letting his sources think for him.

[Pardalis]

geggy thinks?

oh, nevermind, I misread.

carry on

[CptColumbo]

Alright let me back up. In response to the austrilian mate's "refutal"...
If you're going to call another guy "mate," the least you could do is spell the name of his country right.

[geggy]

Gumboot...

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

sighs....

[kookbreaker]

Gumboot...

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


Where does that link support your claims of more than one set of plane launchings over Flights 11 and 175?

Also, where does it support your claims of changed timelines?


sighs....

Sigh all you want, you intellectual coward.

[gumboot]

Gumboot...

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

sighs....


Geggy, have you read every single one of the 2133 events in the complete 9/11 timeline?

Because I actually have, and I seriously doubt you have. It took me weeks. It was hard work. There is a LOT of information there.

Funnily enough I failed to see a single thing which indicated the US Government had conclusive evidence that 9/11 was about to happen.

And that's without even adding on top of these 2133 events the massive volume of "noise" that was happening at the same time, that agents of the US government had to sort through before they could even FIND those 2133 events.

Incidently, for those who are interested, this timeline contains such gems as this: (my bolding)

Salem bin Laden, Osama’s oldest brother, described by a French secret intelligence report as one of two closest friends of Saudi Arabia’s King Fahd who often performs important missions for Saudi Arabia, is involved in secret Paris meetings between US and Iranian emissaries this month, according to a French report. Frontline, which published the French report, notes that such meetings have never been confirmed. Rumors of these meetings have been called the “October Surprise” and some have speculated that in these meetings, George H. W. Bush negotiated a delay to the release of the US hostages in Iran, thus helping Ronald Reagan and Bush win the 1980 Presidential election. All of this is highly speculative, but if the French report is correct, it points to a long-standing connection of highly improper behavior between the Bush and bin Laden families. [PBS Frontline, 2001]

-Andrew

[geggy]

You're going a little off the point here. It's evident in the timeline that I linked above that the us govt had received numerous warnings from all over, including those who are in the us intelligence agencies. Zogby poll showed that 66 percent of new yorkers alone said w. knew of the impending attack in wtc and failed to act.

Its matter of public record that salem and w. formed a business relationship. Salem invested and funnelled money to w.'s oil company in texas in the late 70's. H.W. bush met salem through king fahd prior to the establishment of w. and salem's relationship.

http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/photos/images/P38849-17.jpg

Whistleblower bob graham had claimed in a pbs interview that a foreign govt was complicit in 911 for funding the operation and I suspect that he was speaking of saudi arabia which I'm sure it doesn't come off as a surprise to you.

[geggy]

Http://www.standdown.net

[cloudshipsrule]

You're going a little off the point here. It's evident in the timeline that I linked above that the us govt had received numerous warnings from all over, including those who are in the us intelligence agencies. Zogby poll showed that 66 percent of new yorkers alone said w. knew of the impending attack in wtc and failed to act.

Wow, hindsight really is 20/20.

[Regnad Kcin]

...Zogby poll showed that 66 percent of new yorkers alone said w. knew of the impending attack in wtc and failed to act.Never mind that's a 100% meaningless bit of info, isn't that the poll with the data skewed by its sponsor?

[geggy]

Never mind that's a 100% meaningless bit of info, isn't that the poll with the data skewed by its sponsor?

http://www.geocities.com/iseepee57/bush_911nypost.jpg

sighs...

[Pardalis]

http://www.geocities.com/iseepee57/bush_911nypost.jpg

sighs...

Wow! A Star Wars guide to 'Attack of the clones'!!

[Pardalis]

http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/photos/images/P38849-17.jpg


I prefer this one:

http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/photos/photos.php?file=P17645-05.jpg

(from http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu)

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

http://www.geocities.com/iseepee57/bush_911nypost.jpg

sighs...

So, I see you are just going to continue to post random things rather than address the refutations/rebuttels of your previous random things.

QFT, or QED for that matter.

QED^2

[Ginarley]

A question - are you accusing the US Administration of negligence or of actively being involved in the attacks?

If the former then there is no doubt that the US administration was technically negligent although I suspect the attacks would have worked equally well in any country and that the negligence is product of a lack of perfect knowledge and a lack of infinite resources - not of conspiracy. I'm sick of people saying that if something was avoidable in hindsight then it was a conspiracy to make it happen in the first place.

I particularly like this post in demonstrating this point:

Here. I'll go up to someone I know, in the middle of a crowd, and slap him upside the head. Give me a list of all the people who could've stopped me.

If you are claiming the US administration was actively involved in the attack then where is the motive and evidence that the US administration attacked its own people? Demonstrate that clearly - not that there was negligence but that there was intent. That is the mising piece of the puzzle - missing because I am 99% sure it doesn't exist.

[Regnad Kcin]

http://www.geocities.com/iseepee57/bush_911nypost.jpg

sighs...Sigh all you want. But a banner headline in a tabloid paper does not for evidence make. It's an attention-grabber, designed to sell papers, a tactic the tabloids are quite fond of.

See that little bit at the bottom? "Full story: Page 2" What's the full story, geggy? For some reason you don't provide that, never mind your posting this little image does not refute my contention regarding your little factoid:...66 percent of new yorkers alone said w. knew of the impending attack in wtc and failed to act....is 100% worthless.

What's the full story? That the president is provided with a daily briefing and, among the numerous items provided by his staff every day, one indicated intelligence chatter had picked up the possibility of upcoming hijackings? What would you have him do, geggy? Stop the airlines from flying? For how long? Maybe go on television and tell everyone it might be a good idea to stop boarding planes for a while? Cry wolf a few times? Good luck with that.

For some reason this simple point is either beyond your ability to comprehend, or you don't want to comprehend it: It's really effing difficult to guard against surprise attacks. I can have a home with all doors double deadbolted, bars on the windows, three ferocious guard dogs, a 12' high security fence, guards in watchtowers equipped with nightvision goggles, and a command center monitoring motion sensors and internal & external video at all hours of the day. And the guy I invite over to watch the game could easily, easily wring my neck. Especially if he didn't care if he got caught afterwards.

Give it up geggy. The bad guys did it. And no amount of your worthless links or your sighing will prove otherwise. Unless, of course, there is proof you haven't found yet. And good luck with that.

[Belz...]

Zogby poll showed that 66 percent of new yorkers alone said w. knew of the impending attack in wtc and failed to act.

I guess if New Yorkers think it's true, it HAS to be!

http://www.geocities.com/iseepee57/bush_911nypost.jpg

sighs...

I guess if the post says it's true, it HAS to be!

[Gravy]

Zogby poll showed that 66 percent of new yorkers alone said w. knew of the impending attack in wtc and failed to act.

Wrong again, geggy. The number was 40.9% with a MOE of +/- 3.5%, the question didn't mention George W. Bush (It said "some leaders"), and the poll of New York City adults was written and financed by 911truth.org and held...ta-da! On the eve of the Republican National Convention in...ta-da! New York City.

I've been staying out of this because it's a waste of time trying to drill sense into geggy's concrete core of a skull, but sometimes it's fun to point out his amazing streak of posts that contain false statements. He's the DiMaggio of wrong.

Oh, and I've explained this Zogby nonsense to geggy before.

[Pardalis]

I've been staying out of this because it's a waste of time trying to drill sense into geggy's concrete core of a skull, but sometimes it's fun to point out his amazing streak of posts that contain false statements. He's the DiMaggio of wrong.

:D

[senorpogo]

Oh, and I've explained this Zogby nonsense to geggy before.

Talk about deja vu. I only check the 9/11 CT threads once and a while because, frankly, I'm not a masochist. But the last time I checked one was the last time Gravy was explaining to geggy how he was completely misrepresenting this poll.

So today I open up a 9/11 thread and WHAM! I'm reading the same rational explanation that I had read X weeks prior. For a second I thought I had slipped into a worm hole and been transported back to the past.

And with that, I leave this 9/11 CT thread. I'll be back the next time Gravy has to explain the same thing to geggy again.

[Belz...]

Talk about deja vu. I only check the 9/11 CT threads once and a while because, frankly, I'm not a masochist. But the last time I checked one was the last time Gravy was explaining to geggy how he was completely misrepresenting this poll.

So today I open up a 9/11 thread and WHAM! I'm reading the same rational explanation that I had read X weeks prior. For a second I thought I had slipped into a worm hole and been transported back to the past.

And with that, I leave this 9/11 CT thread. I'll be back the next time Gravy has to explain the same thing to geggy again.

It's not déjà vu, Senor. We're actually in a very nasty time-loop.

AND our di-lithium crystals are burnt out! So, tough luck!

[Pardalis]

Of all the hardcore CTers out there, why do we get the dumbest?