"The Pet Goat" is an exercise in a reading book.

[JackRiddler]

Reading Mastery II by Siegfried Engelmann, a collection of SRA drills, has "The Pet Goat" on p. 153.

If there is something significant in that, it's that it showcases the Bush education philosophy: drill'em. No Child Left Behind actually tells us a lot about the sort who would entertain a 9/11: those who think the people (children too) are stupid sheep for shearing, and should stay that way. I find it very appropriate that it was arranged for Bush to be pretending to love little black children on the day his regime received the enabling event for its long-planned, fully intended global war of aggression.

The lesson in the classroom, with its stupefying repetition and sing-song authoritarianism of the teacher, is almost as scary as Bush's guilty-as-hell reaction to the three-second message whispered into his ear from Andy Card -- supposedly, "A second plane has hit the Towers. America is under attack."

There is a reason why people once understood this as a smoking gun, before they started looking for phantom proofs. Play that video. See how long Card is at Bush's ear. Try saying those words in the alloted time. Try whispering them in an understandable fashion.

The content of this sentence happens to be the minimum Card could possibly deliver and still be informing Bush of what was happening. ("America is under attack" would not specify what had happened, and it would make Bush look even more ridiculous in retrospect, yet that was initially what Card claimed he had said. He later added that he prefaced it with, "A second plane has hit the Towers.")

Yet Bush sits there, obediently waiting for further instructions, doing nothing and receiving no further word for 7 minutes -- and he is still in the classroom 13 minutes later, shaking hands, having received no briefing in the interim. How is this plausible? "America is under attack" and he doesn't even ask for clarification? He just absorbs the "second plane" thing on the spot, understands it, and proceeds to look "somber"? This is someone who was just learning what was happening at 9:05, after the second hit? This was someone who thought the first hit was an accident? Bullshit!

This was someone who was actually in charge of anything at any point in his administration? Double bullshit!

But far greater as a smoking gun is the entire period from first hit (8:46, when the motorcade was on its way to school) to leaving the school (9:34, 50 minutes). The plane hits the WTC, the popolous entourage learn about it while they are already on the road, and they go ahead with a photo op? By then it was known that the plane had been hijacked at 8:20, and this information was circulating to the military. As they arrived at the school, a reporter asked Bush, "do you know what's happening in New York?" and received an affirmative. According to Bush, he thought: "That's one lousy pilot." No one in his large entourage knew any different, or thought to inform the supposed chief executive?

And then the second hit, and they keep the photo op going - no Secret Service reaction, no reaction from the entourage members of the White House Military Office (WHMO)?

America is under attack, but screw these children: We're staying put right here, so that everyone in the world knows where the president is right now. And then more planes are known to be hijacked, but Bush delivers a LIVE TELEVISED statement at 9:31? Six minutes before the Pentagon is going to be hit?

Again, it is impossible that Card whispered that many words to Bush clearly in the time it actually happened. There was time enough for something like: "The game is on." Or: "Sit tight for a few minutes" (because our schedule has run into unexpected delays).

Yes, he looks stupid sitting tight. But it was safe to assume that the majority of people would merely see the president looking concerned as he dealt with little children, and that the regime would thus be covered on the "Where was Bush" question that would have been inevitably asked (as though it mattered) if he hadn't been on live TV during the attacks. Let the "conspiracy theorists" ask where were Rumsfeld, Myers (who?), Winfield, Eberhard, Mies, the FAA... and let It was safe to assume that only a suspicious minority would want to see the obvious abdication of presence by the ostensible chain of command.

[Bolo Boffin]

1. "it was arranged for Bush to be pretending to love little black children"

Please present the evidence you have for this statement.

[JackRiddler]

2. Conclusion based on the bogus nature of the behavior during the 9/11 photo op.

Please go ahead and construct an alternate scenario; try hard.

[Bolo Boffin]

3. My, the number of words you use when you mean, "I don't have any." n/t

[Thorandmjolnir]

86. Bush himself has said he did not want to scare the kids.

Bush has stated himself that the reason why he remained seated was because he did not wanted to alarm or disturb the students in the class room.

[Bolo Boffin]

88. Bush is full of shit. n/t

[Thorandmjolnir]

89. No argument there.

But we are talking about the rationale for why he remained seated for another 7 minutes, and then stayed in the classroom for a press conference (In which he described what had happened, in front of the kids.)

And considering that he is the figure head of the government, and his statement has been backed up by officials from the government, I think it is fair to say that the official explanation for his behavior was a desire not to scare the children in the class room.

Now you might think that's BS, but it is part of the official story line for 9/11/01.

[JuniperLea]

92. How would it have disturbed anyone at all?

He could have merely told the teacher, with a pleasant smile, that he had important "prezidentin" to attend to... no one would have questioned, and no would would have been scared.

Just another bogus Bush lie.

[spooked911]

103. this is obvious from knowing anything about Bush and his administration

and doesn't even require you to think 9/11 was an inside job.

So what's your problem?

[Bolo Boffin]

104. So you don't have any actual evidence to support the statement, either.

But for whatever reason, you had to berate me. Why? Because I dared ask for evidence to support a statement made by the OP.

What's your problem with supporting the statements you make with actual evidence, spooked?

[spooked911]

105. Sorry, I didn't know you knew Bush had a completely natural affinity for African American kids

And what-- saying "what is your problem" is "berating" you? Wow.

[Flatulo]

4. Jack...

Do you know the Secret Service protocols for a potential threat to the POTUS?

Neither do I.

[JackRiddler]

7. Apparently this guy had a guess...

Secret Service agents and other security personnel had set up a television in a nearby classroom. They turned on the TV just as Flight 175 crashed into the World Trade Center. According to Sarasota County Sheriff Bill Balkwill, who was in the room, a Marine responsible for carrying Bush's phone immediately said to Balkwill, "We're out of here. Can you get everyone ready?" (Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 9/10/02) But he must have been overruled by someone, because Bush did not leave.

Do you wonder who that might have been, overruling?

Did the 9/11 Commission even ask your question?

From:
An Interesting Day: President Bush's Movements and Actions on 9/11
By Allan Wood, Paul Thompson
http://www.historycommons.org/essay.jsp?article=essayaninterestingday

[Bolo Boffin]

8. Who might have overruled the Marine carrying Bush's phone?

Hmm. That's a stumper.

[Flatulo]

9. The article you cite had me interested until this paragraph...

"There was no film footage of the first attack until at least the following day, and Bush didn’t have access to a television until 15 or so minutes later. The Boston Herald later noted, “Think about that. Bush’s remark implies he saw the first plane hit the tower. But we all know that video of the first plane hitting did not surface until the next day."

I've seen this argument used many times to discredit any witness who claim to have seen the first tower get hit.

Unfortunately, this argunment does not hold water. It is a common speech pattern called a 'synecdote' (hat tip to bolo). When one refers to an incident that only later is clarified, it is common to refer to it as though one had actually witnessed it.

For example, if I come upon two cars smashed into each other, it would not be unusual, when relating the event later, to say "I saw a car crash" when in fact I did not actually see the crash. One can infer what happened post-facto.

Almost no one know that WTC1 had been hit by an airplane. Many people thought it was an explosion, yet most people would say, after seeing WTC2 hit by an airplane that they also saw WTC1 get hit, even though they only saw the aftermath of the hit.

Sorry Jack, this article loses all credibility when it resorts to such a lame tactic to infer proof of prior knowledge.

[LARED]

5. One word comes to mind

Sophistry

[JackRiddler]

6. Vultures?

[LARED]

13. Vulture might be somewhat appropriate

1. Any of various large birds of prey ................. feeding on carrion.

Carrion is dead or decaying flesh.

Your point that I am feeding on a dead and decaying argument is actually quite valid.

Thanks

[JackRiddler]

16. Vultures can also engage in wishful thinking

They line up in a row on a wire and emit the same crow, over and over.

[LARED]

17. Rather ironic if you're asking

Your comments about emitting the same crow, over and over, so much reminds me of the never ending and often repeated crowing by you and others that the actions of the idiot in chief at the school that morning has some inspired meaning implicating him in a 9/11 conspiracy.

Seriously how long can you beat this dead horse? Everything about his actions and those around him in the school is completely subject to interpretation. It is not possible to derive truth from that incident. Yet the drum beat goes on.

[JackRiddler]

18. If what you say is true...

"Everything about his actions and those around him in the school is completely subject to interpretation." Yes, and I present one in the argument that you don't actually address on logic or detail.

Regardless, if what you say is true... then one's reaction to "Bush in the school" is a akin to a Rohrschach test, no? I'll admit it's interesting to see who prefers to construct the exculpatory reaction, although "it is not possible to derive truth from that incident."

[LARED]

19. Yes you present an argument

The problem is it is one full of logical fallacies and faulty reasoning.

Bringing us back to
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=179188&mesg_id=179204

[JackRiddler]

20. Well at least you don't waste too many words

when you have nothing to say.

---

I've been meaning to ask you something unrelated: Can you clarify what you mean by your sig line?

[LARED]

21. Funny thing is I think you waste many words

when you have nothing to say.

Regarding my sig line. I think it's quite clear in its meaning. One reason I like it. Did you have a specific question?

Also you should know I did not write it, I am paraphrasing something I read once but cannot remember where.

[JackRiddler]

22. does it mean...

a) the Creator endows

b) a Creator had best be assumed to endow, as the alternative sucks, so we'll assume one for this purpose only

c) the state endows (as the Creator doesn't exist anyway)

d) endows is not really the issue?

---

(I'll leave out the counter-insult as it's irrelevant.)

[LARED]

23. Not to me

Man either accepts the idea that the Creator is the endower of rights, or he submits to the idea that the state is the endower of rights. There is no third alternative.

When boiled down your foundational rights are provided by the Creator or are provided by the state. If you view your rights as from the creator, then they are accepted as one accepts a gift. They are inherent in your creation. They are there, whether you accept them or not. But they are unchangeable because of the source. If you reject this provision, then you have no other choice but view your rights as being derived by men and subject to the whims of the state. As all men chaff at being subjected to the whims of the state you are characterized as submitting to this view.

Please keep in mind these thoughts are regarding the source of rights not the application of rights.

Happy?

[JackRiddler]

24. Happy? Why?

If you're thinking it: I'm not going anywhere with this (i.e., not in regard to the thread or a hidden agenda). I'd been meaning to ask for a while.

Your answer sounds like b) more than anything else (for the best outcome for the greatest number, act as though a) is true whether or not there is a creator), which I probably have the least problems with. It is a conundrum.

[LARED]

25. Admittedly I was expecting

something other a honest question as it frequently seems when a DU'er expresses faith the atheists are hellbent :) on telling them they are a moron.

[whatchamacallit]

30. So...

Simply, do you (LARED) believe your rights are endowed by "the creator" or by "the state"?

[LARED]

31. Creator nt

[whatchamacallit]

32. Thanks for the honest answer... You probably know what's coming next...

How can a religious person be so completely dismissive of alternative 911 theories? A lot of what's argued in here are interpretations of the causes of real world events. Things that actually happened, that we witnessed in the collective reality we share. I mean no disrespect, I'm just trying to understand why a theory like CD is a joke, but a white-bearded guy in the clouds is not?

[greyl]

33. Interesting.

What evidence do you have that LARED defines "Creator" as a white bearded guy in the sky?

[whatchamacallit]

34. I don't

but whatever your flavor of creator, it is a belief not based in the kind of "factual evidence" OCTists claim as the source of their :eyes: superiority.

[greyl]

57. You, a truther, made a statement in this forum based on no evidence. Damn shocking, I tell ya.

ResetButton: "the kind of "factual evidence" OCTists claim as the source of their superiority."

It seems you're more interested in personal oneupmanship than discussing the facts regarding 9/11.
In an argument about the events of 9/11, critical thinkers don't claim a general personal superiority over their opponent and expect it be relevant or strengthen their argument.

[whatchamacallit]

35. Game, Set, Match n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

36. Third. Grade. Attitude. n/t

[whatchamacallit]

37. Just trying to draw you out from under your rocks

Cuz you know the faithful among you won't (can't) touch this with a ten foot pole.

[Bolo Boffin]

38. More third grade attitude.

Come back when you decide to get serious and lose this point-scoring mindset.

[whatchamacallit]

39. I asked a germane question and have yet to receive an answer

Maybe the great, all-knowing, Boloboffin could venture an explanation of this apparent intellectual disconnect.

[Bolo Boffin]

40. And with that attitude, you don't deserve an answer.

You don't care about the answer. All you care about is scoring your little points.

[whatchamacallit]

41. You can run...

This is what people do when they get caught in a deception; change the rules. Can't deal with the message? Kill the messenger... Despite your transparent protests, this is a legitimate issue. An issue of hypocrisy and credibility. You've been frozen like a fly in an ice cube, so you impugn my motives. Admit the truth bolo; you got nothin'.

[Bolo Boffin]

42. I'm an atheist. I haven't been caught in anything whatsoever.

If I've got to choose between someone who believes in a long-accepted diety and someone else who can't understand what's in front of their eyes, I choose the theist.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[whatchamacallit]

44. Permit me to try again

"long-accepted deity"??? You should be ashamed. For a guy who wields scientific facts and evidence as a bludgeon, that's an interesting contradiction. You support people who believe in things not "in front of their eyes", but attack those who question the explanations for things they actually saw. :-)

[Bolo Boffin]

49. More third grade nonsense.

My advice is to lay off the false dichotomies.

[whatchamacallit]

52. Just learning how to outplay the gamesman n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

54. Playtime is over. People died in this.

Your third grade approach to this tragedy is despicable.

[whatchamacallit]

59. Bolo, people are still dying for it

In Iraq, Afghanistan... Please don't play the indignation card as if you have a corner on morality and propriety.

[Bolo Boffin]

Then maybe their deaths require a more sober approach to this than your one-upmanship games. n/t

[LARED]

46. An intellectual disconnect.?

Snort.

How is belief in a creator and dismissing 9/11 CTs based on complete BS pose an intellectual disconnect?

[whatchamacallit]

48. Hate to break it to you

but 911 theories, official or otherwise, have not been proven beyond doubt. At least some CTs are based in the physical reality we inhabit, unlike the fairy tales spoon-fed to us as children.

edit: added a comma

[LARED]

53. So which events of 9/11 are you convinced as established fact? nt

[whatchamacallit]

60. We all saw what happened

the issues of who, why, and how, are still in dispute.

[LARED]

62. Not surprized you avoided the question.

BTW, the issues of who, why, and how, are hardly still in dispute. Unless you think a handful of 9/11 CT'er bellying aching over the Internet and repeating idiotic myths about 9/11 constitutes a serious challenge to reality.

[whatchamacallit]

71. Well you also believe how the universe was created isn't in dispute either

You believe the "official story".

[LARED]

75. Stop putting words in my mouth. nt

[whatchamacallit]

78. Use your own words then

Don't hide behind the unsaid, say it and own it.

[LARED]

81. Ok, I'll tell the world. I believe

how the universe was created is in dispute.

Especially in scientific circles. There is no where near a consensus among the scientific community how creation happened. Frankly I think they're flummoxed.

In theological circles I think it boils down to God created. After that it's pretty unclear.

[whatchamacallit]

84. Yes many are in dispute, what does LARED believe? n/t

[LARED]

85. I've no clue how the universe was created. Do you?

I believe there is a creator. How the universe was formed is beyond my ability to comment on.

Many believe there was no creator, but the universe was formed via a quantum or similar process. Interestingly many seem to think this is without it's own contradictions, conflicts, and philosophical dilemmas. (BTW, these dilemmas are quite similar to those from a theological perspective)

So what do you believe?

[greyl]

83. You're behaving as though all truthers are atheistic.

Do you disregard everything God-believing CTists say, or do you think someones incorrect beliefs on one subject don't necessarily have shit to do with other subjects?

Argument Of The Beard:

Assuming that two ends of a spectrum are the same, since one can travel along the spectrum in very small steps. The name comes from the idea that being clean-shaven must be the same as having a big beard, since in-between beards exist.

Similarly, all piles of stones are small, since if you add one stone to a small pile of stones it remains small.

However, the existence of pink should not undermine the distinction between white and red.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#beard

[LARED]

45. It's an interesting observation that belief in a creator and belief

in 9/11 CT's are both faith based. That's how I read you point that a religious person should not dismiss 9/11 CT's.

There are some similarities. Both creator belief and 9/11 CT are based on faith rather than evidence. Neither can be scientifically validated. Both are based on a belief of the supernatural (at least many CT's are).

Your dismissive attitude about religious people believing in a "white-bearded guy in the clouds" is duly noted.

The difference is this; my belief in a creator is based on faith, based on well thought out reflections on life and the world around us. It is also based on my study and understanding of theological principles that have been discussed for millennia.

9/11 was a real world event. The facts are in front of everyone. The interpretations are of course open to discussion, but I don't need faith to understand what happened on 9/11 like CT'ers. I can see with my own eyes.

[whatchamacallit]

47. I don't know the particulars of your belief

But I think it's safe to say those who believe the world is 6000 years old, or that Eve was created from Adam's rib in the Garden of Eden, have no place arguing scientific facts and theories.

[Bolo Boffin]

50. Where does LARED express any such belief?

Now you're putting words into his mouth so you can bash him.

[whatchamacallit]

55. I didn't, I said "those who believe" which doesn't necessarily include LARED

But okay, let's let LARED describe his beliefs in his own words. If he'll own them.

[Bolo Boffin]

58. More games. You clearly implied that LARED believed the things you ascribed to him. n/t

[whatchamacallit]

61. Not true

What I implied was that most religious dogma I've encountered is incompatible with science as we know it. The Christian reference was just an example of what I'm talking about.

[Bolo Boffin]

63. Yes, true. You are misrepresenting what everyone can read.

And all while people are dying. Such silly, stupid games you are playing.

[whatchamacallit]

66. Why do you resort to this magnificent attempt to shame when all else fails? n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

67. You have confused me with your mirror. n/t

[LARED]

65. Horse pucky

But I think it's safe to say those who believe the world is 6000 years old, or that Eve was created from Adam's rib in the Garden of Eden, have no place arguing scientific facts and theories.

is not implying religious dogma is incompatible with science.

It is an ugly elitist attitude that people of faith are stupid.

[LARED]

56. I am always amused by people that think folks that

believe in the supernatural are somehow dumb by definition.

[whatchamacallit]

64. I don't think it's dumb

I think the cognitive dissonance required to separate and compartmentalize faith and science is unfortunate.

[LARED]

68. Good grief, that's about the dumbest thing you said so far

Do you really think people of faith are not able to reconcile faith based beliefs and the scientific?

[whatchamacallit]

70. I think they are, but the mental gymnastics required to do so are troubling to me n/t

[LARED]

72. What makes you think cognitive dissonance

is an outcome of faith and science?

[whatchamacallit]

73. Science and religion are often in direct opposition regarding fundamental knowledge of the universe

you need to create a fairly deceptive mental construct to resolve

[LARED]

76. I take back what I said before, this is far dumber.

Deceptive? Do you think all people that have faith deceive themselves because it is not resolved. Do you actually think you understand the universe? Ha.

Just because a person understands viewpoints are in some points conflicted does not mean there is a dissonance.

[LARED]

51. Why is that?

Again you are confusing faith and the supernatural with observable real events.

[whatchamacallit]

69. LARED, admit that your mind occupies two separate and essentially incompatible worlds

I have nothing against people of faith, until these same people accuse me of being a "woo swiller". Get my drift?

[LARED]

74. I admit it, my mind occupies more than two worlds

Faith and science are not incompatible in my view. Of course there are elements of science and faith that are at odds with each other. So what?

Science is at odds with lots of thing. Can you measure love? Can you define why children make me smile? Why are sunsets and sun rises wonderful?

I have far more dissonance trying to reconcile why the ratio of a circle divided by its diameter is an transcendental number.

[whatchamacallit]

77. Fair enough

You more than anyone should understand a universe of possibilities. When you close your mind and heart to beliefs of others, you make a mockery of your own.

[LARED]

79. Listen carefully

If you told me you really believe 9/11 was an inside job because you just know in your heart it was, and did not continue to prop up myths based on bad, illogical, irrational science and evidence I would respect your view.

As long as 9/11 CT'ers continue to do this I will point out the bad, illogical, irrational science and evidence?

[whatchamacallit]

80. I accept that nuanced position.

Keep an open mind.

[LARED]

82. Keeping an open mind is good advice

based on our conversation I would suggest it's advice you might want to reflect upon.

[Thorandmjolnir]

87. What?

You will respect his view if the only reason for him believing that 9/11 was an inside job was because "you just know in your heart it was", but you won't respect his view if it is based upon what he considers to be facts?

Wow. I seem to recall plenty of people here stating that views regarding 9/11 based upon belief are irrelevant and ridiculous and only opinions based upon solid facts are worth considering.

Interesting.

[LARED]

90. It's pretty simple

The facts he considers to be facts are not really facts. They are myths and sophisms, along with a bunch omissions and willful ignorance.

If someone is making a faith based observation and does not try to support it with weird science, quasi science, and misinterpreted science then I'm fine with that.

If there are ANY facts that unequivocally point to things like no planes, CD, DEWs, pods, thermite, etc, as well as an inside job, please present them now.

[nebula]

10. Is standing around with their thumbs up their asses

the standard operating procedure when the nation is under attack?

[JackRiddler]

11. Apparently.

I wonder: What's the SOP for a coup d'etat?

[SidDithers]

29. Gee, whatever happened to nebby?...nt

Sid

[Perry Logan]

12. Au contraire. Bush's brainlock on 9/11 proves 9/11 was not an inside job.

If 9/11 had been a hoax--specifically designed to get this man more power--the planners would absolutely NOT want him to look bad or dumb. They would absolutely NOT want the Secret Service to act differently than they should.

Why? Because it gives away the plot, you see.

The perps would have arranged to make their guy look good. They would have him dressed in his flight jacket, looking Presidential, with his lines well rehearsed.

So Bush's brainlock on 9/11 virtually proves 9/11 was not an inside job. Truthers just can't understand that their own arguments prove they're wrong.

[noise]

14. Your argument presumes concealment

was the priority.

[JackRiddler]

15. No. Said "brainlock" (your first faulty assumption) seems to have been contagious

...infecting both his large entourage in Sarasota and, by some remote magic, the men on levels down from him on the chain of command - Rumsfeld, Myers, Eberhard, Winfield and Mies - who acted more like they were facilitating a coup d'etat through tactical absence than suffering a "surprise." (To save yourself from a potential further faulty assumption, read up on what coup d'etat means; it does not necessarily entail a change in government but in policy by means of sudden, violent action.)

Your second faulty assumption (coincidentally the second thing you say) would be "designed to get this man more power" - no, designed to facilitate the realization of an agenda desired by a group of racketeers for whom "this man" is the clown fronted to the public, and to whom clownishness is an asset as it aids in the construction of denialist "incompetence" narratives (such as your own) for excusing serial crime.

Your general faulty assumption would be that stupidity & crime are mutually exclusive (actually they practically require each other), or that either will be exposed or investigated when for decades government is corrupt and culture is denialist.

[JackRiddler]

27. Gee, whatever happened to Perry Logan?

[Bolo Boffin]

28. He certainly wasn't tossed out of here because of his views on 9/11. n/t

[sofa king]

96. I don't know about that.

If 9/11 had been specifically designed to get this man--and therefore his more clever underlings--more power, how could the planners possibly prevent Bush from looking bad or dumb?

They had a much better chance of stopping the attacks of 9/11 than they had of stopping that.

[JackRiddler]

26. kick

[JackRiddler]

91. kick due to relevance in a new thread.

[greyl]

94. Fyi, there were older threads on the subject you could have kicked. ;) nt

[JackRiddler]

95. FYI, we'll each kick what we like -- for example, I like my threads better than yours.

And the way you stick on my ass no matter how trivial the matter evinces a rather unhealthy obsession. Show some pride, man.

[greyl]

97. I see you got my point, gracefully as ever. nt

[JackRiddler]

98. The little dagger you try to stick in my gut? I feel no need to get that, but: THANKS!!!

:yourock:

[JuniperLea]

99. I see you aren't swayed...

By arrogant pontification either... welcome to the club:)

[greyl]

100. I intended it as some good-natured ribbing. nt

[JuniperLea]

93. I think the events of 9/11 were important enough...

For the rat bastard to cancel the book reading event altogether! And why would it have "scared the children" if he were to merely, and with his idiotic smile, tell the teacher he's been called away on important "prezidentin'" business? It's not like all those kids didn't hear all about it later that day anyway.

They do think we are all just that stupid.

Great OP... thanks for this.

[JackRiddler]

101. Thanks, years later...

Time to let more barnacles attach themselves, as they are wont!

(Is there anybody out there... Is there anybody out there? Is there anybody out there...?)

[JackRiddler]

102. The question is not of "proof," but of probable cause...

in combination with the simultaneous actions of Mies, Rumsfeld, Myers, Eberhard and Leidig...

for a working prosecutorial hypothesis that these men and Bush (among others) were providing the facilitation or covering up their own role when they stated (uncoerced) that they were absent from decision making during the actual attacks (sometimes with astonishingly stupid excuses, like Eberhard's claim he wasn't in cell phone range for 45 minutes - THE HEAD OF NORAD!!!).

I submit that it does.

Bush in the School
http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x179188

Wargames of Sept. 11th
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050830185334880

It's my article. Excerpt:

SNIP

The story of Global Guardian and the breakfast activities of its director Mies has long been in the public domain, published on military news sites and the Omaha press among other venues. But until recently the vast-but-scattershot investigations of the last four years by the hundreds of 9/11 researchers working cooperatively via the Internet had missed these snippets.

As the timeline relates, Mies was having breakfast on the morning of 9/11 with a group of business leaders, as part of a charity event hosted by Offutt Air Force Base and sponsored by Warren Buffett, the second-richest man in the United States. We have no way of knowing what communications Mies was receiving about the crisis that began at 8:15, but soon after 8:46 am, the entire party would have learned that a plane had crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center. Mies remained with the civilians until after they all heard that the second WTC Tower had also been hit. (The second crash occurred at 9:03 am.) Based on the new timeline entries, it is apparently only then that Mies went to his command post, and that Global Guardian and related wargames were suspended.

Mies thus joins the growing list of men in key positions at the top of the US military chain of command who managed to absent themselves from any decision-making capacity during the opening hour of the 9/11 crash-bombings. That list includes:

George W. Bush, who asked his staff chief Andrew Card for no clarification on the whispered message that "America is under attack" (9:05), but instead remained seated, listening to children read in a classroom, until around 9:16; and whose large White House entourage remained in the Florida school until 9:34.

Gen. Richard Myers, the acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who says he heard about the first crash, thought it was an accident, went into a Senate meeting, and only became aware of the second crash just a few minutes before the Pentagon was hit at 9:37.

Donald Rumsfeld, who was sought for an hour by the Pentagon command center and first appeared there at around 10:30 am, according to The 9/11 Commission Report.

Gen. Montague Winfield, head of the National Military Command Center at the Pentagon, who on the evening of Sept. 10th arranged to be replaced on his scheduled shift the next morning for the two hours starting at 8:30 am by his rookie deputy, Capt.Charles Leidig (since promoted to admiral).

(See "AWOL Chain of Command")

Is all of this attributable to nonchalance? At what point are we allowed to discern a pattern in the behavior of the men who topped the military chain of command and who were responsible for responding to the unfolding events?

Rumsfeld's case is particularly flagrant, given that he had signed off on a June 1, 2001 Pentagon order that for the first time inserted the Secretary of Defense into the chain of response for issuing military intercept orders for errant planes. His story is that he reacted to news of the first and second WTC crashes by continuing his routine morning briefings, and that after the Pentagon was hit (at 9:37 or 9:41 am, depending on which official timeline one prefers), he decided to assist in rescue efforts instead of taking his place at the command center.

The official story of 9/11 holds that four passenger planes were diverted and that none of them were intercepted for reconnaissance and response, which constitutes a massive and unprecedented failure of standard operating procedures. The story of how and why that happened has changed repeatedly since 9/11, and no official has ever been held accountable for the failures. On the contrary, many of the key figures involved received promotions, among them Myers, who was confirmed in that position soon after 9/11, and Gen. Ralph Eberhart, the NORAD director who was appointed to head the new Northern Command (since retired).

During the last four years we have seen a plethora of contradicting timelines and testimonies presented by NORAD, the US Air Force (in its official history Air War Over America), the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), press reports citing official sources, and, finally, The 9/11 Commission Report. Each of these versions of what happened on 9/11 was upheld in its turn for months or years without revision. The contradictions mean that at least some of the responsible officials must have been promoting falsehoods, but again, no move has been made to hold anyone accountable for that.

Already in the first year after 9/11, when next to nothing was known about the exercises, researchers skeptical of the official story developed the hypothesis that wargames could have been used as the device to subvert standard operating procedures and allow the attacks to proceed unmolested. A wargame pretext can allow false-flag attacks to be rehearsed or prepared without arousing suspicion; and divert resources or block communication lines on Day X. ...

BIG SNIP

[JackRiddler]

106. kick

[spooked911]

107. yet another 9/11 drill!

:)