Osama bin Laden's Views on the Assassination

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

ME (Len): 3) That decision even according to Bernstein was made by General Franks a career military officer who’d been a general well before Bush jr. came to power not one of his neo-con politicos. Again according to Bernstein, Franks wasn’t sure OBL was in the area and though the risk was too high. He told Ensor:

“We had an opportunity. It would have required a bit more acceptance of risk in that case.”

And told MSNBC:

“Franks is "a great American. But he was not on the ground out there. I was."”

The evidence that OBL was there is less than rock solid:

BERNSTEIN: …my linguist was listening to him on the radio, on that un-encrypted radio. And the linguist I had listened to Osama bin Laden's voice four years straight. Any time we wanted someone to translate something it was him.

ENSOR: So he knew for sure it was him?

BERNSTEIN: He knew for sure. He knew for sure.

OK according to Bernstein a CIA linguist strongly believed it was him, it probably was. Might Franks who would have been ordering his troops into harm's way had reasons to be dubious since he didn’t know the linguist? What if he had ordered the troops in and a lot got killed (the Black Hawk Down incident had only been a few years earlier) and OBL wasn’t there or got a way?

ROBERT: There are any number of possibilities. However, as Bernstein said, he had requested the troops orally and in writing, and no doubt provided his basis for believing OBL had been located. Commanders who refrain from actions because they are afraid of losses should perhaps be pushing paper in the Pentagon and not troops in the field.

While the Black Hawk Down episode was a grisly one, a failure of nerve will never obtain Osama's head…

Wow you sound like a true neo-con ‘chicken hawk’ armchair warrior! I imagine that you, like I, have no military experience. From the comfort of your bedroom (or where ever your computer is) far from any front in Canada as an academic exercise it easy to talk tough like that. I imagine humanitarian concerns aside needlessly putting troops in the line of fire is bad for morale [did the Canadians ever forgive Mountbatten (sp?)?]. I imagine Franks had to consider the following 1) the reliability of the information, don’t forget he didn’t know the linguist 2) the increase in the likelihood of capturing OBL (if indeed he was there) by sending in US troops 3) the potential casualties from sending US troops.

Did he make the wrong decision? Was he unfit for command? I don’t think so but I’m not sure because I don’t have enough information and I’m not qualified to make such a judgment, the same I imagine could be said about you.

RC-D: Imagine whatever you wish. You have informed us that you have no time in military service. You are on less safe ground to make unsupportable assumptions about the military background of others here. As for being a 'true neo-con chicken hawk,' it has always been my feeling that when troops are placed in harm's way, it should be for a legitimate purpose, the achievement of which might make the loss of those lives worthwhile. It has always been my feeling that they are to be used solely as a last resort, and that when they are sent in, they are given all the tools and latitude to complete their task, with the least risk to them that is humanly possible to achieve. What I see here is a group of men dropped into enemy terrain, and when they located their target, their judgement was suddenly found worthy of questioning.

When they found the needle in the haystack, there was suddenly diminished interest in capturing the needle. Most odd

ROBERT: And this solicitude toward the Bin Ladens by the Bushes is not the first, nor unique. Now that I now you share my admiration for Greg Palast, Len, allow me to direct your attention to an old report of his - November '01 - illustrating that the Bush White House seems to have shut down US intelligence interest in two members of the Bin Laden clan living next door to the CIA in early '01. While this event, transpiring prior to the attacks, is less damning than solicitude shown by Bush toward OBL and kin after the attacks, it illustrates the unbroken pattern of a President doing his level best to ensure that a presumed enemy - already wanted for prior crimes against US interests abroad and already slated for murder by CIA via a Clinton authorization - has never had to pay for his crimes, real and alleged. I look forward to your comments once you've had a chance to read Palast's piece, which can be found at:

http://www.gregpalast.com/september-11-wha...0%9d/#more-1844 <

ME (Len): He wrote:

"Before you jump to the wrong conclusion, let me tell you that we found no evidence — none, zero, no kidding — that George Bush knew about Al Qaeda’s plan to attack on September 11. Indeed, the grim joke at BBC is that anyone accusing George Bush of knowing anything at all must have solid evidence. This is not a story of what George Bush knew but rather of his very-unfunny ignorance. And it was not stupidity, but policy: no asking Saudis uncomfortable questions about their paying off roving packs of killers, especially when those Saudis are so generous to Bush family businesses."

It seems you did precisely what he didn’t want his reader to. He’s saying this was done for political and personal financial reasons.

