Two Loud Words

There have always been ‘third-rail’ issues in American politics, subjects that, if touched upon, will lead to certain political death. For a long while, and until very recently, Social Security was one of these issues. A new one, surrounding the attacks of September 11, has been born in this political season. If September 11 is discussed, the only allowable sub-topic to be broached is whether or not the Bush administration is capable of keeping us safe from another onslaught.

Friday’s edition of the Boston Globe had a case in point on the front page. An article titled ‘For Bush, Readiness is Key Issue’ stated that, “In speech after speech, President Bush has emphasized his administration's pledge never to forget the lessons of Sept. 11. He says the top goal of his administration is to prevent another attack.” The Globe article contained, in the next paragraph, the standardized rejoinder: “And while Democratic opponents of the administration are unanimous in their hope that that vulnerability is not exposed with deadly results, they have also argued that Bush has done far too little to protect the country from another attack. He has refused to adequately reimburse state and local officials for homeland security costs, they argue, and has ignored dangerous gaps in air cargo and port security.”

Thus, the ‘preparedness-gap’ becomes the whittled-down talking point du jour. This is a whiff of colossal proportions, the implications of which will echo down the halls of history unless someone develops enough spine to speak the truth into a large microphone. The talking point is not difficult to manage. It was splashed in gaudy multi-point font across the front page of the New York Post in May of 2002.

Two words: ‘Bush Knew.’

It is, frankly, amazing that this has fallen down the memory hole. Recall two headlines from that period. The first, from the UK Guardian on May 19, 2002, was titled ‘Bush Knew of Terrorist Plot to Hijack US Planes.’ The first three paragraphs of this story read:

”George Bush received specific warnings in the weeks before 11 September that an attack inside the United States was being planned by Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network, US government sources said yesterday. In a top-secret intelligence memo headlined 'Bin Laden determined to strike in the US', the President was told on 6 August that the Saudi-born terrorist hoped to 'bring the fight to America' in retaliation for missile strikes on al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan in 1998. Bush and his aides, who are facing withering criticism for failing to act on a series of warnings, have previously said intelligence experts had not advised them domestic targets were considered at risk. However, they have admitted they were specifically told that hijacks were being planned.”

Another story on the topic came from the New York Times on May 15, 2002, and was titled ‘Bush Was Warned bin Laden Wanted to Hijack Planes.’ Unlike the Guardian piece, the Times chose to lead the article with the Bush administration’s cover story, one the administration has stuck with to this day:

“The White House said tonight that President Bush had been warned by American intelligence agencies in early August that Osama bin Laden was seeking to hijack aircraft but that the warnings did not contemplate the possibility that the hijackers would turn the planes into guided missiles for a terrorist attack. ‘It is widely known that we had information that bin Laden wanted to attack the United States or United States interests abroad,’ Ari Fleischer, the president's press secretary, said this evening. ‘The president was also provided information about bin Laden wanting to engage in hijacking in the traditional pre-9/11 sense, not for the use of suicide bombing, not for the use of an airplane as a missile.’”

Yes, we were warned, said the Bush administration, but who could have conceived of terrorists using airplanes for suicide bombings?

A lot of people, actually.

According to a Time Magazine story that appeared on Friday, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice is balking at requests to testify before Thomas Kean’s September 11 commission under oath. She also wants her testimony to be taken behind closed doors, and not in public. The crux of her hesitation would appear on the surface to be her comments of May 16 2002, in which she used the above-referenced excuse that no one “could have predicted that they would try to use a hijacked airplane as a missile.” If that excuse is reflective of reality, why does she fear to testify under oath?

Perhaps Ms. Rice fears testifying because too many facts are now in hand, thanks in no small part to the work of 9/11 widows like Kristen Breitweiser, which fly in the face of the administration’s demurrals. For example, in 1993, a $150,000 study was commissioned by the Pentagon to investigate the possibility of an airplane being used to bomb national landmarks. A draft document of this was circulated throughout the Pentagon, the Justice Department and to the Federal Emergency Management Agency. In 1994, a disgruntled Federal Express employee broke into the cockpit of a DC-10 with plans to crash it into a company building in Memphis.

That same year, a lone pilot crashed a small plane into a tree on the White House grounds, narrowly missing the residence. An Air France flight was hijacked by members of the Armed Islamic Group, which intended to crash the plane into the Eiffel Tower. In September 1999, a report titled "The Sociology and Psychology of Terrorism" was prepared for U.S. intelligence by the Federal Research Division, an arm of the Library of Congress. It stated, "Suicide bombers belonging to al Qaeda's Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives (C-4 and Semtex) into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the CIA, or the White House."

Throughout the spring and early summer of 2001, intelligence agencies flooded the government with warnings of possible terrorist attacks against American targets, including commercial aircraft, by al Qaeda and other groups. A July 5, 2001 White House gathering of the FAA, the Coast Guard, the FBI, Secret Service and INS had a top counter-terrorism official, Richard Clarke, state that "Something really spectacular is going to happen here, and it's going to happen soon." Donald Kerrick, who is a three-star general, was a deputy National Security Advisor in the late Clinton administration. He stayed on into the Bush administration. When the Bush administration came in, he wrote a memo about terrorism, al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. The memo said, “We will be struck again.” As a result of writing that memo, he was not invited to any more meetings.

In a late November truthout interview, former Clinton advisor Sidney Blumenthal said, “Richard Clarke was Director of Counter-Terrorism in the National Security Council. He has since left. Clark urgently tried to draw the attention of the Bush administration to the threat of al Qaeda. Right at the present, the Bush administration is trying to withhold documents from the 9/11 bipartisan commission. I believe one of the things that they do not want to be known is what happened on August 6, 2001. It was on that day that George W. Bush received his last, and one of the few, briefings on terrorism. I believe he told Richard Clarke that he didn’t want to be briefed on this again, even though Clarke was panicked about the alarms he was hearing regarding potential attacks. Bush was blithe, indifferent, ultimately irresponsible.”

“The public has a right to know what happened on August 6,” continued Blumenthal, “what Bush did, what Condi Rice did, what all the rest of them did, and what Richard Clarke’s memos and statements were. Then the public will be able to judge exactly what this presidency has done.”

George W. Bush is going to run in 2004 on the idea that his administration is the only one capable of protecting us from another attack like the ones which took place on September 11. Yet the record to date is clear. Not only did they fail in spectacular fashion to deal with those first threats, not only has their reaction caused us to be less safe, not only have they failed to sufficiently bolster our defenses, but they used the aftermath of the attacks to ram through policies they couldn’t have dreamed of achieving on September 10. It is one of the most remarkable turnabouts in American political history: Never before has an administration used so grisly a personal failure to such excellent effect.

This administration must not be allowed to ride their incompetence into a second term. Someone needs to say those two words. Loudly. After all, Bush has proven with Social Security, and with September 11, that third rails can be danced across. All it takes is boldness.

thanks Will

it worked great for McKinney!!

a visual reminder:



who benefitted from 9/11?
who had a 'fabulous' year?
who 'hit the trifecta'?

on edit: WARNING. WillPitt PM'd me that when he tried to cut/paste the URL for the Bush Knew pic, it downloaded porn... ??? since it's a link to an AOL homepage, I don't know how this could happen. I've linked dozens and dozens of images from there. In fact, it really only exists these days as a place to house graphics. Anyway, maybe best to SAVE the image rather than try to link it. Nost.

We do need to spread the word.

"Bush Knew" in a general way that attacks were imminent. He made insufficient efforts to avert them.

This thread will soon be innundated by folks who are certain beyond reason that 'Bush Knew' the date, time, and place of the hijackings along with the names and cell phone numbers of the hijackers. And that the CIA, FBI, and air force had orders not to interfere, which they all followed perfectly and without warning their relatives or spilling info to the press. And that there is indisputable proof of this.

-One- reason the first, reasonable and important, assertion does not get public notice is the noise generated by the second nonsense 'theory'.

glad to see it.

as far as your claim as to why this doesn't get more attention being "the noise generated by the second nonsense 'theory'" is simply BS.

all the 'NOISE' being generated is a by product of all the SECRECY and POOR investigation not to mention many things that they have claimed we KNOW could NOT have happened the way they claimed.

poor excuse for a lack of ANSWERS at least weTHEpeople don't need to wait around for our 'leaders' to start asking the painful question of not only what happen that horrid day but also WHAT DID BUSH KNOW and WHEN DID HE KNOW IT.

WTC7 Fell in it's FOOTPRINT...
http://globalfreepress.net/911/wt7/flash_8fps/wtc7.8fps.swf

HOW?

peace

WTC7 fell because a very big airplane hit it. It fell in its footprint because that is how gravity works.

THERE IS NOTHING TO EXPLAIN AND THIS NOISE WILL JUST DROWN OUT SENSIBLE QUESTIONS.

And I'm saying about the same thing I've said all along.

and so it goes...

peace

...and also demolished the eastern half of WTC6. When the outer shell - the north wall - hit the lower floors hit WTC7, it started a fire which raged until the lower steel framework could no longer support the upper floors.

WTC7 came down for the same reason WTC1 & WTC2 did - fire-weakened steel could no longer support the weight.

it fell in it's foot print and neither does fire.

there has NEVER been a steel building that has collapsed due to fire... and engineers have tried in the UK. but don't believe me ask google.

also there is the other anomally... the CLEAN TOTAL COLLAPSE.

never have i seen a collapse that has happened cleanly by DIRTY destructive forces.

the only two causes for a clean collapse that i can think of is CD or design FLAW/FEATURE though i have yet to hear of a design issue with wtc7, yet.

if anyone has any information on these SERIOUS questions please reply here.

thanks in advance :toast:

peace

...is a 47 story building burning for 7 hours with no efforts by firefighters to bring it under control.

And every counterexample you have put forward -- including the UK tests mentioned above -- involve buildings a fraction of the size of WTC 7. The extra weight has an effect.

I'm supposed to believe Bush operatives put explosives in a minor building that NOT going to be hit by a plane? Thereby generating suspicion and increasing the chances that they would be caught?

For what purpose?

not me

now to YOUR second 'theory'

1 reason could be that it housed secret CIA offices and SEC offices which may have contained documents that could have put the ENTIRE corporate EELITE at risk.

PiggyBacking is a CRIME of opprotunity that goes waaaay back.

but don't take my word for it ask a REAL investigator.

but, be that as it may, since we haven't had a REAL investigation that remains just 1 of the possibilities we are left to our own devises to answer.

psst... pass the word ;->

peace

But it probably didn't.

Seem like, anyone who could plant explosives in a precise way could also break in and remove any nasty documents.

But, then I'm not an investigator.

not i

but in regards to your new query...

"Seem like, anyone who could plant explosives in a precise way could also break in and remove any nasty documents."

someone might notice them missing.

"But, then I'm not an investigator."

nk

peace

what possible reason? what tiny percentage of americans even know that more than 7 structures were destroyed that day?

what possible reason? for such after the fact redundancy? they took down two of the most famous structures on EARTH.

a CD plot for sloppy thirds? very sloppy thirds?

what possible reason? what logic?

like a secret CIA office, SEC office, and others.

just think of what documents may have been in the SEC offices... maybe enough to bring down most in corp USA considering what LITTLE we now know.

that is 1 good reason for instance.

but that is why i am still asking questions about it AND that has nothing to do with understanding how the building could have fallen so cleanly.

can you think of any other reason for such a clean collapse other than DESIGN (flaw/feature) or CD.

steel buildings are made to stand up STRINGLY not collapse like a DECK-OF-CARDS.

that should be enough to peak EVERYONES curiosity.

peace

there were plenty of secrets buried in the ruble that day like a secret CIA office, SEC office, and others.

Got a source for this?

BTW, how secret is a "secret" CIA office if people know its there?

WTC1 and WTC2 were the towers that fell.

WTC7 was a much smaller building that housed emergency headquarters and a large supply of back-up diesel fuel. (guiliani was nearly trapped there when the first tower came down)

it burned for a long time and collapsed late that day. among the many unanswered questions about 9/11, I don't see the collapse of WTC7 important enough to distract from the big questions. (though there are many who disagree)

a building full of diesel burns (keep in mind that firefighters did not fight that fire... it just burned. it was heavily damaged from falling debris from Tower 1.

the fact that MANY folks haven't seen this TOTAL collapse on the TEEVEE and offers an EXCELLENT opportunity to examine the issues again.

this STARTLING FOOTAGE is worth more than WORDS ever could hope to be.

if you want folks to actually RETHINK their FIXED IDEAS - a plan crashed into them, then gravity took over... what more is there to know? - THIS FOOTAGE will play a LARGE role.

psst... pass the word ;->

peace

is that diesel is not an explosive, nor does it even burn very easily. How could this be the cause of the buildings collapse?

http://www.firehouse.com/news/2002/3/4_APwtcdiesel.html

Diesel Fire Led To WTC Collapse

NEW YORK, New York (AP) -- Investigators believe a fire fed by diesel fuel stored in 7 World Trade Center may have led to the building's collapse, according to a published report.

The fire, which was ignited by falling debris from the burning twin towers, raged for about seven hours before the 47-story building collapsed on Sept. 11.


BTW: There is no mention in the above report of WTC 7's foundation and/or supporting structure being damaged by the debris from the collapse of the towers or having anything to do with the failure of the building.

The fire, which was ignited by falling debris from the burning twin towers, raged for about seven hours before the 47-story building collapsed on Sept. 11.

is it so hard to accept that the building simply burned out and collapsed?

i have no idea why adding:

remote controlled planes
controlled demolition of WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7
no pentagon jet (inc. the transfer and disposal of that flight's passengers?)

strengthens the legitmate inquiries into 9/11

do any of the 9/11 victims' advocate embrace these sub-issues? no.

i just feel there are ample questions to be answered without pursuing issues that distract from the core.

bpilgrim, who i have the utmost respect for and hope that we can continue to 'agree to disagree' on some aspects on 9/11 inquiry, is quite correct when he states that this NEVER happened before.

indeed, we have no historical, engineering or anecdotal evidence about the effect of a passenger airliner (with a near full load of fuel) striking a 110 story office tower (much less striking two).

we have no historical, engineering or anecdotal evidence about the effect of a 110 story office tower raining debris on another building housing stores of diesel fuel. or the effects of 7+ hours of intense fire on the integrity of what remained of that building.

there are questions, but not core questions. imho

that WTC7 simply burned out and collapsed the way it did? I understand that the circumstances in WTC 1 & 2 were unique so that there is no other example that we can compare them to, but WTC 7 is a different story.

First it was a much shorter building with a relatively large footprint for it's height. I would assume that WTC 7 was constructed using more traditional methods than those used for WTC 1 & 2, so when it comes to the laws of physics we are dealing with two very different animals here.

Second, WTC 7 was not directly hit by a jet filled with fuel, so it did not suffer the same kind of structural damage that WTC 1 & 2 did.

Third, by the time WTC 7 collapsed the fire was indeed catastrophic but even then there were large sections of the building that were relatively in tack. For the entire building to collapse neatly upon itself just doesn't make sense. It would seem to me that WTC 7 should have ended up looking more like the Murrah Office Building in OK, with the parts of the building that were less effected by the fire still left standing?

I would love to be proved wrong, but can anyone show me an example of a building similar to WTC 7 that suffered from a catastrophic fire and the suddenly collapsed? Until then I will have my doubts.

more than SEVEN HOURS after the twin towers came down?

please. what what purpose? what what purpose?

as far as the MOTIVE just look at the tennants CIA/SEC

betcha there were a LOT of secrets in their offices some folks are glad will now NEVER see the light of day.

think about it...

peace

"secrets in their offices". That seems like a stretch.

corp america and SECRETS are a 'STRETCH'?

haven't heard that one before ;->

:hi:

peace

is that I don't know. But what I do know is that the 'official' story doesn't make sense. And I do know that the only explanation that makes sense to me is that this was a 'controlled' demolition.

Why, for what purpose? To destroy evidence? WTC 7 did house Guilliani's Office of Emergency Management, offices for the SEC, DOD, CIA and Secret Service, so I am sure there was plenty of secret information stored in that building. If command and control for this event had been housed in WTC 7 and possibly the equipment for the controlled collapse of the WTC 1 & 2, wouldn't you want to destroy the evidence. As for the delay, I would guess that whoever set this up would want to make sure that they and their colleagues had plenty of time to get out and that people would be too overwhelmed and distracted by the magnitude of the disaster to even notice. No one died in WTC 7 has a result of the fire and/or collapse.

WTC7 was built over an existing power substation. The load of columns above was carried by long girders held up by trusses (towers, really) built around the power station. These "transfer girders" were also cantilevered on the outside edges so the outside columns didn't go down to foundations. Everything is fine, as long as all the pieces are in place but "progressive failure" happens when a failure in one part of the sturcture dumps load on other parts, so they fail too.

why do you always sound so sure of your self but never provide any links so folks can verify for themselves.

shoot, do you expect folks to just take your anonymous word for it?

btw: thats the first time o've seen the unprecidented collapse explained in a paragragh.

peace

"why do you always sound so sure of your self ..."

Oh, I suppose mainly because of my high school debate team coach who detested weakly phrased arguments. And, I don't much like reading arguments that are decorated with "I believe" and "in my opinion" in front of every phrase; it should be obvious when someone states something as a fact that he merely "believes" it to be a fact, and matters of opinion are usually self-evident. Show me a lawyer who doesn't "always sound so sure of [him]self", and I'll bet he loses a lot of cases. I'm not a lawyer, but I love a good argument. Why should I expect anyone to agree with my argument if I don't sound like I believe it myself?

Another reason is that I've found that it drives "conspiracy hucksters" nuts, which adds to the fun. ;)

"...never provide any links so folks can verify for themselves."

Um, that's a "misstatement," to put it politely. I asked you this before and didn't get an answer: Why do you believe that demanding links and then ignoring them is such a good debating tactic? Anyway, in this case, I'm quite sure that you of all people are well aware of all the WTC7 building diagrams available on the "9/11 conspiracy" sites, since that's where I got the information in the first place. It might have been from one of the links that you yourself provided! But here's one, since I'd hate for you to have go looking:

http://www.wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm

internet 'debating' is a bit more challenging but your do'n just fine.

just try to remember to include a txt snippet from your source when making your case - and a link would be nice, too (sourcing) - here on-line

then... thank GORE he 'invented' the INTERNET :bounce:

and before accusing folks of your personal CT you should actually READ the links you post - jic - since the one you link to is STILL looking for the SAME THING.

Conspicuously missing are important items such as the actual building blueprints. Note the wealth of items concerning the back up generators and fuel tanks and some almost irrelevant items, such as the tenant list. These items are meant to convince the reader that fire bought down WTC 7 even though no steel framed building had ever collapsed due to fire and even though there is no evidence that the fires were anything other than small and localized.

so be sure to let them know, too... when you find them

psst... pass the word :evilgrin:

peace

... I just didn't find the comments in red to be anywhere near convincing enough to reject the idea that a fire could cause the collapse and buy into the preposterous premise of the "CD" theory. And I told you in advance that it was a "9/11 conspiracy" site, so it beats me what you're getting at about not reading it. Am I supposed to believe it just because I read it? You (disingenuously and apparently pointlessly) challenged my assertion that the building was constructed using trusses around the existing power substation carrying cantilevered transfer girders, insisting that you weren't prepared to accept that without a reference. Well, there it is.

But now I see you were just trying to set a clever trap by asking for "blueprints" when you already knew they were "conspicuously missing." Sorry, but your trap has a hole in the back: The blueprints are not "missing" any more. In accordance with the bpilgrim Approved Internet Debating Standards, I submit the following quote and link to the House Committee on Science WTC investigation report:

"The BPAT team initially had difficulty in obtaining building blueprints and design drawings from either the City of New York, the Port Authority, the building owners, or the building designers due primarily to liability concerns on the part of the building owners and insurers. Belatedly, however, the team was provided access to these documents in early January."

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/hsy78961.000/hsy78961_0.HTM

Better luck next time you try to blow smoke up my ass. Speaking of which, you never did respond to the fact that someone you acknowledged as an expert, that Fire Engineering magazine editor Manning, seems to think the tower collapses really were caused by fire and the "conspiracy hucksters" were intentionally misrepresenting what he said. Why is that?

to waste my time?

this link doesn't contain them EITHER, sheesh

and you think I am 'setting traps' and believe in wild CT :crazy:

refering to secret documents doesn't help us understand what happened now does it?

so... it would appear, at least in my mind, that the issue is still OPEN and that we should ALL keep LOOKING and ASKING questions.

psst... pass the word ;->

peace

If you should stumble across one, I do hope you'll share. The song and dance routine is getting tedious.

Let me get this straight: Are you seriously suggesting that if bpilgrim can't examine the actual construction blueprints, then the proposition that fire caused the collapse of WTC-7 is so unbelievable that "controlled demolition" becomes a reasonable explanation?

You apparently can't come with a credible motive for destroying WTC-7 after 1 and 2 were down. You apparently can't explain how the building could be rigged for controlled demolition without anyone noticing (e.g. did they drug the entire building security force while they were doing this, or are they all in on it too? Did they use invisible DET cord? How come nobody who worked in those offices noticed anything suspicious like, oh, recently patched holes in the drywall around every column?) You apparently can't give a rational reason for why the Bad Guys would concoct such a complex and insanely risky scheme, when my 10-year-old could probably come up with something that would accomplish the same presumed objective yet be far easier to pull off without such a huge risk of getting caught or having something go wrong, not to mention the expense and number of people who would need to be involved.

Instead, your argument consists of: 1) bpilgrim doesn't understand how a fire could cause that collapse; and 2) it's never happened before.

Am I understanding you correctly?

According to a May, 2002 FEMA report (from Chapter 5):

WTC 7 collapsed on September 11, 2001, at 5:20 p.m. There were no known casualties due to this collapse. The performance of WTC 7 is of significant interest because it appears the collapse was due primarily to fire, rather than any impact damage from the collapsing towers. Prior to September 11, 2001, there was little, if any, record of fire-induced collapse of large fire-protected steel buildings.


Link to downloadable copy of FEMA report

A "traditional" steel structure would put each column straight up from it's own footing, not carried by transfer girders.

You completely missed Tom's point, which is the skill that the right-wing echo chamber has in casting issues as black or white: you're "either with us or against us"; either Bush* acted responsibly or his goons planted demolition charges all over the WTC then flew the planes in by remote control.

I suggest you go back a few weeks and look at the way the echo chamber reacted to Dean's raising the very same issue Will is talking about here: "Do you want a conspiracy nut for a president?"

You seem to be too caught up in rationalizing your own unsubstantiated conspiracy hypotheses to appreciate the point that Tom was actually making.

You're one of the many who's warned us about this.

Since some of the conspiracy theories are "out there" we must all be silent & accept the official conspiracy theory, even if it's a bit sketchy. Then the media will be nice to all us Democrats.

There's a simple solution. When Bush, Cheney & the others answer hard questions under oath, in public, I'm sure things will be cleared up. When will this occur?

It certainly wasn't that I think "we must all be silent" in the hope that "media will be nice to all us Democrats!" That's just another false black-or-white choice.

I think we should be carrying Will Pitt around the town square on our shoulders for this article. When Dean started talking about the same thing, my reaction was, "Finally!" Now I'm very disappointed that he seems to be backing off of it. Damn right we ought to put all these people under oath and try to get to the bottom of this.

And I'm not one of the ones who keep trying to get the "conspiracy nuts" to shut up. In the first place, it wouldn't do any good; in the second place, that's not how an open society ought to work. I'm just pointing out that Bush* is getting a lot more advantage out of the crazy-sounding stuff than the Dems will.

as a matter of fact i've NEVER heard any dems, bring up any theories, as of yet, cept maybe less than a handful point to some ties that MUST be examined and the one most vocal got derided from ALL sides.

but, i'm with you, i wish they would :toast:

peace

i only asked a question. you seem to be over reacting and projecting your bias on me and others since i have NEVER gave ANY theory.

i wish you would stop.

peace

This is standard Conspiracist tactics.

"I'm not making any accusations, but isn't it funny that...."

You are making an accusation.

Which is standard tactics for the coincidence gang.

think about it.

peace

is pretty much the whole of humanity.

Think about it...

and in germany almost a third of the population thinks we did it ourselves as reported last year right here on DU (sorry i don't have the link, but i am sure someone here does)

psst... pass the word ;->

peace

Maybe the fire was more extensive than you imagine it to be?

Maybe the building was hit by much more falling debris than you'll allow -- including a large number of heavy steel columns that fell hundreds of feet -- and had actually suffered serious internal damage before the fire?

Maybe you really don't understand how the design of that building with interior trusses and cantilevered transfer girders was far more susceptable to progressive failure if any part of it failed than a design with columns going straight up from individual footings would be?

Maybe the fireproofing on the steel in WTC7 wasn't what it should have been?

Maybe it fell straight down simply because the center collapsed first?

Why does Mr. I'm Only Asking Questions dismiss these reasonable questions, out of hand, then propose "controlled demolition" as a more probable explanation? If you're "not really" advocating that theory, then I don't understand why you keep rejecting theories that make a hell of lot more sense, just because "it never happened before."

And why aren't these questions on your list?

1. Did the CIA shoot WTC7 from an orbiting microwave laser?

2. Was a thermobaric bomb dropped from a black helicopter?

3. Did a guy on the grassy knoll with a particle-beam cannon shoot out the columns?

4. Did a cloaked UFO crash into it?

5. Did Bush* hire Uri Geller to bend the steel girders with his mind?

and if you have anything to contribute they would be greatly appreciated.

all those maybes dosen't answer how fire and alledged structual damage resulted in the CLEAN collapse of wtc7 ESPECIALLY when we can find no previous examples of it in HISTORY or in the realistic tests - yes U.K. engineers have done these kinds of test just ask google

but i understand that many will rather except the surface and circumstantial evidence - jump to conclusions - than actually examine all the facts and that is why certain criminals will always be successful with the BIG LIES.

i wont participate further with your silly and time wasting campaign of FUD

good night, sir.

peace

an indefensible position.

and spreading the word

peace

http://fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/123103_danger.html
That case failed recently because the US refused
to produce a key witness who might have offered
exonerating testimony, Ramzi bin al-Shibh.

Bin al-Shibh is reportedly being held at Guantanamo,
outside the reach of media, lawyers and the
Constitution. The credibility risk to the US government,
as it spins a tangled web of conflicting data, is that at
some point, in order to maintain any credibility at all, it
will have to produce real and verifiable statements
from those it holds in custody. It must produce the
witnesses themselves, and in the flesh.

The mother of all lies-Barbara Olsen
The timing of the CNN news release about Barbara
Olson, is therefore as impossible as the New Zealand
press release back in 1963 about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy

http://www.geocities.com/subliminalsuggestion/olson.html

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/jpdesm/pentagon/investigation77.htm

http://www.nypress.com/16/53/news&columns/feature.cfm

Wonderful as always. Stick it to the MAN honey. :-)

Got one oops though. You talk about the UK Guardian article from May 19, 2002 and say "The first three paragraphs of this story read" but then only quote one paragraph.

One comment on a pet peeve of mine. You bring up the admin excuse that they thought the warnings were about highjacking in the traditional, pre-9-11 sense. Would be nice if someone would point out that even if they really thought that way - they still didn't do anything about airport security to try to allay that kind of threat either. Tightening airport security to address traditional highjacking would likely have prevented what actually did happen. I've never seen anyone actually come out and say that in print and call the administration on the carpet about it - it drives me nuts.

they thought there might be hijackings......yet they did nothing to prevent them. 9-11 could have been prevented.

They were warned and went on vacation.

that they spew this nonsense "we thought they meant regular old hihjackers" and some talking head or reporter finally cracks and yells what I always yell at my tv when I hear it "THEN WHY THE FUCK DIDN'T YOU DO ANYTHING ABOUT AIRPORT SECURITY TO ADDRESS THAT THREAT YOU MORON!"

Glad to know it isn't just me. :-)

Whatever happened to our gallant media? The ones who would get the truth out, regardless?

Is that why I was able to board a plane at La Guardia two weeks before 9-11 without a ticket? Actually, I had a ticket, just couldn't find anyone who was interested in looking at it. I was told to just get on the plane because they were in a hurry.

Thanks for posting it here. One small typo, 4th to last para, 3rd sentence you spelled Clarke as Clark. Wouldn't want this to turn into a candidate thread now, would we?

Three little words. " Bush was warned."

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Thanks for this, I'm e-mailing this to several friends

discovered information about Bush's incompetence/indifference ( refusing further briefings....)

Clinton had the information longer than Bush. If Clinton's warnings fell on deaf ears in the new administration, why didn't he speak out? Why didn't the people who warned Bush speak out?

What's the answer to this?

Condoleeza Rice apparently does not want to speak under oath to the committee investigating 9/11; she'd also prefer to speak in private. While considering whether they'll let her get away with this, the committee has indicated they'll meet with the current & previous presidents & VP's in private, without those pesky oaths.

I don't see Clinton being embarrassed at detailing what his administration did; consider the questions he was forced to answer about his private life. Gore is also knowledgeable & can be quite eloquent. Put them both under oath & have them answer hard questions where all can hear the answers.

Then, do the same to Bush & Cheney.

It wasn't that long ago, you know. I remember people in the Clinton admin being rather loose-lipped to the media about what they left for the GWaBby administration.

So if CNN knew in 1996, how could the Bu$h misadministration not know in 2001?

http://www.cnn.com/US/9605/12/terror.plot/

Terrorism trial begins in New York
3 men accused of plotting to bomb U.S. planes

May 13, 1996

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Jury selection began in New York Monday in the federal trial of three men accused of plotting to bomb 11 planes headed for the United States on a single day in 1995.

Ramzi Yousef is charged with masterminding the plot. He also will be tried later this year, accused of planning the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993. Four men are already serving life in prison for that crime.

<snip>

They also say they found computer disks containing detailed plans to blow up U.S. airliners.

really raises the hackles of bush supporters .

When they are otherwise silent , if they see/hear bush knew
woooweee do they get pissed ...

I too think this is key .

The media refuses to make a big deal of any of this. They're still in the hands of Karl Rove and Co. The Internet alternative news had the story about Condy's balking at testifying under oath.....not a word from the maninstream. So, what else is new?
No one..not even the candidates will say "BUSH KNEW!"
" What? You believe that the President actually knew and did nothing?????? How COULD you?" - You know that pitch. Everyone is afraid to tell the truth, and everyone is afraid to ask the questions. Pitt is so right... someone needs to. But the President DOES NOT LIE...we all know that...
Reminder - this came out months ago:

http://tvnewslies.org/html/lying_redefined.html

about the anti-aircraft guns installed around the (G8 conference?) in Genoa in early 01 as defense against the very same 'threat'...
K

they put up at W's hotel on Longboat Key on 9-10-01?

If anyone has a backing link on this, I'd really appreciate it. TIA :)


MDN

I can't find a link to the original article, so I hope this will do?

The Day Before Everything Changed, President Bush Touched Locals' Lives


The Sarasota Herald-Tribune
September 10, 2002


At the Colony, the Secret Service was getting everything secured for when the president arrived on Sept. 10. That included snipers and surface-to-air missiles on the roof and the Coast Guard patrolling just offshore.

Thanks, the backing link is much appreciated :)

FWIW, it turns out that the Herald-Tribune also maintains online archives (pay-per-view, unfortunately ... ), and an archive-search does indeed confirm this reference.

The link to the original is here.

The more you look at it, the more obvious it becomes that the Bushies were very aware of the danger of "aerial incursions" in the days leading up to 9/11. No wonder Condi doesn't want to testify under oath.


MDN

That explains so much. He was warned, and got caught with his pants down.

He reacted just like the 4 year old caught red-handed.

Some of you may have seen it already...but for those that haven't here it is...a great read.

September 11th and the Bush Administration: Compelling Evidence for Complicity - by Walter E. Davis, PhD, Kent State University, October 29th 2003

http://www.bartcop.com/010304complicity.htm

There's a lot of people working on this issue. I'm not totally sold on any one theory yet, but there are a lot of unanswered questions. And the more I read about this the more suspicious I get...

I think this is going to be THE bombshell story in a few years. The truth is perculating beneath the surface of the corporate media's veneer of objectivity.

"Donald Kerrick, who is a three-star general, was a deputy National Security Advisor in the late Clinton administration. He stayed on into the Bush administration. When the Bush administration came in, he wrote a memo about terrorism, al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. The memo said, “We will be struck again.” As a result of writing that memo, he was not invited to any more meetings."

In my mind Donald Kerrick holds on to a key in this investigation.

it could be a big piece of the puzzle, and quite damning. They obviously trusted him enough to consult him in the beginning. But after he raised questions they didn't want to answer, it looks like they cut him out of the loop.

Deliberate negligence...that's what I see at this point, really a form of LIHOP.

the evening of 9-11 all the countries that had warned the US that something big was coming.

He was furious.

Of course, time has passed, he doesn't remember this reaction too well, and he's convinced that for 40+ years there's been lots of people working to destroy the basis of American society. Although he doesn't say so, it's clear he means liberals and democrats.

...by the Dem candidates at every opportunity until election day. The Bush administration's complacence from the moment they stole office until the day of the attacks is a very important part of the 9/11 story. It's probably the most important part of the story and should have precedence over every other part of the investigation because it contains the lessons to be learned from the mistakes of the Bush administration.

How can we better learn how to defend ourselves if we don't know the real story about why it happened on 9/11?

Avoids the Conspiracist overhead of 'Bush Knew', but gets the point across.

'Bush Vacationed" ? "Bush Ran"?

and besides... BUSH KNEW something was wrong with his inteligence but didn't sweat it...

http://globalfreepress.net/sgtv/MoveOnWeb/MoveOn-GFP.mov
more...
http://globalfreepress.net/sgtv/MoveOnWeb

psst... pass the word ;->

peace

The real problem seems to get Bush to admit he knew. What's it going to take a Congressional investigation? Will the 9-11 families bring a lawsuit against BushCo? I mean saying he knew isn't going to further this debate one iota until somewhere, somebody or bodies take action to make him admit, HE KNEW.

:kick:

As others have said, to say "Bush knew," has a lot of conspiritorial overtones to it that most people don't believe. The best we might do is, "Bush was told."

Seriously, this notion that somehow, out of the myriad threats that were appearing in mid/late-2001, this PARTICULAR attack should have stood out is ludicrous. Were they told that planes might be hijacked around this time? Sure. Were they told that OBL would likely be behind them? Sure. Now if I remember correctly, most of the 19 hijackers had no PREVIOUSLY KNOWN terrorist links/ties/records whatsoever. So, unless the name "Osama Bin Laden" shows up on a passenger manifest, how are they to go about intercepting these would-be hijackers? The same people who are saying that this is a massive intelligence failure would no doubt cry foul if suddenly authorities started giving extra attention to every passenger from the Middle East or Saudi Arabia. No, we couldn't do that. Furthermore, if we increased general security and started searching EVERYONE more thoroughly, then the Administration would be accused of fear-mongering. Moreoever, box cutters WERE permissible carry-on items pre-9/11, so even if they questioned and frisked these guys, they would have nothing on them.

I guess I am just a little annoyed at everyone who, with perfect information and 20/20 hindsight, deigns to assert that anyone but Bush (read: anyone with half a brain) would have seen the writing on the wall where he did not. Pre-9/11, Bush might've gotten a 1-hour briefing on the threat matrix before being inundated with all kinds of information for the rest of the day.

Look me in the eye and tell me that, as soon as you heard about this particular possible threat, you'd have been all over it, caught all 19 hijackers, angered no one, come in under budget, shored up airline security, lesson learned, don't let the door 'em on their way out. How convenient.

and couple that with the other things we now know they knew, and you TELL ME that you wouldn't have taken serious steps to stop the impending attack they evidently knew was coming. What did they do? Well Ashcroft evidently was concerned enough to stop flying commercial - thanks for warning us Ashcroft, and thanks for beefing up security at airports!

And thanks for having the East Coast on such a high level of alert that it took, for all practical purposes, forever to get a military response to the hi-jacking of 4 airliners, which was known as soon as it happened since the FAA tracks all flights on radar.

Thanks for following established protocol relative for hi-jackings too, thanks Bush for either screwing up royally or letting it happen so you could begin to slowly turn this country into a one-party fascist state...

They knew that an attack involving an airplane was coming. They didn't know the day, the time, the airport(s) or even the region. They didn't know the targets. They had an idea, about each of these aspects of the impending terrorist attacks.

Was the response slow once the attacks began? Seemingly, but remember that even once the first attack occurred, there were still THOUSANDS of aircraft in the air and on the radar. Air traffic controllers had NO WAY of knowing which ones were going to be used in the attacks.

Again, now that we have perfect knowledge, it all appears so easy but that just isn't so.

And that alone should be enough to get them moving and doing things. Evidently they did very little.

In addition, we don't how much knowledge they had...really we don't yet...there are still pieces to this puzzle that are missing.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/101303A.shtml

The astounding level of blunt ignorance within the American populace about the events surrounding the attacks of September 11 cannot be easily quantified. In a nation with thousands of newspapers, thousands of radio stations, and a ceaseless data stream from CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, Fox, NBC, ABC, CBS and PBS, some 70% of the population believed as late as a month ago that Saddam Hussein was centrally involved in and personally responsible for the attacks which destroyed the Towers and struck the Pentagon. Beyond that, what most people know about the single most important event in American history does not go much beyond "evildoers" who "hate our freedom."

That is, simply, incredible. It is also not an accident. This ignorance has a great deal to do with the stunning mediocrity of the television news media, that empty well where most Americans go to become informed. This ignorance also, and far more importantly, has a great deal to do with the Clinton-era actions of a large number of conservatives, many of whom are in positions of power today, many of whom are now making careers out of September 11.

The two great myths that have settled across the nation, beyond the Hussein-9/11 connection, are that Clinton did not do enough during his tenure to stop the spread of radical terrorist organizations like al Qaeda, and that the attacks themselves could not have been anticipated or stopped. Blumenthal's insider perspective on these matters bursts the myths entirely, and reveals a level of complicity regarding the attacks within the journalistic realm and the conservative political ranks that is infuriating and disturbing.

Starting in 1995, Clinton took actions against terrorism that were unprecedented in American history. He poured billions and billions of dollars into counterterrorism activities across the entire spectrum of the intelligence community. He poured billions more into the protection of critical infrastructure. He ordered massive federal stockpiling of antidotes and vaccines to prepare for a possible bioterror attack. He order a reorganization of the intelligence community itself, ramming through reforms and new procedures to address the demonstrable threat. Within the National Security Council, "threat meetings" were held three times a week to assess looming conspiracies. His National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, prepared a voluminous dossier on al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, actively tracking them across the planet. Clinton raised the issue of terrorism in virtually every important speech he gave in the last three years of his tenure. In 1996, Clinton delivered a major address to the United Nations on the matter of international terrorism, calling it "The enemy of our generation."

Behind the scenes, he leaned vigorously on the leaders of nations within the terrorist sphere. In particular, he pushed Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to assist him in dealing with the threat from neighboring Afghanistan and its favorite guest, Osama bin Laden. Before Sharif could be compelled to act, he was thrown out of office by his own army. His replacement, Pervez Musharraf, pointedly refused to do anything to assist Clinton in dealing with these threats. Despite these and other diplomatic setbacks, terrorist cell after terrorist cell were destroyed across the world, and bomb plots against American embassies were thwarted. Because of security concerns, these victories were never revealed to the American people until very recently.

In America, few people heard anything about this. Clinton's dire public warnings about the threat posed by terrorism, and the massive non-secret actions taken to thwart it, went completely unreported by the media, which was far more concerned with stained dresses and baseless Drudge Report rumors. When the administration did act militarily against bin Laden and his terrorist network, the actions were dismissed by partisans within the media and Congress as scandalous "wag the dog" tactics. The TV networks actually broadcast clips of the movie "Wag The Dog" to accentuate the idea that everything the administration was doing was contrived fakery.

The bombing of the Sundanese factory at al-Shifa, in particular, drew wide condemnation from these quarters, despite the fact that the CIA found and certified VX nerve agent precursor in the ground outside the factory, despite the fact that the factory was owned by Osama bin Laden's Military Industrial Corporation, and despite the fact that the manager of the factory lived in bin Laden's villa in Khartoum. The book "Age of Sacred Terror" quantifies the al-Shifa issue thusly: "The dismissal of the al-Shifa attack as a scandalous blunder had serious consequences, including the failure of the public to comprehend the nature of the al Qaeda threat."

In Congress, Clinton was thwarted by the reactionary conservative majority in virtually every attempt he made to pass legislation that would attack al Qaeda and terrorism. His 1996 omnibus terror bill, which included many of the anti-terror measures we now take for granted after September 11, was withered almost to the point of uselessness by attacks from the right; Jesse Helms and Trent Lott were openly dismissive of the threats Clinton spoke of.

Clinton wanted to attack the financial underpinnings of the al-Qaeda network by banning American companies and individuals from dealing with foreign banks and financial institutions that al Qaeda was using for its money-laundering operations. Texas Senator Phil Gramm, chairman of the Banking Committee, killed Clinton's bill on this matter and called it "totalitarian." In fact, he was compelled to kill the bill because his most devoted patrons, the Enron Corporation and its criminal executives in Houston, were using those same terrorist financial networks to launder their own dirty money and rip off the Enron stockholders.

Just before departing office, Clinton managed to make a deal with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development to have some twenty nations close tax havens used by al Qaeda. His term ended before the deal was sealed, and the incoming Bush administration acted immediately to destroy the agreement. According to Time magazine, in an article entitled "Banking on Secrecy" published in October of 2001, Bush economic advisors Larry Lindsey and R. Glenn Hubbard were urged by think tanks like the Center for Freedom and Prosperity to opt out of the coalition Clinton had formed. The conservative Heritage Foundation lobbied Bush's Treasury Secretary, Paul O'Neill, to do the same. In the end, the lobbyists got what they wanted, and the Bush administration pulled America out of the plan. The Time article stated, "Without the world's financial superpower, the biggest effort in years to rid the world's financial system of dirty money was short-circuited."

This laundry list of partisan catastrophes goes on and on. Far from being inept on the matter of terrorism, Clinton was profoundly activist in his attempts to address terrorism. Much of his work was foiled by right-wing Congressional conservatives who, simply, refused to accept the fact that he was President. These men, paid to work for the public trust, spent eight years working diligently to paralyze any and all Clinton policies, including anti-terror initiatives that, if enacted, would have gone a long way towards thwarting the September 11 attacks. Beyond them lay the worthless television media, which ignored and spun the terrorist issue as it pursued salacious leaks from Ken Starr's office, leaving the American people drowning in a swamp of ignorance on a matter of deadly global importance.

Over and above the theoretical questions regarding whether or not Clinton's anti-terror policies, if passed, would have stopped September 11 lies the very real fact that attacks very much like 9/11 were, in fact, stopped dead by the Clinton administration. The most glaring example of this came on December 31, 1999, when the world gathered to celebrate the passing of the millennium. On that night, al Qaeda was gathering as well.

The terrorist network planned to simultaneously attack the national airports in Washington DC and Los Angeles, the Amman Raddison Hotel in Jordan, a constellation of holy sites in Israel, and the USS The Sullivans at dock in Yemen. Each and every single one of these plots, which ranged from one side of the planet to the other, was foiled by the efforts of the Clinton administration. Speaking for the first time about these millennium plots, in a speech delivered to the Coast Guard Academy on May 17, 2000, Clinton said, "I want to tell you a story that, unfortunately, will not be the last example you will have to face."

Indeed.

Clinton proved that Osama bin Laden and his terror network can be foiled, can be thwarted, can be stopped. The multifaceted and complex nature of the international millennium plots rivals the plans laid before September 11, and involved counter-terrorism actions within several countries and across the entire American intelligence and military community. All resources were brought to bear, and the terrorists went down to defeat. The proof is in the pudding here. September 11, like the millennium plots, could have been avoided.

Couple this with other facts about the Bush administration we now have in hand. The administration was warned about a massive terror plot in the months before September by the security services of several countries, including Israel, Egypt, Germany and Russia. CIA Director George Tenet delivered a specific briefing on the matter to the administration on August 8, 2001. The massive compendium of data on Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda compiled by Sandy Berger, and delivered to Condoleezza Rice upon his departure, went completely and admittedly unread until the attacks took place. The attacks themselves managed, for over an hour, to pierce the most formidable air defense system in the history of the Earth without a single fighter aircraft taking wing until the catastrophe was concluded.

It is not fashionable these days to pine for the return of William Jefferson Clinton. Given the facts above, and the realities we face about the administration of George W. Bush, and the realities we endure regarding the aftermath of September 11, the United States of America would be, and was, well served by its previous leader. That we do not know this, that September 11 happened at all, that it was such a wretched shock to the American people, that we were so woefully unprepared, can be laid at the feet of a failed news media establishment, and at the feet of a pack of power-mad conservative extremists who now have a great deal to atone for.

Had Clinton been heeded, the measures he espoused would have been put in place, and a number of powerful bulwarks would have been thrown into the paths of those commercial airplanes. Had the news media been something other than a purveyor of masturbation fantasies from the far-right, the American people would have know the threats we faced, and would have compelled their Congressmen to act. Had Congress itself been something other than an institution ruled by narrow men whose only desire was to break a sitting President by any means necessary, we would very probably still have a New York skyline dominated by two soaring towers.

Had the Bush administration not continued this pattern of gross partisan ineptitude and heeded the blitz of domestic and international warnings, instead of trooping off to Texas for a month-long vacation, had Bush's National Security Advisor done one hour's worth of her homework, we probably would not be in the grotesque global mess that currently envelops us. Never forget that many of the activists who pushed throughout the 1990s for the annihilation of all things Clinton are now foursquare in charge of the country today.

Can I have a hallelujah?

Nice job, Will! :thumbsup:

I am not saying that Clinton would have been worse than Bush or better. I am simply saying that of course, now that all or most of the facts are known (depending on which CTs you subscribe to), it's clear what Bush should have done. That's all I am really saying.

Link to legality of boxcutters from a guy who doesn't believe that they were used.

But since you brought up Clinton, what about USS Cole, Oklahoma City, and the first WTC bombing? Surely there were some warnings regarding those attacks. One of them was even perpetrated within the US. Why not decry these obvious failures? I don't really care, because, unlike you, I realize that being President is one of the most unforgiving, thankless jobs in the world. I won't and don't fault Clinton one bit.

People here on DU often refer to Mossad as being one of the best intelligence agencies in the world. I remember reading that Mossad stops only 9 of 10 terrorist plots in Israel. The lesson: even the best intelligence is imperfect. It's fortunate for us that we have so many perfect, clear-thinking, clearly qualified people here on DU that, given the chance to be President, could do an infinitely better job than ANYONE who has come before. Sorry, I'm not buyin'.

Jackcgt,

You are, like most people, very uninformed about 9/11. The US was warned many times about 9/11 from many different sources.

Here's an essay I wrote that looks merely at the warnings that came from foreign governments (that we know about).

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/essaytheytriedtowarnus.html

This is but a fraction of all the warnings given. As for the notion that the hijackers had clean records, this is another myth belied by the facts. Almost half of them were known by name by the US before 9/11. Mohammed Atta for instance had no less than six intelligence agencies trailing him, including the CIA.

Let's see. According to the data in my timeline, the US gvmt knew the following were terrorists BEFORE 9/11:

Nawaf al-Hazmi
Khalid al-Mihdhar
Mohammed Atta
Ziad Jarrah
Marwan al-Shehhi
Salem al-Hazmi
Ahmed Alghamdi
Satam Al Suqami
Hani Hanjour

In many cases the CIA knew their full names, phone number, address, terrorist associates, flight school plans, and more.

Yet what were the steps taken in response to all of these warnings and information? None that I can see.

The head of the Independent Commssion Tom Kean recently stated the 9/11 attacks could have been stopped and should have been stopped. Democrats need to hammer this point into the public mind.

from what you've written it seems fine to ask why these names weren't flagged in a database such that these hijackers would have been intercepted at the gate. But regarding other nations' warnings to us that the attack would come from the air, or would involve an airplane used as a missile, what were we to have done? Ground every flight from July through September? Of course not. We've seen that, just as several people were detained recently for having names "similar to" those of known terrorist, even flagging their names in a database might not have worked as they probably wouldn't be exact or even close matches. Also, since when is the President responsible for the failure of EVERY intelligence agent working in his administration? How could Bush possibly monitor all of these people and make sure that they were supplying him with all pertinent information.

Again, I NEVER argued that there wasn't a failure of intelligence, simply that to try and pin it all on one person is ludicrous.

Please answer this: Was Clinton warned about WTC '93, Oklahoma City, USS Cole? Specifically? Generally? Did someone say "Someone, someday, is going to ram an explosive watercraft into one of our ships, somewhere in the world?" If so, is that sufficient intelligence for one to say "Clinton knew?"

Again, I didn't bring Clinton into this, Will did by saying "See, Clinton busted up terrorist plots, why can't Bush?" but he conveniently forgot the ones that succeeded. What say you?

He could have done a much better job.

Look at my comments to William about that here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=984032

There actually was a large amount of foreknowledge on a couple of terror plots during the Clinton admin. that should have led to them being stopped, most specifically the Africa embassy bombings in 1998. But those warnings were nothing compared to 9/11 which was easily the worst kept terror plan in history.

As far as what Bush should have done, here's some good commentary from the Village Voice:

When people first raised questions about President Bush's scared-chicken behavior on September 11, they were buried in patriotic abuse. But think about it. Consider the bare facts: The attacks happened on George Bush's watch. He was in charge. And he now admits to having known in general what was going to happen. Terrorists were slipping into the country. They were studying at American flight schools. They intended to hijack planes. They were financed by Osama bin Laden.

Knowing all of this, Bush still left us totally undefended. And for this performance, his approval ratings soared.

If the president got an intelligence warning during the summer about what might soon happen, how come he didn't do something then? He could have:

1. Told Congress.

2. Improved airport security, which had already been criticized as inadequate.

3. Alerted the airlines. As it was, the airlines never raised any questions when the hijackers started laying down thousands in cash for one-way tickets.

4. Warned the FAA. The FAA control center in New Hampshire knew 10 to 15 minutes after takeoff that an American Airlines flight from Boston had been hijacked. It was more than half an hour later when it crashed into the World Trade Center.

5. Ordered improved security for the nation's nuclear power plants, the untended thousands of miles of natural gas pipelines, the harbors into which a terrorist could sail a liquid natural gas tanker and unleash a holocaust equal to a nuclear explosion.

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0221/ridgeway3.php

---

To this, I would add a few more important ones. Everybody knew that at least some kind of airplane hijacking in the US was in the works. But rather than increase the number of fighters able to quickly respond to any kind of air threat, just before 9/11 there was actually talk of reducing the mere 14 fighters defending the US even further!

And while Bush was concerned enough to put up an antiaircraft battery at the hotel he was staying the night before 9/11, he wasn't concerned enough to put such defenses on or around likely targets. New York City with it's multitude of likely targets was completely undefended, for instance, with no anti aircraft batteries and (supposedly) no fighters within 200 miles able to respond. Washington was about the same.

How more incompetent could you possibly get?

Bush Knew? Unfortunately, they've caused the answer to be "maybe." The problem is that from the early days following 9/11, there appeared to be no curiosity to determine what went wrong with the national security of the United States. They have caused this problem all by themselves by not being proactive, by resisting the formation of an investigative committee, by removing sections WHICH OUR SENATORS say will not jeopardize national security, and by lukewarm and non-cooperation with the 9/11 committee.

They have brought this on-going tidalwave of criticism, speculation, and accusations upon themselves and it will probably hang over them forever.

are not suspicious.

"Seriously, this notion that somehow, out of the myriad threats that were appearing in mid/late-2001, this PARTICULAR attack should have stood out is ludicrous."

26. summer 2001 - Jordanian intelligence, the GID, makes a communications intercept deemed so important that King Abdullah's men relay it to Washington, probably through the CIA station in Amman. To make doubly sure the message got through it was passed through an Arab intermediary to a German intelligence agent. The message: A major attack was planned inside the U.S., and aircraft would be used. The code name of the operation was "The Big Wedding." "When it became clear that the information was embarrassing to Bush Administration officials and congressmen who at first denied that there had been any such warnings before Sept. 11, senior Jordanian officials backed away from their earlier confirmations." This case was authenticated by ABC reporter John K. Cooley.

39. August 2001 - Russian President Vladimir Putin orders Russian intelligence to warn the U.S. government "in the strongest possible terms" of imminent attacks on airports and government buildings.

43. August/September 2001 - According to a detailed 13-page memo written by Minneapolis FBI legal officer Colleen Rowley, FBI headquarters ignores urgent, direct warnings from French intelligence services about pending attacks. In addition, a single Supervisory Special Agent (SSA) in Washington expends extra effort to thwart the field office's investigation of Zacarias Moussaoui, in one case rewriting Rowley's affidavit for a search warrant to search Moussaoui's laptop. Rowley's memo uses terms like "deliberately sabotage," "block," "integrity," "omitted," "downplayed," "glossed over," "mis-characterize," "improper political reasons, "deliberately thwarting," "deliberately further undercut," "suppressed," and "not completely honest." These are not terms describing negligent acts but rather, deliberate acts. FBI field agents desperately attempt to get action, but to no avail. One agent speculates that bin Laden might be planning to crash airliners into the WTC, while Rowley ironically noted that the SSA who had committed these deliberate actions had actually been promoted after Sept. 11.

45. early-September 2001 - An FBI internal document, based upon field notes from Minnesota field agents discloses that the agents had been investigating and had questioned the "20th hijacker," Zacarias Moussaoui. The field notes speculate that Moussaoui, who had been taking flight lessons, might crash an airliner into the WTC. Interestingly, the field agents' requests to obtain a search warrant for his personal computer were denied. French intelligence confirms to the FBI that Moussaoui has ties to terrorist groups and may have traveled to Afghanistan. The agents also had no knowledge of the Phoenix memo (See Item #18). One news story states that agents were in "a frenzy," absolutely convinced that he was "going to do something with a plane." .

more...
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/02_11_02_lucy.html

"Now if I remember correctly, most of the 19 hijackers had no PREVIOUSLY KNOWN terrorist links/ties/records whatsoever. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/15/international/worldspecial/15INTE.html

May 15, 2003
Officials Who Failed to Put Hijackers on Watch List Not Named
By JEFF GERTH


Some senators said Mr. Tenet's testimony to Congress had an important omission, because he did not disclose a cable of Dec. 11, 1999, which notified officials that they were required to put on the watch list suspected terrorists like Mr. Midhar.

...

Mr. Midhar and Mr. Alhazmi and "their association with Al Qaeda" was well known to the American intelligence community by the first week of January 2000, according to testimony by the director of the National Security Agency, Lt. Gen. Michael Hayden. The C.I.A. secretly obtained a copy of Mr. Midhar's Saudi Arabian passport by having the authorities in another Middle Eastern country stop him at an airport on his way to Malaysia, intelligence officials said.

...

Yet, Mr. Midhar and Mr. Alhazmi flew unnoticed into Los Angeles from Bangkok on Jan. 15, 2000. One month earlier the C.I.A.'s counterterrorism center had cabled agency offices, including its own Osama bin Laden unit, about various reporting obligations. The cable included "clear internal guidance" that "required" the agency to pass on for the watch list "the names of all persons it suspected of being terrorists," according to Mr. Shelby. The cable and guidance are classified, but officials said that, at a minimum, Mr. Midhar met the guidance standards.

...


The chief of the bin Laden unit in 2000 was promoted after Sept. 11 to head an important C.I.A. station, and more recently he was assigned to the F.B.I., where he holds a senior position, officials said. In 2000 there were about three dozen employees assigned to the bin Laden unit, and about 200 agents worldwide were at the disposal of the unit, according to the C.I.A.

The director of operations for the C.I.A.'s Qaeda unit in 2000 has since been promoted to the unit's No. 2 post, officials added.

more...
http://newsmine.org/archive/9-11/inquiry/failed-put-hijackers-watch-list.txt

"Moreoever, box cutters WERE permissible carry-on items pre-9/11, so even if they questioned and frisked these guys, they would have nothing on them."

got a link?

"Look me in the eye and tell me that, as soon as you heard about this particular possible threat, you'd have been all over it, caught all 19 hijackers, angered no one, come in under budget, shored up airline security, lesson learned, don't let the door 'em on their way out. How convenient."

look me in the eye and tell us you would have done NOTHING... or even worse AID in the attacks by LESSINING SECURITY.

We know that John O'Neil the former head of counterintelligence with the FBI who died in the WTC on 9/11 quit the FBI because of the obstruction of investigations with respect to Saudi Arabia by the Bush Administration.

mid-July, 2001: John O'Neill, FBI counter-terrorism expert, says, "the main obstacles to investigate Islamic terrorism were US oil corporate interests and the role played by Saudi Arabia in it." He also states, "All the answers, everything needed to dismantle Osama bin Laden's organization, can be found in Saudi Arabia."

.

more...
http://www.unansweredquestions.org/background_44.php

i hope you can see a little more clearly now.

ain't the internet grand ;->

peace

Sitting around a keg, I heard Navy pilots asking each other, "Could you shoot down a DC10 (or whatever) with hundreds of Americans on board because your CO said it had been hijacked and was probably en route to the Capitol or WH or WTC?" They mostly all said they would, but that they'd need to be hospitalized afterwards.

I have posted this several times and been shot down because of the source. Worldnetdaily.com. Well Farah, that wanker, won't let Sperry write anymore it seems. Yeah. Sperry is his DC bureau chief who is not allowed to write anymore. Why? This story was his last. I hope he's still alive personally.

This is impeachable material. And why don't you have your hands on the full documents Mr. William Pitt? Not the 25 page report. The real one?

SNIP>
The 25-page white paper, posted on the CIA website, focused on alleged weapons of mass destruction, and conveniently left out the entire part about Saddam's reluctance to reach out to al-Qaida. Americans also didn't see the finding that Saddam had no hand in 9-11 or any other al-Qaida attack against American territory. That, too, was sanitized.
<SNIP>

----------

Yes, Bush lied

WASHINGTON – A year ago, on Oct. 1, one of the most important documents in U.S. history was published and couriered over to the White House.

The 90-page, top-secret report, drafted by the National Intelligence Council at Langley, included an executive summary for President Bush known as the "key judgments." It summed up the findings of the U.S. intelligence community regarding the threat posed by Iraq, findings the president says formed the foundation for his decision to preemptively invade Iraq without provocation. The report "was good, sound intelligence," Bush has remarked.

Most of it deals with alleged weapons of mass destruction.

But page 4 of the report, called the National Intelligence Estimate, deals with terrorism, and draws conclusions that would come as a shock to most Americans, judging from recent polls on Iraq. The CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency and the other U.S. spy agencies unanimously agreed that Baghdad:



had not sponsored past terrorist attacks against America,

was not operating in concert with al-Qaida,

and was not a terrorist threat to America.

"We have no specific intelligence information that Saddam's regime has directed attacks against U.S. territory," the report stated.

However, it added, "Saddam, if sufficiently desperate, might decide that only an organization such as al-Qaida could perpetrate the type of terrorist attack that he would hope to conduct."

Sufficiently desperate? If he "feared an attack that threatened the survival of the regime," the report explained.

"In such circumstances," it added, "he might decide that the extreme step of assisting the Islamist terrorists in conducting a CBW attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him."

In other words, only if Saddam were provoked by U.S. attack would he even consider taking the "extreme step" of reaching out to al-Qaida, an organization with which he had no natural or preexisting relationship. He wasn't about to strike the U.S. or share his alleged weapons with al-Qaida – unless the U.S. struck him first and threatened the collapse of his regime.

Now turn to the next page of the same NIE report, which is considered the gold standard of intelligence reports. Page 5 ranks the key judgments by confidence level – high, moderate or low.

According to the consensus of Bush's intelligence services, there was "low confidence" before the war in the views that "Saddam would engage in clandestine attacks against the U.S. Homeland" or "share chemical or biological weapons with al-Qaida."

Their message to the president was clear: Saddam wouldn't help al-Qaida unless we put his back against the wall, and even then it was a big maybe. If anything, the report was a flashing yellow light against attacking Iraq.


<SNIP>

More...

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34930

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/archives.asp?AUTHOR_ID=139

And it looks like they have muffled him pretty much IMO. This is opinion. And he has not had another editorial since Bush Lied. Check out his position on the masthead. He's last. Farah has a problem.

EDITED FOR ... well - I wanted to add more.

He got booted from the clinton WH for shouting out an impertinent question during a lawn party there. I assumed he was a VRWC tool. Not so, apparently.

we need to be "Proud of Ourselves as Americans."

And the buck stops there. Yes, they should say those two words. Bush knew.

http://truthout.org/docs_04/010504A.shtml

Thanks, everyone.

:toast:

may i mirror it at GFP? :hi:

peace

Provide the link. :)

and i will post the link as soon as it is available.

(right now my cheap server is down again - not enough memory :argh: - been a busy holiday for me)

:toast:

peace

http://new.globalfreepress.com/article.pl?sid=04/01/05/0141253

psst... pass the word ;->

peace

And the rest of the Dems have called him irresponsible. While the GOP calls him crazy.
And Dean just mentioned "Bush was warned by the Saudis" as one of the conspiracy theories that come from the 9-11 investgation being stonewalled...

General Clark is the only Democrat making this point. What are they afraid of?

We need to make sure people pay attention to this issue.

how close TBTM is to being able to get the Bush Knew video broadcast on tv?

how do people overlook the obvious

1. PNAC wanted Iraq
2. PNAC stated they needed Pearl Harbor II
3. (the part that people believe whatever they want)
4. PNAC invades Iraq
5. Cheney steals billions of tax dollars with no checks.

So why is 3 so hard or people to see?

a better path to take, unless Bush is taken before a court and such criminality is proven.

Incompetence. ignorance, too strict an adherance to a neo-con ideological doctrine. These are all possible explanations for how 9.11 got past our defenses and happened.

Other candidates besides Kucinich must have the courage to say that Bush knew.

It is horrifying to know that many Americans believe that Saddam Husain was responsible or partly responsible for 911.

Bush Knew arguments are lengthy to explain; however, a well produced TV spot with
Bush sitting in that class room, and a narratorÕs voice explaining to the viewer what Bush knew and what he did that day would be devastating, I believe.

There should be nothing to read on the TV spot, just Bush sitting in that class room, and the narratorÕs voice.

It would force the Bush administration to address all their secrecy surrounding 911.

This is how we peal the onion; this is how we draw blood.

I havenÕt had as much free time to keep up with DU lately but I just received Two Loud Words from truth out. Good karma to you Will for all your work and perseverance.

Bush knew and did nothing.

Unless its for more money and power.

...I assume it is too late to add anything, but something very important was omitted in your list of real-world warnings Ms. Rice should have remembered:

On the morning of 9-11 a drill was being conducted in the Situation Room of the White House by the CIA and the NRO, using the scenario of a plane crashing into a government building near Dulles Airport. Cheney was there, reportedly, monitoring the drill. Was Rice there, too?

Google it. drill 9-11 NRO airplane