Zero-tolerance on altering articles is a good policy; however, that just stopped me from taking the @ out of the author's email to reduce his spam, which i think i've done before; exception warranted?
U.S. intelligence learned in 1998 of a plot to attack the World Trade Center with hijacked airliners and in 1999 of a plot to attack the Pentagon in the same manner. On Aug. 6, five weeks before 9/11, Bush was warned of an imminent attack on the United States. But Bush didn’t bother to put the nation’s defenses on alert, not even when he was told an airliner had hit the World Trade Center.
Nor did he order national defense to action when he was told the nation was under attack. Instead, he lied that there had been no warning and no one imagined airliners being used as bombs, lies he repeated until 2004.
No reporter asked why the mightiest nation the world has known was unable to defend itself from 19 hijackers for an hour and a half.
Oh, the shades and degrees between the OCT and "inside job"
And on Reddit.
When faced with evidence that elements of our own government orchestrated the 9/11 attacks, millions of Americans smugly respond that the Bush administration was too incompetent to have done it. A common statement is "They're too incompetent to even win a war against a bunch of poorly-armed people; how could they have pulled off 9/11?"
Bush certainly acts like a bumbler and a good old boy. Cheney accidentally shot his hunting buddy. And Rumsfeld -- Secretary of Defense when 9/11 occurred -- apparently mangled the planning of the war in Iraq. Right?
Big Fish or Little Fish?
9/11 and the incompetence excuse: Could a bunch of sociopathic screw-ups really pull off the crime of the century?
OnlineJournal.com publishes a nice roundup of reasons to doubt the official 9/11 BS, in the context of countering those who defend the Bush Administration's 9/11 account by claiming they were too incompetent to have any involvement in pulling off a successful false-flag operation.
"Many who deny government complicity in 9/11/01 maintain that some of the best evidence against official involvement in the crime of the century lies in the Bush administration's unbroken record of sheer incompetence, an argument bolstered by the perception that key members of the administration, notably The Commander Guy, spent that entire day running around like headless chickens.
On the contrary, they did no such thing. Rather, the administration was highly competent and enormously successful that day -- they just had different criteria for success than would sane people. And they've been highly competent ever since. You just have to adjust your standards for evaluating success, then view the past six years through the PNAC/neocon lens. Let's review some of their primary accomplishments -- on 9/11 and in the six eternal years since:"