Well-reasoned, compelling evidence against the Offical 9-11 Legend

[Abe Linkman]

This article doesn't purport to be an exhaustive analysis, but anyone who wants a good intermediate-level (my subjective evaluation) understanding of why the Official Story Conspiracy Theory is rightly to be condemned as unbelievable, will surely appreciate what the author (professor) has to say.


http://www.yuricareport.com/911/Davis_CompellingEvidenceForComplicity.html

[frylock]

1. i think what you meant was the official story coincidence theory.

[kanrok]

2. I Read it

It needs to be much more fully documented to be taken seriously, IMHO. A lot of guess, speculation and conjecture, and none of it is foot-noted in any way, shape or form. Davis is supposed to be an academician. This article is a poor example of cogent thought. It's important to question what happened, but it's more important to do so objectively. My 2 cents.

[Abe Linkman]

3. You must have missed all the citations he included.

You said: "It needs to be much more fully documented to be taken seriously"

Don't you think the above statement more accurately describes the Official Legend Conspiracy Theory?

What part of the article do you feel is "guess, speculation" or a "poor example of cogent thought"?

Your facts about Mr. Davis are wrong, too. He is a highly respected professor at Kent State University. His credentials are listed in the article.

You also said: "It's important to question what happened, but it's more important to do so objectively."

What is the basis for the above statement, and what objective questions do YOU have about what happened?

[Frodo]

4. Don't you think that's a bit of a stretch?

He is a highly respected professor at Kent State University. His credentials are listed in the article.



"Walter Davis is an Associate Professor at Kent State University ... Dr. Davis teaches a graduate course in sports ethics"

A "highly respected" sports ethicist??? Is there such an animal? The publications he's been published in are not exactly... um... "on point".

His "links and citations" are little more than other conspiracy theory sites and statements like "There is incontrovertible evidence that the US Air Force all across the country was comprehensively "stood down" on the morning of September 11th" just show his bias and ignorance. I know that military logistics are REALLY REALLY close to "motor behavior" and "human movement science", but the guy doesn't know what he's talking about. "Two squadrons of 'combat-ready' fighters" Bah! The guy has bever seen an Air Force base. Does he think they have a pair of "ready 10s" sitting on the runway and pilots sitting in a ready room?

[Abe Linkman]

5. Credentials and publications.

Walter Davis is an Associate Professor at Kent State University. He does theory writing on educational, social and ethical issues using a general systems model. He and several colleagues developed a teaching model based upon a general-systems theoretical model intended for the understanding of biological systems. He has applied his theoretical model to the understanding of social systems and is in the process of writing a book that shows the close connections between the physical, social, political and ideological systems. Dr. Davis teaches a graduate course in sports ethics and is an advocate for social justice. He has been published in the Journal of Motor Behavior, Developmental Psychology, Human Movement Science as well as in the Journal of Higher Education and Bulletin of Science, and Technology and Society.

It's much easier to be critical than to be correct, and of course, all of the paid and unpaid defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory (you do agree there was a conspiracy, right?) prefer disputing reasoned arguments rather than attempting to refute them.

[Frodo]

9. Where do any of them apply?

I have "credentials" as well... but they don't relate to theories of government conspiracy. Though they're a heck of a lot closer than "sports ethics".

I'm only being "critical" to save time. 80% of his "points" are ridiculous on their face. I refuted the first I came to with five seconds of thought. Others wouldn't take much longer.

The guy is a joke.

Though if I had a wanted to know whether it was "cheating" to intentionally foul Shaq with time expiring to win a B-ball game... he'd be the first I asked. lol.

[Abe Linkman]

10. Do tell us.

"I refuted the first I came to with five seconds of thought. Others wouldn't take much longer."

Even if it is the product of only five seconds of thought. I'm willing to consider your OPINION (or proof, if you provide it).

[Frodo]

12. The combination...

... of assuming every opinion is valid until disproven and then asking someone to disprove a negative is not a rational debating tactic.

He didn't claim to be pushing forward a "theory" or an "opinion". He said he had "Compelling Evidence for Complicity" so he has the burden of proof. Something he does not even come close to.

He merely compiles other CT junk (most of which is LONG disproven) into a single report. This is no more "scholarly" than a highschool "research" paper based entirely on library sources... except his "sources" are... shall we say... lacking?

Let's take that point again. "There is incontrovertible evidence that the US Air Force all across the country was comprehensively "stood down" on the morning of September 11th."

Two F-15s were in the air and on their way to NYC seven minutes after the first plane struck. That's pretty impressive... "stand down" to "planes in the air" in seven minutes.

Otis AF base had also scrambled F-15s and they were vectored after Flight 77 when it came back on the scope in WV, as were F-16s from Langley.

Lastly, he demonstrates gross ignorance of the military in general (and the Air Force in particular). Continental air defense is the mission of the Air National Guard. The Air Force NEVER flies those missions. The planes that responded on 9/11 were ALL Air National Guard units. No Air Force fighter is on "strip alert" with a pilot on standby ready to go and 50 minutes is NOT enough time to bring in a pilot, fuel and arm a plane and get it in the air (even if you KNEW what the target was). But since 1997 there have been seven bases (all on the coasts) with two NG fighters on strip alert ready to launch. So if the AF was "comprehensively 'stood down'", it was done many years before the attack.

His entire screed about "two entire squadrons of combat-ready fighter jets at Andrews. They failed to do their job of protecting the skies over Washington D.C" and about "NORAD not being informed" are terribly incorrect at best, flat out dishonesty at worst. The Northeast Air Defense Sector in Rome, N.Y was the correct call, and it was made IMMEDIATELY (two ANG F-15s were in the air SEVEN MINUTES after the first strike).

[Abe Linkman]

13. Wherdy proof for your claims?

Don't why I haven't noticed you around the parts before, but that's okay. Would you kindly provide evidentiary proof for your claims.
Thank you.

[Frodo]

14. "Evidentiary proof"? You mean like flight logs? Or pilot interviews?

The wonderfully convenient part of conspiracy theory "science" is that ANYTHING that disagrees with your THEORY immediatly becomes PART of the CONSPIRACY. The BFEE is obviously able to command the silence of tens of thousands of americans.

I actually REMEMBER most of it happening (which is remarkably inconvenient when spreading conspiracies), but in this case, A quick google of "scrambled fighters 9/11 WTC" found an article from the Dallas Morning News from four days after the attack. (http://www.staugustine.com/stories/091601/ter_0916010027.shtml)

[Abe Linkman]

15. "Proof" Article confirms what Prof. Davis said!

American Airline Flight 11 departed from Boston Logan Airport at 7:45 a.m. Between 8:13 and 8:20 a.m. Flight 11 became unresponsive to ground control and radar indicated that the plane had deviated from its assigned path of flight. Two Flight 11 airline attendants had separately called American Airlines reporting a hijacking, the presence of weapons, and the infliction of injuries on passengers and crew. At this point an emergency was undeniably clear. Yet, according to NORAD's official timeline, NORAD was not contacted until twenty minutes later at 8:40 a.m. Tragically the fighter jets were not deployed until 8:52 a.m., a full thirty-two minutes after the loss of contact with Flight 11.

Flights 175, 77 and 93 all had this same pattern of delays in notification and delays in scrambling fighter jets. Delays that are difficult to imagine considering a plane had, by this time, already hit the WTC. The plane striking the pentagon is particularly spectacular. After it was known that the plane had a problem, it was nevertheless able to change course and fly towards Washington, for about forty-five minutes, fly past the White House, and crash into the Pentagon, without any attempt at interception. All the while two squadrons of fighter aircraft were stationed just ten miles from the eventual target. Unless one is prepared to allege collusion, such a scenario is not possible by any stretch of the imagination.

[Frodo]

18. It does nothing of the sort. It refutes it.

Remember that the point under dispute is #2 "There is incontrovertible evidence that the US Air Force all across the country was comprehensively "stood down" on the morning of September 11th".

This article (as well as ANY military knowledge or common sense) shows that there WAS NO "Air Force stand-down" because the AF was never "up" in the first place. The AF simply does NOT do any of the things he describes as "routine security measures".

There were only THREE pairs of fighters able to launch on short notice on the east coast (standard procedure for YEARS, not just 9/11) and ALL THREE were in the air within minutes of knowing there was a terrorist attack going on. This was not a "suspension" of "standard procedure" for "an hour and a half". Flight 77 was off the screen (with no transponder) until 9:10 in WV. The fighters that were already in the air looking for it were over 350 miles away an unable to catch it.


And let's stop calling the bozo "Professor" eh? I don't call a PhD mathematician "doctor" in a physician's office. The physician is the "doctor". I also don't give a PT "sports ethics" teacher the title "professor" when he's writing on a topic he has less education on then I do. You're trying to lend him credibility where he has none

[reorg]

20. why are you lying?

You have claimed twice now that the US Air Force is NEVER involved in routine security measures such as intercepts of civilian jets gone out of control.

I don't claim superior knowledge or expertise in this field. (Although it would appear odd to me that nowhere around NYC or DC, with all those fighter jets in numerous air bases, at least SOME of those jets should have been be up in the air already, at that time in the morning? Ready to be diverted and check what was wrong with all these planes that had their transponders turned off?)

Your particular claim, however, is easily refuted by checking for news reports of such incidents ...

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/golf/pga/news/1999/10/25/stewart_plane_ap/

"Air Force Capt. Chris Hamilton said there was nothing he could do when his F-16 caught up with the Learjet over Memphis, Tenn." (emphasis added)

[Frodo]

22. Sigh.

That's my point. Anyone who disagrees with the CT is "lying".

"Your particular claim, however, is easily refuted by checking for news reports of such incidents ..."

Shall I now accuse you of "lying"??? Since any REAL search would have shown the following:

The 32-year-old Air Force pilot from Newport News, Va., was flying his F-16 Fighting Falcon, call sign "Bullet One," on a training mission over the Gulf of Mexico when he was diverted to try to find out what was wrong with the Learjet.

Hamilton, a member of the Eglin-based 40th Flight Test Squadron, said he observed no damage to the aircraft but was unable to see inside the plane.

Sure it's possible (even likely) that at any given time there are AF jets in the sky on some training mission, but it's unlikely that they will be armed. And it wouldn't be at all unusual for there to be NO jets within a reasonable distance of what went on that day.

Since November 1997, continental air defense has been the sole responsibility of the Air National Guard. Under the control of First Air Force at Tyndall AFB, Fla., the mission of defending America in the air transitioned from a combined active Air Force/ANG relationship to one where 10 ANG fighter wings, located at the corners of the country and points in-between, assumed full responsibility for continental air defense and air sovereignty protection.

In the five short years since the ANG assumed the mission, the number of dedicated air defense fighter wings has shrunk from 10 to four. Additional support from non-air defense units was available, but generally from units that were geographically removed from the assigned and dedicated air defense unit.

You may remember stories about the National Guard taking up defensive positions at airports after 9/11. That's because the US military was not supposed to deploy at home.

Shall we now use this as "Compeling evidence of complicity" on the part of the Clinton administration? That they systematically "stood down" the US Air Force which WAS flying regular Combat Air Patrol defensive missions prior to '97? Of course not.

[reorg]

25. this red herring is so old it stinks

"Sure it's possible (even likely) that at any given time there are AF jets in the sky on some training mission, but it's unlikely that they will be armed."

It has been pointed out over and over again to the official conspiracy theory defenders that the question is not why the hijacked planes were not SHOT DOWN, the odd thing is that they weren't even intercepted--by whoever was available anywhere.

In addition, as shown in Paul Thompson's meticulously documented timeline, Professor Davis rightfully points out that:

"Flights 175, 77 and 93 all had this same pattern of delays in notification and delays in scrambling fighter jets. Delays that are difficult to imagine considering a plane had, by this time, already hit the WTC. The plane striking the pentagon is particularly spectacular. After it was known that the plane had a problem, it was nevertheless able to change course and fly towards Washington, for about forty-five minutes, fly past the White House, and crash into the Pentagon, without any attempt at interception. All the while two squadrons of fighter aircraft were stationed just ten miles from the eventual target. Unless one is prepared to allege collusion, such a scenario is not possible by any stretch of the imagination." (emphasis added)

Whether the Air Force is formally responsible for this or not is totally irrelevant.

[Frodo]

27. Sorry, no pun intended, but that just won't fly.

The "delay in notification" he talks about is constantly exagerated. The call from the flight attendant wasn't TO the FAA, it was to a reservation desk (which isn't part of any national security plan) and was at 8:27.

He keeps making noise like there was some standard procedure that as soon as a plane ran out of the fish course in first class an F-16 would be dispatched within 30 seconds. In better than half of the cases during the previous year NO aircraft was dispatched at all and the author offers NO data on how long it took to get a plane there when it was decided that a fighter WAS needed. It's entirely possible (likely, I would guess) that it takes longer than ten minutes for some air controller to get off his but and call in the Guard and a seven minute turnaroung from reporting to the air defense sector command to a local ANG squadron to getting a pair of jets into the air is pretty d@amn impressive. To pretent that's some kind of "delay" is just silly.

Also note that as soon as flight 77 came back onto radar over WV there were already fighter in the air looking for it. So there wasn't some "same pattern of delays in notification". They were just too far away to make an intercept.


