The general refusal of Americans to look squarely at 9/11

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Mon Sep 14, 2009 4:37 am

So, is what you are saying here is that every time there is a bombing or attack over there, someone in government is held accountable either for it or for not preventing it?

No. I'm saying that terrorist attacks over here are something we've lived with all my our lives and they are part of my memory of growing up. You never get used to them, but you know they're going to happen and when they do happen you're sort of prepared (unless of course they happen to you). The Twin Towers is the worst single attack I can think of, but to Brits it is not unique.

I seem to remember that every successful attack was regarded as a failure of the security forces, but that as a rule it was accepted that it was extremely difficult to stop and that some attacks would get through. There was always "Could it have been prevented" stuff in the Press as I recall, but generally the conclusion was "probably not" if they were really determined to do it. I also recall that every atrocity just hardened determination NOT to give in to that sort of thing.

It was a long conflict. Our security services were heavily involved over a long period and techniques and tactics evolved and changed. chuckle. As a minor example of what I mean: For soldiers patrolling on foot in republican areas, snipers were a problem. I heard not long ago that the Royal Marines developed a technique called "wombling" which means that a soldier on patrol is NEVER still - even if stationary, he sways his body and moves from side to side and back and forward. Looked really strange, but the RMs had few casualties from snipers. I've no doubt that heads did roll from time to time, but much of the conflict was concealed from us and the names and often, I'm sure, the issues were never known.

The history of that time, when the secret papers come out, will be fascinating.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Mon Sep 14, 2009 5:06 am

As a sort of addendum to my post above:

I also remember one the consequences of 9/11 was a sense of "here we go again". The end of the violence associated with the Troubles was an enormous relief. One felt the weight lifting. With 9/11 the weight went back on again. Since then we've had the London Bus Nail Bombing, but that's it so far. The Security Forces say they've foiled several more but in the end, you have to expect someone to get through.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Sep 14, 2009 5:07 am

spot;1241434 wrote: I didn't say they hadn't looked into it, I said no American at all has been held to account for failure to react adequately. It's quite clear that the reaction on the day was inadequate - outrageously inadequate. Had the FAA and NORAD reacted in their usual efficient manner there would have been armed fighters flying alongside all four hijacked planes long before they reached their targets. The normal standard practised reaction which had happened as a matter of routine efficiency on every previous occasion just didn't on 9/11. No American at all has been held to account for that failure. There's a general refusal of Americans to look squarely at that lack of normal reaction.

If 911 had been made as a film before it happened it would have failed dismally as being too ridiculous? The plot of the March 4, 2001 pilot episode of a TV spinoff from The X Files, The Lone Gunmen, "depicts a secret faction within the United States government plotting to hijack a Boeing 727 and fly it into the World Trade Center by remote control. The stated motive was to increase the military defense budget. In the episode, the plot is eventually foiled by the protagonists who board the doomed plane and deactivate the malicious autopilot system just seconds before the plane would have reached the World Trade Center." I merely mention it because it didn't fail dismally. Oddly enough it's never, as far as I know, been re-broadcast. It certainly gives the lie to people who said hijacking planes and flying them into buildings hadn't ever crossed the minds of contingency planners though.

Don't mistake what I've posted in the thread, I'm not saying "secret faction within the United States government plotting to hijack" anywhere. All it takes at the most basic level is for an Al Qaeda attack to be launched in the way the White House Administration claimed. Had US air defences not been stood down on the day - I can't find any softer words to describe the lack of FAA and NORAD response - there would have been interceptions. There were invariably interceptions both before 9/11 and subsequently. There were none on the day.

The implication throughout my thread is that the White House Administration knew in advance that this attack was about to happen and that they didn't merely passively stand back and observe it, they drew back the defences because otherwise none of the planes would have possibly found their planned targets. It's why I invited comment on George Bush having twice claimed to have seen the first plane fly into the WTC before going into the classroom. If George Bush was being truthful then the implication automatically follows.

Why are Americans in general are so content that no American at all has been held to account for failure to react adequately, to the extent that nobody has ever asked George Bush to explain what he repeatedly claimed at the time to be true.

Realistically who would they get to replace them? If the security forces are going to be second guessed on every decision they take it would be impossible to operate-you'd end up with no decisions being taken for fear it is the wrong one.

posted by spot

The implication throughout my thread is that the White House Administration knew in advance that this attack was about to happen and that they didn't merely passively stand back and observe it, they drew back the defences because otherwise none of the planes would have possibly found their planned targets. It's why I invited comment on George Bush having twice claimed to have seen the first plane fly into the WTC before going into the classroom. If George Bush was being truthful then the implication automatically follows.

