In Search of Common Ground: A Conversation with Ron Wieck

[Oystein]

Shure, are you reading?

Could you please start the debate topic fron the start and state your premises and your claims?!

We gave you a few questions to guide you - what is the legal framework in your opinion, and what actual differences would any order or non-order have made, given the availaible timeline?

You'd need to state who was under which obligation, or prohibition, according to which law or statue or precedent, and who could have made which decision at which time to change something of significance with regard too making shoot-downs physically possible!

 

[Miragememories]

"Stand down, does anyone still push the stand down nonsense? I was on active duty on 11 September 2001, I got no stand down orders. I don't need permission to carry out my duty as an Air Force Officer. The stand down conclusion is nonsense based on delusional logic."

Really?

I thought you were retired at that time.

MM

Pilots right next to my plane, and they can get close enough to see you.

"...I could have flown on 911, but I was >2000 miles away, and the plane I flew would not go faster than 200 mph... No stand down order was issued..."

So you normally flew a re-fueler and not a fighter jet?

The picture you posted kinda of implied those were your wing mates.

MM

 

[DGM]

So you normally flew a re-fueler and not a fighter jet?

The picture you posted kinda of implied those were your wing mates.

MM

To a fighter pilot, the tanker "driver" is his/her best freaking friend. I'd call that "mates" when the gas gauge gets low (like it frequently does in "go fast" planes). I seem to remember the fighters from Ottis having to keep the speed down for just that reason.

 

[Sabretooth]

Easy there Rambo!

Is the 9/11 Commission, Joint Intelligence Inquiry and MSM sources poppycock?

You're the one that believes a phone call happened that there is no evidence for and the 9/11 Commission staff doesn't even believe happened!

You're the one that quote mines and cherry picks. You even go as far as to makes stuff up! You don't need follow orders, you can just do whatever you want eh beachnut? I guess you missed the part in bootcamp where they teach you the importance of following orders!



"All the answers, everything needed to dismantle Osama bin Laden's organization can be found in Saudi Arabia," John O'Neill
http://www.amazon.com/Forbidden-Truth-U-S-Taliban-Secret-Diplomacy/dp/1560254149

"The former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee tells Salon that the White House has suppressed convincing evidence that Saudi government agents aided at least two of the hijackers."
http://www.salon.com/2004/09/08/graham_8/


"delusional claims of treason"???

"Saturday, Jan. 11, with the president's permission, Cheney and Rumsfeld call Bandar to Cheney's West Wing office, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Myers, is there with a top-secret map of the war plan. And it says, 'Top secret. No foreign.' No foreign means no foreigners are supposed to see this," says Woodward.

"Tenet develops a habit of meeting with Bandar at his home near Washington about once a month. But CIA officers handling Saudi issues complain that Tenet doesn’t tell them what he discusses with Bandar. Often they are only able to learn about Tenet’s deals with the Saudis later and through Saudi contacts, not from their own boss. Tenet also makes one of his closest aides the chief of the CIA station in Saudi Arabia. This aide often communicates directly with Tenet, avoiding the usual chain of command. Apparently as a favor to the Saudis, CIA analysts are discouraged from writing reports raising questions about the Saudi relationship to Islamic extremists."
[Risen, 2006, pp. 185]
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0743270665/centerforcoop-20

Hmmmmm!

This is getting annoying. You post a wall of text, ignore debating replies and questions about those stupid posts, then post another bunch of unrelated crap...

You haven't addressed a single freaking question to completion.

Gish would be proud...

 

[Sabretooth]

Back in post #11:

Robrob asked:

You don't know who gave the "shoot down order" or even if one was given at all. So because you don't know what happened, this equals a "conspiracy?"

shure answered with a wall of text. For the sake of everyone's time, I'm snipping irrelevant garbage and addressing some of shure's "points"

Just the facts...

Before President Bush stepped into the classroom he was already told a commercial airliner had flown into the WTC. He was told this by Rice. This is confirmed in his own book, by Rice, and the 9-11 commission released notes.

<snipped the 2 quotes and links to confirm this>

So? This bit of info isn't the smoking gun you think it is...I'll explain why as we move along...

Yes, the 9-11 commission was well aware of this. The question arises......how did they know it was a commercial airliner yet not know it was hijacked? The news was not reporting that a commercial airliner hit, because it was not known by them at the time. However the military had already launched jets after that plane because it was a known hijacking.

<snip>

Why don't they know this plane was hijacked? The military has already sent fighters after it and the people on the plane started calling reporting the hijacking at 8:19?

Simple. Because the only military installation to be contacted by the FAA was Otis AFB and NEADS, and that was at 08:34 and 08:38, respectively. The two F-15's didn't leave the ground until 08:46, which is the exact minute AA11 slammed into WTC1. The POTUS or his advisors would not have been contacted at that exact moment as the situation had not even been realized yet. It was only 8 minutes after NEADS was contacted to impact. Of course the POTUS isn't going to know about the hijacking right away. You're own links document that GWB wasn't even told about the crash itself until ~09:00.

Now let's turn to when these people are informed of the second plane strike. Keeping in mind according to them, no one ever informs them these planes are hijacked despite the fact that NEADS was notified at 8:37 and planes were launched from Otis AFB at 8:45.

See above. You asked a redundant question. Had you paid any mind as to why the POTUS didn't get all the info in the first place, you would not have had to ask why. The POTUS was simply not in the FAA/NEADS loop as of this point in time.

Now the world knows that planes are being flown into buildings. How many more are there? Only two people have the authority to issue shoot down orders. The President and Secretary of defense. Neither of them find out about any other hijackings, and neither give shoot down orders. What they do is desert their posts and leave the VP in charge. This is not just a disgrace, it is in fact- the stand down. The VP is not in the military chain of command and has no authority to issue shoot down orders. Not only that the Generals in charge know it due to the exercises that drilled that fact into their heads. So any shoot down orders he gives are not acted on. He does not have the authority any more than the Postmaster General does.

<snip>

Because it didn't happen. Bush deserted his post as commander in chief. He wasn't talking to the military. He was talking to Cheney. Cheney was giving the orders through his military aide ...."Do the orders still stand?" - D Cochrane. How come Bush's aide isn't asking that? How come Rumsfeld aide isn't asking that? Because they were not given shoot down orders. The President and Sec of Defense deserted their posts. But it gets worse. What were they doing when they deserted their posts? They were talking to each other for one thing. And guess what they were having a conversation about? Well.....SORRY....THEY JUST DON'T REMEMBER!

The evidence of President Bush deserting his post:

He is the commander in chief of the armed forces we are under attack. Commercial Airliners are being used as weapons. Only he and the Sec of Defense can issue shoot down orders. When does he contact the military and do so? He doesn't. Which means he deserted his post.

This question and following comment is dripping of incredulity. I'm assuming you trying to, with the numerous <snipped> quotes and narration, create a sense of mis-management...but you failed to give facts to back up your point. All that's here is General Arnold relaying the facts he never received a shoot down order. How, in any way, prove or disprove that GWB deserted his post?

After the second plane has hit the tower at 9:03 we see the President being told. He does not contact the military. He has deserted his post as commander in chief of the armed forces. He does nothing but stare into space. Finally at 9:15 he leaves the classroom. But has deserted his post, so he does not perform his duties as the military commander in chief he instead contacts the VP so they can discuss......not shoot down orders but his exact wording he will use when he addresses the nation at 9:30.

So at 9:30 we are to believe they still have no knowledge that these planes were hijacked? No one is authorized to shoot down flight 77 or any other plane that day. No shoot down authority given. The pentagon gets hit at 9:37-9:38 and Bush takes off on Air Force one. He does not contact the military. He has deserted his post. He does have a conversation with his deserting co conspirator Rumsfeld shortly after 10:00 which will be discussed when we look at Rumsfeld's desertion, leaving VP Cheney who is not in the military chain of command in charge.

All you're doing here is projecting your ignorance of the situation.

The evidence of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld deserting his post:

Quote:
"What was Rumsfeld doing on 9/11?" said the former official with sudden anger. "He deserted his post. He disappeared."
Page 4
http://books.google.com/books?id=lN9...page&q&f=false

Perhaps you've misplaced your definition of "evidence". Here's a hint: Andrew Cockburn's opinion of Rumsfeld is not evidence.

What does Rumsfeld do after seeing the second plane hit on TV? He deserts his post. America is under attack so he belongs in the NMCC(National military Command Center)but instead stays in his office. The second plane hits at 9:03 and the pentagon gets hit 35 minutes later. What is he doing? Watching people die on TV in his office. The pentagon getting hit finally gets him out of his office and he proceeds to go out and assist loading people on stretchers. He is not going to issue shoot down orders he should be in the NMCC but has deserted his post.

More projections from you. I'm not surprised.

See? He doesn't call it "deserting my post" he calls it "absorbing". Just like Bush does......

As Bush was heading toward Air Force one to desert off into the wild blue yonder he called Rice. One would think he might be contacting the military to issue shoot down authorization for any other planes out there but like I said, this guy has deserted his post.......

Look everyone, Bush and Rumsfeld both use the descriptive word "absorbed"! Both of these guys must use the same thesaurus! Surely, this points to a conspiracy!...

The Vice President is not in the military chain of command. He does not have the authority to issue shoot down orders. This Rumsfeld himself admits.....

NSS. But so far, halfway through this book you've constructed, you've failed to prove that any shoot down order came directly, and solely, from the VP. I'm hoping your point is coming up...

There is no evidence that the President nor the Secretary of Defense contacted the military during the entire duration of the 9-11 attacks.

So? Is there evidence that they didn't? Seems to me you're trying to dig a hole, but you're spending a lot of time just kicking dust around.

They both admit to doing nothing after knowing we were under attack.

Huh? Where?

Despite having their military aides next to them whose purpose was to be a liaison to the military only Cheney through D Cochrane was taking charge, and he had no authority. This was the stand down. Whether by incredible incompetence or by design this is what happened in their own words and official investigations.

So, you're saying there was a shoot down and stand down all at the same time? You still haven't proven that the "no record" of GWB contacting the military automatically means that he did not.

Now the outrageous statements and lies:

More garbage. Nothing here helps your comment, you just want to pretend that your opinion is justified. It isn't.

Bush and Rumsfeld the two authorized to issue shoot down orders both refused to during the attacks, deserted their posts, claimed to the 9-11 commission to not remember what they talked about, but admitted to the commission it wasn't about shoot down orders because the commission has the records. They know they didn't issue shoot down orders and would like to know why. These guys can't remember. If one wants to plead incompetence there is a problem.

Bush's father was former head of the CIA and former President of the U.S.
Cheney was a former Sec of Defense.
Rumsfeld has two records. He was the youngest Secretary of Defense ever, and the oldest Secretary of Defense ever.
Amazing incompetence for those so experienced. But if one were to be kind, they would accuse them of being incompetent liars.

You didn't convince me. Try again.

 

[DGM]

You didn't convince me. Try again.

I think he's short on a few details

Bush and Rumsfeld the two authorized to issue shoot down orders both refused to during the attacks,

He might also want to explain exactly who was going to do the shooting. There were no aircraft anywhere near the hijacked flights. His story would be more convincing if they were delaying the aircraft launches.

 

[carlitos]

He might also want to find some sentence structure. Seriously - Dear Truth Movement, please find a copy editor.

Bush and Rumsfeld the two authorized to issue shoot down orders both refused to during the attacks, deserted their posts, claimed to the 9-11 commission to not remember what they talked about, but admitted to the commission it wasn't about shoot down orders because the commission has the records.

Bush and Rumsfeld -- the only two authorized to issue shoot down orders -- both refused to do so during the attacks. They effectively deserted their posts, and later claimed to the 9-11 Commission that they essentially had no recollection of their conversations on the morning of 9/11. In any case, it certainly wasn't about shoot down orders, at least if you believe the 9/11 Commission's own records.

 

[beachnut]

To a fighter pilot, the tanker "driver" is his/her best freaking friend. I'd call that "mates" when the gas gauge gets low (like it frequently does in "go fast" planes). I seem to remember the fighters from Ottis having to keep the speed down for just that reason.

"chicks in tow"

I showed the photo to show how close fighters can get. We were intercepted by an F-14. We were reading the paper on the way to the PI from Okinawa. The F-14 moved in front of the wing and pulled near the cockpit watching while we were not. When we looked up, the F-14 split-s away; never talked, never seen again. Must of been a carrier group in the area.

Here is a big chick in tow...

The military always follow the "orders". It is funny they are arguing if Cheney said "shoot down", they the military stands down. The fact is some would use what Cheney said as permission, assume it is NCA, and take action. As most people understand, in emergencies the military can take action. Yes, it was not policy, not procedure to shoot down hijacked airplanes, and I can't think of why you would based on the old paradigm (why do i dislike that word?) of hijacking. On 911 the planes were not hijacked, they were terrorists weapons, the passengers were already planned to be murdered, and some were already dead when the terrorist requisitioned the planes by murder. This is clearly a time to take action if you are in a position to do so. The Passengers of Flight 93 took action because they figured out 911, something some people have a problem doing after 10 long years.

I know this sound stupid, but if I was authorized to shoot down a plane, given an order, I would first try to get the passengers to attack the terrorists. If you see a crazy pilot out the window, making wild hand signs, ....

...
"Saturday, Jan. 11, with the president's permission, Cheney and Rumsfeld call Bandar to Cheney's West Wing office, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Myers, is there with a top-secret map of the war plan. And it says, 'Top secret. No foreign.' No foreign means no foreigners are supposed to see this," says Woodward.
...
Hmmmmm!

Let me see, we are planning a war, we are using a base in Saudi Arabia, we have troops in Saudi Arabia. Saudis are allies, and you come up with this as your evidence of What? This kind of logic, born out of ignorance, is reflective of your falling for 911 truth claims years in the past. jimd is not helping you, he is misleading you.

When we launch a war next to an ally, we tell them the plan. If you are confused about Iraq, the idiot was shooting at us for years after the first gulf war in 1991!; maybe you missed that war. If you were fooled by the political claptrap, don't be, Iraq has nothing to do with 911, more than indifference. Saddam did not take out UBL, Iran did not take out UBL. I was in the first gulf war, the Saudis were are allies, we shared the war plan, they were in the war plan. Did the Saudis have a role in the Iraq war? You know how much fuel it takes to fight an Air War? Any figures? Got some real facts?

You cherry-pick your way to delusions, without analysis, put together crazy claims of treason. Or was that jimd? Your conclusion is poppycock, what Woodward says is hearsay, and it makes sense to show our allies the war plan since their support is required. Like 911, you are going off half cocked, full of fantasy, low on knowledge. I like fantasy, your fiction will not earn a Pulitzer, your exposing fraud, will not earn a Pulitzer, you made it up.

If there was treason based on what you have; showing the war plan to Saudis is not a fact to use, not evidence of treason, it is evidence you have no knowledge. BTW, the president is the boss, he can pretty much do what you think he can't, then you turn it into nonsense.

I can see with your logic, the Prince would say, no plan, no base, no support - go away

 

[Miragememories]

To a fighter pilot, the tanker "driver" is his/her best freaking friend. I'd call that "mates" when the gas gauge gets low (like it frequently does in "go fast" planes). I seem to remember the fighters from Ottis having to keep the speed down for just that reason.

Your point?

I know what a re-fueler does.

And I know what happens if a fighter jet runs out of fuel.

Of course on 9/11, there didn't appear to be much requirement for in-air re-fueling.

MM

 

[DGM]

Of course on 9/11, there didn't appear to be much requirement for in-air re-fueling.

MM

Yeah, they just did it for the hell of it.

 

[carlitos]

Your point?

I know what a re-fueler does.

And I know what happens if a fighter jet runs out of fuel.

Of course on 9/11, there didn't appear to be much requirement for in-air re-fueling.

MM

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2009/July 2009/0709fire.aspx

More concrete were the events of Sept. 11, 2001. America was under attack and the first response was an instant air campaign. NORAD fighters set up combat air patrols—and CAPs meant tankers.

A KC-135 from Maine was on a scheduled training mission near New York City when it was called to help. The crew set up an orbit over Kennedy Airport to help two F-15s. With the tanker in place, one F-15 would refuel while the other stayed on station or intercepted unknown aircraft over New York. More F-15s arrived shortly and they, too, needed fuel.

Later, a KC-10 from McGuire AFB, N.J., replaced the Bangor crew.

All over America tankers were scrambling. Remote areas in the western United States lacked radar and communications coverage but they did have tankers.

Alaska’s air defense command center picked up the track of an inbound Korean airliner squawking a hijack code. Four fighters scrambled to intercept and track the jet aircraft. Tankers with call signs Arctic 61 and Arctic 64 took off to support the fighters and an AWACS.

 

[ozeco41]

You know what the answers shoukld be? Frankly, I don't know. My questions are largely about law: What the laws were (legal arguments), or should have been (political arguments), and such questions always leave room for differing opinions and more fathoming....

Which is exactly what I mean by know the answers. See my previous posts. There are two big problems facing the idea of "shoot down":
1) Timeline related to what would be a very big change of response; AND
2) The political consequences of shooting down civilians without an overwhelming "risk assessment" in favour of the shoot down.

Hence my attempt to get shure to approach whatever his claim is from a reasoned, logical basis.

Clearly he is simply another truther troll whose purpose is to stir up our members and irritate by playing the same old phonograph records. Hence my lack of detailed involvement. I don't feed trolls as you know.

So sorry if my "I know the answers" implied that I knew the detailed final answers. Not so. But I was and remain fully aware of the questions which are the first stage answers. Also on that point notice how I allowed shure the easy way out by asking only for a risk assessment based on "likely deaths either way". The reality being that politics of shooting down civilians would strongly skew the assessment of risk against shoot down.

...So if they do get around to answering my questions, or presenting premises and claims, they ought to indicate what they consider to be facts, and what they only offer as opinion....

Agreed naturally!

I disagree with the PS: If they employed 20/20 hindsight, they'd know that issuing or not issuing a shoot-down or a stand-down order would not have made any difference at all.

Again I seem to have misled you. "They" are not within a mile of understanding that it makes no difference. You and I (and a few other members here) have that 20/20 vision including "makes no difference". Shure certainly has not shown that he even comprehends the issue. Another reason why his "logic" as revealed so far is at the grade school level of the typical truther/troll. The 20/20 hindsight I had in mind was the acceptance that the event was an attack against the US which is clear in hindsight but which was not clear throughout the whole series of events. So, on the day the time to assess response>>>shoot down can not be timed IMO before the first plane struck the WTC tower. And even that is optimistic given the massive political issue involved. And, hence, the criticality of the decision timeline.

(As a semi-aside - I haven't researched it - but does anyone know how many foreign nationals other than the terrorists were on the planes?)

 

[ozeco41]

Great post Sabretooth.

The time line issue is the killer for a lot of shure's nonsense.

....Simple. Because the only military installation to be contacted by the FAA was Otis AFB and NEADS, and that was at 08:34 and 08:38, respectively. The two F-15's didn't leave the ground until 08:46, which is the exact minute AA11 slammed into WTC1. The POTUS or his advisors would not have been contacted at that exact moment as the situation had not even been realized yet. It was only 8 minutes after NEADS was contacted to impact. Of course the POTUS isn't going to know about the hijacking right away. You're own links document that GWB wasn't even told about the crash itself until ~09:00....

... it's not surprising that shure will not address timings.

 

[beachnut]

Your point?

I know what a re-fueler does.

And I know what happens if a fighter jet runs out of fuel.

Of course on 9/11, there didn't appear to be much requirement for in-air re-fueling.

MM

Flown fighters, or small jets? We were always out of fuel in UPT, if we used after burner for 10 or 15 minutes we would be out of fuel. Fighters can use fuel to stay on station.

Albeit, the new fighters are much more efficient than the F-4. Dragging an F-4 from the Philippines to New Zealand has the F-4 almost constantly BINGO, and the need to be on the boom for most of the flight. Not very practical, so the F-4s were essentially going to crash in the Ocean if the Tanker offload failed.

Air refueling gives the fighters better range, and fuel ready. One cool part, if the fighters rush off in after burner (AB) and are running low while intercepting planes, they can have the tankers come to them and RZ for more fuel as needed. During the gulf war a couple of our crews flew into Iraq (not usual for tankers) to help planes with fuel.

The fighters need fuel on 911 to set up an effect CAP. Landing for fuel would waste an hour, whereas being topped off constantly in an orbit, they would be full and ready to sprint in FULL AB, then safe with gas in the air. Initially on 911 there were limited armed fighters. It would be a force multiplier to keep them airborne, at the ready if there were more threats. On 911 they essentially skipped hours and days of preparation to stand up, not stand down. ..., many of the planes that stood up on 911 were not assigned the mission, and those crews showed up because they were watching the events on TV, or radio.

On 911 crews on training missions, stood up to refuel, without orders! Without NCA orders, it is what we do. I expect fighter would take action if needed, without orders.

You can't kick *** without tanker gas.

 

[funk de fino]

Your point?

I know what a re-fueler does.

And I know what happens if a fighter jet runs out of fuel.

Of course on 9/11, there didn't appear to be much requirement for in-air re-fueling.

MM

Total failure. Again.

 

[shure]

Let me see, we are planning a war, we are using a base in Saudi Arabia, we have troops in Saudi Arabia. Saudis are allies, and you come up with this as your evidence of What? This kind of logic, born out of ignorance, is reflective of your falling for 911 truth claims years in the past. jimd is not helping you, he is misleading you.

The Joint Inquiry just happens to find all kinds of information pointing to Saudi involvement in the attacks. They uncover a trail that just happens to lead to Bush's buddy Bandar! Gee what a small world!

Bush covers up all the information that leads to Saudi Arabia.

Bush and Bandar then start planning a war with Iraq who had nothing to do with 9/11.

So the ones who financed, planned and attacked us on 9/11 were the Saudi's.

The Saudi's also happen to be the biggest exporter of terrorism.

You call them our "allies"???

Who's the one being misled?

 

[Oystein]

The Joint Inquiry just happens to find all kinds of information pointing to Saudi involvement in the attacks. They uncover a trail that just happens to lead to Bush's buddy Bandar! Gee what a small world!

Bush covers up all the information that leads to Saudi Arabia, the head of the snake when it comes to terrorism.

Bush and Bandar then start planning a war with Iraq who had nothing to do with 9/11.

So the ones who financed, planned and attacked us on 9/11 were the Saudi's.

The Saudi's also happen to be the biggest exporter of terrorism.

You call them our "allies"???

Who's the one being misled?

Define "The Saudis" in that context!
Do you mean the absolutist King, Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz? Or, in 2001, King Fahd?

Saudi Arabia has in recent years faced its own militant (terrorist) insurgency. Are you suggesting the King, the Royal Family or Bush's and the West's business partners are exporting terrorism? Where do they export it to, and what's your evidence for this?
To be clear, I do not doubt that there are terrorists and supporters and financers of terrorism in Saudi Arabia, but they are not "The Saudis". I'd believe they are rather more the opposition to "The Saudis". Saying "the Saudis are the biggest exporters of terrorism" is akin to saying "The Americans are the biggest supporters of drug trade" because there are so many addicts in the States. Such a statement would be very misleading.

 

[shure]

You're right.

I don't mean the Saudi's as a whole. I mean some members within the royal family, who, coincidentally, have a close relationship with the Bush family and others who played a key role in our national security.

"All the answers, everything needed to dismantle Osama bin Laden's organization can be found in Saudi Arabia," John O'Neill

If the administration wanted to combat terrorism, Saudi Arabia would have been a good place to start!

 

[beachnut]

The Joint Inquiry just happens to find all kinds of information pointing to Saudi involvement in the attacks. They uncover a trail that just happens to lead to Bush's buddy Bandar! Gee what a small world!

Bush covers up all the information that leads to Saudi Arabia.

Bush and Bandar then start planning a war with Iraq who had nothing to do with 9/11.

So the ones who financed, planned and attacked us on 9/11 were the Saudi's.

The Saudi's also happen to be the biggest exporter of terrorism.

You call them our "allies"???

Who's the one being misled?

The trail begins and ends in your head, in your head.

What was financed? Who financed McVeigh? The terrorists did not buy the plane, they murdered the pilots and took the planes to use as weapons, a fact you failed to grasp for 10 years. Your claims are nonsense.

Iraq had nothing to do with 911, they were shooting at our planes, at my fellow pilots - they broke the rules.

You fail to comprehend 911, and fail to understand why Saddam was attacked.

resolution, passed in 1991, demanded that the government of Saddam Hussein stop attacks on Iraqi citizens and said the secretary general should use ''all the resources at his disposal'' to enforce that demand. The resolution did not specifically create the no-flight zone, although American officials regarded the resolution as the legal justification for it.

Darn, Iraq and 911 are not related, you make it up, and people who think they were are not paying attention.

Saddam tried to kill me, I don't care why we took him out. I understand there is no evidence to tie him to 911. Why were you fooled by your buddy bush? Did bush fool you? You are gullible on 911 issues, thought you were getting over the delusions of Balsamo and other nuts, then you make up this tripe. If you were fooled by Bush, this is indicative of you being fooled by yourself, jimd, and lack of knowledge.

I worked with Saudis, they are our ally. If we had stopped the plot and shipped them to Saudi Arabia for trial, 15 terrorists would be executed the next day. You fall for political claptrap, then you cherry-pick your way to nonsense.

I figured out 911 that day, hours more than the Passengers of Flight 93. I suspected UBL was behind the attacks when Flight 175 impacted. I thought he bought plane and did it. Then financing would be a big deal. But they killed and took the planes. On the cheap, the terrorists would blend into ordinary go to American learn to fly, go to America have fun.

Even if the terrorists were funded for their stay in America by Saudis, it would be the same as parents funding a kid to go to college, and then the kid go nuts and kills people at the school; the parents did not know the kid was nuts. If you have evidence give it to the Saudis, they will execute the person the next day. Were any of the 15 first born sons? Do you do real research, or does google and crank phone calls cover your efforts?

 

[shure]

I worked with Saudis, they are our ally.

Frustrated by the level of cooperation from the Saudis, O'Neill purportedly vented to FBI director Louis Freeh, saying that they were “blowing smoke up your ass.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_P._O'Neill