9/11: don't know, conspiracy theories involving US government full of holes, IMHO.
Iran: Well some nutcase neocons want to invade, and I think Cheney might be looking for an opening for an attack. I think bad domestic political situation, potential big problems with nearly all allies, and military vulnerabilities in Iraq are making even the Cheney faction take pause. Thank goodness the nutcase neocons have lost influence, otherwise I think it would happen. What Bush thinks, I have no clue. I think probability of attacking Iran dipping below 50-50 now, which is still too much risk for me.
Iraq: I think Wolfowitz was being honest when he said there were many factions who had many reasons for the Iraq invasion and WMD was the one excuse they could all agree on. However, I think Cheney's faction wanted to play stupid geop-oil-itical tricks and moronic military power projection ploys. He clearly wanted to install a Saddam-light regime, probably headed by Chalabi. I have read that after Chalabi's force de frappe dissolved just hours after a glorious entry into Iraq, Cheney was delusional enough to blame it on Colin Powel's meddling. That Chalabi turned out to be a Iranian agent shows you just how canny and ept Cheney and his faction is. Clearly Cheney built those humongous new Iraqi super air-bases for a reason, and it was to station US forces in Iraq permanently. Anyone have any plausible idea for another reason to build them.
Now that Iraq is a mess, I think Cheney doesn't mind it too much, and is willing to use that as an excuse to keep troops in the country. So, I think he has resigned himself, is satisfied with a chaotic semi-civil war, as long as he can keep US personnel on his precious super-bases. He is making his lemonade out of the rotten lemon he produced. I don't like to think that because it would make Cheney a true monster, but what other rationale there be, unless he is senile, insane or delusional?
Right now we are between a rock and a hard place in Iraq. Either withdrawing soon or staying long term poses immense and probably unacceptable risks. I know some lefties don't like to hear that about their pet plan, but I think it is true.
I think a wide spectrum of sensible folks, from Greenwald, to Pat Lang to the ISG have said that only hope for improvement is a national debate about US goals and mission in the area and serious and comprehensive diplomatic, political and economic measures, talks, negotiations in Middle East, and also inside Iraq with all parties (except of course Al Qaeda elements). I think such action is our only hope of avoiding a horrible dilemma regarding what to do. OF course this is the one course of action the Bush administration has rejected out of hand. Why? Well, for Cheney's faction, I think it actually does not serve their purposes, since it might solve enough problems to make US withdrawal quite soon an obviously reasonable course of action. That means the US would have to negotiate a SOFA with some kind of semi-stable semi-popular Iraq government -and I think that Cheney's bunch correctly guesses that the US would not get a SOFA, so screw that shit, they think. What Bush thinks, who knows?
Posted by anon at April 14, 2007 11:04 PM911
No I don't believe the official lies. We may never know what really happened. There are too many unanswered questions.
1. Why did the towers fall at near freefall speed?
2. Why did building 7 emplode?
3. After flying off flight plan for almost an hour, what kept NORAD from following long established procedures to intercept the flights?
4. Why did the government dispose all the material from the towers without conducting an investigation similar to other aviation crashes?
5. Why did bush read my pet goat after hearing the nation was under attack.
6. Why did the bush administration give the Taliban $71 million in April 2001?
7. Why did cheney shutdown the Senate plans to implement anti-terrorism counter measures in 2001.
8. Like every other airplane crash, why didn't we see the 757 wreckage in front or inside the pentagon?
9. Who was really on the planes that crashed into the towers?
Iraq and Iran
Both Iraq and Iran are as much about oil trading in dollars as the oil heist itself. With an over stretched inflated dollar and lost U.S. credibility, the oil-dollar link is essential. Without the oil-dollar link, the U.S. could experience a devaluation similar to the monetary devaluation that led to the USSR colapse.
The Iraq oil heist is necessary to maintain the "book value" of the four major U.S. and U.K. oil firms. As known reserves shrink, the book values of the major oil companies will also shrink.
Posted by Smooth at April 14, 2007 11:05 PM9/11: I think they knew an attack was coming, but they expected a 'traditional' hijacking and were completely blindsided by the scale of the attacks. I'm cynical enough about Bush and Cheney to believe they would have been willing to write off a handful of deaths in order to get their war on.
Iraq: They were completely unprepared for the aftermath because they had completely bought their own hype. Between all the talk of 'cakewalk' and Iraqis 'singing great songs' about Bush (and the media echoing their every public utterance as if it had happened already), they came to believe their own lies.
Iran: Again, I'm cynical enough to think all they need is a pretext. The troubles with an over-extended military won't even slow them down, because they'll do it all by air. But if they do it, it'll be close to the presidential in '08. Better to try and stoke up war fever to benefit the GOP candidate, who will need all the help he can get.
Posted by Stranger at April 14, 2007 11:55 PM1. They knew that the hijackers were coming, but neither of them expected to hit the jackpot with the implosion/demolition or whatever it was. They may have added to the devastation by adding Building.#7, anthrax, etc., although I don't think we will ever get at the complete truth.
2. Iraq was the target for which 9/11 was the excuse: the oil. This was set up with the collusion of the Saudis to eliminate Iraqi competition. Bush & the Saudis were afraid Saddam was going to trade for Euros. They completely underestimated the Sunni/Bathist/Nationalist response to occupation.
3. Much of the disasters this administration has perpetrated stem from its "let the maid do it" attitude toward the responsibilities of life in general, as well as its despising of the maid. The hubris is mythic, and the inability to perceive reality is astonishing.
4. The manufactured confrontation with Iran continues the administration's delusional master PNAC plan, with its characteristic heedless arrogance.
At this point, the only hopeful alternative is that the sheer momentum of the Bush-Neocon fiasco has begun to throw the dreadnaught off its rails somewhat, and to the degree that they still have some concern for appearances, there may be hope in their confusion ---
but not much.
9/11: i tend not to believe in these convoluted conspiracy theories, and i haven't read anything that convinces me that anyone other than al qaeda was involved. seems to me that richard clarke and tenet and others had their 'hair on fire' that summer and knew something was going to happen but couldn't convince the cheney-bush and the condi to pay any attention. Stranger at 11:55pm is probably right that they were astonished at the actual scale of the attack. the neo-cons had certainly been planning on invading iraq and wanting to control the persian gulf for over a decade, and 9-11 worked for them.
iraq: the neo-cons are inept about planning anything beyond shock and awe. they clearly thought it was going to be a 'cakewalk', so they blew off warnings from State, CIA and others about what problems there would be afterwards. caos and a massive civil war doesn't make any sense to an 'realistic' imperialist: one wants to dominate the region and exploit the people, control the oil fields and get it flowing so that you can make profit; you don't want instability throughout the region. they also think that military power necessarily would tranlate into social and political domination, that they could intimidate the iraqis into submission - but it hasn't worked that way for any imperial power since the mid-20th century. the age of colonialism is over and these guys don't even know it - they're dinosaurs. and a lot of this has really passed beyond their conscious control - unforeseen historical consquences. they certainly want those permanent military bases in iraq as part of the lily pad strategy to both control the persian gulf and capsian sea resources, and further encircle russia and china.
iran: i rather expect either the US or its proxy israel to attack sooner or later. but domestic politics may very well be forestalling an imminent US attack. i don't follow internal israeli politics so I don't know though i hear some saber rattling, though again that may be for domestic consumption, just like in the US.
also i have read that there is considerable opposition to an attack within the US military itself. remember, there was a big neo-con propaganda push on radio and TV against iraq for months and months before the actual attack, and there hasn't really been a whole lot of neo-con enthusiasm for a new war, so i am inclined to believe it's not going to happen right now. though 6-8 months from now, it might be a convenient distraction for an adminstration facing impeachment. who knows. i kind of look at it this way: the ruling political and media elites pretty much all got behind the iraq war but since that's been such a disaster the ruling elites are quite divided about both the 'wisdom' and 'feasability' or likelihood of 'success' in an attack on iran.
if bunker busting nuclear weapons are used in any attack, i expect that the whole world would go crazy. and rightfully so.
I'll make this as brief as possible.
911/Iraq/Iran:
After we were attacked on 9/11 we as a country wanted PAYBACK..and the BLOOD of anyone of Arab ancestry would do. Any Questions?
Bush picked a target, Iraq, that he felt would be an acceptable and easy way to quench our nationalistic bloodlust and to a lesser extent,lend a hand to his friends (national and international)in the oil game. Any complaints?
Congress stuck their finger in the air to measure the popular opinion and went along without much prodding and very few relevant questions. There was little tatictal or intelligence information going in that was either truthful or relevant. The progress(?), to date, of the WOT in general and the Iraq war specifically, can be summed up as "garbage in, garbage out". The most effective policies to date by the Bush Administration have been aimed at the American people by undermining our Constitution instead of radical Islam.
Who fights a war by shooting first and asking questions later? The Bush Administration. They were politically pandering to the American public after getting caught with their "election stealing" pants down and in need of doing something, anything dramatic before the media could ask any hard questions about their competancy in "preventing" 9/11. Shock and Awe was a diversion and palatable substitute for competancy, and we ALL bought into it.
No exceptions, No excuses..!!
The fact that powerful people own multi-national companies and have bought our political system along with the international shell-game of American media ownership, who's motto is info-tainment sells, edu-tainment is unprofitable , should be of no suprise to anyone who can read.
The problem is that the media used to be owned by patriots. Even if they were racist, homophobic and xenophobic, they still lived here and had a stake in what went on here out of national self interest. Not anymore. I wouldn't be suprised to find out that some mega multi-national media consortium owns some of the radical Islamic media outlets as well as MSNBC. What's to stop them? Who's going to write that article, publish it, and have it taken seriously? Certainly not their bought and paid for US Government and media.
"Garbage in, Garbage out"
The rest is just tap dancing until the next election, or next 9/11, whichever comes first.
I'm betting on the next 9/11 because congress is still tap dancing and the White House is in full bunker mode.
Question? While the democratic congress is gleefully kicking Bush in the nuts, have they stepped up with a convincing and detailed plan to get us out of this mess? Or, are they just pandering until 08'..... Jus Sayin'
"Garbage IN, Garbage Out"
One World,
Domio49
Posted by Domino49 at April 15, 2007 02:51 AM9/11: I believe most of the US official story about 9/11. I don't believe there was a credible threat that a hijacked plane was going to ram Air Force One. I think Bush's puddle jumping from FL to LA to Offut, NE was a keystone kops response to a crisis - a combination of this admin being in over their head and Cheney enjoying running things from a bunker. I don't believe Bush ever gave Cheney approval to shoot down Flight 93. I don't believe the US fighters were scrambled in as timely a manner as we were told. I believe Al-Qaeda (Bin Laden, Zawahiri, Khalid Muhammed on down) acted independently. It's possible Saudi and Pakistani intelligence had a vague idea in advance that some attack was coming and that vague idea was watered down into some US intel ('Bin Laden determined to attack US') but I don't think there is any conspiracy.
Iraq: A permanent GOP majority (achievable if Bush aimed a bit lower after 9/11) would have yielded more profits for Bush's corporate cronies than even these 8 years. I think the Neocons thought Iraq would be easy, Rumsfeld was eager to use his tech war with minimal troops the CIA basically ran Afghanistan, Bush wanted to 'fight evil', and Cheney wanted to remake the world. Because this is a paranoid and political group the only agency that had done any realistic planning for the aftermath (State) was frozen out of post-war Iraq. Everybody in the admin wanted to try out their own pet theories in Iraq (military, economic, political, 'fighting evil') and like Wolfowitz said, picking WMD enabled all of them. The incompetence was in not recognizing that all of the military, economic, and political goals were mutually exclusive and never picking one true goal.
Iran: I don't think Bush will attack Iran in '07. The Pentagon is leaking pretty badly against the admin now and plans will come out before they are enacted and get beat back. I don't think Iran was in the plan from most of the Bush admin but after so many failures they are in 'flight forward' mode. After each failure they start a new project and switch rhetoric to suggest the new project isn't in fact new, that it was the aim all along. So getting Bin Laden becomes stopping WMD becomes liberating Iraq and Afghanistan becomes getting the WMD in Iran. It's not planned beyond trying to save face. As for attacking Iraq I think Bush might lob a few cruise missiles their way out of sheer stubbornness, nothing massive. If that happens, Iran will publicly take the hit, put on a brave face, and then kill scores of British troops in the south covertly. The British, who never supported the Iraq War in the first place, will try to broker a peace of their own. Iraqi nationalist Muqtada al-Sadr will call for solidarity with the Iranians and it will be open season on US troops in Iraq. The US would then retreat to bases in Iraq, turtle up, ramp up the air campaign against anything that has so much as small arms fire. Until Jan. 09.
Coda: Bush leaves the mess to the next guy and declares 'Mission Accomplished'. The US then becomes like the old British Empire in the eyes of the world without the reputation for competence. Obama is the best public face to get our reputation back around the world (priority #1 IMHO) so I support Obama for President.
Posted by joejoejoe at April 15, 2007 03:16 AMI'll make mine short. Although I am not addressing each point, I think that the overall goal is becoming quite clear to many.
Here's what we do know. Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, and the rest of the architects of this War are capable of absolutely anything, including the most evil of deeds. If we have learned nothing these past six years, we should have learned that much. The drive for world domination and control of the world's valuable resources is a powerful motivation. Power, control, resources, wealth and The New World Order.
The “New World Order was announced in a keynote speech by President George H. W. Bush on the eve of the Gulf War. Meant to signify US success in combining the military forces of numerous nations to “police” future global flare-ups – beginning with Iraq. Sitting at the core of the NWO is another goal: the political and economic dominance of the globe by an immensely powerful business elite.
Lurking behind and controlling the emerging world government is a small handful of influential men who consider it their birthright to dominate mankind. Those who form this cabal operate in a network of organizations that proselytise the demise of western democracy.
Do you think anything short of impeachment can stop him?
Absolutely not. That has already been proven.
Posted by Judith at April 15, 2007 04:38 AMAbout the events on and before 9-11, I believe a serious and objective investigation has not yet taken place. To that extent, I don't know what happened or why.
I am suspicious and do not accept that conspiracy is beyond the pale of reason or reality. I am suspicious because of evidence which is plainly in view but poorly explained and I am puzzled why so little effort is directed toward explaining it compared to the concerted effort to dismiss it. It is the Missouri inclination: "Show Me", but don't begin by telling me I am lost or stupid.
The general animus developed between the US and militant Islamists as a result of stationing troops on Saudi soil is real enough. Bin Laden had his reasons and could have acquired the means in concert with those who already felt a need to strike at the US from outside our borders. I think we may have known about these general motives and actions. I think President Clinton was seriously concerned and had a growing awareness of how potent these forces were becoming. I also think that G Bush, the Elder, suspected this would be a result of the First Iraq War.
I have learned enough about G Bush the Elder to doubt he had pure motives about Hussein and the Middle East. When someone says "it's all about the Oil", I generally agree. I think national policy and resources have been put in the service of high-powered families and corporations for baser reasons than national defense, freedom and democracy. Occam's Razor and elemental truths of human nature lead me to think Bush and his predecessors have always acquired and used power as an function of personal and social privilege, as though it were an entitlement. The politics they espouse is a mask.
Iraq and Cluelessness: The Administration and its NeoCon adherents are only a few degrees apart. They see one another as means to an end. There are NeoCons who want to "spread the chaos" for ideological reasons which are roughly equivalent in ambition to the militant Islamists who want to eliminate a western presence in their lands. The "pragmatists" among them are opportunists more alert to and involved with the players among the powerful, and simply want to make it happen. The "moderates" among them are aware of the difficulties in amassing political power and public consensus. They are technicians in the world of political affairs. But then you have the unmoderated, pretentious and idiotic faction to which Cheney and Bush belong. They are essentially 3rd string guys who watched and learned from the sidelines, but they never got into a serious game in their lives. By attrition, more experienced and competent folks died off or left the field. They found a good coah in the form of Karl Rove-- a guy who could get them properly teamed and into the game. Rove is not personally enamored of Neocon positions, but a well-paid functionary who knows who cna provide the resources for a good team. Rove is the Coach Landry of the Texas Doofus crowd.-- the guys who can afford the best equipment and cleanest, snappiest uniforms, but who could never play on their own talent if their lives depended on it. But boy can they put on airs and act the part!
Iran and War: Let's just say I believe they are trying hard to amke it happen. Like a lot of corporate types (management buffs), the "make it happen" philosophy is pervasive. They have not given m,uch thought to "why" it should happen, they just trust the ideologues who keep telling them it is the right thing to do. I think Cheney is most closely connected to the ideological powers on their team, and is sort of the like the varsity captain who herds the team in a direction. But as I say, that is also Karl's job and Cheney and Bush are Karl's public face in such matters as war. The guys who really want the war and the chaos in the middle east are hidden from view.
Are they connected to Israel? Yes. But having said that, I no more believe Israeli interests are homogenous than any other social or religious or political group. American interests have long been tied to Israel's and couched in pseudo-strategic terms (Democracy's lone defender in the Mid-East neighborhood who needs endless support and tolerance). The David-and-Goliath resonance of situation and the cultural resonance with elements of Christianity are also old and venerated by a large segment of America. But I am convinced in my middle age that this is all about oil, power, and survival-by-suppression and domination of other people, cultures, and nature itself.
Am I hopeful? Yes, because humanity itself is not homogenous either. There are those among us who look for other, better ways.
Posted by gtash at April 15, 2007 05:08 AMFor the most part, I think the comments by joejoejoe have lots of truth in them.
It is pretty clear that none of us KNOWS for certain all the motives and decisions that have let to this calamity. But there are some appalling aspect of their characters that have become incontrovertible over the years that can only lead to conclusions.
1. Greed is good, Greed is great. All decisions must first pass the greed test. Does it make them and their owners richer?
2. They will use the power of their positions for the purpose to advancing their religion of greed using every and any means possible.
3. The death of Americans to achieve their goals is acceptable. The death of non-Americans is of no consequence.
There are other things that we know about them but they are mostly derivatives of the above three facts. Given this, what can be said about 9/11, Iraq, Iran
9/11: Where they happy 9/11 happened? Of course they were. It was the gateway to everything else they have done. Without it, there would be no endless war, no war in Iraq,.... Did they know it/something was going to happen? I don't know about Bush, but Cheney and others, almost certainly did. Did they facilitate it or actively not prevent it? A little less certain but it does fit their M.O. Could they have prevented it? WITHOUT A DOUBT.
Iraq: There were lots of secondary motives but the primary one is:
Greed ==> need to control Middle East
Who knows what what deals they had made with Saudi Arabia and what control they had in the decision to go to war.
Iran: Yikes! I'm not sure how it would pass the greed test except to push the price of oil up. Again, maybe Saudi Arabia has a say in their decision.
Posted by FuddleDuddle at April 15, 2007 05:37 AMOne post script:
I realize that one point is foggy in my description. "All About Oil" is an expression that NeoCons would cheerfully admit to. Domination over competitors depends, in their view, on total strategic control of energy resources which are central to the economy--out economy and that of our allies. Like the Cliff Robertson character in Three Days of the Condor, they ask "what do want your government do?" about the lack of food or oil when the shortages are epidemic. Rhetorically: don't you think your nation's survival depends on controlling everything that allows us to live in the lap of luxury no matter what happens to anybody else? Shouldn't we be willing to fight over that? And if you buy that, then why wait until losses and discomfort are greater? Do your fighting now when it is cheaper and easier? The political technicians of their ilk would like to see war occur on a cost-benefit model. The ideal war is the one that comes when the cost-benefit ratio is most favorable, and you try to jigger the national politics to match the timing.
This is a peculiarly strained argument. So much for regarding the good sense and the will of the people to act in concert and provide a guide for a leadership. No, it is quite the reverse. The People are sheep much to fat and happy to plan ahead or even use the right values in computing the course of their destiny.
And to boot, you have these allegedly "free market economy" types telling us they want a free market because that satisfies all possible desires most effectively and "fairly". At the very same time, they think hegemony perpetuates their dominion and comfort so they can "win" when a "free-market" fails to distribute all the energy and food fairly. I am sure they think the efficiency of the market is the problem, and the cause of this inefficiency is other countries and alient interests who don't use or appreciate the same free-market lubricants (money) as US interests, so it's out government's job to just kill them. They would call this "being realistic".
These guys never consider there are indeed some things you cannot put a price upon. They think everything---EVERYTHING--- is or ought to be subject to the "free market". Their religion is the market and it runs deeper than Christianity or Judaism in their veins.
I think my views on the events of September 11th, 2001 are pretty well known around here. The short version; the atacks were planned and perpetrated by Islamic extreemists. The mechanics of who, why and how I don't have much doubt closely follow the official narrative. Are there some details that may be incorrect or unknown? Of course.
As to the Bush administration and/or our intelligence organizations involvement I think this; The Bush neo-con administration came to power with an agenda. Their almost total disregard of foreign policy in favor of rushing into their conservative corporatist domestic agenda from day one is very important. They were not thinking about terrorism on any broader scale than how the concept of dealing with rogue states could facilitate their desire to tighten control over energy, read oil, supplies. Anyone who doubts that every act of this administration has as it's ultimate goal to strengthen corporate interests is fooling themselves. That being said I think there was a willful disregard of anyone seeking to get attention paid to terrorism. It's clear that a continuation of attacks like the Africa embassies, the Kohbar towers bombings and the USS Cole attack would act as a facilitator for the Neo-Cons. So while I don't believe they actively caused an attack they were prepared to accept one. I think the scope and devestation of the 9/11 attacks was much much worse than anyone had expected. Had they known the ultimate result I think they would have done more to try to prevent it, or limit it. But it gave them what they needed.
The Iraq invasion was an objective from day one for this bunch. The fact that Cheney's top priority upon taking office was his enrergy task force doesn't make it such a stretch to understand that regime change in Iraq was about access to oil and had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein being any kind of a violent threat to the US. Everything that has happened since the invasion is the result of; The intellectual bankruptcy of the Neo-Con world view and the incompetence of George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and all the other top tier administration officials. No one could possibly have envisioned the past four years as the best way to enrich a bunch of corporate fat cats. It's just a clusterfuck. Plain and simple.
Iran? Before the invasion of Iraq happened I knew without a doubt that it was coming. Without doubt. Since at least the summer of 2002. I don't have the same feeling with Iran. Can I quantify why? Not really.
If he does intend to do it nothing short of impeachment will stop it. And an attack will be a complete disaster for the world.
That's a lot of stuff to hit while rying to be concise Steve.
Posted by snark at April 15, 2007 06:31 AMAnd my apologies in advance for reposting this. While I don't mind being called an asshole I most certainly am not a liar.
it continues to fascinate me...how it is that jokers such as snark work so diligently to put words in my mouth.
why would any asshole care to do that?
i have never disputed aircraft colliding with terrain. my proposition has always been, what aircraft? -Albert Champion, April 14, 2007.
Never disputed collision with terrain?
Really?
neither did they have anything to do with the demolition of part of the pentagon[no airplane impacted it]. neither did they fly an airliner into the ground in shanksville, pa. -Albert Champion, February 28, 2007.
From the comment thread of the post Dodging An Inconvenient Story by Steve Soto on February 28th, 2007.
Now technically, he doesn't actually say that aircraft parts were planted. But since he says no plane impacted the Pentagon any airplane parts had to come from somewhere else. He also supports the theory that photos from the scene were doctored ( as laid out by scam artist and huckster Jack White whose work Albert has supported on his own site). So Albert, if no plane impacted the Pentagon where did the aircraft parts found at the scene come from?
None of your questions matter. Nothing that has happened is *about* 11 Sep. or Iraq or Iran. Everything that has happened is exclusively about domestic politics. Iraq, Islam, terrorism, Al Qaeda, may as well not exist, because they are merely symbols and allegories. If they did not exist, others would have to be put in their place.
Posted by Frank Wilhoit at April 15, 2007 07:57 AM9/11 - I believe that outside of funding from S. Arabia, Al Qaeda was solely responsible for 9/11. There are many that can share the blame for allowing it to happen, most importantly agencies that had a long history of not sharing information and a government that failed to see the necessity of doing so.
Iraq aftermath - I see this as very similar to our initial involvement is SE Asia. Long-time experts of the respective cultures were ignored and dismissed because their opinions did not match with the pre-concieved notions with those in power. For Kennedy, it was the "Can Do" approach to all aspects of government. I can think of no catch phrase for Bush, but the approach was essentially the same.
Iran - I hope common sense prevails, but am not confident it will. I can see a plan to attack tearing apart the relationship between the military and the government. I could see the military staging some sort of revolt. That would be a first for our country and it's very scary to contemplate.
The story that most intrigues me is the massive redirection of wealth - the movement of wealth out of pension funds, home equity and and through war/gov't profiteering. The middle class is being sacrificed to finance investment in a world economy and if Bush and Co end up owning the whole pie...well...bummer.
Posted by allansfca at April 15, 2007 08:33 AM911 Planned by Osama. Carried out by disaffected Saudis. Ample evidence this administration had prior knowledge of an attack using hijacked airplanes. Didn't have to happen if anyone along the line would have mandated hardened cockpit doors on the American fleet, as had largely been implemented worldwide.
Otherwise, all of the conspiracy theorists ask me to believe that a bunch of fuckups who can't manage firing 6 USAs could do something as complicated as taking out the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and somehow manage it to perfection.
Iraq Absolute ineptitude on the part of the administration. Their record proves incompetence at administering or governing anything. None of these people could keep a job spreading pixie dust on a tilt-a-whirl, let alone manage a war.
Iran: If the surge, defying all rationality, works in Iraq it will validate the groupthink regarding Iran. Otherwise, even these idiots are showing that they recognize they are incredible fuckups. The "war czar" thing is a perfect expression of this recognition within the administration.
Posted by phidipides at April 15, 2007 08:42 AMSince I'm too lazy to write a treatise, I'm going to agree with snark on all three counts. Any kind of cover up (in my mind) after the fact has to do with how woefully unprepared we were for such an emergency - despite Richard Clarke's attempts to get the admin to prepare. The further covering up is that after 6 years, still no real effort has been made to prepare despite all the appropriations and rhetoric.
I knew Iraq was coming around Aug. 2002, when Cheney started the drumbeat, just as I knew the first Iraq war was coming when BushI gave the Jan 15th deadline. They wanted to get their mitts on that oil and create their new world order. They fucked up big time.
As for Iran, if Bush couldn't get poodle-boy to agree with bombing after the sailor captures, he now knows that he's totally alone in his quest to glassify Iran. That isn't to say Bush won't try to find another "incident" to start it, or an accident will give him an excuse, but I just don't see it happening, either.
Posted by iamcoyote at April 15, 2007 08:47 AMIraq was the true example of the "make it happen" management "strategy" gtash enumerates. That was the one that Bushco wanted to do from day one, but needed some excuse in order to push/accomplish it.
The driving "thought" behind it in those "early days" of early 2001 was access to and control of Iraq's oil and this was always Cheney's thinking and motivation: He's the "Father" of The Iraq Adventure.
9/11 occurs because of simple Bushco incompetence, and Cheney sees his chance to invade Iraq. The humiliated, emasculated Bush (who had lost his two proud, erect towers of capital) could be easily talked into it: who knows what Cheney used to motivate our nitwit--demonic evil, WMDs, Saddam "thumbin' his nose", whatever, Bush is a third rate intellect, he does what the group says to do, pathetically thinking it was "his" decision. Serious mental illness/weakness involved.
Despite all evidence pushed into their face to the contrary, Cheney and Rumsfeld thought Iraq would work out like a dream, that they could have a "peaceful" permanent occupation with most troops redeployed within 6 months, and "help" the Iraqis with all their messy oil.
Iran: Bush is now a certifiable psychopath, who has sweat-dreams every night that he is indeed the Worst President Ever. America has personally repudiated him in the clearest manner possible, and he is going to do whatever HE thinks is "right", damn us and our democracy.
According to a famous biography, Hitler came to hate the German people for "failing" him and being "weak", and he decided they should be destroyed as a people.
Bush now hates the majority of America for rejecting him and his "policies", and doesn't care what he does to us. If his messianic militarism "works out" over time, then he's vindicated; if it doesn't and things get much worse, well, "lib'rul" America deserves whatever it gets.
He's said that he isn't going to leave office with Iran having a nuclear enrichment capacity. Iran isn't going to stop its "program" without a major diplomatic effort/grand bargain, which Cheney's neocons won't countenance.
We can't do anything to stop their program other than use nuclear weapons to try to destroy the facilities at Natanz. And if Bush is going to do that, he might as well REALLY teach 'em a "lesson".
Logic thus dictates the conclusion.
Posted by euzoius at April 15, 2007 08:51 AM"I take it for granted that most folks who read center-left blogs are well-read and better informed than 90% of the population, and I don't mean they are conspiracy hounds."
You shouldn't take so much for granted. Judging from the comments above, Left Coaster readers are as dumb as posts.
Consider two facts: WTC 7 was totally demolished by an unexplained collapse that cannot be attributed to fire or airplane impact. The volume and specificity of insider trading on airline, insurance, and defense stocks indicates foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks by a large circle of investors completely unconnected to al Qaeda.
Those two facts alone scream "inside job," yet commenters here must hedge and prevaricate in a MSM-like 'he said, she said' pretense to consider both sides of the question. "I believe most of the US official story about 9/11." "The short version; the atacks were planned and perpetrated by Islamic extreemists. The mechanics of who, why and how I don't have much doubt closely follow the official narrative." "They knew that the hijackers were coming, but neither of them expected to hit the jackpot with the implosion/demolition or whatever it was."
DUMB AS POSTS
If you can't understand why Newtonian physics proves that a steel-framed building that collapses at free fall speed must have been brought down by controlled demolition, you are mentally unequipped to graduate from high school. This is simple, uncomplicated physics and an unwillingness or inability to process this information indicates a subnormal IQ or a hysterical dedication to belief in fairy tales.
Yes, readers of progressive blogs may be well-informed in general, but the level of maintained ignorance and belief in physical impossibilities regarding 9/11 is too much to ignore. Any self-respecting progressive blog-reader has an obligation to inform him/herself, not just parrot the progressive blog-approved party line.
Do you understand Newtonian physics? If so, you know why the official story on the collapse of WTC buildings 1, 2, and 7 is horseshit. Do you understand the rules of statistical probability? Then you know why the insider trading pre-9/11 points to an inside job. If you don't understand these two universal, non-partisan principles -- then you are as dumb as a post.
Posted by Chris at April 15, 2007 09:14 AMChris:
Yes, Chris, you have hit the nail on the head. Although, I think perhaps "dumb as posts" is inaccuate. Cognative dissonance might be a better explanation for refusal to consider the incompatability of the official narrative with the principal of conservation of momentum.
Objects that fall at free fall rate, fall with no resistance. For the roof of WTC7 to hit the pavement in 6.5 seconds, all resistance (every intact support column) necessarily needs to have it's structural integrity eliminated ahead of the collapse wave. No amount of hydrocarbon fire or southwest corner debris damage can account for this unspinnable fact.
Wars in Iraq, and proxy wars elsewhere are only possible because of the 911 atrocity. No one has been charged, arrested or tried for this mass murder on US soil. There has been no evidence presented or cross examinined in a court of law. No finding of fact has been attempted.
"Islamio-fascists" have been convicted in the media. The experience of the Duke La Cross players might give one a clue as to how dependable media accusations and assumptions regarding guilt are. The government continues to play on racist tendencies that reside deep within the American psyche to advance their GWOT.
An independent, well funded and impartial investigation into the 911 atrocity is critical to the future of the United States. Barring that, there is little hope to the ideals that this country was founded upon can be realized.
Posted by brisa at April 15, 2007 09:41 AMAs regards 9/11, I just don't know. I certainly can't dismiss the serious questions of physics and behavior (why did the "terr'ists" have more than an hour to keep flying around?) out of hand, no matter how unbelievable the consequences of such a conspiracy would be. Until we get an actual investigation, I'm uncertain. I have always been willing to believe that this crowd would willingly accept a series of standard hijackings, with consequent loss of life, because they've proven that mentality over the last 6 years.
In Iraq, there is no need for doubt. Just read their "Mien Kampf". Every statement, action and expressed belief of the neoclown parade revolves around military (sexual) dominance and Empire. One of the desperately kept secrets of the Cheney "energy summit" involved maps of Iraqi oil fields. The motivation can be clearly seen in the four, city-sized enduring bases constructed in the Iraqi deserts, as part of their lily pad base strategy.
These cretins believe they are the new Metternichs for the 21st century. When you're historically right, you don't need to sweat the details. Hence the incredible clusterfucks they've spread in their wake, like a train of circus elephants: Afghanistan, Iraq, Katrina, etc. ad nauseum. Failure has no personal consequences, so they have no care.
With Iran, I'm slightly more hopeful that they may be deterred, but I'm afraid the odds are still with insanity. Bush AND Cheney are both completely divorced from reality at this point. I have little faith that the sycophants and courtiers Cheney and Rumsfeld replaced real generals with over the past 5 years, will provide any "revolt" to deter the war machine. With Ohlmert at 3% popularity, he is likely even more desperate for distraction. Israel may well provide cover for an assault. I also have no confidence that the Cheney administration would feel any restraint at using nukes.
We're fucked unless we can IMPEACH the asswipes. Perhaps starting with Abu Gonzales would be a good first move. It might get to be a habit. Even if we survive the next 21 months, the cleanup will be horrendous. EVERY Executive department has been filled with unqualified, "bushies" and/or American Talibanis. And we MUST start with the terminally corrupt "4th estate" or the whole thing will happen again.
Posted by at April 15, 2007 10:11 AMPaging Al Coa! Mr. Al Coa to the courtesy desk, please!
Looks like Chris has a bit of a keyboard problem. I'll help:
I'm DUMB AS a POST
There, all fixed. No need to thank me.
Seriously, though, it's pretty sad that all this energy is spent looking for non-existant conspiracies while real ones like the anthrax killings go unexplored.
Posted by iamcoyote at April 15, 2007 10:12 AMI haven't posted in a while, but here is what I think I think.
9/11.....The information/facts are not all in. When it comes to espionage operations, our government, when it puts its mind to it, can do one super excellent job. Was 9/11 one of these? The data is not all in yet.
Too many curios...I won't go into it here.
Iran: It matters not if there is a quagmire in Iraq. It doesn't matter if IEDs are destroying our fellow countrymen and women often. It matters not that Petraeus was surprised by his own Defense Secretary's press conferrence about extending everyone's mission from 12 to 15 months, no exceptions. People are not communicating effectively.
Bad communications between government institutions is a hallmark of this Administration, and did not stop them from attacking Iraq.
This is what matters:
a) 3 aircraft carrier battle groups (and associated destroyers, mine sweepers, attack submarines of the LA class, etc.) are going to be in place big time later today or early tomorrow morning, I believe. Baghdad time. Teheran time.
b) the "tripping point" mechanism is whether Iran was going to go from about 147 spinning centrifuges to 3,000. They apparently have put up the requisite number in the last 2 weeks, and are going to expand upon that. They said so officially. King Chimpy said he would never allow them to get the capacity to get the uranium in the format necessary for nuclear reactors or weapons. That "tripping point" has not been reached, and passed.
c) A new moon is tomorrow (Monday) evening. No one has made a report on whether B-2s are at that Scottish airbase. That is the tip off. Has anyone have such a report? The new moon will allow unimpeded and unhindered flight of aircraft, cruise missiles, and Israeli warcraft and missiles of a variety to traverse the sky over Iraq until they follow their parabolas onto Iranian soil.
d) The Russian intelligence services have already made public their information that we are completely prepared now for a strike on Iran.
e) Has improper preparation prevented this Administration from engaging in War efforts? Attacks? Shock and Awe? The answer is no. So it will not prevent them from attacking Iran.
Will it happen tomorrow? We'll see. Just remember there are four or five day period of time where the moon's illumination is still dark enough to not impede the attack. Then they have to wait once again until May. For the new moon.
I think it will happen this month.
I am most upset because Persian girls are super hot and beautiful. I met such chicks out in Los Angeles, where I used to live. Where do you think the term "houri" (in the English language) comes from? It comes from here--defined as "beautiful, voluptuous, young woman"....and now they will all apparently become poisoned by radioactive fallout...probably have a certain amount of biofluorescence.
And all may lament Admanhejad...and Bush.
Posted by Troubled American at April 15, 2007 10:54 AMI need to make one correction...the "tripping point" has been reached, and passed....so it is now inevitable...sorry I put that "not" in my posting above..
Seymour Hersh is giving a talk at the local branch of the Penn State University on Tuesday. We'll see if he has further interesting and salient points to make.
Posted by Troubled American at April 15, 2007 11:00 AMThe World Trade Center towers did not fall at freefall speed.
Posted by snark at April 15, 2007 11:19 AMConsider two facts: WTC 7 was totally demolished by an unexplained collapse that cannot be attributed to fire or airplane impact.
Except a plane had hit it and it was on fire.
If you can't understand why Newtonian physics proves that a steel-framed building that collapses at free fall speed
You mean, it accelerated at the speed of gravity? Amazing. It's like some invisible force caused it to fall once the building lost structural integrity. God, what could that invisible force be? It's a question for the ages.
And it's amazing that if you detonate a charge in front of a mass it actually increases gravity!
Bedevere: ...and that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana shaped.
Arthur: This new learning amazes me, Sir Bedevere. Explain again how sheep's bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes.
necessarily needs to have it's structural integrity eliminated ahead of the collapse wave.
Yes, ideed. That's why demolitionists gut the building and attach hundreds of charges to key structural components. No doubt, this is what the traders meant when they claimed, "Hey, there were guys in here for weeks digging around the building. All of the interior walls were gone, and I didn't even have a desk. And it was tough to keep from tripping over the fuse cords running the length and width of the building. They said they were working on the air conditioning."
If you can't understand why Newtonian physics proves that a steel-framed building that collapses at free fall speed must have been brought down by controlled demolition,
And they timed the sequence of charges so precisely that you don't even see the floors collapsing in front of the debris wave, like you would expect to see on an exterior framed stressed skin building.
I think you missed another possiblity. Someone installed giant rocket boosters on the top of the WTC and "drove" the buildings down. Hey, did you see that big smoke plume coming from the top? Then Oompa-Loompahs removed the motors before the emergency crews moved in.
Then you know why the insider trading pre-9/11 points to an inside job.
No shit! It's like some corporate whore was in the administration when the administration learned there was going to be an attack using commercial jets, and that the administration was ignoring it. It's like that corporate whore told some buddies who then shorted airline stocks. Fucking too bizarre for anyone to consider. No, it must have been an orchestrated conspiracy. That's a hell of a lot easier to pull off.
Posted by phidipides at April 15, 2007 11:21 AM9/11 -- was the probably a production of the Pakistan ISI (Inter-Service-Intelligence) with some help from their (Saudi?) friends. The Taliban was created by the ISI; Al Qaeda was created by the ISI. Prior to 9/11, General Hamid Gul (former head of the ISI) was a principle advisor to Osama Bin Laden. Lieutenant-General Mahmoud Ahmad, the head of the ISI at the time of the attacks, arranged to have $100,000 wired to Mohammed Atta shortly before the attacks.
Al Qaeda was the front organization, that provided cover for the real planners -- the ISI.
What about the Saudis? Margie Burns wrote in the Baltimore Chronicle on the Saudi/Las Vegas connection to the 9/11 highjackers. The first version of the report said Prince Turki bin Faisal, the longtime head of Saudi Intel (until he was abruptly fired in August 2001) was on the flights. Here is the deleted section:
... Yet, a few days after 9-11, 31 passengers were allowed to fly out of Vegas, including one passenger named Al-Hazmi. One Saudi royal aboard was Prince Turki bin Faisal, famous as the head of Saudi Arabia's bloodstained and much feared intelligence service from 1977 until he was abruptly fired in August 2001.Whoa; time out. What, exactly, was the longtime head of Saudi Arabia's secret police doing in the United States, while 15 young Saudis were carrying out their attacks? Prince Turki's brother was also on board the Vegas flight; another of their brothers is Saudi Arabia's foreign minister.
Why, exactly, did the fired head of Saudi intelligence hotfoot it over to this country, right after getting the boot? Or was he in the US when he was fired? His replacement was officially announced on August 31, 2001. Did National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, or anyone in the White House national security office, even know that these persons were in the United States? Given Prince Turki's documented contacts with Osama bin Laden and Pakistan's Inter Service Intelligence, which propped up the Taliban, why did the White House let these persons leave? ...
Who knew about the attacks? Almost every intel service on the planet knew something was going to happen, but "Bin Laden determined to strike in the USA" was not part of Bush's program to loot the treasury, so why should he care? Israeli Mossad agents were arrested in New Jersey after filming the attacks -- make of that what you will.
Who were the highjackers? We don't know -- some of those who were identified are still alive, probably the victims of identity theft. A friend who is a licensed small plane pilot says there is no way the highjackers could have learned to fly 757s by training in small aircraft -- which suggests that it was military pilots at the controls, which supports the ISI/Saudi Intel theories.
The American Consulate in Saudi Arabia refused visas to some of the highjackers, but they were overruled by the CIA -- why? Some the highjackers trained at a CIA connected flight school in Florida -- why? My guess is professional courtesy -- the Saudis (and maybe ISI) asked permission to bring some assets into the US, to train for some unkown purpose. This would explain why the highjackers were off the CIA radar, and why George Tenet was easily compromised by the Bushistas after 9/11. But this is speculation, although it is plausable.
Iraq -- Iraq was the only country in the Middle East that had nothing to do with 9/11. Why did the Bush Cabal invade? Different reasons for each group. For Bush, it was "Saddam tried to kill my daddy"; for Cheney, it was all that beautiful crude; for Rumsfeld, it was crackpot theories about transforming the military; for the NeoCons, it was taking out an enemy of Israel and replacing it with chaos -- which they would like to extend to Iran, Syria, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia.
Iran -- the right wing Revolutionary Guard (including the President) is losing popularity, and the best way to restore their ascendency is to provoke an attack by BushCo -- which will have exactly the opposite effect of what Bush/Cheney intend.
9/11 building collapse -- although the collapse of WTC-7 is still a mystery, there is NO evidence that there were explosives pre-positioned in the twin towers. The problem with skyscrapers is designing them to be strong enough to stand, while being light enough to not collapse under their own weight. Once a collapse begins, all of the structure underneath is vertical debris, waiting to be collapsed into the ground. The structural damage caused by the planes, combined with the burning contents of the buildings ignited by the aviation fuel, compromised the structural integrity of the towers; smaller planes, less fuel, they might have survived -- but there is no evidence (other than circumstantial speculation) that they were sabotaged.
Posted by -ck- at April 15, 2007 11:28 AMOriginal point: Consider two facts: WTC 7 was totally demolished by an unexplained collapse that cannot be attributed to fire or airplane impact.
Rebuttal: Except a plane had hit it and it was on fire.
Posted by phidipides
phidipides proves my point: commenters here are dumb as posts.
(phidipides. Look up WTC 7 and tell me which airplane hit it. If you won't inform yourself of the facts, your arguments will founder on ignorance.)
Posted by Chris at April 15, 2007 11:41 AM9/11 - The official story is roughly correct. There may be more Saudi involvement than has been let on. There was probably an expectation on the part of the Admin of some sort of terrorist attack; if so, there was a deliberate decision to let it happen. The magnitude of it took them by surprise: hence Bush's deer in the headlights look during those seven minutes. Bottom line: had the Bushies planned it, they would have salted it heavily with "evidence" pointing to Saddam. Ergo, they didn't plan it.
Iraq - These were the Mayberry Machiavellis. Like everything else with them, the war was primarily political: a chance to hand out fat contracts (including ultimately to Exxon), and bash Dems' patriotism. They never planned or thought about policy except for its impact on PR and on their contributors. Consequently, the fiasco.
Iran - It was always part of the plan. Then Iraq went badly. It was going to be attacked this spring anyway, but the election and some brave foot-dragging from the generals have thrown some spanners in the works. If Bush is not impeached, he will order it done by late next year. Unless his numbers sink into the mid twenties, those orders will - despite some prominent resignations - be carried out. (His quandary: do it now, while he's still in the low thirties and Republicans in congress are not yet terribly skittish? Or do it just before the election, so Dems suffer at the polls from the war's brief honeymoon?)
Posted by nicteis at April 15, 2007 11:42 AMHaving been in downtown Manhattan and having watched the entire scenario from huge south-facing windows on 14th St., I can say without a doubt that the towers did fall instantaneously--in fact, I missed the falling of the first tower as I turned my back to the window for second, heard everybody on our floor scream, and then turned back and it was gone. The second tower fell just as quickly, as I did see that one fall.
I'm not going to go further into the conspiracy debate becaue it is a red herring in my book--whether or not explosives were planted, the plane that hit the Pentagon was really a missile, etc. are largely irrelevant to the view that a conspiracy can happen through purposeful neglect and omisssion of duties: Whether or not there was direct knowledge, I think there is a rear-guard conspiracy by the Bush administration to cover up governmental incompetence and dereliction of duty. (My other thought of the morning of 9/11 was, "where are our fighter jets?" )
Regardless, it provided a perfect cover story for the neocon agenda, and for the Bush regime, which, prior to the attack, was struggling to find an identity. The so-called 'War on Terror' provided a little bit for everybody in the neocon-right-religious alliance: Oil, war profiteering, massive weakening of the Constitution, and an opportunity to consolidate political control of the US for a generation.
The neocons and their partners were too enchanted with their pipe dreams, too insulated from the historical reality of the Middle East, and too complacent in their belief in high-tech weaponry and 'shock and awe,' and their misguided belief that force and will alone were all that was necessary to make their fever dreams of Empire come true.
Unfortunately, a wounded tiger is the most dangerous, and that's what the Bush regime is right now--the corruption and gaming of the system that were part and parcel of the 'Republican revolution' are appearing like cancerous lesions all across this administration.
Competency, unlike ideology, cannot be faked, and this administration has been both grossly incompetent and criminally neglectful of anything that falls outside of its political purview. For that reason, any actions taken against Iran will boomerang on the Bush regime, resulting in their ultimate takedown, with tremendous further collateral damage being done to the United States, its people and institutions.
I do think that some day, additional information will come to light in public about 9/11 and the Bush/Cheney war machine that will result in an international effort to recover the principal architects of this criminal enterprise and deliver them to justice, reminiscent of the Nazi hunters in the aftermath of WWII.
Posted by cheSF at April 15, 2007 12:24 PMI didn't weigh in on the last thread...but here goes for this one.
9/11 I believe most of what we already know and learned ...but feel that the administration was so preoccupied with preparing for an attack on Iraq that it paid little attention to them. Heck Condi hadn't even heard of them when she got into office. Darth probably did but he's so evil he just ignored it and let it happen because he wanted his justification to get the oil from Iraq and his secret energy task force and so he paid little attention. It wasn't a priority so it was a willful negligence.
Iraq...Let's say I believe that some of the hardcore neocons running the show really believed it would be a cakewalk (perle, Feith,Wolfowitz) and others like Darth, Rummy et al probably didn't think it would be quite so easy (lied about it in a salespitch because it was also their goal) but it didn't matter to them because even the chaos justified staying in the region...for domination of the region and the oil. People within this administration, didn't necessarily care how they got into Iraq, they just wanted in and want to stay so it didn't much matter if they went along with the true believers of the cakewalk theory or not, the ends justified the means. It was a alliance of convenience among people with perhaps different motives and beliefs.. the true believers and the I want my money, military industrial complex dollars for my corporate cronies. As the situation evolved I believe some decied to make the best of a worst case scenario and have endorsed staying in because they are making money and those who truly just wanted the oil and the power/global dominiation.
Iran...I say I wouldn't be surprised if there was an attack before the end of Bush's term, but there are people currently in the administration who will try to undermine those individuals.(Gates and maybe even Condi)versus Cheney. I also think that the further into the remaining term we get, the chances of this war decrease (because of domestic pressure)....which is contrary to what I used to think and more in line with the cornered animal theory.
I say the brains behind the whole evil policy is really Cheney. Bush is just a member of the Cheney cult...and Cheney has him under his evil spell. I'd say greedy Cheney continues to crave power, oil and endless war(s)....and will push for one with Iran. If this happens it will devastate our country.
I think there was an "inside" conspiracy related to 9/11, but not the conspiracy usually cited. The Bush Administration and Neocons conspired to ignore all of the numerous warnings they were receiving about Al Queda and Arab men planning to fly planes into buildings. It was a conspiracy of omission rather than comission, but a genuine conspiracy nonetheless.
Posted by Katherine at April 15, 2007 02:09 PMMaybe they did heed the warnings, and realized that by ignoring them, their reason for taking this Country to war with Iraq was being dropped in their laps.
Posted by Judith at April 15, 2007 02:35 PM9/11: The Saudis funded it, Cheney knew it was coming and short-cicuited any effective response because he (and Rove) knew it would enable them to shred the Constitution to give their side unlimited power. Shrub was a bystander who was let in on certain home truths after the towers fell: Cheney is running the government on behalf of the oil companies who want to invade Iraq and snatch its oil. The Saudis want American troops off their soil but close by in case of radical Islamist revolution in their country. Corrupt contractors and corporations (especially Halliburton) want to make and loot billions. Shrub will keep his mouth shut, wear the costume of a "war president," and do what he's told. That's why Junior looked like a deer in the headlights. And why anything short of a firing squad (Impeachment? Go f**k yourself) won't faze these guys a bit.
Iraq: see above
Iran: Ooops. Deposing and executing Saddam left us minus a bogeyman. Gotta find a new one...
Posted by dalloway at April 15, 2007 02:49 PMWTC 7 went down WITHOUT a plane hit.
WTC 7 was totally demolished by an unexplained collapse that cannot be attributed to fire or airplane impact.
Of course, this was your conspiracy to which I was responding If so, you know why the official story on the collapse of WTC buildings 1, 2, and 7 is horseshit.
But I'll play on WTC 7. After the North Tower was nailed by a plane, caught on fire, and collapsed, the bottom 18 floors of WTC 7, especially the bottom 10, were compromised. 1/4 was gone...the rest on fire. Hmmm, now how many stories were on top of those upper 18? Hmmmm. Was it specifically hit by a plane? No. Did a plane cause it's collapse? Yes. After the bottom 1/4rd is on fire and damaged I wonder what could happen? Why, we know that no steel framed building has ever collapsed when it's bottom floors are damaged and on fire...it's stupendous!!! Of course, I'm sure you took into account the 1989 renovation that removed three floors, added 350 tons of steel and 9 big ass diesel generators to the top of the building.
But you can completely discount the descriptions that WTC 7 was hit with the force of a volcanic eruption by the debris from the North Tower, because there was no volcano present. And those photos showing bulging and cracking of the walls at the penthouse level of WTC 7 before the fall? PhotoShop!!!
And how could WTC 7 have been hit by columns from the North tower when it was a little over a football field length away from the North Tower? It's impossible...especially since the North Tower was a little over 4 football fields tall. Let's see, A-squared plus B-squared equals...yeah, right. The North Tower could never have hit it.
Here. This has the photos and videos and interviews you nuts on the conspiracy sites don't show or act like don't exist. Of course, it's easiest to propose a conspiracy if you lie about and hide the facts, but people like you are too easy to debunk. Maybe you should join the Anna Nicole conspiracy group? They'll believe anything you say and you won't have to look like an idiot here.
Posted by phidipides at April 15, 2007 03:30 PMPhysics 101:
The formula for calculating rate of falling objects in a vacuum due to gravity is:
t=SQRT(2*d/g) where d is the distance to fall and g is the acceleration of gravity (32ft/sec squared.)
The WTC7 building is 600ft from street level to roof top. Plugging 600 ft. into the equation as d gives the time of freefall from that height as equal to 6.12 seconds.
Timing the collapse of that building from video evidence reveals a collapse time of 6.3-6.5 seconds. The difference of .2 to .4 seconds can be easily attributed to air resistance since it obviously did not collapse in a vacuum.
Welded and reinforced support columns in areas of the building not affected by falling debris from the towers would offer significantly more resistance and would increase the collapse time much more that a fraction of a second.
Hydrocarbon office fires would in no way cause weakening of industrial steel girders to the point of deformation or evaporation and their contribution to the collapse is negligable.
If the structural damage to the southwest corner was significant enough to critically weaken the structure, we would see an asymmetrical/partial collapse, not the one that was the case with WTC 7. Namely a uniform and total collapse at free fall rate (taking into account air resistance.)
To say that building 7 of the WTC complex did not collapse at free fall rate is patently untrue. Get a stop watch and time it yourself. God knows there is ample video evidence that can be utilized for this purpose.
Posted by brisa at April 15, 2007 03:34 PM9/11: The official story is true. I believe the administration new terrorism existed, and that terrorists would attempt to attack US interests around the globe. Just as terrorists have done in the past few decades. I don't think they specifically knew about the plan to hit New York.
Iraq: I think we went in to stablize the region and empower people to vote and take part in their government. Capitalism gives people hope and opportunity. However, I believe the administration underestimated the removal of a ruthless dictator from Iraq. Saddam wasn't a politically correct kind of guy and had the power to slaughter and gas the opposition. We don't do that and instead try to act as peace keepers in a country that has opposing factions seeking to gain control. This war is not specifically about oil, but about creating a stable Middle East with prosperous people who have a vested interest in creating opportunity and success.
Iran: Iran will be attacked before they have nuclear weapons. It will be a joint effort by the EU and the US. I don't think it matters if it's Bush, Hillary, Edwards, Obama, Gore, Rudy, McCain, or whoever. Action will be taken.
Posted by muckdog at April 15, 2007 04:13 PMphd, n, WTC 7, nd WTC 1/2 wr dm-d dwn; dd y g t brsschckTV.cm nd g thrgh ll th 9/11 lnks nd mtrl gglng vrythng y fl t ndrstnd?
Ths st hs ctl ftg f ll spcts; pls g nd spnd jst cpl hrs vr thr, s t's mstly vds, bt thr r sm hrd lnks.
[Editor: ignore=off]phid, no, WTC 7, and WTC 1/2 were demo-ed down;
Nope. I'll always disagree on that point, scout. The videos didn't convince me. Do I believe that the powers that be could conspire to do it? Yes. Do I believe that they have the competence to do it? No.
Posted by phidipides at April 15, 2007 06:11 PMWell at least one thing's been proved.
Albert's a liar.
I really have no interest in rehashing the physical evidence with a bunch of people who have utterly convinced hemselves that a massive conspiracy to secretly demolish three massive office towers in lower Manhattan happened based solely on punching a stop watch in unison with some video tape.
Posted by snark at April 15, 2007 09:07 PMwhat continues to fascinate me are those who post to anti-establishment boards[this board, for instance], who style themselves as skeptics concerning so much of the bushit regime, yet accept all of the bushit concerning the events of 11/09/01.
anyone accepting the "official" story is a "faith-based" individual.
i suppose that they just cannot grasp a usg that is more than willing to kill lots of people in the furtherance of its objectives. but, you know, from my perspective, the usg has never had any qualms about perpetrating mass murder. in fact, that is probably the only aspect of the usg at which it has mastery....mass murder.
as i have said on a number of occasions, the usg entered into a conspiracy to obstruct justice when it prevented an immediate investigation into the events of 11/09/01. and what is so injurious to the republic is how so few care to note that.
it is serendipitous that steve energized this discussion today. it is a day that the history channel did a bit on the jfk "hit". i surfed into it when lee and marina were revealed on some ship sailing into manhattan. that was an interesting pic of lee. a pic that bore no resemblance to the individual captured in dallas. which caused me to recall bob groden's photographic essay, IN SEARCH OF LEE HARVEY OSWALD. if you don't know this photo essay, i recommend it to you.
but, perhaps some of you are savvy enough to recall that the investigation into the 1963 dallas hit also was deflected by a conspiracy to obstruct justice. when did that conspiracy to obstruct justice start? as soon as jfk was pronounced dead. when the ss prevented the now citizen kennedy from being autopsied by individuals not under the control of the potus.
what more can i say?
i shall say this....as a rule, all aircraft accidents are considered crime scenes. and all aspects of the site are secured. and a real forensic investigation is conducted.
that didn't happen concerning the events of 11/09/01. some folks are comfortable with that. folks like snark, et alia, are more than willing to support the usg despite this conspiracy to obstruct. why is that?
let us consider certain aspects of that day. aspects that go undiscussed. let us forget that norad failed to launch intercepts in a timely fashion. and let us forget that when they did launch, those interceptor aircraft flew at speeds only a fraction of their capabilities. why was that do you think?
going further, why do you think that the fbi seized all the controller tapes of that day?
if you don't know how it works, all controller conversations are recorded. if you could hear those conversations, which were recorded, what might you hear?
well, you would probably hear the controllers in boston and nyc trying to communicate with the aircraft.
but more importantly, you would probably hear the controllers working energetically to clear out the airspace into which the wayward airliners were streaking. i am not going to take the time to elaborate, but the northeast corridor is filled with aircraft. it is a caution. wayward airliners are a major problem. the controllers had to have spent lots of time clearing out aircraft in the vicinity.
this is sort of important because the 911 commission tries to blame the controllers for the events of that day.
ah, the controllers who prevented thousands of mid-air collisions and shut down the air traffic control system with no accidents.
do you think that they were unable to do their job in one moment, but than able to do more than their job within minutes?
get logical.
and then there is the assertion that atta and sheehi were jihadists. wrong.
i invite you to read danny hopsicker's investigation into those guys, WELCOME TO TERRORLAND.
for the time being, i shall leave it there.
suffice it to say, if you believe in the "official" story, you are a fool.
Posted by albertchampion at April 15, 2007 10:22 PMthis individual, named "snark" has been calling me a "liar" for a long time.
i have consistently asked him to inform us about my "lies".
this individual has refrained from doing that.
so, snark, once again, tell us what "lies" i have told.
all ears.
Posted by albertchampion at April 15, 2007 10:37 PMObserving the day to day operations at any Motor Vehicle Dept. anywhere in the United States should illustrate to anyone once and for all just how it was possible for Pearl Harbor and 9-11 to "sneak up" on us.
This experiment should also put to rest the "theory" of intelligent design.
Posted by TIKI AL at April 16, 2007 12:14 AMI documented a lie you communicated on this board just yesterday earlier in this thread.
Use your powers of investigation to go back and find it Albert.
Posted by snark at April 16, 2007 05:19 AMlbrt, thnks mch fr yr cmmnt. gn, th bty f 9/11 s tht t shws th slncy f r vtr rhds f dlsnl ntllctl tsm. Y cn ld hrs t wtr....
ls, thr s zr sch thng s nt-stblshmnt thnkng, n rlty. Thr s sch s thng s ntllctl thnkng, s y yrslf dsply s prf, bt, th typcl Nz/Blshvk hs nthng t d wth prgrssv thght, bt rthr rgrssv pgn thnkng tht cn b trcd bck t vr 13k yrs.
Frthr, th nt s grt plc t s th pwr f th scl cnstrctn f dlsn, n trms f prcptn, nd th pwr f thrty. knw th bv, n thry, yrs g, sw sm n pplctn sttns, bt t rlly ht m whn mvd tmprrly t th cty, bght DSL fst cnnctn, nd strtd t xplr th nt. Whl thr r xcllnt sts, rrly, th mst cmmn ftr s rtclt gnrnc, th rslt f th ttl dstrctn f r dctn systm. W hv n ncrdbl hmnstc rlgn f mss crps, nd thy r grwng gmtrclly.
lbrt, thnks fr bng thr.
[Editor: ignore=off]i invite you to read danny hopsicker's investigation into those guys, WELCOME TO TERRORLAND.
The logic of his entire thesis is something like (speaking of 3 of the Saudis involved in 9-11), and I paraphrase: "No one in their 30's would ever go learn to fly in Venice, Fla because there is no place for a 30 year-old to party. So someone assigned them to go learn there. So it must have been the CIA." Sorry, that is not a basis for a 9-11 conspiracy theory.
Posted by phidipides at April 16, 2007 08:28 AMIt's quite useless phidipides.
Posted by snark at April 16, 2007 09:04 AMI'll always disagree on that point, scout. The videos didn't convince me. Do I believe that the powers that be could conspire to do it? Yes. Do I believe that they have the competence to do it? No.
I'm with phid on this point!
Capitalism gives people hope and opportunity.
And unregulated capitalism will never, ever work because of greed. BTW, muck they care more about a theocracy than capitalism.
9/11: Do you believe the official story and if not, which part do you not believe? Specifically, how involved do you feel others than Al Qaeda were involved in pulling it off and why?
I think I'm in the "[they] let it happen" camp. Too many warnings beforehand. Where were the damn fighter jets that intercepted golfer Stewart Payne's plane minutes after it went off course? Why did WTC 7 fall, if 1 & 2 did because THEY were hit by planes? Why could no one get to the Shanksville, PA site? Was that plane shot down (but "let's roll!" made a better story)? If so, did Shooter give the order? And what about the Anthrax Attax on Democratic legislators?
Iraq: Do you feel that this administration was this inept and clueless as to what the aftermath of Saddam's toppling would be, or do you feel that creating chaos to establish a military presence over the oil was what this really was all about, all while creating profit opportunities for the GOP's checkwriters?
Both. If the invasion really went great and we really were "welcomed as liberators", then PNAC's master plan rolls along to the next regime (Iran) and across the Middle East, W is ("re-")elected in 2004 over Any Democrat 80-20 percent and acheives a filibuster-proof Senate majority (not that the legislative branch matters, anyway).
If not, you gotcher buddies raking in the bucks (and making kickbacks, er, generous campaign contributions) and creating such havoc whereby no one notices that four years on the oil wells still don't have meters on them, nor that the country's borders still have not been sealed. Of course, the havoc insures future enemies, because, hey, if everyone in the world got along, how would you ever make any money?
Iran: Do you feel that Bush will attack Iran before the end of 2007? Before the end of his term? Do you think it was in the plans all along? Do you think anything short of impeachment can stop him? And lastly, what do you think the impact of a strike against Iran will be?
While I hope not, I think the answers are yes, yes, and no. As for the impact of an attack on Iran (I see massive air/naval attacks w/ only a smattering of special forces ground units--as far as I know, we got no ground forces left for a major assault), I think Steve Gilliard (get well, dammit!!) laid out a pretty realistic-sounding (and scary) scenario at The News Blog: one move on Iran and their Shia bretheren in the southern half of Iraq shut down the hundreds-of-miles-long escape path to Kuwait. Hell, we can't secure the five-mile-long Route Irish from the Baghdad Airport to the Green Zone.
At that point, I'm reminded of an old pre-apartheid-falling South African comment by Robin Williams. 'You got X million whites surrounded by 5X million blacks. You guys ever hear the name "Custer"?'
If all that actually happens, for all intents and purposes, the US has no standing army. And that's where it gets really scary.
I hope that's not too long to suit y'all. If so, I guess it's "tethered swimming (TS)" for ya!
Fire is not hot enough to melt steel, no matter how weak the material may be.
I'm not really taking a position one way or 'tother, scout, but the steel doesn't have to melt. It just needs to be weakened, which could certainly happen in a fire.
Posted by bartcopfan at April 16, 2007 01:06 PMThe problem about the steel (for me) is that molten steel was apparently found on the site and it continued to be there for days afterward. The contents of the jet fuel and all the fuel load of the building contents ought not to have produced temperatures high enough to create molten steel. I agree steel can fail before it melts--it is a basic given of structural engineering. But the presence of molten steel just doesn't make sense to me. As I posted earlier: if there is a good explanation about facts like this, why isn't an anomaly like this explained rather than dismissed out of hand?
Posted by gtash at April 16, 2007 04:48 PMBut the presence of molten steel just doesn't make sense to me.
Who tested it to determine it was steel?
And how do you know it was molten?
Intense fires burned for weeks in a subterrainian, very densly packed, pile of debris containing tons of combustible materials. Fires burning in such conditions, assuming they have air available to them (which the concourse levels and subway tunnels under the towers would have ensured) could develop and maintain intense temperatures. The metal need not have been melted prior to the collapse.
But this is beside the point as there is no conclusive evidence of 'pools of molten steel'. Just more anacdotal testimony. The towers contained tons, tons of aluminum. How do you know that the molten metal was not aluminum? You don't. Because those who reported seeing molten metal just assumed it was steel.
As I posted earlier: if there is a good explanation about facts like this, why isn't an anomaly like this explained rather than dismissed out of hand?
Why has not a single professional structural engineer, not one, challanged the plausibility of the collapse scenerio as presented in the official report? Are they all scared? Or in on it?
And even if there existed molten steel in the debris pile for weeks after the event what would have kept it in it's molten state for that long that leads you to believe the towers were demolished? In other words, what about a demolition theory explains the pesistance of steel in a molten state for weeks following the collapse?
Posted by snark at April 16, 2007 05:56 PM