Twoofer Strategy

[Mr. Jones]

Posted by Mr. Jones
3 Are you aware that Dov S. Zakheim, a former vice president of System Planning Corp., a defense contractor which makes remote control and flight termination products, was sworn in as the Under Secretary of Defense?
Question: Did you know that remote controlled flight was possible and that someone who was very involved with this technology was a member of the Bush administration?
System Planning Corporation
The Truth Seeker - Dov Zakheim and the 9/11 Conspiracy


My Answer


This relates directly (I'm assuming) to the "supposed POD" that was "supposedly" visible under the right wing of one of the airliners that hit the towers. 1st off, It's evidence via the 1962 Northwoods Document that you posted, that a droned plane (Even passenger plane) was capable at the time. There's only one problem with this theory, passengers PHONED their homes and reported the plane being hijacked by muslims with box-cutters. Is it really so hard to believe that a man who developed drone technology was involved with the government? When I was a kid they made planes that you could fly around your house with a remote control.......... This proves nothing.....

Now we get down to the pod itself.

Where's The Pod?
"CLAIM: Photographs and video footage shot just before United Airlines Flight 175 hit the South Tower of the World Trade Center (WTC) show an object underneath the fuselage at the base of the right wing. The film "911 In Plane Site" and the Web site LetsRoll911.org claim that no such object is found on a stock Boeing 767. They speculate that this "military pod" is a missile, a bomb or a piece of equipment on an air-refueling tanker. LetsRoll911.org points to this as evidence that the attacks were an "inside job" sanctioned by "President George Bush, who planned and engineered 9/11."

FACT: One of the clearest, most widely seen pictures of the doomed jet's undercarriage was taken by photographer Rob Howard and published in New York magazine and elsewhere (opening page). PM sent a digital scan of the original photo to Ronald Greeley, director of the Space Photography Laboratory at Arizona State University. Greeley is an expert at analyzing images to determine the shape and features of geological formations based on shadow and light effects. After studying the high-resolution image and comparing it to photos of a Boeing 767-200ER's undercarriage, Greeley dismissed the notion that the Howard photo reveals a "pod." In fact, the photo reveals only the Boeing's right fairing, a pronounced bulge that contains the landing gear. He concludes that sunlight glinting off the fairing gave it an exaggerated look. "Such a glint causes a blossoming (enlargement) on film," he writes in an e-mail to PM, "which tends to be amplified in digital versions of images--the pixels are saturated and tend to 'spill over' to adjacent pixels." When asked about pods attached to civilian aircraft, Fred E. Culick, professor of aeronautics at the California Institute of Technology, gave a blunter response: "That's bull. They're really stretching."

Debunking the 9/11 Conspiracy theories

3 Down

Um I made no mention of a "pod" and therefore you writing a half page about something that I did not mention is a 'foul"

One of the companies that was the leader in remote flight technology being close to the administration and having office space at the WTC is indeed of great of interest since it has been claimed by experts in aviation, that the flight maneuvers the hijacked planes performed could not have been done by poorly trained flight school rejects, and again calls into question the credibility of the "we never ever thought it was possible statement" by the administration.

In a document called "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century" published by The American Enterprise's "Project for a New American Century"(1), System Planning Corporation (SPC) International executive, Dov Zakheim, called for "some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor" being necessary to foster the frame of mind needed for the American public to support a war in the Middle East..

As for the phone calls, there is doubt as to whether these could have been made at the time in 2001.
A test on January 23rd 2003, places doubt on this ability.
Physics911, by Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven, 9/11/2001


This is the article, dating from September 9, 2008. Please read the chapterhttp://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20722.htmWas Evidence of Muslim Hijackers Provided by Phone Calls from the Airliners?I am not going to reproduce the chapter here, just give a short summary.Griffin basically denies that it has been proven that any cell phone calls have been made from any of the 4airplanes, except, maybe 2 calls from flight 93 while the plane was at low altitude, shortly before the crash.Griffin states that at the given height of 30.000+ feet and a cruising speed of say 500 mph successfully using cellphones from an airplane in 2001 were technically impossible.There was, however, a big problem with these reported calls: Given the technology available in 2001, cell phone calls from airliners at altitudes of more than a few thousand feet, especially calls lasting more than a few seconds, were not possible, and yet these calls, some of which reportedly lasted a minute or more, reportedly occurred when the planes were above 30,000 or even40,000 feet.Some credible people, including scientist A.K. Dewdney,who for many years had written a column for Scientific American, explained this problem.The FBI delivered the information about said phone calls.

The FBI HAD A HABIT OF CHANGING ITS STORY.

This suspicion is reinforced by the FBI's change of story inrelation to United Flight 93.Although we were originally told that this flight had beenthe source of about a dozen cell phone calls, some of them when the plane was above 40,000 feet, the FBIgave a very different report at the 2006 trial of ZacariasMoussaoui, the so-called 20th hijacker.The FBI spokesman said "13 of the terrified passengersand crew members made 35 air phone calls and two cellphone calls."38 Instead of there having been about adozen cell phone calls from Flight 93, the FBI declared in2005, there were really only two.

The phone calls can not be proven as true, and if a jury takes the past FBI "inconsistencies" mistakes, and half truths into account, and weighs their testimony against credible scientist and tech people
who would testify about the ability to "morph" voicing phone calls, and who one of the leaders of such technology is, and the connections of said company...well it creates yet another reasonable doubt to a jury.

A 1999 Washington Post article described demonstrationsin which the voices of two generals, Colin Powell and CarlSteiner, were heard saying things they had never said.

But what about the sound samples necessary to fake the voices of the passengers using sound morphing technologies.

The article, titled http
http//www.antiwar.com/orig/ketcham.php?articleid=13506'Trojan horse -
How Israeli Backdoor Technology Penetrated the US Government's Tele com System and Compromised National Security'...Is about large scale Israeli infiltration of computer systems of the American government.

Further on in the article the Israeli firm Amdocs is mentioned.
Some of the key Israeli-run companies linked to Guardiumare
Amdocs, ViryaNet, Nice Systems, and CreoScitex
senior officers of Israeli militaryintelligence run all these companies.

More on this technology, the connections to 9-11 and Israel, can be found here
Chapter 8 The Fake 9/11 Phone Calls
AND to see how it connects to the elected administration at the time all one has to do is educate themselves on the PNAC, and who was involved with the PNAC.

This creates a huge conflict of interest as some of those involved are
dual citizens of US and Israel.
Yet another tantalizing twist that has been kept out of the average Americans view as it would raise eyebrows, lots of questions and doubt.
So that's 3 I have countered and proven so far that there is reasonable doubt to question the official version, and that calls for a truly independent investigation where all of these revelations and details can be shown.

Chapter 8 The Fake 9/11 Phone Calls

These facts about Dov Zakheim, his close alliance with the US government his company and remote aircraft, and the fact he was a contributor and signed off on the PNAC policies, along with the testimony by experts in aviation as to the hijacked flights track and maneuvers, would be very interesting to a jury in a 9-11 criminal trial, along with the cell phone technology testimony, and we have another seed of reasonable doubt planted in the minds of jurors.
This make 4 counters to your claims that none of this is worth while or that shows no possible complicity.

 

[Mr. Jones]

Posted by Mr. Jones
5 Attorney General John Ashcroft stops flying commercial aircrafts three months before 9/11 due to threats.
Question: Why did he stop flying commercial aircrafts? What did he know?
Ashcroft Flying High - CBS News

My Answer:

Using the same CBS link you provided, it says clearly that he stopped because of a threat assessment. The FBI have used threat assessments for a long time. John Ashcroft was simply follwing the protocol for a high ranking government official under that certain threat assessment. At the bottom of the page it says that he relys on his own personal FBI security detail. The threat could have been against Ashcroft himself. He explains that he doesn't ever know what the actual threat is.

"There was a threat assessment and there are guidelines. He is acting under the guidelines," an FBI spokesman said. Neither the FBI nor the Justice Department, however, would identify what the threat was, when it was detected or who made it."

"That idea, they said, came strictly from Ashcroft's FBI security detail. The FBI had no further comment"

Ashcroft Flying High - CBS News

All this proves was that there was "SOME" type of threat that HIS security team deamed necessary enough for him to not fly commercial. It does not, at all, have any links to 9/11---other than a truthers wandering eye-brows. 5 Down

That's right it proves there was a threat to the nation in the form of terrorism using hijacked planes that Condi and the others pretended they had no clue about. The point is that our defenses and those in charge were very aware of this threat and that people in the administration knew about it, and all of this further proves that they lied about "never imagining" this type of attack could happen!
Reasonable doubt sustained yet again.

TENET RECALLS WARNING RICE
Former CIA director George Tenet told the 9/11 Commission that he had ... for the meeting was partly based on his being aware of the Phoenix memo. ... The truth is that the Bush Administration did have enough time to stop the 9/11 ...

Shes lost all credibility working for an administration that has lost all of its credibility.

Tenet's statements to the commission in January 2004 confirm the outlines of an event in a new book by Washington Post Assistant Managing Editor Bob Woodward that has been disputed by some Bush administration officials. But the testimony also is at odds with Woodward's depiction of Tenet and former CIA counterterrorism chief J. Cofer Black as being frustrated that "they were not getting through to Rice" after the July 10, 2001, meeting.

Tenet Recalled Warning Rice - washingtonpost.com

How many lives could have been saved if Ashcroft would have went on TV to relay his own fears and concerns, enough for HIM to alter his travel planning, instead of going on TV to tell us what color the "terrorism" alerts were for the day?
Reasonable doubt raised as to the credibility of the entire Bush administration, as by now a jury would be thinking they are a bunch of bald faced liars engaged in a cover up.

The truth is that the Bush Administration did have enough time to stop the 9/11 attacks if they had connected the dots. She was told repeatedly that al-Qaida was planning to attack the US. The Clinton team warned her in February, Richard Clark warned her repeatedly, a report was even issued entitiled Bin Laden Determined To Attack Inside The United States. Now we hear that the CIA warned her that al-Qaida on July 10, 2001, still months before the attacks occurred and Rice did nothing. All she can say in her defense is that no one could have anticipated that al-Qaida was planning to attack the US.

Tenet Recalled Warning Rice
Number 5 easily handled with no problem.
So far you are doing nothing to advance or solidify your stance that the American public have no cause for concern. What ever the stance
be it negligence, willful or not, or LIHOP, or MIHOP, the reasons for doubting the official version should be quite obvious to any clear thinking juror.

 

[Mr. Jones]

1 We Could Never Imagine Planes Used to Attack Us - We have been told that the US was not only unprepared for defending our nation against planes used as weapons but we were told by our National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice that we never imagined such a thing.
Question: Why do you believe that the US was not prepared to prevent such an event when we had held drills for just such an event in the past?

USATODAY.com - NORAD had drills of jets as weapons

QUESTION: Why do you believe that we had no idea anyone would fly a plane into the WTC when an FBI agent warned of the very thing only to have his warnings dismissed?
Excite News
Agent Cited WTC Attack Ahead of 9/11


My answer using the same sites you posted.

NORAD officials have acknowledged that "scriptwriters" for the drills included the idea of hijacked aircraft being used as weapons.

"Threats of killing hostages or crashing were left to the scriptwriters to invoke creativity and broaden the required response," Maj. Gen. Craig McKinley, a NORAD official, told the 9/11 commission. No exercise matched the specific events of Sept. 11, NORAD said.

"We have planned and executed numerous scenarios over the years to include aircraft originating from foreign airports penetrating our sovereign airspace," Gen. Ralph Eberhart, NORAD commander, told USA TODAY. "Regrettably, the tragic events of 9/11 were never anticipated or exercised."
USATODAY.com - NORAD had drills of jets as weapons


Hill said the headquarters agent responded, "That's not going to happen. We don't know he's a terrorist. You don't have enough to show he is a terrorist

Hill said New York FBI personnel who reviewed the memo found it "speculative and not particularly significant." They said they knew some flight students were affiliated with bin Laden, she said, but believed they were intended to fly goods and personnel in Afghanistan.

The supervisor said he had no reason to believe Moussaoui was planning such an attack, but made the remark in a frustrated attempt to convince headquarters that a special search warrant was needed to search Moussaoui's computer, investigator Eleanor Hill told a House-Senate committee investigating the Sept. 11 attacks.

Excite News

The FBI has admitted that it did not investigate Moussaoui hard enough. An admission of guilt? This looks more like incompetence than a conspiracy. There's a little thing law enforcement are encouraged to enforce, and that's called civil rights. The agent said that he THOUGHT they MIGHT fly planes into a building. This does not prove a conspiracy. 1 down.

"In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties."
Defending this lie by saying they practiced for "foreign" flights and not domestic aircraft is weak, and would not stand up as a good defense in front of a jury. The scenario was planes hitting buildings, who the hell cares where they come from if ultimately the planes are in our airspace?

"One of the imagined targets was the World Trade Center. In another exercise, jets performed a mock shootdown over the Atlantic Ocean of a jet supposedly laden with chemical poisons headed toward a target in the United States. In a third scenario, the target was the Pentagon — but that drill was not run after Defense officials said it was unrealistic, NORAD and Defense officials say.

NORAD, in a written statement, confirmed that such hijacking exercises occurred. It said the scenarios outlined were regional drills, not regularly scheduled continent-wide exercises.

"Numerous types of civilian and military aircraft were used as mock hijacked aircraft," the statement said. "These exercises tested track detection and identification; scramble and interception; hijack procedures; internal and external agency coordination and operational security and communications security procedures."

It proves that Rice and the others who went on national TV and made the statement that "we couldn't ever imagine planes being used" was a deliberate lie. designed to give "oops" type of excuse and feign incompetence, rather then at least negligence, and at worst culpability.
The fact that there were drills with plane hitting buildings scenarios, and the pentagon, raises suspicion, and calls her/their credibility into questionable territory.
Reasonable doubt is thus placed on her and the administrations credibility and statement.
1 lie is thus added to the sum of the whole.
Keep in mind that 1 instance did not convince me of negligence or a conspiracy, as we proceed forward and add up all these things most rational people will admit that there are just too many of these 'coincidences" misstatements, and inconsistencies to be believable.

BUSH was not the president TWO years before September 11th. Rice was not in her position two years before 9/11 either. Do you think that as soon as the new presidents and cabinets take office that they are immediately (or ever) brought up to speed about every drill, test, or scenario that was EVER run by NORAD or any other government agency?

This is what the transition stage for newly elected people are for!
And they were briefed, and there is evidence to support this.

It is CRAZY to expect government officials to know about every drill or test that has ever been done. Rice was simply stating that she and others around her couldn't have ever imagined it happening. You can drill for all kinds of scenarios that you never imagine happening. The President's job is NOT to know everything the FBI, CIA, and NORAD do.. What you have posted above does not prove anything.......still 1 down on this one.

The truth is that the Bush Administration did have enough time to stop the 9/11 attacks if they had connected the dots. She was told repeatedly that Al Qaeda was planning to attack the US. The Clinton team warned her in February, Richard Clark warned her repeatedly, a report was even issued entitled Bin Laden Determined To Attack Inside The United States. Now we hear that the CIA warned her that Al Qaeda on July 10, 2001, still months before the attacks occurred and Rice did nothing. All she can say in her defense is that no one could have anticipated that Al Qaeda was planning to attack the US.
Your excuse does not fly, linked proven, raises enough reasonable doubt and thoroughly debunked-you lose.

 

[Mr. Jones]

Posted by Mr. Jones
2 There is a great deal of information indicating the fact that one of the first directives of the Bush administration upon taking office was to have the intelligence community back off of all investigations into Osama Bin Laden and his family.
Question: Why was the Bush administration protecting Bin Laden? Why do you ignore the close ties between the Bush family and the Bin Laden family?


My Answer

Bin Laden Ties


"Al-Qaeda's spokesman, Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, said in a video sent to al Jazeera and broadcast in October 2001 the following:

The Americans should know that the storm of plane attacks will not abate, with God's permission. There are thousands of the Islamic nation's youths who are eager to die just as the Americans are eager to live.[55]"

"In November 2001, US forces recovered a videotape from a bombed house in Jalalabad, Afghanistan which showed a man purported to be Osama bin Laden talking to Khaled al-Harbi. In the tape, bin Laden talks of planning the attacks. Translations from the tape include the following lines:

...we calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy, who would be killed based on the position of the tower. We calculated that the floors that would be hit would be three or four floors. I was the most optimistic of them all...We had notification since the previous Thursday that the event would take place that day. We had finished our work that day and had the radio on...Muhammad (Atta) from the Egyptian family (meaning the al-Qaeda Egyptian group), was in charge of the group...The brothers, who conducted the operation, all they knew was that they have a martyrdom operation and we asked each of them to go to America but they didn't know anything about the operation, not even one letter. But they were trained and we did not reveal the operation to them until they are there and just before they boarded the planes.[68]"

"
On February 11, 2003, Al Jazeera broadcast an audio tape purportedly from bin Laden.[70]

Shortly before the US presidential election in 2004, in a taped statement, bin Laden publicly acknowledged al-Qaeda's involvement in the attacks on the US, and admitted his direct link to the attacks. He said that the attacks were carried out because "we are a free people who do not accept injustice, and we want to regain the freedom of our nation."

In an audio message that surfaced on the Internet in May 2006 the speaker, who is alleged to be Osama bin Laden, defends Zacarias Moussaoui, who was undergoing a trial for his participation in the September 11 attacks. The voice in the audio message says

"I begin by talking about the honorable brother Zacarias Moussaoui. The truth is that he has no connection whatsoever with the events of September 11th, and I am certain of what I say, because I was responsible for entrusting the 19 brothers — Allah have mercy upon them — with those raids, and I did not assign brother Zacarias to be with them on that mission."[71]

Responsibility for the September 11 attacks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Osama doesn't matter...the fact that OTHER Al Qaeda members have claimed responsibility says enough. Osama originally denied involvement, but it doesn't amount to a hill of beans. The fact that the terrorist were linked to Al Qaeda says it all... 2 Down.

Question: Why was the Bush administration protecting Bin Laden? Why do you ignore the close ties between the Bush family and the Bin Laden family?

OBL was the alleged mastermind and spiritual leader that Bush swore to find "dead or alive". His name was plastered all over the MSM and was constantly drilled into the psyche of the American public. The fact that most of the public has no idea just how close the Bin ladens and the Bushs are was kept secret for good reason. The flights allowing the Bin Ladens to fly out of the country when all other flights were grounded is another proof of this strange conflict of interest friendship, and calls into question whether this "loyalty" to friends was put above the loyalty to the nation.
This does not prove a conspiracy, but yet again is but one piece of the overall picture people put together, that raises a reasonable doubt about the honesty, sincerity, and veracity to "find em dead or alive".
2 reasonable doubt sustained.

Bush - bin Laden family business connections

Your link only demonstrates the eventual (and not close) link to the Bin Laden family...NOT BIN LADEN HIMSELF. And the link is amature at best. You cannot post links like that and expect them to pass as being credible.

The links are true, and is enough to raise suspicion, and the Bin Ladens are not your average rich Saudi family,they are special in the fact that their son is accused of being behind the worst attack on US soil in the history of the nation, so you trying to downplay this fact as though it would not mean anything to a jury is a total fail.

The bin laden family was (AND STILL ARE) are very wealthy Saudi family. Is it really so hard to believe that the elite in the U.S. are connected in some way (by business) to an elite wealthy family in Saudi Arabia??

Answered in the above post.

It's obvious that if you were apparently able to find information on the subject, then the government wasn't making an attempt to hide it. It's funny how you can give credit to the government for creating this entire disaster, but aren't competent enough to hide a little information...... Like I said, this just links the Bush family LOOSELY to the bin laden family--who today are still considered as well respected Saudi family...

Yet it was not mentioned in the MSM with any degree of regularity if at all, and not mentioned in any of the official reports or investigations. You not knowing about it is proof of this alone.
The Bushs and Bin Ladens go way back to I think the 1930s, or thereabouts, and you saying it only connects them LOOSELY is a joke and shows you really do not know about their ties and haven't attempted to research anything about it. Like most OCTAS.
A jury would find this very intriguing in the overall Big Picture of the 9-11 story, which is a very big picture indeed if one takes the time to research all the interesting facets about it.

 

[Patriot911]

1 We Could Never Imagine Planes Used to Attack Us - We have been told that the US was not only unprepared for defending our nation against planes used as weapons but we were told by our National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice that we never imagined such a thing.
Question: Why do you believe that the US was not prepared to prevent such an event when we had held drills for just such an event in the past?

USATODAY.com - NORAD had drills of jets as weapons

QUESTION: Why do you believe that we had no idea anyone would fly a plane into the WTC when an FBI agent warned of the very thing only to have his warnings dismissed?
Excite News
Agent Cited WTC Attack Ahead of 9/11


My answer using the same sites you posted.

NORAD officials have acknowledged that "scriptwriters" for the drills included the idea of hijacked aircraft being used as weapons.

"Threats of killing hostages or crashing were left to the scriptwriters to invoke creativity and broaden the required response," Maj. Gen. Craig McKinley, a NORAD official, told the 9/11 commission. No exercise matched the specific events of Sept. 11, NORAD said.

"We have planned and executed numerous scenarios over the years to include aircraft originating from foreign airports penetrating our sovereign airspace," Gen. Ralph Eberhart, NORAD commander, told USA TODAY. "Regrettably, the tragic events of 9/11 were never anticipated or exercised."
USATODAY.com - NORAD had drills of jets as weapons


Hill said the headquarters agent responded, "That's not going to happen. We don't know he's a terrorist. You don't have enough to show he is a terrorist

Hill said New York FBI personnel who reviewed the memo found it "speculative and not particularly significant." They said they knew some flight students were affiliated with bin Laden, she said, but believed they were intended to fly goods and personnel in Afghanistan.

The supervisor said he had no reason to believe Moussaoui was planning such an attack, but made the remark in a frustrated attempt to convince headquarters that a special search warrant was needed to search Moussaoui's computer, investigator Eleanor Hill told a House-Senate committee investigating the Sept. 11 attacks.

Excite News

The FBI has admitted that it did not investigate Moussaoui hard enough. An admission of guilt? This looks more like incompetence than a conspiracy. There's a little thing law enforcement are encouraged to enforce, and that's called civil rights. The agent said that he THOUGHT they MIGHT fly planes into a building. This does not prove a conspiracy. 1 down.

"In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties."
Defending this lie by saying they practiced for "foreign" flights and not domestic aircraft is weak, and would not stand up as a good defense in front of a jury. The scenario was planes hitting buildings, who the hell cares where they come from if ultimately the planes are in our airspace?

"One of the imagined targets was the World Trade Center. In another exercise, jets performed a mock shootdown over the Atlantic Ocean of a jet supposedly laden with chemical poisons headed toward a target in the United States. In a third scenario, the target was the Pentagon — but that drill was not run after Defense officials said it was unrealistic, NORAD and Defense officials say.

NORAD, in a written statement, confirmed that such hijacking exercises occurred. It said the scenarios outlined were regional drills, not regularly scheduled continent-wide exercises.

"Numerous types of civilian and military aircraft were used as mock hijacked aircraft," the statement said. "These exercises tested track detection and identification; scramble and interception; hijack procedures; internal and external agency coordination and operational security and communications security procedures."

It proves that Rice and the others who went on national TV and made the statement that "we couldn't ever imagine planes being used" was a deliberate lie. designed to give "oops" type of excuse and feign incompetence, rather then at least negligence, and at worst culpability.
The fact that there were drills with plane hitting buildings scenarios, and the pentagon, raises suspicion, and calls her/their credibility into questionable territory.
Reasonable doubt is thus placed on her and the administrations credibility and statement.
1 lie is thus added to the sum of the whole.
Keep in mind that 1 instance did not convince me of negligence or a conspiracy, as we proceed forward and add up all these things most rational people will admit that there are just too many of these 'coincidences" misstatements, and inconsistencies to be believable.

What a lying piece of shit Jones is. Notice how he completely ignores Rice's clarification the next day that some parts of the government were aware of the threat of using planes as weapons. Apparently according to dishonest truthtards, if ANYONE in the government knows about it, then the ENTIRE government should know about it. Regardless, this is just another example of the extreme dishonesty from truthtards in only showing everyone HALF the story and making up the other half to fit their bullshit agendas.

 

[Mr. Jones]

Posted by Mr. Jones
4 During June 2001 the US was planning military action against Afghanistan.
QUESTION: Why was the US planning on military action against Afghanistan before the events of 9/11 took place? Why would Congress permit this? 9/11 was the official reason for the military action against Afghanistan.
BBC News | SOUTH ASIA | US 'planned attack on Taleban'
Question: Doesn’t common sense suggest to you that it might just be possible that the administration was in search of a legal and publicly acceptable excuse to attack Afghanistan and install a US friendly government with a former UNOCAL Oil company consultant, with ties to the Bush family business, as it’s new leader?
Unocal Gets Its Pipeline Through Afghanistan

My Answer

"Precursor to the 9/11 attacksSee also: Terrorism and List of terrorist incidents
In May 1996 the group World Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders (WIFJAJC), sponsored by Osama bin Laden and later reformed as al-Qaeda, started forming a large base of operations in Afghanistan, where the Islamist extremist regime of the Taliban had seized power that same year.[2]

Following the bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania,[3] US President Bill Clinton launched Operation Infinite Reach, a bombing campaign in Sudan and Afghanistan against targets the US asserted were associated with WIFJAJC,[4][5] although others have questioned whether a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan was used as a chemical warfare plant. The plant produced much of the region's antimalarial drugs[6] and around 50% of Sudan's pharmaceutical needs.[7] The strikes failed to kill any leaders of WIFJAJC or the Taliban.[6]

Next came the 2000 millennium attack plots which included an attempted bombing of Los Angeles International Airport. In October 2000 the USS Cole bombing occurred, followed in 2001 by the September 11 attacks.[8]"

War on Terror - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We were bombing Afghanistan LONG before Sept. 11 2001. (I call this an attack, or war) So the notion that we were planning an attack before 9/11...and some how connecting it to 9/11 itself, is bogus. We'd been bombing targets in Afghanistan and Sudan. We had several U.S. embassy's bombed, the U.S.S. Cole, and numerous other large scale plots against us before 9/11...so is it a big suprise that we were willing to step up operations against them? Is it believable that perhaps G.W.B was planning to be a little more tougher on the Taliban than his predecessor? Yes. The fact that we were planning operations before Sept. 11 does not prove a conspiracy considering we had military operations in Afghanistan WAY before 9/11 was even an inkling in their eye. If you studied history, you would also know that we had troops on the ground in Somalia in 1993 because of the fear of a radical muslim takeover (and the fact that the warlords were killing everyone and taking our aid.) 4 Down.

The bombing or attacks were not a response to the Afghanistan nation it self, they were designed to cause minimal casualties to civilians, and and still any administration would need congress approval to actually allow "boots on the ground" 9-11 was the perfect reason to launch an all out invasion and hostilities against the nation of Afghanistan. The "Pearl Harbor" the PNAC writers discussed.
Your assertion that .

.we had military operations in Afghanistan WAY before 9/11..

Is BS and a lie!
It should be noted that the Taliban/Afghans agreed to hand over OBL if the US could show them and for that matter , the world , proof of OBL complicity in 9-11. The US could not, or refused, this is a documented fact.
The Cheney energy policies and meetings, and the oil and gas pipelines that they were having trouble obtaining and securing, are motive enough to once again raise a reasonable doubt in jurors minds. Just one more piece of the very big puzzle that most people who only parrot the official version, know nothing about.

26 June 2001: India and Iran will "facilitate" US and Russian plans for "limited military action"
against the Taliban if the contemplated tough new economic sanctions don't bend Afghanistan's fundamentalist regime...

Military action will be the last option though it now seems scarcely avoidable with the UN banned from Taliban controlled areas.

In the summer of 2001, while the American media kept the people distracted with "All Condit All The Time", the US Government was informing other governments that we would be at war in Afghanistan no later than October.

How lucky for our government that just when they are planning to invade another country, for the express purpose of removing that government, a convenient "terrorist" attack occurs to anger Americans (and congress) into support for an invasion.

9/11 radio broadcast: "The Director of the CIA warned that there could be an attack—an imminent attack—on the United States of this nature. So this is not entirely unexpected."

9/11 CBS9 broadcast: "There are contigency plans set to go, and the plans have been set to go for several weeks now on what to do if Osama bin Laden were to plan a very large attack, and they've selected targets in Afghanistan, and you can be sure that if it is Osama bin Laden that the US will probably retaliate, and retaliate massively."

"To be truthful about it, there was no way we could have got the public consent to have suddenly launched a campaign on Afghanistan but for what happened on September 11."
Tony Blair. July 17, 2002

Michael Meacher: This war on terrorism is bogus | Politics | The Guardian

9-11 made all of the planning worthwhile, and stirred up the needed sentiment, and recruits to go to war.
You have failed to prove why we should believe the official version again, and BTW you have been caught stretching the truth to fit your theories many times now, as I pointed out above with your
"we had military operations IN Afghanistan..." quote proves.

Remember that the Truth Movement wants a new investigation in order to shed light on the many things that have not been made public and brought to the attention of the American citizen. Every piece of the puzzle is not, nor could not "prove" a conspiracy on its own, therefore, ANY and ALL information about the players involved and their CONNECTIONS to others, including corporations, dual citizens and their ideology etc., have to be made no matter how tedious, or how insignificant a certain piece may seem at the time. It is the sum of the WHOLE when these dots are connected that is expected to raise the serious concerns that the events of 9-11 merits.

Also Wikipedia is not considered the end all credible source of information. I suggest you choose better sources when trying to prove your claims.

Question
How do I get students to realize that Wikipedia should not be used as a credible source (especially as they enter college), even though some of the information is factually accurate?
Answer
Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales is quite clear about the uses of Wikipedia. Asked, "Do you think students and researchers should cite Wikipedia? during an interview with Business Week in 2005, he replied, "No, I don't think people should cite it, and I don't think people should cite Britannica, either... People shouldn't be citing encyclopedias in the first place. Wikipedia and other encyclopedias should...give good, solid background information to inform your studies for a deeper level."

Researching with Wikipedia points out that few articles are of encyclopedic quality when they first appear—they may be unbalanced, biased, and incomplete, and it takes time for contributors to find consensus.
http://teachinghistory.org/digital-classroom/ask-a-digital-historian/23863

 

[Patriot911]

The truth is that the Bush Administration did have enough time to stop the 9/11 attacks if they had connected the dots. She was told repeatedly that Al Qaeda was planning to attack the US. The Clinton team warned her in February, Richard Clark warned her repeatedly, a report was even issued entitled Bin Laden Determined To Attack Inside The United States. Now we hear that the CIA warned her that Al Qaeda on July 10, 2001, still months before the attacks occurred and Rice did nothing. All she can say in her defense is that no one could have anticipated that Al Qaeda was planning to attack the US.
Your excuse does not fly, linked proven, raises enough reasonable doubt and thoroughly debunked-you lose.

First off, it isn't an administration that connects the dots. Is there ANYTHING you won't flat out lie about? It is the CIA and FBI that connect the dots and the people in the field doing the work don't change with the administration.

Second, being a moronic monday morning quarterback and pretending the dots were easy to connect is right on par for a dishonest piece of shit like you.

Third, not one report ever mentions the time, place, or method of attack. Sure, to a dishonest fuck like you that doesn't mean anything, but to us here in the real world it means they were warned of a possible attack and that's it.

Fourth, why are you now pretending that Al Qaeda attacked and not our own government? You really need to make up what little mind you have left and pick which theory you want to go with. Was the government behind it or did the government make mistakes? Pick one.

Fifth, what exactly was Rice suppose to DO? You sit there whining like a little bitch that she should have done something, but you never say what she could have done that would have prevented 9/11. Put out a hit on Bin Laden? That wouldn't have stopped anything. I have no respect for whiny bitches that whine about what happened, yet have no clue what could have been done about it.

 

[Mr. Jones]

The Bush Administration's Top 40 Lies about War and Terrorism

An interesting read that shows that the administration was caught lying about the many aspects of the Iraq war and terrorism. A noteworthy few are-
2) The invasion of Iraq was based on a reasonable belief that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction that posed a threat to the U.S., a belief supported by available intelligence evidence.

Paul Wolfowitz admitted to Vanity Fair that weapons of mass destruction were not really the main reason for invading Iraq: "The decision to highlight weapons of mass destruction as the main justification for going to war in Iraq was taken for bureaucratic reasons.... [T]here were many other important factors as well." Right. But they did not come under the heading of self-defense.
We now know how the Bushmen gathered their prewar intelligence: They set out to patch together their case for invading Iraq and ignored everything that contradicted it.

3) Saddam tried to buy uranium in Niger.
Lies and distortions tend to beget more lies and distortions, and here is W's most notorious case in point: Once the administration decided to issue a damage-controlling (they hoped) mea culpa in the matter of African uranium, they were obliged to couch it in another, more perilous lie: that the administration, and quite likely Bush himself, thought the uranium claim was true when he made it. But former acting ambassador to Iraq Joseph Wilson wrote an op-ed in the New York Times on July 6 that exploded the claim. Wilson, who traveled to Niger in 2002 to investigate the uranium claims at the behest of the CIA and Dick Cheney's office and found them to be groundless, ...

4) The aluminum tubes were proof of a nuclear program.
The very next sentence of Bush's State of the Union address was just as egregious a lie as the uranium claim, though a bit cagier in its formulation. "Our intelligence sources tell us that [Saddam] has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production." This is altogether false in its implication (that this is the likeliest use for these materials) and may be untrue in its literal sense as well...

5) Iraq's WMDs were sent to Syria for hiding.
Or Iran, or.... "They shipped them out!" was a rallying cry for the administration in the first few nervous weeks of finding no WMDs, but not a bit of supporting evidence has emerged.

7) An International Atomic Energy Agency report indicated that Iraq could be as little as six months from making nuclear weapons.
Alas: The claim had to be retracted when the IAEA pointed out that no such report existed.

8) Saddam was involved with bin Laden and al Qaeda in the plotting of 9/11.
According to former State Department intelligence chief Gregory Thielman, the consensus of U.S. intelligence agencies well in advance of the war was that "there was no significant pattern of cooperation between Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist operation."

14) The Bush administration has nothing to hide concerning the events of September 11, 2001, or the intelligence evidence collected prior to that day.

First Dick Cheney personally intervened to scuttle a broad congressional investigation of the day's events and their origins. And for the past several months the administration has fought a quiet rear-guard action culminating in last week's delayed release of Congress's more modest 9/11 report. The White House even went so far as to classify after the fact materials that had already been presented in public hearing.

What were they trying to keep under wraps? The Saudi connection, mostly, and though 27 pages of the details have been excised from the public report, there is still plenty of evidence lurking in its extensively massaged text. (When you see the phrase "foreign nation" substituted in brackets, it's nearly always Saudi Arabia.)

Just a few of the many lies, that dupes who support the official version don't want you to mention. It is amazing how OCTAs will go out of their way to defend such liars, even when the lies are exposed and made public. It just goes to show that they would rather defend such lies and live in the fantasy of "being right" then admit the truth to themselves and others that they were duped like the rest of us.

The Bush Administration's Top 40 Lies about War and Terrorism

 

[Patriot911]

Still waiting for you to produce a single piece of real evidence your bullshit claims are true, Jonsie. When are you going to get around to it? According to you silly fucks, you have tons of court-admissible evidence all over the place. Why is it so hard to produce just one piece? It is not like I am demanding you show us ALL the evidence.....

 

[BrianH]

Posted by Mr. Jones
5 Attorney General John Ashcroft stops flying commercial aircrafts three months before 9/11 due to threats.
Question: Why did he stop flying commercial aircrafts? What did he know?
Ashcroft Flying High - CBS News

My Answer:

Using the same CBS link you provided, it says clearly that he stopped because of a threat assessment. The FBI have used threat assessments for a long time. John Ashcroft was simply follwing the protocol for a high ranking government official under that certain threat assessment. At the bottom of the page it says that he relys on his own personal FBI security detail. The threat could have been against Ashcroft himself. He explains that he doesn't ever know what the actual threat is.

"There was a threat assessment and there are guidelines. He is acting under the guidelines," an FBI spokesman said. Neither the FBI nor the Justice Department, however, would identify what the threat was, when it was detected or who made it."

"That idea, they said, came strictly from Ashcroft's FBI security detail. The FBI had no further comment"

Ashcroft Flying High - CBS News

All this proves was that there was "SOME" type of threat that HIS security team deamed necessary enough for him to not fly commercial. It does not, at all, have any links to 9/11---other than a truthers wandering eye-brows. 5 Down

That's right it proves there was a threat to the nation in the form of terrorism using hijacked planes that Condi and the others pretended they had no clue about. The point is that our defenses and those in charge were very aware of this threat and that people in the administration knew about it, and all of this further proves that they lied about "never imagining" this type of attack could happen!
Reasonable doubt sustained yet again.

TENET RECALLS WARNING RICE
Former CIA director George Tenet told the 9/11 Commission that he had ... for the meeting was partly based on his being aware of the Phoenix memo. ... The truth is that the Bush Administration did have enough time to stop the 9/11 ...

Shes lost all credibility working for an administration that has lost all of its credibility.

Tenet's statements to the commission in January 2004 confirm the outlines of an event in a new book by Washington Post Assistant Managing Editor Bob Woodward that has been disputed by some Bush administration officials. But the testimony also is at odds with Woodward's depiction of Tenet and former CIA counterterrorism chief J. Cofer Black as being frustrated that "they were not getting through to Rice" after the July 10, 2001, meeting.

Tenet Recalled Warning Rice - washingtonpost.com

How many lives could have been saved if Ashcroft would have went on TV to relay his own fears and concerns, enough for HIM to alter his travel planning, instead of going on TV to tell us what color the "terrorism" alerts were for the day?
Reasonable doubt raised as to the credibility of the entire Bush administration, as by now a jury would be thinking they are a bunch of bald faced liars engaged in a cover up.

The truth is that the Bush Administration did have enough time to stop the 9/11 attacks if they had connected the dots. She was told repeatedly that al-Qaida was planning to attack the US. The Clinton team warned her in February, Richard Clark warned her repeatedly, a report was even issued entitiled Bin Laden Determined To Attack Inside The United States. Now we hear that the CIA warned her that al-Qaida on July 10, 2001, still months before the attacks occurred and Rice did nothing. All she can say in her defense is that no one could have anticipated that al-Qaida was planning to attack the US.

Tenet Recalled Warning Rice
Number 5 easily handled with no problem.
So far you are doing nothing to advance or solidify your stance that the American public have no cause for concern. What ever the stance
be it negligence, willful or not, or LIHOP, or MIHOP, the reasons for doubting the official version should be quite obvious to any clear thinking juror.

Are you kidding? Condi was NOT IN OFFICE at the time of the NORAD exercises. You are treating the "government" as if it's one entity that knows everything about itself. How can you expect Condi and Bush to have had any idea that NORAD did exercises on such events? Prior to 9/11, why would NORAD have had ANY REASON to notify Bush and Condi personally of these exercises. All that this means is that our government, two years prior to 911, held exercises on possible scenarios. That's it. There is no connection to anything. It's another example of you creating dots that aren't there. Hindsight is 20/20.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

1 We Could Never Imagine Planes Used to Attack Us - We have been told that the US was not only unprepared for defending our nation against planes used as weapons but we were told by our National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice that we never imagined such a thing.
Question: Why do you believe that the US was not prepared to prevent such an event when we had held drills for just such an event in the past?

USATODAY.com - NORAD had drills of jets as weapons

QUESTION: Why do you believe that we had no idea anyone would fly a plane into the WTC when an FBI agent warned of the very thing only to have his warnings dismissed?
Excite News
Agent Cited WTC Attack Ahead of 9/11


My answer using the same sites you posted.

NORAD officials have acknowledged that "scriptwriters" for the drills included the idea of hijacked aircraft being used as weapons.

"Threats of killing hostages or crashing were left to the scriptwriters to invoke creativity and broaden the required response," Maj. Gen. Craig McKinley, a NORAD official, told the 9/11 commission. No exercise matched the specific events of Sept. 11, NORAD said.

"We have planned and executed numerous scenarios over the years to include aircraft originating from foreign airports penetrating our sovereign airspace," Gen. Ralph Eberhart, NORAD commander, told USA TODAY. "Regrettably, the tragic events of 9/11 were never anticipated or exercised."
USATODAY.com - NORAD had drills of jets as weapons


Hill said the headquarters agent responded, "That's not going to happen. We don't know he's a terrorist. You don't have enough to show he is a terrorist

Hill said New York FBI personnel who reviewed the memo found it "speculative and not particularly significant." They said they knew some flight students were affiliated with bin Laden, she said, but believed they were intended to fly goods and personnel in Afghanistan.

The supervisor said he had no reason to believe Moussaoui was planning such an attack, but made the remark in a frustrated attempt to convince headquarters that a special search warrant was needed to search Moussaoui's computer, investigator Eleanor Hill told a House-Senate committee investigating the Sept. 11 attacks.

Excite News

The FBI has admitted that it did not investigate Moussaoui hard enough. An admission of guilt? This looks more like incompetence than a conspiracy. There's a little thing law enforcement are encouraged to enforce, and that's called civil rights. The agent said that he THOUGHT they MIGHT fly planes into a building. This does not prove a conspiracy. 1 down.

"In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties."
Defending this lie by saying they practiced for "foreign" flights and not domestic aircraft is weak, and would not stand up as a good defense in front of a jury. The scenario was planes hitting buildings, who the hell cares where they come from if ultimately the planes are in our airspace?

"One of the imagined targets was the World Trade Center. In another exercise, jets performed a mock shootdown over the Atlantic Ocean of a jet supposedly laden with chemical poisons headed toward a target in the United States. In a third scenario, the target was the Pentagon — but that drill was not run after Defense officials said it was unrealistic, NORAD and Defense officials say.

NORAD, in a written statement, confirmed that such hijacking exercises occurred. It said the scenarios outlined were regional drills, not regularly scheduled continent-wide exercises.

"Numerous types of civilian and military aircraft were used as mock hijacked aircraft," the statement said. "These exercises tested track detection and identification; scramble and interception; hijack procedures; internal and external agency coordination and operational security and communications security procedures."

It proves that Rice and the others who went on national TV and made the statement that "we couldn't ever imagine planes being used" was a deliberate lie. designed to give "oops" type of excuse and feign incompetence, rather then at least negligence, and at worst culpability.
The fact that there were drills with plane hitting buildings scenarios, and the pentagon, raises suspicion, and calls her/their credibility into questionable territory.
Reasonable doubt is thus placed on her and the administrations credibility and statement.
1 lie is thus added to the sum of the whole.
Keep in mind that 1 instance did not convince me of negligence or a conspiracy, as we proceed forward and add up all these things most rational people will admit that there are just too many of these 'coincidences" misstatements, and inconsistencies to be believable.

BUSH was not the president TWO years before September 11th. Rice was not in her position two years before 9/11 either. Do you think that as soon as the new presidents and cabinets take office that they are immediately (or ever) brought up to speed about every drill, test, or scenario that was EVER run by NORAD or any other government agency? It is CRAZY to expect government officials to know about every drill or test that has ever been done. Rice was simply stating that she and others around her couldn't have ever imagined it happening. You can drill for all kinds of scenarios that you never imagine happening. The President's job is NOT to know everything the FBI, CIA, and NORAD do.. What you have posted above does not prove anything.......still 1 down on this one.

So you would believe then that AFTER the attacks the president and his top advisors wouldn't know about the drills, tests and advanced prior knowledge?
After all, they went on record AFTER the attacks saying how they had no idea and that we never would have thought it possible....
You give them less credit than we do!

 

[candycorn]

1 We Could Never Imagine Planes Used to Attack Us - We have been told that the US was not only unprepared for defending our nation against planes used as weapons but we were told by our National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice that we never imagined such a thing.
Question: Why do you believe that the US was not prepared to prevent such an event when we had held drills for just such an event in the past?

USATODAY.com - NORAD had drills of jets as weapons

QUESTION: Why do you believe that we had no idea anyone would fly a plane into the WTC when an FBI agent warned of the very thing only to have his warnings dismissed?
Excite News
Agent Cited WTC Attack Ahead of 9/11


My answer using the same sites you posted.

NORAD officials have acknowledged that "scriptwriters" for the drills included the idea of hijacked aircraft being used as weapons.

"Threats of killing hostages or crashing were left to the scriptwriters to invoke creativity and broaden the required response," Maj. Gen. Craig McKinley, a NORAD official, told the 9/11 commission. No exercise matched the specific events of Sept. 11, NORAD said.

"We have planned and executed numerous scenarios over the years to include aircraft originating from foreign airports penetrating our sovereign airspace," Gen. Ralph Eberhart, NORAD commander, told USA TODAY. "Regrettably, the tragic events of 9/11 were never anticipated or exercised."
USATODAY.com - NORAD had drills of jets as weapons


Hill said the headquarters agent responded, "That's not going to happen. We don't know he's a terrorist. You don't have enough to show he is a terrorist

Hill said New York FBI personnel who reviewed the memo found it "speculative and not particularly significant." They said they knew some flight students were affiliated with bin Laden, she said, but believed they were intended to fly goods and personnel in Afghanistan.

The supervisor said he had no reason to believe Moussaoui was planning such an attack, but made the remark in a frustrated attempt to convince headquarters that a special search warrant was needed to search Moussaoui's computer, investigator Eleanor Hill told a House-Senate committee investigating the Sept. 11 attacks.

Excite News

The FBI has admitted that it did not investigate Moussaoui hard enough. An admission of guilt? This looks more like incompetence than a conspiracy. There's a little thing law enforcement are encouraged to enforce, and that's called civil rights. The agent said that he THOUGHT they MIGHT fly planes into a building. This does not prove a conspiracy. 1 down.

"In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties."
Defending this lie by saying they practiced for "foreign" flights and not domestic aircraft is weak, and would not stand up as a good defense in front of a jury. The scenario was planes hitting buildings, who the hell cares where they come from if ultimately the planes are in our airspace?

"One of the imagined targets was the World Trade Center. In another exercise, jets performed a mock shootdown over the Atlantic Ocean of a jet supposedly laden with chemical poisons headed toward a target in the United States. In a third scenario, the target was the Pentagon — but that drill was not run after Defense officials said it was unrealistic, NORAD and Defense officials say.

NORAD, in a written statement, confirmed that such hijacking exercises occurred. It said the scenarios outlined were regional drills, not regularly scheduled continent-wide exercises.

"Numerous types of civilian and military aircraft were used as mock hijacked aircraft," the statement said. "These exercises tested track detection and identification; scramble and interception; hijack procedures; internal and external agency coordination and operational security and communications security procedures."

It proves that Rice and the others who went on national TV and made the statement that "we couldn't ever imagine planes being used" was a deliberate lie. designed to give "oops" type of excuse and feign incompetence, rather then at least negligence, and at worst culpability.
The fact that there were drills with plane hitting buildings scenarios, and the pentagon, raises suspicion, and calls her/their credibility into questionable territory.
Reasonable doubt is thus placed on her and the administrations credibility and statement.
1 lie is thus added to the sum of the whole.
Keep in mind that 1 instance did not convince me of negligence or a conspiracy, as we proceed forward and add up all these things most rational people will admit that there are just too many of these 'coincidences" misstatements, and inconsistencies to be believable.

BUSH was not the president TWO years before September 11th. Rice was not in her position two years before 9/11 either. Do you think that as soon as the new presidents and cabinets take office that they are immediately (or ever) brought up to speed about every drill, test, or scenario that was EVER run by NORAD or any other government agency? It is CRAZY to expect government officials to know about every drill or test that has ever been done. Rice was simply stating that she and others around her couldn't have ever imagined it happening. You can drill for all kinds of scenarios that you never imagine happening. The President's job is NOT to know everything the FBI, CIA, and NORAD do.. What you have posted above does not prove anything.......still 1 down on this one.

It literally never ends does it. You know, in the 1800's we ran drills for pirate attacks. If the Pirates attack us whoever is president in 2188 better be ready! Twoofers are little pieces of shit.

 

[candycorn]

"In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties."
Defending this lie by saying they practiced for "foreign" flights and not domestic aircraft is weak, and would not stand up as a good defense in front of a jury. The scenario was planes hitting buildings, who the hell cares where they come from if ultimately the planes are in our airspace?

"One of the imagined targets was the World Trade Center. In another exercise, jets performed a mock shootdown over the Atlantic Ocean of a jet supposedly laden with chemical poisons headed toward a target in the United States. In a third scenario, the target was the Pentagon — but that drill was not run after Defense officials said it was unrealistic, NORAD and Defense officials say.

NORAD, in a written statement, confirmed that such hijacking exercises occurred. It said the scenarios outlined were regional drills, not regularly scheduled continent-wide exercises.

"Numerous types of civilian and military aircraft were used as mock hijacked aircraft," the statement said. "These exercises tested track detection and identification; scramble and interception; hijack procedures; internal and external agency coordination and operational security and communications security procedures."

It proves that Rice and the others who went on national TV and made the statement that "we couldn't ever imagine planes being used" was a deliberate lie. designed to give "oops" type of excuse and feign incompetence, rather then at least negligence, and at worst culpability.
The fact that there were drills with plane hitting buildings scenarios, and the pentagon, raises suspicion, and calls her/their credibility into questionable territory.
Reasonable doubt is thus placed on her and the administrations credibility and statement.
1 lie is thus added to the sum of the whole.
Keep in mind that 1 instance did not convince me of negligence or a conspiracy, as we proceed forward and add up all these things most rational people will admit that there are just too many of these 'coincidences" misstatements, and inconsistencies to be believable.

BUSH was not the president TWO years before September 11th. Rice was not in her position two years before 9/11 either. Do you think that as soon as the new presidents and cabinets take office that they are immediately (or ever) brought up to speed about every drill, test, or scenario that was EVER run by NORAD or any other government agency? It is CRAZY to expect government officials to know about every drill or test that has ever been done. Rice was simply stating that she and others around her couldn't have ever imagined it happening. You can drill for all kinds of scenarios that you never imagine happening. The President's job is NOT to know everything the FBI, CIA, and NORAD do.. What you have posted above does not prove anything.......still 1 down on this one.

So you would believe then that AFTER the attacks the president and his top advisors wouldn't know about the drills, tests and advanced prior knowledge?
After all, they went on record AFTER the attacks saying how they had no idea and that we never would have thought it possible....
You give them less credit than we do!

So you would believe that after Clinton, Bush kept the same military people in charge who had categorical knowledge of their armed forces drills? Lets see Richard Myers became JCS chair in September 2001. Lets say he did--the PMA to the President. He calls the SECAF to ask about drills. The SECAF at the time, Roche hadn't been in the military since 1983. He most likely is privy to operational names--none of which will be named "OPERATION WTC STRIKE BY HIJACKED AIRCRAFT ORIGINATING IN THE US"

It's not only possible, its likely. Twoofers have some sort of belief that their leaders are all experts in every field and are walking dictionaries about all that happened before their commands. Its a totally ignorant view that comes from smoking way too much pot and spending way too much time in front of the Playstation. Get a life.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

So you agree that at the very least, that administration was beyond any level of competency. Yes, I would believe that the president and his top advisors would have combed over all relevant information about what the FBI, CIA and military know in conjunction with the attacks before speaking to the public. It's totally ignorant view to suggest otherwise, that comes from spending too much time with ones head completely up their own ass and trying desperately to keep make believe reality. Come to reality.

Unless of course, there was something to hide or a reason to look incompetent.

 

[candycorn]

So you agree that at the very least, that administration was beyond any level of competency. Yes, I would believe that the president and his top advisors would have combed over all relevant information about what the FBI, CIA and military know in conjunction with the attacks before speaking to the public. It's totally ignorant view to suggest otherwise, that comes from spending too much time with ones head completely up their own ass and trying desperately to keep make believe reality. Come to reality.

Unless of course, there was something to hide or a reason to look incompetent.

\

Whats your reason for looking incompetent?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

This isn't about me. This is about the empirical scientific and circumstantial evidence proving question beyond any reasonable doubt that the official story is bullshit and that there is a lot more to it than the world was told.

But go ahead and project. It only makes you look incompetent. You can have the ignore list to for trying to waste my time.

 

[BrianH]

"In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties."
Defending this lie by saying they practiced for "foreign" flights and not domestic aircraft is weak, and would not stand up as a good defense in front of a jury. The scenario was planes hitting buildings, who the hell cares where they come from if ultimately the planes are in our airspace?

"One of the imagined targets was the World Trade Center. In another exercise, jets performed a mock shootdown over the Atlantic Ocean of a jet supposedly laden with chemical poisons headed toward a target in the United States. In a third scenario, the target was the Pentagon — but that drill was not run after Defense officials said it was unrealistic, NORAD and Defense officials say.

NORAD, in a written statement, confirmed that such hijacking exercises occurred. It said the scenarios outlined were regional drills, not regularly scheduled continent-wide exercises.

"Numerous types of civilian and military aircraft were used as mock hijacked aircraft," the statement said. "These exercises tested track detection and identification; scramble and interception; hijack procedures; internal and external agency coordination and operational security and communications security procedures."

It proves that Rice and the others who went on national TV and made the statement that "we couldn't ever imagine planes being used" was a deliberate lie. designed to give "oops" type of excuse and feign incompetence, rather then at least negligence, and at worst culpability.
The fact that there were drills with plane hitting buildings scenarios, and the pentagon, raises suspicion, and calls her/their credibility into questionable territory.
Reasonable doubt is thus placed on her and the administrations credibility and statement.
1 lie is thus added to the sum of the whole.
Keep in mind that 1 instance did not convince me of negligence or a conspiracy, as we proceed forward and add up all these things most rational people will admit that there are just too many of these 'coincidences" misstatements, and inconsistencies to be believable.

BUSH was not the president TWO years before September 11th. Rice was not in her position two years before 9/11 either. Do you think that as soon as the new presidents and cabinets take office that they are immediately (or ever) brought up to speed about every drill, test, or scenario that was EVER run by NORAD or any other government agency? It is CRAZY to expect government officials to know about every drill or test that has ever been done. Rice was simply stating that she and others around her couldn't have ever imagined it happening. You can drill for all kinds of scenarios that you never imagine happening. The President's job is NOT to know everything the FBI, CIA, and NORAD do.. What you have posted above does not prove anything.......still 1 down on this one.

So you would believe then that AFTER the attacks the president and his top advisors wouldn't know about the drills, tests and advanced prior knowledge?
After all, they went on record AFTER the attacks saying how they had no idea and that we never would have thought it possible....
You give them less credit than we do!

It's not about credit. It's about the vastness and complexity of the U.S. government. The president does no know EVERYTHING that goes on from a day to day basis. Do you think NORAD called the president as soon as he was elected and said, "Hey, just so you know, we did some drills today involving the possibility of an attack involving airplanes." Of course they didn't. On top of that, we don't know WHEN the Bush administration found out about the drills.

USA Today Front Page: NORAD had Pre-9/11 Drills of Hijacked Jets as Weapons

HEre is a link to the USA Today article.

It says specifically (By a NORAD official) in the article that the events of Sept. 11 were not anticipated or exercised. IT also says that the hijacked plane exercise and anticipations were that of airplanes coming from outside the nation...not inside. Later in 2001 there was a drill done that involved two hijacked planes from Utah and Washington, however, this drill and exercise, itself, didn't involve them being used as weapons. The drill was carried out by military planes escorting the planes into an airport.

Here's a quote from the NORAD commander at the end of the article.
"We have planned and executed numerous scenarios over the years to include aircraft originating from foreign airports penetrating our sovereign airspace," Gen. Ralph Eberhart, NORAD commander, told USA TODAY. "Regrettably, the tragic events of 9/11 were never anticipated or exercised."

 

[BrianH]

So you agree that at the very least, that administration was beyond any level of competency. Yes, I would believe that the president and his top advisors would have combed over all relevant information about what the FBI, CIA and military know in conjunction with the attacks before speaking to the public. It's totally ignorant view to suggest otherwise, that comes from spending too much time with ones head completely up their own ass and trying desperately to keep make believe reality. Come to reality.

Unless of course, there was something to hide or a reason to look incompetent.

People expect the President to make statements immediately after an event. If Bush had taken the days, possibly weeks, to review all of the information, people would have been saying "where's Bush? Where's our president?" He's have been chastised for that. Truthers give the government WAY to much credit most of the time, but then tend to think they're, all of a sudden, incompetent when it comes to leaving behind crucial "evidence" that a college student can come up with........
Judging by the current "actions" or "inaction" of the current President, it's obvious that the sitting President doesn't know about everything that goes on in the world. Obama either makes knee-jerk decisions or doesn't act at all we he needs to.

THe statement by COndi said the "whitehouse" didn't believe this type of attack was possible. She said nothing about NORAD or any other government agency. ON TOP OF THAT, if you were the guy writing up the drills, would YOU be the first one to step forward after this attack and take a bullet? Would YOU be the one to blast over to the white house the same day and say "Well listen guys, we did drill for this?"

 

[BrianH]

This isn't about me. This is about the empirical scientific and circumstantial evidence proving question beyond any reasonable doubt that the official story is bullshit and that there is a lot more to it than the world was told.

But go ahead and project. It only makes you look incompetent. You can have the ignore list to for trying to waste my time.

No one here has claimed that the official story is 100% correct. That's the problem with you truthers. There's no inbetween with you guys. IT's either one thing or the other, black and white. I haven't claimed that the official story is the entire truth. What I have claimed, is that truthers have no come up with any concrete evidence that the government either did it or let it happen. What truthers have is a few things, that in their opinion, "raise eyebrows" to a few people. The truthers on these boards will post something as ABSOULTE EVIDENCE even though it will contradict them in the same article. They will post a video that is supposed to be "proof," but then when you look the video up, the truthers cut out a CRUCIAL part of the video that explains what it is and completely contradicts what the truther is trying to say. Mr. JOnes has proven this time and time again as he's posted articles and/or documents to "prove" his point while I've taken the same thing he's posted and pointed out passages in each document that refute what he's saying.... It's an endless cycle of bias. Truthers can't keep posting articles from truther sites an claim that these sites are somehow valid.

 

[candycorn]

This isn't about me. This is about the empirical scientific and circumstantial evidence proving question beyond any reasonable doubt that the official story is bullshit and that there is a lot more to it than the world was told.

But go ahead and project. It only makes you look incompetent. You can have the ignore list to for trying to waste my time.

I would have to imagine you're not as dumb as you look...that would be impossible.