Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Why discussing 9/11 conspiracy theories not completely cuckoo

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
gauguin57 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-04 11:09 PM
Original message
Why discussing 9/11 conspiracy theories not completely cuckoo
Edited on Sun Jul-18-04 11:10 PM by gauguin57
On another thread, someone cast aspersions on those who bandy about various conspiracy theories (seriously, or just as an intellectual exercise) ....

I need to raise, again, for those who've forgotten, the salient point from the PNAC writings (from BEFORE BUSH WAS EVER SELECTED PRESIDENT):

From the "Nightline" program: Were Neo-Conservatives 1998 Memos a Blueprint for Iraq War?

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/DailyNews/pnac...

"Years before George W. Bush entered the White House, and years before the Sept. 11 attacks set the direction of his presidency, a group of influential neo-conservatives hatched a plan to get Saddam Hussein out of power."

"The Project for the New American Century, or PNAC, was founded in 1997 ..." (A bunch of neocons who are now the top guys in the Bush Admin. signed its manifesto -- including Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz.)

"In open letters to Clinton and GOP congressional leaders the next year, the group called for "the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power" and a shift toward a more assertive U.S. policy in the Middle East, including the use of force if necessary to unseat Saddam.

And in a report just before the 2000 election that would bring Bush to power, the group predicted that the shift would come about slowly, unless there were "some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor."

A NEW PEARL HARBOR? A NEW PEARL HARBOR? And you wonder why people speculate about conspiracy theories for 9/11?


I'm not all the way out there on the "MIHOP" (though that Pearl Harbor comment is troubling). I'm, perhaps, a little bit "LIHOP," and a little bit "Let It Happen Because We're Lazy and Incompetent and The Saudis Are Our Business Buddies and We're Too Busy Concentrating on Tax Cuts and Abortion and Bringing (F-YOU!) Honor and Dignity Back to the White House."

But does ANYTHING surprise ANYONE about the Bush Administration anymore? So I don't think some of these conspiracy theories are full-on cuckoo, as some seem to think!


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Bhaisahab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-04 11:16 PM
Response to Original message
1. look man, 911 was LIHOP
Edited on Sun Jul-18-04 11:21 PM by professor_pot
anyone who believes the junta's story has either been lazy about finding all the facts, or is a nut.. in the same league as bush et al.

edited subject to read "LIHOP" not "inside job."
cheers
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
libhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-04 11:19 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. True -
Edited on Sun Jul-18-04 11:20 PM by tx.lib
just too damn many loose ends and unexplained "coincidents" that have never, and probably will never, be addressed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unblock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-04 11:22 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. most telling is simply that no one got fired
how the hell can the military headquarters of the united states get attacked, people working inside the military headquarters died, and no one gets fired?????

i mean, if there's ONE location on the planet the military protects, it's its own hq. the "it was a complete surprise" argument works fine for the masses -- sure, it surprised ME. but i'm not paid to think of these things, like many people in the military must be.

i mean, hell, IF ONLY FOR SHOW, some heads should have rolled.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bhaisahab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-04 11:26 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. u remember when jon stewart asked wolf blitzer...
... how strange it was that nobody in the CIA was fired for messing up with intelligence that led the USA into a war on false pretenses?
blitzer offered lames ones like- "we all make mistakes", and "well..uh...george tenet did resign..."
as if he resigned BECAUSE of the WMD scandal...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 11:24 PM
Response to Reply #5
63. that is the dead nuts certain "tell" that it was at best LIHOP
no one fired in the GOVERNMENT after that massive an alleged fuckup?

No one was fired. Ergo, it was not a fuckup. Ergo, it was intentional.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobthedrummer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #1
36. At a minimum, LIHOP.
Look at the anthrax attacks, the flight schools, the stand-down of USAF, the shutdown of FBI investigations and leads, etc.

I think that this was an opportunity seized upon by the neo-conservative traitors in their coup-it could have been MIHOP if done by foreign intelligence or mercenaries.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EndElectoral Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #1
53. Personally, I beleive there were amazing coincidences that day which....
may very well indicate a readiness to look the other way.

I mean if the Mossad was aware and people were informed not to go to work that day, I find it incredulous to beleive that Norad was unprepared especially in lieu of the Bin Laden Determined to Attack in US earlier. Anyone who beleives Rice's comment about hijacked planes not flying into buildings I beleive is living in a bubble. I cannot beleive that a NSC cheif would not sit with people describing various scenarios and no one could come up with this possibility. Can't beleive it.

The WTC was already a target from the early 90's. The memos show an attack was forthcoming. The USS Cole had been bombed by Al Queada a year previously. Al Queda cells were known to be in the US. Reports exist that people were informed to stay home that day. Why was that not thoroughouly addressed at the 911 Commission?

With all of this, without a smoking gun, you will never prove it. Like the murder of Oswald in the 60's ("who declared he was a patsy") took away any real potential to link others to the Kennedy assasination.

This has been covered so deeply, we will never know the real truth, but questions remain. Sibel Edmonds testimony would help, so would a Mossad agent coming forward, so would some investigative journalists going to those people who were warned not to go to work that day.

Focus on bombs in the buildings, etc. and the type of steel etc. will go nowhere.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElementaryPenguin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #1
56. And would LIHOP be an any less despicable act than MIHOP?
The answer is NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:puke:
:argh:
:mad:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jdj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-04 11:19 PM
Response to Original message
3. I think a turned-up nose is incompatible with an open mind.
I'm open for anything. I would say I'll make my own decision, but then there is always new information to consider. More will ALWAYS be revealed. My mother thinks I'm nuts because of my attitude toward tv news, but I told her the other day that for every snippet they cover there is about 20 years of back up info you need to know to fully understand what happened and why. If more people would dig harder and further, we sure as hell wouldn't have invaded Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
On the Road Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-04 11:21 PM
Response to Original message
4. I'm Not Convinced it Was a Setup
and I've read a ton of conspiracy sites and threads. But I would never think of calling anyone cukoo just for making that argument.

The worst thing is that regardless of what happened, we simply can't the possiblity. That in itself is a pretty sad commentary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rick Myers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-04 11:23 PM
Response to Original message
6. LIHOP
But that dumbass Dubya probably wasn't in the 'loop.' Not an excuse, like Poppy, but REALLY not in the loop!!!

Here's a placemat from Waffle Hut, George, go color in the corner...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DenverDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-04 11:27 PM
Response to Original message
8. NORAD was stood down, that makes it MIHOP.
It couldn't have happened without complicity at the highest levels of command and control.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TomNickell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 06:38 AM
Response to Reply #8
20. Wrong on the facts....
Wrong on the interpretation.