That's on a par with suggestions that roosevelt knew about pearl harbour beforehand and deliberately did nothing to prevent it. Do you really think those involved in the forces would have all kept quiet if they had been ordered to draw back and ignore normal procedures and watch their fellow countrymen die?

Post by **spot** » Mon Sep 14, 2009 5:11 am

gmc;1241450 wrote: That's on a par with suggestions that roosevelt knew about pearl harbour beforehand and deliberately did nothing to prevent it. Do you really think those involved in the forces would have all kept quiet if they had been ordered to draw back and ignore normal procedures and watch their fellow countrymen die?Just as they did at Pearl Harbor despite having prior information, yes. You have to bear in mind that both the Roosevelt and Bush White House had the exact same motive, to push US public opinion from no to yes on sending their armed forces to war. Both needed an outrage of national proportions to get that shift and both got it.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Mon Sep 14, 2009 5:23 am

Just as they did at Pearl Harbor despite having prior information, yes. You have to bear in mind that both the Roosevelt and Bush White House had the exact same motive, to push US public opinion from no to yes on sending their armed forces to war. Both needed an outrage of national proportions to get that shift and both got it.

That they had the motive does not mean they did it. The US forces were in the middle of a huuuuuuge expansion and efficiency inevitably suffered. The information never reached the right people because the system was clogged with information that no-one knew how to handle. It is no insult to the US to say that it took them a while to get sorted out for war.

Roosevelt was edging the US into war and had been for some time - no question. The US was already hunting U-boats in the Atlantic by the time of Pearl Harbor. It was war in all but name and something was going to turn up. They didn't need to manufacture an incident - an incident ws going to happen because Roosevelt was going to keep pushing until it did.

TruthBringer · Post by **TruthBringer** » Mon Sep 14, 2009 5:32 am

What I find interesting is, what if one day it is 100% proven that 9-11 was an inside job? How would the conversations in this thread form in that instance?

Would the people here who are claiming that it is disrespectful to talk about it on 9-11 still claim that if this was the case? Even if it were proven that the American people had been lied to and deceived from the very beginning?.....

Definately something to consider.

Post by **spot** » Mon Sep 14, 2009 5:40 am

Clodhopper;1241453 wrote: That they had the motive does not mean they did it. The US forces were in the middle of a huuuuuuge expansion and efficiency inevitably suffered. The information never reached the right people because the system was clogged with information that no-one knew how to handle. It is no insult to the US to say that it took them a while to get sorted out for war.

Roosevelt was edging the US into war and had been for some time - no question. The US was already hunting U-boats in the Atlantic by the time of Pearl Harbor. It was war in all but name and something was going to turn up. They didn't need to manufacture an incident - an incident ws going to happen because Roosevelt was going to keep pushing until it did.

You're saying that the Roosevelt White House didn't have prior knowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack? But they did, I'll look it up and post it here if you want me to. You're saying they didn't have time to warn the local military commanders before the attack? But they did, I'll look it up and post it here if you want me to. Neither of those excuses wash.

As for 9/11 none of the inside information has yet got out but then, it didn't for forty years as far as the available intelligence in 1941 went either. What you do have at the moment, for 9/11, is George Bush's reiterated claim to have seen the first plane fly into the WTC before he went into that classroom. The thrust of my thread is that nobody has the nerve to ask him what he meant by it, and that's eight years worth of a general refusal of Americans to look squarely at 9/11. It goes along with the fact that nobody at all has been disciplined for the outrageous failure to prevent the planes reaching their targets.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Mon Sep 14, 2009 5:44 am

What I find interesting is, what if one day it is 100% proven that 9-11 was an inside job? How would the conversations in this thread form in that instance?

I'd be calling on the Americans to sort out their executive and make the damn thing properly accountable if the White House can't control it...but that's another thread.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Sep 14, 2009 5:47 am

spot;1241452 wrote: Just as they did at Pearl Harbor despite having prior information, yes. You have to bear in mind that both the Roosevelt and Bush White House had the exact same motive, to push US public opinion from no to yes on sending their armed forces to war. Both needed an outrage of national proportions to get that shift and both got it.

I'm sorry but I think both theories a load of cobblers. That the bush administration cynically moulded public opinion post 911 to suit their own agenda is beyond doubt. That americans don't face up to the reality that the war on iraq and afghanistan was fought for spurious reasons might be an interesting if rather heated discussion.

I think Bush et all were acting in what they perceived as america's interests. You can argue the case about whether it actually is or not but even idiots can act with the best of intentions. (what the F_+_+K was tony blair playing at though? how on earth was it in our interests t get involved in this? Bush can perhaps claim the defence of being an idiot, blair can't, he's a ******** of the first order)

About the only thing both incidents have in common is that the reality of a possible attack-while speculated on, was never taken as being a real possibility.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Mon Sep 14, 2009 5:58 am

what the F_+_+K was tony blair playing at though? how on earth was it in our interests t get involved in this?

