Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
|Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11|
|Bolo Boffin (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore||Fri Mar-16-07 07:30 PM
Response to Original message
|112. Off the top of my head...|
bolo says: My answers in italics - simply because I don't feel like doing the excerpt thing all the way through this...
Isn't Cheney's continued linking of the Saddam regime to al-Qaeda and the 9/11 events the most "outrageous conspiracy theory" of all? Did it not have more real-world impact than any other conspiracy theory? Note that he did it again yesterday:
No. I think the no-planer/missile pod crapola and the controlled demolition twaddle edges it in outrage factors. However, Cheney's linking does have more real-world impact.
Should 9/11 have been responded to as a crime against humanity, or as an act of war?
Merits to both. If the "act of war" response had been contained to military intervention against al-Qaeda solely, things would be much better.
Is it untrue that 9/11 was employed as the justification for military actions and domestic policies that would have otherwise been politically difficult or infeasible? Is it untrue that each of these actions and policies was explicitly desired and planned in advance by the main players of the Bush administration?
No to the first question. Not sure about the second one - list out "each of these actions and policies" and we'll take it from there. In the interest of time, the Patriot Act was already being written, and the Iraq invasion was desperately desired by this administration.
Do you justify the appointment of Philip Zelikow as the executive director of the 9/11 Commission? Does not this appointment on its face indicate a cover-up?
Better than Kissinger, perhaps. Otherwise, no, I don't justify Zelikow's appointment.
What did you think of the original appointment of Henry Kissinger to be the chairman of the 9/11 Commission?
(the preceding raspberry was aimed at HK, not JR)
Did Condoleezza Rice commit perjury with regard to the Aug. 6th PDB in her testimony before the Commission? Should this not be a priority for prosecution?
A very qualified, technical "No." Rice isn't that stupid. However, her testimony about a certain phone call to President Bush from Cheney is quite questionable. I don't know if she was under oath on that one.
Do you agree with the 9/11 Commission conclusion that the question of who financed the alleged hijackers is "of little practical significance"?
Perhaps for their purposes in the report, but no, it's important overall to know where the money came from.
Should the Pakistani money connection have been pursued? Should this not be a high priority?
Should Sibel Edmonds be allowed to speak openly on all that she knows? Should this not be a high priority for opponents of the Bush regime?
Unless her speaking would jeopardize the lives of agents in the field and compromise national security efforts, yes. Then, she should be allowed to testify to people with appropriate security clearances. Either way, she should be allowed to speak. No, I do not equate "ass-covering by the Bush administration or other groups within the government" with national security efforts. It is in the interest of national security to eradicate people whose asses need covering on a regular basis.
Should an investigation be pursued to determine which agencies and officials consciously and repeatedly upheld false accounts of the air-defense response timeline? (Suspects to include FAA, NORAD and Gen. Myers, who produced and repeated mutually contradictory accounts in the 2001-2003 period?)
If one hasn't been conducted, yes.
Shouldn't the whereabouts of Gen. Myers (in light of his contradictions with Clarke's account) and of Donald Rumsfeld during the attacks be known?
I find Clarke's account to be in serious conflict with the logs of the day. Therefore, his conflicts with Myers and Rumsfeld as to whereabouts might not be resolved in his favor. However, yes, they should be known. Has anyone asked Max Cleland if Myers was with him when he says he was?
Should Christie Todd Whitman be indicted for her false statements to the public concerning the dangers of Ground Zero emissions? Shouldn't it be a high priority to investigate which White House officials suppressed the initial EPA report? Wouldn't consciously downplaying this risk and ultimately raising the fatality rate constitute a high crime?
I'm not familiar enough with this to say either way. I do think she put out false information. I don't know if she's culpable for it. It's worth looking into. A case could be made for "high crime" under those stipulations. Do you think "raising the fatality rate" was her motive?
Were the questions posed by the Family Steering Committee the right roadmap for the 9/11 Commission, as Jamey Gorelick and others acknowledged? Is it untrue, as two members of the FSC have detailed, that 70 percent of these questions were fully omitted from consideration the 9/11 CR?
This would have been a good place for a link. The link to the detailed re-examination of the questions is sufficient.
Would you support a new investigation that uses these questions as its basis?
Again, I'd have to read them.
Do you agree there is probable cause for a criminal investigation or grand jury into as-yet unsolved crimes relating to the events of September 11th and their aftermath?
(See http://justicefor911.org - Have you read the actual 2004 complaint to Spitzer up at that site?)
A link. Too much to read right now. So the answer would have to be "No" at this point.
Do you agree with the Commission's deal with the White House on WH documents including PDBs?
Don't know what it is.
What do you think of Cleland's resignation, and his statements that the 9/11 Commission was a whitewash and White House treatment of the investigation was a scam?
I tend to trust him on this.
Should we know who the sources were for the alleged discovery of the "Brooklyn Cell" including Mohamed Atta by Able Danger in 1999-2000? Was Able Danger of minor historical significance, as the 9/11 Commission claimed?
The assertions of Curt Weldon about Able Danger have been debunked. As such, the Able Danger may be of minor historical significance.
Wouldn't a serious investigation of September 11th pursue all stories of foreknowledge and forewarnings, especially those from foreign intelligence agencies, with the goal of finding out the sources of such information? (I.e., avoiding any assumptions about their significance until the sources are known?)
Are you aware that claims of put options and suspect financial deals suggesting foreknowledge range far, far beyond the well-known sets of put options placed on United and American stock on the CBOE?
This has so incredibly been debunked that I am surprised you still refer to it.
Do you believe that United 93 crashed at 10:03 am without causing a measurable seismic event, and that a natural seismic event of the size usually associated with a plane crash followed in the same area at 10:06 am by coincidence?
The seismic information has been labeled "not definitive(note 148)" by one of the original authors of the study you're using. Everything else - the FDR, CVR, ATC, radar, and impact site data sets - all agree on 10:03. Therefore the answer is "No, and this is another example of debunked crap you insist on repeating."
Why do you think the anthrax mailings were sent to Daschle and Leahy? (Reports of any other anthrax targets in the government have since been discounted as hoaxes and mistakes.)
I've a couple of ideas on that. The main one is that al-Qaeda wanted to rend the US government into chaos. Sending anthrax only to the political opponents of Bush could produce both mistrust and resolve to agitate against the executive branch and the Republicans in charge.
What do you think of the FBI's investigations of leaks from the intelligence committee senators and their staff during the Joint Intelligence Committee Investigation of 9/11? Might the FBI actions have been intended as intimidation?
Not much (as in ). Yes.
Sibel Edmonds and Anthony Shaffer were disciplined. The FAA tapes of accounts by air traffic controllers who handled the two flights that hit the Towers, taken on the afternoon of September 11th, were destroyed. Myers, Eberhard, Frasca, Maltbie and Bowman all received promotions after 9/11. George Tenet got a medal. Would this combination have an effect on potential whistleblowers contemplating coming forward with whatever bits they know?
The FAA tapes, again, is just so much crap you guys keep flinging. Continuing to return to thoroughly debunked (sorry, no link here, do a DU search on the posts of MercutioATC) stuff like this is not doing your advocacy of alternative theories any favors.
Everything else? Yes. It doesn't mean that people with certain knowledge of MIHOP or LIHOP would shut up because of it. There really is this notion of patriotic duty in this country.
Do you believe all hijacker identities have been resolved beyond doubt?
Where was Mohamed Atta in the period from April to June, 2000?
I don't know.
When if ever do you think the al-Qaeda networks that grew out of the "Afghan Arab" movement during the 1980s anti-Soviet jihad stopped having links to US intelligence networks?
I don't know.
Was Osama Bin Ladin allowed to get away from Tora Bora? Was there an airlift of Pakistani ISI and al-Qaeda operatives out of Kunduz, Afghanistan via an air corridor cleared by US forces in November 2001, as Seymour Hersh reported?
Seymour's not God, but he has good reason for everything he says. "Did the US have a choice in the matter" is the way I'd ask the question. Yes, I know what that implies.
Do US intel/military agencies or related networks amongst their contractors have a significant history of engineering false-flag terrorism? Should this enter at all into considerations of 9/11?
Significant history - no. History - yes. Does the US have a significant history of turning setbacks into opportunities? Yes. Entering into considerations - not necessarily.
What is the significance of Ali Mohamed? Was his story worthy of inclusion in the official 9/11 investigations?
Ali Mohamed shows just how much the United States could be played. Yes, his story should have been included in the 911CR. Cutting off the investigation to after 1998 was ludicrous.
Do these questions, most of which relate to official statements and actions of geopolitical consequence, not indicate higher priorities for skeptics to pursue than the debunking of errors and distortions by amateur researchers as seen in "Loose Change 2," Alex Jones's works, dustification theories, "no planes" theories and the like?
We run interference on these errors and distortions....so you don't have to! This is a problem? (PS: the removal of the few "errors and distortions" from your own rhetoric as noted above would go a long way toward legitimizing your own inquests)
Have you read Michael Ruppert? The 9/11 Timeline edited by Paul Thompson? Nafeez Ahmed? Michel Chossudovsky? Daniel Hopsicker? Were these not the most prominent 9/11 skeptic-researchers by far until 2005?
Is this the list of the TRUE 9/11 investigators?
I met Mr. Ruppert care of the Vreeland atrocity. I've never respected the man's ability to reason since. He's run off to South America now, right? In response to a sex/money scandal, if I recall correctly, which he of course blames on a governmental infiltrator. Riiiight.
I have mostly respect for Paul Thompson, but he could do better (the reliance on Mineta for timing at the White House is an egregious error in the Timeline).
Heard of Chossudovsky - never read.
Read very little Hopsicker - just saw how one of his key witnesses has recanted her Atta testimony.
Currently reading Peter Lance's Triple Cross.
Are you suggesting that all of this Loose Change crapola wasn't around before Dylan "Do Over" Avery got cracking with his little laptop? Wasn't Thierry Meyssan pre-2005? Why'd you leave him off the list? Oops, I know why! Not a TRUE 9/11 researcher. Wacky plane denial guy. How about the infamous Dulce Decorum, right here at DU, who tried to prove a Northwoods-style operation right down to fake passengers? Another not-TRUE 9/11 researcher, huh? How many fake identities has Killtown had over here?
Let me state this frankly, JackRiddler - these amateur 9/11 researchers are YOUR problem, not ours. We have done yeoman's work keeping the nutcases down and out around here. You'd think you'd appreciate it, but oh, no. Not you. Clean up your own backyard if you want more attention paid to your pet theories, is my advice. One way you could do this, is encourage your fellow posters here to point out actual examples of pseudoscience in the current reports on the WTC complex, which this post of yours is an obvious response to. If you think those buildings were brought down by controlled demolition, you should trot right over and point out examples yourself.
Tell me, Jack, do any CD questions appear on the FSC questionaire?
|Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top|
|Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11|
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.
© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC