9/11

[SAF_Legend]

Sept 10, 2012 13:30:31 GMT Vidic>Superman said:

As an American Studies student, this is something I am particularly interested in. I've watched many documentaries on the attacks and I've yet to see anything that stops me from thinking that at the very least, the government allowed the attacks to happen. There are far too many things which would have to be coincidences, that I just can't buy.

I really find this rather interesting as well, as it piques my interest as to the conspiracy fervour that has taken place from this devastating event. Before I start to comment (not that you want me to, I want to, to get your point of view), please note that I do not mean to offend you, but I only genuinely want to know what you think. Reading my prior comments above, don't you think there is actually no valid end-reason for Bush or his administration to actually allow or partake in the event / attack? Could you come up with a reason as to why Bush or his administration would even allow such a thought? It makes no sense to me, and I would like to hear your perspective on this.

On whether the Bush Government allowed the attacks to happen - well, I think they were incompetent. When you're not faced with war or attacks on your soil or continent for a long time, you become complacent. It has happened in history and I'm afraid (as in, I'm genuinely afraid) that it will happen again in probably 10, 20 years down the road. Same goes for the 7/7 bombings. There were also hints and reports that we could have halted them, but we didn't. Recently, there were reports that Norwegians could have stopped Breivik's attacks. I think there's a hint sometimes that the people in charge at the time, might have thought that the situation would "most probably" not happen.

Sept 10, 2012 13:30:31 GMT Vidic>Superman said:

George Bush's schedule was released around a week before the attacks, so anyone that wanted to know could have known exactly where he was going to be at any point during the day of September 11th. I'm sure we've all seen the footage of a member of his staff whispering to him, stating I believe, that the second World Trade Center had been hit. If you believed your President to be in danger, you would remove him from where he was and take him to a safe location. Why would you leave him there unless you knew for certain that he was safe? And how could you know for certain that he was safe if it was a terrorist attack where little or no previous knowledge of it had existed? Doesn't add up.

I read an article, regarding the safety of Bush - that he was ferried later on (it was his own decision to stay telling stories to children) to his Air Force One which is a protocol when America is faced with an external threat. This plane flew seemingly random patterns, which actually was in part of their protocol to keep the President alive. So I think this is the "safe location" that he was at - up in the air.

The standard reason was that he (or the administration) just didn't want to alarm the present population he was with, with what had happened. Personally, I think Bush just waited upon the advices on others... But I don't think his (or the administration's) actions didn't make sense.

Sept 10, 2012 13:30:31 GMT Vidic>Superman said:

I visited Ground Zero and the WTC Visitors Center last year and seeing wall upon wall of pictures of those that lost their lives was possibly the most upsetting thing I've seen...

Aye, saddens anybody to see such a disaster occur...

Sept 10, 2012 13:30:31 GMT Vidic>Superman said:

...but there are too many questions that still need to be answered for me to believe the official report.

I personally think some things are purely coincidental. It's like folding the dollar bill in a way and it depicts somewhat of the Twin Towers burning. It's just coincidence. As humans, we tend to look for correlations (as in science too) to justify results with plausible causes. We can make something out of nothing, and we're pretty darn good at being complacent. I purely think the Bush administration did not want the media to hone too much on their wrongdoings due to political reasons, and decided to highlight what has happened (instead of why it has happened) and who had did it.

[SAF_Legend]

Sept 10, 2012 14:17:02 GMT jimbonda said:

Sept 10, 2012 13:30:31 GMT Vidic>Superman said:

George Bush's schedule was released around a week before the attacks, so anyone that wanted to know could have known exactly where he was going to be at any point during the day of September 11th. I'm sure we've all seen the footage of a member of his staff whispering to him, stating I believe, that the second World Trade Center had been hit. If you believed your President to be in danger, you would remove him from where he was and take him to a safe location. Why would you leave him there unless you knew for certain that he was safe? And how could you know for certain that he was safe if it was a terrorist attack where little or no previous knowledge of it had existed? Doesn't add up.

this is interesting, not seen this point brought up before. has anyone heard owt else about this?

I replied to Vidic>Superman; but just thought to let you know that he was up in the air. That was his "safe location" and part of a protocol to keep the President alive when faced with external threat.

Presidents (and celebrities) always receive threats and Nations always receive terror threats. But not all of them are real - and it's difficult to trace down all of them and determine which is real or not. In this case, I think America's security was a bit complacent during this time and hence, "allowed" this to happen. In the case of Bush, I think there would be instances where his administration are trying to find out if the attacks were really happening, and if the extent of it - to identify how big the threat it. You wouldn't want to evacuate the President for rumours, hoaxes or attacks which actually happened but not of substantial risk. Politically, this wouldn't go down very well.

[jimbonda]

isn't the point that once a plane hit the towers that he should have been yoinked away without delay? i know that it couldn't be a confirmed attack til the second hit but surely the presidents people would need to assume the worst?

[Deleted]

Sept 10, 2012 14:21:13 GMT Bestie said:

Me too. But anytime I think of 9/11 there's a crushing feeling right in the middle of my chest and I feel empty inside. So I take a pass on the conspiracy theories!

I was in the towers 6 weeks before, on holiday. There's a picture of me pretending to fall out one of the windows in the restaurant. We even talked about how planes would be level or lower than where we were eating. It's pretty haunting.

I had the chance to go up them in 1996 but we ran out of time. It still makes me shudder to think about it, and that's with a 5 year gap, and the fact I never actually went up in the end. If I'd actually been up there 6 weeks before I'd have been having nightmares for the rest of my life.

[Rene Meulensteen]

Yeah I visited in 2008 I think it was now and there was still massive sections of surrounding buildings missing and just covered with big black nets to catch any falling debris.

The big picture walls that are now in the memorial were literally just stuck to boards surrounding 'The Pit'. Something I'll never forget was the eerie feeling around the area, having walked from 5th Avenue down to the site the difference in noise level was hugely noticable.

[Vidic>Superman]

I can only take the comment about killing 3000 of their own citizens with a pinch of salt really, I don't believe that many governments would hesitate to do that if they believed it was in their best interests and that they could get away with it. As horrifying as that is, I don't think many of the Bush administration would lose too much sleep over that. Some of your other points such as allowing China to close the gap I absolutely take on board, and I don't think I could make a case against that. What I would say though, is that one of the most important things that 9/11 allowed the government to do, was to restore a huge amount of national pride. When American's (not all of course, but for the sake of convenience) feel like they have been victimised they frequently go on the offensive, as history has shown on numerous occasions. By doing so, whoever is in charge is given somewhat of a free pass to do things which ordinarily may not be tolerated, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are two you could apply this to. While the 'Let's get the bastards' mentality is in place, there's naturally less focus on the economy and the impact that was being had on that.

Although you made a strong argument, I'm not necessarily sure that focusing on the economic side of things would have been the main concern of Bush and co. The attacks gave America an excuse to show off its strength, determination and resources - while providing reason (though I guess that is also up for debate) to invade places that should have nothing to do with them. Again there is a history of America having done this before. Of course we can never know for sure, but would the US have gone into Iraq/Afghanistan/the Middle East in general with the sole purpose of making the people's lives better? I'm somewhat doubtful about that. Maybe allowing the attacks to happen, or even planning them, doesn't make perfect business sense, but looking at it from the view of a patriotic American Republican (for example), I'm not sure you could put a price on proving yourself to be the top dog.

I could never ever justify September 11th, whether the government had a hand in it or not, but I can understand the possible mindset of those in positions of power who could have been involved. While suggesting that you need to pick on someone in order to feel comfortable may sound ridiculous out of context, I believe there to be enough historical evidence to suggest that this could have been a strong argument made by Bush and his team.

Like you said, whether or not Bush and Blair believed WMDs had been found or not is doubtful but once 9/11 had happened, it almost didn't matter. There was a ready made excuse for America to go and invade pretty much whoever they wanted, as long as they could make a half decent case against the people of country X then there would be little defence. Maybe there was already enough of a case to go to war with the reasons that you mentioned, but it can't hurt to get everyone onside beforehand, can it?

As was suggested earlier, I was trying to question why Bush wouldn't be removed straight away. According to what I've been reading, Bush was only told once the second plane hit, but why was there a delay? Excuses could have been made to the children that he had to go without too much fuss being made. I don't understand how he could just sit there as if nothing had happened upon hearing such news. I also find it suspicious that Bush claims to have seen the first plane hit live, which was not possible because it was not broadcast. We all know he was often found lacking in intellect, but it hints at prior knowledge to me. I don't believe that Bush would be capable of planning these attacks, or maybe even allowing them to happen, but I certainly think he was capable of being persuaded to do what he was told.

I hadn't previously heard that Bush was ferried later on to Air Force One, and I take your point in that flying random patterns would be a way for Bush to be in said "safe location", however, I would accept this a whole lot more had it happened immediately after the first plane hit. Once the second hit, there is no way he should have still been there, whether they'd confirmed the origin of the attacks or not. One hit may be a horrible accident, in which you could perhaps justify not leaving until later, but once it happens twice in such a short space of time, I can't see how a reaction could still not be immediate.

-

For those of you that haven't seen it, I strongly suggest that you find the most recent edition of the Loose Change documentary, which raises many interesting points. I'm going to be watching it either today or tomorrow and intend to compile a list of points raised that have served to fuel my distrust of the official report.

Edit: Here is Loose Change.

[Rene Meulensteen]

Yeah I've seen the Loose Change docu. Very interesting I must admit.

You ever hear the one about the Owner of the Towers re-insuring them 6 weeks before the tragedy potentially collecting $7.1billion. True Story.

[Vidic>Superman]

Sept 10, 2012 15:49:27 GMT Rene Meulensteen said:

Yeah I've seen the Loose Change docu. Very interesting I must admit.

You ever hear the one about the Owner of the Towers re-insuring them 6 weeks before the tragedy potentially collecting $7.1billion. True Story.

I hadn't actually heard about that, but considering the only part of the Pentagon that was hit, was the part that had been under reinforcement, a project which was only days away from completion, that really doesn't surprise me.

[jimbonda]

nice one, i'll try and give that a watch tonight.

[Tatty]

Bunch of brainwashed, pissed off Muslims flew a couple of planes into two big buildings. Then, the US go and invade the wrong two countries, whilst the Saudis sit back and piss themselves after funding said terrorist attack, then continue to sell oil at a ridiculously inflated price, because the Iraqis weren't going to let thiers go as easily as Rumsfeld anticipated.

[SAF_Legend]

I only replied to the quoted parts, am very intrigued by the valid points you have pointed out. I will get back on your other points later. The Underlined section is the summary, because I know I can be very long-winded.

Sept 10, 2012 15:41:09 GMT Vidic>Superman said:

As was suggested earlier, I was trying to question why Bush wouldn't be removed straight away. According to what I've been reading, Bush was only told once the second plane hit, but why was there a delay? Excuses could have been made to the children that he had to go without too much fuss being made. I don't understand how he could just sit there as if nothing had happened upon hearing such news. I also find it suspicious that Bush claims to have seen the first plane hit live, which was not possible because it was not broadcast. We all know he was often found lacking in intellect, but it hints at prior knowledge to me. I don't believe that Bush would be capable of planning these attacks, or maybe even allowing them to happen, but I certainly think he was capable of being persuaded to do what he was told.

I hadn't previously heard that Bush was ferried later on to Air Force One, and I take your point in that flying random patterns would be a way for Bush to be in said "safe location", however, I would accept this a whole lot more had it happened immediately after the first plane hit. Once the second hit, there is no way he should have still been there, whether they'd confirmed the origin of the attacks or not. One hit may be a horrible accident, in which you could perhaps justify not leaving until later, but once it happens twice in such a short space of time, I can't see how a reaction could still not be immediate.

Sept 10, 2012 14:51:21 GMT jimbonda said:

isn't the point that once a plane hit the towers that he should have been yoinked away without delay? i know that it couldn't be a confirmed attack til the second hit but surely the presidents people would need to assume the worst?

I assume (we're all assuming here due to the lack of evidence, so this is my take on it - feel free to point out any weak links) that Bush, his administration (including PR) and security really did not know what really was going on. There are reports that most of the officials that were with Bush (and Bush himself said so) thought that the 1st aeroplane which crashed into the Twin Towers was only a small plane (like those of a private jet), and that they had believed to be an accident and not in a big scale. He only stayed behind because his team could not confirm anything (of malicious attempt), and most possibly his PR team were figuring out the best possible solution (politically - image wise) for his next big move regarding the attack (if there was one) or accident.

It was even made known that one of his personnel held up cardboard signs to him across the room, behind the cameras with "do not say anything" and most possibly advising him to stay put. And also, a reporter had tried to ask Bush whether he had notice that a plane had crashed, but was immediately hushed by an aide. The moves were political - not to allow Bush to talk, without having anything planned or scripted a speech. The moves were also carried out because of the lack of confirmation.

Jim, Vidic>Superman - you're absolutely right that Bush's lackeys would need to assume the worst - which I think they did. But they cannot act until a confirmation was given, and not with a move that might have been political suicide. You have a point that Life is worth more than political statements, but frankly, there is no worth in a President if he is seen to be cowardly whisking away without saying anything. This is compounded even more by the fact that officials initially thought it was an accident - not an attack. They can only plan the best course of action... and there was already a protocol that they ought to follow - which was Air Force One.

From that report I had read - Bush flew around the Gulf of Mexico, and to seemingly random (but now we know they're planned scripts) army bases and airfields with escort plane(s) (I can't remember if they were fighter jets or recon planes - I think both). It is also known that Bush wanted to hurry back to Washington to alleviate the situation. But he didn't. He was later advised not to, because they suddenly became very worried that any phoney threats were actually real. Washington became "unstable" to return to. There were unconfirmed reports that more planes were hijacked during this time. Usually they probably would not be bothered with "mundane" unconfirmed threats, but since there were already confirmed plane attacks and not accidents, they could not be sure. In this scenario, the best option would just to fly around for a while and "do nothing", until they received confirmation that the other threats were null. I also read that they had a heated argument whether to "shoot any hijacked planes down".

I go back to the security being incompetent or unsuspecting - on the morning before of the attacks, there are reports that a group of middle-eastern men in a van, had actually approached Bush's temporary stay in a Florida resort. They had tried to gain access to Bush by saying that had an interview with Bush. But this was not on the security's schedule, and had them turned away. Media reports claim that this could have been an assassination attempt. This is rather ambiguous, mainly because we do not know if they were really interviewers or not.

However, the fact that American security took such a long time to confirm and pass the message to Bush and the officials with him on the attacks, shows incompetency. The fact that they failed to confirm with Bush and officials that it was not an accident, and not a small plane... shows incompetency... even though it was only a few minutes after that Bush was seen to have been told on TV (with the children).... every few minutes counts.

Bush continued to stay with the children for another 5-10minutes (I'm not sure the exact minutes, but am fairly sure of the time scale) before getting to the American public with his "We're at war" speech after another 10-20minutes which was hastily scripted during this time span. During this 10-20minutes, he was holed up in one of the School rooms to discuss of what had really happen (confirmation) etc etc and what to say. After the speech, he was whisked immediately away to Air Force One.

Bush himself had said that he was approached to be moved immediately by the secret service and aides after the second attack - but he had rejected the notion, and wanted to deliver a message on the attacks first before moving out. I personally, think Bush is a dimwit, so if he wanted to deliver a message, he required a script and could not be done impromptu (evidenced by the fact that reporter was hushed regarding the question). It is of utmost political prudence to address the public ASAP - and definitely so much so when the situation is unclear.

So sometimes, it might be better to stay put in a position for a while, act normal as if nothing has happened and not alarm the media, nor the people - while having all the rest being confirmed by your team. Have a script written meanwhile, and send a message out to the public to remedy the current shock and to inform the rest of the nation.

I am genuinely very unimpressed the amount of time for the security to confirm the attacks, but this is real life - and unlike the movies, in real life, we take an awful long time to make decisions and seek for confirmations. For example: UN consensus, business decisions, international talks, etc. This is the same for terrorist suspicions. For example, the 7/7 bombings, Breivik killings - they were all hinted, they all had warnings, they all "could have been" stopped. IMO, these things unfortunately takes an amount of precious time. Also, the fact that Bush couldn't even contact Vice President, Dick Cheney through the White House due to communication jam was very unimpressive.

Bush says a lot of stupid things. I don't think he's a good politician - even a good one makes gaffes. Bush makes tons of them - personally, from what I have observed of him during his regime, he gets a lot of things mixed up - either from bad scripting, or he himself from not remembering or mixing up what he had said from his past scripts.

Last but not least, just need to repeat that everything actually happened under an hour... which is pretty quick IMO.

So if we paste everything together:- The lack of a confirmation shows that security did not know what really went on. The belief that it was only an accident on the 1st crash shows incompetence and a "no need to panic" attitude. The 2nd crash with confirmation came later. Confusion, worry. Bush decides to stay and give a speech. But this needs to be scripted, and time was given to hastily produce one as well as to confirm what has actually happened. Everything actually happened under an hour, or approx. 45minutes - from reaching the school, to taking off in Air Force One.

I agree that Bush should have immediately dealt with the situation instead of sticking around though - he should have immediately given a speech or just evacuated to a safer place. But the speech must be given IMO - as it is his duty to address the public.

[Rene Meulensteen]

RIP to all those that lost their lives 11 years ago today. Thoughts are with the families and friends.

[Bestie]

R. I. P.

[Deleted]

Sept 10, 2012 12:24:54 GMT tommyred said:

Definitely eh?

Yes. Too many things wrong with the whole situation.

People seeing grey cargo planes rather than passenger jets, pillars at the base of the buildings all cut at 45 degree angles, both towers coming down in a fashion more like a controlled demolition to save more damage to surrounding buildings, wt7 (i think it was that one) also coming down in the same fashion with no planes hitting it, the owner of the towers taking out a 7 billion dollar insurance policy covering this exact 'incident' months before the event, the rubble being instantly taken away and disposed of - imagine that in a murder investigation? the list goes on and on

[Chris]

I just can't believe that it was some kind of inside job. Plenty of evidence may support it, but it all seems too far fetched. Plus Bin Laden took responsibility for it a few weeks after.

No matter what may have happened, it was a horrific day what nobody will ever forget. You always remember what you was doing on that day. Thoughts go out to those who lost there life.

R.I.P