1.05.2008

9/11: truth, kooks and obstruction

At every War Resister Support Campaign event I've attended - and, I'm told, at every peace rally and progressive event in Toronto - people from the local 9/11 Truth Movement are present. Normally, I would be inclined to think this was a good thing. 9/11 is the singular event from which so much that we object to has flowed, and there is so much we don't know about it. Links between what really happened leading up to the attacks and what is happening today are crucial to our understanding, and should be crucial to the peace movement.

However... what actually happens is not at all a good thing. The Toronto 9/11 Truth folks hold a huge banner reading "9/11 Was An Inside Job," which, in my opinion, is extremely off-putting. I don't know what their slogan is shorthand for, but its implication is, to put it mildly, not a good starting point.

And that's the least of it. There's one guy who shows up at every event. He holds a megaphone and walks around shouting "Nine-eleven Was An Inside Job" over and over. He does not engage in discussion; he only hides behind his megaphone and shouts. When asked to stop, he will often point his megaphone directly into someone's face and chant his slogan at them. He contributes nothing. He educates no one. The sole effect of his show, as far as I can see, is to turn people off the idea that there is anything substantial about the 9/11 Truth Movement.

Every movement has its share of kooks. I've been an activist for most of my life, and I've never been involved in a cause that didn't attract at least a few nuts. Some are people whose hearts are in the right place, but because of social ineptitude or control issues or who knows what, they are unable to participate in a group dynamic. Some don't even seem to have their hearts in the right place, and one can only wonder why they're there at all.

So the kooks are always there. But I've never seen a movement whose public face is the kooks themselves.

As you know, my partner Allan is involved in the 9/11 Truth Movement, and we've talked a lot about why the craziness is so visible. Allan believes that much of the kookiness is planted, or at least nurtured, by the enemies of the movement. That may be so. I think the nature of the movement - how much information is unknown and possibly cannot be known - may also attract a certain variety of activist. And then, all movements for change attract some kooks. The answer is probably some combination of the three.

The presence of 9/11 Kook In Toronto has caused me some personal discomfort. At War Resisters Support Campaign meetings, the phrase "the 9/11 people" is shorthand for these disruptive, counter-productive, megaphone people. I think, to a lot of people's minds, the 9/11 Truth Movement is 9/11KIT.

When I was tabling at the peace rally in October, the other person at the table said, "The 9/11 people are like the unwanted relatives at every event. No one wants to go near them." He thought he was making a joke. I said something like, "That guy is obnoxious, but there's a lot more to 9/11 than meets the eye." It was lame, and didn't go anywhere, but I was glad I said something.

But mostly it doesn't feel appropriate to speak up - saying something would in itself seem disruptive. So I'm left sitting there feeling like I did in junior high when someone would make a crude anti-Semetic remark, never guessing I was Jewish.

Here on wmtc, I notice that when I blog about 9/11, no one leaves comments. I don't know if that's because readers don't know much about the subject, or because they think I'm a kook myself for giving the ideas credence, or because they know Allan is passionate about it, and they think if they disagree I'll go off on them. Or maybe just a coincidence. Other topics don't garner a lot of comments, either.

* * * *

The catalyst to these thoughts was the recent admission by the official 9/11 Commission that their investigation was obstructed by the White House and the CIA. This should be a giant HINT, HINT telling the public that what they think they know about the events of September 11th is, at the very least, woefully incomplete.

Of course the entire mainstream media has completely ignored the 9/11 Truth Movement. But much sadder, and more dangerously, most of the alternative media has either ignored it, or worse, outright ridiculed it. I'm hoping that this recent admission starts to break that silence.

One recent positive sign about this appeared this past week, when Glenn Greenwald wrote about it in Salon.
The bi-partisan co-chairmen of the 9/11 Commission, Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton, jointly published an Op-Ed in today’s New York Times which contains some extremely emphatic and serious accusations against the CIA and the White House. The essence:

"[T]he recent revelations that the C.I.A. destroyed videotaped interrogations of Qaeda operatives leads us to conclude that the agency failed to respond to our lawful requests for information about the 9/11 plot. Those who knew about those videotapes — and did not tell us about them — obstructed our investigation."

More strikingly still, they explicitly include the White House at the top of their list of guilty parties:

"There could have been absolutely no doubt in the mind of anyone at the C.I.A. — or the White House — of the commission’s interest in any and all information related to Qaeda detainees involved in the 9/11 plot. Yet no one in the administration ever told the commission of the existence of videotapes of detainee interrogations."

To underscore the seriousness of their accusations, Keane and Hamilton end with this:

"What we do know is that government officials decided not to inform a lawfully constituted body, created by Congress and the president, to investigate one the [sic] greatest tragedies to confront this country. We call that obstruction."

It's hard to imagine a more serious scandal than this. As I noted the other day, it is a confirmed fact that Alberto Gonzales and David Addingtion — the top legal representatives of George Bush and Dick Cheney, respectively — participated in discussions as to whether those videotapes should be destroyed. The White House refuses to disclose what these top officials said in those meetings. Did they instruct that the videos should be destroyed or fail to oppose their destruction? The NYT previously quoted one "senior intelligence official with direct knowledge of the matter [who] said there had been 'vigorous sentiment' among some top White House officials to destroy the tapes."

Thus, we have evidence that "top White House officials" vigorously argued that these videos should be destroyed. The number one aides to both the President and Vice President both participated in discussions as to whether they should be, almost certainly with the knowledge and at the direction of their bosses.

And now we have the 9/11 Commission Chairmen stating as explicitly as can be that the mere concealment (let alone destruction) of these videos constituted the knowing and deliberate obstruction of their investigation into the worst attack on U.S. soil in our history. Combined with the fact that the videos' destruction almost certainly constitutes "obstruction of justice" with regard to numerous judicial proceedings as well, we're talking here about extremely serious felonies at the highest levels of our government.

Both legally and politically, it's hard to imagine a more significant scandal than the President and Vice President deliberately obstructing the investigation of the 9/11 Commission by concealing and then destroying vital evidence which the Commission was seeking. Yet that's exactly what the evidence at least suggests has occurred here.

What possible justification is there for the White House to refuse to say what the role of Addington, Gonzales, Bush and Cheney was in all of this? Having been ordered by Bush’s new Attorney General not to investigate, are the Senate and House Intelligence Committees (led by the meek Silvestre Reyes and the even meeker Jay Rockefeller) going to compel answers to these questions? In light of this Op-Ed, do Mitt Romney, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee think the White House should publicly disclose to the country the role Bush and Cheney played in the destruction of this evidence? If there are any reporters left who aren’t traipsing around together in Iowa, it seems pretty clear that this story ought to be dominating the news.

If you can't access the Salon link, Greenwald's column is available here, complete with links, on Common Dreams. Read. Think.

If you're interested in learning more, the bottom of this recent wmtc post contains some good links to get you started.

50 comments:

allan said...

There are 9/11 groups all over the US and they have rallies, so I'm curious to hear opinions from other commenters on them.

(The other problem with the Kooks is they talk almost exclusively about the alleged controlled demolition of the WTC buildings. I do not have an opinion one way or the other about this -- though the official explanation in several reports is little more than "we're not sure how it happened" -- but it's not the best way to introduce someone to the issue. Plus, there are dozens and dozens of better ways to highlight the government's fictions and contradictions and make people question what they have been told or what they think they believe.)

The obstruction information was published in a New York Times Op-Ed column written by the two co-Chairs of the Commission. It ran last Wednesday.

Here we have the Chairmen of the Commission saying the White house obstructed their inquiry and deliberately destroyed some of the most vital evidence (much of the Commission's Final Report is based on the information supposedly gleaned during various torture sessions, the tapes of which have been destroyed). (Though the Commission itself is at least as guilty of obstruction as the White House or CIA.)

Have you heard about this anywhere in the last four days? Has it been a top story on CNN or MSNBC? For those people who think the US media is liberal (or even consider it vaguely left-leaning): Why aren't they taking this golden opportunity to go after the Bush administration?

allan said...

Related points:

The sole effect of his show, as far as I can see, is to turn people off the idea that there is anything substantial about the 9/11 Truth Movement. ...

Allan believes that much of the kookiness is planted, or at least nurtured, by the enemies of the movement.

deang said...

The recent revelations that the White House is blocking the investigation may be having some effect on people's receptiveness to the idea.

Noam Chomsky, who has said repeatedly that he finds the likelihood of a presidentially planned attack unlikely partly because the consequences are so unpredictable, has recently said in ZNet forums (and perhaps elsewhere) that the issue does need to be looked into more and that if the the Bush administration did do such a thing, they'd have to be crazy, followed by him opining that they may indeed be crazy. He still isn't convinced that it actually was "an inside job," but he does seem more open to further investigation being necessary than he has in the past.

On the bullying 9-11 Truth types, I've long thought that they may be plants myself, but not plants solely to disrupt 9-11 Truth, rather plants to disrupt and discredit peace and justice groups, antiwar groups, etc.

Example: At a recent QnA following a talk by Naomi Wolf, who writes most recently about the US becoming a fascist nation, she was aggressively questioned by the bullying types you describe about why her book and talks don't involve an acceptance of 9-11 Truth. When she replied that her expertise is not in that area, they continued to harass her about it, repeatedly implying that she doesn't have the guts to take that extra step and embrace 9-11 Truth. Wolf looked a bit bewildered and harried. For a while, this confrontation sidetracked the focus from an urgent topic that Wolf knows a lot about. Other very important topics are being similarly disrupted in progressive groups throughout the country, likely by plants with the aim of harming peace and justice movements, in my opinion. And, as you say, it also harms the credibility of 9-11 Truth.

Like Wolf, I'm no expert on the topic, leaving it to others, but I am most struck by another thing Chomsky has said about it, something that's more a commentary on US society. He notes that polls show that a large percentage of Americans believes 9-11 to have been planned and carried out by the Bush administration, yet polls also show that they expect that sort of thing and thus are sort of apathetic about it. Chomsky finds the cynicism striking and quite different from the attitudes one finds in other countries.

laura k said...

Dean, thank you so much. (What would I do without your comments?)

I didn't know that about Chomsky, and I'm very glad to hear it.

On the bullying 9-11 Truth types, I've long thought that they may be plants myself, but not plants solely to disrupt 9-11 Truth, rather plants to disrupt and discredit peace and justice groups, antiwar groups, etc.

Yes, I agree. It's been proven to have happened in the past, so there's no reason to think it isn't happening now.

He notes that polls show that a large percentage of Americans believes 9-11 to have been planned and carried out by the Bush administration, yet polls also show that they expect that sort of thing and thus are sort of apathetic about it. Chomsky finds the cynicism striking and quite different from the attitudes one finds in other countries.

That's really heavy, and very, very sad. It speaks volumes about what the American people labour under - the learned helplessness, the deadening effect of empty consumer culture, the complete alienation from the government that by all rights should be they themselves.

laura k said...

I also wanted to note that although I understand the expressions "inside job" and "planned by the Bush administration" are - I hope - a shorthand for something much more complicated, I wish people wouldn't use them.

It's not like we think Bush and Cheney themselves sat down with a laptop, found 19 guys to hire, and sent them to flight school. The truth would be far more complicated and opaque.

When complex issues are overly simplified, they are more easily ridiculed.

allan said...

I read that about Wolf awhile ago. I also read that she has some close family connection to 9/11 research (can't recall what it is) and is therefore likely quite informed on the topic.

That doesn't mean she has to talk about it all day every day, though. Her recent book is amazing.

Chomsky is a pretty smart guy, but the way he talks about 9/11 makes me think he's being ignorant on purpose. Why would he do that? (Doesn't he also believe that Oswald acted completely alone?)

The people responsible for 9/11 cross many national boundaries and it's quite possible that we have never heard many of their names.

However, based on their job responsibilities, actions that morning and ever-changing stories since that day, I have little doubt that Cheney and Rumsfeld knew in advance that something would happen and helped sow confusion that day. Their actual level of involvement is next to impossible to determine, however.

laura k said...

Chomsky is a pretty smart guy, but the way he talks about 9/11 makes me think he's being ignorant on purpose. Why would he do that? (Doesn't he also believe that Oswald acted completely alone?)

Noam Chomsky is a brilliant man, but by all reports he is an extremely difficult person - an autocrat with a with-me-or-against-me attitude, more comfortable with sycophants than with an exchange of ideas.

Now, I've only heard this and read this from people who know him from the linguistic sphere, not the political. But unless he has two completely different personalities and ways of dealing with the world, perhaps some of his issues around 9/11 can be ascribed to this. (I'm guessing, obviously - I have no way of knowing.)

I was very heartened by Dean's comment, because Chomsky is very influential on the left.

allan said...

However, based on their job responsibilities, actions that morning and ever-changing stories since that day, I have little doubt that Cheney and Rumsfeld knew in advance that something would happen and helped sow confusion that day.

What I mean is that this is the most logical conclusion based upon the available evidence.

allan said...

Chomsky really gets raked over the coals by various 9/11 people who talk about him. He's regarded as a "gatekeeper" -- a person on the left who adheres to the basic official story and ridicules anyone who suggests otherwise.

There are scores of progressive people who will absolutely hammer Bush/Cheney all day and all night on every single topic under the sun -- except 9/11. Most of the time, they will not even admit to keeping an open mind on the subject.

It is very disheartening. Where those people stand on acceptance of the 9/11 myth is a litmus test for me of their true progressive feelings.

laura k said...

He's regarded as a "gatekeeper" -- a person on the left who adheres to the basic official story and ridicules anyone who suggests otherwise.

That's why I'm very interested to hear he may be softening on the issue.

It is very disheartening.

It is.

Where those people stand on acceptance of the 9/11 myth is a litmus test for me of their true progressive feelings.

I know this. And you know I think it's not fair.

But I understand, because I have my own litmus tests.

laura k said...

Here I was lamenting that when I write about 9/11, I get very few comments. Now there are a lot of comments but they're all me, you and Dean. And Dean is about the most open-minded, progressive person I know, online or otherwise.

allan said...

He notes that polls show that a large percentage of Americans believes 9-11 to have been planned and carried out by the Bush administration, yet polls also show that they expect that sort of thing and thus are sort of apathetic about it.

I was saying four or five years ago something like this would happen -- similarly to how people believe there was a conspiracy to kill JFK but don't care much about it -- but I didn't think it would happen so fast.

laura k said...

I was saying four or five years ago something like this would happen

I remember that. You said it would be the saddest thing, the hardest thing to bear - that people would accept the so-called conspiracy theories, but not care.

But I don't think the belief is based on real knowledge. I think it comes from the deep distrust of government and media, and the nagging (well founded) belief that things are not what they appear to be.

deang said...

On the shorthand name to use when discussing this issue, yeah, I didn't know the best way to phrase it either. I know "inside job" is often said mockingly, and that wasn't my intention so I probably shouldn't have used that phrase. I certainly don't find the topic ridiculous. Ever since I learned about Operation Northwoods and the sinister, sadistic plotting involved in the mass torture campaigns in Guatemala and the Southern Cone of South America, I know US officials allowing, abetting, or planning what happened on 9-11 is not beyond the bounds of possibility. But 9-11 Truth is the name of a specific group working on the issue and thus might be too specific to use for all aspects of this topic, yet it's so convenient. Not sure what appellation to use.

laura k said...

Dean, I absolutely knew you were not mocking the issue, although it can never hurt to clarify, because other readers/lurkers might not know that.

When I said I wish people wouldn't use that expression, I was thinking of the Toronto people who parade around with a "9/11 Was An Inside Job" banner. I wish they'd lead with another slogan, but they didn't ask me. :)

I think 9/11 Truth Movement is a good overall expression for all the groups and individuals working on it.

deang said...

the expressions "inside job" and "planned by the Bush administration" are - I hope - a shorthand for something much more complicated

Sorry about using those. I wasn't being careful enough in my thinking.

When complex issues are overly simplified, they are more easily ridiculed.

Bien dit.

deang said...

Ah! We posted at the same time! Thanks for your thoughts. And 9/11 Truth Movement is a good term. I'll use it.

laura k said...

Thanks for your thoughts.

Likewise, many times over.

Anonymous said...

I've been following your move to Canada for nearly as long as you've been blogging on it. My wife and I have been making slow steps in that direction ourselves for many of the same reasons you and yours did.

While there have been numerous first hand accounts of strange events leading up to the events of 9/11, one that I've yet to see addressed anywhere is the heightened border security in Buffalo, NY the day prior.

Before we had children, we used to go to the Toronto Film Festival annually -- flirting each time about moving there, but eventually dismissing the notion for many practical reasons. (Such reluctances have since been remedied by the past several years.)

Border crossing had been a routine process for five years prior, but on the evening of 9/10/2001, we were for the first time asked to produce IDs, extensively questioned about our trip, where we were headed and so on. And it wasn't just us. What had typically been a short wait was an every car interrogation for every car before and after us, a number requiring trunk searches and the like. Perplexed and amused, we joked about an escaped fugitive or prescription drug smuggling sting as the likely cause only to be haunted by the experience the following morning after returning to Ohio.

Whether there was in fact additional participation in the events of 9/11 will be debated, but whether someone, in some government office knew something significant was about to happen is of no doubt in our minds.

I do fear government plants and shills are regularly used to discredit many unpopular political movements, but those who summarily disregard the message because of the tactics of the messenger do so at their peril.

allan said...

A HUGE story broke today in the London Times.

Sibel Edmonds, a former Turkish language translator for the FBI (and someone very well-known to people involved in 9/11 research), has finally got a mainstream publication to listen to her:

A WHISTLEBLOWER has made a series of extraordinary claims about how corrupt government officials allowed Pakistan and other states to steal nuclear weapons secrets. ...

She approached The Sunday Times last month after reading about an Al-Qaeda terrorist who had revealed his role in training some of the 9/11 hijackers while he was in Turkey.

Edmonds described how foreign intelligence agents had enlisted the support of US officials to acquire a network of moles in sensitive military and nuclear institutions. ...

She claims that the FBI was also gathering evidence against senior Pentagon officials – including household names – who were aiding foreign agents.

"If you made public all the information that the FBI have on this case, you will see very high-level people going through criminal trials," she said.

Immediately after 911, the FBI arrested a bunch of people suspected of being involved with the attacks - including four associates of key targets of FBI's counterintelligence operations. Sibel heard the targets tell Marc Grossman: "We need to get them out of the US because we can’t afford for them to spill the beans." Grossman duly facilitated their release from jail and the suspects immediately left the country without further investigation or interrogation.


Luke Ryland -- who has done remarkable work digging into Sibel's claims and interviewing her -- says:
"Let me repeat that for emphasis: The #3 guy at the State Dept. facilitated the immediate release of 9/11 suspects at the request of targets of the FBI's investigation."

Edmonds also knows that US officials had detailed advanced knowledge of 9/11 in or about April 2001.

As the wiki entry llinked above says:
"Edmonds was fired from her position as a language specialist at the FBI's Washington Field Office in March, 2002, after she accused a colleague of covering up illicit activity involving foreign nationals, alleging serious acts of security breaches, cover-ups, and intentional blocking of intelligence which, she contended, presented a danger to the United States' security. Since that time, court proceedings on her whistleblower claims have been blocked by the assertion of State Secrets Privilege."

(The State Secrets Priviledge is very, very rarely used. The US obviously wants her silenced. The documentary "Kill The Messenger" is about Edmonds and her case.)

She spoke behind closed doors to the 9/11 Commission for more than three hours. Nothing she told them appeared in the Commission's final report.

She has offered to tell everything she knows to any TV station -- as long as they run the entire interview unedited. To date, no one from the US media has agreed.

allan said...

P.S. A nice bulleted list of what Edmonds would talk about and risk arrest and jail time, if given the chance.

The ACLU calls Edmomnds "the most gagged person in the history of the United States of America".

From that BradBlog link:
... the Dept. of Justice has done everything in their power (and then some) to keep her quiet. They invoked the rarely used "State Secrets Privilege" to shut her up -- going so far as to use it, without explanation, to remove her and her own attorneys from the courtroom when arguing their case against her.

In at least two unclassified Senate briefings, FBI officials confirmed the validity of her reports, but the information from those briefings was then retroactively classified by the DoJ -- which served to gag the Congress from further investigation on the matter. The DoJ even retroactively classified a 60 Minutes profile on her --- after it had already aired!

allan said...

heightened border security in Buffalo, NY the day prior.

Very interesting.

There have been reports of similar heighened security around the country prior to 9/11. Most of these reports came from the individuals themselves -- and not media reports -- though I recall reading in the New York papers right after 9/11 that security at the WTC buildings had been increased (armed guards, dogs) for the two or three weeks before the attacks, but had been scaled back a few days before the attacks.

PLUS:

9/11 Timeline:
"According to a Newsweek report on September 13, "[t]he state of alert had been high during the past two weeks, and a particularly urgent warning may have been received the night before the attacks, causing some top Pentagon brass to cancel a trip. Why that same information was not available to the 266 people who died aboard the four hijacked commercial aircraft may become a hot topic on the Hill." [Newsweek, 9/13/2001] Far from becoming a hot topic, the only additional media mention of this story will be in the next issue of Newsweek: "a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns." [Newsweek, 9/24/2001]

allan said...

... may become a hot topic on the Hill

Or not.

laura k said...

I've been following your move to Canada for nearly as long as you've been blogging on it. My wife and I have been making slow steps in that direction ourselves for many of the same reasons you and yours did.

Wow, thank you for your interest all this time! I hope wmtc has been of some help to you.

Whether there was in fact additional participation in the events of 9/11 will be debated, but whether someone, in some government office knew something significant was about to happen is of no doubt in our minds.

Thank you for sharing that. From Allan's research, I also became convinced that many in government (and many monitoring the skies) knew something very significant was going to happen.

I do fear government plants and shills are regularly used to discredit many unpopular political movements, but those who summarily disregard the message because of the tactics of the messenger do so at their peril.

Well said!

Thank you so much for de-lurking. If there's anything I can to do help as you make your way (slightly futher) north, don't hesitate to email me. Best of luck.

laura k said...

She has offered to tell everything she knows to any TV station -- as long as they run the entire interview unedited. To date, no one from the US media has agreed.

...

The ACLU calls Edmomnds "the most gagged person in the history of the United States of America".


To which one can only reply: holy fucking shit. If they are not exaggerating, that is really something.

laura k said...

Re Edmonds, I remember her name from your earlier research. She is a very brave person.

The Nightshift said...

In regards to whether Chomsky's a 911 denier; Don't underestimate this man's intelligence. I think that he's masking his opinions out of interest of self preservation, i.e. not getting ridiculed by media hit men on fox and losing his job.

See the lecture Distorted Morality where he basically tries to make it implicitly known that the 911 issue is 'so obvious' that it's not even worth talking about. It's a cryptic remark that can be interpreted both ways. But his thesis in the lecture is that the scholarly community and historians are nothing but 'hypocrites' and that
'the U.S. government has been, and continues to be, a major supporter of state-supported terrorism, favoring retaliatory or preemptive aggression over mediation in the world court, and avoiding accountability by excluding itself from the globally accepted definition of terrorism.'

laura k said...

i.e. not getting ridiculed by media hit men on fox and losing his job.

And now the MSM takes him so seriously?

Fox? Are you kidding me? Fox viewers wouldn't know Chomsky from Trotsky. I don't think he has much to worry about there.

As critical as Chomsky is of the US, why would he choose to mask his opinions and beliefs about this one issue and none other? I don't underestimate his intelligence (as you can see by my comments), but your explanation doesn't make sense to me.

Lone Primate said...

I'm no friend of the Bush Administration, but even I can't credit 9/11 as an act of any branch of the US government. There may be the odd Liddyesque type here and there willing to stick any number of hands into candles to move an agenda along, but I can't believe there are enough of them willing and able to murder 3000 Americans and hit the Pentagon and (probably) the Capitol Building just to grease the wheels for an imperial agenda. To pull it off in government, recruiting foreigners, would take hundreds, maybe thousands of people who'd have to be willing traitors and murderers, and I don't think you could keep a lid on that six months, never mind six years.

Meanwhile, we have a guy in the Middle East with means and motive and a known method who's actually been on a video saying, "Yeah, we were sitting around saying how good it would be to crash planes into the World Trade Center...", and two dozen guys who worked a couple of years to make it happen. That's a believable conspiracy. The Bush-Cheney regime is blackhearted enough as it is... we don't need to invent crimes for them now.

laura k said...

I'm no friend of the Bush Administration, but even I can't credit 9/11 as an act of any branch of the US government.

We're not talking about a branch of the US government in the conventional meaning of those words.

Lone Primate, I say this with the utmost respect for your intelligence and beliefs, so I hope I will not offend you.

If you began to read what is known about 9/11 - from credible, verifiable sources - you could never continue to believe what you've written here.

I was as skeptical as you. But once you begin to look at the facts, it's impossible to escape the conclusion that at the very least high level US officials knew full well that the attacks were imminent and did nothing to prevent them. At the very least.

Allan, who knows a lot more about this than I do, believes something much worse.

If you don't want to look at it, don't. But at least know that your statement is a belief, coming from your heart, not knowledge, based on facts.

but I can't believe there are enough of them willing and able to murder 3000 Americans

They've murdered more than that in Iraq and Afghanistan combined already.

And left thousands more without eyes, limbs or sanity.

laura k said...

The Bush-Cheney regime is blackhearted enough as it is... we don't need to invent crimes for them now.

If you read about this, you will see that what's "invented" is the multiple stories the US govt has told to explain what supposedly happened.

Follow the links in this thread to the earlier thread, and from there to "George Washington's" blog, just for starters.

allan said...

LP:

You say that if the US was involved it "would take hundreds, maybe thousands of people who'd have to be willing traitors and murderers" but then you say that UBL and "two dozen guys" pulling it off is a "believable conspiracy".

That makes no sense to me.

Why would it take thousands of people to make it work on one side but only about 24 on the other?

allan said...

I can't believe there are enough of them willing and able to murder 3000 Americans

US dead in Iraq and Afghanistan, as confirmed by the Department of Defense: 3,908

Anonymous said...

Hi L-Girl;

Thanks for your blog, we're discussing it with interest over at Toronto911Truth. I'd personally invite any further comments you have, since you occupy a unique position in all of this - a foot in both worlds, so to speak.

This link should take you to the forum post...

http://e3s.ca/t911truth/index.php?option=com_joomlaboard&Itemid=44&func=view&catid=21&id=123#123

The home link, for anyone interested, is

http://www.toronto911truth.ca

I look forward to checking out more of your blog. That's a drastic and courageous life decision you made to uproot yourself for your political ideals. Kudos.

laura k said...

Todd, thank you very much for your kind words. I'll definitely come by and check out the discussion.

Lone Primate said...

Why would it take thousands of people to make it work on one side but only about 24 on the other?

There's not a lot of checks and balances on a handful of guys running a few independent cells that share secret handshakes. But I've never seen anything like the roll-over-on-you-back-show-your-belly kind of militarization of everything you see in US culture these days. I don't think a stamp gets licked without fifteen people signing off on it, at least tacitly. They can't even move around people everyone hates without it getting out; it's hard for me to believe they could keep anything this big this quiet. I suppose, really, I don't want to believe it. I'm not in any position to say categorically it's impossible, of course. And hey, you're talking to a guy who's sure Oswald didn't do it alone (if he did it at all)... but this... I don't know. I'm willing to follow up the links, but I admit I'm skeptical.

Lone Primate said...

US dead in Iraq and Afghanistan, as confirmed by the Department of Defense: 3,908

Well, yeah, but the US lost half a million people in WWII... it doesn't automatically follow from the willingness to make that sacrifice that FDR bombed Pearl Harbor, or let it happen.

Of course, it doesn't disprove it either.

laura k said...

it's hard for me to believe they could keep anything this big this quiet.

That's a very popular misconception. Daniel Ellsberg addresses this in his book Secrets. I've quoted from it on this blog - I'll try to find it.

I suppose, really, I don't want to believe it.

I think that's what it is, at bottom. I understand, because I felt the same way.

I'm willing to follow up the links, but I admit I'm skeptical.

It's good to be skeptical. You might apply that same skepticism to the government's stories of what supposedly happened. That's where you find the really outlandish stories.

laura k said...

Ah, turns out I linked to the posts just this morning, in another thread.

In the second of these these two related posts, there are some thoughts about government secrets, from someone in a position to know a lot more about them than you or I.

allan said...

Daniel Ellsberg, "Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers":

It is a commonplace that "you can't keep secrets in Washington" or "in a democracy," that "no matter how sensitive the secret, you're likely to read it the next day in the New York Times." These truisms are flatly false. They are in fact cover stories, ways of flattering and misleading journalists and their readers, part of the process of keeping secrets well. Of course eventually many secrets do get out that wouldn't in a fully totalitarian society. Bureaucratic rivalries, especially over budget shares, lead to leaks.

Moreover, to a certain extent the ability to keep a secret for a given amount of time diminishes with the number of people who know it. As secret keepers like to say, "Three people can keep a secret if two of them are dead." But the fact is that the overwhelming majority of secrets do not leak to the American public. This is true even when the information withheld is well known to an enemy and when it is clearly essential to the functioning of the congressional war power and to any democratic control of foreign policy.

The reality unknown to the public and to most members of Congress and the press is that secrets that would be of the greatest import to many of them can be kept from them reliably for decades by the executive branch, even though they are known to thousands of insiders.

paperback, page 43

laura k said...

Of course, it doesn't disprove it either.

You're right, it neither proves nor disproves it.

My point - and I believe Allan's, too - was that the argument "they wouldn't kill 3000 of their own citizens" doesn't hold up under even the most cursory scrutiny.

They have already done so, no matter what you or I believe about 9/11. They make decisions that kill their own citizens every day, and think nothing of it.

allan said...

There's not a lot of checks and balances on a handful of guys running a few independent cells that share secret handshakes.

Checks and balances? We're taking about the United States of America, right?

allan said...

My point - and I believe Allan's, too - was that the argument "they wouldn't kill 3000 of their own citizens" doesn't hold up under even the most cursory scrutiny.

Hurricane Katrina, anyone?

The US government willfully looked the other way before and during the hurricane, deliberately blocked delivery of supplies, refused (via armed government mobs) to let citizens get to safety and then completely abandoned the survivors.

Lone Primate said...

I'm not in any informed position to argue it... all I can say is that I fervently hope it's not true, because if it is, it's basically hopeless. A conspiracy that entrenched and that ruthless is the literal end of democracy in the US. It will have to involve and implicate every president or high officer who follows forever after. It has huge negative implications for every other Western nation trying to hold the line against similar cabals.

allan said...

I will not vouch for the websites linked below, but here are two lists of the US conducting expirements on US citizens, including exposing military personnel to chemical and biological weapons.

allan said...

I fervently hope it's not true, because if it is, it's basically hopeless. A conspiracy that entrenched and that ruthless is the literal end of democracy in the US.

Exactly.

laura k said...

I've said this many times on this blog, but here it is again.

The single biggest lesson I've learned from the junta currently controlling the US is never to say, "But they wouldn't do that".

And any time I catch myself thinking such a thing, to stop, and remember.

allan said...

I don't know if anyone is checking back here, but Sibel Edmonds was chatting with some posters at Democratic Underground and she said that in the five days since the story broke, she has received exactly zero phone calls from the US media asking about this story.

Oh, liberal, Bush-hating mass media -- WHERE ARE YOU??????

Honesta said...

I still have an open mind about this, partly to maintain sanity. If there are three stances, broadly: 'official explanation'; 'they partly concocted it' and 'they knew and let it happen', I am still with the third.

But I thought this was an interesting set of juxtapositions:

Today I watched a two-hour documentary called 'Inside 9/11' and during the programme received Naomi Klein's 'The Shock Doctrine' from Amazon. The documentary was firmly in the first camp, i.e. no attempt to address inconsistencies, and a very quick rundown of events post-2001 (the uncritical acceptance of the Patriot Act was the lowpoint).

Meanwhile one page of Klein praised Bush for his speeches in the immediate aftermath, as he appeared to notice that unionised public sector workers were heroic.

Then the programme finished, and I realised I'd been watching something made by a company 50% owned by NewsCorp.

The last line was (allegedly) a quote from Osama Bin Laden:

"The USA loves life. We [Al-Qaeda] love death. That is the difference between us."

And immediately my mind went back to a poem I read the night before:


There Can Be No Victory
A poem by Martin Sheen...

In order to prepare for war,

You must not be sensitive or poetic or humorous.
You must not be self effacing,
Or reflective, or forgiving.

You must not be sentimental or compassionate or lighthearted.

On the contrary, to prepare for war,
You must be clear, uncompromising, and confident.

You must look life square in the eye...

And choose death.

allan said...

Bush:
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."