I believe a design change was made to the 747 fleet in response to that explosion. I also believe that the missile theory was completely disproven. This is a long time ago, but I think I am right on these.

I also agree that terrorism was never competely disproven, but the existance of black helicopters hasn't been disproven either.

As a matter of epistemology, I think the burden is on those trying to prove a theory, rather than on those who doubt the theory.

---

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" - Benjamin Franklin
"Don't you see the rest of the country looks upon New York like we're left-wing, communist, Jewish, homosexual pornographers? I think of us that way sometimes and I live here." - Alvy Singer, "Annie Hall"

I have not been following this but this post made me go back and look again and I think I am changing my mind. I thought the same thing about the altitude, not from Richard Clark who I don't like, but just from a logic standpoint. Anyway I found this interesting:

Clarke also deceives the reader about altitude. The FAA never reported an altitude of 17.000 feet – nothing close. The FAA knew that the last recorded altitude of TWA Flight 800 was "about 13,800 feet" as even the CIA animation later admits. In the retelling, Clarke pads in the zoom-climb differential on the night of the crash and attributes it falsely to the FAA. http://www.navyseals.com/.../article.cfm?id=4098

I am torn because I generally apply that logic to all conspiracy theories but this seems to have a bit more to it. It seems that if the circle of those in the know were small enough it could be done. I bought the original explanation but now there seems to be hard evidence beyond joe blow standing on the beach that this is not as simple as it was explained.

There are some pending lawsuits out there that may ultimately provide the evidence to show one way or the other.

I like conspiracy theories as much as the next guy, but I have a real issue with investing credibility in an article written by a guy who's last book was titled "Ron Brown's Body". In my mind, Richard Clarke, who was NSC Counter-terrorism chief under two presidents, has a bit more credibility, despite this current White House's attempts to fry him, until proven incontrovertibly.

Just because knuckleheads are taking these guys to court doesn't mean they have a case. I have no doubt that some of their theories have a sheen of plausibility to them, but then again, so did the conspiracy theories about Vince Foster, which were shown to be ridiculous. I think it's important to take a step back and think about this.

I noticed that this article was initiated on worldnetdaily.com. Taking a look at that site, it's such an obvious sham-news site, it's laughable. Its current lead story is about the book coming out bashing Kerry's war exploits, written by John O'Neill, ex-Swift boat captain, and closely allied with the Bush White House. What O'Neill fails to mention to people when he bashes Kerry is that he and Kerry never served at the same time, so it's not entirely clear how he could have come by some of the "information" he claims to have in his book.

In any case, just out of curiosity, why would the government cover-up a shooting down of a passenger aircraft? What would be the motive here?

I'm also sort of wondering why it seems that people who seem to be happy investing in these theories also seem to think that the notion of this White House politicizing terror alerts is so incredible and impossible, especially given that Karl Rove has already made it clear he intends to focus on terror for the elections?

Just a thought.

---

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" - Benjamin Franklin
"Don't you see the rest of the country looks upon New York like we're left-wing, communist, Jewish, homosexual pornographers? I think of us that way sometimes and I live here." - Alvy Singer, "Annie Hall"

Richard Clarke's recent credibility is damaged goods, but there is nothing to discount his credibility at any time while he was working for the government for either president. I haven't ever heard any questions about his service during that time. After he left service and had an ax to grind and a book to sell, the situation changed.

Suggesting that terror reports are politicized on the basis of exactly zero evidence is grossly irresponsible. It reminds me of the October surprise that eventually morphed into VP Bush getting into an SR52 to Paris to plot about delaying the release of Iranian hostages. There was absolutely zero evidence. It was all made up.

Maybe Rove and Bush want to focus on terror related issues because those are vital issues affecting this country that Americans need to be aware of. Just a thought.

But you could say that about anybody who leaves government and writes a book. Does that mean they are all liars, or only the ones who criticize Bush? Paul O'Neill was a widely respected CEO before working for Bush, and he wrote the book knowing they would go after his character. Does that mean he's now a liar, because it's inconceivable that this White House would smear him?

At some point a pattern becomes more than a series of coincidences.

And as for terror being a vital issue, I live in NYC and have spent my fair share of time in the WTC, so I'd appreciate it if you didn't condescend to me and suggest that I'm not aware of my terror risk. Seeing as how I could smell the burning building for over a week, I think that I have as good an idea as most about the cost of terror. That said, if you've ever been here, the notion that you can "be on the lookout for suspicious activity" is nearly a sick joke. Jesus, if I stopped everytime I saw something suspicious here I wouldn't make it out of my apartment.

And as for October surprise, you do in fact recall that that Iran-Contra was about arms-for-hostages, yes? As incredible as it might have sounded beforehand, yes, a Republican Administration negotiated with terrorists and in fact ran a shadow foreign policy. So while I generally discount conspiracy theories, that one sort of made it Congressional hearings, if I recall correctly.

---

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" - Benjamin Franklin
"Don't you see the rest of the country looks upon New York like we're left-wing, communist, Jewish, homosexual pornographers? I think of us that way sometimes and I live here." - Alvy Singer, "Annie Hall"

I don't know of anyone who has suggested Paul O'Neill was a liar. He was a pretty poor Treasury Secretary, though no worse than Snow, and he would have been well advised not to speak about subjects outside his area of authority and in which he was not in the loop. So far as I know, O'Neill is as good as his word. Clarke and Joe Wilson, on the other hand, are proven liars.

Just to complete the loop of the four who wrote books, Woodward is also as good as his word, and his book about the Iraq war lead up is absolutely excellent. It kills me to admit that, but it is true.

I don't see where I have condescended, even after rereading. My apologies if I did.

Iran-Contra was real, there was plenty of evidence, and it was a long series of screw ups. Bush on an SR-52 is insane, and not even worth of, say, the Inquirer absent evidence.

Speculating about timing terror threats for political purposes is similarly irresponsible, absent evidence. Present the evidence, or stop the baseless slurs. There is no reason whatever to impune Tom Ridge that way.

Where exactly has Clarke been proven a liar?

And what the hell is a SR-52?

I'm not at all suggesting that Tom Ridge is a liar. I'm taking him at his word. However, given the timing of this alert, with dated information, and the fact that the last alert was during Edward's VP announcement, and the feeling that these alerts seem to be timed to take the piss out of the Democrats, one shouldn't be all too surprised that the question is asked.

That said, you must admit that if it were chicanery, it's actually a pretty good (in the sense that it's effective) strategy. Put the fear of the unknown in the populace, distract them from any other issues out there, and basically be impossible to prove otherwise. And as we see, nearly bulletproof from a criticism standpoint. For as much as I dislike the Republican Party, I think they are extremely effective at hardball tactics and looking at the bottom-line. The only question is whether these things have anything to do with democracy.

And as for condescending, you probably didn't for all I know. I'm a bit sensitive in these forums, knowing that 99.9% of the people in a triathlon forum aren't going to be living here, in target #1. And given that I worked downtown during the first WTC attack in 1993 and had way too personal a view in 2001, it's difficult for me to believe that people outside of NYC share a similar view. It was something we even realized right after 9/11 - that for the rest of the country it was more or less business as usual, with some caveats, while we here were going to be uneasy for weeks and months, with riot police, F-16 overflies, and suspended business (for a week at least). Not to be holier-than-thou, but this is somethign we think about all the time - a lot of people have escape plans, have packed "go" bags, and know that basically nowhere else in these States is this the case. But we still go on, riding the subways, taking elevators up buildings, getting on ferries. Given that living here is already a risky proposition, I guess it doesn't faze us much more.

But yes, I sort of laugh when people who don't live in areas like this describe their fear of terrorism and speak in strident terms. It's sort of ludicrous.

Maybe they'll increase the counter-terrorism funding to NY, but given that we don't exactly vote Republican here, I doubt it. So much for righteousness in the White House.

---

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" - Benjamin Franklin
"Don't you see the rest of the country looks upon New York like we're left-wing, communist, Jewish, homosexual pornographers? I think of us that way sometimes and I live here." - Alvy Singer, "Annie Hall"

The outstanding proof of his being a liar is the background press interview he gave while still employeed. It was 180 degrees different than his book or testimony. They aren't both true. The 9/11 commission documented lots of problems as well, but I am less well informed on those. Once you are a proven liar, it is unimportant to keep proving it. It is no surprise that the stuff Sandy Berger smuggled out was mostly Richard Clarke stuff. I wouldn't have expected that of Berger, but I digress.

I believe I have the plane designation right. It is that Blackbird spy plane that goes like 3,000 miles per hour. It is the one that outruns missiles.

I don't find the timings at all peculiar. There is something going on nearly every day in the Presidential race. The most interesting capture on the date of Edward's speech was kept quiet for a while. The main announcements came out at a pretty dead time.

I know Congress approved Bush's proposal for something like $20 billion for NYC for rebuilding and security. Bush asked Hillary what she wanted and he said OK. I have heard questions about whether NYC has actually been able to get its hands on that money. I don't know how things have been sorted out, if they have been.

I am not in the line of fire, and I don't want to be. Just make sure that if you see anything suspicious in NYC, report it.

It's the SR-71 Blackbird spy plane. It was the original replacement for the U-2. The only thing I'll say about Iran-Contra is that while I generally found GHW Bush to be an honorable man, I thought that his assertion that he knew nothing about it to be not credible, given that he was a former head of the CIA and is currently the only ex-President to still receive daily intelligence briefings. He seems to be a man with a personal interest in this stuff, so the suggestion that he was in the dark doesn't quite wash with me.

Clarke has already clarified those comments - first off, they weren't 180 degrees from each other. One was a background press briefing as he was ordered to give by his superiors - he was a loyal employee and told the press what his superiors wanted disseminated. The other is the unvarnished version, in his interpretation, from his experience. Surely you know enough about politics and public relations to understand the difference? Unfortunately for the White House, his version and the versions of Paul O'Neill and Rand Beers (another counter-terrorism czar) as well as Michael Scheuer ("Imperial Hubris") seem to echo rather resonantly. At some point you have to give up the ghost and accept that they wanted to attack Iraq and that they did not such a good job of putting the whole program together.

The budget for counter-terrorism has been widely publicized and politicized. The egregious example used in teh press is that Wyoming or Montana gets 3x the money, per capita that NYC gets. While per capita can often be misleading, in this case it isn't given the size of our police force, firefighters, first responders, etc, not to mention our probability of being attacked. Montana's lame response was something to the effect that well, they have trains that could be attacked. That's all fine and good, but I don't think Al Qaeda thinks that blowing up a train in an area with population density of 0.5 persons per square mile might get them the attention their efforts deserve. But that's politics for you - nothing to do with need or probabilities.


There's nothing to report here. Short of somebody walking into a store and saying "may I buy 10,000 marbles, please" the notion that an everyday civilian is qualified to judge what's suspicious or not is a bit of a stretch.

---

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" - Benjamin Franklin
"Don't you see the rest of the country looks upon New York like we're left-wing, communist, Jewish, homosexual pornographers? I think of us that way sometimes and I live here." - Alvy Singer, "Annie Hall"

Yes, that is the plane. I was at least close. I can't fight the GHWB battle with you, since it is nearly twenty years ago and I can't remember the details well enough to speak intelligently.

If you want a real account of the Iraq war buildup read Woodward's book. It is absolutely excellent. He had way better access than all four of those guys put together. He is not generally thought of as a friend of Republican presidents for some reason having to do with the 70's I think. I don't think any of those four guys were even mentioned since they were all way out of the loop.

It sounds like General Frank's new book is very interesting as well, though I haven't read it yet.

Funny you mention it. I was just worrying last night about trains in Montana. If they were to be blown up, would we ever know?

Well, if they blew up the Prudential building in Newark, would anyone know. Have you been to Newark?

---

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" - Benjamin Franklin
"Don't you see the rest of the country looks upon New York like we're left-wing, communist, Jewish, homosexual pornographers? I think of us that way sometimes and I live here." - Alvy Singer, "Annie Hall"

Yes, I have been to Newark many times since I used to go to school in NJ. It was a real dump at the time, but my understanding is that the place is really prospering now.

OK, prospering at the expense of NY, but prospering. That is what you get in NYC for driving taxes through the roof.

Fortunately NJ just elected Florio the second who has also driven taxes way up. Surrounding states are delighted.

"While per capita can often be misleading, in this case it isn't given the size of our police force, firefighters, first responders, etc, not to mention our probability of being attacked. "

I don't know the dollar figures for DHS aid to indiviudal states or cities, but you should consider that most of your police, firefighters, etc...are already budgeted for in NYCs budget. I would bet that the reason some states get more per capita is because they have further to come. NYC already has a pretty good amount of Force Protection/security measures in place and the federal govt. isn't likely to give you money to pay for people and things NY has already been paying for. Montana probably doesn't have a particularly good security structure set up, and is starting more or less from scratch in comparison. It's the build up that the Federal Govt. is willing to help fund.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

The way I understand it, much of that funding, if not all of it, is meant for resources not currently in place; e.g., biohazard suits/training, overtime costs, special squads, security for waterways, power plants, etc. We already have a lot of cops/firemen, but I think this was meant for the extra costs active counter-terrorism, intelligence gathering, and other activities represent.

Montana probably doesn't have much, but it probably doesn't realistically need much either, other than perhaps border control, as Michael Moore pointed out. If I recall, the money Montana got has allowed them to fully outfit all of their first responders with containment suits and other safety items that our guys don't all have. This seems to me to probably be a strange allocation of resources, but it's not my call to make.

Unfortunately, we'll have plenty of time to discuss it if/when there is another attack.

---

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" - Benjamin Franklin
"Don't you see the rest of the country looks upon New York like we're left-wing, communist, Jewish, homosexual pornographers? I think of us that way sometimes and I live here." - Alvy Singer, "Annie Hall"