Someone tell those 9/11 truthers on the C-Span camera to get lost

[Greeby]

This is a rally against the war, period. No other issue should come into it. What do they think this is? An ANSWER rally? :sarcasm:

[EVDebs]

1. The Jersey Girls aren't going to go away. Sorry. n/t

[Peace Patriot]

2. Protests by the people are not events orchestrated to confirm ruling

establishment "memes" nor to serve the agenda of established political parties. If they are genuine, they are free speech events, at which the public, at long last, gets to say its piece, whatever it is. They are not lockstep events, such as the Democratic Party puts on at Convention time. They are SINCERE events, at which alternative views are permitted, for all to see/hear and consider. Personally, I have great faith in democracy. When there is no suppression, the best, most reasonable ideas prevail, and the best representatives of the people are elected, to act in the interests of the people. When you have controlled news, and political establishments placing an "Iron Curtain" over certain ideas--such as election fraud, or insider collusion on 9/11--democracy cannot function, and the best ideas and candidates cannot emerge. There was a time when the Democratic Party establishment supported the Iraq War. Many major Democratic Senators voted for it. The presidential candidacies of those opposed to it were marginalized and sabotaged. The notion that the war was wrong--which, in fact, was held by the majority of Americans (way back in Feb. '03!)--SEEMED like a "cry in the wilderness." It seemed like an odd notion to the war profiteering corporate news monopolies. If someone had managed to get a "Stop the War" sign into the Democratic Convention in '04, and had held it up behind Kerry's head as he saluted and said "Reporting for duty," there are quite a number of Democratic Party leaders who would have descried it, and acted to remove the sign. Their "meme" was "a more efficient war," not "stop the war." "Stop the war" is now popular. And "9/11 was an inside job" is not popular (with the establishment). So you support one, and dis the other--I can only presume for political reasons. You want this expression of the people--the war protest--to serve the interests of the Democratic Party establishment.

I can understand this, but I don't agree with it. Some of the best ideas in human history have come from left field. Why suppress them? Why be afraid of them? Why not let the people sort it out? Why not TRUST the people to sort it out?

This fear that the fascists will "use things against us"--will use free political expression that may not be popular--to marginalize what IS popular, needs to be abandoned. The people of this country are obviously resisting that tactic, and all the fascist propaganda tactics, and have been for some time. (56% opposed to the Iraq War, way back in Feb. '03!) So let free speech be...free! Let all views be heard! Don't "manage" the peoples' protest. For all you know, or I know, "9/11 was an inside job" may be right, and the core truth of all our difficulty. Until it is properly investigated--with people like Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld under oath--we really don't know, do we?

[Junkdrawer]

4. Another great Peace Patriot post...

Someone else point out this post which I think is on the money:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=22859&mesg_id=24775

:thumbsup:

[JackRiddler]

20. Excellent! Thank you.

n/t

[Junkdrawer]

3. If "The Secret Goverment" had a hand in 9/11, they'll do it again...

9/11 - Take II would reverse all the gains of the anti-war movement and set this country firmly on a path to war with Iran and possibly WW III.

[JackRiddler]

5. This is the 9/11 war

Invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq & ramp up to Iran all politically infeasible without 9/11, the explicitly used justification.

The most outrageous conspiracy theory was the one pushed by Cheney and his crew: that Iraq was involved in 9/11.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

7. Exactly!!!! eom

[3121guitarist]

6. Just tell them Noam Chomsky says...

That there is no credible evidence to support that Bush planned 9/11.

[WilliamPitt]

8. As does Dennis Kucinich.

*gasp*

[JackRiddler]

12. Funny

Will Pitt used to write otherwise.

[WilliamPitt]

13. About Kucinich and 9/11? Find it for me.

I watched him with my own eyes several times refuse to even consider the inside job thing when asked publicly.

So find that for me, please. Back up your statement. I wrote that where? When? Link?

I'm here all day.

[JackRiddler]

14. No not about Kucinich and 9/11 - please!

I already know about Dennis. Hell, I once made him accept a copy of Griffin's "Pearl Harbor" book (sadly I didn't have Ruppert's or Nafeez Ahmed's in hand) and talk about 9/11 in front of 700 people. DK said the issue merited more investigation, and unless I missed something, that has not happened in the interim.

Please check out my report to see if you feel I have misrepresented your former employer:
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20040801154805188

No, I mean you, WRP, on the subject of Bush (in the meta sense of "the administration") and 9/11.

In the past you wrote analyses that suggest or at least allow for the possibility of foreknowledge on the part of administration - and therefore the possibility that the administration willfully allowed the attacks. (I suspect you will agree that if you are running the government and charged with the nation's security, then intentionally allowing a crime and subsequently exploiting it for political gain is in every way morally equivalent to committing the crime yourself. What was that called? Treason.)

Examples:

The Terrorists Flew and Bush Knew
By William Rivers Pitt

t r u t h o u t | 16 May, 2002

When Andrew Card interrupted the 298th reading of 'The Very Hungry Caterpillar' (sic) by whispering words of fire and death into the ear of George W. Bush as he sat with schoolchildren on September 11th, 2001, Mr. Bush's face betrayed not a hint of surprise and shock.

Now, we know why....

(http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/05.17A.WRP.Bush.NU.p.htm - it's a pretty good one, I find, even if it was 'The Pet Goat'...)

------------

Five Questions
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | May 8, 2002

1. What is the true nature of the Saudi Arabian connection to 9/11, and why has this connection not been a priority for Bush's State Department? (...)

2. Why has the Bush administration not been the loudest, most strident advocate for a far-reaching investigation into 9/11?

On the eve of Bush's State of the Union address, it was reported that he and Cheney issued a request to Senate Majority Leader Daschle that many interpreted as a veiled threat. Soft-pedal the 9/11 investigation, Bush and Daschle said. Don't interfere.

In the time between, the Bush administration has changed its tack somewhat, claiming to welcome an investigation. Yet there is silence, and silence, and silence on this front.

How can this administration fail to be the most ardent, vociferous advocate for an investigation into September 11th? How is it possible that the glaring security loopholes that allowed the attack to take place are not publicly dunned in the vigorous fashion that is required? These missed signals must be investigated and deconstructed, so that the security gaps they slipped through can be closed.

Why did the government's lead investigator into 9/11 quit?

What role did a planned natural gas pipeline through the subcontinent play in 9/11? What role does it play in the post-9/11 international relations situation?

The American people deserve to know exactly what happened on that day, and why. (...)

(From http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/100206X.shtml - Those whys and whats sure are suggestive, even if they leave you wiggle room to deny you're tacitly raising the possibility of conscious complicity in the attacks, as I think any reasonable reader would find.)

------

Condi Rice, 9/11 and Another Nest of Lies
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Monday 02 October 2006

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice may have committed perjury
in her testimony before the 9/11 Commission in May of 2004....

-------

Then there are your interviews with well-known 9/11 skeptic Ray McGovern, which of course do not constitute agreement with all of his views, but do qualify as a sympathetic promotion of a guy who of late has appeared on C-SPAN propagating inside job hypotheses alongside Griffin, Peter Philips and the great P.D. Scott (who is God).

Oh look, I just remembered your appearance in New York on 9/11/03 at the "Reframing 9/11" conference alongside Cynthia McKinney, Mike Ruppert and Catherine Fitts, also Wayne Madsen (who is not really my thing), all of whom are explicit endorsers of 9/11 Truth (911Truth.org, anyway) among other heretical ideas. (Cynthia in 2005 of course held those great hearings on the Hill where the Jersey Girls shredded the 9/11 Commission Report and also tacitly raised the complicity issue; she also had Ruppert, Ahmed, Paul Thompson, Scott and Griffin all aboard.)

Sadly in 2003 I was busy organizing a similar conference in Berlin, so I don't know how far you were willing to go during your appearance at that time, but I do invite you to enlighten us:
http://www.lfchosting.com/sportsfem/peace/91103calendar.html

But perhaps in the meantime you decided that The 9/11 Commission Report settled any outstanding questions as to the who how whats and whys of 9/11?

[Luckyduck]

18. no answer eh?

I was interested in Pitt's response...

[JackRiddler]

21. Hours later, I've returned...

and I must say I'm feeling disappointed. I grew quite fond of WRP in the course of a brief, 12-hour encounter some years ago.

Just a few posts above, did Will not demand an answer from me and promise his own response, saying, "I'm here all day"?

Where are you, Will?

I also remember your telling me one should work for the return of the Democrats, because that would finally be the time when they could openly pose the questions of 9/11, and that as long as the Republicans were in charge of Congress it would be pointless, so I should wait until the happy day.

The happy day has arrived. Yours is an influential voice. Even the 9/11 Commissioners have said (as their own pathetic excuse) that they were hornswoggled by NORAD, by the White House.

The ghostly echoes of those massacred in my City demands of me that I keep you on the spot.

[Junkdrawer]

11. Bush couldn't plan his dinner. But there are agencies that are neither...

the US Government nor Islamic Radicals that could plan such an event.

[Peace Patriot]

17. Chomsky is a smart guy, for sure. But he's just one guy. Has he reviewed all

the available evidence? You really can't review that evidence without having very serious questions about that event, and to flat out say that Bush (or the Bush Junta) didn't plan it is an 'a priori' statement (like, "Someone had to have put the Universe into motion, ergo God exists.") We simply don't have the evidence to make that conclusion one way or the other, while, at the same time, we DO have evidence that points that way (one of the prime pieces of evidence, in my opinion, being NORAD's behavior that day, and Rumsfeld's), as well as evidence that members of the Bush Junta, starting with Bush, have tried every way possible to obstruct any real investigation. Just because Chomsky is a smart guy doesn't mean he can't make a stupid statement, or have the motive of distancing himself from unpopular or far-out theories. He may figure that it's irrelevant whether the Junta planned or colluded in 9/11. And that is at least an arguable point. I don't agree with it. But it's arguable--a reasonable, honorable position (that, if we found out that the Bush Junta did it, that would somehow solve all our problems--the rich owning everything; fascism; predatory capitalism). But to state, positively, that the Bush Junta didn't do it, or that "there is no credible evidence" that they did--when they have obstructed and redacted so much evidence--is intellectually dishonest, and rather surprising from Chomsky. If that's what he said, I think less of him because of it.

[derby378]

9. The farthest I'm willing to go is LIHOP, not MIHOP

Bush didn't "plan" 9/11, but he and Cheney saw the writing on the wall, not to mention that 8/6/01 PDB, so they just sat back and waited for a thoroughly-preventable terrorist attack on US soil to take place. Didn't know where, didn't know exactly who, but figured it was coming, and boy, wouldn't PNAC be pissing themselves in joy over finally getting their new Pearl Harbor.

[JackRiddler]

15. This is MIHOP.

You are not talking about some third party who fails to be a Good Samaritan.

You are talking about the government. If the men running the government knew about 9/11 in advance, and intentionally allowed it to happen so that they could exploit it for political gain, this is morally equivalent to making it happen. It is also criminally equivalent: a federal capital crime known as treason.

Now you seem to find some curious assurance in believing that this foreknowledge was somehow limited to knowing just enough to not want to know any more. But this scenario falls apart on mounting any serious study of the actions of the chain of command (and of Cheney, who is not a part of it) during the actual attack, from Bush down to Gen. Winfield and Adm. Mies; the air defense response and the absurd sequence of conflicting rationalizations presented to excuse it; and the holding of wargames that mirrored the 9/11 scenario on the day itself, a preposterous coincidence.

At best, the fully expected attacks by Saudi agents under constant CIA surveillance financed by the Pakistani ISI were facilitated. This is treason. This is active orchestration in making it happen.

[Cleita]

16. You can't really do LIHOP without considering MIHOP.

I think Osama was in cahoots with Prince Turki Al Faisal, who at that time was leader of Saudi intelligence. Turki and the Bush administration agreed to an event that would happen to bring the Pearl Harbor incident they needed. The Saudis were just as anxious to get Saddam as BushCo was. Turki al Faisal already had Osama in Afghanistan training terrorists. I believe he covertly gave Osama the go ahead for 9-11. I'm sure the Bushes weren't informed of the particulars but that it was going to happen within a certain framework of time and that they were to sit back and let it happen. This much they knew.

Turki al Faisal moved on to becoming Saudi ambassador to the US after. Okay, it seems that the ruling Saudis have recalled Turki al Faisal for something that they uncovered about him. It could be this and that the other royals didn't know what he was up to but since his job was intelligence most of any deals would be undercover and covert anyway.

So just keep in mind these three players, George W. Bush, Turki al Faisal and Osama bin Laden. George and Turki agree to a Pearl Harbor like event. Turki plans the details and enlists Osama but BushCo aren't given the details just that it was going to happen during a certain framework of time. LIHOP leads to MIHOP.

Now I can't prove any of this, but if you put together the facts that are out there, you will find there are missing elements. When you fill in those elements with what could have happened, then bingo it all makes sense.

[truthpowertruth]

10. They've lied about everything.

[Luckyduck]

19. I have seen videos of controlled demolitions

and it is incredible how they look exactly the same as the way the towers came down.

And where the fuck were the fighter jets? They were able to intercept Payne Stewart's plane in 15 minutes...