Video of 9/11 crash into Pentagon released

[Deacon]

[quote="coyote blue";p="635819"]But a couple years back when that "conspiracy" came about I saw that footage on a video. It was sent to me or something like that. I wish I remember where I saw it. it was a music video that claimed it was a missile and not a plane.[/quote]
It was done by this French dude who's had his work debunked backwards and forwards.

They asked why there were no damage to the building where the wings would be, and how a plane can stay in the air at such a low altitude.

Both are assinine assertions made from an odious concoction of arrogance and ignorance. That same video also asked a bunch of other ridiculous questions like why there wasn't any debris from the plane, when indeed there was a LOT of debris, corroborated by both photographs of the area and eye witnesses. If you've ever heard of Penn & Teller, try to get ahold of the episode of their Showtime TV show "Bullshit!" where they talk to people who make this kind of shit up.

I believe the government knew about it, and knows more then what they are saying. Why would they tell us minions what is going on, and something that can incriminate themselves on any wrong doing they could of/did? Politics.

That's a pretty lame cop-out of an answer to your own question, but it's also exactly opposite of the case. "Politics" would be why they would NOT tell you that, if such a thing were true.

What they want us to believe and see.

Yeah, like Nixon wanted you to believe and see Watergate? That Clinton wanted you to believe and see his cum stains on Monica Lewinsky's dress? Come on, you're falling into the old trap of believing The Government is some all-powerful entity made up of someone other than humans.

Gotta remember, the Bin Ladens were with Bush Sr. in America when the attacks took place, working together in their business, making money.

He was with Osama? Or are you confusing the huge and extended family in Saudi Arabia with one outcast, banished man? It's about as silly as saying someone was with "The Kennedys" when John Jr's plane went down, so obviously they had a hand in it.

Bush and the Bin Ladens made money from 9/11.

How so? And at what cost? You are insinuating that George HW Bush colluded with Saudis to orchestrate the attacks of 9/11 for the purpose of commercial profit. You have a helluvalot to prove, there.

Now, whether the US defense didn't do anything because they wanted money, I highly doubt it. But it is an interesting fact.

...you just said you didn't know and that you highly doubted it. How is that a fact?

A plane hit the pentagon, plain and simple.

Thank you for admitting that.

No matter what happens, there will always be conspiracies. The question is really, who starts them? The government, or people like us? What do they want us to believe?

Who is "The Government" and how is he starting conspiracies? And what possible benefit could it bring him?

I don't think any of us will know what exactly took place, or why

It's already known...

and why the government didn't try to stop it before it happened.

That's an incredibly loaded statement. You're saying The Government had full awareness of the entire plan and decided to assist or at least actively allow it to happen, and that's just for starters. That's a fucked up thing for you to say. What makes you think that? Again, you have a lot of proving to do.

I might get slapped for this, but lets get another president in here and have him pick some damn good investigators who isn't on Bush's/Cheney's side, who are in the middle, and have them look into everything. I mean, we put our trust into the government.. well, we are supposed to.. and we do pay their taxes. We should get the truth...

My eyes rolled so hard just now, I think I sprained something.

ok, I'm stopping, I don't think I said anything constructive here, nor really made sense or headway.

Yep.

[Arminius]

[quote="coyote blue";p="635819"]But I believe the government knew about it, and knows more then what they are saying. Why would they tell us minions what is going on, and something that can incriminate themselves on any wrong doing they could of/did? Politics. What they want us to believe and see.[/quote]
Well, yes. According to the National commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, they didn't know anything. There is no civil source after all. All the information you got came from a) military sources; b) secret services; c) the government. Every time someone tried to offer another version of the facts soon after 9/11 they were immediately criticized or rejected without taking it into consideration. Saying that the administration was aware of 9/11 was, apparently, a ludicrous and incredible claim. I remember Victoria Clarke, speaker for the department of Defense, saying that even the suggestion of it, was an insult to the family members and friends of the people who got killed. Wow, someone with such an important position in the Defense is willing to reject any other possible version a few months after the event.

They should have made a civil commission directed by an attorney general like Eliot Spitzer (He's a New Yorker), but they refused. Why? They chose Philip Zelikow, a guy who wrote a book with Condi. How convenient. All the New Yorkers wanted a civil commission too because they were unsatisfied with the commission report. Those people lost relatives, the only thing they want is the truth. And they're not satisfied with the current report.

[quote="coyote blue";p="635819"]Gotta remember, the Bin Ladens were with Bush Sr. in America when the attacks took place, working together in their business, making money.

He was with Osama? Or are you confusing the huge and extended family in Saudi Arabia with one outcast, banished man? It's about as silly as saying someone was with "The Kennedys" when John Jr's plane went down, so obviously they had a hand in it.[/quote]
Deacon, if it seems so silly, why the guy flew/fled back to Saudi Arabia one or two days after 9/11? If the guy had nothing to do with this, I mean if he was clear, then why did he left in a hurry? Plain and simple, they didn't want him to talk, and above all, they didn't want him to talk in front of the National commission. The only question here is: why.

[quote="Deacon";p="635870"]

They asked why there were no damage to the building where the wings would be, and how a plane can stay in the air at such a low altitude.

Both are assinine assertions made from an odious concoction of arrogance and ignorance. That same video also asked a bunch of other ridiculous questions like why there wasn't any debris from the plane, when indeed there was a LOT of debris, corroborated by both photographs of the area and eye witnesses. If you've ever heard of Penn & Teller, try to get ahold of the episode of their Showtime TV show "Bullshit!" where they talk to people who make this kind of shit up.[/quote]
Ok, but there is a question that that little video doesn't ask. How the flight 77, the one that crashed in the pentagon, could fly for 40 minutes, despite the fact that we knew it was under hijacker's control? Apparently, the FFA (Federal aviation agency), couldn't detect it. That's bullshit, they got the best radars in the world and a highly trained personnel.

[quote="Deacon";p="635870"]

Bush and the Bin Ladens made money from 9/11.

How so? And at what cost? You are insinuating that George HW Bush colluded with Saudis to orchestrate the attacks of 9/11 for the purpose of commercial profit. You have a helluvalot to prove, there.[/quote]
I'm not sure here. I don't think Bush wanted to make commercial profit. But I know 9/11 served to justify a huge increase in the military budget. Since the end of the cold war in 1991, the military always wanted an increase of funds, but there was actually no reason. So they knew the attack would happen, but they let it go. I don't think the attack has been organized by the Bush administration, but I think they know more about it then they are willing to say.

There is something funny about all this. The report says that the attack happened because of a failure of the CIA and FBI. They were however able to find who were the pirates, where they learned their flight lessons and inspected their houses in less than 48 hours after 9/11. They rock!

[dmpotter]

"Never blame on malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetance."

I wish I knew who actually said that.

[Deacon]

Arminius, your post rehashes the same stupid mistakes, assumption, and baseless assertions made by other conspiracy theorists. Have you not read any of the other threads (much less this one)?

[AzraeL]

Both are assinine assertions made from an odious concoction of arrogance and ignorance.

That is one of the most verbose responces I've encountered, almost bordering on grandiosity.

[Arminius]

Ya Deacon often uses poetry in his argumentation, especially when he know he's wrong. It's a good way to distract the debater. Stay vigilant.

[Martin Blank]

[quote="Arminius";p="635911"]Well, yes. According to the National commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, they didn't know anything.[/quote]
You might try reading the report. There were a LOT of embarrassing things that came out. Certain FBI agents had strong suspicions about some of those who would become hijackers, but they had difficulty getting the messages to the proper people because of the archaic system then in use by the Bureau. (This still has not been fixed, many hundreds of millions of dollars later.) The CIA knew that two future hijackers had entered the country, but could not tell the FBI because of walls put in place to prevent spying on Americans. The NSA knew of certain phone calls made between suspects in the US and key phone numbers abroad, but couldn't provide the information to Immigration or the FBI because of the aforementioned restrictions on espionage agencies operating in the US. Airport security personnel detained at least one, and I think two of the hijackers due to suspicious activity -- but they were allowed to get on the plane anyway, because neither the FBI's nor the CIA's concerns had made it to the FAA yet.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Deacon, if it seems so silly, why the guy flew/fled back to Saudi Arabia one or two days after 9/11? If the guy had nothing to do with this, I mean if he was clear, then why did he left in a hurry? Plain and simple, they didn't want him to talk, and above all, they didn't want him to talk in front of the National commission. The only question here is: why.

The Binladen family (they changed the spelling slightly to distance themselves from Osama, who is one of as many as 55 children of Muhammad Uwad bin Laden) had a couple dozen members in the US who were flown out on chartered flights from September 14 to September 24. US airspace was reopened late on September 13. The Saudi flights (nine in all) were authorized by Richard Clarke. This is all in the 9/11 Report.

Ok, but there is a question that that little video doesn't ask. How the flight 77, the one that crashed in the pentagon, could fly for 40 minutes, despite the fact that we knew it was under hijacker's control? Apparently, the FFA (Federal aviation agency), couldn't detect it. That's bullshit, they got the best radars in the world and a highly trained personnel.

They knew approximately where it was, but the US had no fighters in the area (constant hot-ready fighters and patrols ended in the mid-90s when the Soviet threat was clearly gone). As I recall, the hijackers turned off the transponder, a critical requirement for planes not in immediate radar coverage. No transponder, no viable radar contact.

Since the end of the cold war in 1991, the military always wanted an increase of funds, but there was actually no reason. So they knew the attack would happen, but they let it go. I don't think the attack has been organized by the Bush administration, but I think they know more about it then they are willing to say.

The military has fought funding for a number of projects. They fought the continuation of the B-2 beyond about eight planes. They're fighting keeping the USS Kennedy in service. They've argued against a number of programs that they don't believe are required, where money can better be put elsewhere.

There is something funny about all this. The report says that the attack happened because of a failure of the CIA and FBI. They were however able to find who were the pirates, where they learned their flight lessons and inspected their houses in less than 48 hours after 9/11. They rock!

I'm not sure about the "48 hours" part, but the reason the investigation went so fast is that thousands of agents were immediately tasked to it, and a lot of inter-agency walls were dropped. The CIA passed on enormous volumes of information to the FBI, and the FBI did the same with the CIA. End result: both realized that they had all of the indicators, but hadn't been able to communicate them.

[coyote blue]

Bush and the Bin Ladens made money from 9/11.

How so? And at what cost? You are insinuating that George HW Bush colluded with Saudis to orchestrate the attacks of 9/11 for the purpose of commercial profit. You have a helluvalot to prove, there. Deacon
Look up Haliburton. Cheney is the major one in it, but still, all had their hands dipped in it when 9/11 came about, and Haliburton sent out the equipment. They made money, trust me..

Oh Deac.. how I've missed you putting down all I write Nice to be back..

There was some information that C. Rice gave to Bush about being attacked by our airplanes and such months before it happened. I will have to look it up, but there is proof, and Rice was put on the stand for it, so to speak. There was a hearing. Also.. why hasn't an independant commision investigated 9/11? Every other time something happens, an independant investigation is done, even when JFK was shot. But Bush said no... why?

Quote:
I believe the government knew about it, and knows more then what they are saying. Why would they tell us minions what is going on, and something that can incriminate themselves on any wrong doing they could of/did? Politics.

That's a pretty lame cop-out of an answer to your own question, but it's also exactly opposite of the case. "Politics" would be why they would NOT tell you that, if such a thing were true.

Isn't that what I said? Why would they tell us? Basically saying they won't because of politics...

Quote:
What they want us to believe and see.

Yeah, like Nixon wanted you to believe and see Watergate? That Clinton wanted you to believe and see his cum stains on Monica Lewinsky's dress? Come on, you're falling into the old trap of believing The Government is some all-powerful entity made up of someone other than humans.

No, I just think that if the whole truth came out, then there would be riots and such. They can't tell us everything, and they won't. They want us to believe some things so they can act how they want to... where are the weapons of mass destruction?

Quote:
Now, whether the US defense didn't do anything because they wanted money, I highly doubt it. But it is an interesting fact.

...you just said you didn't know and that you highly doubted it. How is that a fact?

I don't know if that is a reason or not, but it is an intersting fact that they did make money.

Quote:
No matter what happens, there will always be conspiracies. The question is really, who starts them? The government, or people like us? What do they want us to believe?

Who is "The Government" and how is he starting conspiracies? And what possible benefit could it bring him?

Cheney, Rumsfield, etc. At least we got Sadam from their conspiracy.

Quote:
and why the government didn't try to stop it before it happened.

That's an incredibly loaded statement. You're saying The Government had full awareness of the entire plan and decided to assist or at least actively allow it to happen, and that's just for starters. That's a fucked up thing for you to say. What makes you think that? Again, you have a lot of proving to do.

Why didn't Bush act upon the information the CIA gave him stating that Osama planned to attack us using our own airplanes? It has already been proven that the documents stating that was made months prior to the attack. Beef up security, check into flight schools, etc. Could of at least tried to stop it.

There is proof out there, when I have the energy I can look it up more if you wish.

[Deacon]

You'd have to look up something to start with before you could look up "more".

[coyote blue]

So the things I've read and seen don't count.. hmm.. I guess you who knows it all Prof. Deacon, shall be correct in all you say. Let me go tell MSNBC and the 9/11 report that they are wrong. I'll get back to you.
I really don't care if someone has their own opinion, everyone has that right. Share it by all means... but instead of cutting down all I say, look into it some. I don't know everything, nor am I good at explaining anything concerning politics, but I don't pull things out of my arse, since you assume I do.

[Deacon]

Right. What's the RLF equivalent of "Go back to GBS"?

[Martin Blank]

[quote="coyote blue";p="637447"]There was some information that C. Rice gave to Bush about being attacked by our airplanes and such months before it happened.

That was the Presidential Daily Brief of 06 Aug 2001 (PDF warning).

Rice was put on the stand for it, so to speak.

Rice's 9/11 Commission statement and transcripts

There was a hearing. Also.. why hasn't an independant commision investigated 9/11? Every other time something happens, an independant investigation is done, even when JFK was shot. But Bush said no... why?

Bush eventually relented, and the 9/11 Commission was created. Its investigation ran for more than a year, and its final report was a best-seller.

Why didn't Bush act upon the information the CIA gave him stating that Osama planned to attack us using our own airplanes? It has already been proven that the documents stating that was made months prior to the attack. Beef up security, check into flight schools, etc. Could of at least tried to stop it.

[/quote]
The information provided to Bush was along the lines of, "Sometime, somewhere, somehow, al Qaeda might attempt to attack the United States directly with airplanes." How do you react to that?

The FBI knew about suspicious people taking flight lessons, but as I mentioned before, the poor communications architecture available to the FBI hampered the ability to move that information through the chain of command. The CIA knew that the people taking the classes were probably bad news, but couldn't relay the information to the FBI because of FISA restrictions. One person at the CIA tried several times to get the information to the FBI, even filing a formal complaint at how the process was not moving forward after several weeks.

[coyote blue]

Quote:
There was a hearing. Also.. why hasn't an independant commision investigated 9/11? Every other time something happens, an independant investigation is done, even when JFK was shot. But Bush said no... why?

Bush eventually relented, and the 9/11 Commission was created. Its investigation ran for more than a year, and its final report was a best-seller.

Quote:
Why didn't Bush act upon the information the CIA gave him stating that Osama planned to attack us using our own airplanes? It has already been proven that the documents stating that was made months prior to the attack. Beef up security, check into flight schools, etc. Could of at least tried to stop it.

The information provided to Bush was along the lines of, "Sometime, somewhere, somehow, al Qaeda might attempt to attack the United States directly with airplanes." How do you react to that?

Ah, ok I stand corrected. To my knowledge they didn't do the investigation, Bush was interviewed but he wouldn't state what it was about and what went on. That was as far as I knew.
How would I react? I would put a bunch of people on overtime to look into it more. But really I guess you can't do too much without more information. I stand corrected, and thank you Martin Blank, for providing back up to your responses to mine. Instead of putting me down, now I can do more study on it.

[Martin Blank]

Bush did speak to the commission, IIRC, but it was not under oath (presidents VERY rarely speak under oath) and possibly not on the record. There was testimony that was heard that was deemed too sensitive to be made public, though inferences from it did end up in the final report.

[coyote blue]

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch8.htm

Because the amount of reporting is so voluminous, only a select fraction can be chosen for briefing the president and senior officials. During 2001, Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet was briefed regularly regarding threats and other operational information relating to Usama Bin Ladin.1 He in turn met daily with President Bush, who was briefed by the CIA through what is known as the President's Daily Brief (PDB). Each PDB consists of a series of six to eight relatively short articles or briefs covering a broad array of topics; CIA staff decides which subjects are the most important on any given day. There were more than 40 intelligence articles in the PDBs from January 20 to September 10, 2001, that related to Bin Ladin. The PDB is considered highly sensitive and is distributed to only a handful of high-level officials.

The interagency Counterterrorism Security Group (CSG) that Clarke chaired discussed the Abu Zubaydah reports on April 19.The next day, a briefing to top officials reported "Bin Ladin planning multiple operations." When the deputies discussed al Qaeda policy on April 30, they began with a briefing on the threat.

In May 2001, the drumbeat of reporting grew louder with reports to top officials that "Bin Ladin public profile may presage attack" and "Bin Ladin network's plans advancing." In early May, a walk-in to the FBI claimed there was a plan to launch attacks on London, Boston, and New York. Attorney General John Ashcroft was briefed by the CIA on May 15 regarding al Qaeda generally and the current threat reporting specifically. The next day brought a report that a phone call to a U.S. embassy had warned that Bin Ladin supporters were planning an attack in the United States using "high explosives." On May 17, based on the previous day's report, the first item on the CSG's agenda was "UBL: Operation Planned in U.S." The anonymous caller's tip could not be corroborated.

Late May brought reports of a possible hostage plot against Americans abroad to force the release of prisoners, including Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, the "Blind Sheikh," who was serving a life sentence for his role in the 1993 plot to blow up sites in New York City. The reporting noted that operatives might opt to hijack an aircraft or storm a U.S. embassy. This report led to a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) information circular to airlines noting the potential for "an airline hijacking to free terrorists incarcerated in the United States." Other reporting mentioned that Abu Zubaydah was planning an attack, possibly against Israel, and expected to carry out several more if things went well. On May 24 alone, counterterrorism officials grappled with reports alleging plots in Yemen and Italy, as well as a report about a cell in Canada that an anonymous caller had claimed might be planning an attack against the United States.

Reports similar to many of these were made available to President Bush in morning intelligence briefings with DCI Tenet, usually attended by Vice President Dick Cheney and National Security Advisor Rice. While these briefings discussed general threats to attack America and American interests, the specific threats mentioned in these briefings were all overseas.

On May 29, Clarke suggested that Rice ask DCI Tenet what more the United States could do to stop Abu Zubaydah from launching "a series of major terrorist attacks," probably on Israeli targets, but possibly on U.S. facilities. Clarke wrote to Rice and her deputy, Stephen Hadley, "When these attacks occur, as they likely will, we will wonder what more we could have done to stop them." In May, CIA Counterterrorist Center (CTC) Chief Cofer Black told Rice that the current threat level was a 7 on a scale of 1 to 10, as compared to an 8 during the millennium.

The September 11 attacks fell into the void between the foreign and domestic threats. The foreign intelligence agencies were watching overseas, alert to foreign threats to U.S. interests there. The domestic agencies were waiting for evidence of a domestic threat from sleeper cells within the United States. No one was looking for a foreign threat to domestic targets. The threat that was coming was not from sleeper cells. It was foreign-but from foreigners who had infiltrated into the United States.

A second cause of this disparity in response is that domestic agencies did not know what to do, and no one gave them direction. Cressey told us that the CSG did not tell the agencies how to respond to the threats. He noted that the agencies that were operating overseas did not need direction on how to respond; they had experience with such threats and had a "playbook." In contrast, the domestic agencies did not have a game plan. Neither the NSC (including the CSG) nor anyone else instructed them to create one.

Attorney General Ashcroft was briefed by the CIA in May and by Pickard in early July about the danger. Pickard said he met with Ashcroft once a week in late June, through July, and twice in August. There is a dispute regarding Ashcroft's interest in Pickard's briefings about the terrorist threat situation. Pickard told us that after two such briefings Ashcroft told him that he did not want to hear about the threats anymore. Ashcroft denies Pickard's charge. Pickard says he continued to present terrorism information during further briefings that summer, but nothing further on the "chatter" the U.S. government was receiving.

In sum, the domestic agencies never mobilized in response to the threat. They did not have direction, and did not have a plan to institute. The borders were not hardened. Transportation systems were not fortified. Electronic surveillance was not targeted against a domestic threat. State and local law enforcement were not marshaled to augment the FBI's efforts. The public was not warned.

The terrorists exploited deep institutional failings within our government. The question is whether extra vigilance might have turned up an opportunity to disrupt the plot. al Qaeda's operatives made mistakes. At least two such mistakes created opportunities during 2001, especially in late August.

Now, I took bits and pieces of this statement. Parts that interested me. I know there are debatable ones, and there are other ones that may contradict what I had found. To me it looks like there are quite a few people who, in a sense, can be 'blamed' for not reacting like they should. After reading this, Bush did play a role in it, but not as big as I previously thought. But reading through this I could not imagine how they could not of done something more to prevent the tragedy. There is so much written about this, in many places with many views. But there has to be an underlying score here saying that in some way this could of been prevented, or at least it could of happened to a lesser degree.
Mu opinion that is.