0
   

Bush supporters' aftermath thread

 
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jan, 2006 09:18 am
Re my previous post, see?
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jan, 2006 09:53 am
Magginkat wrote:
The major questions remain: Who ordered NORAD planes to stand down and why? Why did bu$h fight so hard to prevent any kind of investigation into this crime?

I am looking at the 9/11 commission report right now. Nothing in there tells me that NORAD planes were ordered to stand down. What it tells me is this: On 9/11, FAA and NORAD had to improvise because the protocols of national defense had been created on assumptions that did not apply here. In particular, they were made for highjackngs where a) the planes did not go off the radar and b) the highjackers were not on a suicide mission, with the consequence that c) the military chain of command would have much more time to deal with the situation than it actually had in this attack.

As a consequence, NORAD wasn't informed about each highjacking until it was too late. In the highjacking of American Airlines flight 11, it was warned 9 minutes before it hit the World Trade center.For United Airlines 175, NORAD was notified about the moment it hit the second tower of the WTC. In the case of American Airlines 77, the FAA screwed up communications with NORAD and never asked for military help about it. Moreover, when NORAD did find out about a highjacked plane closing in on Washington, the communication failure mixed up the highjacked planes, so they sent their fighters to the wrong place. In the case of United Airlines 93, NORAD first head of the highjacking after it had crashed in Pennsylvania. All of this is from pages 18 to 32 of the unanimous report of the 9/11 commission, which is available for download from the Government Printing Office.

Throughout the report, I see many Snafu situations. They can all be plausibly explained by surprise about an attack nobody was prepared for, plus some incompetence. I also see a few NORAD officers who lied about their own screw-ups, probably to protect bruised egos. But I see nothing there that would suggest a concerted effort by the Bush administration to bring about the attacks. You have not presented any evidence that would convince me you are peddling more than some crazy conspiracy theory.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jan, 2006 10:01 am
Magginkat: You are, in effect, accusing Mr. Bush and Mr.Cheney of murder in several hundred cases. And when people accuse other people of a crime, it is customary to place the burden of proof on the accuser. Mysteryman and I don't have to prove that nobody ordered the fighters to stand down. You're the one who has some proving to do.

With this in mind, why don't you start by showing us your evidence that someone in the Bush administration ordered the fighters to stand down?
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jan, 2006 01:39 pm
Thomas,
She wont.
She is of the opinion that since she said it,its true.
I have seen her do this before.
Since she has been called on her charge,she will either change the subject,or attack you and I as being Bush stooges with no mind of our own.
0 Replies
 
Anon-Voter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jan, 2006 01:47 pm
It's too bad all the Abuzz threads are gone, or at least, inaccessible. There were so many great discussions about 9/11 and the aftermath. What the Bush Admin knew and didn't know. The warnings that they received yet ignored. Such a loss!

Anon
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jan, 2006 01:50 pm
How exciting, mysteryman -- nobody ever called me a shill for Bush yet! Laughing You may well be right, but let's see what happens.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jan, 2006 06:56 pm
Anon-Voter wrote:
It's too bad all the Abuzz threads are gone, or at least, inaccessible. There were so many great discussions about 9/11 and the aftermath. What the Bush Admin knew and didn't know. The warnings that they received yet ignored. Such a loss!

Anon


What the Bush Administration knew or didn't know should not require access to Abuzz to assert. If it does, the assertions are highly suspect.
0 Replies
 
Anon-Voter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jan, 2006 07:30 pm
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Anon-Voter wrote:
It's too bad all the Abuzz threads are gone, or at least, inaccessible. There were so many great discussions about 9/11 and the aftermath. What the Bush Admin knew and didn't know. The warnings that they received yet ignored. Such a loss!

Anon


What the Bush Administration knew or didn't know should not require access to Abuzz to assert. If it does, the assertions are highly suspect.


Not true Finn. You just remember what Abuzz became, there were a lot of solid Discussion topics by both sides. It was awesome!! It only turned to sh*t later. I did several interactions that went over 400 posts that were contributed to by both right and left. It was good stuff!!

Anon
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jan, 2006 08:49 pm
Thomas wrote:
How exciting, mysteryman -- nobody ever called me a shill for Bush yet! Laughing You may well be right, but let's see what happens.
Perhaps that's because you've done so little shilling for him... Laughing
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jan, 2006 09:10 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Thomas wrote:
How exciting, mysteryman -- nobody ever called me a shill for Bush yet! Laughing You may well be right, but let's see what happens.
Perhaps that's because you've done so little shilling for him... Laughing


Thats true,but Mags calls anyone that disagrees with her a "shill for Bush",so its coming because he dared to disagree with her.
0 Replies
 
Magginkat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jan, 2006 09:36 pm
Thomas wrote:
Magginkat wrote:
The major questions remain: Who ordered NORAD planes to stand down and why? Why did bu$h fight so hard to prevent any kind of investigation into this crime?


As a consequence, NORAD wasn't informed about each highjacking until it was too late. In the highjacking of American Airlines flight 11, it was warned 9 minutes before it hit the World Trade center.For United Airlines 175, NORAD was notified about the moment it hit the second tower of the WTC. In the case of American Airlines 77, the FAA screwed up communications with NORAD and never asked for military help about it. Moreover, when NORAD did find out about a highjacked plane closing in on Washington, the communication failure mixed up the highjacked planes, so they sent their fighters to the wrong place. In the case of United Airlines 93, NORAD first head of the highjacking after it had crashed in Pennsylvania. All of this is from pages 18 to 32 of the unanimous report of the 9/11 commission, which is available for download from the Government Printing Office.

Throughout the report, I see many Snafu situations. They can all be plausibly explained by surprise about an attack nobody was prepared for, plus some incompetence. I also see a few NORAD officers who lied about their own screw-ups, probably to protect bruised egos. But I see nothing there that would suggest a concerted effort by the Bush administration to bring about the attacks. You have not presented any evidence that would convince me you are peddling more than some crazy conspiracy theory.



How absolutely high and mighty of you Thomas..... I stated my opinion, then I asked questions that seems like common sense questions. Now you inform me that I have to show proof. Why should I show proof? I am just asking questions that were never answered by that flimsy excuse for a commission or anyone.


It's obvious that NORAD was not notified as they should have been. 4 airplanes were supposedly hijacked and they fly, & fly & fly without NORAD being notified. Who made the decision that NORAD would not be notified until it was too late? It had to come from damned high up in this administration. If you want to believe that these highly skilled pilots suddenly became so incompetent, I guess you are free to do so.

Check the dozens of other planes that have veered off course and show me any plane that flew as long as these without finding military jets flying along side steering them away from the invaded space.

Remember the golfer, Payne Stewart.

Aircraft Accident Brief

http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2000/AAB0001.htm

At 0933:38 EDT (6 minutes and 20 seconds after N47BA acknowledged the previous clearance), the controller instructed N47BA to change radio frequencies and contact another Jacksonville ARTCC controller. The controller received no response from N47BA. The controller called the flight five more times over the next 4 1/2 minutes but received no response.

About 0952 CDT, a USAF F-16 test pilot from the 40th Flight Test Squadron at Eglin Air Force Base (AFB), Florida, was vectored to within 8 nm of N47BA. About 0954 CDT, at a range of 2,000 feet from the accident airplane and an altitude of about 46,400 feet, the test pilot made two radio calls to N47BA but did not receive a response. About 1000 CDT, the test pilot began a visual inspection of N47BA.


So after receiving no response at 9:33, Air Traffic Controller tried 5 more times in the next 4.5 minutes. At 9:52..... 19 minutes after the Air Traffic Controller lost contact a military jet was there.

And you don't want me to ask questions of this shyster, lying administration after 4 planes were hijacked and flew for over an hour before anyone paid attention?


Frankly Thomas, I don't care what you believe. You have your opinion. I have mine. I happen to think that if you choose to believe anything coming from this corrupt, deceitful administration, you are the one who is willing to live in your own "crazy conspiracy theory". BUT that is your right.

Oh, just to remind you of the two-faced, hypocrisy of some of your repugnant leadership, here are a few memorable quotes:


Quotes from Republicans when Clinton committed troops to Bosnia:


"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
-Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)

"You can support the troops but not the president."
-Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years."
-Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"
-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99

" President...is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy."
-Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)

"American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy."
-Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy." -Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of then Governor George W Bush.


Damn. Why is it that those republican accusations always.....ALWAYS turn out to be confessions? I love to see their own words come back and bite them on the arse! Twisted Evil
0 Replies
 
Magginkat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jan, 2006 09:42 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Thomas wrote:
How exciting, mysteryman -- nobody ever called me a shill for Bush yet! Laughing You may well be right, but let's see what happens.
Perhaps that's because you've done so little shilling for him... Laughing



And if you read the post right after yours Bill, you will see a prime example of a wasted or non-existent education as I was accused of using yours and Thomas's words. To the best of my knowledge I have never used the word shill to describe the bu$h lovers. I very simply call them what they are, bu$h arse kissers.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jan, 2006 10:02 pm
Magginkat wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Thomas wrote:
How exciting, mysteryman -- nobody ever called me a shill for Bush yet! Laughing You may well be right, but let's see what happens.
Perhaps that's because you've done so little shilling for him... Laughing



And if you read the post right after yours Bill, you will see a prime example of a wasted or non-existent education as I was accused of using yours and Thomas's words. To the best of my knowledge I have never used the word shill to describe the bu$h lovers. I very simply call them what they are, bu$h arse kissers.
Thomas is a bu$h arse kisser? Laughing That's even funnier. Laughing I see you're every bit as good at judging people (and their politics) as you are at separating fact from fiction. Well done. Laughing
0 Replies
 
Magginkat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jan, 2006 10:26 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Magginkat wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Thomas wrote:
How exciting, mysteryman -- nobody ever called me a shill for Bush yet! Laughing You may well be right, but let's see what happens.
Perhaps that's because you've done so little shilling for him... Laughing



And if you read the post right after yours Bill, you will see a prime example of a wasted or non-existent education as I was accused of using yours and Thomas's words. To the best of my knowledge I have never used the word shill to describe the bu$h lovers. I very simply call them what they are, bu$h arse kissers.
Thomas is a bu$h arse kisser? Laughing That's even funnier. Laughing I see you're every bit as good at judging people (and their politics) as you are at separating fact from fiction. Well done. Laughing




Bill, until now I thought that at least you could read but now I'm sure that you are lacking in reading comprehension so your judgement must be suspect also.

I said that I called bu$h lovers the arse kissers. I did not mention Thomas's name at any time except to note that meathead had tried to put yours and Thomas's words in my mouth.

Since all you 'brilliant' people (NOT) have all the answers I'm sure that you won't bother to read this article but here's the link anyway.


9/11, An Inside Job? A review essay based on David Ray Griffin's research by Ronald Bleier
July 2005 ............... http://desip.igc.org/GriffinReviewPt1_7-1-05.htm


Just a note Bill........ I do wish that you were half as funny as you seem to think you are. Somehow, I just can't find anything funny about that crooked, murdering thug who squats in the White House.... Likewise for those who parrot his every word as though he was some kind of god.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Jan, 2006 10:28 pm
I must agree with Bill, Thomas is no partisan.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jan, 2006 12:48 am
Mag, Rolling Eyes Thomas volunteered that he'd never been accused of being a shill for Bush, after MM had suggested you tend to accuse those who disagree with you of being Bush stooges with no minds of our own . When I laughed and MM reiterated his prediction; your only objection was that you're not in the habit of using the term shill. Laughing My guess is your average fourth grader could explain the similarities between Thomas's, MM's and your own choice of words and why in the context they were used they were synonymous. Your frequent accusation that others have reading comprehension issues are comically punctuated by your own. As for your suggestion that my judgment must be suspect also, you are equally wrong. For instance; I judged that addressing you directly would be an utter and complete waste of time and you've subsequently proven me correct. I'll use my adequate judgment to determine when I'll next profit from doing so. :wink:

Ps Tip: When Cycloptichorn and I agree on something: Call your bookie and accept odds up to ten to one that we're correct.
0 Replies
 
Magginkat
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jan, 2006 12:53 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Mag, Rolling Eyes Thomas volunteered that he'd never been accused of being a shill for Bush, after MM had suggested you tend to accuse those who disagree with you of being Bush stooges with no minds of our own . When I laughed and MM reiterated his prediction; your only objection was that you're not in the habit of using the term shill. Laughing My guess is your average fourth grader could explain the similarities between Thomas's, MM's and your own choice of words and why in the context they were used they were synonymous. Your frequent accusation that others have reading comprehension issues are comically punctuated by your own. As for your suggestion that my judgment must be suspect also, you are equally wrong. For instance; I judged that addressing you directly would be an utter and complete waste of time and you've subsequently proven me correct. I'll use my adequate judgment to determine when I'll next profit from doing so. :wink:

Ps Tip: When Cycloptichorn and I agree on something: Call your bookie and accept odds up to ten to one that we're correct.



Typical Repugnant reponse.... to declare yourself all knowing and always right.

Only one problem.... you are the one who could use the help of a fourth grader with your reading.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jan, 2006 01:20 am
In an earlier post, Magginkat wrote:
The major questions remain: Who ordered NORAD planes to stand down and why? Why did bu$h fight so hard to prevent any kind of investigation into this crime?

MaginKat wrote:
How absolutely high and mighty of you Thomas..... I stated my opinion, then I asked questions that seems like common sense questions. Now you inform me that I have to show proof. Why should I show proof? I am just asking questions that were never answered by that flimsy excuse for a commission or anyone.

I am asking you to show proof because the questions you asked, common-sense or not, contained pretty strong statements of fact: That somebody ordered NORAD planes to stand down, and that a crime has happened. I am not discouraging you from asking questions -- just encouraging you to back up the factual assertions you so confidently made.

Magginkat wrote:
It's obvious that NORAD was not notified as they should have been. 4 airplanes were supposedly hijacked and they fly, & fly & fly without NORAD being notified. Who made the decision that NORAD would not be notified until it was too late? It had to come from damned high up in this administration.

Here you go again. You are confidently asserting that somebody made a decision not to notify NORAD. What is your evidence that a decision has been made? For what it's worth, the 9/11 commission reports that information about the hijackings were dispersed over several FAA control centers. No single instance at FAA had the whole picture of what happened. If true, this was a failure of the system, not a sinister conspiracy. And you haven't yet shown me any evidence of a sinister conspiracy.

Magginkat wrote:
Check the dozens of other planes that have veered off course and show me any plane that flew as long as these without finding military jets flying along side steering them away from the invaded space.

None of these planes turned off their radar identification, so they were much easier to find.

Magginkat wrote:
Oh, just to remind you of the two-faced, hypocrisy of some of your repugnant leadership, here are a few memorable quotes:

My leadership, repugnant or not, has only been in office for a few months as of today. Give them some time.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jan, 2006 01:29 am
Thomas wrote:

My leadership, repugnant or not, has only been in office for a few months as of today. Give them some time.


And I'd thought, your leadership was in the opposition :wink:
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jan, 2006 01:33 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Thomas wrote:

My leadership, repugnant or not, has only been in office for a few months as of today. Give them some time.


And I'd thought, your leadership was in the opposition :wink:

Good point, Walter -- you're right of course! (Note to our American friends: Here in Germany, I tend to vote for the "Freie Demokratische Partei" (FDP), our small libertarian party. The FDP opposes the grand coalition that currently governs us.)
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 02/01/2025 at 06:40:35