Spartan - I've read plenty of other material which supports this fact. Does anyone actually believe The Patriot Act was written in a week or two? It was WAITING on this event.
How about ALL the other freedoms lost in the name of "national security" or the creation and quickly expanded Homeland Security.
I think it makes a clear case that through a combination of incompetance and hubris the Bush Administration made critical errors in responding to the events of 9/11.
It could, then, make the case that the way the various members of the Bush Administration attempt to excuse their actions is, itself, a major threat to all our democratic and higher national ideals. If they can excuse on ANY grounds actions including torture and the denial of due process then our freedoms and rights no longer exist for they can be taken away whenever an Administration chooses to claim an emergency. Nations all over the world have had fake emergencies which have been used to deny citizens their rights and to excuse bestial treatment of outsiders and minorities. The Bush Administration is still attacking our fundamental national values.
We did have a brief shining moment in the late 1960's in which it seemed that the U.S. would try to live up to its values. But that scared too many people and they decided to return to hypocracy and self-deception. :-(
Just a point of clarification, any and all bills were supported by the Dems and the Reps. When you vote FOR a bill, you support it. Tell me ONE Dem who voted against all these loss of freedoms, against the war (and don't say Obama, he was absent for the initial vote and then voted for funding aka a YES vote).
Who voted against The Patriot Act? Only one, and he read it - the rest never read it, like 95% of the bills. They do what they are told or are intimidated.
I have made many comments and presented many posts which give my opinions of government and how dangerous it is. What makes you think I believe ANY political party is safe or immune to temptation?
The Bush Administration just happens to have been the most recent example. Recall the Democrat Franklin Rooseveldt? He threw tens of thousands of people in barbed wire and barracks prisons because of where their ancestors came from. Yes, elderly and babies sent to concentration camps. After the war it finally came out that none of them were guilty of any attempt to help Japan at all. All parties and all states have done things this bad though not necessarily on that scale.
So which Party (if any) do you trust with your freedom? No, I don't trust the Libertarians either.
Also, there are still so many questions surrounding 9/11. Hundreds of engineers and architects said the finding of thermite (I believe that is what it is called) shows the buildings came down because of it, not the planes. Look at the free-fall of all three buildings - an nothing hit WTC7. No plane wreckage was found at the Pentagon, or luggage, or bodies, or any parts of a plane - and a hole too small for a plane. A video suraced of a plane flying OVER the Pentagon at that exact time, has surfaced. At the time, dozens of videos show explosions before the towers collapsed.
And in the hole in PA, NO luggage, NO plane parts, NO bodies were found, NO DNA. That sounds strange too.
Remember the papers which surfaces, many years later, that our govt. KNEW Japan would attack Pearl Harbor, but did nothing BECAUSE they wanted involved in WWII.
We are collateral damage just like the million plus Iraqi's. Absolute power corrupts absolute.
I agree David there is no excuse for being so uninformed, but that's just the American public is, because we've never been given the facts from a genuine investigative body. I'm not saying Dick Cheney pulled a lever that brought down the 9/11 buildings, but after all this time, I've yet to hear plausible explanations for the following:
Why hasn’t the government released the tape from the security camera that the FBI seized from the gas station across the street from the Pentagon? And why didn’t the 9/11 Commission ask to see this footage?
How can it be that the world’s largest military headquarters, the Pentagon, which is ringed with security cameras didn’t get one clear picture of the aircraft that crashed into it?
On 9/11, for the first time in history, a steel building collapsed as result of fire. Not just one collapsed, but three did on the same day. WTC 1, 2, and 7. Even if you buy the mistaken premise that burning jet fuel caused the steel to melt in WTC 1 and 2, how do you explain the collapse of building 7 which was not hit by an airplane and was not compromised by burning jet fuel? If the structural supports of WTC 7 was damaged on one side by debris from WTC 1 or 2, how do you account for the building falling straight down, at freefall speed, into its own footprint?
Why was the collapse of WTC 7 NOT EVEN MENTIONED in the 9/11 Commission Report? Here’s a hint: After the Bush administration stonewalled and opposed formation of any committee to investigate 9/11 Bush appointed his own insider, Philip Zelikow, as Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission. In this role, Zelikow chose the interviewers, witnesses, questions, and edited the final report.
How do you explain the sightings of molten steel in the basements of the WTC buildings two weeks later? These were reported by one of the building’s architects as well as professionals from engineering and health professions. These reports appeared in Structural Engineer as well as the Johns Hopkins University Medical Journal. How about finding an example, anytime in history, where molten steel was observed two weeks later, where Thermite or RDX demolition materials weren’t used.
How does a plane with a 150 ft. wingspan fit into a 20 ft. hole in the Pentagon (yes, the original hole was 20 ft. before the wall collapsed) without leaving any marks on the wall where the wings would have hit?
Here we have the most influential event of our lifetime, and the most fundamental investigative questions were not asked by a criminal investigative or governmental body.
Yeah, you're right, we're uninformed. And most of don't seem to care.
Sorry Robert. There was no conspiracy. 9/11 was not an inside job. And you have just repeated all the same erroneous information that Linda did.
For example: "Why hasn’t the government released the tape from the security camera that the FBI seized from the gas station across the street from the Pentagon?"
I have seen the video footage. Sorry. It was a plane.
"And why didn’t the 9/11 Commission ask to see this footage?"
They did. Sorry, it was a plane.
"How can it be that the world’s largest military headquarters, the Pentagon, which is ringed with security cameras didn’t get one clear picture of the aircraft that crashed into it?"
Sorry, it was a plane.
"If the structural supports of WTC 7 was damaged on one side by debris from WTC 1 or 2, how do you account for the building falling straight down, at freefall speed, into its own footprint?"
Easy, because your information, and thus your premise, is incorrect. I'll skip the next two paragraphs because it's more of the same.
"How does a plane with a 150 ft. wingspan fit into a 20 ft. hole in the Pentagon (yes, the original hole was 20 ft. before the wall collapsed) without leaving any marks on the wall where the wings would have hit?"
Easy, this is real life, not a Bugs Bunny/Wile E. Coyote cartoon. Not to mention your information is incorrect.
"Here we have the most influential event of our lifetime, and the most fundamental investigative questions were not asked by a criminal investigative or governmental body."
You're information is incorrect.
"Yeah, you're right, we're uninformed. And most of don't seem to care."
I agree there are some who are uninformed.
For the record, an acquaintance of mine was on the plane that hit the Pentagon - the plane that is being suggested didn't exist.
Oh, and friends of mine were on the highway and watched the plane you say didn't exist just miss clipping them before bouncing across the ground into the building and exploding.
Oh, and other friends of mine were in the building running for their lives after seeing the plane heading at them.
Oh, and other friends of mine were EMTs who picked up some of the body parts and pieces of the plane that supposedly never existed.
And a friend of the family was on the Flight 11, the plane that hit the North Tower of the WTC, so don't even go there.
Even more bizarre than the continued insistence on touting information that has already been shown many times to be incorrect, is the alternative proposals. Seriously, besides being totally irrational they are not even possible. I really wonder how any thoughtful person can insist that what did happen is impossible, and not question for a second the absolutely impossible things that would have had to have happened for their alternative.
David, I didn’t say it was a conspiracy. I just said we don’t have the answers to these questions.
The gas station footage of the Pentagon hadn’t been released as of 5 years after the event. Can you give a reference that it was? I don’t even have an opinion that it wasn’t a plane, but answering questions like: “How can it be that the world’s largest military headquarters, the Pentagon, which is ringed with security cameras didn’t get one clear picture of the aircraft that crashed into it?" with “sorry, it was a plane,” isn’t an answer.
I wrote: "If the structural supports of WTC 7 was damaged on one side by debris from WTC 1 or 2, how do you account for the building falling straight down, at freefall speed, into its own footprint?" Answering that with your info is “incorrect” isn’t an answer either. I've yet to hear a decent rebuttal to the BYU professor (can't remember his name) who calculated the freefall speed, and I've yet to hear decent rebuttal even about the main buildings to people like: Thomas Eagar, Professor of materials engineering at MIT: “But even a 50 percent loss of strength is still insufficient , by itself, to explain the WTC collapse.” he also said: “The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable. Even with it’s strength halved the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 1202 F fire.”
I wrote: "How does a plane with a 150 ft. wingspan fit into a 20 ft. hole in the Pentagon (yes, the original hole was 20 ft. before the wall collapsed) without leaving any marks on the wall where the wings would have hit?"
You answered: “Easy, this is real life, not a Bugs Bunny/Wile E. Coyote cartoon. Not to mention your information is incorrect.”
When you look at the pictures of the hole in the pentagon before the wall fell down, it’s about a 20 – 30 ft. hole. You can easily see that there are no marks on the sides of the hole where the wings would have hit with significant impact. As this was not a cartoon hole and structure built by Acme Construction, one would imagine there would be at least some markings where mass hits mass at that velocity.
I said: “Here we have the most influential event of our lifetime, and the most fundamental investigative questions were not asked by a criminal investigative or governmental body."
You answered: “You're information is incorrect.” Were these fundamental questions asked by any investigative governmental body? Was the collapse of Bldg. 7 even mentioned in the 9/11 report?
Once again, I’m not saying a cruise missle rather than a plane hit the Pentagon, I’m just saying the suppression of info about this is suspicious, and the 9/11 Commission was a sham. And basically your answers to these questions of “your information is incorrect” hasn’t really resolved it for me.
Robert - I'm sorry my answers don't resolve this for you, but these questions have all been answered myriads of times. I am unwilling to put the effort into providing detailed answers over and over again 8 years later. How would you feel if you had to explain over and over that Elvis is dead to those people who insist he is still alive?
If you want answers, then read the 9/11 Commission report (which you call a sham because their answers don't satisfy you), and the myriad other real reports by all the investigators from various agencies, states, countries and academic institutions affected by the deaths of about 3000 people (which you also have evidently discounted in favor of whatever sources you used for the incorrect information you cite).
This is nothing more than, as Berf says, the second gunman on the grassy knoll and the pathological pursuit of "proof" of Obama's birth certificate. The questions are only "unanswered" because there are those who don't like the real answers.
David - that's some unlucky string of friends you have. Anyone can make those claims - sorry, you are not proof of anything except a good stonewall attempt.
I say, unanswered questions. And have always known, where there's smoke, there is fire. We have YET to uncover the fire.
Remember, the day BEFORE 9/11, Cheney "announced" there was 2.5 trillion missing from the DOD. Oh, another coinki-dink - the part of the Pentagon, which was destroyed, had the DOD records.
I had two friends at the Pentagon - two. They ran out of the smoke for their lives and never saw a plane - or parts - or body parts or... If you saw a picture after the Pentagon hit, you could look in and see a desk with a computer sitting on it and some papers - they were not destroyed so where is the "plane".
Those of us with our brains turned on believe we deserve a full accounting of this event, and as time passes, there are more questions than answers. Those who died are not collateral damage - their families deserve more than money. Those family members, who DID not take the money, and have been advocates of additional information, continue to die in "freaky" accidents - some on planes with unexplained "problems".
The movement is growing by leaps and bounds for answers to question. Those who "accept" the answers are now in the minority.
Why do you think Cheney and Rice are back in the news? More propaganda for their unlawful actions and yes, I'll say it - cover-up.
David, I understand it's a lot of work to refute these questions, but the answers aren't in the 9/11 Report, and the most frequrently referred to rebuttal was Popular Mechanics book, which didn't answer the questions. Maybe someone who reads this will post the answers -- but I'm sure I'll come back here at the end of the day, and nobody will have done so. Anybody... feel free to prove me wrong.
The 9/11 Report was a sham. The Bush administration tried to stonewall it until public pressure became too much, and then Bush appointed Philip Zelikow from his own administration. Zelikow controlled everything from the witness list to final editing of the report.
Re: The pentagon crash: Lt. Col Karen Kwiatkowski was working in the Pentagon. Here's what she said:
"There was a dearth of visible debris on the relatively unmarked [Pentagon] lawn, where I stood only minutes after the impact. Beyond this strange absence of airliner debris, there was no sign of the kind of damage to the Pentagon structure one would expect from the impact of a large airliner. This visible evidence or lack thereof may also have been apparent to the secretary of defense [Donald Rumsfeld], who in an unfortunate slip of the tongue referred to the aircraft that slammed into the Pentagon as a missile ...
I saw nothing of significance at the point of impact - no airplane metal or cargo debris was blowing on the lawn in front of the damaged building as smoke billowed from within the Pentagon. ... all of us staring at the Pentagon that morning were indeed looking for such debris, but what we expected to see was not evident.
The same is true with regard to the kind of damage we expected. ... But I did not see this kind of damage. Rather, the facade had a rather small hole, no larger than 20 feet in diameter. Although this facade later collapsed, it remained standing for 30 or 40 minutes, with the roof line remaining relatively straight.
The scene, in short, was not what I would have expected from a strike by a large jetliner. It was, however, exactly what one would expect if a missile had struck the Pentagon. ... "
I certainly don't know where some of you are looking for the evidence of the crashed plain... but when I was doing some follow up on all the stupid conspiracy theories, I saw PLENTY of photos of aircraft parts and pieces INSIDE the Pentagon Grounds. AND folks, believe it or not, to those of you who think you're more brilliant and have more "thinking" capabilities than the rest of us, there is also a disintigration factor in any high speed aircraft crash. That is very easily verifiable with a simple search of the net. The military did extensive testing of their own aircraft, for whatever reason, by ramming them full speed into various thicknesses of concrete walls. Total disintegration of smaller jets, so why would there not be disintigration of larger ones?
All this chatter above only proves that some people WANT to believe in a conspiracy and the rest of us real thinkers, don't. ( There.. I can toss an ocaissiona insult, myself, once in a while. )
To you conspiracy theorists.. try looking at some of the evidence AGAINST a conspiracy, instead of looking the other way?
Uh, I did. Saw plenty - the "plane" parts you spoke of were discredited too.
Did you look or listen to any of the posts?
Not trying to convince - just giving the latest info and we will all make up our own minds.
Did you see the documents released because of the Freedom of Invormation Act - on Pearl Harbor?
The film of JFK being shot which was buried for all these years. It clearly snows he was shot in the face...
Brasscheck.tv has tons of videos on all this information, if you care to see things "from the horses mouth". Go here: http://www.brasschecktv.com/ and go to the "asasination studies" plus tons of other "real videos".
¨David - that's some unlucky string of friends you have. Anyone can make those claims - sorry, you are not proof of anything except a good stonewall attempt.¨
Linda - I just saw this comment of yours. It´s one thing to live in your own paranoid fantasy land, but to suggest that these real people who experienced that day first hand are some figment of my imagination is utterly despicable.
And to follow up that insult to everyone would died with a series of absolutely delusional rehashes, one seriously has to wonder how you possibly get through the day.
David - I was referring to YOUR claims of all these "friends". You can say anything you like, doesn't make it true. Everyone wants their 15 min of fame - everyone has a story - everyone remembers where they were when these cowardly deeds were done.
You really should turn off the TV and do some of your own research - and not on govt. websites.
You obviously did not look at the links - those are just a couple of hundreds. Some of firefighters jumping as the explosions were taking place to bring down the towers. Videos showing the explosives going off down the side of the bldg. while it was "free falling" within itself.
What do you think of Pearl Harbor?
and of the false flag which started the Vietnam war?
nd the attempted false flags to get us into war with Iran? Bush was supposed to make that happen so Obama could continue the domination of the area.
Too many people with cameras, including the countries we are invading, and who have the capabilities of spreading the truth all over the internet.
But, just keep tuned to your TV to keep the brainwashing and propaganda alive and well - guess you sleep better at night that way. No wonder all the other countries think Americans are stupid...and gullible.
Linda - How dare you disparage my experiences from that day? And the experiences of thousands of other people from that day?
Your contentions require you to ignore direct witnesses, all of the undisputed facts, physics, and all semblance of intelligent thought. You repeat some of the most asinine paranoid delusions that pretty much only crazy people would find worthy of discussion. You repeat absolute falsehoods as if they were true, then suggest they are unopen questions.
then you have the gall to suggest rational people are somehow brainwashed.
As I said, you are free to have your paranias, but you are not free to manipulate the facts, nor are you free to disparage the genuine anguish of people who actual live in the real world.
Yes, some people in other countries think we are stupid and gullible. Guess who they are talking about?
David - how dare you ACCUSE me of disparaging all of our experiences. That's some leap of conclusion and reading your own opinion into my remarks. I gave some links of "direct" witness - did you look at them? Did you look at the hundreds of videos and listen to recordings which show polar opposites to the "offician" report. Now, that's your problem, not mine.
You refer to yourself as "rational" yet I don't know you. The old name calling is ridicules and adds noting to the discussion and shows your lack of not only tolerance, but intelligence.
AND, I don't need your permission to discuss these things freely, or will I be affected.
The people in other countries are talking about people like you - closed minded and opinionated and rude - just to name a few adjectives.
That would be more current and meaningful, both because it is only slightly less than 8 years ago and (more importantly) because it actually happened. Sticking with reality might be a nice place to start a dialogue, don't you think?
Your normal biased, anti-Bush "reality" or Linda A.'s Orwellian, black helicopter "reality"??
"That would be more current and meaningful....."
No, what you mean is, it is a starting point for you and others to pin all the world's ills on the Bush Administration. Which, I will admit is "current" for you and your ilk, but I would hardly call it "meaningful"......
Let me preface this by saying as soon as President Bush was elected I knew we were going to Iraq, somehow, some way, he'd find a reason to send our troops there.
I was a newly single mom with a very young son, working in the Top Of Troy building. It's a giant communications center, and it would have been a good target, here in MI. (In fact, when our power went out a few weeks later, my manager had to call the main office in OH and explain why they couldn't get on the company intranet. The person at the main office asked if someone was "making" her say that.) I was TERRIFIED, I left, grabbed my son from daycare and sped for home. I almost refused to return, but I had to support my son.
Then, came the anger, the "nuke em to the stone age feeling". It was like our country had been raped, and in a way, we had. We'd had our sense of security yanked from us. The anger eventually subsided to, let's get justice. Let's make sure that we get the right guys, we do it the right way, and that they don't get off on a "technicality". I wasn't as "aware" of politics at the time that I am now. When I started hearing about what we were doing, I was so hurt, so disappointed, so disgusted. We were doing ALL the things that would make sure the people who did this would NEVER be caught, never brought to trial, never punished.
We were, and still are, trying to protect some false sense of security by becoming bullies. I HATE bullies. I was always taught that "big people stick up for little people." If you can, you DO for those that can't. I became ashamed. My country had become the very thing that I despised.
When I heard President Bush announce that we'd have to give up some of our rights to keep us "safe", all I could think was "They won." They had done the very thing they'd set out to do. We were to become "Isolated America" to preserve some sense of false security. It made me sick, mad, and ashamed. I've always wanted to go to Europe, and other countries, but I wouldn't have gone then, even if I could, because I would have been ashamed to admit I was American. Bullies aren't heros, they aren't role models, they aren't anything but bullies.
When people began critisizing President Obama for apologizing to the various countries I started cheering. Finally, we were showing the world that we aren't the arrogant bullies that we'd been shown to be over the last eight years. Finally, we could lift our heads again and say, "Come on MFers, let's go. We're going take back our lives the RIGHT way this time!" (Not that I wish for another attack)
The time to re-asses the event and to analyze the actions taken is past as that has been done.
However, the primary goal was to prevent another attack which was the result. Yes I agree that a secondary goal was to still be re-elected in 2004, however, I feel that the primary goal was the more important and that was achieved. We weren't attacked again.
Now those goals are known and re-hashed over and over again and again.
It's time to move on.
Mistakes were indeed made, but that is what people do. We make mistakes from time to time.
BERF/Richard B... some of us just can't stand that we were forced into this mess. No one has YET demonstrated to me that another attack was prevented by any of the Bush Administration excesses. I am rapidly being persuadied that I have been wrong, and that these people should be in jail. What they have done is nothing less that the murder of no fewer than 50,000 people!
Of course, Jews put this out on their website, so it's probably all a lie, right? Watch the damned video or shut the hell up. I'm so sick of you conspiracy nuts, it's just pathetic.
Do you know about the Oil Bourse - the reason Iran will eventually be attacked.
Did you know Iran was not going to accept US dollars for their oil, which would have destroyed this country much earlier. It was about control of the oil and the monetary utilized to pay for it. There are probably other evils involved also.
Their is no justification for what the Bush gang has done to bring America to its knees. Their is proof that Bush and the neocon PINAC plan were firmly put in place and used against the American public as well as innocent countries and people.
Their is plenty of proof that Bush planned to attack Iraq before he was placed in office. Their is proof that Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney and Cheney's company Cerle sold Hussein the chemicals and technology to make his chemical weapons and that George H. W. Bush give Hussein the go ahead to use his chemical warfare on Iran.
The proof of all this has been researched and published thousands of times as well as posted to political groups.
Bush was advised of bin Laden's threat in his transition with Clinton and the whole mess is a planned deception by both parties. Behind the scenes Bill Clinton is called affectionately "sonny" by The Bush clan.
Bush did not meet any threat because they all knew what was going down and as we were being attacked Bush sat in a 6 grade class holding a book upside down pretending to read to children even after he was told of the attack.
Their is also proof that Bush told the military a day before the attack to stand down if their were any threats of attack. When Bush finally decided to make a phony response to the attack he sent up unarmed F16 fighters to answer the threat Bush snuck Saudi nationals out of the country as soon as he put a ban on all flying. The 9/11 attackers were Saudi nationals.
