Bush and Cheney Covered Up 9/11??

[MarkyX]

Kind of takes the teeth out of the investigation don't you think?

Why do you think an oath is some magical band-aid that will make everyone tell the truth?

"I would have gotten away with it too if it wasn't for that meddling oath!" - Dick Cheney.

 

[RedIbis]

Why do you think an oath is some magical band-aid that will make everyone tell the truth?

"I would have gotten away with it too if it wasn't for that meddling oath!" - Dick Cheney.

If it were that easy to get away with perjury they wouldn't have objected to the oath, recordings or taking notes.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

If it were that easy to get away with perjury they wouldn't have objected to the oath, recordings or taking notes.

assumption, speculation, conjecture.


And yeah clearly it's unusual since the last president to do this was Lincoln.

 

[MarkyX]

If it were that easy to get away with perjury they wouldn't have objected to the oath, recordings or taking notes.

What's really amazing is despite this, no one part of the investigation believes 9/11 was an inside job.

Again, let's look at Norman Minetta. Does he believe 9/11 was an inside job? Nope.

Strange the people you guys root for are the ones that don't believe your nonsense.

 

[Clippy]

It seems there were individuals responsible for ensuring this 'systemic failure'. I wonder how it was that Dave Frasca never made it in front of the commission. That's a rhetorical wonder, I think anyone who's being honest knows the answer.

 

[Profanz]

If it's so easy for a group of people to keep a story straight and consistent across the line when forced to testify separately under oath then why did Cheney refuse? Why does the 9/11 commission contradict Clarke, Boher, Mineta, Rice, Rove, ABC, BBC, the Wall Street Journal, and even Dick Cheney himself, on exactly when he entered the underground bunker? Is this why he refused to testify publicly under oath?

 

[gumboot]

It seems there were individuals responsible for ensuring this 'systemic failure'.

You're talking a LIHOP scenario. The LIHOP scenario in which someone(s) intentionally allow the system to decay over decades would involve probably more people than any other 9/11 "inside job" theory I can imagine.

It's important to remember; prior to 9/11 Americans did not consider terrorism a serious threat. Soviet Russia was seen as the last great threat to the American mainland, and with the end of the Cold War many felt America was going to sail off into some eternal sunset of global supremacy. Every layer of protection you can imagine was stripped back, revoked, had funding pulled, and was allowed to atrophy.

If we take a single example I'm familiar with - air defense - during the Cold War NORAD had hundreds and hundreds of armed fighters ready to scramble at a moment's notice. They had multiple long rang radar lines across the north of Canada, they had naval surveillance ships held in permanent picket lines off the coast, they maintained a constant airborne surveillance presence...

But over the 90's these numbers were halved and halved again... NORAD's budget was slashed repeatedly. Projects to replace their fighters with newer craft were delayed repeatedly, with final numbers constantly reduced. NORAD's internal systems weren't upgraded, and the gap between their equipment and the FAA's grew increasingly wider until their systems were so different they couldn't even talk to each other.

What's most frightening to consider about air defense is not how bad it was, but that it could have been even worse. Consider...

In 1994 it was recommended that the entire air defense mission was scrapped. You would have had NO armed fighters on standby anywhere in the USA.

Also consider, during the mid 90's the FAA started investigating the impact of ceasing all Primary Radar Surveillance in the United States, and found the impact to be "negligible". A few months before 9/11 the FAA were in the process of beginning the project to turn off all Primary Radars. Only the protests of the military saw it slowed, and the FAA were basically saying if the military wanted them, they'd have to pay to keep them running (something the military didn't have the budget for).

So let's revisit 9/11, but with no armed fighters on standby, and no primary radar coverage. Certainly the end result would have been the same in each case, but can you even imagine the chaos that this would have created in the aftermath of the attacks, with thousands of aircraft trying to land?

As it was, it was difficult for the FAA and NORAD to get a handle on what was happening.

 

[Clippy]

You're talking a LIHOP scenario. The LIHOP scenario in which someone(s) intentionally allow the system to decay over decades would involve probably more people than any other 9/11 "inside job" theory I can imagine.

Who said anything about intentional decay over decades? Dave Frasca was only quashing investigations in the year prior to 9/11. Your intentional decay LIHOP is a straw man.

Gumboot, you seem to know a lot about the inner workings of NORAD. Perhaps you could answer a nagging question for me. The original NORAD timeline made it seem that the military was slow in reacting to FAA warnings on the day. It took the Zelikow report to correct this view and show that it was the FAA had provided inadequate warning times to NORAD. How was it that NORAD was unable to correct this timeline on their own?

 

[T.A.M.]

Clippy:

While I am sure Gumboot could answer, you could also ask Cheapshot, a poster here, who was one of the ATC in charge of tracking one of the hijacked flights that day. While he may not know a huge amount about the NORAD response, given his direct actions on that day, and being directly involved, he may.

Others:

I think Bush and Cheney testified together because they wanted to make sure they covered their asses, plain and simple. Does this indicate in anyway a MIHOP situation????

NO

Does it prove, in any way, a LIHOP situation?

NO.

Does it indicate the possibility of a LIHOI (Let It Happen Out of Incompetence or Ignorance) situation...possibly.

TAM

 

[tsig]

It seems there were individuals responsible for ensuring this 'systemic failure'. I wonder how it was that Dave Frasca never made it in front of the commission. That's a rhetorical wonder, I think anyone who's being honest knows the answer.

That's a neat trick.

Ask a question, answer it and then say that anyone who disagrees is being dishonest.

 

[Clippy]

I think Bush and Cheney testified together because they wanted to make sure they covered their asses, plain and simple. Does this indicate in anyway a MIHOP situation????

NO

Does it prove, in any way, a LIHOP situation?

NO.

Does it indicate the possibility of a LIHOI (Let It Happen Out of Incompetence or Ignorance) situation...possibly.

TAM

If it was MIHOP, would you expect them to cover their asses? Of course, so it is an indication. Why do you require proof of LIHOP but seem content with 'indication of a possibility' for LIHOI?

But this quibbling with acronyms is a distraction. If a parent watches their toddler walk off a cliff, trips their toddler so it falls off a cliff, or passes out drunk before it walks off a cliff, the parent is still guilty of a crime, no?

 

[Clippy]

That's a neat trick.

Ask a question, answer it and then say that anyone who disagrees is being dishonest.

I didn't answer it. I'm happy to let it knaw at your conscience.

 

[T.A.M.]

your analogy is not completely correct.

in your case all three would be a crime, IF YOU COULD PROVE IT.

in the case of LIHOI (your third scenario tries to approach), you must prove NEGLIGENCE, as Incompetence and Ignorance are not crimes.

and I am not QUIBBLING about anything, nor was it MEANT AS A DISTRACTION. If someone was accusing you of murdering 3000 people, would you consider getting the wording right on the charges "quibbling"?

As for the first part, you are working backward, assuming they committed the crime, and working backward from this assumption. The more non bias thing to do, is to take the evidence (in this case, that they had to speak together, etc...) and work forward. What I said, was that it was NOT PROOF. TO ACCUSE SOMEONE OF A CRIME (which LIHOP and MIHOP indicate) yes, I require proof. TO state that there is a possibility that something non criminal occurred, I am a little more liberal.

TAM

 

[tsig]

If it was MIHOP, would you expect them to cover their asses? Of course, so it is an indication. Why do you require proof of LIHOP but seem content with 'indication of a possibility' for LIHOI?

But this quibbling with acronyms is a distraction. If a parent watches their toddler walk off a cliff, trips their toddler so it falls off a cliff, or passes out drunk before it walks off a cliff, the parent is still guilty of a crime, no?

So the population of the US is a toddler and Bush is Big Daddy.

Big Daddy let little us'ems get hurt and you are throwing a tantrum.

 

[Clippy]

and I am not QUIBBLING about anything, nor was it MEANT AS A DISTRACTION. If someone was accusing you of murdering 3000 people, would you consider getting the wording right on the charges "quibbling"?

Would you require the wording of the charges be finalized before gathering more evidence?

As for the first part, you are working backward, assuming they committed the crime, and working backward from this assumption. The more non bias thing to do, is to take the evidence (in this case, that they had to speak together, etc...) and work forward. What I said, was that it was NOT PROOF. TO ACCUSE SOMEONE OF A CRIME (which LIHOP and MIHOP indicate) yes, I require proof. TO state that there is a possibility that something non criminal occurred, I am a little more liberal.

TAM

Whence are you moving forward?

 

[Clippy]

So the population of the US is a toddler and Bush is Big Daddy.

Big Daddy let little us'ems get hurt and you are throwing a tantrum.

Are you mocking the deaths of 3000 people? I thought only twoofers did that.

 

[tsig]

Are you mocking the deaths of 3000 people? I thought only twoofers did that.

It was your post.

Clippy
"But this quibbling with acronyms is a distraction. If a parent watches their toddler walk off a cliff, trips their toddler so it falls off a cliff, or passes out drunk before it walks off a cliff, the parent is still guilty of a crime, no?"

How else am I to take this.

You blame Bush and place yourself as a toddler needing protection.

You may think you are making arguments by spewing the same old canards but all I see is a child throwing toys out of the pram.

 

[TsuDhoNimh]

The "truther" in me, is coming out! AHhhhhhh!

Not really, but something has been bugging me, and I'm sure you would all like to help.

I was thinking about the 9/11 Commission testimony of Pres. Bush and VP Cheney (not our beloved JREF'er). Why did the President refuse to testify without his VP Dick? I hear "truthers" bring this up all the time, so I'm sure there is something misleading about that statement.

To save the commission's time, perhaps. That's the way hearings usually work ... the panel or committee has the group of people they want to talk to all in at the same time, and ask the questions of whoever in the group is most likely to know the answer.

These are not adversarial proceedings like trials are.

 

[T.A.M.]

Would you require the wording of the charges be finalized before gathering more evidence?

There is more than enough, a plethora, of evidence to show that 19 arab hijackers hijacked those planes and ran them into the buildings/ground on 9/11. Those were the crimes committed...

TAM

 

[Clippy]

If that's the only evidence you looked for, what else would you expect?