The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[Unsecured Coins]

Just as long as the word "giggle" isn't strewn throughout.

perish the thought

 

[Myron Proudfoot]

while the NRO is not as close to Dulles as the Pentagon is to National, it is near enough to Dulles (and along a possible flight path?) so that an exercise involving an accidential crash would make sense.

And yes, NRO has a lot of employees originally from CIA, Air Force and National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (former NIMA) it now has a lot of its own employees as well. and is not just CIA or Air Force in another guide.

 

[funk de fino]

Before 9/11, how many hijackings resulted in wholesale death?
Before 9/11, how many hijackings had EVERYONE on the flights die?

Here are a couple more planes and hijack incidents where pilots and some times all passengers were killed:

1977: German commandos storm a Lufthansa airliner in Mogadishu, Somalia, after a five-day stand-off during which Palestinian guerrillas have killed the plane's pilot; three hijackers die in the raid, while 86 hostages are freed

Japanese hijacker held after killing pilot
November 10, 2000
CBC News
A computer-game fan who wanted to try the real thing hijacked a Japanese jumbo jet Friday, stabbed the pilot to death in mid-air and seized control of the airliner before being overpowered by crew members, police and media said.
9/1/83Flight 007 (Boeing 747-230B)

read the two posts and see where it pertains to wholesale and everyone?? where does it say all passengers were killed?

do you speak english as a first language because i am beginning to wonder

 

[funk de fino]

There is a pretty clear issue here- since all terrorist attacks, and indeed most crimes, have an element of novelty about them, to use the argument that since no one had ever committed this sort of crime before, thus no one could ever stop it, is to suggest that no one will ever be able to stop any sort of crime, since they all have elements of novelty to them. This is clearly loopy, and reflectiveof the worst kind of denial/delusion.

ha ha , absolute gibberish, best one yet

 

[lapman]

Here were the questions:
"Before 9/11, how many hijackings resulted in wholesale death?
Before 9/11, how many hijackings had EVERYONE on the flights die?"
Therefore impact with buildings to these two questions are irrelevant.

Ok, my bad. So answer my questions.

See the historical record as hijackings as a credible threat. Your using hindsight to justify your statement when it is sheer speculation that I noted as opinion. However, the warnings to the Administration were extremely credible.

Not even close. Since it was over 25 years since the one time a foreign national hijacked an aircraft, the threat was not credible.

Oh so people aren't involved in the system. Are you trying to blame inanimate objects for the failure? Go back and study the historical record leading up to 9/11 and the response of the Bush Administration's to the numerous IC warnings. I posted the response by Tenet below. Have you read that?

So they are supposed to fire everyone involved and completely gut the IC and all other departments that were involved? How does that accomplish anything?

Good question. Compare public warnings to preventive measures at airports and on airlines. People can and do ignore warnings, but they can't ignore proactive measures put into place by respective agencies.

Then there are lawsuits and outcries calling for the end of it.

Yes, I've been in the cockpit of many types of planes. So a box cutter beats a gun in a fight now? The cockpit had how many pilots and co pilots? The walkway into the cockpit to my recollection is large enough to accommodate 1 person of average size. It would appear to me that multiple pilots with access to firearms beats one terrorist with a box cutter.

You really don't do your research, do you, there were more than one hijackers in the cockpit. And someone can come up behind you and slit your throat with a boxcutter considerably faster than you can recognize the danger, pull your weapon, aim and shoot a moving target. Keeping in mind that you just don't fire your weapon without making sure it doesn't puncture the skin of the aircraft at 30k feet.

Source?

http://securitysolutions.com/news/security_woman_gets_past/index.html

A woman passed through security screening at New York's LaGuardia Airport with a stun gun and knife in her purse -- but later discovered the mistake herself and alerted authorities. The woman realized she was carrying the items after a short layover in Detroit and on her way to Denver.

Perhaps a study of Sky Marshal training would be the best source to the answer. They do carry guns correct? The intent of course is to use force. I don't see the problem.

Except that you just don't fire a weapon at 30,000 feet without being assured that it will hit and not go through the skin of the aircraft. One other thing, if they not only say that there is a bomb on board and that they are only going back to the airport with their demands, what reason would the sky marshal have to risk the lives of the passengers if they are currently safe?
Remember, there hadn't been a hijacking of an American airliner by a foreigner in over 25 years.

Yes and not taking action based upon numerous warnings is a terrible thing.

Except when they aren't credible warning based on the past. Have you research how many hijack warning there were prior to 1998?

How I would have loved to hear about it that way.

No argument here. I'm sure everyone would agree with you.

I did in an earlier post. NORAD practiced hijacking drills on a yearly bases as part of their training.

source?

Sabrina mentioned training of planes crashing into buildings as well. What does the training on the ground by the IC with their respective structures have to do with proactive measures taken by the administration for the benefit of the American public specifically with airport security?

Nothing.

But the system was blinking red in the run up to 9/11, the warnings were there, however,....Tenet and Black felt they were not getting through to Rice. She was polite, but they felt the brush-off.” They leave the meeting frustrated, seeing little prospect for immediate action. Tenet and Black will both later recall the meeting as the starkest warning they gave the White House on al-Qaeda before 9/11 and one that could have potentially stopped the 9/11 attacks if Rice had acted on it (see July 10, 2001) and conveyed their urgency to President Bush (Tenet was briefing Bush on a daily basis at this time, but he will later claim that Rice had a much better rapport with Bush).

Potentially stopped is not absolutely stopped. As Sabrina has pointed out, there were no actionable warnings.

What was done by the Bush Administration? Nothing.

So the 70 investigations was nothing? The pressure the Bush admin was putting on the Taliban to hand over OBL was nothing?

I guess we will agree to disagree however the historical record favors my position of accountability for those responsible for running the "system" that failed. And it appears based upon the assessment of the DIC that 9/11 could have been prevented if the Administration would have been proactive with their policy instead of "brushing" off those sounding the alarm.

There is no guarantee that 9/11 could have been prevented even with today's security. There is always a way around it if you look long enough and are determined enough. However, if it happened again, our response would be quite different.

 

[Jennie C.]

You find yourself at a crossroads. Down one road simply leads you in a circle, arguing the same points over and over again. Down another path lies a different fate, and one that seems preferable to the circular path.

To go down the circular path go to post #416 or #493.

To take the preferable path, go to post #710

I'm doing one of my long reads to an earlier thread things, and met this post on page 18.

MJD is still harping on his interpretation of the PNAC doc (please tell me it gets better). And all I can think of is:

"You are in a maze of twisty passages, all alike."

 

[mjd1982]

We did stop 25 percent. Darn, your idea is already in the bit bucket. Your record is still perfect.

Wow, you have never been surprised when someone cut you throat. The terrorist found a weakness, and they used it. They have now used up that method for killing people. Now the pilots will land if you start killing people and you will die.

Where were you telling us all the terrorist were going to kill pilots and take planes into buildings. Is this all you fault?

???

Can someone get this dude a translator please.

 

[8den]

???

Can someone get this dude a translator please.

Sure beachnut is speaking rational english, as soon as we can translate his coherant rational points into the batcrap loco version of english you use, we'll get right on it.

 

[Brainache]

???

Can someone get this dude a translator please.

I'll have a go for you mjd: (apologies to Beachnut if I missed anything)

"25% of the hijacked aircraft on 9/11 were prevented from reaching their target. You are wrong about everything.

The attack on the pilots by the terrorists caught them by surprise and was very effective. Next time they will have to try something different because measures have been put in place to prevent such attacks in future.

If this type of attack was so obvious, why didn't you warn everyone before 9/11? Are you in on it? I don't really believe that you are in on it, this is just my way of pointing out that hindsight is 20/20."

 

[Belz...]

As I told SD a page or so ago, I work for a private contractor that has numerous contracts with the main intel agencies, so I'm around individuals on a daily basis that have both a lot of experience in intel and little experience in intel (the noobs versus the oldtimers, essentially). I don't personally handle the intel myself (although I'm working toward that eventually; I want to be a counterterrorism analyst), but the majority of the people around me do, and don't mind it when I ask questions.

Very cool. That makes you automatically a member of the NWO!!!

I am also a 1LT in the Army Reserves, MOS 35D (mind out of the gutter, Belz!)

Mmmmmm....

 

[Belz...]

Placing blame for screw ups is precisely what should be done, and what is done. If people mess up to the extent that others lose money, get endangered, die, or whatever, in any circumstance, blame gets apportioned, and measures get taken. This is very, very simple.

I thought usually the point is to SOLVE the problem rather than place blame. Kids place blame.

 

[Belz...]

There is a pretty clear issue here- since all terrorist attacks, and indeed most crimes, have an element of novelty about them, to use the argument that since no one had ever committed this sort of crime before, thus no one could ever stop it, is to suggest that no one will ever be able to stop any sort of crime, since they all have elements of novelty to them. This is clearly loopy, and reflectiveof the worst kind of denial/delusion.

Mjd, when you don't know what the opponent is going to do, do you admit that it is that much more difficult to stop him ?

 

[Swing Dangler]

source?

Guardian Unlimited for NORAD practicing hijacks. Interview with NORAD historian, Dr. Fuller: here

Potentially stopped is not absolutely stopped. As Sabrina has pointed out, there were no actionable warnings.

It is not an issue of absolute preventions, the point is Tenet gave them enough information that was apparently sat on as Rice brushed him off. That information he feels may have prevented 9/11 if it were acted upon.

So the 70 investigations was nothing? The pressure the Bush admin was putting on the Taliban to hand over OBL was nothing?

You left out what the Bush admin did at home with increased security at airports. Oh wait, they did nothing with that issue didn't they?

There is no guarantee that 9/11 could have been prevented even with today's security.

True. But at least greater security measures in place to make it more difficult for another 9/11 to take place. On 9/11 those measures were not in place do in large part to the inaction of the Bush Administration.

 

[lapman]

Guardian Unlimited for NORAD practicing hijacks. Interview with NORAD historian, Dr. Fuller: here

Your first link does give some great insights like

Five months before the September 11 attacks, US military planners suggested a war game to practice a response to a terrorist attack using a commercial airliner flown into the Pentagon, but senior officers rejected the scenario as "too unrealistic".

"Before September 11, Norad regularly exercised its response to possible hijacks, but never with the intent of lethal engagement, because planes were normally landed safely by their pilots and the hijackers would begin negotiations.

Emphasis mine. Just because somebody thought of the possibility does not mean that they took it seriously.

It is not an issue of absolute preventions, the point is Tenet gave them enough information that was apparently sat on as Rice brushed him off. That information he feels may have prevented 9/11 if it were acted upon.

There is that possibility that it may have. However, what justification would there be to prepare for an attack that was thought to be unbelievable?

You left out what the Bush admin did at home with increased security at airports. Oh wait, they did nothing with that issue didn't they?

Again, you ignore the security measures that were already in place.

True. But at least greater security measures in place to make it more difficult for another 9/11 to take place. On 9/11 those measures were not in place do in large part to the inaction of the Bush Administration.

Again, there would have to be justification for the greater security measures beyond what was in place since the threat was made.

 

[Sabrina]

SD, do you understand the meaning of "actionable intelligence"? It is intelligence that can be acted upon, and every intel person I have spoken to, as well as numerous others whose opinions are available in countless articles and statements, have all said that the intelligence was there, it just was not ACTIONABLE. The intel that Tenet gave Rice WAS NOT ACTIONABLE. They NEEDED MORE INFORMATION THAT WAS NOT AVAILABLE AT THE TIME. How much clearer can I make this? Yes, in hindsight, we can look back at what Tenet gave Rice and realize that it applied to the 9/11 situation, but at the time there was no serious indication of something that needed to be acted on.

And incidentally, hijackings WERE viewed as a "credible threat", but as the vast majority of hijackings were done with the purpose of some political or monetary gain and the majority of the people on board survived, the idea of suicide hijacking was almost unheard of. The only way people thought it might happen was via blowing the aircraft up in midair, not flying the planes into buildings. The type of hijacking seen on 9/11 actually coined the term "suicide hijacking", not anything else; prior to 9/11 it was considered extremely unlikely, as the majority of hijackers wanted HOSTAGES to negotiate with up until that day. This was an extremely unique situation, and you acting like we should have been able to accurately predict the future makes me feel like the entire IC should be able to qualify for Randi's million dollar challenge. Which we'd fail, because we ARE NOT PRESCIENT. Period. End of story.

 

[Swing Dangler]

Your first link does give some great insights like

Emphasis mine. Just because somebody thought of the possibility does not mean that they took it seriously.

True, however, the links was the source for NORAD's practice of hijackings.

There is that possibility that it may have. However, what justification would there be to prepare for an attack that was thought to be unbelievable?
Again, you ignore the security measures that were already in place.
Again, there would have to be justification for the greater security measures beyond what was in place since the threat was made.

What was ignored was the recommendations that were suggested by the final report of the U.S. Commission on National Security 21st Century. Some of these same suggestions were offered up by the 9/11 Commission as well.
Please reexamine the warnings and security suggestions on the time line link I provided earlier and that is what could have been done but was not for whatever reason. If it were so unbelievable, why were the Atlantic rules put into place? How does that explain other preparations by the IC in response to a plane used as a weapon either on purpose or accident? Again, the motivation for such event is not an excuse.

Placing blame for screw ups is precisely what should be done, and what is done. If people mess up to the extent that others lose money, get endangered, die, or whatever, in any circumstance, blame gets apportioned, and measures get taken. This is very, very simple.

I couldn't agree more. This is expected in the private sector and in numerous fields in the public sector, but why should this expectation be any different for failures on 9/11? Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Katrina result in blame being placed and actions taken for those responsible for that failure?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Once again, there were no procedures or training for such an event. Just because a person or two thought of the possibility does not mean that the whole system was prepared.

Hindsight is always 20/20.

 

[Digest]

why was the fact that NORAD was or had in the past conducted practice in simulated training excercises proof that 9/11 was committed by Bush and Co. ?

Norad in fact all military branches andmost countries conduct these training simulations - Heck when I was serving my country we had them every 2 weeks.

I hear that stupid mp3 of the scope in NORAD asking if this is real world or exercise ...Who wouldnt have asked that - Something like this had never happened - even with training for something similar - that actual realization of this being a real event happening right now would cause you pause.

so anyway as i am joining this discussion late please forgive me if i missed it what does NORAD training have to do with the 9-11 coverup?

 

[Swing Dangler]

SD, do you understand the meaning of "actionable intelligence"? It is intelligence that can be acted upon, and every intel person I have spoken to, as well as numerous others whose opinions are available in countless articles and statements, have all said that the intelligence was there, it just was not ACTIONABLE. The intel that Tenet gave Rice WAS NOT ACTIONABLE. They NEEDED MORE INFORMATION THAT WAS NOT AVAILABLE AT THE TIME. How much clearer can I make this? Yes, in hindsight, we can look back at what Tenet gave Rice and realize that it applied to the 9/11 situation, but at the time there was no serious indication of something that needed to be acted on.

And incidentally, hijackings WERE viewed as a "credible threat", but as the vast majority of hijackings were done with the purpose of some political or monetary gain and the majority of the people on board survived, the idea of suicide hijacking was almost unheard of. The only way people thought it might happen was via blowing the aircraft up in midair, not flying the planes into buildings. The type of hijacking seen on 9/11 actually coined the term "suicide hijacking", not anything else; prior to 9/11 it was considered extremely unlikely, as the majority of hijackers wanted HOSTAGES to negotiate with up until that day. This was an extremely unique situation, and you acting like we should have been able to accurately predict the future makes me feel like the entire IC should be able to qualify for Randi's million dollar challenge. Which we'd fail, because we ARE NOT PRESCIENT. Period. End of story.

End of story? This isn't a "place the blame at the IC" from my point of view. The IC did exactly what it is tasked to do. Inform the President. The buck stops at the White House door.

Who Knew? The unanswered questions of 9/11
September 3, 2003

"CBS reporter David Martin revealed that weeks before the attacks, the CIA had warned Bush personally of Osama Bin Laden’s intent to use hijacked planes as missiles. That followed the damaging exposure by The Associated Press’s John Solomon of a pre-9/11 FBI memo from an officer in Phoenix warning of suspicious Middle Eastern men training at flight schools—a warning that went unheeded."
Source
Bush's 9-11 Secrets
The Government Received Warnings of Bin Laden's Plans to Attack New York and D.C.
by James Ridgeway
July 31st, 2003 1:00 PM
"In September 1998, the [Intelligence Community] obtained information that Bin Laden's next operation might involve flying an explosive-laden aircraft into a U.S. airport and detonating it."

"In the fall of 1998, the [Intelligence Community] obtained information concerning a Bin Laden plot involving aircraft in the New York and Washington, D.C. areas."

"In March 2000, the [Intelligence Community] obtained information regarding the types of targets that operatives of Bin Laden's network might strike. The Statue of Liberty was specifically mentioned, as were skyscrapers, ports, airports, and nuclear power plans."
Source

Spy Agencies Had Pre-9/11 Threats on U.S. Soil
September 17, 2002

"U.S. intelligence agencies picked up threats of attacks inside the United States and of using airplanes as weapons during the spring and summer before last year's Sept. 11 attacks, but were more focused on the possibility of an assault overseas, a congressional source said on Tuesday."
Source



Bush knew of terrorist plot to hijack US planes


Terrorism crisis - Observer special

Jason Burke and Ed Vulliamy in New York
Sunday May 19, 2002
The Observer

George Bush received specific warnings in the weeks before 11 September that an attack inside the United States was being planned by Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network, US government sources said yesterday.
Source

And this one for Lapman:Again, you ignore the security measures that were already in place.

Commission warned Bush
But White House passed on recommendations by a bipartisan, Defense department-ordered commission on domestic terrorism.
Source

End of story? I think not. End of accountability? Definitely.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

As President Clinton said, they would receive 100s of such threats every single day and there was simply no way what so ever to determine which ones were likely and which ones weren't. If I told you that there might be a murder in the US, would you be able to stop it?