If you were under 15 on 9/11 click here

[Q24]

Ignoring warnings is nothing new...

The CIA bin Laden unit did not ignore the FBI warning... they positively fought against it.

[skyeagle409]

The CIA bin Laden unit did not ignore the FBI warning... they positively fought against it.

The FBI ignored warnings from its own agent and other warnings were ignored as well. The FAA ignored warnings that terrorist were planning to hijack aircraft and fly them into buildings but the FAA didn't think the terrorist could have pulled it off. The FAA also ignored warnings.

FAA ignored warnings from own expert before 9/11

From 1995 to 2001, Bogdan Dzakovic served as a team leader on the Federal Aviation Administration's Red Team. Set up by Congress to help the FAA think like terrorists, the elite squad tested airport security systems.

In the years leading up to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Dzakovic says, the team was able to breach security about 90% of the time, sneaking bombs and submachine guns past airport screeners. Expensive new bomb detection machines consistently failed, he says.

The team repeatedly warned the FAA of the potential for security breaches and hijackings but was told to cover up its findings, Dzakovic says.

http://www.neilroger...2006112501.html

As far as the CIA is concerned:

CNN; Sources: CIA warned FBI about hijacker

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In response Monday to the contention by CIA officials that they warned the FBI in January 2000 that one of the September 11 hijackers had participated in an al Qaeda meeting in Malaysia and merited scrutiny, the FBI refused to point blame officially at anyone.

The subject of that warning, Khalid Almihdhar, has been identified as one of the hijackers who flew American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon last year. The CIA has records indicating it had urged the FBI to take a closer look at Almihdhar, officials told CNN.

Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi -- another of the September 11 hijackers, also on American Airlines Flight 77 -- were among those photographed by police at the meeting in Malaysia.

In March of 2000, another nation told the CIA that Alhazmi had flown from the Malaysian meeting to Los Angeles.

http://edition.cnn.c...kers/index.html

As a result of the 9/11 attacks, a number of corrections and additions have been made. Building architects around the world have taken a closer look at building designs based on what happened to the WTC buildings. Other changes included rework of the cockpit doors in airliners.

Top 10 U.S. Government Changes Since 9/11

Ten years have passed since the United States was attacked by Al-Qaeda terrorists on September 11, 2001. The event was a defining moment in U.S. history. After it was discovered that the attacks were orchestrated by Al-Qaeda, the information sparked intense debate in the political world. Former President George W. Bush decided to pass a large amount of U.S. legislation to strengthen U.S. National Security. The impact of 9/11 is clearly visible in the policies adopted by the United States government in the wake of the disaster.

Read more: http://www.toptenz.n...p#ixzz1tqLnKdQF

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How 9/11 changed air travel

Crew drills on board the world's airliners have radically altered since 9/11. As witnessed on the day itself, the drill then was for crews to accede to an armed hijacker's demands to avoid loss of the aircraft or harm to those on board, on the assumption that negotiation with the hijackers would take place on the ground, conducted by security services.

Hence, the crews of all four hijacked aircraft on the day were faced with forced flightdeck access by the hijackers, who were well-drilled groups of men armed with knives. There had never been an airborne event like this, knowledge of which could have alerted the pilots to the fact that the attackers were intent on taking control and using the aircraft as missiles.

Today, as a direct result of 9/11, cockpit doors are required to be armoured and locked throughout the flight, with video cameras scanning the area outside them for the pilots to be able to judge risk. Today, no physical threats to passengers or cabin crew will cause the pilots to accede to any demands from would-be hijackers, or to emerge from the flightdeck or allow anyone into it.

They just fly the aircraft to the nearest diversion and land. Whatever ills befall those in the cabin, the primary job of the pilots becomes one of ensuring that the aircraft cannot be commandeered for any purpose determined by the hijackers. That armoured door and the changed cabin drills are the most significant product of 9/11.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/how-911-changed-air-travel-361389/

The changes were the result of terrorist attacks on 9/11/2001, and nothing to do with a government conspiracy, which is evident by a number of actions taken by the U.S. government after the 9/11 attacks.