Just basically, hard core completely wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leesa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 07:41 AM
Response to Reply #20
27. Well, you've completely convinced me with that argument!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DenverDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #20
35. Then explain why no planes were intercepted.
Smart guy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobthedrummer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 10:48 AM
Response to Reply #20
41. You always say that, lol.
Put up or shut up time.

The people are getting to the truth...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #20
50. Ah,Tom...the man who only post in conspiracy threads to tell people
they are wrong.Like the sun rising in the east.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWatcher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-20-04 04:21 AM
Response to Reply #20
66. Then what are the facts Tom
Edited on Tue Jul-20-04 04:21 AM by TheWatcher
You never seem to have any.

Prove the Official Story correct.

Referenced, Documented, with links.

You can't.

You Won't.

You are a COMPLETE waste of time.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobthedrummer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 10:44 AM
Response to Reply #8
39. Neo-conservatives dominated USAF think tanks and introduced coups
as a "futuristic" subject as a reaction to the election of President Clinton and gays in the military, which some in command hated.

REVOLUTION IN POLITICAL AND MILITARY AFFAIRS/RPMA (from Oct. 1996)
http://www.guerrillacampaign.com/coup.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sofa king Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-04 11:38 PM
Response to Original message
9. There's a couple of reasons to give credence to some theories.
They're quite simple: the Bush Administration isn't going to release enough information to let you decide for certain, and they haven't told the truth about virtually any matter of importance since they've taken office.

Even a fairly well-cited, well researched book like John Dean's Worse than Watergate contains a lot of speculation because the only thing we really do know with a degree of certainty is that the White House doesn't want to tell us anything, and they will lie about it if they do have to tell us.

As a result, even the most skeptical, rational people who cry "bullshit" on the most preposterous theories are in fact bullshitting themselves, because outside of the White House, nobody knows the truth for sure.

All we have to go on is the tenor of this administration, which has proven itself to be secretive, corrupt, deceitful, vengeful, incompetent, and naiive. There's room for plenty of conspiracy in a reputation like that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SheilaT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-04 11:39 PM
Response to Original message
10. 9/11 was not a new Pearl Harbor.
It was our Reichstag Fire.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 02:47 AM
Response to Reply #10
15. officially neither Reichtag or Pearl Harbor were lihop/mihop
initially the Reichtag fire was supposed to be set by a communist, at least that's what Goebbels said, and the hunting down of communists started right after. The official story now it that it was done by an anarchist from the Netherlands.

There are more then a few indications that PH was lihop.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SheilaT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 07:51 AM
Response to Reply #15
29. That's my point.
The attacks of September 11, 2001, were not the unprovoked attacks of another government, but something entirely different. Whether or not it was LIHOP or MIHOP or truly something no one in our government had anything at all to do with, the hijackers in question were not part of the military machine of another country. And since 15 of the 19 were Saudis, I doubt they had any actual connection to the Iraqi government. It appears as if they were connected to Al Qaeda, whose nominal head, Osama bin Laden is --dare I say it? -- a Saudi, who lives in Afghanistan, which served as justification to invade that country.

But everyone here knows all that. I just think it's important, as several others have pointed out on this thread, to know what Pearl Harbor really was, and to clearly understand why 9/11 is NOT a Pearl Harbor. That's all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pschoeb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #15
55. Please read some history
Edited on Mon Jul-19-04 03:59 PM by pschoeb
your assertion on the Reichstag fire is wrong

The official story now, is not that some Dutch anarchist did it.

The official story of the Nazi's was that Dutch communist Marinus van der Lubbe, who supposedly was found shirtless hiding in back of the building, set the fire, as part of a wide spread communist plot. Marinus van der Lubbe was tried and beheaded by the Nazi's. Lubbe after being tortured, confessed to starting the fire, but even under torture maintained there was no plot. The Nazi's charged four other communists, who were all acquitted, because of these acquittals, Hitler set up a new court for treason trials completely under control of the Nazi party.

No one has ever asserted that anarchists set the fire, and it certainly is not the belief of any modern historian that a Dutch anarchist set the fire.

Most modern historians suspect that the Nazis had a hand in the fire. Marinus van der Lubbe was something of a simpleton and would have been easy to bait by an agent provocateur. Also there are questions about the strangeness of a huge explosion, that sped the Reichstags destruction. Lubbe was to have set the fire with a homemade torch from a stick and his own shirt. The explosion suggest that, having set Lubbe up, they wanted to make sure the fire completely damaged the Reichstag.

At Nuremburg, General Franz Halder, claimed that Gring at a birthday party for Hitler had said 'The only one who really knows about the Reichstag is I, because I set it on fire!'. Gring denied this, but while at the same time admitting that he considered the Reichstag a total waste.

Patrick Schoeb
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TreasonousBastard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-18-04 11:45 PM
Response to Original message
11. We'll probably never know the whole truth...
any more than we'll know the whole truth about the Kennedy assassination.

And I can't believe a conspiracy nut any more than I can the government, without full and complete evidence which may be impossible to find.

But, you're right in that we have to keep questioning. We have to keep inquiring and hassling them for more than they have given us. The various official 9/11 inquiries and hearings are not designed to get to the complete truth. We have to keep digging and keep it alive.

It is documented that senior Administration people have wanted to depose Hussein for years.

It is documented that senior officials ignored the outgoing Clinton advices and warnings about al Qaeda. And that they changed policy and directives to put terrorism on a lower priority.

Since 9/11, we have passed laws, created new bureaucracies, imprisoned thousands of suspects, and waged two wars. But have still not managed to bring one of the conspirators to trial and conviction. In fact, we have even managed to screw up European efforts to try conspirators.

It propbably remains to history to eventually figure out just what really happened in all of this, but for now it's about time to give the sack to the entire incompetant, crooked, or traitorous crew.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeepModem Mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 12:38 AM
Response to Original message
12. I keep two old Newsweeks near my desk, 9/17/01 and 9/24/01 --
The cover of the first features Bush's face and the words, "The Secret Vote That Made Bush President."

The cover of the second features three firemen raising the flag in the WTC rubble and the words, "God Bless America."


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Minstrel Boy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 12:42 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. Here's an interesting quote from that 9/24/01 Newsweek:
"NEWSWEEK has learned that while U.S. intelligence received no specific warning, the state of alert had been high during the past two weeks, and a particularly urgent warning may have been received the night before the attacks, causing some top Pentagon brass to cancel a trip."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wind Dancer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 01:31 AM
Response to Original message
14. We become suspicious and theorize
Edited on Mon Jul-19-04 01:33 AM by FrustratedDemInNC
when our government refuses to be transparent. Here is a list of questions the family wanted answered after the events of 9/11, it was posted on the White House website but I can't find it there now. Obviously, for new DUer's, this is a start, read the questions and you will understand why we are believers of LIHOP or MIHOP.

When we have our questions answered honestly, we will stop being "conspiracy theorists". As the old saying goes, when hell freezes over.

http://www.911independentcommission.org/questions.html

Sampler below - specific questions for *, VP, Tenet, Rice, etc.

Questions For F.B.I. Director Mueller
Regarding the Hijackers

March 18, 2004


1. Please explain how the passports of Mohammed Atta and Satam al-Sugam, both on Flight 11, survived the inferno to be found on the street near the World Trade Center.
http://www.11alive.com/news/usnews_article.aspx?storyid...

Who found the passports and what time where they found?
Please describe the condition of each passport.
Please explain how the passports of two hijackers survived the explosion and inferno.


2. How many other passports belonging to passengers on any of the four hijacked flights have been found?

Which flights were they on, to whom did they belong?
When and where were they found?
Please describe their condition.



3. Did Mohammed Atta have a passport from the Conch Republic, a Key West, Florida group which has issued about 10,000 passports since 1993? If so, did Atta use it at any time to enter the United States? If so, when?

4. Did the records from the Conch Republic indicate that any other hijackers purchased passports from there? http://www.cooperativeresearch.net/timeline/2001/miamih...

5. Why wasnt Attas luggage put on Flight 11? Two bags were found at Login Airport.

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

Comment: Attas will, which was found in the luggage, includes detailed directions for handling and burial of his body. It seems odd that Atta would not realize that his body would be destroyed in the explosion when the airplane crashed and exploded.
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/atta/resources/documents...


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

6. It has been reported that other hijackers had papers indicating they should be prepared for prison.
http://www.boston.com/news/packages/underattack/news/pl...

Were other documents/items belonging to the hijackers found?
Where were they found?
To whom did they belong?
Where are the documents/items now?



7. other major terrorist acts were revealed on Ramsey Youssef's laptop computer, which was seized by Philippine authorities in January 1995
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_I...
What information about planned terrorist acts were on Youssefs computer?

8. Were any of the hijackers deadheading in the jumpseat?

On September 19, 2001, The New York Times reported that the FBI believed there were six hijacking teams on 9/11. Knives were found on several flights of grounded planes. What conclusions have been drawn about whether or not there were additional hijacking teams onboard flights on September 11th other that those seized by the terrorists? Please provide details. http://www.cooperativeresearch.net/timeline/main/timeli...

9. Have any airport/airline personnel (security screeners, cleaning crew, etc) been implicated in assisting the hijackers? If so, where and in what way?

10. There may have been an attempt to hijack United Airlines Flight 23 flying from Boston to Los Angeles around 9:00 a.m. Three Middle Eastern men angrily refused to get off the plane when it was canceled, then escaped security.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.net/timeline/main/timeli...
Please explain how these men were able to escape security. Hadnt the crew and airport security been alerted that there had been multiple deadly hijackings earlier that morning?

11. Which of the hijackers were caught on video at the boarding gate?

12. Did the hijackers smuggle a gun on board some of the flights?

13. In 2003, Paul Wolfowitz said that he suspected that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11, the Oklahoma City attacks and the September 11th attacks.

What conclusions has the FBI drawn regarding the possibility of a connection between Iraq and the terrorist attacks on the WTC '93, on the Murrah Building in OKC and on September 11th? Please comment on the following information, which appears to show a connection between Ramzi Yousef and the Oklahoma City bombers.

In the Oklahoma City bombing, reporter Jayna Davis interviewed witnesses who reported a Middle Eastern men speeding away from the Murrah building just before the Oklahoma City bombing. She also found credible witnesses who saw one of the Middle Eastern men in the company of Timothy McVeigh in the days before the bombing.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2002/01-28-2002/vo18n...

Abdul Hakim Murrad, convicted of plotting to blow up airliners, allegedly told the FBI that his former roommate, Ramzi Yousef, had orchestrated the Oklahoma City bombings.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2002/01-28-2002/vo18n...

Nichols attended a meeting in the early 1990s in the Mindanoa. Ramzi Yousef and Abdul Hakim Murad were also at that meeting.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2002/01-28-2002/vo18n...

Terry Nichols' phone records indicate that in 1995, he place 13 calls from his home phone to someone in the Philippines.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_I...



14. Is there any evidence that Ramzi Yousef was an agent for Saddam Hussein?
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2002/01-28-2002/vo18n...

15. What was Yousefs relationship with al Qaeda?

16. Aboard Flight 93, passenger Thomas Burnett told his wife, Deena, in a 9:27 a.m. cell-phone call: "The hijackers have already knifed a guy, one of them has a gun, and they are telling us there is a bomb on board. http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/6742902.htm
Did anyone else on any flight report that the terrorists had a gun?

17. Why isn't America cooperating in the prosecution of terrorists worldwide, such as the German trial of Abdelghani Mzoudi?
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews... ion=news

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fujiyama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 05:00 AM
Response to Reply #14
17. While I have not bought
Edited on Mon Jul-19-04 05:02 AM by fujiyama
the MIHOP theory, I do subsribe to a more watered down LIHOP, which is a combination of incompetance, arrogance, and ultimately criminal negligance.

These theories are discussed on DU, because most people outright reject the possibility that their own government can be so callous and inept. That's why, as much as I find some theories completely idiotic (remote controlled planes, missiles being fired, etc), people should feel free to discuss it. I also must admit threads on those two "theories" I mentioned above are usually pretty entertaining.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 04:53 AM
Response to Original message
16. History - for those who've forgotten.
Edited on Mon Jul-19-04 04:55 AM by Make7
gauguin57 wrote:

I need to raise, again, for those who've forgotten, the salient point from the PNAC writings (from BEFORE BUSH WAS EVER SELECTED PRESIDENT):

<snip>

"In open letters to Clinton and GOP congressional leaders the next year, the group called for "the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power" and a shift toward a more assertive U.S. policy in the Middle East, including the use of force if necessary to unseat Saddam.

And in a report just before the 2000 election that would bring Bush to power, the group predicted that the shift would come about slowly, unless there were "some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor."


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

The US invaded Iraq in the early 90's and they fought a proxy war in Afghanistan in the 80's. When did the "new Pearl Harbor" attacks happen before those events?

How many countries has the United States invaded in the 20th century? How many "Pearl Harbor's" in the 20th century?

While I agree that there are a lot of suspicious things surrounding 9/11, and that a conspiracy in some form or another is a possibility - but if the argument is that they needed 9/11 in order to invade Iraq then I have to say that I think they could have easily come up with some other pretext. Remember Vietnam? Grenada? Panama? (..and many more..) Where were all the "new Pearl Harbor's"?

-Make7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tommilator Donating Member (51 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 06:07 AM
Response to Reply #16
19. Pearl Harbor's
None of the conflicts you list come near the scale of the current Iraq adventure, except Vietnam who had its very own Gulf of Tonkin incident to kickstart the atrocities. The first Iraq war was a clearly defined mission of running Saddam out of Kuwait and not an open ended attempt to re-mold the middle east.

September 11. has been used to whip up patriotic fervor and paint dissenters as traitors. What is really scary and lends even more credibility to the tin-foil camp is that this 'new Pearl Harbor' happened when the PNAC nutters had their guy in the oval office. Enabling him to act in ways unimaginable to the world before 9/11, and seemingly get away with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 06:41 AM
Response to Reply #19
21. My point is that a "Pearl Harbor" did not precede those other invasions.
Why is that a prerequisite for Iraq?

Vietnam didn't start out being near the scale of the current Iraq conflict either. There was no massive attack on American soil before we invaded. Why was it necessary to have one to invade Iraq this time? I don't think it was.

I agree that 9/11 has been used to stir up patriotism and militarism, but that can be explained by them just taking advantage of the circumstances to further their agenda. If 9/11 didn't happen, they would have come up with another plan. Not a single conflict that I can think of in the 20th century started with an attack on one of the states of the US. Why am I to believe that now they need to attack America in order to start a war?

I'm just saying it doesn't follow historical precedence. That doesn't mean I discount it as a possibility, but I'm not going to be convinced based on the PNAC prediction of needing a "new Pearl Harbor."

-Make7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sadiesworld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 08:25 AM
Response to Reply #21
31. I don't think the issue is whether YOU think it should have been
necessary, the issue is whether the PNACers thought it was. I take them at their word(s).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #31
46. I thought the issue was whether or not they actually did it.
I don't think that them predicting "the shift would come about slowly, unless there were some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor" is exactly a smoking gun. Why would they implicate themselves?

My feeling is that the chances of planning, executing, and keeping an operation of this magnitude a secret would be extremely small. And the risks involved of being discovered running an operation like this on American soil with American casualties far outweigh the benefits. Usually the more complicated an explanation is, the less likely it is to be the correct one. (But not always.)

That's just my theory - I was under the impression that if someone expresses a theory that makes sense to them, I could respond by sharing mine.

-Make7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xocolatl Donating Member (196 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #46
49. I agree that a project of such a large scale would be difficult ...
... to keep secret, if it was organized by a large, top-heavy organization. However, one could imagine a small number of shadowy players (probably including Cheney, the :evilgrin: himself), manipulating certain factions in the middle-east (perhaps through the bin Ladens) to produce a terrorist attack. The only ones who would know the entire scope of the project would be the oligarchs who planned the whole thing. The terrorists wouldn't know -- they would believe they were combating the Great Satan in the West for the glory of Allah. On our side, all the FBI and CIA would know is that they were discouraged from investigating Saudi terrorists. Shrub wouldn't even have to know.

That's why I subscribe to a theory that lies somewhere between LIHOP and MIHOP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-20-04 06:12 AM
Response to Reply #49
69. It is entirely possible that a small group of shadowy players could have..
planned and directed the attacks on 9/11 without any wider knowledge in the government. I think discouraging investigations of the FBI and CIA would raise suspicions needlessly though. I would think the shadowy players could have gotten others to do the dirty work and cover their tracks effectively. This may be what happened, but I still have my doubts.

I believe if that scenario is possible then it is also possible for a small group of foreign terrorists to have planned and executed the 9/11 attacks without any outside help. (Just transfer the planning duties from the swadowy players to the terrorists.) I have many doubts about this theory as well, but I think it is at least possible. Many reasons that I have seen to debunk this theory, would tend to make the shadowy players theory less plausible. Such as:

-the planes were not intercepted because the fighters were ordered to stand down.
-the impact of the planes and the resulting fires were not what caused the twin towers to collapse.
-it was not a 757 that hit the Pentagon.
-FEMA was in New York the night before 9/11.
-Bush was not evacuated from the school because they knew he was not in danger.
-etc.

I'm not listing these here to say whether or not they are right or wrong. (Or guess what your opinion of them might be.) I mention them because I think these reasons all involve more people being in on the plan, therefore increasing the risk of exposure.

I'm am still an undecided voter on this. Hopefully if people keep asking questions and digging up new information, it will become more clear to me, and everyone else, in the future.

-Make7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mike Niendorff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 11:21 PM
Response to Reply #21
62. I think you're starting from a false premise -- it's not only Iraq

Iraq is just one element of a much broader regional design. Whether that answers your objection, I leave that up to you. But to limit the question to Iraq only is simply not accurate. Iran, Syria, Egypt, "Pax Americana", these also need to be included in the big picture.


MDN
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-20-04 03:53 AM
Response to Reply #62
65. I was discussing the original post.
"From the "Nightline" program: Were Neo-Conservatives 1998 Memos a Blueprint for Iraq War?" - gauguin57

That was the premise I started from. While I agree that Iraq is just one element of a much larger question, this PNAC document is also just one piece of an even bigger puzzle. Since gauguin57 brought up this document in relation to the Iraq War, I was focusing on that.

-Make7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sterling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 10:19 PM
Response to Reply #16
61. It's called a pretext.
The Gulf Wars was that Saddam was dumb enough to invade Kuwait giving GHW the excuse to eliminate much of the military we gave Saddam during the Iran war. No PH needed.


The proxy war in Afghanistan was just that, a proxy war. The pretext was the cold war against the commies, again no "event" needed.

It is great you have learned that these events occured but you need to develop a better understanding of what caused them and what they mean in the context of today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-20-04 03:12 AM
Response to Reply #61
64. Thanks for explaining what a pretext is.
From my post you replied to:

"...I think they could have easily come up with some other pretext."

I will try to refrain from using words that I clearly do not understand in the future.

-Make7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
timtom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 05:13 AM
Response to Original message
18. Definitely MIHOP
I have taken a very hard-line stance on this. I'm not interested in any proof at this point. I'm afraid we're beyond that now. My position is based on the very early pre-emptive sealing of records, as well as a non-stop REFUSAL to allow any sort of investigation of any type (viz. WTC rubble). I consider my position to be extreme. But it is now non-negotiable. The administration has show itself, by acts of omission and acts of comission, to be an enemy of the people, an enemy of the State, an enemy of all of humankind. Period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 06:47 AM
Response to Reply #18
22. My trip down the MIHOP rabbit hole...
began a couple of months ago with a single piece if evidence - the photos of the Pentagon on that morning. I'd seen them when they were first publicized by Thierry Meyssen, but back then his accusation seemed just too outrageous, and my confidence in the official explanations hadn't yet been eroded by years of administration stonewalling. This time when I looked at them I accepted the evidence of my own eyes. The implications were immediately, blindingly, terrifyingly obvious.

I feel I am faced with a macabre, grotesque example of Occam's Razor. That single conclusion is the only one that permits all the dots of the 9/11 picture to suddenly connect. The other explanations - the official one or LIHOP - simply require too many improbable events to converge. Once one accepts that the government of the USA could actually be that malign, the MIHOP position, no matter how uncomfortable, becomes unavoidable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TomNickell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 06:56 AM
Response to Reply #22
25. The road to Damascus.
You've been deceived, buddy.

Pull back. Look at the big picture. There is a really big jet plane missing. Plus a whole bunch of prominent people. There are eyewitnesses. There are radar records of the plane flight. There are 1000s of individual people involved in the investigations. Faking all that is beyond the power of any mortal organization.

You have fastened on a -single- piece of evidence. Questionable evidence. And jumped to a wildly implausible conclusion.

Chill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 07:42 AM
Response to Reply #25
28. Sometimes a single piece of evidence is the key
So far no one has satisfactorily explained: 1) how a 757 could make a hole that small and 2) where all the debris (that is evident in every other airliner crash on record) went. If the official story is true, it must be able to answer those questions. Until they are answered, all other objections to the theory are moot (to me, anyway).

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WoodrowFan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #28
43. small hole?
Anyone who thinks that's a SMALL hole has no friggin CLUE about the size of the Pentagon. I saw the damage a month or so later at a funeral at Arlington for a friend's husband who was killed in the Pentagon. It's a HUGE bleeping hole!!! Of course, there are hundreds of eyewitnesses that saw the plane, zero that saw a truck bomb./.

BYE BYE!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #43
44. Yep, small.
Span of 757 fuselage and engines: ~61 feet. Total 757 wingspan: ~125 feet. Width of the hole in the Pentagon: ~51 feet. Compared to a human being it's a big hole. Compared to an airliner, though, it's just not quite big enough. In addition, there is no evidence in the photographs of structural or even facade damage from the wings. There is no evidence of aircraft debris in front of the wall.

About the eyewitnesses: Lots of people claim to have seen "a plane". I have not been able to find a single credible eyewitness report of "a 757" actually hitting the building. And nobody's saying "truck bomb".

I understand I'm preaching to unconvertible here. All I want is that people look at the available evidence with their own eyes and ask, "Does the official story explain what I see?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xocolatl Donating Member (196 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-20-04 06:45 AM
Response to Reply #28
71. For once I agree with Tom Nickell
I don't think the hole in the Pentagon is a very useful or informative line of inquiry. Physics is a complicated subject, and I wouldn't presume to know why a hole looks smaller than it "should be". Plus, there were numerous eyewitnesses, and as (I think) Tom said, there's a plane missing with a whole lot of prominent people.

However, the larger questions go unanswered. Why did so many agencies ignore so many stunningly obvious indications that something was afoot? (Of course, the incompetence angle is sufficient to explain). Why was it necessary to manufacture evidence, such as the terrorist passports that mysteriously survived even when flight recorders did not? What about the numerous financial connections between the bin Laden and Bush families? What of the warnings that high-placed officials received? Most importantly, why is there no transparency in the investigations, which could answer these questions in ways that exculpate Bush?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #25
58. Hey, Tom. Tell us why the data from Flight 93's flight data recorder has
never been released -- to the victims' families or anyone else.

Tell us why Flight 77's FDR was no operational. Tell us why no trace of Flight 11's & Flight 175's black boxes were ever recovered.

The "big picture" is missing something. Evidence.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xocolatl Donating Member (196 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-20-04 06:47 AM
Response to Reply #58
72. Don't bother, Tom won't answer any reasonable question
he'll just take apart a straw-man: some whacked-out shape-shifting reptoid/UFO theory that nobody has seriously posed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xocolatl Donating Member (196 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-20-04 06:56 AM
Response to Reply #58
73. Right on cue....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWatcher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-20-04 04:31 AM
Response to Reply #25
68. Once again my Chanllenge to you Tom.
Edited on Tue Jul-20-04 04:31 AM by TheWatcher
Prove the Official Story Correct.

The only thing you ever do in these threads is browbeat other's ideas.

You don't have any of your own.

If you do produce them, and prove them.

I know you can't, but it would be highly entertaining.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 06:49 AM
Response to Reply #18
23. That is so close to the same reasoning that the Administration used to...
invade Iraq, it is almost frightening.

-Make7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WoodrowFan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #18
42. I'm not interested in any proof at this point.
that's typical of every MIHOPer, Proof? We don't need no stinkin proof!

bye bye
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Minstrel Boy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #42
52. It's typical of every debunker
to say there's no proof, to claim there's no interest on the part of 9/11 skeptics to make a credible case, and to avoid like poison any thread that suggests the contrary.

For instance, this one:

The DU 9/11 reading room
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TomNickell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 06:51 AM
Original message
Cuckoo is, as Cuckoo does....
It is not the subject matter that is Cuckoo; it's the style or argument.

Vague accusations that seem to suggest titanic conspiracies, but don't quite. Vast and intricate speculations from tiny bits of fact. Holding fast to a single unlikely hypothesis when far more plausible ones are comically obvious. Stubborn insistence on invalid logic. Disrespect for the opinions of the vast majority of mankind. Paranoia.

<<But does ANYTHING surprise ANYONE about the Bush Administration anymore? So I don't think some of these conspiracy theories are full-on cuckoo, as some seem to think!
>>

Try to figure out a Plausible Scenario for the 'theory'. What actual human beings actually did these deeds? What institutions were involved? How could this deed have been physically accomplished? What would be the risks of detection? Could a bunch of Government Workers actually be this efficient? How did they dispose of the bodies? Were there other and simpler ways of accomplishing the supposed objective?

