Ellen Mariani's lawyer calculates the odds BUSH KNEW: 4 million to 1!

[TruthIsAll]

On MSNBC Scarborough (believe it or not), lawyer Phil Berg said:
"For the events of 9/11 to have occurred, 116 governmental agencies and failsafe systems would have had to fail on that day. The odds of that happening are one in four million".

Yes, BUSH KNEW!
...................................................................

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4111217/

SCARBOROUGH: Phil Berg, let me bring you here. You obviously are Ellen attorney. This is obviously a horrible tragedy. Some are already saying, though, that you‘ve been involved in other political lawsuits against the president of the United States and are questioning whether you are hoping to prove in a court of law that the president of the United States knew about these attacks and let 3,000 people die.

PHIL BERG, ATTORNEY FOR MARIANI: I think that there is no question that President Bush knew about it, it was very complicit in the events of 9/11. And just, if the public would take a look—and Joe, I saw you yesterday. You did a great job. And you always do on your show. But, Joe, if you take a look at the facts of 9/11, if there was nothing to hide, why would Bush be hiding everything? He didn‘t want

SCARBOROUGH: What‘s he hiding?

BERG: Well, he didn‘t want the 9/11 Commission. He has been stonewalling the 9/11 Commission. They want to extend the 9/11 Commission. The word is now that the president and the White House doesn‘t want to do it, and Congress—they‘ll let it up to Congress.

SCARBOROUGH: But, Phil, isn‘t there a difference, though, between bureaucratic bungling, people missing signals at CIA and all across the federal government, and president willfully allowing 3,000 people to die, as you are claiming tonight?

BERG: Well, think about it. For the events of 9/11 to have occurred, 116 governmental agencies and failsafe systems would have had to fail on that day. The odds of that happening are one in four million. Just take a look at the events that occurred on 9/11. Yesterday was released a tape of one of the stewardesses, who described that the plane had been basically taken over, that several people were stabbed. The first plane did not crash into the World Trade Center until 26 minutes later. If the jets had been scrambled, if military jets had been scrambled, with all the foreknowledge that this government had from as far back as 1995, that plane would not have hit the World Trade Center. But let‘s assume for a minute that they couldn‘t have stopped that, because they didn‘t really know it was heading for the World Trade Center. I doubt that. But the second plane, unfortunately, the plane that Ellen‘s husband, Louis Neil Mariani, was on, didn‘t crash into the second World Trade Center until 17 minutes later. That should never have occurred. When it was flashed across our television screens at 8:46 a.m. on 9/11 that a plane accidentally hit the World Trade Center, the government knew that we were under attack at that point.

more

[Minstrel Boy]

1. Thanks, I couldn't see this.

Anyone know if a clip is available online?

[girl gone mad]

2. I always figured..

they would have had to know pretty precisely where the planes were heading with GPS traacking.

If they knew where the planes were headed, the outcome would have been a safe bet.

[pacifictiger]

3. now lets see if I get this .....

Saddam blocks the inspectors so he must be hiding WMDs, hes a lying SOB so lets got to war and get him. Syria is bad because they've lied to us too so lets just threaten that we might go get them too.
Bush blocks an investigation because he has nothing to hide, and that must be so because he's an honest christian who always tells the truth.
Hmmmm .... he must really think the rest of us are as dimwitted as he is.

[JohnyCanuck]

4. Or as dimwitted as his gullible fundy followers.

Who seem to think he was anointed Liar in Chief by God.

[davsand]

5. I actually got asked a good question by a skeptic the other day.

I have felt that they AT BEST allowed 9/11 to happen, but they most likely had a hand in it. The other day I was talking to somebody about it and he raised an interesting point about the planes that hit both the WTC and the Pentagon:

What would have been the response had they shot down passenger planes loaded with people?

I've been very critical of the fact that none of our air defenses were allowed to fly (or at least made it into the air) and I have to admit--I honestly couldn't answer that question.

On one level--fewer people would have died as a result, but could they have ever justified shooting down passenger planes with people on board?

Laura

[TruthIsAll]

6. They could have sent up "escorts" to intercept and veer them off course..

How will we ever know since they didn't even try to INTERCEPT?

T
H
E
Y

S
T
O
O
D

D
O
W
N

[davsand]

7. Yes, that is true...

And had the planes ignored the fighters, and continued on that course, they would have still hit either the buildings or have crashed into populated areas (most likely.)

Didn't we hear about reports of other planes in the area at the time? I've been wondering if maybe we DID have people in the air and because the chimp was sitting in a classroom reading about a pet goat the guys who did get off the ground couldn't do anything about it...

What IF they are sitting on that investigation because they don't want it to go public that a lack of orders from leadership was the reason so many died that day?

I dunno, I have to wonder about it. I've not seen anyone that has come forward to SAY they were grounded, and I'd think they would have by now--but then again maybe they are bound by law and security clearances not to come forward...

I am just throwing it out for discussion here--so please don't feel I'm saying this is the truth-I honestly don't know!

Laura

[leesa]

8. They probably did shoot one down. Doesn't seem to bother anyone

Don't let that weak argument side-track you. The fact is no one was put up in the air and someone HAD to order that stand-down because it is opposed to standard procedure. They jets could have forced the airliner away from the city and the Pentagon but no effort was made at all.

[maggrwaggr]

9. they could have justified it cuz they have plans to do just that

It's not like anybody never thought of this. The government and the military have always had plans for what to do in case of situations like this. And the somewhat repugnant solution is to shoot down the planes.

I still think flight 93 was shot down. They just wanted to make that "let's roll" guy into a hero.

I believe it was far enough away, and was enough behind the other planes, that there was no way Cheney could let it go. He was asked over and over if they should shoot it down. I believe finally he had to, or finally someone under Cheney gave the order.

[Skittles]

11. regardless of the plane routes

the second tower and the Pentagon should have been evacuated immediately after the first tower was it - when they already knew three other planes were unaccounted for. That was supreme dereliction of duty.

[davsand]

13. Dereliction of duty may be what they are worried about.

If we did have planes up--and if they did, in fact, not have any orders to intervene with those passenger planes, THAT is also a huge dereliction of duty. THAT may not be impeachable (and who the hell knows--if you can get impeached over a hummer from an intern then anything is possible!) but it sure would look bad to the voters.

I agree that allowing folks to stay in the WTC after that first hit is criminal, TELLING them to sit tight goes way beyond impeachable, IMO. I'm willing to bet THAT one would have huge liability potential in a court.

I think that the argument that they had been told so many times before that it was coming leaves me more convinced that they played an active role in it, but I do think that the lack of interception by planes has really become less of an argument for me than it used to be.

Pax.

Laura

[JackRiddler]

12. shootdown not the point

interception was an automatic procedure that required no special order and should have come off without a hitch. (67 intercept orders were given in the year prior to 2001, no I don't know what the results or intercept times were as the govt. has never released the data.) The smoking gun lies in the fact of no interception, especially of AA77 (flying towards Pentagon, after first two attacks, ample warning time, where there is a longstanding expectation of such an attack and where there had even been a rehearsal for the scenario twice in the year previous). As far as the scale of the disaster is concerned, I wonder if interception would have made any difference. I, for one, would not have ordered a shootdown over NYC! Certainly not of the first plane, so that's already one major hit. Of course, an interception might have served to intimidate or otherwise unnerve the hijackers, with unpredictable results.

Furthermore: UA 93 - a very likely shootdown!

But whether or not it could have alleviated the scale of the disaster, and whether or not there would have been any shootdowns, the point is that standard interception procedures were not followed, in a very suspicious manner (focus above all on AA77).

Hope that helps.

[TruthIsAll]

10. Will we ever see Berg in court laying out the facts?

.

[JackRiddler]

14. kick