[Moderated]What Questions DO you still have?

[kevsta]

Hi all.

Ok I know you guys are all skeptic by nature, as am I. This obviously means not necessarily believing whatever we are told, by whomever that may be, until we have looked at the evidence before us and come to a likely conclusion based on that.

I have read the 911 archives, links and sites in depth a few months ago, and have seen a huge amount of debunking of each and every technical point made by the C/Ts by you guys and in the most part concur with the opinion that the official version seems more likely, although personally I wouldnt put it past the Puppet Bush & his Admin to do that for one moment.

What I would like to respectfully ask is what, (if any) questions do you guys still have about any aspect of the whole 911 thing, that you feel have either not been addressed or that have been answered in an unsatisfactory manner?

is there anything about any aspect of it at all that still leaves you feeling uneasy with the explanations given?

[T.A.M.]

I am not satisfied that the areas of foreknowledge and the Pakistani connection have been sufficiently explored. Do I feel this will change anything in terms of who did 9/11, or how, or why...no, but I think if the entire truth were known in these areas, we would see a picture of complete arrogance and ignorance from the administration wrt al-qaeda and the terrorist risk prior to 9/11, resulting in minimizing the "real risk" the USA was under. I also think it would reveal some interesting and concerning links between the plot and the pakistani government or army...

TAM:)

PS: Welcome to the forum.

[~enigma~]

Hi all.

Ok I know you guys are all skeptic by nature, as am I. This obviously means not necessarily believing whatever we are told, by whomever that may be, until we have looked at the evidence before us and come to a likely conclusion based on that.

I have read the 911 archives, links and sites in depth a few months ago, and have seen a huge amount of debunking of each and every technical point made by the C/Ts by you guys and in the most part concur with the opinion that the official version seems more likely, although personally I wouldnt put it past the Puppet Bush & his Admin to do that for one moment.

What I would like to respectfully ask is what, (if any) questions do you guys still have about any aspect of the whole 911 thing, that you feel have either not been addressed or that have been answered in an unsatisfactory manner?

is there anything about any aspect of it at all that still leaves you feeling uneasy with the explanations given?
Why exactly do you ask the exact question the woo do?

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

Well brought out TAM - I believe that the two key words which were almost the entire reason why 9/11 was so successful (for the terrorists) are 'arrogance' and 'ignorance'.

[kevsta]

Why exactly do you ask the exact question the woo do?

lol do they? havent seen that yet, sorry.

hey anyway I just found another thread on this in a different search to the one I did before posting originally.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=91357

please feel free to delete this.

[The Doc]

Most of my questions surround the Clinton adminstration. I'm not going to post them though, because the thread would most likely degenerate into a political discussion.

[Sabrina]

I would have to say I agree with TAM's questions, and would add that I believe the Saudi connection should have been further investigated, as fifteen of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, and we didn't even bother looking at them.

That being said, I still don't see the logic behind an "inside jorb!!!!eleventyoneONE!!!"

[MRC_Hans]

*snip* although personally I wouldnt put it past the Puppet Bush & his Admin to do that for one moment.

*snip*So you are saying that GWB, who is a Born Again Christian, and who was twice voted into office by (somewhere in the vicinity of) half the population of the US, would not hesitate to cold-bloodedly murder thousands of innocent US citizens, in order to achieve some political goal?

Oh, and on your question: Roughly what TAM says, except I don't think it will reveal much we don't already know, by now.

Hans

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

My question is: Who was guilty of gross incompetence that allowed this to happen? From Congress *cough*JameGorelick*cough* who didn't allow intelligence agencies to talk amongst themselves within the US. To FBI field office managers that decided reports of foreigners wanting to learn how to steer, but not take off or land weren't worthy of being reported up the chain of command and corroborated with other FBI field offices hearing the same thing)

I guess i'm a LIHBMOBN (Let it happen by means of bureaucratic negligence.) as well as a TOCPUM (Two Oceans Can Protect Us Mentality) in addition to CWPDS (Caught With Pants Down Syndrome)

[The Doc]

I think if the entire truth were known in these areas, we would see a picture of complete arrogance and ignorance from the administration wrt al-qaeda and the terrorist risk prior to 9/11, resulting in minimizing the "real risk" the USA was under.

I think you've pinpointed most of the arrogance and ignorance to the wrong people. Sure, there was a level of ignorance to the al-Qaeda threat amongst the Bush administration before 9/11, but it frustrates me that people try to pin all the blame to Bush and his administration for the incompetence before 9/11. No one ever attends to the fact that Bush himself isn't a law enforcement officer. The CIA, FBI, NSA and other agencies, along with the Clinton administration deserve criticism for pre-9/11 ignorance also, perhaps more so than the Bush administration.

Again, I'm not saying Bush did everything 100% perfect before 9/11... but what I'm saying is that he only holds a small piece of the ignorance and incompetence pie, and people are acting like he's taken the whole thing.

[T.A.M.]

I think it is ok to rehash points/arguments from time to time, provided the angle is fresh, and provided the woo is not thrown like poo.

As for Clinton Admin role...I think they took the threats of Al-Qaeda more seriously than BUSH et al, but they do need to share a fair bit of the blame, so to speak, wrt missing the boat on the 9/11 attacks.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

My question is: Who was guilty of gross incompetence that allowed this to happen? From Congress *cough*JameGorelick*cough* who didn't allow intelligence agencies to talk amongst themselves within the US. To FBI field office managers that decided reports of foreigners wanting to learn how to steer, but not take off or land weren't worthy of being reported up the chain of command and corroborated with other FBI field offices hearing the same thing)

I guess i'm a LIHBMOBN (Let it happen by means of bureaucratic negligence.) as well as a TOCPUM (Two Oceans Can Protect Us Mentality) in addition to CWPDS (Caught With Pants Down Syndrome)

I think the issue of incompetence is a tough one and here is why. Unless you are going to label an entire group of people (FBI, CIA, etc..) as incompetent, it is hard to determine whether one or two people were incompetence, meaning they were grossly in err wrt what would have been expected of people in their respective organizations at that time.

TAM:)

[kevsta]

So you are saying that GWB, who is a Born Again Christian, and who was twice voted into office by (somewhere in the vicinity of) half the population of the US, would not hesitate to cold-bloodedly murder thousands of innocent US citizens, in order to achieve some political goal?

Hans

Hi Hans. Well, frankly, yes. You say "born again Christian" like it's a good thing? a charactor reference perhaps? ..perhaps it is, but I dont really read that as a positive.

And he hasnt worried too much about the 70,000 odd civilians he's killed since that point, American or not? In fact since when did these types of people ever worry about killing a few of their own people to get the result?

[T.A.M.]

lets not forget, BUSH was not the only one who went to war...it was congressionally approved.
the argument of lies or misinformation that lead the USA there is another argument all together.
TAM:)

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

I think it is ok to rehash points/arguments from time to time, provided the angle is fresh, and provided the woo is not thrown like poo.

As for Clinton Admin role...I think they took the threats of Al-Qaeda more seriously than BUSH et al, but they do need to share a fair bit of the blame, so to speak, wrt missing the boat on the 9/11 attacks.

TAM:)

And the bombing of an aspirin factory and blowing up some $5 tents with $100,000 cruise missiles.

I honestly think that some of the things that the Patriot Act do now, have prevented future attacks since. However, there is still always the threat of the lone-whacko (like the guy who shot up the El Al ticket counter in Los Angeles, the Muslim student drove his SUV through a crowd and yelled out that he was being a terrorist, and that guy who shot up a mall in Utah who happened to be a Bosnian Muslim convert who had all sorts of crazy videos of imams on his computer... etc etc etc)

[twinstead]

Hi Hans. Well, frankly, yes. You say "born again Christian" like it's a good thing? a charactor reference perhaps? ..perhaps it is, but I dont really read that as a positive.

And he hasnt worried too much about the 70,000 odd civilians he's killed since that point, American or not? In fact since when did these types of people ever worry about killing a few of their own people to get the result?

I'm no fan of GWB, but what exactly is "these types of people"?

[DGM]

Why does the "truth" movement have to lie so much?

Why can they ("truthers") not do even the most basic research?

Those are my two main questions.

[MRC_Hans]

Hi Hans. Well, frankly, yes. You say "born again Christian" like it's a good thing? a charactor reference perhaps? ..perhaps it is, but I dont really read that as a positive.

They are supposed to have certain moral standards.

And he hasnt worried too much about the 70,000 odd civilians he's killed since that point, American or not? In fact since when did these types of people ever worry about killing a few of their own people to get the result?

Actually, I imagine they worry a lot. We are not talking about victims of war, however. I agree that the distinction is basically irrational, but it is nevertheless one most people make. We are talking about the unprovoked murder of innocent, unsuspecting citizens, in peacetime.

And, of course, of the incredible risk that such an undertaking would entail.

Hans

[kevsta]

My question is: Who was guilty of gross incompetence that allowed this to happen? From Congress *cough*JameGorelick*cough* who didn't allow intelligence agencies to talk amongst themselves within the US. To FBI field office managers that decided reports of foreigners wanting to learn how to steer, but not take off or land weren't worthy of being reported up the chain of command and corroborated with other FBI field offices hearing the same thing)


I think this is the one that gets me the most. A chain of incompetence from failure of intelligence to notice or know it was coming, incompetence with NORAD and the air intercepts, airport security, it's like a whole chain sequence of incompetence had to be in place for it to have any chance, and for three out of four to hit the target bang on just seems like almost impossibly low probablity, given all the variables and factors.

The world's dominant military power reduced to watching helplessly against something like this, basically planned and executed from a cave?

it would have made a really good, if somewhat far-fetched novel.

[~enigma~]

Anybody left question the wooish tendency and leading character of the OP?

[buka001]

Technical question on WTC 1,2 and 7. Were the floors of the offices carpeted? If so, what type of carpets? What were the ceilings made out of. Were there any office dividers? What materials etc. This could be used to illustrate the intensity of the fires.

Some troofers get stuck on temperatures of kerosene fires. They ignore the other flammable elements in the building.

[SDC]

I think this is the one that gets me the most. A chain of incompetence from failure of intelligence to notice or know it was coming, incompetence with NORAD and the air intercepts, airport security, it's like a whole chain sequence of incompetence had to be in place for it to have any chance, and for three out of four to hit the target bang on just seems like almost impossibly low probablity, given all the variables and factors.

The world's dominant military power reduced to watching helplessly against something like this, basically planned and executed from a cave?

it would have made a really good, if somewhat far-fetched novel.

Again, caves weren't involved. That is simply false. KSM was educated in a US university, I believe, and OBL himself was an educated man from a wealthy family. Atta et al. were educated men.

As for "impossibly low probability," it happened, and hence its probability is 1, or 100%, or however it's expressed.

As for chains of incompetence, I can only say that you must be very young. Welcome to adulthood. Go read Dilbert, if you like him (I do). The wholesale level of human incompetence is pretty astonishing.

And anyhow it's more like human inability to anticipate something new.

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

I think this is the one that gets me the most. A chain of incompetence from failure of intelligence to notice or know it was coming, incompetence with NORAD and the air intercepts, airport security, it's like a whole chain sequence of incompetence had to be in place for it to have any chance, and for three out of four to hit the target bang on just seems like almost impossibly low probablity, given all the variables and factors.

The world's dominant military power reduced to watching helplessly against something like this, basically planned and executed from a cave?

it would have made a really good, if somewhat far-fetched novel.

Well, honestly, the U.S. had never been tested* within it's borders. Honestly I'd rather see the U.S. get tested*, and fail, and *only* have 3,000 deaths, than to fail with a really concentrated attack by a foreign power that could kill millions.

* by tested I mean Real Life "test" of your skills... Not as in a drill.

And the Cave reference is disingenuous since you're obviously IGNORING the immense, but loose, network that they had. Plus OBL and KSM were reduced to hiding in caves AFTER 9/11, AFTER the invasion into Afghanistan. Before that they were treated like royals by the Taleban.

[kevsta]

I'm no fan of GWB, but what exactly is "these types of people"?

I am talking generally about politicians through the ages with secret (or not so) agendas. My opinion is that GWB and his puppeteers are these kind of people.

As an another example I'd say perhaps Roosevelt in wanting to, and leading the USA into WW2. they knew Pearl Harbour was coming, in fact they pretty much provoked it. a comparatively small amount of deaths, act all outraged, ..sorted.

I'm sure there are many other examples of leaders sacrificing their own people as a means to an end.

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

As for chains of incompetence, I can only say that you must be very young. Welcome to adulthood. Go read Dilbert, if you like him (I do). The wholesale level of human incompetence is pretty astonishing.

There's a reason it took Homosapiens 193,000 years just to develop an alphabet and start writing things down...

[mortimer]

i smell something... da troof?

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

The world's dominant military power reduced to watching helplessly against something like this, basically planned and executed from a cave?

Similar sentiment to a David griffin quote (which eludes me at the moment) it is this sort of arrogant thinking (in part) which made 9/11 relatively easy for the terrorists to execute.

Stupid, stupid, arrogant thinking.

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

I am talking generally about politicians through the ages with secret (or not so) agendas. My opinion is that GWB and his puppeteers are these kind of people.

As an another example I'd say perhaps Roosevelt in wanting to, and leading the USA into WW2. they knew Pearl Harbour was coming, in fact they pretty much provoked it. a comparatively small amount of deaths, act all outraged, ..sorted.

I'm sure there are many other examples of leaders sacrificing their own people as a means to an end.

So you believe in an NWO or Freemason or 5 Jew Bankers scheming to control (or already control) the world?

The "They knew about Pearl Harbor" woo has been debunked. If the U.S. wanted to join the allies in the war they could have. We already had U.S. pilots flying missions with the British air force, and we cut off oil shipments to the Japanese well before we entered WW2

[kevsta]

Anybody left question the wooish tendency and leading character of the OP?

question away. :)

how did I know it would get to this? I thought a skeptics job was to distrust everybody

and spacemonkey, yea sorry, of course the caves were of course afterwards, I was making incorrect sweeping generalisations

[Corsair 115]

Well brought out TAM - I believe that the two key words which were almost the entire reason why 9/11 was so successful (for the terrorists) are 'arrogance' and 'ignorance'.Personally, I would add luck, complacency, and incompetence to the list of reasons.

[Dave Rogers]

I think this is the one that gets me the most. A chain of incompetence from failure of intelligence to notice or know it was coming, incompetence with NORAD and the air intercepts, airport security, it's like a whole chain sequence of incompetence had to be in place for it to have any chance, and for three out of four to hit the target bang on just seems like almost impossibly low probablity, given all the variables and factors.

I couldn't disagree more. Failure of intelligence perhaps (although most of the reasoning for this is 20/20 hindsight), but from then on there were very few serious obstacles. Smuggling firearms on to an airliner pre-911 was not unknown, and smuggling knives on board fairly trivial. Knives aren't that useful for a conventional hi-jacking because it's harder to keep a large number of people subdued without a firearm, but for the 9-11 operation, where the aim was to kill the pilots quickly, knives were quite adequate. Once the weapons were on board, the hi-jacking itself was routine; I'm unaware of any case in history where a determined group of three or more armed hi-jackers have attempted and failed to take control of an aircraft. Anybody reading an account of the Payne Stewart interception would get a good idea of how long an interception might take, and it was clear it would be long enough. People with no experience have hit the twin towers in flight simulators repeatedly. And what's most important is that KSM could have found all this out very easily prior to 9-11. In other words, it appears to me it wasn't US incompetence so much as excellent al-Qaeda staff work.

Which brings me to the questions I'd most like to see answers to, and probably never will (because this isn't the sort of thing the security services shout about even if they do find it out): How was the attack planned, what thought went into the planning, did the planners ask and answer these questions? In general, we need to know more about al-Qaeda's side of the story, because that's the key to preventing future attacks from succeeding so spectacularly.

Dave

[kevsta]

listen up, I am not a truther. i know youre inundated with them on here and take great pride in sniffing them out, calling them etc, but youre wasting your time with me.

you guys are probably the best informed guys on the net about this and i'm just generally curious about what still bothers you about it all.

flame away with "twoofer, woo" etc, i'll just be quietly laughing at you about it as you couldn't be more wrong.

you're asking me what i think about it which wasnt really my intention for the OP, if you dont want to know some of my possibly contentious, lefty or whatever else views about your government, then dont ask and I wont say? fair?

[DGM]

question away. :)

how did I know it would get to this? I thought a skeptics job was to distrust everybody

and spacemonkey, yea sorry, of course the caves were of course afterwards, I was making incorrect sweeping generalisations
You have not addressed my questions yet. Did you think I was not serious?

ETA I just read the post above so you can ignore this if you wish.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2982014#post2982014

[Corsair 115]

As an another example I'd say perhaps Roosevelt in wanting to, and leading the USA into WW2. they knew Pearl Harbour was coming, in fact they pretty much provoked it. a comparatively small amount of deaths, act all outraged, ..sorted.The U.S. "pretty much provoked" the Pearl Harbor attack? Perhaps you should read up on why the U.S. slapped trade embargoes on the Japanese in the first place — it had to do with Japan's brutal military invasion and occupation of China. Start with the "Rape of Nanking" for an infamous example of the kind of atrocities committed by Japanese troops.

It is also worth noting that Japan's initial war plans did not call for an attack on Pearl Harbor at all. Originally, they were to invade the Philippines, which would draw the U.S. Pacific fleet into Japanese waters where a climactic battle would be waged. This, incidentally, is exactly what the U.S. Navy also planned for. It was only at the insistence of Admiral Yamamoto that the Japanese war plans were changed to incorporate a risky and daring first stike at Pearl Harbor.

[tacodaemon]

According to reports, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was brainstorming his various terrorist plans for commercial airliners when he was in Manila in the 1990s, before he went to Afghanistan in 1996 and met up with Bin Laden (reportedly in some secretive location in Tora Bora) and outlined various ideas, which evolved into the 9/11 attacks. Other key figures were living in Hamburg. I don't think any of them lived in caves in Hamburg or Manila.

[kevsta]

I couldn't disagree more. Failure of intelligence perhaps (although most of the reasoning for this is 20/20 hindsight), but from then on there were very few serious obstacles. Smuggling firearms on to an airliner pre-911 was not unknown, and smuggling knives on board fairly trivial. Knives aren't that useful for a conventional hi-jacking because it's harder to keep a large number of people subdued without a firearm, but for the 9-11 operation, where the aim was to kill the pilots quickly, knives were quite adequate. Once the weapons were on board, the hi-jacking itself was routine; I'm unaware of any case in history where a determined group of three or more armed hi-jackers have attempted and failed to take control of an aircraft. Anybody reading an account of the Payne Stewart interception would get a good idea of how long an interception might take, and it was clear it would be long enough. People with no experience have hit the twin towers in flight simulators repeatedly. And what's most important is that KSM could have found all this out very easily prior to 9-11. In other words, it appears to me it wasn't US incompetence so much as excellent al-Qaeda staff work.

Which brings me to the questions I'd most like to see answers to, and probably never will (because this isn't the sort of thing the security services shout about even if they do find it out): How was the attack planned, what thought went into the planning, did the planners ask and answer these questions? In general, we need to know more about al-Qaeda's side of the story, because that's the key to preventing future attacks from succeeding so spectacularly.

Dave

but youre saying that anybody could pretty much take anything they wanted onto planes in the US up till 2001? wow.

[TheRedWorm]

but youre saying that anybody could pretty much take anything they wanted onto planes in the US up till 2001? wow.

How do you get that out of this:

Smuggling firearms on to an airliner pre-911 was not unknown, and smuggling knives on board fairly trivial. Knives aren't that useful for a conventional hi-jacking because it's harder to keep a large number of people subdued without a firearm, but for the 9-11 operation, where the aim was to kill the pilots quickly, knives were quite adequate.
Dave

I am trying to take what you say seriously, but come on!

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

but youre saying that anybody could pretty much take anything they wanted onto planes in the US up till 2001? wow.

4 inch pocket knives, and razor sharp (cause there's a razor in them) box cutter that could easily kill an unsuspecting stewardess and catch a pilot unawares? Yes.

You are really are sounding wooish. Especially if you're "laughing" at us for thinking so.

[Corsair 115]

but youre saying that anybody could pretty much take anything they wanted onto planes in the US up till 2001? wow.I carried a pair of scissors with 4" blades packed away in my carry-on luggage several times before 9/11. And this was on a flights originating from outside the United States (from Canada, to be specific).

[kevsta]

How do you get that out of this:

I am trying to take what you say seriously, but come on!

Having had a switchblade confiscated from me as a teen many years ago from what must have been a comparitively basic x-ray machine back then, having seen mates (in the forces) done after being found with souvenir firearms from Desert Storm and Bosnia and all caught in civvy airports over the years I didnt think it was ever that easy.

But that in all four of these planes not a single weapon was found on any of the hijackers kind of implies it?

apologies for exagerating the case if you feel i have

[TheRedWorm]

Your apology is accepted. As to your point, yes, it is true that generally airport personnel would not let you on board a plane with a weapon. However, it is still possible to sneak one on board if you really wanted to. Don't forget that 9/11 was planned, so they would have taken airport security into account.

[kevsta]

You are really are sounding wooish. Especially if you're "laughing" at us for thinking so.

lol. unfortunately we're on the internet and not in person and so you cannot see how wrong this opinion is. I cant hold that against you so you'll just have to think whatever you want ;)

[Sabrina]

kevsta, something I think you fail to realize is that the current level of security at our airports was put in place BECAUSE of 9/11. An entirely new government agency (the Transportation Security Administration, or TSA) was formed as a result of 9/11 highlighting the glaring security issues at airports and other transportation hubs across the nation. Prior to 9/11, it wasn't unheard of for people to travel with knives of various lengths, and considering how many times weapons were smuggled on board for hijackings that were NOT intended to kill everyone on board, it was clearly easier prior to 9/11.

There was a lot of incompetence, and from what I hear from my contacts in the intelligence community (I work within it), the idea of suicide hijacking was considered HIGHLY unlikely. So yes, incompetence, and sheer arrogance, contributed greatly to 9/11 being allowed to happen, but it wasn't all within the government. My opinion is that it was also largely in the American mindset at the time; watching the expressions of shock and horror as the planes hit the towers, the Pentagon, and that field in Shanksville only highlights that we, ALL of us, thought that it couldn't possibly happen to us, that we were invincible. We were like teenagers; none of them ever believe that it's possible for them to be hurt/killed until it happens, and even when it happens, they don't always take steps to ensure it does not happen again. At least the government has made a concerted, government-wide effort to put measures in place to prevent another 9/11.

[kevsta]

kevsta, something I think you fail to realize is that the current level of security at our airports was put in place BECAUSE of 9/11. An entirely new government agency (the Transportation Security Administration, or TSA) was formed as a result of 9/11 highlighting the glaring security issues at airports and other transportation hubs across the nation. Prior to 9/11, it wasn't unheard of for people to travel with knives of various lengths, and considering how many times weapons were smuggled on board for hijackings that were NOT intended to kill everyone on board, it was clearly easier prior to 9/11.

There was a lot of incompetence, and from what I hear from my contacts in the intelligence community (I work within it), the idea of suicide hijacking was considered HIGHLY unlikely. So yes, incompetence, and sheer arrogance, contributed greatly to 9/11 being allowed to happen, but it wasn't all within the government. My opinion is that it was also largely in the American mindset at the time; watching the expressions of shock and horror as the planes hit the towers, the Pentagon, and that field in Shanksville only highlights that we, ALL of us, thought that it couldn't possibly happen to us, that we were invincible. We were like teenagers; none of them ever believe that it's possible for them to be hurt/killed until it happens, and even when it happens, they don't always take steps to ensure it does not happen again. At least the government has made a concerted, government-wide effort to put measures in place to prevent another 9/11.

I do find it amazing they'd have ever let people onboard planes with weapons.

as for the arrogance, wont happen to me, and shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted etc, that's just the human way isnt it? no-one ever thinks it'll happen to them. I agree that the US may have suffered from this just slightly more than the rest of us.

[mortimer]

I think this is the one that gets me the most. A chain of incompetence from failure of intelligence to notice or know it was coming, incompetence with NORAD and the air intercepts, airport security, it's like a whole chain sequence of incompetence had to be in place for it to have any chance, and for three out of four to hit the target bang on just seems like almost impossibly low probablity, given all the variables and factors.

