Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The New Pearl Harbor
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 1 of 17 (223292)
07-12-2005 12:55 AM


I have started to read this at a friends strong suggestion.
The basic thesis is that the Bush administration was knowledgable in advance about 9/11 and maybe involved.
If you take the material at face value it is compelling. I have found little on the web but raves for it.
However, my bullshit detector started to beep loudly in the first chapters.
He suggests that the buildings were blasted to bring them down that the planes could not do it. One thing that he makes a big 'mystery' out of is the 2nd building hit being the 1st to fall.
I checked for about 20 pages around this where he emphasizes the mystery and never once mentions which floors where hit. Someone who is NOT trying to arrive at the "truth" as he suggests but is trying to get to a predetermined, book selling result I think.
What does everyone else think?

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by arachnophilia, posted 07-12-2005 1:20 AM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 3 by aristarchus, posted 07-12-2005 1:58 AM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 4 by crashfrog, posted 07-12-2005 7:57 AM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 9 by cmanteuf, posted 07-12-2005 11:11 AM NosyNed has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 2 of 17 (223294)
07-12-2005 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by NosyNed
07-12-2005 12:55 AM


He suggests that the buildings were blasted to bring them down that the planes could not do it. One thing that he makes a big 'mystery' out of is the 2nd building hit being the 1st to fall.
classic, classic conspiracy theory. i've been hearing that for years. we know what caused the towers to fall, and the architect feels really really guilty. there's no mystery involved.
i saw, with a large degree of certainty, bullshit.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by NosyNed, posted 07-12-2005 12:55 AM NosyNed has not replied

aristarchus
Member (Idle past 307 days)
Posts: 31
Joined: 01-11-2005


Message 3 of 17 (223303)
07-12-2005 1:58 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by NosyNed
07-12-2005 12:55 AM


Trust your feelings Luke
All I can say is, trust your bullshit detector. As much as I despise Bush, the conspiracy theories don't hold water. They are every bit as ridiculous as the FDR Pearl Harbor theories. I would say they are unworthy of discussion, except for the fact that I've broken my normal habit, of merely lurking, to respond.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by NosyNed, posted 07-12-2005 12:55 AM NosyNed has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 4 of 17 (223322)
07-12-2005 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by NosyNed
07-12-2005 12:55 AM


You gotta wonder why, on 9/11, almost all of our defense assets were engaged in a wargame that, coincidentally, featured planes crashing into buildings. The obvious result of this is that, had anyone tried to call the FAA or NORAD or whoever and tried to tell them about the plot, the person on the other end would have assumed it was part of the wargame and "played along."
You gotta wonder why so many top public officials stopped flying the public airways in the time before 9/11, even gong so far as to cancel September 11 travel plans days before the event.
You gotta wonder why the "plane" that hit the Pentagon co-incidentally managed to wipe out the only section whose offices had been largely vacated due to planned renovations.
Either the terrorists were really, really lucky, or else they had some help. What I think is that Bush et al. knew it was going to happen, knew they could use to galvanize public support for a flagging administration, and made sure that nobody tried too hard to stop it. My guess is that they never intended to sacrifice 3000 people, I'm sure their projections assumed that the towers would survive and that the casualties would be limited to the passengers of the plane and those people on those floors.
If you look at the paper trail, it's impossible to come to the conclusion that they didn't have ample forwarning of a terrorist strike in the US employing airplanes as missles. So either a whole lot of people who should have been smarter than that dropped the ball, or their investigations were hampered by commands from the top to "not look too hard into this."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by NosyNed, posted 07-12-2005 12:55 AM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by CK, posted 07-12-2005 8:07 AM crashfrog has replied
 Message 12 by cmanteuf, posted 07-12-2005 11:30 AM crashfrog has not replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 5 of 17 (223323)
07-12-2005 8:07 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by crashfrog
07-12-2005 7:57 AM


Sub in London Bombing for 911 and I've heard all of that word for word.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by crashfrog, posted 07-12-2005 7:57 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by crashfrog, posted 07-12-2005 8:15 AM CK has replied
 Message 7 by cavediver, posted 07-12-2005 8:22 AM CK has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 6 of 17 (223328)
07-12-2005 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by CK
07-12-2005 8:07 AM


Sub in London Bombing for 911 and I've heard all of that word for word.
Oh, really? You guys were having nationwide wargames that featured terrorist activities the exact day of the real terrorist strikes? Really?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by CK, posted 07-12-2005 8:07 AM CK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by CK, posted 07-12-2005 8:52 AM crashfrog has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 7 of 17 (223330)
07-12-2005 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by CK
07-12-2005 8:07 AM


Yeah, it's reasoning like this that makes creation science look healthy :-)
If it was so obvious, why does this not make national journalism? Is the press that owned in the US? Look at the beating our government is getting over the Iraq War. If there was the slightest hint of some truth to this type of conspiracy over here, it would be routed out mercilessly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by CK, posted 07-12-2005 8:07 AM CK has not replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 8 of 17 (223341)
07-12-2005 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by crashfrog
07-12-2005 8:15 AM


The story is that wargames were occuring at the same time and at the specific locations where the bombs went off.
Alex Jones' Endgame
Plus the covered-up Muslim suicide bomber who was shot down at the Wharf..but that's a different story.
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 12-Jul-2005 08:56 AM
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 12-Jul-2005 08:58 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by crashfrog, posted 07-12-2005 8:15 AM crashfrog has not replied

cmanteuf
Member (Idle past 6765 days)
Posts: 92
From: Virginia, USA
Joined: 11-08-2004


Message 9 of 17 (223369)
07-12-2005 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by NosyNed
07-12-2005 12:55 AM


September 11th was a New Pearl Harbor in the exact same way: the US Government was caught napping, taken by surprise that our enemies would do something so audacious.
I want everyone to be clear on this. There is *NO*, repeat *NO* evidence that anyone in the US (or British, or Australian, etc.) decision-making process had the slightest inkling of an idea about a Japanese carrier attack on Pearl Harbor on 12/7/41. If you don't believe me, start a thread in the coffee house and we can discuss it in detail.
It was in fact the result of excellent Japanese planning and execution, with a bit of luck and American incredulity.
My expectation is that in a few decades, when a lot that is currently classified is declassified, it will turn out to be similar; excellent AQ work combined with a confused and disordered American intelligence effort.
Chris

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by NosyNed, posted 07-12-2005 12:55 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by NosyNed, posted 07-12-2005 11:23 AM cmanteuf has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 10 of 17 (223375)
07-12-2005 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by cmanteuf
07-12-2005 11:11 AM


Lots of disbelief
Well, I don't believe the book either. But no one is giving me much evidence to refute it just a lot of incredulity.
I'm surprised I haven't been able to find any detailed sceptical discussion of it on the web yet. Has anyone found anything else?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by cmanteuf, posted 07-12-2005 11:11 AM cmanteuf has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by CK, posted 07-12-2005 11:29 AM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 13 by jar, posted 07-12-2005 11:33 AM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 14 by Brad, posted 07-12-2005 11:37 AM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 15 by cmanteuf, posted 07-12-2005 11:38 AM NosyNed has not replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 11 of 17 (223377)
07-12-2005 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by NosyNed
07-12-2005 11:23 AM


Re: Lots of disbelief
Ned could you reference a specific detail you would like us to investigate?
Something nice and narrow would help the old bloudhounds.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by NosyNed, posted 07-12-2005 11:23 AM NosyNed has not replied

cmanteuf
Member (Idle past 6765 days)
Posts: 92
From: Virginia, USA
Joined: 11-08-2004


Message 12 of 17 (223380)
07-12-2005 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by crashfrog
07-12-2005 7:57 AM


crashfrog writes:
You gotta wonder why, on 9/11, almost all of our defense assets were engaged in a wargame that, coincidentally, featured planes crashing into buildings. The obvious result of this is that, had anyone tried to call the FAA or NORAD or whoever and tried to tell them about the plot, the person on the other end would have assumed it was part of the wargame and "played along."
Could I have a source for this, CF? Because the 9/11 Commission Report contradicts you on this subject. (From Note 116 of Chapter 1, available at National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States)
"116. On 9/11, NORAD was scheduled to conduct a military exercise,Vigilant Guardian, which postulated a bomber attack from the former Soviet Union. We investigated whether military preparations for the large-scale exercise compromised the military's response to the real-world terrorist attack on 9/11. According to General Eberhart, 'it took about 30 seconds' to make the adjustment to the real-world situation. Ralph Eberhart testimony, June 17, 2004.We found that the response was, if anything, expedited by the increased number of staff at the sectors and at NORAD because of the scheduled exercise. See Robert Marr interview (Jan. 23, 2004)."
crashfrog writes:
You gotta wonder why so many top public officials stopped flying the public airways in the time before 9/11, even gong so far as to cancel September 11 travel plans days before the event.
I think Ted Olsen would like to disagree with you on this point.
crashfrog writes:
You gotta wonder why the "plane" that hit the Pentagon co-incidentally managed to wipe out the only section whose offices had been largely vacated due to planned renovations.
From Chapter 1 of the Report: National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
"At 9:34, Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport advised the Secret Service of an unknown aircraft heading in the direction of the White House. American 77 was then 5 miles west-southwest of the Pentagon and began a 330-degree turn. At the end of the turn, it was descending through 2,200 feet, pointed toward the Pentagon and downtown Washington. The hijacker pilot then advanced the throttles to maximum power and dove toward the Pentagon.60"
crashfrog writes:
Either the terrorists were really, really lucky, or else they had some help.
Or they had a good plan, executed it well, and caught the US by surprise. It has happened before and will happen again. The US is not all-powerful and just as subject to surprise attacks as anyone else.
This is probably not the appropriate thread for this discussion. Coffee House?
Chris

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by crashfrog, posted 07-12-2005 7:57 AM crashfrog has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 13 of 17 (223382)
07-12-2005 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by NosyNed
07-12-2005 11:23 AM


Re: Lots of disbelief
One thing I ran across recently (heard on TV IIRC) was a transcript of the actual communications between the air traffic controllers and the air force. In that there was the question asked by the military "Is this a drill". The response from ATC was "No, no drill".
But there is little need for any conspiricy theory IMHO. Afterall, the subject had been the primary plot line of a best selling novel just a few years earlier. In addition, there was the known attempt to fly a jumbojet into the Eiffle Tower.
There was certainly a failure in intellegence. The question is whether or not it was an avoidable failure. I imagine that any one of us can outline a hundred or so terrorist scenarios and many are quite likely to come true.
The issue of ubiquitous terrorism is a new paradigm, one that has significantly changed the status quo. So far no one really has worked out the method of dealing with it but IMHO the best model to follow will be based on criminal pursuit of organized crime rather on the military intervention model.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by NosyNed, posted 07-12-2005 11:23 AM NosyNed has not replied

Brad
Member (Idle past 4787 days)
Posts: 143
From: Portland OR, USA
Joined: 01-26-2004


Message 14 of 17 (223385)
07-12-2005 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by NosyNed
07-12-2005 11:23 AM


Re: Lots of disbelief
Hi Ned,
I have a friend who is in the airforce, and durring training they were thought that if they needed to disable, but not destroy weapons they could burn them with jet fuel. It would melt out the soft metal and leave the frame of the weapon relatively intact. The towers collapsing from burning jet fuel seems a bit suspicious. I'm not big on the whole conspiracy thing, but it seemed like almost an over-effort was made to show how the towers could fall right after 9/11. Does anyone else remember the constant bombardment of TV documentaries in the months that followed 9/11 that explained how the jet fuel would fall through the building warping and weakening the structural integrity of the towers until the fell? Anyway, my point is that due to his airforce training my friend has become rathe skeptical of jet fuel's ability to take down the towers.
Brad

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by NosyNed, posted 07-12-2005 11:23 AM NosyNed has not replied

cmanteuf
Member (Idle past 6765 days)
Posts: 92
From: Virginia, USA
Joined: 11-08-2004


Message 15 of 17 (223386)
07-12-2005 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by NosyNed
07-12-2005 11:23 AM


Re: Lots of disbelief
Error (404) - The University of Sydney
has a discussion (by a civil engineer at the University of Sydney, so proving that he is part of a US Government cover-up would be difficult) which explains the pictures of the collapse and discusses how the buildings went down.
Now, of course, the disadvantage to having such a source is he has no physical access to the evidence. But we do have people who had physical access to the evidence, and they mostly agree with the conclusions of the unbiased observer looking at the television pictures.
http://www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm
That is the structural issues of the design. The failure of the American intelligence aparatus, the success of the AQ operation, and the actions of the first-response units is discussed in excellent detail (parts of it are better reads than any Clancy book) at National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
You can buy the report; much easier reading that way. The paperback cost me like 7 bucks when it came out and I found it fascinating.
Chris
This message has been edited by cmanteuf, 07-12-2005 11:40 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by NosyNed, posted 07-12-2005 11:23 AM NosyNed has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024