Going w/new 9-11 Thread because......They did it!

[Suff]

Breaking Story

The WASHINGTON POST broke a story today...and you can say what you want about tin foil hats and other wing nuts...

But the WAPO is a serious outfit...and .........

Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon's initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources involved in the debate.

Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources. Staff members and some commissioners thought that e-mails and other evidence provided enough probable cause to believe that military and aviation officials violated the law by making false statements to Congress and to the commission,


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101300.html

[Show Me the Wire]

Our Democratic friends see conspiracies by the U.S. governmant because their party is well versed in "deliberate efforts to mislead".

A little historical perspective. RE: The Gulf of Tonkin Incident.

In an attempt to possibly lure the North Vietnamese into an engagement, both the Maddox and the C. Turner Joy were in the gulf on August 4. The captain of the Maddox had read his ship’s instruments as saying that the ship was under attack or had been attacked and began an immediate retaliatory strike into the night. The two ships began firing into the night rapidly with American warplanes supporting the showcasing of the American firepower. However, the odd thing was that the captain had concluded hours later that there might not have been an actual attack. James B. Stockdale, who was a pilot of a Crusader jet, undertook a reconnaissance flight over the waters that evening and when asked if he witnessed any North Vietnamese attack vessels, Stockdale replied: "Not a one. No boats, no wakes, no ricochets [sic] off boats, no boat impacts, no torpedo wakes-nothing but black sea and American firepower." [1]

The entire event was purposely misconstrued when presented to Congress and the public by President Johnson and his administration, and on August 7, the "Tonkin Gulf Resolution" passed, 416 to 0 by the House and 88 to 2 by the Senate. The resolution stipulated that the President of the United States could "take all necessary measures to repel armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression." [2]

This was what led to the escalation of U.S. involvement in Vietnam and became the point where the U.S. made a large commitment. By July of 1965, the U.S. would have 80,000 troops mobilized and operating in South Vietnam. This opened the door to the eventual peak of some 543,000 troops by early 1969, including the dropping of 400 tons of bombs and ordnance per day. The Gulf of Tonkin Incident was a significant event in the fact that it opened the door to one of the most vivid and memorable wars in modern day history. [3]

Note the operative words "puposely miscontrued", imagine a staged event puposely misconstrued. No need to wonder why I became disillusioned with the Demos when the 80's rolled around.

[1]Paterson, Thomas G., J. Garry Clifford and Kenneth J. Hagan. American Foreign Relations: A History Since 1895. 4th Edition. Lexington: D.C. Heath and Company, 1995 p. 410.

[2] Major Problems in American Foreign Relations Volume II: Since 1914, Documents and Essays. Edited by Paterson, Thomas G., and Dennis Merrill. Lexington: D.C. Heath and Company, 1995. The quote was taken from pages 539-540 and are the actual words from the "Tonkin Gulf Resolution, 1964".

[3] Edited, Researched and Written by: Tom Kim December 17, 1999, The WebChron Project © 1996-2005

[Suff]

Our Democratic friends see conspiracies by the U.S. governmant because their party is well versed in "deliberate efforts to mislead".

. James B. Stockdale, who was a pilot of a Crusader jet, undertook a reconnaissance flight over the waters that evening and when asked if he witnessed any North Vietnamese attack vessels, Stockdale replied: "Not a one. No boats, no wakes, no ricochets [sic] off boats, no boat impacts, no torpedo wakes-nothing but black sea and American firepower." [1]



ummmm. The article? The washington post article? The article about the Department of Defense and FAA lying? Nothing on that?

I've brought up the Gulf on Tonkin previously... matter of fact..I mentioned it in the other thread and I got lambasted for being smug . Search Gulf of Tonkin...you'll find I've talked about it 3 or 4 times in the last 3 years....

Anyway, If my history serves me right... Stockdale was Ross Perot's running mate?
Not that it matters.. because as I said.. the thread is about 9-11-01 and the lies.

[Suff]

ohh and for the Record, and from the article



"We to this day don't know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us," said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. "It was just so far from the truth. . . . It's one of those loose ends that never got tied."

[Show Me the Wire]

Suff:

I agree conspiracies can and do happen. I added the democrats are more aware to the possibility of a conspiracy because at least one democratic administration was well versed in conspiracy to escalate the U.S. involvement in Vietnam, by staging a fake attack and intentionally misconstruing the facts.

These are the same acts certain people claim about the current administration. My theory is democrats are more likely to believe this scenario, due to the blueprint drawn by the democrats to create the "Vietnam" imminent threat and the domino theory of communism.

All I am saying a certain group of people are more skeptical about any attack, because of a democratic administration that did cry wolf.

[Dan Montilion]

All of this conspiracy nonsense is just a giant conspiracy...

[Tom]

Perhaps people lied becasue they wanted to protect themselves from being exposed as dropping the ball.

So far, the is not one shred of real evidence that says anyone but the 19 death pilots did this. Obviously, they were not alone - others were in on it, but nothing suggests our government.

Far too many people were involved to keep it secret.

[Show Me the Wire]

Tom:

I agree with you. The logistics to fake an attack on 9/11 are more than likely too complex. I do not believe the 9/11 attack is a U.S. conspiracy.

The tone of my posting intended to highlight why Suff and others that embrace anti-administration feelings, and the dogma of the liberal democratic agenda, have a good reason to believe in the existence of conspiracies, because of the democratic administration responsible for intentionally creating the Gulf of Tonkin conspiracy to mislead the people into war.

Basically, their mantra, Bush lied is the chilling echoing sting of the past LBJ lied and Americans died because LBJ's lie. I understand their suspicion, even though it is more than likely misplaced.

[Secretariat]

So far, the is not one shred of real evidence that says anyone but the 19 death pilots did this. Obviously, they were not alone - others were in on it, but nothing suggests our government.


And what evidence is that Tom? That is the crux of it all. Why are the manifests not released revealing these 19, and why are some of the supposedly 19 on the manifests still confirmed as alive? In other words, we have deaths, but no released manifests of them being on the planes?

[Suff]

[QUOTE]Perhaps people lied becasue they wanted to protect themselves from being exposed as dropping the ball.

Perhaps. I don't exclude this option.

What is important for me..is that the truth was not told. On many fronts. Now if we simply have a fudge here or a fudge there.........Then the story goes away.

So what is important to me is that the Story gets press...so that the truth come out.

Now, if as you suggest it was simply CYA.....then so be it. But the truth deserves to be heard and the only way that happens is if the MAIN STREAM MEDIA covers it.

So my "they did it" in the subject line was multi-purpose. The fact that this article has appeared in the WAPO, and subsequently picked up by 50+ major media outlets gives it legs. It breathes new life into the fact finding effort.


So far, the is not one shred of real evidence that says anyone but the 19 death pilots did this. Obviously, they were not alone - others were in on it, but nothing suggests our government.



Well I completely disagree with you there. One of the ways that the Rank & File try to shame you in following lock stock and barrel is tying you in to all the theories.

Some of the theories are quite bizarre. i'm not one that thinks long and hard about phony phone calls, or the real edgey assertions.

What I believe and I have now seen 5 movies/Documentaries, and read 3 books, and countless web sites.... is that the Govt is lying.

If you put a gun to my head and said guess one way or the other...If I'm wrong I die

Is the Govt telling the truth..?..YES or NO

......I would guess NO. There is very little doubt in my mind that the Govt is lying.


Here is my personal evidence.

Tommy. let me put it to you in a way you can understand, because your a regular guy....as I am. I judge people and events with my instinct, and my gut , my experiences, and my eyes. I think you do to.

Close your eyes and imagine your the President of the USA..or any country for that matter. Your sitting somewhere and your #1 right hand man comes up and tells you the Country is under a surprise attack.

Tom... what would you do? Jesus man, would'nt you at least say...

What? What the F did you just say? Would you repeat that? Did you just say we were being attacked?:D

Would you stand up Tom? I mean for Christ sakes people... He just got told we were UNDER ATTACK... Look at him... He just sits there!!

Now I don't need no stinking evidence.. and I don't need no stinking book, website, Cspan or some muff on an internet board telling me whats going on!

Because the only reason I am alive is my Instincts...and I can tell by looking at that son of a bitch... HE KNEW!!! I know he knew!

Now he may not have been in on it, and he may not even known all... But he knew something......

