Threatening to go off thread as it is (but then we've had about 17 out of 17 pages of relevant postings, which must be a TH record). The problem with the 9/11 one Clive, which I'm afraid I can never ever move from, is I know who told me what, where and when. And which ever way I try to reconcile the whole thing, it was specifically said in October 1997, I heard it with my own ears and sought clarification, which was confirmed. Now there is such a thing as conspiracy and cock up, but I'm afraid I'll never be able to divorce myself from what was said, nor the context.
The Next President?
- Thread starter Guest_
- Start date
Without wishing to go over old ground too much...there has to be a strong motivation for a "plot"
I would suggest very strong indeed for 9/11
The ones put forward so far have been
1. Benefit to construction companies
Bush, Cheney and so on were going to risk their very lives for a share price? They didnt have enough money?
2. Excuse to invade Iraq.
Why bring down the twin towers. Simple incident in no fly zone would have been enough?
3. Oil pipeline in Afganistan
Total bollocks. Oil from that area is a tiny % of world resources. Gas goes through alternative routes anyway.
4. Demonise Islam and Arabs
Why? what good would it do? shrug::
Your deep throat would need to answer those ones for a start.... :suspect:
I would suggest very strong indeed for 9/11
The ones put forward so far have been
1. Benefit to construction companies
Bush, Cheney and so on were going to risk their very lives for a share price? They didnt have enough money?
2. Excuse to invade Iraq.
Why bring down the twin towers. Simple incident in no fly zone would have been enough?
3. Oil pipeline in Afganistan
Total bollocks. Oil from that area is a tiny % of world resources. Gas goes through alternative routes anyway.
4. Demonise Islam and Arabs
Why? what good would it do? shrug::
Your deep throat would need to answer those ones for a start.... :suspect:
None of those mentioned are the one I was given, but that's neither here nor there as I'm not totally convinced they'd need a reason, but critically believe that they had a reason. The two things are different.
They obviously heard something and passed it on to me, although I was under the impression it was something of an open secret (I wouldn't normally expect to get seriously confidential info etc). Indeed, there are no end of accounts of people over hearing conversations in NewYork during the lead up, alot of which can be independently verified.
The other thing is that the individual concerned also had friends employed in the WTC and duly set about moving them out. Again, this is something I can vouch for as I too knew who they were, where they worked, what they did, and when they moved etc. The only thing I can say is that the individual concerned would be in a position to know some of these things given the nature of their job. I personally thought it sounded too silly to be true and duly told a few folk upon returning to the UK so actually have a few witnesses out there.
It's the primary thing that always troubles with this particular conspiracy theory. When ever anyone provides an explanation or demolishes a theory etc I keep coming back to this conversation, and what ever is put up, the simple fact is I can't get away from it. The detail was quite specific in terms of target, group, and method of attack. It was one of those conversations where I actually remember the words verbatim, and it's just that straight forward in my mind. Liek it or not, I was told in October 1997. The only explanation I can have for it is that it was rumour (there's no shortage of them flying around that office) or lucky guess, that was being passed on to me, which ultimately came to pass.
In terms of motivation, I suspect it was quite likely that a whole host of inter-related interests stood to benefit, and there was no primary mover as such. My first reaction was to question why the Americans didn't put anti aircraft missiles on the tower, which is when I was told who the source regarded as the primary mover behind the plot. Their precise words were "they're (the Americans) aren't interested"
They obviously heard something and passed it on to me, although I was under the impression it was something of an open secret (I wouldn't normally expect to get seriously confidential info etc). Indeed, there are no end of accounts of people over hearing conversations in NewYork during the lead up, alot of which can be independently verified.
The other thing is that the individual concerned also had friends employed in the WTC and duly set about moving them out. Again, this is something I can vouch for as I too knew who they were, where they worked, what they did, and when they moved etc. The only thing I can say is that the individual concerned would be in a position to know some of these things given the nature of their job. I personally thought it sounded too silly to be true and duly told a few folk upon returning to the UK so actually have a few witnesses out there.
