Troublesome "facts?"

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Its amusing that the same people who generally accuse the intelligence community of being morons (no name no pack drill) are the same people who figure that there is some kind of master-minded conspiracy.

The same person can be both brilliant and stupid at one and the same time. It's one of those wonderful things about the falibility of humanity. Your next task is to find out where I've ever written the CIA is "some kind of master-minded conspiracy?"

Lets ask this question, . . . .

I already answered this earlier in the thread. You just need to go read it.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara Your next task is to find out where I've ever written the CIA is "some kind of master-minded conspiracy?"

I doubt that you have, I wasnt refering to you.

I already answered this earlier in the thread. You just need to go read it.

Sorry, a vague mention of "paying attention to flight schools " doesnt cut it. They could have learned to fly anywhere, it was just irony that they took some flight lessons here.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
[S]o sometimes I do stupid things just to let people punch the commie. My way of making their day a little brighter. Yeah, that's the ticket!

What a kind a generous person you are!

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Sorry, a vague mention of "paying attention to flight schools " doesnt cut it. They could have learned to fly anywhere, it was just irony that they took some flight lessons here.

It isn't simply paying attention to flight schools. The Pheonix FBI had a lead of people connected with al-Qaeda taking airliner flying lessons. The government was getting reports of people who wanted to learn how to fly these planes without learning how to land them. All of this stuff was getting clogged up in the pipelines.

Had there been an order from the top to be on the lookout for any activity related to flying planes into building, this information likely would have been taken with more urgency and acted upon.

I can understand things getting lost in the normal shuffle. That happens in any organization. But this stuff should have been top prioriety given the warnings that the US was given by it's allies. Especially given that Ashcroft took the warnings of hijackings seriously enough to stop using civilian airliners. I think the Bush Administration was criminally negligent.

[Sirotnikov]

This timeline is interesting.


It does leave out several FBI meetings with Mossad in August 2001, in which Mossad agents warned the USA of imminent and very serious muslim terrorist actions.

[Sirotnikov]

DD - You should read the whole thing.

[Velociryx]

I'd like to take a moment to comment about conspiracy theories in general, primarily because I carry with me, at all times, a healthy dose of suspicion toward the government. Because of this suspicious eye I generally cast the government's direction, I tend to get lumped in with the "kooks" out there who firmly believe there's some shadow-governmental (or perhaps even international) conspiracy, masterminded plan that's controlling all information and up to some nefarious or self-serving purpose.

This is not what I believe at all.

Conspiracies are born specifically from a LACK of information, rather than some masterminded plan. (Plausable deniability) It doesn't take a genius to simply not say anything. (witness the squashing of all investigations into the 9/11 matter as an example of a policy of "zero information.") This is generally followed by creative slants of the official story, deviating from the true events if/when it's necessary to cover some unsavory element of the story up.

A conjectural example would be the plane that supposedly hit the Pentagon.

Early on 9/11, the FIRST story to hit the 'net regarding the Pentagon was that a truck bomb had been detonated "on the steps of" the Pentagon, and caused damage. This story was pulled approximately an hour and a half after the incident, and the official version became the plane, which "hit the lawn of the Pentagon and then plowed into the building." <---That is the official story....that the plane specifically hit the ground first, and THEN hit the pentagon).

Was there a plane? With 100% certainty there was. We have passenger manifests and other information to prove this.

Did it hit the Pentagon as described?

The evidence would not seem to support the official story, no (Most damaging to the official story is the fact that there should have been damage to the lawn if the plane hit as described. Photographic evidence does not show any such damage. One need only to look at similar ground crash sites to understand the significance of this).

What happened?

I don't pretend to know, but it seems plausable that with the plane near DC when it was discovered that it had been hijacked, posed a direct threat to the WhiteHouse. As such, it was interecepted and shot down. Given that there was a (convenient) explosion at the Pentagon, it would have been remarkably easy to shuffle the facts a bit, put pressure on the media to pull the truck bomb story ("in the interests of national security" --an excuse which is in serious danger of getting over-used-- and voila! We have a much more acceptable spin on the story. Can't unite the people of the USA with tales of jet fighters shooting down our own civilians....that wouldn't play as well.

Is that what happened?

Again, I have no idea. I merely post that possibility as an alternate explanation that is more in line with the facts as we know them. Certainly it would explain the lack of lawn damage in front of the Pentagon, and it would also explain why the truck-bomb story was pulled so quickly.

Are there other explanations? Of course. The point tho, is that with presidential pressure to halt any and all investigation, we'll never know, will we?

-=Vel=-

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
DD - You should read the whole thing.

I have no desire to engage in massochistic acts at this time.

[SpencerH]

Che, you're listening to too much propoganda about the efficiency/effectiveness of the national intel organizations. In terms of acquiring info they're the best. But thats mostly a function of technology, and it doesnt mean they know what to do with the huge amount of info that they receive. That still requires human analysis and interpretation of the info. In my experience they're no more efficient than any other huge govt agency (a la the IRS or immigration). Bush is not responsible unless he was clearly and directly warned by our intel and didnt bother to heed the warnings. That isnt likely.

Any "non-partisan" investigation of the intel failures is going to be highly partisan (of course) and therefore worthless other than as a political tool for the Democrats so of course the administration/Republicans would seek to avoid it.

[Dr Strangelove]

Sure che, and we all know that FDR started WWII. Yep, he knew all about the attack but he let our boys die just to enhance the shock value of the incident inorder to give him more leverage with Congress. He was just like a dictator.

-at least that was the usual theory spouted by an elderly doc I used to work with. He retired a few weeks ago at 86. He was a charter member of the John Birch club.

Che, you sound just like him!

[Timexwatch]

Again, I have no idea. I merely post that possibility as an alternate explanation that is more in line with the facts as we know them. Certainly it would explain the lack of lawn damage in front of the Pentagon, and it would also explain why the truck-bomb story was pulled so quickly.

For the sake of the debate, there were stories of bombings all around DC on 9/11, the Department of State here in Foggy Bottom being the one I specifically remember. There were all sorts of rumors and conjecture.

Even if the U.S. government had shot down the Pentagon plain, would it matter? It was going to hit somewhere in DC...the Pentagon being the target that would least likely to cause widespread havoc in the city.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Velociryx

Early on 9/11, the FIRST story to hit the 'net regarding the Pentagon was that a truck bomb had been detonated "on the steps of" the Pentagon, and caused damage. This story was pulled approximately an hour and a half after the incident, and the official version became the plane, which "hit the lawn of the Pentagon and then plowed into the building." <---That is the official story....that the plane specifically hit the ground first, and THEN hit the pentagon).

Was there a plane? With 100% certainty there was. We have passenger manifests and other information to prove this.

Did it hit the Pentagon as described?

I don't pretend to know, but it seems plausable that with the plane near DC when it was discovered that it had been hijacked, posed a direct threat to the WhiteHouse. As such, it was interecepted and shot down. Given that there was a (convenient) explosion at the Pentagon, it would have been remarkably easy to shuffle the facts a bit, put pressure on the media to pull the truck bomb story ("in the interests of national security" --an excuse which is in serious danger of getting over-used-- and voila! We have a much more acceptable spin on the story. Can't unite the people of the USA with tales of jet fighters shooting down our own civilians....that wouldn't play as well.

-=Vel=-

Vel skepticism of government "facts" is one thing, but this is too much. I watched the entire events of 9/11 within minutes after the first attack. Heres a couple of observations.

There's no way that the amount of damage done to the pentagon could have been done by a "normal" truck bomb (a van filled with 500-1000 lbs of a fertilizer-based explosive). These are not shaped charges and the force of such an explosive mostly goes upward. Thats why you put them in the basement of a building. In the case of a bomb placed against the side of a solid building (I assume that the pentagon is of "stout" construction) the majority of the force would have been directed out and up, not inwards. Clearly the damage done to the pentagon was a huge directed force and in my experience was MUCH greater than the force of a 1000 lb charge.

Do you really think its possible for a low flying passenger plane to be shot down over Washington without someone seeing it?

The comments about the truck bomb were a part of the endless speculation made by inexpert newsmen trying to say something about a situation about which they knew very little except that there had been an explosion of some sort. Once a camera got to the pentagon the truth became clear.

Personally, I'm surprised no one came up with a martian invasion theory.

[Velociryx]

Yes, actually, I think it'd be very possible, given that the vast majority of the US population was currently glued to their tv sets.

But it's also possible that the plane was forced over water, or intercepted before it got over DC. Again, I didn't say this was what happened....merely that it would explain the absence of a torn up pentagon lawn (which you would expect if a jet liner crashed into the lawn before hitting the building).

And you're absolutely correct re: the upward tendency of the explosive force of a truck bomb. Consider tho....truck rams the pentagon, penetrates the building, bomb goes off, and now that it's INSIDE the building, the upward force impacts the building superstructure, and not the surface.

Add to this the possibility of something stronger than a homegrown explosive, and it's possible. Doable. (and again, explains the lawn mystery).

Is that what happened? I don't pretend to know....just something to think about.

-=Vel=-

[SpencerH]

Vel

There are enough real conspiracies (a la Irangate). For me, this one doesnt hold up to scrutiny. The simple answer is it didnt hit the lawn first, that was just more bad reporting.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Sure che, and we all know that FDR started WWII. Yep, he knew all about the attack but he let our boys die just to enhance the shock value of the incident inorder to give him more leverage with Congress. He was just like a dictator.

That ain't what I said at all. I think that the Administration totally fubared. I think they didn't take the warning seriously enough (though Ashcroft certainly took them seriously enough to no longer user civilian airlines). I think hubris, arrogance, and criminal stupidity, coupled with the Administration's ban on investigating the Saudis led to a gaping hole in our intelligence gathering and criminal investigations.