Edited May 3, 2012 by skyeagle409

[Q24]

The FBI ignored warnings from its own agent and other warnings were ignored as well. The FAA ignored warnings that terrorist were planning to hijack aircraft and fly them into buildings but the FAA didn't think the terrorist could have pulled it off. The FAA also ignored warnings.

As far as the CIA is concerned:

As a result of the 9/11 attacks, a number of corrections and additions have been made. Building architects around the world have taken a closer look at building designs based on what happened to the WTC buildings. Other changes included rework of the cockpit doors in airliners.

The changes were the result of terrorist attacks on 9/11/2001, and nothing to do with a government conspiracy, which is evident by a number of actions taken by the U.S. government after the 9/11 attacks.

Thank you for pointing out a generic FAA warning that had, "nothing to do with a government conspiracy".

I was referring to a specific FBI warning regarding the future hijackers, which the CIA bin Laden unit took great measures to prevent the FBI acting on. Those same hijackers picked up their VISAs from the CIA-run consulate in Jeddah and were then assisted by a Saudi government agent in the United States in obtaining flying lessons and finding accommodation, which happened to be an appartment rented from a U.S. government informant, who aslo helped the hijackers open bank accounts.

That the hijackers received protection and assistance from intelligence sources, domestic and foreign, is not in doubt at this point.

[booNyzarC]

Because all analysis (before and after) showed the impacts alone were nowhere near sufficient to induce a collapse?

I guess you haven't read F. R. Greening's paper then?

An excerpt:

What caused the initial floor collapse?

Although some researchers apparently find it difficult to accept, I believe the answer to this question is essentially quite simple:

The initial floor collapse occurred due to the aircraft impact damage and the resulting eccentric loading of the core columns.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=sO1JxpVb2eU

I've always disliked his analogy of a pencil poking through a screen. The exterior wall was a structural element of the building, a screen isn't a structural element in a window. It is a horrible analogy to use.

Also, there are no wings on a pencil. To even come close to having the pencil analogy provide any valuable comparison at all you would have to turn it sideways so that it tore a gaping wide gash in the screen like the planes did to the buildings on 911.

Then there is the whole question of the buildings being designed to withstand such an impact. This is worth a read.

The official explanation for collapse would have been even more unbelievable than it already is had the towers gone straight down.

Unbelievable? Hardly.

[skyeagle409]

Thank you for pointing out a generic FAA warning that had, "nothing to do with a government conspiracy".

I was referring to a specific FBI warning regarding the future hijackers, which the CIA bin Laden unit took great measures to prevent the FBI acting on. Those same hijackers picked up their VISAs from the CIA-run consulate in Jeddah and were then assisted by a Saudi government agent in the United States in obtaining flying lessons and finding accommodation, which happened to be an appartment rented from a U.S. government informant, who aslo helped the hijackers open bank accounts.

That the hijackers received protection and assistance from intelligence sources, domestic and foreign, is not in doubt at this point.

There have always been disagreements among the agencies and one example is where we had the Taliban leader, Mullah Omar, in the the crosshairs of a Predator and a military lawyer stepped in and stopped any action to take him out. There are those are fuming as the hunt goes on because we had the chance and a lawyer said don't do it.

The Case of the Blid Predator

Hersh described a Predator operation over Afghanistan wherein the machine was supposedly "capable of beaming high-resolution images ... identified a group of cars and trucks fleeing the capital (Kabul) as a convoy carrying Mullah Omar, the Taliban leader ... The Predator tracked the convoy to a building where Omar, accompanied by a hundred or so guards and soldiers, took cover." At this point, the Predator's controllers could have directed it to fire its two "powerful" Hellfire missiles to eliminate the one-eyed Mullah Omar. But, alas, a finicky military (CENTCOM JAG) lawyer was queried in "real time" and nixed the plan.

http://freepress.org...play/2/2001/537

These kind of things have been going on for decades, not just after the 9/11 attacks. We have had many such disagreements during the Vietnam War where targets were chosen by those in Washington that impeded military operations, which we knew as "Johnson's Rules of Engagement." Here are some examples that raised the hair on our backs.

Vietnam 'Rules of Engagement"

United States air commanders possessed superior numbers of aircraft and a more capable air force than did North Vietnamese commanders during the air war in Southeast Asia. Then why did they experience such poor results? Specifically, why was the famous Rolling Thunder air campaign unable to achieve decisive results that might have positively influenced the outcome of the war in Vietnam?

The overly restrictive rules of engagement( ROE), which put limits on where aircraft could fly, which targets they could attack, and how they may attack those targets, were a significant reason that American air commanders were unable to execute a successful campaign in Southeast Asia.

The restrictive ROEs in Vietnam were put in place by President Johnson to ensure the war did not escalate (Johnson feared Chinese and Soviet intervention). The President hoped to achieve results by using an "air pressure campaign" to coerce the North Vietnamese to discontinue supporting the Vietcong (VC). These restrictions violated Air Force doctrine and tied the hands of air commanders that were tasked with the execution of the air war in Southeast Asia.

The ROEs in place for the air campaign over North Vietnam included restrictions on where aircraft could fly, what conditions aircraft could attack enemy forces (when they were considered hostile), and what degree of force could be used both in self-defense and attack.3 Another part of the ROEs restricted pilots from attacking certain types of targets that were off limits; some of these were: enemy airfields, SAM sites, power plants, naval craft in some areas, a 30 mile area around Hanoi, and a 10 mile area around Haiphong.4

The inability to attack certain targets made it difficult to stop the flow of men and material into South Vietnam, and the requirements to spare North Vietnamese civilians limited the use of certain types of munitions, such as B-52s and napalm.

Until early 1967, in many instances U.S. pilots were not allowed to engage enemy fighters unless they themselves had been attacked first.

And there is much more to Johnson's "Rules of Engagement," which cost us many lives.

Many people thought the conflicts between the CIA and the FBI were something new and began just before the 9/11 attacks, but what you have read in rgards to the CIA, FBI, military and civilian intelligence services impeding one another is nothing new and has in fact been going on decades before the 9/11 attacks and the attacks have brought these old conflicts out into the open.

So what you thought was suspicious activity between the CIA and the FBI is old news to the rest of us who have been affected by such conflicts during the many years before the 9/11 attacks.

Edited May 4, 2012 by skyeagle409

[Dis Pater]

I guess you haven't read F. R. Greening's paper then?

An excerpt:

What caused the initial floor collapse?

Although some researchers apparently find it difficult to accept, I believe the answer to this question is essentially quite simple:

The initial floor collapse occurred due to the aircraft impact damage and the resulting eccentric loading of the core columns.

I've always disliked his analogy of a pencil poking through a screen. The exterior wall was a structural element of the building, a screen isn't a structural element in a window. It is a horrible analogy to use.

Also, there are no wings on a pencil. To even come close to having the pencil analogy provide any valuable comparison at all you would have to turn it sideways so that it tore a gaping wide gash in the screen like the planes did to the buildings on 911.

Then there is the whole question of the buildings being designed to withstand such an impact. This is worth a read.

Unbelievable? Hardly.

The picture you posted with your article Boo-i take it that the red boxed pick out is the figure of a person standing out to get air?If so,then are we to assume that the temperatures from the fires,which got hot enough to melt steel in 1 hour,is not affecting this poor unfortunate person,who seems to be within 50-60ft say.?..If so,then that does not seem right to the uneducated(me)-she/he should be frazzled from the heat coming off the raging fires.Could very well be a good explanation but for the life of me,i cant think of one....

[booNyzarC]

The picture you posted with your article Boo-i take it that the red boxed pick out is the figure of a person standing out to get air?If so,then are we to assume that the temperatures from the fires,which got hot enough to melt steel in 1 hour,is not affecting this poor unfortunate person,who seems to be within 50-60ft say.?..If so,then that does not seem right to the uneducated(me)-she/he should be frazzled from the heat coming off the raging fires.Could very well be a good explanation but for the life of me,i cant think of one....

Yes that is a woman standing in the hole. I'm not sure exactly what time that image was taken or what floor she was on when the impact happened. Some have identified her as Edna Cintron if I'm not mistaken.

First of all, the temperatures in the impact zones of WTC 1 and 2 were not hot enough to melt steel. There were areas in each tower where the temperature was high enough to weaken steel. There is a big difference, and you really should understand that.

Next, this is the impact hole on the north tower, or WTC 1; the first building hit and second to collapse.

When the collapse was initiated for WTC 1, the tilt was away from this hole. That means that if the NIST report is accurate in that the collapse was initiated due to weakened steel from fires, those high temperature fires were primarily on the opposite side of the building from this hole. Considering the overall size of each floor, it should be relatively easy to understand how she could have been well away from those hottest zones. We are talking about 4,300,000 sq ft (400,000 m²) after all. That's a lot of area.

Cheers.

[Dis Pater]

Yes that is a woman standing in the hole. I'm not sure exactly what time that image was taken or what floor she was on when the impact happened. Some have identified her as Edna Cintron if I'm not mistaken.

First of all, the temperatures in the impact zones of WTC 1 and 2 were not hot enough to melt steel. There were areas in each tower where the temperature was high enough to weaken steel. There is a big difference, and you really should understand that.

Next, this is the impact hole on the north tower, or WTC 1; the first building hit and second to collapse.

When the collapse was initiated for WTC 1, the tilt was away from this hole. That means that if the NIST report is accurate in that the collapse was initiated due to weakened steel from fires, those high temperature fires were primarily on the opposite side of the building from this hole. Considering the overall size of each floor, it should be relatively easy to understand how she could have been well away from those hottest zones. We are talking about 4,300,000 sq ft (400,000 m²) after all. That's a lot of area.

Cheers.

Yeah the weakened steel and collapse is fine-again i still have no view either way as we have too much information to digest in 2 months.

Its still a heck of a lot of temperature that would be felt by those within the vicinity due to the confinment of the building-the fire goes nowhere so the heat would stay within the building plus you gave the square footing of the floor-not distance from the poor lady to the flames..Anyway it was just a minor silly point and I suppose only those who were at the scene would be able to truly know.

thanks for the reply.

Edited May 4, 2012 by Dis Pater

[booNyzarC]

Yeah the weakened steel and collapse is fine-again i still have no view either way as we have too much information to digest in 2 months.

Its still a heck of a lot of temperature that would be felt by those within the vicinity due to the confinment of the building-the fire goes nowhere so the heat would stay within the building plus you gave the square footing of the floor-not distance from the poor lady to the flames..Anyway it was just a minor silly point and I suppose only those who were at the scene would be able to truly know.

thanks for the reply.

Apologies for the number I copy/pasted from wiki. It appears that was probably a calculation for the sum area of all 110 floors. The dimensions of each tower were roughly 208'x208' at the base and slightly tapered as they rose. Source.

Is 100 feet far enough away from such fires? 75 feet? Less? We can clearly see in the image that she wasn't engulfed in flames, so we know that the fires weren't in direct proximity with her at that moment.

[Dis Pater]

Apologies for the number I copy/pasted from wiki. It appears that was probably a calculation for the sum area of all 110 floors. The dimensions of each tower were roughly 208'x208' at the base and slightly tapered as they rose. Source.

Is 100 feet far enough away from such fires? 75 feet? Less? We can clearly see in the image that she wasn't engulfed in flames, so we know that the fires weren't in direct proximity with her at that moment.

Thanks for taking the time to look into it.It was a silly little point and to be honest with you,when you see her out on a limb like she was it just makes you wonder what was going through the poor womans mind at that time-kind of slightly puts you in her shoes as you wonder what you would have done in her position-very sad.

Thanks again Boo..

[Q24]

I guess you haven't read F. R. Greening's paper then?

An excerpt:

What caused the initial floor collapse?

Although some researchers apparently find it difficult to accept, I believe the answer to this question is essentially quite simple:

Ok, all analysis (before and after, except Greening's paper) showed the impacts alone were nowhere near sufficient to induce a collapse. And then, in response to JK's initial question, even Greening's theory indicates the towers should not initiate collapse immediately at impact.

I've always disliked his analogy of a pencil poking through a screen. The exterior wall was a structural element of the building, a screen isn't a structural element in a window. It is a horrible analogy to use.

Also, there are no wings on a pencil. To even come close to having the pencil analogy provide any valuable comparison at all you would have to turn it sideways so that it tore a gaping wide gash in the screen like the planes did to the buildings on 911.

I'll err... stick with the WTC construction manager's analogy (which isn't meant to be a direct comparison) and his conclusion that the towers could likely sustain multiple impacts of jetliners.

Then there is the whole question of the buildings being designed to withstand such an impact. This is worth a read.

What is interesting, is that had NIST conducted their study on 9/10, the conclusions would have agreed entirely with those earlier analysis of the WTC engineers. Not only did the greater range of NIST's physics models produce no collapse, but the experiments and their model did not reproduce the bowing columns, which only later through observation of the actual event, did they declare was cause of the collapse initiation, i.e. before witnessing the collapses, NIST would never have predicted collapses - they would have declared it impossible.

Funny how politics can change that answer.

[Babe Ruth]

Politics, or a presumption of veracity in the statements of government officials?

[booNyzarC]

Ok, all analysis (before and after, except Greening's paper) showed the impacts alone were nowhere near sufficient to induce a collapse. And then, in response to JK's initial question, even Greening's theory indicates the towers should not initiate collapse immediately at impact.

Fair enough.

I'll err... stick with the WTC construction manager's analogy (which isn't meant to be a direct comparison) and his conclusion that the towers could likely sustain multiple impacts of jetliners.

Of course you will, even though it makes absolutely no sense in light of the real events. But hey, don't let reality stop you, you never have before, why start now?

Nice how you avoided reviewing (or at least commenting on) the 911myths link. If the building design took into account a plane at low velocity, lost in fog, as makes perfect sense considering the previous Empire State Building accident... perhaps his pencil analogy would be fitting. Outside of that it simply isn't.

What is interesting, is that had NIST conducted their study on 9/10, the conclusions would have agreed entirely with those earlier analysis of the WTC engineers. Not only did the greater range of NIST's physics models produce no collapse, but the experiments and their model did not reproduce the bowing columns, which only later through observation of the actual event, did they declare was cause of the collapse initiation, i.e. before witnessing the collapses, NIST would never have predicted collapses - they would have declared it impossible.

You may be right about the suggestion that NIST would not have predicted collapse before witnessing it. I doubt if they would have declared it impossible though. And if they had, it would have been just about as meaningful as the declaration that the Titanic was unsinkable.

Funny how politics can change that answer.

Funny how observable reality (i.e. the actual collapse of the buildings) can change the hypothetical answer provided by imperfect computer models.

[Q24]

Of course you will, even though it makes absolutely no sense in light of the real events. But hey, don't let reality stop you, you never have before, why start now?

Of course the analogy makes sense, until you go applying it over-literally. DeMartini was simply making the point that the load transfer ability of the towers was such that it could sustain significant damage to the structure (such as due to multiple airliner crashes) and remain standing.

Did you really expect him to say, "a pencil with wings" just to make it more realistic to your liking?

Way to miss the point.

Nice how you avoided reviewing (or at least commenting on) the 911myths link. If the building design took into account a plane at low velocity, lost in fog, as makes perfect sense considering the previous Empire State Building accident... perhaps his pencil analogy would be fitting. Outside of that it simply isn't.

911myths is full of strawman arguments and misguided interpretations. The evidence I have seen indicates that a number of prior analysis were carried out separately taking into account an airliner travelling 600 mph and a full fuel load. I don't care for 9/11myths misguidance.

You may be right about the suggestion that NIST would not have predicted collapse before witnessing it. I doubt if they would have declared it impossible though. And if they had, it would have been just about as meaningful as the declaration that the Titanic was unsinkable.

I'm sure NIST would have declared the collapses impossible beforehand because there is no way they could have known to add the huge pull-in forces they did to the perimeter columns to initiate the collapse. Neither their experiments nor physics model reflected it (slightly worrying, and they did not care to look for another answer) - the forces had to be manually input based on video footage observation.

And no one declared the Titanic unsinkable beforehand without qualification - that is a myth.

Funny how observable reality (i.e. the actual collapse of the buildings) can change the hypothetical answer provided by imperfect computer models.

Ammend "observable" to read "politically desired" and you got it.

[J. K.]

What was the specific goal (desired outcome or reaction) of the "rogue conspiracy"?

[booNyzarC]

911myths is conspiracy theories are full of strawman arguments and misguided interpretations. The evidence I have seen indicates that a number of prior analysis were carried out separately taking into account an airliner travelling 600 mph and a full fuel load. I don't care for 9/11myths misguidance facts.

There we go, fixed that for ya.

[Babe Ruth]

What was the specific goal (desired outcome or reaction) of the "rogue conspiracy"?

I guess you are addressing this to me, since I responded to your first post?

It wasn't a rogue conspiracy, it was a conspiracy planned and executed by rogue elements(individuals) within the governments.

To find the precise answer to your question you would have to ask those conspirators, but we can infer what the desired outcome or reaction might have been.

Some possibilities: 1) to start some wars and profit thereby 2) to start or grow certain government bureaucracies 3) get rid of the WTC towers and claim a significant profit in the process.

[J. K.]

An answer from anyone would be fine. My contention would be: if they had the resources to carry out what happened, why didn't they just use those resources to accomplish their final goal?

[skyeagle409]

I guess you are addressing this to me, since I responded to your first post?

Some possibilities: 1) to start some wars and profit thereby 2)

Let's see about that.

Obama announces Pentagon budget cuts

Washington's defense hawks are circling the wagons to defend the Pentagon's budget. The Obama administration has instructed the military to reduce planned spending over the next decade by about $400 billion, or eight percent over time.

http://www.foreignaf...efense-strategy

Panetta on Pentagon Budget: 'Cutting Almost $500 Billion Is Not Chump Change'

SUMMARY

In an interview Thursday after his news conference at the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told Jeffrey Brown that the United States seeks to be a power in the Pacific and that defense budget cuts announced Thursday will be hard on the military and families, but he hopes a smaller, more flexible armed forces will emerge

Pentagon faces big budget cuts

The Pentagon has entered a new era of austerity with the announcement of large budget cuts that have been timed and tailored to take advantage of mounting rhetoric in Congress to cut the ballooning deficit.

http://www.ft.com/cm...144feab49a.html

http://content.usato...-defense-cuts/1

New U.S. defense strategy includes big budget cuts

WASHINGTON (CBS) -- The President announced a new strategy today for a new much leaner military. The Pentagon is getting hit with big budget cuts, but defense leaders promise the U.S. will maintain its edge.

http://www.todaysthv...big-budget-cuts

VA overwhelmed by flood of disability claims

CHICAGO - In a sobering reminder of the long-term costs of war, a dramatic spike in disability claims during the last seven years has overwhelmed the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and nearly doubled the cost of compensating wounded veterans, according to an unprecedented Chicago Tribune analysis.

Read more: http://azstarnet.com/news/world/va-overwhelmed-by-flood-of-disability-claims/article_73fadf6e-2155-56c4-9fc2-44a3667c8ce7.html#ixzz1twXnwyGf

And you said the Pentagon benefited financially from wars. Just goes to show that Mr. Reality is not with you. Anyone who has served in the military know that wars cost money, and lots of it, during and after the war has ended.

Edited May 4, 2012 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

An answer from anyone would be fine. My contention would be: if they had the resources to carry out what happened, why didn't they just use those resources to accomplish their final goal?

If you are referring to the U.S. government, it could have got what it wanted without slamming aircraft into buildings. I have noticed that there are 9/11 CT folks who make up stories for the sole purpose of having fun on message boards.

They have claimed that no aircraft crashed into the Pentagon or at Shanksvile despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They have claimed that a pod was attached to United 175, which doesn't make any sense at all when you can jam thousands of pounds of explosives in the underfloor compartments without modifying anything. Additionally, what they conceived as a pod is actually standard on all B-767s.

They have claimed that United 93 landed at Cleiveland airport when in fact, they confused a Deltal Airlines B-767 at Cleveland as United 93 and scientist from a KC-135 as passengers from United 93, and the list goes on and on.

To sum it all up, ignorance plays a leading role in rheir claims.

Edited May 4, 2012 by skyeagle409

[Babe Ruth]

An answer from anyone would be fine. My contention would be: if they had the resources to carry out what happened, why didn't they just use those resources to accomplish their final goal?

Because their final goal(s) could not be accomplished WITHOUT the events of the day.

Consider the rationale laid out by PNAC--that absent an event similar to Pearl Harbor, their goals could not be achieved.

[skyeagle409]

Because their final goal(s) could not be accomplished WITHOUT the events of the day.

Consider the rationale laid out by PNAC--that absent an event similar to Pearl Harbor, their goals could not be achieved.

That doesn't make any sense at all. Sounds to me like someone made that up.

[Babe Ruth]

The PNAC document does exist Sky. The neocon group advanced it BEFORE 11 September, by months or years, can't remember offhand. Strauss, Wolfowicz, Perle, etc.

Consider what the events of the day DID bring us: 2 wars, a new cabinet-level bureaucracy and all its spending on sweetheart deals like back-scatter body scanners.

And the lessee at WTC made a very nice profit on his insurance claims.

[skyeagle409]

The PNAC document does exist Sky. The neocon group advanced it BEFORE 11 September, by months or years, can't remember offhand. Strauss, Wolfowicz, Perle, etc.

Consider what the events of the day DID bring us: 2 wars, a new cabinet-level bureaucracy and all its spending on sweetheart deals like back-scatter body scanners.

And the lessee at WTC made a very nice profit on his insurance claims.

The PNAC document does exist Sky. The neocon group advanced it BEFORE 11 September, by months or years, can't remember offhand. Strauss, Wolfowicz, Perle, etc.

Consider what the events of the day DID bring us: 2 wars, a new cabinet-level bureaucracy and all its spending on sweetheart deals like back-scatter body scanners.

And the lessee at WTC made a very nice profit on his insurance claims.

The PNAC had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.

As a result ot the 9/11 attacks, the military is facing a huge budget cut and some of its pet projects have now been cancelled or placed on hold. Other services within the military have now been cutback or cancelled and VA claims are now rising each month, which is costing the government additional millions of dollars each year.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has cost billions of dollars and still climbing, thousands of lives and thousands more wounded, many of whom will be receiving thousands of dollars in benefits, care and services ffrom the government for the rest of their lives because of those wars.

With those facts in hand, the question that I have is, What makes the 9/11 conspiracy folks think that we have benefited from the 9/11 attacks, which acutally cost the U.S. government billions of dollars, thousands of lives, a budget cutback of billions of dollars and cutbacks in some prized millitary projects?

[Babe Ruth]

A fair question Sky. The answers are obvious, and your status as government/military retiree should make you especially aware of the bureaucratic benefits of the events of the day.

1) A new cabinet level bureau, DHS. Pretty nice digs they have, according to some media stories. Napolitano seems happier than either Ridge or Chertoff were.

2) Two wars begun that have exceeded 10 years duration EACH. If you profit from war, this is a desireable situation.

3) Successful assault on the US Constitution (which you took an oath to defend) and traditional American legal principles. By way of the Unpatriot Act, Military Commissions Act, the recent NDAA, and the ongoing Global War On Terror, the rule of law in this country is pretty well decimated, begun that fateful day.