The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

lapman said:
There still would not have been the justification. A few threats is not justification to the American public. It's not just the inconvenience, but the extra cost to pay for the unjustified security measures.

Again, the attitude of the day was that the hijackers would want the plane to land and negotiate. Not kill the pilots and fly them into buildings.

Proactive against what? Something they don't believe will happen? Have you pro-actively protected yourself and your home from a nuclear winter? A meteorite strike? A UFO landing? Eliminations from a flying pig?
Click to expand...

You're wasting your time, Lap. Dangler doesn't care about the situation THEN. We should have applied TODAY's knowledge to the situation.
 
First, you said that Bush should have given this speech after the August 6 PDB and the other warnings. Are you now saying he should have pressed for these measures earlier in the year? If so, upon what basis?
Click to expand...
One, I think Bush should have put these measures into place as early as day one of his Administration. And if you look back to the end of Clinton's term, he should have been proactive as well.
Source: Village Voice

"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."

Notice the increasing level of detail by the intel community as the time counts down...perhaps that is why George Tenet agreed with Larry King when Larry stated "You knew 9/11 was coming".

Which means that every change would have had to have been thoroughly discussed and debated. Further, when Federal rules are changed on a non-emergency basis, they have to be proposed, and in most cases those affected given time to comment, and more time must be allowed for those affected to comply. This takes months, and even years in many cases. Look how long it took to implement all of the things you say Bush should have done during the summer, and that's with the tremendous impetus of the September 11 attacks driving events.
Click to expand...
Executive Order with a little help from Congressional friends. N'uff said. Instead of using the 'fear' of another attack to push through laws, you use the fear of responsibility for allowing a first attack to occur.
Every large commercial plane flying in the United States will have bulletproof cockpit doors by next week,
Click to expand...
Hmm. It doesn't take that long now does it?

From an Associated Press article from April 2003:
Note this is just for the cockpit doors.
Click to expand...
Before the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackings, cockpit doors were designed to provide a quiet office environment for pilots. After the attacks, Congress decided cockpit doors should be designed to protect pilots from attackers. Pilots are to focus on flying, no matter what happens in the cabin.
Click to expand...
How easy would have been for Congress to decide that cockpit doors should be designed to protect pilots before 9/11? Pretty straightforward in my opinion.

Wishful thinking. You're saying that one report among many should have been given special credence to make such a major change.
Click to expand...
No, numerous reports growing more specific as the attacks grew closer.


As I said, it was to cooperate, which includes letting them in the cockpit and letting them stand behind you. From which it's easy for them to knife you if they feel like it.
Click to expand...
Let them in the cockpit and take control of the plane?
Combine armed pilots with reinforced doors and you get proactive response with a strong likely hood of preventing 9/11.
on a flight from Miami to Buenos Aires managed to kick in a small breakaway panel across the bottom of the door and put his head into the cockpit before a co-pilot clubbed him with an ax.
Click to expand...
Granted after 9/11, but how difficult would have been to implement something like this prior to 9/11?

Sadly, just because Congress passed the law naming the program that it doesn't make it correct. The term Sky Marshal pre-dates this program by 10 years, and the change was unnecessary, confusing, and incorrect. Or do you think the US government is always right, Swing?
Click to expand...
I will let you argue that point with the Congress. It is of no significance to this topic and a distraction at worse.

Straw man. Of course I favor proactive approaches. But you are confusing "proactive" with "prescient," and ignoring the realities of the pre-September 11 political environment.
Click to expand...
Not a strawman, as you agree with proactive approaches.
At least we agree then the Administration should have done something proactive to prevent the terrorists attacks. I applaud you on this issue.
However, the only thing I see being ignored is the numerous IC warnings leading up to 9/11.
There still would not have been the justification. A few threats is not justification to the American public. It's not just the inconvenience, but the extra cost to pay for the unjustified security measures.Upwards of $100,000 per plane! Again. With no real justification, the companies won't want to go through the expense.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the article however. It does demonstrate to Lapman that costs to the airlines is not a valid excuse for implementing procedures to try to prevent a hijacking as Congress and the American public covered the costs.

On September 11, 2001, the Air Marshal Program consisted of less than fifty armed marshals who, by statute, flew only on international flights flown by U.S. air carriers.
This shows the attitude I'm talking about.
Click to expand...
It demonstrates to me that the warnings the IC were ignored as no Marhsals were placed on domestic flights.
 
Last edited:
Arming the pilots?

I was wondering whether it was realistic to expect armed pilots to be much use. I'm sure many have had military training and could be presumed to know how to handle guns. (Though my father-in-law told me that they had bunches of Army Air Force guys dumped into infantry units after the losses of the Battle of the Bulge, and some in his unit had never fired rifles).

Isn't it also the case that a crowded airplane is not likely to be an ideal spot for a shootout?

Actually, I'd be more interested in armed stewardesses (remember the word?), though not necessarily guns. Whips, leather items...
 
Swing Dangler said:
One, I think Bush should have put these measures into place as early as day one of his Administration. And if you look back to the end of Clinton's term, he should have been proactive as well.
Source: Village Voice
Click to expand...
of course he should...........hindsight again

"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."
Click to expand...
"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."
Click to expand...

The same warnings?

"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."
Click to expand...

No mention of planes in this one, targets for bombs attacks as previous attempts?

Notice the increasing level of detail by the intel community as the time counts down...perhaps that is why George Tenet agreed with Larry King when Larry stated "You knew 9/11 was coming".
Click to expand...

detail, show me detail

Executive Order with a little help from Congressional friends. N'uff said. Instead of using the 'fear' of another attack to push through laws, you use the fear of responsibility for allowing the first attack to occur
Click to expand...
.

of course...hindsight again

Hmm. It doesn't take that long now does it?
Click to expand...

And you know this how? Do you thonk there was a ready made supply odf these down the local Walmart? ground all planes till they were fitted?


How easy would have been for Congress to decide that cockpit doors should be designed to protect pilots before 9/11? Pretty straightforward in my opinion.
Click to expand...
FAA responsibilty at that time

No, numerous reports growing more specific as the attacks grew closer.
Click to expand...
Do not mention specific as you have already proved you do not understand the word in this context

Let them in the cockpit and take control of the plane?
Combine armed pilots with reinforced doors and you get proactive response with a strong likely hood of preventing 9/11.
Click to expand...
Thye did not know they were going to take control of the plane until it was too late or they were dead. Hindsight again

Granted after 9/11, but how difficult would have been to implement something like this prior to 9/11?
Click to expand...
for what reason?

I will let you argue that point with the Congress. It is of no significance to this topic and a distraction at worse.
Click to expand...

..............

Not a strawman, as you agree with proactive approaches.
At least we agree then the Administration should have done something proactive to prevent the terrorists attacks. I applaud you on this issue.
However, the only thing I see being ignored is the numerous IC warnings leading up to 9/11.
Click to expand...

They did, they just did the wrong thing

Thanks for the article however. It does demonstrate to Lapman that costs to the airlines is not a valid excuse for implementing procedures to try to prevent a hijacking as Congress and the American public covered the costs.
Click to expand...

Would they have covered the cost prior to 911?

It demonstrates to me that the warnings the IC were ignored as no Marhsals were placed on domestic flights.
Click to expand...

Becuase the warnings pointed to an attack from outwith the counrtry not on domestic flights

You must try harder Mr Hindsight
 
Swing Dangler said:
One, I think Bush should have put these measures into place as early as day one of his Administration. And if you look back to the end of Clinton's term, he should have been proactive as well.
Source: Village Voice

"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."

Notice the increasing level of detail by the intel community as the time counts down...perhaps that is why George Tenet agreed with Larry King when Larry stated "You knew 9/11 was coming".
Click to expand...
But Swing all you've done here is cherry pick 3 reports over a 2 to 3 year period from a veritable sea of reports, there would have been literally hundreds and hundreds of other such vague reports of threats coming in against all sorts of targets, in all sorts of locations, using all sorts of methods.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing and it's easy now to connect all the dots and say "it was obvious, they should have done more."

Yes George Tenet agreed but not as you think, the intelligence community had felt for some time prior to 9/11 that an attack was imminent, the system was indeed blinking red and it was only a question of time. After all Bin Laden had stated on many occasions in the years prior to 9/11 that he was determined to attack the US. But they had nothing tangible to go on, to say they knew an attack was coming in exactly the same way it happened on 9/11 is ridiculous.

Why would, prior to 9/11, all the reports of an attack using planes or specifically hijacked airplanes receive more validity than all the other reports?
 
Swing Dangler said:
One, I think Bush should have put these measures into place as early as day one of his Administration. And if you look back to the end of Clinton's term, he should have been proactive as well.
Source: Village Voice
Click to expand...
The funny thing is though when the government do take action against terrorist activity conspiracy theorists all scream "false flag", for example the 2006 plot to detonate liquid explosives on planes over the Atlantic.

So basically you are damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Ultimately most conspiracy theorists just have an anti-government agenda; everything they do is viewed with suspicion and should have been done a different way, you can't win.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
Because that's what happened, of course! :rolleyes:

In the "quote" section, of course.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about? Just in case you didn't understand what I meant...

I was posing a question to Swing asking why someone in the intelligence community prior to 9/11 would have viewed a vague report that spoke of possible attacks against US targets using planes with more validity than a vague report that spoke of possible attacks against US targets using explosives etc.

Basically he's using hindsight.
 
Last edited:
Swing Dangler said:
"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."
Click to expand...

Isn't it reasonable that the response in 2000 might have been "We got warned about this twice in 1998 and it never happened then, come back when you've got something definite"? The fact that there were multiple warnings of attacks which then never happened may tend to discredit, rather than reinforce, the subsequent warnings.

Dave
 
Last edited:
Spins said:
What are you talking about? Just in case you didn't understand what I meant...

I was posing a question to Swing asking why someone in the intelligence community prior to 9/11 would have viewed a vague report that spoke of possible attacks against US targets using planes with more validity than a vague report that spoke of possible attacks against US targets using explosives etc.

Basically he's using hindsight.
Click to expand...
It's the ultimate double-standard. If we'd had another attack in 2003, and we'd been aware of the existence of the people involved, can you imagine us saying "we wanted to take steps to track them, but we couldn't without breaking the law and listening in on their conversations."

The EXACT SAME PEOPLE who are crying about the Patriot Act would be the ones demanding to know why we didn't take these extra steps in order to save American lives and it shows that we're purposely letting these attacks happen.
 
I'm simply flabbergasted at the amount of apologist comments here.
You wanted specific examples, you just received them. You want to make excuses for the Administrations lack of action. Go for it. Cherrypicking? ROFL. The facts are plain and clear.
But Swing all you've done here is cherry pick 3 reports over a 2 to 3 year period from a veritable sea of reports, there would have been literally hundreds and hundreds of other such vague reports of threats coming in against all sorts of targets, in all sorts of locations, using all sorts of methods.
Click to expand...
Joint Congressional Inquiry Into The Terrorist Attacks Of September 11...is that cherrypicking? Please move on. Vague? Please.

It is very simple: the Administration knew that the OBL and his cohorts were going to attempt to use hijacked planes and fly them into skyscrapers and other high profile targets. They knew it in '98 and they new leading up to 9/11.
It was a bold face lie by the Administration when they stated that "no one could imagine" which is why I suspect he used Executive Privilege to try to hamper the Congressional Inquiry.

