"9/11 Conspiracies" on The History Channel

[Baculus]

Ever heard the saying "Hindsight is 20/20"? Yeah, we had warning that Al Qaeda/UBL wanted to strike inside America. But we were not prepared to deal with how they attacked us. Now you will mention Operation Northwoods, and how if we have an exercise we obviously have a plan to prevent it. Wrong. We do MOUT Offensives all the time and get our asses handed to us by OPFOR. Ever done a rotation to JRTC at Ft Polk? NTC at Ft Irwin? We KNOW what is coming. W KNOW how OPFOR likes to operate. But they still manage to beat us. They still kick our ass when we are on the defensive. Now, if we know how these scenarios work and we still are not able to prevent being overrun (even with 2 times the soldiers), imagine how much more difficult it is to preven in a real world scenario where terrorists have hijacked planes and are using them as missiles? How do you stop a unconventional missile? What is Al Qaede had trained that if one plane got shot down the rest were to "negotiate" for Islamists to be released from prison. Now we shot down our own citizens. Lose-lose situation.And of course, asking you to provide facts tp prove your point, as opposed to your feelings, is too much?

I just wanted to add that Operation Northwoods had NOTHING at all to do with preventing terrorist attacks. In fact, the idea was to *create* terrorist cells and attacks: That is why this document has been often discussed.

Sure, hind-sight is 20-20, but some of us find it amazing, or sad, that seemingly every facet of our defenses seemed to have gone astray on 9-11. And not only that fact, but 1) No one was fired or answerable for any mistakes, and 2) the current Bush administration was even reluctant to investigate 9-11, on a fact finding mission.

[Baculus]

Do you really think the POTUS and the Natl Sec Advisor is aware of all military exercises? I know that even the SecDef does not get briefed on every military exercise.

You would think that, especially in regard to a briefing for preparedness, that it would have been mentioned that we have conducted certain exercises in preparation for certain type of attacks. Or the POTUS would have asked, "Hey, advisory staff, did we prepare for this? What have we done to be ready?" I mean, I found information on previous Pentagon exercises via Google: Are you telling me that I have more fact-finding capabilities then the POTUS?

[Koolblue13]

To say we knew about it implies that we knew they were going to hijack jets and crash them into buildings. We did not know.

We also plan for a nuclear attack from Russia and NK. Do you think we are adequately prepared to handle that? No effing way. Would you then call the government complicit in an attack like that?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/attack/2002/06/03/cia-attacks.htm

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/10/03/tenet_told_911_panel_that_he_warned_rice_of_al_qaeda/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/30/AR2006093000282.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,146947,00.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7658468/site/newsweek/

Google warning and 9/11. We knew it could happen and we knew it was going to happen, but then when it did. We were lied to about it. Why and what else could be a lie.

and why was the "official" investigation hampered by the Admin?

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2004/07/b124722.html

[Popeman38]

I just wanted to add that Operation Northwoods had NOTHING at all to do with preventing terrorist attacks. In fact, the idea was to *create* terrorist cells and attacks: That is why this document has been often discussed.

Sure, hind-sight is 20-20, but some of us find it amazing, or sad, that seemingly every facet of our defenses seemed to have gone astray on 9-11. And not only that fact, but 1) No one was fired or answerable for any mistakes, and 2) the current Bush administration was even reluctant to investigate 9-11, on a fact finding mission.

What facet of our defense went astray? It is not like we have F-16s circling our cities 24/7 waiting for something to happen. All of our defenses were aimed at preventing an incoming attack, not an attack from within. It was confusing as hell that day. Listen to the NORAD/FAA tapes. They aren't sure what planes are where, plus the transponders were turned off.

1) Who do you want fired? Who should answer for a terrorist attack? I don't think there were any firings post Pearl Harbor. Of course, had their been internet access I am sure some would implicate the US Govt.

2) The facts are pretty obvious. Terrorists attacked us. And there have been changes made. The FBI was directed to move from a reactionairy force to a preventative force. Intel sharing was mandated. No mor inter-agency ***** sessions.

[Popeman38]

You would think that, especially in regard to a briefing for preparedness, that it would have been mentioned that we have conducted certain exercises in preparation for certain type of attacks. Or the POTUS would have asked, "Hey, advisory staff, did we prepare for this? What have we done to be ready?" I mean, I found information on previous Pentagon exercises via Google: Are you telling me that I have more fact-finding capabilities then the POTUS?

No, I am saying that you have WAY more time on your hands to google stuff than the POTUS does. You know, being President and all.

[Koolblue13]

No, I am saying that you have WAY more time on your hands to google stuff than the POTUS does. You know, being President and all.

So the POTUS and his staff have better things to do than investigate the group that has attacked us twice already with the Cole and 93' tower bombing? The Clinton Admin was going after AQ and the Bush Admin pulled them off, we were warned and attacked, seemingly with no way to protect ourselves, lied to about it and then went into a war that was already planned. Okay.

[Mad Mike]

Mad Mike, I know that happened. I know our enemy is real, I get it. I am not saying it didn't happen. The only thing I truely think might be possible, is that we allowed it to happen, when we knew it was coming. The rest is up in the air.

A rubber knife, eh? Didn't six or seven different countries intellegence agencies, warn us about this happening, before hand? Do you believe, even though members of the Admin and the CIA both said it would happen, that we, the US of A, we're unprepaired for it, as the official statement says and has been since contradicted. And if so, do you think the attack was used to get us into a war, that was already planned out, pre 9/11?

The show on the History channel was not an independent investigation about 9/11, it was about the truth movement and debunked some of the "theories" the truthers have, which I have, on many occasions, said I don't believe either.

Still off in loony land I see. Yeah, we let it happen. Right. And you have what proof of this? A few obsure warnings about some sort of posible hijacking? General warnings? And we were supposed to figure the rest out? No one EVER put all of the peices together. No one ever said that "it" would happen. That's reality. PERIOD. :doh:

[Popeman38]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/attack/2002/06/03/cia-attacks.htm

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/10/03/tenet_told_911_panel_that_he_warned_rice_of_al_qaeda/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/30/AR2006093000282.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,146947,00.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7658468/site/newsweek/

Google warning and 9/11. We knew it could happen and we knew it was going to happen, but then when it did. We were lied to about it. Why and what else could be a lie.

and why was the "official" investigation hampered by the Admin?

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2004/07/b124722.html

Your point in posting these links was?

We knew they wanted to strike in the US. Trust me when I tell you that the volume of data was much more than you will ever know. But we were not prepared for what happened. Yes, the dots are obvious post fact. But when you have a bunch of individual dots in front of you it is much harder tyo connect them than you think. NO one envisioned what actually happened. To think that not only people knew, but were complicit is assinine.

And pleas, don't post links from that garbage site and try to pass them off as facts. That site has a stated agenda. AmericanProgress my ass.

[Mad Mike]

some of us find it amazing, or sad, that seemingly every facet of our defenses seemed to have gone astray on 9-11. And not only that fact, but 1) No one was fired or answerable for any mistakes

Like they did in the first WTC bombing? Or the Cole? Or all of the other attacks that took place before 9/11?

[Popeman38]

So the POTUS and his staff have better things to do than investigate the group that has attacked us twice already with the Cole and 93' tower bombing? The Clinton Admin was going after AQ and the Bush Admin pulled them off, we were warned and attacked, seemingly with no way to protect ourselves, lied to about it and then went into a war that was already planned. Okay.

Here, you are flat out lying. The Clinton admin had multiple chances to kill or capture UBL, and they did not take advantage of those opportunities. You are not just weaving conspiracy tales now, you are weaving BS, so much so that you are staring to believe yourself. Lobbing cruise missiles into Afghan territory ain't going after them. We had eyes on, with a chance to kill, and they passed. Facts. We were warned. We were attacked. They did not draw us a picture and say we will fly into buildings. London was warned, and they were attacked. Was Blair complicit? Or is your ever growing hatred of Bush blinding YOU to reality.

[Baculus]

What facet of our defense went astray? It is not like we have F-16s circling our cities 24/7 waiting for something to happen. All of our defenses were aimed at preventing an incoming attack, not an attack from within. It was confusing as hell that day. Listen to the NORAD/FAA tapes. They aren't sure what planes are where, plus the transponders were turned off.

This issue has to do with, for example, civilian aircraft interception, which had happened on a several (in fact, dozens) of occasions up until that point. In fact, it isn't unknown for military flights to respond within the continental U.S. to FAA requests. Also, Andrews AFB even has an F-16 wing, which, even according to its website, is part of the Washington, D.C. defense structure.

We don't need jets circling our cities, waiting for something to happen, to have a measure of preparedness. Especially considering the amount of time that the FAA and NORAD had to communicate (and have communicated in the past).

BTW, do you know why there was confusion? Because there was a military operation happening in the Northeastern US region, as well as other unexplained incidents. Incidentally, aircraft can still be tracked without a transponder (though the transponder certainly and greatly helps with recognition).

1) Who do you want fired? Who should answer for a terrorist attack? I don't think there were any firings post Pearl Harbor. Of course, had their been internet access I am sure some would implicate the US Govt.

Who do I want fired? I dunno, but heck, after the attacks in Beruit on the marine barracks, Reagan withdrew the troops and said "I am ultimately responsible." And in my job, as an IT manager, I can certainly get FIRED for unseen issues that perhaps SHOULD have been involved in planning. After all, it is my job to attempt to envision unforseen circumstances. But I guess I hold more job responsibility then some government employees, eh?

2) The facts are pretty obvious. Terrorists attacked us. And there have been changes made. The FBI was directed to move from a reactionairy force to a preventative force. Intel sharing was mandated. No mor inter-agency ***** sessions.

That is that is issue: Facts aren't obvious.

Heck, why even worry about air defenses at this point, I suppose: any possible attack can even just walk over our southern and undefended Mexican border.

[Baculus]

Like they did in the first WTC bombing? Or the Cole? Or all of the other attacks that took place before 9/11?

I would have been fine with some firings or responsibility at that point. You don't do your job - people die - you lose your job.

Of course, I like how some of you point to the incidents in the 90's as some sort of, I dunno, absolution?, for the 9-11 attacks taking place.

"See, it isn't Bush's fault, Clinton could have done something!" Of course, Clinton could have done something, or at least a bit more. But that does not at all excuse any sort of lapse of defense or inaction leading up to 9-11. And not only that, but it doesn't excuse any efforts by the current administration to even stonewall any fact-finding missions or investigation into the events of 9-11.

[Baculus]

No, I am saying that you have WAY more time on your hands to google stuff than the POTUS does. You know, being President and all.

Oh yeah, that smiley just explains everything, right? Genius.

No, the point is that he should have A LOT MORE ACCESS to this data then me, the layman. Right?

[Mad Mike]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/attack/2002/06/03/cia-attacks.htm

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/10/03/tenet_told_911_panel_that_he_warned_rice_of_al_qaeda/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/30/AR2006093000282.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,146947,00.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7658468/site/newsweek/

Google warning and 9/11. We knew it could happen and we knew it was going to happen, but then when it did. We were lied to about it. Why and what else could be a lie.

and why was the "official" investigation hampered by the Admin?

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2004/07/b124722.html

but the intercepts and field reports didn't specify where or when a strike might occur

Black laid out the case, consisting of communications intercepts and other top-secret intelligence showing the increasing likelihood that al-Qaeda would soon attack the United States. It was a mass of fragments and dots that nonetheless made a compelling case

The commission report, written last August, said five security warnings mentioned Al Qaeda's training for hijackings and two reports concerned suicide operations not connected to aviation.

The Times gave these highlights from the commission report:

Aviation officials were "lulled into a false sense of security" and "intelligence that indicated a real and growing threat leading up to 9/11 did not stimulate significant increases in security procedures."

It takes the FAA to task for not expanding the use of in-flight air marshals or tightening airport screening for weapons. It said FAA officials were more concerned with reducing airline congestion, lessening delays and easing air carriers' financial problems than thwarting a terrorist attack.

Ironically, a close reading of the 9/11 Commission report suggests that Ressam’s information may have been “recycled” back to the U.S. intelligence community by an unidentified foreign intelligence community—most likely after learning it from the FBI in the first place. “Late in [August 2001],” the 9/11 Commission report stated, “a foreign [intelligence] service reported that Abu Zubaydah was considering mounting terrorist attacks in the United States, after postponing possible operations in Europe. No targets, timing or method of attack were provided.”

Congratulations you just showed how convoluted the information was. Lot's of posible scenarios. Bin Laden determined to attack... (NO ****). Information scatered across many agenceys. But Bush, with less than 8 months in office was supposed to have a grip on a situation that Clinton still had not resolved after 8 years. Was it a screw up? Hell yes. but aq conspiricy to "LET IT HAPPEN"? You are out of your damn mind.

[Koolblue13]

Still off in loony land I see. Yeah, we let it happen. Right. And you have what proof of this? A few obsure warnings about some sort of posible hijacking? General warnings? And we were supposed to figure the rest out? No one EVER put all of the peices together. No one ever said that "it" would happen. That's reality. PERIOD. :doh:

Your wrong and I already proved it. Keep your hands over your eyes, it's helping.

[Koolblue13]

To say we knew about it implies that we knew they were going to hijack jets and crash them into buildings. We did not know.

We knew they wanted to strike in the US.

Pick one and stick with it, it would help me out a bit.

[Air Force Cane]

any sane adult who watched that expose can only draw one conclusion:

the truthers and their adherents are not only liars, but idiots as well.

Alex Jones claimed "I am Galileo saying the earth is round!!"

Too bad that Galileo actually was persecuted for stating that the earth revolved around the sun. Even the Greeks had realized centuries before that the earth was round..

that is a perfect example of the type of intellect within the truther movement

[Air Force Cane]

" I swear you conspiracy theorists have to be the dumbest people on the planet":applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

:notworthy

[Air Force Cane]

I believe most of the "truthers" are just trying to get an independent investigation, because there are some things that don't jive, atleast that's what most of the people involved that I know want.

hmm, so the POPULAR MECHANICS study which ran thousands of pages wasn't independent?!

the History Channel expose debunking the 'truthers' isn't independent?!

the BIPARTISAN governmental 9/11 Commission isn't independent?!

exactly which group, other than "loose change is what our video is worth" would you quantify as 'independent' exactly?

[Henry]

any sane adult who watched that expose can only draw one conclusion:

the truthers and their adherents are not only liars, but idiots as well.

Alex Jones claimed "I am Galileo saying the earth is round!!"

Too bad that Galileo actually was persecuted for stating that the earth revolved around the sun. Even the Greeks had realized centuries before that the earth was round..

that is a perfect example of the type of intellect within the truther movement

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

[Mad Mike]

Your wrong and I already proved it. Keep your hands over your eyes, it's helping.

On what planet did you prove ANYTHING? I just pulled quotes from links YOU POSTED that show there was no clear warning of a the type of attack that was done on 9/11. NONE. The closest thing we had was the warning that there might be some sort of hijacking. Newsflash... there are ALWAYS warnings of hijackings. DUH!

Talking to you is like talking to a rock, although at least a rock would be silent. Which begs the question, which of you is smarter. Have fun in loony land.

:ciao:

[Kilmer17]

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

PEARL HARBOR!?!?!?!?!?!

Now THAT was a inside job!

[Koolblue13]

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

:laugh: Always makes me think of 1941, even though it isn't.

[Pwyl]

To say we knew about it implies that we knew they were going to hijack jets and crash them into buildings. We did not know.

We knew they wanted to strike in the US.

Pick one and stick with it, it would help me out a bit.

If you can't see how these 2 statements aren't conflicting, then I don't think there's any help for you.

[tizzod]

To say we knew about it implies that we knew they were going to hijack jets and crash them into buildings. We did not know.

Pick one and stick with it, it would help me out a bit.

I am reluctant to jump into this, but I don't understand your response. He is saying there is no way we could have known they were wanting to hijack jets and crash them into buildings. You are saying that they knew AQ wanted to strike in the US. How is that the same thing? "Striking" could mean any number of things, in any number of ways. Couldn't it?