You guys keep quoting the same paragraph that just doesn't get it. It shows an ignorance of exactly how BIG a problem air intercept IS (and assumes that 'of course' we'd be able to see these jets the whole time) and how large an area had to be covered. We know NOW what the targets were, but it's circular reasoning to assume we knew THEN. From the first notice that a plane had struck the WTC to the pentago strike was 45 min. If you were to walk up to the commander at Andrews that morning and say "we're at war, you need to get your jets into the air" it would ahve taken MORE than 45 minutes. The pilots just aren't sitting in a ready room in flight gear with fueled and armed fighters sitting on the runway. The author assumes facts not in evidence - namely, that we already knew we were at war and should have been on a war footing. Not only is "such a scenario" "possible" without "alleging collusion", it's by far the most likely outcome. The fact that he doesn't get it calls his entire argument into question. The guy just doesn't know what SHOULD have happened, so he can't draw conclusions from why it did or didn't happen that way.

[RH]

59. weren't even intercepted--by whoever was available anywhere?

Wrong.

Flight 77 was closely pursued by the C130 flown by O'Brien.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

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

[Frodo]

31. I'm not "suggesting" I'm "stating".

Civil air defense was not a role of the US Air Force on 9/11. And it was not a recent change in their priorities.

Again I point out that ALL of the military worked that way. The Army was not allowed to go provide security at the airports, that was the role of the National Guard.

When I was on board a destroyer in the carribean we did joint ops with a Coast Guard cutter for several days, but only THEY were allowed to board suspected drug running boats because coastal defense was THEIR job, not the Navy's. We could not do law enforcement.

[impe]

34. So

you're now equating drug running boats and law enforcement to wayward highjacked airplanes plowing into buildings. Good save for the AF, but I don't buy it. Andrews AFB changed their web site immediately after 9/11, regarding their charge with protecting the skies over the Nation's Capital, I guess the actual story behind 9/11 was the on-going turf battle.

[Frodo]

35. No.

I'm just telling you how it was. You have trouble dealing with facts that conflict the conspiracy theory. You guys are making the circular argument that since we NOW know what was going on that THEY should have known while it was happening. You can't shift an Air Force base into gear that quickly.

The website change is no big deal. They were probably embarrased by their failure to protect anything. But recognize the website NEVER said that the AF had that responsibility... The DC Air National Guard opperates out of Andrews. They just aren't one of the ANG units that keeps a pair of fighters on strip alert 24/7. So yes, they DO have a MISSION to defend the skies over DC, there just wasn't enough warning to do anything about it.

They did have a mission to "provide combat units in the highest possible state of readiness", there are just several acceptable variations of what constitutes "highest possible state of readiness". In this case it did NOT mean "call us and we'll have an armed fighter in the air in five minutes".

[BassettWilliams]

23. Question on Post #20

My question comes about from this; quote: " ... around NYC or DC, with all those fighter jets in numerous air bases ... " end quote.

Which air bases, how many fighter jets, what type of weapons, how many pilots?

Thank you

[reorg]

26. looking for a research assistant?

Thanks, I already have a job.

[BassettWilliams]

28. No

I'm asking because I do not know, and thought that with your knowledge and expertise you would provide a link. Thanks anyway. Maybe someone else knows what you're talking about and can be kind enough to guide me.

[Abe Linkman]

21. You didn't refute what I quoted from the article.

I assume you would have if you could have. Right? It would only be common sense that someone who says they have more education on the topic than the author does. Unless and until I see proof of more credibility and education than he has, and a refutation of his points, I'll stick with his KNOWN credentials versus an anonymous critic claiming superior education and credibility.

I'll also give you and your opinions the respect you don't seem to feel either I nor anyone else deserves.

[Frodo]

24. There wasn't any need to.

It wasn't my intent to prove that he had misspelled every word, or that his "copy and paste" job from other websites was incomplete or inaccurate. Lot's of facts that he uses are correct. They just don't add up to the conclusions he reaches. None of what you posted bears on whether there was a "stand-down" of all Air Force protection that would have otherwise been there. You don't get any extra credit for finding something true in the article. You need to find suomething that supports the point under discussion.

I have no idea how to respond to the "lack of respect for other's opinions" comment. If my son wants to tell me the moon is made of green cheese should I "support" him in that belief? When I tell him he is wrong in his "belief" am I being inconsiderate?

It is simply NOT the case that all opinions are equally valid.

As for me? I studied Physics and Philosophy and am working on an MBA. Unlike the good Prof, I have also spent more than 15min in the military and had to actually pay attention to some of this stuff. I don't have a PhD, and normally defer to those who took the time to complete one... but I'm afraid I can't keep a straigt face if we're talking about a P.E. degree.

But I don't have to "claim a superior educaton". I'm sure his doctoral thesis in multiple paradigm theory of a general-systems theoretical model for walking and chewing gum methodologies is a gripping work that would be beyond me. But it doesn't bear on his subject, now does it?

[Frodo]

32. OK. Here's a quick take on the first ten "points".

#1 This is ridiculous on it's face. A single line on a daily intelligence briefing (among dozens of other presumed threats for the day), or one or two analysts speculating (again among dozens of possibilities) that something might happen does not add up to "The entire United States intelligence community knew of the 9/11 attacks before hand". It also wouldn't be evidence of complicity on the part of the current misadministration since the activity clearly spanned two administrations. I doubt shrub had a hand in keeping Clinton from implementing some airline safety precaution.

I also know more than one intelligence employee, and it certainly wasn't the case that "the entire community¨ knew something. In fact, plenty of CT fans here don't think there WAS a terrorist attack that day, so it's unlikely the whole community knew about something that wasn't actually happening.

#3 Is a more reasonable point, but frankly, I can't equate lack of competence in this administration with intentional complicity. It's just as possible (MORE possible) that they just screw up a lot and it costs people their lives.

My favorite line was "The actions of the President (sic), while the attacks were occurring, indicate that he deliberately avoided doing anything reasonably expected of a President wanting to protect American citizens and property." True, but the actions of this pResident constantly seem to be avoiding doing what could be reasonably expected of a President who cares about his people. Doesn't mean he's doing it willfully.

#4 again assumes that people KNEW what was going on and LET it happen. Again, incompetence and poor training are far more likely. Also, if you look at our reaction to some of the people they've arrested over the last couple years (even AFTER 9/11), I can't see how we could expect them to be arresting the same kind of people BEFORE 9/11. Once again, damning evidence of incompetence on the part of several government levels, but NOT complicity. He also combines inconsistent conspiracy theories here since he later goes on about the training they got and the weapons they got on board but here questions whether they were actually on board at all.

#5 repeats old and unproven accusations as if they were fact. We know that people with the same (or similar) names did receive training at some of the institutions named, but we don't know that it was the same people (he also ignores that he has already questioned whether they were actually on those flights to begin with, but hey, why confuse a good conspiracy theory with internally contradictory arguments?) The Air Force "response" to these questions strikes me as inadequate, but there did seem to be evidence that we weren't looking at the same men (dramatically different ages and known discrepancies with where we "knew" the terrorists were at the time).

Either way, it's intellectually dishonest to change "did they attend US military training¨ (which is where we still are) to "How did many of the hijackers receive clearance for training at secure U.S. military and intelligence facilities¡Kand with approval of US intelligence¨ and then use that certainty as evidence of complicity.

#6 is probably the most ridiculous of the lot. IF you take out the comment about a gun. I haven't seen anything firm that anyone got a gun on board and THAT would obviously be quite an accomplishment. The rest of it is just silly: "How were the hijackers able to specifically get contraband items such as box-cutters, pepper spray on those planes?"

What was supposed to stop them? Prior to 9/11 security would never have noticed pepper spray (my wife used to have one as a keychain and had it on every flight we took) or box cutters. Box cutters for goodness sake. I've brought an entire set of chef's knives in my carry-on luggage before and nobody said anything. We're supposed to believe that it was some intentional lapse in security that someone got a box cutter on a flight?

Again his argument is self defeating, he talks about several being questioned "through a screening process" (no word on what THAT was) and "were allowed to continue on their mission". If the security guards were all in on this ("allowed" & "mission" imply this) why did they stop them in the first place?



#7 is presented in a way I haven't seen before. Regardless, 11 of the 15 Saudi nationals involved received visas well before the start of the "U.S. Visa Express" program. To imply that the program is evidence of complicity is lacking. They didn't "make it easier" in a way that caused some to get in who would have otherwise been blocked.

And he tosses in that "At a time when the U.S. intelligence community was on alert for an imminent Al-Qaeda attack" business again. His own recounting of evidence and theory goes back more than four years, I wouldn't call that an "imminent expectation".

#8 is a big "ha ha". The reason OBL was IN Afghanistan is that he wasn't welcome in Saudi. Yes, the country ought to be on our $hit list, and probably above several who don't supply us with oil, but it isn't logical to talk about sponsorship of terrorist (NOT by the state, but by some of the royal family) and ask "why Iraq instead of Saudi since THEY support terrorism?" Iraq was also a BIG sponsor of terrorism.

More importantly, they're easier to "whoop" since Saudi actually flies our jets and has a real military.


#9 I'd need to see a lot more documentation of this. Frankly, I won't just take his word for it given his record so far.

#10 is flat-out wrong as well. Clinton said "I was on the telephone when it happened. The instant that second plane hit, I said to the person with whom I was speaking 'Bin Laden did this.' I knew immediately." If it was THAT obvious from the moment it happened, then it isn't "evidence of complicity" that everyone else knew it too.


Ten is enough for now.

[Abe Linkman]

36. I agree. That's more than enough. For now AND later.

Thank you.

[Frodo]

38. You didn't refute what I posted.

I assume you would have if you could have. Right? It would only be common sense....

[Abe Linkman]

39. I don't refute opinions.

Enjoy your opinions, free of refutation. Isn't America great?

[Frodo]

40. You're darn right you don't.

You still don't get it.


The difference here is between "fact" and "opinion". He presents wild accusations as fact ("compelling evidence" etc.). I merely provide a debunking of some of his so-called "facts" and make the point that, where correct, they do not logically add up to his accusations. I'm not advancing an "opinion". His "opinion" in this case is that the administration was behind 9/11. All the other points are SUPPOSED to be factual arguments supporting that opinion. I don't HAVE to advance an opinion to prove him wrong, merely chop his "factual" legs out from under him. his argument collapses of it's own weight.

It is also relevant to point out poor scholarship since he is, at best, presenting a tertiary source and can be judged on how he has handled his "research". It is obvious that he did no work of his own.

You obviously suffer from the misperception that there is no objective truth in this matter. That everyone get's his or her own opinion of what "reality" is and each is equally valid. While that may be useful in a comparative religion course, it's useless to today's discussion.


Lastly, you posted a long screed by this guy soliciting responses. The thought that someone might try to answer point-for-point seems to baffle you. Are you under the opinion that you can lend weight to your position by copying large amounts of other people's text? (I know he is).

[leftofthedial]

44. a quick take on a quick take.

"I doubt shrub had a hand in keeping Clinton from implementing some airline safety precaution."

No, but the neocon GOP Congress did. And "shrub" ignored the warnings presented to it by the outgoing Clinton Administration.

[Frodo]

45. OK. I'll be happy to blame them

But the intelligence community and the military are the baliwick of the administration. If a single intelligence report that mentions planes (do you know HOW MANY different ideas hit those reports?) makes one president culpible for not stopping them... then the knife has to cut both ways.

And the Gore report was published in 1997. I'm not sure how the GOP congress kept Clinton from implementing the report, but the FAA is part of the Dept of Transportation which is part of the executive branch. The president doesn't need congressional approval to change safty rules.

Is my point that Clinton is to blame? No. It's that the attacks really were so far outside of what we thought could happen that neither president can be blamed for ignoring those types of reports. If it had been a larger consensus report I would blame both of them. Bush has screwed up plenty since then, but failing to act on that report is not evidence of culpability in 9/11.

[Abe Linkman]

46. Blame attacks on perps & supporters of perps (bush & co.)

"It's that the attacks really were so far outside of what we thought could happen that neither president can be blamed for ignoring those types of reports."

Are you trying to be funny? (for ego protection, you must be)

[Frodo]

47. So you DO blame Clinton??

You must if you think the intelligence reports were compelling enough that any president who wasn't behind the attacks would certainly have done something about it.

You ignore the "perps" (Al Qaida terrorists) and invent new ones ( amssive conspiracy involving thousands of americans complicit in the deaths of thousands of americans without a single whistleblower)because it is politically more convenient. "Boy it would sure be wasy to beat Bush if we could say he PLANNED 9/11".

The problem is that 99% of the people who don't need to take psychotropic medication every day would be perfectly happy to blame shrub for incompetance if some on our side weren't trying to make him out to be the nefarious agent BEHIND the attacks.

All Bush has to do is tie Dean (or whoever we pick) to that kind of whacko theory and we'll lose 46-48 states AND seven seats in the Senate.

[Abe Linkman]

48. We'll expose the BS in your whacko theory as soon as you publish it.

btw- off the subject, but did you major in English?

[Frodo]

49. My "theory" is that it happened pretty much the way we saw it on 9/11

The Bush administration has plenty to answer for without making up some wild "theory".

I majored in Physics and Philosophy and am working on an MBA. But I married an English major, does that count?

Why? Did I misspell "psychotropic"?

[Abe Linkman]

50. Then shouldn't you be studying?

What exactly are you implying about the Bunnypants administration? What
is the "plenty" they have to answer for?

[Frodo]

51. Nah, I'm not in any rush.

I'm not even taking classes this semester. We just had our third kid in three years and there hasn't been much time. I'll just take a couple classes each year for the next two or three years to finish out.

My current career doesn't require it, I'd just like to finish it out eventually.


As for your question: You're kidding, right? People on a terrorist watch list are able to get into the country? The "Patriot" act? Guantanamo? Constant jacking of the "threat" level with little news of what is going on? The switch from Afghanistan to Iraq? (I supported the conflict in Iraq in humanitarian grounds, but not at what seems to be the exclusion of Afganistan) The "with us or screw you" international strategy?

None of this (or dozens more) requires me to claim that he is anything more sinister than "incompetent". You don't win elections by yelling that the other guy kills Americans on purpose to boost his poll numbers. Didn't work with Clinton, sure isn't going to work when the vast majority think we actually ARE fighting for something.

[Abe Linkman]

54. Utterly fascinating. Have a nice day.

n/t

[leftofthedial]

53. do you have the slightest evidence that there were threats

of the 9-11 attacks prior to Bush seizing power?

No one else has come forward with any.

But there is much evidence of specific warnings given to the Bush regime and to US intelligence in the weeks prior to 9-11. You repeatedly equate Clinton and Bush with respect to warnings of 9-11, which is ludicrous.

I do agree with you that I wish someone would just pin the charge of negligence on the Bush regime and leave the LIHOP and MIHOP allegations for later, when a legitimate investigation can take place.

[Frodo]

55. Sure, just read the posts here

More than one article has spoken of intelligence community reports in the late 90's. And of course the Gore report was 1997 and dealt with possible terrorism and the airlines.

[leftofthedial]

57. not threats of general terrorism.

threats of specific attacks on or around 9-11-01 involving hijacked civilian airliners.

There were warnings of all these threat aspects in the weeks preceeding 9-11-01. I do not believe there were any such specific 9-11 warnings during Clinton's terms in office.

Clinton was actually quite effective at fighting terrorism throughout his Presidency. And his administration DID at least produce a plan for combatting it. And his administration DID present information to the incoming Bush regime.

Bush, on the other hand, even if you believe the conventional 9-11 mythology, ignored warnings from the outgoing administration, ignored warnings from foreign intelligence services, and ignored increasingly specific warnings from his own intelligence services.

[RH]

58. "specific" warnings?

When did any warning ever specify the date or name a target?

Non specific warnings are of course a chronic feature; they have always cropped up and always will.

[leftofthedial]

52. funding added security in airports

requires Congressional approval. In the late 1990's, the airline industry lobby and the GOP Congress were not about to allow it.

Besides, had rules actually been followed on 9-11, tragedy could have been avoided.

The 9-11 attacks were not so far outside what we could expect that the CIA and DOD had not run training simulations on multiple concurrent hijackings and airliners being used as guided missiles. Nor were they so far outside what could be expected that threats of similar attacks had not been taken seriously previously in Italy, Spain and France.

Nor was a single intelligence report the only clue given the Bush regime in the eight months of its occupation prior to 9-11 or in the weeks prior to 9-11.

Failing to act on that one report is not proof of LIHOP or MIHOP. Neither is finding one leaf on the ground proof that it is Fall.

[Frodo]

56. Not so.

They can simply require the security. The airlines would have to pay for it. It's called "taxation by regulation" and it IS fair.

Simply informing the airlines of the possibility would have been enough. Four guys with knives could never have taken over an airliner if they knew what it would be used for. In the past, highjackings had always been "take us to Cuba" situations, not "regardless of whether you do what I say, you're all going to die". So when they hold knives to pasengers' throats, the decision was not made with all the facts.

Congress didn't need to provide a penny of funding for 9/11 to be stopped (assuming we knew it was possible - which I still don't accept).

[kanrok]

7. Yeah, I must have missed those

Guess I'm just used to having assertions of "fact" to be based upon "facts." Read the piece with a critical eye. He has not ONE footnote to any of his "factual" assertions. It is nothing but tin foil hat BS. As for what part I consider to be "guess, speculation (and conjucture...you missed that one)" or "poor example of cogent thought", EVERYTHING would fit into that category. "Objective" is defined as something that can be independently verified. There was absolutely NO independent verification of any "facts." The article is subject to many, may more criticisms than these, an assertion that some of our collegues apparently agree with.

[Abe Linkman]

8. I'm not familiar with your postings. Have you posted your ideas?

I've looked briefly to see if I could find any of your ideas about what happened, but was unable to locate any messages you have posted other than these.

What's your "cogent" fact-based (verifiable) theory of what happened on 9-11, who is behind it etc.? (NY & Pentagon)

[kanrok]

11. Don't be so disingenuous

You posted this and requested some type of reply. Judging by the responses you got, I would have to say I'm not the only one who thinks the "Professor" is a nut-job. If you want to believe this tripe, be my guest. It's nice to have opinions. It's better to have a basis for them. At least I was courteous enough to actually read his diatribe. I printed it, gave it the consideration it deserved, then promptly tossed it into the trash. I don't know what went on that day, (9-11), and I'm willing to consider all theories. In order to consider them, I like to be able to independently verify the source of the facts. There is ABSOLUTELY no footnotes for any of his wild assertions. Even a cursory glance would show that. Enough said.

[OudeVanDagen]

6. Where has he been?

Sooooo much testing, evaluation, and research has gone on .... and is STILL going on ..... that contradicts EVERYTHING he states in regards to the collapse; quote:

"13) How was it possible for the World Trade Center's two towers to have completely collapsed as a result of two jet planes? The towers in fact stood for forty-five and ninety minutes after the crashes.

The official story is that the burning jet fuel caused the steel girders supporting them to melt. However, there is simply no credible scientific evidence to support this story. The WTC towers were designed to take the impact of a Boeing 707. It is highly unlikely that fire from the jet fuel could have melted the steel girders. This is especially true of the South tower since the plane did not hit it directly. Therefore most of the fuel did not fall inside the building. The South Tower was hit second and fell first. Both towers collapsed evenly and smoothly in a manner consistent with that caused by a planned demolition. Based upon scientific evidence, photos and videos of the event, and reports of scientists, the WTC architect and engineers, it is highly unlikely that the Towers collapsed because of burning jet fuel rather than demolition. There are also serious questions regarding the collapse of the building known as WTC7. There are also two noteworthy facts to consider: first, the ownership of the WTC changed hands several months earlier, and two, if the towers collapsed because of inside demolition, such an accomplishment would require cooperation from the extensive WTC security forces." end quote.

Where's he been .... sounds like ALL he's ever read is the FEMA collapse report and a few wacko totally unsubstantiated theories ... why is he ignoring all the real investigation and research that's followed FEMA's quick fix?

[LARED]

16. Walter E. Davis, Associate Professor, Sport Studies

at the Kent State University - School of Exercise and Leisure Sports.
is now authoring "Well-reasoned, compelling evidence against the Offical 9-11 Legend"

LOL.

Abe, I have a good mind to email this tripe to whoever heads up the School of Exercise and Leisure Sports and ask if they approve of Kent State professors publishing articles that displays such poor scholarship.

I do have one question. Is there evidence anywhere in the article? I couldn't bring myself to read the whole thing.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

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

[LARED]

19. Well he might be

but I sorta doubt it, as even if one has PhD in sports and leisure, they would need to start out with some freshmen classes to work toward an engineering degree.

And I've yet to read anyone from my alma mater posting tripe on the internet of the sort that Mr. Davis has.

[Abe Linkman]

29. Just look for certain well-known defenders of the Official Legend.

"And I've yet to read anyone from my alma mater posting tripe on the internet of the sort that Mr. Davis has."

[TrogL]

33. which conspiracy is this?

Is this the one where anybody who opposes wacko conspiracy theories like:

• death rays shooting down aircraft (Wellstone)
  
• invisible evil demons installing explosives in the twin towers
  
• magic disappearing airplanes around the Pentagon
  

automatically supports the entire administration lie and is a Republican mole planted on this board to cause dissension and chaos?

[Abe Linkman]

37. "The Red Herring Conspiracy"

Thank you for reminding us of why WE are here.

[DulceDecorum]

41. Point taken

And they would have to be able to name the two major branches of chemistry on demand.
And also be able to accurately define elastomeric temperatures in their own words.

A quick look at the work of Mr. Davis indicates that he must have studied at a college other than the one you attended, Lared.

[LARED]

42. How boring

can this get?

And they would have to be able to name the two major branches of chemistry on demand.
And also be able to accurately define elastomeric temperatures in their own words.

So boring that you continue to believe those questions were never answered.

So boring that you somehow think those questions are even meaningful.

So boring I can only surmise that the inability to understand this can only be attributed to willful ignorance.

So boring you seem to spend all your time baiting me to say something marginally inappropriate so the MODs can be alerted.

DD, why not engage in some discourse for a change?

[LARED]

43. Yes he can write his name

but he seems to be very sort on ability to do research. As a Ph.D he is expected to have high standards if publishing something. The tripe that was posted lacks even the basics of research methods if you're going to state you have compelling evidence.