Summary of the Case Against Dick Cheney for Running 9/11

[spooked911]

Here:
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/011805_simplify_case.shtml

Interesting set of facts there (and yet ANOTHER 9/11 wargame: Northern Denial!).

Anyone convinced Cheney was the 9/11 maestro?

[The Magistrate]

1. An Amusing Screed, Mr. Spooked

If it actually contained any evidence, it might be of some use in supporting your views. But as it has no evidence whatever of any actions taken to assist the attackers, it is mere heavy-breathing in the finest X-Files style....

"Shit happens. Get used to it."

[Bolo Boffin]

2. My favorite line of the article?

Review the documentation for yourself - purchase Crossing the Rubicon here.

"You'll pay to know what you really think."

[The Magistrate]

3. You Are A Man Of True Erudition, Mr. Boffin

"If you can't tell shit from shinola, don't order tuna fish in a French restaurant!"

[Blackthorn]

4. .....

a) Do you expect him to give away his book?
b) There are two kinds of evdience. Hard evidence and circumstansial evidence. Just Because he doesn't produce a document signed by Cheney saying "I did it", does not mean there is no evidence to support his case.

For example;

Hypothesis; Dick Cheney was the acting Commander in Chief on 9/11.

Evidence: The "real" Commander in Chief spent 15 minutes reading and photo-opping *after* being informed of the attacks. At the same time Cheney was at the WH with Richard Clarke et al coordinating the response.

Conclusive? Indeed no, but evidence to support his hypothesis nonetheless. Perhaps he expands further in the book?

[The Magistrate]

5. There Is No Evidence, Sir, For The Claim

The claim is that this reptile Cheney knew in detail of the impending attack, and in his position that morning took steps in directing the activities of U.S. security forces that were intended to enable the attack to succeed in its object, and that did in fact secure such success for the attack. These are not things that circumstantial evidence can possibly prove; to prove a thing like this, there must be positive testimony to the performance of particular acts, and to the existance of particulat items of knowledge, and their possession by this particular person at that time, at the minimum. The mere fact someone was in charge when an attack succeeded was enough for Stalin to shoot a general, perhaps, but it is woefully short of even what would be required for a grand jury to indict, let alone for a judge to rule there had been sufficient evidence presented that a trial jury should deliberate, instead of directing an acquittal from the bench.

For all the worth it has, Sir, this book might as well be given away, for anyone purchasing it has simply fallen for a grifter, as sure as anyone suckered by a pigeon drop. It would be better for all concerned if this fellow took up honest work in a warehouse or a fast-food join to earn his keep, though his reluctance to do so is understandable, given the vast reservoirs of credulity there for the mulcting....

"An honest day's pay for an honest day's work."

[Blackthorn]

6. ...

So for a lack of hard evidence, we ignore a mountain of circumstansial evidence? We're not putting this case forward in court nor do we have to prove this beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury. Consider this more as a theory, rather than a proof. Perhaps his use of the words "prove" and "proof" are the problem here. I think we were coming at this from a different perspective. I see these kind of books as discrediting the official story, rather than proving an alternate one. And not for a second did I expect to see hard evidence implicating Cheney in the attacks, merely a recount of evidence that supports such a hypothesis.

[spooked911]

7. Exactly-- I don't believe any one said this is proof of anything.

But it is mighty suspicious.

[DulceDecorum]

8. More smoke

http://www.kathryncramer.com/wblog/archives/000465.html

There is a thread here in the 911 forum entitled :
The Dogs of War.
It has more on this story.

[RedSock]

9. two questions

I have not dived too deep into the war games issue (how many games were actualy being run anyway?) but I have two questions:

(1) How often are these war games run by each agency that was running them on 9/11? Every month, once a year ...? (We know NORAD runs its exercise twice a year.) That would go a long way in determining how amazing a coincidence we have here.

(2) I know there is a lot of evidence that cuts holes in this question -- but stay with me -- is this possible that September 11 was the date set for these games and a spy somewhere in the military who also had connections to the terrorists leaked the date of these exercises to increase their chance of success?

[spooked911]

10. There were at least six NORAD exercises on 9/11

including the live-fly hijacking exercise Vigilant Warrior. It is not know how often NORAD runs these, but I would guess they would not do live-fly exercises very often.

As far as your second point, yes-- some people have said this. The company Ptech supposedly has terrorist ties and might have had info on the wargames.

Any way you slice it though, there is a cover-up.

[pberq]

11. Evidence supports a coverup at minimum

Magistrate,

I had my local library order "Rubicon", so it didn't cost me to check it out.

There are close to 1,000 endnotes in this book from sources such as the Washington Post, NY Times, U.S. Government documents, etc.

Without looking at Ruppert's conclusions, this evidence alone shows that, at the very least, there has been a massive cover-up of what happened on 9/11.

We could start with the lack of investigation into the insider trading that happened just before the attacks.

Another one is the entire question of why the jets were not intercepted. All the available records about this aspect and the timing of the wargames have never been explained by official sources in any meaningful way.

What about the meeting on the morning of 9/11 between Porter Goss, Bob Graham, and the head of the ISI, Mahmoud Ahmad? Now that we know Ahmad was responsible for sending $100,000 to Mohammed Atta, don't you think we should have an explanation?

The unexplained and extensive wargames supports the theory that Cheney was in charge on 9/11, because he had been given oversight control of combined military exercises earlier in 2001. Since there were several different government and military departments involved in the wargames that day, someone had to be coordinating them all.

The above is just a small sample of the unexplained and suspicious events surrounding 9/11. The amazing thing to me is that people are willing to blindly accept the official story.