Double Tree Video Released?

[Hierosis]

You have a point; one I've considered in light of the De Menezes shooting here in Britain, i.e. how can no-one be to blame for the death of an innocent man? Failings were identified in various aspects of the overall operation and the execution of the tactical side of things, yet AFAIK, no-one has "copped it"; not the officers involved (rightly so IMO), and no-one in the chain of command (wrongly IMO). The buck should stop somewhere. However, the difference is that the UK authorities were directly responsible for De Menezes' death. If the US gov is not directly responsible for 9/11, the need to root out and eliminate the culpable is not as great.

I think it's a valid question - who should be held responsible, and how? But it does not lend any weight to any CT having taken place.

Yes!!! And I'm not saying it proves anything related to CT.

 

[Hierosis]

Hierosis,

I was not defending a lack of accountability, merely pointing out that it seems to be the way of the world these days.

I remember reading a long time ago about a UK government minister who resigned over something his predecessor had done. This was in the 50's or 60's, but these days it is all political expediency.

It is interesting that your pearl harbour comment includes that the men were able to establish that the fault lay higher up in the chain of command, and yet was any action then taken against those who were responsible? The president certainly didn't take a fall over it.

No, you're right on the point that the people who likely should ahve been held accountable were not. I was just correcting your reading of history in that SOMEONE was held accountable for Pearl Harbor.

 

[~enigma~]

You're only half right. Bokinka called for planes to explode OVER major cities, but also for planes to be flown into major landmarks.

Apparently they forgot to assasinate the pope on 9/11?

It does not relate directly to the events of 9/11, but it does shoot down the idea that no one could have imagined people flying planes into builings.

Using planes as weapons was a possibility that was known and prepared for since at least 1996. For example look at the security at both the republican and democratic conventions in 2000. The relationship between Bojinka and 9/11 was based on an assumed alternate plan of which there is no proof so I would say the relationship is at best a very large stretch.

The military has wargammed the scenario since the they broke up the Bojinka plot. If they were able to create a war game based on the premise, they certainly had no problem imagining it actually happening.

There have been war games and military exercises throughout history. What exactly is the problem you have with that?

(side note - please do not confuse my reference to war games as anything related to war games taking place ON 9/11, because most of the people with questions get that one wrong.)

 

[uk_dave]

No, you're right on the point that the people who likely should ahve been held accountable were not. I was just correcting your reading of history in that SOMEONE was held accountable for Pearl Harbor.

And I wasn't stating that no one was held responsible, I was asking if anyone had been held responsible in the expectation that in that era someone would have been accountable.

 

[Hierosis]

Yes, today I am familiar with Bojinka.

Back on 9/11/2001, I had never heard of it.

I'm sure the government has HUGE volumes of intelligence spread across the many disjointed agencies; they are also shorthanded when it comes to translators, so I'm sure there was a HUGE volume of intelligence and communications intercepts in Arabic that went untranslated until after 9/11. It's an immense challenge to sort through the massive volume of information, work within the HUGE bureaucracy, across agencies, and with legal restrictions in place on 9/11 barring criminal investigators [e.g. the FBI] and intelligence officials from sharing information.

And, yes I've read Without Precedent.

Kean and Hamilton talk about frustrations in dealing with FAA and NORAD officials, who were less than forthcoming, ultimately leading the commission to subpoena those agencies for documents. Also, the testimony of FAA and NORAD officials as to timing of their response was misleading, possibly constituting obstruction if they were intentionally misleading the commission and Congress.

With a July 2004 deadline, the 9/11 Commission had a time limit, and didn't look further into possible obstruction by officials. The matter was referred to the Inspector Generals of the DOT and DOD, respectively.

Here are the findings of the DOT inspector general, regarding the FAA.

In sum, they found no intent by officials to mislead the commission:
No Intent to Mislead Panel Found In Aviation Officials' 9/11 Errors

And from the DOD inspector general: Report No. 06-INTEL-12

-Kate

Kate, you seem a bit idealistic, and that's fine. Do you really think that, with everything this administration has covered up they would allow the DOD General to challenge the 9/11 Commission findings? Not likely.

I would also refer you to Senator Max Cleland who left the commission and noted that it was a joke that was clearly set up to fail. The timeframe they were given did not allow them the time needed to conduct a real investigation. Further, no real investigation starts with a conclusion and works backwards to prove it, as the 9/11 Commission, and to be fair, many 9/11 Truthers do.

 

[Gravy]

Thanks for that info, Kate. Great job once again!

 

[Hierosis]

Thanks for that info, Kate. Great job once again!

Yes! Half the story is great as long as it backs up your claims.

 

[Pardalis]

Hierosis, don't make me regret I defended you for not being a troll...

 

[Kryptos]

Yes! Half the story is great as long as it backs up your claims.

The government isn't good at keeping secrets and covering up wrongdoing. Hence, we know all about secret CIA prisons, Watergate, Iran-Contra, etc.

If FAA and/or NORAD officials intentionally mislead and obstructed, or worse Let 9/11 Happen on Purpose... we would find out. Some whistleblower at those agencies could write a tell-all book.

 

[Hierosis]

Hierosis, don't make me regret I defended you for not being a troll...

I appreciate that you defended me very much and have found you to be one of the most knowlegeable people on this board. While we may disagree overall, you are clearly well versed and read with both sides covered. You don't partake in the backslapping I was pointing at in my previous post.
My gripe with Gravy's comment is that he's basically become what he set out to destroy. He's just dying for a fight with anyone who doesn't agree with him 100 %. To me that comment seemed more at home on 911 Blogger.

 

[Pardalis]

I appreciate that you defended me very much and have found you to be one of the most knowlegeable people on this board.

I appreciate the compliment but there are far more knowledgable people here than I, especially Gravy.

My gripe with Gravy's comment is that he's basically become what he set out to destroy. He's just dying for a fight with anyone who doesn't agree with him 100 %. To me that comment seemed more at home on 911 Blogger.

Gravy is one of the few who took great time and effort to dig deep and study in great detail the 9/11 events. I think that is why you misinterpret him as cocky and antagonistic. He is not, he only knows what he's talking about.

I think if you only put your apprehension towards Gravy aside, there could be an enlightening conversation.

Let's put a stop to the animosity and let's discuss this like adults.

 

[Hierosis]

The government isn't good at keeping secrets and covering up wrongdoing. Hence, we know all about secret CIA prisons, Watergate, Iran-Contra, etc.

If FAA and/or NORAD officials intentionally mislead and obstructed, or worse Let 9/11 Happen on Purpose... we would find out. Some whistleblower at those agencies could write a tell-all book.

Kate, if that were true then it would have come out in 1966 that the Gulf of Tonkin never took place, thus eliminating our reason for sending a full force of troops out there. Instead, it only came out officially in the past few years through interview with McNamara and LBJ's library tapes.

Or we would have known right away that Henry Kissinger and Nixon orchestrated the facist takeover in Chile by Pinochet which resulted in decades of murder and misdeeds against the people of Chile. Instead, most people still don't know that Kissinger was the architect of said operation.

You've just given me three examples of nefarious government activity that HAS been exposed. Though, really, Nixon resigning over Watergate was like the government jailing Al Capone for tax evasion. Regardless, if those took place, how can you say for sure that there aren't 15 other incidents that WEREN'T reported on?

The CIA's job is to shroud itself in secrecy. Through them, this country has overthrown more democratically elected governments than any other in the world.

 

[Hierosis]

I appreciate the compliment but there are far more knowledgable people here than I, especially Gravy.

He's one of the few who took great time and effort to dig deep and study in great detail the 9/11 events. I think that is why you misinterpret him as cocky and antagonistic. He is not, he only knows what he's talking about.

I think if you only put your apprehension towards Gravy aside, there could be an enlightening conversation.

Let's put a stop to the animosity and let's discuss this like adults.

I disagree, but it's all good. I've never said that Gravy isn't thorough in his research. But his de-evolution into a guy who shows up at ground zero and chases around conspiracy theorists literally begging them for a fight is kinda lame. Mark clearly has one side of the story down pat. My biggest gripe is that he (like Alex Jones) won't even listen to what I have to say because he knows that at the end of the day we'll still diagree.

 

[Gravy]

I disagree, but it's all good. I've never said that Gravy isn't thorough in his research. But his de-evolution into a guy who shows up at ground zero and chases around conspiracy theorists literally begging them for a fight is kinda lame. Mark clearly has one side of the story down pat. My biggest gripe is that he (like Alex Jones) won't even listen to what I have to say because he knows that at the end of the day we'll still diagree.

False. I present facts and demand accuracy from people who choose to lie at Ground Zero. Your issue with that?

I won't listen to you? False. You complained that no one had been held accountable for 9/11. I repeatedly asked you who you think should be held accountable and why. You chose not to answer.

Now we have a new statement: that Kate's information presents half the story. Okay, what factual information do you have to fill in the other half? I'm listening, again.

 

[stateofgrace]

Hierosis.

What exactly is your gripe?

Please don’t take this the wrong way but what exactly is your issue with 911?

You seem to believe it was a terrorist attack.

Do you believe that certain people within the US saw the warnings and purposefully ignored them?

Or that people have not been brought to account for missing the warnings?

Surely you don’t believe the insane no plane, bombs inside the Towers etc, theories.

Could you just say in a few sentences exactly what makes you feel so uncomfortable about 911?

 

[Pardalis]

I would also refer you to Senator Max Cleland who left the commission and noted that it was a joke that was clearly set up to fail. The timeframe they were given did not allow them the time needed to conduct a real investigation. Further, no real investigation starts with a conclusion and works backwards to prove it, as the 9/11 Commission, and to be fair, many 9/11 Truthers do.

I agree they delayed the commission report, it could be argued that it had alot to do with their Iraq agenda, as he himself implied:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=max_cleland

The reason this report was delayed for so long—deliberately opposed at first, then slow-walked after it was created—is that the administration wanted to get the war in Iraq in and over ... before (it) came out.

 

[Hierosis]

False. I present facts and demand accuracy from people who choose to lie at Ground Zero. Your issue with that?

I won't listen to you? False. You complained that no one had been held accountable for 9/11. I repeatedly asked you who you think should be held accountable and why. You chose not to answer.

Now we have a new statement: that Kate's information presents half the story. Okay, what factual information do you have to fill in the other half? I'm listening, again.

OK, let me get this out of the way, the performance that I saw online of you at ground zero was horrific. I actually defended you after the 9/9 stuff because I thought that Alex Jones was being a moron and not engaging you in a real debate. But what I saw looked as if you had been taking notes from Jones.

Regardless, I don't have time to write a book here, but let me try this again, one more time. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT 9/11 OCCURRED DUE TO GOVERNMENT INCOMPETENCE OR LACK OF PLANNING. But I felt that most of you did. So going on that assumption I'm asking you, "Shouldn't someone have been held accountable for this failure?" I do not think that person if George Bush, just for the record. I don't think he had any idea this was going to happen, and likely really did poop his pants in that Florida classroom (though why the secret service didn't evacuate him instantly is a debate for another day). So, I have no answer to the question because I don't pretend to know what happened on 9/11.
Now, with all due respect, you seem very confident that you've got the story down pat, so it would be more proper for you to tell ME who was at fault when the most sophisticated air defense system in the history of the world simply failed for two hours. Someone had to have dropped the ball, right? So who was it?

Regarding Kate, I did fill in the other half. Scroll up a bit.

Finally, I came on here for about a day a few weeks ago and as soon as I said that I had questions about 9/11 you basically started to interrogate me when I hadn't made a single specific claim. Anyway Mark, you've been doing this long enough now that I'm sure you're convinced that the way you see things is the one truth and I am not going to try and change that. Too much energy wasted when I could be doing something more productive, like enhancing my own knowledge of history, which I try to do as much as possible.

 

[Hierosis]

I agree they delayed the commission report, it could be argued that it had alot to do with their Iraq agenda, as he himself implied:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=max_cleland

Excellent point. This is why I like you.

 

[Pardalis]

Hierios, if it wasn't intelligence failure, what was it?

Do you believe that the US government was behind 9/11?

If so, why?

 

[Pardalis]

Excellent point.

He doesn't imply that the USG was in on the 9/11 plot though.

You see the difference?

Everybody knows the Bush admin took advantage of 9/11 to go to Iraq.