It's the primary thing that always troubles with this particular conspiracy theory. When ever anyone provides an explanation or demolishes a theory etc I keep coming back to this conversation, and what ever is put up, the simple fact is I can't get away from it. The detail was quite specific in terms of target, group, and method of attack. It was one of those conversations where I actually remember the words verbatim, and it's just that straight forward in my mind. Liek it or not, I was told in October 1997. The only explanation I can have for it is that it was rumour (there's no shortage of them flying around that office) or lucky guess, that was being passed on to me, which ultimately came to pass.
In terms of motivation, I suspect it was quite likely that a whole host of inter-related interests stood to benefit, and there was no primary mover as such. My first reaction was to question why the Americans didn't put anti aircraft missiles on the tower, which is when I was told who the source regarded as the primary mover behind the plot. Their precise words were "they're (the Americans) aren't interested"
trackside528
At the Start
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2006
- Messages
- 5,377
Mind disclosing what the motivation you were given was, Warbler?
I'm genuinely interested to hear. I wouldn't be inclined to take a 9/11 conspiracy seriously but am nevertheless intrigued.
Being reported in the New York Post today that Hillary told Bill Richardson that Obama "can't win" in November. Not really a surprise (only been saying it for the last two years!), but then again as someone reminded me today there is a big difference between "can't" and "won't" in politics..
Race tightening in Pennsylvania as well.
I'm genuinely interested to hear. I wouldn't be inclined to take a 9/11 conspiracy seriously but am nevertheless intrigued.
Being reported in the New York Post today that Hillary told Bill Richardson that Obama "can't win" in November. Not really a surprise (only been saying it for the last two years!), but then again as someone reminded me today there is a big difference between "can't" and "won't" in politics..
Race tightening in Pennsylvania as well.
The exact words were;
"They know about it (the threat and it's precise nature) but they're not interested. The only thing they care about is 25 years and billions of dollars of meaningless research contracts for star wars".
Your guess as to who 'they' are is as good as mine, but I took it to mean the arms industry. The answer was in response to my suggestion that all they had to do was put anti aircraft missiles on top of the WTC. It could of course equally be the government, which would point more towards cock up, as they clearly didn't think anyone capable of being able to deliver the threat, even it had been assessed. That latter would therefore point more towards something of a monumental failure and subsequent cover up.
There's no shortage of people claiming to have had, or witnessed similar conversations of course. There's a few that have come to light including the Brooklyn school child who was distracted in class gazing at the WTC. When challenged by his teacher to pay attention he apparently looked across the water and calmly said that those towers won't be standing there next week. He disappeared shortly before the attack and never attened school again, but the prophecy was witnessed by teacher and class mates alike.
I take Clives point about the fact that other less risky and less dramatic ways could have been orchestrated to justify an action against Iraq, and it's not as if the US doesn't have 'previous' for doing this. However, this observation makes the mistake I believe, of assuming that this is all about Iraq. I think its always possible that there's a much bigger picture to be played out over a much longer time frame, of which Iraq is just a chapter in the story. There's a number of other things, and beneficiaries who've all done very well and had their medium term futures secured as a result out of the terrorist industry too. A low scale 'Gulf of Tonkin' type incident wouldn't have been enough to make advances into these other areas, and couldn't have been used to justify something like the patriot act and all the powers and budgets that now transfer to homeland security and the intelligence agencies. What 'they' needed was something that struck at the very heart of American insecurity and propogated a collective fear across the nation by its unpredictable and sudden nature. What they also needed of course was something of a generic enemy that was global and so ensure that the threat remained omni-present thus commiting generations of future administrations to similar budgetary spend. By widening the net to the extent that they have, they've effectively given themselves licence to roam the globe, and if necessary of course (which it will become eventually) to consolidate a grip on increasingly finite key natural resources, whilst invoking this shadowy threat to 'all of you' as a reminder as to what might happen if you don't allow to do so.
There is of course the good old fashioned cock up theory too shrug::
"They know about it (the threat and it's precise nature) but they're not interested. The only thing they care about is 25 years and billions of dollars of meaningless research contracts for star wars".
Your guess as to who 'they' are is as good as mine, but I took it to mean the arms industry. The answer was in response to my suggestion that all they had to do was put anti aircraft missiles on top of the WTC. It could of course equally be the government, which would point more towards cock up, as they clearly didn't think anyone capable of being able to deliver the threat, even it had been assessed. That latter would therefore point more towards something of a monumental failure and subsequent cover up.
There's no shortage of people claiming to have had, or witnessed similar conversations of course. There's a few that have come to light including the Brooklyn school child who was distracted in class gazing at the WTC. When challenged by his teacher to pay attention he apparently looked across the water and calmly said that those towers won't be standing there next week. He disappeared shortly before the attack and never attened school again, but the prophecy was witnessed by teacher and class mates alike.
I take Clives point about the fact that other less risky and less dramatic ways could have been orchestrated to justify an action against Iraq, and it's not as if the US doesn't have 'previous' for doing this. However, this observation makes the mistake I believe, of assuming that this is all about Iraq. I think its always possible that there's a much bigger picture to be played out over a much longer time frame, of which Iraq is just a chapter in the story. There's a number of other things, and beneficiaries who've all done very well and had their medium term futures secured as a result out of the terrorist industry too. A low scale 'Gulf of Tonkin' type incident wouldn't have been enough to make advances into these other areas, and couldn't have been used to justify something like the patriot act and all the powers and budgets that now transfer to homeland security and the intelligence agencies. What 'they' needed was something that struck at the very heart of American insecurity and propogated a collective fear across the nation by its unpredictable and sudden nature. What they also needed of course was something of a generic enemy that was global and so ensure that the threat remained omni-present thus commiting generations of future administrations to similar budgetary spend. By widening the net to the extent that they have, they've effectively given themselves licence to roam the globe, and if necessary of course (which it will become eventually) to consolidate a grip on increasingly finite key natural resources, whilst invoking this shadowy threat to 'all of you' as a reminder as to what might happen if you don't allow to do so.
There is of course the good old fashioned cock up theory too shrug::
Harbinger
At the Start
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2004
- Messages
- 11,282
Interesting Warbler. The "inside job/no planes" conspiracy theories are entirely bullshit, but the idea that people within America's national security infrastructure in the mid-late '90s might have become complacent about reacting to threats because a) they were a bit lazy and incompetent and b) they considered that if there was some kind of attack it would give them currency for their own particular ends, wouldn't shock me. Pragmatism taken to absurd levels.
Well they've done it before, in this case it involved a phantom attack in the Gulf of Tonkin which to no small amount was caused by then limited radar contacts, and a nervous crew on the USS Maddox. This incident led of course to LBJ getting Congress to allow him to sanction a war without seeking their approval, as he was able to whip up a climate of fear and imperative for immediacy in getting the Gulf of Tonkin resolution through in extremely quick time (not unlike the Patriot Act).
It's probably worth noting that in the mid 90's of course various defence contractors were struggling under the peace dividend, as expenditure was being cut back. A lot of export markets had similarly been squeezed, with only the middle east offering any significant short term gain as the arab nations were the only ones spending at the various international arms fairs. It's often been said that the industry needs an enemy and with communism no longer providing this the search was on for one. In truth though, a single country was never likely to be able to sustain the industry beyond a brief bottleneck in demand. What they needed was a generic 'ism' that could pop all over the globe and be sustained for the foreseeable future. In the absence of a contrary political philosophy, a religion would be the next best candidate.
I can see that the ingredients, and motivation were in place, and quite what American corporate interests are capable of is anyones guess. It's more likely I'd have thought that the shadowy 'powers that be', allowed something to happen, or at worst encouraged it, rather than orchestrating it themselves, with things like missile attacks on their own buildings. There'd be no shortage of potential beneficiaries afterall ranging from the CIA right across to various industrial sectors on top of the arms industry, and the lagacy of such a cataclysmic event would easily stretch into the long term business planning cycles of large corporations.
I'm not convinced that the George Bush element is either here nor there. This is a man you couldn't trust to put his own socks and shoes correctly in the morning, he's hardly going to be the master mind behind something like this, but his reaction to it could have been easily predicted/ manipulated, as indeed he could have been preped in advance of the incident, and to this extent I think something was probably just running him. We knew he had a religious intolerance and demonstrated in the immediate week afterwards when he all to easily lapsed into language that talked about going on a "crusade". His hatred of Iraq over an alleged incident in 1993 was also known (an incident which itself is now coming under a degree of suspicion). He's supposed to have said in the immediate 9/11 aftermath that Iraq was behind it, and instructed people to find evidence to link Saddam etc. There are of course a number of other strange things that happened on the day, not least of all the handling of Bush himself in the immediate aftermath. That seemingly all public buildings in America were being evacuated, their airspace cleared, and the airforce belatedly mobilised (there was supposed to have been a stand down order given on 9/11 for some reason, but I've never been able to establish the truth of this, although I have to say it looks plausible given the response times and the bases concerned which are of course documented). Yet despite the fact the country was under attack, the President was allowed to stay on a pre-arranged schedule, his movements were known and publicised in advance, and yet no one took any steps to remove him shrug:: We've all seen the films, aren't the CIA supposed to dive in an surround him and bundle him out at great speed to safe getaway? They didn't. They let him read stories about a goat, before doing a press conference from the school gym as pre-arranged a full half hour later. It's difficult to conclude that the CIA had either suffered a gross and flagarant deriliction of duty, or that they knew he was save and wasn't a target.
The other theory as I said, is just good old fashioned cock up, and there's enough evidence to support this too. This would hit nearer to the Bush administration as it would seemingly bring things such as competance, judgement and subsequent cover up into play. It would have required a whole string of things to go wrong however, but equally, any post mortem of similar incidents invariably ends up concluding that this is precisely what tends to happen
It's probably worth noting that in the mid 90's of course various defence contractors were struggling under the peace dividend, as expenditure was being cut back. A lot of export markets had similarly been squeezed, with only the middle east offering any significant short term gain as the arab nations were the only ones spending at the various international arms fairs. It's often been said that the industry needs an enemy and with communism no longer providing this the search was on for one. In truth though, a single country was never likely to be able to sustain the industry beyond a brief bottleneck in demand. What they needed was a generic 'ism' that could pop all over the globe and be sustained for the foreseeable future. In the absence of a contrary political philosophy, a religion would be the next best candidate.
I can see that the ingredients, and motivation were in place, and quite what American corporate interests are capable of is anyones guess. It's more likely I'd have thought that the shadowy 'powers that be', allowed something to happen, or at worst encouraged it, rather than orchestrating it themselves, with things like missile attacks on their own buildings. There'd be no shortage of potential beneficiaries afterall ranging from the CIA right across to various industrial sectors on top of the arms industry, and the lagacy of such a cataclysmic event would easily stretch into the long term business planning cycles of large corporations.
I'm not convinced that the George Bush element is either here nor there. This is a man you couldn't trust to put his own socks and shoes correctly in the morning, he's hardly going to be the master mind behind something like this, but his reaction to it could have been easily predicted/ manipulated, as indeed he could have been preped in advance of the incident, and to this extent I think something was probably just running him. We knew he had a religious intolerance and demonstrated in the immediate week afterwards when he all to easily lapsed into language that talked about going on a "crusade". His hatred of Iraq over an alleged incident in 1993 was also known (an incident which itself is now coming under a degree of suspicion). He's supposed to have said in the immediate 9/11 aftermath that Iraq was behind it, and instructed people to find evidence to link Saddam etc. There are of course a number of other strange things that happened on the day, not least of all the handling of Bush himself in the immediate aftermath. That seemingly all public buildings in America were being evacuated, their airspace cleared, and the airforce belatedly mobilised (there was supposed to have been a stand down order given on 9/11 for some reason, but I've never been able to establish the truth of this, although I have to say it looks plausible given the response times and the bases concerned which are of course documented). Yet despite the fact the country was under attack, the President was allowed to stay on a pre-arranged schedule, his movements were known and publicised in advance, and yet no one took any steps to remove him shrug:: We've all seen the films, aren't the CIA supposed to dive in an surround him and bundle him out at great speed to safe getaway? They didn't. They let him read stories about a goat, before doing a press conference from the school gym as pre-arranged a full half hour later. It's difficult to conclude that the CIA had either suffered a gross and flagarant deriliction of duty, or that they knew he was save and wasn't a target.
The other theory as I said, is just good old fashioned cock up, and there's enough evidence to support this too. This would hit nearer to the Bush administration as it would seemingly bring things such as competance, judgement and subsequent cover up into play. It would have required a whole string of things to go wrong however, but equally, any post mortem of similar incidents invariably ends up concluding that this is precisely what tends to happen
Harbinger
At the Start
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2004
- Messages
- 11,282
It would be the Secret Service rather than the CIA who would be looking after the President. He was on an arranged visit at the school, so the building was as safe as anywhere, short of a plane landing on it, which until the Pentagon attack over half an hour later probably wouldn't have been a consideration.