That bastard knew. I can see it, I can sense it and I stake my life on it.

He Knew!



Video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dACQCYRKtDg&search=fusion

[PaceAdvantage]

I'm not sure of this, so please confirm for me. What were the actual words Mr. Card whispered into Bush's ear, and where can this be verified? I assume it is in some official White House archive.

[Suff]

I'm not sure of this, so please confirm for me. What were the actual words Mr. Card whispered into Bush's ear, and where can this be verified? I assume it is in some official White House archive.

Red alert... red alert.. Distraction posts... off topic posts....
Republicans loose on the grounds... Loose republicans...


The washington post article people.. The washington post article...

[Secretariat]

I'm not sure of this, so please confirm for me. What were the actual words Mr. Card whispered into Bush's ear, and where can this be verified? I assume it is in some official White House archive.

According to Card:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/09/11/MN911voice03.DTL

"So I was very uncomfortable about interrupting the president during one of his events ... so I wanted to think, how can I convey to the president the situation? And I made a conscious decision to state the facts and to offer editorial comment. And the facts, as I knew them, were -- since he knew about the first plane, I said, "a second plane hit the second tower." Those were the facts. And the editorial comment was, "America is under attack."

I said those things into the president's right ear..."

[PaceAdvantage]

Are you mad? YOU were the one who brought up Card and whatever it was that he whispered in Bush's ear!!!! YOU BROUGHT THIS UP!!!!!

This thread is titled, in part, NEW 9/11 THREAD, so I don't see how anything I just wrote, especially since YOU brought the classroom reaction into this, could be construed as off the topic.

Please try again.

[PaceAdvantage]

Thanks Sec, that's all I was lookng for....

[Suff]

Are you mad? YOU were the one who brought up Card and whatever it was that he whispered in Bush's ear!!!! YOU BROUGHT THIS UP!!!!!

This thread is titled, in part, NEW 9/11 THREAD, so I don't see how anything I just wrote, especially since YOU brought the classroom reaction into this, could be construed as off the topic.

Please try again.

Mad no.... Not at all. That Red alert, Republicans on the loose shit, is comedy to me.

Seriously... I'm a wierd dude... I actually giggle and smirk and chuckle all to myself as I type. I'm doing it right now.

I think I'm a nut case as I provide myself so much self entertainment it don't seem right!...

:D :lol: :cool: :D

[PaceAdvantage]

And just to clarify, by mad, I meant nuts....:lol:

[Tom]

And what evidence is that Tom? That is the crux of it all. Why are the manifests not released revealing these 19, and why are some of the supposedly 19 on the manifests still confirmed as alive? In other words, we have deaths, but no released manifests of them being on the planes?

*sigh*

Sec, you need to rad and think befreo posting.

I said there is no evidence to support anyone but the 19 did the deed.

You post back that is no evidence. You are making my point. You not
seeing a manifest in not proof of anything. Questions or suspicions are not evidence.

[Secretariat]

*sigh*

Sec, you need to rad and think befreo posting.

I said there is no evidence to support anyone but the 19 did the deed.

You post back that is no evidence. You are making my point. You not
seeing a manifest in not proof of anything. Questions or suspicions are not evidence.

Again, how do you verify "the 19 did the deed" when the FBI has already confirmed that some of the 19 are still alive? The only way of confirmation is the manifests listing the hijackers.

There is in fact evidence. It has just not been released to the public. My question again is why?

Again, the bottom line, without the release of the orginal manifests is "who exactly" was aboard those flights other than the victims is still a mystery to the public.

If in fact the FBI based it's release on the manifests, then "Why" did it get the list initially wrong in number, and names, and why do they refuse to release it?

Start there. What possible motive is there for the FBI NOT to release the manifest?

[Tom]

I hate to break this to you, Sec, but a whole list of "why's" isn ot proof of anyhting. Obviously, none of the 19 are still alibe anywhere - nobody survied any of the crashes. If somebody from tht list is alive somwhere, he was NOT one of the 19 on the planes. We KNOW that 19 were on the planes by phone calls from passengers on the flights. WE know the planes hit the towers - we have it on tape....you seen it yet? :bang:
The manifiest will prove noting.
I said there was not one shred of evidence that anyone but the 19 - whoever they were - did this. And you have still provided noting but "why?"
That, Sec, is NOT evidence.

that is my last worn on this - if your life is so shallow that this is needed ti fill it, great, but this whole topic is so ridiculous I have no time to presure it. Go prove that the single bullet theory is a cover up. Oh, whait - forensic science has already proven it was the ONLY possible explanation.

See, a bunch of ignnorant people viewing incomplete data and forming opinions with no scientific methods being used is, well, not worth addressing.

[Secretariat]

I hate to break this to you, Sec, but a whole list of "why's" isn ot proof of anyhting. Obviously, none of the 19 are still alibe anywhere - nobody survied any of the crashes. If somebody from tht list is alive somwhere, he was NOT one of the 19 on the planes. We KNOW that 19 were on the planes by phone calls from passengers on the flights. WE know the planes hit the towers - we have it on tape....you seen it yet? :bang:
The manifiest will prove noting.
I said there was not one shred of evidence that anyone but the 19 - whoever they were - did this. And you have still provided noting but "why?"
That, Sec, is NOT evidence.

that is my last worn on this - if your life is so shallow that this is needed ti fill it, great, but this whole topic is so ridiculous I have no time to presure it. Go prove that the single bullet theory is a cover up. Oh, whait - forensic science has already proven it was the ONLY possible explanation.

See, a bunch of ignnorant people viewing incomplete data and forming opinions with no scientific methods being used is, well, not worth addressing.

Tom, au contraire...How did someone get on board a flight if they are not listed on the manifest? What are the ramifications of accusing someone of being a hijacker if he is confirmed later as alive today? Why the reluctance to reveal the manifest if there is nothing to hide?

Obviously, you state the obvious, and fail to answer any questions posed. Of course it hit the towers. Of course people were on board. Mueller stated there were 18 hijackers and then later changed it to 19. Does that mean a late cell phone call came in?

And the obvious here is, who are the "19" or "18" who did the deed, and WHY HIDE THE MANIFEST confirming their guilt?

You belittle the search for truth by inferring a horrible thing happened that we all saw. Yeah, we all get that. What we don't get is why the secrecy to reveal the evidence that lead to that conclusion of those 19. Namely, the manifest. How else were those 19 arrived at? Your assumption is to trust GW, despite his fighting tooth and nail to even have a 911 Commission ,and despite that Commission consdiering legal action agaisnt the Pentagon for contradictory testimony. This seems lile a simple request. Why can't the manifest be produced? After a crash, the family is usually offered the opportunity to be given a copy of the manifest. In this case, that did not happen. Why?

[Tom]

Do you know what the word "evidence" means?

I don't think it means what you think it means. :bang:

[chickenhead]

what bothers me most are the cell phone calls. I know something about something when it comes to these things...not enough to say emphatically that it is impossible and could not have happened, but enough to be skeptical.

The simplest answer is the cell phone calls did happen, some sort of strange fluke in the laws of physics...but it is for me the single absolutely very strange occurence.

This is a pretty good article about it:

http://gatorpress.com/badsam/page5.html

[Suff]

what bothers me most are the cell phone calls. I know something about something when it comes to these things...not enough to say emphatically that it is impossible and could not have happened, but enough to be skeptical.

The simplest answer is the cell phone calls did happen, some sort of strange fluke in the laws of physics...but it is for me the single absolutely very strange occurence.

This is a pretty good article about it:

http://gatorpress.com/badsam/page5.html

see now... The cell phone thing does'nt rub me deep.

Because to beleive they were staged opens up a can of worms that is to much for my brain to handle.

Unless, you go with the theory that the planes were diverted, and were flying low for an extended period of time.

Remember.. Boston to NY is a jump... it's such a quick flight they go up, and start heading right back down.

I've taken the shuttle a bunch.. Seat belt light goes off, you go pee, sit back down, and its Lock -n-load prepare for landing.


I know that many many people are stuck on the calls. I read an article just yesterday about it. If I bump into again I'll throw it up.

[chickenhead]

Its the flight 93 calls that are bothersome.

It's one of those things...like you said, if its open for debate throw everything out the window.

My objection is purely on scientific grounds (and the odds are extremely high that they did happen, as described, and I'm just wrong), but, it either could have or could not have happened. Can't let the implications of what it means if they didn't cloud that judgement.

[skate]

if the thing was staged, yes i would expect uncle george to get up out of his seat, stop reading to the children, and just act "out of control" ( my god, we are being attacked, type thing).

but he was told . as far as i know, that "a plane ran into a building". and if he has any leadership quality, then he simply does not "over react".
thank god for uncle george

[Suff]

[QUOTE]if the thing was staged, yes i would expect uncle george to get up out of his seat, stop reading to the children, and just act "out of control" ( my god, we are being attacked, type thing).

The alternative to sitting is not "acting out of control". Is it?


t he was told . as far as i know, that "a plane ran into a building".

You were just informed in this thread that Andy Card editorilized "The country is under attack"..

So as far you know... that is what he said..

And let me ask you a serious question... Card says, and Bush also said..

'I was sitting outside the Classroom and I saw the First Plane hit the Building and I remember saying... "that is one lousy pilot"..

Since no video of the first plane surfaced until 24 hours later

How did George Bush see the first plane hit the tower?

and if he has any leadership quality, then he simply does not "over react".
thank god for uncle george


The alternative to doing nothing is not to "over react"...

You can try as hard you might to paint that picture...but it just does'nt fly.:faint:


By the way... The article. The washington post article. You read it?

[skate]

as far as i can tell, the wash post does rescue work for the mullahs.


heylook at what you are asking me...
how did uncle george see the plane?

the same way i saw "the plane". can you answer ?

you take points out of rotation and apply them whereever... fitting.

tha same tactic "Gordo mike"uses

[skate]

y7ey, that was the first plane HE, HE, HE saw hit he building.


you can see that, even if, uncle george heard that we are under attack. he's gotta wait for "extent". you don't just get up and start running around like "the headless chicken" pun intended.

a bomb goes off in NY subway "we are under attack", and what is it you expect. maybe that a plan (whatever it is) goes into effect. but please, don't start running around like el-chick -chic, please.

now, ok, fine if this here 9/11 deal was a staged effort, go act bizarre, for the show.

[Suff]

[QUOTE]as far as i can tell, the wash post does rescue work for the mullahs.

You need to get out more often.

heylook at what you are asking me...
how did uncle george see the plane?

the same way i saw "the plane". can you answer ?



You saw the first plane hit the tower on 9-11-01?


you take points out of rotation and apply them whereever... fitting.

tha same tactic "Gordo mike"uses


I have no tactic.. Except honest Government. Your tactic appears to be

1. Ignore the facts.

2. Discredit the source.

3. Dance around the questions.

4. Make the questions about the questioner.


You think your a straight shooter. That's why the point I made about my instincts prompted you to reply.
I have a feeling you know as well as I do... sumthin aint right.

But your "on the team" so you'll doing anything and everything to stay loyal.

Admirable. To a point. Worth sinking the whole country and the 225 years we've spent building this thing? No.
Give it up for the sake of the Nation.

:ThmbUp:

[skate]

and guess what? the bottom line, you are gonna go off thinking out loud (along with the post, times etc.) why is it that we are not doing better with this issue, that being terror-islam-want-to-kill-whatever.


exactly what is taking place in iraq right now. you and others, have split ranks and given the enemy false hope.
you both will end up under the same bus, with el-tunder-bus -mike.

[Suff]

y7ey, that was the first plane HE, HE, HE saw hit he building.


[QUOTE]you can see that, even if, uncle george heard that we are under attack. he's gotta wait for "extent". you don't just get up and start runn
ing around like "the headless chicken" pun intended.

Whats with the extremes. hey Mr Skate... stop spinning. The man sat on his ass. ok


a bomb goes off in NY subway "we are under attack", and what is it you expect. maybe that a plan (whatever it is) goes into effect. but please, don't start running around like el-chick -chic, please.


The plan was not followed. The Secret Service has a plan. It is very strict on the immediatte reaction to an attack on our nation. It was ignored.


hey Mr Skate..here's link to your uncles house. the White house...


THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Jordan. Well, Jordan, you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my Chief of Staff, Andy Card -- actually, I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on. And I used to fly, myself, and I said, well, there's one terrible pilot. I said, it must have been a horrible accident. But I was whisked off there, I didn't have much time to think about it. And I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my Chief of Staff, who is sitting over here, walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower, America is under attack."



Right from his own house


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/12/20011204-17.html (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/12/20011204-17.html)

[skate]

look , look look, please. how the hell can i go on reading.

look, please. it was THE FIRST plane that i saw, hello hello hello.
and was that what uncle george said, i don;t really know or care. but you can see that what i'm saying is ABOUT THE FIRST plan that i saw, even tho it was the second plane involved, yo yo yo.

if you think i've covered all this here stuff,...hey man , i can only go so far with the huge line of bs, .

seems like you have got yourself confused, you can go off and study the wrong facts and conclude....

yey, maybe i should get out more often...

[Suff]

[QUOTE]
look , look look, please. how the hell can i go on reading.

look, please. it was THE FIRST plane that i saw, hello hello hello.
and was that what uncle george said, i don;t really know or care. but you can see that what i'm saying is ABOUT THE FIRST plan that i saw, even tho it was the second plane involved, yo yo yo.


So the plane was the FIRST plane ..You saw. That is what your saying. You saw a plane hit a building....and that was the first time you had ever seen that... so your calling that the FIRST plane... because it is the FIRST plane you saw.....

See your below comment for my reply to that.

hey man , i can only go so far with the huge line of bs,
.

[GaryG]

Hey Nurse Ratched.....the loonies are loose again, better increase the medication.

[Tom]

Someone give my Boton Brother a new bone - he has done chewed this one to death! :lol::lol::lol:

Yes, he sat there.
What else would he do?
He knew that the machinery was in place, that he would immediatley be notified of any developments, and he knew he would be wisking back to AF1 to take off as soon as possible.
There was physically nothing he could have done where he was.
He sat there what, 11 minutes, wating to get more info, then took off.
That is 31 iminutes sooner than Kerry came out of his "comma" as was finally able to move, by his own statements. :bang:

[Secretariat]

Suff, this is a question they avoid.

"And let me ask you a serious question... Card says, and Bush also said..

'I was sitting outside the Classroom and I saw the First Plane hit the Building and I remember saying... "that is one lousy pilot"..

Since no video of the first plane surfaced until 24 hours later

How did George Bush see the first plane hit the tower"

And they trivialize the importance of the manifest despite the 911 commisison threatening to take action agaisnt the Pentagon as Republican Kean stated.
It is easy to accept the government line without question. Germans fell for it in WW 2. What's great about this country is we have the right to ask, and the right to demand answers?

[Tom]

Oh man, you reach far. You could be deadly at a buffet!:D

Who's avoiding the quesiton?

Did Bush say that - I dunno - got anything says he did outside a blog? Maybe he did, Idunno.

How do we know it was 24 hours before the video came out? I think I saw both hits that day,but Icould be wrong - it was a long time ago.
Is this a fact or more of the urban legend stuff that comes downt he pike?

Maybe he heard it on the radio and not TV? Why would there be a TV set up outside a classroom?

You guys offer a quesiton with certain assumption attached to it.

Let's see the proof that he said that, that the video was not seen for 24 hours. Let's deal with facts, not Nostrademous.

Do YOU kow for a fact the video was not seen until the nextg day? Or are you grabbing hold of Suff's post and running with it?

If you are, how do we know Suff didn't do the same thing?

Before you accuse anyone of dodging the question, make sure the Q is legit.

I await your enlightening.

[Secretariat]

exactly what is taking place in iraq right now. you and others, have split ranks and given the enemy false hope.
you both will end up under the same bus, with el-tunder-bus -mike.

According to General Abaizaid on Capital Hill today he stated the sectarian violence is worse than he's ever seen in Iraq, particularly Baghdad, and civil war is a real possiblity. The British Foregin minister stated the chances of a revolution exceed the probabiltiy of a stable democracy. And now the Shite leaders are abandoning the government over there, who just went on vacation in the middle of this violence (kind of reminds us of our own).

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/15174290.htm

....Mission Accomplished

[chickenhead]

Did Bush say that - I dunno - got anything says he did outside a blog? Maybe he did, Idunno.



Suffs quote was taken from the White House website. Bush said he saw the 1st plane hit, before he went into the classroom, before the 2nd plane hit. Which is of course impossible.

A lot of the loonier conspiracy people try to spin that as Bush had some sort of super secret closed circuit TV system set up special for him...just so he could watch the first plane hit. Sounds a bit Lex Lutherish to me.

Important to remember Bush made that comment while speaking live without a script to a bunch of kids a few months later....I think he got himself all jumbled up and confused like he generally does, and spit out something that was not quite right.

[Show Me the Wire]

According to General Abaizaid on Capital Hill today he stated the sectarian violence is worse than he's ever seen in Iraq, particularly Baghdad, and civil war is a real possiblity. The British Foregin minister stated the chances of a revolution exceed the probabiltiy of a stable democracy. And now the Shite leaders are abandoning the government over there, who just went on vacation in the middle of this violence (kind of reminds us of our own).

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/15174290.htm

....Mission Accomplished

And so? What does that mean? Have you obtained that research regarding the negative effects of civil wars on democracies?

Did I miss a quote by General Abaizaid saying a possible civil war means failure?

if not the jury is still out about the mission being accomplished or not.

[Tom]

According to General Abaizaid on Capital Hill today he stated the sectarian violence is worse than he's ever seen in Iraq, particularly Baghdad, and civil war is a real possiblity. The British Foregin minister stated the chances of a revolution exceed the probabiltiy of a stable democracy. And now the Shite leaders are abandoning the government over there, who just went on vacation in the middle of this violence (kind of reminds us of our own).

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/15174290.htm

....Mission Accomplished

Beside that, it is totally
OFF TOPIC. :lol:

[Tom]

Important to remember Bush made that comment while speaking live without a script to a bunch of kids a few months later....I think he got himself all jumbled up and confused like he generally does, and spit out something that was not quite right.

Exactly what I was leading up to., if Sec ever responded.
And the bottom line to all this is this - if you are going to set up this elaborate
scheme to fake an attack on ourselves, involve literally hundreds of poeple, swear them all to secrecay, go to the trouble of establishing a whole fake infratructure to support it................................................ ...............


















Are you going to tell George Bush about it?:bang::bang::bang:

[Secretariat]

And so? What does that mean? Have you obtained that research regarding the negative effects of civil wars on democracies?

Did I miss a quote by General Abaizaid saying a possible civil war means failure?

if not the jury is still out about the mission being accomplished or not.

Well, considering the action in Iraq was supposed to:

a. Stabilize the region (administration's own words)

b. According to Rumsfeld the war would last weeks at the most

c. According to Bush who declared mission accomplished years ago on an air force carrier

d. Who according to the British Foreign Minister the odds are greater of a failed Iraq than a stable democracy.

e. Who according to Abizaid that the sectarian violence has never been worse

f. Who according to the Shite clergy who are talking of backing out of the govt. That's the Shite, not the Sunnis.

g. When Pace was asked did you anticipate this a year ago...his answer , No Sir.

Yeah, I'd consider it a failure.

As McCain said, we're playing a game of wackamal here. And he's a supporter of the war.

[Secretariat]

Important to remember Bush made that comment while speaking live without a script to a bunch of kids a few months later....I think he got himself all jumbled up and confused like he generally does, and spit out something that was not quite right.

He does seem to having difficulty speaking in front of children.

[Show Me the Wire]

Sec:

What I understand from your post it is not the civil war that will cause the failure of the mission, but your laundry list is the justification for your statement.

Okay, I can accept your view, but your view is different than mine. I think the actual war was a sucess. I define the war as the use of force against the Sadam's regime. His regime fell quickly without much resistance.

I agree the follow- up to the military action of topling the enemy regime is not going as well as the administraion believed. Occupying Iraq is totally different than the occupation of Germany and Japan after their governments were defeated. Nation building is an entirely different matter than defeating the enemy.

I agree we need to redefine our role in Iraq. Currently, we are engaged in a police action aimed at keeping peace and unity, of a disjointed country, rather than conducting a war or conducting ourselves as a true occupying force like post WWII.

We need to understand the mindset of the Iraqi's. They do not have the unified nation concept yet and still prefer the tribal and religious divisions as a way of life. The Iraqi's were not even united under Sadam. His minority religious faction oppressed the Kurds and Shiites. His regime ruled through fear and duress rooted in physical torture and pain of death.

okay this post is getting long and is not on topic in this thread.

[PaceAdvantage]

Suff, this is a question they avoid.

"And let me ask you a serious question... Card says, and Bush also said..

'I was sitting outside the Classroom and I saw the First Plane hit the Building and I remember saying... "that is one lousy pilot"..

Since no video of the first plane surfaced until 24 hours later

How did George Bush see the first plane hit the tower"

I never avoid this question, because it is such fun to answer....

You are now putting stock into what GWB states word for word? Is it not a fact, that in the past, you have revelled at each and every one of the many public gaffes this President has made throughout his years in office? I know that you have.

Yet, here we have another OBVIOUS gaffe we can attribute to our President, whom you consider clueless and a dolt. HOWEVER, CONVENIENTLY, you are putting 100% of your faith into him being 100% accurate and spot-on in his speech this particular time.....'cause it suits your agenda.

Who are you kidding?

Please address this incongruity in your thinking of GWB.

[PaceAdvantage]

Tom, au contraire...How did someone get on board a flight if they are not listed on the manifest?

No, no, no, no, NO! Stop right there. The manifests have never been made public, so how can you possibly continue on with this faulty logic?

The fact that you continue to type this kind of stuff, knowing what you know, is frightening. It's almost as if you believe that if you state something often enough, it becomes the truth. Haven't you accused this administration of doing just that? Now you're guilty!

[PaceAdvantage]

what bothers me most are the cell phone calls. I know something about something when it comes to these things...not enough to say emphatically that it is impossible and could not have happened, but enough to be skeptical.

The simplest answer is the cell phone calls did happen, some sort of strange fluke in the laws of physics...but it is for me the single absolutely very strange occurence.

But this then begs the question:

Why would the "grand conspirators" include this as part of their plan if in fact it was impossible? Wouldn't that poke a huge hole in their facade? Are they that poor at planning the "little things?"

Or is this all part of the PsyOps that they know will work so effectively?

Ooogily, Boogily!!!

:eek: :eek: :eek:

[Tom]

Ooogily, Boogily!!!

:eek: :eek: :eek:


........REALLY GOOD! :lol:

[PaceAdvantage]

And Tom my good man, I must say, excellent work on the "fonts + colors" today. Very appealing craftsmanship on a number of threads. I particularly enjoyed the Toys 'R Us color scheme on one in particular....

Note to self: Tell Oliver Stone to stop spamming my board during premier week for "World Trade Center"

[chickenhead]

Ooogily, Boogily!!!

:eek: :eek: :eek:

Aren't you the guy that's afraid of cell phones? Pipe down. :D

[Secretariat]

Sec:

What I understand from your post it is not the civil war that will cause the failure of the mission, but your laundry list is the justification for your statement.

Okay, I can accept your view, but your view is different than mine. I think the actual war was a sucess. I define the war as the use of force against the Sadam's regime. His regime fell quickly without much resistance.

I agree the follow- up to the military action of topling the enemy regime is not going as well as the administraion believed. Occupying Iraq is totally different than the occupation of Germany and Japan after their governments were defeated. Nation building is an entirely different matter than defeating the enemy.

I agree we need to redefine our role in Iraq. Currently, we are engaged in a police action aimed at keeping peace and unity, of a disjointed country, rather than conducting a war or conducting ourselves as a true occupying force like post WWII.

We need to understand the mindset of the Iraqi's. They do not have the unified nation concept yet and still prefer the tribal and religious divisions as a way of life. The Iraqi's were not even united under Sadam. His minority religious faction oppressed the Kurds and Shiites. His regime ruled through fear and duress rooted in physical torture and pain of death.

okay this post is getting long and is not on topic in this thread.

The mission has failed on so many levels. Failrue to find the stockpikes of WMD's promised, failure to stabilize the MidEast, thousands of dealths both to Americans and to Iraqis, failure to reduce the spread of terrosim in the MidEast, and now the Bush cornerstone - the recent turning of many o the Shite clergy againsnt the newly established government, Abizaid's testimony yesterday as well, billions of dollars spent and for little gain.

Even today this kind of action in Iraq is extremely troublesome. Why do we invest American lives and billions of dollar for this kind of result? And it is the Shites' doing this, not the Sunnis.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060804/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

"Iraqi Shiites chant 'Death to Israel'
By MURTADA FARAJ, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 1 minute ago

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Hundreds of thousands of Shiites chanting "Death to Israel" and "Death to America" marched through the streets of Baghdad's biggest Shiite district Friday in a massive show of support for Hezbollah in its battle against Israel. "

[Secretariat]

I never avoid this question, because it is such fun to answer....

You are now putting stock into what GWB states word for word? Is it not a fact, that in the past, you have revelled at each and every one of the many public gaffes this President has made throughout his years in office? I know that you have.

Yet, here we have another OBVIOUS gaffe we can attribute to our President, whom you consider clueless and a dolt. HOWEVER, CONVENIENTLY, you are putting 100% of your faith into him being 100% accurate and spot-on in his speech this particular time.....'cause it suits your agenda.

Who are you kidding?

Please address this incongruity in your thinking of GWB.

Wait a minute. I don't put stock in what GW states word for word, but I like to think when the nation has been attacked he would at least get that one right. Shouldn't the Commander in Chief be able speak when the nation is under attack, or are you saying he is that incompetent? Since you contend it is an obvious gaffe, it speaks reams of his leadership capabilties under duress.

If you beleive it was an obvious gaffe, I'll accept that, but then it puts into question anything he has said doesn't it since he can always use the excuse that he is incapable of speakin. It's always just a "gaffe". my, my, quite convenient.

[Secretariat]

No, no, no, no, NO! Stop right there. The manifests have never been made public, so how can you possibly continue on with this faulty logic?

The fact that you continue to type this kind of stuff, knowing what you know, is frightening. It's almost as if you believe that if you state something often enough, it becomes the truth. Haven't you accused this administration of doing just that? Now you're guilty!

I never said the manifests were made public, only that FBI Head Mueller states the names of the hijackers were determined from the manifests. The media was given "partial lists" according to CNN and USAToday (and by the way these lists vary). THe FBI posted the list of hijackers, Where did they get those names if not from the manifests as Mueller contends.

What Tom said was:

"The manifiest will prove nothing."

I disagree with that. The names of the hijackers were listed according to FBI Head Mueller "on the manifest", but the FBI refuses to release the manifests. The airlines defers to the FBI in the matter.

The issue again is what I orginally asked.

"Why has the FBI not released the manifests where they say they identified the hijackers names, AND all the victims names have already been published?"

"Why did Mueller orginally name 18 hijackers and then change it to 19?"

"Why have some of the hijackers listed "BY THE FBI" been found alive after the fact? If the FBI used the manifests as Mueller states, then why are the names wrong?"

You contend this is faulty logic, but you don't say why. In a crime scene that manifest would be a huge piece of evidence that helped determine the names of the hijackers. Yet, the actual manifest has never been released for public viewing despite us knowing (a) the victims names as given to the media by the airlines, and (b) the hijackers names as have already been published by the FBI.

I again ask, why can't this manifest be made public? What is there to hide if in fact all the names on the list we already know?

[Show Me the Wire]

Sec:

You are tenacious. I agreed the U.S. needs to reevalute its current policy of peace keeping in Iraq. Now, you want me to convince me the reasons for attacking Iraq were wrong, since you could not convince me that the original military action was not sucessful.

Okay, I know Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Chemical weapons are wmds and the Iraq government used chemical weapons on the Kurds. It is also a possibility other wmds were transported to Syria prior to the fall of the regime.

Regarding your prostestations abot stability in the region. Do you think any reasonable person would think the toppling of a dangerous regime would instantly stabilize an entire region? Such thinking is absurd.

And shiite Arabs chanting death to America, happened before the sucessful Iraq war, so what does the current chanting change in the large scheme? Nothing.

[Secretariat]

Sec:

You are tenacious. I agreed the U.S. needs to reevalute its current policy of peace keeping in Iraq. Now, you want me to convince me the reasons for attacking Iraq were wrong, since you could not convince me that the original military action was not sucessful.

Okay, I know Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Chemical weapons are wmds and the Iraq government used chemical weapons on the Kurds. It is also a possibility other wmds were transported to Syria prior to the fall of the regime.

Regarding your prostestations abot stability in the region. Do you think any reasonable person would think the toppling of a dangerous regime would instantly stabilize an entire region? Such thinking is absurd.

And shiite Arabs chanting death to America, happened before the sucessful Iraq war, so what does the current chanting change in the large scheme? Nothing.

1. GW's appointed inspectors did NOT find the stockpiles of WMD's that Rumsfeld and GW told Congress were there. Period. We know he had WMD's previously, because we gave them to use in the Iranian War. The issue was, as told to Congress, was whether Hussein had sufficient weaponry to pose a "grave" or "imminent" threat to Us security. The answer is clearly no. But this was NOT what Congress was told when they were voting for the war resolution. in fact quite the contrary. I certaainly deem that as a failure without question. The idea that those weapons were transported to Syria is pure speculation without any proof. If in fact that was the case, using the same argument, wouldn't the US admisntration have gone to Congress and declared as much. They did not.

2. Hey, it is the administration that claimed the creation of democraices in the Mid East would stabilize the region, not me. They knew who was in power. So now we have a democratic Hamas in charge of Palestine, and Civil War in iraq with hundreds of thousands of majority Shite's shouting Death to Israel in the streets of Baghdad. Yeah, I'd think this was a failure. As General Pace said, we did not envision this.

This will be the Bush legacy as was Vietnam Johnson's legacy.

[PaceAdvantage]

All I can go by is what you stated, which was:

Tom, au contraire...How did someone get on board a flight if they are not listed on the manifest?

This, to me, implies that you believe some, if not all, of the hijackers are missing from the original manifests. Have I been misinterpreting your plain-as-day statements all along?

[JustRalph]

This will be the Bush legacy as was Vietnam Johnson's legacy.
Nope. It will be much worse. Johnson didn't have the vile mainstream media that Bush has faced. Bush will never catch a break. Johnson slowly slipped away back to Texas and Nixon's little travails of the early seventies took the spotlight off of Johnson. Bush won't be so lucky. The ne'er-do-well's like Chris Mathews and his print alliance will be writing about Bush for the next 20 years. There will be book tours and "looks back" every time an anniversary of any significance approaches. Eleanor Clift and Maureen 'damn I need an Orgasm' Dowd will take off from their regular columns to write about Bush and how he "blew it" This guy has faced the most hateful and offensive media in the history of our world. They won't let him forget a damn thing. He will be derided for years to come. He will be continually hated by the Left and lambasted by the right/conservatives (including me) for not doing enough and wasting opportunities. The things he could have done will be forever in front of him and the things that he did do, will result in a constant din of failure notices.

I for one condemn him for not fighting a war much like the one his father fought. I refer to WWII not Iraq. This half assed approach for 4 years may end up in several different scenarios, the jury is still out. But no matter the outcome, unless he ratchets up things (but it is already too far gone, he can't muster the political stamina *return to the line above about the vile media* and nobody would support further involvement) concentrating on what needs to be done to turn the entire area around. Then no matter the scenario, failure will be just different shades of grey.

The return and re-occupation of the Shiia Crescent is the real goal of those aggressors no matter what border they occupy. Nobody seems to see that, at least very few do. And that goal reads like a map into World War Three. Turn it around now, or doom the area to a return to the old, or a future confrontation of nuclear proportions. It won't take long........not with that wingnut in Iran controlling a Nuke.

[PaceAdvantage]

Nope. It will be much worse. Johnson didn't have the vile mainstream media that Bush has faced. Bush will never catch a break.

Why do you think this is Ralph? My theory remains that it is backlash for the 2000 election debacle, the hanging chads...etc....the belief that he stole the election.

Plus, they thought they had him dead to rights in 2004, but he beat them again...that just added fuel to the already large fire....

[JustRalph]

Why do you think this is Ralph? My theory remains that it is backlash for the 2000 election debacle, the hanging chads...etc....the belief that he stole the election.

Plus, they thought they had him dead to rights in 2004, but he beat them again...that just added fuel to the already large fire....

dead on! Exactly what I think!

[Secretariat]

All I can go by is what you stated, which was:



This, to me, implies that you believe some, if not all, of the hijackers are missing from the original manifests. Have I been misinterpreting your plain-as-day statements all along?

I think you have. It's like saying after a race, "How did that horse win?" Of course the horse won...the question is how? One looks at the form and there is no evidence to show sufficient speed, class, or condition to win, and yet the horse won.

In the manifest case when I say how, it means exactly as I said, "how". THe only difference is we don't have autopsy evidence, nor the manifests showing the hijackers on the planes. We are left to arrive at our conclusions based on what the FBI tells us. My question is simply, if the hijackers have been posted, and all the victims have been posted, why is the FBI reluctant to release copies of the original manifests?

You're making this sound much more devious in asking for something that should and could have been given out years ago. It is really a simple thing. I'm not sure if you are defending this action of the FBI, and if so, why? I'm just looking for a reason why not to release the manifest. No one seems to want to answer that, but instead seem to want to turn the argument to me.

[Tom]

Gee,Sec, nobody is answering it because WE DON'T KNOW!
I assume they have a reason not to do so - maybe other names on one or more of the flights could compromise something else. I dunno.
If this were some elaborate plot, don't you think they would have covered that base?

[Secretariat]

Gee,Sec, nobody is answering it because WE DON'T KNOW!
I assume they have a reason not to do so - maybe other names on one or more of the flights could compromise something else. I dunno.
If this were some elaborate plot, don't you think they would have covered that base?

Good answer, but "assuming they have a reason not to do so" is an act of faith. Unfortunately, with the release of the NORAD tapes, and the 911 Commission's reported consideration of referring the Pentagon to the Justice Department, and the gagging of Sibel Edmonds testinmoy who was there at the FBI, I think they've lost the right to just accept their word on faith. Especially since a manifest is a list of names which supposedly has already been released.

.....

"I can tell that once, and if, and when this issue gets to be, under real terms, investigated, you will be seeing certain people that we know from this country standing trial; and they will be prosecuted criminally."

"I understand this administration and their anti-transparency, anti-accountability and their corrupt attitudes. But that aside, we are not made of only one branch of government. We are supposed to have a system of checks and balances. And I am saying, how about the other two branches? And putting the pressure on our representatives in the Senate and the Congress, and the court system. They should be counter-acting this corruption, but they are sitting there silent. And they are just an audience, just watching it happen. "

"The only people I have seen who have been truly pushing for the truth are the family members. All they have asked for are three things. They want the truth, the facts, the real facts, the straightforward truth. They want accountability. And they want us to improve our security. That's it. They have no other agenda. And now they're smearing their names."

"You get to a point where it gets very complex, where you have money laundering activities, drug related activities, and terrorist support activities converging at certain points and becoming one. In certain points - and they [the intelligence community] are separating those portions from just the terrorist activities. And, as I said, they are citing "foreign relations" which is not the case, because we are not talking about only governmental levels. And I keep underlining semi-legit organizations and following the money. When you do that the picture gets grim. It gets really ugly."

To this day, no US official has been held accountable for anything that occurred on 911.
- Sibel Edmonds, gagged by Ashcroft, and not even permitted to attend her own hearing, Supreme Court will not hear her case. A piece of information that we will never know. Welcome to America.

[OTM Al]

This is where this conspiracy stuff grasps at any and all straws. Sibel Edmonds is a real person who worked at the FBI and everything about testifying and being gagged is true. However, her testamony is not about a coverup of the terrorist bombings but rather incompetance and corruption within the FBI. Gee, incompetance and corruption in a government agency. Never thought that could happen......

Here's a nice article on her from a real news source

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/25/60minutes/main526954.shtml

You know what really feeds this conspiracy crap is that everyone had to go in cover your ass mode because immeadiately politicians went on witch hunts looking to blame our people rather than the terrorists who did this act. For god's sake! They are still today making news because the Commission did not grill Mayor Guiliani hard enough about why there was a communications breakdown with city services. Again, drop this garbage and start laying blame for real events

[JustRalph]

new 9-11 Thread because......They did it!

I have a question............ "Who did it? " care to reply Suff?

[OTM Al]

Here is the current state of debunking the Loose Change video that consolidates most of these claims. I'd like you to pay particular attention to the attitudes and statements of the actual creators of this complete piece of trash. Its a very long pdf document, but if you are interested in truth, then its worth reading

http://911myths.com/LooseChangeCreatorsSpeak.pdf

[Secretariat]

This is where this conspiracy stuff grasps at any and all straws. Sibel Edmonds is a real person who worked at the FBI and everything about testifying and being gagged is true. However, her testamony is not about a coverup of the terrorist bombings but rather incompetance and corruption within the FBI.

I didn't say Sibel Edmonds testimony was about the coverup of the actual bombing.

But her own quotes indicate the coverup on a massive scale of information that is prohibiting the truth getting out about aspects of al Queda that lead to the bombing. Remember GW declaring, we'll follow the money trail. Yet, who has been held accountable for anything, and qho has been prosecuted and convicted from the so-called money trail search. Answer - zilch. In her own words:

"If they were to do real investigations we would see several significant high level criminal prosecutions in this country. And that is something that they are not going to let out. And, believe me; they will do everything to cover this up. "

"I can tell you that the issue, on one side, boils down to money--a lot of money. And it boils down to people and their connections with this money, and that's the portion that, even with this book, has not been mentioned to this day. Because then it starts touching some people in high places."

"When you think of al-Qaeda, you are not thinking of al-Qaeda in terms of one particular country, or one particular organization. You are looking at this massive movement that stretches to tens and tens of countries. And it involves a lot of sub-organizations and sub-sub-organizations and branches and it's extremely complicated. So to just narrow it down and say al-Qaeda and the Saudis, or to say it's what they had at the camp in Afghanistan, is extremely misleading. And we don't hear the extent of the penetration that this organization and the sub-organizations have throughout the world, throughout their networks and throughout their various activities. It's extremely sophisticated. And then you involve a significant amount of money into this equation. Then things start getting a lot of overlap-- money laundering, and drugs and terrorist activities and their support networks converging in several points. That's what I'm trying to convey without being too specific. And this money travels. And you start trying to go to the root of it and it's getting into somebody's political campaign, and somebody's lobbying. And people don't want to be traced back to this money."

[OTM Al]

No Sec, you didn't outright say it but you employed the same sort of doublespeak and using quotes inappropriately as do these conspiracy theorists. You last line said

To this day, no US official has been held accountable for anything that occurred on 911.
- Sibel Edmonds, gagged by Ashcroft, and not even permitted to attend her own hearing, Supreme Court will not hear her case. A piece of information that we will never know. Welcome to America.

Thus making it appear that Miss Edmonds was making the claim that US officails were directly involved in the attack.

I however have no doubt that there has been a major game of cover-my-ass going on after the fact. Not only officials that don't want to get blame for missing indications of the attack but politians as well who have found out that they were receiving funds from individuals that have been connected in some way to the terrorists. But that has nothing do do with conspiring to make that day happen. That just makes you a greedy politician....wait is that a redundancy......

[Secretariat]

No Sec, you didn't outright say it but you employed the same sort of doublespeak and using quotes inappropriately as do these conspiracy theorists. You last line said

To this day, no US official has been held accountable for anything that occurred on 911.
- Sibel Edmonds, gagged by Ashcroft, and not even permitted to attend her own hearing, Supreme Court will not hear her case. A piece of information that we will never know. Welcome to America.

Thus making it appear that Miss Edmonds was making the claim that US officails were directly involved in the attack.

I however have no doubt that there has been a major game of cover-my-ass going on after the fact. Not only officials that don't want to get blame for missing indications of the attack but politians as well who have found out that they were receiving funds from individuals that have been connected in some way to the terrorists. But that has nothing do do with conspiring to make that day happen. That just makes you a greedy politician....wait is that a redundancy......

I say no such thing that about "direct" involvement. I specifically say "accountability". Please re-read exactly what I said.

"To this day, no US official has been held accountable for anything that occurred on 911."

I also question the use of "national security" claims as an excuse for keeping information from the public. In fact even, conservative Republican Grassley questioned why the President was reclassifying already de-classified documents. Why simple items like the flight manifests were being kept classified by the FBI?

Sibel Edmonds wrote a letter to 911 Commission Chair Kean 08/01/04 in which she states:

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20040801215339657

"we are entitled to demand answers to unanswered questions, and to ask for clarification of issues that were ignored and/or omitted from the report."

"Today, almost three years after 9/11, and more than two years since this information has been confirmed and made available to our government, the administrators in charge of language departments of the FBI remain in their positions and in charge of the information front lines of the FBI's Counter terrorism and Counterintelligence efforts. Your report has omitted any reference to this most serious issue, has foregone any accountability what so ever, and your recommendations have refrained from addressing this issue, which when left un-addressed will have even more serious consequences. "

"Over three years ago, more than four months prior to the September 11 terrorist attacks, in April 2001, a long-term FBI informant/asset who had been providing the bureau with information since 1990, provided two FBI agents and a translator with specific information regarding a terrorist attack being planned by Osama Bin Laden. This asset/informant was previously a high-level intelligence officer in Iran in charge of intelligence from Afghanistan. Through his contacts in Afghanistan he received information that: 1) Osama Bin Laden was planning a major terrorist attack in the United States targeting 4-5 major cities, 2) the attack was going to involve airplanes, 3) some of the individuals in charge of carrying out this attack were already in place in the United States, 4) the attack was going to be carried out soon, in a few months. The agents who received this information reported it to their superior, Special Agent in Charge of Counterterrorism, Thomas Frields, at the FBI Washington Field Office, by filing '302' forms, and the translator translated and documented this information. No action was taken by the Special Agent in Charge, and after 9/11 the agents and the translators were told to ?keep quiet' regarding this issue. The translator who was present during the session with the FBI informant, Mr. Behrooz Sarshar, reported this incident to Director Mueller in writing, and later to the Department of Justice Inspector General. The press reported this incident, and in fact the report in the Chicago Tribune on July 21, 2004 stated that FBI officials had confirmed that this information was received in April 2001, and further, the Chicago Tribune quoted an aide to Director Mueller that he (Mueller) was surprised that the Commission never raised this particular issue with him during the hearing."

"After almost three years the American people still do not know that thousands of lives can be jeopardized under the unspoken policy of ? protecting certain foreign business relations.' The victims family members still do not realize that information and answers they have sought relentlessly for over two years has been blocked due to the unspoken decisions made and disguised under ? safeguarding certain diplomatic relations.' Your report did not even attempt to address these unspoken practices, although, unlike me, you were not placed under any gag. Your hearings did not include questions regarding these unspoken and unwritten policies and practices. Despite your full awareness and understanding of certain criminal conduct that connects to certain terrorist related activities, committed by certain U.S. officials and high-level government employees, you have not proposed criminal investigations into this conduct, although under the laws of this country you are required to do so."

[PaceAdvantage]

new 9-11 Thread because......They did it!

I have a question............ "Who did it? " care to reply Suff?

Seriously...do you have to ask? You know by now what Suff's reply is going to be.....

The "Repugs" did it.....Bush....big oil....big pharma....you pick one, they probably "did it"

Oh yeah, and the Jews....can't forget about the Jews....

[dav4463]

I think the Masons have something to do with it...you know the New World Order and all that stuff.....

[rastajenk]

Not to mention Lou Minatti and the Tri-Lateral Flea Flickers, who have had some great underground hits through the years without breaking through to wide popular acceptance.

[JustRalph]

Hey Sec, you want some accountability? How about we hang Clinton and Jamie Gorellick. you fail to mention that a bunch of the FBI stuff wasn't communicated between the FBI and CIA because of the wall that Gorrellick put in place. I still want to know what Sandy Berger stole ? Many believe it had serious revelations about 9-11.........that would make Berger and Clinton look really bad................I am not a worldnet fan....but this is a decent article

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43674

~snippet~
Consider. All five were copies, or (as the Times puts it at one point) "versions," of a single document: an assessment of terrorist threats produced during the Clinton administration. These copies had presumably been distributed to various major figures in the administration, and later collected and placed in the Archives. What interested Berger about five copies of the same document? Presumably, notes scribbled on them by the recipients. And what could have impelled him to destroy three of the five copies, and return the other two? Surely, that the notes on those three copies made it all too clear that somebody high up in the Clinton administration had perceived a threat very much like what happened on Sept. 11, but then failed to do anything whatever about it. ~end Snippet~

[Secretariat]

Hey Sec, you want some accountability? How about we hang Clinton and Jamie Gorellick. you fail to mention that a bunch of the FBI stuff wasn't communicated between the FBI and CIA because of the wall that Gorrellick put in place. I still want to know what Sandy Berger stole ? Many believe it had serious revelations about 9-11.........that would make Berger and Clinton look really bad................I am not a worldnet fan....but this is a decent article

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43674

~snippet~
Consider. All five were copies, or (as the Times puts it at one point) "versions," of a single document: an assessment of terrorist threats produced during the Clinton administration. These copies had presumably been distributed to various major figures in the administration, and later collected and placed in the Archives. What interested Berger about five copies of the same document? Presumably, notes scribbled on them by the recipients. And what could have impelled him to destroy three of the five copies, and return the other two? Surely, that the notes on those three copies made it all too clear that somebody high up in the Clinton administration had perceived a threat very much like what happened on Sept. 11, but then failed to do anything whatever about it. ~end Snippet~

See, here is where you do not get it. I could care less if Clinton was held accountable or not. But to this date, no one has been held accountable. You are so blinded by partisanship, that you don't really want the truth to come out. You only want to protect Bush. If Clinton is to be held accountable, so be it. Can you say the same about Bush? Of course you can't. Very revealing.

I want everyone who f'ed up on that day to be held accountable, becasue it has lead to the massive expenditures we are now involved in.

[Tom]

I want everyone who f'ed up on that day to be held accountable, becasue it has lead to the massive expenditures we are now involved in.

See, this is where YOU don't get it. The whole thing is not who messed up THAT day, but HOW so many messed up for over a decade. 9-11 was a wake up call - and it was not an isolated event. You are desperately trying to blame somone so yo can feel good. It is not that simple.

A week before 9-11, I was runnning late for a flight out of Columbus - as I hit security, I hollared - hurry up - my flight is boarding right now! They let me pass - no inspection at all.

The whole security system was a sham!
It still is - I ate dinner at the Mediteranian Grill in the Detroit airport a couple weeks ago - right by Gate 57, I think. Well past ALL security.
They gave a METAL dinner knife to use! Now I could have palmed that sucker and cerried it on board.

Sec, you want to pin this on Bush - your bottom line. It was the entire system that broke down, and it was happening all through the Clinton years. It did NOT break down when Bush took office.
but you cannot blame Clinton for it all either. You can't use post 9-11 thinking to judge pre- 9-11 actions.

The only sensible thing to do is to move ahead - make sure it never happens again.

[Secretariat]

See, this is where YOU don't get it. The whole thing is not who messed up THAT day, but HOW so many messed up for over a decade. 9-11 was a wake up call - and it was not an isolated event. You are desperately trying to blame somone so yo can feel good. It is not that simple.

A week before 9-11, I was runnning late for a flight out of Columbus - as I hit security, I hollared - hurry up - my flight is boarding right now! They let me pass - no inspection at all.

The whole security system was a sham!
It still is - I ate dinner at the Mediteranian Grill in the Detroit airport a couple weeks ago - right by Gate 57, I think. Well past ALL security.
They gave a METAL dinner knife to use! Now I could have palmed that sucker and cerried it on board.

Sec, you want to pin this on Bush - your bottom line. It was the entire system that broke down, and it was happening all through the Clinton years. It did NOT break down when Bush took office.
but you cannot blame Clinton for it all either. You can't use post 9-11 thinking to judge pre- 9-11 actions.

The only sensible thing to do is to move ahead - make sure it never happens again.

I disagree. You even state, the whole security system was a sham, "AND STILL IS". That is inexcusable. And giving promotions to people who should be held accountable is unaceeptable.

How are we "moving ahead" if by your own words, it was a sham, "AND STILL IS".

Yes, I belevie the Bush admisntration has a tremendous accountabiltiy in this, but I am interested in accountabiltiy regardless of party affiliation in this act. To this day, no one has been held accountable. If you say it wqs a sham, and Clinton is to blame, well we've a Repub, Presdient ,Congress and Supreme Court, and they've done nothing to hold Clinton accountable. If Repubs do nothing to hold anyone accountable, whose fault is that? Dems?

This is inexcusable.

[OTM Al]

The only thing that is inexcusable in my book is that we still have not located the individual who caused this whole thing to happen. If we had 130,000 troops running around Afghanistan and western Pakistan I think I'd feel a little better.......The only people truly responsible that absolutely need to be held accountable are those that did it.

[Indulto]

The only thing that is inexcusable in my book is that we still have not located the individual who caused this whole thing to happen. If we had 130,000 troops running around Afghanistan and western Pakistan I think I'd feel a little better.......The only people truly responsible that absolutely need to be held accountable are those that did it.OA,
You've been the only voice of reason around here lately. From one old goat to another, should you be done in a couple of weeks with clearing this troll bridge of all the hazards, moral or otherwise, I'd love to read your analysis of the Pacific Classic.:D

[OTM Al]

Sad thing is it will never be cleared. They heavy duty conspiracy theorists will never give up on this. They will never admit to having facts wrong, to faulty logic, to anything, even if the truth is not "out there" but rather right in front of their noses. These people are generally very bright people too, which makes it all the harder to deal with them and all the more sad that they have fallen for this stuff which has more holes in it than a block of good Swiss cheese.

I used to love all conspiracy theory stuff. I've watched National Treasure about 10 times and loved it every time. I enjoy the hell out of the DaVinci code and Dan Brown's other novels. One slow sunday I even sat through the entire "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" documentary series on the History Channel (my roommate and I came to the conclusion that everyone but space aliens was in on it and we were split on that one). I've always enjoyed alternate takes on history, and I think they can be very educational because they should make you want to go out and learn about what really happened.

I guess this one just got under my skin for 2 reasons. First, I saw the think happen live. Second, the conspiracy here is just so blatently ridiculous and at times downright racist when they start in on the Jewish slant that it just disgusts me. This is not a battle that can be "won" though. I just hope to convince those that are falling into the falacy traps to step back and think before accepting what these conspiracy people are saying.

Its funny because I have been accused of being a neo-con because of my opposition to this stuff. That was wild because no one has ever called me that before and anyone that knows me would be stunned by such a statement. I've always backed the person I thought could do the job and there have been some elections (2000 in particular) where I refused to vote because I though both candidates were complete losers. And on that note I really dislike our current administration, but its still absolutely ludicrous to try to lay this stuff at the President's doorstep.

So all I can say in this is don't take anyone's word for things like this. Not mine, not anyone's. If a thing matters to you, look into it yourself. Learn something and never stop striving to learn. Never stop questioning. Its okay to do that. We are allowed.

[JustRalph]

It isn't that simple! For 8 years Clinton did very little. He was too busy chasing tail and other things. The fish rots from the head. I believe the Bush admin has some culpability too. But 8 months versus 8 years of so called "chasing Bin ladin" and passing up opportunities to capture him on a silver platter, all the while tossing missiles around whenever it was advantageous to his media image, and never getting anything done that would have any real effect (this includes north korea) wrought what was done on 9-11. Bin ladin himself even said that after watching what Clinton did in Bosnia etc. He decided we were weak. You can't deny these things.

If you want to lay blame, Clinton had 96 months and Bush had 8. They both F-ed Up......but in no way can you lay it at Bush's feet. Think about Clinton and Berger (or Burglar) If you have to pull a burglary to cover your ass (ala Nixon) then you know there is extreme culpability there. Just allocate the blame by time engaged...........Bush gets less than ten percent of the blame (no pardon under any circumstances, there is still blame) but Clinton and his Pussy Posse get tons more. You can even lay some on Bush I and Reagan for not snuffing these little bastards in their robes in the 80's. You can also spread some blame on Carter who effectively made the worse statement possible to the entire middle east when he sat on his ass for months during the hostage crisis. All you hear from senior middle east analysts are stories about how the Muslim countries respect nothing but "strength" Carter sat on his ass, did very little and tried to negotiate with these piss ants and it did nothing but make us look weak. From that point on the radicals realized that the fact that our media and our political system makes us weak and vulnerable to terrorism is their greatest advantage.

[Indulto]

You can even lay some on Bush I and Reagan for not snuffing these little bastards in their robes in the 80's. You can also spread some blame on Carter who effectively made the worse statement possible to the entire middle east when he sat on his ass for months during the hostage crisis. All you hear from senior middle east analysts are stories about how the Muslim countries respect nothing but "strength" Carter sat on his ass, did very little and tried to negotiate with these piss ants and it did nothing but make us look weak. From that point on the radicals realized that the fact that our media and our political system makes us weak and vulnerable to terrorism is their greatest advantage.JR,
It's easy to criticize Carter and Reagan, but Congress had a greater role in both those administrations and their focus was on pursuing peace -- in Carter's case following the long conflict in Viet Nam, and in Reagan's after the long cold war with the Soviet Union. In Carter's time, there was still hope that Iran would join the world as a participating democracy following the fall of the Shah and not as the anti-U.S./anti-Israel theocracy it became.

IMO the most encouraging, enabling, and empowering event for Bin Laden was the end of the Soviet Union following their defeat in Afghanistan. I also believe he was emboldened by Bush I's decision not to take Desert Storm into Iraq. Tail-chasing aside, Clinton's failure to get Arafat to make peace with Israel contributed more to 9-11 than his failure to get Bin-Laden which might not have stopped the attack, anyway.

[Tom]

To Clinton's credit, Arafat was never going to make peace with Israel.
Clinton's mistake was not taking out his sorry ass instead of sucking up to
him.

I would not grant Carter any slack though - he was the terrorists man of the yearl. A total failure as a president, and an international clown. To this day,he still pactices his foolishness. The only thing that made Carter look halfway decent is that he followed the Nixon years and "Chuckles the President" Ford.

[Secretariat]

The only thing that is inexcusable in my book is that we still have not located the individual who caused this whole thing to happen. If we had 130,000 troops running around Afghanistan and western Pakistan I think I'd feel a little better.......The only people truly responsible that absolutely need to be held accountable are those that did it.

Without question, but I want those held accountable who may have been able to prevent it as well. According to Sibel Edmonds there was a good chance it could have been prevented. I beleive her allegations more than those who would put a gag order on her.

[Tom]

Why?

[Secretariat]

Why?

Why do I trust Sibel Edmonds more than those who gagged her?

I suppose because a government that goes out of its way to prevent someone from revealing information publicly about what she says are significant criminal violations, and that people will be going to prison if she gets to reveal them..smacks of a coverup.

Edmonds felt strongly the need to reveal this information when she could have just shut up, and gone on with her life. She can't legally write a book revealing the info because she is gagged.

Yet, I beleive the American people want to know what she has to say. Regardless of party, we were all victims on 911, and prohibiting someone who helps put together a peice of the puzzle raises red flags, and makes one wonder why these unprecedented measures were put into effect, and continue to be in effect 5 years later.

I tend to beleive that what she has to say scares the hell out of somebody.

[Tom]

Why do I trust Sibel Edmonds more than those who gagged her?



No, I meant why do you keep on with this stuff over and over again.:D

[skate]

ok ok ok , secretariet;



According to General Abaizaid on Capital Hill today he stated the sectarian violence is worse than he's ever seen in Iraq, particularly Baghdad, and civil war is a real possiblity. The British Foregin minister stated the chances of a revolution exceed the probabiltiy of a stable democracy. And now the Shite leaders are abandoning the government over there, who just went on vacation in the middle of this violence (kind of reminds us of our own).

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/15174290.htm

....Mission Accomplished

i'm taking your reply to mean that things are out of control, fine, nobody differs. now what remains IS "take IT from here".
so what does the likes of Sorros, fat-boy-mike, whats a mertha wertha, now hillary and the NYT etc., just what do they do?
gads, it seems so impossible to explain, if you continue to fight "what is before your eyes".

let me take this goofy ex.,member growing up, the old tug -of-war games. what you really needed was "everyone stay together" try your hardest and guess what? youd win.cause you could always count on someone on the other side to quite. and slowly but surely, you would gain momentum, simple.
and this is xactkly what has happened.

hey, i never voted for uncle george and never carred nor gave a whoop for the guy.

hey hey, i coming up on the feeling of maybe letting Suddamy back in power, let him run the show. f it.

now, i do like Fidel, god bless Fidel.

[Secretariat]

No, I meant why do you keep on with this stuff over and over again.:D

Because I love your replies Tom.. :lol: