FBI, the mob, and 9/11

[Ron Ecker]

You really think that a moving target, in an unknown location, with a fighter escort, would be more vulnerable than sitting on the ground? Interesting.

If I may intrude, why, instead of going and getting aboard that "moving target," did they remain "sitting on the ground" for half an hour while knowing "America was under attack," doing nothing but listen to a pet goat story and compose and then give a presidential statement in the schoolhouse, thus endangering not just the president but all the children and teachers there? Just your typical Secret Service agents at work?

[Matthew Lewis]

You really think that a moving target, in an unknown location, with a fighter escort, would be more vulnerable than sitting on the ground? Interesting.

If I may intrude, why, instead of going and getting aboard that "moving target," did they remain "sitting on the ground" for half an hour while knowing "America was under attack," doing nothing but listen to a pet goat story and compose and then give a presidential statement in the schoolhouse, thus endangering not just the president but all the children and teachers there? Just your typical Secret Service agents at work?

It is possible that the motorcade route had to be coordinated, the plane was still being fueled, security had to be coordinated, etc. Has anybody ever asked the Secret Service about this? All I ever see is "armchair-quarterbacking" about how they shouldn't have sat there for x amount of time.

[Ron Ecker]

Has anybody ever asked the Secret Service about this?

Good question. The 9/11 Commission may have asked, but I seriously doubt it, just like it didn't ask so many obvious questions about 9/11. But if there was a commission interview of the SS on this, like all interviews it is locked up in the National Archives, unavailable to us peons.

[David G. Healy]

Jack,

Of course thank you for correcting my spelling error. I would have assumed you were smart enough to know what I was meaning, I over estimated you, and I certainly apologize for throwing you such confusion.

As for the rest of your post....its just your basic general idiocy.

But the fools of the world do indeed keep the other fools of the world interested.

Please explain to me JACK, and stop avoiding the issue, as to how those smoke clouds could be more dense the further away they move from your ridiculous point of origin.

I wont be holding my breath for a reply.

Mike

And people wonder why conspiracy researchers get such a bad name.......

Well son, we do know Jack White and his photo credentials, your photo interp credentials on the other hand, now THAT, is another story...

So, no one is over or under estimating you Sgt. Mikey.... things must be slow at Lancer these day's, eh? You did however, get off to a bad start here mixing it up with Tom Purvis, we all live and learn, eh?

Regarding the topic at hand, your expertise and experience in high rise collapse (and photos of same) would be much appreciated, you do you have a resume, yes? Or are you simply rendering another opinion? Let's not avoid THAT issue, eh?

Seems Lone Nuts are versatile and experienced in so much these day's, simply boggles the mind.... now if they only had credentials to go with their opinons -- just might carry some weight... Carry on!

Edited July 9, 2008 by David G. Healy

[Charles Drago]

Quoting Matthew Lewis:

"It is possible that the motorcade route had to be coordinated, the plane was still being fueled, security had to be coordinated, etc. Has anybody ever asked the Secret Service about this? All I ever see is "armchair-quarterbacking" about how they shouldn't have sat there for x amount of time."

The so-called president of the United States, the so-called commander-in-chief of the United States armed forces, has been informed that his country is under attack. He exhibits not the slightest indication of basic human curiosity, let alone words and actions commonly expected from a national leader who has just learned that his people are being killed by armed enemy forces, and instead sits, sullen and uncommunicative, as events unfold.

And you seek to explain away such dereliction of duty? Such other-than-human reponse?

And you accuse others of armchair quarterbacking???

Get off your recliner and stretch, for God's sake. The blood has drained from your cranium.

Edited July 9, 2008 by Charles Drago

[Josiah Thompson]

Nope, it wasn't a windless day. Since I don't know what you mean by "a gentle breeze," I don't know whether to agree or disagree. As all photos of 9/11 demonstrate, the wind was blowing from the northwest. Since the south face of WTC7 had been lacerated by impact damage from the collapse of the North Tower, there were many openings on that face. Although from time to time, smoke emanates from broken windows on the east face or even on the west face, the main chimney for drawing smoke out of the building was on the south face. The combination of wind from the northwest plus multiple airways on the south face meant that much of the smoke from fires in WTC7 vented through the south face. Do you agree?

