I watched Keith Olbermann’s “Countdown” on MSNBC last night. He had a very informative review of the Bush administration’s inattention to terrorism prior to the 9/11 attacks. Video available here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/
The most chilling fact, IMHO: when Osama Bin Laden realized that the Bush administration wasn’t going to retaliate for the attack on the USS Cole, he vowed to try something bigger. Al Qaeda was attempting to goad the USA into a strategic trap.
Of course, Cliff’s link was to Olbermann’s report. In answer to the question, “Did Bush allow 9/11 to happen?” I’d have to say he didn’t know it was coming (even though terrorism experts on the National Security Council did).
He did let it happen, even though what ‘it’ was was kinda fuzzy, especially for one who didn’t want to face the reality. There’s also the element of ‘catastrophic success’ ie, the towers crumbling. Our wretched little president couldn’t get enough distance between himself and the enron debacle at the time, and here we are.
Love the blog! I think this is the real point of the Clinton outburst on Fox Sunday. The answer to your question is “yes” because ignorance is not an excuse- not in business, not in politics, not in national security. Should he have known? Yes. I was working in the news business when both the Cole and 9/11 happened. The Administration’s response was more like the fictional Democratic response Republicans fantasize about: do little to help the actual victims, create more bureaucracy and debt, blame the opposition then distort the reality to defend your record. I’m surprised Clinton didn’t slam Bush years ago. We sure could’ve used his reponse years ago.
My impression is that Bush came into office determined to do everything differently from Clinton, undo every program of the previous administration. Because the Clinton holdovers like Richard Clarke and Paul Kurtz wanted Al Qaeda to be a top national security priority, Bush’s people marginalized them while the National Security Council discussed how to start a war with Iraq and Bush pushed for missile defense.
Last night, Olbermann scored the first-ever interview with Kurtz and I thought his story rang true. The 9/11 Commission report already told us how the Bush administration ignored warnings from Clinton himself and members of the Clinton team, but now we’re hearing more about it from the people directly involved. I’m wouldn’t try to cite Bush’s ignorance as a defense of his appalling lack of leadership. After all, Bush presumably read the August 6, 2001 PDB and went fishing. The next day, he played golf.
Bush can say he didn’t know for whatever reason. It does not absolve him from guilt as all his public statements and his apologists have attempted to do. The ignoring of the warnings is documented. After this, it’s all propaganda. The American public has displayed an appalling lack of willingness to accept that Bush and his people made a huge mistake- and a series of them (Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel) to cover it up. When Bush admitted screwing up Hurricane Katrina, everybody said “Oh, that’s alright” and forgave him. If Clinton did that right off the bat with Lewinsky and Bush with 9/11, people and the news media would say “OK, we got what we wanted” and move on. But no- coverups, propaganda, stupid wars, out-0f-control budgets. A lot of work to cover up thinly-veiled lies. Only one lie was more significant than the other. That’s where the comparison ends.
Ken, next thing you know, you’re going to tell us that GW didn’t sleep through the hair-fire that proceeded 9-11. That he and his haven’t profited greatly from the aftermath of same. That we’re safer now that our economy is shot and the vast majority of the worlds citizens just love our government for its promotion of war and torture. I know it’s not a tinfoil hat you’re wearing, more like astro-turf! Whatever it’s make of, I assure you, the fit is a tad snug. We’re the wackos..yea, sure.
It’s not a matter of agreeing with anyone; a subtlety one should consider.
I do have a few questions though.
How DID WT7 come down at freefall speed?
Why won’t the gov’t release any of the 11 tapes of the plane flying into the Pentagon?
Why are there no pictures of the plane crash in Shanksville, and where are the bodies?
How DID the gov’t come up with the names of the 19 hijackers so quickly, and why were they so wrong?
(Don’t answer that, its classified) And if it were so easy to find out so quickly, why haven’t they found out who they REALLY were since 4 of the hijackers were found alive and well within weeks of 9/11, then another, and more.?
Here’s what you CAN accept Ken. There are a lot of unanswered questions. Too many. Many of the questions would be very easy to answer if the gov’t wanted to AND if they were telling the truth. So either the gov’t is not telling the truth, OR the gov’t is not telling the truth.
I don’t know what the “wackos†stories are, but I think you can agree the gov’t is hiding SOMETHING, and it isn’t that they knew 9/11 was going to happen, because we already know they knew it was going to happen.
The gov’t could easily destroy the “wackos†who don’t believe a plane hit the pentagon, by releasing a video of the plane hitting the Pentagon.
So Ken, why don’t you take a stab at telling us why you think the gov’t won’t completely destroy the conspiracy theories by showing us the video.
Cliff, I’m not saying that greater and grander conspiracies weren’t in play. The list of plausible possibilities is quite long. Hense many of the unanswered questions. I just became partial to the ‘catastrophic success’ senario because our own D. Rumsfield used it when refering to our ’success’ in Iraq. It’s just too good a concept not to apply to the’Al Quesadilla’ destruction of the WTC. So, whether anyone loaded the structures w/ explosives or whether WTC bldg7 just caught whatever was going around, ‘Catastrophic Success’, for the perps, seems to fit the bill.
In the spirit of brotherhood with Ken and the others who seem to be having a hard time recognizing lies and treachery, (it ain’t easy to admit that something in ‘our way’ is amiss), it should be recognized that regardless of our hat size or the materials of which it is constructed,.. we’re all in this together. Respect should be a two way street. As the slowly and testily begin to pull thier heads out, we should welcome them as we would any of the newly awakened. ‘Good mornin’. Want toast w/ that?’
I’m sorry, I just can’t buy the logic that because the Bush administration has milked 9/11 for every possible political advantage that means they wanted it to happen or even did something to help it happen.
With regard to the WTC 7 collapse, the National Institute of Standards and Safety (PDF) offered a very convincing explanation last year. The building suffered severe structural damage during the collapse of WTC 1. The fires in WTC 7 were fed by two 6,000 gallon diesel fuel tanks that supplied the fifth floor generators via a pressurized piping system.
All I’m saying is all this talk is just speculation. Whom ever is right, the outcome is the same. Bush and his unredeemable policies have plowed an every-deepening trough of deception and debt from which we will not be removed unless we get rid of them. That includes anyone in Congress or otherwise who supports and apologizes for him. The reversal will be tough to take for half the country and we should expect a backlash of domestic terrorism if/when it happens. We have met the enemy…
Richard, It needs to be pointed out that rejection of the logic, “because the Bush administration has milked 9/11 for every possible political advantage that means they wanted it to happen or even did something to help it happen,” is the equivalent of saying, “nobody could be that evil.” Hmmm.
Where are the airplane parts? Can you show me ANY other airplane crashes without airplane parts?
btw: You should know that NO reputable or independent engineer or group of engineers has accepted the NIST report. No peer review. It is considered a joke. Ask any structural engineer (that you can trust to be honest with you)
Clearly, you have not done “the work.” That doesn’t make you a bad person.
“To dismiss the possibility, in light of the evidence, without any self-initiated research — because the very act of “looking into it” is so self-effacing — speaks well for one’s character. It is forgivably admirable to insist that no matter how deplorable the behavior of our government might be, that the murder of our own citizens, on our own soil, for the purpose of galvanizing public acceptance of a war, is simply impossible. ”
“As you begin to think about it, this predictable initial denial is not for fear of being called paranoid, but rather because entertaining the possibility requires accepting something so horrific that the fact of it would imply a barbarity so egregious, that every American, to a person, regardless of political association, would have to accept a level of shame, humiliation, and responsibility that is unfathomable.”
It is with great shame that I admit I cannot afford (professionally) to risk taking the position of gov’t complicity.
But I think that it is interesting (speak of the devil) that an anonymous poll happening at MSNBC as I write this asking “Do you believe any of the conspiracy theories suggesting the U.S. government was somehow involved in 9/11? ” is showing 60% answered ” Yes. The government has left many questions unanswered about that day.” and 5.7% are “not sure.”
“Let me say, I’ve been where you are now. If you dare consider asking trusted friends, you will get the same response - confident but uninformed dismissal, otherwise uncharacteristic of reasoned, fair-minded, and educated people.”
Reading over the preceeding comments, I appreciate that some people think I am relatively ill-informed about the events of September 11, 2001. I don’t agree. But since the two sides of this debate seem to be operating from two separate sets of facts, there is no way to resolve the issue with any amount of discussion. For example, in the Flight 93 crash pictures I can clearly see identifiable parts of a commercial airplane. But for every fact I cite…
First, consider several key facts of the collapse of WTC 1 and 2. The report by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, FEMA, Department of Homeland Security only left more questions unanswered. First of all, the NIST admits that 1. WTC 1 and 2 were designed to withstand the impact of a fully loaded Boeing 707 commerial airliner that contains 23,000 tons of jet fuel. A jet fuel load that exceeded the one on the much smaller 757’s that struck WTC 1 and 2. In fact, FEMA/NIST admit that the towers did not collapse as a result of the impact and “would have remained standing indefinitely” if not for a second “loading event.”
The presumed “second loading event” that explains the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 was a conventional building fire caused by the ignition of jet fuel upon impact of the planes. The report again admits that a large portion of the jet fuel was, “consumed in the ensuing fireball” after impact. The report goes on to THEORIZE that the remaining jet fuel poured through the floors near the impact and ignited office furniture and supplies. The report actually claims that the burning office furniture/supplies reached a sufficient constant temperature to weaken the structural steel (buring sustained at a temp of over 1500 degrees) and cause collapse.
The steel was coated with fire/heat resistant material that gave it additional strength in fires. The towers had some 34 structural steel support columns in the center and hundreds of smaller support columns on the outer perimeter of the building.
How could a carbon fueled fire localized to only a few floors (5-8 stories) cause the total and near free fall collapse of the entire tower from top to bottom? The NIST report fails to explain this. In fact it cannot. Again FEMA / NIST offer THEORIES to explain the events according to the offical story. The 34 steel columns in the core of WTC 1 and 2 collapsed totally with the building hitting the ground simultaneously. How could all 34 beams get hot enough to fail and collapse from top to bottom with fires only burning on the upper floors?
The NIST claims that connector clips that held the floors to the core structural steel columns and the outer complex of steel supports heated sufficiently to weaken and fail at the upper floors near the fires. This caused the entire floor to collapse onto the next floor overloading the connectors on floors below causing a “pancake collapse.”
This explaination begs the question. If the connectors that held floors to the inner columns failed, why did the inner columns also fail and collapse. With the connectors failed the floors would simply disconnect from the inner columns and fail downward leaving the core columns at least partially standing.
Can the NIST explain these questions? No, they cannot. They are simply crafting THEORIES to support the Governments CONSPIRACY THEORY regarding the 9/11 attacks.
Unfortunately, the NIST also lacks the proper EVIDENCE for its analysis. The reason for this is that George W’s FEMA allowed all the structural steel and building components from WTC 1 and 2 sold to a Thai company for scrap metal within 2 weeks of the attacks. Therefore, Engineers and Scientests have been unable to fully examine the evidence? Hmmm?
Furthermore, no modern structural steel building (other than the WTC 1, 2 and 7) has EVER collapsed as a result of fires, even after some buildings burned for several days on end! Hmmm? The structural engineers must be really losing sleep over this one.
PS. Richard, was National Security Advisor, Condolezza Rice one of the “in the know” crowd? How about George Bush Sr. and Dick Cheney? Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz?
Were the attacks of 9/11/01 George W.’s Hindenburg?
As I mentioned above before we got on to the issue of physical evidence of what happened in the 9/11 attacks, I think some people in the government knew (as well as one can know about future events) a big domestic terrorist incident was coming. Principally, these people were Clinton administration holdovers like George Tenet and Richard Clarke. It was Tenet who told the 9/11 Commission “the system was blinking red” during the summer of 2001. I think Condoleezza Rice should have been concerned about this in her capacity as National Security Advisor. I don’t know if she was or if she ever made a serious attempt to get President Bush to focus on terrorism. Evidence indicates that Bush 43 doesn’t listen to Bush 41, so if there was any concern there it might have been for nought. Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz had other priorities prior to 9/11, notably energy policy and national missile defense.
This is one of those things that’s somehow sad and funny at the same time. Condi Rice doesn’t remember being warned of an impending terrorist attack in 2001. “What I am quite certain of is that I would remember if I was told, as this account apparently says, that there was about to be an attack in the United States, and the idea that I would somehow have ignored that I find incomprehensible,” Rice said. BTW, John Ashcroft says he never got a warning either.
Cliff Lyon
September 28th, 2006 at 8:16 am
I watched Keith Olbermann’s “Countdown” on MSNBC last night. He had a very informative review of the Bush administration’s inattention to terrorism prior to the 9/11 attacks. Video available here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/
The most chilling fact, IMHO: when Osama Bin Laden realized that the Bush administration wasn’t going to retaliate for the attack on the USS Cole, he vowed to try something bigger. Al Qaeda was attempting to goad the USA into a strategic trap.
September 28th, 2006 at 9:05 am
Of course, Cliff’s link was to Olbermann’s report. In answer to the question, “Did Bush allow 9/11 to happen?” I’d have to say he didn’t know it was coming (even though terrorism experts on the National Security Council did).
September 28th, 2006 at 11:00 am
He did let it happen, even though what ‘it’ was was kinda fuzzy, especially for one who didn’t want to face the reality. There’s also the element of ‘catastrophic success’ ie, the towers crumbling. Our wretched little president couldn’t get enough distance between himself and the enron debacle at the time, and here we are.
September 28th, 2006 at 11:02 am
Love the blog! I think this is the real point of the Clinton outburst on Fox Sunday. The answer to your question is “yes” because ignorance is not an excuse- not in business, not in politics, not in national security. Should he have known? Yes. I was working in the news business when both the Cole and 9/11 happened. The Administration’s response was more like the fictional Democratic response Republicans fantasize about: do little to help the actual victims, create more bureaucracy and debt, blame the opposition then distort the reality to defend your record. I’m surprised Clinton didn’t slam Bush years ago. We sure could’ve used his reponse years ago.
September 28th, 2006 at 11:08 am
Richard,
I having trouble wrapping my mind around your statement that while the intelligence community know 9/11 was going to happen, Bush didn’t.
Are you thinking Rumsfeld and Cheney et al insulated him from the warnings?
September 28th, 2006 at 11:56 am
My impression is that Bush came into office determined to do everything differently from Clinton, undo every program of the previous administration. Because the Clinton holdovers like Richard Clarke and Paul Kurtz wanted Al Qaeda to be a top national security priority, Bush’s people marginalized them while the National Security Council discussed how to start a war with Iraq and Bush pushed for missile defense.
Last night, Olbermann scored the first-ever interview with Kurtz and I thought his story rang true. The 9/11 Commission report already told us how the Bush administration ignored warnings from Clinton himself and members of the Clinton team, but now we’re hearing more about it from the people directly involved. I’m wouldn’t try to cite Bush’s ignorance as a defense of his appalling lack of leadership. After all, Bush presumably read the August 6, 2001 PDB and went fishing. The next day, he played golf.
September 28th, 2006 at 4:34 pm
Bush can say he didn’t know for whatever reason. It does not absolve him from guilt as all his public statements and his apologists have attempted to do. The ignoring of the warnings is documented. After this, it’s all propaganda. The American public has displayed an appalling lack of willingness to accept that Bush and his people made a huge mistake- and a series of them (Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel) to cover it up. When Bush admitted screwing up Hurricane Katrina, everybody said “Oh, that’s alright” and forgave him. If Clinton did that right off the bat with Lewinsky and Bush with 9/11, people and the news media would say “OK, we got what we wanted” and move on. But no- coverups, propaganda, stupid wars, out-0f-control budgets. A lot of work to cover up thinly-veiled lies. Only one lie was more significant than the other. That’s where the comparison ends.
September 28th, 2006 at 9:36 pm
Cliff
Next thing you know you are going to agree with the wackos that believe Bush planned and exucuted 9/11. So how do you look in your tin foil hat?
September 29th, 2006 at 8:00 am
Ken, next thing you know, you’re going to tell us that GW didn’t sleep through the hair-fire that proceeded 9-11. That he and his haven’t profited greatly from the aftermath of same. That we’re safer now that our economy is shot and the vast majority of the worlds citizens just love our government for its promotion of war and torture. I know it’s not a tinfoil hat you’re wearing, more like astro-turf! Whatever it’s make of, I assure you, the fit is a tad snug. We’re the wackos..yea, sure.
September 29th, 2006 at 1:11 pm
It’s not a matter of agreeing with anyone; a subtlety one should consider.
I do have a few questions though.
(Don’t answer that, its classified) And if it were so easy to find out so quickly, why haven’t they found out who they REALLY were since 4 of the hijackers were found alive and well within weeks of 9/11, then another, and more.?
Here’s what you CAN accept Ken. There are a lot of unanswered questions. Too many. Many of the questions would be very easy to answer if the gov’t wanted to AND if they were telling the truth. So either the gov’t is not telling the truth, OR the gov’t is not telling the truth.
I don’t know what the “wackos†stories are, but I think you can agree the gov’t is hiding SOMETHING, and it isn’t that they knew 9/11 was going to happen, because we already know they knew it was going to happen.
The gov’t could easily destroy the “wackos†who don’t believe a plane hit the pentagon, by releasing a video of the plane hitting the Pentagon.
So Ken, why don’t you take a stab at telling us why you think the gov’t won’t completely destroy the conspiracy theories by showing us the video.
September 29th, 2006 at 2:10 pm
Well, this subject has been written about extensively to say the least. The 9/11 Commission Report is the best single source. On the subject of the “zombie hijackers” you can refer to Wikipedia. Many Arabs have similar names, and the original BBC story was simply a case of mistaken identity.
There are many eyewitnesses who saw American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Penatgon, including former presidential candidate Gary Bauer.
September 29th, 2006 at 2:17 pm
Cliff, I’m not saying that greater and grander conspiracies weren’t in play. The list of plausible possibilities is quite long. Hense many of the unanswered questions. I just became partial to the ‘catastrophic success’ senario because our own D. Rumsfield used it when refering to our ’success’ in Iraq. It’s just too good a concept not to apply to the’Al Quesadilla’ destruction of the WTC. So, whether anyone loaded the structures w/ explosives or whether WTC bldg7 just caught whatever was going around, ‘Catastrophic Success’, for the perps, seems to fit the bill.
In the spirit of brotherhood with Ken and the others who seem to be having a hard time recognizing lies and treachery, (it ain’t easy to admit that something in ‘our way’ is amiss), it should be recognized that regardless of our hat size or the materials of which it is constructed,.. we’re all in this together. Respect should be a two way street. As the slowly and testily begin to pull thier heads out, we should welcome them as we would any of the newly awakened. ‘Good mornin’. Want toast w/ that?’
September 29th, 2006 at 2:53 pm
I’m sorry, I just can’t buy the logic that because the Bush administration has milked 9/11 for every possible political advantage that means they wanted it to happen or even did something to help it happen.
With regard to the WTC 7 collapse, the National Institute of Standards and Safety (PDF) offered a very convincing explanation last year. The building suffered severe structural damage during the collapse of WTC 1. The fires in WTC 7 were fed by two 6,000 gallon diesel fuel tanks that supplied the fifth floor generators via a pressurized piping system.
September 29th, 2006 at 3:10 pm
All I’m saying is all this talk is just speculation. Whom ever is right, the outcome is the same. Bush and his unredeemable policies have plowed an every-deepening trough of deception and debt from which we will not be removed unless we get rid of them. That includes anyone in Congress or otherwise who supports and apologizes for him. The reversal will be tough to take for half the country and we should expect a backlash of domestic terrorism if/when it happens. We have met the enemy…
September 29th, 2006 at 3:22 pm
One last link: Flight 93 Image Gallery.
September 29th, 2006 at 6:38 pm
Richard, It needs to be pointed out that rejection of the logic, “because the Bush administration has milked 9/11 for every possible political advantage that means they wanted it to happen or even did something to help it happen,” is the equivalent of saying, “nobody could be that evil.” Hmmm.
September 29th, 2006 at 6:51 pm
Richard,
Where are the airplane parts? Can you show me ANY other airplane crashes without airplane parts?
btw: You should know that NO reputable or independent engineer or group of engineers has accepted the NIST report. No peer review. It is considered a joke. Ask any structural engineer (that you can trust to be honest with you)
Clearly, you have not done “the work.” That doesn’t make you a bad person.
“To dismiss the possibility, in light of the evidence, without any self-initiated research — because the very act of “looking into it” is so self-effacing — speaks well for one’s character. It is forgivably admirable to insist that no matter how deplorable the behavior of our government might be, that the murder of our own citizens, on our own soil, for the purpose of galvanizing public acceptance of a war, is simply impossible. ”
“As you begin to think about it, this predictable initial denial is not for fear of being called paranoid, but rather because entertaining the possibility requires accepting something so horrific that the fact of it would imply a barbarity so egregious, that every American, to a person, regardless of political association, would have to accept a level of shame, humiliation, and responsibility that is unfathomable.”
September 29th, 2006 at 6:51 pm
It is with great shame that I admit I cannot afford (professionally) to risk taking the position of gov’t complicity.
But I think that it is interesting (speak of the devil) that an anonymous poll happening at MSNBC as I write this asking “Do you believe any of the conspiracy theories suggesting the U.S. government was somehow involved in 9/11? ” is showing 60% answered ” Yes. The government has left many questions unanswered about that day.” and 5.7% are “not sure.”
September 29th, 2006 at 7:43 pm
Richard,
“Let me say, I’ve been where you are now. If you dare consider asking trusted friends, you will get the same response - confident but uninformed dismissal, otherwise uncharacteristic of reasoned, fair-minded, and educated people.”
October 2nd, 2006 at 9:25 am
Reading over the preceeding comments, I appreciate that some people think I am relatively ill-informed about the events of September 11, 2001. I don’t agree. But since the two sides of this debate seem to be operating from two separate sets of facts, there is no way to resolve the issue with any amount of discussion. For example, in the Flight 93 crash pictures I can clearly see identifiable parts of a commercial airplane. But for every fact I cite…
October 2nd, 2006 at 10:09 am
Richard, Cliff, Lynette et al.
First, consider several key facts of the collapse of WTC 1 and 2. The report by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, FEMA, Department of Homeland Security only left more questions unanswered. First of all, the NIST admits that 1. WTC 1 and 2 were designed to withstand the impact of a fully loaded Boeing 707 commerial airliner that contains 23,000 tons of jet fuel. A jet fuel load that exceeded the one on the much smaller 757’s that struck WTC 1 and 2. In fact, FEMA/NIST admit that the towers did not collapse as a result of the impact and “would have remained standing indefinitely” if not for a second “loading event.”
The presumed “second loading event” that explains the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 was a conventional building fire caused by the ignition of jet fuel upon impact of the planes. The report again admits that a large portion of the jet fuel was, “consumed in the ensuing fireball” after impact. The report goes on to THEORIZE that the remaining jet fuel poured through the floors near the impact and ignited office furniture and supplies. The report actually claims that the burning office furniture/supplies reached a sufficient constant temperature to weaken the structural steel (buring sustained at a temp of over 1500 degrees) and cause collapse.
The steel was coated with fire/heat resistant material that gave it additional strength in fires. The towers had some 34 structural steel support columns in the center and hundreds of smaller support columns on the outer perimeter of the building.
How could a carbon fueled fire localized to only a few floors (5-8 stories) cause the total and near free fall collapse of the entire tower from top to bottom? The NIST report fails to explain this. In fact it cannot. Again FEMA / NIST offer THEORIES to explain the events according to the offical story. The 34 steel columns in the core of WTC 1 and 2 collapsed totally with the building hitting the ground simultaneously. How could all 34 beams get hot enough to fail and collapse from top to bottom with fires only burning on the upper floors?
The NIST claims that connector clips that held the floors to the core structural steel columns and the outer complex of steel supports heated sufficiently to weaken and fail at the upper floors near the fires. This caused the entire floor to collapse onto the next floor overloading the connectors on floors below causing a “pancake collapse.”
This explaination begs the question. If the connectors that held floors to the inner columns failed, why did the inner columns also fail and collapse. With the connectors failed the floors would simply disconnect from the inner columns and fail downward leaving the core columns at least partially standing.
Can the NIST explain these questions? No, they cannot. They are simply crafting THEORIES to support the Governments CONSPIRACY THEORY regarding the 9/11 attacks.
Unfortunately, the NIST also lacks the proper EVIDENCE for its analysis. The reason for this is that George W’s FEMA allowed all the structural steel and building components from WTC 1 and 2 sold to a Thai company for scrap metal within 2 weeks of the attacks. Therefore, Engineers and Scientests have been unable to fully examine the evidence? Hmmm?
Furthermore, no modern structural steel building (other than the WTC 1, 2 and 7) has EVER collapsed as a result of fires, even after some buildings burned for several days on end! Hmmm? The structural engineers must be really losing sleep over this one.
PS. Richard, was National Security Advisor, Condolezza Rice one of the “in the know” crowd? How about George Bush Sr. and Dick Cheney? Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz?
Were the attacks of 9/11/01 George W.’s Hindenburg?
October 2nd, 2006 at 11:52 am
As I mentioned above before we got on to the issue of physical evidence of what happened in the 9/11 attacks, I think some people in the government knew (as well as one can know about future events) a big domestic terrorist incident was coming. Principally, these people were Clinton administration holdovers like George Tenet and Richard Clarke. It was Tenet who told the 9/11 Commission “the system was blinking red” during the summer of 2001. I think Condoleezza Rice should have been concerned about this in her capacity as National Security Advisor. I don’t know if she was or if she ever made a serious attempt to get President Bush to focus on terrorism. Evidence indicates that Bush 43 doesn’t listen to Bush 41, so if there was any concern there it might have been for nought. Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz had other priorities prior to 9/11, notably energy policy and national missile defense.
October 2nd, 2006 at 12:44 pm
This is one of those things that’s somehow sad and funny at the same time. Condi Rice doesn’t remember being warned of an impending terrorist attack in 2001. “What I am quite certain of is that I would remember if I was told, as this account apparently says, that there was about to be an attack in the United States, and the idea that I would somehow have ignored that I find incomprehensible,” Rice said. BTW, John Ashcroft says he never got a warning either.