Americans have always lived in peace while we are at war even in WWII American lived in luxury compared to the rest of the world but it only takes a little fear mongering to make Americans fearful in their own country and send their children to spill their blood in these war profiteering scams.
Bush attacked Afghanistan because he couldn't win the Taliban over with bribes.
Unfortunately Obama believes in the same doctrine as Bush and carries on the same failed policy on war and the economy.
I do not believe the part of the article that says Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and others were acting out of fear because they planned 9/11 and were in control from the time the event started.
As far as I am concerned Obama has carried on Bush insurrection by stomping on the rule of law and supporting Bush policy from day one of his swearing in.
"I do not believe the part of the article that says Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and others were acting out of fear because they planned 9/11 and were in control from the time the event started."
Richard how do you move on from murdering over two million people in three countries and torturing innocent people or even guilty people?
Do you really support Obama and his doctrine of sweeping the rule of law under the carpet?
With a new Supreme court justice about to be voted in by congress the GOP attack dogs are crying that the law is black and white so why doesn't it apply to the criminals that started two wars based on lies and war profiteering as well as torturing prisoners of war?
No matter who, why, or how 9/11 happened the Bush administration loved it. It was the best thing that ever happened to them and they exploited it to the hilt. The Obama administration is continuing to use it as excuse for military action in Afghanistan and bombing in Pakistan.
Here are some dots. You can connect them or not:
In the 90's, before 9/11 or the Bush presidency the Project for the New American Century produced a plan for global domination. One PNAC document, entitled “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” stated: “The process of transformation is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.”
Check how many signers from this organization made it into the Bush Administration: Vice President Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz who also headed the White House Iraq Group, Cheney’s Chief of Staff I. Lewis “Scooter” Libbey, National Security Council member Elliot Abrahams, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, UN Ambassador John Bolton, Zalmay Kalilzhad who became Ambassador to Iraq, and Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick. Richard Perle, Kenneth Adelman and several others occupied other key positions in the administration.
9/11 happened, and was about as close to "a new Pearl Harbor" as we could have. Whether a "conspiracy" within our government was involved in this, or whether the administration had knowledge and let it happen, it did happen and it's been the worst thing that's happened to America ever -- Not what the alleged "terrorists" did, but how our own government used it to manipulate public fear.
It's funny how, as time passes after an event like this, people seem to forget how they felt on that day.
This old, worn-out and INCORRECT argument about how "Bush trampled on the Constitution" has gotten very repetitive and boring. And now, the new administration is beginning to learn about responsibility of protecting 300 million people.
What's incorrect about the argument how "Bush trampled on the Constitution?"
For example: The Constitution requires Habeas Corpus only be suspended in case of invasion (which hasn't happened) or civil insurrection (which hasn't happened).
If you really believe that denying the rights of U.S. civilians to foreign nationals captured outside the U.S. is trampling the constitution, then you must be able to walk on eggs with work boots without cracking any shells.
I guess using tax dollars to force auto manufacturers to build certain types of cars really makes your blood boil.
Those were real innocent people who didn't deserve to die....that is all I have to say on this. I feel that much of what is said now about it is just gossip for our own pleasure. We forgot...our whole country was affected by this and now we know that there really and truly is a threat of terrorism right here in AMERICAN soil!!!!
First off, Clarke´s article talks about how fear has been used as a political tool, so I guess it is appropriate that you use that phrase.
But more importantly, what is with the - I´m better than you are - attitude that the Reublican´s seem to be stuck on? Everyone remembers that day, so playing the I´m more patriotic than the Democrats, not to mention the rest of us, game is simply a crutch to avoid taking responsibility for decisions made. The fact is that there is more than one way to deal with an issue, and not listening to the other side, or worse, suggesting they don´t love or appreciate America as much as you do simply because they disagree, is pretty narrow-minded, not to mention hubristic.
Not only is it insulting but it is dangerous, as we have seen.
First of all, whether you call it fear or acknowledgement of a possibility, it's still there. I fear the possiblity, but mostly I acknowledge the possibility. And yes, fear is used as a political tool. I think Al Gore has capitalized on that over the past few years.
This is not a democrat or republican thing as much as you want it to be. Patriotic has nothing to do with bravado, chest thumping, kill-em-all, it has to do with what you and I are doing -- speaking our minds and beliefs -- even if they're unpopular.
I, personally, don't think that the republicans, democrats, libertarians or any political party is all good or all bad. I think that too many politicians (individuals, not the parties they represent) are self-serving blowhards that say very little with too many words. But as long as people like you make this a democrat versus republican thing, it will never be resolved.
Yeah, damn those American and coalition soldiers with their truck and car bombs and strap-on bomb vests walking into marriage ceremonies, markets and mosques!!! We shoulda done something!
Iraq was not involved in 9/11 -- you are right David.
That is, however, one reason the "average citizen" there may have some knowledge how the "average citizen" felt in the US on 9/11 when shock, fear, confusion, etc ruled the day. Remember, the US called the Iraq Invasion "Shock and Awe".
David - you forgot, the US put Saddam in office. Then when he would no longer "go along" with our dictated policies, they had to remove him.
Why? He was demanding payment for oil in anything other than US dollars, thus would have destroyed the dollar. Ever hear of the Oil Bourse? No one seems to know on this site. It's a shame because it is ALL about the Oil Burse and the U.S. dollar.
Watch out Linda your getting a Duh comment on this one. Bush is innocent and just had to stop bad boy Hussein from launching those mystery missiles at us.
One point I'd like t make here is that Obama is Bush/Clinton/Bush, all rolled into one. No changes are coming. The plan is right on schedule, has been for years. Each president has his role, and while people here are pointing the blame at one president or another, they are but puppets. Been going on since Federal Reserve was established.
U.N. and NWO are right on track. 9/11 took away our sense of security (deliberate); the financial 9/11 stole our money (deliberate); and now the Universal Health 9/11 will be the loss of our health freedoms; don't forget the U.N. and CODX, bills in congress NOW to take away our freedom to grow and store natural food - it's about controlling the food supply; and one more, Agenda 21 includes control of the fresh water supply. We can live w/o sufficient food, but NEVER w/o water.
The biggest shame is that we had an unelected nincompoop in the WH - a "man" with very limited experience in government, one who was and remains intellectually incurious, and one whose beliefs included demonizing governemtn, regardless of cause.
What are you smoking? Obama had experience in state and national politics before becoming President - Bush only had state experience as in the weak governorship of Texas. Obama was intellectually curious enough to earn a Law degree - on his own merits, unlike W's preferential treatment at Harvard. Barack also seeks out others opinions, including those who differ from his. That's in stark contrast to Bush's coterie of yes-men and -women. President Obama also does not demonize government - he wants it to work for all of us.
It's funny how people forget what they were saying themselves. I worked for a newspaper at that time, as the editorial assistant. People wanted terrorists brought to justice no matter what it took. That's what they said. Young men in our area rushed to the military recruitment offices, like their fathers and grandfathers had before them.
Our congress did not object to much of what was proposed by the Bush administration.
And now everyone wants to pretend that they didn't want any of this.
David, you realize that Carke's book is a CYA undertaking? He talks as if all was above board under the Clinton Administration, yet information is available that clearly disputes that.
Even the most controversial and seemingly innovative of the [Bush] administration’s actions turn out, on closer inspection, to elaborate on, amplify, or revive preexisting currents of American law and practice. Consider, for example, the tactic of so-called extraordinary rendition, in which the CIA snatches a terror suspect abroad and turns him over to a foreign government for interrogation or detention. This program became infamous in the years that followed September 11 because of allegations that the administration was subcontracting torture to authoritarian-allied governments. According to the man who ran the program initially at CIA, however, it actually began back in 1995.
Michael Scheuer ran the agency’s Osama bin Laden unit from its creation until 1999. In his account, given in congressional testimony in April 2007, “The rendition program was initiated because President Clinton and [National Security aides Anthony] Lake, [Sandy] Berger and [Richard] Clarke requested that the CIA begin to attack and dismantle al Qaeda. These men made it clear from the first that they did not want to bring those captured to the United States or to hold them in U.S. custody.”
[. . .]
It was understood that rendered suspects would not be treated with kid gloves. . . . And while officials of both the Clinton and Bush administrations have emphasized that these diplomatic assurances were meaningful promises of humane treatment, Scheuer regarded them as something of a farce: “There [were] no qualms at all about sending people to Cairo and kind of joking up our sleeves about what would happen to those people in Cairo—in Egyptian prison,” he said.
"David, you realize that Carke's book is a CYA undertaking?"
Yes, of course. There is a CYA element to most 20/20 hindsight. The question is do you think many people have stopped to think about it? Or does it necessarily mean his views are not correct or valid?
As for rendition, the question becomes whether those subjected to it before 9/11 were the same as those subjected to it after 9/11? And is rendition the whole question, or only part of the question?
Well I've certainly stopped to think about it but you're right, how many others? And if it means his views are not correct or valid, who knows? It's like those Matryoshka dolls, you see them whole, yet open it up and there's another one inside, again and again.
Torture, although it is strictly forbidden under Egyptian law and the international human rights treaties Egypt has signed, has been a widespread and persistent phenomenon in the country, particularly during interrogation of security suspects. Methods of torture include beatings with fists, feet, leather straps, sticks, and electric cables; suspension in contorted and painful positions accompanied by beatings; the application of electric shocks; and sexual intimidation and violence. The government-appointed National Council for Human Rights, in its first annual report released in April 2005, acknowledged that torture is part of "normal investigative practice" in Egypt.
Perhaps, Walt Slocombe said it best, as recounted by former CIA officer Reuel Marc Gerecht in the New York Times:
A dense bipartisan moral fog surrounds rendition. Former senior Clinton officials can still deny that they sent anyone away in order that he be tortured. Few are as honest and frank as Walt Slocombe, a Clinton undersecretary of defense who once remarked that the difference between Democratic and Republican rendition was that Democrats “drilled air holes in the boxes.”
I actually believe Eric Holder AND Richard Clark have a lot of 'splainin' to do.
Slocombe is one person, and as we've seen, one person's CYA statements are more anecdotal than illustrative. Certainly Holder and Clark must take responsibility for their positions, just as everyone else must. But what does that mean exactly?
Excellent article. People were so eager after 9/11 to prevent another terrorist attack, or otherwise keep the terrorist from winning; that they were willing to compromise fundamental principals of this country. I think people who would do us harm gain more of an upper hand if we allow fear to turn us into something that we're not- we play right into their hands and give them exactly what they want. They want the power trip off of americans being fearful, and being completely willing to give up their basic freedoms; and going along with draconian measures of the government like trained sheep. Then when americans go along with some of these measures, such as invading iraq unjustifiably; or "enhanced interrogation teqniques"; they can use that as a recruitment tool- for people who previously wished no harm upon the U.S.
"Unless you were there, in a position of responsibility after September 11, you cannot possibly imagine the dilemmas that you faced in trying to protect Americans,"-
-Condoleezza Rice
Nonsense, Condi. JFK faced a threat of nuclear attack from Cuba during the missile crisis, far scarier, and he kept his cool. Bush and Cheney did not.
David, it irks me that so long after 9/11 we still have conspiracy theorists spouting here on Gather. For goodness sake, be silent people. It was a group of jihadists, mostly from Saudi Arabia, trained by Bin Laden. Grow up people. Lies or wilful ignorance, both are equally bad. It's not hard to accept reality if you really try. Hard to believe that 20 guys could knock down the Trade Center? They were tactically brilliant to use our own technical marvels against us- the only weapons they needed were box cutters. We even trained them how to fly.
any thinking person is disturbed by obama's unwillingness to pursue Bush era wrongdoing. his instinct is to practice civility. In one sense, his refusal is immoral- and how do we learn from the past if it is hidden from us? But the Limbaugh crowd here on Gather would never accept the judgments of even an independent prosecutor regarding figures of the Bush administration. When the genie comes out of the bottle, sadly, no way to put him back. You can't fix some things.
Obama refusal to "not look back" is so obvious. He's a Bush/Clinton/Bush in sheep's clothing and the sheeple follow HIM w/o question.
Questions and discussion is good and to dismiss these, and the people who continue to question, is the REAL conspiracy!
Fascism is when the govt., the media, and the corporatists keep us in the dark. The media gets their spin from the govt., and the elected officials get their support and money from the corporatists. Blood money, if you will.
HERE's some food for thought - there is so much out there...
Now, take your time and watch, listen and read. Just the tip of the iceberg.
http://blip.tv/file/1064938/ Barry died last year from still-uknown causes in his early-50s.
“Barry Jennings, a key 9/11 eyewitness who was an emergency coordinator for the New York Housing Authority, has passed away at age 53 from circumstances not yet disclosed.”
It is very unusual that a prominent — and controversial– 9/11 witness would die only days before the release of NIST’s report on WTC7 and shortly after a firestorm erupted over his testimony that he heard explosions inside the building prior to collapse of either tower and that there were dead bodies in the building’s blown-out lobby.
The BBC aired The Third Tower in July in attempt to debunk Barry Jennings’ account– which is both contradictory and damaging to the official 9/11 story– by making issue over whether or not he said he “saw” dead bodies in the lobby.
Yet Jennings own statement in an exclusive interview with Dylan Avery and Jason Bermas– which has not been denied– was: “The fire fighter who took us down kept saying, ‘Don’t look down.’ And I said, ‘Why.’ And we were stepping over people– you know, you can feel when you’re stepping over people.”
Can someone who is a 9/11 skeptic please explain how Barry Jennings and Michael Hess were trapped by explosions in WTC-7 BEFORE either of the Twin Towers collapsed?
9/11 Shock Opera… Act 4 – Building 7 and Flight 93: The Grand Finale that Wasn’t
“It is my intention to show that Flight 93 was not targeting Washington, D.C. as Philip Zelikow (transition team member of the Bush White House and key contributor to the creation of the policy of the “Global War on Terror”) would have you believe, but rather, it was headed for Building 7 of the World Trade Center complex as the final act in the Shock Opera of the Neocon Vulcan’s “New Pearl Harbor” event.
This is an important aspect of the case of 9/11, for I and many others do call it a case now; a criminal investigation, if you will, which has been ongoing for years… unofficially.”
For a long time, Building 7 has been considered the weakest link in the official story of what happened that day and with good reason.
For the most part, there is some really good information out there compiled by skilled researchers, engineers, chemists, architects, intelligence agents, politicians, fire-fighters, pilots, and even simply concerned citizens trying to help make a difference.
Not all of the theories out there are valid, not all follow the standardized scientific method of research, but there are enough honest efforts (albeit they are often clouded by the obvious “disinformation” efforts) to prove beyond the point of “reasonable doubt” that the official story is not only not plausible, it is simply not possible.
Apart from the conspiracy theory er folk. This was an interesting discussion. I read Clarke's article earlier today and felt like it just reinforced my own thoughts when the Bush crowd tried to justify their actions after the fact.
I feel any thinking person had to feel the administration was acting out of fear and incompetance in their after 9/11 actions. Things just continued down hill from there with too many prefering to believe the administration than to admit they were wrong.
Any "thinking person"? There ya go. Yer just another hater, helping divide our once great nation. Good job. You folks think you are just so much more intelligent than anyone who happens to disagree.
You are so WRONG, in your way of thinking...if you truly do think. Again.. I can toss stupid insults too.
You have a right to your opinion as I have mine. If you choose to ignore facts to get to your conclusions thats on you. It is known that the Bush administration planned to attack Iraq for what ever "real" reason he had but made a pathetic claim to the American people that somehow Iraq was a major player in the attack on 9/11 when even he knew it had no real connection. If he was using intelligent thought why didn't he attack Saudi Arabia since most of the players were from there?
No, I'm not a hater I look at the data available and to this day nothing which you or Bush can say to me will make any sense as to why we invaded Iraq. I was right there with most who said go get Bin Laden from Afghanistan but when he abandoned Afghanistan to go attack Iraq because as was said then Iraq was complicit in the 9/11 attack that veil of lies got thinner and thinner and made no sense at all. If you choose to accept it so be it. I do not and will not accept it.
You say I am wrong for not agreeing with the disgusting things that adminstration has done to this country? You tell me what was right about it. I could care less if you disagree with me or not yet I have not heard to this date from anyone supporting the actions of the the Bush adminstration an explanation which made the least bit of sense. This blabber about him making us safer is so far out in space I can't grasp it. Especially when he was warned repeatedly that forces attached to and trained by Bin Laden were plaining a major atack on the US.
If you wish to ignore all that that's your business. I cannot.
Hey, what I printed is what I say all the time and it IS my own. You only made an ignorant response because you did not take the time to think about it. My choice of thought and wording are different - thus it is mine. It MEANS the same thing, however. I believe we are still free to compose our own statements and "thinking" is still free. I shouldn't have had to look up "similar" quotes to justify just to YOU the validity of the sentence. I probably should not have used the quotation marks.
No, you shouldn´t have to look up similar quotes to justify what you say. But doing so will at least allow you to type something that makes sense. The fact that you can´t see the lack of coherency in what you wrote just confirms that you are absolutely clueless. Not only does it NOT mean the same thing as what Franklin and Jefferson said, the Franklin and Jefferson quotes don´t say the same thing as each other.
Simply this... Bush told us flat out, during his campaign for his first presidential elect?" ion, that he was going to attack Iraq if he was elected. The day the towers fell, I walked into my house, and the first thing my wife said to me was, "We're going to war with Iraq, aren't we?" Of course we were, and I said so. And we did.
It was soon apparent that Shrub was overjoyed at the opportunity to arm-twist Congress into a blank check, and he did exactly that. Almost NO Senator or Representative dared be seen as voting against the measures proposed. It would've been seen the same as voting against the War on Terror. They didn't dare. Those who did, like Obama, were the only people of courage in Washington that day.
Clarke doesn't address this, but while the Bush Administration took full advantage of the 9/11 tragedy, the Republican Congress pretty much just fell into lock step for fear of losing the next election. That attitude kind of backfired in time, but it worked for 2004, which was all they cared about at the time. [For some reason politicians seem to think the only time period that matters is the one between now and the next election, go figure]
Meanwhile, the Democratic minority in Congress didn't exactly speak out loudly, for largely the same reasons (though as the Republicans will tell you now, the minority is pretty limited in what it can do if the majority votes as a party block).
Excuse me Chuck, Obama did NOT vote against going to war. He wad conveniently "absent". I know, the way the propaganda and brainwashing go, you probably didn't know this.
Also, he DID support the war with his vote on funding the war. "I didn't vote for or against it before I voted for it". (Al Gore-like analogy)
Don't you remember he said,"I voted for it before I voted against it." That line was attached to him through the entire election - perhaps you forgot. It was the joke on Gore.
I remember the quote well, including the person who said it, and the subsequent use of it against him in 2004.
Perhaps this is illustrative - insisting on facts that are not actually facts. It is hard to establish credibility when presenting alternative realities.
Most have probably heard of Richard A. Clarke. The following is printed in today's Washington Post
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 190
So, what is the objective here??.....
To read it. I thought I made that point pretty clear.
I read it as well, David....
Perhaps you could point out the objective which I blindly fail to see....
I would strongly recommend Naomi Klien's book, "The Shock Doctrine" which explains just how these Douche Bags manipulated the public's fear and grief.
Spartan - I've read plenty of other material which supports this fact. Does anyone actually believe The Patriot Act was written in a week or two? It was WAITING on this event.
How about ALL the other freedoms lost in the name of "national security" or the creation and quickly expanded Homeland Security.
Clarke puts it in perspective. I already knew how we "justified" our evil.
Happens all the time but usually they use God instead of 9/11 to justify doing evil.
We lost MORE than all those killed in the war.
I think it makes a clear case that through a combination of incompetance and hubris the Bush Administration made critical errors in responding to the events of 9/11.
It could, then, make the case that the way the various members of the Bush Administration attempt to excuse their actions is, itself, a major threat to all our democratic and higher national ideals. If they can excuse on ANY grounds actions including torture and the denial of due process then our freedoms and rights no longer exist for they can be taken away whenever an Administration chooses to claim an emergency. Nations all over the world have had fake emergencies which have been used to deny citizens their rights and to excuse bestial treatment of outsiders and minorities. The Bush Administration is still attacking our fundamental national values.
Amen, Larry!
The previous administration used 9/11 as an excuse to trample all over the ideals and values that made this country the shining example it once was!
We did have a brief shining moment in the late 1960's in which it seemed that the U.S. would try to live up to its values. But that scared too many people and they decided to return to hypocracy and self-deception. :-(
Just a point of clarification, any and all bills were supported by the Dems and the Reps. When you vote FOR a bill, you support it. Tell me ONE Dem who voted against all these loss of freedoms, against the war (and don't say Obama, he was absent for the initial vote and then voted for funding aka a YES vote).
Who voted against The Patriot Act? Only one, and he read it - the rest never read it, like 95% of the bills. They do what they are told or are intimidated.
Linda,
I have made many comments and presented many posts which give my opinions of government and how dangerous it is. What makes you think I believe ANY political party is safe or immune to temptation?
The Bush Administration just happens to have been the most recent example. Recall the Democrat Franklin Rooseveldt? He threw tens of thousands of people in barbed wire and barracks prisons because of where their ancestors came from. Yes, elderly and babies sent to concentration camps. After the war it finally came out that none of them were guilty of any attempt to help Japan at all. All parties and all states have done things this bad though not necessarily on that scale.
So which Party (if any) do you trust with your freedom? No, I don't trust the Libertarians either.
It's a good article.
Also, there are still so many questions surrounding 9/11. Hundreds of engineers and architects said the finding of thermite (I believe that is what it is called) shows the buildings came down because of it, not the planes. Look at the free-fall of all three buildings - an nothing hit WTC7. No plane wreckage was found at the Pentagon, or luggage, or bodies, or any parts of a plane - and a hole too small for a plane. A video suraced of a plane flying OVER the Pentagon at that exact time, has surfaced. At the time, dozens of videos show explosions before the towers collapsed.
And in the hole in PA, NO luggage, NO plane parts, NO bodies were found, NO DNA. That sounds strange too.
Remember the papers which surfaces, many years later, that our govt. KNEW Japan would attack Pearl Harbor, but did nothing BECAUSE they wanted involved in WWII.
We are collateral damage just like the million plus Iraqi's. Absolute power corrupts absolute.
Get some facts, Linda. After nearly 8 years there is no excuse for being so uninformed.
I agree David there is no excuse for being so uninformed, but that's just the American public is, because we've never been given the facts from a genuine investigative body. I'm not saying Dick Cheney pulled a lever that brought down the 9/11 buildings, but after all this time, I've yet to hear plausible explanations for the following:
Why hasn’t the government released the tape from the security camera that the FBI seized from the gas station across the street from the Pentagon? And why didn’t the 9/11 Commission ask to see this footage?
How can it be that the world’s largest military headquarters, the Pentagon, which is ringed with security cameras didn’t get one clear picture of the aircraft that crashed into it?
On 9/11, for the first time in history, a steel building collapsed as result of fire. Not just one collapsed, but three did on the same day. WTC 1, 2, and 7. Even if you buy the mistaken premise that burning jet fuel caused the steel to melt in WTC 1 and 2, how do you explain the collapse of building 7 which was not hit by an airplane and was not compromised by burning jet fuel? If the structural supports of WTC 7 was damaged on one side by debris from WTC 1 or 2, how do you account for the building falling straight down, at freefall speed, into its own footprint?
Why was the collapse of WTC 7 NOT EVEN MENTIONED in the 9/11 Commission Report?
Here’s a hint: After the Bush administration stonewalled and opposed formation of any committee to investigate 9/11 Bush appointed his own insider, Philip Zelikow, as Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission. In this role, Zelikow chose the interviewers, witnesses, questions, and edited the final report.
How do you explain the sightings of molten steel in the basements of the WTC buildings two weeks later? These were reported by one of the building’s architects as well as professionals from engineering and health professions. These reports appeared in Structural Engineer as well as the Johns Hopkins University Medical Journal. How about finding an example, anytime in history, where molten steel was observed two weeks later, where Thermite or RDX demolition materials weren’t used.
How does a plane with a 150 ft. wingspan fit into a 20 ft. hole in the Pentagon (yes, the original hole was 20 ft. before the wall collapsed) without leaving any marks on the wall where the wings would have hit?
Here we have the most influential event of our lifetime, and the most fundamental investigative questions were not asked by a criminal investigative or governmental body.
Yeah, you're right, we're uninformed. And most of don't seem to care.
Sorry Robert. There was no conspiracy. 9/11 was not an inside job. And you have just repeated all the same erroneous information that Linda did.
For example: "Why hasn’t the government released the tape from the security camera that the FBI seized from the gas station across the street from the Pentagon?"
I have seen the video footage. Sorry. It was a plane.
"And why didn’t the 9/11 Commission ask to see this footage?"
They did. Sorry, it was a plane.
"How can it be that the world’s largest military headquarters, the Pentagon, which is ringed with security cameras didn’t get one clear picture of the aircraft that crashed into it?"
Sorry, it was a plane.
"If the structural supports of WTC 7 was damaged on one side by debris from WTC 1 or 2, how do you account for the building falling straight down, at freefall speed, into its own footprint?"
Easy, because your information, and thus your premise, is incorrect. I'll skip the next two paragraphs because it's more of the same.
"How does a plane with a 150 ft. wingspan fit into a 20 ft. hole in the Pentagon (yes, the original hole was 20 ft. before the wall collapsed) without leaving any marks on the wall where the wings would have hit?"
Easy, this is real life, not a Bugs Bunny/Wile E. Coyote cartoon. Not to mention your information is incorrect.
"Here we have the most influential event of our lifetime, and the most fundamental investigative questions were not asked by a criminal investigative or governmental body."
You're information is incorrect.
"Yeah, you're right, we're uninformed. And most of don't seem to care."
I agree there are some who are uninformed.
For the record, an acquaintance of mine was on the plane that hit the Pentagon - the plane that is being suggested didn't exist.
Oh, and friends of mine were on the highway and watched the plane you say didn't exist just miss clipping them before bouncing across the ground into the building and exploding.
Oh, and other friends of mine were in the building running for their lives after seeing the plane heading at them.
Oh, and other friends of mine were EMTs who picked up some of the body parts and pieces of the plane that supposedly never existed.
And a friend of the family was on the Flight 11, the plane that hit the North Tower of the WTC, so don't even go there.
Even more bizarre than the continued insistence on touting information that has already been shown many times to be incorrect, is the alternative proposals. Seriously, besides being totally irrational they are not even possible. I really wonder how any thoughtful person can insist that what did happen is impossible, and not question for a second the absolutely impossible things that would have had to have happened for their alternative.
But this article is not about what happened on 9/11. It's about what happened before and after 9/11.
David, I didn’t say it was a conspiracy. I just said we don’t have the answers to these questions.
The gas station footage of the Pentagon hadn’t been released as of 5 years after the event. Can you give a reference that it was? I don’t even have an opinion that it wasn’t a plane, but answering questions like: “How can it be that the world’s largest military headquarters, the Pentagon, which is ringed with security cameras didn’t get one clear picture of the aircraft that crashed into it?" with “sorry, it was a plane,” isn’t an answer.
I wrote: "If the structural supports of WTC 7 was damaged on one side by debris from WTC 1 or 2, how do you account for the building falling straight down, at freefall speed, into its own footprint?" Answering that with your info is “incorrect” isn’t an answer either. I've yet to hear a decent rebuttal to the BYU professor (can't remember his name) who calculated the freefall speed, and I've yet to hear decent rebuttal even about the main buildings to people like: Thomas Eagar, Professor of materials engineering at MIT: “But even a 50 percent loss of strength is still insufficient , by itself, to explain the WTC collapse.” he also said: “The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable. Even with it’s strength halved the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 1202 F fire.”
I wrote: "How does a plane with a 150 ft. wingspan fit into a 20 ft. hole in the Pentagon (yes, the original hole was 20 ft. before the wall collapsed) without leaving any marks on the wall where the wings would have hit?"
You answered: “Easy, this is real life, not a Bugs Bunny/Wile E. Coyote cartoon. Not to mention your information is incorrect.”
When you look at the pictures of the hole in the pentagon before the wall fell down, it’s about a 20 – 30 ft. hole. You can easily see that there are no marks on the sides of the hole where the wings would have hit with significant impact. As this was not a cartoon hole and structure built by Acme Construction, one would imagine there would be at least some markings where mass hits mass at that velocity.
I said: “Here we have the most influential event of our lifetime, and the most fundamental investigative questions were not asked by a criminal investigative or governmental body."
You answered: “You're information is incorrect.” Were these fundamental questions asked by any investigative governmental body? Was the collapse of Bldg. 7 even mentioned in the 9/11 report?
Once again, I’m not saying a cruise missle rather than a plane hit the Pentagon, I’m just saying the suppression of info about this is suspicious, and the 9/11 Commission was a sham. And basically your answers to these questions of “your information is incorrect” hasn’t really resolved it for me.
Robert - I'm sorry my answers don't resolve this for you, but these questions have all been answered myriads of times. I am unwilling to put the effort into providing detailed answers over and over again 8 years later. How would you feel if you had to explain over and over that Elvis is dead to those people who insist he is still alive?
If you want answers, then read the 9/11 Commission report (which you call a sham because their answers don't satisfy you), and the myriad other real reports by all the investigators from various agencies, states, countries and academic institutions affected by the deaths of about 3000 people (which you also have evidently discounted in favor of whatever sources you used for the incorrect information you cite).
This is nothing more than, as Berf says, the second gunman on the grassy knoll and the pathological pursuit of "proof" of Obama's birth certificate. The questions are only "unanswered" because there are those who don't like the real answers.
David - that's some unlucky string of friends you have. Anyone can make those claims - sorry, you are not proof of anything except a good stonewall attempt.
I say, unanswered questions. And have always known, where there's smoke, there is fire. We have YET to uncover the fire.
Remember, the day BEFORE 9/11, Cheney "announced" there was 2.5 trillion missing from the DOD. Oh, another coinki-dink - the part of the Pentagon, which was destroyed, had the DOD records.
I had two friends at the Pentagon - two. They ran out of the smoke for their lives and never saw a plane - or parts - or body parts or... If you saw a picture after the Pentagon hit, you could look in and see a desk with a computer sitting on it and some papers - they were not destroyed so where is the "plane".
Those of us with our brains turned on believe we deserve a full accounting of this event, and as time passes, there are more questions than answers. Those who died are not collateral damage - their families deserve more than money. Those family members, who DID not take the money, and have been advocates of additional information, continue to die in "freaky" accidents - some on planes with unexplained "problems".
The movement is growing by leaps and bounds for answers to question. Those who "accept" the answers are now in the minority.
Why do you think Cheney and Rice are back in the news? More propaganda for their unlawful actions and yes, I'll say it - cover-up.
David, I understand it's a lot of work to refute these questions, but the answers aren't in the 9/11 Report, and the most frequrently referred to rebuttal was Popular Mechanics book, which didn't answer the questions. Maybe someone who reads this will post the answers -- but I'm sure I'll come back here at the end of the day, and nobody will have done so. Anybody... feel free to prove me wrong.
The 9/11 Report was a sham. The Bush administration tried to stonewall it until public pressure became too much, and then Bush appointed Philip Zelikow from his own administration. Zelikow controlled everything from the witness list to final editing of the report.
Re: The pentagon crash: Lt. Col Karen Kwiatkowski was working in the Pentagon. Here's what she said:
"There was a dearth of visible debris on the relatively unmarked [Pentagon] lawn, where I stood only minutes after the impact. Beyond this strange absence of airliner debris, there was no sign of the kind of damage to the Pentagon structure one would expect from the impact of a large airliner. This visible evidence or lack thereof may also have been apparent to the secretary of defense [Donald Rumsfeld], who in an unfortunate slip of the tongue referred to the aircraft that slammed into the Pentagon as a missile ...
I saw nothing of significance at the point of impact - no airplane metal or cargo debris was blowing on the lawn in front of the damaged building as smoke billowed from within the Pentagon. ... all of us staring at the Pentagon that morning were indeed looking for such debris, but what we expected to see was not evident.
The same is true with regard to the kind of damage we expected. ... But I did not see this kind of damage. Rather, the facade had a rather small hole, no larger than 20 feet in diameter. Although this facade later collapsed, it remained standing for 30 or 40 minutes, with the roof line remaining relatively straight.
The scene, in short, was not what I would have expected from a strike by a large jetliner. It was, however, exactly what one would expect if a missile had struck the Pentagon. ... "
I certainly don't know where some of you are looking for the evidence of the crashed plain... but when I was doing some follow up on all the stupid conspiracy theories, I saw PLENTY of photos of aircraft parts and pieces INSIDE the Pentagon Grounds. AND folks, believe it or not, to those of you who think you're more brilliant and have more "thinking" capabilities than the rest of us, there is also a disintigration factor in any high speed aircraft crash. That is very easily verifiable with a simple search of the net. The military did extensive testing of their own aircraft, for whatever reason, by ramming them full speed into various thicknesses of concrete walls. Total disintegration of smaller jets, so why would there not be disintigration of larger ones?
All this chatter above only proves that some people WANT to believe in a conspiracy and the rest of us real thinkers, don't. ( There.. I can toss an ocaissiona insult, myself, once in a while. )
To you conspiracy theorists.. try looking at some of the evidence AGAINST a conspiracy, instead of looking the other way?
Uh, I did. Saw plenty - the "plane" parts you spoke of were discredited too.
Did you look or listen to any of the posts?
Not trying to convince - just giving the latest info and we will all make up our own minds.
Did you see the documents released because of the Freedom of Invormation Act - on Pearl Harbor?
The film of JFK being shot which was buried for all these years. It clearly snows he was shot in the face...
Brasscheck.tv has tons of videos on all this information, if you care to see things "from the horses mouth". Go here: http://www.brasschecktv.com/ and go to the "asasination studies" plus tons of other "real videos".
¨David - that's some unlucky string of friends you have. Anyone can make those claims - sorry, you are not proof of anything except a good stonewall attempt.¨
Linda - I just saw this comment of yours. It´s one thing to live in your own paranoid fantasy land, but to suggest that these real people who experienced that day first hand are some figment of my imagination is utterly despicable.
And to follow up that insult to everyone would died with a series of absolutely delusional rehashes, one seriously has to wonder how you possibly get through the day.
Good bye
David - I was referring to YOUR claims of all these "friends". You can say anything you like, doesn't make it true. Everyone wants their 15 min of fame - everyone has a story - everyone remembers where they were when these cowardly deeds were done.
You really should turn off the TV and do some of your own research - and not on govt. websites.
You obviously did not look at the links - those are just a couple of hundreds. Some of firefighters jumping as the explosions were taking place to bring down the towers. Videos showing the explosives going off down the side of the bldg. while it was "free falling" within itself.
What do you think of Pearl Harbor?
and of the false flag which started the Vietnam war?
nd the attempted false flags to get us into war with Iran? Bush was supposed to make that happen so Obama could continue the domination of the area.
Too many people with cameras, including the countries we are invading, and who have the capabilities of spreading the truth all over the internet.
But, just keep tuned to your TV to keep the brainwashing and propaganda alive and well - guess you sleep better at night that way. No wonder all the other countries think Americans are stupid...and gullible.
Linda - How dare you disparage my experiences from that day? And the experiences of thousands of other people from that day?
Your contentions require you to ignore direct witnesses, all of the undisputed facts, physics, and all semblance of intelligent thought. You repeat some of the most asinine paranoid delusions that pretty much only crazy people would find worthy of discussion. You repeat absolute falsehoods as if they were true, then suggest they are unopen questions.
then you have the gall to suggest rational people are somehow brainwashed.
As I said, you are free to have your paranias, but you are not free to manipulate the facts, nor are you free to disparage the genuine anguish of people who actual live in the real world.
Yes, some people in other countries think we are stupid and gullible. Guess who they are talking about?
Absolutely pathetic.
David - how dare you ACCUSE me of disparaging all of our experiences. That's some leap of conclusion and reading your own opinion into my remarks. I gave some links of "direct" witness - did you look at them? Did you look at the hundreds of videos and listen to recordings which show polar opposites to the "offician" report. Now, that's your problem, not mine.
You refer to yourself as "rational" yet I don't know you. The old name calling is ridicules and adds noting to the discussion and shows your lack of not only tolerance, but intelligence.
AND, I don't need your permission to discuss these things freely, or will I be affected.
The people in other countries are talking about people like you - closed minded and opinionated and rude - just to name a few adjectives.
Ahh.....Now it all makes sense.........
Really?
No........Not really........
I'm shocked. Perhaps if you actually thought about it.
I'm still working on the second gunman behind the grassy knoll.....
There wasn't one. And that was nearly 46 years ago. Perhaps you could think about something a little more current and meaningful.
You mean like September 11, 2001??.....
That would be more current and meaningful, both because it is only slightly less than 8 years ago and (more importantly) because it actually happened. Sticking with reality might be a nice place to start a dialogue, don't you think?
Thank you, David, for keeping with the facts of 9/11!
Whose "reality," David??.....
Your normal biased, anti-Bush "reality" or Linda A.'s Orwellian, black helicopter "reality"??
"That would be more current and meaningful....."
No, what you mean is, it is a starting point for you and others to pin all the world's ills on the Bush Administration.
Which, I will admit is "current" for you and your ilk, but I would hardly call it "meaningful"......
Let me preface this by saying as soon as President Bush was elected I knew we were going to Iraq, somehow, some way, he'd find a reason to send our troops there.
I was a newly single mom with a very young son, working in the Top Of Troy building. It's a giant communications center, and it would have been a good target, here in MI. (In fact, when our power went out a few weeks later, my manager had to call the main office in OH and explain why they couldn't get on the company intranet. The person at the main office asked if someone was "making" her say that.) I was TERRIFIED, I left, grabbed my son from daycare and sped for home. I almost refused to return, but I had to support my son.
Then, came the anger, the "nuke em to the stone age feeling". It was like our country had been raped, and in a way, we had. We'd had our sense of security yanked from us. The anger eventually subsided to, let's get justice. Let's make sure that we get the right guys, we do it the right way, and that they don't get off on a "technicality". I wasn't as "aware" of politics at the time that I am now. When I started hearing about what we were doing, I was so hurt, so disappointed, so disgusted. We were doing ALL the things that would make sure the people who did this would NEVER be caught, never brought to trial, never punished.
We were, and still are, trying to protect some false sense of security by becoming bullies. I HATE bullies. I was always taught that "big people stick up for little people." If you can, you DO for those that can't. I became ashamed. My country had become the very thing that I despised.
When I heard President Bush announce that we'd have to give up some of our rights to keep us "safe", all I could think was "They won." They had done the very thing they'd set out to do. We were to become "Isolated America" to preserve some sense of false security. It made me sick, mad, and ashamed. I've always wanted to go to Europe, and other countries, but I wouldn't have gone then, even if I could, because I would have been ashamed to admit I was American. Bullies aren't heros, they aren't role models, they aren't anything but bullies.
When people began critisizing President Obama for apologizing to the various countries I started cheering. Finally, we were showing the world that we aren't the arrogant bullies that we'd been shown to be over the last eight years. Finally, we could lift our heads again and say, "Come on MFers, let's go. We're going take back our lives the RIGHT way this time!" (Not that I wish for another attack)
Finally, we had our "swagger" back.
The time to re-asses the event and to analyze the actions taken is past as that has been done.
However, the primary goal was to prevent another attack which was the result. Yes I agree that a secondary goal was to still be re-elected in 2004, however, I feel that the primary goal was the more important and that was achieved. We weren't attacked again.
Now those goals are known and re-hashed over and over again and again.
It's time to move on.
Mistakes were indeed made, but that is what people do. We make mistakes from time to time.
So what! It's time to move on already.
Hear! Hear! Now THAT'S a real objective, Richard!!
Thank you for injecting some logic and reason into this pointless
re-run of
"Let's Get Ourselves All Worked Up Just One More Time"..........
BERF/Richard B... some of us just can't stand that we were forced into this mess. No one has YET demonstrated to me that another attack was prevented by any of the Bush Administration excesses. I am rapidly being persuadied that I have been wrong, and that these people should be in jail. What they have done is nothing less that the murder of no fewer than 50,000 people!
Murder my dyin' butt! Some of you, who believe that this war is only about oil had best wake up and damned soon.
http://www.aish.com/jewishissues/jewishsociety/The_Third_Jihad.asp
Of course, Jews put this out on their website, so it's probably all a lie, right? Watch the damned video or shut the hell up. I'm so sick of you conspiracy nuts, it's just pathetic.
Do you know about the Oil Bourse - the reason Iran will eventually be attacked.
Did you know Iran was not going to accept US dollars for their oil, which would have destroyed this country much earlier. It was about control of the oil and the monetary utilized to pay for it. There are probably other evils involved also.
Their is no justification for what the Bush gang has done to bring America to its knees. Their is proof that Bush and the neocon PINAC plan were firmly put in place and used against the American public as well as innocent countries and people.
Their is plenty of proof that Bush planned to attack Iraq before he was placed in office. Their is proof that Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney and Cheney's company Cerle sold Hussein the chemicals and technology to make his chemical weapons and that George H. W. Bush give Hussein the go ahead to use his chemical warfare on Iran.
The proof of all this has been researched and published thousands of times as well as posted to political groups.
Bush was advised of bin Laden's threat in his transition with Clinton and the whole mess is a planned deception by both parties. Behind the scenes Bill Clinton is called affectionately "sonny" by The Bush clan.
Bush did not meet any threat because they all knew what was going down and as we were being attacked Bush sat in a 6 grade class holding a book upside down pretending to read to children even after he was told of the attack.
Their is also proof that Bush told the military a day before the attack to stand down if their were any threats of attack. When Bush finally decided to make a phony response to the attack he sent up unarmed F16 fighters to answer the threat Bush snuck Saudi nationals out of the country as soon as he put a ban on all flying. The 9/11 attackers were Saudi nationals.
Americans have always lived in peace while we are at war even in WWII American lived in luxury compared to the rest of the world but it only takes a little fear mongering to make Americans fearful in their own country and send their children to spill their blood in these war profiteering scams.
Bush attacked Afghanistan because he couldn't win the Taliban over with bribes.
Unfortunately Obama believes in the same doctrine as Bush and carries on the same failed policy on war and the economy.
I do not believe the part of the article that says Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and others were acting out of fear because they planned 9/11 and were in control from the time the event started.
As far as I am concerned Obama has carried on Bush insurrection by stomping on the rule of law and supporting Bush policy from day one of his swearing in.
"Unfortunately Obama believes in the same doctrine as Bush and carries on the same failed policy on war and the economy."
Huh?
"I do not believe the part of the article that says Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and others were acting out of fear because they planned 9/11 and were in control from the time the event started."
Huh?
Obama is Bush in a hollow Armani suit and his lips move as directed by the monitor. No original thought - just, "yes sir; yes sir; yes sir">
Well, this is going as I expected.
Richard how do you move on from murdering over two million people in three countries and torturing innocent people or even guilty people?
Do you really support Obama and his doctrine of sweeping the rule of law under the carpet?
With a new Supreme court justice about to be voted in by congress the GOP attack dogs are crying that the law is black and white so why doesn't it apply to the criminals that started two wars based on lies and war profiteering as well as torturing prisoners of war?
"Do you really support Obama and his doctrine of sweeping the rule of law under the carpet?"
Huh?
Jack - guess you left David speechless, uh, or, he doesn't have an answer. Same difference.
After Duh they do not say much.
What defense could they have for a person that says sweep the rule of law under the table?
Jack, Jack.....What is this "support Obama and his doctrine of sweeping the rule of law" stuff anyway??......
No matter who, why, or how 9/11 happened the Bush administration loved it. It was the best thing that ever happened to them and they exploited it to the hilt. The Obama administration is continuing to use it as excuse for military action in Afghanistan and bombing in Pakistan.
Here are some dots. You can connect them or not:
In the 90's, before 9/11 or the Bush presidency the Project for the New American Century produced a plan for global domination. One PNAC document, entitled “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” stated: “The process of transformation is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.”
Check how many signers from this organization made it into the Bush Administration: Vice President Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz who also headed the White House Iraq Group, Cheney’s Chief of Staff I. Lewis “Scooter” Libbey, National Security Council member Elliot Abrahams, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, UN Ambassador John Bolton, Zalmay Kalilzhad who became Ambassador to Iraq, and Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick. Richard Perle, Kenneth Adelman and several others occupied other key positions in the administration.
9/11 happened, and was about as close to "a new Pearl Harbor" as we could have. Whether a "conspiracy" within our government was involved in this, or whether the administration had knowledge and let it happen, it did happen and it's been the worst thing that's happened to America ever -- Not what the alleged "terrorists" did, but how our own government used it to manipulate public fear.
It's funny how, as time passes after an event like this, people seem to forget how they felt on that day.
This old, worn-out and INCORRECT argument about how "Bush trampled on the Constitution" has gotten very repetitive and boring. And now, the new administration is beginning to learn about responsibility of protecting 300 million people.
No one has forgotten how they felt on that day.
What's incorrect about the argument how "Bush trampled on the Constitution?"
For example: The Constitution requires Habeas Corpus only be suspended in case of invasion (which hasn't happened) or civil insurrection (which hasn't happened).
What precisely is "incorrect" about that?
If you really believe that denying the rights of U.S. civilians to foreign nationals captured outside the U.S. is trampling the constitution, then you must be able to walk on eggs with work boots without cracking any shells.
I guess using tax dollars to force auto manufacturers to build certain types of cars really makes your blood boil.
Those were real innocent people who didn't deserve to die....that is all I have to say on this. I feel that much of what is said now about it is just gossip for our own pleasure. We forgot...our whole country was affected by this and now we know that there really and truly is a threat of terrorism right here in AMERICAN soil!!!!
None of us has forgotten that day.
I hope you haven't, David, because I fear that we're likely we'll feel that way again soon.
First off, Clarke´s article talks about how fear has been used as a political tool, so I guess it is appropriate that you use that phrase.
But more importantly, what is with the - I´m better than you are - attitude that the Reublican´s seem to be stuck on? Everyone remembers that day, so playing the I´m more patriotic than the Democrats, not to mention the rest of us, game is simply a crutch to avoid taking responsibility for decisions made. The fact is that there is more than one way to deal with an issue, and not listening to the other side, or worse, suggesting they don´t love or appreciate America as much as you do simply because they disagree, is pretty narrow-minded, not to mention hubristic.
Not only is it insulting but it is dangerous, as we have seen.
Nice try, David, but false assumption.
First of all, whether you call it fear or acknowledgement of a possibility, it's still there. I fear the possiblity, but mostly I acknowledge the possibility. And yes, fear is used as a political tool. I think Al Gore has capitalized on that over the past few years.
This is not a democrat or republican thing as much as you want it to be. Patriotic has nothing to do with bravado, chest thumping, kill-em-all, it has to do with what you and I are doing -- speaking our minds and beliefs -- even if they're unpopular.
I, personally, don't think that the republicans, democrats, libertarians or any political party is all good or all bad. I think that too many politicians (individuals, not the parties they represent) are self-serving blowhards that say very little with too many words. But as long as people like you make this a democrat versus republican thing, it will never be resolved.
Its not about democrat or GOP its about the one party system.
Deb, the innocent Iraqi's?
Funny how we killed more innocent Iraqi's than terrorist killed innocent Americans.
Yeah, damn those American and coalition soldiers with their truck and car bombs and strap-on bomb vests walking into marriage ceremonies, markets and mosques!!! We shoulda done something!
Just to be clear, Rude. Iraqi's were not involved in 9/11.
Iraq was not involved in 9/11 -- you are right David.
That is, however, one reason the "average citizen" there may have some knowledge how the "average citizen" felt in the US on 9/11 when shock, fear, confusion, etc ruled the day. Remember, the US called the Iraq Invasion "Shock and Awe".
Debra - A couple of other considerations.
More Americans have died in Iraq than on 9/11.
We were attached on one day. Iraq has been at war since 2003. And that doesn´t even count 30+ years of essentially constant fear and war under Saddam.
David - you forgot, the US put Saddam in office. Then when he would no longer "go along" with our dictated policies, they had to remove him.
Why? He was demanding payment for oil in anything other than US dollars, thus would have destroyed the dollar. Ever hear of the Oil Bourse? No one seems to know on this site. It's a shame because it is ALL about the Oil Burse and the U.S. dollar.
Watch out Linda your getting a Duh comment on this one. Bush is innocent and just had to stop bad boy Hussein from launching those mystery missiles at us.
One point I'd like t make here is that Obama is Bush/Clinton/Bush, all rolled into one. No changes are coming. The plan is right on schedule, has been for years. Each president has his role, and while people here are pointing the blame at one president or another, they are but puppets. Been going on since Federal Reserve was established.
U.N. and NWO are right on track. 9/11 took away our sense of security (deliberate); the financial 9/11 stole our money (deliberate); and now the Universal Health 9/11 will be the loss of our health freedoms; don't forget the U.N. and CODX, bills in congress NOW to take away our freedom to grow and store natural food - it's about controlling the food supply; and one more, Agenda 21 includes control of the fresh water supply. We can live w/o sufficient food, but NEVER w/o water.
The biggest shame is that we had an unelected nincompoop in the WH - a "man" with very limited experience in government, one who was and remains intellectually incurious, and one whose beliefs included demonizing governemtn, regardless of cause.
Obama fits that description to a tee.
What are you smoking? Obama had experience in state and national politics before becoming President - Bush only had state experience as in the weak governorship of Texas. Obama was intellectually curious enough to earn a Law degree - on his own merits, unlike W's preferential treatment at Harvard. Barack also seeks out others opinions, including those who differ from his. That's in stark contrast to Bush's coterie of yes-men and -women. President Obama also does not demonize government - he wants it to work for all of us.
It's funny how people forget what they were saying themselves. I worked for a newspaper at that time, as the editorial assistant. People wanted terrorists brought to justice no matter what it took. That's what they said. Young men in our area rushed to the military recruitment offices, like their fathers and grandfathers had before them.
Our congress did not object to much of what was proposed by the Bush administration.
And now everyone wants to pretend that they didn't want any of this.
Bologna butts!
lol... I usually don't participate in hate threads, but this is funny. Marilyn, you're right on.
David, you realize that Carke's book is a CYA undertaking? He talks as if all was above board under the Clinton Administration, yet information is available that clearly disputes that.
From Benjamin Wittes book, Law and the Long War:
Even the most controversial and seemingly innovative of the [Bush] administration’s actions turn out, on closer inspection, to elaborate on, amplify, or revive preexisting currents of American law and practice. Consider, for example, the tactic of so-called extraordinary rendition, in which the CIA snatches a terror suspect abroad and turns him over to a foreign government for interrogation or detention. This program became infamous in the years that followed September 11 because of allegations that the administration was subcontracting torture to authoritarian-allied governments. According to the man who ran the program initially at CIA, however, it actually began back in 1995.
Michael Scheuer ran the agency’s Osama bin Laden unit from its creation until 1999. In his account, given in congressional testimony in April 2007, “The rendition program was initiated because President Clinton and [National Security aides Anthony] Lake, [Sandy] Berger and [Richard] Clarke requested that the CIA begin to attack and dismantle al Qaeda. These men made it clear from the first that they did not want to bring those captured to the United States or to hold them in U.S. custody.”
[. . .]
It was understood that rendered suspects would not be treated with kid gloves. . . . And while officials of both the Clinton and Bush administrations have emphasized that these diplomatic assurances were meaningful promises of humane treatment, Scheuer regarded them as something of a farce: “There [were] no qualms at all about sending people to Cairo and kind of joking up our sleeves about what would happen to those people in Cairo—in Egyptian prison,” he said.
"David, you realize that Carke's book is a CYA undertaking?"
Yes, of course. There is a CYA element to most 20/20 hindsight. The question is do you think many people have stopped to think about it? Or does it necessarily mean his views are not correct or valid?
As for rendition, the question becomes whether those subjected to it before 9/11 were the same as those subjected to it after 9/11? And is rendition the whole question, or only part of the question?
Well I've certainly stopped to think about it but you're right, how many others? And if it means his views are not correct or valid, who knows? It's like those Matryoshka dolls, you see them whole, yet open it up and there's another one inside, again and again.
As to rendition, what are your thoughts?
That none of us actually knows enough to offer an informed opinion. That, of course, never seems to stop us from offering uniformed opinions.
One man's junk is another man's treasure?
And from the Human Rights Watch:
Torture, although it is strictly forbidden under Egyptian law and the international human rights treaties Egypt has signed, has been a widespread and persistent phenomenon in the country, particularly during interrogation of security suspects. Methods of torture include beatings with fists, feet, leather straps, sticks, and electric cables; suspension in contorted and painful positions accompanied by beatings; the application of electric shocks; and sexual intimidation and violence. The government-appointed National Council for Human Rights, in its first annual report released in April 2005, acknowledged that torture is part of "normal investigative practice" in Egypt.
Another question is how many? (Before and after 9/11)
Perhaps, Walt Slocombe said it best, as recounted by former CIA officer Reuel Marc Gerecht in the New York Times:
A dense bipartisan moral fog surrounds rendition. Former senior Clinton officials can still deny that they sent anyone away in order that he be tortured. Few are as honest and frank as Walt Slocombe, a Clinton undersecretary of defense who once remarked that the difference between Democratic and Republican rendition was that Democrats “drilled air holes in the boxes.”
I actually believe Eric Holder AND Richard Clark have a lot of 'splainin' to do.
Slocombe is one person, and as we've seen, one person's CYA statements are more anecdotal than illustrative. Certainly Holder and Clark must take responsibility for their positions, just as everyone else must. But what does that mean exactly?
Great comments on an excellent article by Clarke.
Your thoughts are falling on deaf ears Robert the more intelligent posting here have it all figured out with "Huh."
The Huh crowd is what keeps the country polarised.
I will repeat the question again for the rocket scientists, where is the rule of law for Obama that promised to support the rule of law, Huh?
Excellent article. People were so eager after 9/11 to prevent another terrorist attack, or otherwise keep the terrorist from winning; that they were willing to compromise fundamental principals of this country. I think people who would do us harm gain more of an upper hand if we allow fear to turn us into something that we're not- we play right into their hands and give them exactly what they want. They want the power trip off of americans being fearful, and being completely willing to give up their basic freedoms; and going along with draconian measures of the government like trained sheep. Then when americans go along with some of these measures, such as invading iraq unjustifiably; or "enhanced interrogation teqniques"; they can use that as a recruitment tool- for people who previously wished no harm upon the U.S.
"Unless you were there, in a position of responsibility after September 11, you cannot possibly imagine the dilemmas that you faced in trying to protect Americans,"-
-Condoleezza Rice
Nonsense, Condi. JFK faced a threat of nuclear attack from Cuba during the missile crisis, far scarier, and he kept his cool. Bush and Cheney did not.
David, it irks me that so long after 9/11 we still have conspiracy theorists spouting here on Gather. For goodness sake, be silent people. It was a group of jihadists, mostly from Saudi Arabia, trained by Bin Laden. Grow up people. Lies or wilful ignorance, both are equally bad. It's not hard to accept reality if you really try. Hard to believe that 20 guys could knock down the Trade Center? They were tactically brilliant to use our own technical marvels against us- the only weapons they needed were box cutters. We even trained them how to fly.
any thinking person is disturbed by obama's unwillingness to pursue Bush era wrongdoing. his instinct is to practice civility. In one sense, his refusal is immoral- and how do we learn from the past if it is hidden from us? But the Limbaugh crowd here on Gather would never accept the judgments of even an independent prosecutor regarding figures of the Bush administration. When the genie comes out of the bottle, sadly, no way to put him back. You can't fix some things.
I"m tickled to death, that you think you know more than Condi or anyone else in "power".
Obama refusal to "not look back" is so obvious. He's a Bush/Clinton/Bush in sheep's clothing and the sheeple follow HIM w/o question.
Questions and discussion is good and to dismiss these, and the people who continue to question, is the REAL conspiracy!
Fascism is when the govt., the media, and the corporatists keep us in the dark. The media gets their spin from the govt., and the elected officials get their support and money from the corporatists. Blood money, if you will.
your interpretation is overly conspiracist, Linda. You lost your chance to look reasonable with your second comment above, sorry.
HERE's some food for thought - there is so much out there...
Now, take your time and watch, listen and read. Just the tip of the iceberg.
http://blip.tv/file/1064938/
Barry died last year from still-uknown causes in his early-50s.
“Barry Jennings, a key 9/11 eyewitness who was an emergency coordinator for the New York Housing Authority, has passed away at age 53 from circumstances not yet disclosed.”
It is very unusual that a prominent — and controversial– 9/11 witness would die only days before the release of NIST’s report on WTC7 and shortly after a firestorm erupted over his testimony that he heard explosions inside the building prior to collapse of either tower and that there were dead bodies in the building’s blown-out lobby.
The BBC aired The Third Tower in July in attempt to debunk Barry Jennings’ account– which is both contradictory and damaging to the official 9/11 story– by making issue over whether or not he said he “saw” dead bodies in the lobby.
Yet Jennings own statement in an exclusive interview with Dylan Avery and Jason Bermas– which has not been denied– was: “The fire fighter who took us down kept saying, ‘Don’t look down.’ And I said, ‘Why.’ And we were stepping over people– you know, you can feel when you’re stepping over people.”
Can someone who is a 9/11 skeptic please explain how Barry Jennings and Michael Hess were trapped by explosions in WTC-7 BEFORE either of the Twin Towers collapsed?
http://www.infowars.com/key-witness-to-wtc-7-explosions-on-911-dead-at-53/
Michael Hess’s phone interview
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUfiLbXMa64
http://twilightpines.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view
&id=113&Itemid=67
NIST exploring 9/11 conspiracy theory for WTC-7New witness confirms Scholars previous findings
http://www.prisonplanet.com/audio/190607clips2.mp3
http://www.infowars.com/key-witness-to-wtc-7-explos
ions-on-911-dead-at-53/
9/11 Shock Opera… Act 4 – Building 7 and Flight 93: The Grand Finale that Wasn’t
“It is my intention to show that Flight 93 was not targeting Washington, D.C. as Philip Zelikow (transition team member of the Bush White House and key contributor to the creation of the policy of the “Global War on Terror”) would have you believe, but rather, it was headed for Building 7 of the World Trade Center complex as the final act in the Shock Opera of the Neocon Vulcan’s “New Pearl Harbor” event.
This is an important aspect of the case of 9/11, for I and many others do call it a case now; a criminal investigation, if you will, which has been ongoing for years… unofficially.”
For a long time, Building 7 has been considered the weakest link in the official story of what happened that day and with good reason.
http://willyloman.wordpress.com/category/911-investigations/
For the most part, there is some really good information out there compiled by skilled researchers, engineers, chemists, architects, intelligence agents, politicians, fire-fighters, pilots, and even simply concerned citizens trying to help make a difference.
Not all of the theories out there are valid, not all follow the standardized scientific method of research, but there are enough honest efforts (albeit they are often clouded by the obvious “disinformation” efforts) to prove beyond the point of “reasonable doubt” that the official story is not only not plausible, it is simply not possible.
http://digg.com/d1sNnt
This on FOX news...
No comment on these videos - taped during the chaos? It's an interesting look at the "all knowing" posters here.
Apart from the conspiracy theory er folk. This was an interesting discussion. I read Clarke's article earlier today and felt like it just reinforced my own thoughts when the Bush crowd tried to justify their actions after the fact.
Thanks for the link, David. That's a good article and I'm glad I didn't miss it.
I feel any thinking person had to feel the administration was acting out of fear and incompetance in their after 9/11 actions. Things just continued down hill from there with too many prefering to believe the administration than to admit they were wrong.
Any "thinking person"? There ya go. Yer just another hater, helping divide our once great nation. Good job. You folks think you are just so much more intelligent than anyone who happens to disagree.
You are so WRONG, in your way of thinking...if you truly do think. Again.. I can toss stupid insults too.
You have a right to your opinion as I have mine. If you choose to ignore facts to get to your conclusions thats on you. It is known that the Bush administration planned to attack Iraq for what ever "real" reason he had but made a pathetic claim to the American people that somehow Iraq was a major player in the attack on 9/11 when even he knew it had no real connection. If he was using intelligent thought why didn't he attack Saudi Arabia since most of the players were from there?
No, I'm not a hater I look at the data available and to this day nothing which you or Bush can say to me will make any sense as to why we invaded Iraq. I was right there with most who said go get Bin Laden from Afghanistan but when he abandoned Afghanistan to go attack Iraq because as was said then Iraq was complicit in the 9/11 attack that veil of lies got thinner and thinner and made no sense at all. If you choose to accept it so be it. I do not and will not accept it.
You say I am wrong for not agreeing with the disgusting things that adminstration has done to this country? You tell me what was right about it. I could care less if you disagree with me or not yet I have not heard to this date from anyone supporting the actions of the the Bush adminstration an explanation which made the least bit of sense. This blabber about him making us safer is so far out in space I can't grasp it. Especially when he was warned repeatedly that forces attached to and trained by Bin Laden were plaining a major atack on the US.
If you wish to ignore all that that's your business. I cannot.
i'd rather have freedom than security because without freedom, there is no security.
Those who live or lived in fear after 9/11 should think about this.
"i'd rather have freedom than security because without freedom, there is no security."
What on earth does that mean? It sounds like a meaningless platitude that is too big to fit on a bumper sticker.
Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security.
Benjamin Franklin
Is that clearer David. It helps if you think about things.
and this...
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.
Thomas Jefferson
Thanks for providing the actual quotes from Franklin and Jefferson. Perhaps you should have done so initially rather than trying to make up your own.
Hey, what I printed is what I say all the time and it IS my own. You only made an ignorant response because you did not take the time to think about it. My choice of thought and wording are different - thus it is mine. It MEANS the same thing, however. I believe we are still free to compose our own statements and "thinking" is still free. I shouldn't have had to look up "similar" quotes to justify just to YOU the validity of the sentence. I probably should not have used the quotation marks.
No, you shouldn´t have to look up similar quotes to justify what you say. But doing so will at least allow you to type something that makes sense. The fact that you can´t see the lack of coherency in what you wrote just confirms that you are absolutely clueless. Not only does it NOT mean the same thing as what Franklin and Jefferson said, the Franklin and Jefferson quotes don´t say the same thing as each other.
Ok David, this truey proves your thought process is not a process at all - it's merely an uninformed opinion.
Just because you can't comprehend what I said proves it makes more sense than I realized.
Simply this... Bush told us flat out, during his campaign for his first presidential elect?" ion, that he was going to attack Iraq if he was elected. The day the towers fell, I walked into my house, and the first thing my wife said to me was, "We're going to war with Iraq, aren't we?" Of course we were, and I said so. And we did.
It was soon apparent that Shrub was overjoyed at the opportunity to arm-twist Congress into a blank check, and he did exactly that. Almost NO Senator or Representative dared be seen as voting against the measures proposed. It would've been seen the same as voting against the War on Terror. They didn't dare. Those who did, like Obama, were the only people of courage in Washington that day.
Clarke doesn't address this, but while the Bush Administration took full advantage of the 9/11 tragedy, the Republican Congress pretty much just fell into lock step for fear of losing the next election. That attitude kind of backfired in time, but it worked for 2004, which was all they cared about at the time. [For some reason politicians seem to think the only time period that matters is the one between now and the next election, go figure]
Meanwhile, the Democratic minority in Congress didn't exactly speak out loudly, for largely the same reasons (though as the Republicans will tell you now, the minority is pretty limited in what it can do if the majority votes as a party block).
Excuse me Chuck, Obama did NOT vote against going to war. He wad conveniently "absent". I know, the way the propaganda and brainwashing go, you probably didn't know this.
Also, he DID support the war with his vote on funding the war. "I didn't vote for or against it before I voted for it". (Al Gore-like analogy)
Better check your facts, and quotation citations, and perhaps a calendar.
Uh - the "quote" was already explained as an analogy..
And, YOU check the facts.
Al Gore?
Don't you remember he said,"I voted for it before I voted against it." That line was attached to him through the entire election - perhaps you forgot. It was the joke on Gore.
I remember the quote well, including the person who said it, and the subsequent use of it against him in 2004.
Perhaps this is illustrative - insisting on facts that are not actually facts. It is hard to establish credibility when presenting alternative realities.
HUH? duh...
I am confusedddddddddddd!!!!!