The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[lapman]

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

Again, none of those exercises called for aircraft being run into buildings.

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.

Again, a justification that the American public would accept needed to be made. No such justification existed to go beyond the security measures that were already in place.

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.

That's easy to say sitting at your computer. When you are the one who has to take the brunt of the complaints, then the decision is much harder.

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.

The Atlantic rules affected a small number people for a short time. Just because one department decided to run one exercise based on that inconceivable event is not proof of anything. Running exercises for an accidental crash when you are near an airport is simply being smart. To say that it's proof of foreknowledge is just plain stupid.

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?

Katrina pointed to a few people that were directly responsible. The head of FEMA resigned on his own accord, yet others didn't. Because the intel passed through many hands, who is really to blame? How many people are supposed to be held accountable and punished? What is that punishment supposed to be and how would it make a difference?

 

[Swing Dangler]

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?

Nope. But if a commission passed several recommendations to combat domestic terrorism some similar to the 9/11 Commission's recommendations would you follow them?
If the IC gave you specific warnings about OBL using hijacked planes in high profile targets and in cities like NYC and DC, would you do anything about it?
If the DCI gave you threat assessments that he thought might a large scale attack from occurring would you brush him off or be proactive in trying to prevent them?

 

[funk de fino]

If the IC gave you specific warnings about OBL using hijacked planes in high profile targets and in cities like NYC and DC, would you do anything about it?

If the DCI gave you threat assessments that he thought might a large scale attack from occurring would you brush him off or be proactive in trying to prevent them?

1. read the 911 comission report on the lead up to the attacks and show me the "specific" warnings that bush was given that summer? the august 6th PDB is the first one to specifically focus on UBL and attacks in the US, does it mention using hijacked airliners as missiles to fly into buildings?

2. they were proactive that summer, operations involving 20 other countries were launched to crakdown on AQ cells, there were 70 operations ongoing that summer, unfortunately most of them were focused on attacks outside the US because that is where the most specific threats were referring to, compare the amount of assessments that mention attacks within the US to the amount that mention outside the US that summer, that is why it was missed there was far more and more specific intel to say the attacks were going to happen outside the US on US interests

have you read the section about this in the 911 commission report or do you just read the media reporting of it?

 

[Swing Dangler]

Do I read the Commission's Report? Sure I do. Do I read other sources? Sure I do. More importantly, did you read the Co-Chair's own book about the report and their comments about it? I hope so which has led me to other sources...such as...

Britain warned US to expect September 11 al-Qaeda hijackings
May 19, 2002

"Britain gave President Bush a categorical warning to expect multiple airline hijackings by the al-Qaeda network a month before the September 11 attacks which killed nearly 3000 people and triggered the international war against terrorism."
http://www.sundayherald.com/24822

 

[funk de fino]

Do I read the Commission's Report? Sure I do. Do I read other sources? Sure I do. More importantly, did you read the Co-Chair's own book about the report and their comments about it? I hope so which has led me to other sources...such as...

Sure I did, why not post some of them here again and we can see the cherry picking in full effect for the thousandth time on here

What does the 911 commission say about where they thought the attack was coming from and what they did to counter it?

Britain warned US to expect September 11 al-Qaeda hijackings
May 19, 2002

"Britain gave President Bush a categorical warning to expect multiple airline hijackings by the al-Qaeda network a month before the September 11 attacks which killed nearly 3000 people and triggered the international war against terrorism."
http://www.sundayherald.com/24822

Nothing on that page about 911, try again, paper from my country though.

And could this month before 911 be part of the PDB from August the 6th, does it say anything about airliners used as weapon? Come on man its in the report

Did Tony phone Bush personally?

 

[funk de fino]

What do you think would have happened if they had fitted strengthend doors prior to 911 and could it have been done to all airliners between August 6th and Sept 11th?

 

[SpitfireIX]

<snip>

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. . . .

We interrupt this conspiracist fantasy to bring you the truth. From a CBS News online story dated May 17,2002:

CBS News National Security Correspondent David Martin says the warning was in a document called the President's Daily Brief, which is considered to be the single most important document that the U.S. intelligence community turns out. The document did not, however, mention the possibility of planes being flown into buildings.[emphasis added]

As is typical for a conspiracist, you merely parrot uncritically the claims of other conspiracists, without bothering to verify them.

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

Possibly damaging to the FBI--how is this directly damaging to President Bush?

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

Please explain, in as much detail as you can, the specific steps that Bill Clinton and his senior policymakers took to address these warnings.

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

What part of "[they] were more focused on the possibility of an assault overseas" do you not understand?

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

Again, no actionable intelligence, no indication of where or when, and no suggestion of using hijacked airliners as guided missiles.

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

From the same article:

But in May, Bush announced his plan almost as if the Hart-Rudman Commission never existed, as if it hadn't spent millions of dollars, "consulting with experts, visiting 25 countries worldwide, really deliberating long and hard," as Hart describes it. Bush said in a statement that "numerous federal departments and agencies have programs to deal with the consequences of a potential use of a chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapon in the United States. But to maximize their effectiveness, these efforts need to be seamlessly integrated, harmonious and comprehensive." That, according to the president, should be done through FEMA, headed by Allbaugh, formerly Bush's gubernatorial chief of staff.

Bush also directed Cheney -- a man with a full plate, including supervision of the administration's energy plans and its dealings with Congress -- to supervise the development of a national counter-terrorism plan. Bush announced that Cheney and Allbaugh would review the issues and have recommendations for him by Oct. 1. The commission's report was seemingly put on the shelf.

Bush wanted to have his own commission study the issue before acting; that was certainly a reasonable course of action, even if some might think it mistaken in hindsight.

Further:

Neither Hart nor Rudman claim that their recommendations, if enacted, would have necessarily prevented Tuesday's tragedy. "Had they adopted every recommendation we had put forward at that time I don't think it would have changed what happened," Rudman says. "There wasn't enough time to enact everything. But certainly I would hope they pay more attention now."

"Could this have been prevented?" Hart asks. "The answer is, 'We'll never know.' Possibly not." It was a struggle to convince President Clinton of the need for such a commission, Hart says. He urged Clinton to address this problem in '94 and '95, but Clinton didn't act until 1998, prompted by politics. "He saw Gingrich was about to do it, so he moved to collaborate," Hart says. "Seven years had gone by since the end of the Cold War. It could have been much sooner."[emphasis added]

So Clinton took three years to agree to even start such a commission. Had he accepted the suggestion when first made, he could easily have had its recommendations implemented before he left office.

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

So, of course, you'll be assigning the lion's share of blame to Bill Clinton; by your logic and the evidence you've presented, he bears far greater responsibility that George W. Bush.

 

[Corsair 115]

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

Exactly.

Look no further than Apollo 13 for an example. When the crippled CM was to make a course correction on its return towards Earth, a highly unusual method of orienting the spacecraft for the burn was used. The method had been created as a response to a "what if" situation before Apollo 8, but had not been incorporated into the flight manuals since the scenario which required it was deemed to be extremely unlikely (everyone at NASA thought that any failure severe enough to cripple the CM would almost certainly kill the crew outright).

 

[mjd1982]

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?

Of course not. But by this logic, no attack is preventable, since there are so many intel warnings every day. This is clearly nonsense. The facts are very simple:
- According to Tenet, the main man who would know this stuff, the terror threat was unprecedented. He was running around with his hair on fire, and an FBI source said the warnings had never been so bad.
- Clarke makes very explicit, that despite all these warnings, the admin didnt give a toss. Again, he is someone who woudl know more than you, me, or Sabrina's m8ys. And his version of events is very very clear. He gets demoted, and then all warnings get inexplicably ignored, to the extent that 911 was a failing of the administrative apparatus.