You can read more about it at this source: Findlaw
The funny thing is though when the Gov. do take action against terrorist activity conspiracy theorists all scream "false flag", for example the 2006 plot to detonate liquid explosives on planes over the Atlantic.
So basically you are damned if you do and damned if you don't.
Ultimately most conspiracy theorists just have an anti-government agenda; everything they do is suspicious and should have been done a different way, you can't win.
Click to expand...
HAAAACHOOOO...sorry...straw in the air again

The point of this particular part of the thread was that the Administration prior to 9/11did not take action. Move on Spin....
This isn't hindsight at all. This is what the Administration knew and what they either did or didn't do.

Swing, I get the impression that the crux of your argument is "we know, therefore we should have known."Do you have anything else ?
Click to expand...
The crux is the Bush Administration knew and did nothing pro-actively to prevent the attacks. The point is all to obvious. No need to apologize. No need to blame nobody. No need to spin it off. No need to call hindsight. Now I'm waiting for MJD to move on to the next segment.
Based on the evidence you provided of future terrorist attacks, I take it then that you believe those terrorists are responsible for the 9/11 attacks, correct?
Swing, I missed your response to this question.
Click to expand...
I think they played a role in the attacks, yes. How large or small of a role? I have no idea.
 
Swing I'm not questioning the validity of the reports you posted (they are real) but what I am saying is that it's easy in hindsight to connect all the dots and say it was obvious. None of these reports contained anything specific that could have lead to the apprehension of the terrorists. If it did they would have acted on that intelligence.

It's blatantly obvious many conspiracy theorists display an anti-government agenda, that's why virtually every major terrorist event, at some point, has been blamed on the government (OKC, 1993 WTC Bombing etc).

Move on Swing... :D
 
What a bunch of junk, Bush did it, Clinton did it, FBI, CIA, you and I, him

Swing Dangler said:
I'm simply flabbergasted at the amount of apologist comments here.
You wanted specific examples, you just received them. You want to make excuses for the Administrations lack of action. Go for it. Cherrypicking? ROFL. The facts are plain and clear.

...
It is very simple: the Administration knew that the OBL and his cohorts were going to attempt to use hijacked planes and fly them into skyscrapers and other high profile targets. They knew it in '98 and they new leading up to 9/11.
Click to expand...
So you blame Clinton for not doing something about the planes in 1998.
I blame you for not doing something. Someone with so much evidence, enough to get a Pulitzer Prize like you, who knows everything, did not warn me, did not warn the nation, did not make the security check better.

What is your problem, why did you keep this a secret if you know so much now? So did Clinton refuse with Bush to talk? Who do you blame? I blame you! You knew UBL was out to do these things, at least you say so now. In fact, by saying Clinton and Bush knew from 1998, you are saying you believe the UBL gang was the sole guy behind 9/11! You have messed up!

The true nut case truthers blame everyone. Who do you blame with all your non facts? (why you do not have a Pulitzer Prize, cause the only person who even comes close to 9/11 pre warning is Tom Clancy, but the terrorist in his book was a man, and bought his own airplane.)

You are blaming everyone in the country who could stop it? That is you too!

With out a lot of work, Swing has proven UBL did it by blaming Bush and Clinton. Good Job logical truther.
 
Last edited:
Swing Dangler said:
I think they played a role in the attacks, yes. How large or small of a role? I have no idea.
Click to expand...
Why not?
The warnings indicate the terrorists were going to attack.
You think the warnings you posted were sufficiently detailed enough for the government to take action to stop the attacks.
The attacks occurred.
Why won’t you take the obvious next step and say the terrorist performed the attack, what’s holding you back?
 
Yeah that's a good point beachnut … Swing since you are so good at filtering out all the valid threats received, amongst the hundreds received each year (possibly thousands), why don't you offer your services to the intelligence community so we can prevent these attacks from happening in the future instead of just sitting there at your keyboard and blaming people.

You are displaying the Hindsight is 20/20 "I know everything and would have seen it coming, it was obvious!" attitude that is common amongst conspiracy theorists.

:p
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom