Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Did White House Release Misleading Information On 9-11 Air? White House Altered EPA Reports?
NBC Report ^ | 09-03-02

Posted on 09/03/2003 9:10:02 PM PDT by Brian S

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-91 next last
To: Alter Kaker
Nonsense. Bin Laden and 19 hijackers cause 9/11. Clinton may have been negligent,...

If Clinton had not been president, 9/11 would never have happened. The CIA chief was trying to get Clintons attention since 1992 to warn him about Bin Ladin. He was small then, but the CIA chief felt he should be stopped. Clinton ignored the CIA until about 1996. Then he still did nothing except put Bin Ladin on a "wanted" list, and bombed an empty asprin factory for political cover.
Clinton didn't want to make waves on his watch. He did nothing to stop the terrorists. He looked the other way every time Americans died at the hands of these killers. Every time!!
Clinton is just a guilty as the highjackers. His job was to protect the American citizens, but he let Americans die for his own image.
I'd put him on equal ground with Bin Ladin. He aided them by not aiding us.

21 posted on 09/03/2003 9:42:59 PM PDT by concerned about politics (Lucifers lefties are still stuck at the bottom of Maslow's Hierarchy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics
Exactly. Clinton may have lied about a BJ, but Bush kills with his lies. It is transparent.
22 posted on 09/03/2003 9:44:02 PM PDT by At _War_With_Liberals
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Mo1
Speaking of Clinton.....

quality after Sept. 11

New York Daily News

(KRT) - Saying she knows "how White Houses work," Sen. Hillary Clinton slammed the Bush administration yesterday for misleading New Yorkers about air quality in lower Manhattan after the Sept. 11 terrorist attack.

At a City Hall news conference, the former First Lady called for a Senate probe into allegations the administration pressured regulators to give false reassurances about safety at Ground Zero.

"I know a little bit about how White Houses work," the New York Democrat said. "I know … somebody in that White House, probably under instructions from somebody further up the chain, told the EPA, `Don't tell the people of New York the truth.'

"And I want to know who that is."

Last week, Environmental Protection Agency Inspector General Nikki Tinsley released a report saying the White House "convinced the EPA to add reassuring statements and delete cautionary ones" in its early news releases.

The information withheld included guidance on indoor cleaning, as well as potential health dangers posed by asbestos, lead, concrete and pulverized glass, the report found.

"New Yorkers put themselves at further risk because the EPA misled them," said New York City Councilman David Yassky, noting that many people went back to work because of the agency's seal of approval about the air.

In October 2001, Daily News columnist Juan Gonzalez obtained internal government reports showing that toxic chemicals and metals were released into the environment by the fiery collapse of the twin towers.

In a letter to President Bush co-signed by Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., Clinton asked for more testing. She also asked for all communications between the White House and the EPA about air quality in lower Manhattan.

The White House referred calls to the President's Council on Environmental Quality, and a spokeswoman for the council said officials "reject" the premise of Clinton's news conference.

Source

23 posted on 09/03/2003 9:45:27 PM PDT by hole_n_one
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: All
Doggone it. I just finished reading a very long article about 9/11 and I guess some of the posters' children got in and made such a mess the thread had to cancelled.

I'm posting my comment here. I think it's all germane because just a few weeks ago there was an article about what was planned for this year's 9/11. The lefacy media folks IMO made it clear -- it's going to be a Bush bashing festival.

About the other article: The authors, Allan Wood and Paul Thompson are perfect for Norry's Coast-to-Coast show. If only they could get in a hint or two that the Bush family members are extraterrestrial reptiles -- they already have anti-Bush credentials they just need that little extra. Thak goodness for Barbara Simpsonon the weekends.

The article is very detailed and well sourced account. But why do the authors make such a big deal I'm wondering as I read it. If you block their snide little comments it's an excellent account. Their purpose is no more than to ask and answer the question:

So what did the Commander in Chief do with the knowledge that the United States was under attack?

He did nothing.

Nothing? Like all those tens of thousands of GS-99s and generals have to wait until a single man, the President, tells them precisely how to react, step by step? Don't they train? Aren't they suppose to get the facts? Put in motion plans. Have everything in motion?

So the President didn't immediately -- like within 15 - 20 minutes know exactly what to do. You mean Presidents, GS-99s, and generals are immune to the "fog of war?" They know everything within a nano second? The authors say it's absurd that the President didn't start leading the war effort and "making decisions as Commander in Chief." Like what? He met with his staff in a nearby classroom -- more criticism by the authors for his not leaving -- boy they really wanted him out of that school building!

Air Force One took off at either 9:55 or 9:57 a.m.

Now are the authors happy? No. They complain that Bush didn't arrange for fighter escort -- remember only he can decide everything. Those tens of thousands of GS-99s and generals can't do anything by themselves.

24 posted on 09/03/2003 9:49:17 PM PDT by WilliamofCarmichael
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: hole_n_one
Yep .. that was Hellary on her Activist Soapbox

Bet her lawyer friends will make a bundle off of the lawsuits too .. which I'm sure will just help the state of New York

She is a piece of work

25 posted on 09/03/2003 9:49:38 PM PDT by Mo1 (http://www.favewavs.com/wavs/cartoons/spdemocrats.wav)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Brian S
The discredit the President campaign continues.
I wonder if this is all for the benefit of a certain carpetbagger who "isn't" running for President?
26 posted on 09/03/2003 9:50:24 PM PDT by ladyinred (The left have blood on their hands.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hole_n_one
"I know a little bit about how White Houses work," the New York Democrat said. "I know … somebody in that White House, probably under instructions from somebody further up the chain, told the EPA, `Don't tell the people of New York the truth.'

Democrats seem to think every one is just like them - lieing, thieving, crimminal skanks. SUPRISE! Not all people are Democrats, Hillary.

27 posted on 09/03/2003 9:51:08 PM PDT by concerned about politics (Lucifers lefties are still stuck at the bottom of Maslow's Hierarchy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

I believe Clinton had contact with Bin Laden after the first 9-11 attack. Not directly, of course.

The deal was, no more attacks on US soil in Xchange for Clinton not destroying everything Al Qaeda.

28 posted on 09/03/2003 9:51:13 PM PDT by At _War_With_Liberals
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Brian S
On Sept 16, 2001, the EPA draft said that "recent samples of dust ... on Water Street show higher levels of asbestos." The White House version read: "new samples confirm ... ambient air quality meets OSHA government standards,"

Well, duh! Of course there was higher levels of asbestos in the air -- two huge 110-story buildings built with asbestos insulation just crashed to the ground. The EPA version was unfinished and alarmist. The very next question after reading that "recent samples of dust ... show higher levels of asbestos" would be: "How much more do they show?" and "Is it safe?" The White House version answered those questions: the levels, although they were indeed higher, were nonetheless still under OSHA standards for safe exposure. The White House version made that point a lot clearer. They were not "hiding" tests indicating unsafe levels of asbestos dust in the air like the reporter tries to insinuate.

29 posted on 09/03/2003 9:52:32 PM PDT by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: At _War_With_Liberals
Correction...1st 9-11 attack should be 1st WTC attack.
30 posted on 09/03/2003 9:54:22 PM PDT by At _War_With_Liberals
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls
"the levels, although they were indeed higher, were nonetheless still under OSHA standards for safe exposure"

And acceptable OSHA levels are lower than low.
31 posted on 09/03/2003 9:55:56 PM PDT by At _War_With_Liberals
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: ladyinred
The discredit the President campaign continues. I wonder if this is all for the benefit of a certain carpetbagger who "isn't" running for President?

How much you wanna bet that the Clinton's knew of this new book coming out and this 2 year old non-story news is a way to divert attention from the book?

I wouldn't put anything past Hellary

32 posted on 09/03/2003 9:59:59 PM PDT by Mo1 (http://www.favewavs.com/wavs/cartoons/spdemocrats.wav)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls
Well, duh! Of course there was higher levels of asbestos in the air -- two huge 110-story buildings built with asbestos insulation just crashed to the ground.

If so, it had to be from smaller nearby buildings.
The original plans for both towers had asbestos in the building plans. The environmentalists had a fit, and the building engineeers had to remove it and replace it with something "safer." That's why the towers burned the way they did. The original plans had them being 2 of the safest buildings ever built.

33 posted on 09/03/2003 10:01:06 PM PDT by concerned about politics (Lucifers lefties are still stuck at the bottom of Maslow's Hierarchy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics
This was discussed here two years ago. On one of the towers the asbestos was already in place about 1/2 way up and the other about 1/3 of the way up when the change was made and they ceased to use asbestos. In both cases, the asbestos was well below the point of impact of the aircraft. Both towers did have some asbestos.
34 posted on 09/03/2003 10:15:31 PM PDT by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Fred Mertz
LOL, Manhatton was evacuated after 9/11 and nobody was allowed to move back in for over a month, and the "chilrun" were relocated :-)
35 posted on 09/03/2003 10:17:50 PM PDT by MJY1288 (The Enemies of America can Count on the Democrats for Aid and Comfort)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls
The Mercury levels were the biggest health hazard. The danger from the Asbestos particles were easily contained with simple dust (particle) masks. Mercury can be absorbed through the skin and when one considers all the thousands of thermostats in the WTC that contained Mercury and were destroyed when the Towers collapsed, it easy to see how Mercury exposure was a real problem
36 posted on 09/03/2003 10:27:20 PM PDT by MJY1288 (The Enemies of America can Count on the Democrats for Aid and Comfort)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics
think the Democrats (Hillary started this) are searching to make Bush look like a liar to justify Clinton.

Yeah, anything to deflect from the book that's just come out this week, by Richard Miniter, re: the toon's massive bunglings, failing to catch ObL what was it, 12 times? during the 90s.

37 posted on 09/03/2003 10:31:45 PM PDT by texasbluebell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics; FreedomCalls
If I remember correctly, the asbestos used in the construction was different than the stuff that is used for insulation and not the same health risk. Although it appears to be a problem when the building comes down.
38 posted on 09/03/2003 10:32:36 PM PDT by Tymesup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Brian S
now has been diagnosed with bronchitis possibly caused by chemicals from 9/11 blah blah...
OMG! Bronchitis after NOT being killed in a massive terrorist attack! What to do! Sue! Complain! With this kind of attitude she'll be coming down with a headache as well... sheeesh.
39 posted on 09/03/2003 10:35:55 PM PDT by Libertina (I agree with the Republicans' view on gun rights...but wish they'd stop aiming them at their feet ;))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brian S
But that does not satisfy Kathryn Freed, who lives near Ground zero and now has been diagnosed with bronchitis possibly caused by chemicals from 9/11. She never left her apartment, and feels misled.

And we all know how extremely rare bronchitis is.

40 posted on 09/03/2003 10:36:47 PM PDT by Moonman62
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-91 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson