George W Bush and 9/11

[gguy2013@gmail.com]

The reason why I know George W Bush didn't have a plan to protect the American people before 9/11 is because if he had a plan to protect the American people before then, then he wouldn't have scrambled to get military planes up in the air to intersect the hijacked planes on that day. Now if I were president I would know my duty to the American people and that duty is to protect the American people before something happens therefore if I knew something was going to happen but didn't have all the details, I would still plan to protect the American people by creating a contingency plan based on all available intelligence and I would enact that plan before something happens, because I would rather be safe than sorry. now some say that bushs trust in God got in the way of president Bush's duty to protect the American people but I don't think so I just think he failed to protect the American people because he knew before 9/11 that something was coming because in the months before 9/11 his own CIA told him that something was going to happen and he did nothing to protect the American people. Sure he protected us after the fact but that is not a good president because a good president would act to protect the American people by creating a contingency plan even though he or she doesn't have all the intelligence and he or she would enact that plan before something happens.

[koko]

I am not big on conspiracy theories but, like many, wonder how Tower # 7 collapsed on itself even though it went untouched. Makes me wonder whether it wasn't all planned in some way.

[Divine Insight]

It's always easy to be the "Monday Morning Quarterback" and say what you would have done differently after the game has already unfolded and revealed to you precisely what the opposing team was going to do.

I'm certainly not defending Bush. I have no clue what he actually knew or didn't know. Surely if the CIA had credible information that several groups of high-hackers were going to high-jack planes and crash them into buildings Bush would have ordered that security be increased at all airports. The fact that this never happened suggests that the precise method of attack was simply unknown.

What are you going to do if the CIA simply tells you, "A big terrorist attack is eminent"? And you have absolutely no further information of what it might actually be? Are you going to rush out and give an order to close all airports and ground all planes? Probably not.

And then what if the actual plan was to blow up Nuclear Power Plants? Closing down the airports would look pretty silly as the power plants are exploding.

~~~~~

I don't blame Bush for not preventing 9/11. That was a fluke plan that was apparently carried out without any leaks of the actual intention by the terrorists involved.

What I do blame Bush for is for invading Iraq after 9/11. That was totally uncalled for and has created extreme problems for the USA ever since. In fact, many people have made strong arguments that ISIS was a direct result of the fall of Iraq and the power vacuum it created in that region. The invasion of Iraq also ticked off a lot of Arabs thus giving them incentive to join groups like ISIS just so they can fight against the USA and other western powers.

So my big complaint with Bush was his reaction to 9/11, not the fact that he failed to prevent it.

[koko]

~ fluke ~


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opini ... nings.html


Bush had been given ample warning before hand. Had I been in the White House the airports and seaports would have been far more secured.

In the past there has always been talk of the need for increasing security at the Ashokan and Pepacton reservoirs just north of NYC. This also had not been done prior to 9/11. Indian Point (nuclear power station) nearby has gotten some extra security but not enough in my opinion.

As for Iraq, one need only read Downing Street Memo to see that it was planned by Bush all along. He even wanted to invade Iran but, thankfully, was stopped by Congressional Republicans.

[Kyrani99]

....................he failed to protect the American people because he knew before 9/11 that something was coming because in the months before 9/11 his own CIA told him that something was going to happen and he did nothing to protect the American people. Sure he protected us after the fact but that is not a good president because a good president would act to protect the American people by creating a contingency plan even though he or she doesn't have all the intelligence and he or she would enact that plan before something happens.

How do you see that Bush protected the American people after 911?
He took away their civil rights and liberties with the Patriot Act (which is still in force).
He involved the American people in a war that was aimed to destabilize the Middle East for the interests of the few power mongers in the world, not the American people.

Was the communique to the CIA part of the plan? IMO it gave corrupt people in government (IMO Bush is one of them) the ability to call it a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists, where in fact the terrorist included corrupt Americans.

There were missiles under the planes, they were drones, not hijacked commercial planes as was claimed.



There were three buildings destroyed by controlled demolition, it is clear enough for even lay people to see and yet engineers are claiming that gravity pulled them down.


And government agents lying by this account here:

For 911 to have happened it surely would have taken few years of planning and putting things into place, such as powdering up three building for controlled demolition. This was done in broad daylight. What caught the people's attention enough to have diverted attention? Who was in power before Bush.. oh Clinton and he was getting his dick licked by the beautiful Monica Lewinsky. And Hilary hardly batted an eyelid when it was exposed. Sounds like a diversion to me.

[2Dbunk]

[Replying to koko]

Building #7 could have been impacted by under-designed-for live loadings that either weakened or sheared its underpinnings (from the surrounding collapsing hi-rises).

No, I don't think there was a conspiracy other than the 19 terrorists who took over the four planes. But as explained in the OP there was no contingency plan, which should have been in play as an extension of the Clinton administration's warning that Middle East terrorism was alive and well. At the very least, the bombing of the WTC in 1993 should have been reason enough to suspect that it would happen again!

Bush and his administration pooh poohed most if not all the intelligence handed down to him from Clinton's administration. Perhaps he was self convinced that anything being handed down was evil incarnation from an evil administration and that God would be his (the Nation's) protector.

[Willum]

It really is horrible.

There were responses against this kind of attack, but they were canceled in 1971.

Four planes were going to be used in terrorist attacks, three building were hit, yet four buildings fell.

The towers were insured by Warren Buffet for the first time in history against terrorist attacks to a Israeli National, Larry Silverstein, who leveraged their buy for 40 million, and was paid $4.55 billion. He was able to buy them because the US Gov, bailed out las minute with a much higher bid.

The towers were scheduled for demolition.

Check this video out around 2:10. Doesn't look like a plane.


I've spoken with a structural engineer, and she pointed out something about the Pentagon, which is quite provable if you visit it, or buy a piece of it as a memorabilia: An air plane would be shredded like paperon the outside wall of the Pentagon. It would require something called a bunker-buster to do that kind of damage to it.

Bunker-busters, coincidentally came out a few months later.

Whatever you believe, comes down to what our leadership believed and media presented.

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (Usama was part of the royal family, making it a sovereign attack), attacks the US. Israel gets a pay-out, and the US attacks Iraq.

The media is mum on building seven, and there is at least one news announcement about the towers falling before they did.

I used to have a video of the Pentagon getting hit by something flying near ground level, but in conspiracy fashion, I look now and it has been replaced. It wasn't much, but it had intermittent frames of something coming in from ground level.

Here is a worse take of that same footage:

you get one frame of something much smaller than a jet.

Don't laugh-that building was heavily surveilled, made of re-enforced concrete, yet there is no footage and the plane magically damaged the structure.

See if the single frame looks like this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive_O ... evelopment

It also means that Boeing would have had insight into it.

Interestingly enough, the Pentagon was contracted for on Sept 11.