ROBERT: Re: your fine distinction that Bush was motivated by personal greed and personal political considerations, and hence wasn't solicitous toward the Bin Ladens, you seem that have it somewhat backwards. Bush was solicitous toward the Bin Ladens, and this seems to haved earned Bush a pass from you, so long as it was motivated by personal gain. To me, it is largely irrelevant for which corrupt reasons that is true, only that it is. .

I never denied that Bush is a corrupt, lying, crazy A-hole but like Palast I can believe that but still think there was no evidence he had foreknowledge of the attacks and think “inside job” theories nonsensical.

RC-D: An "inside job" didn't and doesn't require Bush's knowledge. Any "inside job," of whatever description, needs only people powerful enough to orchestrate and manipulate their underlings, the semi-justifiable use of secrecy laws, a sufficient motive, and the audacity to think they could execute it without getting caught. When it comes to evidence of foreknowledge, if such exists in a demonstrable way, those who never seek it are unlikely to find it.

ME (Len): Nothing in the article indicates he called the FBI off of OBL himself. The evidence that having done what Palast though should have been done would have prevented the attack

ROBERT: Since you've stopped in mid-sentence, I should allow you to complete it prior to responding to whatever point you intend to raise.

Sorry that should have read “Nothing in the article indicates he called the FBI off of OBL himself. Nor is there evidence that having done what Palast though should have been done would have prevented the attack”

[Len Colby]

It seems the more you know about the subject the less likely you are to believe CD theories

The growing movement for the truth behind 9/11 puts the lie to that claim, sir.

No the dearth of qualified enginers and eyewitness who say the towers CDed verifies it

[Len Colby]

http://www.lera.com/sep11.htm

September the 11th

As the structural engineers of the World Trade Center, the men and women of LERA have a special bond with the buildings. Our Leslie E. Robertson directed the original design. Further, we have provided professional services for the complex continuously for almost forty years, including the reconstruction from the bombing in 1993.

From our office, we watched as the second plane hit the South Tower. As did you, we suffered through the collapse, knowing that thousands of lives were being lost... and we feared for many of our friends, some of whom died in the attack.

We designed the towers to resist the accidental impact of a Boeing 707, perhaps lost in the fog while seeking to land. The impact of the Boeing 767s, commandeered by the terrorists, even though larger and flying much faster, was still unable to bring down the towers. The fire-resistive systems, however, did not and could not have contemplated the subsequent fire fueled by thousands of gallons of jet fuel.

Despite the enormous tragedy and loss, we are thankful that the towers stood as long as they did, allowing so many to evacuate.

My training as a poker dealer enables me to assure everyone this is a bluff.

Since he never contemplated the impact such a fire would have on his massive

steel structures, this makes him less of an expert than our oil rig specialist.

I don’t remember Mr. Pegelow ever challenging the ability of the WTC fires to weaken the trusses, but then again it’s been a while since I read what he said perhaps you can find a relevant quote. Did ever say he had done the analysis for the effect of a petroleum fire on one of his rigs might that responsibility have fallen to someone else? Even if he had done such analysis it would have been for structures totally unlike the Twin Towers. The main problem in them was that strong fires, fueled by burning office contents and ignited by jet fuel, weakened 60 foot long thin trussed whose fire proofing had been damaged /destroyed. Obviously the lead engineer and the construction manager of the WTC are better able to judge what could and could bring down the towers than an engineer who never worked on a building and neither Robertson or Brown give any credence to CD theories. The former was responsible for the towers fireproofing and the later for its instalation

[Len Colby]

As for "Tink" no he's not an engineer but he was hired by one of the interested parties to investigate what happened. I only mentioned him because he is well known and respected by many members here. Our (Tink's and mine) view is backed by firefighter (sic) who were at the scene and structural engineers who've investigate (sic) the collapse. [Just one collapse?]

Yes, Josiah Thompson is respected by many members here. So is Robert Charles-Dunne.

Unlike Mr. Dunne Tink 1) is a professional investigator and 2) has been investing the collapse including on site and with access to information not available to the genral public for a couple of years

When you started your self-serving thread in the Conspiracy section, challenging your self-described "detractors" with false premises,

What were the "false premises" that people should be able to document their claims especially when attacking anothe member of the forum.

how many members came forward to support you?

Truth can not be divined by poll, several people did contact me privately

Your constant fallback is that your self-declared position of "debunker" puts you at odds with everyone else and that's why their criticisms of your arguments are unwarranted. Go ahead and continue to believe that.

The question raise was whether or not I was uncivil no one could cite examples of when I had been so.