Theres nothing there to suggest a "conspiracy" Warbler. If some bloke in a pub reckons he was inside to the whole plot blah blah...how many others too?
Comes back to same point i always make....would you want to hatch a "plot" which involved clearly loads of personel, where the repercussions which if blown, would have enormous repercussions if unconvered?
It was a cock up because the agencies were inefficent and not liasing properly (if at all) and because the USA simply hadnt experienced direct threats of this nature before...and were complacent
Comes back to same point i always make....would you want to hatch a "plot" which involved clearly loads of personel, where the repercussions which if blown, would have enormous repercussions if unconvered?
It was a cock up because the agencies were inefficent and not liasing properly (if at all) and because the USA simply hadnt experienced direct threats of this nature before...and were complacent
trackside528
At the Start
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2006
- Messages
- 5,377
Would agree with that to some extent, Warbler, though the idea that the whole thing was one big cover-up is patently ridiculous. In essence, the attack gave them the license to use terrorism as a bludgeon with which to assert their presence across the globe.
As Gareth said, there were definitely some signals missed or ignored due to miscommuniction between the intelligence field services (the main one being the fact that some of the hijackers enrolled at a flight school out in Arizona), though that can be put down to pure ignorance surely.
Coincidentally, yesterday was of course the anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr's death, shot in Memphis 40 years ago. Conspiracy theories about the FBI's murky role in the affair have existed ever since, and I'm quite inclined to believe them frankly, especially given the political circumstances and the timing.
Back on the topic of the presidential race I was watching a speech Bobby Kennedy gave the night MLK was shot in Indiannapolis. Some of the content, particularly the part about having two choices to make as to which direction the country moves, is strikingly similar to some of Obama's speech.
trackside528
At the Start
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2006
- Messages
- 5,377
Bobby Kennedy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPYNb4ex6Ko
Martin Luther King (I've Been to the Mountaintop):
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BI_tQ5DdFAk&feature=related
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n53GuVt0tlY&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPYNb4ex6Ko
Martin Luther King (I've Been to the Mountaintop):
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BI_tQ5DdFAk&feature=related
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n53GuVt0tlY&feature=related
Where have I ever said I believed in any particular conspiracy theory? Most of them esp regarding 9/11 are patently idiotic; which doesn't mean that cover-ups can't and don't happen. Every situation which involves both crime and politics tends to throw up a lot of theories and often anomalies in the evidence/explanations which ensue. I see no reason necessarily to believe the first thing we are told. It's not necessary to believe in the wilder shores of conspiracy theorists, to be aware that the public might be being 'sold a pup'.
Warbler's pinpointed a lot things I feel to be strange about 9/11, and I know both of us have spent a very great deal of time reading up on it; as I have on a lot of other stuff that has gone on in America in my own lifetime.
It's not beyond the realms of possibility that the US intelligence services found out about the twin towers attack in advance, but turned a blind eye for their own purposes [or those of others] - they would not have forseen the collapse of the towers, as it was in engineering terms "impossible" for the aviation fuel to burn long enough for the towers to collapse, or indeed do much damage at all. In turning a blind eye they may have permitted a far grosser outrage to be perpetrated than they expected. Which in the end may have served their purposes better?
There is pretty overwhelming evidence of FBI cover-ups and even operative involvement in the Oklahoma bombing and indeed the attack on Waco. America really is a very strange place, full of real nutters, some of them rogue elements in the chain of power; and you only have to delve into the country's 'religiosity' to see that.
Many would also say he was an overpromoted arrogant self serving little creep too
Personally i think he was a very brave politician who stuck to his principles in difficult and dangerous times.
not a charming guy (total opposite to his brother) and his often rather unpleasant personality didnt help win him allies.
Personally i think he was a very brave politician who stuck to his principles in difficult and dangerous times.
not a charming guy (total opposite to his brother) and his often rather unpleasant personality didnt help win him allies.
What??
Is it so difficult to understand that i am relaying what was a widely held opinion by many on all sides of the political spectrum throughout most of his career? He was hudgely unpopular with colleagues as well as opponents
I am sure thatt many of those who disliked him also admired his work and politics too. The two dont have to be connected
Is it so difficult to understand that i am relaying what was a widely held opinion by many on all sides of the political spectrum throughout most of his career? He was hudgely unpopular with colleagues as well as opponents
I am sure thatt many of those who disliked him also admired his work and politics too. The two dont have to be connected
trackside528
At the Start
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2006
- Messages
- 5,377
I believe Clive's referring to Bobby Kennedy, rather than MLK (who Overbruv was referring to!). Just to avoid any confusion!
I believe many would say your comment would apply to all politicians though Clive!
For what it's worth, I personally regard the "I've been to the mountaintop" speech as one of the greatest speeches in history. Makes Obama look like an amateur..
I believe many would say your comment would apply to all politicians though Clive!
For what it's worth, I personally regard the "I've been to the mountaintop" speech as one of the greatest speeches in history. Makes Obama look like an amateur..
Which was the precise of nature of the threat of course
It wouldn't have taken a commercial airliner, a bomb laden Piper Cherokee or Lear jet could have done the job, which given the number of lightly regulated small airfield that litter American cities could have been easily effected.Not entirely sure your timings are right either. Luckily a lot of it was captured on film.
8.47 - plane hits WTC North Tower
8.48 - CNN breaks into news coverage to show towers on fire and reports a plane hit. Bush is informed during the next 10 mins. By now millions of Americans are watching it and are aware of what's happened, as indeed others all over the globe were.
8.55 - Bush arrives at school
9.00 - Bush goes into listen to a reading drill
9.03 - plane hits South Tower, Bush staffers and Secret Service are watching it on a tele in White House mobile communications room
9.07 - Bush is informed (famous photo of whisper in ear, and Bush pulling face, and continues to read a story about a goat)
9.16 - AA93 hijacked
9.24 - U77 hijacked (the issue of when NORAD were informed is disputed, it should have been within a minute of the first transponder being turned off and the plane altering course, about 8.24)
9.30 - Bush finishes reading practice and holds a pre-arranged press conference in school hall to denounce the terrorists as cowards and "folks" (the latter word has been airbrushed from transcripts and archive footage within a few hours and rarely appears now) The Empire State, UN, NYSE, had all be evacuated by now, and the process was also starting in the Capitol, White House and State Department. (I've often wondered why AQ never had any snipers positioned in the streets with all these government officials running around with ID's hanging off their necks in all the confusion?)
9.35 - Bush leaves for local airport
9.37 - United 73 hits Pentagon
9.43 - Bush Arrives at Sarasota airfield
9.55 - Airforce one takes off
The lastest that his security brief should have known about the nature of the threat was 8.48 along with everyone else in America. They should of course been aware earlier when the plane was hijacked, adn this is a grey area today as regards when the CAA alerted NORAD, who in turn need 'shoot down' permissions which has to come from the Pres first (although others can authorise it in his absence). Bush would probably have been having his morning briefing at this point, but could clearly have been interupted. It's probably fair to assume that the specific nature of the threat hadn't been assessed accurately at this stage.
Bush's involvement is largely incidental however. That he failed to comprehend the gravity of the situation when it was communicated to him, is really no surprise. One journo who wa sin the press pack that day, described him as "behaving like a frightend child having a nightmare and desperately running for the protection of his mothers bed" - or words very close to this. He got fired for his copy :laughing:
As I said, it isn't Bush's reaction that's really of interest, but rather that of the secret service. The one way he might have been attacked successfully, was in actual fact the very method that was being prosecuted, yet they elected to let him adhere to a movement itinary that was widely available and advertised as early as September 7th. In itself it proves nothing, but it's very strange.
There is another story doing the rounds (and I can't offer any opinion on it as I don't know anything about it other than what you pick up in chatter) but it's worth retelling anyway. At about 7.00am some film crew turned up at the resort where Bush was staying insisting they had a morning pool side interview planned. They were middle eastern in appearance and drove the ubiquitos white van (they always seem to don't they). Bush is a notorious early to bed and early riser and had completed his morning jog. The film crew gave the name at the gate when challenged of a secret service agent who was supposidly in his security brief. The agent who challenged them knew of no such agent, and when radioing the contact in, confirmed to them that no such person existed on the rosta and that they should thus seek to go through the press office. They left.
