• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Where Was Bush When He First Heard About 9/11?

The military was put on alert as soon as they had handle on the situation. Trust me, Adam, I was here when it happened. Planes from Whiteman AFB were buzzing the entire region, and I'm +/- 95 miles away from there. Washington DC is just under 1000 miles away, and we could hear and see jets patrolling our area due to what happened out East. At Fort Leonard Wood, to the south, security was tightened and cars entering the area searched. This all happened before the last plane went down, IIRC.

I know for a fact the military was on alert during that time, because I saw and heard evidence of it.
 
Oll_Lewis said:
Ah that would be why he didn't object to their mistreatment under the Tallaban. evidently execution isn't being attacked it's just a difference of opinion:rolleyes:
It's the Quaran that is against attacking women and children, this is not something bin laden subscribes to as is in evidence in other terrorist actions he has carryed out. can you name one alQ. attack in which women and children have not been harmed, Adam?

Bin Laden follows the rules of the koran to the letter. I can not speak for him concerning his opinions on how the Talaban treated women.


What was the video then? scotch mist? What about his aperances on aljazera?

Which video? The one in which he doesnt confess in every single version except the CIA translation? And what appearence on Al-Jazera? The one where he is asked if he is a terrorist and he says... from memory something like.... what is a terrorist? If we kill those who seek to destroy us, does that make us a terrorist? In that case, I am a terrorist. And that supposedly proves he is a terrorist.


If you had payed attention to news reports you would know that.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2150765.stm

TorgosPizza said:
The military was put on alert as soon as they had handle on the situation. Trust me, Adam, I was here when it happened. Planes from Whiteman AFB were buzzing the entire region, and I'm +/- 95 miles away from there. Washington DC is just under 1000 miles away, and we could hear and see jets patrolling our area due to what happened out East. At Fort Leonard Wood, to the south, security was tightened and cars entering the area searched. This all happened before the last plane went down, IIRC.

I know for a fact the military was on alert during that time, because I saw and heard evidence of it.

And I wonder how many lives could have been saved had Bush of done it sooner.
 
I think Adam's making a couple of good points (for instance, there SHOULD be a distinction between Al Quaeda and the Taliban, which seem to be lumped together all the time) but after those couple, just (since I'm on a british webboard I'll use the word) bollocks.
He said he wasn't a terrorist! I guess he couldn't be one!

And I read about the "false" translations of the video in FT, but it didn't seem like proof of faking the translation enough to make him seem to admit guilt.

I really don't see how anyone can support OBL. I'm pissed that all Arabic foreigners are being labeled terrorists (and other such backlash)... but I'm all for the terrorists themselves going down.

I'm glad the Taliban are gone too, I hated them ever since I read about them blowing up Buddhist statues in FT.

But if Bush pre-emptively attacks Iraq, I will be PISSED AS HELL.
 
Bin Laden follows the rules of the koran to the letter. I can not speak for him concerning his opinions on how the Talaban treated women.

I thought the Koran was against violence? Also it forbids use of images of people i.e photos and videos - and Osama B wasn't exactly shy of cameras. I think they just use the translations and studies of the Koran that suit them.
 
'Originally posted by Adam Rang


Actually Bin Laden is against attacking women and children even in battle.'

So why did he authorise the bombings of the two African embassies, which left over 200 people dead, many of them women and children?
As for Frater Libre's point that the WTC was some kind of Reichstag fire in order to justify a new repressive regime with sweeping power, well, at least that's a theory/motive I can work with.
But FL, a similar operation could have been carried out with much less loss of life, and more importantly for the friends of the Carlye Group, loss of money.
For example, a low yield radioactive device would have only killed around 60-500 people, but the psychological impact it would have been even greater than the WTC attacks. Similarly a smallpox outbreak, which while containable, would have caused mass panic.
Or the assassination of a leading government figure (say Powell, as he's not part of the Bush posse, and actually has a brain.)
 
Actually, WRT to military mobilisation, the President doesn't have to give the order first. Air National Guard aircraft (who use modern jets like the F-16, etc.) can be put into the air at very short notice, on the orders of a regional commander. That commander can give such orders without waiting around for the Presiential nod. They are the first line of defence during security emergencies such as this.

Adam, if the main beef about your post is that GWB was negligent of his duties, well I for one can't see why you're at all suprised. As always with this sort of thing, we'll probably on find out years down the line about what really happened, who said or didn't say what, etc.. I think you may be expecting too much of GWB ;)
 
Originally posted by Adam Rang
what is a terrorist? If we kill those who seek to destroy us, does that make us a terrorist? In that case, I am a terrorist. And that supposedly proves he is a terrorist.

Ok, I did fuck that bit up. Last bit should of read "supposedly proves that he is being the 9/11 attacks."

The main gist of my argument is not only that Bush is lying but also that he and his chief of staff acted irrational during the September 11th attacks.

Just another note on that video of him.... er... here.
 
he main gist of my argument is not only that Bush is lying but also that he and his chief of staff acted irrational during the September 11th attacks.

Q. Exactly what do you expect Bush to do?
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dont look at me, I'm not the president of the United States of America. um... Perhaps he should of put the military on alert?

As explained in at least two posts Bush doesn't have to make the decision to put the military on alert, it had already been done.

And if you think that waiting until the FACTS were presented to them (presumebly when he was aboard Air Force One) is irrational then so be it. But it seems perfectly logical to me to wait until enough information had been gathered to make any decision. He and the waiting world must have been accutely aware that a 'knee-jerk' reaction could be disasterous.
 
Edward said:
As explained in at least two posts Bush doesn't have to make the decision to put the military on alert, it had already been done.

Gee, he lied about that as well. Does Bush ever tell the truth? The point is that there should have been some exchange between Bush and Card over the attacks while they were still going on.
 
If Bush was told just that another plane had crashed into the WTC he should have reacted. If he was also told the military were scrambling the jets etc then maybe he would be less concerned?
 
The point is that there should have been some exchange between Bush and Card over the attacks while they were still going on.

Why?

With the benefit of hindsight of course we can all see the huge worldwide implications that the events of 911 had but at that time and without much of the relevent fact what would Bush and Card discussed?
 
Bush and Card were aware there was a terrorist attack, and a large one at that. Bush is the President of the United States of America. In a few hours he would be declaring war, in the mean time he would be very busy. He doesnt single-handedly sort everything out but within the system he still has a lot of roles. For a start ordering the closure of US air space. He knew that two planes had already been used, he should of been wisked away, there and then, so they can find out if there is a possibility of more attacks, and what action to take. Assuming that he should just sit there 'waiting for his team to get the facts first' is not something the President should of been doing, if indeed that is his excuse for not doing anything.
 
I think you assume that he has alot of executive powers - but, for instance, if he wanted to declare war would have to ask Congress. He would also have to ask Congress to grant him other emergency powers.
 
Bush and Card were aware there was a terrorist attack

No Adam, he was aware that a plan had crashed into the WTC. He was only aware that a second plane had crashed into the WTC half way through his 'storytime'.

Assuming that he should just sit there 'waiting for his team to get the facts first' is not something the President should of been doing,

In my opinion that is EXACTLY what he should be doing. i.e waiting to get a true picture of what was going on. He HAD to be right. Accusing and attacking the wrong target could have been globally disasterous.

What would have happened if Bush had launched an attack on Bin Laden when it was really another Oklahoma domestic style terrorist?
 
Edward said:
No Adam, he was aware that a plan had crashed into the WTC. He was only aware that a second plane had crashed into the WTC half way through his 'storytime'.

Thats exactly what I'm talking about.


What would have happened if Bush had launched an attack on Bin Laden when it was really another Oklahoma domestic style terrorist?


W..what?? I'm talking about reacting to a terrorist attack not launching an offensive.
 
OK Adam let me get this straight.

Taking into consideration your obvious 'comprehensive' and 'expert' knowledge of US political crisis protocol your whole argument for a conspiracy revolves around the fact that Bush wasn't immediately whisked away from the kids.

Brilliant.
 
Conners_76 said:
Perhaps Adam, you could explain what Bush and these shadowy conspirators hoped to gain by destroying a huge commerical landmark in their most important city, along with hundreds of their citizens and many foreign nationals?

What were they ultimately trying to achieve? It's meaningless to posit the "how" of a conspiracy theory if you can't suggest a credible "why".

I would save your breath Connor, Adam doesn't do motive.
 
This thread is not about motives. There are plenty other threads on motives.
 
Well, I tried lads. But with logic like that I'm just gonna have to admit defeat.
 
Adam

Your blind acceptance of anything that smells of conspiracy is an outstanding example of an ignorance that Hitler would be proud of.
 
Edward,
now that you have invoked Godwin's Law (http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/html/entry/Godwin's-Law.html) can we all go home.
In the spirit of good faith and friendship Adam, here's a few motives I've just pulled out of the top of my hat
1. The whole thing was actually an attempted military coup against Bush, but the plotters didn't realise that he wouldn't be in the White House that day, and of course, had no way of knowing the plane would be diverted/crashed by its passengers.
2. The WTC attack was carried out by rogue DEA agents under indictiment for corruption, who wanted to destroy the DEA evidence room inside one of the towers.
3. As 2 but it was the FARC/Cali Cartel/Tijuana Cartel in a revenge attack for DEA activities.
4. It was the French secret service. (c'mon, when did we need a reason to knock the French secret service)
5. It was a grand exercise is Masonic symbolism, trying to taking out three of the most important Masonic buildings in the US, in order to screw up its karma or whatever.
 
Motives

Dont think inside the box.

Perhaps 9/11 was a mass ritual killing by the worlds Satanist elite (You know who you are!). Perhaps it was a way for the powers that be to crack down on freedom. Perhaps it was orchastrated by the secret society networks working for their annunaki overlords. Perhaps it was orchastrated by oil company executives hoping to expand their pipelines through the middle east. Perhaps it was the stepping stone that will help a complete re-shaping of the middle east and rogue states by the rational international Bilderberg group. My personel theory is all five.
 
Adam Rang said:
Gee, he lied about that as well. Does Bush ever tell the truth?

polititions all want to be re-elected whereas they don't respect the public anymore(for example only 1 MP of note who at the very least was acting like she cared about us more than her future empolyment in the past 5 years in the uk).
This is why they have spin doctors, they wright the speaches and breif the press, what dubya said would have been wrote by a spin doctor in order to make the president sound good to the electorate (the gist of the speach as I recall was that he was with them in this time of suffering) don't forget the presendent won election by the flimsiest of majorities he neaded the electorate to belive in himat this time or the rest of his presidency and re-election chances would be down the toilet.
It's just a sad fact about politics the spin doctors who put the words into polititions rancid freeloading mouths will try to bend the truth to make their own guy sound good. wrong ?yes, misleading? yes, evidence for killing thousends of your own people f**king up the stock market and wourld economy just to start a run of bombing raids? probably not:rolleyes:
 
Attentive MB watchers will have noticed that I have not contributed to this thread...

Oh shit, now I have... :cool:
 
Oll_Lewis said:
....evidence for killing thousends of your own people f**king up the stock market and wourld economy just to start a run of bombing raids?

I never said it was.
 
Surprise Attack

It's glaringly obvious no one has a clue what the truth might be about 9/11 and everything that seems to hinge upon it.

That alone says volumes.
 
Back
Top