• We are currently performing site maintenance, parts of civfanatics are currently offline, but will come back online in the coming days. For more updates please see here.

What happened on 9/11/01 (WTC/Pentagon Attacks)?

What happened on 9/11/01?

  • OPTION 1

    Votes: 52 32.5%
  • OPTION 2

    Votes: 74 46.3%
  • OPTION 3

    Votes: 23 14.4%
  • OPTION 4

    Votes: 5 3.1%
  • OPTION 5

    Votes: 3 1.9%
  • OPTION 6

    Votes: 2 1.3%
  • OPTION 7

    Votes: 1 0.6%

  • Total voters
    160
Even more troubling was the Pentagon attack. I saw it live (like half the world) and I vividly remember the first thing that came to my mind when I saw the pictures : "Where is the plane ? Where are the debris ? Isn't that hole too small ?"

Because of that, I voted for Option 3,which is basically the LIHOP (Let It Happen On Purpose) theory.
For the first few years, I would have voted Option 1 in a heartbeat. But then, you browse the web (Wiki link), watch movies (Fahrenheit 9/11 of course, or this one) , and even if a lot of it is pure crap, it gets you thinking...
And there are just too many things that don't compute.

unless you were there, you didn't see it live, nor did half the world. And the people who were there that saw it live, saw a plane. Find me one credible person who can prove they were really there say they saw anything but a plane. Not hearing, saw. I talked with someone that was there. And where was the plane that hit WTC one and two? Same place this plane was at, inside the building.

Also the CT nuts plan out right lie. They say the boeing 757 only has a Pratt and Whitney engine, when in fact the 757 can have a Pratt and Whitney engine or a Rolls-Royce RB211 engines. So when the CT nuts show a pic of a Pratt and Whitney engine, it doesn't match. But only the CT nuts say it was an Pratt and Whitney engine. Really that 757 had Rolls-Royce RB211 engines. And those match up with the same photographs the CT nuts them self use.

And thats old CT nutjob news, most CT nutjobs don't even believe it was anything but a 757

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1
 
Wow, I'm the first one to choose "none of the above"...

I don't know what happened, of course, but what I suspect is...

1. They were aware that there had been threats and that the potential for an attack was there, but in their complacency refused to believe anyone capable of such an attack and did nothing. THis is slightly different than believing they knew the attacks were coming; I suspect they knew the attacks were possible, just didn't really expect them to actually happen.

2. Once the attacks took place however, someone suggested they use them to further their aggressive foreign policy.

However, these statements are made without a jot of evidence nor any real knowledge on my part. Generally I suspect that what you see on the news is usually mostly true, only that governments will cover up anything that makes them look especially bad.
 
unless you were there, you didn't see it live, nor did half the world.

You are right, I wasn't there, nor did we see it live. I was just referring to the
events as a whole.

And thats old CT nutjob news, most CT nutjobs don't even believe it was anything but a 757
I don't either. I just stated what I thought at the time.

I realize now that my post was a little hasty. I mixed things up a little and provided one-sided links. I also didn't want to ramble too much. This is why it's relatively short.
Personally, I don't believe in any kind of conspiracy involving the government in the planning and/or execution of the attacks. But, I'm pretty convinced that the gvt had some knowledge of an upcoming terrorist attack and some parts of the gvt just thought that it would match their agenda perfectly.
They went ahead with it and, I hope, were quite surprised by the scope of the attack.
It is easy to hide a report or lose some critical bit of information. Planning the events of 9/11 as an inside job is just plain impossible. And that is not what I voted for here.

Anyway, I sincerely hope I haven't offended anyone.
 
RICE: I remember very well that the president was aware that there were issues inside the United States. He talked to people about this. But I don’t remember the al Qaeda cells as being something that we were told we needed to do something about.

BEN-VENISTE: Isn’t it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the August 6 PDB warned against possible attacks in this country? And I ask you whether you recall the title of that PDB?

RICE: I believe the title was, "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States."
You didn't post the rest of the exchange.

RICE: Now, the...

BEN-VENISTE: Thank you.

RICE: No, Mr. Ben-Veniste...

BEN-VENISTE: I will get into the...

RICE: I would like to finish my point here.

BEN-VENISTE: I didn't know there was a point.

RICE: Given that -- you asked me whether or not it warned of attacks.

BEN-VENISTE: I asked you what the title was.

RICE: You said, did it not warn of attacks. It did not warn of attacks inside the United States. It was historical information based on old reporting. There was no new threat information. And it did not, in fact, warn of any coming attacks inside the United States.
 
You didn't post the rest of the exchange.

Nice of you to leave out the parts you apparently don't like (e.g. Condi is a liar and obfuscater):

Spoiler :
BEN-VENISTE: Now, you knew by August 2001 of al Qaeda involvement in the first World Trade Center bombing, is that correct? You knew that in 1999, late '99, in the millennium threat period, that we had thwarted an al Qaeda attempt to blow up Los Angeles International Airport and thwarted cells operating in Brooklyn, New York, and Boston, Massachusetts.

As of the August 6 briefing, you learned that al Qaeda members have resided or traveled to the United States for years and maintained a support system in the United States.

And you learned that FBI information since the 1998 blind sheikh warning of hijackings to free the blind sheikh indicated a pattern of suspicious activity in the country up until August 6 consistent with preparation for hijackings. Isn't that so?

RICE: Do you have other questions that you want me to answer as a part of the sequence?

BEN-VENISTE: Well, did you not -- you have indicated here that this was some historical document. And I am asking you whether it is not the case that you learned in the PDB memo of August 6 that the FBI was saying that it had information suggesting that preparations -- not historically, but ongoing, along with these numerous full field investigations against al Qaeda cells, that preparations were being made consistent with hijackings within the United States?

RICE: What the August 6 PDB said, and perhaps I should read it to you...

BEN-VENISTE: We would be happy to have it declassified in full at this time, including its title.

RICE: I believe, Mr. Ben-Veniste, that you've had access to this PDB. But let me just...

BEN-VENISTE: But we have not had it declassified so that it can be shown publicly, as you know.

RICE: I believe you've had access to this PDB -- exceptional access. But let me address your question.

BEN-VENISTE: Nor could we, prior to today, reveal the title of that PDB.

RICE: May I address the question, sir?

The fact is that this August 6 PDB was in response to the president's questions about whether or not something might happen or something might be planned by al Qaeda inside the United States. He asked because all of the threat reporting or the threat reporting that was actionable was about the threats abroad, not about the United States.

This particular PDB had a long section on what bin Laden had wanted to do -- speculative, much of it -- in '97, '98; that he had, in fact, liked the results of the 1993 bombing.

RICE: It had a number of discussions of -- it had a discussion of whether or not they might use hijacking to try and free a prisoner who was being held in the United States -- Ressam. It reported that the FBI had full field investigations under way.

And we checked on the issue of whether or not there was something going on with surveillance of buildings, and we were told, I believe, that the issue was the courthouse in which this might take place.

Commissioner, this was not a warning. This was a historic memo -- historical memo prepared by the agency because the president was asking questions about what we knew about the inside.

BEN-VENISTE: Well, if you are willing...

RICE: Now, we had already taken...

BEN-VENISTE: If you are willing to declassify that document, then others can make up their minds about it.

Let me ask you a general matter, beyond the fact that this memorandum provided information, not speculative, but based on intelligence information, that bin Laden had threatened to attack the United States and specifically Washington, D.C.

There was nothing reassuring, was there, in that PDB?

RICE: Certainly not. There was nothing reassuring.

But I can also tell you that there was nothing in this memo that suggested that an attack was coming on New York or Washington, D.C. There was nothing in this memo as to time, place, how or where. This was not a threat report to the president or a threat report to me.

BEN-VENISTE: We agree that there were no specifics. Let me move on, if I may.

RICE: There were no specifics, and, in fact, the country had already taken steps through the FAA to warn of potential hijackings. The country had already taken steps through the FBI to task their 56 field offices to increase their activity. The country had taken the steps that it could given that there was no threat reporting about what might happen inside the United States.

BEN-VENISTE: We have explored that and we will continue to with respect to the muscularity and the specifics of those efforts.

The president was in Crawford, Texas, at the time he received the PDB, you were not with him, correct?

RICE: That is correct.

BEN-VENISTE: Now, was the president, in words or substance, alarmed or in any way motivated to take any action, such as meeting with the director of the FBI, meeting with the attorney general, as a result of receiving the information contained in the PDB?

RICE: I want to repeat that when this document was presented, it was presented as, yes, there were some frightening things -- and by the way, I was not at Crawford, but the president and I were in contact and I might have even been, though I can't remember, with him by video link during that time.

The president was told this is historical information. I'm told he was told this is historical information and there was nothing actionable in this. The president knew that the FBI was pursuing this issue. The president knew that the director of central intelligence was pursuing this issue. And there was no new threat information in this document to pursue.

BEN-VENISTE: Final question, because my time has almost expired.

Do you believe that, had the president taken action to issue a directive to the director of CIA to ensure that the FBI had pulsed the agency, to make sure that any information which we know now had been collected was transmitted to the director, that the president might have been able to receive information from CIA with respect to the fact that two al Qaeda operatives who took part in the 9/11 catastrophe were in the United States -- Alhazmi and Mihdhar; and that Moussaoui, who Dick Clarke was never even made aware of, who had jihadist connections, who the FBI had arrested, and who had been in a flight school in Minnesota trying to learn the avionics of a commercial jetliner despite the fact that he had no training previously, had no explanation for the funds in his bank account, and no explanation for why he was in the United States -- would that have possibly, in your view, in hindsight, made a difference in the ability to collect this information, shake the trees, as Richard Clarke had said, and possibly, possibly interrupt the plotters?

RICE: My view, Commissioner Ben-Veniste, as I said to Chairman Kean, is that, first of all, the director of central intelligence and the director of the FBI, given the level of threat, were doing what they thought they could do to deal with the threat that we faced.

There was no threat reporting of any substance about an attack coming in the United States.

RICE: And the director of the FBI and the director of the CIA, had they received information, I am quite certain -- given that the director of the CIA met frequently face to face with the president of the United States -- that he would have made that available to the president or to me.

I do not believe that it is a good analysis to go back and assume that somehow maybe we would have gotten lucky by, quote, "shaking the trees." Dick Clarke was shaking the trees, director of central intelligence was shaking the trees, director of the FBI was shaking the trees. We had a structural problem in the United States.

BEN-VENISTE: Did the president meet with the director of the FBI? RICE: We had a structural problem in the United States, and that structural problem was that we did not share domestic and foreign intelligence in a way to make a product for policymakers, for good reasons -- for legal reasons, for cultural reasons -- a product that people could depend upon.

BEN-VENISTE: Did the president meet with the director of...

KEAN: Commissioner, we got to move on...

BEN-VENISTE: ... the FBI between August 6 and September 11?

KEAN: ... to Commissioner Fielding.

RICE: I will have to get back to you on that. I am not certain.


Note that she avoids actually answering the questions, by and large.

Later:

Spoiler :
RICE: Now, I would be speculating, but if you would like, I will go ahead and speculate to say that one of the problems here was there really was nothing that looked like it was going to happen inside the United States.

The threat reporting was -- the specific threat reporting was about external threats: about the Persian Gulf, about Israel, about perhaps the Genoa event.

It is just not the case that the August 6 memorandum did anything but put together what the CIA decided that they wanted to put together about historical knowledge about what was going on and a few things about what the FBI might be doing.

And so, the light was shining abroad. And if you look at what was going -- I was in constant contact to make sure that those things were getting done with the relevant agencies -- with State, with Defense and so forth.

We just have a different view of this.


"Historic Knowledge about what was going on"....most of us call that "information about what was going on."

Continuing on from there (this proceeds immediately after the above):
Spoiler :

GORELICK: Yes, I understand that. But I think it's one thing to talk to George Tenet, but he can't tell domestic agencies what to do.

Let me finish.

RICE: Yes.

GORELICK: And it is clear that you were worried about the domestic problem, because, after all, your testimony is you asked Dick Clarke to summons the domestic agencies.

Now, you say that -- and I think quite rightly -- that the big problem was systemic, that the FBI could not function as it should, and it didn't have the right methods of communicating with the CIA and vice versa.

At the outset of the administration, a commission that was chartered by Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich, two very different people covering pretty much the political spectrum, put together a terrific panel to study the issue of terrorism and report to the new administration as it began. And you took that briefing, I know.

That commission said we are going to get hit in the domestic, the United States, and we are going to get hit big; that's number one. And number two, we have big systemic problems. The FBI doesn't work the way it should, and it doesn't communicate with the intelligence community.

GORELICK: Now, you have said to us that your policy review was meant to be comprehensive. You took your time because you wanted to get at the hard issues and have a hard-hitting, comprehensive policy. And yet there is nothing in it about the vast domestic landscape that we were all warned needed so much attention.

Can you give me the answer to the question why?

RICE: I would ask the following. We were there for 233 days. There had been recognition for a number of years before -- after the '93 bombing, and certainly after the millennium -- that there were challenges, if I could say it that way, inside the United States, and that there were challenges concerning our domestic agencies and the challenges concerning the FBI and the CIA.

We were in office 233 days. It's absolutely the case that we did not begin structural reform of the FBI.

Now, the vice president was asked by the president, and that was tasked in May, to put all of this together and to see if he could put together, from all of the recommendations, a program for protection of the homeland against WMD, what else needed to be done. And in fact, he had hired Admiral Steve Abbot to do that work. And it was on that basis that we were able to put together the Homeland Security Council, which Tom Ridge came to head very, very quickly.

But I think the question is, why, over all of these years, did we not address the structural problems that were there, with the FBI, with the CIA, the homeland departments being scattered among many different departments?

RICE: And why, given all of the opportunities that we'd had to do it, had we not done it?

And I think that the unfortunate -- and I really do think it's extremely tragic -- fact is that sometimes until there is a catastrophic event that forces people to think differently, that forces people to overcome all customs and old culture and old fears about domestic intelligence and the relationship, that you don't get that kind of change.

And I want to say just one more thing, if you don't mind, about the issue of high-level attention.

The reason that I asked Andy Card to come with me to that meeting with Dick Clarke was that I wanted him to know -- wanted Dick Clarke to know -- that he had the weight not just of the national security advisor, but the weight of the chief of staff if he needed it. I didn't manage the domestic agencies. No national security advisor does.

And not once during this period of time did my very experienced crisis manager say to me, "You know, I don't think this is getting done in the agencies. I'd really like you to call them together or make a phone call."

In fact, after the fact, on September 15, what Dick Clarke sent me -- and he was my crisis manager -- what he sent me was a memorandum, or an e-mail that said, "After national unity begins to break down" -- again, I'm paraphrasing -- "people will ask, did we do all that we needed to do to arm the domestic agencies, to warn the domestic agencies and to respond to the possibility of domestic threat?"

That, I think, was his view at the time. And I have to tell you, I think given the circumstances and given the context and given the structures that we had, we did.


E.g. They were doing a good job under Clinton (bi-partisan work), they knew something BIG was coming and there were structural problems with the FBI. Condi whines that they were "only there" 233 days! Naturally they didn't even begin change because there would be resistance to change...of course that's the concern when a big attack is on the way. :rolleyes:

There are a bunch of other major problems she presents with how the Bush administration handled things (including how she constantly passes the buck to other people; "it's not her fault" even though it is her job, and how she wasn't presented with plans but with "series of actionable items", and how 233 days wasn't enough time to even begin to do anything, etc, etc).

Her testimony is damning both of her performance in particular and of the Bush administration's performance in general.
 
Nobody really commented on the polls that are out there about what people believe about 9/11. Do any of you think that this is going to rank up there with the JFK assassination and forever be in doubt by a significant portion of the population?
 
The attacks were carried out by Bin Laden and Al Queda. Through governmental ineptness and inefficiency the warnings we got were not attended to in the manner they should of and therefore were not prevented.
 
Option #2 makes the most sense, that aQ was behind it and carried it out, but we'll never really know as much as the government about the situation.
 
Opinion 2, the government tried to hide its incompetency after this incident but failed. The government is not involved in it, neither did Israeli attack (however, Israeli Mossad might find some traces of attack plan and kept it from CIA).
And, trying to manipulate the event afterwards for two invasions, which are not going on well, but not complete failure either.
 
The plane would be moving so fast it could easily cover 1000 feet (give or take a factor of 2) between two frames on the television. Something that is only there for a frame or two is easy to miss, because that's just a fraction of a second.

Anyhoo, never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity (as others have noted). The Bush administration is amazingly incompetent (Iraq, handling the economy, and many other examples besides 9/11 exist). They can look good and handle the media fairly well, but that's just form over substance. Conspiracies don't make sense given their supreme level of arrogance and lack of ability to ascertain the reality of the situations they find themselves in.

-Drachasor

Not only that, you're not going to find a lot of debris outside the Pentagon. The flying surfaces, for instance, completely disintigrated upon flying into a reinforced concrete structure at over 500 mph. It's not like a cartoon where you're going to have a perfect outline of the plane punched into the wall.
 
Not only that, you're not going to find a lot of debris outside the Pentagon. The flying surfaces, for instance, completely disintigrated upon flying into a reinforced concrete structure at over 500 mph. It's not like a cartoon where you're going to have a perfect outline of the plane punched into the wall.

Were you watching the history channel earlier?
 
Zionazis manipulated the government into launching an attack on it's own people in order to help justify and attack on Iran, but Bush accidentally attacked Iraq. The Zionist owned media, government, universities, and fast food chains in turn covered up the conspiracy so that only a small, select group of young, rich, unpopular teens could crack the conspiracy from their parents basement, without incurring the wrath of the Zionists, who were too busy trying to take over whoever they haven't already.
 
Were you watching the history channel earlier?

No, I've never seen that program. I don't get the history channel. I do know what program you're alluding to, though.
 
2. Once the attacks took place however, someone suggested they use them to further their aggressive foreign policy.

futher it? the bush administration was quite isolationist before the attacks...

oh, and of course option 2 is the only sane option not number one... does anyone really think every little detail was made public?
 
Back
Top Bottom