This is some f*cked up ◊◊◊◊:

[aggle_rithm]

Re: I think...

The f*cked up ◊◊◊◊ I was referring to that I am still quite puzzled about is what the President did, why he did it, and when he did it, aswell as what he ne when he knew it.

Oh, so it wasn't referring to your paranoia, non-sequiturs, and garbled syntax? Just when I thought I had a handle on this thread...

 

[aggle_rithm]

Re: Re: I think...

Excuse me? You demand that we read your links, but you can't find the time to visit any of ours?

And you wonder why people think you are an attention-hog, a biased conspiracy freak and a garden-variety creduloid - among other, not so nice things?

I found it odd that KOA insisted that we read the WHOLE article carefully, and then, when we did, he was upset that we found nothing of value in it. Sorry, but you can't squeeze blood from a turnip...

 

[RandFan]

KOA,

I can't make you believe me. I can only tell you the truth. I read all of the material. I even took the time to find some additional material and included information that was not quite flattering to the president.

In the end I do not agree with you. I think you are quite unfair and take allot of liberty with your speculation. I am VERY proud of the President Bush and the way he handled things after 911.

I will admit that I am not certain as to his actions during the reading of the story. You seem to think that we must come to the same conclusion that you have. There is insuficient evidence for me to do so. Sorry.

I have gone out of my way to listen to you and consider and respect your opinion and I will continue to do so.

That being said, you have to be prepared to accept other peoples honest opinion. I am giving you my honest opinion. I think Bush may very well have been overwelmed on that day. He might have very well acted in an irational maner. I don't know if he did. But if he did I don't fault him. Because, from what I do know for a fact, Bush handled the situation in a way that makes me very proud and grateful that it was him who was at the helm and not myself or someone else. If that fact bothers you then I am sorry. I can only tell you the truth.

I respect your opinion. I hope you can respect mine.

 

[aggle_rithm]

NORAD

I did some checking, and found that it is NORAD's responsibility to monitor domestic aircraft in North American space. So I was wrong on that point.

Unfortunately for conspiracy theorists, NORAD did not take on this responsibility until AFTER 9/11/2001. This puts a rather large hole in the argument that NORAD wasn't pulling its weight that day.

 

[King of the Americas]

To Randfan:

You Wrote:

"You seem to think that we must come to the same conclusion that you have. There is insuficient evidence for me to do so. Sorry."

*And what conclusion is there 'insufficient evidence FOR'?

That the President what...?

You are giving me all this, I just don't 'believe' or 'see' it as you do, crap. I want evidence of something specific, that leads you to draw a solid conclusion.

My contention is that at the moment the President KNEW and was informed that We were in fact, 'under attack'...his immediate Duty was to the post of Commander in Chief. He took an oath to protect and serve the Constitution, and the People of the United States.

What are you contending he did, when he did it?

Are you saying that he 'accomplished' and faithfully fulfilled the Office and Duties his post?

I mean, aren't we past, emotional feelings about patriotism and uniting together...? Can't we be honest about what actually happened, and keep our emotions out of it? Just clear, sincere observations of the events?

However, if you want to 'feel' the way you do , I won't judge you for it. Each of us must do what we must, for our own sake. I suggest you require 'evidence' of something BEFORE coming to a conclusion.

 

[King of the Americas]

To aggle_rithm:

So what EXACTLY is your contention...?

I mean, at what time do YOU believe what happened, and who KNEW about it?

4 planes were off course, and had their transponders turned off, and were refusing comunication attempts, at what time???

WHO knew this happened, WHO did they tell, and what time did they do so?

 

[aggle_rithm]

WHO cares? I just don't see the relevance to any of today's problems.

