Four 9/11 Moms Battle Bush

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.observer.com/pages/frontpage3.asp

In mid-June, F.B.I. director Robert Mueller III and several senior agents in the bureau received a group of about 20 visitors in a briefing room of the J. Edgar Hoover Building in Washington, D.C. The director himself narrated a PowerPoint presentation that summarized the numbers of agents and leads and evidence he and his people had collected in the 18-month course of their ongoing investigation of Penttbom, the clever neologism the bureau had invented to reduce the sites of devastation on 9/11 to one word: Pent for Pentagon, Pen for Pennsylvania, tt for the Twin Towers and bom for the four planes that the government had been forewarned could be used as weapons—even bombs—but chose to ignore.

After the formal meeting, senior agents in the room faced a grilling by Kristen Breitweiser, a 9/11 widow whose cohorts are three other widowed moms from New Jersey.

"I don’t understand, with all the warnings about the possibilities of Al Qaeda using planes as weapons, and the Phoenix Memo from one of your own agents warning that Osama bin Laden was sending operatives to this country for flight-school training, why didn’t you check out flight schools before Sept. 11?"

"Do you know how many flight schools there are in the U.S.? Thousands," a senior agent protested. "We couldn’t have investigated them all and found these few guys."

"Wait, you just told me there were too many flight schools and that prohibited you from investigating them before 9/11," Kristen persisted. "How is it that a few hours after the attacks, the nation is brought to its knees, and miraculously F.B.I. agents showed up at Embry-Riddle flight school in Florida where some of the terrorists trained?"

"We got lucky," was the reply.

more

[spielino]

1. Enough already!

Look. Lots of agencies dropped the ball on this during both the Clinton and Bush administrations. No. Nobody wanted this tragedy to happen. Yes, people are trying to make sure it doesn't happen again. To the best of my knowledge these families got a couple of million for their suffering, and nothing will bring their loved ones back now. So it is time to move ahead with life now, ladies. Comprende?

[NNN0LHI]

3. Over 600 families will not take any government money

They prefer the truth over bribes. It may be a difficult concept for you to understand? But some people have scruples. Comprende?

Don

[FlashHarry]

4. Move on? Bullsh*t! (DUPE, BTW)

I suggest you look at your own sig line: "All that is necessary for tyranny to prosper is for good men to do nothing," because that's exactly what you're suggesting. Move on = do nothing.


How the hell do we prevent another one if we don't go over this one with a fine-toothed comb?

'Move on.' That's the neocon response whenever they can't answer a question--or in this case, a whole mess o' questions.

Are you suggesting that they've been 'paid,' so they should now drop it? Does that compensate them for their losses? Would you give up a loved-one for a couple of million bucks?


By the way, this thread is a double dupe

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=6910&mesg_id=6910

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=761&mesg_id=761

[obietiger]

5. No it's not enough...

Did you read the whole article? If not, start half-way down - these ladies have researched better than some of our elected officials, I think. The time-line, the president and sec of defense's reaction, and the refusal of the admins. to release information is the main story here.

[Mari333]

6. Excuse me???

You ever have a loved one blow up in an explosion?????????????
I DID. and the people who lost family members in 9/11 have every right to DEMAND THE TRUTH and go after the current Chump in the White House and his whole lying administration.

and no money in the WORLD can replace a husband or child


You DO sound like LIEberman.

[spielino]

10. These people aren't acting rationally

In their bereaved state, they have become myopic in wanting someone somehow to 'pay' for this. This happens to people. I've seen it. But if you are looking for someone to blame for 9-11, you have a whole lot to pick from and from way back. Why not blame the sons of bitches that authorized flayingthe planes into the buildings? No, these women don't do that, because they can't. But they do feel the need to make somebody 'pay'. It's not about concern for others in the future. It's about vengeance. Move on NOW.

[FlashHarry]

14. "It's about vengeance. Move on NOW."

So I take it you're against capital punishment? By the way, lady, you sure have a set of balls on you to tell--rather than suggest--somebody to 'move on NOW.'

On edit: by the way, how do you reconcile your sig line with what you are saying? It seems to be totally contrary.

[spielino]

19. I don't see any inconsistency with my sig line...

as far as I know, we ARE trying to get at the core of the tyrants who did 9-11.

[Cassandra]

21. Who's "we"

and which tyrants are they aiming at? (Since we all know that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, don't we? )

[FlashHarry]

38. Once again...

....your sig line (and a great one it is, too) says: "All that is necessary for tyranny to prosper is for good men to do nothing". But, you are suggesting that these women 'move on,' which would suggest they do nothing. Do you see what I'm getting at?

[Cassandra]

15. It's not about vengence.

It's about asking why our Department of Defense couldn't be bothered to defend us from anything. And don't bother blaming Clinton for this; he made an effort with what was known at the time. If being a Lieberman supporter leads to this kind of mental disconnect, I'm glad I prefer someone else.

[Shadder]

16. No, you move on.

n/t

[JNelson6563]

26. hold the phone there binky!

Let's say that your local police force got a warning that a building where someone dear to you, say a spouse or a child, was going to have a plane flown into it. The police disregard this and the warning comes to fruition.

Would you want to know what happened and be sure it wouldn't happen again? Would it be for revenge or to correct a wrong so it wouldn't be repeated? Do you believe someone who worked for you would owe you an expanation of a major screw-up? Would you consider renewing their contract if it became evident this employee was responsible for such an error as well as many others?

These are yes or no questions, "yes except for President Bush" is not considered a valid answer, FYI.

Julie

[jmcgowanjm]

17. I defer to you and feel for your loss, Mari333

You are what the Rulers fear.

[shanti]

22. not to worry

the disruptor got his tombstone!

[Superfly]

34. I really hate to sound crass....

"and no money in the WORLD can replace a husband or child"

Yeah, that is true, but an average of $1.6 Million per person is a start.

Link

[Occulus]

7. Wow.

That's all I can politely say to that. Just- wow.

[bluedem]

8. No comprende

You're kidding, right? They should just take their money and shut up? Yeah, agencies dropped the ball. And because they did, they need to answer to the people. An answer like "just lucky" is total bullshit and an insult to the citizens of this country. Thank God we have people like these families who don't have your attitude.

[FlashHarry]

12. Listen, 'lady...'

9/11 will happen again if we do not figure out exactly why and how the first one happened. Mark my words. Sticking your head in the sand and 'moving on' will not protect us. It only serves to comfort those in government on whose watch this tragedy happened.

Which reminds me, how the f*ck is it that Bush is so popular right now? Why didn't 9/11 sink him? The single biggest intelligence failure in our history happens right under his nose, while he's on vacation, after he's been warned about it, and somehow he comes up smelling like f*cking roses! It's unbelievable!

[jamesinca]

20. Move ahead!!,

I will move on and get over it when Bush quits dragging his feet about the entire investigation. I will move on when Bush says that the al-Queda have no connection to Iraq. I will move on when James Baker quits representing the Saudi Arabians in lawsuits from the WTC family members. James Baker is the lawyer that Bush keeps on retainer for his personal life. He is the guy that was in the Bush I administration. I will move on when Bush looks into his own fathers dealing thru the Carle group with the bin-Laden family. I will move on when he comes clean about the threatening of Afghanastan for not wanting to allow a natural gas pipeline from the Caspian sea thru their country into Pakistan. I will move on when he admits that Unocal brokered the deal but Clinton would not allow dealings with a country that had terroist. I will move on when he admists that WTC was a pre-emptive strike for the threat on Afghanastan. I will move on when he admits this is about oil and natural gas, not terrorism. I will move on when they admit that they had a lot of warning from the Cliinton administration and the rest of the worlds intelligence services that this was going to happen, but they LIHOP. I will move on and get over it when Bush personally apologizes to every one of the familys of the 10,000+ dead humans beings that are a result of his greed for oil and natural gas. I will move on when I no longer am subjected to the PATRIOT act, that is a result of 9/11 fears, that strips away my 1st, 4th, and 6th amendment rights as a citizen. I will move on when Bush comes clean about his energy policy, written up by Chenney and Kenny boy Lay, mapping out oil field exploration in Iraq. I will get over it the day Bush is dammed to hell and dies for what he is doing to the world.

[bpilgrim]

24. homer simpson chimes in

ditto

peace

[neuvocat]

25. Yeah, just throw Clinton in there to implicate him.

Not that his efforts to bomb Bin Laden would make any difference to you, nor would the pursuing of terrorists during his administration.

Perhaps the blame is just too big for one man and you have to drag someone else into it.

Or if that doesn't work you tell people to just get over it. You know what? Fuck you.

[KAZ]

30. Man, you're reading my mind. :) n/t

[robbedvoter]

33. Sorry for disturbing you with their grief. Nice Clinton blaming thrown

there - can't simply beat the 9.11 families without throwing the Clenis in. I like the Lieberman touch too. You and your friends are like the violent criminals who are threatening their victims: "you better not tell anyone or else" . Of course, you use the Karl approved version: "get over it".
I am sick and tired of your bullying! Today at the supermarket a woman managed to go through an express checkout with a full cart and, as she was getting away with it she was bitching that everyone has been rude to her. I finally told her that she was acting like a Republican: stepping over people and bitching that she was victimized. Everyone agreed. Your ways are reviled by every decent person on the planet! Enough of you!

[Superfly]

2. Defenition of a "flight school"

When I was learning how to fly in WA state, I hooked up with a Certified Flight Instructor who had his own plane. According to FAR part 61 & 141, this one man show was a "flight school".

Do these women know how many thousands of individuals out there are "flight schools"?

B

[rfranklin]

9. And your instructor had a 757?

How many flight schools are qualified to teach you to be a commercial pilot?

These fellows that they claim were on the 9/11 planes hijacked were training to fly commercial airliners, not Cessnas. the fact that they did not want to learn to land the aircraft (again, according to the official story) was somewhat suspicious.

[SharonAnn]

11. I don't care howmany there are, they should have started checking

them and it would at least have been defensible if they missed some. And in doing the checking, they would've been able to limit the first calls to ones that taught the planes that airlines use since those were most likely to be the ones used.

But doing nothing because basically, "it would've been too hard", is not an acceptable defense from a government agency which is supposed to do these things.

[Superfly]

32. Checking for what???

What do you check for when somebody intent on flying 767's into a building is taking flight lessons but had no prior criminal record?

Skin color? Nation of origin? What?

There are 400,000 members of AOPA, which represents about 10% of the general aviation flying public. There are millions of flight students. How do you check people without violating their rights?

Just curious.

[Superfly]

31. Answer to your question:

"How many flight schools are qualified to teach you to be a commercial pilot?"

A whole shitload! Thousands. I just left a flight school where they had a couple of these:



And a couple of these:



But you could go all the way to your ATP (Airline Transport Pilot) rating. And they did not have any jets!

B

[Cassandra]

13. The point of the article wasn't how many flight schools,

the point was that the FBI told the women they couldn't track them when they actually had been able to track some of hijackers. The point is: why wasn't anything done in a timely manner?

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[catzies]

23. I AM SO PROUD OF THESE WOMEN.

They're on my "heroines" list along with Coleen Rowley, and Sherron Watkins, Cynthia Cooper, Anita Hill, and many many others.

This is becoming more and more of a personal issue for me as I see the power of gender in ethical resistance and I feel strongly that women are leading the way because they have been outsiders for so long.

Women can, and should, and must, be at the front of social change.

[bagnana]

27. Repubs are deathly afraid of a true investigation

Move on is their response to every inquiry into their criminal acts. Move on about stealing election 2000
move on about lying about reasons for invading Iraq
move on about 3000 killed because our government sat on its ass or worse while terrorists plotted.

The louder they yell move on the more they have to hide.

stolen Presidential election, war, and terrorism: no, move on, losers
investigate presidential blow job? by all means -- here's 50 million dollars, go to it!

[ignatius]

28. Much like a cockroach, this administration continues to

hide in the dark, even to the extent of stonewalling the deaths of the largest attack in U.S. history. Most os us have felt since day one that the reason is complicity at the least in the events of 9-11. If this administration cared one iota about those murdered that day, they would allow an open investigation.

I love these women. It is so easy to be "patriotic" when you fall lock step in with the company line. Those who question, examine and ultimately find the truth are the true Patriots. How many more people will die before these lying cockroaches are outed?

[skypilot]

29. I've tried e-mailing Ms.Sheehy

Below is the text of the e-mail. I think her mailbox is full or something because my e-mail keeps getting returned.


Thank you so much for the piece in the New York Observer yesterday.. It raised some uncomfortable questions about Washington officials' response (or lack of response) on Sept.11. I too have read timelines of the events of that day and have also read transcripts of testimony given to the Independent Commission. Certain things definitely don't add up.

There was one thing in your article that jumped out at me. It was this sentence: "At 8:40am on 9/11, the FAA notified NORAD that Flight No.11 had been hijacked."

The fact is, the 8:40am claim has never been verified. Even the NORAD officials that testified before the independent commission are careful not to say with any definitiveness that 8:40am is the time they were first notified of the hijacking of Flight 11--a hijacking which air traffic controllers became aware of at 8:20am. They simply say that that is the time that NORAD eventually recorded as having been notified. When asked if an exact time of notification can be provided, the commission is given an answer along the lines of , "I'll get back to you with that." I suspect that these NORAD officials want to keep saying "8:40am" and "FAA" in the same sentence so that the "official" version of events includes statements like the one I noted in your article. As far as I know, no one has "gotten back" to the commission with the EXACT time that the FAA notified NORAD about the hijacking of Flight 11. I suspect that if air traffic controllers knew at 8:20am that Flight 11 was being hijacked then they probably notified NORAD within a minute or two if not within seconds. I strongly believe that NORAD officials do not want this to come out because it would obviously beg the question as to what was done (or not done) in that 20 minute time period. It's also telling that the members of the commission would be questioning NORAD officials about the timeline of events that day without first (or at some point) questioning the air traffic controllers that were on duty that day and who would have been the first ones to notice a problem. I'm sure they could tell us exactly what time they notified NORAD but, as far as I know, no one seems to be asking them--so NORAD's "8:40am" claim/guestimate is what sticks in the public record. Mission accomplished. Lay the blame on the FAA for notifying NORAD only minutes before the first attack.

Anyway, thanks again for the article and your time.

[MostlyBlackCat2]

35. kicking

too important for us to let it fall off the board. forward it to your email pals folks.

[0007]

36. These ladies are of the highest order

I did give Gail an email of hope and courage.

[FlashHarry]

37. Weird! I thought this thread was locked and moved!

Mainly because it's not LBN--it was already discussed a couple of days ago.