What About The Jersey Girls??

[Usual Suspect]

I see all these threads about Loose Change and the attacks themselves. I'm wonder how everyone feels about the Jersey Girls and 9/11 Press For Truth. Does anyone question why it took Bush 441 days after 9/11 to appoint the Commission to investigate?? After Pearl Harbor there was a committee 9 days later. 7 days later for JFK and the space shuttle Challenger. Does it bother anyone that Bush and Cheney didn't testify publicly and under oath before the 9/11 Commission?? If there's nothing to hide why did Bush and Cheney only agree to talk to the Commission together, behind closed doors and off the record?? Just questions I can't seem to get off my mind.

[Oliver]

There was a thread about Press for Truth some time ago.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=63545

[Gravy]

I think it sucks that victims had to push for a Commission, and that the Commission had to face so much bureaucratic stonewalling and ass-covering. And yes, I think Bush and Cheney should have testified separately and under oath, rather than while holding hands.

[bob_kark]

The 9/11 commission wasn't created to see who attacked America. The 9/11 commission was created to see what security failures occurred and how to avoid these same errors in the future. IMHO, the reason Bush delayed the commission for so long is because he didn't want to show how incompetent his administration was. So yes, they certainly did have something to hide, Operation Ignore, as in terrorism. I'd suggest reading Richard Clarke's Against All Enemies for a better perspective on this.

[Killtown]

I think it sucks that victims had to push for a Commission, and that the Commission had to face so much bureaucratic stonewalling and ass-covering. And yes, I think Bush and Cheney should have testified separately and under oath, rather than while holding hands.
So why don't you support an investigation where THAT happens?

[gumboot]

The 9/11 commission wasn't created to see who attacked America. The 9/11 commission was created to see what security failures occurred and how to avoid these same errors in the future.


I think this bears repeating. Many people forget it.

For some reason they also forget that there were MANY investigations of 9/11. The FBI carried out a criminal investigation. NIST carried out building safety investigations. FEMA carried out investigations. The NTSB carried out investigations...the list goes on.

Many of these began on 9/11 itself. Some are still ongoing to this very day.

The effort, in money, in time, and in man hours, that has gone into the various investigations of 9/11 has been enormous. To claim otherwise is an outright lie.

As for the stone-walling of the commission, while like Gravy I am not impressed by it, I am somewhat sympathetic to the admin. It is clear to me, from the "9/11 Press For Truth" documentary, that the "Jersey Girls" were on a scalp hunt. They were out to see someone in "authority" lynched for 9/11.

Regardless of what caused or allowed 9/11 to happen, regardless of which admins did what, the underlying truth is 9/11 happened on Bush and his admin's watch. They could have done everything in their power to prevent an attack, and they would still be prime targets of a blame-fest. That's the nature of politics.

As such, while I think their attempts to avoid such potential blame are shameful, I also believe they are totally understandable. And certainly do not require a sophisticated conspiracy as explanation. Simple fear of being blamed for letting the attacks happen is plenty enough.

I doubt any US President in recent years felt the weight of the job's responsibility as much as Bush did on 9/12. It is natural to think "Did we miss something?" And when you're talking about a machine as enormous as a nation of 280 million people, yes, you did miss something. No matter how vigilant you might have been, you missed something.

(Not to say they *were* particularly vigilant, but even if they were, I'd expect a similar reaction to the commission).

-Andrew

[Gravy]

So why don't you support an investigation where THAT happens?Who says I don't, creep?

[Oliver]

So why don't you support an investigation where THAT happens?

That´s one of the reasons for me why i´m interested to the issue.

[Dog Town]

So why don't you support an investigation where THAT happens?

I think plenty of people here ,would like to see such a thing. It still will get you, no where near , the fictional account espoused by your theories!
Capiche?

[Scientologist]

Oh yes, what about the Jersey girls who sat around and watched internet conspiracy videos and started "asking questions."

Just because the Jersey Girls are gullible retards like yourself doesn't make 9/11 a conspiracy.

[Gravy]

Scientologist, should you be drinking so much? It's only the bottom of the first inning. Pace yourself, man!

[MarkyX]

So why don't you support an investigation where THAT happens?

It really disguists me to see the 9/11 Deniers try to associate with families like the Jersey Girls that ask legit questions.

What the 9/11 Families want is answers as to why the government dropped the balls instead of going for the shot. 9/11 Deniers, on the other hand, want to see Bush and the rest of the government in chains despite no evidence. They prefer the idea that the government was behind 9/11 then a couple of pissed off muslims.

KillTown and other 9/11 Deniers, don't try to piggyback on 9/11 Press for Truth or the Jersey girls. Their agendas are complete opposites of yours. You guys scream for revolution and overthrowing the government, something the 9/11 Families don't want.

The only reason why you sick bastards endorse the Jersey Girls is so you can hide behind of cloak of sympathy, pretending to give a damn about the 9/11 victims. However, we already know what you have said and done. You photoshop a flight 93 with fecal matter on it, Jim Fetzer laughs at Mark Bingham's last words, and Dylan Avery thinks that people cowering behind a group of crazy muslims in 30,000 feet in the air, armed with a boxcutter and threatening the plane with bombs, is a comical and unrealistic situation.