 

[Ike]

Granted, I only read about half of the article, then got bored and scrolled through the rest, but really, what I got from all of this, is that there is a huge communication problem in government. However, this is to be somewhat expected. For information to go all the way from the street to the president, it obviously has to go through several people. My estimate, the news probably went through about 10 people on its way to the Prez. Most likely, each person along that path had to make a decision about what was really important to tell the next guy, so that guy could make some decision, like who is the next appropriate person to pass the news to. Obviously in the minutes after some event like this, you do not want to be sending speculations to the president. Thus, each person in the chain (or some people in the chain) probably cut out what they thought might be speculation (I know when I first heard of the first incident, I thought it might be a hijacking, but knew that this was only speculation too...some of these people may have even thought that the president surely had already been informed too) Maybe post 9-11 these kinds of kinks in the communication process were hammered out a little better, and thats probably why no one was fired.

In my opinion, it is highly likely that for military type info, there exist channels for the information to get to the president very quickly, but pre 9-11 I doubt that anyone ever had the idea that similar channels were nessecary for non military information. (labeling the plane attacks as non military info is debatable, but I think the people who had the most info to convey were probably the FAA, which is not a part of the military) This kind of attack was a nightmare for all of us, but I imagine for the government it was a little bit worse, as I think no one knew off the top of their heads what the protocols that may or may not have existed were, and many people were unsure of what to do with the information they already had.

 

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Do NOT read if you wish to encourage faith and confidence in your federal government:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/essayaninterestingday.html

What is the article trying to say, that the US govenment and various agencies were complacent prior to and including 9/11?

This is not news.


The details of that particular day as described in this article are no different from any other day prior to 9/11, the only thing that differed that day was the attack on the towers and on the Pentagon.

 

[RandFanJr.]

Re: To Randfan:

Hi everyone,

It's me, RandFan. I had my account disabled because I was spending way too much time here. I'm using my son's nic so I can respond to a few posts. I got allot of work done today so I think that is ok. I don't have his password so I won't be tempted tomorrow.

King of the Americas
You seem to think that we must come to the same conclusion that you have. There is insufficient evidence for me to do so. Sorry."

King of the Americas
And what conclusion is there insufficient evidence FOR'?

That the President what...?

Whatever it is that you are insinuating.

You are giving me all this, I just don't 'believe' or 'see' it as you do, crap. I want evidence of something specific, that leads you to draw a solid conclusion.

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO DRAW A SOLID CONCLUSION!!!!!

What is it that you don't get about that?

My contention is that at the moment the President KNEW and was informed that We were in fact, 'under attack'...his immediate Duty was to the post of Commander in Chief. He took an oath to protect and serve the Constitution, and the People of the United States.

And you have provided NO proof that he failed to do just that. ALL YOU HAVE IS SPECULATION!!!

What are you contending he did, when he did it?

I'm contending that I don't know exactly what happened. I'm contending that he did what was needed when it was needed. I'm contending that you are speculating all kinds of $hit because it is self serving. I'm contending that you have provided no reason for me to conclude that the President did anything wrong.

Is there anything about that that is unclear?

Are you saying that he 'accomplished' and faithfully fulfilled the Office and Duties his post?

As I understand it, YES!

Are you still confused? I don't know exactly what happened. You have given us a time line that suggests any number of things.

1. That due to incompetency there was a failure of the President to act.

2. That there was a failure of the system.

3. That President Bush was frozen by fear and unable to act.

4. That there was a conspiracy.

5. Some combination of the previous plus other issues and factors that we DON'T know about.

6. None of the previous factors. The President acted in the manner that he did for perfectly rational reasons. We just DON'T know what they are.

Fact: All 6 are logically possible.

Fact: Even some of the presidents critics do not share a consensus as to which of the possibilities are likely.

I mean, aren't we past, emotional feelings about patriotism and uniting together...?

Apparently you are not past your issues. Apparently you are unable or unwilling to look at this event in a rational and logical manner.

Can't we be honest about what actually happened, and keep our emotions out of it? Just clear, sincere observations of the events?

Well, to tell you the truth I don't think that you are sincere. A number of people have shown why the events could be interpreted to any number of things.

We don't claim to be able to read the minds of Bush or the other that were involved with this event. You on the other hand "know" what happened. If that is what you want to do then fine but don't expect us to buy into your specious reasoning.

However, if you want to 'feel' the way you do , I won't judge you for it.

Oh THAAAANK YOUUUUUU for not judging me for being skeptical of your interpretation of events. I don't base my conclusions on feelings. I base them on the facts.

The facts are that I DON'T know. And your attempts at bullying us into agreeing with you are fallacious.

Each of us must do what we must, for our own sake.

I'll look at the evidence in an objective manner thank you.

I suggest you require 'evidence' of something BEFORE coming to a conclusion.

I have NOT come to any conclusion as to your "evidence". Because there is insufficient evidence for me to come to a conclusion.

I know what the President DID and based on what he DID I AM very proud of him. I can judge for myself and the objective evidence leads me to conclude that while there may be some questions as to the initial events I am very proud of what he DID DO.

I hope that clears things up.

 

[aggle_rithm]

Let's put this whole thing in perspective.

Just over sixty years ago, the Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor. Some history books say they achieved "strategic surprise", but that is not true. Military planners had discussed the possibility of a surprise attack at Pearl Harbor since 1925. Many people in the military saw an attack on Pearl Harbor as imminent in 1941. Chester Nimitz, in fact, turned down an appointment to run the Pearl Harbor base because he KNEW an attack was coming, and he KNEW that whoever was in charge would be blamed for it.

A few days after Pearl Harbor, we were caught completely off guard by a Japanese attack on the Phillipines. How? We KNEW they were coming, and we knew WHEN they were coming. The unpreparedness was, in this case, inexusable.

Would King of the Americas be willing to trash President Franklin Roosevelt over this? This isn't a case where bad things MIGHT have happened because of the President's actions/inaction (Air Force One or the elementary school MIGHT have been attacked). In this case, they DID happen.

(Of course, bad things did happen on 9/11, but not, I think, as a result of the President's actions or inaction.)

The point is that history doesn't emphasize the lapses in judgement early in a new, catastrophic situation. Most of the history of WWII emphasizes our eventual, spectacular success. The intelligence failures early on were just burps in the wind.

 

[King of the Americas]

To Ike:

Okay, so basically you're saying you were OK with a little incompetitency, and that there might very well have been one and or more breakdowns in communication.

I am NOT.

Moreover, my point is that when you take an Oath to protect and serve the Constitution and the People of the United States, and Duty calls you into action. If you cower in your foxhole, whole the rest of the Unit advances, you can and should be held accountable for your inaction. In some cases a 'dishonorable discharge' is even in order.

Now given that, when the President was told, "A second plane has hit the WTC, we are under attack." What did he do?

Did he ask, "Are there any other planes headed off course?" Did he give any direct orders as to what should be done to other planes that were acting in a similar manner?

aggle_rithm doesn't CARE that some men weren't at their posts shortly before, during and after the 9-11 attacks. I guess that's where I must disagree. Our government's MOST basic purpose is to defend our nation and our people from attack. And when our President instead chose to turn from this duty to Educate 16 children by reading with them a book about a goat...

Sorry, but I care about that. I think that for the Commander in Chief to put the Do Not Disturb sign on a door in a time of crisis is... I don't even know the words for it.

But I know it isn't right and good, and we should think about that and what it means.

 

[hal bidlack]

2 more cents from me...

KA, I again gently repeat, that if your evidence of the actions of the President (and lack there of) is as solid as your evidence that AF1 is safer on the ground, then I respectfully urge you to do a bit more research.

As to military actions, I think you may have a warped view of how that works. You seem to think that we need the President to actually say, "ok, you guys can go fly now" after the attack. The military's job is national defense. While the fighters would have needed authorization to fire on an airliner, they did not need POTUS to say "take off." I'm being coy here on purpose, as I do not intend to go into the details. Simply put, your fundamental premise is, in my professional view, flawed and shows an energetic mind, but one hampered by much less than all the facts of the case.

 

[King of the Americas]

To RandFan:

Holy crap, and I thought 'I' visited here too often...

---

Now back to 9-11.

You say no evidence. I say at the Moment the guy leaned in and said, "...we are under attack." HE KNEW. There IS evidence HE KNEW because we have a picture, in fact film coverage from mor ethan one agnle that this happened. Moreover, it is recorded that this happened at a very specific time. How the f*ck is that not evidence to you!?

Are you suggesting that the President had his mind on the book he was reading and did 'get' or 'pick up' on what he was just told?

"Mr. President, we are under attack." WHAMMO- YOU are the Commander in Chief, put down the goat book and begin getting briefed and giving orders. You don't get to take a 'time out' just so that you don't upset a few kids, and or you are just thinking about what to do next. MOREOVER, knowing that we were under attack, as our Leader don't you think he was a target? Placing yourself and remaining among children, while the danger could be possibly pointed at YOU...!? What the hell is that?

Your contention is what again, exactly? That you don't know!?

Do you know anything about that day? Perhaps you were in a comma, and don't racall, and or haven't done ANY reading about the events of the day?

How do you NOT know, and use THAT as a defense!?

If you don't know, look and find out, read! Then say, something intelligent about what you found. Don't sit ther eand go, "Well I don't know, but I think the President is a fine fella, and I think he did a good job." What the hell does that accomplish!?

Look, when they wanted to hang ol'Clinton for getting a BJ in the Oval Office, I could kinda understand that. I mean I think that is kinda the ultimate is using company time for personal business. And for that he was impeached, or something like that , but he remained in office. I am NOT saying we should vote the President OUT of Office, but if he f*cked up, and or did NOT show up at his post on time and in uniform...then you damn right he should have a mark on his record, persay. In fact, I would claim that this is NOT the first time this man has been guilty of this. While in the National Guard he was in fact AWOL from some months.

So, in the end, I guess I am gonna say you are an ignorant fool. Ins o mauch that the facts are right before your eyes. Documents and photos alike, all lined up from one point to another. And you IGNORE them...Why?

You don't 'believe' their accuracy?

Well, then how the hell do you know what is going on, enough to respond to this post?

 

[King of the Americas]

To aggle_rithm:

It JUST SO HAPPENS, that my fianee's father was one of the radar tower operators out there. HE says that they picked up on a radar signal, but that they summized that it MUST have been a radar glitch because the signal was too big to be an attack of that size.

The signal was actually interpretted as a 'large flock of birds', and thus the alarmed was not sounded, until one of these birds laid an egg.

Crazy, huh?

 

[CFLarsen]

Re: To RandFan:

Holy crap, and I thought 'I' visited here too often...

Yes, well....if you say so yourself...

You say no evidence. I say at the Moment the guy leaned in and said, "...we are under attack." HE KNEW. There IS evidence HE KNEW because we have a picture, in fact film coverage from mor ethan one agnle that this happened. Moreover, it is recorded that this happened at a very specific time. How the f*ck is that not evidence to you!?

Where is this film coverage? I am not saying it isn't there, I would just like to see and hear it for myself.

Are you suggesting that the President had his mind on the book he was reading and did 'get' or 'pick up' on what he was just told? "Mr. President, we are under attack." WHAMMO- YOU are the Commander in Chief, put down the goat book and begin getting briefed and giving orders. You don't get to take a 'time out' just so that you don't upset a few kids, and or you are just thinking about what to do next. MOREOVER, knowing that we were under attack, as our Leader don't you think he was a target? Placing yourself and remaining among children, while the danger could be possibly pointed at YOU...!? What the hell is that?

First of all, that's a perfectly reasonable thing to do, in a moment of crisis: Keep cool. Think about what to do. Don't cause a panic - especially among kids.

Second, the place was swarming with Secret Service guys. Everywhere the president goes, he is a potential threat to those around him. What do you want, lock up the president in a bunker in the mountains?

Your contention is what again, exactly? That you don't know!?

It's perfectly OK to say "I don't know". It is also perfectly OK to say "I don't care". And it is most certainly perfectly OK to say "I don't want to listen to your crap, KOA!"

Do you know anything about that day? Perhaps you were in a comma, and don't racall, and or haven't done ANY reading about the events of the day?

I was in New York City that day. I have all too vivid recollections of that day. As a (then) New Yorker, I have probably heard, seen and listened to more "9-11"-stuff than you ever will. You want to go head-to-head with me about knowledge of 9-11?

How do you NOT know, and use THAT as a defense!?

Maybe because people don't see anything wrong with the way the president acted? Can you respect the opinions of other people, or do you have to force your own down their throats?

If you don't know, look and find out, read! Then say, something intelligent about what you found. Don't sit ther eand go, "Well I don't know, but I think the President is a fine fella, and I think he did a good job." What the hell does that accomplish!?

Listen, KOA, you are closing your eyes to the fact that people simply don't find your "evidence" compelling at all. We even have a military guy, Bidlack, who can tell you "inside" information about how the military works. Does that leave any impression on you?

Look, when they wanted to hang ol'Clinton for getting a BJ in the Oval Office, I could kinda understand that. I mean I think that is kinda the ultimate is using company time for personal business. And for that he was impeached, or something like that , but he remained in office.

Clinton was impeached but acquitted. What does that tell you? That he was guilty? Should an acquitted man leave office?

I am NOT saying we should vote the President OUT of Office, but if he f*cked up, and or did NOT show up at his post on time and in uniform...then you damn right he should have a mark on his record, persay. In fact, I would claim that this is NOT the first time this man has been guilty of this. While in the National Guard he was in fact AWOL from some months.

You seem to regard this as a movie. Can't you simply realize that this is not a big problem to others?

So, in the end, I guess I am gonna say you are an ignorant fool. Ins o mauch that the facts are right before your eyes. Documents and photos alike, all lined up from one point to another. And you IGNORE them...Why?

Nobody is "ignoring" anything. It's just that nobody seems to find your material all that compelling.

You don't 'believe' their accuracy?

I know that you have made a very lousy case for yourself.

Well, then how the hell do you know what is going on, enough to respond to this post?

Yes, that's fine. I think it is time for your nap now.

 

[CFLarsen]

Re: To aggle_rithm:

It JUST SO HAPPENS, that my fianee's father was one of the radar tower operators out there. HE says that they picked up on a radar signal, but that they summized that it MUST have been a radar glitch because the signal was too big to be an attack of that size.

"IT JUST SO HAPPENS"? I haven't heard that one since kindergarten!!

And what's so wrong with that assumption? Were we not all amazed at the size and force of the attacks? Did you expect this, KOA?

The signal was actually interpretted as a 'large flock of birds', and thus the alarmed was not sounded, until one of these birds laid an egg.

Crazy, huh?

Not at all. What do you think they would have expected? Radar images are not like a TV screen, KOA. You have to interpret what goes on.

Go ask daddy about that.

 

[King of the Americas]

To Hal:

Can and or should the Commander in Chief give order in front of kids?

If there was a plane headed for the Capitol and the Pentagon, shouldn't he have beena ble to give the order to bring them down?

Hey, I don't know everything about everything, but I know enoung to ask the right questions TO find out what I want to know. And right now, I want to know how ANYONE can look at the pictures and film we have of the President getting word, and then staying to finish the book about the goat, and still say "What evidence?"

Having never served in the armed forces, I can only say I am underinformed, but not uninformed.

 

[RandFanJr.]

Re: To RandFan:

So, in the end, I guess I am gonna say you are an ignorant fool. Ins o mauch that the facts are right before your eyes. Documents and photos alike, all lined up from one point to another. And you IGNORE them...Why?

You don't 'believe' their accuracy?

Well, then how the hell do you know what is going on, enough to respond to this post?

KOA, I simply do not have the time to respond to you line by line. Thankfuly CFLarsen has taken the time. My thanks to him.

You aren't even taking the time to read and think about what it is that I am saying. You are puting words in my mouth and making assumptions about things that you don't know.

I don't know exactly what Bush knew. Raming planes into buildings is quite unconventional and it wasn't evidence that we were "under attack" in the traditional sense. It was evidence that there was a concerted act of terrorism.

Make of it what you will. I'll let you have the last word. Let me just say that in the past I have made a good faith effort to listen to you and consider your arguments.

If you can't have the decency to treat me in kind then I don't care to respond to you any more.

Good bye.

 

[King of the Americas]

To RandFan:

Okay, so your contention is that when they told the President, "..we are under attack.", he really didn't know and or believe them."

Got it.