Cenk, where you go wrong on 9-11. | 65 comments (65 topical, 0 hidden)
Not really buyin' it (5.00 / 4)
Something is wrong here, maybe other motives we don't understand, redirecting forces on 911 / 912 after all the warnings is really suspect.

But if all this was a government plot then did they just 'FORGET' to tie the whole thing into Iraq?

Really? They FORGOT the 'End-Goal' part of the plan?

First killing 3000 people and then after all that Cheney had to start the WMD bullshit, and the African Yellowcake bullshit as well to make it work. I think if you have a military plan on this scale you don't forget why you're doing it.

He knew what he wanted from day one but the incompitence of the bush administration letting 3000 people die that day was more of an oportunity they could use. (Im open minded on this, there is good argument that they let it go ahead but it's hard to believe they forgot why)

There are still a lot of questions to be answered but questioning is too easily being shut down with shouts of 'conspiricy nut', its not helping.

by Maverick on 06/09/2009 09:51:05 PM EST

Dumb vrs Dumber (5.00 / 2)
Yeah, before long they will be shooting up the Holocaust  Museum, murdering doctors or shooting cops...ooops sorry, those are you guys.

by MRFred on 06/10/2009 08:43:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]
My feelings exactly (4.00 / 3)
Seems like we agree on this about 100%.

by OneHitKill on 06/09/2009 10:17:47 PM EST

[ Parent ]
cries of "conspiracy" don't help either (3.40 / 2)

I'm all in favor of following the evidence wherever it leads.  we should redouble our efforts to get at the truth because we've seen the kind of damage that can be done by incompetence.  but there are no trails leading to either active or passive conspiracies to support or permit the attacks.  sure, ask the questions that need to be asked.  but quit wasting our time saying "oh! looky here!  it has to be a conspiracy because i haven't seen all the evidence!"  if i hear one more person say "it must be a conspiracy because they haven't released all the evidence" i'm going to vomit on someone's shirt, and it won't be mine.  just the NIST's engineering reports about the collapse of the world trade center are almost three feet thick!

http://wtc.nist.gov/

would you like to guess how much evidence there is for bombs having been planted and set off in the buildings?  NONE.

if you collect all of the various reports from responsible investigating agencies, you'd need a new library.  the 9/11 Commission alone collected thousands of boxes of documents.  i'm sick of these people who keep saying there's no evidence when they just don't want to look at it.

that "loose change" film is the height of stupid.  those boys kept asking stupid questions like "where are the parts of the planes".   I'll tell you where they are: they were smashed to smithereens in crashes at 500 miles per hour you idiots!  and they've been collected and reassembled.  i'm sorry if no one found those microscopic pieces the day of the crashes.  that doesn't mean that they weren't there.

sure, i want people to keep asking the questions.  but they should quit wasting our time with these stupid conspiracy theories until they've got some honest answers.  so far, they've got nothing.

what i want to know is how we're going to make sure that the executives in charge don't ignore the warnings from people like Richard Clarke when those warnings are shoved in their faces. how could condoleeza rice say she doesn't know or doesn't remember such dire warnings?  why is dick fucking cheney saying that it's Richard Clarke's fault that we were unprepared even though Clarke tried to warn them more than once?

investigate that for me, please?

by parplights on 06/09/2009 11:29:39 PM EST

[ Parent ]
did they need to? (3.00 / 2)
because Americans seemed to be gung-ho about going into iraq when the war started, even though there was definitive proof at the time that they weren't tied to al-qaida, nor had WMD's.  So, it doesn't really seem that the whole "9/11 iraq link" was really necessary to make this a "conspiracy".  Let's not forget, the whole theory isn't that the 19 hijackers didn't exist, it's that the higher ups knew about it, let it happen, and used it to pass sweeping legislation and start an unjust war.  There are definitely other logistacal questions that remain ambiguous, but nevertheless, the whole point about Richard Clark reinforces the fact that they KNEW about the imminent attack, and someone WAS taking it seriously.  The many people who still question the events of 9/11 aren't being done a service by people who say they KNOW what happened.  No one is disputing whether the planes hit the towers, or if there were even men with boxcutters:it's about what happened before, during, and after that raise all the questions, including building 7.  

Chris

by chrisandyasemin on 06/10/2009 12:08:22 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You're right (3.40 / 3)
I think people are forgetting that the Republicans had spent years propagandizing for a war.  And in the months leading up to the war, it was all WMD all the time.  Even though the inspectors were turning up nothing to support those claims and were, in fact, contradicting them, and even though Hussein was doing everything he could to satisfy us before the invasion, that information just wasn't getting through the haze of bullshit that the Bush administration was shoving in our faces.

Saddam was evil incarnate and we had to invade right now or face everlasting pain.

Republicans must never be given the reigns of power ever again.  A party that will lie at such great cost does not have the best interests of its country at heart.

by AnEngineer on 06/10/2009 06:42:23 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Just one thing, though (3.40 / 2)
I understand the questions posed by the various conspiracy theorists.  The questions are serious and needed to be asked.  But not over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and...

There are mountains of documents about, for instance, WTC7.  They're available for free on the web.  While a lot of people have attacked FEMA's report (with no real substance in those attacks other than the typical "well it must be true because what they said is a lie"), no one who doesn't want to be laughed out of town is attacking the NIST's report.

There were no explosives.  The collapse of WTC7 was a result of jet airplanes crashing high up in the towers.

by AnEngineer on 06/10/2009 06:55:33 PM EST

[ Parent ]
here's someone banking his career on it (4.33 / 3)
http://www.journalof911stud ies.com/volume/2007/LeggeVe rticalCollapseWTC7_6.pdf

The guy references the NIST report, so it's not like he's avoiding it at all.  I am not pretending to have answers, I'm just not sure I buy all the official explanations.  You also have to remember the democrats at the time were WEAK, and complicit, so the farther we get away from the incident, the harder it is to challenge any aspect of the "conclusive" result without sounding like a conspiracy theorist.  To accept a conclusive result from any recent administration without question , including the Obama adminstration, would be folly.  

Chris

by chrisandyasemin on 06/10/2009 09:34:06 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I understand having doubts (4.20 / 3)
But at some point you have to trust someone or you'll go nuts.  I trust the NIST.  I've relied on their work for years, and they've earned my trust.

You're talking about one guy versus thousands.  (Okay, sure, there's more than one guy who will take something out of context and claim that it says the opposite of what it does, but they're still a minority.)

The guy admits in his first paragraph that he's catering to people who don't care about calculations, can't do them, and aren't interested in them.  Then he admits that he's going to use less than rigorous methods to "prove" that explosives caused WTC7 to collapse.

He has found his niche of gullible people who are willing to let him make a living with this crap.  Some people will lend frauds like him credibility even when he tells you exactly how he's going to defraud you, and then he does it.  People have learned to not trust their government, leaving a gaping hole that snake-oil salesmen can fill.

But please trust the rigor.  Trust the peer reviews.  Thousands of qualified engineers and scientists have reviewed the NIST's report and find it credible, and none of them care what this Australian thinks.  If the NIST's report was not credible or had missed something important, there would be hell to pay from its constituents, and someone would get run out of town on a rail.

You just don't fuck with engineers.

by AnEngineer on 06/10/2009 10:05:40 PM EST

[ Parent ]
true (5.00 / 3)
I didn't say I bought what that guy was selling either...My whole reasoning for questioning official "engineer" statements is because in the initial days following 9/11, legitimate engineers were coming out saying that the structural failures weren't possible, and then later "retracted" their statements.  It's not that I don't think the NIST is the most credible source on the subject, it's just at this point there are too many things that have happened to ignore, that's all I'm saying.  I won't go nuts because I don't obsess over it.  When the conversation comes up, I talk, but I'm never the one bringing it up.  I trust the NIST, I just don't trust Dick Cheney, or the CIA.  They have proven themselves to be liars.

Chris  

by chrisandyasemin on 06/10/2009 10:21:25 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You've touched the key point (4.20 / 3)
"...in the initial days following 9/11..."

Personally, I was in shock for days afterwards.  I'm glad that I didn't have to make any decisions about national security at that time, or I might have used nuclear weapons.

And I agree: Dick Cheney is a lying sack of shit, and the CIA continues to disinform or misinform the American public to this day.  I mean, how many times are they going to change their story about what they told Pelosi?  It looks like they're conducting operations against their own country!

by AnEngineer on 06/10/2009 10:44:46 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Cenk, where you go wrong on 9-11. | 65 comments (65 topical, 0 hidden)