Reply #56: Ok....I'll spend more time answering you [View All]

[BootinUp]

sorry for the short non answer. But I am not blind or deaf to your claims I just do not see anything damning here.

>>>They moved war games that would normally take place in October to coincide with other training exercises taking place on 9/11. This preoccupied those who would have defended us.

Ok, but the coincidence of dates does not strengthen any theory unless you can show it was not a coincidence i.e. evidence of plotting/communication regarding the dates of the excercise in connection with a discussion of a terrorist attack. Why should a judge even grant you a warrant to look into that? He the judge, will make the reasonable assumption that the dates were a coincidence.


>>>Consider the ATC/FAA/NORAD standard operating procedures, a plane turns off its transponder, you send up jets to find out what happened, and possibly bring them down. This type of thing happened/happens basically once a day or more (averaged out over the course of a year). It's nothing new or unusual.

Do you have a link to a credible source on this?


>>>On 9/11 everybody had their heads on backward. I don't believe there was a "stand down order" as some do, there didn't need to be. The exercises included inputs into the radar system and no one seemed to know what was happening. The then head of NORAD, rather than being demoted or something of the kind, was promoted to heading up the new NORTHCOM. He's now retired.

Everything I have seen indicates that the ATC/FAA dropped the ball more than NORAD. But the whole system appears to have underestimated the threat. There are lots of people that have not been held accountable for the incompetence that allowed 911 to happen.


>>>Even if they hadn't been chasing their tails at NORAD, the SOP for sending up jets was changed months before. They couldn't go until Rummy gave the okay according to the new reg.

credible source that I can look at?


>>>Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were in a meeting together when the Towers were hit. They knew we were under attack, yet Wolfie himself said they "didn't think there was anything they could do," so they continued with their meeting. They continued with their meeting until the Pentagon itself was hit. Does that sound like an even remotely reasonable thing to do when we're under attack? There was nothing they could do?

I need to see this in context. Where did you get this info. It could mean they didn't know enough to suspect an intentional attack yet.


>>>General Montague Winfield, Deputy Director for Operations for the National Military Command Center (the war room) had Captain Leidig, a rookie, take over his role as the NMCC’s Director of Operations from 8:30 to 10:30 on the morning of 9/11. Leidig relieved him minutes after Flight 11 was identified as hijacked. After the Towers were hit, he still left him in charge. It was Leidig's first day on that job, he had only qualified to do this one month before.

Link for me to look at? Doubtful it can be confirmed as part of a conspiracy.

>>>General Mahmud Ahmed The head of the ISI (Pakistan Intelligence) was in a meeting with Porter Goss and Bob Graham (chairs of the Intelligence Committee) on the morning of 9/11, while we were being attacked. Seems reasonable that the head of the ISI would be meeting with our intelligence folk, until you find out that he had wired $100000 wired directly to Mohamed Atta, via an underling but on his command. Mahmud later had to step down because of this. Porter Goss and Bob Graham went on to head the Joint Inquiry into 9/11, and of course Goss did a tour as head of the CIA clearing out the anti-Bush folk in there.

So what are you suggesting other than this guy was bad and had direct connections to al Qaeda? Is that Grahams or Goss's fault that they didn't know that? They colluded with him? Are you seriously saying they colluded with him?

>>>Thomas Pickard, acting head of the FBI at the time, tried to warn Ashcroft to prevent 9/11 and Ashcroft told him, "I don't want to hear any more about that." Several FBI field agents (look up Robert Wright, Harry Samit, and Colleen Rowley if you're interested) were stopped cold in their investigations. No one wanted them to investigate what was about to happen.

I have already said in another post what I think about the FBI inability to stop the attack. Look below in this thread.

>>> The official story seems to say this happened because it would have implicated close friends of the * crime family, namely the Saudi Royals and the bin Ladens. John O'Neill, the top anti-terrorist guy at the FBI, quit, and wound up going to work at WTC, because the FBI would not let him do his job.

I doubt that is the official story. Sounds more like a conspiracy theory. where did you get that interpretation or is there a link to an official document or why do you describe it as official?

>>>>Follow the money, it's where all good investigations go if they plan on getting anywhere. The money came from *'s friends, other than the Paki Intel general guy mentioned above, who I've read was pretty much hand-picked by our CIA. Prince Bandar's wife (that's the infamous Bandar Bush) made direct payments to hijackers (Saudi women are allowed to handle their own money? Since when?) The bin Laden family financed a great deal of the operations, though they say they've disowned their won and so on. The bin Laden's have also gained quite handsomely from the post-9/11 military spend frenzy, BTW. Then there's a man named Khalid bin Mahfouz old BCCI chum of poppy and banker for the CIA, he also financed their operations. He's a can of worms all to himself.

The Middle East is one of the richest places in the world. Americans WILL do business there. The intelligence people WILL have contacts there. Middle Easterners that are rich and nuts may support terrorists. We may or may not be able to prove it since banking is done differently in these countries. You can fault them for doing business with shady characters but you can't convince reasonable people there is a conspiracy for American officials to murder Americans with no evidence other than they did business together and he was a bad man so they must be bad.

>>>Think about this. Bush sits at Booker - he just sits there after he knows we're under attack. Rummy and Wolfie just continue their meeting until the Pentagon is hit, then they spring into action. Winfield leaves this noob in charge of the war room after he knows we're under attack. The Saudis and Pakis paid for the attack, yet they're our good friends and allies in this GWOT. People that should have been demoted or fired were promoted. Now we're in "the Long War" or "world war III" as * likes to call it. Who's making the bank on this? Cui Bono?

I think I have already responded to this stuff above.

>>>I could go on for a long time, this just touches on a few things, but I think you'll get the point if you're going to. Honestly, the more you find out, the harder it is to believe the fairytale