9/11 Predicted on Lone Gunmen Pilot Episode

---

An episode aired on March 4, 2001 portraying a government conspiracy to electronically hijack a plane and crash it into the World Trade Center. Here's the episode video: http://youtube.com/watch?v=hUKQz-xm0ishmmmmmmm?

Thats really weird, it's probably a coincidence though. I do believe it was a conspiracy though, i just don't understand why?

It is a coincidence. But the point is, if TV show writers can concoct a plot that evil. Why couldn't the government predict an attack of that magnitude on 9/11?

That's what i say too. Some things just don't add up, yet some do.

Originally Posted By: cooldawg2It is a coincidence. But the point is, if TV show writers can concoct a plot that evil. Why couldn't the government predict an attack of that magnitude on 9/11? It's really convenient to able to look back through the lens of 9/11. What possible reason would the government have had to believe things would go down the way they did? I mean, other than that's what happened on a sci-fi tv show. Do you think that every plot concocted for tv shows should be checked out by the government?

The problem is that Condoleeza Rice stated that we had no way of knowing a terrorist attack was imminent. When Clinton clearly told Bush that Al-Qaeda was our biggest threat, not Iraq. The chances of the U.S. being attacked by a country is quite slim. However it's very easy for a terrorist organization to attack the country. Because you can't declare war on a secret terrorist organization.

Do you understand what the word imminent means? It means likely to occur at any given moment. Rice's statement was truthful. Imminent does not mean there's a possibility if conditions were right that this could someday happen. And saying AQ is our largest threat is hardly the same thing as saying an attack is imminent, much less knowing how it would happen (as you originally asserted but conveniently divested yourself of).

it's actually so sad that so many people had to die. The attack was predicatble in a way. The specifics of the attack could not have been predicted but the motivations for it could have been.
The US forgien policy has been an issue for decades. I think Bush Sr paved the way for Bush Jr to be attacked.
Now, many would have been humbled by this realisation. GWB just got more arrogant and ignorant and, well, we know the rest... more soldiers have died in the war than sevillians in the 911 attack... and the war isn't even in the place where the attacks were originated.

anyway, ignorance is bliss... until it explodes in your face

Look at google maps... you don't this US Miliary satellites didn't scan and photograph every square inch of Iraq? You think al these WMD's were just hidden or shuttled out with ease?

Originally Posted By: RadI just can't grasp why, if he didn't have anything, he didn't allow inspection. I assume you mean by "he" Saddam? The fact is that he did allow inspections. Admittedly it took a lot of coercion and threats to get him to that point, but the unequivocal fact is that Hans Blix's team of U.N. weapons inspectors eventually had full, unconditional and unlimited access to every inch of Iraq until Bush ordered them out.I mention this because the general public ignorance on this factual point is so ubiquitous that it drives me stark raving climbing the walls insane. If you remember that period- Hans Blix team had inspected many hundreds of sites, based entirely on U.S. intelligence, and needed a few more months to finish all inspections and reach a definitive conclusion about what was or wasn't in Iraq. At that moment Bush ordered them out of Iraq without letting them finish. There is no doubt as to why he did not let them finish. Simply put: they were not finding anything, and this was an impossible problem for Bush who had long before this point decided to go to war against Iraq. It was an impossible political situation for Bush to have Blix's team complete the inspections, find nothing, and then attack Iraq based on a claim that he had weapons.Frankly I can't imagine why you'd even "have a feeling" that he'd had something and managed to hide it or move it. The possiblity of that is virtually zero.

Oh well, lets say he didn't have WMDs. What he did have was chemical weapons he used against his own people. Even if you don't like Bush, Hussein got what was coming to him. If you say his fall from power was illegal and not our fight, you can go to an al-Q. training camp. As the world's superpower, it falls to us to protect those with no rights.

And, to the WMDs argument, I agree with Rad. Don't you think, that after all the warnings he got, that he could have perhaps... I don't know... SOLD them? Its pretty easy to get rid of something that a lot of countries and organizations would kill to get their hands on.

Whats a sevillian by the way? This may sound cold, and heartless, but it is the god-damned truth. 4,600 deaths... 3,300 of which were in combat. All of them brave souls, however, the fact in war is that they've lost about 50,000 confirmed insurgents. Each one of them was willing to give their life in the defense of freedom, and if you argue that, they signed a piece of paper that begs to differ. A paper I'll be signing soon.

I don't know where you live, but I don't think that's quite the version we got here in the US. Welcome to the twisted world of US media.

Infinite please don't put words in my mouth. My post was very specific about Hans Blix U.N. arms inspection team. The rest is your imagination.There is no question as to the fact that Hussein had used chemical weapons years earlier than the period we're discussing. The relevant question here is what he had in 2003. And according to all evidence he no longer had them.

So if a murderer who shot a family to death no longer had the weapon, would he be set free?

Originally Posted By: RadI don't know where you live, but I don't think that's quite the version we got here in the US.Rad the question of what "version" of things we got in the U.S. is really a good one. And I think the answer to it is awfully complex. It is certainly the case that the mainstream media was completely on the bandwagon for Bush's agenda. But there were some who were voices in the wilderness. What I remember about the arms inspeciton isssue is this: it was a repetetive game of brinksmanship. Saddam did at certain points order the inspectors out. And he did at certain points limit their access. He pushed this game to the limit. And when it was close to the brink of attack, he allowed them back in and allowed unlimited access. Eventually the team did get full access to any site they wanted, but I would hardly argue that it was easy or not frustrating to accomplish this. It was a relentless game of brinksmanship.Also. The inspectors were in Iraq about 3 or 4 months before we attacked. Hans Blix, in pure frustration, started making public statements at the time on two issues. First, he bitterly complained about the intelligence that he was being provided by Washington. Most of it was many years out of date. Essentially they were reinspecting sites that had been inspected years earlier. Remember that at that time Bush kept claiming to actually have evidence of wmds. Blix essentially asked: "Well if you have all this evidence, then why the hell aren't you giving it to us. Tell us where they are, and we'll go find them." Secondly, Blix publicly stated that they needed about 3 more months to complete all inspections to the point where they could reach a definitive conclusion on the weapons issue (on either side of it according to what evidence they found). It was at THIS POINT that Bush ordered the inspectors to leave Iraq for their own safety as he declared that attack was imminent. Again: way too few people remember this.Regarding your feeling. I would say this: The U.S. spy satellite abilites are astonishing. I find the idea that secret caches were being dug up and trucked elsewhere without our seeing this very unlikely. One more point: (sorry for such a long post) A lot of information has come out in the years since the downfall of Baghdad about these issues. We found numerous documents and have spoken to numerous witnesses. There seems to be a great deal of certainty at this point that Saddams's stockpile of chemical weapons were destroyed in the 90s after the first gulf war, and that there had been no nuclear program for many years. Saddam Hussein was a damn fool. Ironically, it was he who did not want this revealed, because it made him look weaker. It was a very stupid miscalculation on his part.

Originally Posted By: InfiniteSo if a murderer who shot a family to death no longer had the weapon, would he be set free? You're just being absurd.

Originally Posted By: sdpLook at google maps... you don't this US Miliary satellites didn't scan and photograph every square inch of Iraq? You think al these WMD's were just hidden or shuttled out with ease? They were. Some went out by truck convoy that was actually caught by satellites crossing the border into Syria...about 100 miles away from invading coalition forces at the time. Footage was shown once by CNN during the war coverage...then never shown again; while they re-ran other "top stories" over and over again every 20 minutes. A lot also went out by passenger airplane...the seats all ripped out to make room for the chemical weapons. The pilot of that airplane, after the war was over, wrote a book about it. Not surprisingly it didn't get much press either. Interesting how the media can call Bush a liar when they hold evidence to the contrary, isn't it. But Bush wasn't about to point the finger at Syria when he knew for certain he wasn't going to be able to prove anything. Makes one wonder who's side the press is on...certainly not the side of truth, anyway. A defector from the rival party to the ruling party in Syria later told us exactly where the three caches of Saddam's WMD are. Nothing we can do about it now, though.

Originally Posted By: InfiniteDon't you think, that after all the warnings he got, that he could have perhaps... I don't know... SOLD them? Its pretty easy to get rid of something that a lot of countries and organizations would kill to get their hands on.Please read my above post. He certainly could have sold them if he wanted to. He was moving oil out of and illegal guns into Iraq through Syria all day long.

sevillian = brutal dyslexic typo so, lets say So-Damn-Insane actually was a maniacle dictator with ambitions of word domination and had a full arsenel of WMDs. Why didn't he use them?I think his impotence is the proof that he was not heavely equiped.And yes, the US media has been starving you all of the truth.And no, it's no the US's responsibillity to be the world police. If it was, they'd intervien in Rwanda and Darfur, even though they don't have lovely oil to steel.Saddam Hussein was propped up and armed by Ronald Reagan back in the days when America hated communistas more than Islamists. If the US administration really gave a shit about people, they would have stepped in when Hussein gassed the Curds but, at the time, he was a good allie because he opposed the USSR in Afganistan.GWB, by all rights, should find himself on trial at the Hague. I'm not holding my breath though

Usually if a story runs once and is then killed, it's because the news organisation discovered it was untrue. That happens a lot - those who remember the first Gulf War will remember the eyewitness story of the babies pulled out of incubators, which later turned out to be totally false.