News How Will Bushco Respond to Military Preparations for Another 9/11-Type Event?

[studentx]

Zero you are referring to the lack of action against the 911 terrorist cell right? Yes that should be investigated but until there is proof we must give the Bush administration the benefit of the doubt and looking at some of the threads here, some of us are kinda biased. Perhaps there was much more known about this terrorist cell, but we all know how the system has its flaws. Intelligence is lost and unused all the time, it doesn't have to be intentional. And letting 3000 civies and your economy die on purpose sounds kinda fantastical

Thinking of Consp. thrys., if I as Prez considered the consequences before the attack while I had a chance to stop them and decided to let the planes hit to reap popular opinion after a trajedy for a illconceived action then I would be unworthy of the office.

I don't think Bush is capable of reaping popular opinion even if he wanted to

 

[russ_watters]

YES also There is an Air National Guard base @ Mcguire AFB in New Jersey. They have F-16s there and could have intercepted both NY bound hijacked planes in a matter of minutes. Anyone remember how long those planes were in the air after they took off, I think there was a time-line indicating takeoff time and the time when the planes impacted the WTC. If the time from takeoff to impact was greater than 20 - 30 minutes the jets could have been intercepted before they got very close to their target. I'm waiting for the rebuttal.

You have hypotheticals and questions there: what kind of rebuttal are you looking for? You haven't argued anything!

Someone knew, unless the reports are false about certain parties vacating (or not being there that day)the WTC on 9/11. The put options. Most notably Rumsfeld and other individuals either not flying or not using commercial airlines that day. BTW, I heard or read that the stand down was approx 45 minutes long before the fighter jets were allowed into the air. So, no doubt I'm just imagining the stench of some nefarious goings on.

I'm sorry, I don't accept conspiracy theory. Give me facts. What stand down are you talking about? For a building with 50,000 people, can you show me that more people took off that day than other days? And Rumsfeld: he's VP, he doesn't fly commercial. Who are these "others?"

amp, what you are saying I've read a bunch of times on conspiracy theory websites. "I heard..." doesn't cut it and you shouldn't accept it either. If you can substantiate it, please do, but I think you're allowing yourself to be decieved because of how you want things to be.

You are missing the point:

Here's a hypothetical...

I know I'm starting to sound like a broken record, but if you have a point, make it. I don't know what it is with you guys and beating around the bush, but the next sentence after "You are missing the point:" should contain your point in clear and sucinct wording.

The analogy, btw, is fine - just connect it to the argument.

 

[Nereid]

What 'put options'? Any evidence they were anything but normal trading? For example, futures market neophytes placing the orders?

 

[kat]

What 'put options'? Any evidence they were anything but normal trading? For example, futures market neophytes placing the orders?

actually, this is one of the few conspiracy theories he's put up that really does have provable truth to it.

Snopes.com has some info here: http://www.snopes.com/rumors/putcall.htm

 

[Adam]

Sure, someone will always be unhappy with Bushy's decisions. Does that fact make Bush's decision right or wrong? Neither. It has absolutely zero to do with it. Implying that it is relevant is the logical fallacy.

 

[amp]

If the time from takeoff to impact was greater than 20 - 30 minutes the jets could have been intercepted before they got very close to their target.

Russ I thought you wouldn't agree with this statement.

Well, I heard Israeli intellegence warned - I guess their people? - not to visit the vicinity of the towers that week and not to take commercial flights.

I don't know the veracity of it but a site(can't remember which) says that during the Oliver North hearings plans for sabotage and or destruction of national landmarks which would made to look like the work of the target which was to be blamed/accused of the attack, they existed their purpose to sway popular support.

 

[hughes johnson]

Well, I heard Israeli intellegence warned - I guess their people? - not to visit the vicinity of the towers that week and not to take commercial flights.

Where did you "hear" this?

 

[amp]

This is from a site called 'Stranger than Fiction'.

Here: http://www.voxfux.com/features/stranger_than_fiction.htm

The San Francisco Chronicle reported on September 12 that San Francisco Mayor and former California Assembly Speaker Willie Brown was advised eight hours before the attacks that he should be careful about flying on 9-11. (54)

In its September 24, 2001 issue, Newsweek broke this startling revelation:

“Three weeks ago there was another warning that a terrorist strike might be imminent… On September 10, Newsweek has learned, a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns.“. (55) (emphasis added)

Wow! Could these unnamed "top Pentagon officials" have been some of the Zionist directors of the Defense Policy Board which we talked about earlier? If these Pentagon officials were scared enough not to fly, then why didn’t the Pentagon place the Air Force on full alert? How could they have been so slow to react to 9-11 when they already knew there was a threat?

On September 27, The Washington Post reported that two workers of the Israeli company Odigo (with offices also in New York) received instant message warnings just two hours before the attacks. Here’s an excerpt from the Post:

“Officials at instant-messaging firm Odigo confirmed today that two employees received text messages warning of an attack on the World Trade Center two hours before terrorists crashed planes into the New York landmarks” (56)

Soon after the attacks, the Odigo employees informed the management of the electronic message they had received. Israeli security services were contacted and the FBI was informed. Nothing has been heard about this event since. I think it's safe to say that "Islamic terrorists" would not have been considerate enough to send detailed E-mail warnings to some obscure Israeli office workers.

 

[hughes johnson]

If the pentagon officials where aware of the attack, why didn't they fly far away from the pentagon where they would be safe?

If the FBI was warned about the attack only 2 hours after it occured, why didn't they do something to prevent it? The democrats in congress should look into this one for sure.

 

[Adam]

Wasn't that section of the Pentagon basically empty at the time, due to renovations or something?

 

[hughes johnson]

Wasn't that section of the Pentagon basically empty at the time, due to renovations or something?