Seriously, and I know I will get warned by admins for this, but shut the **** up. Your moral high horse died a long time and the only left of it is a skeleton on display at a museum for the entire world to see.

[Dog Town]

Scientologist, should you be drinking so much? It's only the bottom of the first inning. Pace yourself, man!

Go D-troyt

[MarkyX]

Wow, re-reading my post, I am both poetic and hyperbole!

Keith Olbermann, you got owned :p

[Horatius]

Does anyone question why it took Bush 441 days after 9/11 to appoint the Commission to investigate?? ... Does it bother anyone that Bush and Cheney didn't testify publicly and under oath before the 9/11 Commission?? If there's nothing to hide why did Bush and Cheney only agree to talk to the Commission together, behind closed doors and off the record??

Why is this surprising from an administration that has been one of the most secretive ever (http://reason.com/0210/fe.jb.closing.shtml)? I'd be surprised if they did come out and investigate everything in the open.

[Gravy]

Why is this surprising from an administration that has been one of the most secretive ever (http://reason.com/0210/fe.jb.closing.shtml)? I'd be surprised if they did come out and investigate everything in the open.That's for sure. That secrecy started from day 1 of the administration. I watched Frontline's "The Dark Side" again last night, so I should probably refrain from posting about this stuff. I try to avoid political rants.

[steve s]

Scientologist, should you be drinking so much? It's only the bottom of the first inning. Pace yourself, man!

Pujols rules!

Steve S

[LashL]

I think this bears repeating. Many people forget it.

For some reason they also forget that there were MANY investigations of 9/11. The FBI carried out a criminal investigation. NIST carried out building safety investigations. FEMA carried out investigations. The NTSB carried out investigations...the list goes on.

Many of these began on 9/11 itself. Some are still ongoing to this very day.

The effort, in money, in time, and in man hours, that has gone into the various investigations of 9/11 has been enormous. To claim otherwise is an outright lie.

As for the stone-walling of the commission, while like Gravy I am not impressed by it, I am somewhat sympathetic to the admin. It is clear to me, from the "9/11 Press For Truth" documentary, that the "Jersey Girls" were on a scalp hunt. They were out to see someone in "authority" lynched for 9/11.

Regardless of what caused or allowed 9/11 to happen, regardless of which admins did what, the underlying truth is 9/11 happened on Bush and his admin's watch. They could have done everything in their power to prevent an attack, and they would still be prime targets of a blame-fest. That's the nature of politics.

As such, while I think their attempts to avoid such potential blame are shameful, I also believe they are totally understandable. And certainly do not require a sophisticated conspiracy as explanation. Simple fear of being blamed for letting the attacks happen is plenty enough.

I doubt any US President in recent years felt the weight of the job's responsibility as much as Bush did on 9/12. It is natural to think "Did we miss something?" And when you're talking about a machine as enormous as a nation of 280 million people, yes, you did miss something. No matter how vigilant you might have been, you missed something.

(Not to say they *were* particularly vigilant, but even if they were, I'd expect a similar reaction to the commission).

-Andrew

Very well said, Andrew.

And it's great to see you again :)

[T.A.M.]

This is a copy of my 1,000th post on JREF. It is a review on the film (brief) and some thoughts on it and the "truth" movement as a whole...


9/11 - Press for the Truth
-------------------------
I just finished watching this documentary. It is a 9/11 film that follows the pathes of the "Jersey Girls" as well as "independent researcher" Paul Thompson.

This film has been touted by almost all of the "9/11 Truth" movement as the "undebunkable" documentary for them, and that it is the ultimate film to represent their stance. Well if that is the case, than all I can say is that 90% of the people who claim to be a part of that "9/11 Truth" movement, are lying. Why do I say this. Not because the film is "debunkable", it maybe, but I do not have all the knowledge to debunk it myself. No, the reason I say they are lying is very simple. 90% of the people who we encounter at the various CT websites, the "Scholars" the "LTW Followers" the "Truth Trolls" push enormous amounts of conjecture, heresay, speculation, and downright wrong "evidence" that has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the points made in this film. So any "truther" who says that this film is the best representation of what they "are about" is likely lying.

This movie does not, IN ANY WAY, make mention of, debate over, or even recognize, arguments concerning the "Controlled Demolition" or the "Missile into the Pentagon" or the "No Hijackers", or any of the hundreds of "Truth" conjectures/theories about 9/11. If you are about to watch the film expecting to find ANY of this in it, do not waste your time.

This film, I believe, is one of the more honest films, in terms of what really needs to be asked about 9/11. It begs questions on what role did "Pakistan" play in 9/11 funding. I do not claim to know, but I think that the american people are entitled to a well researched answer. It asks the questions concerning "What did the USG know about an impending attack on the US prior to 9/11" and I believe this is a question that should be answered. I believe, to a large degree, it has...if you know where to look for the info.

What this film does not do, is it does not implicate the USG in an "inside job", it does not say "Bush did it" it does not go into PNAC or any of the rediculous things we have been forced to debunk to keep the air clear in cyberspace.

