MIHOP, LIHOP, Incompetence: I pick curtain #3, Monty

[stevietheman]

My simple point in this probably to-be-ignored post (lol) is that I think it doesn't do our side or our country much good to argue MIHOP or LIHOP unless there have been investigations that prove them. Miscellaneous facts and whispers are just not enough, and we certainly cannot run on these vapors to convince a majority of Americans of these things.

However, the case for incompetence is far easier to make. We all know of the ignored August '01 memo. We all know of Tenet running around Washington warning all the politicians. We all know the Bush administration ignored terrorism in favor of missile defense. We all know that the Bush administration were "solidly" in power after eight months and had plenty of time to deal with preventing 9/11. And there's much more I'm sure that I cannot roll off the top of my head.

"Incompetence" will sell, just as "lack of compassion" sells. Why? Because Bush and his people play right into these things. They provide prima facie evidence of such things on a continual basis. They are handing these arguments to us on a freakin' silver platter every day!

Add to an "incompetence" argument the "suspicion" argument. It seems that I run into many people (not only "liberals") who have a _suspicion_ the Bush administration is connected _somehow_ to 9/11. This suspicion is palpable. And it does something for us that a right-winger might salivate over, if he were on our side: It allows us to play a "fear card" that the Bush administration won't dare go near... the fear that we _might_ have a criminal (or at best, bumbling) administration that is outside of the people's control, and any chance of reigning it in feels lost.

Now, finally add "complete the grossly incomplete investigation" as a third argument. Talk about _questions_ that are still lingering from the 9/11 commission hearings. Questions, questions, questions. Choose the most salivating of the questions and make them widely known as memes. With this, we don't declare a conspiracy, but merely say we don't have all the answers yet.

Of course, who knows where additional investigations will lead. Perhaps the Bush administration would even be exhonerated. But here's the clincher: We know Bush and his minions would never give in to further investigation, just as Bush will never meet with Cindy Sheehan. Therefore, this is how we can build a political movement that is _no-lose_ in nature. The fruit of this movement is that suspicion of the administration rises while we disavow conspiracy theories. And with that suspicion, he becomes even less popular.

In summary, like the right wing, we can also politicize 9/11, _without_ being conspiracy theorists.

It's about 1) incompetence, 2) public suspicion, and 3) unanswered questions.

(minor grammar edit)

[papau]

1. Incompetence has been first on my list - the "adults are in charge" was

a give away that the adults were not in charge.

[HughBeaumont]

2. Personally, I pick curtain #1, but

I wouldn't exactly call LIHOP "unrealistic" and "not in the realm of logical discussion" in the face of a PAINFUL amount of holes, facts, inconsistencies between the 9/11 (c)omission story and the actual timeline, strange and unexplained events along the timeline.

Besides, why exactly should we care what we're branded as by a bunch of nutsacks who voted for Bush . . . TWICE?

"Yer a conspiraceh thee'rist!"
"You voted for Bush TWICE. I win!"

[stevietheman]

4. Because "crying conspiracy" is an argument that sells...

even to people who aren't of the radical right.

[Lerkfish]

6. and, as long as you continue the smear against other progressives...

you're helping their argument..


ya know what I mean, bud?

[stevietheman]

11. You're 100% wrong.

If you don't like to discuss issues in an open environment, there's not much I can do for ya.

[Lerkfish]

18. passive aggressive bullshit, sorry.

you started this thread with the intent of SHUTTING DOWN discussion of an issue, unless it was conducted by your rules. Don't try to act like I"m doing your crime when I call you on it.

I'm very aware of passive aggression..my dad was an expert. I'm immune to it, buddy.

[stevietheman]

23. Wow. I didn't know I had the power to shut down a discussion.

You seem to be suggesting that I'm requiring everyone to agree with me. Not once in my original post is there a shred of such a thing.

[ThoughtCriminal]

3. One reason I agree with incompetence

With LIHOP and MIHOP I find it difficult to believe that they would have left Jr. sitting in a school reading a pet goat story after being informed that we were under attack. No, they would have been prepared to make bunnypants take heroic and decisive action.

[Lerkfish]

7. incompetence and evil are not mutually exclusive.

I'm just saying.

It could be MIHOP AND they could be incompetent.

[Old and In the Way]

8. That's explainable.

93 was delayed 20 minutes on the Tarmac. If all the planes go off on time, the whole event is over a few minutes after 9:00. So Bush is left wondering what the hell happened to the timetable. The longer it goes, the more ridiculous he looks sitting there doing nothing.

"I saw the 1st plane hit the tower on TV and I thought, that's one bad pilot."

I'll take him at his word. When do we arrest him? OK, giving him the benefit of the doubt that it was the 2nd plane he saw (for talking purposes only), why the "and I thought it was one bad pilot."? We now know for a fact that he had 52 warnings of imminent attack and the 8/6/01 PDB that said OBL planned to hit major targets in NYC with planes. Had he forgotten all of that and really thought it was bad piloting? I doubt it, he lied to the American people to cover the foreknowledge.

[mikelewis]

70. You can't be serious....

No matter how ignorant a person is, natural curiosity should have drove him to at least ask a few fucking questions. He just sat there for at least 7 minutes after someone whispered into his ear that we were under attack.

What you're failing to see clearly is that really isn't Bush's decision in a time of attack. The Secret Service should have snatched our beloved President and whisked him away to safety, not simply let him sit there as a target.

What was the first thing you did when you found out a we were under attack? Didn't you turn on your TV or did you just sit there and gather your thoughts? No, you wen't to the nearest TV and stayed glued to it like every other person in the world who had access to a television. He didn't get up to look or ask quetions or take charge. He sat there while the attack continued so he could show the world that he was "not" in charge at the time. Remember, after the second hit, when it was clear that we were under attack, there were still two target left to hit; the Pentagon and most likely WTC7. If he jumped up and swung into action, he would have to call out the air force and stop any further attacks. At that time, our air force could have intercepted both flight 77 and 93. But in stead, he just sat there. He supposedly had no intel, he supposedly had no idea how bad the damage was, he supposedly had no idea how many more planes were still in the air. He supposedly had no idea that the possibility of an attack existed and yet, he sat there. Man, no one's that fuckin incompetent. A retard would have known he needed to do something or at least get up and look. The only reason he sat there on camera was to establish an alibi and establish a reason why no military action was taken to stop any further attacks.

[Lerkfish]

5. I tire easily of progressives calling me a conspiracy theorist

There is obviously a conspiracy to use 9/11 to further their political goals.
That is without question. They have used it as their pearl harbor and continue to do so, attempting to link it with Iraq and now Iran.
And, they used terror threat levels to boost their poll numbers.

if you cannot figure that much out, you have no business being here.

Now, whether that means they caused or allowed to cause 9/11, to me is immaterial.
That they USED it in such a disgusting manner to abridge our rights and slaughter thousands is heinous enough in and of itself.

However, like you, I once discounted MIHOP and LIHOP....But that was before we knew for certain that Bush faked intelligence and had intended to invade Iraq before 9/11 happened. And that was before Bushco fought tooth and nail to prevent the 9.11 commission, and forced it into a whitewash -- and still half of the report has not surfaced.
And that was before Abu Ghraib photos became evident AND the gonzales memo came forward, and well...I'm too tired to tell you a whole list of things you should already know.

If you do not wish to connect such obvious dots, fine, don't. I'm not stopping you.
However, I really tire of people telling me what I shoudl think or say to save YOUR sensibilities and sense of reality.

[stevietheman]

9. Response

"There is obviously a conspiracy to use 9/11 to further their political goals."

But that's a different conspiracy than the one I'm referring to. Of course we can make an argument that the Bush administration used 9/11 to further political goals. They have also provided prima facie evidence for this.

Further, "connecting the dots" is a different animal than investigative facts. You are drawing conclusions that aren't backed up. I cannot go along with any of that, even as I wholly support the liberal side of the argument against the Iraq war and many other subjects. I'm not going anywhere.

However, all the items you bring up do play into a _suspicion_ that raises _questions_. But we cannot claim to know the answers before they are determined. That's unscientific. And I thought we strongly believed in science.

[Lerkfish]

16. again, you're wanting everyone else to think as you do.

not gonna happen. I respect your opinion, I once shared it.
THAT DOES NOT MAKE ME ASK YOU TO STOP.

please continue in your thought process. Leave mine alone, thanks.

[stevietheman]

20. I didn't ask you to stop.

I made an argument for my position. Take it or leave it. You left it.

You told me basically to leave DU if I didn't agree with you. I'm not going anywhere.

Truce?

[Lerkfish]

22. bullshit. stop twisting my words.

I said:

There is obviously a conspiracy to use 9/11 to further their political goals.
That is without question. They have used it as their pearl harbor and continue to do so, attempting to link it with Iraq and now Iran.
And, they used terror threat levels to boost their poll numbers.

if you cannot figure that much out, you have no business being here.


you twist that to say that I said:

You told me basically to leave DU if I didn't agree with you

stop this passive aggressive bullshit.

and as far as you not asking me to stop;

I quote you:

The fruit of this movement is that suspicion of the administration rises while we disavow conspiracy theories. And with that suspicion, he becomes even less popular.


are you or are you not suggesting we disavow "conspiracy theories"?

[stevietheman]

24. "You have no business being here" means "leave!" n/t

n/t

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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

[pox americana]

10. Bingo. "Incompetence" is the official theory,

but it falls apart under the mildest scrutiny. It was a carefully planned illusion.

[stevietheman]

12. But where's the unassailable *proof* for that? n/t

n/t

[pox americana]

15. The three WTC collapses.

Structurally impossible without the use of engineered explosives.

There are several threads analyzing the physics of the collapses in the 9/11 forum.

[stevietheman]

19. I share that suspicion, actually--that's why an investigation is needed.

n/t

[Rich Hunt]

40. by whom?

Incompetence on whose part, and a carefully planned illusion on whose part?

Incompetence doesn't fall apart under the mildest scrutiny merely by saying so. I find it the most plausible...if we're talking about certain agencies, etc.

If you really want to investigate something, you start by asking questions. You don't cobble facts here and there together and build a theory that fits one's preconceived notions of who is to blame. You just ask questions, with no bullying that effectively says, "you're either on our side or their side."

[pox americana]

60. The FAA was the official whipping boy of the 9/11 Commission

even though they issued countless terrorist warnings that summer and had virtually no power to force airlines to act on them, which they predictably didn't.

[petgoat]

61. FAA as Whipping Boy

According to the 9/11 Commission (p. 29) at 9:49 (an hour after the
first strike, and ten minutes after the third) the FAA is debating
whether to call NORAD in on flight 93.

Command Center: "Uh, do we want to think, uh, about scrambling planes?"

FAA HQ: "Oh God, I don't know."

Command Center: "Uh, that's a decision somebody's gonna have to make
probably in the next ten minutes."

FAA HQ: "Uh, ya know, everyone just left the room."

[pox americana]

62. Hey it's lonely at the bottom! n/t

[janedoe]

64. Incompetence? Go figure.

Why was that hotel next to the WTC evacuated immediately after WTC1 was hit? All the people were out of there before WTC2 was hit. Also, why did they evacuate the Sears tower, and not the WTC towers? Instead of evacuating folks from the WTC towers, they told them to stay at their desks, then tried to lock them in -- just in case they didn't obey! I'd like to know who was responsible for these decisions, and just how far they were promoted.

[pox americana]

65. Pretty disturbing. You know if a circus treated its animals that way

the Ringling Bros. would be serving multiple life sentences.

[janedoe]

66. That's it, incompetence!

Maybe the Ringling Bros. made a wrong turn ...and mistook the WTC towers for their training camp.

[Old and In the Way]

13. But the whole official story revolves around a conspiracy theory.

I find it a lot harder to believe that 19 Arabs managed to get lucky 4X on 9/11 against our $400BB/year military machine...especially when one factors in the neocon plan to invade the ME and turn it into a new American Centiury. All they needed was a "Pearl Harbor" event to get it underway.

[stevietheman]

17. Airport security was lacking, wasn't it?

Can we really deny what's obviously plausible?

I certainly do share many of the same suspicions everyone else has, but I just want the actual facts to be determined through a complete investigation.

I just don't see the good about guessing what happened--politically it leads us nowhere.

[Old and In the Way]

27. Was it lacking?

I have yet to see a manifest that clearly puts these 19 individuals on the plane. And I know planes don't depart the gate when their are more people than tickets sold. Did they have inside help? I haven't heard of any ground crew servicing the planes being picked up as accessories.

Fact is, the 9/11 Commission was a travesty of justice for the 3,000 people who died on 9/11. They whole panel gets picked by those that have everything to hide? They get slow walked and underfunded, they pick people like Kissinger, then Keans (with bin Moufahz connections) and Lee Hamilton, a Bush Whitewasher since Iran-Contra.

Was it incompetence? No one has been held accountable for incompetence. Those that actually stuffed information from getting up the chain have been given promotions. Incomptence is no excuse. People in very high places failed on 9/11 and are still in positions to fail again. What's the threshold of real, objective investigations? 30,000 dead? 300,000? 3,000,000?

Don't be surprised when they fail again. They were so incompetent that they are still in office to carry out their agenda of incompetence.

[stevietheman]

30. I was under the assumption the 19 individuals had tickets.

Do you have a source that will help me see your point about the manifest?

As for everything else you state, I'm with you 100%.

[Old and In the Way]

31. Supposed evidence of tickets, but no manifests have been released

reflect them on the planes AFAIK. Those that were released on 9/11 didn't reflect those people named. A rather odd situation, I'd think.

[StrafingMoose]

57. Yea well

you've got _suicide_ terrorists + stolen IDs so it makes it very hard for them to present a valid manifest I think... At some extent we might no even know who those hijackers were. Was there any DNA test done? (if that's even possible)

[Old and In the Way]

67. Part of the government's proof in ID'ing the hi-jackers were

their purchasing of tickets in their names. Yet they don't show up on the plane's manifest? As a relatively frequent flyer, I know that the stewardesses/stewards do a pretty accurate accounting of seat assignments before the doors close.

Another interest fact. IIRC, the flights were less than 1/2 full. I took 175 out of Boston in early August of 2001.....that flight was completely full. I think that's the case with most trans-continent flights. I remember that because my business partner and I couldn't get adjacent seating assignments when we booked a month earlier.

[Swamp Rat]

14. Monty Goebbels, I pick curtain #1 - The Big Lie.

Dah da da daah daah daaahhh!...

"You win a vacation to Iraq and a brand new casket!" :woohoo:

[Minstrel Boy]

21. An incompetence argument needs to account

for things like these:

On May 8, 2001, Dick Cheney took the job of co-ordinating a response to domestic terror attacks as he was crafting the administration’s energy policy which bore implications for America's military.

The standing order which covered the shooting down of hijacked aircraft was altered on June 1, 2001, taking discretion away from field commanders and placing it solely in the hands of the Secretary of Defense. The order was rescinded shortly after 9/11.

Those who perversely frustrated pre-9/11 investigations which could have prevented the attacks, like Dave Frasca of the FBI's Radical Fundamentalist Unit, received promotions.

Over the summer of 2001 Washington received many urgent, senior-level warnings from foreign intelligence agencies and governments - including those of Germany, France, Great Britain, Russia, Egypt, Israel, Morocco, Afghanistan and others - of impending terror attacks using hijacked aircraft.

Former lead counsel for the House David Schippers claims that in the summer of 2001 he took to John Ashcroft’s office specific warnings he’d learned from FBI agents in New York of an impending attack – even naming the proposed dates, names of the hijackers and the targets – and that the investigations had been stymied and the agents threatened.

FBI whistleblower, Special Investigator Robert Wright, claims that agents assigned to intelligence operations actually protect terrorists from investigation and prosecution, that the FBI shut down his probe into terrorist training camps, and that he was removed from a money-laundering case that had a direct link to terrorism.

The then-Chief of Pakistani military intelligence, General Mahmood Ahmed, authorized an al Qaeda double agent to wire $100,000 to Mohammed Atta days before the attacks. Ahmed spent a week in Washington meeting senior officials over the time of the 9/11 attacks. When his role as pursemaster was revealed he was allowed to quietly retire.

PTECH, founded by a Saudi financier placed on America’s Terrorist Watch List in October 2001, having access to the FAA’s entire computer system for two years before the 9/11 attack, and that whistleblower Indira Singh was told to keep her mouth shut and forget what she'd learned

FEMA did arrive in New York on Sept 10, to prepare for a scheduled biowarfare drill, and had a triage centre ready to go that was larger and better equipped than the one that was lost in the collapse of WTC 7.

Senior Pentagon officials cancelled flights on Sept 10 for the following day on account of security concerns, as reported in Newsweek.

Mohamed Atta attended the International Officer's School at Maxwell Air Force Base, that Abdulaziz Alomari attended Brooks Air Force Base Aerospace Medical School, that Saeed Alghamdi attended the Defense Language Institute in Monterey.

Multiple wargames on the morning of Sept 11, including a live-fly hijacking simulation that confounded potential fighter response, and a Pentagon simulation of a jet crashing into a government building.

Recordings made Sept 11 of air traffic controllers’ describing what they had witnessed were destroyed by an FAA official who crushed it in his hand, cut the tape into little pieces and dropped them in different trash cans around the building.

Suspicious insider trading, amounting to billions, and its cover up.

Le Figaro's report in October 2001, known to have originated with French intelligence, that CIA field agents met Osama bin Laden in a Dubai hospital in July 2001.

FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, who accuses the agency of intentionally fudging specific pre-9/11 warnings and harboring a foreign espionage ring in its translation department, and claims she witnessed evidence of the criminalized state-infrastructure of money-laundering and narcotics trade behind the attacks, and has been gagged with the rare invocation of "State Secrets Privilege," and her public testimony retroactively classified as secret.

And I trust you understand this is a very partial list.

[stevietheman]

29. Thanks for the info.

If I didn't make it clear in my original post, I want these and everything investigated.

My original post was about how we politically lead the public in this direction. It has been disheartening to see some gross distortions of what I was saying, not by you, but others who insist on MIHOP but don't seem to realize that the general public isn't with us on this.

I'm saying we should "insist on investigations" and let them lead where they lead.

[Minstrel Boy]

33. "don't seem to realize that the general public isn't with us on this"

I think you'd be surprised by some polling data.

For instance, a Zogby poll of last Summer:

Half of New Yorkers believe US leaders had foreknowledge of impending 9-11 attacks and “consciously failed” to act.

66% call for new probe of unanswered questions by Congress or New York’s Attorney General, new Zogby international poll reveals.

And I realize this a Canadian poll, but still: 63% of Canadians "believe the U.S. Government knew that the attacks of September 11, 2001 were coming and did not act to prevent them."

And the final results of a CNN poll on Anderson Cooper live:



It's those who loudly declare citizen research into 9/11 "conspiracy theorizing" that "makes us look bad" who don't realize the general public isn't with them.

[stevietheman]

47. Do you have a link to a scientific U.S. poll of all Americans?

That would be the one that would convince me of your point if it suggests the same kind of results.

[rman]

55. so, no poll ever convinces you,

since no poll ever covers all Americans.

[stevietheman]

58. I said a "scientific poll" which covers all Americans.

This doesn't mean that every American is polled, but there is a science to the polling that determines within a margin of error what the mood of all the people is.

Ya know, like a Gallup or Zogby poll... not an Internet flash poll.

[stillcool]

28. "Crossing the Rubicon", by Michael Rupport

'Sorrows of Empire', by Chambers Johnson
there is a plethora of information concerning 9/11 available at your fingertips. No one can tell you what you don't want to hear.

[stillcool]

32. better yet...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=74882&mesg_id=74961

[lostnfound]

34. Read the Sibel Edmonds interviews.

Especially this one http://www.antiwar.com/deliso/?articleid=6934 but also the Vanity Fair "AN INCONVENIENT PATRIOT" story.

No, she doesn't SAY specifically that 9/11 was LIHOP or MIHOP.
She does talk about high level officials involved in criminal conspiracies, treason, nuclear weapons smuggling.

Add in the outing of the CIA front company Brewster-Jennings which had been tracking nuclear weapons smuggling around the world.

When and if Sibel Edmonds can talk, and say what she knows, the public may be shaken to their foundations. In the meantime, the hints are telling us that conspiracies of one kind or another are very real.

[rman]

35. The point of arguing is to get an investigation going that can prove it

if it is true.

There's not much of a point to arguing once it has been proven.

When it's proven, it's done. Convictions, etc. Or so there should be.


What do you mean by "public suspicion"?
The unanswered questions... there are a lot of them and they point to LIHOP at the very least.

Are you familiar with the stories of whistle blowers Sibel Edmonds (FBI) and Indira Singh (Wall Street), and the 9-11 Citizen's Commission?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=344

[Psyop Samurai]

36. Hi stevietheman... I read your posts carefully...

...(and also visited your very nice website), and while several things I would take exception to (some characterizations are less than flattering to those who actually deserve our undying gratitude; and while I don't think you intended ill by it, a statement like "we can also politicize 9/11" is like a knife in my heart), I think there's some common ground here, and a reasonable basis for discussion.

Understand though, that the "conspiracy theory" meme, or bugaboo, is a vicious and time-honored means of precluding genuine investigation of crime in high places. It's designed to intimidate people through ridicule into conformity with false consensus. You have to make a conscious effort not to reinforce it.

That said, I definitely endorse a "multi-tiered" approach, and I totally agree with the idea of insisting on investigations through official channels. To that end, I signed both Sibel Edmond's petition and the Justice for 9/11 petition to NY Attorney General Spitzer, and would encourage anyone who feels the same to do likewise. It's not much, I know, but I'm not sure what else I can do.

http://www.justacitizen.com/

http://www.justicefor911.org/

Regarding your assertion that the general public isn't with us on this, I have to agree, and I believe they must be "given an opportunity" to "be with us".

(With all due respect to Minstrel Boy, I must ask, "are they really with us, or are they, in fact, entertaining campfire stories before bed?")

Absent grass roots penetration, the general public is "with" the corporate media, and whatever obfuscation they manage to concoct. And they will be "with" whatever limited hangout may currently be in the works. At this point, any limited hangout is an egregious, unacceptable affront to the many conscientious citizens who have faced unending devastation over this whole affair, not to mention a grave crime against history, our nation and the world.

So you can see why people get a little defensive about this, even to our own detriment at times.

But yes, let the seeds of doubt be planted where they may..., and let's move forward in good faith as best we can, keeping dialogue open where possible. And let's support transparency in official channels where such opportunity exists.