2 days earlier, the leader of the Northern Alliance had be assassinated in Afghanistan using a bomb in a hand held camera by two people posing as a sympathetic television crew. They'd become increasingly persistant in their requests (possibly aware that 9/11 was nearing) and the person (whose name escapes me) agreed to do the interview. It's probable that AQ had anticipated retaliation against the taleban and sought to weaken the already struggling Northern Alliance by removing the war possible war lord who could be relied on to assist America in any action? At about 8.50 (2 or 3 mins after news of the first strike was breaking) a Sarasota resident claims to have seen two men of similar description, in a white van, driving away from somewhere but screaming anti american and anti Bush slogans.
Did they foil an attack on Bush? or is it just another piece of internet myth making? I don't know, but I thought I'd share it with you. It's first time I've picked this one up though
You're completely missing the point Clive.
You wouldn't need to organise it yourself.
All you'd need to do was ensure that the command and control mechanisms didn't function to 90% on the day in question. It's a similar theme to many of the JFK theories. The various interests who didn't want Kennedy were allowed to get on with it, whilst the various intelligence and investigative agencies sat by passively before putting a series of cover ups into place.
There's some issues about the communication between the CAA and NORAD for instance to do with timings and failure to instigate correct procedures. It would appear NORAD were on a 'stand down' order which again, can only be sanctioned by a handful of people.
Why were there only 4 unarmed F16's supposidly available to defend the Eastern seaboard that day? And they were piloted by reservists, who might have been reluctant to intercept anyway, given that they'd have been on their own suicide mission.
Why were planes scrambled (eventually) from Otis and not Andrews air force base? The latter would have been able to defend Washington within minutes, coming from Otis at the time the order to scramble was given left them no chance.
There's other pecuiliar things related to the sale of airline stocks in the weeks leading up (suspicious betting patterns I believe we call it).
The insurance that was taken out on the WTC just beforehand.
There's other issues to do with how the buildings burnt and whether a controlled explosion wasn't used too by way of guarantee (I've seen both sides of this argument, and in truth lack the engineering knowledge to fully understand it).
Bush had been given document on the threat a few weeks earlier when at Crawford, but failed to read it.
Repeated meetings were cancelled (the next one was due on Sep't 12th I believe, or very close to).
Some elements of the CIA were supposidly getting twitchy and had submitted their briefings for consideration, but repeatedly had them sent back to re-write on the most tenuous of issues. One of them has gone public to say he was told the "President doesn't do more than 2 sides of A4"
Sandy Berger is on record as saying he'd briefed Condaleeza Rice to the severity and imminence of the threat when perfomring the handover between the administrations. She denies it of course.
Even if we put these down to coincidence and cock up, the failure of the enquiry to adequately uncover the failure of command and control, points to a conspiracy to cover things up at the very least. Mind you, there might very well be sound strategic, and personal reasons for wishing to do so.
Lets not forget that this is a country that has told monumental fibs to its population and the world before, (the Gulf of Tonkin incident) and would continue to do throughout the prosecution of the retalitory action (some serious, some just bog standard propoganda), ranging from WMD all the way up blonde haired, televisual female soldiers who never fired a round when captured, or all American NFL heroes who were shot by their own side.
Harbinger
At the Start
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2004
- Messages
- 11,282
My timings are not off, Warbler. I'm talking about the time between them knowing that it was definitely an attack (the South Tower being hit at 9.03) and them knowing that it was a multiple-target attack (the Pentagon being hit at 9.37).
In that case the 'hit time' wouldn't be the issue. The time they would have known was when planes turned off their transponders and re-diverted. In the case of AA77 (the Pentagon) this was 9.16 and United 93, was 9.24. In any event they could have made a reasonable threat assessment much earlier, 9.03, when along with half the country, they watched the live feed coming in as the South Tower was hit. Even then they'd have known about the hi-jacking at an earlier point when both of the first two failed to respond. I can't remember the precise timings, and haven't got time to look them up right now, but believe it occurred at 8.24 and about 8.30 something. Cabin Crew were in touch with the ground throughout the first one providing a running commentary right up to the moment of impact