Do that, and you will see that most of the 'Theories' are indeed Cuckoo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 10:17 AM
Response to Original message
34. Vague accusations

Vague accusation nr 1: put-options insider trading.
Vague accusation nr 2: flight 93 debris field indicates (at least partial) mid-air break up.
Vague accusation nr 3: Government resists investigation, classifies part of the report as secret.
(just a few off the top of my head)

presumptions on your part:

"What actual human beings actually did these deeds?"

What, a conspiracy theory requires the actual names of all the perpetrators?

"What actual human beings actually did these deeds? What institutions were involved?"

and then all of a sudden you know who did it:

"Could a bunch of Government Workers actually be this efficient?"

Could the CIA or somesuch be that efficient?

"How did they dispose of the bodies?"

Well, first there was a big fire, then the whole lot caved in on top of the evidence.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrboba1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 10:28 AM
Response to Original message
37. So what is your plausible hypothesis?
Edited on Mon Jul-19-04 10:30 AM by mrboba1
on edit: OOPS - this reply was supposed to be for TomNickell - not sure what happened.

I think LIHOP is very plausible. MIHOP less so but still possible.
You like to call people cuckoo, but you don't have your own thoughts and your own theory out there for everyone to see.

Most of the theories maybe are 'cuckoo' - but most are DEFINITELY wrong since there are 3000 theories.But there is only 1 truth, so by default 2,999 of them are wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 04:42 PM
Response to Original message
60. And what of the official story? Isn't it a ridiculous conspiracy yarn --
presented without a shred of hard evidence?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
midwayer Donating Member (719 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 06:51 AM
Response to Original message
24. Mary Schneider vs. John Ascroft & James Ziglar
Just in case some haven't seen this

Feds knew about 9-11 bribery conspiracy before attacks

by Tom Flocco

ORLANDO, FL -- Tuesday, July 13, 2004 Posted 1:30 PM EDT -- TomFlocco.com -- Homeland Security whistleblower Mary Schneider is naming names, revealing that former FBI Director Louis Freeh, Attorney General John Ashcroft, FBI Director Robert Mueller and numerous U.S. senators and congressmen knew before the September 11 attacks that U.S. immigration officials were bribed by an illegal Moroccan Muslim allegedly linked to Osama bin Ladens half-brother. This according to Schneider, who was told about the illegal alien's ties to terrorism by outside informant Bonnie Sharrit.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Schneider said she contacted U.S. Senators more than one year before the attacks about the allegations linked to Abad and Khalil bin Laden--including Bob Graham (D-FL), Trent Lott (R-TX), Richard Shelby (R-AL), Arlen Specter (R-PA), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), but also Congressmen Cliff Stearns (R-FL), Joe Scarborough (former Florida Republican congressman and current MSNBC host), Walter Jones (R-NC), Harold Rogers (D-KY), Corrine Brown (D-FL), John Mica (R-FL), Bill McCollum (former Florida Republican congressman and current U.S. Senate candidate), former Florida congressional Republicans Charles Canady (R-FL) and Tillie Fowler (R-FL), Lamar Smith, (R-TX) Dan Burton (R-IN) and David Weldon (R-FL).

Besides multiple contacts with the FBI, INS and Congress before the attacks, Schneider also sent letters since 9-11 to all members of both the Senate and House Permanent Select Intelligence Committees who have ignored and thus far failed to respond to her pleas for action to remove the terrorist cells.

http://www.tomflocco.com/modules.php?name=News&file=art...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democraticinsurgent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 08:18 AM
Response to Reply #24
30. MIHOP for my money
I have pondered this a lot lately. MIHOP or LIHOP? At what point does passive complicity become active participation? It's a gray area that increasingly has little meaning for me. Our government was clearly in on it. It's treason either way, and murder, among other crimes.

But for those who want to make the distinction, here are some points that pull me in the MIHOP direction:

1. The breadth and intensity of the cover-up (Sibel Edmonds gag, sham 9-11 commission, obvious perjury during 9-11 commission by Condi, Tenet, Ashcroft and others, the furious resistance of * for any kind of investigation, even a bogus one, the destruction, withholding and disappearance of forensic evidence from the crash sites)

2. Not just a few, but many instances of FBI brass quashing agent investigations which could have led to the discovery of the plot, and the subsequent rewards for the quashers and punishments for the whistleblowers

3. Daniel Hopsicker's unheralded investigations of the Florida flight schools as CIA fronts, and the overall expose of Florida as terror central in the US by Hopsicker and Tom Flocco

4. NORAD's convenient terror game exercise on exactly the same day as the actual attacks, and FEMA's convenient appearance in Manhattan the night before the attacks

5. The lack of any significant leadership from *, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Myers until well after the conclusion of the attacks (I'm a fan of the theory that the attacks were supposed to simultaneous and when there were delays, the brass did not know how to act while they were waiting for attacks to be completed)

6. *'s complete lack of interest in capturing Bin Laden once the Taliban had been deposed in Afghanistan

7. Bush 41's meeting with Bin Laden family members on the morning of 9/11 and the subsequent flights out on 9/13 of Bin Laden family members and their Saudi associates

8. The head of Pakistan's ISI being in the US just prior to, and just after the attacks. And his subsequent removal from his post once India exposed him as Atta's paymaster

9. While the government's public stance was that they were stunned by the 9-11 events and caught off guard, photos of all 19 hijackers and their bios became available 48 hours later

10. The peculiar airline stock manipulations days before 9-11 (United, American puts) and the suspicious real estate transaction involving the WTC and its owners a few months prior to 9-11.

I could go on. This is just a partial list off the top of my head. IMPORTANTLY none of the above points gets into missing planes, pods, WTC demolition, discrepant passenger lists, whether the plane in Pa was shot down or not, cell phone calls from planes, etc. All of those points are important and demand answers, one way or the other. But they often serve as red herrings to divide people and divert attention from the clear facts listed above.

I propose that we all try take a page from Michael Moore's book. Focus on the indisputable facts--there are plenty of them--and construct theories based upon those facts. With luck, we'll get * out of office and President Kerry will authorize a real investigation. If that doesn't happen, perhaps we can convince Moore or someone else to make a 9-11 movie that has the kind of impact that F9-11 has had.

What do you all think?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 09:16 AM
Response to Reply #30
32. Agree
As you point out, the list of unanswered questions is longer than your arm (or *'s nose...). What clinched it for me too was your point #1. This degree of stonewalling and coverup just doesn't make sense if the administration is blameless. It makes perfect sense once you think the unthinkable.