Because he already saw the threat of Islamic fundamentalism and felt it had to be actually physically opposed?

(Clodhapper dons tin hat and dives for slit trench to a cry of "Incoming Scottish invective!"

)

Post by **spot** » Mon Sep 14, 2009 6:00 am

gmc;1241460 wrote: I think Bush et all were acting in what they perceived as america's interests.

What they perceived as the interest of some Americans, undoubtedly. And quite likely they equated that with America's interests in general.

We're down to asking why he repeatedly claimed to have seen that crash and why nobody's ever asked for an explanation.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Mon Sep 14, 2009 6:07 am

We're down to asking why he repeatedly claimed to have seen that crash and why nobody's ever asked for an explanation

reprint of earlier post:

Quote:

"Anyway, I was sitting there, and my Chief of Staff -- well, first of all, when we walked into the classroom, I had seen this plane fly into the first building. There was a TV set on. And you know, I thought it was pilot error and I was amazed that anybody could make such a terrible mistake. And something was wrong with the plane, or -- anyway, I'm sitting there, listening to the briefing, and Andy Card came and said, "America is under attack."

See my earlier point about Bush's incoherence. It's hindsight: thanks to a colleague who was on the internet at work, I saw the second plane fly into the second tower, but I was already watching the first tower burning - LIVE, and we knew a plane had flown into it. It's just Bush being a little imprecise about what he knew, when. No conspiracy, just incoherence and the brain of a retarded chicken.

Post by **spot** » Mon Sep 14, 2009 6:31 am

I don't think it's possible to become the President of the United States of America if you've the brain of a retarded chicken. This chap went to Yale.

I think turning him into a scapegoat for the last eight years is far too easy a get-out.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Sep 14, 2009 6:33 am

Clodhopper;1241463 wrote: Because he already saw the threat of Islamic fundamentalism and felt it had to be actually physically opposed?

(Clodhapper dons tin hat and dives for slit trench to a cry of "Incoming Scottish invective!"

):D

While I will call someone a ba'heid when it seems appropriate I generally try and refrain from hurling Scottish invective out of consideration of the fact that you might not actually understand it besides which it's usually counter productive. .

Perhaps you are right, who knows. certainly if he had come out with comments like "god is telling me what to do and will be my judge" at the time he would have been out of there sharpish. Even more quickly had he converted to catholicism while in office. That he waited till after leaving office just highlights the deluded hypocrisy of the man. no doubt god told him to wait

posted by spot

We're down to asking why he repeatedly claimed to have seen that crash and why nobody's ever asked for an explanation.

No one knew the first crash was anything but a very bad accident. I saw the video footage of his reaction when first told it was an actual attack rather than an accident. If he was aware if it he is a brilliant actor.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Mon Sep 14, 2009 7:11 am

While I will call someone a ba'heid when it seems appropriate

I'm shocked.

I generally try and refrain from hurling Scottish invective out of consideration of the fact that you might not actually understand

Given the variety of Scottish regional dialects it is entirely possible that people from neighbouring villages have not actually understood eachother for 1000 years or more. In the case of Glasgow, the same is true street to street: it's the only place in these islands I've been, and not been able to understand a word. "Except "Jimmy". What's a ba'heid?

besides which it's usually counter productive.

Oh, I don't know. Remember those runway busting bombs in the first Gulf War? We were told they contained lots of cluster munitions. Piffle. Each contained a Scot. When the pilot was over the target and pulled the trigger, pins were inserted into the recumbent scotsman's buttocks. The resulting blast of invctive turned the most hardened of runways into something resembling a freshly ploughed field. They've since been banned under the Geneva Convention. (edit) Later more powerful versions involved the prior insertion of whisky into the Recumbent Scotsman.

If he was aware if it he is a brilliant actor.

Agree.

No one knew the first crash was anything but a very bad accident. I saw the video footage of his reaction when first told it was an actual attack rather than an accident.

I was definitely watching live footage of the burning first tower when the second plane hit. If Bush saw the footage of the tower burning, but not the second plane hit he could be forgiven for thinking it was an accident - we all did, at first. Then he's taken into the schoolroom and informed of the second hit. At that point even he realises the first strike was not an accident. A man less tonguetied than Bush might struggle to make all of that clear.

Dear lord. I'm defending Bush. What are things coming to?

Perhaps you are right, who knows. certainly if he had come out with comments like "god is telling me what to do and will be my judge" at the time he would have been out of there sharpish. Even more quickly had he converted to catholicism while in office. That he waited till after leaving office just highlights the deluded hypocrisy of the man. no doubt god told him to wait

Not me, for sure. But I don't think he was quite the devil incarnate you make him out to be. Even if he is a Papist.

To say he precipitated the situation would be to suggest he had more influence than the UK actually does. The WMD - well, I've been praising the security services in another thread - this case seems to have been a real mess, quite possibly (my guess as to the sort of thing that happened) because some flunkies didn't understand that there's a difference between spinning a bad story for the Press and putting an incorrect slant on Intelligence that will be used as a basis for decisions on National Policy.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Mon Sep 14, 2009 7:57 am

You're saying that the Roosevelt White House didn't have prior knowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack? But they did, I'll look it up and post it here if you want me to. You're saying they didn't have time to warn the local military commanders before the attack? But they did, I'll look it up and post it here if you want me to. Neither of those excuses wash.

Yeah, please post. Might have a dig. I do know that this one comes up every so often, and each time the historians have looked at it they've come away saying no evidence of a plot, lots of evidence of incompetence.

Saying the White House knew? The White House is a building... Some parts of the administration had seen the message but didn't want to be the flunkies who broke the President's rest/meeting/whatever with the latest piece of alarmism I'd believe. "Plot" requires much more evidence.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Sep 14, 2009 8:09 am

Clodhopper;1241449 wrote: As a sort of addendum to my post above:

I also remember one the consequences of 9/11 was a sense of "here we go again". .
I don't agree and I can speak from some experience. I lived a few short miles from the Grand Hotel in Brighton the night it went off. I swear to god, my house shook. The noise was the strangest of 'booms' with an after shock boom. People ran into the road and we just knew instantly it was the IRA as Margaret Thatcher was in town at the Conservative Party Conference at The Grand Hotel. My first husband was all ready out on duty that night on another shout but we didn't have cell phones in those days. He was specialised in chemical and electrical fires and unknown to me had already been summoned down there. Word soon spread it was the Grand Hotel and we all got in our cars and raced down there. We couldn't get near even the Prommenade for emergency services, but I always remember the screaming, the smoke and the smell. You may think 'here we go again' but until it happens in YOUR town, YOUR people and affects YOUR family, you have no idea. The biggest fear at the time is that secondry bombs are due to go off just as the emergency sevices are going in to the first.

YouTube - The Eyes Of The IRA They Are Upon You

However, you can not possibily equate that, Hyde park, Harrods etc etc with 9/11.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Mon Sep 14, 2009 8:14 am

I don't agree and I can speak from some experience

????

I don't see any contradiction between our two posts? I was saying that when the NI Troubles calmed it was a relief, and later when 9/11 happened it was a sense of here we go again....

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Sep 14, 2009 8:30 am

spot;1241482 wrote: I don't think it's possible to become the President of the United States of America if you've the brain of a retarded chicken. This chap went to Yale.

I think turning him into a scapegoat for the last eight years is far too easy a get-out. So...... WHO or what exactly would you like to see held accountable? and why hold some-one accountable? America had never been attacked on their homeland so the Bush Administration was no more complacent than any other prior administrations. It could have happened when Clinton was in office as Bin Laden was active then. What exactly would anyone actually get out of anyone being held accountable? It happened.... thousands died and lessons were learned. Surely that is enough instead of persecution to the bitter end? I have never heard you banging on about holding British Government responsible for the atrocities in Ireland or the London Tube bombings so why are you not questioning the where-abouts of the British PM on the day of the Tube bombings?

Sorry Spot... If you had posted this thread on any other day than the anniversary of 9/11 especially when an American member had put on a thread to remember the victems and stated it was not to be turned into a political debate and rant, I may give you the benifit of the doubt. However, I am in no doubt you posted this thread on the anniversary of 9/11 just to antagonise and stir the pot. You seem to get some kind of perverse enjoyment out of such threads and I do not believe your timing was genuine. You have offended a great deal of good people and I just pray the Americans do not tar all British folk with the same brush and thank God, I am not like you and you are not the typical Brit. Anyone else who thinks because Bush's where-abouts that day come into question, there must be some-thing else to it is deluded and barking mad. Even the Muslims who would love to balme America in some way, know the truth...

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Sep 14, 2009 8:34 am

Clodhopper;1241509 wrote: ????

I don't see any contradiction between our two posts? I was saying that when the NI Troubles calmed it was a relief, and later when 9/11 happened it was a sense of here we go again.... Yes, IRA bombings were a sense of 'here we go again' but the magnitude and scale of death and destruction was incomparable.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Mon Sep 14, 2009 8:41 am

Oh right. I see what you mean.

Yes, much bigger and much more dramatic. I agree. But not unique in kind and any bang is big enough if you are caught up in it.

It was in many respects like Pearl Harbor, it seems to me, in that it was seen as a declaration of war by America. Al Qaeda would no doubt say it was bringing a war that had been going a long time, home to America.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Sep 14, 2009 8:54 am

Clodhopper;1241526 wrote: Oh right. I see what you mean.

Yes, much bigger and much more dramatic. I agree. But not unique in kind and any bang is big enough if you are caught up in it.

It was in many respects like Pearl Harbor, it seems to me, in that it was seen as a declaration of war by America. Al Qaeda would no doubt say it was bringing a war that had been going a long time, home to America. That's bollocks. Al Qaeda are not some army limited to one soveriegn country. It's a cell of religious fanatics all over the world with a believed grievence against the West. They were active long before 9/11 and it could have happened any where in the world. In my opinion, the first Gulf war, Desert Storm under Bush senior was justified due to the Illegal Invasion of Kuwait of the Iraq Elite Guard.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Sep 14, 2009 9:44 am

oscar;1241505 wrote: I don't agree and I can speak from some experience. I lived a few short miles from the Grand Hotel in Brighton the night it went off. I swear to god, my house shook. The noise was the strangest of 'booms' with an after shock boom. People ran into the road and we just knew instantly it was the IRA as Margaret Thatcher was in town at the Conservative Party Conference at The Grand Hotel. My first husband was all ready out on duty that night on another shout but we didn't have cell phones in those days. He was specialised in chemical and electrical fires and unknown to me had already been summoned down there. Word soon spread it was the Grand Hotel and we all got in our cars and raced down there. We couldn't get near even the Prommenade for emergency services, but I always remember the screaming, the smoke and the smell. You may think 'here we go again' but until it happens in YOUR town, YOUR people and affects YOUR family, you have no idea. The biggest fear at the time is that secondry bombs are due to go off just as the emergency sevices are going in to the first.

YouTube - The Eyes Of The IRA They Are Upon You

However, you can not possibily equate that, Hyde park, Harrods etc etc with 9/11.

You do realise that that you tube link you posted is one from irish americans celebrating an irish american sponsored assassination attempt on a British prime minister don't you? If you didn't then I suggest you look at it more closely. It's a glorification of terrorism.

Our american allies were quite happy to turn a blind eye to their countrymen financing terrorist attacks on the UK-at least after 911 they finally stopped it. If any americans wonder why we find americans banging on about terrorism irritating have a look at it perhaps you might begin to understand . How would you feel if that was an al queda song posted on the internet about 911 and glorifying the activities of islamic terrorists?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Sep 14, 2009 9:47 am

gmc;1241553 wrote: You do realise that that you tube link you posted is one from irish americans celebrating an irish american sponsored assassination attempt on a British prime minister don't you? If you didn't then I suggest you look at it more closely. It's a glorification of terrorism.

? I know exactly what the content of the link is and I'm surprised you do not know me better by now my little kilt tosser.

Post by **spot** » Mon Sep 14, 2009 10:06 am

oscar;1241515 wrote: So...... WHO or what exactly would you like to see held accountable?That depends on what you're asking about. My original post and title relates to the lack of enquiry into the systematic failure of the FAA and NORAD to do the job that on every other occasion they'd done flawlessly - sound the alarm in a timely fashion and get fighters intercepting planes which went off course. The general refusal of Americans to look squarely at 9/11 starts with the fact that nobody in either organization has been disciplined in any way. There seems to me to be a complete lack of willingness to even ask the question.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Sep 14, 2009 10:10 am

spot;1241559 wrote: That depends on what you're asking about. My original post and title relates to the lack of enquiry into the systematic failure of the FAA and NORAD to do the job that on every other occasion they'd done flawlessly - sound the alarm in a timely fashion and get fighters intercepting planes which went off course. The general refusal of Americans to look squarely at 9/11 starts with the fact that nobody in either organization has been disciplined in any way. There seems to me to be a complete lack of willingness to even ask the question. And what do you think could be achieved now by bringing some-one or something to account?

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Sep 14, 2009 10:12 am

oscar;1241555 wrote: I know exactly what the content of the link is and I'm surprised you do not know me better by now my little kilt tosser.

tsk tsk you just can't resist the anti-scottish jibes can you

posted by clodhopper

It was in many respects like Pearl Harbor, it seems to me, in that it was seen as a declaration of war by America. Al Qaeda would no doubt say it was bringing a war that had been going a long time, home to America.

Just for once I agree with oscar, pearl harbour was an act of war by one sovereign nation on another-a pre-emptive strike much like that advocated by the bush doctrine.

The Bush Doctrine, first explained in the president's commencement speech to the graduating class of the U.S. Military Academy on June 1, 2002 in West Point, New York states that it is the policy of the United States that "preemptive war" or even preventive war may be waged in appropriate circumstances.

What is appropriate is rather subjective though.

The 911 attack was terrorism since it was not carried out by a nation state but a small group of dissidents arguably financed by the saudi arabians since that's where most of the money came from.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Mon Sep 14, 2009 10:49 am

That's bollocks. Al Qaeda are not some army limited to one soveriegn country. It's a cell of religious fanatics all over the world with a believed grievence against the West.

Me being clumsy with language - I meant America saw the Twin Towers as a declaration of war on them, as Pearl Harbor was. Whether Al Q is a state or an organisation is secondary.

Post by **spot** » Mon Sep 14, 2009 10:50 am

oscar;1241560 wrote: And what do you think could be achieved now by bringing some-one or something to account?

A general discovery of why the established and fully working interception process was disabled on that particular day.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Sep 14, 2009 10:57 am

spot;1241573 wrote: A general discovery of why the established and fully working interception process was disabled on that particular day. Do you actually know the time difference between the planes take off and the strike?

To Intercept and shoot down would have no doubt caused far more fatalities on the ground especially over Manhattan.

Your looking for something that is just not there.

Post by **spot** » Mon Sep 14, 2009 11:02 am

oscar;1241579 wrote: Do you actually know the time difference between the planes take off and the strike?

To Intercept and shoot down would have no doubt caused far more fatalities on the ground especially over Manhattan.

Your looking for something that is just not there.

What does the time of take off have to do with it?

Why on earth would any of the planes have reached Manhatten if they'd been intercepted in the standard manner?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Sep 14, 2009 11:12 am

spot;1241583 wrote: What does the time of take off have to do with it?

Why on earth would any of the planes have reached Manhatten if they'd been intercepted in the standard manner?

The dilemma was weather to shoot down a number of passenger jets that 'appeared suspect'. At that time, security forces did not know the motive of the jets being off course. If they were hi'jackings, the planes would have flown out of US air space to another destination. What a descision? To shoot down several passenger jets certainly killing all on board and anyone on the ground. The devastation could have been as damaging as 9/11 it'self.

Cheney knows this probably better than anyone -- except for those military officers and personnel by the Executive Branch on the morning of 9/11, until it was far too late to take any preventive actions what-so-ever. More-over, when jets were finally scrambled, they were scrambled from more distant bases, making it a fore-gone certainty the interceptors would not be able to reach the hijacked planes in time.

Post by **spot** » Mon Sep 14, 2009 11:32 am

oscar;1241593 wrote: The dilemma was weather to shoot down a number of passenger jets that 'appeared suspect'. At that time, security forces did not know the motive of the jets being off course. If they were hi'jackings, the planes would have flown out of US air space to another destination. What a descision? To shoot down several passenger jets certainly killing all on board and anyone on the ground. The devastation could have been as damaging as 9/11 it'self.

Cheney knows this probably better than anyone -- except for those military officers and personnel by the Executive Branch on the morning of 9/11, until it was far too late to take any preventive actions what-so-ever. More-over, when jets were finally scrambled, they were scrambled from more distant bases, making it a fore-gone certainty the interceptors would not be able to reach the hijacked planes in time.

You're kidding me. You made all that up out of your head at a guess.

"The dilemma was weather to shoot down a number of passenger jets that 'appeared suspect'"? Whose dilemma?

"At that time, security forces did not know the motive of the jets being off course"? What has that to do with deciding whether to intercept or not to intercept. Over the US Homeland *every* plane going off course was intercepted. Except on 9/11.

There was a standard operating procedure. It was followed all the time. Except on 9/11.

I really don't want to type it all in myself by hand, it's given a good summary on 9-11 Research: Air Defense and (from the point of view of NORAD's responsibility) on 9-11 Research: NORAD Stand-Down

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Sep 14, 2009 11:52 am

spot;1241602 wrote: You're kidding me. You made all that up out of your head at a guess.

"The dilemma was weather to shoot down a number of passenger jets that 'appeared suspect'"? Whose dilemma?

"At that time, security forces did not know the motive of the jets being off course"? What has that to do with deciding whether to intercept or not to intercept. Over the US Homeland *every* plane going off course was intercepted. Except on 9/11.

There was a standard operating procedure. It was followed all the time. Except on 9/11.

I really don't want to type it all in myself by hand, it's given a good summary on 9-11 Research: Air Defense and (from the point of view of NORAD's responsibility) on 9-11 Research: NORAD Stand-Down

They did not know the destinations or motive. I repeat... to Intercept and shoot down a number of passenger jets without a definate notion of what was planned would have had the same magnitude as 9/11.

How about you actually answewr my questions?

What could possibly be achieved 8 years later by holding something or some-one accountable....... and for what? Taking the wrong decision?

Why have you never asked for any-one or anything to be brought to account for the London Tube Bombings? After all, we were on high alert then, so why did they happen?

buttercup · Post by **buttercup** » Mon Sep 14, 2009 2:17 pm

Excellent small clip Ian, i would very much like to see the extended version. I read this statement somewhere about 9/11 years ago and it stayed with me.

if you can't win a debate on 9/11 with evidence and reason America, dismissing the topic by negative association is your next best bet.

Post by **spot** » Mon Sep 14, 2009 8:44 pm

oscar;1241609 wrote: They did not know the destinations or motive. I repeat... to Intercept and shoot down a number of passenger jets without a definate notion of what was planned would have had the same magnitude as 9/11.

How about you actually answewr my questions?

What could possibly be achieved 8 years later by holding something or some-one accountable....... and for what? Taking the wrong decision?"to Intercept and shoot down a number of passenger jets" doesn't address the issue. This issue is why they weren't intercepted, not whether they might or might not then have been shot down. That's two questions. The lack of interception was a break from routine. I agree that the shooting down or not would have been a unique decision but the matter of intercepting them wasn't.

What could be achieved 8 years later by holding something or some-one accountable is determining whether the interceptions were prevented by prior decision and if so by whom. I think they were. I think the lack of enquiry and the lack of result is in itself evidence that such a decision was made.

Why have you never asked for any-one or anything to be brought to account for the London Tube Bombings? After all, we were on high alert then, so why did they happen?

Because that's another matter entirely, on a different day and by different people and for a different reason. By all means start a thread about it.

qsducks · Post by **qsducks** » Mon Sep 14, 2009 9:26 pm

spot;1240692 wrote: It's not a great country in the slightest, it's a corrupt rogue state regardless of who's running the White House. Americans burying their heads simply because patriotism makes them feel so good is why the problem happened in the first place.

But England is a great country? Oh ok, being an American citizen I find your comments insulting...sorry dude, hate to break it to you. I don't even own an American flag & will if i did I wouldn't fly it because #1 I don't support the war in Iraq. I have a friend who's son is there...I support him because thats what he wants to do but in the end, no I don't support that war..never have. I never bought the Bush//cheney crap...didn't believe in it..guess I'm a pacifist.. And btw, not happy that we are still over there in a useless war...

Post by **spot** » Mon Sep 14, 2009 9:49 pm

qsducks;1241813 wrote: But England is a great country?I'm just wondering where you think I said that it is. Or are you putting words in my mouth there?

The post you quoted was in reply to "This 'thread' of yours is nothing but a flaming attempt at slamming the great country of the USA", let's keep a little context here. This thread is nothing to do with flaming or slamming the USA, it's a discussion of the refusal of Americans to look squarely at 9/11. It asked a single simple question. Why are Americans in general are so content that no Americans have been held to account for the failure to intercept any of the hijacked planes on 9/11? As with all the other replies by Americans on the thread you avoid even noticing that it's been asked. Reading what you just posted it's as though the question didn't exist.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Sep 14, 2009 9:50 pm

spot;1241808 wrote:

Because that's another matter entirely, on a different day and by different people and for a different reason. By all means start a thread about it. That;s a duck out.

Post by **spot** » Mon Sep 14, 2009 9:54 pm

oscar;1241823 wrote: That;s a duck out.
No, it's keeping a thread focused and on topic. Especially a thread where the repeated presentation of a simple question from the OP is continually left unaddressed. Start your thread on your other topic and I'll happily join in on it.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Sep 14, 2009 9:57 pm

spot;1241826 wrote: No, it's keeping a thread focused and on topic. Especially a thread where the repeated presentation of a simple question from the OP is continually left unaddressed. Start your thread on your other topic and I'll happily join in on it.

I decline the offer on the basis that I do not believe any-one is accountable for IRA or Al-Qaeda bombs in London.

Post by **spot** » Mon Sep 14, 2009 10:16 pm

oscar;1241829 wrote: I decline the offer on the basis that I do not believe any-one is accountable for IRA or Al-Qaeda bombs in London.

I don't believe I ever suggested anyone was.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Sep 14, 2009 11:37 pm

oscar;1241829 wrote: I decline the offer on the basis that I do not believe any-one is accountable for IRA or Al-Qaeda bombs in London.

No one has accused the British government of deliberately standing back and allowing the IRA to bomb the Grand Hotel or the UDA to kill mourners at a funeral.

In every case where the British forces were accused of wrongdoing such as Bloody Sunday, a full public enquiry was held (eventually) to find out if anyone was accountable.

Rather than saying it is wrong to ask the question it would be better to show that the question is wrong -or to answer it if it cannot be shown to be wrong.

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Tue Sep 15, 2009 12:52 am

Bryn Mawr;1241840 wrote: No one has accused the British government of deliberately standing back and allowing the IRA to bomb the Grand Hotel or the UDA to kill mourners at a funeral.

In every case where the British forces were accused of wrongdoing such as Bloody Sunday, a full public enquiry was held (eventually) to find out if anyone was accountable.

Rather than saying it is wrong to ask the question it would be better to show that the question is wrong -or to answer it if it cannot be shown to be wrong.

The problem isn't a refusal to look at 911 squarely, the problem is that apparently unless you are willing to give an answer that validates the ravings of a conspiracy theorist, you are evading them.

The fact of the matter is that our response procedures post 911 can in no reasonable scenario be used as an indictment for our response pre 911.

What I see in this thread is an unveiling of a bigoted visceral hatred of America and not just a touch of jealousy and envy. Had the OP control of the resources available to this great and mighty nation on 911, none of what transpired would have.

Had the FAA and NORAD reacted in their usual efficient manner there would have been armed fighters flying alongside all four hijacked planes long before they reached their targets. The normal standard practised reaction which had happened as a matter of routine efficiency on every previous occasion just didn't on 9/11. No American at all has been held to account for that failure. There's a general refusal of Americans to look squarely at that lack of normal reaction.

DCA00MA005: Aberdeen, South Dakota, October 25, 1999

Scrambling To Prevent Another 9/11 - CBS News

Norad on Heightened Alert: Role of air defence agency rapidly transformed in wake of Sept. 11 terrorist attacks

Show me, please - where prior to 911 - the military scambled on its own volition inside the usa to intercept a passenger plane as a normal standard practiced reaction .

Post by **spot** » Tue Sep 15, 2009 1:08 am

flopstock;1241853 wrote: Show me, please - where prior to 911 - the military scambled on its own volition inside the usa to intercept a passenger plane as a normal standard practiced reaction .
Who's asking about when or whether "the military scrambled on its own volition inside the USA"?

"The escort service will be requested by the FAA hijack coordinator by direct contact with the National Military Command Center (NMCC). Normally, NORAD escort aircraft will take the required action". That was the law both before and throughout 2001. It's not "our response procedures post 911", it was what was in force from 1998. Under those rules, between September 2000 and June 2001, interceptors were scrambled 67 times and in the year 2000 jets were scrambled 129 times. On 9/11 it simply didn't happen.

Here's the relevant Order.

Order 7610.4, Special Military Operations

I'm not sure why you posted your first link, it's to a 1999 incident where "The airplane was intercepted by several U.S. Air Force (USAF) and Air National Guard (ANG) aircraft as it proceeded northwestbound" in just the way the Order prescribes. Military planes intercepting a passenger plane as a normal standard practiced reaction. Unlike the planes on 9/11.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Sep 15, 2009 2:49 am

You're a great one for citing sources and checking facts. why not read read the 911 commission report.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec1.pdf

The protocols did not contemplate an intercept.They assumed the fighter escort would be discreet,“vectored to a position five miles directly behind the hijacked aircraft,” where it could perform its mission to monitor the aircraft’s flight path.105

In sum, the protocols in place on 9/11 for the FAA and NORAD to respond to a hijacking presumed that

• the hijacked aircraft would be readily identifiable and would not attempt to disappear;

• there would be time to address the problem through the appropriate FAA and NORAD chains of command; and

• the hijacking would take the traditional form: that is, it would not be a suicide hijacking designed to convert the aircraft into a guided missile.

On the morning of 9/11,the existing protocol was unsuited in every respect for what was about to happen.

There is no big mystery no elaborate plan to find an excuse for war it's quite simply no one had contemplated such an attack, all previous hi jackings by terrorists had not resulted in the plane being crashed, that someone would have to order a fighter plot to shoot down a civilian airliner with as little delay as possible had quite simply never been contemplated outside the realms of fiction. Reality is often more interesting and unbelievable than any fiction writers can dream up but it's also sometimes a lot more mundane and some people need conspiracy theories because they can't accept the simple truth that sometimes things happen that could have been dealt with differently if only people had had the foresight to see what was obvious in hindsight.

Now of you want to pick apart the factual content of the report go ahead but when it comes to 911 itself conspiracy theories that it was plot by the american government are just plain silly and don't stand up to more than a few minutes investigation.

If you're talking about the cynical manipulation of the event afterwords for narrow self interested ends then you might have good case but that is a different topic.

AussiePam · Post by **AussiePam** » Tue Sep 15, 2009 3:06 am

flopstock;1241853 wrote:

What I see in this thread is an unveiling of a bigoted visceral hatred of America

I agree, but it's obviously okay under TOS if you express the bigoted visceral hatred of America in a grammatically correct, amiable even avuncular way.