But let's also not attempt to soft-soap the situation for the sake of some presumed "victory", a "victory" that might be nothing more than a hollow sham, leading to further injustice.

[stevietheman]

39. Thank you for your response

My goal was _not_ to hurt anyone's feelings, but instead to try to work up a rational approach that could get the highest number of people on board for pushing for more investigations. When I speak of "conspiracy theorists", I'm speaking of how others see us Democrats/Liberals who entertain MIHOP/LIHOP, not how _I_ see those who believe in MIHOP or LIHOP, which are certainly imaginable scenarios. I had no intention of going on an attack against other progressives, but instead merely to discuss a political approach.

I must say I don't quite understand how politicizing 9/11 is a knife in anyone's heart. We all were hurt by this tragedy in different ways. I guess I think it's a hollow victory to say "we're too good to play on fear like the GOP" when we could instead play on palpaable, most likely already existent fears about a criminal government to create a positive result.

By the way, I'll make sure I sign those petitions, if I haven't already... it's hard to remember if I hit those already. Thanks!

[Psyop Samurai]

42. I appreciate your intention to broaden support...

It seems you're trying to move things in the direction of practical results, and that's an important discussion to have. I'm trying, myself, to maintain a flexible approach, and I think it's time for building bridges.

There are certain intractable problems, though, that cannot be wished away, and the divide across which bridges must be built is great. The fact is, we are living in nothing less than a reality warp.

I'd like to refer to an earlier post, where Lerkfish said:

Now, whether that means they caused or allowed to cause 9/11, to me is immaterial. That they USED it in such a disgusting manner to abridge our rights and slaughter thousands is heinous enough in and of itself.

I could (and should) expand upon that at great length, because therein lies an essential key to their "reality lock". In my opinion, Lerkfish actually understates the case.

Their exploitation of 9/11 to perpetrate murderous fraud, (and the Iraq invasion can be characterized as nothing but - even accepting the official narrative of 9/11), greatly exacerbating the presumed terror threat in the process (revealing the "war on terror" as totally fraudulent), is complicity. Period. That is not "vapor", friends. That is logic in a moral universe - something that legions of paid whores would seek to obliterate.

Where, then, is any basis for presumption of innocence? They are complicit as a grave robber (who just happened to be in business with the murderer and the undertaker), with as much moral standing.

The problem with putting things in a Dem/Rep framework is that these are not political issues. These are criminal issues that transcend political party. And our party, I'm afraid, is as invested in the BIG LIE as anyone.

Be that as it may, I don't dismiss the idea of playing up lingering doubts and being strategically smart. I think a few brave souls have been doing just that, and we should support them however we can. And we should, in the process, give as little ammunition as possible to truth destroyers who seek to marginalize us, which means don't fuel their "conspiracy theorist" meme. (I understand you were addressing the issue of public perception.)

Overall, I think it's better to repeat the question than to give them an answer. Let them answer. Let the burden of proof fall on them. In that sense, I think we are in agreement. And I agree that it ties into the broader issue of accountability, which many people can readily understand.

Unfortunately, they've constructed a diabolical mind fuck where calls for accountability get spun into innocuous "incompetence" hangouts, thus reinforcing a false paradigm, in which the slaughter of 9/11 was but a gust of wind. We shouldn't, however, be paralyzed by this, as any transparency can only further unravel the ball of yarn.

[stevietheman]

45. Response to "complicity"

"Their exploitation of 9/11 to perpetrate murderous fraud, (and the Iraq invasion can be characterized as nothing but - even accepting the official narrative of 9/11), greatly exacerbating the presumed terror threat in the process (revealing the "war on terror" as totally fraudulent), is complicity. Period. That is not "vapor", friends. That is logic in a moral universe - something that legions of paid whores would seek to obliterate."

I understand where you're coming from, but in my mind, I would tend to say "suggests complicity". I think "exploitation" is a term that anyone in their right mind would agree to, as the Bush administration serves it up in our face continuously. The question that stems from this is: Why does the administration seem to be so jubilantly and politically exploiting 9/11 as it is, where in a sane universe, we would expect solemnity and nonpartisanship? What I am saying is that the question is more powerful than anyone's answer. The question drives the suspicion, which in turn, hurts Bush's popularity and increases interest in more investigation.

(I may have responses to other parts of your great post later... just short on time here)

[Psyop Samurai]

50. I understand where you're coming from too...

"I would tend to say "suggests complicity".

LOL - I know you would...

...and while that may bug me, I concede that that type of sensibility is required to navigate official channels.

I left you a more argumentative post below...

Have a good one. :)

[Rich Hunt]

41. question

Can one believe in a conspiracy and be a skeptic at the same time?

What if someone has a conspiracy theory but the details and assignations of blame are not the same as those touted by the majority of vocal 'conspiracy theorists'? Does that automatically make them not part of the 'truth movement' (I hate that phrase for some reason, it sounds quasi-religious, I guess)?

[stevietheman]

43. I tried to address that...

If we concentrate on having questions, but not the answers... we would all be in pretty much the same league. And when people call us "conspiracy theorists", we could reply with "we're only asking questions that haven't been satisfactorily answered yet".

If we all tried to imagine answers today, and many of us are, it would be a diverse collection of theories and "floating facts." I'm concerned that getting everyone to agree on the answers before the questions are properly investigated is a prescription for perpetual disarray that will mean 9/11 will forever remain a mystery.

[Psyop Samurai]

49. Here again, we're on the same page, and yet...

The first paragraph makes perfect sense - it's about solidarity, gaining a foothold, and diffusing criticism.

Then the characterizations start: "imagining answers", "collection of theories", "floating facts". I don't find this to be at all descriptive of the overwhelmingly cohesive picture achieved by citizens' investigations, citizens who, as I suggested earlier, deserve our undying gratitude, and without whom, there would exist practically no popular awareness or support for exactly what you're proposing.

So, that continues to be an issue, even as I agree *in principal* that "getting everyone to agree on the answers before the questions are properly investigated" is fundamentally self-defeating.

But, what exactly constitutes "properly investigated"? To me, in view of the staggering betrayal already perpetrated, granting subpoena power to those same citizen investigators would be a proper start. Inferring that 9/11 is some sort of unknowable mystery without the imprimatur of ABC and the New York Times, is to unwittingly perpetrate a falsehood and to misidentify the enemy.

Unfortunately, the system in which people have placed their trust, in no way warrants that trust. In effect, you're asking people to go along, and I say "absolutely..., on our terms!" I don't need validation from a system where an authority figure, having lied 10 times, on the 11th is presumed to be telling the truth, and where a citizen, having told the truth 10 times, on the 11th is presumed to be lying. Any "victory" in our future must be predicated on exposing such fundamental shams.

Sorry if that comes off as harsh, but that is the gravity of the situation.

[Psyop Samurai]

44. Hi Rich...

Despite various "9/11 orthodoxies", I don't know that anyone has an absolute lock on the "truth". Moreover, I don't think you have to "solve the crime" to be part of the truth movement. Most of us are not criminal investigators (although circumstances have pretty much turned us into that), and I think the essence of the truth movement is raising the mountains of incriminating evidence and demanding nothing less than a full accounting.

Myself, I'd take that a step further to insist that there is no basis whatsoever for presumption of innocence on the part of anyone who seeks to obstruct investigation and shield the guilty. Anyone aiding and abetting the cover-up is committing a crime.

[leftofthedial]

37. "unless there have been investigations that prove them"

ha ha ha

you so funny!

[stevietheman]

38. Totally serious... allegations are just that until proven.

I feel it's reckless to assume that various floating facts are automatically true without the rigor of some peer-based study, such as an investigation.

[leftofthedial]

46. what I meant was funny

is the notion that there will ever be serious investigations

[spooked911]

48. Incompetence is for amateurs

Incompetence is great to get people started thinking about 9/11, but really, once you delve into it a little, there's no doubt it is more than incompetence.

The main problem with incompetence is it is very naive and completely ignores the vast geopolitical benefits of 9/11 for the US.

[StrafingMoose]

51. Not to mention..

"The main problem with incompetence is it is very naive and completely ignores the vast geopolitical benefits of 9/11 for the US"

...that incompetence would result in a wide array of random possibilites. Assuming people aren't being incompetent on purpose, fitting a calculated pattern, in situations like 9/11. The possibilites turned out that 3 out of 4 planes reached their targets and the one that missed wasn't even shot down (according to the OCT) by "competent" authorities.

Like Griffin would say: "Possible? Yes. Probable? No."

[petgoat]

52. Griffin Also Points Out That the Beneficiaries of the Incompetence

are the agencies (the Pentagon and the Bushcists) who most benefit from
it. Also, nobody--not one person--was fired, and many of the
incompetents were promoted.

[staticstopper]

53. Yes, that burns me

but I suppose it could be argued that the administration felt that "the terrorists caused so much harm, we were not going twist the knife for them"

But they should have done the honorable thing and resigned - that they did not almost makes me more suspicious.

I wonder which grants possible traitors more protection - staying in government or getting out? I'm sure the legalities are very confusing.

[Tim Howells]

54. Just one comment on this truly disgusting post ...

It is completely unacceptable to advocate "politicizing"
September 11, and to worry about choosing the best scam on
the subject to "sell" to the american people. Any decent
person with any semblance of a heart and a soul will only
want the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth
on this subject. How dare you post this slime here? Do
you really think any of us would back off one fraction of
an inch on this subject depending on which political party
or politician might be worse hit by the truth coming out?

Tim Howells

[Psyop Samurai]

56. Well said, Tim...

You have put in words my feelings exactly on this notion of "politicizing". This is what I meant when I said it was like a "knife in my heart".

I appreciate where you're coming from and why you have responded as you have. I pray the original poster will arrive at a similar understanding.

I can't just leave it there, however.

For I must, in all sincerity, ask you this: what exactly constitutes a "decent person", and does every "decent person" really want "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth"? I thought I knew the answer to these questions; I thought it was self-evident. But my experience over the last two and a half years has, to put it mildly, eroded my confidence in those answers.

To grasp the deception of September 11 is to enter an abyss. But a far greater abyss awaits those who would warn others of that deception. For in fact, many "decent people", people I've known for twenty years, don't want to know the truth. They can't even say "September 11". Moreover, they want you, the messenger, dead.

Welcome to mind war.

I have come to perceive the situation as this: a critical mass will, under no circumstance, stray beyond certain fundamental underpinnings of consensus reality. And I suspect that the perpetrators of mind war have at their disposal plenty of statistics and raw data supporting precisely that.

What I'm saying is ugly. It is unpleasant. But I believe it is un-blinkered. Betrayal is the order of the day. It is everywhere. Who's the enemy; who's the ally? Would that a new Nuremberg might settle accounts with Bushco, its supporters be forever discredited, and the "decent people" get back to their former business. But the shattering truth is that the best possible outcome will not be so tidy. We will, all of us, live with this for the rest of our lives. And we will be forced to accept a broad amnesty.

What I found worthy in stevietheman's post was the idea of "shifting" popular consensus in the direction of truth seeking; of creating an "umbrella" for revised consensus; of thinking "strategically" in our endeavors. I believe there is a distinction between "strategizing" and "politicizing" - the latter can only be viewed as abhorrent. I was attempting, in my feeble way, to draw that distinction, and not throw the baby out with the bath water, so to speak. I may be fooling myself - it wouldn't be the first time.

We are, and will continue to be, confronted by false paradigms. Believe me, I've tried shouting people down. Years of righteous wrath, and here we are.

What I'm saying is can we entertain a discussion on broadening support, without giving anyone a free ride? Can we keep dialog open where, as in this thread, there appear to be irreconcilable differences? Perhaps there are more "decent people" out there waiting to come aboard.

Respectfully,
psyop samurai

[petgoat]

63. I understand your reaction, Tim

but given that our common goal of the truth has become a "political
football" in today's context, I agree with Sam that strategizing to
maximize our effectiveness in moving public opinion toward recognition
of the need for truth is appropriate. I suspect that you simply
over-reacted to the OP's suggestion that "we can politicize 9/11".

Given that all the Jersey Girls are recently calling for a new
investigation, it seems to me that the striking that political iron is
in the interests of everyone who wants the truth.

[spooked911]

68. exactly-- I think the OP was more about how best to get people's attention

on this major issue.

[StrafingMoose]

59. After reading the whole thing...

"However, the case for incompetence is far easier to make. We all know of the ignored August '01 memo. We all know of Tenet running around Washington warning all the politicians. We all know the Bush administration ignored terrorism in favor of missile defense. We all know that the Bush administration were "solidly" in power after eight months and had plenty of time to deal with preventing 9/11. And there's much more I'm sure that I cannot roll off the top of my head."

criminal negligence - (law) recklessly acting without reasonable caution and putting another person at risk of injury or death (or failing to do something with the same consequences)

If you're willing to send them to court for this, you might score some points with me.

I don't vouch for "incompetence" though.

I'll end this short post with a quote from former Soviet spokesman Georgi Arbatov, who spoke to an American audience about Gorbatchev's move to go "perestrioka" and "glasnot" and start the process which would end the Cold War:

"We are going to do something terrible to you...We are going to take away your enemy"

[spooked911]

69. Yep, the military-industrial complex needs an enemy-- ain't it funny

how quickly one showed up as soon as the cold war was over.

[mikelewis]

71. How ironic is it that the enemy that showed up was the won we built to...

destroy the soviets and lure them into a Vietnam style trap. Gee... I wonder why the 9/11 commission didn't bother to even mention this little detail.

[StrafingMoose]

72. They [mujjahidins] were even seen...

as a strategic tool which they (CIA/MI6/etc) could use and funnel their "hate" against any enemy they'd wish to hit.