United 93...what was its target? What would have happened

[CJCRANE]

if it had been successful?

(The take-off of United 93 was delayed for 41 minutes)

[Theobald]

1. Probably the White House or the Capital Building n/t

[leftofthedial]

2. It was incredibly successful.

It provided a perfect martyred super-patriot mythology for the invasion of Iraq and destruction of civil liberties.

[JackRiddler]

3. It seems certain it was the Capitol...

Keep in mind the White House said the White House was the target, in a context of advancing the claim that Bush was in danger, "Angel is next." In the first days even the press treated this story of Bush under threat with suspicion (I believe understandably) as little more than a cover story for Air Force One's odyssey to Barksdale AFB and Offut AFB, home of Stratcom. It served to win sympathy for the indispensable and courageous commander-in-chief. (One wonders too about the brief FOXNEWS announcement that Camp David had been hit, which would have been bizarre to say the least.)

The Capitol was much easier to hit and as the highest building in the area would have made the more dramatic image, and 9/11 regardless of origin was about projecting the most powerful image in an effort to terrorize and traumatize everyone who watched it develop on TV. That the Capitol was targeted is now official story, both in the 9/11 Commission Report and in the supposed Guantanamo "confessions." It also makes the most sense within a coup d'etat narrative, as it would have shut down the legislature (literally at first, and then in a powerful symbolic fashion once they reconvened at some convention center) and left the executive in uncontested control. Continuity of government plans would have been openly announced (instead of being activated in a more quiet fashion). In this reckoning the anthrax attacks selectively targeting the Democratic leadership of the Senate during the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act appear as a logical back-up action.

[BeFree]

4. Careful, now

There are folks who will be mightily injured if they take that other fork that 911 might have been a well orchestrated conundrum which effectually handed unheard of powers to the president.

I myself cried tears of regret when I first began traveling that fork, and we shouldn't hurt the tender feelings of those who are safe and sound in the belief of the Official explanation.

I just thank Gawd some of us are strong.

[SDuderstadt]

5. Or that you're logically challenged....

Do you honestly believe there are only two choices (or forks, as you call them)? Must one either believe the "OCT" and thus be a Bushlover or believe instead that it had to be planned and executed by the Bush administration? Hint: no. Onew can also easily believe the "OCT" and also realize that the Bish administration had nothing to do with the planning or execution of 9/11 but, nontheless, capitalized upon it for their own purposes. You need to take a critical thinking class. Seriously.

[JackRiddler]

6. Critical thinking classes? Why don't you tell us...

which ones you took? Perhaps you can link to a syllabus, professor.

[SDuderstadt]

7. I'll debate you on Logic anyday, JR....

as to your rather silly demand, I took three Logic courses in undergrad in the 70's, so I doubt I can find the "syllabus". As I recall, they were Logic 101, 102 and 103. Happy?

[whatchamacallit]

10. Not the "I am the emperor of logic" crap again...

All that superior bluster from 3 classes in the 70's... As disappointing as it is illogical.

[SDuderstadt]

18. Please explain how it is "illogical"

This should be fun. BTW, JR asked what college classes I had taken in Logic. What makes you think I haven't informally studied it further since undergard school? More importantly, why do "truthers" bristle so much when confrnted with Logic? It reminds me of born-agains who claim that "logic is a trick of Satan to make people doubt God".

[whatchamacallit]

19. It's illogical that

based on your admittedly modest academic achievements, you would feel compelled to tell others they need an education in deductive reasoning and critical thinking. I don't bristle at logic, I bristle at self adulation. Was it fun?

[SDuderstadt]

20. Ummm, JR asked me, remember????

I never said a word about my education until then. I also think it's funny that you describe it as my "admittedly modest" academic achievements. Considering I was pursuing a degree in comparative political systems, I didn't intend for my interest in Logic to override my interest in political systems.

I'm still curious as to your accusation that it's illogical. Can you point to the logical fallacy by name? Do you really think people wouldn't benefit from an education in critical thinking?

[whatchamacallit]

21. Where is the logic in assuming you know more than people you know absolutely nothing about?

Your assumption lacks a rationale and is therefore illogical. If you still don't get it I suggest you dust off one of your text books.

[SDuderstadt]

22. If it's "illogical", it shouldn't be hard for you to point to the specific logical fallacy....

I committed. I'll give you a hint: I wasn't making an argument. I was expressing a personal opinion based upon specific logical fallacies in the post I responded to, namely, the "false dilemma" or "either-or fallacy". Do you understand the construction of an argument? Doyou really think an personal opinion is a statement of fact? Really?

This just gets funnier by the moment, dude.

[whatchamacallit]

23. Tossing around some random terminology doesn't really buy you much SDude

You come off like you think you're the shit, and it's... well... unbecoming.

[SDuderstadt]

24. Yet you still cannot point to a specific logical fallacy I've committed....

I wonder why that is.

[whatchamacallit]

26. Because SDude, just as you suspect and are driven to prove,

you are smarter and better educated than I am. :boring:

[SDuderstadt]

28. Why don't you just save yourself some trouble and admit....

that you accused me of being illogical, but you don't know what the fuck you're talking about as evidenced by your inability to point to a single logical fallacy I committed?

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LARED]

39. I think someone jumped in the deep end of the pool

before realizing they don't know how to swim.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LARED]

48. Have you ever heard the expression

"taken to the woodshed"? -- You got spanked.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[whatchamacallit]

51. Well that's certainly one way to win an argument... (n/t)

[Bolo Boffin]

52. Posting personal attacks again and again that have to be deleted? That's what you consider winning?

What kind of game are you playing at here?

[whatchamacallit]

55. Pretty much the opposite of the meaning of my post

I was saying having comments removed is a good way for the *remover* to win an argument. Anyhoo, I'm not surprised the mods removed them as they were a little on the personal side. I'm also not surprised to find you in the mix.

[LARED]

56. I was making an observation, not an argument nt

[CJCRANE]

8. What do you think

would have happened if United 93 had reached its target?

And why specifically did al-Qaeda choose the particular landmarks that they did?

[noise]

9. There are several possibilities

The problem with the "they took advantage after the fact" theory is that it doesn't take into account all the BS that went on before 9/11. For example, it sure looks like al Qaeda operatives were protected from arrest before 9/11. CIA withheld information from the FBI. NSA withheld information from the FBI. The DIA withheld information from the FBI. The FBI ITOS withheld information from the FBI criminal side agents.

Mayer, Suskind, Klein, Chomsky and Zinn can all claim the Bush administration only took advantage after the fact but their analysis rings false when one examines the publicly available evidence concerning across the board bizarre pre-9/11 conduct.

[CJCRANE]

11. ...Bueller?...Bueller?

...OCTers?

[Bolo Boffin]

12. Feeling a little lonely?

The plane would have crashed into the Capitol. It would have been on all the TVs. Other than the Capitol being rebuilt by now, I'd guess, things would have gone pretty much the same as they did.

In the November 2001 tape, Osama says they didn't think the buildings would collapse the way they did. So I think their desired money shot was denied (the crash into the Capitol) but they saw the collapses as the providence of Allah.

The Capitol would have been destroyed, but I think the deaths would have been minimal there. Depending on the approach, the plane may have continued on (or debris) and started fires in the office buildings beside the Capitol. Congress would have quickly found a new venue to meet in temporarily.

The anthrax mailings would have then played out much as they did. There may have been a few more deaths if any temporary quarters had been more tightly packed or better air circulation.

But very little would have changed the momentum of events had United 93 reached its target.

Now, is that all better? Do you need some talcum and a blankie?

[CJCRANE]

13. ...but don't you think

Cheney would then have had an excuse to implement COG overtly and run the govt from a secure bunker? (Which he tried to do anyway but no one else joined in).

[Bolo Boffin]

14. COG was implemented on 9/11

And there is no other way to do it than overtly.

I mean, I just suggested one element of COG -- Congress finding an alternate venue. That's continuity of government. If the Capitol would have been destroyed, then more COG would have come online. But any suggested coup d'etat (which is what I think you're suggesting) wouldn't have happened for the same reasons - Bush was in the air and he was still president. With the universal thunking Cheney got for pulling a Haig in the PEOC, do you think all that resistance would have crumbled just because the Capitol got hit? Josh Bolten called him out on the record after the first tower fell.

[CJCRANE]

15. A coup d'etat

isn't necessarily carried out by an outside force. It can be carried out by an inside force which seeks to overturn the Constitution.

[jberryhill]

16. Sure... if you believe a hunk of marble is "Congress"....

The Capitol building is not necessary to having a functioning Congress.

[CJCRANE]

17. The WTC

isn't necessary to have a functioning economy but it was f***ing scary for the whole thing to be destroyed. That image set the tone for Bush's entire first term.

[JackRiddler]

25. This strikes me as wishful thinking...

The impact of the day would have immeasurably greater. Symbols count, meeting in a convention center (presumably surrounded by the military at all times) automatically saps their authority and makes them look like a powerless joke, and it has an inestimable effect on their own self-image. Congress would have been reduced to a rump appendage of the executive (i.e., to a far greater extent than was the case in the period after 9/11, when at least there were squeaks and moans heard about the USA PATRIOT Act, the Homeland Security Act, the Ashcroft roundups and the military tribunals order). I doubt they would have even met for months, except to pass enabling acts for the duration of the emergency. Aside from deaths to at least some members and staff, the disruption of their organization, the loss of their offices would have had enormous effect. The hysteria and fear to dance the least bit out of line would have been overwhelming.

But luckily we don't know, because it didn't happen.

[Bolo Boffin]

27. "I doubt they would have even met for months"

:rofl:

[JackRiddler]

30. Laughing icon obviates response, always wins. Congrats.

[Bolo Boffin]

32. If the anthrax mailer didn't stop them from meeting, the destruction of the Capitol building

and some office buildings wouldn't have either.

If you don't want to see the laughing icon, stop saying such silly things.

[JackRiddler]

34. I don't care about the laughing icon...

You can be as childish and irrelevant as you like, it only reflects on you.

Already the anthrax mailings made them cast their stones for the USA PATRIOT Act and end the session in haste. The destruction of the Capitol would have been incomparably more traumatizing.

[Bolo Boffin]

35. If you don't like the idea of me laughing at what you write

stop writing things that crack me up.

[JackRiddler]

41. It doesn't bother me...

It's you who looks the fool, when this is what you consider an answer (ignoring the latest point made against you as usual).

[Bolo Boffin]

44. And it's only your concern for my appearing a fool that makes you bring the subject up

over and over and over again.

:rofl:

[CJCRANE]

38. Mail can be checked.

It's scary but it's not a showstopper.

[jberryhill]

31. "the loss of their offices would have had enormous effect"

Jack, have you ever spent any time in DC?

Their offices aren't IN the Capitol Building.

[JackRiddler]

33. Yes, you're right...

I even worked in a Congressional office for a summer. Been there many times. So scratch that. Wasn't thinking.

Nevertheless, I disagree about "a hunk of marble" and your idea that the impact would have been minimal. Can you think of a more important symbol of the American republic? RFK Stadium or wherever would have turned them into a joke.

[AZCat]

36. Statue of Liberty would have been a good symbolic choice, IMO.

ETA: I'm not sure whether Osama&Co were Planet of the Apes fans, though.

[CJCRANE]

37. The al-Qaeda planners were incredibly smart.

They achieved Zelikow's imagined destruction of the WTC, the "searing, molding event" that changes everything.

They provided a "casus belli" with the hit at the Pentagon.

And if United 93 had reached its target they would have achieved the trifecta, a direct attack on American democracy, ushering in an emergency government with de facto military rule.

[jberryhill]

40. The point was about "shutting down Congress"

Congress can function just fine without the Capitol Building. I'm not arguing that anyone would have been happy about it.

But if the point was MIHOP or LIHOP in order to seize absolute power, then I guess having Flight 93 shot down, or faked, depending on one's persuasion, was kind of a dumb idea.

[JackRiddler]

42. More than this, the point was about a trauma so severe...

that Congress is rendered irrelevant in the wake. You think it's a hunk of marble, but the trauma experienced by all would have said otherwise. For years no Congress member could have stood up and objected to anything the regime did without prompting universal derision with the image of the destroyed Capitol in everyone's minds. And sessions held in whatever venue would have been conducted under the equivalent of open martial law in a fully militarized compound. Even if they were technically allowed to vote as they wished. Atmosphere counts. Most politicians are already highly conformist, insecure personalities. They would have outdone themselves for nationalist bluster and protestations of loyalty to an extent we've never seen.

I never said Flt. 93 was "faked," so talk to those who do about that. I believe there was an uprising on board and the airfone calls were real. As for the possible shootdown, it's what the known facts indicate (such as faking the time of the crash in the official reports by NORAD and the 9/11 Commission, contrary to both the initial reports and the later seismic event report). Who brought the plane down and why is a different question. The flight was late and I don't argue for the strawman that all of "the government" was involved in the orchestration of 9/11. I argue above all that the investigations never meant to even deal with any questions outside the story of a surprise attack from without with no foreknowledge or facilitation from within.

[CJCRANE]

43. If United 93

was shot down it was probably just a fighter pilot doing his job.

The flight was delayed by 41 minutes so even with all the obstructions there was enough time for an intercept to catch up with it.

[noise]

45. It's one of the confusing aspects of 9/11

The MO is extremely difficult to understand. Al Qaeda operatives based everything on departure times? They didn't care about cell/air phone use even though it could thwart their plan? They used their real names even though Tenet declared war on al Qaeda in 1998 and the intel community was on high alert in the summer of '01? They relied on boxcutters even though an air marshal would have killed them all or increased security measures may have led to armed pilots?

From the 9/11 truth viewpoint: If the Cheney faction truly desired a police state/dictatorship then why didn't they capitalize on 9/11 and stage follow up attacks (like Madrid or London)? At the time it would have worked as there was barely any dissent.

There is nothing wrong with admitting one doesn't have all the answers.

[bottomtheweaver]

47. I don't doubt that it WAS successful.

There was no financial incentive to hit the Capitol, White House (who was living there again?), or Statue of Liberty. But there were very strong incentives for hitting the WTC (long time money loser, huge asbestos liability, full of Democrats) and Pentagon ($2.1 trillion missing on Monday, overly conscientious accountants and other troublesome types incinerated on Tuesday). I imagine there were also a few intel insiders who knew a little too much and that's who went kaboom over Pennsylvania, if anyone did.

[OnTheOtherHand]

49. "I don't doubt... I imagine"

Sums things up nicely.

So, PNAC and Larry Silverstein cut a deal? or what?

[victordrazen]

53. Since there was no hijacked plane

there was no target.

[victordrazen]

54. The media reported Camp David at first

then that disappeared without explanation