How exactly do you think NORAD was incompetent on 9/11?

What went wrong with airport security?

[Corsair 115]

Having had a switchblade confiscated from me as a teen many years ago from what must have been a comparitively basic x-ray machine back then Some questions to put your experience into context:

So you were carrying it on your person? (That's a bit different than having it packed away in your carry-on luggage.) Also, how long ago is "many years ago"? Is that before 9/11? Which airport was this at? (The airport will make a big difference. I flew out of St. Petersburg airport numerous times and since it was a relatively small airport, it would not have been hard to breach its security.) Was it a domestic flight within the U.S. or was it an international flight, flying out of or into the United States?anymore

But that in all four of these planes not a single weapon was found on any of the hijackers kind of implies it?My understanding is that they were not carrying the items on their persons, the items were packed in their carry-on luggage.

[~enigma~]

listen up, I am not a truther. i know youre inundated with them on here and take great pride in sniffing them out, calling them etc, but youre wasting your time with me.

you guys are probably the best informed guys on the net about this and i'm just generally curious about what still bothers you about it all.

flame away with "twoofer, woo" etc, i'll just be quietly laughing at you about it as you couldn't be more wrong.

you're asking me what i think about it which wasnt really my intention for the OP, if you dont want to know some of my possibly contentious, lefty or whatever else views about your government, then dont ask and I wont say? fair?
You aren't a woo yet you give curt bs answers? Do you really think people here are too stupid not to see you made 15 posts about other things non-related to CTs just so you can post here with the ability to post links? You are a woo. Admit it...

[Billdave2]

I used to keep a box cutter in my briefcase. I carried it on flights many times. It wasn't considered particularly dangerous. A switchblade on the other hand would have been confiscated as they are illegal in most places. Firearms would of course be confiscated. Comparing firearms to box cutters is almost an ultimate apples/oranges comparison.

[DGM]

I do find it amazing they'd have ever let people onboard planes with weapons.

as for the arrogance, wont happen to me, and shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted etc, that's just the human way isnt it? no-one ever thinks it'll happen to them. I agree that the US may have suffered from this just slightly more than the rest of us.
I used put my pocket knife in the tray with my keys and stuff and it never was refused. It simple wasn't concieved to be a risk. This was at Logan airport in Boston.

[Par]

You aren't a woo yet you give curt bs answers? Do you really think people here are too stupid not to see you made 15 posts about other things non-related to CTs just so you can post here with the ability to post links? You are a woo. Admit it...


Enigma: the ambassador of rationalism.

[Par]

I used to keep a box cutter in my briefcase. I carried it on flights many times. It wasn't considered particularly dangerous. A switchblade on the other hand would have been confiscated as they are illegal in most places.


Quite, a switchblade is far more likely to scream “weapon!” at security personnel than a box cutter.

[kevsta]

Some questions to put your experience into context:

So you were carrying it on your person? (That's a bit different than having it packed away in your carry-on luggage.) Also, how long ago is "many years ago"? Is that before 9/11? Which airport was this at? (The airport will make a big difference. I flew out of St. Petersburg airport numerous times and since it was a relatively small airport, it would not have been hard to breach its security.) Was it a domestic flight within the U.S. or was it an international flight, flying out of or into the United States?anymore

My understanding is that they were not carrying the items on their persons, the items were packed in their carry-on luggage.

No I was carrying it (4 1/2" flick-knife as a present for a friend) carefully hidden in a Camembert cheese in my carry on luggage. And it was at least ten years, prior to 2001, from Gatwick Airport UK, and going to the Canary Islands.

[Sabrina]

No I was carrying it (4 1/2" flick-knife as a present for a friend) carefully hidden in a Camembert cheese in my carry on luggage. And it was at least ten years, prior to 2001, from Gatwick Airport UK, and going to the Canary Islands.

Yes, but are the security procedures that were in place at FOREIGN airports more stringent than the ones in AMERICAN airports at the time?

We're discussing the American airports here; offering a UK airport as an example kind of negates the premise, IMHO. :)

[~enigma~]

Enigma: the ambassador of rationalism.
In this case I would say Enigma the non-blind.

[kevsta]

You aren't a woo yet you give curt bs answers? Do you really think people here are too stupid not to see you made 15 posts about other things non-related to CTs just so you can post here with the ability to post links? You are a woo. Admit it...

for alleged skeptics some of you people really are closed minded. "twoofer, woo" etc. grow up ffs, youre embarrasing yourself.

..and wtf does ability to post links have to do with anything? Oh I see i've been throwing them around everywhere havent I, my mistake...

I reply to people in the manner I percieve they are addressing me. when they are blatently and ridiculously wrong in their assumptions, then after about the 3rd time, I'm sorry, but I start suffering their foolish incorrect opinions a little less happily.

i'm putting you on ignore, youre childish, and suggest you do the same if you cant keep your ridiculous catcalls to yourself

[Par]

In this case I would say Enigma the non-blind.


I assume you mean: the sighted. In any event, I was more referring to your somewhat crude demeanour.

[kevsta]

Yes, but are the security procedures that were in place at FOREIGN airports more stringent than the ones in AMERICAN airports at the time?

We're discussing the American airports here; offering a UK airport as an example kind of negates the premise, IMHO. :)

well yes of course, but demonstrates the level of complacency involved compared to even ten years before that in other places

[defaultdotxbe]

Yes, but are the security procedures that were in place at FOREIGN airports more stringent than the ones in AMERICAN airports at the time?

We're discussing the American airports here; offering a UK airport as an example kind of negates the premise, IMHO. :)
not only a UK airport, but an international flight, all 4 9/11 flights were domestic (which generally have less security)

[T.A.M.]

kevsta:

Woo or Not-Woo, you are benign enough in your conversation to warrant civility.

As for the issue of "improbability" wrt the numerous alleged "coincidences of incompetence" I would say this.

1. Put yourself in a PRE-9/11 mindset when looking at it. Remember how little the general public cared about or paid attention to terrorism, even when the attacks were on US embassys abroad. Remember how few people knew who OBL was prior to. That mind set, no doubt, extended into alot of the admin and other areas of govt. Now obviously they were aware of OBL, and Al-Qaeda, but still, as Richard Clarke has said, there was this thought of OBL as a small threat, having killed only 50-100 people total prior to 9/11.

2. Realize that the more complex the event, the more institutions involved, the higher chance for multiple areas of incompetence.

3. Realize when the last hijacking in the USA had occured prior to 9/11. Remember the mindset of everyone prior to 9/11 with how to handle a hijacking.

4. Realize that threats from aircraft prior to 9/11 were considered to be from outside the continental USA.

5. Realize the chaos of what amounted to 4 seperate hijackings on that morning, as well as several attacks on buildings...it was spread over 3 locales. Imagine the amount of pandamonium that might raise its head with simply one hijacking or attack.

6. Remember how much they DID get right.

TAM:)

[Par]

well yes of course, but demonstrates the level of complacency involved compared to even ten years before that in other places


Well, no. You are working from a sample size of one. Further, it’s an entirely anecdotal piece of evidence.

[mortimer]

not only a UK airport, but an international flight, all 4 9/11 flights were domestic (which generally have less security)

An international flight to a destination (Canary Islands) that has seen airport terrorism in the past, no less...

[T.A.M.]

for alleged skeptics some of you people really are closed minded. "twoofer, woo" etc. grow up ffs, youre embarrasing yourself.

..and wtf does ability to post links have to do with anything? Oh I see i've been throwing them around everywhere havent I, my mistake...

I reply to people in the manner I percieve they are addressing me. when they are blatently and ridiculously wrong in their assumptions, then after about the 3rd time, I'm sorry, but I start suffering their foolish incorrect opinions a little less happily.

i'm putting you on ignore, youre childish, and suggest you do the same if you cant keep your ridiculous catcalls to yourself

so much for the "civil enough" aspect...oh my. Lets keep this nice people.

TAM:)

[kevsta]

Well, no. You are working from a sample size of one. Further, it’s an entirely anecdotal piece of evidence.

yes of course.

and Tam, again all good points.

[Par]

well yes of course, but demonstrates the level of complacency involved compared to even ten years before that in other placesWell, no. You are working from a sample size of one. Further, it’s an entirely anecdotal piece of evidence.
yes of course.


Well, my point is: in that case, it doesn’t tell us much (or anything, really) about the nature of security at that time.

[Par]

so much for the "civil enough" aspect...oh my. Lets keep this nice people.


In his defence, he was provoked a number of times by a perennial belligerent.

[Dave Rogers]

Having had a switchblade confiscated from me as a teen many years ago from what must have been a comparitively basic x-ray machine back then, having seen mates (in the forces) done after being found with souvenir firearms from Desert Storm and Bosnia and all caught in civvy airports over the years I didnt think it was ever that easy.


I have a seven-inch steel plate in my left ankle that's never set off a metal detector, and I've travelled by air post-911. I don't have a reference but I read of a study in about 1999 in which some journalists tried to see how easy it was to get aboard a US domestic flight carrying a gun; IIRC they succeeded over 70% of the time, and once managed to bring a rocket launcher into the passenger cabin. I don't know whether there's some technique to it, and I have no intention of trying to find out, but it appears that it wasn't that difficult pre-911.

Boxcutters, of course, were very specifically allowed in hand luggage prior to 911. This is a matter of record.

Dave

[kevsta]

scientifically of course you are correct. however the results on the day speak volumes about the general effectiveness of search procedures in place in comparison to what I've seen and experienced elsewhere up to that point.

yes, anecdotally of course.

[~enigma~]

I assume you mean: the sighted. In any event, I was more referring to your somewhat crude demeanour.
And you can read my signature can't you? Woo deserve nothing more than crude.

[kevsta]

and once managed to bring a rocket launcher into the passenger cabin

Dave

roflmao dave :) wow. good stuff.

and 7" steel still doesnt ring bells? wow again.

[~enigma~]

In his defence, he was provoked a number of times by a perennial belligerent.
I guess you really knew what was going to happen when you called me a name. Enjoy ignore...

[Par]

scientifically of course you are correct. however the results on the day speak volumes about the general effectiveness of search procedures in place in comparison to what I've seen and experienced elsewhere up to that point.

yes, anecdotally of course.


I’m confused. You accept that your anecdotal evidence doesn’t tell us anything about the difference in security in scientific terms. But you also believe that it speaks volumes about said difference. In what non-scientific sense does it speak volumes?

[Par]

Enjoy ignore...


So, does that mean that you’ve sexually dominated me (or whatever it is that tough-guys like to do)?

[T.A.M.]

So to summarize my pov on this matter.

1. I think in 50 years we will know enough to say that Pakistani Intelligence, or those supported by them, had a role in the attacks, and we will also know enough to come to the conclusion that the USG administration was ignorant and arrogant enough about the threat, that it lead to the 9/11 attacks slipping past the radar so to speak.

2. I believe there was a lack of preparation, precedence, and foresight in multiple institutions, combined with a natural tendency toward chaos with such a large and unexpected attack, to account for the numerous failings in said institutions.

3. I believe there MAY have been elements of incompetence, but such will be extremely hard to prove on an individual basis.

TAM:)

[kevsta]

I’m confused. You accept that your anecdotal evidence doesn’t tell us anything about the difference in security in scientific terms. But you also believe that it speaks volumes about said difference. In what non-scientific sense does it speak volumes?

all I mean is that they succeeded getting weapons onto 4 out of 4 planes more or less simultaneously, we dont know if they had one each, or one between them, but potentially what 10 or 12 weapons could have made it through?

it clearly wasnt the best security system when looked at in light of my previous experience/s.

[DGM]

all I mean is that they succeeded getting weapons onto 4 out of 4 planes more or less simultaneously, we dont know if they had one each, or one between them, but potentially what 10 or 12 weapons could have made it through?

it clearly wasnt the best security system when looked at in light of my previous experience/s.
You don't understand. For domestic flights in the US, box cutters or small knifes in your carry on was allowed. Yes this was a problem and it was exploited. These people did plan this you know.

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

lol. unfortunately we're on the internet and not in person and so you cannot see how wrong this opinion is. I cant hold that against you so you'll just have to think whatever you want ;)

Let's see, you implied "people like" GWB have some secret agenda for the world. That is woo.

You implied that Pearl Harbor was a LIHOP despite there's no rational proof or evidence. Playing Devil's Advocate is a part of being skeptical. Insisting something inaccurate is true with no proof, that's woo.

[Miss Anthrope]

Those who are personalizing and bickering should remember rules 11 and 12 before further action is taken.

[Civilized Worm]

I can't think of any questions I personally still have, but there may well be some left unanswered.


They are supposed to have certain moral standards.


Yeah, "supposed to". It means nothing.

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

kevsta: Watch the videos here: In the documentary they show what weapons were used and how easy, pre-9/11 they could get them on a plane, and why small knives (and mace) were all they needed.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2967511&postcount=43

[negativ]

Having had a switchblade confiscated from me as a teen many years ago from what must have been a comparitively basic x-ray machine back then, having seen mates (in the forces) done after being found with souvenir firearms from Desert Storm and Bosnia and all caught in civvy airports over the years I didnt think it was ever that easy.

Long before 9/11, I carried a 3-inch folding knife through DFW airport security several times.

Note that I didn't "sneak" it through, I put it in the little tray where you put your change and your keys, etc. The guards all saw it, none ever said a word.

[CurtC]

Up until 9/11, I carried with me, in my pants pocket, on all flights a money clip which had a couple of two-inch knife blades in it. It was never questioned, and I never even considered it to be a potential hazard to the plane.

It was just a different mindset before 9/11.

[kevsta]

So to summarize my pov on this matter.

1. I think in 50 years we will know enough to say that Pakistani Intelligence, or those supported by them, had a role in the attacks, and we will also know enough to come to the conclusion that the USG administration was ignorant and arrogant enough about the threat, that it lead to the 9/11 attacks slipping past the radar so to speak.

TAM:)

would you surmise that this might be on a rogue individual basis or with the knowledge and support of elements of the State?

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

would you surmise that this might be on a rogue individual basis or with the knowledge and support of elements of the State?

I assume when he said: "ignorant and arrogant" means that he thinks that either they were stupid and didn't put 2 and 2 together, or that they saw the threat and say "Ha! Yeah, like THAT will happen" and did nothing, not thinking it could possibly work.

Also, to answer your question before... People made calls from the planes, they didn't need to SHARE a knife. There were eye-witnesses (who died in the impact obviously)

As I said before. It's one thing to play Devil's advocate... I do not get that from your questions.

[ckent2]

Long before 9/11, I carried a 3-inch folding knife through DFW airport security several times.

Note that I didn't "sneak" it through, I put it in the little tray where you put your change and your keys, etc. The guards all saw it, none ever said a word.

I had the same thing. I got it as a groomsman's gift from my buddy's wedding and I used to carry it everywhere. Including airplanes, and no one ever said a word to me. Didn't hide it either. It was a small knife, also no more than three inches, but it was sharp as anything.

After 9/11, I never even thought about bringing it on a plane since I was afraid of losing it permanently. I did have a razor confiscated about three years ago; I didn't realize that a disposable razor wasn't permitted either. But you know, I don't mind the extra security. When they catch something like that at least I feel a little better about my safety on an airplane.

[sts60]

People have repeatedly mentioned "incompetence" and "arrogance". Don't forget the threats to which we were oriented:
- Our air defense system was geared to intercepting inbound aircraft.
- Our national security decision-makers were heavy on ICBM threats, especially "rogue" launches. Remember the heavy emphasis on North Korean missiles and National Missile Defense?

[Sabrina]

sts60: That is very true, and I would not deny it, however given that many of the intel people I've personally spoken to have said that the idea of suicide hijackers was more or less laughed at prior to 9/11, I don't believe arrogance is a bad word to apply here. Ultimately the intelligence community failed at it's primary mission; that of protecting the USA, and they failed because they either were not fully aware of the possibility (ignorance) or considered the possibility extremely unlikely because the attacks were so technologically inferior (arrogance).

[Hamradioguy]

I do find it amazing they'd have ever let people onboard planes with weapons.


Amazing, yes, but likely more common that you'd think. I had a friend who actually took a small handgun on board a plane prior to 9/11 just to prove it could be done. NOT recommended then or now, and I won't give full details. But because this trick absolutely will not work now, here's what he did then: Went thru the metal detector and when it beeped he said, "Oh yes, keys and coins. I forgot." Took these out of his pocket, showed them to Security and was allowed to proceed. Trust me: At SOME airports prior to 9/11 SOME security screening was pretty sloppy. As mentioned eleswhere, these hijackers scoped out the airports thoroughly beforehand. A bit of luck-yes, but for sure a lot of weapons got by security back then.

[T.A.M.]

People have repeatedly mentioned "incompetence" and "arrogance". Don't forget the threats to which we were oriented:
- Our air defense system was geared to intercepting inbound aircraft.
- Our national security decision-makers were heavy on ICBM threats, especially "rogue" launches. Remember the heavy emphasis on North Korean missiles and National Missile Defense?

The arrogance and "ignorance" that I harped on was in reference to elements of the FBI/CIA and the administration.

TAM:)

[Corsair 115]

Before we continue too far down the road of airport security, let me interrupt for a moment. I'm still wondering if kevsta is going to back up his claims about FDR being forewarned about Pearl Harbor...

[T.A.M.]

would you surmise that this might be on a rogue individual basis or with the knowledge and support of elements of the State?

you are asking whether the "arrogance" was rogue or state sponsered arrogance???

ok...I think the BUSH admin, him, Cheney, and many others were arrogant wrt the infalibility of the US wrt major terrorist attacks on our soil.

TAM:)

PS: If you are hinting that it might be LIHOP, i have seen no hard evidence beyond coincidences and speculation to support such an argument at this present time.

TAM;)

[T.A.M.]

if you are referring to the pakistani angle (sorry, just noticed your bolding), then I think there was likely SOME state (meaning elements of the Pakistani govt) supporting such...yes.

Pakistan is an ally of convenience only, I suspect.

TAM:)

[kevsta]

Let's see, you implied "people like" GWB have some secret agenda for the world. That is woo.

You implied that Pearl Harbor was a LIHOP despite there's no rational proof or evidence. Playing Devil's Advocate is a part of being skeptical. Insisting something inaccurate is true with no proof, that's woo.

Ok fair point. :) let me elaborate on my views.

GWB. No I did not say anything about agendas for the world. I do however believe that GWB & Cronies quite possibly do have some sort of secret long-term business agenda for themselves and their friends. ..Obviously I know this has never been observed in human nature before from those in power, but there's always a first time.

Do I think Bush did it? lol, no he can hardly tie his shoelaces or remember his lines.

Do I think they (the Bush collective) are incapable of plotting to provoke a war and get the result they wanted? lol, do you?

Well, lets see..

1) Fabricate "evidence" about WMD's when you'd already agreed to do Iraq with Blair a year earlier anyway.

2) Ignore International Law and go ahead illegally anyway with huge casualties and no noticeable benefits to anybody several years later, except the companies selling the weapons and supporting the Forces.

But I think it would be much more likely to be done in an opportunistic and reactive way as opposed to setting it up themselves.

Could I absolutely rule out the possibility that they may have even let it slip through the net because it was what they needed at that point? No I wouldnt. I dont believe they did, but like God, or the possibilty that GWB did win his elections, surely a true skeptic cant ever really rule it out?

It would only have to be the actions of one or two, not a whole senate sitting down and agreeing on it or anything. Who actually knows? Not us.

As for Pearl Harbour, entirely anecdotal on my behalf, it was something my father told me, his brother heard it from his best friend who Churchill's butler or footman or something for a while. Frankly I think its as valid as any of the other versions or accounts written since, but I dont expect you to, unless possibly it was your family it had come through.

Can I also just ask, is it considered woo to think that if people have a strong enough motive for something to happen, Churchill / Roosevelt / Bush etc, and then that thing does happen under questionable circumstances, that in lack of other direct evidence on the matter, that motive could later prove to have been significant in events?

I like to think I am OPEN minded, and that is to BOTH sides of any story, because IMO both sides are likely to be as bad as each other.

Here I find myself playing an unintended Devil's Advocate due to the confrontational and some might say closed-minded attitude of some here towards new people they really have no clue about.

[Disbelief]

2) Ignore International Law and go ahead illegally anyway with huge casualties and no noticeable benefits to anybody several years later, except the companies selling the weapons and supporting the Forces.



What international law was broken? When did Desert Storm officially end?

[kevsta]

What international law was broken? When did Desert Storm officially end?

I think we both know that justification for going ahead against the wishes of the UN at the time is a bit weak. Some might even say desperate

[mortimer]

kevsta,

earlier in the thread you mentioned that there was incompetence on the part of NORAD and of airport security, and I asked for evidence. would you like to provide such evidence, or retract your claims that NORAD was incompetent?

[Disbelief]

I think we both know that justification for going ahead against the wishes of the UN at the time is a bit weak. Some might even say desperate

Weak, yet true. I am a veteran of Desert Storm, though I enlisted after the conclusion of fighting. Whether you admit it or not, the US never formally ended the conflict.

[Par]

Ok fair point. :) let me elaborate on my views.

GWB. No I did not say anything about agendas for the world. I do however believe that GWB & Cronies quite possibly do have some sort of secret long-term business agenda for themselves and their friends. ..Obviously I know this has never been observed in human nature before from those in power, but there's always a first time.

Do I think Bush did it? lol, no he can hardly tie his shoelaces or remember his lines.

Do I think they (the Bush collective) are incapable of plotting to provoke a war and get the result they wanted? lol, do you?

Well, lets see..

1) Fabricate "evidence" about WMD's when you'd already agreed to do Iraq with Blair a year earlier anyway.

2) Ignore International Law and go ahead illegally anyway with huge casualties and no noticeable benefits to anybody several years later, except the companies selling the weapons and supporting the Forces.

But I think it would be much more likely to be done in an opportunistic and reactive way as opposed to setting it up themselves.

Could I absolutely rule out the possibility that they may have even let it slip through the net because it was what they needed at that point? No I wouldnt. I dont believe they did, but like God, or the possibilty that GWB did win his elections, surely a true skeptic cant ever really rule it out?

It would only have to be the actions of one or two, not a whole senate sitting down and agreeing on it or anything. Who actually knows? Not us.

As for Pearl Harbour, entirely anecdotal on my behalf, it was something my father told me, his brother heard it from his best friend who Churchill's butler or footman or something for a while. Frankly I think its as valid as any of the other versions or accounts written since, but I dont expect you to, unless possibly it was your family it had come through.

Can I also just ask, is it considered woo to think that if people have a strong enough motive for something to happen, Churchill / Roosevelt / Bush etc, and then that thing does happen under questionable circumstances, that in lack of other direct evidence on the matter, that motive could later prove to have been significant in events?

I like to think I am OPEN minded, and that is to BOTH sides of any story, because IMO both sides are likely to be as bad as each other.

Here I find myself playing an unintended Devil's Advocate due to the confrontational and some might say closed-minded attitude of some here towards new people they really have no clue about.


Regarding Iraq: I don’t agree that they did fabricate evidence. Nor, as I understand it, have they broken any law.

Regarding argument from ignorance: You’re right that it wouldn’t be prudent to assert that we can know for certain that there was no conspiracy surrounding 9/11. But that doesn’t mean that the idea is worth giving serious consideration. Similarly, we can’t know for certain that creationism is false, but there’s no evidence in its favour.

Regarding Pearl Harbour: Regardless of whose family the anecdotal evidence in question had been passed through, I would think that it would be highly irrational to base an extraordinary conclusion upon it.
 
Regarding motive: I wouldn’t have thought motive alone would ever safely prove anything. It’s somewhat academic, however; neither appreciable motive nor suspicious circumstances seem to manifest themselves surrounding 9/11 or Pearl Harbour.

Regarding equivalence: Even if it were true that “both sides are as bad as each other” – which, of course, it isn’t – we have a mountain of evidence pointing one way and practically nothing pointing the other.

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

1) Fabricate "evidence" about WMD's when you'd already agreed to do Iraq with Blair a year earlier anyway.

So all those US Democrats in 1998 stating that Saddam Hussein must be removed because of his WMD capabilities and manufacturing were doing this so Bush (a Republican Governor at the time) would have a reason to get into office and immediately start planning an attack on Iraq?

2) Ignore International Law and go ahead illegally anyway with huge casualties and no noticeable benefits to anybody several years later, except the companies selling the weapons and supporting the Forces.

So all those U.N. resolutions from the cease fire of the first Gulf War were just saying "Oh hey Iraq, we just wanted to pass a resolution stating you're doing a top-notch job!". No. And don't forget that the final resolution (passed unanimously by the security council) stated, Serious Consequences if they didn't comply with the inspectors? (I think it was resolution 1441 or 14something. I can't recall off the top of my head)

But I think it would be much more likely to be done in an opportunistic and reactive way as opposed to setting it up themselves.

Could I absolutely rule out the possibility that they may have even let it slip through the net because it was what they needed at that point? No I wouldnt. I dont believe they did, but like God, or the possibilty that GWB did win his elections, surely a true skeptic cant ever really rule it out?

There's being a skeptic, and not believing at face value. But once you delve into the facts, and you still are a skeptic for skeptics sake and refuse to believe the facts? Well, you're no longer being a true skeptic. You're being dishonest.
It would only have to be the actions of one or two, not a whole senate sitting down and agreeing on it or anything. Who actually knows? Not us.

As for Pearl Harbour, entirely anecdotal on my behalf, it was something my father told me, his brother heard it from his best friend who Churchill's butler or footman or something for a while. Frankly I think its as valid as any of the other versions or accounts written since, but I dont expect you to, unless possibly it was your family it had come through.

Well, go right on ahead and believe a lie over what really happened.
Can I also just ask, is it considered woo to think that if people have a strong enough motive for something to happen, Churchill / Roosevelt / Bush etc, and then that thing does happen under questionable circumstances, that in lack of other direct evidence on the matter, that motive could later prove to have been significant in events?

Read some history and get back to us. It's one thing to sit around and say "What if?" and it's another to claim "Well, I can't believe the official account of what happened, because my 'What if' might be true!"
I like to think I am OPEN minded, and that is to BOTH sides of any story, because IMO both sides are likely to be as bad as each other.

Here I find myself playing an unintended Devil's Advocate due to the confrontational and some might say closed-minded attitude of some here towards new people they really have no clue about.
[/quote]

A Devil's Advocate doesn't believe "the other side" but understands it well enough to argue on it's behalf. You do not seem to be like that. Maybe it's the smugness. It's hard to tell.

[chillzero]

Those who are personalizing and bickering should remember rules 11 and 12 before further action is taken.




I'm making this thread moderated status, and moving some posts to AAH.

You were warned.

[kevsta]

Inappropriate for moderated thread.

FYI I've been reading this forum for more than a year before I registered, and regularly use it for research and info in the course of my work.

I am definitely not a "truther". I am equally suspicious of every ****** Admittedly, the more power they have, the more suspicious I am.

Regarding Iraq: I don’t agree that they did fabricate evidence.

really?


http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/THU407A.html (http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/THU407A.html)

Ok, sorry, I'll re-phrase, plagirised and reissued some random student's thesis as intelligence, knowing it to be false.

Blair admits knowing Intel was false (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1005-01.htm)


Nor, as I understand it, have they broken any law.

Opinions differ dont they? having lost the votes they went ahead against wishes of the UN and International Law.


http://www.counterpunch.org/bacher05302003.html (http://www.counterpunch.org/bacher05302003.html)


http://observer.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,1158859,00.html (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,1158859,00.html)

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6917.htm


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6016893/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6016893/)

the last is my favourite with Powell squirming and using the same tired excuse as above, shortly before he resigns (ala Robin Cook from the shame of it all IMO)

If on technicality & loophole Bush can argue he isnt breaking International Law he's surely breaking his precious "God's" Laws by murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians?


Regarding argument from ignorance: You’re right that it wouldn’t be prudent to assert that we can know for certain that there was no conspiracy surrounding 9/11. But that doesn’t mean that the idea is worth giving serious consideration.

I expect a lot of people thought that about Watergate before it emerged? I think we disagree here, because you may feel it is less likely doesnt mean we shouldn't consider as always a possibility IMO, especially when the people are of questionable integrity.



Regarding Pearl Harbour: Regardless of whose family the anecdotal evidence in question had been passed through, I would think that it would be highly irrational to base an extraordinary conclusion upon it.

agreed. however there's obviously a lot of other people thinking and saying this as shown by a google search shown below.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&hs=uwm&pwst=1&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=pearl+harbour+provoked&spell=1

could you point me towards your truth please (have searched but no joy) and explain why it is better than my 60 year old tip from inside, coupled with the fact that many others think or claim to know the same as fact?


Regarding motive: I wouldn’t have thought motive alone would ever safely prove anything. It’s somewhat academic, however; neither appreciable motive nor suspicious circumstances seem to manifest themselves surrounding 9/11 or Pearl Harbour.

no sorry, I was being unclear, it's true motive proves nothing, but I think you'd find a lot of Policemen who would tell you that in the absence of anything else it often points to a good place to start looking.

Like I said I dont believe they were involved in 911, (but would probably stick £50 on a bet if you gave me 1000 to 1 on it.)

but are you saying that there was no appreciable motive or reason for FDR / Churchill wanting the Japanese to attack America, and thus enable the US to enter into the war as they wanted it to?


Regarding equivalence: Even if it were true that “both sides are as bad as each other” – which, of course, it isn’t – we have a mountain of evidence pointing one way and practically nothing pointing the other.

I was speaking generally in that usually theres two sides to an argument, often both sides are as bad etc. In this particular case there's no real comparison.

OBL 3000 US civilians+ killed

GWB 3700+ US military killed & 70000+ civilians killed.

[PhantomWolf]

On the knives on planes thing. We recently (as in this year) had the situation where it was discovered that several Shik Preists had carried their ceromonial daggers onboard some of our domestic flights totally unchallenged. Seems our security is worse than the US's.

To questions, most of mine relate to how it was allowed to occur. Why there was so much arrogance in the law enforcement agencies, why they had a belief that they were untouchable, especially after the '93 WTC Bombing, the Oklahoma City Bombing, and the USS Cole attack. There were a lot of people that suspected something was coming, a lot of people that even knew how and what would be targeted. As the 9/11 Commission stated, the system was blinking red, and no one took any noticed. This is where I question things. I don't believe that it was deliberately allowed to happen, but I want to know why those that were responsible for protecting the US were so arrogant as to believe that it couldn't happen, ignorant to the fact that it was happening, and incompentent in seing what was going on. Why did the systems fail? Why didn't the messages get passed on, and why the groups, even inside organisations didn't talk to each other. I don't think that these issues have ever been seriously adressed and what we have currently tends to be a lot of butt covering by those that didn't do their jobs properly at the time.

[kevsta]

On the knives on planes thing. We recently (as in this year) had the situation where it was discovered that several Shik Preists had carried their ceromonial daggers onboard some of our domestic flights totally unchallenged. Seems our security is worse than the US's.

To questions, most of mine relate to how it was allowed to occur. Why there was so much arrogance in the law enforcement agencies, why they had a belief that they were untouchable, especially after the '93 WTC Bombing, the Oklahoma City Bombing, and the USS Cole attack. There were a lot of people that suspected something was coming, a lot of people that even knew how and what would be targeted. As the 9/11 Commission stated, the system was blinking red, and no one took any noticed. This is where I question things. I don't believe that it was deliberately allowed to happen, but I want to know why those that were responsible for protecting the US were so arrogant as to believe that it couldn't happen, ignorant to the fact that it was happening, and incompentent in seing what was going on. Why did the systems fail? Why didn't the messages get passed on, and why the groups, even inside organisations didn't talk to each other. I don't think that these issues have ever been seriously adressed and what we have currently tends to be a lot of butt covering by those that didn't do their jobs properly at the time.

If were to you look at the situation in simple Martial Arts terminology there's a fairly easy explaination for this. it could be said that the security agencies had been LARPing around (Live Action Role Playing) and not really ever been effectively pressure tested on their home soil.

unfortunately the first such pressure test was a real one and their "systems" all failed them leaving them unable to resist, just watching helplessly as the opponent destroyed them with simple but unexpected techniques.

I think a lot of the CT mindset does come from the suspicion caused by people covering up their cock-ups and failures rather than outright betrayals.

but I suppose when people sense something not quite adding up, and suspect a lie they start imagining all sorts of things it could actually be.

[Corsair 115]

If on technicality & loophole Bush can argue he isnt breaking International Law he's surely breaking his precious "God's" Laws by murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians? One does not prove the other. Evidence does. Where's your evidence? Or are you going to rely on after-the-fact events which you interpret to be supportive of a conspiracy argument?

could you point me towards your truth please (have searched but no joy) and explain why it is better than my 60 year old tip from inside, coupled with the fact that many others think or claim to know the same as fact? A good number of historians have looked at the actual documents related to Pearl Harbor — archives are filled with such material. Books have been written based on that exhaustive documentary material, and they trump any sort of hearsay you provide of what supposedly one person said to another sixty years ago.

but are you saying that there was no appreciable motive or reason for FDR / Churchill wanting the Japanese to attack America, and thus enable the US to enter into the war as they wanted it to? Churchill very much wanted the U.S. to enter the war, yes. But Japan attacking the U.S. first does not guarantee the U.S. would go to war against Germany.

The declaration of war issued by the U.S. after Pearl Harbor, on Dec. 8th, was only against Japan — the U.S. and Germany were not at war. Indeed, this posed some problems since while the American public was certainly in favour of going to war against Japan in retaliation for Pearl Harbor, there was still some who did not want to go to war in Europe.

This problem was solved on Dec. 11th when Germany and Italy declared war against the United States. Interestingly, they were not obliged to do so under the terms of the Tripartite Pact. The pact only called for the other members to declare war should one of the other nations in the pact be attacked. Since Japan had initiated hostilities, Germany and Italy were not required to declare war on the U.S.

OBL 3000 US civilians+ killed

GWB 3700+ US military killed & 70000+ civilians killed.That does not in any way prove the U.S. government was part of a conspiracy to commit 9/11.

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

That does not in any way prove the U.S. government was part of a conspiracy to commit 9/11.

Not to mention that an overwhelming majority of those civilians killed were killed by terrorists intentionally targeting civilians in Iraq in order to sway people to their side.

"Hey, they blew up innocent civilians! Let's attack the guys trying to stop them!"

[kevsta]

One does not prove the other. Evidence does. Where's your evidence? Or are you going to rely on after-the-fact events which you interpret to be supportive of a conspiracy argument?

I dont understand what you mean here? somebody asked me what laws Bush had broken, and I was saying that arguing loopholes with regard to the UN doesnt excuse him from breaking his precious God's laws by which he would have us believe he lives. This shalt not kill.

As I keep saying I dont actually think that Bush was involved. I just dont trust him and his not to have been either. there is a difference.

A good number of historians have looked at the actual documents related to Pearl Harbor — archives are filled with such material.

Books have been written based on that exhaustive documentary material, and they trump any sort of hearsay you provide of what supposedly one person said to another sixty years ago.


quite a lot of secret archives are too arent they too if I'm not mistaken? and a proportion of the books written since then about the situation do think that FDR was involved in provocation. from what I've read people seem too hung up on small detail, I don't believe that he necessarily knew specifics in advance of attacks, or even where it would be, but i'm fairly sure that he wanted the war and was trying quite hard to get it. My words were "more or less provoked..." ..not "conspired / allowed or was complicit with."

Is planning & scheming with another leader of state at a time of war "conspiring" ? if so all secret war plans would then be conspiracies and the c/t s would all be right ;)



Churchill very much wanted the U.S. to enter the war, yes. But Japan attacking the U.S. first does not guarantee the U.S. would go to war against Germany.

The declaration of war issued by the U.S. after Pearl Harbor, on Dec. 8th, was only against Japan — the U.S. and Germany were not at war. Indeed, this posed some problems since while the American public was certainly in favour of going to war against Japan in retaliation for Pearl Harbor, there was still some who did not want to go to war in Europe.

This problem was solved on Dec. 11th when Germany and Italy declared war against the United States. Interestingly, they were not obliged to do so under the terms of the Tripartite Pact. The pact only called for the other members to declare war should one of the other nations in the pact be attacked. Since Japan had initiated hostilities, Germany and Italy were not required to declare war on the U.S.

This is of course all true, but i'm sure you understand it would be very unlikely that you would go to war with one member of an alliance and not fight with their allies if you met them face to face. it's also much easier to just add another name to the enemies list when you're already at war. small steps.


That does not in any way prove the U.S. government was part of a conspiracy to commit 9/11.

lol, again, I dont believe I ever said I thought it did? why are you guys so determined to put words into my mouth? :)

Not to mention that an overwhelming majority of those civilians killed were killed by terrorists intentionally targeting civilians in Iraq in order to sway people to their side.

I dont believe this to be true. And as until very recently the US didnt think foreign civilian deaths are important enough to even keep records for I would be interested to see your sources for this statement?

[Dave Rogers]

and a proportion of the books written since then about the situation do think that FDR was involved in provocation.

I've heard the argument that the oil sanctions against Japan were a provocation aimed at starting open war, but that looks like sophistry to me; what the argument suggests is that it would have been morally and politically acceptable for the USA to supply oil to Japan in order for Japan to carry on a blatant war of aggression against China. At no point were Japan's oil supplies insufficient for peacetime needs; oil from the USA was needed purely for the war against China, and the reason for the USA witholding oil was to try to influence Japan to cease that war. What else was FDR supposed to do?

Dave

[Corsair 115]

I...I don't believe that he necessarily knew specifics in advance of attacks, or even where it would be, but i'm fairly sure that he wanted the war and was trying quite hard to get it. By November of 1941 it was quite clear that Japan and the U.S. were headed towards war. Japan was not about to cease its brutal invasion and occupation of China, and the U.S. was not about to let Japan continue that without suffering some sort of economic sanctions for it.

This is of course all true, but i'm sure you understand it would be very unlikely that you would go to war with one member of an alliance and not fight with their allies if you met them face to face. it's also much easier to just add another name to the enemies list when you're already at war. small steps. Germany and Italy were not required to declare war against the U.S. under the terms of the Tripartite Pact. It was only Hitler's general disdain for the U.S. which led to the declaration three days later.

It was quite possible that the U.S. might have been at war only with Japan and not Germany or Italy.

[gumboot]

Personally the only really burning question I have is in relation to the Secret Service and the group surrounding Bush that day. I'd like to know what decisions they did and didn't make concerning Bush's safety, and why. Particularly the reason behind keeping him in the classroom for so long.

None of this really is of special importance as far as I am concerned, it's merely something that I'm curious about, and it's the one aspect of the day that I'm pretty much in the dark about.

As to the question of "incompetence", I personally don't feel the US government, or any particular government agency was "incompetent". I don't think they could have stopped the attacks. To be honest it kind of amuses me when people act like the fact that the attacks wasn't stopped was some sort of cataclysmic system failure.

You cannot protect a free society from those sorts of threats. It's simply not possible. The measures required to guard against such a threat make a society, by definition, not free.

-Gumboot

[gumboot]

I dont believe this to be true. And as until very recently the US didnt think foreign civilian deaths are important enough to even keep records for I would be interested to see your sources for this statement?


Do some reading (http://www.iraqbodycount.org).

From their report on year four (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/numbers/year-four/):

Following the six week “Shock and Awe” invasion phase (March 19 - May 1, 2003), which alone caused the deaths of some 7,400 civilians, the violent death toll has steadily risen year-on-year. There were 6,332 reported civilian deaths in the 10.5 months following the initial invasion in year one, or 20 per day; 11,312 in year two, 55% up on year one’s daily rate; 14,910 in year three (32% up on year two); and a staggering 26,540 in year four (78% up on year three, and averaging 74 per day). Not counting the 7,400 invasion-phase deaths, four times as many people were killed in the last year as in the first. And from the invasion to the present, at least 110,000 civilians have been wounded, 38,000 of them during year four.

...

Coalition forces, principally US as well as some UK, were identified to have killed at least 536 Iraqi civilians in year four (excluding a major incident in Najaf in January which is still under investigation by IBC). This compares with 370 in year three.

So from March 2005 to March 2006, coalition forces were responsible for about 2.5% of civilian deaths due to violence, while from March 2006 to March 2007, coalition forces were responsible for about 2%.

The overwhelming majority of deaths are a result of Iraqis killing Iraqis.

-Gumboot