Holy conspiracy theory: US govt involved in 9/11?

[chimpymustgo]

Family member just held up a book, saying they haven't concluded this, but are considering the notion that parts of the US govt may have been involved.

[WoodrowFan]

1. then they've gone insane

in their grief.

[w13rd0]

6. No examination of the information provided...

...just a "then they've gone insane"...that's...interesting.

[tom_paine]

11. Yeah, that's like trying to say the government had something to do

with COINTELPRO.

Or Watergate.

That's like saying that the good people of Enron defrauded California out of billions with the blessings of the Imperial Family of Amerika.

Man, how could people be so crazy and stupid to think the fictitiuous events of COINTELPRO, Watergate, and Enron Fraud ever happened?

That's just crazy!

Don't you just wish we lived in the Soviet Union so such dasngerous psuchotics could be locked away for their protection and others'?

[mouse7]

16. And I suppose Han Blix and David Kay are "insane", too?

They both claim there was a "crazy" neo-con conspiracy to claim a country that had no Weapons of mass destruction was a threat to attack the US with them.

I guess Blix and Kay should be locked up in a rubber room for suggesting such a crazy conspiracy, huh?

[Old and In the Way]

76. PNAC was a shared hallucination, too?

The blueprint that a few neocons decided would become the official US foreign policy. Gosh, the fact that 9/11 kicked off the justification for occupying Iraq was just another coincidence, right Woodrow?

[gwd_dmt]

91. "then they've gone insane"

Ahh... but insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. In Webster's... Grief is always followed by Gruff and Grizzled... Damn... I thought the G in GW Bush was only for George... Boy am I ever corrected.

[sir_captain]

2. That's crazy

and disrespectful to the victims

[w13rd0]

4. Nonsense...

...what's disrespectful is that these questions aren't being asked under the foolish assumption that these liars and crooks would never subject the american people to such a horror.

[sir_captain]

Look

I am not defending Bush in any way. I hate that guy just as much as everyone else here. I just think it's ridiculous to suggest that the american government perpetrated the 9/11 attack.

[Bridget Burke]

37. Have you ever heard of "LIHOP"

It stands for Let It Happen On Purpose.

There was plenty of warning that something was going to go down. There is no evidence that the people in charge did anything to prevent it, although some made themselves quite scarce for a while.

Bush continues to use 9/11 as the "high point" of his presidency & continues to stonewall the investigation.

[sir_captain]

42. Ok, I can buy that much more

than suggesting that an active role was played. I agree that all the warning signs were ignored and that the situation was totally mishandled.

[redqueen]

49. Active / Inactive

Either way they helped, right?

Whether by actively assisting, or by assisting through neglecting their sworn duties, some have most likely betrayed the oaths they swore when they promised to defend this country against all enemies, foreign AND domestic.

[sir_captain]

57. Sure

I can agree with that

[Old and In the Way]

78. Still means they are responsible for the deaths of 3000 people.

If it was your husband or wife or son or daughter....would you be so willing to give this administration a pass?

[sir_captain]

80. I didn't give anyone a pass

But I won't crucify anyone without proof, either

People I cared about died that day, so please don't make assumptions about me

[proud patriot]

82. Sorry to hear about your loss

:-(

[RedSock]

108. proof?

this is as close as you can get ... for now ...

http://complete911timeline.org/timeline/index.html

[RainDog]

56. Operation Northwoods was a precedent

Operation Northwoods was revealed on ABC news, after it was revealed in a book by a former intel guy, Bamford.

In the 1960s, the joint chiefs of staff came up with an idea to carry out acts on terrorism on American citizens and blame it on Castro as an excuse to invade Cuba.

As Clarke has revealed in his new book, Against All Enemies, immediately, IMMEDIATELY after 9-11, Bush wanted to blame the WTC attack on Iraq...as an excuse to invade.

Rummy said Afghanistan didn't have any "good" targets.

They were willing, it seems, to let Osama get away with murder because it gave them an excuse to invade Iraq.

Osama was a CIA asset, also.

The Bush regime made sure that all members of the bin Laden family, plus members of the House of Saud, some with known connections to terrorism funding, as well as one who KNEW about the impending attack, were flown out of America,

even while he was trying to pin the blame on Iraq.

I don't know if anyone in our govt knew or not.

However, I do know that Bush has lied and tried to quash an investigation, has redacted portions of the senate investigation that most likely pointed out the Saudi knowledge...

it would seem to me that it is of the utmost respect for those who died on 9-11 to have sworn testimony from Condi, Bush, Cheney, Rummy...and yet, none of them will testify under oath.

I don't rule out anything from them, after the lies they told to kill 10 thousand Iraqis and more than 500 American soldiers, and to then refuse to show those soldiers returning home in coffins.

[frylock]

70. please state your reasoning..

I hear all the time that it is a ridiculous notion that the US govt was involved in any complicancy, but nobody ever offers an explanation as to why it's so ridiculous. Read up on COINTELPRO, Operation Northwoods, MKUltra, and then come back with that explanation. Thank you.

[sir_captain]

71. Sigh...

Once again, I didn't say that the gov't was not complicit in the sense that they obviously ignored warning signs and criminally mishandled the aftermath. If that's what the original poster was saying, then I read it wrong and apologize.

[mouse7]

90. Do you know what the word "MAY" means?

The 9/11 family member said the gov't MAY be involved in 9/11. They didn't say that government involvement was a fact. They said govenment involvement was a possibility.

You jumped on the thread and said they were crazy to consider that possibility. Therefore, ti crazy to have an unbiased investigation becasue you've already decided before the investigation starts what conclusions are and aren't "crazy" before the evidence collection process has even begun.

You need to read what people say, and stop reacting with insults because other people are willing to be more open minded in the investigation of the facts than you are.

[truth2power]

97. Hmmm...

"I just think it's ridiculous to suggest that the american government perpetrated the 9/11 attack.

IMHO...the American government perpetrated the 9/11 attack.

[sir_captain]

100. Ok, I respect your right to your opinion

I don't see any real proof of it

[chimpymustgo]

5. These people ARE the victims.

They are simply asking every question that ought to be asked.

How the HELL did 9/11 happen??????

[mouse7]

9. So is starting a war over WoMD against a country with no WoMD

The Iraq WoMD conspiracy was "crazy", too, right?

It's not crazy to be allowed to ask questions of the key players on 9/11.

[sir_captain]

15. There is a big difference

between asking questions about whether the US government ignored signs leading to 9/11 and suggesting that they actively played a role in the murder of thousands of innocent people.

I am all for inquiries into the run-up and aftermath of 9/11 in regards to the Bush administration, and I hope they fry for it.

But yes, it is offensive to the victims of the WTC (several of whom were friends of mine) to throw out wild accusations like this. If there was actual evidence, that would obviously be a different story. Until then, this is like saying that the bombers were actually undercover Mossad agents.

[mouse7]

19. Crazy to suggest gov't actively created WoMD hoax in Iraq, too

What sort of lunatic would suggest the US government would create a hoax that a foreign country had massive arsenal of WoMD they were intending to strike the US with, and then use the hoax to start a war with that country?

Hans Blix and David Kay are SOOOOOO insane. Lock them in a rubber room.

[sir_captain]

21. I never said anything about WoMD

so don't put words in my mouth.

Instead of beating around the bush (no pun intended), I'd like to see you be more direct. Instead of simply mocking me, why don't you say something like: "I think that there is a good chance that the US Government hired a bunch of people of middle eastern descent to hijack a bunch of planes and drive them into the World Trade Center and murder thousands of Americans." And then I will laugh at you.

[sangh0]

25. Of course you said nothing about WMD lies

It blows to hell your argument that the US Govt wouldn't tell such ugly lies

[sir_captain]

30. Hey, I didn't do that well in geometry

but I don't think the transitive property applies here. Just because the gov't lied about Iraq (which we certainly agree on) does not mean that they blew up the WTC.

[mouse7]

41. It proves the US Gov't has a prior history of lying.

Knowing a person or organization has not been completely honest in the past is a reasonable factor to consider in an unbiased investigation. It also proves that a large group of people in the US Gov't acted together to perpetrate a conspiracy to create a massive fraud to cover up real facts and create a hoax to start a war.

[sir_captain]

44. Apparently, you didn't do too well in Law school

"It also proves that a large group of people in the US Gov't acted together to perpetrate a conspiracy to create a massive fraud to cover up real facts and create a hoax to start a war." Yes, I completely agree with you. But that's not what this thread is about.

And yes, previous behavior is a factor that can be considered. But it is CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence, and in no way proves anything about something entirely different!

[mouse7]

58. Make up your mind. You just said it wasn't evidence at all.

Prior behavior is obviously not all the evidence needed to prove a case one way or another. However, it is very important to establishing that a party is willing and able to act in a particular fashion that would be necessary to the crime being committed, and therefore reasonable to conclude that a party guilty of said behavior is due greater scrutiny in an investigation.

[sir_captain]

61. It's true. It's not evidence.

It plays a role in establishing the character of the witness or whomever (on this point, we clearly agree) but it does not prove anything about something entirely different. We don't live in a totalitarian government, thank god. I think that if you were in charge of the justice system, people would be guilty until proven guilty.

[mouse7]

66. Make up your mind (again).

You're so all over the board that you've changed your mind 3 times as to whther something is or isn't evidence.

So now I'm guilty of being "totalitarian" because I'm not willing to refuse to investigate who you say must be cleared of all guilt based on no evidence whatsoever before an investigation has even been started?

Suuuuuuuuuuuuure. That's unbiased and democratic alright.

[sir_captain]

69. I have not changed my mind at all

Let me be very clear:
WoMD is evidence of character
WoMD is not evidence that Bush ordered the planes to fly into WTC

Is that clear enough for you?

And when did I say anyone should be cleared of all guilt? STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH. I SAID PEOPLE ARE INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. If you are going to continue making these claims about me, please demonstrate them, rather than just making up lies about me.

How many times do I have to repeat myself to you:
I want an investigation
I hate Bush's guts
I think there is some sort of coverup re: 9/11
I think you are "investigating" with an agenda

[mouse7]

83. Post #2 you said it was "crazy" to have unbiased investigation

The initial post says a family member says the government may be involved in 9/11. In post #2, you said "that's crazy."

You said it's crazy to consider the possibility that any part of the govenment could possibly (may be) be involved in 9/11.

You said it crazy to have an investigation that could possibly ever conclude no matter what the evidence proves that the US Government could ever have been involved in any aspect of 9/11.

That means you think it's crazy to have an unbiased investigation. Only a biased investgation has a list of potential scenarios that are crazy and aren't crazy before the investigating ever starts.

[sir_captain]

84. This is my last reply to you

Once again, you are putting words in my mouth. I said it was crazy, because I personally think it's crazy. How you got from that to me thinking that there should be no investigation of 9/11 reflects on nothing besides your own paranoia.

[mouse7]

88. You've already decided investigation conclusions before it starts

You said it was crazy to consider all possibilities, and reach a conclusion based on the evidence gathered.

That family member said the govenment MAY be involved. They didn't say it was a fact. They said it was possible. You said it was crazy to consider that possibility.

You are the one who has already decided what investigation conclusions are crazy or not before the investigation even starts and evidence is even gathered.

[sangh0]

43. How did you do in logic?

It doesn't mean they told the truth either

[sir_captain]

47. That's true, it doesn't

I'm not sure what that proves, however

[mouse7]

Instead, I will laugh at your biased investigation

You do not start an investigation of anything with a preconcieved notion of where evidence will and won't lead.

You clearly are incapable of running an investigation, because you have already made decisions about what the evidence will mean before you even start to gather it.

[sir_captain]

28. What evidence?

Show me the smoking gun

[mouse7]

36. You want conclusions BEFORE the investigation?

Clearly, you don't know how investigations work.

You collect evidence, THEN come to conclusions.

There has not been an investigation of the event leading to 9/11. There needs to be a 9/11 investigation. It hasn't happened yet. It has to happen without people like you trying to bias the investigation before it even starts.

[MadProphetMargin]

45. Okay...WHY has their been no investigation to speak of?

Tell me this.

[sir_captain]

48. When did I come to a conclusion?

And who are people like me?
And when did I say there shouldn't be an investigation?

[mouse7]

62. You've already decided a party wasn't involved before investigation

That's a biased conclusion you've reached based on no evidence.

An unbiased investigation cannot conclude Al-Queda, the US Gov't, or the New Zealand America's Cup Yachting Team wasn't involved until evidence collection is completed.

There had been no unbiased evidence collection process yet. Therefore, no conclusions as to the guilt or innocence of any party can be made by anyone.

[Octafish]

98. Ashcan stopped flying commercial in July, 2001.

For starters:

Ashcroft Flying High
WASHINGTON, July 26, 2001

Fishing rod in hand, Attorney General John Ashcroft left on a weekend trip to Missouri Thursday afternoon aboard a chartered government jet, reports CBS News Correspondent Jim Stewart.

In response to inquiries from CBS News over why Ashcroft was traveling exclusively by leased jet aircraft instead of commercial airlines, the Justice Department cited what it called a "threat assessment" by the FBI, and said Ashcroft has been advised to travel only by private jet for the remainder of his term.

"There was a threat assessment and there are guidelines. He is acting under the guidelines," an FBI spokesman said. Neither the FBI nor the Justice Department, however, would identify what the threat was, when it was detected or who made it.

A senior official at the CIA said he was unaware of specific threats against any Cabinet member, and Ashcroft himself, in a speech in California, seemed unsure of the nature of the threat.


CONTINUED...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/07/26/national/main303601.shtml

If you're interested in learning more, try below for starters. Good luck!

http://lists.democracygroups.org/pipermail/rightwatch/2002q2/000145.html

[sir_captain]

101. What does that actually prove?

[Octafish]

103. It proves THEY KNEW.

Bush was briefed that bin Laden was planning to attack American targest using American airliners. That's why he's done all he can to stonewall the 9-11 commission, especially regarding the CIA's PDB "Bin Laden Set to Strike in the United States" from August, 2001. Bush didn't do dick to stop the attacks. Bush didn't warn the American flying public. He didn't even warn the airlines. Bush did warn his buddies, like Ashcroft.

[sir_captain]

104. It DOESN'T prove that they knew

Obviously, bush didn't do anything to prevent attacks, and obviously, he didn't warn the public or airlines. That's all a given. Was there gross negligence--absolutely. But there is a difference between negligence and active complicity, and Ashcroft not flying on airlines doesn't prove active complicity in my opinion.

[Octafish]

109. Good on you. Ashcroft was warned.

There are reports Willie Brown cancelled his flights that day, too, on the recommendation of Condi Rice. Also, there are reports the Pentagon ordered its brass off commercial flights that day.

Now that adds up to a lot of warning. Too bad the flying public didn't make the cut.

[sir_captain]

110. I'll drink to that

[LunaC]

39. You're not too far off the mark......

Would you be kind enough to read this piece and then convinve me that you are absolutely, positively certain that BushCo didn't play any part in 911?

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

[sir_captain]

52. I never said that

I don't know. That's absolutely true.

But I don't think that incredibly important accusations should be made unless you're pretty certain that there's something to it. If you are, well, I respect that.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

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

[sir_captain]

77. Man...

"I'd like to clarify whether you're lazily uninformed or just stubbornly close-minded"

So there's no other option? I either have to be an asshole or an asshole? Perhaps I read the article (which I had already) and considered it like an open-minded person should, and chose to conclude something different from you.

[mouse7]

89. I believe you're the one calling 9/11 family members "crazy"

A 9/11 family member said the govenment MAY be involved. They said govenment involvement was possible. You said to entertain that possibility was "crazy" in post #2. I believe it's you that's running around insulting people for no reason, not us. We're just defending a 9/11 family member from your unreasonable charge of insanity because they are open minded and considering all possiblities.

[LunaC]

96. My turn to say "I never said that....

Nowhere did I state that you were/are an asshole.

So what DID you conclude after reading the piece?

How do you explain the Bush* Adminstration being populated primarily by the PNAC, that the PNAC intended to invade Iraq as far back as 1997, that they planned on bombing Afghanistan in MAY of 2001 and that 911 appears to be a handy-dandy, super-duper, convenient pretext for that to occur?

How do you think the Bush* Admin would have sold the bombing of Afghanistan to the American public if 911 didn't occur?

Convince me with some facts of your own to support your contention that the Bush* Admin wasn't involved! "Please state your reasonng."

[sir_captain]

99. Sure you did

and that's why your post was deleted. You didn't say it explicitly, but you set me up as either of two distinctive possibilities, both of which were extremely negative. I just paraphrased.

What did I think? I agree with much of what you said: the Bush people clearly had/have an agenda regarding Iraq. You're absolutely right that they couldn't have bombed Afghanistan without 9/11. But nothing anywhere has convinced me that Bush orchestrated 9/11 rather than just taking advantage of it to launch his crazy crusade. Once again, I'm not saying that Bush isn't culpable for his handling of the situation. But almost all the evidence put forward is either unprovable or circumstantial. For an accusation as important as this one, I just need more. I think that's fair.

I'm sorry, but the onus is on you to provide the facts. I don't have to prove anything because you are the one making the accusation. People, (even jerks like Bush) are innocent until proven guilty.

[LunaC]

106. Circumstantial evidence

has sent many, many people to prison and it is a valid legal premise.

I suspected that you would offer nothing more than opinion.

Been nice talkin' to you......ba-bye!

[Minstrel Boy]

23. it's only "wild accusations" until you start paying attention.

Read the hundreds of pages of the 9/11 timeline and tell me the terrorists just got "lucky": http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/index.html

Read Nafeez Ahmed's "The War on Freedom."
Read Griffin's "The New Pearl Harbor."
Read Chossudovsky's "War and Globalisation."
Read Brisard and Dasquie's "Forbidden Truth."

For starters.

If you think the evidence for complicity is lacking, it's because you haven't done your homework.

[tom_paine]

13. See post #11!

You tell those whacky "conspiracy theorists"!

Hell, next time they are going to accuse Hitler's Government of having something to do with the Reichstag Fire!

What a bunch of nutballs!

[sir_captain]

18. You actually think

that the American government perpetrated the 9/11 bombing?

[mouse7]

22. I actually think we ought to have an unbiased investigation of 9/11

You do not investigate ANYTHING with preconcieved notions of where the investigation will or won't lead. You allow the facts the investigation unearths lead the investigation forward. You then analyze the evidence you find and generate conclusions based upon the evidence you find alone.

You are wrong to bias an investigation that has yet to take place.

[sir_captain]

27. Umm...

isn't accusing the government of being involved also placing a bias on the investigation?

Like I said, if real evidence of the government allowing terrorists to fly into the WTC comes forward, I'll be all ears.

[mouse7]

32. You won't know "unbiased" if it bit you on the....

You start an investigation with no preconcieved notions. An unbiased investigation leads where the evidence leads.

You have already determined that an investigation cannot lead one direction no matter what the facts may or may not show. You therefore are incapable of running an good investigation of 9/11.

[sir_captain]

38. Ok, now you're just repeating yourself

Also, I believe what you were trying to say was "You WOULDN'T know 'unbiased' if it bit you on the..." Generally, in English, we try to have all the parts of speech agree with each other.

The problem here, friend, is that you want to run the investigation like it's a McCarthy hearing. You're *looking* to find out that Bush murdered those people in NY just as much as you say I'm not.

[mouse7]

54. No... it's you who are investigating to intentionally clear Dumbya

You already have preconcieved notions as to what conclusions are and aren't allowed in your investigation.

That's bias.

I'm want an unbiased investigation to allow the evidence to lead where it leads, and not to come to conclusions before the process of collecting evidence is completed. If the evidence says Al-queda, fine. If the evidence says it was Disney employees, fine. If the evidence says it was the New Zealand America's Cup yachting team, fine. That's what an unbiased investigation is.

...and if your argument is so bad you have noting to attack but my grammer, you are desperate and know you have already lost the debate.

[sir_captain]

59. Ok

Fine, I shouldn't have attacked your grammar. I was pissed because most of your argument against me has consisted of personal attacks, and the sentence I attacked was one of them.

I AGREE with you. The idea that I would ever want to clear Bush of anything is ridiculous. I think you have pre-conceived notions about me. Instead of just repeating yourself, why don't you answer my charge: that you're specifically looking to find the government complicit instead of showing no bias yourself.

[mouse7]

73. You REALLY don't know what an unbiased investigation is, do you?

The only factor an unbiased investigation considers in reaching conclusions is evidence. An unbiased investigation starts with no preconcieved notions about who is or isn't guilty. An unbiased investigation allows evidence and only evidence to prove guilt. If the evidence leads to Al-Queda, fine. If it leads to this government, or the French govenment, fine. If it leads to the New Zealand America's Cup Yachting team, fine.

You started on this thread saying it was crazy to suggest the govenment could possibly be involved. THAT'S BIAS. You're already determined who could or could not be guilty before an investigation even starts. It's you that has decided who is or isn't guilty before an investigation has even started. You said it was "crazy" to have an investigation that looked could look at all the evidence and reach an unbiased conclusion.

[sir_captain]

79. No...

I said it was crazy to say it WITHOUT real evidence.
And seriously, since all you do is repeat yourself and slander me, there's no point in continuing this conversation.

[mouse7]

85. Post #2 you said it was crazy that the gov't MAY be involved

Do you know the definition of the word "may?" That means it's possible. You said it was crazy to have an unbiased investigation that considers all evidence and arrives to a conclusion based solely on evidence.

You've already decided what's reasonable conclusions it's reasonable for an investigation to arrive at before the investigation starts.

[MadHound]

94. Here are a few matters for your perusal, off the top of my head

My more extensive 911 files are on my home computer, so I am going from memory here.

Anyway, a few damning questions that need to be answered:

1. Why were four planes, which were known to be hijacked, allowed to be flown around the NE seaboard for over an hour before slamming into their targets or the ground? Standard operating procedure is that soon as it comes across that unusual acitivity is happening in the sky, the nearest fighter jets are scrambled, immediately. It would take an order that came from very high up on the command chain in order to keep these birds on the ground. And yet that was where they stayed until it was too late to make a difference. Remember the Payne Stewart crash? Within minutes of his plane straying off course fighter planes were scrambled, which proceded to accompany him until his untimely death. Why weren't they up in the air on 911?

2. Early warnings. Apparently both the German intelligence agency and the Israeli intelligence agency(and perhaps others worldwide) attempted to warn the Bush administration about an immenent threat, in the form of terrorists with airplanes was given to the US intelligence agency and the Bush administration, days, weeks, and in some cases months in advance. Apparently none of these warnings were heeded. In addition, a CIA listening post picked up traffic indicating a terrorist attack on 9/10. The details in this message were numerous, including the who, how, and when of the pending attack. And yet supposedly this warning went untranslated until 9/12. This is before the 26 Arabic speaking intel agents were fired for being gay, so they had plenty of personell to do the translation. This is suspicious to say the least.

In addition there were numerous civillian warnings given out. Two of the better known are as follows. A young man of Middle Eastern decsent in a NYC high school told his teacher a week before 911 that the two towers were coming down. In addition, four hours before the attacks, an Israeli paging service, Odigo, started alerting it's subscribers via their pagers of an immenent attack on the WTC. If the word was out in the street, at least in some quarters, why did we not hear about it?

3. Why were certain people warned to stay off of these planes. John Ashcroft abrubtly stopped flying commercial jets in mid July. Former SF mayor Willie Brown was warned to stay off of planes into and out of NYC the night before 9/11. Why?

4. Those mysterious put orders. After the WTC fell, the was a story bandied about the national media concerning how somebody, somewhere had made a large chunk of change off of the attacks by making fortuitous put orders(selling short) for United Airlines and various corporations based in the Towers. This story was being avidly followed and being dug into by both US intelligence and journalists. Until about a month later when the trail led to a "former" CIA operative. Then it was dropped like a hot potatoe and hasn't been heard from since.

5. The scripted nature of the unfolding story. I found it interesting that within hours of the WTC attacks, a story was being reeled off with the precision and stilted dialog of a well meaning, but uninspiring play. A van was found, traced to one of the hijackers that conviently had plans of the WTC, along with flight plans and Koranic verses carelessly strewn about the inside. Within days, after going through the hell of the crash, explosion and collapse, one of the hijacker's passport was found virtually unscathed only blocks away from Ground Zero. Within hours, it was officially declared to be an act of Al-Quaeda. The last terrorist attack, OK City, required days before the investigating officers released the names of the suspects. By the by, seven, at least, of the hijackers are alive and well in the Middle East. So who were those folks that were in the planes?

6. On the day after, 9/12/01, when every single non-military plane was grounded, why was one airliner allowed to fly about the country, picking up members of the chief suspect's family, and then flying them out of the country? Hell, there carry on luggage wasn't even searched. Why?

7. In tapes and transcripts of the collapse, you can hear the firefighters describing the situation in each of the towers. Both teams are calling for only three hoses, THREE HOSES! As a former firefighter, I can tell you that only calling for three hoses, I don't care if they're two inchers, means that the situation is clearly no major threat, that the fire is fightable, and that there is no immenent danger entailed. Shortly thereafter you can hear what sounds like consecutive explosions and then the particular tower comes down, quite suddenly. This scene is repeated in both towers, and there are other survivors who also heard these explosions. In addition there is both video and seismic records of some sort of explosive disturbance right before each of the collapses.

And then there is the big lie itself, right there in our face every time we watch the towers come down. Despite having the damage to each tower being off center, despite the plain physics of the tower falling over towards the areas of damage, both towers defy the laws of physics and collapse virtually straight down into a relatively small footprint, with little damage to surrounding structures, excepting for WTC 7, which is farther away from the towers than other buildings, and it too collapsed straight down, with little warning, seven hours later.

8. FEMA. In a puff interview with a FEMA official only days after 911, Dan Rather asked "When did you arrive on the scene" "Well Dan, we arrived in New York on Monday evening and set up a command post. . ." I forgot who the official was, like I said most of my files are at home. Interesting isn't it, that FEMA hits town, ready to roll, on the evening before Tuesday, 9/11.

These are just a few of the questions I and many others would like answered. This whole mess stinks like the Kennedy assasination, from the manipulation of military SOPs to the oh so convienent pieces of evidence they miraculsy found, to the obvious pieces of psyop news that almost instantly started flooding the American airwaves, to the impossible defiance of physics demonstrated by crucial pieces of evidence(the Magic Bullet, the Magic Towers). Remember, people laughed and ridiculed those who didn't take the Warren Report at face value. And yet as time went on, and research was promulgated by a dedicated few, public opinion came down heavily on the conspiracy side of the assasination. Also, a reluctant House Committee on Assasinations(that was originally formed as another cover up scam) was finally overwhelmed by the sheer weight of evidence to conclude that the Kennedy assasination was the work of a conspiracy.

I think that this is the same path that 911 is going to take. Right now, people simply can't accept that their own government would do such a horrific act(though it has a long history of doing horrific acts). But within ten, twenty, fifty years, the sheer weight of evidence will convince even the most die hard sceptic that yes, the US government, or at least portions of it, brought the towers down.

[sir_captain]

102. Thanks for the food for thought

I'm glad there are people like you who think thoughtfully about these things. Certainly a lot of this stuff needs to be looked into. Can't say I buy all of it, but I respect the work you've obviously done on it.

[tom_paine]

26. I think there is ample precedent in the things I quoted

and more...

I think "it can happen" ANYWHERE and that the places in most danger of "it happening" are the places where the most are CONVINCED IT CAN'T.

Actually, I don't know what happened any more than you do. The difference is that I acknowledge that and you do not.

Are the Busheviks capable of evil on such a scale perpetrated against white people (as opposed to dark-skinned people, which we KNOW they are capable of from Iran 1953 to Chile 1972 to the Phonmy Iraq Invasion of 2003 and everything in between)?

Absolutely. The fact that the "pre-emptive strike" mirrors Nazi policy towards Poland is somewhat troubling...

Further, knowing the Bushevik penchant for "plausible deniability", I subscribe to LIHOP, not MIHOP.

Much easier for the Imperials to lie more effectively if they can reasure themseleves that THEY didn;t PERSONALLY bring the Towerts down.

To the monstrous, Totalitarian mind, that would be all that would be needed for them to consider themselves blamess.

WWFMD?

[sir_captain]

31. I didn't say I know what happened

If you look back at my posts, I advocate an impartial investigation. The difference between us, actually, is that I choose not to believe that the gov't murdered several thousand Americans until evidence is demonstrated to me. If it is, I'll be all ears.

[tom_paine]

34. I guess you must be unfamiliar with the term LIHOP

Any person could tell you that a Busheviks could TRUTHFULLY say, "We had nothing to do with 9/11." in that scenario.

Personally, from a circumstantial evidence perspective, the Imperial Family's absolute resistance to an investigation (one which has been performed after Pearl Harbor and all other events of such significance) suggests something to hide.

And LIHOP is VERY believable, particularly considering the sluggish response of the Air Force (as compared to the 10 min. response time when Payne Stewart's jet went off course).

But, like Watergate, LIHOP is just a crazy conspiracy theory anyway...

[sir_captain]

40. What is LIHOP?

I'm interested...

I agree with you that the Bushes have something to hide. I think, particularly in the face of the damning evidence presented on 60 Minutes last night, that the Bush administration mishandled 9/11 in a criminal manner. But that's something different from what is being suggested in this thread.

[tom_paine]

53. Let It Happen On Purpose

many unethical people find it "easier" if surrogates perform their criminal act. They find it even better if someone will do what they want with no prompting...then all the unethical person is sit back and let things happen.

It is called "plausible deniability".

[sir_captain]

60. Ok, thanks

[CaptainClark23]

46. I understand your refusal to allow such a possibility

It runs contrary to everything most of us have ever believed possible.

I felt the same way.

After my time at the WTC, I couldn't sleep. So in an effort to try and wrap my mind arond the horror, I sought to understand it in all its gruesome detail. But when I started looking, the official explanation( what little there still is of it) began to unravel. Nothing made sense. So many unanswered questions, so many "truths" to be accepted at face-value form people and institutions I had already learned not to trust without verification.

Do I know now what the "Truth" is? No. But I do know enough of what did and didn't happen to say with confidence that high-level governmental and military complicity had to have occured in order for 9.11 to happen.

If you indeed feel, as you say, that a complete and transparent investigation of 9.11 must happen, then you also must accept ALL of the possible explanations as equally valid until such time as each is categorically disproven.

Don't believe me, though. Do the research for yourself, if you dare.

I have to warn you though - what you are likely to conclude is going to turn your world upside down.

Sometimes I wish to god I'd remained one of the sheeple with no inkling of all this crap. I certainly don't sleep any better at night. Still have nightmares where I wake up tasting that damned ash of thousands of humans in my mouth.

But at least I now have a greater understanding of the world I live in, that my children will inherit. Its a small consolation.

But its up to you. Do the research and come to your own conclusions. But until you do so, your condemnation of those who have is worthless.

g'luck.

[sir_captain]

55. I hear what you're saying

I was down there helping too...and it was certainly a life changing experience.

But I disagree with you on one point. People are innocent until proven guilty. Nothing should have to be categorically disproven--claims need to be categorically proven.

Anyway, thank you for your work down at the WTC and for not immediately mocking me. DU can be a pretty unwelcoming place sometimes.

[CaptainClark23]

64. Emotions run high, Brother.

And the stakes run higher and higher every day. People who take positions such as LIHOP or MIHOP are pretty much derided as wacked out leftist conspiracy nuts. Anyone who has made a public stand about this has gotten slammed hard by those around them.

So yeah, the patience level and hospitality protocols kinda go out the window. DU is full of passionate, intelligent people who are trying to make a difference. Making someone feel welcome is secondary to the Truth, as it should ever be.

Stick around though. You'll learn alot. You'll also see alot of bullshit, but your bullshit meter is going to be pretty precisely tuned before long.

See you in the streets.

[tkmorris]

72. I agree with you

I would like to point out though that 10's of thousands of people, combatants and otherwise, have been killed since 9/11 in the "war on terror". It could be argued that every single one of them was murdered, since it has never been proved anywhere who was responsible for 9/11. Lots of suggestions, innuendo, and "trust us, we know" tossed around but no proof has ever been offered. In fact there has been a monumental effort on the part of the Bush admin to AVOID learning the truth, or at least letting the public hear it. I have yet to hear one even semi-plausible excuse for that.

[sir_captain]

75. You'll get no argument from me

on your points. The administration is clearly untrustworthy.

[Old and In the Way]

87. Well they do seem to be doing their damndest to stonewall, slow walk,

stack the committeee, underfund it, timelimit it, and avoid going under oath.

If you were President on 9/11 and this attack happened on your watch, wouldn't you be making a complete investigation as high profiule and public as possible? Wouldn't you want all the facts to be put on the table, cost be damned? Wouldn't you be concerned that, unless the root cause was understood, we could not be assured that the same event could happen again?

I know I would....presuming I-

(1) Was not grossly incompetent in reacting to the warnings before 9/11 and did nothing during the attack.

(2) Was not aware that something was going to occur, but thought I could use it to my advantage to start the war in Afghanistan (the plan which was on Bush's desk on 9/10)

(3) Was not actively involved in making sure it happened. Like making sure that the AF was not around when the planes were hijacked.

All I know is not one person has been reprimanded or held accountable for their actions on 9/11. So what has changed? Are we any safer today than we were on 9/10? Certainly, if there was criminal culpability, I'd say we are definitely not safer.

[Beam Me Up]

20. WE ARE ALL VICTIMS

of 9/11, damn it! We, The People. Our Constitution. Our system of governance. 9/11 IS A CONSPIRACY short and simple. No two ways about it. It was a monumental criminal act meant to have a devastating effect on the people of this country. Which it has.

Now there are SEVERAL fundamental questions:

1: WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED? No bullshit, no assumptions that we already know. We don't.

2: PRECISELY WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE? No bullshit, no assumptions that we already know. We don't.

3: WHY DID OUR NATIONAL AIR DEFENSES FAIL ON THAT DAY? No bullshit, no assumptions that we already know. We don't.

4: WHY DID OUR CIA AND FBI FAIL TO DETECT OR PREVENT THIS CRIME? No bullshit, no assumptions that we already know. We don't.

5: WHY HAS THERE BEEN NO THOROUGH OPEN INVESTIGATION OF THE QUESTIONS ABOVE? No bullshit, no assumptions that we already know. We don't.

6: IF THE PROBLEM IS SIMPLE INCOMPETENCE (which I find incredible--as in "completely unbelievable") WHY HAS NO ONE BEEN HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE LAYER UPON LAYER OF SYSTEM FAILURE THAT ALLOWED THIS TO OCCUR? No bullshit, no assumptions that we already know. We don't.

We have COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE that the story being fed to us over and over again by the mainstream media is a LIE. We want answers. Real answers. And if by God even the Heavens themselves should fall: LET THEM FALL!! We want TRUTH. We want ANSWERS. We want to know WHAT REALLY HAPPENED--WHO KNEW WHAT AND WHEN.

Talk about not respecting the victims! I vowed on that day that I would never forget. I WILL NEVER FORGET! And my soul will never rest easy so long as this TRAVESTY of LIES continues to masquerade as the truth.

BMU

Edit: minor typos and chages

[w13rd0]

3. Yeah, hey, with all the information that's been collected...

...over the past three years, many in the Bush administration should hang for treason and war profiteering...

So much info flying today it's gonna take at least three days to catch up and archive everything.

[NewHampster]

7. tee hee

:nopity:

[Unknown Known]

8. This is why they had to steal the 2002 election

especially in Georgia, and wipe out Wellstone. If they hadn't, we'd be tuning into impeachment hearings right NOW!

[chimpymustgo]

10. Exactly. They did whatever it took. Murder. Theft.

Character assasination.

They targeted Wellstone (and thought Kennedy was on the plane). They targeted Cleland in Ga, and Toricelli in NJ.

They HAD to win. And they did.

[terisel]

14. thought kennedy was on the plane? More information Please n/t

[chimpymustgo]

33. Kennedy had been campaigning with Wellstone, but stayed

in St. Paul or Minneapolis while Wellstone flew out. When the first reports came in that the plane had gone down, there were fears that Kennedy was on the plane. It was cleared up after an hour or so, but it was doubly hairy for awhile there.

[Beam Me Up]

29. targeted McKinny, too, don't forget SHE SAID IT: BUSH KNEW!

[maggrwaggr]

12. hell, if we actually had a "librul" media, they'd all be in JAIL

which is where they belong

[maggrwaggr]

17. well it is shocking when you realize

i lived in TX when Shrub was governor. He seemed like a innocuous somewhat harmless idiot son. I even met him at a party and thought the same thing.

When he lucked into the presidency (with a lot of help from his brother and others) I thought "well, whatever, hopefully he won't fuck up too badly in the next four years until we get rid of him"

And WOW. What a shocker it's been, no? Turns out he and the whole cabal are the worst bunch of crooks to ever get political power in the United States.

It's difficult to accept that the checks and balances in this country which supposedly prevent such things have broken down, but they HAVE. The media is largely to blame, they are an integral part of the success of our system, and they simply don't exist anymore in the way that they're supposed to.

If we had a free press, Bush and his cronies would be in jail already.

Because the truth would have sent them there.

[Beam Me Up]

51. THE MEDIA IS COMPLICIT IN TREASON AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION AND THE PEOPLE

This is why I say we are verging on a REVOLUTIONARY SITUATION. The system of checks and balances that should have prevented 9/11 failed. Our National Security system FAILED.

...OR DID IT?

Was 9/11 a MASSIVE SECURITY FAILURE?; a MASSIVE INTELLIGENCE FAILURE?? If not, then there is only one other possibility. As Michael Ruppert of From The Wilderness puts it: "9/11 was not an intelligence failure. It was an intelligence sucess."

And if that IS the case, and there are MANY MANY reasons to believe it IS the case, then there are people in high places in OUR GOVERNMENT, in CONGRESS, in the JUDICIARY, in the MILITARY, in INTELLIGENCE, in DEPARTMENT OF STATE, in MEDIA, and in PRIVATE SECTOR CORPORATIONS--that must KNOW the truth.

Thant makes every damn one of them co-conspiritors--even if after the fact--in a crime of treason and a crime against humanity BECAUSE 9/11 has been used as justification for war!

I WANT ANSWERS!

[JohnyCanuck]

65. Remember Operation Northwoods

It's not like this would be a new line of thinking for the BFEE war profiteering types


According to secret and long-hidden documents obtained for Body of Secrets, the Joint Chiefs of Staff drew up and approved plans for what may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government. In the name of antiCommunism, they proposed launching a secret and bloody war of terrorism against their own country in order to trick the American public into supporting an ill-conceived war they intended to launch against Cuba.

Code named Operation Northwoods, the plan, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war.

<snip>

Lemnitzer was a dangerous-perhaps even unbalanced-right-wing extremist in an extraordinarily sensitive position during a critical period. But Operation Northwoods also had the support of every single member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and even senior Pentagon official Paul Nitze argued in favor of provoking a phony war with Cuba. The fact that the most senior members of all the services and the Pentagon could be so out of touch with reality and the meaning of democracy would be hidden for four decades.

In retrospect, the documents offer new insight into the thinking of the military's star-studded leadership. Although they never succeeded in launching America into a phony war with Cuba, they may have done so with Vietnam. More than 50,000 Americans and more than 2 million Vietnamese were eventually killed in that war.

Above quote from the book Body of Secrets by James Bamford published by Doubleday and posted at: www.whatreallyhappened.com/northwoods.html

[Beam Me Up]

86. OH, I haven't forgotten. Not at all.

Nor have I forgotten that Eisenhower warned us about the Military Industrial Complex not long before Operation Northwoods was being conceived.

It is time for the American People to ask some very SERIOUS QUESTIONS of their leadership in EVERY BRANCH OF GOVENANCE--and the private sector, MEDIA in particular, but not media exclusively.

We have a problem. A very serious problem. This problem is NOT going to go away if it is hidden under a rug and left unaddressed.

ULTIMATELY IT BOILS DOWN TO THIS: EITHER ONE GOVERNS WITH TRUTH OR ONE GOVERNS WITH LIES. Either there is a DIFFERENCE THAT MAKES A DIFFERENCE between these two methodologies or there is not.

We can fully appreciate that there are secrets of State, and matters of national security that can not be openly, publicly addressed. HOWEVER, this fact only shifts more squarely the burden of RESPONSIBILITY to those whose shoulders it is to bear the burdens of Constitutional Governance; to know the difference between TRUTH and LIES, RIGHT AND WRONG; what is and is not in this Nations best interest. If there is no oversight, if there are none who can tell the difference between TRUTH and the need for governance by TRUTH, and out right deception and lies--then a mockery is made of Democracy and all it portends. And when those whose shoulders it is to bear this responsibility--when they have become compromised--what then?

I maintain that this is PRECISELY the situation we are in. A bunch of thugs and traitors have taken control of our Executive branch and have, in the process, compromised every branch of the Government to the point where the system of checks and balances IS NO LONGER EFFECTIVE. Moreover, these people are DANGEROUS in the EXTREME. They have behind them the AUTHORITY OF THE STATE and they have by their stations access to both overt and covert military power. THIS MUST BE STOPPED!

Edit: minor changes

[PaDUer]

107. Tuning into impeachment hearings?....

hell, the hearings would be over and they'd ALL be gone and in prison already. I'm tired of listening to the BS and lies. The media is an accessory to the fact, and danced to their music right along..

[Minstrel Boy]

24. Anyone watching know which book they held up? n/t

[Vadem]

63. I think it was called "The New Pearl Harbor....", just released. eom

[never cry wolf]

67. This one

The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11
by David Ray Griffin

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1566565529/qid=1079980839/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/103-3102246-8640626?v=glance&s=books&n=507846#product-details

[Minstrel Boy]

81. Thanks for the answers. Just read it this weekend.

It makes a strong case for MIHOP.

What Griffin does is largely bring together some of the different threads of research, notably Paul Thompson's timeline and Ahmed's War on Freedom, and introduce them to a wider American public. I could have done with less of his repeating Meyssan's work re: "no plane hit the Pentagon" and the material speculating on controlled demolitions. Though I think there are arguments to be made there, I remain agnostic on both counts, and think they can become discrediting distractions, especially when introducing the case for complicity to those who know only the official story.

The best thing he does is point the curious toward the timeline and Ahmed's book.

[MadProphetMargin]

35. Who knows? I wouldn't doubt it. Scare the people, and they will obey.

[vetwife]

68. My questions for 9-11

There is a link on Bushwatch that has Dan Rather asking a FEMA guy about 9/11 on 9/11 and the guy from FEMA said, "We got into town last night" On Monday, Get this On Monday before the attack on Tuesday.
He said we got here to set up. Have they called this guy into testify?

Next question...We had no idea how many planes there were or targets.2, 4, 10, 100..or what cities. How come? the same EBS that brings you tornado warnings did not interrupt and say go to pick your children up, Do not panic, please move to a safe location..Stay away from trains and large crowds, ANYTHING...Why did they let the media and Rudy Guilano (a mayor) not even a governor or speaker of the house or Pro temp run the govt. We were at the mercy of being told what to do by CNN and Rudy. Even back in WWII they had Civil defense sirens. But it was silent that day...Why?

[burythehatchet]

50. Can someone tell me who represents the 15 Ignoreds

on this thread. I like to congratulate myself on my infinite wisdom.

:)

[redqueen]

92. Is your nick supposed to be ironic? n/t

[burythehatchet]

93. yep

on edit -

hey fellow Kucinichian. :hi:

[redqueen]

95. Back atcha!

:hug:

[MrSlayer]

105. Of course they were involved.

It couldn't have happened without complicity, simply couldn't. Please take a few hours and read the links in this thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1260300

[Rex]

111. Old hat my friend.

"History trickles slowly from a babbling brook."

[Sterling]

112. Pssst..... Osama is a Bush

Pass it on.

[MetaTrope]

113. It will never be proven.

Not when all it took was a two-minute meeting between Poppy Bush and a bin Laden family friend in a small back room of the Saudi royal palace.