I am still a full fledged debunker, don't get me wrong. I still believe the towers were brought down by Al-Qaeda Hijackers, in cohorts with OBL. I believe the Pentagon was hit by AA77, and I believe in the heroic efforts of the passengers of flight 93. What this film has done for me, is made me realize that the loons of the "truth" movement have distracted many of us from realizing that a part of their "movement" are legitimate people, with legitimate questions for their government. Now if the vast majority of their questions have been answered through the Commission report and all the other information out there, than fine, but if the victim families of the 9/11 attacks feel that the vast majority of their questions have gone unanswered, to their satisfaction, than I say they have a right to the answers.

My final thoughts are for those people that seek the "Truth" about 9/11, those that seek the "Real Truth". For those people I would say, clean your house. Get rid of all the useless junk scientists, the loony tunes, the wingnuts. Get rid of all the silly "theories" of "No Planes" and "Thermite", and "Cruise Missiles". Get rid of the LC lunatics. This, I know, would be a courageous thing to do, as the "Truth" movement owes alot of its publicity to their cockamame tall tales. Trust me though, in the end, if your cause is to win the hearts and minds of the american people, and reasonable people worldwide, you will have to keep the "Truth" house in order, and right now it is in such disarray, that it will only fade further, and further, until the world forgets there were even questions that have not been answered.

TAM

[Scientologist]

Scientologist, should you be drinking so much? It's only the bottom of the first inning. Pace yourself, man!



HAHHAHAHAHAH the mets game depressed me.

[Usual Suspect]

Oh yes, what about the Jersey girls who sat around and watched internet conspiracy videos and started "asking questions."

Just because the Jersey Girls are gullible retards like yourself doesn't make 9/11 a conspiracy.

WOW!!! Seems victims families get as much respect around here as they do from the LC people at Ground Zero. Now I know you're smart enough to realize that without the efforts of the Jersey Girls and other families there may have never been a 9/11 Commission.

Plus answer me this...... who said anything about the Jersey Girls making 9/11 a conspiracy?? There are good questions rasied by the Jersey Girls and victims families but maybe that's too much for you to grasp since name calling seems to be your thing *******!!

Do not use 'alternative' spelling to get around the auto-censor. Also, please keep in mind the Membership Agreement and be polite and civil.

[Usual Suspect]

This is a copy of my 1,000th post on JREF. It is a review on the film (brief) and some thoughts on it and the "truth" movement as a whole...


9/11 - Press for the Truth
-------------------------
I just finished watching this documentary. It is a 9/11 film that follows the pathes of the "Jersey Girls" as well as "independent researcher" Paul Thompson.

This film has been touted by almost all of the "9/11 Truth" movement as the "undebunkable" documentary for them, and that it is the ultimate film to represent their stance. Well if that is the case, than all I can say is that 90% of the people who claim to be a part of that "9/11 Truth" movement, are lying. Why do I say this. Not because the film is "debunkable", it maybe, but I do not have all the knowledge to debunk it myself. No, the reason I say they are lying is very simple. 90% of the people who we encounter at the various CT websites, the "Scholars" the "LTW Followers" the "Truth Trolls" push enormous amounts of conjecture, heresay, speculation, and downright wrong "evidence" that has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the points made in this film. So any "truther" who says that this film is the best representation of what they "are about" is likely lying.

This movie does not, IN ANY WAY, make mention of, debate over, or even recognize, arguments concerning the "Controlled Demolition" or the "Missile into the Pentagon" or the "No Hijackers", or any of the hundreds of "Truth" conjectures/theories about 9/11. If you are about to watch the film expecting to find ANY of this in it, do not waste your time.

This film, I believe, is one of the more honest films, in terms of what really needs to be asked about 9/11. It begs questions on what role did "Pakistan" play in 9/11 funding. I do not claim to know, but I think that the american people are entitled to a well researched answer. It asks the questions concerning "What did the USG know about an impending attack on the US prior to 9/11" and I believe this is a question that should be answered. I believe, to a large degree, it has...if you know where to look for the info.

What this film does not do, is it does not implicate the USG in an "inside job", it does not say "Bush did it" it does not go into PNAC or any of the rediculous things we have been forced to debunk to keep the air clear in cyberspace.

I am still a full fledged debunker, don't get me wrong. I still believe the towers were brought down by Al-Qaeda Hijackers, in cohorts with OBL. I believe the Pentagon was hit by AA77, and I believe in the heroic efforts of the passengers of flight 93. What this film has done for me, is made me realize that the loons of the "truth" movement have distracted many of us from realizing that a part of their "movement" are legitimate people, with legitimate questions for their government. Now if the vast majority of their questions have been answered through the Commission report and all the other information out there, than fine, but if the victim families of the 9/11 attacks feel that the vast majority of their questions have gone unanswered, to their satisfaction, than I say they have a right to the answers.

