Who Benefited Most from 9-11?

[Octafish]

My nominee:

The Military-Industrial Complex, owned and operated by the War Party -- traitors, war criminals, war profiteers, kakistocrats and poltroons armed with WMDs.

What say you?

[Bolo Boffin]

1. Motive is worthless in determining guilt. n/t

[Octafish]

3. Thanks for bringing that up. Means and Opportunity are also important to know.

Of course, that would count on We the People investigating the events and circumstances in public and under oath. First, we need to establish who is responsible for the attacks, if for no other reason to prevent further attacks. We also must identify those US government officials who displayed gross criminal negligence in the months leading up to 9-11. We also must do all we can to discover and examine all the relevant facts that so far have been unanswered and often hidden, classified top secret. Once we do all that, we will know the truth about what happened. Then we can prosecute the guilty and determine guilt.

[Bolo Boffin]

4. We the People have already investigated the events and circumstances.

It was called the 9/11 Commission.

Al Qaeda was responsible for these attacks. This is proven beyond reasonable doubt.

[Subdivisions]

5. ...

That's your story and you're stickin' to it.

:eyes:

[Bolo Boffin]

6. I like stories with evidence that support them.

I know, I mentioned evidence. I'm watching you run away.

[rollingrock]

8. 'We the People'

:rofl:

The commission members were each hand-picked by Bush and Cheney.
So you consider the Bush administration to be representative of your views?

[SDuderstadt]

9. More bullshit from you...

you should, at least, bother to learn how the commissioners were selected before you mislead people.

SEC. 603. <<NOTE: 6 USC 101 note.>> COMPOSITION OF COMMISSION.

(a) Members.--The Commission shall be composed of 10 members, of
whom--
(1) 1 member shall be appointed by the President, who shall
serve as chairman of the Commission;
(2) 1 member shall be appointed by the leader of the Senate
(majority or minority leader, as the case may be) of the
Democratic Party, in consultation with the leader of the House
of Representatives (majority or minority leader, as the

<[Page 116 STAT. 2409>]

case may be) of the Democratic Party, who shall serve as vice
chairman of the Commission;
(3) 2 members shall be appointed by the senior member of the
Senate leadership of the Democratic Party;
(4) 2 members shall be appointed by the senior member of the
leadership of the House of Representatives of the Republican
Party;
(5) 2 members shall be appointed by the senior member of the
Senate leadership of the Republican Party; and
(6) 2 members shall be appointed by the senior member of the
leadership of the House of Representatives of the Democratic
Party.

(b) Qualifications; Initial Meeting.--
(1) Political party affiliation.--Not more than 5 members of
the Commission shall be from the same political party.
(2) Nongovernmental appointees.--An individual appointed to
the Commission may not be an officer or employee of the Federal
Government or any State or local government.
(3) Other qualifications.--It is the sense of Congress that
individuals appointed to the Commission should be prominent
United States citizens, with national recognition and
significant depth of experience in such professions as
governmental service, law enforcement, the armed services, law,
public administration, intelligence gathering, commerce
(including aviation matters), and foreign affairs.
(4) Deadline for appointment.--All members of the Commission
shall be appointed on or before December 15, 2002.

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/about/107-306.htm


So, no, they were not "handpicked by Bush and Cheney". Stupid post.


Do you bother to fact-check any of the nonsense you post? Do you even know how to do so?

[Octafish]

10. So why did Max Cleland quit?

What part of "lack of cooperation" from the White House don't you understand?

The White House Has Played Cover-Up”–Former 9/11 Commission Member Max Cleland Blasts Bush

BTW: What's not to like about Bush picking Henry Kissinger to run the thing?

[SDuderstadt]

11. Dude...

wtf does that have to do with my post? Did I claim the Bush administration cooperated? Nice try at diversion.

[Octafish]

13. It's got everything to do with my post, the OP.

The fact is, when it comes to 9-11, we really don't know very much.
The reason for that is the Bush-Cheney team.

[SDuderstadt]

17. Then respond to your OP, dude...

not to me...

[Octafish]

21. Asinine.

On so many levels.

[SDuderstadt]

22. Well, it's your OP...

You're entitled to call it asinine, I suppose.

[Octafish]

23. Your response is most telling.

So, show me what I posted that is not true.

[SDuderstadt]

24. Well, I'm sure you would think so...

here's an idea...maybe you can crack the 9/11 case before the 10 year anniversary rolls around. That'll give you two more years. Similarly, perhaps you can crack the JFK case before the 50th anniversary rolls around. That'll give you 4 more years. I believe 50 years total to crack the case should be enough time, don't you?

[Octafish]

48. You still can't find errors in what I post, yet you continue to crap on them.

That's remarkable.

[SDuderstadt]

53. You may not have noticed I was responding to someone else....

that's even more remarkable.

[Twist_U_Up]

46. dude, you jumped in trying to clean up boffins shit.

[rollingrock]

12. Oh, right

the Bush adminstration only got to pick the two most critical positions,
Director and Chairman, through which everything the commission did had to be approved
and all the funds went through.

We the People? Haha. The Bush administration basically investigated itself.

[SDuderstadt]

19. Read post # 18...

Bush did not select Zelikow.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

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

[rollingrock]

14. Executive Director

its interesting how they omitted the Director position from that list. They explain how all the members were selected, but for some reason fail to mention the Director position. Gee, why is that? Why do they fail to mention the highest, most important position on the commission?

The Director of the 9/11 Commission was none other than Philip Zelikow. Zelikow was one of the principal authors of PNAC. Previously, Zelikow worked in the Bush I administration and was close to Condi Rice and the Bush family. In 2000-2001, Zelikow served on Bush II's transition team. In 2000, Zelikow was also appointed head of Bush's so-called Election Reform Committee and was instrumental in passing the 'Help America Vote Act,' which was responsible for the epidemic of electronic voting fraud problems throughout the country.

In 2002, Zelikow was appointed executive director of the 9/11 Commission, whose work included examination of the conduct of Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush and their administrations.

Conflict of interest much? What a sham.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_D._Zelikow

[KDLarsen]

16. The White House opposed Zelikow's appointment

Not that I'm going to let that interrupt your pet fantasies...

[rollingrock]

31. 'Opposed Zelikow's appointment'

sure they did. wow, and you believe that. Do you have a regular habit of taking the Bush administeration's word at face value? It must be true what they say. A sucker is born every minute!

The Wiki article states there was some opposition from the WH. Meaning certain members of the Bush administration, not Bush or Cheney, who advised against Zelikow's appointment because one of them was afraid it would give the Bush administration a blatant conflict of interest, which could be a PR problem. But the token objection didn't mean anything in the end, because Bush and Cheney approved the appointment anyway and Zelikow became the head of the 9/11 Commission.

Zelikow was just as terrible as their first choice, but he wasn't a known famous figure like Kissinger was and could fly under the radar escaping public scrutiny.

[SDuderstadt]

39. Fucking unbelievable...

With few exceptions, I've never seen anyone get so many material facts wrong. Besides your problem with conflation, you also seem to get continuously tripped up by nuance. It helps us to see clearly why you jump to some of the absurd and goofy conclusions that you do.

Bush did not initially try to appoint Kissinger as the Executive Director of the Commission, he tried to appoint him as Chairman of the Commission. How you can confuse the chairmanship of the commission with a staff position is mind-numbing. Now I see why you believe it was Bush who appointed Zelikow, however, as iI have pointed out correctly multiple times, Zelikow was appointed by Kean and Hamilton. Your mental sloppiness makes it near impossible for you to hold your own in actual debate, dude.

[lovepg]

51. Now with a post title like that you could get some REALLY good visuals going

Nuggg wink no what i mean heh?

[SDuderstadt]

18. Duh...

Why would you expect them to adress the selection of staff in the section dealing with the selection of the Commission? It's addressed in the section dealing with the selection of staff.

SEC. 1004. <<NOTE: 50 USC 401 note.>> STAFF OF COMMISSION.

(a) In General.--(1) The co-chairs of the Commission, in accordance
with rules agreed upon by the Commission, shall appoint and fix the
compensation of a staff director and such other personnel as may be
necessary to enable the Commission to carry out its duties, without
regard to the provisions of title 5, United States Code, governing
appointments in the competitive service, and without regard to the
provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of such title
relating to classification and General Schedule pay rates, except that
no rate of pay fixed under this subsection may exceed the equivalent of
that payable to a person occupying a position at level V of the
Executive Schedule under section 5316 of such title.

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/about/107-306.htm

It's also interesting that you would claim that:

Zelikow was one of the principal authors of PNAC

Did you even bother to read Zelikow's entry in Wikipedia (which you linked to as a source)? Did you notice that it's not mentioned at all there? The reason, of course, is that it's not true and you simply made it up.

Rebuilding America's Defenses
In September 2000, the PNAC published a controversial 90-page report entitled Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources For a New Century. The report, which lists as Project Chairmen Donald Kagan and Gary Schmitt and as Principal Author Thomas Donnelly, quotes from the PNAC's June 1997 "Statement of Principles" and proceeds "from the belief that America should seek to preserve and extend its position of global leadership by maintaining the preeminence of U.S. military forces."<13><14>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PNAC

If you'd bother to read the entry on PNAC, you'll notice something interesting: Zelikow is never mentioned, despite your rather stupid claim. Simple question. Do you know how to do basic research? Why should we believe any of your claims when you can't even get basic facts straight?

[rollingrock]

29. Yes, it does mention it

despite your ignorance to the contrary.


In 1998, Philip Zelikow published an article in Foreign Affairs, the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations, entitled CATASTROPHIC TERRORISM: Imagining the Transformative Event. Nearly two years later, PNAC picked up the CFR-Zelikow language, saying that the desired transformation "is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor..."

In the November-December 1998 issue of Foreign Affairs, he co-authored an article Catastrophic Terrorism, with Ashton B. Carter, and John M. Deutch, in which they speculated that if the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center had succeeded, "the resulting horror and chaos would have exceeded our ability to describe it. Such an act of catastrophic terrorism would be a watershed event in American history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented in peacetime and undermine America’s fundamental sense of security, as did the Soviet atomic bomb test in 1949. Like Pearl Harbor, the event would divide our past and future into a before and after. The United States might respond with draconian measures scaling back civil liberties, allowing wider surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects and use of deadly force. More violence could follow, either future terrorist attacks or U.S. counterattacks. Belatedly, Americans would judge their leaders negligent for not addressing terrorism more urgently." <11>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_D._Zelikow#cite_note-10

[SDuderstadt]

30. Dude...

PNAC ''borrowed'' from Zelikow. That doesn''t mean that Zelikow was one of the prinipal authors of PNAC's work nor was he ever a member. Duh.

[rollingrock]

34. They copied his language and ideas

almost word for word, with his blessing. For all intents and purposes, Zelikow was one of the principal contributors and authors of PNAC, one of its shadowy masterminds. And also the mastermind of the electronic voting scam.

[lovepg]

49. Very good SD in just eleven minutes response time you locate and type the preamble

To the 911 commission all double spaced perfectly indented.
When you get laid off from your job i will hire you as a typist.

[noise]

15. One could make the case that limitations of bureaucracy

also apply to the 9/11 Commission. Was it not subject to negative aspects of bureaucracy (i.e. CYA, classification restrictions, time restraints, political interference, etc.)?

The bureaucratic model of 9/11 breaks down when it pretends to explain everything that went wrong. Individuals in a bureaucracy have free will. They don't have to go along with the stated purpose of the bureaucracy (i.e. prevent a terrorist attack or fully investigate that attack).

ETA: Another example is health care reform. The stated purpose of the bureaucracy is to insure more people while reducing costs and improving efficiency. Yet in reality, the goal is to do whatever the health insurance industry wants. The naive assumption is that the stated purpose is the real purpose. Another example was the Iraq WMD case. The torture program is another example. Special interests influence the bureaucracy. Propaganda is used to convince the public that when this happens (stated goals are not achieved) it is not because the bureaucracy is corrupt but rather the because the bureaucracy is incompetent. Good faith motives are not to be questioned. The CIA needs reform. The analysis side needs overhaul. More human intel is needed. What a waste! Imagine how much time and energy could have been saved by simply admitting the bureaucracy had been corrupted. It isn't possible to determine the inefficiency of a bureaucracy until one determines whether the stated goals are truly the real goals.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

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

[Bolo Boffin]

42. Don't ever say that I am defending Bush and Cheney again, because I am not. n/t

[Rosa Luxemburg]

43. that's good

[eomer]

20. I believe you are mistaken.

Motive is not sufficient by itself but can be used together with other facts to form a case for guilt.

At least I believe that is the case. Feel free to prove your assertion, if you wish, that motive has no bearing whatsoever.

[Bolo Boffin]

25. Speculating about motive is only useful to open up your thinking about who did some act.

But it is not evidence of commission or deliberate omission. Even Agatha Christie should have taught you that.

[eomer]

27. Testimony and other evidence intended to demonstrate motive is often admissable at trial.

I believe that Google and I can prove that, if you need us to.

[Bolo Boffin]

28. In addition to other evidence proving actual commission of the crime

Solitary speculating about motive in the absence of any evidence of commission (or in the face of evidence that demonstrates someone else's guilt) is just a masturbatory exercise.

[eomer]

32. To clarify, evidence going to motive is *part* of the case demonstrating guilt.

Your first post was clearly intended to convince that motive was completely irrelevant ("worthless") to the question of guilt. That is definitely not true. Motive is admissible as one element of an overall case demonstrating guilt.

And regarding "solitary speculating", this topic is neither solitary nor speculating. It is obviously in the context of plenty of discussion in this forum about the other evidence (or lack thereof) and it is factually based.

[Bolo Boffin]

33. But it is not necessary to demonstrate motive to demonstrate guilt.

I do not have to know why you did something in order to know if you did something. These are two separate questions.

[eomer]

35. You almost had it right, and then you blew it again.

Agreed that it is not necessary to demonstrate motive to demonstrate guilt. It is neither necessary nor sufficient.

But to say that these are two separate questions is not correct. The prosecution in a trial is allowed to use motive as one element of an overall case demonstrating guilt. So it is not, as you claim, wholly separate from the question of guilt.

[Bolo Boffin]

36. If someone does something or not is indeed a separate question from why they do something.

When all you can demonstrate is motive for a crime, no prosecution on earth would go to trial.

[eomer]

37. No it's not an entirely separate question.

Never in this exchange have I claimed that demonstrating motive, by itself, is sufficient to demonstrate guilt. I don't know why you're arguing a point that we obviously agree on, unless it would be to obfuscate the other points.

Evidence of motive is admissible as part of an overall case demonstrating guilt. Clearly that makes it not an entirely separate question.

[Bolo Boffin]

38. Yes, it is. n/t

[Twist_U_Up]

45. Wow, talk about being uneducated on criminal law.

or is your ego getting in the way again?

[Ghost in the Machine]

2. Haliburton & BlackWater have done quite well...

Cheney, as we all know, has deep ties to Halliburton...

The Bush family has ties to BlackWater:

"Joseph Schmitz, COO & general counsel of the Prince Group, Blackwater's parent company, is married to one Lucila Garnica Gallo, Colomba Bush's sister (Jeb Bush's wife).

And Joseph Schmitz's sister is------>Mary Kay Letourneau.

and their father is ~~>> John G. Schmitz, was a two-term Republican congressman from California and a prominent member of the John Birch Society, an ultra-conservative group that flowered during the Cold War. He ran for president in 1972 as the candidate of the American Independent Party after its founder, George Wallace, was paralyzed by a would-be assassin.

John Schmitz’s political career ended with the revelation that he had a mistress who bore two of his children. He then moved to Washington, where he bought a house once owned by Sen. Joseph McCarthy."

Peace,

Ghost

[Octafish]

7. Intermarriage necessary to prevent all those negative traits of inbreeding.

Unfortunately, fascism isn't one of them.

Thank you for the heads-up on the BFEE's blood ties to gestapo Blackwater.

Together, they make one nasty Reconstructionist Dominionist crew.

[Echo In Light]

26. M.I.C. and its various corps, orgs and institutions (think tanks, PNAC)

Enemies, even fabricated ones, are undeniably profitable and advantageous to those sectors, and those beholden to them who likewise share overarching convergent aims and interests.

[Octafish]

56. Based on the paper trail, we can name names.

What Are Their Names?

I wonder who they are
The men who really run this land
And I wonder why they run it
With such a thoughtless hand

What are their names
And on what streets do they live
I'd like to ride right over
This afternoon and give
Them a piece of my mind
About peace for mankind

Peace is not an awful lot to ask

-- David Crosby, Neil Young, Jerry Garcia, Phil Lesh and Michael Shrieve

[jberryhill]

40. David Ray Griffin, Dylan Avery, Alex Jones.... /nt

[Octafish]

57. Amazing Randi...

...Phil Klass, James Oberg, Dr. Donald Menzel.

Oops! So sorry! Another timeline.

[jberryhill]

65. Randi? How?

You might as well claim Skinner is making money because he runs this forum.

[Realityhack]

67. +1 Someone fails at economics. n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

70. The OP is using this event to continue to prop up his conspiracy theories.

So there's a benefit for him, even.

[Octafish]

73. Bolo Boffin calls me a 'conspiracy theorist,' yet he can't find lies in what I post.

So it's, eh, funny he should write that.

Here's what I mean:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5891293#5903481

Bolo Boffin (or his prior "boloboffin") is yet to show where I've promoted a lie, and that includes my writings in regards to 9-11, going back to January 2002 when I first posted on DU as "Oblomov."

[Bolo Boffin]

75. "Not wasting my time" is different from "can't."

Thanks for that.

[Octafish]

76. ''The pen is mightier than the sword.''

And "The truth will out" are two others. Here's one more:

Don't fool yourself, boloboffin; even if only one, you'd find and report any lie or error in what I post.

[SDuderstadt]

77. "Truther Logic":...

"unless you refute my claims, they must be true".

[Octafish]

79. Right.

That's not what I wrote.

[SDuderstadt]

81. Dude...

you are constantly challenging people to prove you wrong. That's nothing more than a backhanded argument from ignorance.

[Octafish]

82. No. I've challenged you and Bolo Boffin.

That's not "constantly challenging people to prove you wrong."

You, OTOH, are constantly stating things I did not write and saying I did -- which seems like something somebody would do in an attempt to discredit what I wrote.

[SDuderstadt]

83. Point to any such thing I stated you said...

dude.


BTW...even if it were only Bolo and me, please point to how that does not fit the definition of "people". Is subtlety a stumbling block for you?

[Bolo Boffin]

78. That very discussion you link to shows a persistent factual inaccuracy you always push.

And it's very nice to see that you hold me to a standard you refuse to hold yourself to.

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

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

[Bolo Boffin]

84. Quit making factually inaccurate statements about my stalking you. You're breaking the rules.

And the persistent factual inaccuracy you keep repeating is at the link you have provided. People can read, Octafish. It does take chutzpah on your part to link to a discussion of one of your persistent factual inaccuracies and ask me to provide an example of one you keep telling.

[sspeilbergfan90]

44. Bush

[Octafish]

58. His name sprang immediately to my mind, also.

Know your BFEE: Bush Lied America into War

PS: A hearty welcome to DU, sspeilbergfan90!

[Twist_U_Up]

47. Sure as hell wasnt bin laden

Ill say that the US Government did.
Its about world domination stupid.
total control.

[Octafish]

60. At least two important people who mentioned bin Laden ended up dead before 9-11.

Mark Lombardi



James Hatfield

[Twist_U_Up]

85. and one in Nov 01

Bill Cooper

[Realityhack]

52. Who cares?

It isn't about who benefited. It is about who is responsible. They are distinct issues.

Let me try to explain what I mean by way of analogy. You have probably watched a police drama or two like most people so let's say that the officers find a woman's dead body. In her own house violently murdered.
Now the do some poking around and find out that this woman's husband and her were having trouble. And the husband now stands to collect their shared assets plus a sizable life insurance policy. Nothing too special there. Lots of couples are in that position. But man is it looking bad for that husband.
But our cops aren't quite done yet. They do some more poking around and they find out that the woman's death is actually the result of a serial killer.
Of course we could blame the husband for not having a better lock on the door or something.
And we could get all pissed off that he takes the insurance money.

But that has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with guilt. The husband is NOT GUILTY of the murder.

So I ask again. Who the fuck cares who benefited the most from 9-11?

[noise]

54. There are indications

that the guard was let down by US intelligence. That isn't incompetence. That is some sort of complicity.

This is a big deal for many reasons. One being that we were told after 9/11 that the government needed the crutch of police state powers to prevent more attacks.

[Realityhack]

64. Predictably you have missed the point. n/t

[noise]

68. My reply went directly to your analogy

I agree that one can't assume that X played a role simply because X benefits .

X=US intel, White House, MIC

Y=al Qaeda

If X stands down then Y's chance of success is greatly increased. In fact one could make the case that Y could only succeed with the deliberate stand down of X.

Do you think I am wrong? Did X's conduct have no role in the success of Y's attack? The obstructed investigations played no role? The bizarre non action by the White House played no role in Y's success?

[Flatulo]

55. Chicken wire manufacturers. nt

[Octafish]

61. Halliburton got the contract.

No bid.

[Realityhack]

66. LOL n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

59. Are you under the illusion that the person or people who benefitted MOST from 9/11

are the most likely suspects?

[Octafish]

62. Only if you say so.

Seeing how you like to control the conversation, who do you think benefitted most from 9-11?

Edit: Seeing see.

[Bolo Boffin]

63. So you refuse to answer the question? Simple one, isn't it?

I might actually agree with you that the MIC gained the most from 9/11.

What makes you think that makes them more likely to be guilty to have committed it? If that is indeed what you think, although I can't understand why you focus so much on motive except to insinuate such a thing.

[jberryhill]

71. My doctor keeps making me sick...

I finally figured it out... Every time I have a dental problem, my dentist makes money.

[Octafish]

74. ''Not wasting my time'' is different than ''refuse.''

Thanks for your interest.

[backwoodsbob]

69. who benefited the most?

the people selling inside job videos would be my guess :shrug:

[Octafish]

72. War is 'golden,' probably more so for the 'Big-Ticket ' merchant class...

From the first anniversary:

How Warmongers Exploit 9/11

by Norm Dixon
CounterPunch
September 11, 2002

In the week before the first anniversary of the devastating September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, TV networks aired a seemingly never-ending string of ``special events'' featuring ``exclusive'' or ``never before seen'' footage of the collapse of the twin towers of the World Trade Center (WTC) and its aftermath. People around the world again experienced the horror, anger and tragedy of that terrible day, when almost 3000 working people were murdered.

Culminating on the anniversary of the day itself, thousands of journalists and TV presenters from across the globe will converge at ``ground zero'' in New York for ``remembrance and reflection''. Solemn ceremonies will be telecast and patriotic speeches by top US politicians broadcast, restating Washington's determination to pursue its ``war on terrorism''.

But by the end of the 9/11 anniversary hoopla, after the thousands of hours of TV time and the column-kilometres published in the world's newspapers and magazines, you can be sure that the most glaring aspect of the post-9/11 period will have remained unmentionable by all but the most honest commentators: that Washington's ``war on terrorism'' is a cynical fraud.

The most repeated 9/11 media cliche is that on that day ``the world changed''. However, few commentators have bothered to explain how.

September 11 did mark a change in the US and world politics -- just how permanent remains to be seen. On that day, the US rulers realised that those awful acts of terrorism provided them with a golden opportunity to achieve the US capitalist ruling class' long-held objective of world domination -- the ``American century'' it predicted was at hand at the end of World War II.

CONTINUED...

http://www.counterpunch.org/dixon0911.html

The Bush Doctrine was still is really something.