Skip to main content

View Diary: Updated: Richard Clarke Blasts Key Scene In ABC's 9/11 Docudrama (278 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  That title made me nervous but then I saw (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    buckhorn okie, sockpuppet

    Ray McGovern's name.  I've got some family members who need to read this book.

    Essential funk: 'Indictment' by Antibalas

    by pontechango on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 08:28:47 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Blech. Nevermind. Conspiracy theories (4+ / 0-)

      about the Pentagon crash don't cut it with me.  There were eye witnesses.

      Essential funk: 'Indictment' by Antibalas

      by pontechango on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 08:33:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Without getting into the 911 issues (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Eye witnesses are notoriously bad for actually being able to recall what they actually saw rather than what they think they saw.

        There have been studies which show how unreliable they can be.

        So as a response, it's hardly definitive.

        The Next Agenda "For Progressive Canadian Politics"

        by Bionic on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 08:53:59 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I'm not sure why you even mention the Pentagon (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        hit.  David Ray Griffin mentions it in passing, in one paragraph on page 81 of his book, but it is certainly not a major part of his case in the new book.

        It is not necessary that all parts of Griffin's case be correct for him to be right about the official account of 9/11 being substantially wrong.

        Katrina was America's Chernobyl.

        by lysias on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 11:01:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Whatever do you mean? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        pontechango, Cream Puff

        Certainly it is far, far easier to fly the real hijacked plane to some far off destination, unload the passegers, destroy the plane, either slaughter the passengers or change all of their identities before they return to their lives, and then fly a missle into the Pentagon that is calibrated to mimic an airliner and not a real cruise missle's warhead explosive power, than it would be to just fly the damn plane into the pentagon!  

        Or wait, it would be even easier to create a fictitious flight, develope a remote control airliner capable of hitting the pentagon, and then fly it into the pentagon.  Surely the conspirators would want the plane to be empty, because they value life so much.  Just like they wanted the WTC empty, right?

        I'll be serious for a moment and state that the one conspiracy theory I do consider plausible is that Buscho. knew about 911, and intentionally let it succeed.  Most likely they didn't realize they would lose the WTC, or so many lives, and would not have let it happen if they had known.  But I've yet to see any evidence for this beyond circumstantial evidence.  The motive is there, and IMO the personalities needed to attempt such a conspiracy are all present at the WH, but that's not enough to prove it happened.

        "When one has tasted it, he knows what the angels eat." ~ Mark Twain, on watermelon

        by Subterranean on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 12:05:39 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's a persistent notion (0+ / 0-)

          throughout history.  The leader knows about an impending attack but lets it happen.  A large percentage still believes that of Pearl Harbor.  An even larger percentage believes Churchill knew about the bombing of Coventry but wanted to keep the Enigma cracking secret.

          I believed the last one myself until I researched it (it's almost certainly false, don't make me dig it up again please).

          I think the theory doesn't hold water.  If a leader knows about an impending tragedy, is he not more likely to gain political advantage by preventing it than letting it happen?  That and the possibility he could be found out.

          Claiming Bush knew about 9/11 gives him to much Machiavellian credit.  I think it's much more plausible that he ignored the warnings because he couldn't be bothered.

          Never play leapfrog with a unicorn.

          by Cream Puff on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 12:45:39 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The only odd thing is (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            pontechango, Cream Puff

            how the terrorists managed to pick the day that the exercise during which a simulated plane was hijaacked into the NRO office was being conducted.  The confusion (we have all heard "real world or exercise" by now) played a part in the delayed response -- how much of one, well, I don't know.

            I think the explanation is probably a simple one.  A new crop of political appointees were at the Pentagon.  Unlike the career military, I'm sure they babbled about the neat things they were doing on the Metro on the way to and from work.

            The Metro is a very diverse place.  

            So the blame can be put at the foot of the Bush administration -- misfeasance, not malfeasance, but blame nontheless.  Otherwise, we have way too much of a coincidence.

      •  I have one special eyewitness (0+ / 0-)

        that was walking to his job in Alexandria on that morning -- who noted the plane flying down the path of 495, which is not something planes normally do in the area, before it crashed into the Pentagon -- that convinced me beyond all doubt of that part of the standard account.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site