My final thoughts are for those people that seek the "Truth" about 9/11, those that seek the "Real Truth". For those people I would say, clean your house. Get rid of all the useless junk scientists, the loony tunes, the wingnuts. Get rid of all the silly "theories" of "No Planes" and "Thermite", and "Cruise Missiles". Get rid of the LC lunatics. This, I know, would be a courageous thing to do, as the "Truth" movement owes alot of its publicity to their cockamame tall tales. Trust me though, in the end, if your cause is to win the hearts and minds of the american people, and reasonable people worldwide, you will have to keep the "Truth" house in order, and right now it is in such disarray, that it will only fade further, and further, until the world forgets there were even questions that have not been answered.

TAM


I just like to state for the record that this film does add some support what I believe. Foreknowledge with no action. I in no way say this film supports the views of LC cause it doesn't. Then again I don't support the views of LC cause you see I believe 19 hijackers and Bin-Laden were involved.

[negativ]

Does anyone question why it took Bush 441 days after 9/11 to appoint the Commission to investigate?

I think if you're over 10 years old you have -- or should have -- come to grips with the fact that government in general and the US government in particular is a huge, ponderous, dull-witted coagulation of MERE HUMANS who are where they are because they either mistakenly believe they were born to rule, or mistakenly believe they can correct the mistakes of those who believe they are born to rule.

Just turn on your radio and listen to the campaign ads for *any* candidate. Without exception, they glorify themselves and demonize their opponent(s). "Jim Bob Snickelfritz supports murdering innocent puppies with chainsaws. Joe Bob Cornholer says, 'not on my watch!'. This message paid for by Concerned Citizens for Joe Bob Cornholer."

My view is that the people most qualified for the job(s) very rarely aspire to government positions, because they realize the game is far too stupid and unproductive to merit their effort. They instead contribute to improving humanity through their artistic endeavors, their scientific advances, their technological innovations, their altruistic charity, their entrepreneurial acumen, and so on.

I am not a crook.

We did not (repeat, did not) trade weapons or anything else for hostages, nor will we.

I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time, never.

Something about going to Washington turns people into idiots. There is anecdotal and circumstantial evidence to suggest George W. Bush wasn't really an idiot before he became President.

I'm not a slobbering fan of JFK, but I can't think of a US president since JFK who wouldn't have either died of terminal nervous flatulence or else been forcibly committed to the Betty Ford clinic if he'd had to deal with the Cuban missile crisis, hot on the heals of the disasterous Bay of Pigs fiasco.

The bottom line is that the government's strongest suit is deflecting and redirecting criticism, dodging responsibility, and denying failure, incompetence, and what my grandmother used to call "Olive Drab Government Issue Dumbassedness."

After the "shoe bomber" was caught, we had government employees in airports checking the shoes of 8 year old Honkey McHonkersons with x-ray machines and bomb-sniffing dogs. If that's not the picture of failing to see both the forest and the trees, I don't know what is.

I'm sick to death of the 9/11 CTers, because their entire premise is that they wanted to go to war in Iraq --- FOR WHICH THEY WOULD EVIDENTLY NEED THE APPROVAL OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC --- so in order to gain that support they schemed a way to murder 3000-ish innocent American citizens, an act for which they presumably sought no public support.

Screw the hell out of these retards.*** They pissed me off at first, then I came to laugh at them, now they're just tedious. Bleh.






*** Don't get your little pink thong in a bunch. A "retard" can be mentally, physically, spiritually, socially, musically, and culturally retarded. Phooey upon you.

[Usual Suspect]

Content in breach of Membership Agreement removed.

[T.A.M.]

Usual:

Dont be so hasty.

People take a while to warm up around here, but all that I have met are good people with good intentions. Stick around. While I am not LIHOP, I am LIHOI (Let It Happen Out of Incompetence) so at least on some level, we can relate.

TAM

[Oliver]

Content in Breach of Membership Agreement removed.

Was there any reason to be here at all? If you want some mature
discussions - open one. ;)

Added:
BTW: Since we already had a thread about the issue - did you read it?
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=63545

[gumboot]

Plus answer me this...... who said anything about the Jersey Girls making 9/11 a conspiracy?? There are good questions rasied by the Jersey Girls and victims families but maybe that's too much for you to grasp since name calling seems to be your thing *******!!


Well, in the documentary one of the "Jersey Girls" claims there was no military response to 9/11. This is a common CT claim. It is also 100% false.

-Gumboot

[Usual Suspect]

Well, in the documentary one of the "Jersey Girls" claims there was no military response to 9/11. This is a common CT claim. It is also 100% false.

-Gumboot

Yeah 4 fighter jets to protect the whole northeastern United States. Though you are right and there was a response, 4 jets is laughable and they saved so many lives.

Anyway I've seen people here complain that CTs have no respect for the victims or their families but I've seen just as much respect shown here.

[gumboot]

Yeah 4 fighter jets to protect the whole northeastern United States. Though you are right and there was a response, 4 jets is laughable and they saved so many lives.


You can thank the administrations of the 90's for that. In the late 80's there were hundreds of fighters on alert protecting the CONUS. By 9/11 it was down to 14. They were there to protect the US from a Russian air attack. That threat was no longer considered likely.

In any event, had you done research into NORAD's response you would know they could not have stopped the attacks, even with 1,000 fighters on standby.

The attack succeeded because Americans enjoy a free society. It is as simple as that.

-Gumboot

[Dave1001]

Regardless of what caused or allowed 9/11 to happen, regardless of which admins did what, the underlying truth is 9/11 happened on Bush and his admin's watch. They could have done everything in their power to prevent an attack, and they would still be prime targets of a blame-fest. That's the nature of politics.

As such, while I think their attempts to avoid such potential blame are shameful, I also believe they are totally understandable. And certainly do not require a sophisticated conspiracy as explanation. Simple fear of being blamed for letting the attacks happen is plenty enough.

I doubt any US President in recent years felt the weight of the job's responsibility as much as Bush did on 9/12. It is natural to think "Did we miss something?" And when you're talking about a machine as enormous as a nation of 280 million people, yes, you did miss something. No matter how vigilant you might have been, you missed something.

(Not to say they *were* particularly vigilant, but even if they were, I'd expect a similar reaction to the commission).

-Andrew

What??? If the administration did everything in their power to prevent an attack, you think 9/11 would still have occured?

[gumboot]

What??? If the administration did everything in their power to prevent an attack, you think 9/11 would still have occured?


Yes. Because the consequences of a free society are the government doesn't have the power to prevent such an attack.

Freedom and security a diametrically opposed. The eternal quest of civilisation is to seek a good balance between them.

-Gumboot

[Oliver]

Yes. Because the consequences of a free society are the government doesn't have the power to prevent such an attack.

Freedom and security a diametrically opposed. The eternal quest of civilisation is to seek a good balance between them.

-Gumboot

And i guess this is what the us-government is doing right now. Finding the balance. No NWO in terms of Big Brother at all...

[twinstead]

In any event, had you done research into NORAD's response you would know they could not have stopped the attacks, even with 1,000 fighters on standby.

Research? We don't need no stinkin' research!

[gumboot]

And i guess this is what the us-government is doing right now. Finding the balance. No NWO in terms of Big Brother at all...


Like a pendulum, you go too far in one direction and you will swing back too far the other way.

Personally, I am undecided if the current US admin stuff is "too far" or not. I don't live in the US, so I have no first hand knowledge with it. Seems to me there's three options that are likely:

1) The current steps are reasonable, but seem extreme to a population used to a situation that was too liberal.
2) The current steps are too far the other way, and things need to be relaxed a little, though not as far as previously.
3) The previous scenario was balanced, and things should return to that way.

-Gumboot

[Childlike Empress]

Hey gummi, welcome back (from Uzbekistan? ;)). Do you notice that the US falled back behind the "habeas corpus act" of 1679 last week?

[twinstead]

Hey gummi, welcome back (from Uzbekistan? ;)). Do you notice that the US falled back behind the "habeas corpus act" of 1679 last week?

You think that's bad, you should read what President Lincoln did concerning habeas corpus during the American Civil War.

[Childlike Empress]

Got a link?

Beside that, i like to think that evolution contains an element of progress so that a regress in human achievements of the kind that happens today in the US counts a lot more than things that happened centuries ago.

[twinstead]

Got a link?

Beside that, i like to think that evolution contains an element of progress so that a regress in human achievements of the kind that happens today in the US counts a lot more than things that happened centuries ago.

Regardless, I think a lot of paranoia about current events is, when historical context is applied, a tad bit myopic.

http://www.civil-liberties.com/pages/did_lincoln.htm

[Childlike Empress]

Hmm, if i understand the link and the context correctly, your remark was a joke? (sorry, my native language isn't english). Anyhow, a civil war is a completely different situation than a "war" against a hyped terrorist network and the implications of the current situation are damned serious.

[twinstead]

Hmm, if i understand the link and the context correctly, your remark was a joke? (sorry, my native language isn't english). Anyhow, a civil war is a completely different situation than a "war" against a hyped terrorist network and the implications of the current situation are damned serious.

It's only different if you want to deny that historically, civil liberties have been curtailed during times of crises, and then restored later. I don't know if you know much about the American Civil War, but if you think it wasn't 'serious' then perhaps you should do some research.

Also, the 'home front' in America during WWII was a deeply paranoid place with 'agents' and spies in every corner. Civil liberties were secondary to the war effort.

I'll take a pinch of historical perspective and a little knowledge of American history over what you bring to the table, with all due respect.

[twinstead]

oh and when you say:

a "war" against a hyped terrorist network

You are assuming something that should not be part of this debate, since you have no proof of that.

You imply the war is bogus, and are using that un-proven claim to further your position.

I've read your posts here before, and although I have nothing against you personally, your strong ideological bias precludes you from being objective. You may say that about me, and so be it, but that doesn't change the fact you are using circular logic here.

[Childlike Empress]

I surely don't know much about the american civil war - only the brief history - but i know a lot about what happens when citizens carelessly hand their rights over to governments that claim to protect them.

I don't think that the current development in the US is justified, even if the official 911 CT is completely true.

eta: think that also covers your last post. Demand evidence.

[gumboot]

Also, the 'home front' in America during WWII was a deeply paranoid place with 'agents' and spies in every corner. Civil liberties were secondary to the war effort.


