Bush behind 9/11?

[PatrickS]

With Paul O'Neil revelations that Bush and company planned to attack Iraq from the get go, doesn't it make it more probable that Bush is behind the 9/11? I mean, we're talking MAJOR coincidences here: Bush wanted to attack get Saddam and the oil but didn't have a reason to do so, and suddenly a major attack is directed at the US which basically green-lighted the whole Iraq invasion scenario.

[Insider]

1. yes. n/t

[Cannikin]

126. Pearl Harbor.....

http://www.americanfreepress.net/12_24_02/America_Pearl_Harbored/america_pearl_harbored.html

[aquart]

2. George is that heartless but not that smart.

His handlers are behind it.

[PatrickS]

4. Well, of course

I did write "Bush & company".

:evilgrin:

[bahrbearian]

3. LIHOP

[peekaloo]

5. a picture is worth...........

[Ksec]

56. Her let the Saudis go when the skies were banned

right after 911. That fact alone should be throwing red flags up. Did he let it happen? Its hard to say but with all the facts coming out its alot harder to discount. My gut tells me he let it happen.

[shooga]

87. link

http://nufon.tripod.com

[peekaloo]

92. also

the pic is from the http://www.septembereleventh.org website

[lcordero]

6. let's go one further

There were plans to attack Afghanistan since at least mid-July of 2001. Two months before 9/11.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1550366.stm

Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October.

[Minstrel Boy]

10. Good to remember that. it wasn't just Iraq.

Plans for an invasion of Afghanistan were on Bush's desk before 9/11.

Who outside the White House, before 9/11, would have envisioned war in Afghanistan in the Fall of 2001? But that's just what happened.

I see an evil regime,
led by an evil man,
on Pennsylvania Avenue
where this evil war began.
- David Rovics

[SpiralHawk]

7. The best part is: Bush did it all while on vacation

at the Pig Farm in Crawford, TX. -- at US taxpayer expense.

He is the most "vacationed" pResident* in US history.


* AWOL for over a year while honor-bound by oath to be serving with the Texas National Guard in the 1970s; defeated by a clear majority of patriotic American voters in the 2000 election; appointed to office by the "legal" system.

[quaker bill]

8. I don't think so.

Could more have been done to prevent it? Apparently so, according to Gov. Kean who is leading the 9/11 investigation.

There are plenty of people out there that wish to harm us. Bush was reportedly playing hardball 'coercive diplomacy' with the Taliban.

The Tailban / Al-Queda had been planning this for some time. The timing could easily have been blow back related to the failed UNOCAL pipeline deal.

[Rex]

20. I think it was all over the American bases in Saudi Arabia

I'm not convinced that the Tali ban had a whole lot to do with it. OBL considers SA to be holy ground that the US violated by putting bases in parts of SA. He must have sent an ultimatum and Bush balked.

The BFEEs inability to get a pipeline deal led them to invade Afghanistan (as revenge) with the excuse that the Tali ban was helping OBL.

We then went on to invade Iraq for completely different reasons...we needed a new base of operations in the ME.

[neebob]

9. Um, yeah

Actually, they planned it before the election. Ever hear of PNAC? If not, go here: http://www.newamericancentury.org. First, check out the statement of principles - specifically, the signers at the bottom. Then click on "Defense and National Security" and find the white paper entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses." Last time I looked, it was at the top of the next page. Otherwise, it's under the white papers for 2000. Read the first few pages, then just kind of skim until you get to page 63 (as I recall). Near the top of that page is a statement about "this transformation" being a long one in the absence of some "catastrophic, catalyzing event - a new Pearl Harbor." Draw your own conclusions.

At least this idea may finally get some press. I'm tired of getting cow looks when I suggest the invasion was planned before 9/11.

[lefty_mcduff]

11. One only need ask the question...

...are Bush and his handlers 'wait and hope for the best' or 'make it happen' people?

So much of the PNAC agenda - removal of civil rights, invasion of the ME, backing out of international treaties, etc, etc, etc - required an 'cataclysmic event' such as Pearl Harbour to enact (and this is according to THEIR published screen and 'Plan for a New American Century).

Just ask yourself, are Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Perle, Woolsley, etc the kind of people to sit on these carefully scripted PNAC plans, just waiting for this 'cataclysmic' event to happen before springing into action, or are they more likely to give things a little nudge. Bush had a narrow window of opportunity (4 years) in which to enact the PNAC dogma and philosophies.

Combine this with the coincedences and material that has made it into the public domain, and I think there are some very troubling questions to be answered.

Very troubling indeed.

[William Seger]

12. I asked this before and didn't get any answer from the MIHOPers

We know for a fact that the BFEE would like to divert attention from Saudi Arabian involvement in terrorism, and we know for a fact that the PNAC puppet-masters wanted an excuse to invade Iraq. So, why did these brilliant conspirators populate their "cover story" with 15 Saudis and zero Iraqis?

[Minstrel Boy]

13. my MIHOPish reply:

Making it happen means, for me, that events that were already in play were taken out of the hands of the hijackers, to ensure their mission succceeded, to minimize needless damage and loss of life, and to maximize the world-changing spectacle. The conspiratorial cabal didn't recruit the hijackers directly, the hijackers were recruited by proxy, and the cabal protected them. Time and time again, the hijackers got "lucky." And I suspect that on the day, at some point during the flight, control was taken from them, so the inexperienced pilots would hit precisely what the cabal wanted them to hit. (See, for instance, this thread on Hani Hanjour's improbable skill, and how he went out of his way to hit the one side of the Pentagon which was virtually unoccupied: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=976740 .) Before they died, perhaps they knew they were patsies, as had Oswald. Which is not to say innocent. (Flight 93's departure had been delayed, and needed to be shot down. Otherwise, the stand down would have strained all credulity.)

And Saudi Arabia is a target in the broader war. The Rand Corporation called it the "strategic pivot." The Bush crew have a way of abandoning its friends after they've outlived their usefulness, even those with incriminating information. (Noriega and Hussein spring to mind.) If Iraqi oil can be secured, the House of Saud is very vulnerable, and it knows this. (Have you followed the sudden flourishing of their newfound relationship with Russia?)

[RedSock]

14. MIHOP?

O'Neill is quoted as saying he was surprised that no one in a National Security Council meeting questioned why Iraq should be invaded. "It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this,'" says O'Neill in the book.
****

Find a way? Okay. Let's see. Hmmm, well, there is this big attack coming in the late summer/early fall. Maybe that'll do it. We'll just ignore the mountain of warnings and see what happens ....

Bush said: Find me a way to do this.

Anyone up for some tinfoil pancakces at the local MI-HOP?

[Minstrel Boy]

15. yup, that makes sense to me

O'Neil is telling us that Bush was motivated for a war as much as PNAC, and had expressed such to his senior staff. All that was lacking was the justification: the Pearl Harbor. And he had people around him who knew how to supply it.

[PatrickS]

16. They needed a catalyst

and they sure got it with 9/11. This is not a coincidence!

[William Seger]

23. Quite a stretch

There's a big gap between believing that BushCo didn't do all it could have to prevent 9/11, and there is indeed reason to suspect that the apparent apathy might not have been because of sheer stupidity. But there's a big gap between that and MIHOP, and if you're going to ask people to leap it, you need to start with a credible premise.

Of course PNAC wants the whole Middle East -- hell, they want the whole world, and they say so themselves, so that's not a "theory". And of course the BFEE alliance with Saudi Arabia is as tentative as any allegiance between crime syndicates. But that doesn't answer my question. It appears that the FBI misidentified at least 8 of the conspirators, and most people would accept any "official" identification at all, so why didn't they misidentify them as Iraqis?

Another question that I don't think has gotten a satisfactory answer is, why did these brilliant conspirators concoct such a complex, elaborate, people-intensive, and extremely risky plot when something simple and reliable would have worked just as well? Why not just plant a big bomb or release some gas and blame it on the Iraqis? Or, even if they discovered the hijacking plot that was already in progress and decided to appropriate it for their own ends, why not just fly the planes into some place with a lot of people and be done with it? Simply crashing the planes anywhere near the WTC would have done the trick; why mess with all that "controlled demolition" stuff? If they were controlling the planes, why not just crash them right after takeoff, rather than allow a time frame where people would be asking why there wasn't an adequate response?

As for "Hani Hanjour's improbable skill," that doesn't make much sense either. I saw where you paraphrased the air traffic controller who said they thought they were watching an "F-18" (actually, she just said "military plane") maneuvering, but then you left out what she said right after that, which seems to put the comment in a different perspective: "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe." You take the comment as an indication that the controller thought she was watching Chuck Yeager in an F-18; I take it as a comment that either the pilot really wasn't very skilled, or wasn't very bright (or both). The plane approached Washington from the west at 7000 feet. If the plan was to crash into the west wall of the Pentagon, the sensible thing to do would have been to start losing altitude out near Dulles and fly straight into the wall. Why did the pilot appear to be headed toward Washington, then turn south, then make an extremely risky diving turn into the Pentagon? Even if he changed his mind about hitting a target in DC, why not just go a little farther south of Alexandria to make the turn safely instead of risking blowing the mission by ripping the wings off the plane?

[Minstrel Boy]

28. Conjecture on the mechanics of the operation

is a different order of discussion than setting out a case for the Administration's culpability. IMHO, we have enough evidence to say that 9/11 was perpetrated with official complicity. But we don't know enough to say with certainty that, for instance, remote control was employed. It remains speculation, but speculation has its place for testing hypotheses. Its place is not to serve as an argument for a 9/11 conspiracy. Much of how it was done remains a mystery. That's what trillions of dollars can buy.

[William Seger]

46. You haven't answered my questions

I'm asking if you can frame the premise of the MIHOP theory in a way that makes at least a little bit of sense. If this was a BFEE plot to justify starting a war with Iraq, then why didn't they implicate Iraqis in 9/11? And the question I'm asking about "mechanics" is, why the incredibly elaborate and risky scheme when something simple would be far easier to pull off with far less risk of failure or getting caught?

[Minstrel Boy]

49. But they did implicate Iraq in 9/11

to the satisfaction of some 70% of their citizens. One poll I saw from last year had most Americans convinced a good number of the hijackers were Iraqi.

What I'm suggesting, re: MIHOP, is they took advantage of a strike already in the works, protected the 19 hijackers without their knowledge, and controlled events enough to determine the results.

[William Seger]

50. The point is, if they PLANNED it...

... they could have done a hell of lot better job of "implicating" Iraq than just using double-talk and deception. There isn't any doubt about the BFEE exploiting 9/11 to the hilt, but that's not the question; that's evidence of cynical opportunism, not complicity.

[Robb]

82. William, some of us...

...actually, come to think of it, no one's really agreed with me on this, so maybe it's just me. ;)

I think MIHOP/LIHOP don't really matter. I think of it in terms of group theory, like bumblebees, or those animated battle characters in LOTR. A very simple and small set of instructions gets given to a large enough group, and complicated behavior results. Sort of a nudge toward the goal, multiplied a million times.

Like if the goals of PNAC are considered "inclinations", then there are thousands of little things that an organization (that is led in general terms by that document) could find itself doing, very few of them obviously a means to the end; things like intel reviewing six documents, choosing one of them to find credible, or backing one warlord over another, or what have you.

I think it's a large enough sample group to have this kind of effect. I think it's too easy to think of conspiracies as requiring a "guiding hand", making active decisions along the way. :shrug:

[never cry wolf]

33. Because they were already in business with the Saudis

The bin Laden family were trusted friends as were the Saudi Royal family. Osama had an organization already in place and both hated Sadaam and wanted to see him out for different reasons.

They also counted on the general american public not being able to tell the difference between one "sand nigger" and another.

[bpilgrim]

42. and it will serve as a CONVIENENT excuse to hold a GUN to their heads

besides PNAC is looking for ANY excuse to hit them as well.

they'll probablly be last unless than they start acting stupid.

and so it goes...


peace

[William Seger]

47. It's a simple question

If the BFEE wanted to protect its Saudi business relationship, and they plotted 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq, then why the hell didn't they at least make an effort to pin it on Iraqis? Wouldn't that have made it much tougher to criticize invading Iraq?

[Jose Diablo]

112. Maybe they wanted to restart the cash flow

from the afgan opium before doing Iraq. Planting had to begin in spring of 02 to get a crop in 02.

Plus of course the Caspian sea natural gas to fire Enrons electric plant in India.

They had OSP established to cook the intellegence, but they still needed analysis from defence and CIA before they could get a vote on Iraq war.

Also, election 02 had to happen to secure congress and more importantly, the chair of the intelegence committee.

All this is speculation, but it seems to fit, I think.

[Dhalgren]

115. MIHOP and LIHOP are not so regimented in deffinition.

MIHOP doesn't mean that it was a 100% BushCo/BEFEE operation - not necessarily.

I have a herd of cattle that, for whatever reason, I would like to be stolen from me. Now, I know that a group of rustlers wants my cattle and are planning to steal them, but the rustlers are not very coordinated or well versed. When I learn that they are going to come and steal my cows, I can simply take the buggy into town and leave my ranch undefended - LIHOP. Knowing that the rustlers are a bit bumbling, I can leave my cows out in the open, I can make sure that all the locks on all the gates are mysteriously left unlocked, I can leave fresh horses for them and food in packs waiting to go - MIHOP.

If you make things easier for the perpetrators, intentionally, you are also actively MIHOP.

[Minstrel Boy]

119. nice analogy, Dhalgren.

That's my understanding of the distinction as well, and why I'm MIHOP.

[William Seger]

127. In other words...

... at this point, there isn't enough evidence that you can even say, specifically, what BFEE did to aid the plot. The burden of proof is on the accuser, but you can't even tell me exactly what you're accusing them of.

If the evidence is too weak to make a specific charge, then is shouldn't be surprising that most people will be skeptical of vague, unsubstantiated accusations.

Understand that I'm playing the devil's advocate here (literally). I'd far rather see Bush* spend the rest of his life behind bars than to have four more years in the White House, but making a MIHOP rap stick is going to take a lot more than what's there now, and the crazy-sounding stuff isn't helping at all. That ends up being used against us.

[neebob]

45. I'm more of LIHOPer than a MIHOPer

and I don't see a brilliant or even well-orchestrated conspiracy. What it boils down to for me is that 9/11 gave them an excuse to go forward with this perpetual war plan, so they did. They took advantage of it. That's my belief.

Beyond that, I don't rule out anything, but I think MIHOP itself is quite a stretch and the idea of controlled demolitions at the WTC is ridiculous. I have to admit, though, I did briefly get caught up in the hole-in-the-Pentagon thing and I'm still not settled on Flight 93.

I first stumbled onto PNAC through something that said the invasion of Iraq was planned before the election. I only posted the link because it seemed to be news to Patrick. The only thing that makes it a big deal to me is the possibility of its getting some coverage now that a Fraudministration insider has said it.

[rman]

60. Apparently they get away with it anyway;

The admin + media had no trouble convincing people that Saddam was behind 9-11 in spite of Saudis being involved (allegedly) - just keep repeating it.

Even after Bush said there's no evidence for a connection between Irak and 9/11 (that was said only once though), people still believe there is.

The reason for using Saudis probably is that the US is/was friendly (back then more so then now) with Saudi; ie Bush business family w/ Osama business family.
It's also known there were many Saudis amongst the Al Queda militants in Afganistan.
Many people don't care about such details because "they'r all arabs/sand-niggers".

[LunaC]

17. This will spell it out for you.....

www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=976762

[gulliver]

18. No. That is still completely ridiculous.

It fails to pass the laugh test on so many levels it is not even worth commenting on any more. I've tried, but I give up.

Bush is largely responsible for 9/11, but that is because he is an incompetent jerk of a president.

[Minstrel Boy]

22. A "laugh test" for you:

Osama Bin Laden
Family business ties to the Bush dynasty and long-time intelligence asset. In October 2001, French intelligence leaked that Osama had met the CIA station chief while receiving medical treatment at the American Hospital in Dubai. During the Afghanistan campaign Tommy Franks says his capture is not an objective. When he is reportedly near capture in Tora Bora, US forces are ordered to not advance, and troops witness a helicopter flying in from Pakistan to his reported location, and flying back again.

Saudi Arabia
One of Bush’s early financiers Khalid bin Mafouz, Osama’s brother-in-law, is also a prominent financier of al Qaeda. James Baker, Bush’s consiglieri, is representing Saudi royals in a class-action suit brought by 9/11 families. After Bush takes office, the FBI is ordered off tracking Saudi money to al Qaeda.

Pakistan
Pakistan’s intelligence service, the ISI, is a long-time regional proxy of the CIA, and its principal agent for dealing with Mujaheddin groups during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. It’s revealed in the Fall of 2001 that Pakistani ISI chief Mahmood Ahmed had authorized a $100,000 wire transfer to Mohammed Atta. This same Ahmed was in Washington for a week, meeting with top US officials, at the time of the attacks. After the revelation he takes an early retirement. There is no report of him ever having been questioned by US authorities.

The Hijackers
They were well known to American and foreign intelligence services, and yet could enter and leave the United States at will. Several lived with an FBI informant in San Diego. Fifteen of them entered the US through Jeddah, which, according to State Department official Michael Springman, had been a CIA gateway to the US for al Qaeda operatives to receive training in the US. At least five of the 9/11 hijackers studied at secure US military instalations. Mohammed Atta attended the International Officers School at Maxwell Air Force in Alabama, and Saeed Alghamdi studied at the Defense Language Institute in Monterey. The Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs at Monterey, Steve Butler, later wrote "Bush knew of the impending attacks on America," and was threatened with court martial and lost his position.

Investigations blocked
The spring and summer of 2001 FBI agents not only had investigations of flight schools blocked by head office but - according to David Schippers and FBI Special Agent Robert Wright - a number of agents in New York had learned details of an attack on lower Manhattan, down to the proposed dates, names of the hijackers and targets, and yet the FBI command cut short their work, and threatened them with prosecution under the National Security Act if they went public.

Foreign warnings
The summer of 2001 Washington received, from the highest levels of intelligence services and governments, a dozen or so warnings pointing to a spectacular attack on American soil, using hijacked aircraft as weapons, targetting landmarks.

Commercial flights cancelled
John Ashcroft was told to stop flying commercial airliners in July of 2001 for security considerations. On September 10, senior Pentagon officials cancelled commercial flights for the next day, presumably, said Newsweek, for the same reasons.

Insider trading
In the days before 9/11 the market shows strong indication of persons trying to profit from the attack, including an unusually high number of put options on stocks which would be adversely affected. Jonathan Winer, an ABC News consultant says that "It’s absolutely unprecedented to see cases of insider trading covering the entire world from Japan, to the U.S., to North America, to Europe." Another analyst said "I saw put-call numbers higher than I've ever seen in 10 years of following the markets, particularly the options markets." It is known that the United States has Promis software, and that it is used to monitor and analyze stock transactions for unusual patterns.

The lack of air response
The Pentagon was hit nearly 90 minutes after the first hijacking was determined. Fighters which were eventually scrambled did not fly from the nearest ready bases, and flew at a fraction of their speeds.

Unexplained skill and minimizing of damage
The pilot of the Pentagon crash, Hani Hanjour, couldn't handle a Cessna in mid-August, yet on September 11, we're told to believe, he flew a commercial jet for the first time at excessive speed, into a 270 degree spiralling decent and hit the one side of the Pentagon which was virtually empty, and had been hardened to withstand attack.

The bin Ladens fly
While the rest of America is grieving and all flights are grounded, the White House authorizes the flights of the bin Laden family and Saudi royals out of the country. This before they could be questioned by the FBI.

Anthrax
Who was targetted with the most lethal spores? Democratic leaders, engaged in opposing the Patriot Act. Where has the anthrax been traced to? Fort Detrick. And the investigation stopped dead.

The 9/11 Commission
For more than a year the White House resisted even appointing a commission. Then gave it an unreasonable deadline and a laughable budget, and wanted it chaired by Henry Kissinger. As it is, Thomas Kean is another Texas oil man with ties to the bin Ladens, and most of the commissioners save for Max Cleland have track records of covering up and whitewashing. And Cleland is gone. The White House stonewalls, refuses to hand over documents, and runs out the clock, while Condolezza Rice balks at testifying under oath.

Motive
George Bush's diary entry for September 11: "The Pearl Harbor of the 21st Century took place today."


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=995140

[gulliver]

24. OK. Here goes again.

1. Why did Bush bunny-hop around the country like a scared rabbit that day? He could have stepped confidently up to the microphone with a prepared speech and looked like a hero -- if he knew beforehand.

2. Why did Bush sit in that classroom for 5+ minutes after being told of the second plane hitting the WTC towers? The second plane hits, he is told, and he just sits there. Once again, if he knew in advance, he sure could have made a better showing.

3. Why did Rove try to tell people there was a credible threat to Air Force 1? That ended up being a lie to explain Bush's bunny-hop.

4. Why was Rumsfeld in the Pentagon when it was hit?

I am a LIHBBIIIer. (Let it happen because Bush is an idiot.) It happened because Bush signalled a tectonic shift in petro-politics, dumped the Palestinians, and isolated the United States in the world -- all at the same time. In short, Bush increased our risk by pushing a whole bunch of buttons intended only for use by grown-ups. He also reduced our security by ignoring Al Qaeda. The Bush presidency (technically he is president) is both a major impetus behind increasing U.S. risk and reducing U.S. disaster preparation.

He's just incompetent. As Paul O'Neil's latest revelation tells us, Bush is just a big nothing presiding lazily and ineptly over a bunch of numbskulls and fanatics.

LIHBBIII baby. That's where it's at. If Bush had been behind the attacks on 9/11, they would not have succeeded.

[Minstrel Boy]

27. To say "Bush knew" is not to say "Bush did it."

He's nobody's evil genius.

Bush was kept hopping because it was important he be kept out of the loop as much and as long as possible.

I think he knows more now than he did that day.

Why was Rumsfeld in the Pentagon when it was hit?

Why did Flight 77 go out of its way to hit the Navy side of the Pentagon. The one side which was virtually empty, under reconstruction, and hardened against attack?

[Bolo Boffin]

29. You've obviously heard the JFK joke...

How do we know the CIA wasn't involved in JFK's assassination?

He's dead, isn't he?


Another point of Bushian incompetence: Certain members of the Saudi ruling family helped move pieces of the al-Qaeda puzzle around, but because of business ties with BushCo, investigations of Saudi connections to al-Qaeda were downplayed. The Saudis were a big blind spot in the Bush Doctrine pre-9/11, and al-Qaeda played it to the hilt.

The Republicans are unfit to govern.

[gulliver]

35. LOL! Never heard that one!

But I expect to pass it along several times. :-) Thanks!

And excellent point about the Saudis and Al Qaeda too...

[rumguy]

30. I understand your points but you're missing the subtlety of LIHOP

There are an infinite number of variations on the theme. But one very likely one is that they knew something big was coming up, and they sat back and did little or nothing to stop it...that is LIHOP, and that is treason...

[maggrwaggr]

48. You assume we're talking about "Bush" the man, GWB

I can't speak for others, but when I say "Bush" I mean his cabal, the group that recruited him and backed him.

Bush is an idiot, he's kept in the dark about pretty much everything. Remember when he made that comment about "well, Saddam wouldn't let us send inspectors back in, so we invaded". And we all went "huh?" Like he'd been kept in a cave or something.

After much studying of the situation, I am about 90% convinced that "Bush" (the people who are actually running the country) made 9/11 happen on purpose.

This does not mean that the actual hijackers knew they were doing Bush a favor. I'm sure they thought they were dying for Allah.

You forget about Bush's father, and the entire world of black operations that exist in our government.

You forget that Osama Bin Laden was recruited and trained by the CIA.

You forget that Putin used to be head of the KGB, and has recently been exposed as having his secret goons stage "terrorist" bombings in Moscow so that he would muster support for himself and start the war in Chechnya.

You forget that Bush Sr. and Putin were palling around in Russia just a few months ago talking about God-knows-what ....

[rman]

62. And all Bush's advisors/secretaries are incompetent too??

That's one hell of an incompetent adminstration. If they are, then what they did amounts to gross misconduct/negligence costing tens of thousands of lives and billions of dollars. That'd be nearly as criminal as lihop or mihop, and certainly they should be held responsible for that and be releaved from duty.

Do you think they'r just for show and Bush makes all the plans and takes all the decisions?
I'll tell you what: Bush is the one who's just for show. He's kinda like a news-anchor; just the public face of the admin.

[nolabels]

120. Don't worry, there are more answers than you got questions

As for the the

Why was Rumsfeld in the Pentagon when it was hit?

He was at the other end of the building in a bunker hiding from the Incredible Shrinking Airliner.

Flight 93 Families Dispute FBI's Theory
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=57653

Nice big picture in that thread of the Pentagon where that so called Airliner hit

Plenty of info out there if one doesn't bury their head in the sand. Here is couple threads from DU to get you started. A person could spend days posting places to look at. Mostly I can only see people in denial with nobody producing evidence to the contrary. If you have some please post it up.

At last 9/11 Truth Gets a Day in Court
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=69827

Kissinger & BCCI spells BUSH & 9-11
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=377323

WT7 Collapse Caught on Video ---------------------------MPEG PART 2
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=219680

[LunaC]

54. If you have a minute

would you mind reading my piece about the PNAC, Bush White House and 911 and THEN explain how/why you still don't think Bush is complicit, if that's the case? I'm serious....I'd appreciate the opinion of a Skeptic.

|THE WHISPERING CAMPAIGN

[gulliver]

89. I think...

it is logically uneven, but well written. Here is what I mean.

In September 2001 the "catastrophic and catalyzing" modern-day Pearl Harbor envisioned years earlier by the PNAC came to pass when the WTC and Pentagon were attacked. The finger of blame was pointed at Osama bin Laden, a former CIA operative with ties to Afghanistan. Suddenly, the U.S. "gift" of $43 million to the Taliban in May was cast in a new light. Coincidentally, Pakistan had participated in the plan to attack Afghanistan and the chief of Pakistan's Inter Service Intelligence agency was later linked to a 911 hijacker after wiring him $100,00 just days before the WTC fell.

You can use information like this to make a strong case for incompetence, but not complicity. That is completely ridiculous. It would be high treason ... firing squad stuff. It would be a conspiracy of immense complexity trying to commit high treason. That is not the way the world works. Do you honestly think Bush or Cheney or Rumsfeld would risk execution to run a treasonous conspiracy with Pakistan as a partner? Come on. Don't go there.

Here is the way the world actually works. PNAC-obsessed imbeciles got into the White House through ideology, connections, demagoguery, and money politics. They immediately started setting forces in motion -- not conspiracies, "forces." Cheney et al immediately opened the hood of the "car" of world affairs and set to work with a hacksaw and mall. They whammed petro-politics with a hammer. They abandoned the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. They gave money to and threatened the Taliban. They started acting like jerks with all of our allies on the world stage, resulting in isolation of the United States in world opinion.

They did not directly cause 9/11. They simply put a lot of force on the system, and it fractured in a weak spot (radical Islamic tension). In short, they put an elephant in the trunk of a Honda Civic and that blew out all the tires. They did not shoot out the tires with a machine gun, but they are responsible for the tires being blown out.

The Bushies are negligent, arrogant idiots and assholes. They are not traitors in the sense of a conspiracy to hurt America.

Change your charge to criminal negligence and you have a case. They are guilty of that.

[LunaC]

121. And YOU know how the world "actually works"

because.....?

In the world of circumstantial evidence, garden-variety prisoners accused of murderer are routinely sentenced to death on far less.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.....etc.

I realize how painful it is - how shattering it is to one's world view - when the realization of the depths of Evil the Bush Admin sinks in to one's psyche. It you find solace and peace believing otherwise then that's your perogative but I personally prefer to deal with Reality head-on than deceive/delude myself.

[Printer70]

64. I also think it's laughable...it makes us look kooky

...who's up for the next Art Bell conspiracy theory. Someone said earlier the Right is using DU to make the Party look bad. 99% of what we say is fine. This 1% paranoia nonsense does make us look ridiculous.

[rman]

71. that's because you don't look at the evidence

-

[Terwilliger]

19. all this has been said before

And plans on removing Saddam are also in the Repub party platform for 2000.

It seems that the inevitable conclusion is that 9/11 benefitted Bush in innumerable ways, but none of that logic seems to penetrate Bush's shielding. Everybody still likes Bush and gives him credit.

[Must_B_Free]

37. we're just seeing the effects of astroturf

A company associated with Prescott Bush worked for sent nazi agents to america to prosteletize for Hitler.

This whole thing it about deception. People are tuning Bush out. I was in the Dallas airport yesterday and when the mountain lion story was on everyone was watching and when the story about "Free Speech Zones" and Bush protestors came on noone was watching.

[Lostnote03]

21. OBL....

....OBL conspired with Hussein utilizing all the knowhow that the Military/Industrial/Complex imparted to them....the trick was knowing that the CIA was having a simulated terrorist attack on 911 and that our entire air defense system(NORAD)would be asleep at the wheel for a specified period of time(oops we had our radar pointed in the wrong direction)....not bad insight considering OBL did all of this while residing in a cave....I can't help but believe that considering the appriximate 3000 or so military spy satellites floating in the heavens, two of those satellites did not have a 24/7 mission assignment tracking two of Bushs embittered ex-associates....oh well Kean will rise to the occasion considering his stature as a true patriot(cough)....

[plaguepuppy]

32. Oops, we lost him again!

Funny how easy it to lose guys that were so recently on your own payroll.

[durutti]

25. No.

Where's the evidence?

[PatrickS]

26. Are you serious?

Where's the evidence if this administration wasn't behind it or if they were behind it.

Besides, maybe the "evidence" is all burned and destroyed along with the tarrists, airplanes and twin towers on 9/11. How about that?

:evilgrin:

[RedSock]

39. link for patrick

go here and read:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/index.html

we don't know what *really* happened, but we know for sure that the official story is 100% bullsh*t.

[PaDUer]

53. That's right...

the evidence was burned...the paperwork was in the towers..

[rumguy]

31. read Mariani's lawsuit, tons of evidence there, and documented too

[rman]

70. evidence: just follow the links people keep providing

-

[Nlighten1]

34. It sounds all that much more plausible now.

Now there is irrefutable proof they were planning for the invasion of Iraq as soon as they got in office. This is a fact that we DU'ers have known for a long time but now we have solid proof of it.

9/11 was part of their planning.

[Beam Me Up]

36. Bush * Cabal, Yes. Here is more motive:

FTW (Mike Rupert's "From The Wilderness") has long maintained that the deepest and darkest secrets of 9/11 lay buried in the records of Vice President Cheney's National Energy Policy Development Group (NEPDG) which concluded its work and published a report admitting critical shortages in energy supplies in May of 2001. While those admissions were vague --- and located almost exclusively in buried sections of the report not mentioned in executive summaries or press accounts --- they clearly indicated that a major national priority was the acquisition of new sources of hydrocarbon energy against a backdrop of ever-decreasing domestic production.

Shortly after the report was submitted, a battle ensued between the House Government Reform Committee and Democrat Henry Waxman over the records of who had met with the panel and what had been discussed. While much of the early attention was focused on the participation of corporations like Enron, ExxonMobil and BP, FTW asserted that the real secrets had to do with the task force's awareness of peaking world oil and gas supplies and looming impacts on human civilization. Since the task force had been paid for with taxpayer money, Congress rightly felt that the public had a right to know who had been invited and what had been discussed.

Initial suits by the Government Accounting Office (GAO) and citizen groups including Judicial Watch and the Sierra Club affirmed the constitutional right (imperative) of Congress and the people to have access to the files. An initial ruling in US District Court agreed and the US Court of Appeals declined to intervene after a White House appeal. As a result, a very incomplete set of records was released by agencies that assisted the task force while the White House itself, arguing executive privilege, has steadfastly refused to reveal a single page of its records.

On December 15, 2003, as reported by the Associated Press, the US Supreme Court announced that it would make a ruling in the case sometime in July 2004, just three months shy of the presidential election. This presents a real problem for the Bush administration. Legally, there is little to sustain its obviously illegal actions. And presenting the American people with another politically-tainted Supreme Court ruling just months before the election could easily rekindle debate over the Court's illegal Bush v. Gore ruling which stopped the Florida recount in 2000.

Aside from reminding the Court through widespread publication of stories about the pending decision there is little the American people can do to influence the outcome. However, the Court is already feeling enough pressure as a multitude of Bush administration extralegal positions come under increasing fire and close public scrutiny. In order for the machine to continue to function it must protect the value of the American brand name as reflected by its ability to convince large portions of the populace that the system still works. While the American people may not fully understand the implications of a Supreme Court ruling favoring the Bush administration in this case, the lawyers who make the system work and journalists who report on it most certainly will.

This is the ultimate high-stakes, must-win decision for the administration in the coming year. Full disclosure of Cheney's records would enable publications like FTW to once and for all answer for the American people and the world the single biggest question about 9/11, “What would motivate them to do such a horrible thing? What could have been so important?” In a criminal trial for murder this would be one of the three basic elements required for a conviction: the motive. The method and opportunity have already been established.

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/cgi-bin/MasterPFP.cgi?doc=http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/123103_danger.html OR http://tinyurl.com/333gn

[Nlighten1]

38. Carnegie Endowment's report on WMD in Iraq + this O'Neil revelation.

http://www.ceip.org/files/projects/npp/resources/iraqintell/home.htm

They cooked up the case for war as soon as they arrived in office. They completely ignored the warnings of the out-going Clinton administration regarding terrorism.

This link is too a summary of the findings.
http://www.ceip.org/files/Publications/IraqSummary.asp?from=pubdate

[Cleita]

40. Read this and look at the date.

If no one doesn't believe this wasn't in the works from the beginning, they have blindfolds on. Especially note the date of the letter and the signatures.

<snip>
January 26, 1998

The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President:

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world.
That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.

The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.

Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.

Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams
Richard L. Armitage
William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner
John Bolton
Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama
Robert Kagan
Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol
Richard Perle
Peter W. Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld
William Schneider, Jr.
Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz
R. James Woolsey
Robert B. Zoellick <snip>

URL: http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

[Beam Me Up]

41. If Clinton had followed PNAC in 98, 9/11 wouldn't have been necessary

n/t

[rman]

63. "If Bush sr. had followed PNAC, 9/11 wouldn't have been necessary"

The point is the plans for 'revenge' exsisted long before 9/11.

These plans were considered to be *way to extreme* by everyone in the Bush sr administration and the Clinton administration.
Only now that the same men who concocted these plans are in power, can they implement their plan.

PNAC also said they'd "need another Perl Harbor" before they can implement the plan. The plan comes down to invading the middle east as a stepping stone to global domination. According to that plan the primary means to achieve the goal is military force.
As Richard Perle would say: "..just wage total war.."

[ComerPerro]

43. Welcome to the club

It started small, but little by little more and more people started realizing that 9/11 was just TOO convienient for the administration.

[the populist]

44. What about the Likud?

Is it possible that the Mossad may have had a hand in it?

[TomNickell]

51. NO! NO! NO!

The things are not related. For Bush, planning 9/11 would have been 1) an enormous and unnecessary risk and 2) institutionally impossible.

Just a quick and obvious question: If * planned 9/11 as a pretext to attack Iraq, why did he plant evidence against the -Saudi's-???????

[rman]

68. answer to your quick and obvious question has been given

(since the question has been asked before)
see post #12 and replies.

[William Seger]

91. Well, no, there wasn't any reasonable answer there.

"Reasonable" being a relative term, I suppose, but there certainly isn't anything in the responses to #12 that "makes sense" to me. If you've got a credible answer, I'd love to hear it.

[Stuckinthebush]

52. Not at all

I know it is tempting to say so...but Tom (above post) has a great point about the Saudis.

No, Bush didn't plan it, he just used it.

[Yupster]

55. No

If Bush wanted oil, we would have made Kuwait a territory of the US and taken its oil for free. No one could have said a word if we did it. Attacking Iraq would have been unecessary to get oil.

I do't believe in hardly any of these conspiracies, although I am convinced that JFK was killed by Joe DiMaggio.

[BigDaddyLove]

57. No.........

What if a group of people where extremely pissed off by decades of murderous, heavy handed American foreign policy with regard to the Middle East, and decided to do something about it?

Further, what if one of the towers would have fallen in '93 as intended, would Clinton have been behind it?

[Rabrrrrrr]

58. I'm not ready for MIHOP

because I think Osama and others were already definitely planning something.

But I have thought, beginning a few moments after the second plane hit and we were making decisions about evacuating our building, that asshole in chief didn't bother to stop it; and I absolutely and definitely knew something was up when, walking away from the WTC site, I kept looking to the sky and saying, "Where are the @*&$^# military?????!!!!!"

I don't think Asshole engineered the attacks at all; but I am CONVINCED that Asshole knew it was being planned, that he might even have helped it (but I'm not sure on that), and that he absolutely did nothing in order to stop it. We have evidence that the Clinton administration warned Asshole, that they gave Asshole a whole pile of documents about Al Qaeda and Osama, etc. etc. etc., and we also know that Asshole wanted to invade and take over Iraq - hell, any idiot could tell that from Asshole's campaign speaches and debates - and we know that Cheney disregarded all that, that Asshole and his administration completely and utterly refused to cooperate with Clinton's people in the transition, and that Asshole had all sorts of warnings handed to him in August of 2001 while he was pissing away his time drunk and coke snorting (allegedly).

I dno't think he engineered the attacks at all - but until someone hands me a stack of proof, I am absolutely convinced, and have been since a few minutes after my neighbor, the WTC, was bombed, that he knew about it and let it happen.

This is an evil administration, made up of evil people, and we have to remember also that the Bush family is, in most ways, utterly evil, with aspirations of Godhood, royalty, and aristocracy. And that's one reason I can't understand why any "good old boy" would vote for these evil *@*(#&*@^#, since it's plain as the nose on my face that all they want is to turn the entire world into their feudal domain.

[rman]

66. So you're LIHOP ?

If they knew it was being planned, and if they played a part in financing and training, wouldn't that amount to MIHOP?

The neocon's philosophy is "there is no morality" (Wolfowitz' teacher 'political philosopher' Leo Strauss).
Of course if you'd believe the media, the influence of neocons on policy is minimal. But we know PNAC is hard-core neocon (they themselves prefer to be called neo-Reagnite), and we do know many of the people in this admin are (former) members of PNAC.
Never mind how they'r called, just look at the policies and the implementation thereof; 'use military force to gain global dominance'.

[Rabrrrrrr]

74. Defniitely LIHOP

And perhaps there's a semantic differentiation problem here, but I consider MIHOP to mean that Asshole and/or his cronies actually engineered the attacks. I don't think they did - I think Osama did. But I think Buttcrack WhistleAss and his cronies knew what Osama was up to, and let him do it. Maybe some would call that MIHOP, and perhaps I'm wrong in how I define the terms. Certainly, one could make the claim that to know it would happen and not stop it is the same as planning and executing it oneself, but I prefer to make the distintion between intentional act, and intentional negligence.

In my understanding, I'm just a LIHOP. But if I have the definitions wrong, please tell me. I'm going totally on what I assumed the two terms meant, without ever looking them up.

[ComerPerro]

93. You know, Rabrrrr, I couldn't agree with you more

Honestly, this is exactly how I feel.

Did the administration engineer and plan the attacks?
No. I think bin Laden would have had proper motive to plan and carry out such attacks.

But did the administration, upon learning about these attacks that were being planned, do everything in their power to make sure they happened?
You bet your ass.

[rman]

59. PNAC: "We need another Pearl Harbor"

Rummy on 9/11: "It's a blessing in disguise"

Rome, Reichtag, WTC

[NV1962]

61. Then, Condi Rice: "capitalize on the opportunity" of 9-11 - n/t

[Printer70]

65. I have an idea...Let's advance ridiculous conspiracy theories

... based on zero evidence and 100% conjecture that will make DU, and in turn, the Democratic party look like conspiracist nutjobs.

How about some evidence?

[rman]

67. we'v been back and forth over the evidence many times.

links to evidence are all over DU.

There are pointer to evidence in this thread to;

- the PNAC plans for invasion of Iraq (and the rest of the ME) exsisted long before 9/11.
see www.newamericancentury.org > "Rebuilding America's Defences"

- PNAC consisted of the same men who are now in the Bush administration, implementing the PNAC plan.
see www.newamericancentury.org > statement of principals (check the signatures)

When I first read "Project for a new American Century" i though it was a hoax.

Of course you can just ignore it and keep repeating there's no evidence.

[Printer70]

72. Where is there plan for 9/11?

Where is the communication that took place? What is the smoking gun? Right now- we have a shady organization, with militaristic plans, but no evidence whatsoever that they were involved in 9/11. You have the beginnings of a conspiracy theory, but you haven't connected the dots. The dots aren't even all there.

[Speed8098]

76. I'll kick this one time while I wait

I hope the lack of a response from you is because you are taking the time to read the evidence. I'm really interested to hear what you have to say when you're finished.


Shameless :kick:

[ComerPerro]

94. Oh, the communication records?

and the security briefings that the Bush administration quickly classified when the terribly underfunded 9/11 comission asked for them?
No, I don't suspect we will ever see those.
I wonder why...

[Nlighten1]

69. If you are asking for evidence...

you haven't been paying attention.

[Printer70]

73. Conjecture

Plenty of conjecture, very little evidence. Accusing the president (even the corrupt one we have) of 9/11 without a smoking gun does damage to our standing overseas and gives everyone else the impression that Democrats hate Bush more than we do the terrorists. If that's the case, I expect voters to distrust us.

[Speed8098]

75. Do your own research

Before you come here and try to belittle people for trying to make sense out of a totally senseless act.

If you do a little research, you will see that the evidence of LIHOP is as clear as the nose on your face. Just follow some of the links that my brother and sister DUer's have so kindly provided.

In a criminal case, the prosecution puts on it's case, as people have done here. Then, the defense has a choice, they can respond with witnesses and present their side of the story, or they can just rest, and hope the evidence isn't strong enough for a conviction.

In this case, we at DU are the prosecutors, and it seems you want to be the defense.

The prosecution rests.

Now. please make your choice, do you want to defend the BFEE or do you think there is not enough evidence to convict?

Please, don't answer until you've looked at all of the evidence.

[LunaC]

77. Some people are apparently more comfortable living in denial.

A multitude of posters have suggested that it's more intellectually honest to perform a rudimentary investigation into a subject before coming to a conclusion and/or judgement. While I've observed considerable whining about "Where's the evidence?" I've yet to see any personal effort being made towards any knowledgeable end. The attitude and tactic reminds me of the few times I've dirtied my hands attempting to have an intelligent discussion with a Dubya-Worshippin' Freeper. Nevertheless, I feel compelled to drop these little tidbits in your lap. Your true colors will be revealed by your response.

THE WHISPERING CAMPAIGN

CHENEY ENERGY TASK FORCE - A "Whispering Campaign" Refresher Course

[Minstrel Boy]

80. "How about some evidence?"

Osama Bin Laden
Family business ties to the Bush dynasty and long-time intelligence asset. In October 2001, French intelligence leaked that Osama had met the CIA station chief while receiving medical treatment at the American Hospital in Dubai. During the Afghanistan campaign Tommy Franks says his capture is not an objective. When he is reportedly near capture in Tora Bora, US forces are ordered to not advance, and troops witness a helicopter flying in from Pakistan to his reported location, and flying back again.

Saudi Arabia
One of Bush’s early financiers Khalid bin Mafouz, Osama’s brother-in-law, is also a prominent financier of al Qaeda. James Baker, Bush’s consiglieri, is representing Saudi royals in a class-action suit brought by 9/11 families. After Bush takes office, the FBI is ordered off tracking Saudi money to al Qaeda.

Pakistan
Pakistan’s intelligence service, the ISI, is a long-time regional proxy of the CIA, and its principal agent for dealing with Mujaheddin groups during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. It’s revealed in the Fall of 2001 that Pakistani ISI chief Mahmood Ahmed had authorized a $100,000 wire transfer to Mohammed Atta. This same Ahmed was in Washington for a week, meeting with top US officials, at the time of the attacks. After the revelation he takes an early retirement. There is no report of him ever having been questioned by US authorities.

The Hijackers
They were well known to American and foreign intelligence services, and yet could enter and leave the United States at will. Several lived with an FBI informant in San Diego. Fifteen of them entered the US through Jeddah, which, according to State Department official Michael Springman, had been a CIA gateway to the US for al Qaeda operatives to receive training in the US. At least five of the 9/11 hijackers studied at secure US military instalations. Mohammed Atta attended the International Officers School at Maxwell Air Force in Alabama, and Saeed Alghamdi studied at the Defense Language Institute in Monterey. The Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs at Monterey, Steve Butler, later wrote "Bush knew of the impending attacks on America," and was threatened with court martial and lost his position.

Investigations blocked
The spring and summer of 2001 FBI agents not only had investigations of flight schools blocked by head office (afterwards Dave Fresca, the terrorism unit chief who blocked them, was promoted) but - according to David Schippers and FBI Special Agent Robert Wright - a number of agents in New York had learned details of an attack on lower Manhattan, down to the proposed dates, names of the hijackers and targets, and yet the FBI command cut short their work, and threatened them with prosecution under the National Security Act if they went public.

Foreign warnings
The summer of 2001 Washington received, from the highest levels of intelligence services and governments, a dozen or so warnings pointing to a spectacular attack on American soil, using hijacked aircraft as weapons, targetting landmarks.

Some examples of the foreign intelligence:

"US intelligence agencies received many more indications than previously disclosed that Osama bin Laden's terrorist network was planning imminent "spectacular" attacks in the summer of 2001 aimed at inflicting mass casualties."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36754-2002Sep18.html

"Weeks before the terrorist attacks on 11 September, the United States and the United Nations ignored warnings from a secret Taliban emissary that Osama bin Laden was planning a huge attack on American soil."
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=331115

"Egyptian intelligence warned American officials about a week before Sept. 11 that Osama bin Laden's network was in the advance stages of executing a significant operation against an American target, President Hosni Mubarak said in an interview on Sunday."
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/04/national/04WARN.html

"A key point in unraveling why the FBI failed to follow up leads on Al Qaeda terrorism now centers on the Bureau's contemptuously brushing aside warnings from French intelligence a few days before 9-11."
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0222/ridgeway2.php

"When the hubbub about what the White House did or didn't know before Sept. 11 dies down, Congressional or other investigators should consider the specific warnings that friendly Arab intelligence services sent to Washington in the summer of 2001."
http://www.iht.com/articles/58269.html

"Britain gave President Bush a categorical warning to expect multiple airline hijackings by the al-Qaeda network a month before the September 11 attacks which killed nearly 3000 people and triggered the international war against terrorism."
http://www.sundayherald.com/24822

"Israeli intelligence officials say that they warned their counterparts in the United States last month that large-scale terrorist attacks on highly visible targets on the American mainland were imminent."
http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;$sessionid$52PMOXQAADW5PQFIQMGSFFOAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2001/09/16/wcia16.xml&sSheet=/news/2001/09/16/ixhome

Commercial flights cancelled
John Ashcroft was told to stop flying commercial airliners in July of 2001 for security considerations. On September 10, senior Pentagon officials cancelled commercial flights for the next day, presumably, said Newsweek, for the same reasons.

Insider trading
In the days before 9/11 the market shows strong indication of persons trying to profit from the attack, including an unusually high number of put options on stocks which would be adversely affected. Jonathan Winer, an ABC News consultant says that "It’s absolutely unprecedented to see cases of insider trading covering the entire world from Japan, to the U.S., to North America, to Europe." Another analyst said "I saw put-call numbers higher than I've ever seen in 10 years of following the markets, particularly the options markets." It is known that the United States has Promis software, and that it is used to monitor and analyze stock transactions for unusual patterns.

The lack of air response
The Pentagon was hit nearly 90 minutes after the first hijacking was determined. Fighters which were eventually scrambled did not fly from the nearest ready bases, and flew at a fraction of their speeds.

Unexplained skill and minimizing of damage
The pilot of the Pentagon crash, Hani Hanjour, couldn't handle a Cessna in mid-August, yet on September 11, we're told to believe, he flew a commercial jet for the first time at excessive speed, into a 270 degree spiralling decent and hit the one side of the Pentagon which was virtually empty, and had been hardened to withstand attack.

The bin Ladens fly
While the rest of America is grieving and all flights are grounded, the White House authorizes the flights of the bin Laden family and Saudi royals out of the country. This before they could be questioned by the FBI.

Anthrax
The White House started taking Cipro Sept 11, yet who was targetted with the most lethal spores? Democratic leaders, engaged in opposing the Patriot Act. Where has the anthrax been traced to? Fort Detrick. And the investigation stopped dead.

The 9/11 Commission
For more than a year the White House resisted even appointing a commission. Then gave it an unreasonable deadline and a laughable budget, and wanted it chaired by Henry Kissinger. As it is, Thomas Kean is another Texas oil man with ties to the bin Ladens, and most of the commissioners save for Max Cleland have track records of covering up and whitewashing. And Cleland is gone. The White House stonewalls, refuses to hand over documents, and runs out the clock, while Condolezza Rice balks at testifying under oath.

Motive
George Bush's diary entry for September 11: "The Pearl Harbor of the 21st Century took place today."

Evidence of demeanor, Exhibit A. Is this man telling the truth?
http://images.indymedia.org/imc/washingtondc/media/video/6/9_11laugh.mpg (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=918713)

Check out threads such as these:

"Bookmark Recovery Thread: 9/11"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=901633

"BCCI: The 9/11 Connection"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=658476

"BCCI class action begins January 13th, London, UK"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=977792

"Yes Virginia - He KNEW"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=948816

"The Whispering Campaign"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=976762

And after you read the timeline, you'll never again ask "How about some evidence?"

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/index.html

[William Seger]

90. How about giving us just the "short list" of actual MIHOP evidence?

I think I've been through all the 9/11 conspiracy sites linked to on DU, plus sites that attempt to debunk the major conspiracy theories, plus sites that give unbiased information without any conclusions.

Most of what you have given here seems to be very ambiguous. Some of it doesn't really apply to 9/11 per se; it just asserts that the BFEE, CIA, etc., were or still are involved in shady Middle East stuff, which is generally accepted already. It appears to me that the parts that do apply to 9/11 could be used to "prove" any range of theories from the weakest form of LIHOP (ignored general warnings, which is actually not a theory but an admitted fact), through "strong LIHOP" (had knowledge of specific 9/11 plans but did nothing to prevent it), through "weak MIHOP" (knew of specific plans, did what they could to insure nothing interfered with them), on to "strong MIHOP" (engineered the plans or co-opted plans already in progress and actively participated to insure the desired result).

But maybe your best evidence got buried in the avalanche. Since the main topic here is MIHOP, how about sorting through all that for us and present just the strongest real evidence of actual MIHOP? That would make it easier to see if it bears up under scrutiny.

(On edit) If you, or anyone else, can put together your best MIHOP case, I suggest starting a new thread to discuss it.

[Minstrel Boy]

97. If you're looking for a smoking gun, you may need to wait for

Condoleeza's mushroom cloud.

Vincent Bugliosi said conspiracies are proven circumstantially, and I believe abundant evidence has already been amassed to point to the Administration's culpability. (Because that's really what I'm talking about when I use the short hand "Bush knew.")

That which you say doesn't apply directly to 9/11 per se, I would say actually does, and is critically important to understanding context. The criminal intrigue between intelligence agencies and terrorist proxies, and the money trail which implicates both, was in place long before 9/11, and predates Bush's rise to power. September 11th didn't happen in a vacuum.

Historical analogy: most serious conspiracists have concluded that JFK's assassination involved a nexus of anti-Castro Cubans, elements of the CIA and the mob. Without context, this sounds a flight of paranoid fantasy. But the CIA had assets in organized crime since its founding, going back to Lucky Luciano's mission to Sicily after the war to oppose communism with a refounded Mafia, and in the early 1960s the CIA was using the Mafia in attempted assassination plots against Castro. The Mafia's links to Batista's Cuba, of course, is well-known. And anti-Castro militia groups like Alpha 66 were set up, financed and advised by the CIA. Kennedy's abandoning covert ops against Cuba after the Missile Crisis was a catalyst for these three groups - which already had a history together, and individually had their own reasons to want Kennedy out of the picture - to align themselves in a conspiracy to murder the president. (And this isn't just me speculating here. Many of the principals have spoken, and you can read their words in books such as Dick Russell's The Man Who Knew Too Much.)

[William Seger]

101. I'm asking for anything that can reasonably be called "MIHOP evidence"

If it's all circumstantial, so be it, as long as it reasonably points to something more than apathy or LIHOP. There's clearly evidence of "something" that needs to be investigated, but what's the best case that can be made, right now, for MIHOP?

[Minstrel Boy]

104. I'd say things like these qualify as particularly MIHOPish evidence:

Michael Springman, 20-year veteran of the State Department's foreign service, worked in the visa bureau in Jeddah. He claims the bureau was run as a CIA operation, and that he was repeatedly asked to approve applications of unqualified applicants - applicants who had connections to al Qaeda, and who were to receive training in the United States under the protection of the agency. This was a practice, he said, that continued long after the defeat of the Soviets in Afghanistan - all the way up to the Summer of 2001. Significantly, 15 of the 19 hijackers entered the United States through Jeddah. Springman said that the innocents who died on September 11 "may have been sacrificed in order to further wider US geopolitical objectives."
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=104&row=1
http://sandiego.indymedia.org/en/2002/02/521.shtml
Interview with Springman from CBC radio:
http://radio.cbc.ca/programs/dispatches/audio/020116_springman.rm

At least five of the hijackers trained at secure US military installations. This was reported as early September 16, 2001 by The New York Times. Mohammed Atta attended the International Officers School at Maxwell Air Force in Alabama. Saeed Alghamdi studied at the Defense Language Institute in Monterey. According to its web site, the Defense Language Institute provides foreign language services to "Department of Defense, government agencies and foreign governments" to support "national security interests and global operational needs." So, why was Alghamdi there? Why did he enter the US through a visa office run as a CIA operation? Lt. Col. Steve Butler was vice chancellor for student affairs while Alghamdi was a student. In a letter published May 26, 2002, Butler charged "Bush knew of the impending attacks on America. He did nothing to warn the American people because he needed this war on terrorism. What is...contemptible is the President of the United States not telling the American people what he knows for political gain." Butler was removed from his position and threatened with court martial.

And not only have no heads rolled over the intelligence "failure", but those who actively blocked investigations prior to 9/11 into such things as al Qaeda training at flight schools, Dave Fresca, for instance, have been promoted.

It's evidence like this that strikes me as indicative of MIHOP, rather than LIHOP or incompotence.

[William Seger]

105. Well...... that's just not much of a case, is it?

Really, would you expect anyone to be convinced of 9/11 complicity based on that?

[Minstrel Boy]

108. It's just Exhibit A

And, I should think, of concern to anyone honestly curious about the events of 9/11. (Springman's testimony that Jeddah was a CIA sanctioned entry point for al Qaeda doesn't move you? It's of no consequence that hijackers trained at US military installations?) But I said "evidence like this" - and there is a ton of it. And the evidence piles higher every day.

Consider what we just learned from O'Neil. Bush says, Day One, regarding war with Iraq, "Make it happen. I don't care how."

Then consider this:

May 8, 2001: Bush entrusts Cheney to head the new Office of National Preparedness, a part of FEMA. This office is supposed to oversee a "national effort" to coordinate all federal programs for responding to domestic attacks. Cheney says to the press, "One of our biggest threats as a nation" may include "a terrorist organization overseas. We need to look at this whole area, oftentimes referred to as homeland defense."
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/timelinebefore911.html

So here's Cheney, PNACer and oil man, already chairing a secretive energy commission (read its implications for military policy: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4458.htm), being named to head up a new agency which will "coordinate all federal programs for responding to domestic attacks." (To speculate here, doesn't this sound like an ideal beaurocratic cover for MIHOP?)

And on the morning of September 11 - PNAC's awaited "catalyzing event, such as a new Pearl Harbor" - by a "bizarre coincidence," he is monitoring an emergency simulation of planes crashing into buildings. A simulation, so we're told, one year later.

How many coincidences do you need, William? Because I got a million of 'em.

[William Seger]

114. How many coincidences?

You're asking me to believe that when Bush* said "find me a way" (not "make it happen"), his henchmen went out and concocted an insanely elaborate and risky scheme, pulled together hundreds of 100% loyal accomplices, then pulled it all off with nothing going wrong, no leaks, and not a trace of real evidence. And then, in the end, although Bush* told them to "find me a way" to invade Iraq, the best he was left with was simply implying the Iraq might have been involved or Iraq might be a terrorist threat in the future.

How many coincidences do I need before I would believe that theory without a shred of real evidence? I'm afraid the question is too abstract to answer.

Anyway, I think you're misrepresenting my position. I've been saying all along that there are serious questions about 9/11 that need answers. But my point has been that completely nutty theories about "controlled demolition" at WTC and "Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon" just make it easier for the BFEE to try to write off anyone asking questions as a "conspiracy nut". That's exactly what's been happening -- we saw it with Dean or anyone else who suggests that "Bush knew"; we're seeing it again with the O'Neill revelations and questions about PNAC's influence on the Bush Doctrine --- and so far it seems to be working pretty well for them.

[Minstrel Boy]

116. I understand your position better now, but

I think you're misrepresenting mine.

Not all conspiracy theories are created equal, and I believe that endorsing extreme hypotheses as fact only strengthens the hand of the conspirators. A MIHOP position doesn't necessarily mean one believes a missile hit the Pentagon, controlled demolitions were employed or the planes were flown by remote control. My view on the missile theory is that it's beneath contempt, and possibly even intentional disinformation. As for demolition, I'm agnostic, but think it merits further inquiry. (And further inquiry means just that. The issue deserves serious study, but evidence for demolition should not, at this stage, be used as "proof" of a conspiracy.) Remote control, yes, I suspect was used at some stage, but again, I would not posit remote flight as a "proof" of conspiracy. It remains a speculative leap, though one based upon a set of facts and circumstances. It's an avenue of inquiry, not evidence of conspiracy.

MIHOP, to me, does not mean that 9/11 was conceived in the bowels of the Pentagon. Rather, that the conspirators in Washington were more than passive observers to the unfolding drama, and had a hand in controlling the events.

We have abundant evidence that Bush knew (and I use "Bush" here as shorthand for his Administration). What we do with the evidence, sometimes, is speculate. Criminal investigations do this all the time. And if the speculation is informed, I think it's a valid pursuit.

[LunaC]

122. See post #17

[William Seger]

124. I was asking for MIHOP evidence.

[maveric]

98. Oh boy, another one who doesnt believe in conspiracies.

I guess that those things just dont happen. Especially here in the good ole US of A.

[lewiston]

78. All this LIHOP/MIHOP stuff reminds me of

Hughes Mearns' poem:

Yesterday upon the stair
I met a man who wasn't there.
He wasn't there again today.
Oh how I wish he'd go away.

[Lost4words]

79. so nobody anywhere is corrupt, what a foolish outlook. n/t

[Speed8098]

81. Care to refute the evidence?

Or do you get your news from these childish limericks?

[lewiston]

85. Evidence? Give me a break!

[NicRic]

83. He knew ,did nothing !!

I believe he knew that our country would get attacked ! Iam not sure he knew just how large of an attack it would be ? What he did know is that it would make the American people come together and his poll #'s would shoot up ! Why they try and act like he has done such a brillant job since,amazes me .Invading a country , and going to war with the wrong enemy , ignoring Saudi Arabia's invovlment , using this diasaster for his own politicial gain :-(

[PATRICK]

84. what does 'behind" mean?

Politically he jumped right behind the 911 Juggernaut in all its personal benefits no matter what the cost to the rest of the world. He is essence is pro-terrorist, a manipulator of all fears and chances. Wasting time to try to prove more and hinging his criminality on a prior conspiracy when he has a lot of the smoking guns locked away is ducking the on=obvious.

Al Qaida, Bin Laden and all the mess of the world is finely woven with Bush goals and acquaintances. Dumping them all would do everyone a world of good.

But, that said, no one should ever rest getting at the bottom of all this regime has been responsible for. Don't let this cancer go untreated gain and call it a common cold.

[8 ball]

86. 8 ball sez

IT IS DECIDEDLY SO

[veracity]

88. PNAC, not Bush - they're the ones...

When are the real culprits going to get a full airing? They're never identified as PNAC. I just don't get it. Richard Perle wrote, very clearly, that the country needed a "catstrophic event like another Pearl Harbor" to justify their war plans for Afghanistan and Iraq - as well as the military domination of the whole region.

That's on their web site, and they've infilatrated the administration. Bush didn't know there WAS a Middle East when he was in Texas. Do you think he actually formualated a plan to take it over?????

Get to know them:
http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/pnac_neo-con_artists.html

[ComerPerro]

95. I appreciate your position, but

You must remember that it is still Bush, ultimately. He is the President, for Christ's sake. Anything that the people he appoints do, and anything that he uses for personal gain, is his responsibility.

But I really do wish more average Americans knew what PNAC was

[maveric]

99. Bu$h is too fucking stupid to concoct such a plan. It was PNAC and

he just did what he was told to do and he would benefit greatly.

[Name removed]

96. Deleted message

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

[Must_B_Free]

100. Would you like a apple

or how about a orange
a elephant?

[Name removed]

102. Deleted message

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

[William Seger]

103. I feel your pain

Actually, all Dean said was that the 28 pages of the 9/11 report that Bush* really, really, really doesn't want America to see might contain evidence that Saudi Arabia might have warned Bush* about an attack. This probably didn't get a lot of coverage over in FReeper land, but SA's warning of "something big" about to happen is not a "conspiracy theory"; it's a fact. The reason that the people who do your thinking for you tried to portray Dean as a "conspiracy nut" -- implying that Dean was accusing Bush* of ignoring detailed knowledge of the 9/11 plan -- was simply because that's the best they could do to try to wave it off.

As for Dem's chance of ousting the pretender to the throne: have you stuck your finger in the air lately? November is a long way off, and my guess is that come next January, it's gonna really suck to be you.

[Matilda]

106. Just taking a look at the events of the day and nothing else

that has come up later, assume that nobody has any concrete advance
knowledge, wouldn't everybody be on alert when four planes are
hijacked? Wouldn't they be concerned about the safety of the
President? And when one hits a major building in the manner it did,
surely the Secret Service would whisk the President into a bunker
somewhere - that is, if they really didn't know what was going on,
or what might happen next? Would they really let him sit out in full
view in a school, with nothing to protect him from attack from who
knows what?

And second, would he not give the order after the second hijacking
at least, to scramble the planes at Andrews Air Force Base? I just
can't believe that this wouldn't happen in normal circumstances.
I find it impossible to believe that with America apparently under
some form of attack, they quietly went about their normal business.
I think it would only happen if they knew for sure there were going
to be no further attacks anywhere in the U.S., and if it suited their
purpose to let this one go ahead.

I'm in the LIHOP camp - I think the Bush cabal got lucky, and found
something they knew they could use. And yes, I believe they are
arrogant enough not to let a few thousand dead bother them - these
people are some of the most cold-blooded I've ever heard of. A
few thousand dead in New York, a few thousand more in Iraq, what the
heck if you can rule the world?

[Must_B_Free]

107. It's all about the comnclusions they instantly jump to

I recall that a Senator's plane crash and there was not even a question of foul play. Noone thought to ask "is this terrorism?". Instead we knew instantly that it was ice on the wings.

[Name removed]

109. Deleted message

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

[number6]

110. the people behind da bush ...

..;)

[Perky]

111. Oh just shut up

shut the "F" up....George Bush is not smart enough to keep such a thing secret and Karl Rove knows it.... THERE WAS NO PRIOR KNOWLEDGE.

Some of you are sad as Jerry Fallwell claiming the Bill Clinton had Vince Foster murdered to protect himself from what Vinve knew about Whitewster.

[Matilda]

113. It's quite likely that Bush didn't know anything himself.

After all, he doesn't know much about anything really. But the rest
of the cabal - that's another story.

[LunaC]

123. I once thought that might be the case too

until Minstrel Boy brought this to my attention: (See post #22)

George Bush's diary entry for September 11: "The Pearl Harbor of the 21st Century took place today."

With Bush regurgitating the PNAC's manifesto in his personal diary I can no longer believe that he's just a Stooge/Puppet President being manipulated behind the scenes and that he is willfully and knowingly complicit in furthering the PNAC's agenda. That's an important distinction.

[PatrickS]

117. LOL! Did you take your meds this morning?

Perky indeed!

:evilgrin:

[BigBadDaddy-O]

118. It's un-American to NOT ask that question.

Country should come before party, even more so in a time of war.

[Cannikin]

125. America ‘Pearl Harbored’

"The PNAC is part of the New Citizenship Project, whose chairman is also William Kristol, and is described as “a non-profit, educational organization whose goal is to promote American global leadership.”"

"Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, and Paul Wolfowitz signed a Statement of Principles of the PNAC on June 3, 1997, along with many of the other current members of Bush’s “war cabinet.” "

"The cabal of war fanatics advising the White House secretly planned a “transformation” of defense policy years ago, calling for war against Iraq and huge increases in military spending. A “catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor”—was seen as necessary to bring this about."

http://www.americanfreepress.net/12_24_02/America_Pearl_Harbored/america_pearl_harbored.html