September 11th-lazy responses, sinister cover ups?

The Gopher

Reading a timeline from the Irish Times on september12th there are some major noticeable inconsistencies of what happened and a slow response time.These include a very slow response time to threats on obvious targets after the first strike on the trade center and incidenddts which were reported but somehow"forgotten"by the media.Examples[times are irish]

At 14:53 here 2 explosions rock the Pentagon[this is 2 hours BEFORE the plane impact and could add weight to that website which disputed the damage a crashed plane could do-saying that the lawn looked more like the scene of a truck bomb]

15:55-FBI announces that a plane is headed for the Pentagon.But something like 150 people died in the Pentagon ONE HOUR later.Surely a modern building with an intercom system could fully evacuate within the hour.And in some accounts ive seen on tv Pentagon workers were going about their normal business when the building was hit-indicating the building was never evacuated.

What ever became of the State Department car bombing?

How come that within an hour minimum the centre of the US defence forces was unable to organise for anti aircraft gunners to be posted?

Why would some details be covered up?Could some of the car bombings have been dirty bombs and they didn’t want to alarm the public?

How come some terrorists were allowed to board even though some were on terror watchlists?

Im not disputing a plane hit the Pentagon.But who would deliberately circulate a report of a non existant bombing on the day of the attacks?Sure you often get this kind of stuff on the net a few days later by conspiracy freaks but this is a September 12th paper.Surely an internet rumour wouldn’t widely circulate within a few hours of the attacks?

Who knows?Perhaps in the rush of information and misinformation on a busy news day times and quotes get mixed up.But if this is all true it shows there were some very lazy responses to threats and some sinister cover ups.Could the reason that the State Dep and Pentagon alledged car/truck bombings be because the gov didnt want the public worrying about the fact there were dozens of terrorists in the country who didnt die and still posed a security threat?Who knows.

dahamsta

I always found the way the third plane was handled by the media as suspicious. I was watching it live on Sky News and CNN, and for twenty minutes there was reports coming in about all three planes. Then they just stopped talking about the third plane altogether. It just strikes me as odd.

adam

bonkey

Originally posted by The Gopher
What ever became of the State Department car bombing?

<snip>

But who would deliberately circulate a report of a non existant bombing on the day of the attacks?Sure you often get this kind of stuff on the net a few days later by conspiracy freaks but this is a September 12th paper.Surely an internet rumour wouldn’t widely circulate within a few hours of the attacks?

<snip>

Who knows?Perhaps in the rush of information and misinformation on a busy news day times and quotes get mixed up.

I think you hit the nail on the head regarding most of the inconsistencies with that last comment. Apparently there was no bomb at the State Dept. What happened was that people in the building/area heard the sonic boom of scrambled fighters, and reported hearing explosions. This was then grabbed by frantic newsies and hit the airwaves as "unconfirmed reports of a car bomb".

In the midst of a breaking story, it is interesting to note the different way in which the media and the official forces react. When something happens, the media will tell everyone about it, and issue all forms of wild speculation, in order to ensure that no-one beats them to a valid story. As soon as they find out if their reporting is accurate or not, they continue with the story, or simply issue a correction and drop it.

Hence...State Dept bombing was reported immediately, and then dropped very quickly after a few hushed "oh - no - there wasnt a bomb after all".

On the other hand, the officials must decide which of these areas merit genuine attention. They must often find out if something is genuine before acting on it. They must also be looking for what might happen next, and what the most balanced strategy is. To say that they didnt get AA gunners up inside an hour is fair enough, but without the benefit of hindsight, is it that unreasonable. Its not like the crisis centre was fully manned before the crisis occurred, and were simply awaiting starters orders to begin reacting.

jc

yellum

Some other good stuff:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/