BTW, Does anyone know what kind of investigation the NTSB has been doing? Has anyone heard any leaks from them? I know that they have been relegated to providing "technical assistance" to the FBI, but surely after 3 years there should be some results they could report. Right? Right...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democraticinsurgent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 09:28 AM
Response to Reply #32
33. welcome to DU!
...from a relative newbie...

good question about NTSB. Typically when an airliner goes down, NTSB dominates the news channels for weeks, then reappears months later with a report as to their conclusions on what went wrong.

In the case of 9-11: next to nothing from them, despite the fact that the Pa crash was deserving of even more forensic attention than other crashes.

Where are they on this, nearly 3 years later?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnyCanuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #32
57. F*ck the NTSB. They are whores just like all the rest of 'em
Regarding TWA Flt 800.

Key evidence, confirmed recovered, now missing

Documents recently obtained under ongoing FOIA litigation describe how the FBI had a policy of withholding "suspicious" physical evidence from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). And today, a key piece of evidence recovered by the Navy is still missing.

The NTSB said a spark in a fuel tank caused the crash, and that they had "no physical evidence" of a missile engagement. But did the FBI's evidence-withholding policy effectively keep physical evidence from the NTSB?

Perhaps, but what is certain is that the very first piece of wreckage that left the plane (FAA radar recorded it flying off the plane at apparent supersonic speeds1 just as Flight 800 explodes) is now missing. It's listed "confirmed recovered" on Navy charts, but is nowhere to be found on the NTSB's.

This piece of wreckage may very well be the key to the crash. But its trajectory, speed, and recovery location all contradict the official theory. It was blown out perpendicular to the flight path and landed more than 1/4 mile too close to JFK airport to fit within the official "spark" scenario. Rather than explaining what accelerated it, why it landed so close to JFK, or how it vanished from the reconstruction hangar, the Safety Board remained, and continues to remain conspicuously silent.


http://flight800.org/missing.htm

Also still TWA800 related

TWA 800: Wreckage Missing, Cases Pending, Eight Years Later

<snip>

In Massachusetts, Graeme Sephton, President of the Freedom of Information Advocacy Coalition (FIOAC), is suing the FBI for forensic data and analyses of foreign objects found during victim autopsy examinations. After winning an appeal at Boston Appeals Court last year, Sephton's case will be heard on July 22, 2004 at 2:30 PM at Springfield, MA District Court.

The case has already unearthed a report describing an FBI policy of withholding "suspicious" physical evidence from the NTSB during the investigation. Such a policy may explain how wreckage recovered by the Navy never made it to the NTSB.

On the West-coast, retired commercial pilot Ray Lahr is suing the NTSB to release data used to explain away what were believed to be missile sightings before the crash. According to the NTSB, the witnesses were actually watching Flight 800 climb sharply, after it exploded. Lahr's case will be heard August 2, 2004 at 10 AM at the Los Angeles Federal Court House.

TWA Flight 800 exploded and crashed off the coast of Long Island, NY on July 17, 1996. Witnesses reported seeing a streak of light rise from the ocean and collide with Flight 800 before the crash. Federal investigators dismissed the witness accounts due to an alleged absence of corroborating physical evidence, settling instead upon an electrical short circuit inside a fuel tank.


http://flight800.org/release_7_04.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leesa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 07:41 AM
Response to Original message
26. The only completely cuckoo theory is the one the WH spun
involving the cave man on dialysis pulling it off without any help from BushCo.

Who is that Rabbi Dov Someone who helped draft the PNAC documents and prior to that was the CEO of the company that makes the computer interceptors that are able to take over the control of a plane (up to 5 at a time) from the ground in the event that they are hijacked. Or was it in the event that they NEED to be hijacked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beam Me Up Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 10:30 AM
Response to Original message
38. I am MIHOP and was long before 9/11
Edited on Mon Jul-19-04 10:40 AM by beam_me_up
That may seem like an odd thing to say but I have been aware of the "Deep" political model of the power structures of our society, as advanced by Peter Dale Scott http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~pdscott / and others, for many years. Given the advances of the extreme Right Wing in our society, it was OBVIOUS TO ME that at some point they were going to have employ some catastrophe to move our society closer to a point where we would willingly accept the suspension of the Constitution.

THAT IS THEIR ULTIMATE AIM. This isn't about George W. Bush (except only in so much as he has a role to play); nor is it about Iraq or even oil--although those are important factors. What this is about is ALTERING OUR SOCIAL MYTHOLOGY--that is, the "social reality framework" within which we "make sense" of the world around us. Right now, the thought of the suspension of the Constitution is anathema to most Americans. But the truly frightening thing is, THAT COULD CHANGE. Well, think, what oculd change it?

Whatever you come up with, you must be sure that it involves CREATING THE CONDITIONS within which social unrest become so paramount that it APPEARS that only extreme, however presented as 'temporary,' measures will suffice to bring matters under control.

This is not "conspiracy theory." This is how things work when you have the ideals of Democracy at war with an underlying but rarely acknowledged fascism embraced by some of the most wealthy and powerful families within a society.

I do not claim to know precisely what happened on 9/11 but I am certain without a doubt that what we are being told happened is, at best, one cover story of a Deep multi layered covert operation. All one has to do is read Daniel Hopsicker's "Welcome to Terror Land" http://www.madcowprod.com to see that whoever Mohammed Atta was, he was NOT a radical Muslim fundamentalist. He WAS a covert agent. Under whose employ?--ultimately even he may not have known. But that is precisely the way these operations work. Only persons at very high levels of the match have overviews--and even they are often compartmentalized on a need to know basis.

This is one reason I get a little edgy when I hear people say "the Government" or "the CIA" and such like--as if they are monolythic. These things are big things and there are many layers within them.

Edit: typos and link to Scott

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Minstrel Boy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #38
48. Excellent post, and important stuff.
Edited on Mon Jul-19-04 12:17 PM by Minstrel Boy
Reading Deep Politics and the Death of JFK was a true :think: experience. More than any other work, it makes sense for me of the nexus of intelligence, industry and crime that exists at the heart of the National Security State. Conspiracies don't arise ad hoc; their infrastructure is embedded in the imperial political system. (Hence so many of the same names and associations crop up in America's shadow history, all the way from the Kennedy assassination to 9/11.) And what is commonly called "conspiracy" is not an aberration in the system. It is the clandestine workings of the system.

It's worthwhile to quote from the preface:

"A deep political system or process is one which habitually resorts to decision-making and enforcement procedures outside as well as inside those publicly sanctioned by law and society. In popular terms, collusive secrecy and law-breaking are part of how the deep political system works.

"What makes these supplemental procedures "deep" is the fact that they are covert or suppressed, outside general awareness as well as outside acknowledged political processes. Sometimes the secret is an open one, as when a particular city knows that its cops are on the take, or a nation knows that its parties have found ways to completely thwart the intention of campaign-financing laws. But some secrets are more closely held.

...

"Deep political analysis focuses on the usually ignored mechanics of accommodation. From the viewpoint of conventional political science, law enforcement and the underworld are opposed to each other.... A deep political analysis notes that in practice these efforts at control lead to the use of criminal informants; and this practice, continued over a long period of time, turns informants into double agents with status within the police as well as the mob. The protection of informants and their crimes encourages favors, payoffs, and eventually systemic corruption. The phenomenon of "organized crime" arises: entire criminal structures that come to be tolerated by the police because of their usefulness in informing on lesser criminals. In time one may arrive at the kind of police-crime symbiosis familiar from Chicago, where the controlling hand may be more with the mob than with the police department it has now corrupted."

The term "conspiracy theory" is a strawman term for debunkers to debunk. What good "conspiracy theory" describes is actually the landscape of deep politics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beam Me Up Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #48
54. Thanks, minstrelboy, for this relevant and articulate analysis
:thumbsup:

This is precisely the way I see it. The structures of power inherent in what has come to be called the naional security state are NOT directly controlled by Democratic processes. That this is not widely known and understood IS the "mythology"--what I call the "reality bubble"--the mythology of "freedom" of "Democracy" of "our inalienable rights"--in which we live and work and gain our sense of who and what we are.

For me there are much deeper questions: Is there a way OUT? This is the question, I think, that every one of us should be asking--with the whole of our lives. Not only because the whole of our lives ultimately depends upon the answers, but because there is something even more important at stake.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xocolatl Donating Member (196 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #54
59. There may be no way out
because of the technology of surveillance. And also the technology that removes the necessity of a corporation to exist in a physical location.

This may be off the subject, but what I'm coming to understand is that all the while we were living off the fat of the 90's building high-speed networks and sophisticated computing devices, we were paving the way towards the 21st century police state.

I now believe this is the direction our oligarchic masters intended for us at least 20 years ago, if not more.

The only way out may be complete collapse. Horrible, but in my dark moments I fear that it is true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gollygee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 10:48 AM
Response to Original message
40. I don't think Bush and Co. were in on it -m
But I think they were in some ways glad it happened and they aided and abetted after the fact.

I'm glad the LIHOP discussion is out there though. If people don't question we'll never know for sure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democraticinsurgent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #40
45. welcome to DU!
but please look closer at what Bush did and didn't do.

It's a lonely (but increasingly less so) place to believe that our gov't would do this. Very few people i know personally are willing to believe it, they prefer the incompetence theory.

Who wouldn't?

But it doesn't hold up under any kind of scrutiny. If it were just incompetence, few of the ten points in my post above would have occurred.

All the best from Indiana...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #45
47. Napoleon Bonaparte's quote:
"Never ascribe to malice, that which can be explained by incompetence." I wish it applied here. Unfortunately there's just too much evidence of malice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LunaC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #40
51. This might change your mind
Edited on Mon Jul-19-04 01:35 PM by LunaC

So far, no one has offered a plausible explanation for the following sequence of events:

In May 2001 the U.S. State Department met with Iran, German and Italian officials to discuss Afghanistan. It was decided that the ruling Taliban would be toppled and a "broad-based government" would control the country so a gas pipeline could be built there.

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/7969.pdf .
http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/features/fex20867.htm


Even as plans were being made to remove the Taliban rulers from power, Colin Powell announced a $43 million "gift" to Afghanistan.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-09170...
http://www.cato.org/dailys/08-02-02.html


Meanwhile, the U.S. Embassy in the UAE received a call that Bin Laden supporters were in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives. It was rumored that Bin Laden was interested in hijacking U.S. aircraft.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/images/04/10/whitehouse.pdf


In June 2001 the decades-old procedure for a quick response by the nations air defense was changed. NORADs military commanders could no longer issue the command to launch fighter jets because approval had to be sought from the civilian Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing7/for_the...


In July 2001, the private plot formulated in May for toppling the Taliban was divulged during the G8 summit in Genoa, Italy. Immediately after the conference, American, Russian, German and Pakistani officials secretly met in Berlin to finalize the strategy for military strikes against the Taliban, scheduled to begin before mid-October 2001

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1550366.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,55...
http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/features/fex20867.htm


In September 2001 the "catastrophic and catalyzing" modern-day Pearl Harbor envisioned years earlier by the White House members of the PNAC came to pass when the WTC and Pentagon were attacked with U.S. aircraft as Rumsfeld sat passive and unresponsive. Immediately, the finger of blame was pointed at Osama bin Laden, a former CIA operative with ties to Afghanistan. Suddenly, the U.S. "gift" of $43 million to the Taliban in May was cast in a new light. Coincidentally, Pakistan had participated in the plan to attack Afghanistan and the chief of Pakistan's Inter Service Intelligence agency was later linked to a 911 hijacker after wiring him $100,00 just days before the WTC fell.

http://cryptome.org/rad.htm
http://www.observer.com/pages/story.asp?ID=8830
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/uncomp/...


In October 2001, with flags waving, crowds cheering, and anthems playing, the "War On Terror" and the hunt for Osama began when Afghanistan was attacked right on schedule of July's secret meeting


Shorrtly afterwards, public focus was diverted to Iraq. You already know the rest of the story.



For full details on the PNAC coup of the White House see "The Whispering Campaign" link below.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dudeness Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-20-04 04:25 AM
Response to Original message
67. the whole 9/11 disaster
was almost surreal...however, i consider a few basic facts..

the USA since the fall of the USSR has been unchallenged as the worlds sole superpower..also unchallenged as the worlds greatest energy consumer..no oil no world dominance
small problem..
we need to take oil off other people..but we don"t want to share with growing superpowers China and the EU
another small problem
how do we justify invasions to secure oil without world condemnation
taliban..yep invade afghanistan
wmds..yep invade iraq
9/11 connection..invade iran

that would just about ensure US domination of energy needs for 50 years..

these theories do not seem so way out to me as they do to others..

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TomNickell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-20-04 06:28 AM
Response to Original message
70. Bush is a 2-head Venusian Shape-Shifter.
Keeping is semi-human form is an enormous strain. That's why he can't spare the energy to speak actual English. That and Venusians have a really hard time learning new languages.

This is Truth. But none of you have the courage to face it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Oct 25th 2014, 07:22 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC