• Please keep all posts on the Rittenhouse verdict here: Rittenhouse Verdict. Note the moderator warnings in the thread. The thread will be heavily moderated with a zero tolerance policy for any baiting, flaming, trolling or other rule breaks. Stick to the topic and not the other posters. Thank you.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Items of interest: 9/11

Jango

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2012
Messages
5,587
Reaction score
2,291
Location
Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Please keep the building talk, no-planes, nukes, energy weapons, fake victims and hoax talk out of this thread. It is disinformation and misinformation, and will not be appreciated. So do everybody everywhere a favor and NOT post that refuse here. Thank you.

What this thread is intended for is a discussion and link depositary for open credible sources regarding all things pertaining to, or are relevant to 9/11 before or after the day that irrevocably changed America and the world.

Now, for the first link: BBC NEWS | Americas | Bush says he had no 9/11 warning

From the article, President George W. Bush is quoted as saying, "I am satisfied that I never saw any intelligence that indicated there was going to be an attack on America - at a time and a place, an attack."

The 08/06/01 Presidential Daily Brief, titled, "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the United States" (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB116/pdb8-6-2001.pdf) certainly shows that President Bush had indeed been briefed about an attack occurring within the U.S. Though, the brief does not give specific time/date information, we nonetheless see that President Bush lied.

It is worth mentioning that al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden made it into the Presidential Daily Brief over forty times before 9/11 during just the Bush administration.

Lest I forget the PDB during the Clinton administration: https://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/pdb120498.pdf
 

Unrein

Active member
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
448
Reaction score
66
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
And if I remember accurately, while it didn't strictly report a specific date or time, the possibility of a plane hijacking and suicide diving into a building, among them the WTC being specifically mentioned, was in the briefings he had prior to 9/11. That in conjunction with the NORAD fiasco, just screams suspect. I don't have any reason to believe the government actively committed the acts, they didn't need to, but all reason points to concluding that Bush deliberately chose not to prevent it as to create a pretense to starting wars, almost as though Iraq was the plan from the very beginning, using Afghanistan as the stepping stone.
 

Thoreau72

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
29,638
Reaction score
7,637
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
So...if the point of the thread is to demonstrate that Dubya was the Prevaricator In Chief, I already knew that! :cool:
 

Menard_K

Banned
Joined
Jun 7, 2013
Messages
2,476
Reaction score
233
Location
L5
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
My standard food for thought question:

WHY did the worlds greatest military power FAIL to defend even its own HQ?
& on 9/12 Donald Rumsfeld still had a JOB (?) whats up with that ?!?!?!?!?!?!

or?
 

Thoreau72

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
29,638
Reaction score
7,637
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
My standard food for thought question:

WHY did the worlds greatest military power FAIL to defend even its own HQ?
& on 9/12 Donald Rumsfeld still had a JOB (?) whats up with that ?!?!?!?!?!?!

or?

The part of the Pentagon that was struck happened to contain the auditors working for congress trying to find some missing funds that congress was investigating. Cynthia McKinney, then congresscritter, was head of a committee that was investigating the missing funds. Just the day before she had deposed Rumsfeld and an assistant regarding those funds.

Destruction of evidence was the main goal, and of course theatrics.
 

mike2810

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
28,632
Reaction score
11,986
Location
arizona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The part of the Pentagon that was struck happened to contain the auditors working for congress trying to find some missing funds that congress was investigating. Cynthia McKinney, then congresscritter, was head of a committee that was investigating the missing funds. Just the day before she had deposed Rumsfeld and an assistant regarding those funds.

Destruction of evidence was the main goal, and of course theatrics.

you know the "missing funds" was from decades of bad accounting? The reported amount far acceeded the Pentagon budget for a given year.

"In fiscal 1999, a defense audit found that about $2.3 trillion of balances, transactions and adjustments were inadequately documented. These "unsupported" transactions do not mean the department ultimately cannot account for them, she advised, but that tracking down needed documents would take a long time. Auditors, she said, might have to go to different computer systems, to different locations or access different databases to get information.
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=44199

There were numerious reports of the accounting problems months before 911.

That in itself does not excuse bad management of funds. It does show that it happened way before Bush.

"Now plainly the US Government saying this doesn't make it true, and we don't know what the real or current situation is. But equally, it's clear that the efforts to tie this in to 9/11 have major shortcomings. There's no clear reason given why the Bush adminstration would need to go to such efforts to conceal the problem, for instance. They didn't, either, and it was covered on several occasions before 9/11, so the fact that Rumsfeld mentioned the $2.3 trillion again on 9/10 seems to have no special importance. While the Pentagon attack did have an effect on the production of some DoD financial statements, it's not clear how significant this was, and another report suggests the DoD is reducing the “missing” amounts by taking steps to improve its accounting procedures. It's hard to see how any of this constitutes foreknowledge, or a motive for the 9/11 attacks.

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Missing_Trillions
 
Last edited:

Thoreau72

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
29,638
Reaction score
7,637
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I agree Mike, and have always said that--the funds missing and the congressional investigation began BEFORE Bush took office. Congress is always slow to act, and so it was with the investigation of the missing funds.

But that does not mean that insiders like Dov Zakheim were not aware of it. They were aware of it, and the smirk on Rummy's face in front of the news cameras on 10 September tells it all. He knew that less than 24 hours later the subject would become academic.
 

mike2810

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
28,632
Reaction score
11,986
Location
arizona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I agree Mike, and have always said that--the funds missing and the congressional investigation began BEFORE Bush took office. Congress is always slow to act, and so it was with the investigation of the missing funds.

But that does not mean that insiders like Dov Zakheim were not aware of it. They were aware of it, and the smirk on Rummy's face in front of the news cameras on 10 September tells it all. He knew that less than 24 hours later the subject would become academic.

[bold], that is what needs to be proven.
 

mike2810

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
28,632
Reaction score
11,986
Location
arizona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Some of us are more perceptive than others when it comes to reading body language. :cool:

true, but that does not make the situation you posted as true.:lol:
I do find your generic combacks entertaining and interesting.
 

505

Mildly Hostile
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2006
Messages
2,384
Reaction score
1,212
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The part of the Pentagon that was struck happened to contain the auditors working for congress trying to find some missing funds that congress was investigating.

Prove it.
 

Thoreau72

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
29,638
Reaction score
7,637
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Prove it.

Why don't YOU take a shot at proving that United 77 hit the building?

Again, I'll be OK because I won't be holding my breath. :lamo
 

505

Mildly Hostile
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2006
Messages
2,384
Reaction score
1,212
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Why don't YOU take a shot at proving that United 77 hit the building?

Again, I'll be OK because I won't be holding my breath. :lamo

I asked you first bub. Can you support your stupid claims or not?
 

Thoreau72

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
29,638
Reaction score
7,637
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I asked you first bub. Can you support your stupid claims or not?

Well Bub, I can't see a Boeing anywhere in those pictures. Plus, analysis in the last few years by Dennis Cimino of the FDR provided by the government shows the FDR in question to be a hoax. Plus, the cellphone calls by Mrs. Olsen and others from that airplane were impossible.

So Bub, no pictures, no FDR, and impossible phone calls.

So Bub, YOU claim there was a Boeing there. I can't see anything resembling a Boeing at that site. If YOU assert there was a Boeing, it is incumbent upon YOU to support your claim.

Who knows, maybe you're right? I can't see it. Please show it to me.

This is an adult discussion we're having, isn't it? You claim a 757 was there, I don't. Prove your claim.
 

505

Mildly Hostile
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2006
Messages
2,384
Reaction score
1,212
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Well Bub, I can't see a Boeing anywhere in those pictures. Plus, analysis in the last few years by Dennis Cimino of the FDR provided by the government shows the FDR in question to be a hoax. Plus, the cellphone calls by Mrs. Olsen and others from that airplane were impossible.

So Bub, no pictures, no FDR, and impossible phone calls.

So Bub, YOU claim there was a Boeing there. I can't see anything resembling a Boeing at that site. If YOU assert there was a Boeing, it is incumbent upon YOU to support your claim.

Who knows, maybe you're right? I can't see it. Please show it to me.

This is an adult discussion we're having, isn't it? You claim a 757 was there, I don't. Prove your claim.

WTF are you talking about? This was your statement that I asked you to prove:

"The part of the Pentagon that was struck happened to contain the auditors working for congress trying to find some missing funds that congress was investigating."

If we are having "an adult conversation", how about you actually ****ing READ instead of just spewing off about there being no plane.

So, can you prove your stupid claim that there were auditors from Congress in that part of the building or not?
 

Thoreau72

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
29,638
Reaction score
7,637
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
WTF are you talking about? This was your statement that I asked you to prove:

"The part of the Pentagon that was struck happened to contain the auditors working for congress trying to find some missing funds that congress was investigating."

If we are having "an adult conversation", how about you actually ****ing READ instead of just spewing off about there being no plane.

So, can you prove your stupid claim that there were auditors from Congress in that part of the building or not?

That is old news indeed 505. Years old. The Office of Naval Investigations was hit, and adjacent areas which held the congressional auditors. Rumsfeld was deposed by Cynthia McKinney about this audit the day before--September 10. That was on CSPAN, and I have seen it.

I have no obligation to educate you or any other poster. If you are grossly ignorant of historical events, that is a personal problem.

Come back when you can engage in rational dialogue. In the meantime, I hope you will inform yourself about what really happened, and what did not really happen.
 

505

Mildly Hostile
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2006
Messages
2,384
Reaction score
1,212
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
That is old news indeed 505. Years old. The Office of Naval Investigations was hit, and adjacent areas which held the congressional auditors. Rumsfeld was deposed by Cynthia McKinney about this audit the day before--September 10. That was on CSPAN, and I have seen it.

I have no obligation to educate you or any other poster. If you are grossly ignorant of historical events, that is a personal problem.

Come back when you can engage in rational dialogue. In the meantime, I hope you will inform yourself about what really happened, and what did not really happen.

Absolute, 100% bull****. You don't want to educate anyone, fine... I don't either. But if you can't back something like that up with anything other than your word, you lose this round big time. Fantasy like that will keep fools like you constantly dismissing true FACTS and true EVIDENCE about this entire thing, because you feel there was something there that wasn't.

:lamo :lamo :lamo :lamo :lamo
 

505

Mildly Hostile
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2006
Messages
2,384
Reaction score
1,212
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
"Oh I heard it on CSPAN one time."

No wonder you chumps can't get a clue. You refuse to actually question your sources and find out if **** is really true or not.
 

Menard_K

Banned
Joined
Jun 7, 2013
Messages
2,476
Reaction score
233
Location
L5
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
"Oh I heard it on CSPAN one time."

No wonder you chumps can't get a clue. You refuse to actually question your sources and find out if **** is really true or not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Px1t1-a9uxk

Pick it up at about 1 min into the video and then listen to the question(s)
and observer carefully Donald Rumsfeld's "answer"

Also Please think about this,

WHY did the worlds greatest military power FAIL to defend even its own HQ,
and on 9/12 Donald Rumsfeld still had a JOB?
whats up with that?
 

Thoreau72

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
29,638
Reaction score
7,637
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
"Oh I heard it on CSPAN one time."

No wonder you chumps can't get a clue. You refuse to actually question your sources and find out if **** is really true or not.

Chumps? Coming from a guy who believes the known liars Dubya, Dick and Donald? Oh my, that's rich!!:lamo
 

Jango

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2012
Messages
5,587
Reaction score
2,291
Location
Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/the-bush-white-house-was-deaf-to-9-11-warnings.html

Many Americans think that the 08/06/01 is the be all, end all Presidential Daily Brief, but they would be wrong.

On 05/24/01 the C.I.A. issued a report: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/368975-2001-05-24-title-excised-a-group-presently-in.html - It mentions that there was a group presently inside the U.S. and that they were going to conduct an attack with high-explosives, among other things. President Clinton had known that al Qaeda had infiltrated the U.S. before he left office. He has said that he warned President Bush about the dangers of bin Laden and his group during the traditional meeting and briefing an incoming President gets from the outgoing President.

On 06/29/01, the PDB was titled "The U.S. is not the target of a disinformation campaign by Usama Bin Laden." That was drawn up because neoconservatives in power at the time allegedly thought Saddam was more of a threat, and that all of the threats emanating from bin Laden and al Qaeda were exaggerated as well a decoy to distract from Saddam. This was the C.I.A.s way of sending a clear message that the threats the U.S. was fielding were genuine and that the decision makers were wrong in their "analysis". Nevertheless, not a single thing was done by decision makers.
 

Menard_K

Banned
Joined
Jun 7, 2013
Messages
2,476
Reaction score
233
Location
L5
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
RE: warnings ....

Please note that the PENTAGON has REAL GOOD RADAR coverage of the area around it for hundreds of miles, note also that upon the second hit to the WTC, it was a given that we were under attack, and there was more than half an hour between the second hit to the WTC and the hit to the PENTAGON. If I could ask Donald Rumsfeld one question, it would be WHAT ( if anything ) was done during that more than half an hour, to defend this nations capital?
Radar would have shown "FLT77" on a course toward the capital & with no transponder signal, it may as well have been a RUSSIAN bomber. WHY no air-defense response?
 

OldWorldOrder

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 14, 2012
Messages
5,820
Reaction score
1,438
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Please keep the building talk, no-planes, nukes, energy weapons, fake victims and hoax talk out of this thread. It is disinformation and misinformation, and will not be appreciated. So do everybody everywhere a favor and NOT post that refuse here. Thank you.

What this thread is intended for is a discussion and link depositary for open credible sources regarding all things pertaining to, or are relevant to 9/11 before or after the day that irrevocably changed America and the world.

Now, for the first link: BBC NEWS | Americas | Bush says he had no 9/11 warning

From the article, President George W. Bush is quoted as saying, "I am satisfied that I never saw any intelligence that indicated there was going to be an attack on America - at a time and a place, an attack."

The 08/06/01 Presidential Daily Brief, titled, "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the United States" (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB116/pdb8-6-2001.pdf) certainly shows that President Bush had indeed been briefed about an attack occurring within the U.S. Though, the brief does not give specific time/date information, we nonetheless see that President Bush lied.

It is worth mentioning that al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden made it into the Presidential Daily Brief over forty times before 9/11 during just the Bush administration.

Lest I forget the PDB during the Clinton administration: https://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/pdb120498.pdf

It's pretty clear to me that Bush is saying that he never got the specifics about an attack, like saying specifically a time and place. He got many briefs about random attacks with no time or place, of course, I'd imagine a dozen or so a year but I'm not sure what actually gets up to this level. I know normal Army/intel units will get several dozen a quarter. I'd hope they don't all get sent to the President, cause most are bull****, but I guess you never know.

So that OP is kind of a sementic mix up. The rest of the thread is downright crazy, though.
 

Jango

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2012
Messages
5,587
Reaction score
2,291
Location
Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left

Thoreau72

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
29,638
Reaction score
7,637
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Sementic mixup? Do you mean cement was involved OWO?

Or do you mean semantics? :doh
 
Top Bottom