It's not unique to the United States either. 1940's England was hardly an oasis of freedom either.

-Gumboot

[Dave1001]

Yes. Because the consequences of a free society are the government doesn't have the power to prevent such an attack.

Freedom and security a diametrically opposed. The eternal quest of civilisation is to seek a good balance between them.

-Gumboot

That's very broad and different from saying that a 9/11 scale of terrorist attack couldn't have been prevented from 2000 through 2004 (or 2008), had the Bush administration done a more competent job with national security.

Also, I think it's a bit simplistic to say freedom and security are diametrically opposed. For example, there's indications that information markets may improve intelligence gathering for security, and intelligence markets require a considerable level of communicative freedom to function.

[Childlike Empress]

Also, I think it's a bit simplistic to say freedom and security are diametrically opposed.
The more freedom (and education) you have in a society, the more satisfaction and solidarity with it and the less fear of antagonistic elements in it you have to expect.

We live in a global society.

[T.A.M.]

Dave1001:

When you ask a question that has a "do you think..." type tone to it, you are by virtue of the question content, asking for an opinion.

My opinion is fairly close to gumboots. If you look at the attack, how it was carried out, its simplicity in terms of what was needed, almost guarantees that regardless of what the USA did, the hijackers would have likely been successful. They didnt have bombs, they didnt have guns.

19 men, through connections, and some financial support, entered the USA, obtained flight training, then co-ordinated the hijacking of 4 jets, and took them over, crashing them into their targets.

Now what could the USA have done, with the warnings they had, to prevent this. Well one person I argued with, said that when BUSH got the vague warning of an imminent threat of a terrorist attack on US involving planes, threatened by OBL, in August 2001, that they should have shut down all of the US flights. My reply to that, is that we say that now with a post 9/11 hindsight.

At the time, the USG was getting terrorist threats almost daily. The past 10 years had taught the USG that the terrorists could attack by sea, or by road. There had been no hijackings in 20 years. The warning gave no time, or location beyond the USA. It did not say "planes as missiles", but rather planes, so given the pre 9/11 mind set, the likely thought would have been (1) hijacking for ransom, or (2) blowing up the airplane in the air.

So how long were we to hold all US Flights? a day...a week...a month. How would that devistate the US economy. If, however, we were not to hold US Flights, than how else could the attacks have been stopped. Well perhaps if on the ground, walking and talking type intelligence were the priority and were optimized, we might have picked up on these guys and tracked them down before the attacks....maybe. If the CIA and FBI had been working together, rather than appart, maybe. If NORAD had been told to turn its gaze inward, to America, then maybe.

I guess, in the end it is easy to say that if the USG had not have been incompetence, they might have stopped 9/11, but without suggesting how they would have done so, it is pure speculation.

TAM

[Dave1001]

Dave1001:

When you ask a question that has a "do you think..." type tone to it, you are by virtue of the question content, asking for an opinion.



Yes. Thanks for sharing yours. I'll respond as time and energy allow.

[Dave1001]

Dave1001:


I guess, in the end it is easy to say that if the USG had not have been incompetence, they might have stopped 9/11, but without suggesting how they would have done so, it is pure speculation.

TAM

Do you have opinions on administration competence in managing the Iraq occupation or US immigration policy? I'm asking because I'm not sure if your position is one such that you have nothing critical to say about the Bush administration, or if it's more particularized that you don't think the Bush administration could have done anything (within the limits of politcal and economic feasibility) to prevent 9/11.

[gumboot]

That's very broad and different from saying that a 9/11 scale of terrorist attack couldn't have been prevented from 2000 through 2004 (or 2008), had the Bush administration done a more competent job with national security.


Not really. My argument is the only way of doing a "more competent job" with national security was to introduce new laws that curtailed freedoms (Patriot Act sound familiar?).

Post 9/11 it's a very unpopular thing to do. Pre 9/11 it would have been a short cut to political extermination.

Your free communication/intelligence example is an excellent point, however I don't think there's a direct correlation between intelligence and security. Intelligence is only useful if the laws exist to act on that intelligence. For example, US intelligence was well aware of numerous terrorists in the US before 9/11, but US law prevented them doing anything about it (think Ahmed Ajaj). That comes back to more security = less freedom.

-Gumboot

[T.A.M.]

I am far from a BUSH Fan.

I was originally taken in by the reason to go into Iraq, although I knew it was just a reason of convenience, and that they would have gone in their eventually, suspicion of WMDs or not. I think it was a good thing that Saddam was removed, but I think the war was not planned out well, and I believe, good or bad, they need to make a plan for the beginning of troop withdrawl soon.

As far as US illigal immigration goes, first I will say, as you can see from my avatar, that I am not American. Now with that said, my belief is that Illegal immigration needs to be slowed, haulted, stopped. My country, Canada, is very benighn when it comes to immigration, but that is not the issue. The issue is what should be done to stop the flow of illegals into a country that is now approaching 300 Million. Should you build walls around your country, isolating yourselves physically...I dont think it will work, and i dont think it is needed. Do you need better patrolling of the border, yes.