How many people can be killed in an empty building? Are you a math major?

 

[amp]

More on the stand down order- http://www.libertyforum.org/showthreaded.php?Board=news_news&Number=704163

Daddy Bush and Cheney were in the SITUATION ROOM at the WHITE HOUSE during the terror attacks (during the 34 minutes between the second WTC hit and the PENTAGON hit while a stand down order was issued to the AIR FORCE to supersede established intercept
procedures for planes that stray off course.

He says established intercept procedures.

 

[Adam]

Hughes Johnson.

Your rather limp and pathetic insults are tiresome. The section of the Pentagon struck by the plane was mostly empty at the time, as I said. Only 189 people died, I believe, in that incident (64 of them on the plane itself); fewer than the 20-something thousand usually in that section. A little education (I know it's a dirty word, but try it some day) would show you this.

 

[jimmy p]

Besides, I doubt the terrorists would have known the building was empty...

 

[Adam]

Who knows? But they struck both sites while they were not very packed. Of course night would have been even better, for reducing loss of life.

 

[hughes johnson]

The section of the Pentagon struck by the plane was mostly empty at the time, as I said. Only 189 people died...

Since this renovation was started some 2 years before 9/11 occurred, are you saying that Bill Clinton knew about the attack years in advance, yet did nothing about it?

Only 189 people? Is it "ONLY" because they were AMERICANS?

Your rather limp...

ain' NUTHIN' limp 'bout ole hughes johnson! LOL...Heeheehee...

 

[russ_watters]

Russ I thought you wouldn't agree with this statement. [re:20-30 min intercept time.]

Its idle speculation. Its not specific enough to disagree with. What jets? How long before they could take off? Where would they take off from? How fast do they fly? How far from which hijacked jet are they? What is their missile load?

There is an AFB right outside of DC - close enough to be in missile range of a plane over DC right after takeoff. That does not necessarily make a plane over DC interceptable.

Well, I heard Israeli intellegence warned - I guess their people? - not to visit the vicinity of the towers that week and not to take commercial flights.

I heard it too - from conspiracy theory sites with nothing to back it up. Where did you hear it?

This is from a site called 'Stranger than Fiction'.

Credibility-O-Meter not registering...

But, I don't see anything. Lots and lots of people are irrationally afraid of flying and cancel plane flights for lots of reasons. My aunt and uncle used to drive to the airport together than take separate flights so that just in case one plane crashed, the other parent would be able to raise the kids (yes, that's true). You'll need something a lot more specific about who canceled flights and why.

Same with the Odigo thing. It says very little there of value. It could very well be that one of their friends was kidding wit them on their first trip to NY (the building was bombed once before, you know). But there isn't any evidence for that - or anything else for that matter. It, like the speculations in the conspiracy theory site, is a baseless speculation.

www.libertyforum.com

Amp, I'm begging you: get yourself a Credibility-O-Meter. That one made mine spin backwards like a pinwheel. I know you can see how I would have a problem with that site.

But they struck both sites while they were not very packed.

I'm not sure what "not very packed" means to you, but there were some 30-50,000 people in the WTC when it was first hit.

 

[jimmy p]

Surely it is "only" because there could have been a lot MORE casualities.

 

[studentx]

Many of the buildings bombed during the shock and awe campaign in Iraq weren't packed to the maximum. Many buildings in the area were fit for renovation and there were no migs sent to intercept the planes! Mysterious!

 

[Adam]

Since this renovation was started some 2 years before 9/11 occurred, are you saying that Bill Clinton knew about the attack years in advance, yet did nothing about it?

There is currently an inquiry into who knew what. No, I would suggest that the strikes were timed to cause maximum damage to symbols, to institutions, with good visibility and minimal loss of life. The WTC and Pentagon were/are high profile targets. Daytime gives maximum visibility. Early morning, before work, means the least casualties. And don't make the mistake of thinking that's too complex for them. Look at what they did.

Only 189 people? Is it "ONLY" because they were AMERICANS?

"Only" 189, because it could have been as many as 23,000. That is the usual number for that area, I believe.

 

[russ_watters]

Early morning, before work, means the least casualties. And don't make the mistake of thinking that's too complex for them. Look at what they did.

"Only" 189, because it could have been as many as 23,000. That is the usual number for that area, I believe.

The first tower was hit at 8:45. Most Americans start work at 8 or 9. The towers were near maximum occupancy.

23,000 could be the occupancy of the pentagon - its a big building. But it also has a big footprint. It would take a few dozen planes to kill a significant percentage of the people in it.

No, guys - the death toll that day was not artifically low. We were, however, lucky (perversely) that the WTC didn't collapse right after impact, otherwise the death toll really would have been tens of thousands.

 

[Adam]

Not "artificially" low, no. Deliberately low. Maybe not. Just a possibility.

On any given day, the Pentagon houses 25,000 military people. That doe snot include all the civilians.

I had thought most people from the WTC had not yet arrived at work. Do you have any figures on how many were in the buildings but got out prior to the collapse?

 

[russ_watters]

I had thought most people from the WTC had not yet arrived at work. Do you have any figures on how many were in the buildings but got out prior to the collapse?

I'm not sure anyone knows how many people were in just prior to the attack. The % occupancy may be surmised from the casualty figures though, as virtually everyone below the level of the crashes got out and virtually everyone above died. One company, Cantor Fitzgerald lost 658 people or roughly 2/3 of the company. I don't know if the office in the WTC was their only office though.HERE is a site that says the occupancy was about 50,000 (not including the surrounding buildings that also collapsed).

So using 2/3 the occupancy at the time of the attack and 50,000 as the total, if the towers had collapsed immediately, there easily could have been 30,000 deaths.

 

[Adam]

In that case, I'm glad all those people had time to get out.