Whether planned or not, 9-11 was a Godsend for the right

[RBHam]

The Threat of Global Terrorism
by Edward S. Herman and David Peterson
Z Magazine, February 2002
Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG), globalresearch.ca,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/HER202Ap.html

The 9/11 bombing was a windfall for the Bush administration and military-industrial complex, so much to their advantage that theories have been circulating suggesting that the U.S. leadership engineered, or at least failed to interfere with, the bombings. We don't accept the purported evidence for this, but we do believe that after the initial shock at their failure to protect U.S. citizens from attack, the leadership realized that this was what they had been waiting for as a substitute for the Soviet Threat to justify a new projection of U.S. power. In fact, the "war against terrorism" may prove to be more serviceable as a tool for managing the public than the Soviet Threat, given its open-ended and nebulous character.

The Soviet Threat gave the United States a Cold War propaganda cover to justify its support of numerous military dictators and other goons of convenience who would serve U.S. economic and political interests. Thus, in the name of fighting both Soviet "expansionism" and "terrorism" the United States supported terrorist states that engaged in really serious terrorism, combatting a lesser (retail) terrorism that was frequently a response to that state terrorism. One document produced by the Catholic Church in Latin America in 1977, made the telling observation that the military regimes needed to employ terror because the ruthless economic policies that they encouraged, their "development model," which featured helping foreign transnationals by giving them a "favorable climate of investment" (i.e., crushing labor unions), "creates a revolution that did not previously exist." It is hardly a coincidence that "liberation theology," with its "theology from the underside of history" and its "preferential option for the poor" (Gustavo Gutierrez), was born out of the turmoil and victimization of this era of U.S.-sponsored counterrevolutionary violence.

In the earlier period the United States got away with claims that it was opposed to and was fighting terrorism, while it was actually supporting "infinitely worse" terrorisms. The mainstream media allowed the government to define terrorism and name the terrorists; so, for example, the New York Times regularly referred to the retail terrorism in Argentina as "terrorism," but never called the infinitely worse state terrorism in that country by its right name. And the Times--and the rest of the mainstream media-- rarely discussed the ugly details of Argentinian state terrorism, never related it to any development model, and failed to express indignation over it. And of course they never referred to the Nicaraguan contras or Savimbi's UNITA as terrorists, or the United States as a sponsor of terrorism for giving them support.

[cowpie]

1. Oh come on.

This conspiracy theory garbage has got to go. If this is all we've got we are in trouble in 2004 and beyond. Democrats used to be about issues. Our leading presidential candidate is out on the trail spouting the same tripe. Is there any question about why we are in trouble?

[leftofthedial]

2. 9-11 was a conspiracy

dead nuts, 100%, indisputably a conspiracy.

the question is, WHICH conspiracy do you believe to be most likely?

So far, we don't "know" anything. In the absence of a real investigation, all theories and analyses have equal weight.

Unless of course, you have some actual evidence to share . . .

[cowpie]

3. Actual evidence?!?!?!?

Give me a break. Anyone with logic and common sense at hand rather than an obscene hatred of anyone who disagrees with them would realize that the 9/11 tragedy is NOT POLITICAL FODDER. Do you really think we are going to regain power with this garbage? We are suppossed to be the party of enlightenment and compassion, not cynicism and hatred.

[plaguepuppy]

4. NOT POLITICAL FODDER????

"Do you really think we are going to regain power with this garbage? "

Please don't feel quite so free to use "we" on my behalf.

And don't delude yourself that "the 9/11 tragedy" has been used as anything but political fodder by the evil Bushies (who I believe it is quite reasonable to hate, even obscenely). It was used with breathtaking cynicism and precise orchestration to advance a political agenda of state control and aggressive foreign wars that stood ready to implement in the event of an event exactly like 9/11. Remember that the orders for the Afghan war just happened to be sitting on George's desk that week, a war long in the planning.
9/11 was the pivot, the mass trauma needed to break the public will, to convert indifference and normal caution to blood lust.


Who benefits? What do they stand to gain? And would such an elaborate plan be woven only to leave the pivotal event to chance?


"We are suppossed to be the party of enlightenment and compassion"
Isn't that the linguistic equivalent of "bend over"?

[number6]

7. "Please don't feel quite so free to use "we" on my behalf."

that goes for me too .. who's "we" cowpie, got a mouse in
your pocket ...

[DulceDecorum]

5. Cowpie,

how did you come up with that Monica?
The entire 9:11 scenario was political fodder.

Bush Fundraises for GOP by Selling September 11th Photos of Him on Air Force One Running Away from D.C.
Hard to Believe Anyone Could be So Cynical
http://www.buzzflash.com/alerts/2002/05/14_911_Pics.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The White House approves of the Republican congressional campaign committee's plan to use a photograph of President Bush taken on September 11 as part of a GOP fundraising effort, a move Democrats call "nothing short of grotesque."
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/05/14/wh.fundraising.flap/

"There should be limits to freedom," said the same George W Bush
http://www.rtmark.com/bush.html
who later claimed that 9:11 had taken place because "they hate our freedoms.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4433.htm

The USA Patriot Act is an insult to Americans. The name, itself, is insulting, given what the Act contains and what it will someday be known for: its complete abdication of democratic law and principles. It should be called the Constitution Shredding Act.
<snip>
What is more frightening about it is that, despite the fact that the USA Patriot Act was passed hastily without any debate or hearings and under a cloak of fear, its provisions were obviously very carefully thought out and crafted to take power out of the hands of courts and ensure absolute lack of oversight of law enforcement and intelligence gathering.
There is no way that the USA Patriot Act came into existence solely in response to September 11th. In fact, it is clear from prior legislative and case history that law enforcement and intelligence have been trying for many years to obtain these powers. It is only the unreasoning "bunker mentality" that followed September 11th that allowed its planners to pass it.
Indeed, one might question whether Congress could sincerely have intended this Act, given that portions of it are re-enactments of the 1996 anti-terrorism laws which had been repeatedly ruled unconstitutional by federal courts. One must wonder whether congress- persons were in their right minds. If they were not, this law cannot be valid.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/04.02A.JVB.Patriot.htm

And HOW,
Cowpie,
did it come to be,
that the ABOLITION of the Constitution of the United States
by the Republican Party
is NOT an political act?

You speak of "regaining power."
Have you hear of Diebold?

COLUMBUS - The head of a company vying to sell voting machines in Ohio told Republicans in a recent fund-raising letter that he is "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0828-08.htm

You remember the 200 elections?

"DELAND, Fla., Nov. 11 - Something very strange happened on election night to Deborah Tannenbaum, a Democratic Party official in Volusia County. At 10 p.m., she called the county elections department and learned that Al Gore was leading George W. Bush 83,000 votes to 62,000. But when she checked the county's Web site for an update half an hour later, she found a startling development: Gore's count had dropped by 16,000 votes, while an obscure Socialist candidate had picked up 10,000--all because of a single precinct with only 600 voters."
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0310/S00211.htm

Cowpie, take a little time out to educate yourself over at
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/
And then come back and explain to us how come this
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/WO0311/S00224.htm
and this
http://www.fair.org/activism/abc-candidates.html
are NOT political.

The fact of the matter is that is that Dennis Kucinich has opposed the powers that be and he is being given the Cynthia Mckinney treatment.
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16172
And THAT is political.

Incidentally, it is the CONSERVATIVES who claim to be party of compassion and they most certainly live up to it.

The subject arose at last week's meeting between the Washington bureau chiefs and Pentagon officials, including Di Rita. According to several participants, Di Rita responded by noting that many US troops now in Iraq are teenagers with little experience in dealing with the media.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/11/13/media_protest_treatment_in_iraq/
Another soldier who recently left Fort Stewart described the conditions to CNN as "substandard." Another, a sergeant who said she was afraid to give her name, complained to CNN of a general fear among sick Fort Stewart soldiers to speak to the media.
"Here we all were overseas, ready to get ourselves killed in order to bring democracy to these countries, and we get home and we don't even have freedom of speech anymore," she said. She said she has been on medical hold since May after she became ill while serving in Kuwait.
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/10/19/sick.reservists/

We, the people
have a problem that is probably NOT going to be eased by the coming elections.
Anyone with logic and common sense at hand can see that
we the people
are not the ones in power.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2765041.stm

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[number6]

8. he, sure did

"Yes, Bush used the tragedy to further a political aim"

"That being said, if you think Bush and company would choose to have a 9/11 happen for their own political profit" ("you are one sick individual.") call me sick, I think its a possibility

"The way to beat him is in the realm of ideas. We have to get our ideas out there and let the American people know why our ideas are better than theirs." that I agree with

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[leftofthedial]

33. within an hour of the towers coming down

Rummy told his staff to find a way to link the attacks with Iraq.

Not political fodder?

[leftofthedial]

32. if you believe the Bush Junta's cover story, then you believe

in a conspiracy.

If "al-Qaeda" did it, it was a conspiracy.

If rogue "terrorists" did it, it was a conspiracy.

If the Bush GOPNAC Cabal LIHOP, it was a conspiracy.

If the Bush GOPNAC Cabal MIHOP, it was a conspiracy.

No matter who you believe did it or how you believe they did it, it was a conspiracy.

Get it?

It was a frigging conspiracy. Period. No question.

The only issue is which conspiracy you choose to believe in.

[Abe Linkman]

10. '9/11' Anomalies & tons of material (including recent new info)

http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/analysis/anomolies.html

One new piece of information concerns those downed light poles and how they relate to the "ONE engine "aircraft" in the Pentagon" theory.

[LARED]

11. I wonder why Web sites like the one you linked

never have any names associated with the tripe they post. I guess someone might actually call them on the nonsense.

BTW, I looked up the domain owner and it turned out to be that knuckle head Jim Hoffman. Big surprise. Not.

[Abe Linkman]

12. Lared couldn't refute it. The PR crowd is reduced to calling it "tripe".

Lared,

Since you don't use your real name here, I guess that means someone might actually call the tripe you post nothing more than nonsense.

Big surprise. Not.

[LARED]

14. Really?

Lets see. DU is a BB where most folks use a moniker. The link you posted claims to be an investigation.

Why would a serious investigation be unanimous? Because it's not serious.

[demodewd]

13. Each page

....on that site has numerous links and references. Maybe you should take time to thoroughly analize the site in its entirety. You might be surprised. Why do you bother with sceptics? You obviously have your take on the events thoroughly cemented in your mind.

[LARED]

15. I read the main page

It's speculative BS based on wishful ignorance. Why would the links be better?

[Abe Linkman]

16. What are you calling "speculative BS based on wishful ignorance"?

And what exactly is "wishful ignorance"?

Never mind about that. Just state clearly what you are labeling as "speculative BS based on wishful ignorance". And tell us why YOUR posts here shouldn't be taken as nothing more than "speculative BS".

Are you a forensic scientist or a forensic engineer (with formal credentials), or do you claim to be a 9-11 investigator? PR firm employee? What?

Tell us why we should take YOU seriously. It seems like your main contribution is to attack the messenger, or the source of the message; so you'll forgive me for wondering why you keep doing that. If you claim to be some kind of authority on 9/11, I'd like to know about it.
Others probably would, too. I'm certainly not interested in wasting my time on "tripe"; but what I read (on that site) makes a lot of sense. It was informative, challenging, and well-reasoned.

If you can rebut it; I'd be interested in what you have to say.

[demodewd]

18. Abe

Have you logged on to http://www.serendipity.li/wot/aa11.htm ? And noticed the difference in coloration of two blasts(WTC1 and WTC2)?

[Abe Linkman]

19. demodewd: Yes, I've been to that site & have read the contents

I don't know what to make of the difference in coloration of the two blasts. The theories put forth there make sense to me.

btw- I'm open to being convinced that there were passengers on the WTC planes when they hit the towers; but as of now, I don't think so.

[demodewd]

20. compare

[Abe Linkman]

22. The one on the left looks like a jet fuel fire. (prior to implosion)

I'n not knowledgeable enough to give an informed opinion about the one on the right. I believe the most common explanations are:

* Missile hit
* Implosion (from planted devices inside the building?)

You tell me. What do you think?

[demodewd]

23. Me thinks

A jet fuel explosion vs an explosion set off by bombs/missiles.To quote Leonard Spencer "The first crash (which we were most definitely not meant to see) brought the media to the WTC and ensured plenty of cameras were trained on the towers in time for the next crash around 15 minutes later. So we all see the second crash in all its glory, from every conceivable angle. Spectacular isn't it? And of course even more cameras were around by the time the towers magnificently and apocalyptically collapsed an hour or so later. I believe that the cinematic brilliance of these shots was a major objective of the overall operation. It was a carefully planned media spectacle. Remember how we were practically force-fed these images for two whole days, so everyone saw them hundreds of times? This is invaluable propaganda and brainwashing." What's with the flash upon point of entryof the South Tower?

[Abe Linkman]

24. "What's with the flash upon point of entryof the South Tower?"

missile? ignition? Jerry Falwell?

[Abe Linkman]

25. The media certainly did its part....as propagandists.

It seems like the "popular" (corporate) so-called liberal media almost knew in advance which row to hoe. Only the "unpopular", independent
media has taken its historical role seriously.

No, I'm not surprised. You?

[plaguepuppy]

26. What's that flash?

Good question - I've seen it in several clips of the second crash, and it doesn't look like an artifact. It's a bright yellow circle about the size of the fuselage, and happens almost exactly as the nose touches the wall. Very bright, very well-defined, very unexplained.

And just to stir the pot - dusty trails:

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/dust%20trails/

[Abe Linkman]

21. Early adaptors (to the O.S.) v. "Doubters" - members of each group

Generally speaking, it seems like the more well-informed someone is (about 9-11 facts, questions, anomalies, similar events in history etc), the less likely they are to "buy" the Official Story Conspiracy Theory.

I'm excluding the well-informed people whose very job is to cast doubt on the doubters, promote the O.S.C.T., and try to bring "closure" to the whole thing in hopes of tamping down further interest in finding out what really happened and who is behind the events.

[LARED]

28. Here's what I have to say

Building 7 experienced total collapse, allegedly because of fires, when no steel frame building before or since has ever collapsed, totally or even partially, due to fires.

That is BS. Dozens of smaller steel frame building have experience fire induced collapse. The ‘official’ line is that no buildings similar in size has ever collapsed in this manner.

Building 7 was an over-engineered 47-story steel frame skyscraper, standing over 350 feet from the nearest of the Twin Towers.

Over-engineered? Says who?

Only small fires burned in it on September 11th.

Another myth. The building was on fire for something around seven hours.

Building 7 collapsed in a nearly perfectly vertical fall, leaving the buildings only 60 feet on either side virtually unscathed.

Add why is this an anomaly?

Building 7 collapsed into a remarkably small rubble pile of mostly pulverized remains, when no steel building falling for any reason has ever pulverized itself.

That is the first I’ve heard that WTC 7 pulverized itself. I wonder if Mr. Hoffman thought about the basement. Just perhaps a significant portion of the structure wound up down there.

Building 7 contained a 23 million dollar emergency command center, but instead of using it for it's ostensible purpose, then-Mayor Giuliani evacuated his team to a makeshift command center as soon as the September 11th attack started.

More BS. He changed locations shortly before the first tower collapsed. Sound to me like it was a sensible move given the proximity to WTC 1 & 2.

The emergency command center was pulverized along with the rest of the building, even though it was constructed as a bomb-hardened shelter.

More of the pulverized myth. Also I’d like to see some evidence it was bomb hardened. And as a side note even if it was, is it somehow supposed to stand up to fifty floors falling on it?

The Twin Towers exploded into dust and shattered steel, a behavior inconsistent with the known behavior of steel structures outside of explosive demolition.

Exploded into dust? What the hell does that mean?

The South Tower was struck 17 minutes after the North North Tower, and in a less damaging manner, and it had less severe fires, yet it collapsed 29 minutes before the north tower.

Gee whiz Gomer, perhaps the fact that each tower was stuck differently at different elevations had something to do with that.

The South Tower's core structure was largely undamaged by the off-centered jet impact, unlike the North Tower, yet it collapsed sooner.

Undamaged. How does Hoffman know that? Perhaps less damaged than the north tower.

The South Tower had much less severe fires than the North Tower, and yet collapsed sooner.

Much less severe? How does he know that? And again let me say so what. Both building were damaged differently.

Smoke from the fires in the South Tower became progressively darker up to the time it collapsed.

Well, that all the proof I need.

Firefighters reached the crash zone of the South Tower and calmly described controllable fires.

I’ve read much of the firefighter’s reports and I don’t think “controllable” was a word being tossed around. Lets not forget that by the time the firefighter got to the impact zone the fires what spread considerably.

Both towers started to crumble at regions well above the crash zones in the first seconds of their falls.

That would be expected.

Both towers fell straight down, through themselves, following the path of maximum resistance, a behavior never before observed in spontaneous collapses of any type of vertical structure.

Gravity is a bitch.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

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

[LARED]

36. DD

What molten steel? Molten at room tempertures????????????

Take a break I think the wheels are coming off your wagon.

Also, please stop making up stuff that I said.

[LARED]

29. Wishful ignorance

Seeking advancement of a lack of knowledge or education.

Is really a accurate definition.

Few that buys into the implosion, explosion, controlled demolition, truck bomb, missiles, on and on theories tries to become knowledgeable in the science that refutes just about every CT proposed.

In fact, most go out of their way to pretend it doesn't exist.

[demodewd]

17. I

can't do your homework for you. Click on to http://www.serendipity.li/wot/aa11.htm and tell me why there is such a difference in the coloration of the blasts of WTC1 and WTC2.

[cowpie]

27. I'll take that one without even having to look it up

They looked differenty because *gasp* they were different. Yup, two completely different explosions in two different buildings shot from different angles and having top penetrate two different thicknesses before exploding outward. You don't need a giant conspiracy and black helicopters flying from your ass to see that. It really is quite simple unless you are driven by cynical hatred. Crackpot ideas like this are the reason our boy Dean will get his clock cleaned this fall. Unless by some miracle Joseph Lieberman gets the nomination.

[Robbien]

30. Hi new poster and your hater postings

This is the second time this morning you called Bush non-supporters, haters. I see you got the memo.

[cowpie]

31. yes

You caught me, I am actually Connie Rice here to spy on all of you liberal whackos and make sure you aren't saying bad stuff about my boss. Of course thsi forum will have to shut down because disagreeing with my boss is unpatriotic and treasonous. :eyes:

[DulceDecorum]

34. Seriously,

Cowpie,
have you considered contributing to the Hate Mail Bag?
Your last comment, calling us "sick puppies" is a perennial crowd pleaser over there.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/mail/hatemail_2.html

On edit:
The Republicans are NAZIs
and their leader got beaten up by a pretzel
and their cows (like Katherine Harris) are all mad
and they had to hire Dinesh DeSouza
becuase they can even produce high grade S***.
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_789264.html

To Whom It May Concern,
You people are a poor excuse for democrats. I register and two hours later you ban me from the forum. Obviously, you are not interested in democracy, and you have the audacity to call the republicans Nazis. You ought to be ashamed of yourselves for deliberately censoring anything that does not jibe with your mantra. I've been a lifelong democrat but your kind make me want to puke!
Ashamed to be a democrat,
Gildildo

DU RESPONDS: Dear Mr. Dildo, I would like to formally apologize on behalf of the DU staff for making such an egregious error. You are clearly not a troublemaker, and we're desperately, desperately sorry that we banned you. Without you our website could eventually just dwindle away to nothingness! Can you forgive us? Please? Please? Please? (That's enough pretend groveling — Ed)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/mail/hatemail_14.html