Goofy Bullshit?

What if, on September 10, 2001, I told you that:

The FBI was tracking known Al Quaida terrorists on American soil and that even though they were well known by security forces, that the next day these same men were going to be able to hijack airplanes and fly those planes undetected through American airspace.

And that the defenses of America would do NOT one single thing to stop that from happening, even tho the pResident of the US had been advised that such a thing was going to happen?

You would have called that "Goofy Bullshit", right?

I'd call it incompetence.
Thinking remote-controlled planes brought down the towers is goofy bullshit.

Never rule out the possible no matter how improbable.

Saw someone say that the whole thing was just incompetent.

Ain't it nice to know that the people protecting the country NORAD are incompetent?

I'd say 'were' incompetent but since not a single one ever got demoted or fired or nothing, they are, according to someone here: still incompetent.

Sorry, but the idea that NORAD is incompetent is just goofy bullshit. But it makes for a good excuse for some, eh?

have control over airplanes in flight after they have taken off from American soil?

If I told you that men who didn't know how to fly heavy airliners were able to fly precision acrobatics that day, you'd say that was goofy bullshit.

One can see why one would think NORAD was incompetent on 9/11. Flight AA77 was unnoticed until just before it supposedly hit the pentagon. There were claims that AA11 was still in the air after it had supposedly hit the tower. 93 was unnoticed and not even given an escort, same with UA 175. Not one plane was solidly tracked that day.

But let us remember that on the radar screens were many simulated blips. There was a practice session for the whole NE section of NORAD that day, and that's why the fake planes that showed up on the screens were there. But when intercepts were launched they were, as far as we can tell, sent away from the action.

The OCT claim for the failures was "Fog of war".

I wouldn't say it was incompetent...

They have extremely strict rules they are expected to follow to the letter. Apparently, this wasn't in their library of responses to certain acts. Should it have been, I would say yes. I forgot who said it but they mentioned a failure of imagination to take into account that the terrorists would risk their lives and crash the plane into something. Now I'm sure politicians didn't worry about that but I bet higher ups in the armed forces were PO'd at how everything went down.

Now, while this was mentioned in a Tom Clancy book, "Debt of Honor" where the Japanese pilot crashed his plane into the steps leading to the Capitol building. This can't be the first time someone thought of it.

I don't doubt that whoever did predict this who was serving in the military is now serving in the South Pole.

Back to the OP. No, I don't think it was incompetence, I think it was arrogance of our leaders. The feeling that we (USA) are safe in our location, our Air Force,Navy, Marines, Army and National Guard are ready for anything. I think they are ready for anything but it requires civilian control to release our armed forces to do what they do best. I'm willing to bet the the higher ups in our armed forces were ready to get moving but were stopped or slowed by the bureaucracy which was all the time it took to complete the attacks.

It was political control over the armed forces which kept them from doing anything.

Just like it allowed the supposed hijackers to get on the planes.

BTW: It was not I that called the lack of NORAD action incompetent. It was someone else.

Yeah, right.
It was remote-control, not hijackers.
Keep your stories straight.

It was political control over the armed forces which kept them from doing anything.



And you know this how?

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

what proof is there that they actually hijacked the planes.

not this shit again.

it is common knowledge

It's this assertion which is laughable...

"what proof is there that they actually hijacked the planes."

and how did you acquire your "common knowledge"?

The sdud zombie had his day.

A shame what the "truth" movement has come to.

Saw you and sid on the other thread making fun of SLAD. You set a bad example, dude!!

Yeah, you can dish it out but you can't take it. The shame is all yours and the zombie dud!

Making fun of posts rising from the grave is not the same thing as grave dancing... But you know that. A shame thats all the "truth" movement has left, I guess the death knell is sounding for it.

Why is it that you hate people wanting to know the truth? Does the truth movement scare the piss out of you so much you have to come here and show your piss in every post you make?

what language is this?
and what are you babbling about now?

I simply find it amusing that truthers pick such a name for themselves when they have such trouble with truth. Lets take you for example, you base your entire version of "truth" on the fact that bush was an evil douchebag. Evidence? I've never seen you offer anything that could be called evidence. There is no "truth" in claims without evidence. To make it worse, you always go on to insinuate that anyone that does not buy into your vague "truth" as a bush supporter... You consider that "truth"? Why are you so afraid to back up your claims? Why do you go right to the insinuation that anyone that asks for you to back up your claims is a bush supporter?

The only reason I would like to see the end of the "truth" movement is so that silly claims without any evidence could stop clouding the real bush crimes and getting them lumped in with silliness that has no basis in the real world. Unfortunately, truthers do not seem to be very interested in seriously getting bush prosecuted, it appears to be more important to them to make baseless claims without any evidence.

There is evidence in this thread that has been there for months now and you just ignored it all... until now.

You claim: "To make it worse, you always go on to insinuate that anyone that does not buy into your vague "truth" as a bush supporter"

Can you back that up? Got a link? I'd love to see where I "always" make that claim that you are a bush supporter. I may feel that you are, and may have evidence, but I don't always claim you are a bush supporter.

The you spew:"truthers do not seem to be very interested in seriously getting bush prosecuted,"

You really gonna let that stand? Can you back it up? You have evidence we don't seriously want to see bush prosecuted?

Gawd, dude, you get all pissy and cry about me backing things up when you can't back up one fucking thing you say. Grow up.

Just unsupported claims... What a surprise. I hate to clue you in but making a claim is not evidence.

"Can you back that up? Got a link? I'd love to see where I "always" make that claim that you are a bush supporter. I may feel that you are, and may have evidence"

Right there you make the insinuation... Hell, that is not even an insinuation this time, it is an out an out accusation. Please present your evidence... oh wait... BeFree does not do evidence, just baseless claims.

"You really gonna let that stand? Can you back it up? You have evidence we don't seriously want to see bush prosecuted?"

Show me the truther that has made even a little headway to getting bush prosecuted... Well? oh, there are none. The birthers have made more headway and they are laughed out of court.

"Gawd, dude, you get all pissy and cry about me backing things up when you can't back up one fucking thing you say. Grow up."

Seems you are the one getting pissy, I'm just amused.

BeFree always leaves himself an out, even if sometimes it has little to do with his original words. Here it is pretty obvious. He said that he may have evidence, not that he does have evidence. It's wearying to grope through the fog.

I don't think it's necessarily fair to treat BeFree's posts as representative of the 9/11 truth movement in any way. It does seem increasingly rare for any of the posts here to have anything to say about 9/11 and associated events, much less anything that could conceivably lead to Bush's prosecution. Pointless meta seems to be all the rage, as it were.

I wonder how many people that would shock?

You may be able to infer what I think. I wouldn't be surprised if you have long since inferred what I think.

""Pointless meta seems to be all the rage, as it were."

And all you do is whine about what BeFree does and says.

Really, can you show a recent link to anything else?

Like my OP on this thread, which you haven't made one comment about, the people here talking about BeFree are full of goofy bullshit which was the favorite saying of the pizza boy at one time.

It was an interesting choice.

the most nonsensical forum on DU.

Go ahead, try to prove that I am a liar. Just fucking try. Back up your asswipe claims.

Do I 'always' tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Hell no. Who does?
Can you name one person who 'always' tells the truth?

There are rules against calling someone a liar. You did not cross that line, but the yellow line up your back is all to evident.

So... you, Joe, may also be a liar? Yes? Do you 'always' tell the truth? No?

I have no need to, people are very capable of making up their own minds. Lets see here:

"There is evidence in this thread that has been there for months now and you just ignored it all"

You make a claim but... There is no evidence in this thread. I'm certain you just made a mistake and will clear it up right away.

"I may feel that you are, and may have evidence, but I don't always claim you are a bush supporter."

I'm sure you will also either produce your evidence or clear this up as well.

You are excellent at clearing things up right away so I am certain no one will conclude you are a liar. I look forward to you clearing these up.

is here for everyone to see.
I know I've made up my mind.

Yup... any time now...

the clarity of every post is quite amazing.

so why not put the poster on IGNORE and do us all a favor?

before it took down the evil BUSHCO.
Maybe to celebrate the 10 year anniversary, they can make a comeback this september?

After all the primary goal of many truthers was not really getting at the truth, it was tsking down Bushco (whatever that means)

You don't know what ''taking down bushco'' means?

See here, lared, getting at the the truth means, that as a consequence, bushco has a stake driven through their vampire like heart.

So Bushco prevents truth from being discovered? How exactly do they do that? Once we know the how, we can eliminate the Bushco impediment.

they are shaking in their boots as intrepid "truthers" offer rational, fact-based evidence for their certainties of BUSHCO making 9/11 happen in the grandest conspiracy the world has ever seen.
I, for one, am shocked that the "truther" voices have not been silenced.
However, with such great coherent voices as the ones on this forum, I'm sure an indictment is on the way.

It's "a shame what the 'truth' movement has come to"?
When WASN'T it shameful?

I imagine many things we may believe in and have invested our faith into are considered "goofy bullshit" by others. Seems to me that the validity of a position is rarely found in the denigration by its critics, but simply in and of itself... :shrug:

I imagine the beliefs I myself hold are not moved one way or the other via someone labeling them as 'goofy'-- indeed, were that indeed the case, I would be compelled to believe I lack the strength of my own convictions.

You probably recall the context for this thread....

There was at one time in this forum a huge asswipe that used to attack others' ideas with the phrase: "More goofy bullshit." This thread was started as a counter to those attacks.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Peace.

"This thread was started as a counter to those attacks."
Seems more like it was started for you to post incoherent responses while insulting anyone you can.
Tell me, will the other 150,000 DUers that you claim are truthers be here soon to help your weak arguments?

that they went to the United Nations Security Council with the info they had been

reporting to the WH and intelligence agencies --

United Nations then sent their own representatives -- in August -- to the White House

and various of our intelligence agencies -- to report the info which included names of

pilots, etal.

I'm aware of some similar info to yours -- the terrorists who booked those flights --

at least two of them were on a 24 hour FBI watch list -- booked the flights in their

own names with their credit cards -- and FBI never reported this to the airline!


We also have the prior attack on the WTC where we know that some people in the FBI

were trying to report the plot -- and others in the FBI seemed to be abeting it!


Same this time around -- trying to think of the female FBI agent who has been whistleblowing

on 9/11 since it happened. Coleen Rowley?


Coleen Rowley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Early life|FBI career|Political career|See AlsoColeen Rowley is a former FBI agent and whistleblower, and was a Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party (DFL) candidate for Congress in Minnesota's 2nd congressional district, one of eight...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coleen_Rowley - Cached