Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

Le Monde diplomatique: "9/11 - an Inside Job?"

by name Thu Jul 6th, 2006 at 05:42:24 AM EST

This a Copy-Paste of a diary from DailyKos, which runs danger to be deleted because it is about a "forbidden" topic. Kos has forbidden diaries on the topics "government involvement in 9/11" and "airplanes not being the cause of the collapse of either the WTC or the pentagon", which he dismisses as "conspiracy theory". I find it suspicious that an american political blog would ban discussion of an issue of primary importance within the political discourse of that country. It is even more suspicious if one looks at the results of the poll attached to the original diary, where (when I looked) respectively 982 responded that "the govt investigation of the 9/11 attentates were not truthful", and 15 said that "the govt investigation of the 9/11 attentates were truthful".

Also, the comments made on the diary seem to be at odds with the response to the poll. While the majority of the poll respondents distrust the US govt, there are many extremely hateful, dismissive and insulting comment entries. My take is that these are professional trolls trying to tamp down a discussion adverse to the interests of whoever is behind the 9/11 attentates (and yes, I have also come to the conclusion that the headquarters of "Al-Qaeda" are located in Herzliya).

The URL to the original diary is here:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/7/5/152450/0414

The user who posted the diary is "Vesa", http://vesa.dailykos.com/


Whatever you think, here is the original diary plus poll, for your information.

Le Monde diplomatique: "9/11 - an Inside Job?"
by Vesa - Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 12:24:49 PM PDT

Le Monde diplomatique asks "Was 9/11 an inside job?" in its Norway edition, also read in Sweden and Denmark:

"9/11TRUTH: More and more people in the USA are convinced that the American authorities are concealing their involvement in the September 11th tragedy. Statements from witnesses, marked confidential for several years, now indicate that controlled demolition may have taken place. The US government had long anticipated such an incident - as the Republican document from 2000, "Rebuilding America's Defenses", indicates. The 9/11 Truth organisation believes that the USA probably orchestrated the catastrophe in order to justify the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the curtailing of civil liberties within the US through the introduction of The Patriot Act. [...]"

Below are links to the pages of this very extensive article, which also has several large illustrative photographs:

http://diplo.no/pdf/0607/01.pdf
http://diplo.no/pdf/0607/04.pdf
http://diplo.no/pdf/0607/05.pdf

The article is highly sympathetic to 9/11 skepticism. According to the editor, the full English version is waiting to be published in the international editions. An unofficial, draft English translation of a part of the article can be found here (alas, the grammar leaves something to be desired):

http://www.gnn.tv/B16458

The Le Monde article addresses, among other things, WTC 7 - the third skyscraper that was completely destroyed on September 11. Here is a high-resolution video of its speedy, symmetrical demise:

http://www.knowordie.co.uk/WTC7.avi

(The NIST lead investigator said in last March's New York Magazine that they "don't really know" what caused its collapse, that they are having difficulty "getting a handle on Building 7" in their protracted investigation.)

Multi-programme Italian TV coverage provides another recent example of European discussion of the problems in the official 9/11 story:

http://www.matrix.mediaset.it/videogallery/2006/05/24/videogallery.shtml

A Finnish TV crew, in turn, were present at the recent American Scholars 9/11 Symposium in Los Angeles, discussed here:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2006/260606hugesuccess.htm

It will be interesting to see what they come up with.

Many a reader is probably now asking: "Doesn't this ever stop?" The answer is: it will stop when there is a real investigation of what happened on that fateful day. Right now 9/11 skepticism appears to be breaking out worldwide. In my earlier diaries, linked below, I have shown why it is impossible for anyone who thinks critically and open-mindedly to regard the official story, described in the 9/11 Commission report, as little more than a collection of omissions, distortions, and lies.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/5/30/171451/602
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/6/2/81113/16175

Poll
Should the work of independent researchers be used to find out what happened on 9/11?
. Yes. It is evident that the governmental investigations are not truthful. 88%
. No. The governmental investigations are truthful. 11%

Votes: 9
Results | Other Polls
Display:
there's a reason this stuff is banned.  It takes the sort of folks that believe JFK is still alive and living with Elvis in Montana to buy into this stuff.
by HiD on Thu Jul 6th, 2006 at 05:50:34 AM EST
this comment does not deserve to be troll rated.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Thu Jul 6th, 2006 at 06:32:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
with all due respect, i don't see why not in this particular case. he inaugurates the thread by ridiculing the subject-matter. not really sensible. i dont see why the atrocious cognitive dissonance of most americans in all matters connected to the actions of their govt should give them a pass to ridicule any conversation which does not accord to their shallow understanding of the world. i think that, if people had held a mirror to germans before   the ascension to power of the nazis, a lot of harm could have been avoided. in the same way, we shouldn't continue treating americans as if they were the prototypical good and smart people they hold themselves for. they are not, and their govt isn't either.
by name (name@spammez_moi_sivouplait.org) on Thu Jul 6th, 2006 at 08:47:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
For the love of f-ing god can we stop with the stereotypes!

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire
by p------- on Thu Jul 6th, 2006 at 11:44:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You are entitled to have them.  You are not entitled to have them respected.

This is utter crap.  Top to bottom.  I question just how gullible you have to be to promote this rubbish.

The US govt can't even safeguard the secrecy of our nuclear programs.  The CIA leaks info like a sieve as does the FBI.  Are you going to posit a new double super secret agency that organizes  complex double super secret plans to fly planes into iconic buildings to start wars in the Mid East?  Meanwhile, totally undetected, they put explosives in minor nearby buildings so you could increase the number of truckloads of rubble from X to X+5%?????  Or was it the Trilateral commission in partnership with the Knights Templar and the Rothschilds?  

When does the rational portion of your brain tell you to just consider the simplest explanation?  Our govt got caught with it's pants down by Islamist extremists.  Then used the lizard brain reaction of the great unwashed to justify a pre-existing strategery.

I'm sorry, this conspiracy theory is just not worthy of respect.

by HiD on Thu Jul 6th, 2006 at 05:10:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
HiD, what about the put options on American and United?

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jul 6th, 2006 at 05:49:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
what about them?  How many are open now?  Who held them?

To have one theory displace another you have to explain MORE of the facts at hand not just pick at nits.

I guess this is why the national enquirer sells so many copies.....

by HiD on Thu Jul 6th, 2006 at 10:07:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I am firmly in the no-believer of conspiracy theories. World just does not work that way.
However, I would still say that the investigation Bush did wasn't truthful.
Yes, discussion should be allowed. But honestly, where would it lead.
Just answer the simple question. Who organised it, and how many people would have to have been in the know to make this happen? 50, 100, 1000?
And you can keep them ALL silent? Not even Coca Cola can make its employees keep its secret.
I know the person that is the structural engineer with responsibility for the refurbishment and then reconstruction of the Pentagon, we had a very nice dinner in Georgetown last year. (Actually almost exactly one year ago, how time flies)  No way that would have been anything other a plane.

Also, I understand this article more as observation as to the regard of the discussion going on, rather than actually saying there is a conspiracy.

by PeWi on Thu Jul 6th, 2006 at 06:12:55 AM EST
I would still say that the investigation Bush did wasn't truthful.
Yes, discussion should be allowed. But honestly, where would it lead.

Where wherever it needs to. If you assume that the official investigation wasn't truthful all bets are off. It begs the question, why wouldn't the investigation be truthful?

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jul 6th, 2006 at 08:53:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
you can lie to cover up your own incompetence without changing the conclusions regarding the source of the problem.
by HiD on Thu Jul 6th, 2006 at 05:12:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
There is a gradation of attitudes to 9/11:
  • the official version is accurate
  • the official version is a cover for gross incompetence
  • they let it happen on purpose
  • it was an inside job
Once you admit that they are lying in part in order to cover up for their incompetence, and that the lying involves obstruction of independent investigations and destruction or occultationof forensic evidence, it is legitimate to wonder whether they were genuinely incompetent or as a result of looking the other way. And then you have to wonder whether they looked the other way because they needed "a new pearl Harbor", or they engineered the "new Pearl Harbor" themselves. And the lack of forensic evidence and the lack of transparency involved in the official investigations and in the behaviour of government agencies before 9/11 makes it impossible to decide with certainty. The fact is that an independent investigation should have been initiated immediately and it took over 2 years for a congressional commission with limited ability to interrogate Bush or Cheney (and initially to be chaired by the epitome of transparency in government, Henry Kissinger, for crying out loud!).

So I believe that they are lying to cover up for something, and I remain agnostic on what exactly they are covering up for. But I wouldn't put anything past these guys, and quite honestly I can't imagine why anyone would, this being 2006 and not 2001.

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jul 6th, 2006 at 05:45:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
believe what you wish.  It's a free world.  Have you any evidence?  

I "admit" nothing.  The burden is on the claimant to make a case, not just throw out "I'm not saying I believe this theory but what about......."  

Come up with a coherent theory that explains the events, has factual evidence to back up claims and doesn't rely on mysterious hidden forces of evil that cannot be detected or named and you have something.  Until then, this looks suspiciously like a religious argument.

by HiD on Thu Jul 6th, 2006 at 10:12:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
that's about where i am. agnostic until i have enough evidence to support any working theory, which at the moment are all unfounded every way i look, because of the lack of a credible media and credible hearings on the subject, and a bunch of dodgy coverup actions that raise suspicion.

file with JFK and all those 1960s asassinations under "unresolved."

by wu ming on Fri Jul 7th, 2006 at 02:50:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You'll note that Le Monde Diplo does not bring any facts, just reports suggesting that...

Not good enough.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Thu Jul 6th, 2006 at 06:33:35 AM EST
If you have never read the very factual 'BODYGUARD OF LIES' by Anthony Cave Brown (pub. 1975 or 1976) which details all the WWII plans to conceal D-Day, I suggest you do so.

It demonstrates how a wartime government can conspire with its allies to put up an enormous facade involving thousands of living people, and quite a few dead ones, to achieve its aims.

As Winston Churchill wrote "In war-time, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies."

Since Bush is always proclaiming a 'War on Terrorism", I think it is incumbent upon us to never blindly accept what our governments tell us. Or even experts. And especially CEOs. And anyone, basically, who is trying to sell you something - whcih includes religions as well as advertisers.

We should question everything, and be allowed to question everything, until such time as the bulk of independent evidence points out our follies.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Thu Jul 6th, 2006 at 08:14:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Sorry Sven but I call apples and pears.

The D-Day deception planning, the Double-X operation etc, were done in the middle of an existing war with very good reasons for people to keep it quiet.

How come after the war the thousands who worked at Bletchley Park kept it secret? Because they saw it as their patriotic duty to do so.

But they had cooperated in the war against enemies who had already demonstrated time and time again that they were out to destroy the Allied nations.

I cannot see a conspiracy of silence operating in the USA when it comes to attacks which kill and maim thousands of their fellow citizens.

That dog don't hunt Sven.

That the Bush regime used 9/11 for its own ends in the months and years afterwards I accept. But that was amoral political opportunism.

9/11 happened because the Western world and the USA in particular has exploited, ignored, attacked and never attempted to understand other cultures and the people who belong to them. We assume that we can export our western values, culture, education and poltico-economic systems and that they will be accepted with open arms by the rest of the world.

Well the people of non Western cultures, now that they are no longer colonies exploited by us, have taken a look at our values and type of regimes that we support in their home countries and don't like what they see. Some have turned to violence and to bring that violence in to our back yards instead of their own.

Eats cheroots and leaves.

by NeutralObserver on Thu Jul 6th, 2006 at 09:03:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I agree totally with your description.

But it still doesn't change my basic point, however badly expressed, that what is said and what is done is often diametrically opposed,and that we need constant vigilance to ensure a modicum of public truth.

Governments live and die on perceptions - which is why we should always strive to point up any difference between anomalous facts and the spin that surrounds them.

As someone has pointed out: it doesn't matter if 99% of UFOs are discounted. It only needs one real contact to change the game. (BTW I am not a UFO believer, I'm just using an analogy)

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Thu Jul 6th, 2006 at 01:14:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You are rigth. I think the renditions are a good example on how European governments were able to create a perception that now turns out to be wrong.
by Fran on Thu Jul 6th, 2006 at 02:30:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
They have their talking points - we have our memes ;-)

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Thu Jul 6th, 2006 at 02:36:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I can't understand (well maybe I can) how the general populace is so unaware of the communications expertise on call to modern governments. Government is a product and it has to be sold. The same people who sell you soap powder, sell you invasions.

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Thu Jul 6th, 2006 at 02:39:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Unless I'm mistaken, this article is not in the July 2006 french edition of Le Monde Diplomatique (I could find only the lebanese and palestinian article).

The french list of article is available here.

Google and yahoo couldn't find any link between Kim Bredesen and monde diplomatique except on the diplo.no site.

I don't remember reading such an article in past issue of Le Monde Diplomatique.

by Laurent GUERBY on Thu Jul 6th, 2006 at 03:15:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What is the relationship between Le Monde Diplomatique "headquarters" (presumably France) and its international editions?  Does it have editorial power over all its international editions?

Point n'est besoin d'espérer pour entreprendre, ni de réussir pour persévérer. - Charles le Téméraire
by marco on Thu Jul 6th, 2006 at 09:22:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
International editions are likely to work as national newspapers buying the right to translate and publish articles from Le Monde Diplomatique and I assume in this process they're free to add any other article they want.

If I cared about the issue I would have sent an email to Le Monde Diplomatique editor, but here I must admit I don't care at all, but feel free to do it :).

by Laurent GUERBY on Fri Jul 7th, 2006 at 03:46:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, if we want to talk "conspiracy theories" for 9/11...
I have a hard time believing that it was an inside job. Very little evidence to support it, unlikely to remain a secret, difficult to pull off, etc. However, I find it much easier to believe that those in power wilfully ignored intelligence of possible terror attacks. It seems fully possible that the US administration realised that an attack on US soil would play very well into their hands, and stood by passively. Another instance of "bring them on", if you will. "Let them come, and we will have just the excuse we need to do what we want to anyway..." That would also be a much easier plan to keep secret, no one but the top would have to know as all that is required is to do nothing.
Yes, it sounds very possible, and very much like something it is hard or impossible to find evidence either for, or against. So, just a useless "what if...".
by someone (s0me1smail(a)gmail(d)com) on Thu Jul 6th, 2006 at 07:56:48 AM EST
 "It seems fully possible that the US administration realised that an attack on US soil would play very well into their hands, and stood by passively."

  That is certainly one of the possibilities.  Another, which complements it and is too little considered, I think, is that there was some of the above-described attitude combined with general everyday incompetence.

  That would go something like this:

  There's some evidence of an attack somewhere in the near future; we don't know, but it could involve planes and kamakaze hijacker pilots;  if that happens, it would cause a lot of furor--which we could usefully take advantage of to promote all sorts of stuff we really need to do anyway.  Why should we allow such a thing to go forward?  One, because we don't know enough--and maybe we don't want to know enough--to prevent it; two, the cost in lives and property won't be all that much--especially compared to the losses we believe we're risking if our ideas of the National Security State are adopted rather quickly.  Thus, these attacks, as bad as they would be, would directly contribute to the implementation of policies we see as saving even greater numbers of lives.  So, we lose "a few" lives to save a lot more later--and we get to make out like heroes, too.

  Like that.

"In such an environment it is not surprising that the ills of technology should seem curable only through the application of more technology..." John W Aldridge

by proximity1 on Thu Jul 6th, 2006 at 11:06:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

 that should have been:

 "...especially compared to the losses we believe we're risking if our ideas of the National Security State are not adopted rather quickly."

"In such an environment it is not surprising that the ills of technology should seem curable only through the application of more technology..." John W Aldridge

by proximity1 on Thu Jul 6th, 2006 at 11:17:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Sven points out quite sensibly that govts are able and willing to hide far more nasty stuff than most people will ever discover, or even think possible.

in the case of 9/11 there was obviously a conspiracy behind the act itself, and there is obviously an ongoing conspiracy to tamp down discussions and investigations of the crime which are too pointed, too informed for the taste of those behind the crime.

there are many known hints and indicies which point to the involvement of the govts of the US, UK, Israel, Germany, Pakistan, and probably others in various roles and for different motives. it is true that there is no conclusive proof of the involvement of these actors, even of what really happened, but IMO covering the crime implies involvement. to wit: each time somebody gets too near something inconvenient they are shouted down as either "conspiracy nuts", "anti-semites", "looney tunes" ... an the same is true of any attempt at discussing the acts, or to find out more info.

i think that all doubts about what really happened on that dark day could be dispelled quickly if an investigative team could get their hands on the usual, well-known suspects and give them some good old-fashioned police treatment of the more heavy-handed variety, like courses in singing or coaching sessions in "spilling the guts".

PeWi above says that he had a dinner with somebody in charge of structural engineering at the pentagon. two simple questions you may want to transmit to that person: where are the rests of the plane which supposedly crashed crashed into the building, and how come the lawn before the building was not damaged by the incoming plane ?

last but not least, you may want to look at this:
http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/pentagon.htm

please note that i dont claim to know anything, but the questions brought up and the inconsistencies noted by people more knowledgeable than me are, indeed, very worrying.

by name (name@spammez_moi_sivouplait.org) on Thu Jul 6th, 2006 at 09:08:15 AM EST
I don't want to shout "tinfoil alert" but I must question whether "plan" and "conspiracy" are the same thing. There's no doubt this was carefully planned. As some people like to say: "define 'conspiracy'".

I'm with someone elsewhere in the thread: you'll need lots of new evidence to convince me it's an inside job.

-----
sapere aude

by Number 6 on Thu Jul 6th, 2006 at 10:07:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Planes are mostly aluminum. Once set on fire in ordinary air by the jet fuel, aluminum (and steel too) burn almost inextinguishably until there is nothing left. In most plan crashes on the ground where there is a fire with a lot of fuel, nothing remains of the wings (tanks) and only the ends of the body.

Pierre
by Pierre on Thu Jul 6th, 2006 at 10:38:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If it's a conspiracy, it's an impressively big one...

The building performance assessment team was supported by the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE), the New York City Department of Design and Construction, the Structural Engineers Association of New York, the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations, the National Fire Protection Association, the Society of Fire Protection Engineers, the American Concrete Institute, the American Institute of Steel Construction, the Masonry Society, the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline02/0502feat.html

by asdf on Thu Jul 6th, 2006 at 09:12:59 AM EST
yes, but that one is about the WTC. there are lots of strange and unresolved issues regarding the WTC, too. what about the orderly collapse of WTC7 ? why did WTC6 have a hole blown into its middle when seen from above (i have a neat aerial pic showing that hole) ? both buildings were not impacted by anything.
by name (name@spammez_moi_sivouplait.org) on Thu Jul 6th, 2006 at 09:23:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
what about it?  You can't have a partial conspiracy.  Do you think someone wired WT7  with explosives set implode it and sat by waiting for other conspiracists to take out the main towers?

And nobody saw a thing?  Yeah right.

by HiD on Thu Jul 6th, 2006 at 05:00:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I have no idea what the truth is, but I have a hard time to believe that a report coming from this government, prepared by people chosen by this government contains the  truth, or at least the whole truth. Over the last six years, we have experienced a willingness by this current government to lie when ever they open their mouth, so I have a hard time to believe that in this one thing they are telling the truth.

To me there are a lot of questions. Why did the Norad not respond? I mean 4 airplaines have been hijacked and nothing happend. Were the hijackers aware of the Norad exercise that day? Then how did they get that information? Or was it as 'someone' says above, they knew and did nothing or maybe even organise the exercise for that day? This government does not have much respect for human life and human rights - so why not ask these questions and search for answers?

Another incidence which seems stranges is that the tapes of some of communication between the pilots with the tower, especially I think from American Airlines have been destroyed - why?

There are so many unanswered questions about strange incidents happening in connection with 9/1, they are going to fuel tin-foil stories until they are answered.

As I said, I have no idea what the truth is, I just have a strong feeling what is peddled for the truth right now, might not be the real truth.

I looked in to the diary name used for his here. I was somewhat disgusted about the tone an quality of the discussion. And the funny thing is, if it would have been ignored, and the fire not fanned it would have just rolled of the page, but it got almost 150 reponses. And amazingly in the poll a majority responded that they do not trust the official version.

by Fran on Thu Jul 6th, 2006 at 10:36:48 AM EST
 I think you're right to suppose that the government--especially the Bush government--wouldn't allow the full facts in its possession to be revealed, at least not if they could help it.

  The question remains, though: do the facts withheld reasonably demonstrate that the government was involved culpably in this affair as an accomplice before the fact?

  That isn't easy to show simply by theories about "Where is the plane?", "The Trade Towers were brought down by internal charges," etc.

  Besides, if the issue is, could the Bush government do something so dastardly?  Is it that corrupt?

  Hell, we already know the answers to those questions.  That doesn't mean that they did these things, [have some deliberate part in the WTC attacks], however.

"In such an environment it is not surprising that the ills of technology should seem curable only through the application of more technology..." John W Aldridge

by proximity1 on Thu Jul 6th, 2006 at 11:13:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Some general points:

  1. 9/11 is in no way comparable to D-Day or the Manhattan Project in terms of physical security. There were probably no more than 20-25 people involved in planning and executing 9/11. Choosing the right mix would have made it very unlikely indeed that any of them would expose the secret.

  2. We know for a fact - I can't be bothered to look up the reference, but I'm sure most people will remember it - that federal investigations into possible terrorist cells were halted before 9/11. Why would any government make it impossible for its security services to follow up possible leads?

  3. We know that Osama Bin Laden has been such a huge priority for the Bush administration that - they're no longer looking for him. Does this make any sense at all if you take the official story at face value?

  4. We know that Bin Laden just happens to be a close relative of some of Bush's business buddies. Honestly - what are the odds?

  5. We know that the physical 9/11 evidence was quickly removed from the site, and there was little or no effort made at detailed forensic analysis.

Common sense suggests that even if there were a conspiracy, there isn't likely to be a smoking gun of an 'Okay Dick - send in the planes' sort lying around anywhere it can be found easily. So if evidence does exist it certainly isn't going to be made public any time soon. (Although stories like this one should raise a few eyebrows.)

But more laterally - does what is known suggest a government that was doing everything possible to prevent an attack or to capture and bring to trial the attackers?

I think it's clear it doesn't. Is it really stretching the point too far to wonder why that is? Especially considering that Bush has to be one of the most reliably dishonest presidents in history, that the administration has a solid record of sociopathy in Iraq and elsewhere, and that a disaster like Katrina can be treated as an excuse for a photo-opportunity?

It's clear to me that it's impossible to ignore the sociopathy, opportunism, violence and contempt for ordinary people in everything that Bush does. I'd guess any evidence for involvement or affiliation will always remain circumstancial. But there is no pattern of relatively straighforward law enforcement or of honest attempts to prevent terrorism, of the sort that Clinton could show. And there is a strong pattern of propaganda manipulation and the creation of false threats to support military action.

Ultimately - would you buy a used government from this man?

I know I wouldn't.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Thu Jul 6th, 2006 at 05:00:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
there isn't likely to be a smoking gun of an 'Okay Dick - send in the planes'

On the other hand, Dick Cheney lied through his teeth in the first 24 or 48 hours after the attacks when he claimed that the reason interceptors had not been scrambled until it was too late was that scrambling implied authorisation to shoot down the highjacked planes, and they had hesitated to make that weighty decision.

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jul 6th, 2006 at 05:29:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
There's that, and there's also the fact that there was an anti-terrorism exercise in the US on 9/11.

And there was also an anti-terrorism exercise in London on 7/7 last year.

Again - what are the odds?

My worry is that point is that we're all misunderestimating how much real danger we're in. The Right in the US has become increasningly shrill about associating Democrats with terrorists. And in the UK - there's this story.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Thu Jul 6th, 2006 at 06:34:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Thanks for the link. Scary.


-----
sapere aude
by Number 6 on Fri Jul 7th, 2006 at 07:18:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
We know for a fact - I can't be bothered to look up the reference, but I'm sure most people will remember it - that federal investigations into possible terrorist cells were halted before 9/11. Why would any government make it impossible for its security services to follow up possible leads?

Some were, some were not. Some because of legal issues, and also the fact that the Bush admin did not believe that non-state actors matter - so focus on Iraq and Iran, not on al Qaeda.  The lack of interest in al Qaeda is no more surprising than the lack of interest in global warming or the lack of wage growth.

9/11 is in no way comparable to D-Day or the Manhattan Project in terms of physical security. There were probably no more than 20-25 people involved in planning and executing 9/11. Choosing the right mix would have made it very unlikely indeed that any of them would expose the secret.

A bit more than that, but not many according to the reports. On the other hand a conspiracy would have required far, far more people, placed in strategic positions, competent, and utterly loyal and fanatical. It would also require that none of them talk to their friends and colleagues.  If you think this is a plausible scenario then I'd like you to explain the leaks about torture and wiretapping.

We know that Bin Laden just happens to be a close relative of some of Bush's business buddies. Honestly - what are the odds?

Hmmh,  what are the odds that a leader of a radical Sunni Islamic group emerged from the Saudi elites?  

We know that the physical 9/11 evidence was quickly removed from the site, and there was little or no effort made at detailed forensic analysis.

This could be suspicious only to someone without any familiarity with the situation at the site in the aftermath of 9/11.

I think it's clear it doesn't. Is it really stretching the point too far to wonder why that is? Especially considering that Bush has to be one of the most reliably dishonest presidents in history, that the administration has a solid record of sociopathy in Iraq and elsewhere, and that a disaster like Katrina can be treated as an excuse for a photo-opportunity?

Yup, and they deliberately planned the bad response to Katrina as well, perhaps the storm as well with their super-secret weather control technology. For Chrissake, we know a hell of a lot about the planning and execution of 9/11. Al Qaeda has claimed responsibility. There is no evidence whatsoever for a government responsibility except for incompetence. I know this may come as a shock to you, but most people do not think the Bush admin is a model of competent government.

by MarekNYC on Thu Jul 6th, 2006 at 08:58:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Some were, some were not. Some because of legal issues, and also the fact that the Bush admin did not believe that non-state actors matter - so focus on Iraq and Iran, not on al Qaeda.  The lack of interest in al Qaeda is no more surprising than the lack of interest in global warming or the lack of wage growth.

You're talking about an organisation that had already attempted an attack on the Towers, and had blown a large hole in a Navy ship.

What evidence is there to support your point?

If you think this is a plausible scenario then I'd like you to explain the leaks about torture and wiretapping.

You mean apart from the fact that the numbers aren't even close to being comparable? Wiretapping happens in the corporate space, which is hardly ultra-secure, and torture happens in the military space, which has a surprising number of frightened and poorly educated 18-20 year olds on the front line.

If 9/11 were a MIHOP conspiracy it would happen in a special projects space, managed on a need to know basis. You wouldn't need huge numbers. You'd probably need a couple of high level instigators, one or two special forces types to manage the project, and some patsies to do the idiotic suicide run.

You think it's hard for four or five people to keep a secret?

LIHOP would be even easier.  

This could be suspicious only to someone without any familiarity with the situation at the site in the aftermath of 9/11.

Only if the US has some very strange ideas about forensics that I don't know about.

When 7/7 happened in the UK the tube lines were literally shut for weeks afterwards while forensic teams went over the remains. But after 9/11 investigators weren't allowed access to any of the metal.

I suppose some people don't have a problem with that. To me it looks just a little unlikely.

There is no evidence whatsoever for a government responsibility except for incompetence.

I've already explained why you won't find a smoking gun. But if Bush is so incompetent, it's odd that he should have been so incredibly lucky as to have 9/11 fall into his lap.

9/11 has defined everything - the torture, the invasion of Iraq, the erosion of civil liberties - that has happened since. Without 9/11 or something like it, Bush would have begun a rapid slide into oblivion. So it's really, really fortunate for him that it happened when it did, and gave him such a well-rounded excuse to put some pre-existing plans into action.

Not bad going for someone who's otherwise so unlucky and incompetent.

Meanwhile - did anyone ever work out who made all that money from 9/11 on Wall Street? Or who was responsible for running that anthrax terror campaign - the one that used anthrax from a US military source?

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Thu Jul 6th, 2006 at 10:42:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Not worth discussing. Sorry. Your suggestion that only a few needed to be involved while using a website that assumes a vast conspiracy makes that clear - the commissions, their staffs, the air force, the academics analysing what happened, the media, the random eyewitnesses of the Pentagon impact, etc.

For me it is an annoying and pointless waste of time to go down and refute points. I wouldn't bother to do so with those who say that no, really, Iraq did have nukes and other WMD's, or that Saddam was behind Oklahoma City, or that the NYT is in league with al Qaeda. Don't see any reason to act differently with their left wing equivalents. Fortunately the latter are marginalized by the mainstream left, unfortunately the former are are at the center of the mainstream right.

by MarekNYC on Thu Jul 6th, 2006 at 11:59:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
For me it is an annoying and pointless waste of time to go down and refute points.
I couldn't agree more.  This diary should have been banned,,,it lacks totally in common sense, and as Marek says, we shouldn't be wasting our time.
by wchurchill on Fri Jul 7th, 2006 at 01:29:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Your suggestion that only a few needed to be involved while using a website that assumes a vast conspiracy makes that clear - the commissions, their staffs, the air force, the academics analysing what happened, the media, the random eyewitnesses of the Pentagon impact, etc.

As an argument about a single point of forensic evidence, this makes for an entertaining non-sequitur. I'm not sure what it contributes factually though.

Is this what the sceptics really believe - that this US government, which of all of the US governments since WWII has had the most to hide, has been a model of clarity, honesty and straightforwardness on this one defining issue?

If so you're right - it's not worth discussing.

But don't forget people were ranting about how the vote stealing issue was the domain of the tin foil hatters and 'not worth discussing' a couple of years ago. Now Robert Kennedy is trying hard to persuade the Senate otherwise.

Perhaps he owns a tin foil factory and is looking to make a quick buck though?

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Fri Jul 7th, 2006 at 06:46:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Actually it was the space aliens using their death rays and their mind control signals to make sure that nobody knew the truth.
by MarekNYC on Thu Jul 6th, 2006 at 01:49:02 PM EST
I just checked out Vesa's post on DailyKos.  The thread gets surprisingly nasty.

Apparently, the 9-11 conspiracy "theories" have been "discussed and debunked literally hundreds, if not thousands, of times on DailyKos".

At any rate, they sure have been busy.

Point n'est besoin d'espérer pour entreprendre, ni de réussir pour persévérer. - Charles le Téméraire

by marco on Thu Jul 6th, 2006 at 11:27:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
My tuppenyworth on what I've read in the comments:

The U.S. govt has something to hide.

Yes or no?

If no: there is no question to answer.

But yes: then....what's the truth?

Question: If the U.S. govt. isn't telling the whole truth, what is the whole truth--and why shouldn't the U.S. population be permitted to know?

When is the gossip not gossip?  When it is factually wrong.  But hold on, the U.S. govt. hasn't given the U.S. people all the facts

(de Gondi, bravo!)

Just thought I'd sneak that in.

So: who did what?  It's a great, simple question for the U.S. people to ask of their govt.

A poll: "How many U.S. people accept the official description of the events in the U.S. of A. on the eleventh of september, 2001?"

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Thu Jul 6th, 2006 at 08:33:10 PM EST
IMO, this is an embarrassment to all who post here, and try to have rational and energetic discussion, that not only does this diary exist on ET, but it is on the recommended list.  To think that Daily Kos, according to the diary author, has more common sense than this site at ET by banning the article,,,,I'm going to puke.  I'm not going to add to the above rebuke of the article by Marek, HID, and others,,,,they have said it all too well.
by wchurchill on Fri Jul 7th, 2006 at 01:36:05 AM EST
So, because you don't believe in the merit of this discussion, no one else should be allowed to have it either? What else don't you believe should be discussed? Maybe that should be banned too.
by someone (s0me1smail(a)gmail(d)com) on Fri Jul 7th, 2006 at 02:41:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Happy to answer your question.  Following is the list of other meritless diaries--no more than meritless, ignorant, devoid of common sense-- that I feel should be banned, or should have been banned, since I started following and posting on ET almost one year ago:
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--

Thank you for your question.

by wchurchill on Fri Jul 7th, 2006 at 02:16:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Policy is not to ban unless it's racist or clearly grossly offensive or just an attack or complaint about people who aren't here: see Booman's policy on slamming people in the extended community on BT, which also applies here - cross-post it to the original or don't bother.

Banning this wouldn't help: the result would only be fire-fights about censorship and accusations that we were part of the conspiracy. The cure is much, much worse than the disease. Register your feelings then move on. If you don't like it being on the recommended list, recommend some other better diaries.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Jul 7th, 2006 at 02:55:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Congressional hearings can maintain objectivity.  The 9/11 Commission did enough to state they had no clear answers as to why some of these things happen.

However, the commissions are toothless, which I think they should be.  It's the other institutions that shouldn't be so gung-ho or impotent.

by nulwee on Fri Jul 7th, 2006 at 03:01:53 AM EST
de Gondi's diary today illustrates why we Europeans are suspicious of the government-pushed 'truth' behind a whole rack of 9/11 associated phenomena worldwide. And why we continue to discuss them.

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Fri Jul 7th, 2006 at 04:47:04 AM EST


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]

Top Diaries

Herd Immunity .. Filling the Gaps

by Oui - Jul 24
7 comments

LQD - Long Term Covid: The Brain

by ATinNM - Jul 13
25 comments

Say No to Racism

by Oui - Jul 12
24 comments

England surrenders to Covid

by IdiotSavant - Jul 9
27 comments