Former Senior CIA Official's Thoughts on 911 - page 4

You should know that this man, Bill Christison was, prior to his retirement, a Senior Officer of the CIA, a National Intelligence Officer, and the Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and... Read More

  1. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from spacenurse
    One of the articles said it was to cover up bungling, not me. I do think it is a likely reason.
    Also the obvious that perhaps the knowledge of the drill caused the confusion. They kept asking, "It this a drill?"

    Again, I'm not supporting any theory except that we have not been told the truth.
    The President claimed no one could imagine a plane flying into the world trade center.
    But the whistleblowers were fired.

    "I don't think anybody could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile," said national security adviser Condoleeza Rice on May 16, 2002.

    "How is it possible we have a national security advisor coming out and saying we had no idea they could use planes as weapons when we had FBI records from 1991 stating that this is a possibility," said Kristen Breitweiser, one of four New Jersey widows who lobbied Congress and the president to appoint the commission.
    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in589137.shtml
    Your point about the pilots asking if it is a drill is without merit. YOU seem to think that it is referring to a specific and localized drill that they were almost certainly unaware of - since it didn't involve them.

    I'm telling you, as an former member of the military, that we did SO many drills, that if I was given orders to do ANYTHING for real, my first impulse would be to ask, "This isn't a drill, right?" In fact, the military fully understands this by assigning 'confidence' levels to its tasking.

    When the last 100 times you 'intercepted' something, it was a drill, and the radio tells you to go intercept an American airliner, seriously, what would your first question be to clarify your mission? I'll tell you, "Is this for real?"

    Regarding the comments about Pres. Bush and SS Rice and not anticipating this line of attack. You are monday morning QBing. The idea was certainly around, Tom Clancy used it in his book, "Debt of Honor" in 1994.

    But seriously, nobody thought this was a credible threat. To say that Condi is LYING because 1 out of MILLIONS of documents in the Federal database suggests that it was thought about at some point, is a unique point of view.

    Quick, what was your account balance 3 yrs, 2 months, and 15 days ago? Tell me right this second or you're a dirty liar. That's the same rationale as this claim that the Administration is lying because it made comments to the effect: the scale and MO of 9/11 caught us off guard.

    I don't know about you, but it danged sure caught ME off guard.

    Look, could Pres. Clinton have dealt w/ OBL in '98-'99? Yes. Could Bush have done it between Jan and Sept? Yes, I think so. But it's a matter of priorities. It's EASY to say NOW that that should have been a top priority.

    And in light of the attacks leading up to 9/11, I think it's a no-brainer. I wrote a political commentary after the bombing of the USS Cole where I directly stated that either Pres. Clinton, or the next Pres. would have to deal with these people.

    It SHOULD have been a higher priority. For BOTH Administrations.

    But, it wasn't. Does that mean that President Bush 'allowed' 9/11 to happen? That's just such a disgusting conclusion. Again, your 'proof' is inuendo.

    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, not merely wild speculation.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Aug 18, '06
  2. by   pickledpepperRN
    A nurse imagined it why not those whose job it was? Who didn't remember a memo read to him. Or who had to read out loud on CSPAN proof that they were warned?

    Dishonesty Tears the Fabric of Society
    http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/...06/0816-28.htm
  3. by   pickledpepperRN
    As Will Rogers said, "It's no disgrace not to be able to run a country nowadays, but it is a disgrace to keep on trying when you know you can't."

    http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/...07,print.story
  4. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from spacenurse
    A nurse imagined it why not those whose job it was? Who didn't remember a memo read to him. Or who had to read out loud on CSPAN proof that they were warned?

    Dishonesty Tears the Fabric of Society
    http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/...06/0816-28.htm
    From your link.

    " If we believe that in most areas the truth exists in some discernible form, then we must demand it, first from ourselves and then from those we depend on to help us construct a map that will lead us out of the thicket of lies in which we find ourselves."

    And this is all I ask related to this thread. The truth exists, and it exists in a discernible form.

    And I am demanding the truth.

    It is these conspiracies that are the 'thicket of lies'. Otherwise, offer up some proof and not just a general questioning of the motives of a President you don't like.

    It is that general questioning that leads to these baseless accusations. Certainly, the 'discernible truth' doesn't lend to support them.

    You link is on point. Well taken. And I also agree, and said EXACTLY as much earlier in this thread: such lies tear at the fabric of our society.

    EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS REQUIRE EXTRAORDINARY PROOF.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
  5. by   mystcnurse
    i don't know about the second one... but the popular mechanics article, i have read, and what you may or may not know is that the senior researcher for the information claimed in this article was none other than benjamin chertoff... name sound familiar? he is the cousin (although that information was only realized when his unsuspected mommy told on him) of michael chertoff. cronyism, historically, has been used by fascist regimes to keep their dirty nasty little secrets secret. furthermore, the article doesn't debunk any of the most important questions, doesn't even touch on them, and if you read the articles below you can find more information about this. all the conspiracy "theorists" want, is to sit at the table and get these questions answered. instead, the bush administration puts out horrible videos of a supposed plane crashing into the pentagon, (supposedly the only two available, at probably the most securely surveyed building in the world, yeah, right). frankly, i think we should all, as americans be extremely insulted that our government would think it was that easy to pull the wool over our eyes. the sites below may shed more light.

    http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_me..._mechanics.htm

    http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...rmechanics.htm

    all truth is first, ridiculed, then violently oppoesed and finally accepted as evident.

    i didn't want to believe it either... but having spent many, many hours researching both sides... i have found that the questions will not be answered. the motivations and the methods are incredible... like layers of an onion... and involve money and power beyond anything imaginable.

    those who give away their freedom for their security, deserve neither.

    mn


    Quote from logan
    hi,

    i'm all for voices and opinions.

    i don't believe in silencing the most "bizzare" of the theorists. in fact, i am against "hate speech" laws and i encourage the public debate with holocaust deniers - so that their ridiculous theories can be shows for the frauds that they are.

    in similar vein, i think these 9/11 conspiracists should be debated and their theories exposed to public light, with evidence disproving them. the republic of india has a motto borrowed from an ancient hindu text. it says "satyameva jayate" --- translates to "truth alone triumphs".

    that said, i think these 9/11 'conspiracy theories' are bunkum.

    here's something i can put forth as "counter argument" , just right off the top of my head:

    9/11 conspiracits claim that the us government, for whatever ends, killed nearly 3,000 innocent americans. if the government has no problem killing 3,000 innocent people, this raises the question: if the government has no ethical qualms about killing thousands of its own people, then why wouldn't the government kill the conspiracy theorists as well? what's a few more lives to them to ensure the success of this conspiracy?

    i'm no friend of the government. infact, i'm not very fond of any government.

    but bunkum conspiracy theories must stop.

    here are a couple of good websites :

    http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...e/1227842.html
    http://www.ccdominoes.com/lc/loosechangeguide.html

    thanks,
    matthew
  6. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from spacenurse
    As Will Rogers said, "It's no disgrace not to be able to run a country nowadays, but it is a disgrace to keep on trying when you know you can't."

    http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/...07,print.story
    From your link:

    "The November election will teach Dick Cheney and others of his ilk that they cannot use fear to cling to power. As Will Rogers said, "It's no disgrace not to be able to run a country nowadays, but it is a disgrace to keep on trying when you know you can't."


    I will say this: VP Cheney's comments were out of bounds.

    But, so is Edward Kennedy chastising about trying to govern when he knows he can't . . . Talk about the kettle. . .

    But, I think w/ the Courts legislating liberal and willful ignorance of monitoring terrorists, 'Dick Cheney and others of his ilk' will find that a rational national security policy WILL allow them to cling to power in Nov.

    The House doesn't change hands by castigating the other side. It changes hands, as in 1994, by offering a better agenda. Calling those that agree with VP Cheney 'his ilk' is not the type of governing that runs a country nowadays. And I suspect that Kennedy knows, or should know, that.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
  7. by   pickledpepperRN
    I finally learned from Fred Rogers show for little kids that, "The very same people who are good sometimes; are the very same people who are bad sometimes."

    It's the same, isn't it, for Vice President Cheney and Senator Kennedy?
    I truly respect your honesty in saying, "VP Cheney's comments were out of bounds."
  8. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from mystcnurse
    I don't know about the second one... but the popular mechanics article, I have read, and what you may or may not know is that the senior researcher for the information claimed in this article was none other than Benjamin Chertoff... name sound familiar? He is the cousin (although that information was only realized when his unsuspected mommy told on him) of Michael Chertoff. Cronyism, historically, has been used by fascist regimes to keep their dirty nasty little secrets secret.
    Oops, you just lost this debate.

    You've violated Godwin's law: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

    once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress."


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law

    See, while it might be convenient for YOU to dismiss the PM article as 'cronyism', you might look at internet page 9 of the article. That page links the myriad independent experts (more than 300 in all) that added to the article.

    You might also read the article and see how many times the authors of comments and reports taken out of context to achieve 'conspiratorial' status are not only appalled, but outright refute the conspiratists for their blatent lies by misrepresentation.

    EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS REQUIRE EXTRAORDINARY PROOF. Where is such proof? Don't show me just some whack: SEE! This is a smoking gun!!!!! No, show me the ballistics and fingerprint matches. Otherwise, it is the conspiratists that don't have the facts on their side.

    (btw, you might as well say that everything that Chris Wallace says on Fox News Sunday is just liberal spin because his FATHER is Michael Wallace. But, I doubt you'd go THAT far.)

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Aug 18, '06
  9. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from spacenurse
    I finally learned from Fred Rogers show for little kids that, "The very same people who are good sometimes; are the very same people who are bad sometimes."

    It's the same, isn't it, for Vice President Cheney and Senator Kennedy?
    I truly respect your honesty in saying, "VP Cheney's comments were out of bounds."
    All politicians get caught up in 'irrational exuberance' from time to time. All of them.

    My POINT on this thread is that real and honest debate doesn't and shouldn't devolve into needless hyperbole and finger-pointing.

    If you have to call people names to make your point, instead of using rational and principled logic to win the day, then, you've already lost.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
  10. by   ZASHAGALKA
    By the way, the PM article was based on a book by PM on the topic, and that book was edited by David Dunbar and Brad Reagan.

    Just because the AFP's claims are linked verbatim on hundreds of conspiracy sites do NOT make the claims that a composite piece edited by Dunbar and Reagan are the principle work of a 'crony'.

    I also find it ironically cute that AFP's claims are directly lifted from Coast to Coast radio. I especially like the claim that Benjamin Chertoff is also connected, via his mother, to the Mossad. I can see why the bloggers hid behind AFP's logo instead of quoting the true source for this: Coast to Coast AM.

    I wonder if he's allergic to crosses and garlic, as well?

    (btw, Benjamin Chertoff denies that he is of close enough relationship to Michael Chertoff to even be aware of it or to have contact WITH Michael Chertoff. "Benjamin Chertoff said that because of the AFP discovery, he had contacted his father, Larry Chertoff, to discuss his relationship to Michael Chertoff. He told Bell, however, and his listening audience, that he still didn't know how he is related to Secretary Chertoff and suggested that the relationship is that of a "distant cousin" and goes back to family ties from Byelorussia.")

    Bottom line: 300 experts and groups consulted to present the truth in a clear light can't all be 'cronies'.

    Especially since many of these experts are the very experts being cited by the conspiratists. They contributed to show how THEIR work was purposely misrepresented.

    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, not baseless inuendo.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Aug 18, '06
  11. by   indigo girl
    Quote from ZASHAGALKA
    Oops, you just lost this debate.

    You've violated Godwin's law: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

    once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress."


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law
    Excuse me but, the N word as in Nazi was never mentioned. There are other fascist regimes and other dictators. How many times do we need to hear this same tired quote from wikipedia? It wasn't even apppropriate. Much as I like them for oodles of information, Wikipedia is not impartial about the information they provide either. When you start hearing the word, "supposedly" as they provide information, you have to wonder.
    Last edit by Roy Fokker on Aug 18, '06
  12. by   indigo girl
    Quote from ZASHAGALKA
    All politicians get caught up in 'irrational exuberance' from time to time. All of them.

    My POINT on this thread is that real and honest debate doesn't and shouldn't devolve into needless hyperbole and finger-pointing.

    If you have to call people names to make your point, instead of using rational and principled logic to win the day, then, you've already lost.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Does calling Bill Critison, "Neville Chamberlain" fall into that category? He is not even running for political office.
  13. by   indigo girl
    When a family member of someone who died on 9/11 speaks before that commssion and asks these questions, is it political? Come on!! Not everyone in the world is interested in politics.

    Some of their questions were answered. Many remain unanswered.

    http://www.oilempire.us/911families.html#kleinberg
    Last edit by indigo girl on Aug 18, '06

close