[quote]Frank Castle wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Where are you from? Because I watched the shit happen. I know people who were in the buildings, and I watched the Trade Towers smoking and burning. I saw the smoke plumes from NYC for days afterwards…
You all know by now that I hate the government. But no United States government would do such a thing to its people, and make us go through the horror that we’ve all endured. It’s not in the character of the country, be it rich men or poor, senators or president. Its not in them to do this to all of us.
It’s times like these that I wish the rest of the country was around this area to watch the people walking across the bridges back home, or to see the smoke rising…its alot different when you see it from your backyard as opposed to CNN.
I live in jersey, have union buddies who volunteered at ground zero for months, saw the massive smoke cloud with my own eyes etc. however, I dont feel it gives us a ‘monopoly’ so to speak, on grief or trauma from the event.
I do agree that many of the conspiracy theories that are out there are far fetched, and insulting to families of the victims, but I’d be a liar if i thought there wasnt more to the story re: the pentagon attack. Thats why I was intrigued by the report that more footage would be released, and then dissapointed when it was that. Either way, thanks for the links, some of them I have never seen before…
[/quote]
I hear you. Everything is going to be a bit more secretive at the Pentagon.
But what I meant about NYC is that while everyone else saw it on TV, and so they doubt it a bit more, we all watched it happen- it’s not just an image on TV. There’s not much room for doubt.
Its hard to believe that anyone gives these conspiracy theories any kind of credit when you know for a fact that half the shit they say never happened.
[quote]PGJ wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
PGJ wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
PGJ wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
Anyone that thinks our incompetent federal government could get their act together enough to pull off a conspiracy of this magnitude is just and absolute moron!
Dude, that is absolutely perfect! I wish I had said it. I wouldn’t say “incompetent”, but it certainly has it’s flaws and it certainly couldn’t pull of a hoax of this enormity. You would also have to believe that the government is pure evil. Not just corrupt, but evil and sadistic.
Our federal government is incompetent and Bush thinks so too otherwise he would never have put someone like Brownie in charge of FEMA.
I guess you perosnally know the guy, right. Old drinking buddies and all. Maybe you should go back and read the resumes of some of the leaders. They aren’t stupid. Just because YOU don’t particularly like or agree with someone, doesn’t make them incompetent. Show me your evidence.
You did see that whole Katrina thing right?
They proved that they were incompetent.
The Mayor couldn’t evacuate his own city, the Governor refused to call in the National Guard, the worst natural disaster to ever hit this nation…and it’s the fault of one guy? Come on. I don’t think FEMA was designed to take care of entire regional disasters. You can’t really prepare for that, especially when the populace doesn’t want to cooperate. We were all venturing into unchartered waters. We’re still trying to put Florida back together from 2 years ago.
[/quote]
I never said that other people did not play a part in it, and I agree that the blame falls on local government as well.
However, FEMA was unprepared and the man who led it was underqualified and incompetent.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
PGJ wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
PGJ wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
PGJ wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
Anyone that thinks our incompetent federal government could get their act together enough to pull off a conspiracy of this magnitude is just and absolute moron!
Dude, that is absolutely perfect! I wish I had said it. I wouldn’t say “incompetent”, but it certainly has it’s flaws and it certainly couldn’t pull of a hoax of this enormity. You would also have to believe that the government is pure evil. Not just corrupt, but evil and sadistic.
Our federal government is incompetent and Bush thinks so too otherwise he would never have put someone like Brownie in charge of FEMA.
I guess you perosnally know the guy, right. Old drinking buddies and all. Maybe you should go back and read the resumes of some of the leaders. They aren’t stupid. Just because YOU don’t particularly like or agree with someone, doesn’t make them incompetent. Show me your evidence.
You did see that whole Katrina thing right?
They proved that they were incompetent.
The Mayor couldn’t evacuate his own city, the Governor refused to call in the National Guard, the worst natural disaster to ever hit this nation…and it’s the fault of one guy? Come on. I don’t think FEMA was designed to take care of entire regional disasters. You can’t really prepare for that, especially when the populace doesn’t want to cooperate. We were all venturing into unchartered waters. We’re still trying to put Florida back together from 2 years ago.
I never said that other people did not play a part in it, and I agree that the blame falls on local government as well.
However, FEMA was unprepared and the man who led it was underqualified and incompetent.[/quote]
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
PGJ wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
PGJ wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
PGJ wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
Anyone that thinks our incompetent federal government could get their act together enough to pull off a conspiracy of this magnitude is just and absolute moron!
Dude, that is absolutely perfect! I wish I had said it. I wouldn’t say “incompetent”, but it certainly has it’s flaws and it certainly couldn’t pull of a hoax of this enormity. You would also have to believe that the government is pure evil. Not just corrupt, but evil and sadistic.
Our federal government is incompetent and Bush thinks so too otherwise he would never have put someone like Brownie in charge of FEMA.
I guess you perosnally know the guy, right. Old drinking buddies and all. Maybe you should go back and read the resumes of some of the leaders. They aren’t stupid. Just because YOU don’t particularly like or agree with someone, doesn’t make them incompetent. Show me your evidence.
You did see that whole Katrina thing right?
They proved that they were incompetent.
The Mayor couldn’t evacuate his own city, the Governor refused to call in the National Guard, the worst natural disaster to ever hit this nation…and it’s the fault of one guy? Come on. I don’t think FEMA was designed to take care of entire regional disasters. You can’t really prepare for that, especially when the populace doesn’t want to cooperate. We were all venturing into unchartered waters. We’re still trying to put Florida back together from 2 years ago.
I never said that other people did not play a part in it, and I agree that the blame falls on local government as well.
However, FEMA was unprepared and the man who led it was underqualified and incompetent.[/quote]
[quote]PGJ wrote:
I don’t think FEMA was designed to take care of entire regional disasters. [/quote]
Question: If you don’t think that FEMA was designed to take care of entire regional disasters, then what do you think it was designed for? This is a serious question, not sarcasm.
[quote]ALDurr wrote:
PGJ wrote:
I don’t think FEMA was designed to take care of entire regional disasters.
Question: If you don’t think that FEMA was designed to take care of entire regional disasters, then what do you think it was designed for? This is a serious question, not sarcasm.[/quote]
To pay the locals to do it and keep an eye on and regulate things.
[quote]ALDurr wrote:
PGJ wrote:
I don’t think FEMA was designed to take care of entire regional disasters.
Question: If you don’t think that FEMA was designed to take care of entire regional disasters, then what do you think it was designed for? This is a serious question, not sarcasm.[/quote]
Katrina was a disaster of proportions nobody could have managed or imagined. Until then, the 2004 hurricane season was probably the worst on record. They handled over 164 Federally designated disaster response situations. There was no way to prepare for something as huge as Katrina. By regional I mean ENTIRE regions, not just single locations like Pensacola or New Orleans. That thing took out so much, coupled with the inability of New Orleans to cope with a full scale evacuation (they did have a pretty good plan of paper) led to a situation that FEMA simply could not handle alone.
And considering the scale of destruction, I think we’re doing a pretty good job getting back on our feet. Sure there were mistakes, mismanagement, corruption, and delays, but damn…you can’t organize a group of people and resources that large without having problems. One year after almost total destruction, Mardi Gras was back on. I think that says a lot.
[quote]PGJ wrote:
ALDurr wrote:
PGJ wrote:
I don’t think FEMA was designed to take care of entire regional disasters.
Question: If you don’t think that FEMA was designed to take care of entire regional disasters, then what do you think it was designed for? This is a serious question, not sarcasm.
Katrina was a disaster of proportions nobody could have managed or imagined. Until then, the 2004 hurricane season was probably the worst on record. They handled over 164 Federally designated disaster response situations. There was no way to prepare for something as huge as Katrina. By regional I mean ENTIRE regions, not just single locations like Pensacola or New Orleans. That thing took out so much, coupled with the inability of New Orleans to cope with a full scale evacuation (they did have a pretty good plan of paper) led to a situation that FEMA simply could not handle alone.
And considering the scale of destruction, I think we’re doing a pretty good job getting back on our feet. Sure there were mistakes, mismanagement, corruption, and delays, but damn…you can’t organize a group of people and resources that large without having problems. One year after almost total destruction, Mardi Gras was back on. I think that says a lot.
[/quote]
I appreciate your opinion and obvious passion for these things. However, I don’t see where you answered my question. If they are not suppose to handle something on a large scale, then what do you think they are designed for?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
ALDurr wrote:
PGJ wrote:
I don’t think FEMA was designed to take care of entire regional disasters.
Question: If you don’t think that FEMA was designed to take care of entire regional disasters, then what do you think it was designed for? This is a serious question, not sarcasm.
To pay the locals to do it and keep an eye on and regulate things.[/quote]
So you mean that they are suppose to just send money and then tell the locals how to spend it? What does regulate things mean? It sounds like you are saying they are suppose to be bean counters and overseers but not actively do anything.
So you mean that they are suppose to just send money and then tell the locals how to spend it? What does regulate things mean? It sounds like you are saying they are suppose to be bean counters and overseers but not actively do anything.[/quote]
[quote]PGJ wrote:
Kratos wrote:
but if they really wanted to shut them all down they would have shown a CLEAR video of the impact. Then nobody could say shit.
They’d say the video was fake, or why only on video, or the witnesses have been tampered with.
You need to understand that the people who “believe” the conspiracy theories (pick one), think they know something unusual. They consider themselves as great intellectuals who don’t follow the herd. For some reason, they consider themselves unusually informed. They have an inside scoop and the rest of us are just stupid sheep. It sets them apart and makes them feel different and superior.
[/quote]
That is right. You can’t tell some people that the sky is up.
[quote]ALDurr wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
ALDurr wrote:
PGJ wrote:
I don’t think FEMA was designed to take care of entire regional disasters.
Question: If you don’t think that FEMA was designed to take care of entire regional disasters, then what do you think it was designed for? This is a serious question, not sarcasm.
To pay the locals to do it and keep an eye on and regulate things.
So you mean that they are suppose to just send money and then tell the locals how to spend it? What does regulate things mean? It sounds like you are saying they are suppose to be bean counters and overseers but not actively do anything.[/quote]
Pretty much. They were in way over their heads with Katrina because they were trying to manage contracts when people needed to be rescued.
FEMA is relatively good at managing rebuilding after the disaster is over but are pretty powerless while the disaster is still occuring.
Unlike most hurricanes that blow through and are over quickly or most floods where the flood waters would recede on their own Katrina was far more difficult to handle and they couldn’t get it done.
I think they did as well (or poorly) as can be expected for a federal bureaucracy.
Another problem with Katrina is that we have so many stupid governmental hand-out programs that a lot of those folks “stuck” in New Orleans were probably just waiting for a government employee to come by and physically scoop their fat, lazy, lifetime-wellfare, asses off thier couches and carry them to safety. At some point, people have to be accountable for themselves. Instead, they’ll just blame the President.
I don’t know what people expected when just about the entire South East was wiped out. I thought it went fairly well considering the New Orleans evacuation plan failed miserably and the governor refused to call in the National Guard until days later. FEMA doesn’t CONTROL at the local level.
A lumbering (compared to a fighter jet) hijacked jet flies and is tracked for almost two hours over the most heavily guarded airspace in the world and then manages to crash into the headquarters of the US military defense – 15 minutes later the first fighter jet shows up.
Regardless of WHAT hit the Pentagon, that happening (especially given the now well known advanced warnings and foreknowledge) is as likely as the Lakers getting their asses handed to them by a mediocre high school basketball team.
Of course anyone thinking the Lakers may have thrown the game would naturally be ridiculed.
Hijackers fly into Pentagon? No chance, said top brass
senior officers rejected the scenario as “too unrealistic”
Pentagon Tracked Deadly Jet But Found No Way to Stop It
NY Times
September 15, 2001
Despite elaborate plans that link civilian and military efforts to control the nation’s airspace in defense of the country, and despite two other jetliners’ having already hit the World Trade Center in New York, the fighter planes that scrambled into protective orbits around Washington did not arrive until 15 minutes after Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.
Flight 77, which took off from Dulles International Airport outside Washington shortly after 8 a.m., stayed aloft until 9:45 a.m. and would have been visible on the F.A.A.'s radar system as it reversed course in the Midwest an hour later to fly back to Washington. The radars would have observed it even though its tracking beacon had been turned off.
Loss of Oxygen Cited as Possible Cause of [Payne Stewart] Jet’s Wayward Flight, Crash
10/26/1999
According to an Air Force timeline, a series of military planes provided an emergency escort to the stricken Lear, beginning with a pair of F-16 Falcons from the Air National Guard at Tyndall Air Force Base, Fla., about 20 minutes after ground controllers lost contact.
On Flight 77: ‘Our Plane Is Being Hijacked’
Washington Post
September 12, 2001
Just as the plane seemed to be on a suicide mission into the White House, the unidentified pilot executed a pivot so tight that it reminded observers of a fighter jet maneuver. The plane circled 270 degrees to the right to approach the Pentagon from the west, whereupon Flight 77 fell below radar level, vanishing from controllers’ screens, the sources said.
Less than an hour after two other jets demolished the World Trade Center in Manhattan, Flight 77 carved a hole in the nation’s defense headquarters, a hole five stories high and 200 feet wide.
Aviation sources said the plane was flown with extraordinary skill, making it highly likely that a trained pilot was at the helm, possibly one of the hijackers. Someone even knew how to turn off the transponder, a move that is considerably less than obvious. http://911readingroom.org/bib/whole_document.php?article_id=294
A Trainee Noted for Incompetence
Mr. Hanjour, who investigators contend piloted the airliner that crashed into the Pentagon, was reported to the aviation agency in February 2001 after instructors at his flight school in Phoenix had found his piloting skills so shoddy and his grasp of English so inadequate that they questioned whether his pilot’s license was genuine.
FAA Probed, Cleared Sept. 11 Hijacker in Early 2001
The operations manager for the now-defunct JetTech flight school in Phoenix said she called the FAA inspector that oversaw her school three times in January and February 2001 to express her concerns about Hanjour.
“I couldn’t believe he had a commercial license of any kind with the skills that he had,” said Peggy Chevrette, the JetTech manager. She also has been interviewed by the FBI.
I don’t know how to post the actual video, but here is the transcript of the report this CNN reporter gave on 5/16/06. In the report, they play THE WHOLE statement he made. I’ll highlight that part below. Here is the link to the transcript: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0605/16/acd.01.html
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, SEPTEMBER 11, 2001)
MCINTYRE: But from my close-up inspection, there’s no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MCINTYRE: In fact, I was talking about an eyewitness who thought the plane landed short of the Pentagon, and went on to say, the only crash site was at the Pentagon.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, SEPTEMBER 11, 2001)
MCINTYRE: The only site is the actual site of the building that’s crashed in. And, as I said…
