10.07.2006

lies

More brilliance from Keith Olbermann. Take 11 minutes of your day to be moved, angered and inspired.

* * * *

The next time you reflexively dismiss so-called "conspiracy theories" about 9/11, please ask yourself a few questions.

Why, despite knowing that these people have lied about everything else, do I trust that they have been truthful about 9/11?

Why, when 9/11 is the singular event that has enabled the Bush junta free reign to pursue its overtly anti-democratic agenda, should we not question their version of the event itself - despite the fact that they have never presented one bit of evidence to back it up?

Why, knowing what I do about American history, and how many people, including American citizens, have been sacrificed for wars of profit and ideology, am I unwilling to even entertain the idea that certain people within the American government would sacrifice a few thousand people to further their own goals?

As my partner became active in the 9/11 Truth Movement, I was forced to ask myself these questions. Perhaps you will ask yourselves a few while you read this.

By the way, Allan has been unable to get this piece published at any of the big progressive websites (so far). Interesting.

22 comments:

redsock said...

Cool. Thanks.

This touches on some of the same things, and many others.

The Foley news has diverted attention from some incredibly damning information that shows that Tenet, Rice, Ashcroft and Rumsfeld all lied to the 9/11 Commission about what warnings they received during the summer of 2001 and that the 9/11 Commission, far from calling them on it, also covered up what was known.

And in the last week or so, one of the Commissioners (a Democrat, by the way) admitted that they had all agreed to keep quiet about this stuff for another five years -- which, amazingly enough, is about when Bush's 2nd term ends.

redsock said...

Of course, even with no Foley, the "liberal" media would have had no reason to explore this story.

A few days of headlines in the Times and Post and then -- poof! -- the next time it gets mentioned, it'll be referred to (by the Times and Post) as some silliness those "conspiracy nuts" keep peddling.

James said...

Nothing the Bush White House says can be taken as reflecting reality. Not only are they habitual liers, though, they aren't really very good at it. Most of their falsehoods get exposed pretty quickly -- the Foley situation is a case in point: Hastert's gone through something like four or five mutually exclusive stories this week, trying to keep up with how quickly his lies are exposed.

The real problem is that, when their lies are exposed, the press tucks the story away on page 20, if it runs it at all.

The biggest problem with most 9/11 "Bush actively did it" conspiracy theories isn't that Bush's boys should be believed, but that there's simply no real-world physical evidence for it (there's lots of hypotheticals, but nothng solid, and lots of evidence that directly rebuts most of the missile/implosion/etc notions).

The theory that's most consistent with all of the evidence is that Bush's admin passively let 9/11 happen because they wanted some dramatic event to scare US voters into backing them on whatever they wanted.

Personally, I don't think they're competent enough to have pulled off 9/11 actively and kept it secret -- not with the hundreds, if not thousands of individuals who would have had to have cooperated, and still be cooperating. If they could do that, they'd have Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran all subjugated by now.

L-girl said...

The biggest problem with most 9/11 "Bush actively did it" conspiracy theories isn't that Bush's boys should be believed, but that there's simply no real-world physical evidence for it

The point, to me, is that there's no physical evidence for any one of the official stories (there are several), and we should be asking questions about all of them, not accepting them on face value.

There are many possibilities other than "they actively did it". Such as...

The theory that's most consistent with all of the evidence is that Bush's admin passively let 9/11 happen because they wanted some dramatic event to scare US voters into backing them on whatever they wanted.

It's not only plausible, once you look at the evidence, it's kind of hard to think otherwise. That alone, of course, would be an act of high treason.

Personally, I don't think they're competent enough to have pulled off 9/11 actively and kept it secret

I think it's a big mistake to call these people incompetent. I think they're incredibly efficient and highly competent at their own agenda.

not with the hundreds, if not thousands of individuals who would have had to have cooperated, and still be cooperating.

Not so. We're supposed to believe 19 guys and one supreme commander pulled off 9/11. Why would it take thousands of people?

I'm not saying I believe they actively caused it. But I don't agree that it would take thousands of people to execute such a plan and keep it secret.

If they could do that, they'd have Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran all subjugated by now.

They can't control the opposition. But they already control the oil, and their companies control both the destruction and the rebuilding. You can't get much more efficient than that.

redsock said...

Laura's said pretty much what I would say.

The biggest problem with most 9/11 "Bush actively did it" conspiracy theories ...

There isn't one person on Earth who would say "Bush actively did it".

that there's simply no real-world physical evidence for it

You mean we don't have video of Cheney actually admitting the extent of his guilt, naming names and explaining how the plot was pulled off? You're right, we don't have that.

The theory that's most consistent with all of the evidence is that Bush's admin passively let 9/11 happen because they wanted some dramatic event to scare US voters into backing them on whatever they wanted.

Sadly, that -- while demonic enough -- falls far short of what solid evidence shows.

These murderers don't fucking do anything passively. They are not the types to just sit on their asses and hope that world events break their way, so then, after the smoke clears, they can say "How lucky for us!" and take advantage.

It doesn't work that way. And it didn't work that way.

doug said...

my friends a metallurgist and he said all conspiracy theories aside he said there is no way that the structure, the metal of the trades center could collapse like it did....even with the weight the volatility of the crash the metal would have withstood it and as he states (my friend) no one was allowed to conduct tests on the ruined structure, which is odd considering when "accidents" happen like in Montreal overpass failure they test, and seek the answers why, this wasn't done

as he said they talk about it at work and it's still a mystery from a pure structural viewpoint it couldn't have happened...

L-girl said...

Interesting. I haven't read much about this area (the actual collapse), but I know it's huge in the 9/11 field.

Yes, all the evidence carted away, no testing done, not even treated like a crime scene.

orc said...

«The biggest problem with most 9/11 "Bush actively did it" conspiracy theories ...»

«There isn't one person on Earth who would say "Bush actively did it".»

Eh? There are at least a dozen variants of "Bush did it" out there, from "deliberate implosion of the WTC" through "it was a missile that hit the Pentagon", each one starting at the ridiculous and proceeding to the laughably ridiculous.

I believe that's why nobody seriously pays attention to the non-conspiracy theories (the "Bush let it happen" ones, which start with the "Bin Laden determined to strike" memo, the "OK, you've covered your ass" comment, and proceeding through the approximately one million pieces of evidence [evidence that is published in the mainstream and lefty press] proving that, yes indeed, the B*sh junta is incapable of telling the truth about anything including the direction the sun rises and sets in); no sooner does someone mention one of those million pieces of evidence than some loon comes leaping out of the woodwork ranting about how (missiles|controlled demolition|aliens from planet Claire) was what actually did it.

I have begun to believe that each and every one of the "Bush did it" theories originates in the White House propaganda ministry.

«Not so. We're supposed to believe 19 guys and one supreme commander pulled off 9/11. Why would it take thousands of people?»

It's easier to keep a secret for a short amount of time than it is to keep it forever. Osama's boys only had to keep a secret until they finished their mission (and they weren't even able to keep it a secret for that long; the alarms had been ringing for a _long_ time before the WTC was destroyed), but a cover-up has to be kept secret _forever_.

There are a million pieces of evidence (most of which have shown up in the mainstream or lefty press) showing that the B*sh junta didn't do anything when confronted with a clear and present danger, so I am doubtful that things wouldn't get out if the B*sh junta was responsible for 9/11. (And where would the B*sh junta get suicide bombers? If there's anything the past five years have taught us, its that the fanatical supporters of the B*sh junta are a pack of yellow cowards who would no more die for the glory of G-d than they would be able to do without their daily cheeto ration.)

L-girl said...

Eh? There are at least a dozen variants of "Bush did it" out there

Orc, no one who subscribes to any alternative 9/11 theory believes George W Bush actually had any hand in it. He is a figurehead, a public face, for the rest of the crew.

If you're using "Bush did it" as a shorthand, then yes, there are theories. But literally, no. Allan is correct in that no one believes that.

but a cover-up has to be kept secret _forever_.

I'm sure you know this isn't true. Secrets have to be kept secret for a certain amount of time, long enough for the participants to live out their lives and the public to lose interest. But not forever.

It's not as hard to keep secrets as people think. Cross-reference my usual quotes from Daniel Ellsberg, found all over this blog.

There are a million pieces of evidence (most of which have shown up in the mainstream or lefty press) showing that the B*sh junta didn't do anything when confronted with a clear and present danger, so I am doubtful that things wouldn't get out if the B*sh junta was responsible for 9/11.

"It's too big a secret" and "if they did it, we'd know by now" are not arguments. Once upon a time we didn't know the "million pieces of evidence" you refer to. Once upon a time you would have been called crazy (as many people were) for even suggesting that there were verifiable warnings that the junta ignored. So to say "we haven't seen any evidence, therefore there isn't any" is grossly illogical.

In general, everyone, let's PLEASE refrain from calling 9/11 theorists loonies on this blog, ok?

L-girl said...

And where would the B*sh junta get suicide bombers?

They wouldn't know that's who they were working for. They would believe themselves to be working for their own boss. That much should be obvious, no?

When the CIA overthrows a government, do the rebels know they are working for the CIA? Etc. etc. There are dozens of precedents in US history.

L-girl said...

There are a million pieces of evidence (most of which have shown up in the mainstream or lefty press)

I'd also like to note that unless you actually read 9/11 Truth Movement books and blogs, there are many facts you will never see reported anywhere. The lefty press is avoiding this as much as the mainstream. If you don't read the 9/11-specific stuff, don't assume you know all the facts.

doug said...

whether you are into conspiracy theories or not...think about this, especially in the aftermath of FEMA's performance during Hurricane Katrina

That Fema was at New York’s Pier 29 to conduct a war game exercise, "Tripod II," quite a coincidence a day before 9/11, and then they were put in charge of cleaning the site, and in fact all trucks removing the debris wee GPS'ed so there whereabouts were always known....why be so paranoid about steel, and concrete...no closing off of the site for forensic testing, just cleaned out...by FEMA...

Cybergirl said...

Friendly hello to all.
oh....I have a feeling we will never truly know who was responsible for 911. I think we should keep pursuing the TRUTH though. The bottom line is if our government didn't get caught in LIE after LIE we would not have so many rumors floating around. That is how one causes MASS CONFUSION and division within a nation. I cannot trust the Bush administration because it was never earned! ALWAYS QUESTION AUTHORITY! ; )
Peace!

redsock said...

And that FEMA exercise was dismissed as a tinfoil urban legend until NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani talked about it in his testimony before the 9/11 Commission.

It has also been confirmed that there were at least seven war games being run on the morning of 9/11. These exercises included both commercial planes and government aircraft acting as hijacked planes, fake blips being inserted into FAA radar screens and planes being crashed into government buildings in Washington DC.

(Another fun fact: on July 7, 2005, there was a bombing exercise/drill being run in three London tube stations. Those were the exact same three stations that were bombed by "terrorists" that morning. Weird, huh?)

NORAD officials later claimed that all these games meant that they were extra prepared to swing into action on 9/11, but this cannot be true -- because their performance on that day could not possibly have been any worse than it was.

In reality, the multiple exercises likely caused so much confusion that nothing could be done to stop the attacks. It remains unknown who was in charge of any of the games that morning.

And then, once the attacks were completed, the FAA and NORAD suddenly became super competent again and were able to land more than 4,000 planes in about two hours all over North America.

orc said...

«"It's too big a secret" and "if they did it, we'd know by now" are not arguments. Once upon a time we didn't know the "million pieces of evidence" you refer to. Once upon a time you would have been called crazy (as many people were) for even suggesting that there were verifiable warnings that the junta ignored. So to say "we haven't seen any evidence, therefore there isn't any" is grossly illogical.»

The B*sh junta, despite their almost clinical paranoia, is still very leaky. And stuff has been leaking out at a pretty constant rate. Every day that passes without even the first bit of evidence that our dear friends in the White House were actively involved makes me more dubious that they were (malign neglect is another thing; I fully and enthusiastically endose any accusation that Maximum Leader Genius and his mob were fully aware that Osama's boys were going to attack, but just didn't think it was worth their while to do anything about it. To be charitable, they may have subscribed to the theory that you couldn't topple an office tower by ramming an airliner into it -- an ignorant administration that operates completely off "gut instincts" does not strike me as one that would bother to investigate fire ratings, even if those ratings are available to even the most casual punter for the effort of a websearch -- so why should any effort be expended to stop a trivial terrorist attack? "OK, you've covered your ass" fits right in with that mindset, as well does forgetting that if you use civilian airplanes as guided missiles you'll end up killing everybody on the airplanes.)

It's possible that, despite their history of screwing up everything else they've touched, that they could have had this one moment where they ran a perfect leak-free treasonous conspiracy, but I'm afraid that I believe that possibility almost as much as I believe that the 2004 Ohio vote wasn't rotten from top to bottom.

I don't think that the steel from the WTC was whisked away without investigation. NIST claims to have done forensics on the structural steel in #1, #2, and #7 (http://wtc.nist.gov) and, if they are to be believed, have kept a sizable collection of damaged structural elements from the buildings. I tend to believe NIST, because (a) removing the rubble from the crash scene is a common part of the postmortem examination for a airplane wreck, and you're not going to be able to do a good postmortem onsite after the collapse of a pair 100+ story office blocks, and (b) if it was a coverup, you just added several thousand more eyes that have to be kept silent forever.

«I'd also like to note that unless you actually read 9/11 Truth Movement books and blogs, there are many facts you will never see reported anywhere.»

Why do you think I'm so dismissive of the kookier arguments? I have read them, but then I turned around and found fire safety data that directly contradicted them. (primarily the "steel doesn't melt!" argument, which manages to completely ignore the well-known weakening of steel under temperatures much lower than its melting point, and which manages to completely miss the point of hour ratings for fire resistance. The "controlled demolition" argument is another; when NIST reported on the collapse of WTC 7 [which is a great favorite of the "It must have been an inside job" crowd because they claim it fell inside its footprint] the report showed an outline of the debris field, which, um, was not even close to being inside the footprint of the building.

I loathe the B*sh junta and the nazgul they rode in on, but -- even though I'm not an expert (or any kind of) structural engineer -- I can still find documentation (my favorite about the structural strength of steel is to point out what happens to steel trolley cars when the carbarn they're sitting in catches fire. Wood fires are not known for their steel-melting capacity, but after a carbarn fire a steel trolley car resembles a plastic model which has been left near a hot stove a little too long) which trivially debunks the kooky theories. That's why I call them kooky, and that's why I'm beginning to think that they're propagated by the White House propaganda department.

«And then, once the attacks were completed, the FAA and NORAD suddenly became super competent again and were able to land more than 4,000 planes in about two hours all over North America.«

The FAA and NORAD didn't have much to do with that. Pilots who aren't trying to commit suicide tend to react enthusiastically when it's suggested that they get out of the air right now or get shot down, because they don't know that NORAD only had about two dozen airplanes ready to go until late that afternoon. (In Portland, despite having an Air National Guard unit right at the airport, I didn't see or hear any military jets until about 4 hours after WTC#1 had slumped into a pile of rubble, but once I started seeing them it was like watching supersonic white-faced hornets after someone had shaken their nest.)

I appear to have gotten longwinded, so I'll shut up now.

L-girl said...

There's a lot of illogical or circular reasoning in what you're saying.

As one example, the idea that NIST would have to keep thousands of people silent. Everyone who works for a government agency doesn't actually have firsthand evidence that it does what it says it does.

Everyone at the EPA didn't know the post-9/11 air quality reports were faked.

I honestly don't know how anyone can look at a government agency and say "If they are to be believed..." with a straight face.

I know it's a bad idea to get into a point-by-point debate here. And for my part, controlled demolition and details like that are well beside the point.

I'll just repeat my main themes, which are easily lost in the shuffle of theories about details.

1. If they knew it was coming and did nothing to stop it, which at this point appears obvious, that's a pretty hugely evil thing right there.

2. There was a time when no one believed the above. Now increasing numbers of people do. This alone is reason enough to keep digging, and keep asking questions.

Any time you say "there's no evidence," remember where there's truly no evidence, and that's the official story(ies).

3. I believe it's a HUGE mistake to think of these people as fuck-ups who've screwed up everything they've touched. Indeed, they have gotten nearly everything they've sought, to a mind-boggling degree - from the Patriot Act to the stolen elections to the war to the media manipulation, and on and on.

People point to Katrina as a major fuck-up. But in what way was it a fuck-up for them? How did they suffer for it? They'll surely end up profiting from it in the long run.

Far from being a bunch of bungling incompetents, they're probably the most efficient and successful fascists the US has seen within its own borders.

redsock said...

I don't have a firm opinion on what caused the collpases, but there are a lot of weird stuff regarding the various investigations.

FEMA investigator Jonathan Barnett told the New York Times in November 2001 that some steel beams appear to have been partly evaporated in extremely high temperatures. And the Journal of the Minerals, Metals and Materials Society reported that "unexpected erosion" of the steel from WTC7 suggests that temperatures reached 1000C.

Yet after NIST studied 236 pieces of steel, it reported that only three columns had evidence of temperatures above 250C and none reached 600C. (NIST thus stated weak steel was not a factor in the collapses.)

There are many reports of molten metal (quoted from the Complete 9/11 Timeline):

Ken Holden, who is involved with the organizing of demolition, excavation and debris removal operations at Ground Zero, later will tell the 9/11 Commission, "Underground, it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from [WTC] Building 6." [9/11 Commission, 4/1/2003]

William Langewiesche, the only journalist to have unrestricted access to Ground Zero during the cleanup operation, describes, "in the early days, the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole." [Langewiesche, 2002, pp. 32]

Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC, describes fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks. [SEAU News, 10/2001]

Alison Geyh, who heads a team of scientists studying the potential health effects of 9/11, reports, "Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel." [Johns Hopkins Public Health Magazine, 2001]

Ron Burger, a public health advisor who arrives at Ground Zero on September 12, says that "feeling the heat" and "seeing the molten steel" there reminds him of a volcano. [National Environmental Health Association, 9/2003, pp. 40]

According to a member of New York Air National Guard's 109th Air Wing, who is at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6, "One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers' remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots." [National Guard Magazine, 12/2001]

New York firefighters recall "heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel." [New York Post, 3/3/2004]

As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O'Toole sees a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, "was dripping from the molten steel." [Knight Ridder, 5/29/2002]

There is no mention whatsoever of the molten metal in the official reports by FEMA, NIST, or the 9/11 Commission. [Federal Emergency Management Agency, 5/1/2002; 9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004; National Institute of Standards and Technology, 9/2005]

Dr. Frank Gayle, who leads the steel forensics aspects of NIST's investigation of the WTC collapses, is quoted as saying, "Your gut reaction would be the jet fuel is what made the fire so very intense, a lot of people figured that's what melted the steel. Indeed it didn't, the steel did not melt." [ABC News 7 (New York), 2/7/2004]

and

when NIST reported on the collapse of WTC 7

In March 2006, Dr. S. Shyam Sunder, head of the NIST investigation into the collapse of WTC7, said he has no idea why the building collapsed: "Truthfully, I don't really know. We've had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7."

L-girl said...

Thanks Allan.

Once again this shows me how people with snippets of information declare something to be true or not true, possible or impossible, without knowing most of the facts. Only people who've really studied it know the facts - whatever are knowable at this time, that is.

I know this syndrome well, because I was guilty of it myself for a long time. Now I defer to the experts - the 9/11 independent researchers.

MSS said...


I think they're incredibly efficient and highly competent at their own agenda.


If one can say that about the Bush authoritarians, then does that mean they wanted chaos in Iraq and Afghanistan? Because that is what they have gotten.

I suppose one could make an argument that, yes, they wanted unstable governments and did not believe their "transformational" rhetoric about democracy and free-market economies and pro-Israeli governments breaking out in the region. In fact, that is an argument I would like to see made. I just haven't yet, and I'm not smart enough to make it myself.

As for the 9/11 Commission, never forget who was Bush's first choice to head it (once his real first choice--that there be no commission at all--was no longer feasible). Of course, that choice was Henry Kissinger, a man who has made an entire career our of covering up secrets for Republican presidents.

And, very pointedly, the Commission was not independent. It was bipartisan. There is an important distinction there. Whatever the "truth" might be, nothing that at least one of the parties did not want out was going to come out through the Commission.

L-girl said...

I suppose one could make an argument that, yes, they wanted unstable governments

I absolutely believe they wanted to destabilize the region. It's very profitable and convenient for them.

What baffles me is why more people don't see it this way.

L-girl said...

Also, I should clarify, I'm not saying they control every single thing that happens and everything has gone exactly according to their plan. I just think the common view of them as bungling idiots is dangerously wrong. Look at all they've "accomplished".

redsock said...

I believe that Bush's choice of Kissinger was made knowing it likely would not fly.

If it succeeded, well, that would be great. If not, they had a backup plan -- a relative nobody named Thomas Kean, with his strong oil (and a few shady terrorist) ties and about whom, once Kissinger was gone, everyone accepted blindly and moved on.

But it was the Executive Director of the Commission, Philip Zelikow, who really ran the show. And he was, to put it bluntly and honestly, a member of the Bush administration. He decided what witnesses to call, what to ask, what to investigate, and, most importantly, what to ignore.

Calling it a bipartisan commission is technically true -- there were 5 Dems and 5 Repubs. But all 10 of them had strong ties to government, various airlines (including the ones affected by the hijacks), and Middle East oil. (And Co-Chairman Lee Hamilton had been a key player in the Iran-Contra investigation coverup for Bush I.)