Do you have adblock enabled?
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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 350 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report