If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Kos)   "Bin Laden determined to strike in the US"? Yeah, turns out that was about the least alarming of the series of PDB's Bush ignored before 9/11   (dailykos.com) divider line 350
    More: Followup, George Bush, Osama bin Laden, United States, George Tenet, imminent threat, Health Care, International, Chechnya, Bush administration  
•       •       •

3971 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Sep 2012 at 6:39 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



350 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-09-10 11:46:38 PM  
Wait, the *Daily Kos* blames the Bush administration for 9/11? Holy cow! That's like Rush Limbaugh opposing Obama's re-election! Somebody stop the presses!!!!!
 
2012-09-10 11:57:36 PM  

fickle floridian: Wait, the *Daily Kos* blames the Bush administration for 9/11? Holy cow! That's like Rush Limbaugh opposing Obama's re-election! Somebody stop the presses!!!!!


Well, so does Eichenwald over at the NY Times. But that's like the Washington Times supporting Romney, I guess. 

Read the accounts and come to your own conclusions.
 
2012-09-10 11:59:14 PM  
they wanted to get hit. those PNAC people weren't in his administration by accident or coincidence
 
2012-09-11 12:02:11 AM  

fickle floridian: Wait, the *Daily Kos* blames the Bush administration for 9/11? Holy cow! That's like Rush Limbaugh opposing Obama's re-election! Somebody stop the presses!!!!!


There's a reason FARK has a 'Florida' tag.
 
2012-09-11 12:04:20 AM  
We will tolerate nothing other than a history agreed upon by the majority.
 
2012-09-11 12:10:14 AM  
The Man Who Knew

"For six years, John O'Neill was the FBI's leading expert on Al Qaeda. He warned of its reach. He warned of its threat to the U.S. But to the people at FBI headquarters, O'Neill was too much of a maverick, and they stopped listening to him. He left the FBI in the summer of 2001 and took a new job as head of security at the World Trade Center."

This Frontline program is a decade old, but still worth watching.
 
2012-09-11 12:12:53 AM  
the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that "a group presently in the United States" was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be "imminent," although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible.

Well, if they knew where the terrorists were, they should have gone and stopped them. I mean, the United States is pretty small right? Probably would have taken an afternoon or two to find them.
 
2012-09-11 12:18:29 AM  

serial_crusher: the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that "a group presently in the United States" was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be "imminent," although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible.

Well, if they knew where the terrorists were, they should have gone and stopped them. I mean, the United States is pretty small right? Probably would have taken an afternoon or two to find them.


Generally the response to a vague threat like that is not to ignore it.
 
2012-09-11 12:20:33 AM  
NO! We want an incurious basterd in the Casa Blanca, I've been assured by Team Romney that is what we want. It must be right, because he made a massive fortune thanks to generous tax breaks his ilk lobbied for and he benefited from.

He gets this sh*t. He will save us all.

The black guy is asleep at the switch! NUKE EVERYONE!
 
2012-09-11 12:26:32 AM  
Jesus Christ. I'm beginning to rethink my hypothesis that the Bush administration was merely incompetent at best and negligent at worst.
 
2012-09-11 12:28:52 AM  

serial_crusher: the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that "a group presently in the United States" was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be "imminent," although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible.

Well, if they knew where the terrorists were, they should have gone and stopped them. I mean, the United States is pretty small right? Probably would have taken an afternoon or two to find them.


I know. It was just... too much, too much. Better to just do nothing.
 
2012-09-11 12:31:35 AM  
Could this not have been linked to the NYT article?
 
2012-09-11 12:51:05 AM  

fickle floridian: Wait, the *Daily Kos* blames the Bush administration for 9/11? Holy cow! That's like Rush Limbaugh opposing Obama's re-election! Somebody stop the presses!!!!!


I assume that as a small child (if you aren't still one, that is) you were the type that put your hands over your ears, closed your eyes and made nonsense noises rather then look or listen to that which you didn't feel like hearing/weren't able to comprehend.
 
2012-09-11 01:03:39 AM  
Look, I'm not the type to sit around defending Bush - Lord knows there's plenty of reasons not to. But the administration did not want to get hit, would love to have done things differently, and there are an unbelievable number of warnings almost every day.
 
2012-09-11 01:10:53 AM  

mahuika: Could this not have been linked to the NYT article?


Came to say this. Now it's just going to be a steady stream of "hurrr it's Kos" in here, as if there aren't eleventy billion Townhall links greened in a day.
 
2012-09-11 01:19:49 AM  
Unsurprising at all.

If there is one thing in Government that is always a constant it is the complete incompetence of federal employees and elected officials.
 
2012-09-11 02:14:25 AM  

mahuika: Could this not have been linked to the NYT article?


That one got submitted second, and redlit. Tossup as to which headline was funnier, and using the Kos link gets some page hits for....

coco ebert: Now it's just going to be a steady stream of "hurrr it's Kos" in here

 
2012-09-11 03:23:29 AM  

Krymson Tyde: Jesus Christ. I'm beginning to rethink my hypothesis that the Bush administration was merely incompetent at best and negligent at worst.


I think he was just the figurehead. The dude who signed whatever the real people in charge put in front of him.

/kind of like what a Romney administration would be.
 
2012-09-11 03:38:13 AM  

vygramul: Look, I'm not the type to sit around defending Bush - Lord knows there's plenty of reasons not to. But the administration did not want to get hit, would love to have done things differently, and there are an unbelievable number of warnings almost every day.


Not that make it into the PDB. Really.
 
2012-09-11 04:27:35 AM  

fickle floridian: Wait, the *Daily Kos* blames the Bush administration for 9/11? Holy cow! That's like Rush Limbaugh opposing Obama's re-election! Somebody stop the presses!!!!!


Looks like you and Bush Jr. have about the same level of reading comprehension.

cman: Unsurprising at all.

If there is one thing in Government that is always a constant it is the complete incompetence of federal employees and elected officials.


No, these federal employees. I know plenty of competent ones personally, probably because I recognize them as individuals and not a giant, dehumanized mass. Way to dip people just going about their jobs in 9/11 blood.
 
2012-09-11 04:44:45 AM  
fta: On July 9, at a meeting of the counterterrorism group, one official suggested that the staff put in for a transfer so that somebody else would be responsible when the attack took place...

It's good to have a plan.
 
2012-09-11 05:27:49 AM  
In light of this new information, I will never vote for George W. Bush for President, again. .

Historians can look over past events, but in the end they cannot change it. The best they can hope for is their biased light illuminates what they want to see, leaving uncomfortable truths in the dark shadows.

We cannot say if anyone else was President things would have been better or different.
 
2012-09-11 05:40:17 AM  

Darth_Lukecash: We cannot say if anyone else was President things would have been better or different.


This.

It is pointless speculation based upon individual feelings of the speculators of former President Bush. Their minds are already made up regardless of any truth. Kind of like 9/11 truthers or birthers, these people have only one opinion, and they are gonna make every piece of evidence fit into whatever their damn crazy mind tells them because they want to believe that he was that bad of a President.
 
2012-09-11 06:36:07 AM  
GWB was so concerned about OBL that he spared no expense in getting him.

Wait, no: he ignored him almost entirely and used his attacks as an excuse to invade a completely
different country uninvolved in the 9/11 attacks!
 
2012-09-11 06:46:53 AM  
The best way to view this is to look at how Bush and his ilk worked the war in Iraq. They had Bin stupid trapped in Tora Bora, backed off, took the fight to Iraq with false evidence of weapons of mass destruction because the Sadam tried to kill his daddy. Republicons can't wrap their head around the notion that we'd have a balanced budget today if we hadn't wasted the trillion or so dollars on the wars and if we hadn't given away the rest of the money to the richest 1% or so (ok, a bunch also went to the middle class, but it pales in comparison to the largess given to the richest; I got 2,000 or so, the rich got 250,000 or so (dollars, not cents). Seriously . . .
 
2012-09-11 06:49:23 AM  
No mention of Jamie Gorelick? More fail from the daily POS.
 
2012-09-11 06:51:16 AM  
I think it would have happened regardless of who was in the White House... But this does reinforce that the Bush Administration had a hard-on for Iraq pretty much from the beginning and the attacks on 9/11/01 gave them the excuse they needed to plunge us headlong into that expensive debacle.

...And sadly, the GOP is still chocker blocked with these ideological neoconservative assholes.
 
2012-09-11 06:51:48 AM  

Darth_Lukecash: We cannot say if anyone else was President things would have been better or different.


Actually, with anyone else as President, events would have been different. How much, and better or worse, we can't be sure, but it would have been different somehow.
 
2012-09-11 06:56:35 AM  

Darth_Lukecash: In light of this new information, I will never vote for George W. Bush for President, again.


How about Jeb?
 
2012-09-11 07:04:55 AM  

mahuika: Could this not have been linked to the NYT article?


Doesn't NYT have a pay wall?
 
2012-09-11 07:07:05 AM  
Catch-22. He could only have stopped the attacks if liberals had already been cowed enough by the post-9/11 climate to have previously passed or allowed the PATRIOT Act, indefinite detentions and warrantless wire-taps.

But seriously: the important thing to not lose sight of is how badly he, Rumsfield, Wolfowitz, et al botched Iraq and Afghanistan (among other things) and the serious and long-ranging effects of their incompetence, mismanagement and skewed ideology.
 
2012-09-11 07:10:09 AM  
FTA: "The Neo-Conservatives tried to dismiss the CIA's warning, attempting to describe them as the result of a disinformation campaign by Osama bin Laden intended to distract the US from focusing on Saddam Hussein."

The neocons knew an attack on US soil would be a perfect justification to go batshiat insane into global war. They ignored it because they wanted it to happen.
 
2012-09-11 07:13:21 AM  

Rashnu: But seriously: the important thing to not lose sight of is how badly he, Rumsfield, Wolfowitz, et al botched Iraq and Afghanistan (among other things) and the serious and long-ranging effects of their incompetence, mismanagement and skewed ideology.


To say they botched things is to imply that such idiocy could have been attempted and successfully completed in the first place. The entire massive operation was a disaster militarily, financially, and politically.

/I could have gone and gotten Bin Laden myself and done it for not a penny more than two billion bucks.
 
2012-09-11 07:19:48 AM  

Krymson Tyde: Jesus Christ. I'm beginning to rethink my hypothesis that the Bush administration was merely incompetent at best and negligent at worst.


Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.
 
2012-09-11 07:21:16 AM  
I may be outing my previous alt here, but my brother was quite involved in all that stuff at the time. He was named ambassador to Tajikistan by Bush right after 9/11 (career diplomat, not a republicon). He assured me that there were weapons of mass destruction right after we invaded Iraq. He said "I've seen the intelligence, it was incontrovertible." He's pretty sorry he made that statement today. "We all got fooled by photoshopped evidence."
 
2012-09-11 07:24:16 AM  
Atleast someone got fired over this.
 
2012-09-11 07:26:15 AM  

pciszek: Krymson Tyde: Jesus Christ. I'm beginning to rethink my hypothesis that the Bush administration was merely incompetent at best and negligent at worst.

Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.


Well, for accuracy's sake, we should really be calling this the Cheney/Rove administration. Bush was the top dog only to get the truly stupid people on board with the dangerously war monger types.
 
2012-09-11 07:29:36 AM  

Darth_Lukecash: In light of this new information, I will never vote for George W. Bush for President, again. .

Historians can look over past events, but in the end they cannot change it. The best they can hope for is their biased light illuminates what they want to see, leaving uncomfortable truths in the dark shadows.

We cannot say if anyone else was President things would have been better or different.


So why bother looking at facts at all. Your opniion is equally valid with any other, untainted by investigation or knowledge of previous events.
 
2012-09-11 07:32:28 AM  
Too bad Clinton forced federal agencies not to share information with each other and even worse, that he passed on the opportunity to takeOBL into custody.

/ Bushs fault? Sure, but throw Party boy Clinton in there too as he has blood on his hands.
 
2012-09-11 07:33:43 AM  
This should come as no surprise...considering the Wolfowitz Doctrine and the following statement from the The Project for the New American Century's "Rebuilding America's Defenses" white paper:

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and industrial policy will shape the pace and content of transformation as much as the requirements of current missions."
 
2012-09-11 07:34:07 AM  

Lorelle: The Man Who Knew

"For six years, John O'Neill was the FBI's leading expert on Al Qaeda. He warned of its reach. He warned of its threat to the U.S. But to the people at FBI headquarters, O'Neill was too much of a maverick, and they stopped listening to him. He left the FBI in the summer of 2001 and took a new job as head of security at the World Trade Center."

This Frontline program is a decade old, but still worth watching.


That was a really good episode. This two-parter that shows what happened after is also worth watching: Bush's War.

Got to love PBS Frontline. It's consistently one of the best programs on television.
 
2012-09-11 07:38:15 AM  

cman: Darth_Lukecash: We cannot say if anyone else was President things would have been better or different.

This.

It is pointless speculation based upon individual feelings of the speculators of former President Bush. Their minds are already made up regardless of any truth. Kind of like 9/11 truthers or birthers, these people have only one opinion, and they are gonna make every piece of evidence fit into whatever their damn crazy mind tells them because they want to believe that he was that bad of a President.


Considering that Romney has surrounded himself with many of the same neo-con characters involved, I'd say that this speculation is quite relevant and worthy of review. Today, there will be millions of "Never Forget" banners on Facebook. Maybe those words should actually mean something instead of just being empty slogans.
 
2012-09-11 07:41:26 AM  

Close2TheEdge: cman: Darth_Lukecash: We cannot say if anyone else was President things would have been better or different.

This.

It is pointless speculation based upon individual feelings of the speculators of former President Bush. Their minds are already made up regardless of any truth. Kind of like 9/11 truthers or birthers, these people have only one opinion, and they are gonna make every piece of evidence fit into whatever their damn crazy mind tells them because they want to believe that he was that bad of a President.

Considering that Romney has surrounded himself with many of the same neo-con characters involved, I'd say that this speculation is quite relevant and worthy of review. Today, there will be millions of "Never Forget" banners on Facebook. Maybe those words should actually mean something instead of just being empty slogans.


I have an older sister who should be considered fairly smart (graduated magna cum laude, that's all A's from Pembroke U, the woman's part of Brown U). She's an accomplished author of several very fine books. Even though I was in my car on the Washington Blvd. access from 95 to the Memorial Bridge and SAW the plane hit the Pentagon, she still insists it was a cruise missile sent by the US military. It makes me really sad and I can't even talk about it with her.
 
2012-09-11 07:47:47 AM  
The whole thing could be ignored and even forgiven had the resulting leeway the world had given us not been squandered on an unrelated war and incredible mis-management of military actions thereafter.

When you fail upwards in baseball or in oil it's rare that someone dies as the direct result of your actions.

Bush deserves the legacy he has left behind and the party that worked so hard to defraud the American people to get him in office deserve the lack of regard and distrust they've earned.

And this is why your current GOP faithful is largely comprised of utter retards.
 
2012-09-11 07:49:40 AM  

vygramul: Look, I'm not the type to sit around defending Bush - Lord knows there's plenty of reasons not to. But the administration did not want to get hit, would love to have done things differently, and there are an unbelievable number of warnings almost every day.


Yes, on top of that, my favorite excuse: "Nobody could have thought of something as crazy as flying planes into buildings."
No, thousands and thousands of professionals who have no other job than to protect this country, gather intelligence, come up with all kinds of crazy scenarios, and warn the right people, could have never thought of this. Everyone is a professional with deep knowledge on every subject and the so called "experts" no nothing that you couldn't do better.
 
2012-09-11 07:53:51 AM  

MartinD-35: Close2TheEdge: cman: Darth_Lukecash: We cannot say if anyone else was President things would have been better or different.

This.

It is pointless speculation based upon individual feelings of the speculators of former President Bush. Their minds are already made up regardless of any truth. Kind of like 9/11 truthers or birthers, these people have only one opinion, and they are gonna make every piece of evidence fit into whatever their damn crazy mind tells them because they want to believe that he was that bad of a President.

Considering that Romney has surrounded himself with many of the same neo-con characters involved, I'd say that this speculation is quite relevant and worthy of review. Today, there will be millions of "Never Forget" banners on Facebook. Maybe those words should actually mean something instead of just being empty slogans.

I have an older sister who should be considered fairly smart (graduated magna cum laude, that's all A's from Pembroke U, the woman's part of Brown U). She's an accomplished author of several very fine books. Even though I was in my car on the Washington Blvd. access from 95 to the Memorial Bridge and SAW the plane hit the Pentagon, she still insists it was a cruise missile sent by the US military. It makes me really sad and I can't even talk about it with her.


I should also have said her major was Russian Language and she is also fluent in Japanese, Spanish, Italian and speaks a passable Korean and Chinese.
 
2012-09-11 07:56:08 AM  
Osama had little to nothing to do with 9/11, it was all the hard work of Terror Team Ten.
 
2012-09-11 07:58:46 AM  

Close2TheEdge: cman: Darth_Lukecash: We cannot say if anyone else was President things would have been better or different.

This.

It is pointless speculation based upon individual feelings of the speculators of former President Bush. Their minds are already made up regardless of any truth. Kind of like 9/11 truthers or birthers, these people have only one opinion, and they are gonna make every piece of evidence fit into whatever their damn crazy mind tells them because they want to believe that he was that bad of a President.

Considering that Romney has surrounded himself with many of the same neo-con characters involved, I'd say that this speculation is quite relevant and worthy of review. Today, there will be millions of "Never Forget" banners on Facebook. Maybe those words should actually mean something instead of just being empty slogans.


Yes. Does anyone really think it's a coincidence that Mitt's foreign policy slogan is "An American Century"?

i28.photobucket.com

Link
 
2012-09-11 08:00:42 AM  
cman, did you mean this . . .

Unsurprising at all.

If there is one thing in Government that is always a constant it is the complete incompetence of federal employees and elected officials.


Or this . . .

It is pointless speculation based upon individual feelings of the speculators of former President Bush. Their minds are already made up regardless of any truth. Kind of like 9/11 truthers or birthers, these people have only one opinion, and they are gonna make every piece of evidence fit into whatever their damn crazy mind tells them because they want to believe that he was that bad of a President.

Because if you substitute "President Bush" in your paragraph with "federal employees and elected officials," your two posts kind of cancel each other out. In other words, from your perspective, it's OK to have pointless speculation about government employees but not about Dubya's administration.

Ah, never mind. Just STFU and go teabag somewhere else.
 
2012-09-11 08:03:42 AM  

LarryDan43: Osama had little to nothing to do with 9/11, it was all the hard work of Terror Team Ten.


I see you think like my sister.
 
2012-09-11 08:04:11 AM  
That is the thing about 9/11. We had the intelligence we didn't have effective ways of combining what we knew and drawing an effective conclusion. In 2000/2001 there was still debates going on whether terrorism of mass destruction was possible or whether it would be counterproductive to the terrorist organizations goals.

Bush screwed up a lot of things during his presidency we don't need to blame him for not connecting the dots our billion dollar intelligence organizations couldn't point out.
 
2012-09-11 08:07:08 AM  

Carth: That is the thing about 9/11. We had the intelligence we didn't have effective ways of combining what we knew and drawing an effective conclusion. In 2000/2001 there was still debates going on whether terrorism of mass destruction was possible or whether it would be counterproductive to the terrorist organizations goals.

Bush screwed up a lot of things during his presidency we don't need to blame him for not connecting the dots our billion dollar intelligence organizations couldn't point out.


Or they (the intelligence organizations) did, and it's classified: we'll never know.
 
2012-09-11 08:12:24 AM  

MartinD-35: Carth: That is the thing about 9/11. We had the intelligence we didn't have effective ways of combining what we knew and drawing an effective conclusion. In 2000/2001 there was still debates going on whether terrorism of mass destruction was possible or whether it would be counterproductive to the terrorist organizations goals.

Bush screwed up a lot of things during his presidency we don't need to blame him for not connecting the dots our billion dollar intelligence organizations couldn't point out.

Or they (the intelligence organizations) did, and it's classified: we'll never know.


That's true. Had there been a smoking gun about the attack I think the 9/11 commissions recommendations on intelligence reform wouldn't have been as dramatic. If the IC got it right the commission could have called it an administrative failure and not completely reorganized a working system.

The fact they screwed up Iraq WMD so sooner after also makes me think the intelligence about bin ladin's attack wasn't as much a slam dunk as some people want to think. It is easy to piece things together with hind sight. It is really hard to predict a paradigm shift before it happens.
 
2012-09-11 08:19:58 AM  

shotglasss: Gorelick


get="_blank">EnviroDude: Too bad Clinton forced federal agencies not to share information with each other and even worse, that he passed on the opportunity to takeOBL into custody.

/ Bushs fault? Sure, but throw Party boy Clinton in there too as he has blood on his hands.


You guys realize this is an article talking about how information from federal agencies were being shared with the White House, right?
 
2012-09-11 08:21:33 AM  

Carth: Bush screwed up a lot of things during his presidency we don't need to blame him for not connecting the dots our billion dollar intelligence organizations couldn't point out.


Question. Do you think Obama deserves any credit for the eventually successful plan to get Bin Laden?

/Conversely, does Mitt Romney now look like an ass in those "It's not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person." ads the Obama campaign is currently running with?
 
2012-09-11 08:21:43 AM  

cc_rider: Close2TheEdge: cman: Darth_Lukecash: We cannot say if anyone else was President things would have been better or different.

This.

It is pointless speculation based upon individual feelings of the speculators of former President Bush. Their minds are already made up regardless of any truth. Kind of like 9/11 truthers or birthers, these people have only one opinion, and they are gonna make every piece of evidence fit into whatever their damn crazy mind tells them because they want to believe that he was that bad of a President.

Considering that Romney has surrounded himself with many of the same neo-con characters involved, I'd say that this speculation is quite relevant and worthy of review. Today, there will be millions of "Never Forget" banners on Facebook. Maybe those words should actually mean something instead of just being empty slogans.

Yes. Does anyone really think it's a coincidence that Mitt's foreign policy slogan is "An American Century"?

[i28.photobucket.com image 800x390]

Link


Is that Bizzarro Obama he's shaking hands with?
 
2012-09-11 08:23:06 AM  
Was there something that could be acted on in these briefs, or was it all "OMG! Bin Laden is going to strike us ANYDAY!"

If there was some chatter about "hey, he's going to do something with the airplanes," then yeah, that's something you can act on -- meet with your FAA administrator, your national security team, etc., etc., and within a day or two, there's a bulletin to all airports saying "Hey guys, be on the lookout for hijackings, etc."

But in the absence of further info -- you can't just increase security EVERYWHERE.
 
2012-09-11 08:29:30 AM  

MartinD-35: Carth: That is the thing about 9/11. We had the intelligence we didn't have effective ways of combining what we knew and drawing an effective conclusion. In 2000/2001 there was still debates going on whether terrorism of mass destruction was possible or whether it would be counterproductive to the terrorist organizations goals.

Bush screwed up a lot of things during his presidency we don't need to blame him for not connecting the dots our billion dollar intelligence organizations couldn't point out.

Or they (the intelligence organizations) did, and it's classified: we'll never know.


Well, seeing as the premise of this article is that, yes, they did connect a lot of the dots, told the president and the president ignored them, I'm not so sure that this is unknowable territory.

Not saying that action by Bush would have changed anything, but it's not hard to imagine a situation where a little heightened attention from the Executive, spurring better coordination, or mobilizing more assets could have thwarted bin Laden.

The fact all this alarm was brushed away as chaff thrown up by bin Laden in the improbable scenario of coordination with Saddam means that the opportunity was lost. And lost because the Administration had a creationist-like fixation on Iraq (which coincidentally had under-exploited oil resources...) and fixed the data to the theory instead of the other way around.
 
2012-09-11 08:29:43 AM  

Rashnu: Catch-22. He could only have stopped the attacks if liberals had already been cowed enough by the post-9/11 climate to have previously passed or allowed the PATRIOT Act, indefinite detentions and warrantless wire-taps.

But seriously: the important thing to not lose sight of is how badly he, Rumsfield, Wolfowitz, et al botched Iraq and Afghanistan (among other things) and the serious and long-ranging effects of their incompetence, mismanagement and skewed ideology.


Funny story, Clinton was "obsessed" with al Qaeda (according to the incoming bush administration), guess who blocked his attempts to put through a softball patriot act? Congressional Republicans.
 
2012-09-11 08:35:57 AM  

Darth_Lukecash: We cannot say if anyone else was President things would have been better or different.


Uh, you know what? I'll be the bold one to say had the 2000 election been honestly decided and not stolen, things would have been better. Do you seriously believe that the president being the son of the man who sent initially US forces for an indefinite period in Saudi Arabia had no part in the decision to attack? Do you really think that Gore would have been too busy vacationing to pay attention to a briefing from security officials? It's bad enough we have these "only history can judge" apologists acting like the administration didn't go on a multi-year decline from incompetents to crooks to downright war criminals, but let's not build further on this artifice of bullshiat into an all-bullshiat recreation of the Twin Towers just to make sure your guy doesn't look bad. Bush farked the fark up, and there are countless dead because of it. I can understand not wanting to feel respnosible if you voted for a guy you wanted to have a beer with in 2000, but it's important to remember that very fact in the face of the "BOTH SIDES ARE THE SAME" crowd too lazy to do their goddam reading.
 
2012-09-11 08:37:05 AM  

quatchi: Carth: Bush screwed up a lot of things during his presidency we don't need to blame him for not connecting the dots our billion dollar intelligence organizations couldn't point out.

Question. Do you think Obama deserves any credit for the eventually successful plan to get Bin Laden?

/Conversely, does Mitt Romney now look like an ass in those "It's not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person." ads the Obama campaign is currently running with?


Definitely. He was presented with good intelligence and made a tough decision on whether to order an air strike or use SEALs. I think he deserves a lot of credit for choosing special forces which provided evidence of the kill and saved civilian lives during the raid. I also think had the raid gone bad, and the black hawk crash resulted in 14 deaths, he would share some of the blame.
 
2012-09-11 08:38:49 AM  
This really adds a new dimension when I think about Bush and his admin officials saying "we cannot forget the lessons of 9/11."
 
2012-09-11 08:42:17 AM  

Carth: That's true. Had there been a smoking gun about the attack I think the 9/11 commissions recommendations on intelligence reform wouldn't have been as dramatic. If the IC got it right the commission could have called it an administrative failure and not completely reorganized a working system.


There's every reason to believe that if such information existed, it would have been twisted around to justify attacking Iraq. And, of course, part of the reason there wasn't a smoking gun was that Bush ignored all of the gun smoke that was filling up his intelligence so he could focus on Iraq.

The fact they screwed up Iraq WMD so sooner after also makes me think the intelligence about bin ladin's attack wasn't as much a slam dunk as some people want to think. It is easy to piece things together with hind sight. It is really hard to predict a paradigm shift before it happens.


The screwed up the Iraq WMD intel so badly because they were trying to get the intel to match with their pre-concieved policy goals, and not let the best intel shape their policy goals. That was why Cheney was spending so much time at the CIA--to ensure that the "right" intel got funneled to the right people.

Remember, this is the administration that denigrated the "reality-based community" as hopelessly quaint.

The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality-judiciously, as you will-we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors...and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.


/This goes to my pet theory that the problem with the GOP today is that they took the lessons learned in PR/Advertising and have seen them as the solutions in all realms of human activity.
 
2012-09-11 08:43:13 AM  

cman: If there is one thing in Government that is always a constant it is the complete incompetence of federal employees and elected officials.


No, sorry CMAN.

You may want to remember that the Clinton administration got warnings of a potential bombing plan (Millinium Bomb Plot) and broke it up, capturing numerous terrorists around the world, while working with our allies in stopping about a dozen or so planned acts of terrorism

Stop projecting! Just because Republicans claim that government "doesn't work" and when obtaining office do everything they can to make that claim true, doesn't mean that others can't competently run the thing.

Sorry, this one is on the Bush Administration and it's neocon policy makers, who wanted to take out Saddam to the exclusion of actually protecting the US from "real" threats.
 
2012-09-11 08:43:53 AM  

hinten: vygramul: Look, I'm not the type to sit around defending Bush - Lord knows there's plenty of reasons not to. But the administration did not want to get hit, would love to have done things differently, and there are an unbelievable number of warnings almost every day.

Yes, on top of that, my favorite excuse: "Nobody could have thought of something as crazy as flying planes into buildings."
No, thousands and thousands of professionals who have no other job than to protect this country, gather intelligence, come up with all kinds of crazy scenarios, and warn the right people, could have never thought of this. Everyone is a professional with deep knowledge on every subject and the so called "experts" no nothing that you couldn't do better.


Google who said, "the type of person who could fly something into the World Trade Center."
 
2012-09-11 08:44:20 AM  

Darth_Lukecash: We cannot say if anyone else was President things would have been better or different.


Clinton was given an similar warning of a possible terrorist threat to airlines, and immediately called the FAA and spoke with the FBI. The FAA started cracking down on Airport security in 1996.

So yeah, we know what other presidents would do.
 
2012-09-11 08:48:04 AM  

hinten: Yes, on top of that, my favorite excuse: "Nobody could have thought of something as crazy as flying planes into buildings."


Hell, Hollywood writers came up with that scenario in The Lone Gunman TV show.
 
2012-09-11 08:53:56 AM  

Carth: That is the thing about 9/11. We had the intelligence we didn't have effective ways of combining what we knew and drawing an effective conclusion. In 2000/2001 there was still debates going on whether terrorism of mass destruction was possible or whether it would be counterproductive to the terrorist organizations goals.

Bush screwed up a lot of things during his presidency we don't need to blame him for not connecting the dots our billion dollar intelligence organizations couldn't point out.


That was the farking problem...they did point it out! It's not like there are shades about this, people were begging his staff to see reason. How much more pointing out could have been done? He didn't need to do anything that any mediocre leader wouldnt have done. To this day we thwart attacks because the people that need to react to these reports do so. People before the bush did, bush's people did after 9/11. It's important that history gets this right or the same kind of mistake is more likely in the future! Don't sugar coat responsibility because it was such a traumatizing event.
 
2012-09-11 08:55:59 AM  
It's like Hurricane Katrina. How could anybody have possibly prepared for that and acted on it? It's weather, it's not like they get reports in advance, and sometimes it's bad info, so what can you do?
 
2012-09-11 08:56:39 AM  

stpickrell: If there was some chatter about "hey, he's going to do something with the airplanes," then yeah, that's something you can act on -- meet with your FAA administrator, your national security team, etc., etc., and within a day or two, there's a bulletin to all airports saying "Hey guys, be on the lookout for hijackings, etc."

But in the absence of further info -- you can't just increase security EVERYWHERE.


You know what you could do? You could actually pay attention instead of focusing instead on Iraq.

From the article:

In the aftermath of 9/11, Bush officials attempted to deflect criticism that they had ignored C.I.A. warnings by saying they had not been told when and where the attack would occur. That is true, as far as it goes, but it misses the point. Throughout that summer, there were events that might have exposed the plans, had the government been on high alert. Indeed, even as the Aug. 6 brief was being prepared, Mohamed al-Kahtani, a Saudi believed to have been assigned a role in the 9/11 attacks, was stopped at an airport in Orlando, Fla., by a suspicious customs agent and sent back overseas on Aug. 4. Two weeks later, another co-conspirator, Zacarias Moussaoui, was arrested on immigration charges in Minnesota after arousing suspicions at a flight school. But the dots were not connected, and Washington did not react.


A reminder on who Zacarious Moussauoui was:

On August 16, 2001, Moussaoui was arrested by Harry Samit of the FBI and INS agents in Minnesota and charged with an immigration violation.[21] Materials itemized when he was arrested included a laptop computer, two knives, flight manuals pertaining to Boeing's 747 aircraft, a flight simulator computer program, fighting gloves and shin guards, and a computer disk with information about crop dusting.[21]

Some agents worried that his flight training had violent intentions, so the Minnesota bureau tried to get permission (sending over 70 emails in a week) to search his laptop, but they were turned down.[22] FBI agent Coleen Rowley made an explicit request for permission to search Moussaoui's personal rooms. This request was first denied by her superior, Deputy General Counsel Marion "Spike" Bowman, and later rejected based upon FISA regulations (amended after 9/11 by the USA Patriot Act). Several further search attempts similarly failed.

Ahmed Ressam, the captured al-Qaeda Millennium Bomber, was at the time sharing information with the U.S. authorities, in an effort to gain leniency in his sentencing. One person whom he was not asked about until after 9/11, but whom he was able to identify when asked as having trained with him at al-Qaeda's Khalden Camp in Afghanistan, was Moussaoui.[23] The 9/11 Commission Report opined that had Ressam been asked about Moussaoui, he would have broken the FBI's logjam.[23] Had that happened, the Report opined, the U.S. might conceivably have disrupted or derailed the September 11 attacks altogether.[23]


Sure, it's a little 20/20 hindsighting to say that this should have been the smoking gun, but the fact of the matter is that 1. Intelligence agencies were screaming that something BIG was going down, and 2. We had, in custody, the guy who could spill the beans, but we weren't even asking the right questions. Sure there were some regulatory hurdles that had to be overcome to access his evidence, and I suppose there are many who will point to those and say "See!! Clinton! Gorelick!!!", but I find it hard to believe that if the Executive was heeding the warnings, instead of focusing on their policy goals, that probably cause couldn't have been determined to allow access.
 
2012-09-11 08:56:43 AM  

EnviroDude: Too bad Clinton forced federal agencies not to share information with each other and even worse, that he passed on the opportunity to takeOBL into custody.

/ Bushs fault? Sure, but throw Party boy Clinton in there too as he has blood on his hands.


Good thing Obama took care of their fark ups right?
 
2012-09-11 08:59:22 AM  

KiplingKat872: hinten: Yes, on top of that, my favorite excuse: "Nobody could have thought of something as crazy as flying planes into buildings."

Hell, Hollywood writers came up with that scenario in The Lone Gunman TV show.


It was the central plot of a bestselling Tom Clancy novel as well.

I just about tossed my teevee out the window when I heard "nobody could have imagined".

Nobody could imagine what precisely?

Terrorists hijacking planes?

Terrorists attacking the World Trade Centers?

Suicide bombing?

Yeah, Al Qaeda invented all three concepts on the morning of 9/10 and went with it.
 
2012-09-11 09:00:20 AM  
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-09-11 09:00:29 AM  
All these warnings are old news, it's just a guy selling a book, heard him on NPR today... here's an old list of warnings, most with cites...

January 25, 2001: Clarke Warns Rice Al-Qaeda Cells Are Inside US and Are 'Major Threat'

May 30, 2001: FBI Is Warned of Major Al-Qaeda Operation in the US Involving Hijackings, Explosives, and/or New York City

Summer 2001: Bin Laden Speech Mentions 20 Martyrs in Upcoming Attack; Other Hints of Attack Spread Widely [9/11 Commission, 6/16/2004]

June 2001: Germans Warn of Plan to Use Aircraft as Missiles on US and Israeli Symbols [Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (Frankfurt), 9/11/2001; Washington Post, 9/14/2001; Fox News, 5/17/2002]

June 4, 2001: Illegal Afghans Overheard Discussing New York City Hijacking Attack [Miami Herald, 9/20/2001; Los Angeles Times, 9/20/2001]

June 13, 2001: Bin Laden Wants to Assassinate Bush with an Explosives-Filled Airplane [New York Times, 6/4/2002]

Late Summer 2001: Jordan Warns US That Aircraft Will Be Used in Major Attack Inside the US

July 2001: India Warns US of Possible Terror Attacks [Fox News, 5/17/2002]

July 8, 2001: Prominent Prisoner Publicly Warns of Al-Qaeda Intent to Export Violence to US Soil

July 16, 2001: British Spy Agencies Warn Al-Qaeda Is in The Final Stages of Attack in the West [London Times, 6/14/2002]

Late July 2001: Argentina Relays Warning to the US [Forward, 5/31/2002]

Late July 2001: Taliban Foreign Minister Tries to Warn US and UN of Huge Attack Inside the US [Independent, 9/7/2002; Reuters, 9/7/2002]

Late July 2001: Egypt Warns CIA of 20 Al-Qaeda Operatives in US; Four Training to Fly [CBS News, 10/9/2002]

August 2001: Moroccan Informant Warns US of Large Scale, Imminent Attack in New York [Agence France-Presse, 11/22/2001; International Herald Tribune, 5/21/2002; London Times, 6/12/2002]

August 2001: Russia Warns US of Suicide Pilots [Fox News, 5/17/2002]

August 2001: Persian Gulf Informant Gives Ex-CIA Agent Information About 'Spectacular Terrorist Operation' [Baer, 2002, pp. 55-58; Financial Times, 1/12/2002]

Early August 2001: Britain Warns US Again; Specifies Multiple Airplane Hijackings [Sunday Herald (Glasgow), 5/19/2002]

August 8-15, 2001: Israel Reportedly Warns of Major Assault on the US [Daily Telegraph, 9/16/2001; Ottawa Citizen, 9/17/2001; Los Angeles Times, 9/20/2001]

August 23, 2001: Mossad Reportedly Gives CIA List of Terrorist Living in US; at Least Four 9/11 Hijackers Named [Der Spiegel (Hamburg), 10/1/2002]

August 24, 2001: Foreign Intelligence Reminds US of Al-Qaeda Plot to Attack within US

August 29, 2001: Cayman Islands Letter Warns of 'Major Terrorist Act Against US via an Airline or Airlines' [Miami Herald, 9/20/2001; Los Angeles Times, 9/20/2001; MSNBC, 9/23/2001]

August 30, 2001-September 4, 2001: Egypt Warns Al-Qaeda Is in Advanced Stages of Planning Significant Attack on US [New York Times, 6/4/2002]

Late August 2001: French Warning to US Echoes Earlier Israeli Warning [Fox News, 5/17/2002]

September 4, 2001: Mossad Gives Another Warning of Major, Imminent Attack [Sunday Mail, 9/16/2001]

September 7, 2001: French Give 'Very Specific Information' about Possible Attack on US Soil [Le Figaro (Paris), 10/31/2001]
 
2012-09-11 09:06:24 AM  

Headso: All these warnings are old news, it's just a guy selling a book, heard him on NPR today... here's an old list of warnings, most with cites...


And yet here we are, eleven years to the day after the disaster, and people still don't want to accept that there was any way possible to foresee the event.
 
2012-09-11 09:10:35 AM  

Skleenar: stpickrell: If there was some chatter about "hey, he's going to do something with the airplanes," then yeah, that's something you can act on -- meet with your FAA administrator, your national security team, etc., etc., and within a day or two, there's a bulletin to all airports saying "Hey guys, be on the lookout for hijackings, etc."

But in the absence of further info -- you can't just increase security EVERYWHERE.

You know what you could do? You could actually pay attention instead of focusing instead on Iraq.

From the article:

In the aftermath of 9/11, Bush officials attempted to deflect criticism that they had ignored C.I.A. warnings by saying they had not been told when and where the attack would occur. That is true, as far as it goes, but it misses the point. Throughout that summer, there were events that might have exposed the plans, had the government been on high alert. Indeed, even as the Aug. 6 brief was being prepared, Mohamed al-Kahtani, a Saudi believed to have been assigned a role in the 9/11 attacks, was stopped at an airport in Orlando, Fla., by a suspicious customs agent and sent back overseas on Aug. 4. Two weeks later, another co-conspirator, Zacarias Moussaoui, was arrested on immigration charges in Minnesota after arousing suspicions at a flight school. But the dots were not connected, and Washington did not react.

A reminder on who Zacarious Moussauoui was:

On August 16, 2001, Moussaoui was arrested by Harry Samit of the FBI and INS agents in Minnesota and charged with an immigration violation.[21] Materials itemized when he was arrested included a laptop computer, two knives, flight manuals pertaining to Boeing's 747 aircraft, a flight simulator computer program, fighting gloves and shin guards, and a computer disk with information about crop dusting.[21]

Some agents worried that his flight training had violent intentions, so the Minnesota bureau tried to get permission (sending over 70 emails in a week) to search his laptop, but they were turned down.[22] FBI agent Coleen Rowley made an explicit request for permission to search Moussaoui's personal rooms. This request was first denied by her superior, Deputy General Counsel Marion "Spike" Bowman, and later rejected based upon FISA regulations (amended after 9/11 by the USA Patriot Act). Several further search attempts similarly failed.

Ahmed Ressam, the captured al-Qaeda Millennium Bomber, was at the time sharing information with the U.S. authorities, in an effort to gain leniency in his sentencing. One person whom he was not asked about until after 9/11, but whom he was able to identify when asked as having trained with him at al-Qaeda's Khalden Camp in Afghanistan, was Moussaoui.[23] The 9/11 Commission Report opined that had Ressam been asked about Moussaoui, he would have broken the FBI's logjam.[23] Had that happened, the Report opined, the U.S. might conceivably have disrupted or derailed the September 11 attacks altogether.[23]

Sure, it's a little 20/20 hindsighting to say that this should have been the smoking gun, but the fact of the matter is that 1. Intelligence agencies were screaming that something BIG was going down, and 2. We had, in custody, the guy who could spill the beans, but we weren't even asking the right questions. Sure there were some regulatory hurdles that had to be overcome to access his evidence, and I suppose there are many who will point to those and say "See!! Clinton! Gorelick!!!", but I find it hard to believe that if the Executive was heeding the warnings, instead of focusing on their policy goals, that probably cause couldn't have been determined to allow access.


Ding-ding! It was the arresting agent for Zacharias Moussaoui that wrote in his report, "[he's] the type of person who could fly something into the World Trade Center."
 
2012-09-11 09:13:32 AM  
I hesitated to click on the NYT link. I half feared seeing some quoted blah, blah, blah about UFOs, alleging that steel can't melt, that there was no plane at the Pentagon, and cr@p of that nature. I was wrong. I'm glad I clicked the link. I'm also glad I clicked this link and read this thread.

My kids are studying 9/11 at school. I've printed the NYT article. I may have them read this thread as well. It's a little salty, but I know that they've heard all before now. (They began public school and riding the bus for the first time this year and my son joyfully shared that, on the bus, he has heard more bad words than he ever knew existed. He was so excited.)
 
2012-09-11 09:13:46 AM  
Well. This won't make me hate George W. Bush and his friends anymore, but I have some confirmation bias.
 
2012-09-11 09:16:13 AM  
Ari Fleischer is upset; anyone who questions the Bush administration national security failings is a truther. Link
 
2012-09-11 09:17:02 AM  

More_Like_A_Stain: And yet here we are, eleven years to the day after the disaster, and people still don't want to accept that there was any way possible to foresee the event.


While I don't believe Bush actually knew in advance and let it happen, I sure as hell wouldn't say the same about other snakes like Wolfowitz or Cheney or Rumsfeld. Moreso a Wolfowitz or Cheney (throw in Rove), since the political/reptilian side of their brain would probably say, "We can turn this to our advantage and enact war-time measures".

I could definitely see Cheney weighing the political consequences of doing nothing and losing 3000+ U.S. citizens, half of whom are probably Democrats anyway, vs the opportunity to crank up the US military to full capacity against another semi-defenseless 3rd world country.

They just totally farked up on the aftermath, the disastrous occupation. Probably because they're chickenhawks with massive egos who aren't going to listen to some goddamn leftist 3 star general.
 
2012-09-11 09:17:49 AM  
oldnewsissoexciting.jpg

Anyone who thinks the 'bin Laden determined to strike US' report is significant (or worse, the smoking gun) either hasn't read it or doesn't understand it. And it's missing the point: the intelligence failure was vast, on many levels and across many fronts.

hinten: Yes, on top of that, my favorite excuse: "Nobody could have thought of something as crazy as flying planes into buildings."
No, thousands and thousands of professionals who have no other job than to protect this country, gather intelligence, come up with all kinds of crazy scenarios, and warn the right people, could have never thought of this. Everyone is a professional with deep knowledge on every subject and the so called "experts" no nothing that you couldn't do better.


Thinking up plans and having contingencies is very different than actively defending against such a scenario. Assuming some guy in the basement of the Pentagon thought up this exact scenario and wrote out how to react, when the fark would it ever come into play? Nobody expected it, and without solid intel that such an attack vector was imminent, the scenario wouldn't have been useful at all.
 
2012-09-11 09:19:21 AM  

jakomo002: While I don't believe Bush actually knew in advance and let it happen, I sure as hell wouldn't say the same about other snakes like Wolfowitz or Cheney or Rumsfeld. Moreso a Wolfowitz or Cheney (throw in Rove), since the political/reptilian side of their brain would probably say, "We can turn this to our advantage and enact war-time measures".

I could definitely see Cheney weighing the political consequences of doing nothing and losing 3000+ U.S. citizens, half of whom are probably Democrats anyway, vs the opportunity to crank up the US military to full capacity against another semi-defenseless 3rd world country.


Well, at least we got rid of one of the bastards responsible for this anniversary.
 
2012-09-11 09:20:17 AM  

stpickrell: Was there something that could be acted on in these briefs, or was it all "OMG! Bin Laden is going to strike us ANYDAY!"

If there was some chatter about "hey, he's going to do something with the airplanes," then yeah, that's something you can act on -- meet with your FAA administrator, your national security team, etc., etc., and within a day or two, there's a bulletin to all airports saying "Hey guys, be on the lookout for hijackings, etc."

But in the absence of further info -- you can't just increase security EVERYWHERE.


I think as has been mentioned, it is always easy to lay blame for missing things that seem obvious in hindsight - especially as you note when there is no obvious action to pursue from the information being found. It isn't like a root and branch replacement of the CIA had been undertaken, so the information coming in and who was being watched, and the methods in place, were all unchanged. It is certainly possible a different administration could have seen things differently about the warning signs and assigned it higher priority, but that is speculation - after all how many other threats through the years have been raised to a PDB but then been resolved or come to nothing, and even if more resources were assigned, would they have achieved anything? In hindsight it will always look like the threat that turned out to be a real issue was ignored or not prioritized enough, but that discounts the various other threats that looked equally or more credible at the time competing for attention and resources. Things like the PNAC statement can be discarded out of hand with minimal consideration: so you are so sneaky and evil you will help/allow a major terrorist attack on US soil, but so stupid you will publish your intent to do so publicly on the internet - reading it as a hypothetical aside of the author makes far more sense than reading it as a declaration of intent.

One thing that is a bit disturbing is the lack of communication between NORAD and the FAA - it seems surprising that interception (discreetly) by fighter aircraft wouldn't be standard for any hijacking in US airspace even before 9/11 - it is not as if the idea of using a plane as a weapon is an obscure thing that nobody before these terrorists had thought of (plenty of movies and books have had plots based on it before, like Tom Clancy's excuse to make his Mary Sue President in his books), so you would think in the various military "war games" it would be something that the "bad guys" should have tried and lessons learned from it before it happened for real, but there is a tendency with those sorts of things to only prepare them for the sort of event that the system is already designed to protect against, allowing refinement of current processes, and not be so good at working out flaws in the system

Obviously the thing the Bush Administration can really be crucified on is using 9/11 to "justify" the Iraq war, and by stretching their resources (and not planning for the occupation virtually at all, or even actively discouraging such planning), screwing up both Afghanistan and Iraq. And the horrendous experiments in counter insurgency/counter terrorism - not just torture, but also things like the bounty systems for locals killing "Al Qaeda" operatives while having no way of knowing if they really were or just more civilian victims of local feuds and rivalries, or just the full bore anti-Sunni genocide they effectively funded in Iraq. Given how cynical they abused the power the 9/11 attacks gave them, I can see why people assume the worst about their other actions, and they barely deserve any defense - the problem being the same with Hitler/Nazism - if you turn an actual event/group/people into some caricature of evil (or incompetence) you make similar events more likely in future as it makes it more difficult to spot similar traits or events happening again.
 
2012-09-11 09:20:47 AM  

MartinD-35: I may be outing my previous alt here, but my brother was quite involved in all that stuff at the time. He was named ambassador to Tajikistan by Bush right after 9/11 (career diplomat, not a republicon). He assured me that there were weapons of mass destruction right after we invaded Iraq. He said "I've seen the intelligence, it was incontrovertible." He's pretty sorry he made that statement today. "We all got fooled by photoshopped evidence."


Goddamn did we have some dumbfark people in government at the time.

No offense to your brother.
 
2012-09-11 09:21:34 AM  

sprawl15: Anyone who thinks the 'bin Laden determined to strike US' report is significant (or worse, the smoking gun) either hasn't read it or doesn't understand it. And it's missing the point: the intelligence failure was vast, on many levels and across many fronts.

January 25, 2001: Clarke Warns Rice Al-Qaeda Cells Are Inside US and Are 'Major Threat'

May 30, 2001: FBI Is Warned of Major Al-Qaeda Operation in the US Involving Hijackings, Explosives, and/or New York City

Summer 2001: Bin Laden Speech Mentions 20 Martyrs in Upcoming Attack; Other Hints of Attack Spread Widely [9/11 Commission, 6/16/2004]

June 2001: Germans Warn of Plan to Use Aircraft as Missiles on US and Israeli Symbols [Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (Frankfurt), 9/11/2001; Washington Post, 9/14/2001; Fox News, 5/17/2002]

June 4, 2001: Illegal Afghans Overheard Discussing New York City Hijacking Attack [Miami Herald, 9/20/2001; Los Angeles Times, 9/20/2001]

June 13, 2001: Bin Laden Wants to Assassinate Bush with an Explosives-Filled Airplane [New York Times, 6/4/2002]

Late Summer 2001: Jordan Warns US That Aircraft Will Be Used in Major Attack Inside the US

July 2001: India Warns US of Possible Terror Attacks [Fox News, 5/17/2002]

July 8, 2001: Prominent Prisoner Publicly Warns of Al-Qaeda Intent to Export Violence to US Soil

July 16, 2001: British Spy Agencies Warn Al-Qaeda Is in The Final Stages of Attack in the West [London Times, 6/14/2002]

Late July 2001: Argentina Relays Warning to the US [Forward, 5/31/2002]

Late July 2001: Taliban Foreign Minister Tries to Warn US and UN of Huge Attack Inside the US [Independent, 9/7/2002; Reuters, 9/7/2002]

Late July 2001: Egypt Warns CIA of 20 Al-Qaeda Operatives in US; Four Training to Fly [CBS News, 10/9/2002]

August 2001: Moroccan Informant Warns US of Large Scale, Imminent Attack in New York [Agence France-Presse, 11/22/2001; International Herald Tribune, 5/21/2002; London Times, 6/12/2002]

August 2001: Russia Warns US of Suicide Pilots [Fox News, 5/17/2002]

August 2001: Persian Gulf Informant Gives Ex-CIA Agent Information About 'Spectacular Terrorist Operation' [Baer, 2002, pp. 55-58; Financial Times, 1/12/2002]

Early August 2001: Britain Warns US Again; Specifies Multiple Airplane Hijackings [Sunday Herald (Glasgow), 5/19/2002]

August 8-15, 2001: Israel Reportedly Warns of Major Assault on the US [Daily Telegraph, 9/16/2001; Ottawa Citizen, 9/17/2001; Los Angeles Times, 9/20/2001]

August 23, 2001: Mossad Reportedly Gives CIA List of Terrorist Living in US; at Least Four 9/11 Hijackers Named [Der Spiegel (Hamburg), 10/1/2002]

August 24, 2001: Foreign Intelligence Reminds US of Al-Qaeda Plot to Attack within US

August 29, 2001: Cayman Islands Letter Warns of 'Major Terrorist Act Against US via an Airline or Airlines' [Miami Herald, 9/20/2001; Los Angeles Times, 9/20/2001; MSNBC, 9/23/2001]

August 30, 2001-September 4, 2001: Egypt Warns Al-Qaeda Is in Advanced Stages of Planning Significant Attack on US [New York Times, 6/4/2002]

Late August 2001: French Warning to US Echoes Earlier Israeli Warning [Fox News, 5/17/2002]

September 4, 2001: Mossad Gives Another Warning of Major, Imminent Attack [Sunday Mail, 9/16/2001]

September 7, 2001: French Give 'Very Specific Information' about Possible Attack on US Soil [Le Figaro (Paris), 10/31/2001]


I'll say. That a pretty vast list of ignored intelligence, across many fronts.
 
2012-09-11 09:21:46 AM  

EyeballKid: It's like Hurricane Katrina. How could anybody have possibly prepared for that and acted on it? It's weather, it's not like they get reports in advance, and sometimes it's bad info, so what can you do?


What is really sad? Two years previously they had run computer models and the engineers told them the dikes were not sufficient.
 
2012-09-11 09:22:09 AM  
Sure this one warning he ignored resulted in an attack.

Where's all the articles about the warnings he ignored that didn't result in terrorist attacks? Its always about the blame game, never any credit for ignoring warnings that result in attacks.
 
2012-09-11 09:22:16 AM  
I would be surprised if no one didn't know about this already. It's old news to me. Consider also how he called off the attacks on bin Laden that Clinton had been doing and how Saddam "tried to kill my daddy". Bush wanted the attacks to happen. Much like how Pearl Harbor is now known to have been allowed to happen in order to bring the United States into war. The United States wanted to stay at peace both during World War II and prior to 9/11. Hard to justify an attack on Iraq if you have no real excuse.
 
2012-09-11 09:22:17 AM  

sprawl15: oldnewsissoexciting.jpg

Anyone who thinks the 'bin Laden determined to strike US' report is significant (or worse, the smoking gun) either hasn't read it or doesn't understand it. And it's missing the point: the intelligence failure was vast, on many levels and across many fronts.

hinten: Yes, on top of that, my favorite excuse: "Nobody could have thought of something as crazy as flying planes into buildings."
No, thousands and thousands of professionals who have no other job than to protect this country, gather intelligence, come up with all kinds of crazy scenarios, and warn the right people, could have never thought of this. Everyone is a professional with deep knowledge on every subject and the so called "experts" no nothing that you couldn't do better.

Thinking up plans and having contingencies is very different than actively defending against such a scenario. Assuming some guy in the basement of the Pentagon thought up this exact scenario and wrote out how to react, when the fark would it ever come into play? Nobody expected it, and without solid intel that such an attack vector was imminent, the scenario wouldn't have been useful at all.


If you are concerned about hijacked airplanes, and more to the point hijacked airplanes being used as weapons, there was a simple , low cost. obvious fix. Put farking locks on the cockpit doors. One simple regulation was all that was required to act on that scenario.
 
2012-09-11 09:22:21 AM  

Free Radical: EnviroDude: Too bad Clinton forced federal agencies not to share information with each other and even worse, that he passed on the opportunity to takeOBL into custody.

/ Bushs fault? Sure, but throw Party boy Clinton in there too as he has blood on his hands.

Good thing Obama took care of their fark ups right?


Too bad after neither of those things are true.

Clinton initiated the integration of a homeland security-like information-sharing program, albeit late enough in his presidency to not get off the ground. Seems unlikely he would oppose and then personally initiate that concept. Do you have sources?

The Sudanese government never had bin laden. End of story. The "intermediary" who made the offer was a known liar and self-aggrandizing fake power broker by the name of Mansoor Ijaz. Look him up.

Clinton had an unprecedented focus on terrorism and bin laden, the incoming bush administration thought he was obsessed. We've been over this a hundred times, wake up.
 
2012-09-11 09:24:08 AM  

jakomo002: They just totally farked up on the aftermath, the disastrous occupation.


A lot of money changed hands over that "disaster". I'm not so sure it was farked up. I'm not saying that 9/11 was a government conspiracy, but it was one hell of an opportunity for some to make a pile of cash.
 
2012-09-11 09:28:25 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: If you are concerned about hijacked airplanes, and more to the point hijacked airplanes being used as weapons, there was a simple , low cost. obvious fix. Put farking locks on the cockpit doors. One simple regulation was all that was required to act on that scenario.


The country was on a Clinton contact high and the average American is a crybaby who whines about anything they can. I mean, the problem was that they didn't even bother putting the pieces together to realize there was a problem, but if we assume they figured that out then people would have just cried 'fearmonger'. People were still incredibly pissed about Bush v Gore and it wouldn't have been totally unreasonable to see Bush suddenly putting locks on cockpit doors and increasing airport security as simply trying to prop up a boogeyman.

The Bush administration's ultimate point of failure was laziness and a dismissive attitude - nobody actually put in enough work at the higher levels to recognize an imminent threat despite the evidence being all around them.
 
2012-09-11 09:28:42 AM  

xria: I think as has been mentioned, it is always easy to lay blame for missing things that seem obvious in hindsight


But here's the thing: It's not like this information existed in a vacuum. I mean, if GWB just happened to pop into office and then all sorts of information started coming at him, sure, it would be really tough to prioritize.

But in order to claim that he shouldn't have known better, you have to believe that he wasn't specifically warned by his predecessor to pay attention to bin Laden, and that their own Counter-terrorism Czar wasn't screaming at them to pay attention.

And the only believable reason I can find that they ignored these warnings (or, pre-prioritization, if you prefer) is that they didn't fit with their desired policy goals.and/or were "tainted" by domestic partisan politics.
 
2012-09-11 09:29:24 AM  

js34603: Sure this one warning he ignored resulted in an attack.


you miscounted.
 
2012-09-11 09:29:55 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Ari Fleischer is upset; anyone who questions the Bush administration national security failings is a truther. Link


Ari Fleischer has the rare status of being someone who steeped in the exegetical and hermeneutical reasoning in the Talmud, yet can always be relied upon to reach the wrong conclusion after applying approximately zero brain power to it.
 
2012-09-11 09:30:24 AM  

deadcrickets: . Much like how Pearl Harbor is now knowntheorized, by some, to have been allowed to happen in order to bring the United States into war.

 
2012-09-11 09:30:30 AM  

cman: Darth_Lukecash: We cannot say if anyone else was President things would have been better or different.

This.

It is pointless speculation based upon individual feelings of the speculators of former President Bush. Their minds are already made up regardless of any truth. Kind of like 9/11 truthers or birthers, these people have only one opinion, and they are gonna make every piece of evidence fit into whatever their damn crazy mind tells them because they want to believe that he was that bad of a President.


On the other hand, 30 pct of the population appears to believe that the attacks actually occurred in 2000.
 
2012-09-11 09:31:13 AM  
FTFA[T]he White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat.

The Iraq War was set in stone from the moment Bush took office. 9/11 was first a distraction, then an excuse to go into Iraq and start handing out no-bid contracts to cronies with zero accountability, while simultaneously siphoning oil and raising gas prices to astronomical levels. The Iraqi invasion and occupation was corporate fraud concealed by a war.

Neocons are the absolute scum of the Earth, and if Romney wins, they'll be in power again.
 
2012-09-11 09:32:31 AM  

sprawl15: People were still incredibly pissed about Bush v Gore and it wouldn't have been totally unreasonable to see Bush suddenly putting locks on cockpit doors and increasing airport security as simply trying to prop up a boogeyman.


That's a kind of bizarre contra-factual scenario.
 
2012-09-11 09:32:54 AM  

sprawl15: but if we assume they figured that out then people would have just cried 'fearmonger'.


People were well aware of terrorism at the time, the wtc was already bombed once along with our embassies. It wasn't like it was after 9/11 but people understood that a terrorists could attack America.
 
2012-09-11 09:33:51 AM  

hinten: vygramul: Look, I'm not the type to sit around defending Bush - Lord knows there's plenty of reasons not to. But the administration did not want to get hit, would love to have done things differently, and there are an unbelievable number of warnings almost every day.

Yes, on top of that, my favorite excuse: "Nobody could have thought of something as crazy as flying planes into buildings."
No, thousands and thousands of professionals who have no other job than to protect this country, gather intelligence, come up with all kinds of crazy scenarios, and warn the right people, could have never thought of this. Everyone is a professional with deep knowledge on every subject and the so called "experts" no nothing that you couldn't do better.


Well, that's really just a silly statement that no one could have thought of it. I mean, I guess what he was trying to say was that he would have been personally incredulous. But having been an analyst for the Navy, we thought of a host of ways we could be attacked, some of which were probably more effective in terrifying the entire nation than attacking a vulnerability only a dozen cities have, some of which were deadlier, some of which we thought warranted some study. Some which were just bizarre. So odds are, someone had not only thought of it, but had explicitly written it up, probably even noticed immediately the attack went off an hour too early.
 
2012-09-11 09:34:32 AM  

Skleenar: sprawl15: People were still incredibly pissed about Bush v Gore and it wouldn't have been totally unreasonable to see Bush suddenly putting locks on cockpit doors and increasing airport security as simply trying to prop up a boogeyman.

That's a kind of bizarre contra-factual scenario.


No shiat. People are assholes.
 
2012-09-11 09:35:31 AM  

sprawl15: Philip Francis Queeg: If you are concerned about hijacked airplanes, and more to the point hijacked airplanes being used as weapons, there was a simple , low cost. obvious fix. Put farking locks on the cockpit doors. One simple regulation was all that was required to act on that scenario.

The country was on a Clinton contact high and the average American is a crybaby who whines about anything they can. I mean, the problem was that they didn't even bother putting the pieces together to realize there was a problem, but if we assume they figured that out then people would have just cried 'fearmonger'. People were still incredibly pissed about Bush v Gore and it wouldn't have been totally unreasonable to see Bush suddenly putting locks on cockpit doors and increasing airport security as simply trying to prop up a boogeyman.

The Bush administration's ultimate point of failure was laziness and a dismissive attitude - nobody actually put in enough work at the higher levels to recognize an imminent threat despite the evidence being all around them.


Ohh, so it was Bill Clinton and the lieberal lamestream media's fault that Bush didn't act. Got it.
 
2012-09-11 09:36:23 AM  

KiplingKat872: Hell, Hollywood writers came up with that scenario in The Lone Gunman TV show.


Worse than that for the Bush Administration (and Condi Rice in particular) is that she had been in security talks with her European counterparts just a couple of months before 9/11 where they laid out such a scenario and told her that they had been warned that terrorist were planning such an attack on the G10 meeting in Rome. Then after events she acted like such a tactic had never even crossed anyone's mind and there was no reason to plan for such a potentiality. This AFTER she had been told and sat in on meetings where security experts did plan for the exact same event.

BTW, on to this notion that "CLINTON forced security agencies not to share information with each other" - this was not true either. (Just more "noise" to try and cover their own incompetency.) Their never was such a law or rule in place when it came to foreign terrorism. These various laws, most of which were signed by Pres Ford, required on a limited basis that information gathered from things like wiretaps, etc., which were obtained for purposes of "national security" could not be shared with the FBI or other LE agencies, if it uncovered wrong doing by US Nationals and was completely unrelated to the underlying reasons why the surveillance was being conducted in the first place.

It has virtually ZERO application to the 9/11 situation and the part that Clinton supposedly played was likewise ZERO. There was a legal memo prepared by the Justice Dept, under Clinton, giving advice to the various Federal Law Enforcement agencies so they would not violate the law concerning restrictions on over reaching surveillance upon US Citizens. However, that memo was merely a restatement and updating of a near identical memo which came from the Bush (1) administration. It accurately reflected what the law was, it didn't change the law in way.

BTW, those restrictions wouldn't likely have been in place if it wasn't for the Nixon administration using all kinds of illegal surveillance tactics against US Citizens in order to silence their political criticism of him. The blowback from Watergate resulted in the "Church Commission" (Led by Sen Frank Church Idaho) which authored many laws to prevent such future abuses. And as mentioned above, these various acts and laws restricting the powers of the CIA and other agencies to engage in domestic spying were supported and signed into law by Pres. Ford.
 
2012-09-11 09:37:13 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Ohh, so it was Bill Clinton and the lieberal lamestream media's fault that Bush didn't act. Got it.


If that's what you got out of what I said, you're a farking idiot.
 
2012-09-11 09:39:09 AM  

2wolves: vygramul: Look, I'm not the type to sit around defending Bush - Lord knows there's plenty of reasons not to. But the administration did not want to get hit, would love to have done things differently, and there are an unbelievable number of warnings almost every day.

Not that make it into the PDB. Really.


The problem is, in part, the illusion of American infallibility. That illusion exists on both sides, mind you. We couldn't POSSIBLY have accidentally bombed the Chinese embassy - we're America! We couldn't POSSIBLY be hit with an attack that ACTUALLY succeeds - we're America! We should have put more assets on the problem, but Bush probably interpreted the report not as a suggestion for more attention, but proof we were "on top of it".
 
2012-09-11 09:39:37 AM  
Kinda funny. I'm watching the replay of the 9/11/01 "Today" show. They just mentioned they talked to the NSA and were told they had no indication of an attack of this nature.
 
2012-09-11 09:42:06 AM  

cman: Unsurprising at all.

If there is one thing in Government that is always a constant it is the complete incompetence of federal employees and elected officials.


"The government can't do anything right! Let us demonstrate."
 
2012-09-11 09:44:34 AM  

Darth_Lukecash: In light of this new information, I will never vote for George W. Bush for President, again. .

Historians can look over past events, but in the end they cannot change it. The best they can hope for is their biased light illuminates what they want to see, leaving uncomfortable truths in the dark shadows.

We cannot say if anyone else was President things would have been better or different.


It depends. Would other Presidents belong to an organization that said they needed a Pearl Harbor-like event to implement their plans, or have a National Security Adviser who was more concerned about a Russian threat than terrorists?
 
2012-09-11 09:46:36 AM  

Skleenar: deadcrickets: . Much like how Pearl Harbor is now knowntheorized hypothesized, by some, to have been allowed to happen in order to bring the United States into war.


Some suggest that maybe Churchill knew but was tired of waiting while his countrymen died every day. In theory, we'll find out in 2016.
 
2012-09-11 09:49:10 AM  

sprawl15: Skleenar: sprawl15: People were still incredibly pissed about Bush v Gore and it wouldn't have been totally unreasonable to see Bush suddenly putting locks on cockpit doors and increasing airport security as simply trying to prop up a boogeyman.

That's a kind of bizarre contra-factual scenario.

No shiat. People are assholes.


The sad thing is how easily they exploited our complacency. When we're hit again (and it's likely to be "when"), it'll be somewhere else we're complacent.
 
2012-09-11 09:50:32 AM  
Look forward to President Romney assembling the all star Bush team again.
 
2012-09-11 09:56:47 AM  

serial_crusher: the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that "a group presently in the United States" was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be "imminent," although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible.

Well, if they knew where the terrorists were, they should have gone and stopped them. I mean, the United States is pretty small right? Probably would have taken an afternoon or two to find them.


Actually FBI Agentslike Coleen Rowley were hot on the trail and were throwing up warnings, but they were systematically squelched by the NeoCons in FBIHQ.
So, yes, there were warnings and people were screaming and jumping up and down about an immanent attack using aircraft but the NeoCons didn't want to hear it.
Either because they wanted to start an attack on Iraq or because they didn't want any of their Saudi friends on the Visa Express to get investigated.

The failure of the NeoCons to protect the country from attack on 9-11 was due to either incompetence, stupidity or treason.
 
2012-09-11 10:01:11 AM  
DUBYA: I think...

CHENEY: Shut the fark up, George. OK Mr. security advisor, tell me how this impacts the energy industry.

ADVISOR: I...I...this is a warning about an imminent...

CHENEY: Tell me how this impacts the energy industry.

ADVISOR: I...

CHENEY: Tell me how this is tied to Saddam.

ADVISOR: Mr. Vice President, as I explained, this is a clear warning of an imminent threat from...

CHENEY: You see? Nothing. They've got nothing. Get the fark out of here and don't come back until you can give me something on Saddam.

ADVISOR: I feel that I should...

CHENEY: I will shoot you in your motherfarking face. Get. Out.
 
2012-09-11 10:04:01 AM  
We know statistically, that every couple of seconds, a child is abused, a woman is raped, and a person is murdered in this country.

But all that info is useless....unless someone can pinpoint where it will happen in order to prevent it...just like the vague warnings Bush recieved.
 
2012-09-11 10:05:21 AM  

More_Like_A_Stain: Headso: All these warnings are old news, it's just a guy selling a book, heard him on NPR today... here's an old list of warnings, most with cites...

And yet here we are, eleven years to the day after the disaster, and people still don't want to accept that there was any way possible to foresee the event.


Do you have any idea what the list looks like when you add in all the warnings for things that never happened?

Every agency has its disgruntled "crackpot" who's convinced that some group somewhere is going to attack us with bees, or parachute bombers...or Nickelback. 99% of them retire with their predictions unfulfilled.
 
2012-09-11 10:06:50 AM  

Giltric: But all that info is useless....unless someone can pinpoint where it will happen in order to prevent it...just like the vague warnings Bush recieved.

January 25, 2001: Clarke Warns Rice Al-Qaeda Cells Are Inside US and Are 'Major Threat'

May 30, 2001: FBI Is Warned of Major Al-Qaeda Operation in the US Involving Hijackings, Explosives, and/or New York City

Summer 2001: Bin Laden Speech Mentions 20 Martyrs in Upcoming Attack; Other Hints of Attack Spread Widely [9/11 Commission, 6/16/2004]

June 2001: Germans Warn of Plan to Use Aircraft as Missiles on US and Israeli Symbols [Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (Frankfurt), 9/11/2001; Washington Post, 9/14/2001; Fox News, 5/17/2002]

June 4, 2001: Illegal Afghans Overheard Discussing New York City Hijacking Attack [Miami Herald, 9/20/2001; Los Angeles Times, 9/20/2001]

June 13, 2001: Bin Laden Wants to Assassinate Bush with an Explosives-Filled Airplane [New York Times, 6/4/2002]

Late Summer 2001: Jordan Warns US That Aircraft Will Be Used in Major Attack Inside the US

July 2001: India Warns US of Possible Terror Attacks [Fox News, 5/17/2002]

July 8, 2001: Prominent Prisoner Publicly Warns of Al-Qaeda Intent to Export Violence to US Soil

July 16, 2001: British Spy Agencies Warn Al-Qaeda Is in The Final Stages of Attack in the West [London Times, 6/14/2002]

Late July 2001: Argentina Relays Warning to the US [Forward, 5/31/2002]

Late July 2001: Taliban Foreign Minister Tries to Warn US and UN of Huge Attack Inside the US [Independent, 9/7/2002; Reuters, 9/7/2002]

Late July 2001: Egypt Warns CIA of 20 Al-Qaeda Operatives in US; Four Training to Fly [CBS News, 10/9/2002]

August 2001: Moroccan Informant Warns US of Large Scale, Imminent Attack in New York [Agence France-Presse, 11/22/2001; International Herald Tribune, 5/21/2002; London Times, 6/12/2002]

August 2001: Russia Warns US of Suicide Pilots [Fox News, 5/17/2002]

August 2001: Persian Gulf Informant Gives Ex-CIA Agent Information About 'Spectacular Terrorist Operation' [Baer, 2002, pp. 55-58; Financial Times, 1/12/2002]

Early August 2001: Britain Warns US Again; Specifies Multiple Airplane Hijackings [Sunday Herald (Glasgow), 5/19/2002]

August 8-15, 2001: Israel Reportedly Warns of Major Assault on the US [Daily Telegraph, 9/16/2001; Ottawa Citizen, 9/17/2001; Los Angeles Times, 9/20/2001]

August 23, 2001: Mossad Reportedly Gives CIA List of Terrorist Living in US; at Least Four 9/11 Hijackers Named [Der Spiegel (Hamburg), 10/1/2002]

August 24, 2001: Foreign Intelligence Reminds US of Al-Qaeda Plot to Attack within US

August 29, 2001: Cayman Islands Letter Warns of 'Major Terrorist Act Against US via an Airline or Airlines' [Miami Herald, 9/20/2001; Los Angeles Times, 9/20/2001; MSNBC, 9/23/2001]

August 30, 2001-September 4, 2001: Egypt Warns Al-Qaeda Is in Advanced Stages of Planning Significant Attack on US [New York Times, 6/4/2002]

Late August 2001: French Warning to US Echoes Earlier Israeli Warning [Fox News, 5/17/2002]

September 4, 2001: Mossad Gives Another Warning of Major, Imminent Attack [Sunday Mail, 9/16/2001]

September 7, 2001: French Give 'Very Specific Information' about Possible Attack on US Soil [Le Figaro (Paris), 10/31/2001]


And there were so MANY of them. How could he ever have known with so many vague and very specific warnings?
 
2012-09-11 10:07:42 AM  

Cataholic: More_Like_A_Stain: Headso: All these warnings are old news, it's just a guy selling a book, heard him on NPR today... here's an old list of warnings, most with cites...

And yet here we are, eleven years to the day after the disaster, and people still don't want to accept that there was any way possible to foresee the event.

Do you have any idea what the list looks like when you add in all the warnings for things that never happened?

Every agency has its disgruntled "crackpot" who's convinced that some group somewhere is going to attack us with bees, or parachute bombers...or Nickelback. 99% of them retire with their predictions unfulfilled.


Are you saying the Bush Administration received reports of the imminent Nickelback invasion and did nothing?
 
2012-09-11 10:07:47 AM  

Giltric: We know statistically, that every couple of seconds, a child is abused, a woman is raped, and a person is murdered in this country.

But all that info is useless....unless someone can pinpoint where it will happen in order to prevent it...just like the vague warnings Bush recieved.


Well Bush was givne specific information that they would try to hijack planes and crash them into skyscrapers. Now if only there were central locations whereby airplanes arrived and departed...

Damn oh well
 
2012-09-11 10:07:50 AM  

Kibbler: DUBYA: I think...

CHENEY: Shut the fark up, George. OK Mr. security advisor, tell me how this impacts the energy industry.

ADVISOR: I...I...this is a warning about an imminent...

CHENEY: Tell me how this impacts the energy industry.

ADVISOR: I...

CHENEY: Tell me how this is tied to Saddam.

ADVISOR: Mr. Vice President, as I explained, this is a clear warning of an imminent threat from...

CHENEY: You see? Nothing. They've got nothing. Get the fark out of here and don't come back until you can give me something on Saddam.

ADVISOR: I feel that I should...

CHENEY: I will shoot you in your motherfarking face. Get. Out.


This is easily more likely than the vast majority of conspiracy theories regarding this whole thing. America, fark yeah, just find us an excuse we can use, we're the farking Green Lantern, and then it turns out the terrorists have painted the world-ending device yellow (obscure?)
 
2012-09-11 10:07:51 AM  

chaotey: serial_crusher: the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that "a group presently in the United States" was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be "imminent," although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible.

Well, if they knew where the terrorists were, they should have gone and stopped them. I mean, the United States is pretty small right? Probably would have taken an afternoon or two to find them.

Actually FBI Agentslike Coleen Rowley were hot on the trail and were throwing up warnings, but they were systematically squelched by the NeoCons in FBIHQ.
So, yes, there were warnings and people were screaming and jumping up and down about an immanent attack using aircraft but the NeoCons didn't want to hear it.
Either because they wanted to start an attack on Iraq or because they didn't want any of their Saudi friends on the Visa Express to get investigated.

The failure of the NeoCons to protect the country from attack on 9-11 was due to either incompetence, stupidity or treason.


Actually FBI agents like John Oneill were hot on the trail but the Clinton state department felt he was stepping on too many toes in Yemen and they recalled him from his investigation.

Clinton also gutted the CIA's budget and wanted to focus more on electronic intercepts of communications instead of working humint assets.
 
2012-09-11 10:08:35 AM  

Cataholic: Every agency has its disgruntled "crackpot" who's convinced that some group somewhere is going to attack us with bees, or parachute bombers...or Nickelback. 99% of them retire with their predictions unfulfilled.


And that's exactly the kind of person that wouldn't ever be re-assigned from an intelligence role. Because liberals, and furthermore.
 
2012-09-11 10:08:51 AM  

Giltric: We know statistically, that every couple of seconds, a child is abused, a woman is raped, and a person is murdered in this country.

But all that info is useless....unless someone can pinpoint where it will happen in order to prevent it...just like the vague warnings Bush recieved.


As oppposed to the very specific, credible, and later-confirmed reports about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And Saddam's ties to 9/11. And his nearly-successful effort to build an atomic bomb.

All totally proven later on. We avoided total destruction by that much.

As opposed to the vague, inconsequential warnings Bush received about al Qaeda, which never panned out as an actual threat anyway.

And as opposed to the daily kabuki theater in the nation's airports to try to prevent another attack by making people take off their shoes, because we have totally credible, pinpointed reports that someone is about to use a shoe bomb on a particular flight at a particular time.

/up is down, black is white, truth is lies
 
2012-09-11 10:09:01 AM  

Skleenar: Giltric: But all that info is useless....unless someone can pinpoint where it will happen in order to prevent it...just like the vague warnings Bush recieved.

January 25, 2001: Clarke Warns Rice Al-Qaeda Cells Are Inside US and Are 'Major Threat'

May 30, 2001: FBI Is Warned of Major Al-Qaeda Operation in the US Involving Hijackings, Explosives, and/or New York City

Summer 2001: Bin Laden Speech Mentions 20 Martyrs in Upcoming Attack; Other Hints of Attack Spread Widely [9/11 Commission, 6/16/2004]

June 2001: Germans Warn of Plan to Use Aircraft as Missiles on US and Israeli Symbols [Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (Frankfurt), 9/11/2001; Washington Post, 9/14/2001; Fox News, 5/17/2002]

June 4, 2001: Illegal Afghans Overheard Discussing New York City Hijacking Attack [Miami Herald, 9/20/2001; Los Angeles Times, 9/20/2001]

June 13, 2001: Bin Laden Wants to Assassinate Bush with an Explosives-Filled Airplane [New York Times, 6/4/2002]

Late Summer 2001: Jordan Warns US That Aircraft Will Be Used in Major Attack Inside the US

July 2001: India Warns US of Possible Terror Attacks [Fox News, 5/17/2002]

July 8, 2001: Prominent Prisoner Publicly Warns of Al-Qaeda Intent to Export Violence to US Soil

July 16, 2001: British Spy Agencies Warn Al-Qaeda Is in The Final Stages of Attack in the West [London Times, 6/14/2002]

Late July 2001: Argentina Relays Warning to the US [Forward, 5/31/2002]

Late July 2001: Taliban Foreign Minister Tries to Warn US and UN of Huge Attack Inside the US [Independent, 9/7/2002; Reuters, 9/7/2002]

Late July 2001: Egypt Warns CIA of 20 Al-Qaeda Operatives in US; Four Training to Fly [CBS News, 10/9/2002]

August 2001: Moroccan Informant Warns US of Large Scale, Imminent Attack in New York [Agence France-Presse, 11/22/2001; International Herald Tribune, 5/21/2002; London Times, 6/12/2002]

August 2001: Russia Warns US of Suicide Pilots [Fox News, 5/17/2002]

August 2001: Persia ...


Point out the specifics and post them in your next word salad. I;m not reading through all that drivel....give the cliff notes.
 
2012-09-11 10:10:49 AM  

Pochas: Well Bush was givne specific information that they would try to hijack planes and crash them into skyscrapers.


Which specific information are you talking about?
 
2012-09-11 10:10:53 AM  

Pochas: Giltric: We know statistically, that every couple of seconds, a child is abused, a woman is raped, and a person is murdered in this country.

But all that info is useless....unless someone can pinpoint where it will happen in order to prevent it...just like the vague warnings Bush recieved.

Well Bush was givne specific information that they would try to hijack planes and crash them into skyscrapers. Now if only there were central locations whereby airplanes arrived and departed...

Damn oh well


Only 50k airports in the world....what do you suggest....profiling?
 
2012-09-11 10:12:00 AM  

Giltric: But all that info is useless....unless someone can pinpoint where it will happen in order to prevent it...just like the vague warnings Bush recieved.


Not as useless as the Bush Administration, which could have actually, you know, mobilized resources to pinpoint the operation instead of demoting the counterterrorism security advisor.

2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-09-11 10:12:39 AM  

Giltric: I;m not reading through all that drivel....give the cliff notes.


I believe that was the Bush Administration's response to all of those reports too.
 
2012-09-11 10:13:15 AM  

Giltric: Point out the specifics and post them in your next word salad. I;m not reading through all that drivel....give the cliff notes.


You sound so...so...what's the word I'm looking for...so...Presidential.
 
2012-09-11 10:14:14 AM  

keylock71: I think it would have happened regardless of who was in the White House... But this does reinforce that the Bush Administration had a hard-on for Iraq pretty much from the beginning and the attacks on 9/11/01 gave them the excuse they needed to plunge us headlong into that expensive debacle.

...And sadly, the GOP is still chocker blocked with these ideological neoconservative assholes.


Bush aside, why did the other neocons have such a hard-on for Iraq?
 
2012-09-11 10:14:31 AM  

Giltric: Pochas: Giltric: We know statistically, that every couple of seconds, a child is abused, a woman is raped, and a person is murdered in this country.

But all that info is useless....unless someone can pinpoint where it will happen in order to prevent it...just like the vague warnings Bush recieved.

Well Bush was givne specific information that they would try to hijack planes and crash them into skyscrapers. Now if only there were central locations whereby airplanes arrived and departed...

Damn oh well

Only 50k airports in the world....what do you suggest....profiling?


Yeah you're right obviously it is impossible to secure airports. That's why planes crashing into skyscrapers is a daily occurrence these days...
 
2012-09-11 10:14:44 AM  

More_Like_A_Stain: Giltric: Point out the specifics and post them in your next word salad. I;m not reading through all that drivel....give the cliff notes.

You sound so...so...what's the word I'm looking for...so...Presidential.


read his post in W's voice... and then do a "heh heh heh" at the end... although I don't picture W using the word "drivel"
 
2012-09-11 10:15:23 AM  

TheBigJerk: keylock71: I think it would have happened regardless of who was in the White House... But this does reinforce that the Bush Administration had a hard-on for Iraq pretty much from the beginning and the attacks on 9/11/01 gave them the excuse they needed to plunge us headlong into that expensive debacle.

...And sadly, the GOP is still chocker blocked with these ideological neoconservative assholes.

Bush aside, why did the other neocons have such a hard-on for Iraq?


Black gold, Texas tea. Oil that is.
 
2012-09-11 10:15:59 AM  

Kibbler: Giltric: We know statistically, that every couple of seconds, a child is abused, a woman is raped, and a person is murdered in this country.

But all that info is useless....unless someone can pinpoint where it will happen in order to prevent it...just like the vague warnings Bush recieved.

As oppposed to the very specific, credible, and later-confirmed reports about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And Saddam's ties to 9/11. And his nearly-successful effort to build an atomic bomb.

All totally proven later on. We avoided total destruction by that much.

As opposed to the vague, inconsequential warnings Bush received about al Qaeda, which never panned out as an actual threat anyway.

And as opposed to the daily kabuki theater in the nation's airports to try to prevent another attack by making people take off their shoes, because we have totally credible, pinpointed reports that someone is about to use a shoe bomb on a particular flight at a particular time.

/up is down, black is white, truth is lies


Google "Wikileaks confirms WMDs in Iraq."
 
2012-09-11 10:16:20 AM  

sprawl15: Pochas: Well Bush was givne specific information that they would try to hijack planes and crash them into skyscrapers.

Which specific information are you talking about?


Not sure about that, but there were reports that a plane would fly a suicide mission into the Geneva G7 (8?) conference. So they installed anti-aircraft missiles. It put the lie to Condoleeza Rice's idiocy that nobody could have predicted a terrorist flying a plane into a building.
 
2012-09-11 10:21:35 AM  

Giltric: Kibbler: Giltric: We know statistically, that every couple of seconds, a child is abused, a woman is raped, and a person is murdered in this country.

But all that info is useless....unless someone can pinpoint where it will happen in order to prevent it...just like the vague warnings Bush recieved.

As oppposed to the very specific, credible, and later-confirmed reports about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And Saddam's ties to 9/11. And his nearly-successful effort to build an atomic bomb.

All totally proven later on. We avoided total destruction by that much.

As opposed to the vague, inconsequential warnings Bush received about al Qaeda, which never panned out as an actual threat anyway.

And as opposed to the daily kabuki theater in the nation's airports to try to prevent another attack by making people take off their shoes, because we have totally credible, pinpointed reports that someone is about to use a shoe bomb on a particular flight at a particular time.

/up is down, black is white, truth is lies

Google "Wikileaks confirms WMDs in Iraq."


mimg.ugo.com
 
2012-09-11 10:22:27 AM  

Giltric: Google "Wikileaks confirms WMDs in Iraq."


Holy shiat, you totally pwned this thread with your brilliantly concise suggestion. What were we ever thinking? Thank God Bush invaded Iraq.
 
2012-09-11 10:26:34 AM  

Pochas: Yeah you're right obviously it is impossible to secure airports. That's why planes crashing into skyscrapers is a daily occurrence these days...


The TSA has a stunning 0% success rate. Including training.
 
2012-09-11 10:27:58 AM  

Giltric: Google "Wikileaks confirms WMDs in Iraq."


Put on your eyeshades, put in your earplugs. You know where to put the cork.
 
2012-09-11 10:28:11 AM  

Giltric: Google "Wikileaks confirms WMDs in Iraq."


ZOMG anime-forums.com!

BTW, the issue was with supposedly secret WMD program, not that stuff that was locked down by the UN programs and being destroyed. You know, the UN programs that had to bail out when someone decided they were going to start bombing again.
 
2012-09-11 10:28:36 AM  

More_Like_A_Stain: Headso: All these warnings are old news, it's just a guy selling a book, heard him on NPR today... here's an old list of warnings, most with cites...

And yet here we are, eleven years to the day after the disaster, and people still don't want to accept that there was any way possible to foresee the event.


Besides all the other intelligence warning, there is one thing which I feel the significance of has been underrated. It is certainly no smoking gun, but without trying to get all troofer and derp-y, one clear and definite warning of what was to come should have been the assassination of the Afghan Northern Alliance leader Ahmad Shah Massoud by the Taliban on 9-9-2001.

Here is a short interview clip with Vladimir Putin where he discusses a phone call he had with Bush on 10-10-2001 regarding this assassination and what it may have presaged. Putin claims he told Bush that he was worried, and that "something "big" was about to happen. They (The Taliban) are planning something".

interview w/. Putin at the end

Of course, we would have to take Pooty's word that this call actually happened, but seeing as this documentary aired on both the BBC and National Geographic, and no one in the Bush camp has ever issued a denial, I will choose to believe it. Bush certainly would have known about the fate of Massoud, in any event.


Note: If anyone is interested in the full documentary. it's called "Iran and the West" and it's not all about 9/11, but it's quite interesting on it's own. You can watch it online: Link
 
2012-09-11 10:29:01 AM  

Cataholic: Every agency has its disgruntled "crackpot" who's convinced that some group somewhere is going to attack us with bees, or parachute bombers...or Nickelback. 99% of them retire with their predictions unfulfilled.


You know, I'm not done with this:

So I imagine the image you have in your mind is something like this:

White House Beekeeper: Mr. Bush, don't go near that hive, those bees may sting you

Bush: Heh heh heh. Now you listen here, Bee-Kay, that's what you said that time I was on that navy boat, err, ship, and got stung by their hive...and that's what you said about those hives in those African embassies, where I got stung bad. Well, there's on old saying in Texas, or maybe Tennessee, that goes "Sting me once, shame on me, sting me twice, er, sting me twice, er, won't get stung again.

Now watch this drive.
 
2012-09-11 10:29:09 AM  

Pochas: Yeah you're right obviously it is impossible to secure airports. That's why planes crashing into skyscrapers is a daily occurrence these days


Airports seemed pretty secure for decades before 9/11.

What do you suggest they should have started doing differently on 9/10?
 
2012-09-11 10:30:13 AM  

Giltric: What do you suggest they should have started doing differently on 9/10?


Put locks on the farking cockpit doors.
 
2012-09-11 10:30:21 AM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: Giltric: Google "Wikileaks confirms WMDs in Iraq."

ZOMG anime-forums.com!

BTW, the issue was with supposedly secret WMD program, not that stuff that was locked down by the UN programs and being destroyed. You know, the UN programs that had to bail out when someone decided they were going to start bombing again.


the UN program with the personnel recieving bribes from Iraq?...well aside from Ritter....they were giving him young children to do with as he pleased.
 
2012-09-11 10:30:31 AM  

cc_rider: Here is a short interview clip with Vladimir Putin where he discusses a phone call he had with Bush on 10-10-2001 regarding this assassination and what it may have presaged. Putin claims he told Bush that he was worried, and that "something "big" was about to happen. They (The Taliban) are planning something".


He probably knew about 9/11 by watching the news a month before the call.
 
2012-09-11 10:30:56 AM  
Dammit. I meant to type that Putin called Bush on 9-10-2001. The day before, you know...
 
2012-09-11 10:33:18 AM  

Giltric: Airports seemed pretty secure for decades before 9/11.


Airports weren't a problem on 9/11. Airplanes were.

Philip Francis Queeg: Put locks on the farking cockpit doors.


This.
 
2012-09-11 10:33:19 AM  

Giltric: Vlad_the_Inaner: Giltric: Google "Wikileaks confirms WMDs in Iraq."

ZOMG anime-forums.com!

BTW, the issue was with supposedly secret WMD program, not that stuff that was locked down by the UN programs and being destroyed. You know, the UN programs that had to bail out when someone decided they were going to start bombing again.

the UN program with the personnel recieving bribes from Iraq?...well aside from Ritter....they were giving him young children to do with as he pleased.


Tell us, why did Bush lie after the war and say there were no WMDs? Why does he continue to lie about it?
 
2012-09-11 10:33:56 AM  

Giltric: What do you suggest they should have started doing differently on 9/10?


They could have even warned people about the possibility of an attack... people wouldn't have just let those guys take over the cockpit.
 
2012-09-11 10:33:59 AM  

cc_rider: Dammit. I meant to type that Putin called Bush on 9-10-2001. The day before, you know...


to tell him something big was gonna happen?

Where? Using what?

Should we mobilize hazmat teams to every school? Is that where the attack will happen? What if we anticipate the wrong type of attack in the wrong place.....think of how incompetent the left will try to make the GOP look if they bring a water hose to a grease fire.
 
2012-09-11 10:34:14 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Tell us, why did Bush lie after the war and say there were no WMDs? Why does he continue to lie about it?


He was referring to the region of Iraq that resided under the couches in the oval office.
 
2012-09-11 10:35:08 AM  

Giltric: Pochas: Yeah you're right obviously it is impossible to secure airports. That's why planes crashing into skyscrapers is a daily occurrence these days

Airports seemed pretty secure for decades before 9/11.

What do you suggest they should have started doing differently on 9/10?


Not letting people with weapons onto an airplane would have been a good start. The government could have made them do that but W knew the invisible hand of the free market would save us.

It might have happened to Gore the same way too had he been president, but I'm just saying it is hard to point to anything that Bush did right in 8 years.
 
2012-09-11 10:36:20 AM  

Giltric: ...think of how incompetent the left will try to make the GOP look if they bring a water hose to a grease fire.


Umm, let me guess, about the same as if they do nothing at all?
 
2012-09-11 10:37:01 AM  

Headso: Giltric: What do you suggest they should have started doing differently on 9/10?

They could have even warned people about the possibility of an attack... people wouldn't have just let those guys take over the cockpit.


The passengers of one plane didn't let them takeover the cockpit....and they didn't recieve warnings.

3 out of 4 planes full of people are pussies.

I bet the next occurance there will be tons of cell phone videos.....noone will bother to use the phone to call the police though. People have become risk averse.
 
2012-09-11 10:37:29 AM  
 
2012-09-11 10:39:17 AM  

Giltric: The passengers of one plane didn't let them takeover the cockpit....and they didn't recieve warnings.


Yes, as a matter of fact they did receive warnings. Passengers had phone conversations with relatives on the ground watching the coverage of the attacks.

Do you ever get anything right?
 
2012-09-11 10:39:30 AM  

Pochas: Giltric: Pochas: Yeah you're right obviously it is impossible to secure airports. That's why planes crashing into skyscrapers is a daily occurrence these days

Airports seemed pretty secure for decades before 9/11.

What do you suggest they should have started doing differently on 9/10?

Not letting people with weapons onto an airplane would have been a good start. The government could have made them do that but W knew the invisible hand of the free market would save us.

It might have happened to Gore the same way too had he been president, but I'm just saying it is hard to point to anything that Bush did right in 8 years.


So no belts, suspenders, shoelaces, yarn, floss, surgical tubing for a collostomy allowed on planes cause you can use them as a garrot?

Or do you have a different definition of "weapons" then me?
 
2012-09-11 10:40:17 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Giltric: What do you suggest they should have started doing differently on 9/10?

Put locks on the farking cockpit doors.


Issued a warning to every airport in the US warning of a possible attack. Put military personnel, bomb-sniffing dogs in every airport, or even closed them down for a couple days until they could secure all airports, if they believed a threat was imminent.
 
2012-09-11 10:41:46 AM  

Giltric: Pochas: Giltric: Pochas: Yeah you're right obviously it is impossible to secure airports. That's why planes crashing into skyscrapers is a daily occurrence these days

Airports seemed pretty secure for decades before 9/11.

What do you suggest they should have started doing differently on 9/10?

Not letting people with weapons onto an airplane would have been a good start. The government could have made them do that but W knew the invisible hand of the free market would save us.

It might have happened to Gore the same way too had he been president, but I'm just saying it is hard to point to anything that Bush did right in 8 years.

So no belts, suspenders, shoelaces, yarn, floss, surgical tubing for a collostomy allowed on planes cause you can use them as a garrot?

Or do you have a different definition of "weapons" then me?


The footage of the security shows them setting off a metal detector, the security guys didn't even bother to find out what they had that set it off. If it was a government agent informed of the danger, they'd have found it.
 
2012-09-11 10:42:22 AM  

Giltric: Headso: Giltric: What do you suggest they should have started doing differently on 9/10?

They could have even warned people about the possibility of an attack... people wouldn't have just let those guys take over the cockpit.

The passengers of one plane didn't let them takeover the cockpit....and they didn't recieve warnings.

3 out of 4 planes full of people are pussies.


ah so you're trolling here...
 
2012-09-11 10:46:18 AM  

Giltric: The passengers of one plane didn't let them takeover the cockpit....and they didn't recieve warnings.


Um, yeah they did. They called their families with their cell phones, and their families told them what was going on with the other planes, so they decided to take action. Oddly enough, it was probably the cell phones themselves that caused the planes to crash, not passenger intervention.
 
2012-09-11 10:46:22 AM  

cc_rider: Philip Francis Queeg: Giltric: What do you suggest they should have started doing differently on 9/10?

Put locks on the farking cockpit doors.

Issued a warning to every airport in the US warning of a possible attack. Put military personnel, bomb-sniffing dogs in every airport, or even closed them down for a couple days until they could secure all airports, if they believed a threat was imminent.



Not for nothing but most of the solutions to 9/11 are only in hindsight.....we know that 2 planes hit the WTC...so in hindsight the solution is to increase airport security.

We had nothing actionable. We didn;t know if there would be an attack at a mall, a school or a synygogue.
 
2012-09-11 10:51:46 AM  

serial_crusher: Giltric: The passengers of one plane didn't let them takeover the cockpit....and they didn't recieve warnings.

Um, yeah they did. They called their families with their cell phones, and their families told them what was going on with the other planes, so they decided to take action. Oddly enough, it was probably the cell phones themselves that caused the planes to crash, not passenger intervention.


he's trolling the thread dude... no point in responding after that
 
2012-09-11 10:55:21 AM  
No. 3 out of 4 planes full of people thought that when their plane was highjacked that they would end up on a tamac somewhere waiting for the goverment or Chuck Norris to save them because the warnings of highjackers deliberately crashing said plane into a building were swept under the rug.
When people say "Well we had no idea they would do such a thing" they are refering to the general population. The government? not so much.
The response from most anyone I knew at the time when this was going down was "WTF Who would do such a thing?!?!?" Now we know.
 
2012-09-11 10:56:19 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Giltric: What do you suggest they should have started doing differently on 9/10?

Put locks on the farking cockpit doors.


Yeah, but that costs money. And where did you think that money would come from, wise guy? Medicare?
 
2012-09-11 10:57:30 AM  
And yes I post once once every other year or so and it was to feed the troll. Now I feel dirty.
 
2012-09-11 10:57:59 AM  

pontechango: Philip Francis Queeg: Giltric: What do you suggest they should have started doing differently on 9/10?

Put locks on the farking cockpit doors.

Yeah, but that costs money. And where did you think that money would come from, wise guy? Medicare?


Locks on cockpit doors is a hindsight solution.

The threat was that a terrorist attack was imminent....it didn't say how or where.
 
2012-09-11 11:00:56 AM  

Tom_Thump: No. 3 out of 4 planes full of people thought that when their plane was highjacked that they would end up on a tamac somewhere waiting for the goverment or Chuck Norris to save them because the warnings of highjackers deliberately crashing said plane into a building were swept under the rug.
When people say "Well we had no idea they would do such a thing" they are refering to the general population. The government? not so much.
The response from most anyone I knew at the time when this was going down was "WTF Who would do such a thing?!?!?" Now we know.


What warning was swept under the rug....be specific. Include citations.
 
2012-09-11 11:01:25 AM  

Giltric: Google "Wikileaks confirms WMDs in Iraq."


I took the liberty of reading quite a lot of stuff in the links that came from that result. None of that is usefully true. Most just reference each other, with Examiner linking to Townhall and so on. There was a PDF that Examnier posted, but it was a PDF THEY made (unless you think that US agencies use the examiner logo in their PDFs - and no, it wasn't just added to the PDF). And while maybe it was a verbatim duplicate, it concluded that the WMD found were ancient, in extreme disrepair, and hadn't been moved for years. ie, this is not the stockpile you're looking for.
 
2012-09-11 11:03:31 AM  

Skleenar: /This goes to my pet theory that the problem with the GOP today is that they took the lessons learned in PR/Advertising and have seen them as the solutions in all realms of human activity.


Not quite. They learned it from years of being inculcated into religion. When you get immersed in a lifestyle and culture that says, "accept this 'fact' of an itinerant jew who dies and is resurrected in 3 days to cleanse the earth of sin..." you can immerse yourself into any other fabrication. In other words, religionists -- and christians in particular -- are raised in an environment of accepting self-contradictory falsehoods. They learn to accept a "fact" that they manufacture and discard all countervailing information.

Christianity is more egregious in this aspect than other religions because most other religions, including Catholicism, is mostly a prescriptive list of do's and do nots. It's from those archaic do's and do nots that weird conclusions are made. But Christianity, using the new testament, isn't so much a do and do not, but require the reader to fully embrace a ridiculous mythology about a person/god who dies for all of humanity's sins (but doesn't tell people about that, he had to have his disciples do that), but then gets a mulligan by being resurrected. I mean, he died for our sins, but then becomes alive. So do we get out sins back? Did he cheat on dying for our sins? If I jump on a grenade to save my unit and die from that, I'm a hero. But if I could miraculously resurrect myself, wouldn't that be a cheat, especially if I know I'm god? Wouldn't it have been better if I prevented the battled that allowed a grenade to be dropped in the unit's foxhole?

And what about Judas? He fingered Jesus to the romans and set in motion the whole crucifixion. Had he not fingered Jesus, none of that would have happened. So in a way, Christians should be praising Judas for doing a good, but unwitting deed. And, even though Judas screwed over Jesus, all of humanity supposedly got the good deal out of it and Jesus was resurrected so no harm, no foul, right? But no, Judas was killed in a most horrific way, had his entrails splattered all over the place. And all that just to enable the whole christian movement to get into first gear. It's as if Jesus didn't jump on the grenade, but Judas pushed him onto it. The unit was saved, Jesus miraculously doesn't die from the grenade, and everyone's blaming Judas for doing the push when a) Judas didn't know of the grenade and b) wasn't in position to do it himself, but his unintended act managed to save the unit nonetheless with no one, including Jesus the grenade jumper hurt.
 
2012-09-11 11:03:58 AM  

TheBigJerk: keylock71: I think it would have happened regardless of who was in the White House... But this does reinforce that the Bush Administration had a hard-on for Iraq pretty much from the beginning and the attacks on 9/11/01 gave them the excuse they needed to plunge us headlong into that expensive debacle.

...And sadly, the GOP is still chocker blocked with these ideological neoconservative assholes.

Bush aside, why did the other neocons have such a hard-on for Iraq?


They saw an opportunity to use the military in an ultra-cool crushing of a bad guy.
 
2012-09-11 11:07:19 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Giltric: What do you suggest they should have started doing differently on 9/10?

Put locks on the farking cockpit doors.


While Giltric is blinkered, this suggestion would have accomplished nothing, because the terrorists a) said they had a bomb and had wires to prove it, and b) could have started executing passengers until they opened the door. Given the history of hijacking, the pilots would have opened the door.
 
2012-09-11 11:08:32 AM  
Strange, not a lot of "Miss Me Yet?" pics today. Can't help but wonder why...
 
2012-09-11 11:08:57 AM  

Giltric: Headso: Giltric: What do you suggest they should have started doing differently on 9/10?

They could have even warned people about the possibility of an attack... people wouldn't have just let those guys take over the cockpit.

The passengers of one plane didn't let them takeover the cockpit....and they didn't recieve warnings.

3 out of 4 planes full of people are pussies.

I bet the next occurance there will be tons of cell phone videos.....noone will bother to use the phone to call the police though. People have become risk averse.


Wow - I'm upgrading you to asshole. Probably not actually old enough to remember 9/11. Or so old, you don't remember 9/11.
 
2012-09-11 11:09:26 AM  

vygramul: Philip Francis Queeg: Giltric: What do you suggest they should have started doing differently on 9/10?

Put locks on the farking cockpit doors.

While Giltric is blinkered, this suggestion would have accomplished nothing, because the terrorists a) said they had a bomb and had wires to prove it, and b) could have started executing passengers until they opened the door. Given the history of hijacking, the pilots would have opened the door.


not if people were warned about the possibility of suicide pilots, they would have been beaten to death by a scared group of passengers
 
2012-09-11 11:11:03 AM  

EyeballKid: Strange, not a lot of "Miss Me Yet?" pics today. Can't help but wonder why...


My proudest 'shop.

www.bitlogic.com
 
2012-09-11 11:12:25 AM  

Headso: not if people were warned about the possibility of suicide pilots, they would have been beaten to death by a scared group of passengers


The assumption would have been that the hijacking's purpose was to hold people hostage for a prisoner exchange.
 
2012-09-11 11:12:44 AM  

Headso: serial_crusher: Giltric: The passengers of one plane didn't let them takeover the cockpit....and they didn't recieve warnings.

Um, yeah they did. They called their families with their cell phones, and their families told them what was going on with the other planes, so they decided to take action. Oddly enough, it was probably the cell phones themselves that caused the planes to crash, not passenger intervention.

he's trolling the thread dude... no point in responding after that


I refuse to be out-trolled.
 
2012-09-11 11:12:48 AM  

Headso: vygramul: Philip Francis Queeg: Giltric: What do you suggest they should have started doing differently on 9/10?

Put locks on the farking cockpit doors.

While Giltric is blinkered, this suggestion would have accomplished nothing, because the terrorists a) said they had a bomb and had wires to prove it, and b) could have started executing passengers until they opened the door. Given the history of hijacking, the pilots would have opened the door.

not if people were warned about the possibility of suicide pilots, they would have been beaten to death by a scared group of passengers


That's true. But do you really think that it would have been the warning that was issued? No way. It would have had terrible impact on the airline industry, and everyone would have gone apeshiat and so on. The political costs would have been so high that only the most selfless politician would have done it. And I don't know if we've ever had a president so selfless since George Washington.
 
2012-09-11 11:13:27 AM  

Headso: vygramul: Philip Francis Queeg: Giltric: What do you suggest they should have started doing differently on 9/10?

Put locks on the farking cockpit doors.

While Giltric is blinkered, this suggestion would have accomplished nothing, because the terrorists a) said they had a bomb and had wires to prove it, and b) could have started executing passengers until they opened the door. Given the history of hijacking, the pilots would have opened the door.

not if people were warned about the possibility of suicide pilots, they would have been beaten to death by a scared group of passengers


Only after the passengers had voted on it...like they did on flight 93.

like i said....risk averse.


risk aversion is why there are no specifics in the PDB.

noone wants to put their ass on the line for anything.
 
2012-09-11 11:17:46 AM  

sprawl15: Headso: not if people were warned about the possibility of suicide pilots, they would have been beaten to death by a scared group of passengers

The assumption would have been that the hijacking's purpose was to hold people hostage for a prisoner exchange.


Exactly. When these kinds of things happened before, there was generally some kind of demands to be met. No one was trained for what was about to go down, because it was completely unprecedented.
 
2012-09-11 11:18:18 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: TheBigJerk: keylock71: I think it would have happened regardless of who was in the White House... But this does reinforce that the Bush Administration had a hard-on for Iraq pretty much from the beginning and the attacks on 9/11/01 gave them the excuse they needed to plunge us headlong into that expensive debacle.

...And sadly, the GOP is still chocker blocked with these ideological neoconservative assholes.

Bush aside, why did the other neocons have such a hard-on for Iraq?

Black gold, Texas tea. Oil that is.


The Cheney wing of the neo-cons wanted the oil. The Wolfowitz/Bolton wing wanted a won war to show the might of the US as an empire. (For what, I don't know.)
 
2012-09-11 11:19:46 AM  

serial_crusher: Well, if they knew where the terrorists were, they should have gone and stopped them. I mean, the United States is pretty small right? Probably would have taken an afternoon or two to find them.



The CIA had tracked them all when entering the country, they had to apply for visas. You're not too bright. But this isn't a surprise, you're used to hearing that.
 
2012-09-11 11:22:00 AM  

Carth: We had the intelligence we didn't have effective ways of combining what we knew and drawing an effective conclusion.



Riiiight

"Bin Laden determined to strike"

"using airplanes as weapons"

"suspected terrorists having flight training"

"tracking new militants entering the country"

Gee how could anyone jump to any conclusion? None of that above makes sense! DERP
 
2012-09-11 11:22:25 AM  

Giltric: Pochas: Giltric: We know statistically, that every couple of seconds, a child is abused, a woman is raped, and a person is murdered in this country.

But all that info is useless....unless someone can pinpoint where it will happen in order to prevent it...just like the vague warnings Bush recieved.

Well Bush was givne specific information that they would try to hijack planes and crash them into skyscrapers. Now if only there were central locations whereby airplanes arrived and departed...

Damn oh well

Only 50k airports in the world....what do you suggest....profiling?


And how many flight schools are there? How many with new students from terrorist sponsoring countries? Who are being paid for by suspect sources? Who have recently purchased tickets on planes they were training to fly?
 
2012-09-11 11:22:57 AM  

Rashnu: Catch-22. He could only have stopped the attacks if liberals had already been cowed enough by the post-9/11 climate to have previously passed or allowed the PATRIOT Act, indefinite detentions and warrantless wire-taps.


Bullshiat. All the information gathered -- more than enough to have acted to preclude 9/11 -- was gathered perfectly legally under the purview of FISA -- a Carter act, that was later expanded under the Clinton administration.

The Patriot Act is, in essence, an expansion and extension of FISA. The Patriot Act added no "tools" to the intelligence community's arsenal they hadn't earlier, that would have worked to "stop" 9/11 -- because we already had the farking capability, and did not use it.
 
2012-09-11 11:23:12 AM  
My question with the 9/11 thing is how did those on Flight 93 talk to their loved ones? They used cell phones which is not a permitted act, although I guess in such a crisis, some people would be willing to break the rules. But the main problem I see is how would the phones connect to the cell towers? They're 20,000 feet in the air, zooming over farm land in mid-eastern Pennsylvania, with little cell coverage. (Those amish aren't likely to have phones, much less cell towers.) Or did they use the onboard phones that one had to swipe a credit over to call on?
 
2012-09-11 11:29:58 AM  

dericwater: The Cheney wing of the neo-cons wanted the oil and the defense contracts. The Wolfowitz/Bolton wing wanted a won war to show the might of the US as an empire. (For what, I don't know.)


The Wolfowitz/Bolton wing is concerned that the rest of the world will think that America has a small penis. They wage conflicts to prevent anyone from getting near our pants with any sort of measurement device. They wage conflicts halfway around the world (to avoid the possibility of blowback reaching our shores), with a fighting force nowhere near "overwhelming" (because a short, quick win is unsatisfying), but with lots of tech goodies (because AMERICA FARK YEAH WITH LAZORS).

// also, because John Bolton's mustache is actually a psychopathic weasel glued to his lip with its tendrils sunk deep into his amygdala
 
2012-09-11 11:30:17 AM  

MartinD-35: Close2TheEdge: cman: Darth_Lukecash: We cannot say if anyone else was President things would have been better or different.

This.

It is pointless speculation based upon individual feelings of the speculators of former President Bush. Their minds are already made up regardless of any truth. Kind of like 9/11 truthers or birthers, these people have only one opinion, and they are gonna make every piece of evidence fit into whatever their damn crazy mind tells them because they want to believe that he was that bad of a President.

Considering that Romney has surrounded himself with many of the same neo-con characters involved, I'd say that this speculation is quite relevant and worthy of review. Today, there will be millions of "Never Forget" banners on Facebook. Maybe those words should actually mean something instead of just being empty slogans.

I have an older sister who should be considered fairly smart (graduated magna cum laude, that's all A's from Pembroke U, the woman's part of Brown U). She's an accomplished author of several very fine books. Even though I was in my car on the Washington Blvd. access from 95 to the Memorial Bridge and SAW the plane hit the Pentagon, she still insists it was a cruise missile sent by the US military. It makes me really sad and I can't even talk about it with her.


appropriate Fark response: [citation needed]

or:

you seem to be a person in the know, so can you please tell me and everyone else how the only picture or video of that incident is from a guard shack and only has about 1 second (maybe less) of an object that may or may not be an airplane. on a building that probably has quite a few cameras around. maybe even more than a few, perhaps dozens and dozens of cameras.

if you have other photos / videos, please offer them.

/not trolling, just want to have a real conversation about it

thanks
 
2012-09-11 11:30:35 AM  

sprawl15: Headso: not if people were warned about the possibility of suicide pilots, they would have been beaten to death by a scared group of passengers

The assumption would have been that the hijacking's purpose was to hold people hostage for a prisoner exchange.


I disagree that a warning about possible suicide pilots would have made people think they were being held hostage.
 
2012-09-11 11:30:53 AM  

sprawl15: Nobody expected it,


You are so full of it, it's coming out of your piehole.
 
2012-09-11 11:34:03 AM  

inner ted: you seem to be a person in the know, so can you please tell me and everyone else how the only picture or video of that incident is from a guard shack and only has about 1 second (maybe less) of an object that may or may not be an airplane. on a building that probably has quite a few cameras around. maybe even more than a few, perhaps dozens and dozens of cameras.


Because the DoD's HQ is one of the most secured places on the planet, and they're not likely to even acknowledge the existence of cameras, let alone tell you where they are, where they look at or let you see footage from them.

If not for the smoking hole, they might not even have acknowledged they got hit.

// works 2 miles from the Pentagon
// accidentally entered their parking lot one night
// no response from security, though the lot is about a mile wide - if I'd gotten closer, I imagine I'd have had several intense conversations that night
 
2012-09-11 11:38:01 AM  

intelligent comment below: Carth: We had the intelligence we didn't have effective ways of combining what we knew and drawing an effective conclusion.


Riiiight

"Bin Laden determined to strike"

"using airplanes as weapons"

"suspected terrorists having flight training"

"tracking new militants entering the country"

Gee how could anyone jump to any conclusion? None of that above makes sense! DERP


Do you have citations for that?
 
2012-09-11 11:39:24 AM  

Headso: I disagree that a warning about possible suicide pilots would have made people think they were being held hostage.


A warning about a possibility is not the same thing as assertion; people are innately optimistic. The hijackers on 93 killed the pilots right off the bat - a pretty clear sign that they weren't intending to land the plane - yet it took notifying the passengers about the trade centers for them to realize what was going on. On top of that, the people who would have been warned would be the pilots and flight attendants...who were, again, killed right off the bat.

inner ted: /not trolling, just want to have a real conversation about it


I would suggest you go look up some basic farking information about the event before trying to initiate a conversation about something you clearly know shiatall about.
 
2012-09-11 11:39:57 AM  

dericwater: My question with the 9/11 thing is how did those on Flight 93 talk to their loved ones? They used cell phones which is not a permitted act, although I guess in such a crisis, some people would be willing to break the rules. But the main problem I see is how would the phones connect to the cell towers? They're 20,000 feet in the air, zooming over farm land in mid-eastern Pennsylvania, with little cell coverage.


This has always given me pause, too.
 
2012-09-11 11:44:56 AM  

vygramul: Look, I'm not the type to sit around defending Bush - Lord knows there's plenty of reasons not to. But the administration did not want to get hit, would love to have done things differently, and there are an unbelievable number of warnings almost every day.


Saying Bush wanted this is absolutely stupid. I agree. However, it wasn't about the administration doing things differently. It was about the administration doing any farking thing at all.

The president did not have a single meeting on the subject of terrorism at all. He basically didn't have the time of day for Richard Clark and terrorism was not something they thought was important.

Could they have stopped it? Who knows. Should they have tried? Of course. What do you expect from a guy who put a horse judge in charge of FEMA.
 
2012-09-11 11:46:59 AM  

Giltric: Do you have citations for that?



what's the difference? You didn't bother to read the last ones posted that should have shut you up. But you just keep rambling on being proud of your ignorance
 
2012-09-11 11:53:37 AM  

sprawl15: Headso: I disagree that a warning about possible suicide pilots would have made people think they were being held hostage.

A warning about a possibility is not the same thing as assertion; people are innately optimistic. The hijackers on 93 killed the pilots right off the bat - a pretty clear sign that they weren't intending to land the plane - yet it took notifying the passengers about the trade centers for them to realize what was going on. On top of that, the people who would have been warned would be the pilots and flight attendants...who were, again, killed right off the bat.


You seem to be saying you know how all the people in the plane would react with prior knowledge of the possibility that they might be used as a suicide bomb. That's an opinion which I don't agree with...
 
2012-09-11 11:53:52 AM  

intelligent comment below: But you just keep rambling on being proud of your ignorance


To paraphrase something a great man once said; You don't go to war with the ignorance you want, you go to war with the ignorance you have.
 
2012-09-11 11:53:56 AM  

Skleenar: dericwater: My question with the 9/11 thing is how did those on Flight 93 talk to their loved ones? They used cell phones which is not a permitted act, although I guess in such a crisis, some people would be willing to break the rules. But the main problem I see is how would the phones connect to the cell towers? They're 20,000 feet in the air, zooming over farm land in mid-eastern Pennsylvania, with little cell coverage.

This has always given me pause, too.


Most of the calls were made with the seatback phones - IIRC, there were 35 calls from those, and only 2 successful cell calls.

The interference with cell phones is actually eased by being in a non-populated area. Basically, a cell phone picks a 'channel' to use, and because the tower you're using is decided by geographical proximity there should only be one person using any one channel at a time. When you're in an airplane, you can hit multiple towers at once, so you can bump your channel into other people's and it farks with the system. The main hurdle would have been having enough power on the phone to interact with the cell tower, which would make service spotty but not impossible.
 
2012-09-11 11:55:28 AM  

Giltric: intelligent comment below: Carth: We had the intelligence we didn't have effective ways of combining what we knew and drawing an effective conclusion.


Riiiight

"Bin Laden determined to strike"

"using airplanes as weapons"

"suspected terrorists having flight training"

"tracking new militants entering the country"

Gee how could anyone jump to any conclusion? None of that above makes sense! DERP

Do you have citations for that?


There are citations on all of that but I don't think the warning was airplanes as weapons necessarily. The phrasing as I recall was that airplanes (aviation sector) could be the targets. Turns out they were both targets and weapons and the solution to the threat would have been identical to what was done post 9/11 anyways.
 
2012-09-11 11:55:46 AM  

Headso: You seem to be saying you know how all the people in the plane would react with prior knowledge of the possibility that they might be used as a suicide bomb.


If that's what you got out of what I said, you're a farking idiot.
 
2012-09-11 11:59:08 AM  

sprawl15: Headso: I disagree that a warning about possible suicide pilots would have made people think they were being held hostage.

A warning about a possibility is not the same thing as assertion; people are innately optimistic. The hijackers on 93 killed the pilots right off the bat - a pretty clear sign that they weren't intending to land the plane - yet it took notifying the passengers about the trade centers for them to realize what was going on. On top of that, the people who would have been warned would be the pilots and flight attendants...who were, again, killed right off the bat.

inner ted: /not trolling, just want to have a real conversation about it

I would suggest you go look up some basic farking information about the event before trying to initiate a conversation about something you clearly know shiatall about.


orrrr, you could be a complete ass hat like this fellow and wonder why this country is so divided.

since "ass hole douchebag" has been covered here

i'll respond to the more rational response from Dr. Dridel: if those cameras were of 'sensitive areas' i could agree with your idea, but we are talking about part of the building that is publicly visible - how on earth there is just that one brief moment of a clip is just hard to understand.

/also thanks like talking with your big boy words
 
2012-09-11 11:59:23 AM  

Giltric: Not for nothing but most of the solutions to 9/11 are only in hindsight.....we know that 2 planes hit the WTC...so in hindsight the solution is to increase airport security.

We had nothing actionable. We didn;t know if there would be an attack at a mall, a school or a synygogue.


Cockpit hardening was not something known in "hindsight". You may have amnesia, but we don't.

Air France Flight 8969 Hijacking - GIGN Raid

ps those terrorist had plans to fly the plane into the Eiffel Tower
 
2012-09-11 12:02:11 PM  

inner ted: i'll respond to the more rational response from Dr. Dridel


I'm surprised you're concerned at all about rationality since you're questioning the idea of a plane hitting the Pentagon when the entire ground was littered with airplane parts.

Are you suggesting it was a missile with pieces of engines strapped to it?
 
2012-09-11 12:02:13 PM  

sprawl15: Headso: You seem to be saying you know how all the people in the plane would react with prior knowledge of the possibility that they might be used as a suicide bomb.

If that's what you got out of what I said, you're a farking idiot.


uh, ok... so your opinion is that a warning about a possibility of a suicide pilot terrorist would have made it more likely, less likely, the same likelihood, of a successful attack? Mine is that it would have made a successful attack less likely.
 
2012-09-11 12:05:54 PM  

Headso: uh, ok... so your opinion is that a warning about a possibility of a suicide pilot terrorist would have made it more likely, less likely, the same likelihood, of a successful attack?


Hey look, you're completely missing the point again.

You're looking at the specific case of the population of an aircraft that has already been hijacked being told that they are going to be used in a suicide attack. Something that has nothing to do with what we're actually discussing.

I'm just going to go with 'you're a farking idiot' and leave it at there.
 
2012-09-11 12:06:24 PM  

sprawl15: inner ted: i'll respond to the more rational response from Dr. Dridel

I'm surprised you're concerned at all about rationality since you're questioning the idea of a plane hitting the Pentagon when the entire ground was littered with airplane parts.

Are you suggesting it was a missile with pieces of engines strapped to it?


first off, congrats on being able to respond without sounding like a complete child.

i'm suggesting that the most - or at least one of the most secure sites in this country if not the world - should have more than a half a second clip of what attacked it.

if you have other video or pics, please offer them up.
eagerly awaiting your response.
 
2012-09-11 12:07:31 PM  

Cargo: cman


I am not speculating on possible events that could have happened, I am reflecting upon events that have happened
 
2012-09-11 12:08:15 PM  
Even as one of the libbier libs that ever libbed a lib, I've always given the Bush administration a LOT of leeway in their handling (or lack thereof) of the Bin Laden threats leading up to 9/11. As many people have pointed out in this thread, that infamous August memo WAS a little vague, hindsight is 20/20, and "one should never attribute malice where rank incompetence will suffice," etc.

But the bit in the Times article about the Bushies thinking that Bin Laden's threats were just a smoke screen for Saddam Hussein is beyond the pale. If true (and that's a big honkin' if), that crosses the line from generic Michael Scott-like buffoonery into full-on executive malpractice. Being too dumb to grok something is sad, but forgivable; going out of one's way to purposely avoid grokking something is not.

And no, we'll never know if things would've turned out better (or just less bad) with a different president. But we shouldn't have to wonder.

/ Hate is a wasted emotion
// But sometimes I really hate those guys
/// Then I look at cat pictures
 
2012-09-11 12:08:22 PM  

inner ted: i'm suggesting that the most - or at least one of the most secure sites in this country if not the world - should have more than a half a second clip of what attacked it.


"have" != "released"

You can tell because they are different words.
 
2012-09-11 12:09:18 PM  

sprawl15: I'm surprised you're concerned at all about rationality since you're questioning the idea of a plane hitting the Pentagon when the entire ground was littered with airplane parts.


I didn't think I'd imagined several days worth of live tv news cameras aimed at a great big hole in the wall and airplane parts scattered all around. But I've heard about the lack of film for so long that I wasn't sure any more.
 
2012-09-11 12:09:28 PM  

sprawl15: inner ted: i'm suggesting that the most - or at least one of the most secure sites in this country if not the world - should have more than a half a second clip of what attacked it.

"have" != "released"

You can tell because they are different words.


ahh.. back to petulant child are we?

well i tried
 
2012-09-11 12:10:22 PM  

sprawl15: Headso: uh, ok... so your opinion is that a warning about a possibility of a suicide pilot terrorist would have made it more likely, less likely, the same likelihood, of a successful attack?

Hey look, you're completely missing the point again.

You're looking at the specific case of the population of an aircraft that has already been hijacked being told that they are going to be used in a suicide attack. Something that has nothing to do with what we're actually discussing.

I'm just going to go with 'you're a farking idiot' and leave it at there.


Well, except for the warnings specifically mentioning suicide pilots and planes being used in an attack... you should have read that part of the thread instead of using your time writing out personal insults ;-)
 
2012-09-11 12:11:19 PM  

More_Like_A_Stain: sprawl15: I'm surprised you're concerned at all about rationality since you're questioning the idea of a plane hitting the Pentagon when the entire ground was littered with airplane parts.

I didn't think I'd imagined several days worth of live tv news cameras aimed at a great big hole in the wall and airplane parts scattered all around. But I've heard about the lack of film for so long that I wasn't sure any more.


Well you see I don't personally own very much footage of the impact so the only possible conclusion is that several truckloads of airplane fragments and bodies was secretly placed there in the aftermath of a missile strike.
 
2012-09-11 12:11:37 PM  

Skleenar: dericwater: My question with the 9/11 thing is how did those on Flight 93 talk to their loved ones? They used cell phones which is not a permitted act, although I guess in such a crisis, some people would be willing to break the rules. But the main problem I see is how would the phones connect to the cell towers? They're 20,000 feet in the air, zooming over farm land in mid-eastern Pennsylvania, with little cell coverage.

This has always given me pause, too.


I'm going to take a crazy guess here and say there is less resistance to cell phone signals up in the sky. Also, their altitude steadily declined below 20K feet before the crash.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ua93altitude.jpg
 
2012-09-11 12:12:18 PM  

Headso: Well, except for the warnings specifically mentioning suicide pilots and planes being used in an attack


Are you unable to read, or are you just choosing not to?

sprawl15: On top of that, the people who would have been warned would be the pilots and flight attendants...who were, again, killed right off the bat.

 
2012-09-11 12:13:50 PM  
WTF? Greenlight a farking Kos link over the NYT? Great, so every right wing troll shiatstain can come in and say "Kos Lie-bral Liar LOL!!!1!"

This is a big farking deal. The Bush Admin ignored repeated warnings from the CIA for at least four farking months because they wanted their big war with Iraq instead. And let's not forget that these blind neocon morons are first in line to join a Romney administration and lead us galloping into WWIII with Iran and China.

From the NYT: The direct warnings to Mr. Bush about the possibility of a Qaeda attack began in the spring of 2001. By May 1, the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that "a group presently in the United States" was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be "imminent," although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible.

But some in the administration considered the warning to be just bluster. An intelligence official and a member of the Bush administration both told me in interviews that the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat. Intelligence officials, these sources said, protested that the idea of Bin Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist, conspiring with Mr. Hussein, an Iraqi secularist, was ridiculous, but the neoconservatives' suspicions were nevertheless carrying the day.

In response, the C.I.A. prepared an analysis that all but pleaded with the White House to accept that the danger from Bin Laden was real.
 
2012-09-11 12:16:03 PM  
The truthers are out in force today.
 
2012-09-11 12:16:08 PM  

inner ted: sprawl15: inner ted: i'll respond to the more rational response from Dr. Dridel

I'm surprised you're concerned at all about rationality since you're questioning the idea of a plane hitting the Pentagon when the entire ground was littered with airplane parts.

Are you suggesting it was a missile with pieces of engines strapped to it?

first off, congrats on being able to respond without sounding like a complete child.

i'm suggesting that the most - or at least one of the most secure sites in this country if not the world - should have more than a half a second clip of what attacked it.

if you have other video or pics, please offer them up.
eagerly awaiting your response.


1, plane was going 500 mph.
2, if the plane was in the frame, 9/11 conspiracy theorists would still biatch about the security camera being photoshopped because of the camera being slow framed.
3, budget cuts, budget cuts, budget cuts
4, most security cameras are slow frame. It saves money
5, every eyewitness that has come forward has identified it as a plane. They saw a plane, not a missile.
5, the grounds of the pentagon are policed at all times. Why do they need to have awesome spy cameras when there is no point to them because of instant arrival from security?
 
2012-09-11 12:17:11 PM  

shotglasss: The truthers are out in force today.


Clearly you are a petulant child and furthermore
 
2012-09-11 12:18:39 PM  

Skleenar: dericwater: My question with the 9/11 thing is how did those on Flight 93 talk to their loved ones? They used cell phones which is not a permitted act, although I guess in such a crisis, some people would be willing to break the rules. But the main problem I see is how would the phones connect to the cell towers? They're 20,000 feet in the air, zooming over farm land in mid-eastern Pennsylvania, with little cell coverage.

This has always given me pause, too.


They used air phones to make the calls. The kind you swiped the credit cards in: Link
 
2012-09-11 12:18:53 PM  

sprawl15: Headso: Well, except for the warnings specifically mentioning suicide pilots and planes being used in an attack

Are you unable to read, or are you just choosing not to?

sprawl15: On top of that, the people who would have been warned would be the pilots and flight attendants...who were, again, killed right off the bat.


your contention is that when I said "warn people" I am saying warn the pilots and flight attendants? you also seem to contend that even if that was the case the warnings themselves wouldn't have become news stories that non-airline employees would have heard about. Your response doesn't seem well thought out.
 
2012-09-11 12:19:09 PM  

MartinD-35: I may be outing my previous alt here, but my brother was quite involved in all that stuff at the time. He was named ambassador to Tajikistan by Bush right after 9/11 (career diplomat, not a republicon). He assured me that there were weapons of mass destruction right after we invaded Iraq. He said "I've seen the intelligence, it was incontrovertible." He's pretty sorry he made that statement today. "We all got fooled by photoshopped evidence."


Wait, what? I know we were given misleading evidence in the run-up to the war, but I never heard anything about photoshopped evidence. E.g. the "nerve gas" trailers were just trailers. I don't think the satellite images were modified.

Can you give some examples?
 
2012-09-11 12:20:28 PM  

sprawl15: More_Like_A_Stain: sprawl15: I'm surprised you're concerned at all about rationality since you're questioning the idea of a plane hitting the Pentagon when the entire ground was littered with airplane parts.

I didn't think I'd imagined several days worth of live tv news cameras aimed at a great big hole in the wall and airplane parts scattered all around. But I've heard about the lack of film for so long that I wasn't sure any more.

Well you see I don't personally own very much footage of the impact so the only possible conclusion is that several truckloads of airplane fragments and bodies was secretly placed there in the aftermath of a missile strike.


It was those damn Hollywood liberals again, wasn't it?
 
2012-09-11 12:21:52 PM  

inner ted: i'm suggesting that the most - or at least one of the most secure sites in this country if not the world - should have more than a half a second clip of what attacked it.


let's say they are hiding a bunch of footage, what does that mean? that they smashed a missile into the place and vanished the whole plane full of people somewhere?
 
2012-09-11 12:22:21 PM  

Headso: your contention is that when I said "warn people" I am saying warn the pilots and flight attendants?


You really have no idea what's going on, do you?

sprawl15: A warning about a possibility is not the same thing as assertion; people are innately optimistic. The hijackers on 93 killed the pilots right off the bat - a pretty clear sign that they weren't intending to land the plane - yet it took notifying the passengers about the trade centers for them to realize what was going on.

 
2012-09-11 12:24:18 PM  

More_Like_A_Stain: sprawl15: More_Like_A_Stain: sprawl15: I'm surprised you're concerned at all about rationality since you're questioning the idea of a plane hitting the Pentagon when the entire ground was littered with airplane parts.

I didn't think I'd imagined several days worth of live tv news cameras aimed at a great big hole in the wall and airplane parts scattered all around. But I've heard about the lack of film for so long that I wasn't sure any more.

Well you see I don't personally own very much footage of the impact so the only possible conclusion is that several truckloads of airplane fragments and bodies was secretly placed there in the aftermath of a missile strike.

It was those damn Hollywood liberals again, wasn't it?


No,much worse: reptilian central Jewish bankers who want to put computer chips in everyone to bring about the Antichrist's world
 
2012-09-11 12:24:50 PM  

abb3w: fickle floridian: Wait, the *Daily Kos* blames the Bush administration for 9/11? Holy cow! That's like Rush Limbaugh opposing Obama's re-election! Somebody stop the presses!!!!!

Well, so does Eichenwald over at the NY Times. But that's like the Washington Times supporting Romney, I guess. 

Read the accounts and come to your own conclusions.


My conclusions are that Bush was told something would likely happen and said something like, "Okay, what's the nature of the attack?" They replied, "We have no idea."

And that's pretty much the end of the conspiracy since there's no way to defend against something if you have no idea what it is. If you want to blame an ex-president for Osama's attack then blame Clinton. He's the one that wussed out when presented with the chance to take him out.
 
2012-09-11 12:25:48 PM  

cc_rider: Skleenar: dericwater: My question with the 9/11 thing is how did those on Flight 93 talk to their loved ones? They used cell phones which is not a permitted act, although I guess in such a crisis, some people would be willing to break the rules. But the main problem I see is how would the phones connect to the cell towers? They're 20,000 feet in the air, zooming over farm land in mid-eastern Pennsylvania, with little cell coverage.

This has always given me pause, too.

They used air phones to make the calls. The kind you swiped the credit cards in: Link


Cell phones too, apparently.
Q. The next caller please. I guess this is the last caller. Who is this caller?

A. This is passenger Ed Felt, originally assigned to seat 2-D. On this call he utilized his personal cell phone. At the time when he dialed 911, that phone was received by the Westmoreland County 911 dispatch center.

Q. Westmoreland County is a county in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania that is adjacent to Somerset County, is that right?

A. Yes, Westmoreland County is adjacent to Somerset County.

Q. So, when the plane was going over this county on its way to where it eventually crashed, when he made the call, it was routed into the local 911 operator, is that right?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Could you report what the contents of that conversation were. A. Ed Felt reported to the dispatch center that there was a hijacking in progress, that he was on United Airlines Flight 93. He provided his name and his cell phone number. He also reported he was calling from the bathroom on Flight 93. The phone then disconnected.
 
2012-09-11 12:28:16 PM  

inner ted: i'll respond to the more rational response from Dr. Dridel: if those cameras were of 'sensitive areas' i could agree with your idea, but we are talking about part of the building that is publicly visible - how on earth there is just that one brief moment of a clip is just hard to understand.


The same reason the WH keeps everything it can under the umbrella of National Security or Executive Privilege - because it can. Or because the Pentagon is notoriously paranoid. (CSB: While I've never been inside, I assume it's like the NSA, which I have been in - posters everywhere warning you that Loose Lips Sink Carrier Battle Groups.)

What the cameras are looking at can be important if you want to know where they aren't looking. We assume that the Pentagon has eyes on every part of the exterior, but why even give out a single reference point? If the cameras weren't hi-def, the frame rate may preclude anything useful on the tape anyway - a regular-def video camera shoots 24 frames per second, meaning that a plane traveling 500mph would move 733.3333... feet in every frame. Even for a camera looking at 900 feet of space, you'd get a little over a second of grainy, kind-of-looks-like-a-plane video noise.

And, as many others have said, why should the Pentagon release video of an event thousands of people saw just to appease conspiracist morons who'd likely find a pixel or two out of place and declare the whole thing a forgery of a fraud anyway?
 
2012-09-11 12:28:20 PM  

sprawl15: A warning about a possibility is not the same thing as assertion; people are innately optimistic. The hijackers on 93 killed the pilots right off the bat - a pretty clear sign that they weren't intending to land the plane - yet it took notifying the passengers about the trade centers for them to realize what was going on.


no I have no idea what you are trying to say here. it makes no sense as a reply to my earlier post.


Me: I think warning people could have lowered the possibility of a successful attack
You: [insert opinion here]

what is your opinion on that?
 
2012-09-11 12:30:41 PM  

Brubold: If you want to blame an ex-president for Osama's attack then blame Clinton. He's the one that wussed out when presented with the chance to take him out.


Funny. I seem to remember that Clinton ordered a cruise missile that missed Bin Laden by a few minutes (thanks Pakistani ISI!), whereupon Clinton was roundly criticized by Congressional Republicans as a wag-the-dog warmonger.
 
2012-09-11 12:31:08 PM  

intelligent comment below: Giltric: Do you have citations for that?


what's the difference? You didn't bother to read the last ones posted that should have shut you up. But you just keep rambling on being proud of your ignorance


Well you have a history of not providing cites
....I guess history is repeating itself.
 
2012-09-11 12:32:51 PM  

Dr Dreidel: a regular-def video camera shoots 24 frames per second, meaning that a plane traveling 500mph would move 733.3333... feet in every frame. Even for a camera looking at 900 feet of space, you'd get a little over a second of grainy, kind-of-looks-like-a-plane video noise.


And if it's one of those stop-frame recordings that don't store full motion video, the plane might not appear in the sky at all. One frame all is well, next frame shows a big hole in the wall.
 
2012-09-11 12:33:33 PM  

Headso: no I have no idea what you are trying to say here.


It means that a warning about a possibility of attack is not the same thing as an assertion of attack because people are innately optimistic. An example of this is how the hijackers on Flight 93 killed the pilots right off the bat - a pretty clear sign that they weren't intending to land the plane - yet the people on the plane remained 'optimistic' in thinking it was a hostage situation until they were explicitly told they were on a suicide mission.

C'mon, words aren't hard.

Headso: Me: I think warning people could have lowered the possibility of a successful attack
You: [insert opinion here]

what is your opinion on that?


That any reasonably considered warning would have had minimal impact on this kind of situation. It would have lowered the possibility very, very slightly. Only knowledge of an imminent threat would have mitigated the problem (like on Flight 93), and at that level of awareness the plane wouldn't have left the ground.

I know you have problems with nuance, but it's not that difficult to figure out what I'm saying. You could start by at least trying to read the words I'm typing to you.
 
2012-09-11 12:36:28 PM  

pontechango: Giltric: Not for nothing but most of the solutions to 9/11 are only in hindsight.....we know that 2 planes hit the WTC...so in hindsight the solution is to increase airport security.

We had nothing actionable. We didn;t know if there would be an attack at a mall, a school or a synygogue.

Cockpit hardening was not something known in "hindsight". You may have amnesia, but we don't.

Air France Flight 8969 Hijacking - GIGN Raid

ps those terrorist had plans to fly the plane into the Eiffel Tower


1994....so it's Clintons fault for not suggesting we harden the cockpit doors even after this scenario and the plot of Bojinka was revealed?

Or was it the presidential time machine that Bush used?
 
2012-09-11 12:39:46 PM  

cman: inner ted: sprawl15: inner ted: i'll respond to the more rational response from Dr. Dridel

I'm surprised you're concerned at all about rationality since you're questioning the idea of a plane hitting the Pentagon when the entire ground was littered with airplane parts.

Are you suggesting it was a missile with pieces of engines strapped to it?

first off, congrats on being able to respond without sounding like a complete child.

i'm suggesting that the most - or at least one of the most secure sites in this country if not the world - should have more than a half a second clip of what attacked it.

if you have other video or pics, please offer them up.
eagerly awaiting your response.


1, plane was going 500 mph.
2, if the plane was in the frame, 9/11 conspiracy theorists would still biatch about the security camera being photoshopped because of the camera being slow framed.
3, budget cuts, budget cuts, budget cuts
4, most security cameras are slow frame. It saves money
5, every eyewitness that has come forward has identified it as a plane. They saw a plane, not a missile.
5, the grounds of the pentagon are policed at all times. Why do they need to have awesome spy cameras when there is no point to them because of instant arrival from security?


so that's a "no" then?
your conjecture and opinions are fantastic though, even if completely pulled from your ass thin air. (trying to be adult like)
 
2012-09-11 12:40:15 PM  

pontechango: Brubold: If you want to blame an ex-president for Osama's attack then blame Clinton. He's the one that wussed out when presented with the chance to take him out.

Funny. I seem to remember that Clinton ordered a cruise missile that missed Bin Laden by a few minutes (thanks Pakistani ISI!), whereupon Clinton was roundly criticized by Congressional Republicans as a wag-the-dog warmonger.


Cruise missles takes hours of flight time depending on where they are fired from....Bin Laden was nowhere near the location when the cruise missle impacted. We did have teams on the ground with eyes, and crosshiairs, on bin laden (which is how we knew he was there) who were ready to pull the trigger or raid the compound and capture him alive or dead but the Clinton administration said no.
 
2012-09-11 12:40:50 PM  

shotglasss: The truthers are out in force today.


They are? I did a ctrf-f for "inside job" and got no hits.
 
2012-09-11 12:44:00 PM  

dericwater: Philip Francis Queeg: TheBigJerk: keylock71: I think it would have happened regardless of who was in the White House... But this does reinforce that the Bush Administration had a hard-on for Iraq pretty much from the beginning and the attacks on 9/11/01 gave them the excuse they needed to plunge us headlong into that expensive debacle.

...And sadly, the GOP is still chocker blocked with these ideological neoconservative assholes.

Bush aside, why did the other neocons have such a hard-on for Iraq?

Black gold, Texas tea. Oil that is.

The Cheney wing of the neo-cons wanted the oil. The Wolfowitz/Bolton wing wanted a won war to show the might of the US as an empire. (For what, I don't know.)


Revenge.

Aside from wanting Iraqi oil reserves, the right-wing of the GOP never forgave Poppy Bush for
not telling General Schwartzkopf to call home from the payphone at the Turkey/Iraq border
checkpoint after driving through downtown Baghdad. They thought that he should have ignored
the UN Resolution and go after Saddam Hussein, who had shown himself as being an unreliable
bulwark against what they thought was the 'real' enemy in the reason: Iran.

Even though Iraq was a Soviet client in the 1980s, his war with Iran suited our purposes to keep the
Iranians in check; that's why they kept cozying up to him, up to and including (IIRC) Madeline Albright
strongly implying that if they rolled over the border into Kuwait it wasn't really any of our business.
They probably never thought the Shoeshine Boy would be crazy enough to do that anyway, forgetting
his history.

I remember rather wishing that Bush Sr. had gone in, since Saddam was a monster, but given that
unlike most of his advisors he had a grasp of what a quagmire that could become, he erred on the
side of keeping Desert Storm a 'just' war, inasmuchas it was prosecuted in accordance with the
UN mandate. Unfortunately, the red meat wing of the party saw this as weakness, and despite our
solid victory they thought he'd sold out the US, and they set about to make sure that there would
never be a 'weak' GOP president ever again and proceeded to purge the moderates from the party
in earnest just in time for them to start hounding Bill Clinton and, eventually, engineer the winning of
the 2000 election by a puppet they could easily control.

The Iraq Was was going to happen whether there was an Al-Queida attack or not, and it would have
followed the same script of "SADDAM HAS WMDS!!!".
 
2012-09-11 12:44:12 PM  

inner ted: cman: inner ted: sprawl15: inner ted: i'll respond to the more rational response from Dr. Dridel

I'm surprised you're concerned at all about rationality since you're questioning the idea of a plane hitting the Pentagon when the entire ground was littered with airplane parts.

Are you suggesting it was a missile with pieces of engines strapped to it?

first off, congrats on being able to respond without sounding like a complete child.

i'm suggesting that the most - or at least one of the most secure sites in this country if not the world - should have more than a half a second clip of what attacked it.

if you have other video or pics, please offer them up.
eagerly awaiting your response.

1, plane was going 500 mph.
2, if the plane was in the frame, 9/11 conspiracy theorists would still biatch about the security camera being photoshopped because of the camera being slow framed.
3, budget cuts, budget cuts, budget cuts
4, most security cameras are slow frame. It saves money
5, every eyewitness that has come forward has identified it as a plane. They saw a plane, not a missile.
5, the grounds of the pentagon are policed at all times. Why do they need to have awesome spy cameras when there is no point to them because of instant arrival from security?

so that's a "no" then?
your conjecture and opinions are fantastic though, even if completely pulled from your ass thin air. (trying to be adult like)


How many hours of video would it take to convince you?
 
2012-09-11 12:47:41 PM  

Skleenar: But the main problem I see is how would the phones connect to the cell towers? They're 20,000 feet in the air, zooming over farm land in mid-eastern Pennsylvania, with little cell coverage.

This has always given me pause, too.



There are a lot of possible explanations. I saw a great little short doc by the great Errol Morris about the JFK assassination where they discussed the mysterious man with the black umbrella who was standing along the roadway in Dallas when JFK was shot. Really brilliant short video on conspiracy theories -- check it out.

For years conspiracy theorists have claimed the umbrella man was CIA and that the umbrella was a weapon. What other explanation could there have been for a guy on a hot day with a black umbrella - the only person with an umbrella in probably all of Dallas that day - standing right where Kennedy was shot? So they actually found the "umbrella man" and questioned him. Turns out he was protesting Joe Kennedy, JFK's dad, over something he had supported. The umbrella was a symbolic reference to that, so this guy was doing a silent protest with the umbrella when JFK's motorcade passed. The point being, there are infinite explanations for strange things that have nothing sinister to them, but our minds always go to the more salacious possibilities.

From Flight 93, 37 phone calls were made by passengers and crew. 35 of them used Airphones. So only 2 cell phone calls were placed. Flight 93 was below 20k feet for 10-15 minutes; below 10k feet for 5-7 mins. There were 44 passengers and crew on board. Minus 4 hijackers and at least 2 people who were dead or dying at that time, that leaves 38 people with at least 5 minutes to get through via cell phones. When you do that math, it's not hard at all to believe that 2 cell calls made it through. Add in the "fog of war," the unreliability of eye-witnesses, human error, etc. It's a hell of a lot easier to accept than the alternate theory that the calls were all faked, that wives, husbands, siblings, parents and best friends were all duped into believing they were talking to their loved ones on the phone, that the evil conspirators would take a risk by faking 37 calls (!) when one or two would have been enough to do the job.
 
2012-09-11 12:48:03 PM  

Giltric: We did have teams on the ground with eyes, and crosshiairs, on bin laden (which is how we knew he was there) who were ready to pull the trigger or raid the compound and capture him alive or dead but the Clinton administration said no.


We had "teams on the ground" in Afghanistan with Bin Laden in their crosshairs? Uh no.
 
2012-09-11 12:49:08 PM  

pontechango: cc_rider: Skleenar: dericwater: My question with the 9/11 thing is how did those on Flight 93 talk to their loved ones? They used cell phones which is not a permitted act, although I guess in such a crisis, some people would be willing to break the rules. But the main problem I see is how would the phones connect to the cell towers? They're 20,000 feet in the air, zooming over farm land in mid-eastern Pennsylvania, with little cell coverage.

This has always given me pause, too.

They used air phones to make the calls. The kind you swiped the credit cards in: Link

Cell phones too, apparently.


Ah, ok. I was thinking that it was one of the other flights where they were able to make calls on cell phones. I just remembered that they had actually recovered one of those Airfones from the little bit of identifiable wreckage of flight 93.
 
2012-09-11 12:49:50 PM  

shower_in_my_socks: The point being, there are infinite explanations for strange things that have nothing sinister to them, but our minds always go to the more salacious possibilities.


Drawing distinct and clear-cut conclusions in hindsight is one of our fundamental evolutionary drives. It's the same instinct responsible for religion.
 
2012-09-11 12:50:11 PM  

Dr Dreidel: inner ted: i'll respond to the more rational response from Dr. Dridel: if those cameras were of 'sensitive areas' i could agree with your idea, but we are talking about part of the building that is publicly visible - how on earth there is just that one brief moment of a clip is just hard to understand.

The same reason the WH keeps everything it can under the umbrella of National Security or Executive Privilege - because it can. Or because the Pentagon is notoriously paranoid. (CSB: While I've never been inside, I assume it's like the NSA, which I have been in - posters everywhere warning you that Loose Lips Sink Carrier Battle Groups.)

What the cameras are looking at can be important if you want to know where they aren't looking. We assume that the Pentagon has eyes on every part of the exterior, but why even give out a single reference point? If the cameras weren't hi-def, the frame rate may preclude anything useful on the tape anyway - a regular-def video camera shoots 24 frames per second, meaning that a plane traveling 500mph would move 733.3333... feet in every frame. Even for a camera looking at 900 feet of space, you'd get a little over a second of grainy, kind-of-looks-like-a-plane video noise.

And, as many others have said, why should the Pentagon release video of an event thousands of people saw just to appease conspiracist morons who'd likely find a pixel or two out of place and declare the whole thing a forgery of a fraud anyway?


so they just release a half second video that is inconclusive at best and that is supposed to cause less of a stir up?

this is even more frustrating &/or suspicious considering even the most dated shopping malls have surveillance cameras capable of zooming in on object blocks away

we wouldn't even have to have this conversation about pixels and what not, we could just watch the video of it prancing right on down broadway (or whatever street that is) and be done with it.

as to "oh noes, someone could triangulate the position of the camera" - sorry, that's just plain silly. again, it's a camera on the outside of the building.. who gives a shiat that anyone knows it's position? how does that compromise anything?
 
2012-09-11 12:51:42 PM  

inner ted: cman: inner ted: sprawl15: inner ted: i'll respond to the more rational response from Dr. Dridel

I'm surprised you're concerned at all about rationality since you're questioning the idea of a plane hitting the Pentagon when the entire ground was littered with airplane parts.

Are you suggesting it was a missile with pieces of engines strapped to it?

first off, congrats on being able to respond without sounding like a complete child.

i'm suggesting that the most - or at least one of the most secure sites in this country if not the world - should have more than a half a second clip of what attacked it.

if you have other video or pics, please offer them up.
eagerly awaiting your response.

1, plane was going 500 mph.
2, if the plane was in the frame, 9/11 conspiracy theorists would still biatch about the security camera being photoshopped because of the camera being slow framed.
3, budget cuts, budget cuts, budget cuts
4, most security cameras are slow frame. It saves money
5, every eyewitness that has come forward has identified it as a plane. They saw a plane, not a missile.
5, the grounds of the pentagon are policed at all times. Why do they need to have awesome spy cameras when there is no point to them because of instant arrival from security?

so that's a "no" then?
your conjecture and opinions are fantastic though, even if completely pulled from your ass thin air. (trying to be adult like)


I was once a truther. Loved listening to Alex Jones and took everything he said for face value. But when I actually processed what he said instead of automatic I realized that the movement is full of shiat. The 9/11 truth movement is not about truth; it is about fitting whatever they can into their farked up point of view by taking quotes out of context and blatantly ignoring anything that does not further their own idea.

Alex Jones talks about the media using fear to control and condition you, then a minute later he starts screaming at the top of his lungs "THEY ARE COMING TO KILL YOU!". Alex Jones was right about predicting 9/11, problem is is that he predicts major terrorist attacks all the time and if you throw enough spaghetti against the wall some will eventually stick. If the attacks happen, "OMG JONES WAS RIGHT"; if not, "Thanks Alex for exposing this evil plot. You forced the government to back down from their plans".
 
2012-09-11 12:52:41 PM  

Brubold: If you want to blame an ex-president for Osama's attack then blame Clinton. He's the one that wussed out when presented with the chance to take him out.



LOLWUT? So in 2001 bin Laden was such a threat that the Bush Admin COMPLETELY IGNORED HIM, but prior to that he should have been priority #1 on the kill list? How farking convenient. I agree that I wish Clinton had taken him out, but that's hindsight 20/20. When you have evidence that the CIA was pleading with the Clinton Admin for months that an attack from bin Laden's organization was imminent, that they knew terrorist cells were on the ground in the US, and they not just ignored it, but told the CIA they were being duped, because they wanted a war with Iraq instead, please come back and show us. Two of the 9/11 hijackers were flagged in the months leading up to 9/11. One was even kicked out. Kind of would have been nice if the dipshiats in the White House had been paying a little closer attention to that shiat like the CIA wanted them to.
 
2012-09-11 12:54:57 PM  

shower_in_my_socks: Skleenar: But the main problem I see is how would the phones connect to the cell towers? They're 20,000 feet in the air, zooming over farm land in mid-eastern Pennsylvania, with little cell coverage.

This has always given me pause, too.


There are a lot of possible explanations. I saw a great little short doc by the great Errol Morris about the JFK assassination where they discussed the mysterious man with the black umbrella who was standing along the roadway in Dallas when JFK was shot. Really brilliant short video on conspiracy theories -- check it out.

For years conspiracy theorists have claimed the umbrella man was CIA and that the umbrella was a weapon. What other explanation could there have been for a guy on a hot day with a black umbrella - the only person with an umbrella in probably all of Dallas that day - standing right where Kennedy was shot? So they actually found the "umbrella man" and questioned him. Turns out he was protesting Joe Kennedy, JFK's dad, over something he had supported. The umbrella was a symbolic reference to that, so this guy was doing a silent protest with the umbrella when JFK's motorcade passed. The point being, there are infinite explanations for strange things that have nothing sinister to them, but our minds always go to the more salacious possibilities.

From Flight 93, 37 phone calls were made by passengers and crew. 35 of them used Airphones. So only 2 cell phone calls were placed. Flight 93 was below 20k feet for 10-15 minutes; below 10k feet for 5-7 mins. There were 44 passengers and crew on board. Minus 4 hijackers and at least 2 people who were dead or dying at that time, that leaves 38 people with at least 5 minutes to get through via cell phones. When you do that math, it's not hard at all to believe that 2 cell calls made it through. Add in the "fog of war," the unreliability of eye-witnesses, human error, etc. It's a hell of a lot easier to accept than the alternate theory that the calls were all faked, that wives, ...


I'm not claiming that Fl 93 was all made up. I was just wondering how the calls were made. I guess they were mostly made by the airphones, which I assumed. (I'm the one that Skleenar was replying to.)
 
2012-09-11 12:56:20 PM  

cman: But when I actually processed what he said instead of automatic I realized that the movement is full of shiat.



I dedicated several weeks a year or so after 9/11 to debunking the Truther claims. It was like shooting fish in a barrel.
 
2012-09-11 12:56:27 PM  

pontechango: Giltric: We did have teams on the ground with eyes, and crosshiairs, on bin laden (which is how we knew he was there) who were ready to pull the trigger or raid the compound and capture him alive or dead but the Clinton administration said no.

We had "teams on the ground" in Afghanistan with Bin Laden in their crosshairs? Uh no.


Uh yes. We had bin Laden cornered at Tora Bora and a direct order from Bush requested the military stand down. Bin Laden then escaped.
 
2012-09-11 12:58:05 PM  

shower_in_my_socks: Brubold: If you want to blame an ex-president for Osama's attack then blame Clinton. He's the one that wussed out when presented with the chance to take him out.


LOLWUT? So in 2001 bin Laden was such a threat that the Bush Admin COMPLETELY IGNORED HIM, but prior to that he should have been priority #1 on the kill list? How farking convenient. I agree that I wish Clinton had taken him out, but that's hindsight 20/20. When you have evidence that the CIA was pleading with the Clinton Admin for months that an attack from bin Laden's organization was imminent, that they knew terrorist cells were on the ground in the US, and they not just ignored it, but told the CIA they were being duped, because they wanted a war with Iraq instead, please come back and show us. Two of the 9/11 hijackers were flagged in the months leading up to 9/11. One was even kicked out. Kind of would have been nice if the dipshiats in the White House had been paying a little closer attention to that shiat like the CIA wanted them to.


Also, Clinton did try to take out bin Laden. Failed.
 
2012-09-11 12:58:52 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: inner ted: cman: inner ted: sprawl15: inner ted: i'll respond to the more rational response from Dr. Dridel

I'm surprised you're concerned at all about rationality since you're questioning the idea of a plane hitting the Pentagon when the entire ground was littered with airplane parts.

Are you suggesting it was a missile with pieces of engines strapped to it?

first off, congrats on being able to respond without sounding like a complete child.

i'm suggesting that the most - or at least one of the most secure sites in this country if not the world - should have more than a half a second clip of what attacked it.

if you have other video or pics, please offer them up.
eagerly awaiting your response.

1, plane was going 500 mph.
2, if the plane was in the frame, 9/11 conspiracy theorists would still biatch about the security camera being photoshopped because of the camera being slow framed.
3, budget cuts, budget cuts, budget cuts
4, most security cameras are slow frame. It saves money
5, every eyewitness that has come forward has identified it as a plane. They saw a plane, not a missile.
5, the grounds of the pentagon are policed at all times. Why do they need to have awesome spy cameras when there is no point to them because of instant arrival from security?

so that's a "no" then?
your conjecture and opinions are fantastic though, even if completely pulled from your ass thin air. (trying to be adult like)

How many hours of video would it take to convince you?


honestly, just show me something other than the .5 second clip on teh wiki - that's then only that i've ever seen.

/by "other" i mean any other video of whatever struck the pentagon - whether it's other security video - some random persons video camera (there was lots of that from the towers right?)

not just the photos after the incident. that's a whole other ball of wax & i'm desperately trying to stick to just this point.

cheers
 
2012-09-11 01:01:16 PM  
 
2012-09-11 01:02:41 PM  

Rich Cream: July 15, 2004 /i>

cool story bro

 
2012-09-11 01:03:21 PM  

Rich Cream: July 15, 2004 - Qualcomm Incorporated pioneer and world leader of Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) digital wireless technology, and American Airlines, the world's largest carrier, today successfully demonstrated in-cabin voice communications using commercially available CDMA mobile phones on a commercial American Airlines aircraft. Through the use of an in-cabin third-generation (3G) "picocell" network, passengers on the test flight were able to place and receive calls as if they were on the ground.

A small in-cabin CDMA cellular base station on the plane, that uses standard cellular communications, was connected to the worldwide terrestrial phone network by an air-to-ground Globalstar satellite link.



Well, that proves it. Those 35 phone calls made with Airphones couldn't have happened... oh wait.
 
2012-09-11 01:04:30 PM  

cman: inner ted: cman: inner ted: sprawl15: inner ted: i'll respond to the more rational response from Dr. Dridel

I'm surprised you're concerned at all about rationality since you're questioning the idea of a plane hitting the Pentagon when the entire ground was littered with airplane parts.

Are you suggesting it was a missile with pieces of engines strapped to it?

first off, congrats on being able to respond without sounding like a complete child.

i'm suggesting that the most - or at least one of the most secure sites in this country if not the world - should have more than a half a second clip of what attacked it.

if you have other video or pics, please offer them up.
eagerly awaiting your response.

1, plane was going 500 mph.
2, if the plane was in the frame, 9/11 conspiracy theorists would still biatch about the security camera being photoshopped because of the camera being slow framed.
3, budget cuts, budget cuts, budget cuts
4, most security cameras are slow frame. It saves money
5, every eyewitness that has come forward has identified it as a plane. They saw a plane, not a missile.
5, the grounds of the pentagon are policed at all times. Why do they need to have awesome spy cameras when there is no point to them because of instant arrival from security?

so that's a "no" then?
your conjecture and opinions are fantastic though, even if completely pulled from your ass thin air. (trying to be adult like)

I was once a truther. Loved listening to Alex Jones and took everything he said for face value. But when I actually processed what he said instead of automatic I realized that the movement is full of shiat. The 9/11 truth movement is not about truth; it is about fitting whatever they can into their farked up point of view by taking quotes out of context and blatantly ignoring anything that does not further their own idea.

Alex Jones talks about the media using fear to control and condition you, then a minute later he starts screaming at the top of his lungs "T ...


dude i gave up on coast to coast long ago.

let me put this as plainly as i can (i see what i did there)

i don't know what hit the pentagon that day - the only evidence i've ever been offered is a .5 sec video - the same that's linked on the wiki page for the incident. that video is inconclusive at best IMHO.

i don't know who did what and where and to whom. all i know is that video is not enough to convince me that it was a plane.

considering the building we are discussing, it's impossible that there wasn't more video of the incident.

i would like to see it, and don't buy that it's any kind of compromise to national security to show various other angles of the incident. unless they show something else.

hope that helps
 
2012-09-11 01:04:53 PM  

dericwater: pontechango: Giltric: We did have teams on the ground with eyes, and crosshiairs, on bin laden (which is how we knew he was there) who were ready to pull the trigger or raid the compound and capture him alive or dead but the Clinton administration said no.

We had "teams on the ground" in Afghanistan with Bin Laden in their crosshairs? Uh no.

Uh yes. We had bin Laden cornered at Tora Bora and a direct order from Bush requested the military stand down. Bin Laden then escaped.


Reread Giltric's claim. He said that we had teams on the ground and OBL in their crosshairs, and the Clinton admin backed down.
 
2012-09-11 01:06:08 PM  

inner ted: i don't know what hit the pentagon that day


A dump truck full of airplane parts was launched by railgun from Arizona.
 
2012-09-11 01:06:38 PM  

sprawl15: any reasonably considered warning would have had minimal impact on this kind of situation. It would have lowered the possibility very, very slightly.


We would have to disagree on that. But even lowering the possibility very very slightly is worth it. It was negligent not to pass on those warnings.
 
2012-09-11 01:07:27 PM  

inner ted: the only evidence i've ever been offered is a .5 sec video



Well, that and the pieces of airplane scattered all over the crash site, including the plane's nose cone which landed several rings inside the Pentagon, and the charred bodies of the dead passengers. I'm sorry, but it's farking retarded to think it was anything but a plane. Really, really retarded.
 
2012-09-11 01:07:54 PM  

dericwater: pontechango: Giltric: We did have teams on the ground with eyes, and crosshiairs, on bin laden (which is how we knew he was there) who were ready to pull the trigger or raid the compound and capture him alive or dead but the Clinton administration said no.

We had "teams on the ground" in Afghanistan with Bin Laden in their crosshairs? Uh no.

Uh yes. We had bin Laden cornered at Tora Bora and a direct order from Bush requested the military stand down. Bin Laden then escaped.


Well, I think it was more to the effect that Bush had prioritized resources for the invasion of Iraq instead of catching Bin Laden, but I suppose Giltric would blame that on Clinton, too.
 
2012-09-11 01:09:19 PM  

Headso: But even lowering the possibility very very slightly is worth it.


At the time, the political math is very, very different. Hindsight is good to figure out what should have happened, but farking terrible for figuring out what people were thinking of at the time.

Headso: It was negligent not to pass on those warnings.


This implies there was an institutional recognition of a problem.
 
2012-09-11 01:09:22 PM  

inner ted: /by "other" i mean any other video of whatever struck the pentagon - whether it's other security video - some random persons video camera (there was lots of that from the towers right?)


why would 4 planes have been hijacked, 2 we know for sure flew into the wtc and 1 was shot down over Pennsylvania and 1 was switched out for a missile and fired at the pentagon? why would they even do that it makes no sense.
 
2012-09-11 01:10:26 PM  

inner ted: considering the building we are discussing, it's impossible that there wasn't more video of the incident.


It's been explained quite plausibly with speed of the plane and camera frame rates why there isn't much video evidence of the actual flight path and impact. There was literally days of live coverage of the aftermath.
 
2012-09-11 01:10:52 PM  

inner ted: Philip Francis Queeg: inner ted: cman: inner ted: sprawl15: inner ted: i'll respond to the more rational response from Dr. Dridel

I'm surprised you're concerned at all about rationality since you're questioning the idea of a plane hitting the Pentagon when the entire ground was littered with airplane parts.

Are you suggesting it was a missile with pieces of engines strapped to it?

first off, congrats on being able to respond without sounding like a complete child.

i'm suggesting that the most - or at least one of the most secure sites in this country if not the world - should have more than a half a second clip of what attacked it.

if you have other video or pics, please offer them up.
eagerly awaiting your response.

1, plane was going 500 mph.
2, if the plane was in the frame, 9/11 conspiracy theorists would still biatch about the security camera being photoshopped because of the camera being slow framed.
3, budget cuts, budget cuts, budget cuts
4, most security cameras are slow frame. It saves money
5, every eyewitness that has come forward has identified it as a plane. They saw a plane, not a missile.
5, the grounds of the pentagon are policed at all times. Why do they need to have awesome spy cameras when there is no point to them because of instant arrival from security?

so that's a "no" then?
your conjecture and opinions are fantastic though, even if completely pulled from your ass thin air. (trying to be adult like)

How many hours of video would it take to convince you?

honestly, just show me something other than the .5 second clip on teh wiki - that's then only that i've ever seen.

/by "other" i mean any other video of whatever struck the pentagon - whether it's other security video - some random persons video camera (there was lots of that from the towers right?)

not just the photos after the incident. that's a whole other ball of wax & i'm desperately trying to stick to just this point.

cheers


I bet you want video of Obama being born in Hawaii too.

There was one video of the first plan strikng. A documentary film maker happened looked up as the palne flew over because it was lower and faster than normal over Manhattan. One. That's it.

There were tons of video of the second plane because people were filming the first tower burning.

Every inch of the exterior of every major building in America is not being shot from multiple angles by High Def cameras 24/7.
 
2012-09-11 01:12:38 PM  

inner ted: Dr Dreidel: inner ted: i'll respond to the more rational response from Dr. Dridel: if those cameras were of 'sensitive areas' i could agree with your idea, but we are talking about part of the building that is publicly visible - how on earth there is just that one brief moment of a clip is just hard to understand.

The same reason the WH keeps everything it can under the umbrella of National Security or Executive Privilege - because it can. Or because the Pentagon is notoriously paranoid. (CSB: While I've never been inside, I assume it's like the NSA, which I have been in - posters everywhere warning you that Loose Lips Sink Carrier Battle Groups.)

What the cameras are looking at can be important if you want to know where they aren't looking. We assume that the Pentagon has eyes on every part of the exterior, but why even give out a single reference point? If the cameras weren't hi-def, the frame rate may preclude anything useful on the tape anyway - a regular-def video camera shoots 24 frames per second, meaning that a plane traveling 500mph would move 733.3333... feet in every frame. Even for a camera looking at 900 feet of space, you'd get a little over a second of grainy, kind-of-looks-like-a-plane video noise.

And, as many others have said, why should the Pentagon release video of an event thousands of people saw just to appease conspiracist morons who'd likely find a pixel or two out of place and declare the whole thing a forgery of a fraud anyway?

so they just release a half second video that is inconclusive at best and that is supposed to cause less of a stir up?


Explain. Who released the video, what does it show, and what was the source? I think you'll find that it was the media who released relevant portions of a cell-phone vid, which indicates nothing.

this is even more frustrating &/or suspicious considering even the most dated shopping malls have surveillance cameras capable of zooming in on object blocks away

In 2001, before 9/11 changed everything? I think ATMs had cameras, and some colleges had blue-light police phones (some with cameras, as relayed to me by the orientation people at UMD in 2000), but all malls with video? (Also, there are no malls facing the Pentagon. There is a "citywalk" type thing a few blocks away, but the I-395/Route 1 bridges/ramps, as well as a few buildings, block the view.)

we wouldn't even have to have this conversation about pixels and what not, we could just watch the video of it prancing right on down broadway (or whatever street that is) and be done with it.

It's I-395, and the plane crossed OVER it. You assume that there's some NFL-type video replay of a plane barreling toward the Pentagon in full 3d/1080p hi-def where we can do Matrix style bullet time and get the panoramic look. For several obvious reasons, that doesn't exist.

as to "oh noes, someone could triangulate the position of the camera" - sorry, that's just plain silly. again, it's a camera on the outside of the building.. who gives a shiat that anyone knows it's position? how does that compromise anything?

It's one more piece of information your hypothetical enemies have. Have you ever worked on something sensitive? Giving out any info - a name, a location, an asset, even revealing something which is already public, relating it to a sensitive topic - is bad news. Yes, even the location of a single camera watching 10-20 feet of space outside the most secure office building in the world. I'm pretty sure revealing that info (if it is indeed sensitive information) could get you a nice, long view of a Leavenworth cell.
 
2012-09-11 01:12:49 PM  
img406.imageshack.us
 
2012-09-11 01:13:13 PM  

shower_in_my_socks: inner ted: the only evidence i've ever been offered is a .5 sec video


Well, that and the pieces of airplane scattered all over the crash site, including the plane's nose cone which landed several rings inside the Pentagon, and the charred bodies of the dead passengers. I'm sorry, but it's farking retarded to think it was anything but a plane. Really, really retarded.


so that's another "no, inner ted, i don't have any other video or pics to link to support my view."

right on

& stay classy!
 
2012-09-11 01:13:50 PM  

sprawl15: This implies there was an institutional recognition of a problem.


that's where the charges of negligence and conspiracy come from, a dozen foreign intelligence agencies and the CIA all warning about an upcoming attack and yet despite that it was not recognized as a problem.
 
2012-09-11 01:14:01 PM  

Headso: 1 was switched out for a missile and fired at the pentagon



Yeah, this part of the "conspiracy" would have been laughed out of the room during the planning process.

"Let's see, we're going to fly a missile into the Pentagon in BROAD DAYLIGHT and then tell everyone it was a plane. To make it even more believable, we'll have a crew standing by to scatter bits of plane wreckage all of the lawn outside the building -- again, in BROAD DAYLIGHT. We will then have a second team dressed in firesuits who will climb into the burning building carrying tons and tons of plane wreckage like the engines, landing gear, and nose cone, and we will place them in the middle of the fire. Again, this will be done in BROAD DAYLIGHT without anyone noticing. Any questions?"

"Uh, yeah, why don't we just fly a plane into the Pentagon like we're doing with the other targets?"

"Durrrrrrrr..."
 
2012-09-11 01:15:32 PM  

inner ted: so that's another "no, inner ted, i don't have any other video or pics to link to support my view."

right on

& stay classy!



WHERE DID THE PLANE WRECKAGE COME FROM? We have a video. Your turn.
 
2012-09-11 01:16:25 PM  

Dr Dreidel: It's I-395, and the plane crossed OVER it. You assume that there's some NFL-type video replay of a plane barreling toward the Pentagon in full 3d/1080p hi-def where we can do Matrix style bullet time and get the panoramic look. For several obvious reasons, that doesn't exist.


even if it does exist and the refuse to release it, what does that even mean? the conspiracy guys jump from that to it must have been a missile.
 
2012-09-11 01:16:31 PM  

Rich Cream: [img406.imageshack.us image 240x180]


img831.imageshack.us
 
2012-09-11 01:17:02 PM  
 
2012-09-11 01:18:26 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: inner ted: Philip Francis Queeg: inner ted: cman: inner ted: sprawl15: inner ted: i'll respond to the more rational response from Dr. Dridel

I'm surprised you're concerned at all about rationality since you're questioning the idea of a plane hitting the Pentagon when the entire ground was littered with airplane parts.

Are you suggesting it was a missile with pieces of engines strapped to it?

first off, congrats on being able to respond without sounding like a complete child.

i'm suggesting that the most - or at least one of the most secure sites in this country if not the world - should have more than a half a second clip of what attacked it.

if you have other video or pics, please offer them up.
eagerly awaiting your response.

1, plane was going 500 mph.
2, if the plane was in the frame, 9/11 conspiracy theorists would still biatch about the security camera being photoshopped because of the camera being slow framed.
3, budget cuts, budget cuts, budget cuts
4, most security cameras are slow frame. It saves money
5, every eyewitness that has come forward has identified it as a plane. They saw a plane, not a missile.
5, the grounds of the pentagon are policed at all times. Why do they need to have awesome spy cameras when there is no point to them because of instant arrival from security?

so that's a "no" then?
your conjecture and opinions are fantastic though, even if completely pulled from your ass thin air. (trying to be adult like)

How many hours of video would it take to convince you?

honestly, just show me something other than the .5 second clip on teh wiki - that's then only that i've ever seen.

/by "other" i mean any other video of whatever struck the pentagon - whether it's other security video - some random persons video camera (there was lots of that from the towers right?)

not just the photos after the incident. that's a whole other ball of wax & i'm desperately trying to stick to just this point.

cheers

I bet you want video of Obama being bo ...


good to see the consistency of child-like taunts among those who have been questioned on their beliefs.

but you ended with a particularly important point that i've been endeavoring to make this whole time: "Every inch of the exterior of every major building in America is not being shot from multiple angles by High Def cameras 24/7."

very true - good thing that the one we ARE talking about WAS & IS being shot from multiple angles by high def cameras 24/7

so that's weird, right?
 
2012-09-11 01:18:42 PM  

shower_in_my_socks: WHERE DID THE PLANE WRECKAGE COME FROM?


Costco. Those guys have everything.
 
2012-09-11 01:19:11 PM  
farm8.staticflickr.com
 
2012-09-11 01:19:15 PM  

Rich Cream: BBC Reported Building 7 Collapse 20 Minutes Before It Fell



OMG, the Brit media was in on the conspiracy! Where does it end??? This thread is like a timewarp back to 2002. Thanks for the entertainment, guys.
 
2012-09-11 01:20:03 PM  

inner ted: very true - good thing that the one we ARE talking about WAS & IS being shot from multiple angles by high def cameras 24/7


You have video to prove that? Or is that just something that you've been led to believe?
 
2012-09-11 01:20:13 PM  

inner ted: good to see the consistency of child-like taunts among those who have been questioned on their beliefs.

but you ended with a particularly important point that i've been endeavoring to make this whole time: "Every inch of the exterior of every major building in America is not being shot from multiple angles by High Def cameras 24/7."

very true - good thing that the one we ARE talking about WAS & IS being shot from multiple angles by high def cameras 24/7

so that's weird, right?


Citation Needed.
 
2012-09-11 01:20:20 PM  

Rich Cream: [farm8.staticflickr.com image 600x500]



Oh my god, shiat was melted in the biggest building fire in world history! We're all sheeple!
 
2012-09-11 01:20:40 PM  

shower_in_my_socks: inner ted: so that's another "no, inner ted, i don't have any other video or pics to link to support my view."

right on

& stay classy!


WHERE DID THE PLANE WRECKAGE COME FROM? We have a video. Your turn.


you already voted "no i don't have what you are asking"

why are you still commenting?
 
2012-09-11 01:21:52 PM  

inner ted: why are you still commenting?



Good question. Welcome to my ignore list, farking moron.
 
2012-09-11 01:23:53 PM  

inner ted: very true - good thing that the one we ARE talking about WAS & IS being shot from multiple angles by high def cameras 24/7


so again, if they do have that video and won't release it why does that mean anything but they have some video and refuse to release it? why does it mean a missile flew into the building?
 
2012-09-11 01:24:10 PM  
"A plane crashed into the Pentagon, and there's plane wreckage all over the place. Clearly, this was a missile!" -- every 9/11 Truther idiot
 
2012-09-11 01:24:17 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: inner ted: good to see the consistency of child-like taunts among those who have been questioned on their beliefs.

but you ended with a particularly important point that i've been endeavoring to make this whole time: "Every inch of the exterior of every major building in America is not being shot from multiple angles by High Def cameras 24/7."

very true - good thing that the one we ARE talking about WAS & IS being shot from multiple angles by high def cameras 24/7

so that's weird, right?

Citation Needed.


lol - really ? do you also need a citation that the sun is hot?

and it's funny, in a sad way, that everyone here trying to prove their idea (and poorly) have been citation free - yet you don't feel compelled to ask for links?

gosh... is it only cause they agree with you?

stunning
 
2012-09-11 01:26:41 PM  

inner ted: Philip Francis Queeg: inner ted: good to see the consistency of child-like taunts among those who have been questioned on their beliefs.

but you ended with a particularly important point that i've been endeavoring to make this whole time: "Every inch of the exterior of every major building in America is not being shot from multiple angles by High Def cameras 24/7."

very true - good thing that the one we ARE talking about WAS & IS being shot from multiple angles by high def cameras 24/7

so that's weird, right?

Citation Needed.

lol - really ? do you also need a citation that the sun is hot?

and it's funny, in a sad way, that everyone here trying to prove their idea (and poorly) have been citation free - yet you don't feel compelled to ask for links?

gosh... is it only cause they agree with you?

stunning


so that's "no, Phillip Francis Queeg, i don't have any source to link to support my view."
 
2012-09-11 01:27:49 PM  

inner ted: gosh... is it only cause they agree with you?


Well, that and they agree with reality. If it was a missile, where did the airplane parts come from?
 
2012-09-11 01:28:12 PM  

Rich Cream: BBC Reported Building 7 Collapse 20 Minutes Before It Fell


Yeah, about that, no BBC guys were there. They got all of their news from American partners. It was well known prior to its collapsed that everyone was pulled from the building because of threat of collapse. What BBC reported could have been a miscommunication from their partners in the US. Wen breaking news happens, there are a lot of rumors and one must be careful on getting confirmation before they go on the air. News reports told of a fire at the Washington mall and a car bomb at the state department. That is all. BBC farked up their reporting without getting confirmation reporting a rumor as fact.
 
2012-09-11 01:28:31 PM  

Headso: inner ted: very true - good thing that the one we ARE talking about WAS & IS being shot from multiple angles by high def cameras 24/7

so again, if they do have that video and won't release it why does that mean anything but they have some video and refuse to release it? why does it mean a missile flew into the building?



The funniest thing about this shiat from inner ted is that in 2001, almost NOTHING was being shot in high definition. I was starting out in filmmaking at that time. There were only a few HD cameras even in existence then, and they were all on movie sets. I remember shooting a my first HD film just a few months after the 9/11 attacks, and we were in Phoenix. There wasn't a single HD camera in the whole city -- we had to go to LA to get one, and even then there was a waiting list to get the camera. HD cameras cost 100,000's of dollars, they could only record to tape with a max runtime of about 40 mins, they were big, and they sure as fark weren't being used as security camers. It's just farking laughable how ignorant the Truthers are.
 
2012-09-11 01:29:17 PM  

Headso: inner ted: very true - good thing that the one we ARE talking about WAS & IS being shot from multiple angles by high def cameras 24/7

so again, if they do have that video and won't release it why does that mean anything but they have some video and refuse to release it? why does it mean a missile flew into the building?


will someone please show me where i said i know what hit the pentagon? i'm patient, i can wait.

and really ? what does it mean if they have video and didn't release it?

ok - let's play "what if"

no - fark it -
i don't know what it means, other than they are choosing not to release it.

what does it mean to you? does it make you suspicious? or are you so entrusting of our government that you just KNOW they wouldn't be up to any shenanigans?
 
2012-09-11 01:30:27 PM  

vygramul: Look, I'm not the type to sit around defending Bush - Lord knows there's plenty of reasons not to. But the administration did not want to get hit, would love to have done things differently, and there are an unbelievable number of warnings almost every day.


Pretty much this. The guy was a farking idiot. That theory sums up everything he did--he honestly didn't comprehend what he was doing.

This is also why I pay very, very close attention to politics. A second moron would not be a good thing to elect.
 
2012-09-11 01:31:46 PM  

Hobodeluxe: they wanted to get hit. those PNAC people weren't in his administration by accident or coincidence


Lol. Gotta love truther threads.

truthers -> birthers -> squirrel turds
 
2012-09-11 01:32:23 PM  

inner ted: will someone please show me where i said i know what hit the pentagon? i'm patient, i can wait.


Why don't you consider charred airplane parts and bodies scattered around the wreckage to be evidence that it was an airliner that hit the building?
 
2012-09-11 01:32:47 PM  

shower_in_my_socks: Headso: inner ted: very true - good thing that the one we ARE talking about WAS & IS being shot from multiple angles by high def cameras 24/7

so again, if they do have that video and won't release it why does that mean anything but they have some video and refuse to release it? why does it mean a missile flew into the building?


The funniest thing about this shiat from inner ted is that in 2001, almost NOTHING was being shot in high definition. I was starting out in filmmaking at that time. There were only a few HD cameras even in existence then, and they were all on movie sets. I remember shooting a my first HD film just a few months after the 9/11 attacks, and we were in Phoenix. There wasn't a single HD camera in the whole city -- we had to go to LA to get one, and even then there was a waiting list to get the camera. HD cameras cost 100,000's of dollars, they could only record to tape with a max runtime of about 40 mins, they were big, and they sure as fark weren't being used as security camers. It's just farking laughable how ignorant the Truthers are.


that's what you are running with? freaking lulz

kind of pathetic really.
 
2012-09-11 01:33:47 PM  

robrr2003: Hobodeluxe: they wanted to get hit. those PNAC people weren't in his administration by accident or coincidence

Lol. Gotta love truther threads.

truthers -> birthers -> squirrel turds


At least a squirrel turd is a reminder that something useful has passed through this way.
 
2012-09-11 01:34:15 PM  

robrr2003: Hobodeluxe: they wanted to get hit. those PNAC people weren't in his administration by accident or coincidence

Lol. Gotta love truther threads.

truthers -> birthers -> squirrel turds



In a thread that's all about how much the Bush Admin DIDN'T want Al Qaeda interfering with their Iraq War plans, we have people claiming they WANTED Al Qaeda to interfere with their Iraq War plans. NEWS FLASH: Bush didn't want a farking war in Afghanistan. He was busy getting people rallied to invade Iraq. He didn't want to deal with this Al Qaeda terrorist shiat, and 9/11 seriously farked them -- not helped them. They eventually got the war with Hussein that they wanted, but it took years and a lot more effort to finally get it.
 
2012-09-11 01:35:10 PM  

More_Like_A_Stain: inner ted: will someone please show me where i said i know what hit the pentagon? i'm patient, i can wait.

Why don't you consider charred airplane parts and bodies scattered around the wreckage to be evidence that it was an airliner that hit the building?



Because he's waiting for HD footage from security cameras that hadn't been invented yet.
 
2012-09-11 01:36:33 PM  

inner ted: good thing that the [Pentagon] WAS & IS being shot from multiple angles by high def cameras 24/7


1. Not by hi-def cameras (thanks shower_in_my_socks for saving me the time of looking that up).
2. The cameras that are in use, for reasons already explained, would not have provided anything beyond what we already have. Ergo (absent a compelling public need), the Pentagon feels no need to release ~1 second of tape that doesn't add anything to the discussion but DOES tip off the location of at least one security camera (and by extension, part of the building's security protocol).

You're dangerously close to being ignored. I like honest discussion and argumentation, and I'm willing to believe your lack of situational knowledge of the Pentagon's neighborhood is a limiting factor (NTTAWWT), but when you're relying on points that have already been discussed and legitimately dismissed, it becomes hard to take you seriously.

I could be unit testing now, man. Don't consign me to that fate.
 
2012-09-11 01:36:57 PM  

inner ted: that's what you are running with? freaking lulz


The fact that HD video cameras weren't readily available ISN'T a good explanation of why there isn't a wealth of HD video records of an airplane crash?
 
2012-09-11 01:37:02 PM  

shower_in_my_socks: More_Like_A_Stain: inner ted: will someone please show me where i said i know what hit the pentagon? i'm patient, i can wait.

Why don't you consider charred airplane parts and bodies scattered around the wreckage to be evidence that it was an airliner that hit the building?


Because he's waiting for HD footage from security cameras that hadn't been invented yet.


He knows that the Military got HD camera technology from the aliens at Area 51in 1947. They were used to film the moon landing on a soundstage in California.
 
2012-09-11 01:37:22 PM  

More_Like_A_Stain: inner ted: will someone please show me where i said i know what hit the pentagon? i'm patient, i can wait.

Why don't you consider charred airplane parts and bodies scattered around the wreckage to be evidence that it was an airliner that hit the building?


i understand that people get rather emotional about this topic, which is why i've tried to be as sensitive as possible, but the complete lack of reading comprehension, or just pointedly ignoring my questions is ... well lame. but i know.. welcome to fark.jpg and all that.

it's cool - if you are all convinced, fine with me.

if anyone would actually like to respond with anything remotely related to what ive asked, i'll happily discuss. even like an adult, sans name calling and flaming out with "zomg you questioned my belief rarrr!!11!!eleventy"
 
2012-09-11 01:39:04 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: He knows that the Military got HD camera technology from the aliens at Area 51in 1947. They were used to film the moon landing on a soundstage in California.



Fark, I totally forgot about that. Point goes to inner ted.
 
2012-09-11 01:39:23 PM  

inner ted: More_Like_A_Stain: inner ted: will someone please show me where i said i know what hit the pentagon? i'm patient, i can wait.

Why don't you consider charred airplane parts and bodies scattered around the wreckage to be evidence that it was an airliner that hit the building?

i understand that people get rather emotional about this topic, which is why i've tried to be as sensitive as possible, but the complete lack of reading comprehension, or just pointedly ignoring my questions is ... well lame. but i know.. welcome to fark.jpg and all that.

it's cool - if you are all convinced, fine with me.

if anyone would actually like to respond with anything remotely related to what ive asked, i'll happily discuss. even like an adult, sans name calling and flaming out with "zomg you questioned my belief rarrr!!11!!eleventy"


How about you provide some evidence, any evidence, of anything other than an airplane hitting the Pentagon?
 
2012-09-11 01:39:28 PM  

inner ted: will someone please show me where i said i know what hit the pentagon? i'm patient, i can wait.


saying that anything but a plane hit the pentagon is the nutty part...

inner ted: what does it mean to you? does it make you suspicious? or are you so entrusting of our government that you just KNOW they wouldn't be up to any shenanigans


You don't even need to trust the government to think that it makes no sense that we know a plane full of people died that day but they were not part of the attack. It's not that unbelievable in the face of the evidence that neocons allowed the attack to proceed, I'm more of a it was negligence kinda guy but I could see it as a possibility. it is totally ridiculous to believe that it was a conspiracy that involved disappearing a plane full of people. It's so ridiculous that it's less ridiculous to believe that the asinine version of events was purposefully floated to make anyone questioning the actually story look like a fool.
 
2012-09-11 01:42:14 PM  

inner ted: More_Like_A_Stain: inner ted: will someone please show me where i said i know what hit the pentagon? i'm patient, i can wait.

Why don't you consider charred airplane parts and bodies scattered around the wreckage to be evidence that it was an airliner that hit the building?

i understand that people get rather emotional about this topic, which is why i've tried to be as sensitive as possible, but the complete lack of reading comprehension, or just pointedly ignoring my questions is ... well lame. but i know.. welcome to fark.jpg and all that.

it's cool - if you are all convinced, fine with me.

if anyone would actually like to respond with anything remotely related to what ive asked, i'll happily discuss. even like an adult, sans name calling and flaming out with "zomg you questioned my belief rarrr!!11!!eleventy"


Then help us out here, kindly restate what you believe. It's a fairly long thread, including posts from a farker that claims to be an eyewitness to the pentagon crash. Your posts may have gotten confused with others. So tell us again, just to clear up any confusion, just exactly are you asking?
 
2012-09-11 01:43:37 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: inner ted: Philip Francis Queeg: inner ted: good to see the consistency of child-like taunts among those who have been questioned on their beliefs.

but you ended with a particularly important point that i've been endeavoring to make this whole time: "Every inch of the exterior of every major building in America is not being shot from multiple angles by High Def cameras 24/7."

very true - good thing that the one we ARE talking about WAS & IS being shot from multiple angles by high def cameras 24/7

so that's weird, right?

Citation Needed.

lol - really ? do you also need a citation that the sun is hot?

and it's funny, in a sad way, that everyone here trying to prove their idea (and poorly) have been citation free - yet you don't feel compelled to ask for links?

gosh... is it only cause they agree with you?

stunning

so that's "no, Phillip Francis Queeg, i don't have any source to link to support my view."


ya got me, there is only that one still camera on the most secure building on earth.

i'll have to get back to you about the sun and if it's hot.
 
2012-09-11 01:45:05 PM  
www.bitlogic.com
 
2012-09-11 01:46:01 PM  
I think I've spent part of just about every 9/11 anniversary pointing out the gaping holes in the Truther's argument. It's become a tradition.
 
2012-09-11 01:47:09 PM  

inner ted: ya got me, there is only that one still camera on the most secure building on earth.


stixblog.com
 
2012-09-11 01:52:16 PM  

Dr Dreidel: inner ted: good thing that the [Pentagon] WAS & IS being shot from multiple angles by high def cameras 24/7

1. Not by hi-def cameras (thanks shower_in_my_socks for saving me the time of looking that up).
2. The cameras that are in use, for reasons already explained, would not have provided anything beyond what we already have. Ergo (absent a compelling public need), the Pentagon feels no need to release ~1 second of tape that doesn't add anything to the discussion but DOES tip off the location of at least one security camera (and by extension, part of the building's security protocol).

You're dangerously close to being ignored. I like honest discussion and argumentation, and I'm willing to believe your lack of situational knowledge of the Pentagon's neighborhood is a limiting factor (NTTAWWT), but when you're relying on points that have already been discussed and legitimately dismissed, it becomes hard to take you seriously.

I could be unit testing now, man. Don't consign me to that fate.


while i tremble at a farker "officially" ignoring me, i'll manage. it's not like anyone here has been paying attention to what i've offered and asked, just responded with lots of emotion and rage.

like i said, i understand if this is hard for people to chat about. and many here need to resort to calling names and what not.

but as i've said numerous times to you and others in this very thread: this entire discussion could be avoided by simply showing any ONE of the other cameras. that's it.

and if somehow you really believe that revealing the position of a single camera - from over 10 years ago compromises our security... well i'll respectfully disagree.
 
2012-09-11 01:53:25 PM  

inner ted: but as i've said numerous times to you and others in this very thread: this entire discussion could be avoided by simply showing any ONE of the other cameras. that's it.


The other cameras that you have no evidence existed?
 
2012-09-11 01:54:44 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: I think I've spent part of just about every 9/11 anniversary pointing out the gaping holes in the Truther's argument. It's become a tradition.


let me know when you start doing that here.

can't wait!!
 
2012-09-11 01:56:02 PM  
Much as I'd like to believe the most incompetent administration in my lifetime could pull off the biggest coverup of the biggest crime in US History...

Massive conspiracy!

Ugh. Please don't feed the troofers.
 
2012-09-11 01:57:47 PM  

inner ted: but as i've said numerous times to you and others in this very thread: this entire discussion could be avoided by simply showing any ONE of the other cameras. that's it.


What would/could that camera show that would avoid this discussion?
 
2012-09-11 01:59:48 PM  

cc_rider: Much as I'd like to believe the most incompetent administration in my lifetime could pull off the biggest coverup of the biggest crime in US History...

Massive conspiracy!

Ugh. Please don't feed the troofers.


Yeah, you're right. I've got shiat to do. I'm out.
 
2012-09-11 02:04:07 PM  

inner ted: if somehow you really believe that revealing the position of a single camera - from over 10 years ago compromises our security... well i'll respectfully disagree.


If somehow you believe that the most secure building on Earth, run by a notoriously paranoid agency representing one of the most secretive (when it comes to defense/security) governments the world has ever known (measured by the volume of data they keep secure) will voluntarily divulge any part of their security apparatus - and one which is a painful reminder of how all those trillions of dollars in National Defense money have been spent - I'll respectfully disagree.

Besides the assumptions you make about such a camera and its footage (that any decent footage exists, that it shows anything different from footage we already have, that ), it'd probably take a court order to find out what's on the cafeteria menu today. Actual relevant security information from the Pentagon is difficult to come across.

Remember, there are still classified files from the Kennedy assassination, and that was 50 years ago. 11 years and only one or two security upgrades, and it's easy to see why the Pentagon might want to play their security hand close to the vest.

Meanwhile, all I've read from you are questions. Questions with plausible answers provided by myself and several others (and some snark, and nonplausible things. I ignore those). I have seen nothing from you, other than speculation, to make your point. So now it's time.

What the fark, exactly, are you on about? Is your question really "Why won't the Pentagon release footage I'm sure exists?" Isn't this like wanting a long-form birth certificate, complete with raised seal, SecState's handwritten signature, a notarized certificate of Intent to Interracially Fornicate, and every scrap of INS/ICE paperwork relating to one Barack Hussein Soetoro Obama II?

// and I'm not threatening you with ignore, I'm politely suggesting that you argue honestly
// otherwise, as is my prerogative in an argument, I shall leave it and return to work
// not to hurt you, but to stop wasting my time
 
2012-09-11 02:04:48 PM  

More_Like_A_Stain: inner ted: but as i've said numerous times to you and others in this very thread: this entire discussion could be avoided by simply showing any ONE of the other cameras. that's it.

What would/could that camera show that would avoid this discussion?


how bout a great big plane cruising down the boulevard and across the lawn ? that would shut me up.

but somehow that would put our national security at jeopardy. or so i've been told here.
 
2012-09-11 02:12:46 PM  
inner ted:

Flip the discussion.

Lets say, for the sake of argument, that there is no other existing footage of the impact. So what?
 
2012-09-11 02:14:48 PM  
I have no video of the Lusitania sinking.

So it was a cruise missile.

There are no eye-witnesses who confirm it was a German sub.

So it was a cruise missile.

And the Columbia was made of inflammable materials, yet it "burned up"?

And just like Building 7 was said to have collapsed before it did, CNN reported the space shuttle was going 17 times the speed of light.

Wake up, sheeple!

If someone can show me blu-ray 3D video of the Lusitania sinking, it will shut me up.
 
2012-09-11 02:29:45 PM  

Dr Dreidel: inner ted: if somehow you really believe that revealing the position of a single camera - from over 10 years ago compromises our security... well i'll respectfully disagree.

If somehow you believe that the most secure building on Earth, run by a notoriously paranoid agency representing one of the most secretive (when it comes to defense/security) governments the world has ever known (measured by the volume of data they keep secure) will voluntarily divulge any part of their security apparatus - and one which is a painful reminder of how all those trillions of dollars in National Defense money have been spent - I'll respectfully disagree.

Besides the assumptions you make about such a camera and its footage (that any decent footage exists, that it shows anything different from footage we already have, that ), it'd probably take a court order to find out what's on the cafeteria menu today. Actual relevant security information from the Pentagon is difficult to come across.

Remember, there are still classified files from the Kennedy assassination, and that was 50 years ago. 11 years and only one or two security upgrades, and it's easy to see why the Pentagon might want to play their security hand close to the vest.

Meanwhile, all I've read from you are questions. Questions with plausible answers provided by myself and several others (and some snark, and nonplausible things. I ignore those). I have seen nothing from you, other than speculation, to make your point. So now it's time.

What the fark, exactly, are you on about? Is your question really "Why won't the Pentagon release footage I'm sure exists?" Isn't this like wanting a long-form birth certificate, complete with raised seal, SecState's handwritten signature, a notarized certificate of Intent to Interracially Fornicate, and every scrap of INS/ICE paperwork relating to one Barack Hussein Soetoro Obama II?

// and I'm not threatening you with ignore, I'm politely suggesting that you argue honestly
// otherwise, ...


first and foremost i appreciate your take & your ability to offer it without insults.

let me take your questions / comments in order

i can appreciate the building and it's occupants are all about security (which is why i'm confident there is more than just that crappy clip to show what happened) and privacy (the irony)

but i just don't believe / understand how it's not in everyone's best interest to say "here's a different angle - terrible ain't it? now shut up and go away."
other than the security angle you offer, which i don't agree with. again, that was a hella long time ago and i'm sure there have been a few updates that would make whatever position was 'given away' irrelevant.
you say it'd take a court order to find out what's on the menu at the cafe, yet seem confident that there have only been 'one or two upgrades'. either you work there or are just guessing.

as to your Kennedy reference - that's kind of my point, they could dispel all these myths and all the conjecture by showing just ONE decent camera angle. they can make their case and folks like me will have nothing more to add, other than "thanks for clearing that up, what took so long?"

no shiat all i've been doing is asking questions. cause i don't know what happened and have never claimed otherwise. the only thing offered by you or any one else is conjecture and your feelings. that's not what i asked for, yet i'm supposed to be bowled over by it.

yet when i speculate, i am greeted with [citation needed]

that you and others resort to labeling me as a teabagger or birther is really nothing more than exaggerated name calling and it's weak sauce.

i've been upfront and honest this entire time. the only thing i've speculated on is the far fetched idea that the pentagon has a robust camera system and surely there must be another angle to help prove that it was indeed a plane.

i feel similar, that i could & should just return to work & stop wasting my time.
 
2012-09-11 02:31:29 PM  

sprawl15: inner ted:

Flip the discussion.

Lets say, for the sake of argument, that there is no other existing footage of the impact. So what?


whoa! discussion and not names.. ?? ok, i'll bite:

then i would still be as skeptical as i am now.

ta daa
 
2012-09-11 02:34:19 PM  

inner ted: then i would still be as skeptical as i am now.


So...you're shiatting the bed over something that would in no way invalidate or validate your beliefs. Fantastic.
 
2012-09-11 02:38:41 PM  

pontechango: Giltric: We did have teams on the ground with eyes, and crosshiairs, on bin laden (which is how we knew he was there) who were ready to pull the trigger or raid the compound and capture him alive or dead but the Clinton administration said no.

We had "teams on the ground" in Afghanistan with Bin Laden in their crosshairs? Uh no.


Yep.....Logan then narrates that Crumpton "couldn't get permission to do anything, including allowing the CIA's Afghan agents on the ground to attack bin Laden's compound."

The miniseries featured a scene vetted, as all the scenes were, by a battery of ABC lawyers, in which a CIA team and its Afghan allies had bin Laden in its sights, called the White House for approval to make the hit, and were denied the go-ahead


In summary....uh yes.
 
2012-09-11 02:39:44 PM  

dericwater: pontechango: Giltric: We did have teams on the ground with eyes, and crosshiairs, on bin laden (which is how we knew he was there) who were ready to pull the trigger or raid the compound and capture him alive or dead but the Clinton administration said no.

We had "teams on the ground" in Afghanistan with Bin Laden in their crosshairs? Uh no.

Uh yes. We had bin Laden cornered at Tora Bora and a direct order from Bush requested the military stand down. Bin Laden then escaped.


Different time frame. We also had him cornered and 2 ounces of trigger pull from paradise pre 9-11.
 
2012-09-11 02:40:37 PM  

More_Like_A_Stain: dericwater: pontechango: Giltric: We did have teams on the ground with eyes, and crosshiairs, on bin laden (which is how we knew he was there) who were ready to pull the trigger or raid the compound and capture him alive or dead but the Clinton administration said no.

We had "teams on the ground" in Afghanistan with Bin Laden in their crosshairs? Uh no.

Uh yes. We had bin Laden cornered at Tora Bora and a direct order from Bush requested the military stand down. Bin Laden then escaped.

Reread Giltric's claim. He said that we had teams on the ground and OBL in their crosshairs, and the Clinton admin backed down.


Yep...citation should be a post or two above this one.
 
2012-09-11 02:41:48 PM  

pontechango: dericwater: pontechango: Giltric: We did have teams on the ground with eyes, and crosshiairs, on bin laden (which is how we knew he was there) who were ready to pull the trigger or raid the compound and capture him alive or dead but the Clinton administration said no.

We had "teams on the ground" in Afghanistan with Bin Laden in their crosshairs? Uh no.

Uh yes. We had bin Laden cornered at Tora Bora and a direct order from Bush requested the military stand down. Bin Laden then escaped.

Well, I think it was more to the effect that Bush had prioritized resources for the invasion of Iraq instead of catching Bin Laden, but I suppose Giltric would blame that on Clinton, too.


Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. The United Nations weapons inspectors have done a truly remarkable job, finding and destroying more of Iraq's arsenal than was destroyed during the entire gulf war. Now, Saddam Hussein wants to stop them from completing their mission. I know I speak for everyone in this chamber, Republicans and Democrats, when I say to Saddam Hussein, "You cannot defy the will of the world", and when I say to him, "You have used weapons of mass destruction before; we are determined to deny you the capacity to use them again.[


Guess which president said that but dropped the ball.
 
2012-09-11 02:45:52 PM  
One little trip to buy groceries and Inner Ted comes in and does to the thread exactly what I feared when I hesitated to click on the two links on this topic. Here's my conspiracy theory: people like Inner Ted know full well they are full of shiat. As long as they distract any conversation on 9/11 from any real and legitimate criticism of the Bush administration they have accomplished their goal. If they can create that distraction while casting "birds of a feather flock together" aspersions on anyone who asks a question or asserts a criticism that is actually based on evidence; that's a bonus for the Inner Teds of the world.

Now, those tinfoil hats aren't going to fold themselves. Ya'll have a nice day.
 
2012-09-11 02:47:27 PM  
Also....the arming of UAVs are a direct result of Clinton refusing to green light the killing or capture of Bin Laden by Hank Crumpton....starts at about the 6 minute mark.
 
2012-09-11 02:57:14 PM  

inner ted: but i just don't believe / understand how it's not in everyone's best interest to say "here's a different angle - terrible ain't it? now shut up and go away."
other than the security angle you offer, which i don't agree with. again, that was a hella long time ago and i'm sure there have been a few updates that would make whatever position was 'given away' irrelevant.

you say it'd take a court order to find out what's on the menu at the cafe, yet seem confident that there have only been 'one or two upgrades'. either you work there or are just guessing.


I am just guessing. In IT, they tend to refresh equipment every ~5 years. I assume the Pentagon's security is upgraded more frequently. So probably more like 2 or 3, but that's still a guess.

as to your Kennedy reference - that's kind of my point, they could dispel all these myths and all the conjecture by showing just ONE decent camera angle. they can make their case and folks like me will have nothing more to add, other than "thanks for clearing that up, what took so long?"

And that's why I brought up birthers. They're also "just asking questions" (and no, I don't think you are one. I brought it up to make the point). There comes a point where, when you get an answer that is unsatisfying but accurate, you have to accept that this is the information we have - I can believe a relatively simple explanation, or a Rube Goldberg-y explanation that requires assloads of people - government people, even - to orchestrate, carry out and cover up one of the most significant attacks ever on the American public, in broad daylight, in an area where literally a million people can see what's going on (no camera needed).

yet when i speculate, i am greeted with [citation needed]

Even speculation needs some sort of basis in fact. If I speculate that FDR held the fleet out for a Japanese attack, I should have to prove at least some of those things - that the fleet was there (which everyone agrees on), that the Japanese knew it, that FDR wrote "I want them Japs to hit us so that Congress can't be chickenshiats anymore"...something to tie the speculation into reality. The fact that you have none, but steadfastly hold the speculation anyway, is vexing.

i've been upfront and honest this entire time. the only thing i've speculated on is the far fetched idea that the pentagon has a robust camera system and surely there must be another angle to help prove that it was indeed a plane.

And I'm saying that 1) there might not be any footage at all, 2) any footage would likely be duplicative of what we've already seen or totally useless (blurry, half a second of a gray blob screaming across the frame from left to right, take your pick), and 3) even if there was good footage, there are several reasons the Pentagon may not release it (I speculated it's because they jealously guard all the information they have, but there could be another reason or reasons) - and, by the way, I don't agree with such reasoning.

If the Pentagon is holding such footage, I'd like it released, too. That's irrelevant - the Pentagon are secretive bastards, and they will continue to be.
 
2012-09-11 02:58:08 PM  

sprawl15: inner ted: then i would still be as skeptical as i am now.

So...you're shiatting the bed over something that would in no way invalidate or validate your beliefs. Fantastic.


that is not the smartest thing i've read today.

& the only thing i've stated as a 'belief' is that the video released is inconclusive at best.

if they released video that showed a big passenger jet, i'd be delighted and would carry on.

but they haven't. as i've stated waaay to many times here - they released a half-a-second clip that is inconclusive at best.

so i'm skeptical.

is it really that hard to follow? honestly, i don't know how to explain it any more simple than that.
 
2012-09-11 03:02:20 PM  

Giltric: Also....the arming of UAVs are a direct result of Clinton refusing to green light the killing or capture of Bin Laden by Hank Crumpton....starts at about the 6 minute mark.


Who gets the responsibility for the Somalia debacle?
 
2012-09-11 03:10:23 PM  

Lunaville: One little trip to buy groceries and Inner Ted comes in and does to the thread exactly what I feared when I hesitated to click on the two links on this topic. Here's my conspiracy theory: people like Inner Ted know full well they are full of shiat. As long as they distract any conversation on 9/11 from any real and legitimate criticism of the Bush administration they have accomplished their goal. If they can create that distraction while casting "birds of a feather flock together" aspersions on anyone who asks a question or asserts a criticism that is actually based on evidence; that's a bonus for the Inner Teds of the world.

Now, those tinfoil hats aren't going to fold themselves. Ya'll have a nice day.


i'll go ahead and lump you into the crowd of "i don't like my beliefs being questioned, so i'll call you teabagger / birther / apparent lover of W. and ignore you, cause it's easier than discussing your idea."

and did you actually say that with a straight face? cause that's all i've been doing, asking questions.

then defending myself from the barrage of derp for daring to question your opinion.

/gosh you are so open minded and progressive aren't you?
 
2012-09-11 03:13:04 PM  

More_Like_A_Stain: inner ted: that's what you are running with? freaking lulz

The fact that HD video cameras weren't readily available ISN'T a good explanation of why there isn't a wealth of HD video records of an airplane crash?


holy cow - glad the HD part is what everyone is latching onto.

so remove the HD part and see if you can understand what i'm talking about.
 
2012-09-11 03:30:19 PM  
Ugh. HTML fail. You can still read that, right inner ted?
 
2012-09-11 03:36:37 PM  

Dr Dreidel: inner ted: but i just don't believe / understand how it's not in everyone's best interest to say "here's a different angle - terrible ain't it? now shut up and go away."
other than the security angle you offer, which i don't agree with. again, that was a hella long time ago and i'm sure there have been a few updates that would make whatever position was 'given away' irrelevant.

you say it'd take a court order to find out what's on the menu at the cafe, yet seem confident that there have only been 'one or two upgrades'. either you work there or are just guessing.

I am just guessing. In IT, they tend to refresh equipment every ~5 years. I assume the Pentagon's security is upgraded more frequently. So probably more like 2 or 3, but that's still a guess.

as to your Kennedy reference - that's kind of my point, they could dispel all these myths and all the conjecture by showing just ONE decent camera angle. they can make their case and folks like me will have nothing more to add, other than "thanks for clearing that up, what took so long?"

And that's why I brought up birthers. They're also "just asking questions" (and no, I don't think you are one. I brought it up to make the point). There comes a point where, when you get an answer that is unsatisfying but accurate, you have to accept that this is the information we have - I can believe a relatively simple explanation, or a Rube Goldberg-y explanation that requires assloads of people - government people, even - to orchestrate, carry out and cover up one of the most significant attacks ever on the American public, in broad daylight, in an area where literally a million people can see what's going on (no camera needed).

yet when i speculate, i am greeted with [citation needed]

Even speculation needs some sort of basis in fact. If I speculate that FDR held the fleet out for a Japanese attack, I should have to prove at least some of those things - that the fleet was there (which everyone agrees on), that the Japanese k ...


i can appreciate [citation needed] on debatable issues - but honestly - am i really presenting some far flung idea about there being multiple cameras that could have caught the incident?

and if i need to give anecdotal evidence, then i submit any area shopping mall - or police station or freaking 7-11. if they have dozens of cameras with facial recognition that can zoom several blocks away, then i'm confident the pentagon does /did as well.

how it is so vexing to you that i hold speculation when all i have to view is that shiatty clip is as vexing to me that anyone can see that clip and say "o ya totally see a plane there."

and stop linking me to ideas i've not offered. i have never said anything about organized government conspiracy. nothing like it.

i have simply said (for the umpteenth time) that the ONLY video i have seen of that incident is that shiatty clip. that shiatty clip is inconclusive at best. if anyone has any other clip (hi def or otherwise) or pic then PLEASE SHARE so i can then be at ease and go about my life.

nobody has done that. people have offered things other than that, like pics or descriptions of the aftermath. while i appreciate the effort, it doesn't really address my questions, it only de-rails the conversation into other areas.

so at this point, we've settled on: the pentagon MAY have other video, but even IF they do, they wouldn't want to release it and shut everyone like me up cause it would somehow be counter to national security by revealing the location of a camera.

i don't really buy that, but we seem at an impasse.

i appreciate everyone's time and contributions.

l8r sk8rs
 
2012-09-11 04:18:52 PM  

inner ted: i have simply said (for the umpteenth time) that the ONLY video i have seen of that incident is that shiatty clip. that shiatty clip is inconclusive at best. if anyone has any other clip (hi def or otherwise) or pic then PLEASE SHARE so i can then be at ease and go about my life.


Sorry. No such video exists (and what's on YouTube appears to be the same video run through various programs/filters. You can search further if you like, but there be dragons AFAIC). You'll have to take a single second of grainy video - and thousands upon thousands of eyewitness accounts that pretty much all say the same thing, as well as forensic evidence that supports both the eyewitness accounts and what little can be seen on the video - as all the proof you'll ever have.

And even if it does exist, you'd have to break the Pentagon's silence (which I assume is National Security-based, as that is the raison d'etre for the building's existence) to get it. Good luck.

we seem at an impasse.

That we do. Pleasant days and ecstatic nights, friend.
 
2012-09-11 05:00:30 PM  

KiplingKat872: hinten: Yes, on top of that, my favorite excuse: "Nobody could have thought of something as crazy as flying planes into buildings."

Hell, Hollywood writers came up with that scenario in The Lone Gunman TV show.


Tom Clancy did it in Debt of Honor
Stephen King did it in the freaking book version of The Running Man
 
2012-09-11 05:07:46 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: I think I've spent part of just about every 9/11 anniversary pointing out the gaping holes in the Truther's argument. It's become a tradition.


The thing that always confuses me most about Truther's is how nonsensical the plot becomes - obviously they can't really debate planes flying into WTC1/2 because so many people saw them, and that alone would have killed a couple of thousand and been justification for the wars, why would they need to do any of the other stuff? It's not like if the buildings had ended up not collapsing that everyone would have said - "Okay, they killed a couple of thousand people, but they didn't knock the buildings down, so we will let them off with a warning this time". Or if the Pentagon was not attacked it would hardly be the situation that everyone would shrug and say, "Well they killed a few thousand civilians, but no military targets were hit otherwise we would really have got mad".
 
2012-09-11 07:22:10 PM  

2wolves: Giltric: Also....the arming of UAVs are a direct result of Clinton refusing to green light the killing or capture of Bin Laden by Hank Crumpton....starts at about the 6 minute mark.

Who gets the responsibility for the Somalia debacle?


That was in 1993 so Bush 43....obviously.
 
2012-09-11 07:25:14 PM  

Giltric: 2wolves: Giltric: Also....the arming of UAVs are a direct result of Clinton refusing to green light the killing or capture of Bin Laden by Hank Crumpton....starts at about the 6 minute mark.

Who gets the responsibility for the Somalia debacle?

That was in 1993 so Bush 43....obviously.


I thought it was Obama and his time machine.
 
2012-09-11 09:09:21 PM  

inner ted: i don't know who did what and where and to whom. all i know is that video is not enough to convince me that it was a plane.

considering the building we are discussing, it's impossible that there wasn't more video of the incident.


On #1 there is the wreckage. That is "more" than just the half-second video. There are the eyewitness reports, there is the damage to the building, the footage, the fallout, the dead passengers, the missing farking plane.

On #2. [citation needed], you are making a positive claim that "there is no way there couldn't be footage." you have to prove it. You have to prove it despite military Intelligence/government/authorities well-known dislike of internal monitoring and despite the speed at which camera technology evolves (i.e. how good were cameras back when they were likely installed?)

One cannot prove a negative, which is a fact you use as a shield to hide behind, but you're "not buying" the official story is akin to "not buying" the story that the sun exists, that water is wet, and that 9/11 happened at all.
 
2012-09-11 10:44:54 PM  

foo monkey: Doesn't NYT have a pay wall?


Not if you clear your cookies from their site every few days.
 
2012-09-11 11:40:22 PM  

Headso: All these warnings are old news, it's just a guy selling a book, heard him on NPR today... here's an old list of warnings, most with cites...


Why is this list in small print? It should be IN BIG BOLD farkING LETTERS!

January 25, 2001: Clarke Warns Rice Al-Qaeda Cells Are Inside US and Are 'Major Threat'

May 30, 2001: FBI Is Warned of Major Al-Qaeda Operation in the US Involving Hijackings, Explosives, and/or New York City

Summer 2001: Bin Laden Speech Mentions 20 Martyrs in Upcoming Attack; Other Hints of Attack Spread Widely [9/11 Commission, 6/16/2004]

June 2001: Germans Warn of Plan to Use Aircraft as Missiles on US and Israeli Symbols [Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (Frankfurt), 9/11/2001; Washington Post, 9/14/2001; Fox News, 5/17/2002]

June 4, 2001: Illegal Afghans Overheard Discussing New York City Hijacking Attack [Miami Herald, 9/20/2001; Los Angeles Times, 9/20/2001]

June 13, 2001: Bin Laden Wants to Assassinate Bush with an Explosives-Filled Airplane [New York Times, 6/4/2002]

Late Summer 2001: Jordan Warns US That Aircraft Will Be Used in Major Attack Inside the US

July 2001: India Warns US of Possible Terror Attacks [Fox News, 5/17/2002]

July 8, 2001: Prominent Prisoner Publicly Warns of Al-Qaeda Intent to Export Violence to US Soil

July 16, 2001: British Spy Agencies Warn Al-Qaeda Is in The Final Stages of Attack in the West [London Times, 6/14/2002]

Late July 2001: Argentina Relays Warning to the US [Forward, 5/31/2002]

Late July 2001: Taliban Foreign Minister Tries to Warn US and UN of Huge Attack Inside the US [Independent, 9/7/2002; Reuters, 9/7/2002]

Late July 2001: Egypt Warns CIA of 20 Al-Qaeda Operatives in US; Four Training to Fly [CBS News, 10/9/2002]

August 2001: Moroccan Informant Warns US of Large Scale, Imminent Attack in New York [Agence France-Presse, 11/22/2001; International Herald Tribune, 5/21/2002; London Times, 6/12/2002]

August 2001: Russia Warns US of Suicide Pilots [Fox News, 5/17/2002]

August 2001: Persian Gulf Informant Gives Ex-CIA Agent Information About 'Spectacular Terrorist Operation' [Baer, 2002, pp. 55-58; Financial Times, 1/12/2002]

Early August 2001: Britain Warns US Again; Specifies Multiple Airplane Hijackings [Sunday Herald (Glasgow), 5/19/2002]

August 8-15, 2001: Israel Reportedly Warns of Major Assault on the US [Daily Telegraph, 9/16/2001; Ottawa Citizen, 9/17/2001; Los Angeles Times, 9/20/2001]

August 23, 2001: Mossad Reportedly Gives CIA List of Terrorist Living in US; at Least Four 9/11 Hijackers Named [Der Spiegel (Hamburg), 10/1/2002]

August 24, 2001: Foreign Intelligence Reminds US of Al-Qaeda Plot to Attack within US

August 29, 2001: Cayman Islands Letter Warns of 'Major Terrorist Act Against US via an Airline or Airlines' [Miami Herald, 9/20/2001; Los Angeles Times, 9/20/2001; MSNBC, 9/23/2001]

August 30, 2001-September 4, 2001: Egypt Warns Al-Qaeda Is in Advanced Stages of Planning Significant Attack on US [New York Times, 6/4/2002]

Late August 2001: French Warning to US Echoes Earlier Israeli Warning [Fox News, 5/17/2002]

September 4, 2001: Mossad Gives Another Warning of Major, Imminent Attack [Sunday Mail, 9/16/2001]

September 7, 2001: French Give 'Very Specific Information' about Possible Attack on US Soil [Le Figaro (Paris), 10/31/2001]
 
2012-09-11 11:58:55 PM  
B-b-buh buh Daily Kose hurrdee hurr teh liburuls lying again
 
2012-09-12 09:06:08 AM  

vygramul: Giltric: 2wolves: Giltric: Also....the arming of UAVs are a direct result of Clinton refusing to green light the killing or capture of Bin Laden by Hank Crumpton....starts at about the 6 minute mark.

Who gets the responsibility for the Somalia debacle?

That was in 1993 so Bush 43....obviously.

I thought it was Obama and his time machine.


It's the presidential time machine. Presidents are the only authorized chrononauts
 
2012-09-12 10:25:03 AM  

TheBigJerk: inner ted: i don't know who did what and where and to whom. all i know is that video is not enough to convince me that it was a plane.

considering the building we are discussing, it's impossible that there wasn't more video of the incident.

On #1 there is the wreckage. That is "more" than just the half-second video. There are the eyewitness reports, there is the damage to the building, the footage, the fallout, the dead passengers, the missing farking plane.

On #2. [citation needed], you are making a positive claim that "there is no way there couldn't be footage." you have to prove it. You have to prove it despite military Intelligence/government/authorities well-known dislike of internal monitoring and despite the speed at which camera technology evolves (i.e. how good were cameras back when they were likely installed?)

One cannot prove a negative, which is a fact you use as a shield to hide behind, but you're "not buying" the official story is akin to "not buying" the story that the sun exists, that water is wet, and that 9/11 happened at all.


while i appreciate your view, and thank you for sharing in an adult fashion, this has been covered at length.

so as i told others: we are at an impasse. you can read through the thread at your leisure.

cheers
 
Displayed 350 of 350 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report