[Cliff Varnell]

http://www.lera.com/sep11.htm

September the 11th

As the structural engineers of the World Trade Center, the men and women of LERA have a special bond with the buildings. Our Leslie E. Robertson directed the original design. Further, we have provided professional services for the complex continuously for almost forty years, including the reconstruction from the bombing in 1993.

From our office, we watched as the second plane hit the South Tower. As did you, we suffered through the collapse, knowing that thousands of lives were being lost... and we feared for many of our friends, some of whom died in the attack.

We designed the towers to resist the accidental impact of a Boeing 707, perhaps lost in the fog while seeking to land. The impact of the Boeing 767s, commandeered by the terrorists, even though larger and flying much faster, was still unable to bring down the towers. The fire-resistive systems, however, did not and could not have contemplated the subsequent fire fueled by thousands of gallons of jet fuel.

Despite the enormous tragedy and loss, we are thankful that the towers stood as long as they did, allowing so many to evacuate.

My training as a poker dealer enables me to assure everyone this is a bluff.

Since he never contemplated the impact such a fire would have on his massive

steel structures, this makes him less of an expert than our oil rig specialist.

I don’t remember Mr. Pegelow ever challenging the ability of the WTC fires to weaken the trusses, but then again it’s been a while since I read what he said perhaps you can find a relevant quote. Did ever say he had done the analysis for the effect of a petroleum fire on one of his rigs might that responsibility have fallen to someone else? Even if he had done such analysis it would have been for structures totally unlike the Twin Towers. The main problem in them was that strong fires, fueled by burning office contents and ignited by jet fuel, weakened 60 foot long thin trussed whose fire proofing had been damaged /destroyed. Obviously the lead engineer and the construction manager of the WTC are better able to judge what could and could bring down the towers than an engineer who never worked on a building and neither Robertson or Brown give any credence to CD theories. The former was responsible for the towers fireproofing and the later for its instalation

The tri-cores, Len, I asked about the tri-cores: each tower was built around

3 massive steel core structures that simply disappeared in the billowing smoke.

Where was this massive pile of weakened steel, Len?

Since Mr. Robertson "never contemplated" the impact of jet fuel, why should his

expertise on the matter be accepted?

[Len Colby]

The posts of the back and forth between Robert and I have gotten very long and cumbersome and I imagine dificuly for other to follow. I edited out most of the previous replies those wish for full context should look at the referenced posts.

From post 164

RC-D: You mis-read my point, though not for the first time. You may be correct that "the US only has effective control over a small part of Baghdad," and yet the insurgents still manage to detonate car bombs there, and kill just about whomever they please, including the 21 [if memory serves] merchants who chatted with John McCain during his visit there. Given that the US has, as you acknowledge, "effective control" of that turf via security, how is it that AQ are incapable of committing similar acts in the US, where bomb-making materials are freely available for purchase and where security is nowhere near so tight?

Recently, Bush visited Anbar Province to demonstrate how well things are going there, thanks to his having cut a deal with the local Sunni sheik, Abdul Sattar Buzaigh al-Rishawi, who is now dead, along with a couple of his bodyguards, less than a fortnight later. As I said from the outset here, it need not be another Nine-One-One, but people should be highly suspicious when the first shot fired is also the last. Herb White outlined a series of possible actions AQ could undertake, were they truly a threat, none of which would be terribly hard to pull off. Yet, thus far, nada, zip, zero, zilch. You may take this as a sign that security is now near-perfect, but it doesn't prevent college or high school students from taking arms to school and wiping out dozens. I think you give far too much credit to DHS, et al, and are failing to consider that the threat level is nowhere near what has been touted.

No I got your point, you have been avoiding several of mine

- We don’t know if AQ is able to set up cells (directly controlled by OBL) in the US

- In Iraq on the other hand there are 10’s of millions of people with motive to attack US or rival Iraqi targets. [Presumably the Iraqi attacks were all carried out by locals or with their participation. It is very difficult to prevent a group of determined locals from carrying out attacks even with draconian security the ability of Palestians from the occupied territories to attack Israel and the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising are cases in point. Also it is a lot easier for AQ operatives and sympathizers from the region to get into Iraq.]

- They seem to have shifted their focus to Iraq

- Even if he were able to carry out small scale attacks against soft target he prefers iconic ones like military bases, warships, embassies, the WTC and Pentagon

- Such iconic hard targets are heavily secured in the US.

Also I’ve seen no evidence that the attacks in Iraq are being coordinated by OBL rather than by local commanders also not all the attacks are being carried out by AQ there are many groups in Iraq. Even in the areas under “effective control” there are allies of dubious loyalty and many resident who may well hostile to the US.

IMHO –further debate over this topic is futile.

LEN: You believe that he should have tried to strike the US again but have offered zero evidence to support that claim. You believe he should have been content to set off car bombs in front of soft targets despite that not seeming to be his style (Where has he ever done this outside of the Arab world?).

RC-D: Thank you. You've inadvertently helped to make my point. Previous to Nine-One-One, car bombs, truck bombs and boat bombs were all "he" seemed capable of detonating. Nine-One-One was a quantum leap forward in both style and ability. Yet since that time, "he" cannot manage even a car bomb on US soil. I find that curious, almost as much as your lack of curiosity for why that might be.

The genius of 9/11 was mostly in its conception; once it had been planned it would not have that difficult to carry out. Four months after 9/11 a Florida teenager with minimal flight training was able to steal a Cessna fly it over an air force base and crash it into a building in Tampa. Planes have previously been hijacked by crazy people soaked in flammable liquid or with fake bombs, the “muscle hijackers” were trained in hand to hand combat. Getting a car bomb close enough to an iconic target to do serious damage wouldn’t be so easy as you imagine.

RC-D: It looks as though Musharraf's days are numbered in any case.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto.../International/

One thing that would certainly earn him credit around the globe, and some at home, is the capture of Public Enemy Number One.

A recent poll showed that he is less popular than OBL and as your article indicates his grip on power is tenuous. Pushing to hard against OBL would probably entail heavy Pakistani casualties on both sides. Doing so could be his undoing.

RC-D Then again, it doesn't seem as though the US is placing any particular pressure upon Musharraf to find Public Enemy Number One, so perhaps OBL's place on that pecking order has been downgraded within the Bush administration. It sure seems that way, since Bush announced more than four years ago that he doesn't even "think" about him much any more. Again, a most curious negligence is taking place. Your willingness to not care any more than Bush does is puzzling.

It’s only natural that after having promised to but not able to get OBL Bush would say he really isn’t so important after all. AQ seems to be decentralized now and the capture or killing of OBL might not make much of a difference. Musharraf being replaced by a pro-Taliban gov’t/ anti-US government is probably not worth the risk especially since the have nukes.

LEN: I’m not into getting involved in semantic battles, increased security is a reasonable explanation for later attacks not occurring, someone (especially a Canadian) praying to a rock isn’t. After the US started x-raying carry on baggage and obliging passengers to go through metal detectors hijackings of scheduled passenger virtually came to a halt in the US. In the few incidents that happened afterwards the perpetrators used non-traditional weapons (bombs, flammable liquids, box cutters, knives etc. Can we assume causality or do you think some one prayed to their pet rock? I don’t know of any cases of potential hijackers being caught by airport security. However it is reasonable to assume that people who might have tried before the security measures were put in place but didn’t because it was more difficult.

RC-D: Those without a predisposition might also reasonably assume that no such incidents have taken place because no such attempts were made. Had any such attempts been made, would DHS, et al, not rightly trumpet such apprehensions far and wide as proof that their increased security precautions were paying great dividens in maintaining public safety? That you've seen no such report, I submit, is proof there have been no such attempts. But, again, I've never held that a secondary attack had to be against aircraft. I just find it incredible that no such attack of any kind has been perpetrated.

My last sentence came out convoluted but you should have been able to make out my point. It should have read: “However it is reasonable to assume that people who might have tried before the new security measures were put in place didn’t because it became more difficult”. I.e. increased security has a deterrent effect. I don’t think anyone can point out a hijacking that was prevented by metal detectors and x-ray machines at airports but the steep decline of such incidents after they were put into use is strongly suggestive they prevented such attacks.

LEN: Note - Michael also quoted another passage which indicated “the FBI had…prior warnings that a bomb or bombs would go off in New York City the FBI”

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=117649

RC-D: Sorry, Len, but I cannot fathom the intent behind the final sentence, so will reserve comment for now.

I included that because if I hadn’t I would have accused of selective quoting by leaving out a quote that was a bit contrary to by position. The quote before it indicated that the FBI cut off contact with the informant before the bombing.

From post 165

LEN: Strawman I didn’t use the incompetence theory regarding the memo and only used it as a secondary possibility forr the 1st WTC attack.

RC-D: Well, of course. Otherwise, you might actually have to confront the recurring pattern of curious negligence, incompetence or [feel free to use your own terminology] to rationalize how prior warnings are ignored, and after the fact, denied ever being made or received. Unfortunately for those doing the denying, those warnings are, after all, demonstrable, as was the case when Condi Rice said it was unthinkable that AQ would use airplanes to attack the US, only to have Richard Ben Veniste produce precisely such a document, provided to the President more than a month before the attacks, which document warned of precisely such an event. That this disconnect doesn't trouble you may not surprise those who read your output here, but some of us are troubled by such disclosures, for it illustrates that criminal negligence, at best, was committed by the man whose central reason for being, by his own proclamation, is keeping the US secure.

I don’t know if incompetence is the correct charge, of course with hindsight it’s easy to say what should have been done. The Bush administration did show a distinct disinterest in terrorism probably because they had other priories [iraq and the rest of the axis of evil, raping the economy etc] some of the errors took place during the Clinton administration if it was a conspiracy it was a very complex one.

- In the 30’s the French failed to learn the lesson of the previous war and placed fortification only along their boarder with Germany but in 1940 just as the had done in WWI the Germans attacked through the low countries.

- If I’m not mistaken Chamberlain really seemed to believe Hitler would keep his word.

- Stalin refused to believe intelligence report Germany was going to attack in 1941

- Hitler refuse to believe the allies were going to land at Normandy (rather than other landing points)

- In 1973 the Israelis missed signs of an impending Arab attack

Were the above “inside jobs”

LEN: The “new Pearl Harbor” was only tied to one goal, introducing new weapons systems namely “Global missile defenses”, “Control of space and cyberspace” and “Pursuing a two-stage strategy for of transforming conventional forces” (i.e. more modern conventional weapons) (pg. 63). Unless you cite credible evidence that after 9/11 such new weapons were introduced at a faster rate than could have been expected if the attacks hadn’t occurred, you’ve lost your case. Keep in mind that we would have expected defense spending to go up during a neo-con Republican administration anyway and many of the PNAC people were in positions to implement their goals under the puppet like Bush.

See also if you can dig up any references in that paper to invading or overthrowing the governments of any governments especially in that region.

The "happy coincidence" exists only in the minds of truthers because there is no evidence the attacks help implement any of the goals stated in the paper especially those in the “new Pearl Harbor chapter”

RC-D: I take it that "truther" is a new pejorative term, much like "conspiracy buff," employed by those who cannot refute the message and are thus reduced to mocking the messenger?

No “truther” is the preferred term for most people who are part of the “truth movement” to describe themselves. Is taking mock offense an excuse for not addressing my points? I mocked no one and replied to your point.

Post 166

LEN: Wow what a convoluted paragraph! The flights the 9/11 C and 911myths were referring to were the ones that took the bin Laden’s out of the US not the one that took Saudi VIPs from Florida to Kentucky.

RC-D: One cannot help but note that you've excised the pertinent portions from Hopsicker's site that illustrate precisely the point I was making. So, at the risk of boring everyone gormless, allow me to resurrect them:

I edited for brevity the posts were getting too long and confusing as it is. I asked for a reference for your claim that members of the bin Laden family were flown out of the US without being questioned by the FBI days after 9/11. You have so far fail to produce one, no amount of smoke will hide that.

RC-D: You place great faith in the 9/11 Report, enough to cite its findings as contained on 911.myths.com. I posted the Hopsicker material to demstrate that while US airspace was closed, Saudis - less important to Bush than the Bin Ladens - received preferential treatment, attributed [by some of those involved in the flight] to the White House. FAA denied it, FBI denied it, the White House denied it, yet the Commission accepted it as a fact, and then called it benign.

That still isn’t evidence in support of your original claim

>>>>>>

ROBERT: Your site also asserts: "Had they driven across the border to Canada instead, they could have flown home from there with no questions at all."

This is wholly untrue. It presupposes that Canadian air travel security protocols were so lax that persons could come and go as they pleased, with "no questions at all." Only somebody who's never flown in or out of my country would say so silly a thing. Our system may be less draconian than some others, but we do have a system, and thus far it's worked with reasonable efficiency.

…………

LEN: If you read with more care you would have realized he meant “no questions at all” from the FBI.

RC-D: It that's what he "meant," can we not assume that's what would have been written?

It is clear in context, the complete quote was:

“What's more, by opting to fly the family members volunteered to go through this process. Had they driven across the border to Canada instead, they could have flown home from there with no questions at all.”

As per the preceding paragraph the “process” he referred to included being “interviewed by the FBI”, having their names “checked a variety of databases” and the aircraft being searched.

http://911myths.com/html/family_flights.html

LEN: I haven’t flown out of Canada since I was a teenager decades ago but when flying out of the US even post 9/11 there is no ID by security officials. Names and ID’s only checked by airline employees at check-in and boarding for someone with an e-ticket and no checked bags not even the former. Are you saying that the Canadians would not have instructed the airlines to not allow anyone named bin-Laden fly overseas?

RC-D: Unsure about the double negative, but... Given the ID of OBL by the US by that time, it is entirely possible. Certainly, we've detained a half dozen 'suspects' via the use of "security certificates," some for years in solitary confinement, without charge, without trail, without conviction. We have collaborated with the US in the forced and illegal deportation of Canadian citizens to Middle Eastern countries where they were held, tortured and spurned by the Canadian consular officials responsible for their well being in those countries. I realize when people think of Canada, it is hard to conjure the image of an overly zealous and efficient security apparatus, but we do have one. And ours isn't always perfect, but it usually errs on the side of proactive, unConstitutional behaviour, more often than not.

You seem to have taken offense at a sentence on the 911myths page based on your misreading. I doubt the US would have had any legal basis for preventing the bin Ladens from leaving the US once airspace was open unless they had evidence against them. Canada would have had even less basis for holding them. Being detained for simply being a relative of someone suspected of committed a crime is something I doubt even the neo-cons would dream of seriously proposing.

LEN: To be quite frank it sounds to me like you are retroactively changing your claim which was that “US forces at Tora Bora [were] ordered to not fire upon the positions where they were certain OBL was residing?” Firing upon (which they did do) and attacking themselves (which they didn’t) are very different things. Actually what Berstein says he wanted was for US troops to block escape routes, presumably even he wanted Afghans to do in and “do the dirty work”.

RC-D: Bernstein was the man on the ground spearheading the get-OBL effort. He was chosen for a reason. When he called for air power, he got it. When he had sufficient reason to believe that OBL had been located, based on information that he - the guy in charge - found credible, he called for the US military to provide the ground troops necessary to be certain that OBL was killed or captured. Suddenly, according to you, the military began to question the judgment of the man selected to spearhead the get-OBL asset. You seem to think that this can be rationally explained. I see only irrational, contradictory alibis provided for why the US failed to go after its quarry during its single- best [known] opportunity.

He had always gotten what he wanted from Frank? Does that include ground troops in difficult terrain? Can you back that up? Bombing is an entirely different matter, the risk of casualties is much reduced. Do you have any evidence the decision went any higher than Franks who was the US’s military commander in Afghanistan? US ground troops were only sparingly used there almost all the fighting was done by Afghans.

LEN: It also sounds to me like you conflated Tora Bora with a fictional incident during the Clinton administration from the “the Path to 9/11” in which “National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, is portrayed as unwilling to approve a plan to take out a surrounded Osama bin Laden.” [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Path_to_9...used_by_Clinton ]. Even a conservative Clinton administration critic said this was inacurate “the idea that someone had bin Laden in his sights in 1998 or any other time and Sandy Berger refused to pull the trigger, there’s zero factual basis for that.” [ http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/07/miniter-911 ]

”

RC-D: Since I've never watched the show in question, and know the allegations about Berger to be spurious, I can assure that no such conflation has occurred.

I never watched it either, AFAIK ABC isn’t available in Brazil. But I was aware of the allegations because they were widely reported. Your original description of what happened (or rather what didn’t happen) is much closer to the spurious charge against Berger than what happened at Tora Bora.

LEN: Wow you sound like a true neo-con ‘chicken hawk’ armchair warrior! I imagine that you, like I, have no military experience. From the comfort of your bedroom (or where ever your computer is) far from any front in Canada as an academic exercise it easy to talk tough like that. I imagine humanitarian concerns aside needlessly putting troops in the line of fire is bad for morale [did the Canadians ever forgive Mountbatten (sp?)?]. I imagine Franks had to consider the following 1) the reliability of the information, don’t forget he didn’t know the linguist 2) the increase in the likelihood of capturing OBL (if indeed he was there) by sending in US troops 3) the potential casualties from sending US troops.

Did he make the wrong decision? Was he unfit for command? I don’t think so but I’m not sure because I don’t have enough information and I’m not qualified to make such a judgment, the same I imagine could be said about you.

RC-D: Imagine whatever you wish. You have informed us that you have no time in military service. You are on less safe ground to make unsupportable assumptions about the military background of others here.

Shall I take you failure to state otherwise as an indication that I was right about your similar lack of experience? I don’t know of any members here who commanded troops during combat, in any case no one else has commented on this issue.

As for being a 'true neo-con chicken hawk,' it has always been my feeling that when troops are placed in harm's way, it should be for a legitimate purpose, the achievement of which might make the loss of those lives worthwhile. It has always been my feeling that they are to be used solely as a last resort, and that when they are sent in, they are given all the tools and latitude to complete their task, with the least risk to them that is humanly possible to achieve.

I agree

What I see here is a group of men dropped into enemy terrain, and when they located their target, their judgement was suddenly found worthy of questioning.

When they found the needle in the haystack, there was suddenly diminished interest in capturing the needle. Most odd

You say this was sudden but haven’t produce evidence of what happened earlier. You think it “odd” but you don’t have any expertise on the subject, Franks certainly did. Unless you can find someone with a comparable level of expertise to question his decision you don’t have much of a case. Once you have done that you need to produce evidence the “sudden change” was due to an order from higher up the chain of command.

LEN: I never denied that Bush is a corrupt, lying, crazy A-hole but like Palast I can believe that but still think there was no evidence he had foreknowledge of the attacks and think “inside job” theories nonsensical.

RC-D: An "inside job" didn't and doesn't require Bush's knowledge. Any "inside job," of whatever description, needs only people powerful enough to orchestrate and manipulate their underlings, the semi-justifiable use of secrecy laws, a sufficient motive, and the audacity to think they could execute it without getting caught. When it comes to evidence of foreknowledge, if such exists in a demonstrable way, those who never seek it are unlikely to find it.

Would you include Palast as one of “those who never seek” “evidence of foreknowledge” was he being misleading when he indicated he had? Especially in light of his later comments that he thinks 9/11 conspiracy theories are bogus I would assume that when he said they didn’t find any evidence of Bush having foreknowledge he meant the USG do you think if he had found evidence that for example people in the CIA knew he wouldn’t have said so?

[Cliff Varnell]

It seems the more you know about the subject the less likely you are to believe CD theories

The growing movement for the truth behind 9/11 puts the lie to that claim, sir.

No the dearth of qualified enginers and eyewitness who say the towers CDed verifies it

Here's transcripts from firemen on the scene:

http://prisonplanet.com/multimedia_priorkn...ghterstape.html

9:48 a.m.

Ladder 15: "Battalion Fifteen to Battalion Seven."

Battalion Seven: "Go Ladder 15."

Ladder 15: "What do you got up there, Chief?"

Battalion Seven Chief: "I'm still in boy stair 74th floor. No smoke or fire problems, walls are breached, so be careful."

9:52 a.m.

Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven to Battalion Seven Alpha."

"Freddie, come on over. Freddie, come on over by us."

Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven ... Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones."

No fire encountered on the 74th floor at 9:48, then two isolated pockets of fire

at that location 4 minutes later.

Should be able to knock it down with two hose lines.

The reference to Morgan Stanley in the transcripts indicates this occurred in

the South Tower.

The South Tower collapsed at free-fall speed at 9:59am.

Now, what did you say about "eyewitnesses"...?

Edited September 15, 2007 by Cliff Varnell

[Len Colby]

And yet when pressed you can't answer the simple questions I put to you.

What happened to those massive steel tri-cores, Len?

How does steel drop in free-fall directly into steel and then just disappear?

Four questions

1) What part of:

"I believe all these topics have all been discussed on threads in the Political Conspiracies forum, I have no interest in rehashing issues already debated here. Note the dearth of structural engineers raising them. If you are interested in debating them do a search and if I’m wrong about them have been brought up already start a new thread there or add your questions to a relevant one."

did you fail to comprehend?

2) What on earth is a "tri-core"?

3)What did you mean by "steel drop[ing] free-fall directly into steel"?

4) I've never heard it alleged that the steel "disappeared" during the collapse. Do you have any evidence it did?

If so perhaps you should present it in a separate thread

Where was this massive pile of weakened steel, Len?

Uuuuh at Ground Zero in and around the footprints of the collapsed buildings until it was removed. Most of it wasn't weakened

Since Mr. Robertson "never contemplated" the impact of jet fuel, why should his

expertise on the matter be accepted?

1. Because that's not the only issue to consider in understanding why they collapsed.
   
2. Since he knows more than anybody else about the buildings' structures he probably more than anyone else would understand how various forces would affect them.
   
3. When said they "never contemplated" the impact of the fuel fires he meant it wasn't taken into consideration when they concluded the towers would survive such an event.
   
4. Any competent structural engineer understands the effects of fire on steel because all structures have to bed design to comply with fire code.
   
5. Not contemplating something before it happens is not the same as not understanding it after it does.
   

Edited September 15, 2007 by Len Colby

[Len Colby]

It seems the more you know about the subject the less likely you are to believe CD theories

The growing movement for the truth behind 9/11 puts the lie to that claim, sir.

No the dearth of qualified enginers and eyewitness who say the towers CDed verifies it

Here's transcripts from firemen on the scene:

http://prisonplanet.com/multimedia_priorkn...ghterstape.html

9:48 a.m.

Ladder 15: "Battalion Fifteen to Battalion Seven."

Battalion Seven: "Go Ladder 15."

Ladder 15: "What do you got up there, Chief?"

Battalion Seven Chief: "I'm still in boy stair 74th floor. No smoke or fire problems, walls are breached, so be careful."

9:52 a.m.

Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven to Battalion Seven Alpha."

"Freddie, come on over. Freddie, come on over by us."

Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven ... Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones."

No fire encountered on the 74th floor at 9:48, then two isolated pockets of fire

at that location 4 minutes later.

Should be able to knock it down with two hose lines.

The reference to Morgan Stanley in the transcripts indicates this occurred in

the South Tower.

The South Tower collapsed at free-fall speed at 9:59am.

Now, what did you say about "eyewitnesses"...?

The Chief Palmer quote has been discussed here already but to make a long story short

1) He was in a stairwell and thus probably unable to see let alone assess the situation anywhere else on the 78th floor

2) NIST never said there were big fires on the 78th floor which was at the bottom edge of the fire zone

3) IIRC Neither NIST nor the ASCE said there were significant fires on the 74th floor which was below the impact/fire zone

See if you can find me someone who was in the towers between the times of the impacts and the collapses who said after 9/11 they (still) believed the towers were demo'd I only know of three

1) Willie Rodriguez who I think I've shown to be a xxxx

2) Someone in the basement who Rodriguez saved who said he still though a bomb had gone off but what he described sounded a lot more like a fuel-air explosion than demolition charges.

3) A fireman who says he is suspicious but is confused as to the details (for example he said the North Tower collapsed first) the points he raises have already been explained.

Edited September 15, 2007 by Len Colby

[Cliff Varnell]

1) Willie Rodriguez who I think I've shown to be a xxxx

This is where our discussion ends.

[Jack White]

What is all this WTC discussion doing in the JFK section?

Jack

[Cliff Varnell]

What is all this WTC discussion doing in the JFK section?

Jack

The two go together like a horse and carriage.

In 1963 the Harriman-Walker-Bush crime family played a key role

in the cover-up of the JFK assassination, and may have had a hand

in the assassination itself.

The ultimate goal of the JFK assassination, I'd speculate, was to facilitate

narcotics/weapons smuggling out of Cuba and SE Asia. Tycoons such as

W. Averell Harriman and Clint Murchison, Jr. -- Harriman with oil drilling

platforms in the Florida Straits, Murchison with his Cuban construction

projects -- may very well have had key roles to play in such black market

operations.

In 2001 the legacy of the Harriman-Walker-Bush Crime Family -- now

commonly known as the Bush Crime Family -- prevented our nation's

air defense system from intercepting hijacked planes. Two members

of this crime family were connected to the firm that ran security at WTC.

The invasions of Afganistan and Iraq have been a boon to the black

markets in guns, oil and heroin.

I don't find any of this coincidental.

[Jack White]

What is all this WTC discussion doing in the JFK section?

Jack

The two go together like a horse and carriage.

In 1963 the Harriman-Walker-Bush crime family played a key role

in the cover-up of the JFK assassination, and may have had a hand

in the assassination itself.

The ultimate goal of the JFK assassination, I'd speculate, was to facilitate

narcotics/weapons smuggling out of Cuba and SE Asia. Tycoons such as

W. Averell Harriman and Clint Murchison, Jr. -- Harriman with oil drilling

platforms in the Florida Straits, Murchison with his Cuban construction

projects -- may very well have had key roles to play in such black market

operations.

In 2001 the legacy of the Harriman-Walker-Bush Crime Family -- now

commonly known as the Bush Crime Family -- prevented our nation's

air defense system from intercepting hijacked planes. Two members

of this crime family were connected to the firm that ran security at WTC.

The invasions of Afganistan and Iraq have been a boon to the black

markets in guns, oil and heroin.

I don't find any of this coincidental.

I agree a hundred percent, Cliff. I am for tying in 911 and the

Bush Crime Family to ALL threads. They are all connected, though

Mr. Simkin and his moderators disagree.

Jack

Edited September 16, 2007 by Jack White

[Cliff Varnell]

Today it would be almost impossible to pull off a JFK-type assassination

or 9/11-type CD.

Everyone has camera phones.

[Len Colby]

1) Willie Rodriguez who I think I've shown to be a xxxx

This is where our discussion ends.

If you are so partial to the man perhaps you'd like to refute the paper I posted here

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...mp;hl=rodriguez