Beyond that, I do not know the intricacies of the US immigration policies to make informed comment.

As far as BUSH admin competency in these areas go, I think they bumbled Iraq heavily, and like I said, I know little on the immigration issue to make a fair comment.

TAM

[negativ]

The more freedom (and education) you have in a society, the more satisfaction and solidarity with it and the less fear of antagonistic elements in it you have to expect.

We live in a global society.

Would you please explain this to the Saudis, Iranians, Syrians, North Koreans, et. al. ?

[Childlike Empress]

Would you please explain this to the Saudis, Iranians, Syrians, North Koreans, et. al. ?

Why should i? Is your society superior, equal or inferior to theirs?

[gumboot]

As far as BUSH admin competency in these areas go, I think they bumbled Iraq heavily, and like I said, I know little on the immigration issue to make a fair comment.


Rummy seems to be a major factor in the Iraq screw-ups.

-Gumboot

[T.A.M.]

Yes, I for one think Rummy should have been given the boot about 2-3 years ago.

TAM

[Dave1001]

I don't have much more to add to this thread right now, but thanks Gumboot and TAM for some thoughtful answers to my questions.:)

[negativ]

Why should i? Is your society superior, equal or inferior to theirs?

Your ability to remove context from posts is astonishing.

[T.A.M.]

No problem Dave1001. We'll see you when ever you decide to contribute again. Hope I have helped.

TAM

[firecoins]

What??? If the administration did everything in their power to prevent an attack, you think 9/11 would still have occured?
yes

[Usual Suspect]

In any event, had you done research into NORAD's response you would know they could not have stopped the attacks, even with 1,000 fighters on standby.



Actually from reading the 9/11 Commission report it would seem that more fighters and better communications between the FAA and NORAD might have been able to do something. But you would know that cause I'm sure you read the report as well.

[Usual Suspect]

And since you tried to come off as high and mighty with your "had you done research" comment Gumboot let me ask...... what research have you done?? I've been looking into both sides of the story which I'm sure is more than I can say for you.

[Horatius]

Actually from reading the 9/11 Commission report it would seem that more fighters and better communications between the FAA and NORAD might have been able to do something. But you would know that cause I'm sure you read the report as well.

Yes, but "might have been able to do something" is not the same as "Stoping the attacks".

Would NORAD have okayed the shootdown of any and all hijacked airplanes, prior to the impact of the first one at the WTC? If not, at least that one would have succeeded. And then, they'd be in a postion of having to shoot down at least 3 more planes, maybe more if confusion set in as to which ones were in danger. And if they did okay the shootdown of the first one, they'd be expected to shoot down all hijacked aircraft.

From the point of view of the terrorists, that would still be a successful attack. Now, not only would we have to worry about terrorists blowing up our planes, we'd be worried that we might get shot down by our own guys. No longer would the terrorists have to worry about getting a bomb on board - just make a credible attempt at hijacking the plane, and NORAD will blow it up for them.

[Usual Suspect]

Yes, but "might have been able to do something" is not the same as "Stoping the attacks".

Would NORAD have okayed the shootdown of any and all hijacked airplanes, prior to the impact of the first one at the WTC? If not, at least that one would have succeeded. And then, they'd be in a postion of having to shoot down at least 3 more planes, maybe more if confusion set in as to which ones were in danger. And if they did okay the shootdown of the first one, they'd be expected to shoot down all hijacked aircraft.

From the point of view of the terrorists, that would still be a successful attack. Now, not only would we have to worry about terrorists blowing up our planes, we'd be worried that we might get shot down by our own guys. No longer would the terrorists have to worry about getting a bomb on board - just make a credible attempt at hijacking the plane, and NORAD will blow it up for them.

I'm not saying you're wrong however with poor communication we never even got to get to a shootdown order. However Gumboot was/is assuming I haven't done any research to which he was proven wrong. On the same hand I would say it's almost safe to say by his response he didn't read the 9/11 Commission report which he is defending.

[Darth Rotor]

Actually from reading the 9/11 Commission report it would seem that more fighters and better communications between the FAA and NORAD might have been able to do something. But you would know that cause I'm sure you read the report as well.
WTC 1 would still have gotten hit, if you look at the timeline. Only by having CAP over most American cities 24/7, or at least when airlines are flying, would you have a possible (not guaranteed) intercept of a hijacked airliner within minutes of squawk going to the regular code or off, with perfect recognition and hand off from FAA to NORAD/NEADS.

How many USAF fighter squadrons do you have to NOT draw down over the previous 10 years to have that kind of fighter coverage. My conservative estimate says 22, depending on how many major air hubs get 16-24 CAP each day.

DR

[Usual Suspect]

WTC 1 would still have gotten hit, if you look at the timeline. Only by having CAP over most American cities 24/7, or at least when airlines are flying, would you have a possible (not guaranteed) intercept of a hijacked airliner within minutes of squawk going to the regular code or off, with perfect recognition and hand off from FAA to NORAD/NEADS.

How many USAF fighter squadrons do you have to NOT draw down over the previous 10 years to have that kind of fighter coverage. My conservative estimate says 22, depending on how many major air hubs get 16-24 CAP each day.