These are people who know. And as we all know, their are too many more to mention. Their verdict is unanimous. Dont argue with it.

 

[mjd1982]

Oh, just to add Bremers comments:

"What they will do is stagger along until there's a major incident, and then say, 'OMG, shouldnt we be organised to deal with this?'"

http://youtube.com/watch?v=zK-te3Y0m5A

 

[Drudgewire]

- Clarke makes very explicit, that despite all these warnings, the admin didnt give a toss. Again, he is someone who woudl know more than you, me, or Sabrina's m8ys.

You mean this Richard Clarke?

"Debunking 9/11 Myths" is a reliable and rational answer to the many fanciful conspiracy theories about 9/11. Despite the fact that the myths are fictitious, many have caught on with those who do not trust the government to tell the truth anymore. Fortunately, the government is is not sufficiently competent to pull off such conspiracies and too leaky to keep them secret. What happened on 9/11 has well been established by the 9/11 Commission. What did not happen has now been explained by Popular Mechanics."
Richard A. Clarke, former national security advisor, author of Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror

The guy who wrote VERY FIRST WORDS OF TEXT ON THE INSIDE COVER OF "DEBUNKING 9/11 MYTHS: WHY CONSPIRACY THEORIES CAN'T STAND UP TO THE FACTS (AN IN-DEPTH INVESTIGATION BY POPULAR MECHANICS)."

THAT Richard Clarke?

 

[Drudgewire]

Three posts by mjd in other threads since I asked. Gee, I hope I'm not thinking of the wrong guy.

 

[MIKILLINI]

Three posts by mjd in other threads since I asked. Gee, I hope I'm not thinking of the wrong guy.

D-Wire, Richard A Clarke seems to be the same guy I'm thinking of. Just a thought though; MjD wouldn't be Mike Dukakis, would it?

Nah...This guy I was thinking of...

Is Michael S Dukakis. MSD.

 

[DGM]

MIKILLINI:
I'm from Massachusetts, Please don't ever post him again.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Three posts by mjd in other threads since I asked. Gee, I hope I'm not thinking of the wrong guy.

Clarke's opinion isn't propitious to MJD's conspiracy theory.

 

[dudalb]

"What they will do is stagger along until there's a major incident, and then say, 'OMG, shouldnt we be organised to deal with this?'"

You will be surprised how often that is exactly the way things work..in Government in particular.

 

[Drudgewire]

Clarke's opinion isn't propitious to MJD's conspiracy theory.

Hmmm... maybe he was quoting Arthur Clarke then.

 

[MIKILLINI]

MIKILLINI:
I'm from Massachusetts, Please don't ever post him again.

I'll have you know, I didn't vote for him. Especially that photo-op during his campaign when he rode in a tank. Talk about things that contrasted. Speaking of contrasts; What Mjd believes to be the truth and what is the real truth, that's textbook definition of contrast.

 

[Belz...]

Of course not. But by this logic, no attack is preventable, since there are so many intel warnings every day. This is clearly nonsense.

Indeed. It is nonsense. Because what you've "forgotten" is that warnings with clear indications can lead to preventing the incident.

"A man named X will hijack plane #Y in NYC in two days. Intercept him."

"A man will hijack a plane sometime soon."

See the difference ?

 

[mjd1982]

You mean this Richard Clarke?



The guy who wrote VERY FIRST WORDS OF TEXT ON THE INSIDE COVER OF "DEBUNKING 9/11 MYTHS: WHY CONSPIRACY THEORIES CAN'T STAND UP TO THE FACTS (AN IN-DEPTH INVESTIGATION BY POPULAR MECHANICS)."

THAT Richard Clarke?

What he thinks of the conspiracy theory is of little relevance. His area of expertise is intel. This is also our point if discussion. His opinion is unanimous. As was Tenet. As was Bremer. As was John O Neill. There's nothing more to be said on this, it couldnt be clearer.