I have always thought it a little odd that one side of the building was covered with smoke, while the other side only had a few floors emitting visible flames with accompanying smoke. How do you explain all the smoke on one side and only a relatively small amount on the other, if it was all emanating from inside the same building? It was a windless day, with what was at most a gentle breeze.

[Matthew Lewis]

Quoting Matthew Lewis:

"It is possible that the motorcade route had to be coordinated, the plane was still being fueled, security had to be coordinated, etc. Has anybody ever asked the Secret Service about this? All I ever see is "armchair-quarterbacking" about how they shouldn't have sat there for x amount of time."

The so-called president of the United States, the so-called commander-in-chief of the United States armed forces, has been informed that his country is under attack. He exhibits not the slightest indication of basic human curiosity, let alone words and actions commonly expected from a national leader who has just learned that his people are being killed by armed enemy forces, and instead sits, sullen and uncommunicative, as events unfold.

And you seek to explain away such dereliction of duty? Such other-than-human reponse?

And you accuse others of armchair quarterbacking???

Get off your recliner and stretch, for God's sake. The blood has drained from your cranium.

I have no idea why he or the secret service acted as they did that day, nor do I care. Nor was I trying to draw any conclusions from it. Nor did I accuse anyone here of anything. I was asked specifically about it which is why I speculated and only speculated by repeating things that I have heard others mention before. That is hardly the armchair quaterbacking that others undertake by assigning a particular motive to those that acted or did not act in the way people feel they should. I sought to explain nothing away, so quit with the hostility and drop the insults. It reflects poorly on you and the forum to resort to insults like that.

Edited July 9, 2008 by Matthew Lewis

[Len Colby]

The so-called president of the United States, the so-called commander-in-chief of the United States armed forces, has been informed that his country is under attack. He exhibits not the slightest indication of basic human curiosity, let alone words and actions commonly expected from a national leader who has just learned that his people are being killed by armed enemy forces, and instead sits, sullen and uncommunicative, as events unfold.

And you seek to explain away such dereliction of duty? Such other-than-human reponse?

Flight 77 was hijacked at around 8:54 but supposedly, the FAA and NORAD didn’t learn about it till much later, around 9:26 (IIRC) it was about this time that flight 93 was hijacked. The planes were well over an hour’s flying time from Sarasota and never were remotely heading towards that part of the country. He left the school at 9:34, no one has shown there was even a hint of danger to Bush before that time though according to some reports they received news of a threat at about that time.

At 9:06, when Bush was told of the 2nd crash, some people might have presumed that was the extent of the attack 2 planes from the same airport had hit the same target supposedly at that time no other planes were know to be hijacked.

Was Bush’s response inadequate? I agree it was, he could have calmly told the kids he had a pressing matter to take care of and exited. But this doesn't constitute evidence of foreknowledge; the man is after all a dope who seems lost without his handlers. Now if Bush and his advisors knew what was going to happen, why didn’t they script him acting presidential and have him immediately take charge of the situation? Instead his actions were mocked even in a Leslie Nielsen movie (not sure of the title I only saw the preview).

Edited July 9, 2008 by Len Colby

[Len Colby]

Well son, we do know Jack White and his photo credentials, your photo interp credentials on the other hand, now THAT, is another story...

Jack credentials especially as of late are very much under question. You must have missed it but be has made a number of embarrassing blunders recently. He is clearly wrong once again video show smoke coming out of 7 NOT 6 WTC. Jack silly 6 WTC explosion "theory" has already been debunked a few times

Regarding the topic at hand, your expertise and experience in high rise collapse (and photos of same) would be much appreciated, you do you have a resume, yes? Or are you simply rendering another opinion? Let's not avoid THAT issue, eh?

And what prey tell are your or Jack's credentials?

[Ron Ecker]

Flight 77 was hijacked at around 8:54 but supposedly, the FAA and NORAD supposedly didn’t learn about it much later around 9:26 (IIRC) it was about this time that flight 93 was hijacked. The planes were well over an hour’s flying time from Sarasota and never were remotely heading towards that part of the country.

So what? Two planes had hit the WTC, and during the confusion between the FAA and NORAD with its war games there were reports of an indeterminate number of hijackings. Flights 77 and 93 are irrelevant to the question of why no action was taken to protect Bush and a schoolhouse full of children, Bush's known location, in Sarasota.

He left the school at 9:34, no one has shown there was even a hint of danger to Bush before that time.

There had been a possible assassination attempt that morning, when some guys showed up where Bush was staying wanting to get in an interview him. (Just like the guys who got in to interview the Afghan guerrilla leader shortly before 9/11 and blew him up.) Rather than find out who these guys were, the SS simply told them they couldn't see the president and let them drive off. But don't you suppose they would remember this incident when terrorist attacks started later that day? Don't you suppose it would register with them that there might well be some people right there in Sarasota who were interested in blowing Bush up?

Was Bush’s response inadequate? I agree it was, he could have calmly told the kids he had a pressing matter to take care of and exited. But this doesn't constitute evidence of foreknowledge; the man is after all a dope

I agree Bush is a dope. Far more significant IMO is the non-responses of his Secretary of Defense and Acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs during the attacks. Together they are a clear indication of what has been called "consciousness of guilt" or foreknowledge, no matter how specific or general. They basically hid until it was over.

[Brian Smith]

Nope, it wasn't a windless day. Since I don't know what you mean by "a gentle breeze," I don't know whether to agree or disagree. As all photos of 9/11 demonstrate, the wind was blowing from the northwest. Since the south face of WTC7 had been lacerated by impact damage from the collapse of the North Tower, there were many openings on that face. Although from time to time, smoke emanates from broken windows on the east face or even on the west face, the main chimney for drawing smoke out of the building was on the south face. The combination of wind from the northwest plus multiple airways on the south face meant that much of the smoke from fires in WTC7 vented through the south face. Do you agree?

I have always thought it a little odd that one side of the building was covered with smoke, while the other side only had a few floors emitting visible flames with accompanying smoke. How do you explain all the smoke on one side and only a relatively small amount on the other, if it was all emanating from inside the same building? It was a windless day, with what was at most a gentle breeze.

I guess you're right about the breeze. It was strong enough to blow the smoke away from the towers. I didn't know that there was a main chimney for drawing smoke out of the building on the south face. I still find it very difficult to believe the official story of collapse, given the manner of the collapse, Silverstein's "pull it" statement, and last but not least, the BBC reporting the collapse twenty minutes before it happened. I also find it funny that the live feed from New York, with WTC 7 still standing behind BBC reporter Jane Standley, was suddenly interupted by static as she was speaking. Just another coincidence, I'm sure.

ps

Your book "Six Seconds In Dallas" is one of the first books I read dealing with the JFK case (amazing that O.P. Wright recalled a pointed tip bullet). My mother was and is an inveterate JFK assassination book reader, and it rubbed off on me. It is one of the books that got me interested in the case. As far asbuilding 7 and 9/11 go, I must respectfully disagree. There are just too many strange and suspicious things to be accounted for by chance.

[Brian Smith]

I have always thought it a little odd that one side of the building was covered with smoke, while the other side only had a few floors emitting visible flames with accompanying smoke. How do you explain all the smoke on one side and only a relatively small amount on the other...

Perhaps because that was the side closest to the ignition source.

If the fires were mostly on that one side than why did the building come straight down? Why was the collapse symetrical? It should have been a lot more messy, with the structure toppling more to the side. Don't buy it.

Edited July 9, 2008 by Brian Smith

[David G. Healy]

Well son, we do know Jack White and his photo credentials, your photo interp credentials on the other hand, now THAT, is another story...

Jack credentials especially as of late are very much under question. You must have missed it but be has made a number of embarrassing blunders recently. He is clearly wrong once again video show smoke coming out of 7 NOT 6 WTC. Jack silly 6 WTC explosion "theory" has already been debunked a few times

Regarding the topic at hand, your expertise and experience in high rise collapse (and photos of same) would be much appreciated, you do you have a resume, yes? Or are you simply rendering another opinion? Let's not avoid THAT issue, eh?

And what prey tell are your or Jack's credentials?

your published bio is where again, Len Old Chap? That bio contains what as far as photo interp? Who are you Len? You failed miserably with RZavada a few years back, what should we expect regarding the WTC debacle? So far, you've misplaced a crosswalk, eh (which you copped to)? What embarrassing blunder is next?

[Josiah Thompson]

Respectful disagreement is the life-blood of inquiry. It's how the disagreement is carried out that, I think, is important. By "chimney," I meant that given the conditions obtaining that day... many lacerations on the south face of the building... these openings downwind would function as a "chimney" for fires in the building.

Nope, it wasn't a windless day. Since I don't know what you mean by "a gentle breeze," I don't know whether to agree or disagree. As all photos of 9/11 demonstrate, the wind was blowing from the northwest. Since the south face of WTC7 had been lacerated by impact damage from the collapse of the North Tower, there were many openings on that face. Although from time to time, smoke emanates from broken windows on the east face or even on the west face, the main chimney for drawing smoke out of the building was on the south face. The combination of wind from the northwest plus multiple airways on the south face meant that much of the smoke from fires in WTC7 vented through the south face. Do you agree?

I have always thought it a little odd that one side of the building was covered with smoke, while the other side only had a few floors emitting visible flames with accompanying smoke. How do you explain all the smoke on one side and only a relatively small amount on the other, if it was all emanating from inside the same building? It was a windless day, with what was at most a gentle breeze.

I guess you're right about the breeze. It was strong enough to blow the smoke away from the towers. I didn't know that there was a main chimney for drawing smoke out of the building on the south face. I still find it very difficult to believe the official story of collapse, given the manner of the collapse, Silverstein's "pull it" statement, and last but not least, the BBC reporting the collapse twenty minutes before it happened. I also find it funny that the live feed from New York, with WTC 7 still standing behind BBC reporter Jane Standley, was suddenly interupted by static as she was speaking. Just another coincidence, I'm sure.

ps

Your book "Six Seconds In Dallas" is one of the first books I read dealing with the JFK case (amazing that O.P. Wright recalled a pointed tip bullet). My mother was and is an inveterate JFK assassination book reader, and it rubbed off on me. It is one of the books that got me interested in the case. As far asbuilding 7 and 9/11 go, I must respectfully disagree. There are just too many strange and suspicious things to be accounted for by chance.

[Mike Williams]

Jack,

Of course thank you for correcting my spelling error. I would have assumed you were smart enough to know what I was meaning, I over estimated you, and I certainly apologize for throwing you such confusion.

As for the rest of your post....its just your basic general idiocy.

But the fools of the world do indeed keep the other fools of the world interested.

Please explain to me JACK, and stop avoiding the issue, as to how those smoke clouds could be more dense the further away they move from your ridiculous point of origin.

I wont be holding my breath for a reply.

Mike

And people wonder why conspiracy researchers get such a bad name.......

Well son, we do know Jack White and his photo credentials, your photo interp credentials on the other hand, now THAT, is another story...

So, no one is over or under estimating you Sgt. Mikey.... things must be slow at Lancer these day's, eh? You did however, get off to a bad start here mixing it up with Tom Purvis, we all live and learn, eh?

Regarding the topic at hand, your expertise and experience in high rise collapse (and photos of same) would be much appreciated, you do you have a resume, yes? Or are you simply rendering another opinion? Let's not avoid THAT issue, eh?

Seems Lone Nuts are versatile and experienced in so much these day's, simply boggles the mind.... now if they only had credentials to go with their opinons -- just might carry some weight... Carry on!

Interesting to hear from someone who provides nothing on any topic.

Why in the world would I have to be a photo expert to offer an opinion about the smoke in those photos? Are they geometrically challenging? Certainly not.

A for Purvis, I learned long ago never to argue with a fool, folks watching may not know the difference.

But at any rate Davey, carry on, and post more useless nothingness that you contribute so well.

You dont have to be a photo expert to see which way the smoke goes, you just have to apply common sense, something so very lacking in most of the alteration's crowd.

So now Do you have something to offer here David....or are you just to continue flapping your useless gob?

Mike