DR

True. This I agree with. The North tower is hit no matter what. The attacks totally showed how unprotected we are. 4 fighters to protect the entire northeast is ridiculous. This means out of the 3 planes left after the north tower is hit one would have to be let go cause the fighters have to fly in pairs.

[Usual Suspect]

Plus the debate on what could the fighters have done isn't the point. The point was Gumboot was assuming I haven't done any research. He was proven wrong.

[gumboot]

Actually from reading the 9/11 Commission report it would seem that more fighters and better communications between the FAA and NORAD might have been able to do something. But you would know that cause I'm sure you read the report as well.


See now you're changing the goal posts - you're saying better communication between the FAA would have helped AS WELL.

I'll assume you mean the ATC, not the FAA. Minor error.

Here's the facts:

The longest hijacked flight time on 9/11 was 41 minutes - that was for AA77. The only other intercept by NORAD over the CONUS in the previous decade was the intercept of N47BA (Payne Stewart's LEarjet 35) on October 25, 1999. Intercept of that aircraft took 81 minutes.

In addition, the transponder on Stewart's learjet remained in operation at all times - this made vectoring the fighter aircraft to the learjet fairly straight forward. In contrast, all four transponders on the 9/11 flights were deactivated by the hijackers. At that point even locating the flights becomes nearly impossible.

So even had the ATCs notified NEADS the INSTANT there were signs of something going wrong, chances of an intercept were next to nothing.

And finally, the only reason NEADS were even involved is because Boston Centre did not follow standard proceedure (Indianapolis and Cleveland Centres did, which is one reason NEADS didn't find out about AA77 and UA93 until so late). Standard proceedure for a hijacking on a flight inside the CONUS is to hand over the situation to the FBI. And only the FBI can request military involvement.

I've said it before, and I will say it again. As soon as those flights took off, they were doomed.

-Gumboot

[gumboot]

And since you tried to come off as high and mighty with your "had you done research" comment Gumboot let me ask...... what research have you done?? I've been looking into both sides of the story which I'm sure is more than I can say for you.


There's only one side of the story. What happened.

-Gumboot

[T.A.M.]

Usual:

Your probably barking up the wrong tree, if you think gumboot is not well researched. Take a look at his posts sometime, from the past, and you will find he is one of our most researched and well versed posters. But don't take my word for it...Find out which ever way you like.

TAM

[gumboot]

Plus the debate on what could the fighters have done isn't the point. The point was Gumboot was assuming I haven't done any research. He was proven wrong.


No, I assumed you hadn't done any research into NORAD's response to 9/11. This is because you implied that NORAD could have stopped the attacks if they had more aircraft.

Research into NORAD's mission and its response to 9/11 will quickly reveal that achieving an intercept was always going to be impossible.

Therefore if you think what you do, clearly you have not researched NORAD's response to 9/11.

For the record, I don't really use the 9/11 Commission Report for research. I prefer to seek the source of the information, not some other person's interpretation of it.

-Gumboot

[Usual Suspect]

No, I assumed you hadn't done any research into NORAD's response to 9/11. This is because you implied that NORAD could have stopped the attacks if they had more aircraft.

Research into NORAD's mission and its response to 9/11 will quickly reveal that achieving an intercept was always going to be impossible.

Therefore if you think what you do, clearly you have not researched NORAD's response to 9/11.

For the record, I don't really use the 9/11 Commission Report for research. I prefer to seek the source of the information, not some other person's interpretation of it.

-Gumboot

But can we trust what NORAD says???

"We to this day don't know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us," said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. "It was just so far from the truth. . . . It's one of those loose ends that never got tied."

[gumboot]

But can we trust what NORAD says???

"We to this day don't know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us," said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. "It was just so far from the truth. . . . It's one of those loose ends that never got tied."


Have you heard the tape recordings of what happened in the NEADS command centre?

-Gumboot

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Why should i? Is your society superior, equal or inferior to theirs?

Actually the global society although it sounds great, is a myth, we all struggle with the need for the resources of life, and each thinks his society is Superior.
The problems we are now facing are a result of Globalization, the coming together of the world. IT is similar to the conflict of the thirty years war, I just hope it does not cost as much and last as long.
Globalization is what many of the Cters fear most.

[orphia nay]

Not really. My argument is the only way of doing a "more competent job" with national security was to introduce new laws that curtailed freedoms (Patriot Act sound familiar?).

Post 9/11 it's a very unpopular thing to do. Pre 9/11 it would have been a short cut to political extermination.

Your free communication/intelligence example is an excellent point, however I don't think there's a direct correlation between intelligence and security. Intelligence is only useful if the laws exist to act on that intelligence. For example, US intelligence was well aware of numerous terrorists in the US before 9/11, but US law prevented them doing anything about it (think Ahmed Ajaj). That comes back to more security = less freedom.

-Gumboot

I was just reading this thread and the Patriot Act came to my mind too.

Twoofers say practically in one breath 'the US government weren't doing anything to prevent terrorist attacks and wasn't it suspicious that the Patriot Act was drawn up and ready to go the day after 9/11'?
:rolleyes: