9.11.2008

a 9/11 discussion, part three

Here is part one and part two.

* * * *

RS: I want to make clear that I do not necessarily think that the buildings were imploded or exploded. And the trouble is there will likely be no hard evidence. Hence, people can go around and around on the subject. I think that's one reason why I don't bother with it much. I'd rather focus on the clear evidence that IS out there.

I think the planes brought down the buildings and that the "bombs" people claim to have heard where explosions caused by the fires and the impact as the building's structure began to give way and as materials in the buildings began to burn and explode.

Makes sense. But there are dozens and dozens of comments from cops, firemen and regular people that cannot be accounted for by fires and/or the start of the collapse.

As for Giuliani and the bad phones, that sounds like bad governing but not evil intent to help the government with its plot. It sounds like that's all you are suggesting as well.

Right. It shows his clear crookedness and absolute disregard for the safety (and lives) of his city's workers, and he should be forever branded as an evil opportunist when it comes to 9/11, but that's about it.

* * * *

EMF: What you say makes sense. It took me a long time to process the horror of 9/11 - and, of course, I still can't really process it. Too awful. All that death and destruction. To accept that any human beings would willingly murder thousands of innocent people was hard enough to grasp. To accept that our own government was complicit is beyond impossible to grasp. So of course, I resist that thought.

Even if I intellectually try to absorb all these suggestions and the facts behind them, I may never be able to accept on a psychological level, on an emotional level, maybe on any level, that our government knew this was happening and let it happen. Thinking that they could have plotted it deliberately? Not sure my brain or my heart will ever accept that.

* * * *

LG: I understand what you're saying, but your point of view is also difficult for me to accept on some level. Because we know that human beings deliberately murder thousands of innocent people all the time. Jews, Armenians, Cambodians, Rwandans ... it's a long and terrible list. Sometimes the numbers are in the millions. Hiroshima, Nagasaki. Deliberately plotted, innocent people.

Those all happened somewhere else, geographically and historically. That psychological distance must make it more possible to accept (even though we can't really comprehend any of it). But we saw 9/11 happen, there's no distance.

For you, that makes it too terrible to consider. But for me, that's exactly why I want the truth to be known. 9/11 happened in my backyard, and has been used as an excuse to perpetrate horrors in my name. That's why (for me) it has to be faced head-on.

As far as members of the US government doing these things, governments the world over and in all eras have done far, far worse. Are Americans so inherently special that they wouldn't perpetrate such a crime? When viewed in the context of what's at stake - control of dwindling resources, massive profits, excuses to rewrite the domestic agenda - and how powerful they are, it seems almost obvious. I used to feel they were just extremely clever opportunists, but that view eventually gave way under the weight of too many coincidences.

* * * *

EMF: I think that what I was describing was a psychological resistance to thinking about the possibility of government involvement, not an intellectual resistance. That is, I do recognize that possibility of such involvement and the litany of historical precedents to it. But somehow my head and heart seem to resist accepting it in this case - perhaps because it is in our time and space, unlike all those other events. That's why I am reading and asking questions about this.

I don't want to put my head in the sand. But I know that at some deep psychological level I will resist seeing this as true as long as I can. Of course, a healthy dose of skepticism is a good thing - I know there are no "facts" that cannot be reinterpreted and spun to tell a different story. We will likely never know the actual truth, so the best we can do is try and hear all the information and ask questions.

* * * *

EMF: This is very helpful to me because I think the more the focus is on the more likely areas of government knowledge and involvement, the less likely it will be that I (and others) will get distracted by things that just seem illogical or even preposterous (like the idea of Giuliani intentionally leaving people in those buildings or even the idea that the government bombed the buildings).

For me, so far, what seems more credible is that the government deliberately ignored warnings that planes would be used to destroy the WTC.

The fact that people high up in the government have admitted this (even the mainstream media reported on this) combined with the training maneuvers and the fact that people were being warned not to take commercial flights makes at least that part credible to me.

Whether they knew when exactly it was going to occur and just sat back and watched I still need to read more to believe. Of course, either way they were either incredibly incompetent and irresponsible or murderous opportunistic criminals.

One thing I do not doubt: the Bush administration knew immediately that they could use this to manipulate the country into war and just about any other scheme they wanted to accomplish. So if I can just ignore all the stuff about bombs in the buildings, etc., I think my inquiry can be more focused and perhaps more persuasive.

LG: I really appreciate your explanation/explication of this, the thoughts and feelings behind your simultaneous inquiry and resistance. It goes a long way in understanding resistance to these ideas among liberal and otherwise skeptical people. It's also interesting to see the ideas through fresh eyes.

* * * *

EMF: I have looked at some of the materials and links (though many of the links from the Coincidence Theorist blog did not work), and just thought I would report on my initial reactions. I have mostly focused on what the government knew before the attacks in my reading. It seems clear and even reported in mainstream sources that there were lots of warnings of an imminent attack, some even describing the attack in quite accurate detail.

It also seems that there were some connections between Al Qaeda/Bin Laden and the US before 9/11 dating back to the US covert operations in Afghanistan when the Russians were occupying that country. And it seems clear that there was a terrible mishandling, deliberate or otherwise, of the Moussaoui investigation in Minnesota. These things seem to be corroborated in several places, including in sources like Time, Newsweek, etc., sources that are hardly known for being controlled by the radical left.

For me, some of this was new, some was not, but overall I am left saying, "Even if that is ALL there is, why has there been no outrage over the government's incompetence and its failure to protect us?" And I am also left asking, if it is possible that all this was known and ignored, could it also be that there were some deliberate choices at some level NOT to step in and prevent the attacks?

From what I have read, I can't determine who or how high up that complicity may go. Do we know who benefited from the alleged insider trading the days before the attacks? Has anyone traced that part of the money trail? I also see nothing that would persuade me that the government planned the attacks or paid for them or assisted in them. But for me, that is almost beside the point. If they knew about them and let them happen, as FDR allegedly did with Pearl Harbor, then they are as responsible as if they had planned and assisted in the attacks.

So that's where I am. My guess is that like most Americans, I heard many of these things back in 2001 and 2002 but was still too much in mourning and shock to focus on them.

Maybe the time is ripe for reopening these matters and making the country revisit this all. My guess is that a focus on these issues, without going off into the areas of WTC 7, bombs in the buildings, Giuliani, and even the back stories on the Bush connections to Riggs Bank, etc., would be the most effective way to get this heard. That is, focusing on the idea that the government knew and let this happen seems to be the place to start.

Once people can get a handle on that, then the other questions - like whether there was actually government involvement in planning and assisting with the attacks - can be raised and addressed.

Does this make sense? I am just speaking as someone who is looking for the most believable and independently verifiable aspects of these claims. If I can be persuaded of those aspects, then I am more likely to believe the less believable, even more horrible aspects.

* * * *

RS:
Do we know who benefited from the alleged insider trading the days before the attacks? Has anyone traced that part of the money trail?

The insider trading was deemed - by the end of September 2001 - to be normal and there was no further investigation. This is, in my opinion, complete bullshit.

if it is possible that all this was known and ignored, could it also be that there were some deliberate choices at some level NOT to step in and prevent the attacks?

Absolutely. That is exactly what we are talking about. The shut down or scaling back of terrorist investigations into Bin Laden by the Bush team right after taking office (as shown by Greg Palast and others) and the blocking of the reporting of flight lessons in Phoenix (Robert Wright) and Minneapolis (Colleen Rowley and others) is so complete that it has to be deliberate. Also, the people in those positions who blocked what turned out to be vital information - info that if acted upon could have prevented the attacks - were later promoted and honoured by Bush.

I also see nothing that would persuade me that the government planned the attacks or paid for them assisted in them. But for me, that is almost beside the point. If they knew about them and let them happen, as FDR allegedly did with Pearl Harbor, then they are as responsible as if they had planned and assisted in the attacks.

Some people do make a distinction, however. But it wouldn't be "the government" planning the attacks. It would be various elements in parts of the US government working with parts of other governments (Senator Bob Graham - who chaired an investigation before the main Commission was formed - has said Saudi Arabia was a big supporter. And it was those Saudi Arabian connections to the attacks that the Bush administration redacted and refused to make public.)

Once people can get a handle on that, then the other questions -- like whether there was actually government involvement in planning and assisting with the attacks -- can be raised and addressed. Does this make sense?

Honestly, now you sound like a true believer trying to figure out how best to get the word out to others.

* * * *

EMF: The Greg Palast and Robert Wright links were among those that did not work on the other site. I did find the Colleen Rowley material quite compelling and credible. I understand, I think, that you are suggesting that it was not necessarily Bush, or even Cheney/Rumsfeld, who knew about the planned attacks, but rather others in the government, perhaps at the FBI and CIA, who knew and did nothing. Is that correct? Certainly the Rowley piece indicated that the FBI acted suspiciously as well as someone in the Minnesota US Attorney's office.

It seems that it is quite believable that there were fanatics at that level, the CIA and FBI, who would have been complicit in allowing if not planning the attacks. We all know enough about the kinds of nuts who end up working in those agencies and the kinds of other covert operations they have engineered over the years. I think it is a whole lot different to infer that the higher ups in the government "knew" about this, although it certainly is possible to conclude that they were negligent, if not recklessly indifferent, in not responding to the warnings they were receiving from multiple sources.

The one thing that does haunt me about that, however, is the fact that Ashcroft was told not to take a commercial flight on 9/11. If he was warned, why weren't the rest of us?

Not sure I am yet a "true believer," but I am certainly at the point of seeing this as not just a crazy "conspiracy theory." Like I said, the more I can find that backs up the most credible aspects of the claims, the more likely it is that I (and I assume others like me) can then make the leap to the next level of the claims.

* * * *

RS:
The one thing that does haunt me about that, however, is the fact that Ashcroft was told not to take a commercial flight on 9/11. If he was warned, why weren't the rest of us?

Actually, Ashcroft was told to stop flying commercial flights in July 2001, not a flight on 9/11. When asked about what he was told in July, Ashcroft walked out of the room without comment. (And now we know that it was around that time when the warnings of attack really started flooding in - Bush's infamous PDB was dated August 6 - so you can draw your own conclusions.)

But there is also this:
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]
Of course, it did not become a "hot topic". In fact, these are the only two stories that have ever mentioned it.

Apropos of nothing, while looking for those links, I found this, which I had not seen before:
(After 10:00 a.m.) September 11, 2001: FBI Immediately Identifies Hijackers on Dulles Security Video Shortly after arriving at Washington's Dulles Airport, from which Flight 77 took off, the FBI confiscates a security tape from a checkpoint through which the hijackers passed before boarding the plane. Airport security manager Ed Nelson will later say: "They pulled the tape right away. ... They brought me to look at it. They went right to the first hijacker on the tape and identified him. They knew who the hijackers were out of hundreds of people going through the checkpoints. They would go 'roll and stop it' and showed me each of the hijackers. ... It boggles my mind that they had already had the hijackers identified. ... Both metal detectors were open at that time, and lots of traffic was moving through. So picking people out is hard. ... I wanted to know how they had that kind of information. So fast. It didn't make sense to me." [Trento and Trento, Unsafe At Any Altitude, 2006, pp. 37]

I understand, I think, that you are suggesting that it was not necessarily Bush, or even Cheney/Rumsfeld, who knew about the planned attacks, but rather others in the government, perhaps at the FBI and CIA, who knew and did nothing. Is that correct?

Actually, I would assume Cheney and Rumsfeld knew. Considering the six or seven different war games that were going on that morning - most of which involved hijacked airplanes - and a CIA drill near the Pentagon that simulated a plane crashing into a government building (really!) - and the clear lack of any response by the military to any of the hijackings and crashes, I don't see how they could have been out of the loop. To some (likely unknowable) degree, they were involved, in my opinion.

I think it is a whole lot different to infer that the higher ups in the government "knew" about this

As opposed to what? I don't understand.

although it certainly is possible to conclude that they were negligent, if not recklessly indifferent, in not responding to the warnings they were receiving from multiple sources.

Negligence is simply not possible - neither is incompetence - not with the amount of warnings there were. Plus, it is obvious that some aspect of US intelligence had been monitoring the hijackers for at least a couple of years. That's how they could ID them on the airport tape (the snip I sent earlier) and that's how they were able to show up at the specific two or three Florida flight schools in the early afternoon on 9/11. When one of the 9/11 widows asked the FBI how that quick detection was possible, the agent said: "We got lucky." Imagine that.

[end of part three]

* * * *

a 9/11 discussion, part four, final

10 comments:

Jere said...

"we got lucky."

arrrgggghhhh

You all talked a lot about people being warned--and that one page with all the warnings is amazing and just goes on and on. But is there anywhere that shows citizens being warned as opposed to governments. ( I do see "Jewish community" on there, so maybe that counts.) I ask because someone I know told me right after 9/11 that she was about to go on vacation and some dude asked her when she was flying, and when she said "September 10th" (or 12th, but it was right around the 11th), his face dropped and told her it would not be smart to do so. Is there more evidence of stuff like this? I mean, I figure if that happened, there must be message boards full of stories like that from "regular" people. Right?

redsock said...

Is there more evidence of stuff like this?

Yeah, there is.

September 6, 2001
New York Student Forecasts Destruction of WTC

Antoinette DiLorenzo, teaching English to a class of Pakistani immigrants, asks a student gazing out the window, "What are you looking at?" The student points towards the WTC, and says, "Do you see those two buildings? They won’t be standing there next week." At the time, nothing is thought of it, but on September 13, the FBI will interview all the people in the classroom and confirm the event. The FBI later places the boy's family under surveillance but apparently is unable to find a connection to the 9/11 plot. An MSNBC reporter later sets out to disprove this "urban myth," but to his surprise, finds all the details of the story are confirmed. The fact that the family members are recent immigrants from Pakistan might mean the information came from Pakistan. [MSNBC, 10/12/2001] Supposedly, on November 9, 2001, the same student predicts there will be a plane crash on November 12. On that day, American Airlines Flight 587 will crash on takeoff from New York, killing 260 people. Investigators will later determine that the crash is accidental. One official at the school later says many Arab-American students have come forward with their own stories about having prior knowledge before 9/11: "Kids are telling us that the attacks didn't surprise them. This was a nicely protected little secret that circulated in the community around here." [Insight, 9/10/2002]

September 10, 2001
Dallas Fifth Grader Forecasts World War III

A fifth grader in Dallas, Texas, casually tells his teacher, “Tomorrow, World War III will begin. It will begin in the United States, and the United States will lose.” The teacher reports the comment to the FBI, but does not know if they act on it at the time. The student skips the next two days of school. The event may be completely coincidental, but the newspaper that reports the story also notes that two charities, Holy Land Foundation and InfoCom, located in an adjacent suburb have been under investigation based on suspected fund-raising activities for Islamic militant organizations. One InfoCom employee had his name in the telephone book of Wadih El-Hage, bin Laden’s personal secretary, and he was seen with El-Hage as recently as 1998 (see September 16, 1998-September 5, 2001). [Houston Chronicle, 9/19/2001] The FBI investigates and decides “no further investigation [is] warranted.” [Houston Chronicle, 10/1/2001]

September 10, 2001
New Jersey Student Warns Teacher to Stay Away from Lower Manhattan

A sixth-grade student of Middle Eastern descent in Jersey City, New Jersey, says something that alarms his teacher at Martin Luther King Jr. Elementary School. “Essentially, he [warns] her to stay away from lower Manhattan because something bad [is] going to happen,” says Sgt. Edgar Martinez, deputy director of police services for the Jersey City Police Department. [Insight, 9/10/2002]

September 9, 2001
Internet Forum Message Warns of 9/11 Attack

On September 9, 2001, a message is posted on Alsaha.com, a website based in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, warning of the 9/11 attack. It proclaims that in the next two days, a “big surprise” is coming from the Saudi Arabian region of Asir, the remote, mountainous province that produced most of the 19 hijackers who struck on September 11. Since 9/11, the FBI and CIA have closely monitored this website as “a kind of terrorist early-warning system” due to its popularity with Muslim fundamentalists. However, it is doubtful if they were monitoring the site before 9/11, or noticed this message. [Newsweek, 5/25/2003] Additionally, on September 10, someone in Jordan posts on a website that at attack is close to “zero hour.” [Tenet, 2007, pp. 233]

But is there anywhere that shows citizens being warned as opposed to governments.

Do you mean like this?

September 6, 2001
FAA Places Severe Flight Restrictions on Author Because of Attack Threat

The FAA places severe flight restrictions on author Salman Rushdie, who is in the US to promote a new book. The restrictions are so strict and costly that at least two airlines refuse to fly him at all. The FAA tells Rushdie’s publisher that US intelligence has given warning of "something out there" but fails to give any further details. ... The Daily Mail will later report that the CIA secretly gave the FAA a "confidential warning that Muslim fundamentalists were preparing a spectacular attack imminently, but it was unable to specify the target."

September 7, 2001
Priest Is Told of Plot to Attack US and Britain Using Hijacked Airplanes

At a wedding in Todi, Italy, Father Jean-Marie Benjamin is told of a plot to attack the US and Britain using hijacked airplanes as weapons. He is not told specifics regarding time or place. He immediately passes what he knows to a judge and several politicians. He later will state, “Although I am friendly with many Muslims, I wondered why they were telling me, specifically. I felt it my duty to inform the Italian government.” Benjamin has been called “one of the West’s most knowledgeable experts on the Muslim world.”

*********

WTF?!?!?!

September 11, 2001
(From 8:45 to 9:00 am)
Director of Operations of the Joint Staff Does Not Go to NMCC [National Military Command Center] After Learning of WTC Crash; Keeps Dental Appointment Instead

L-girl said...

Thanks, Jere and Allan.

nixon33 said...

wow. this is a lot to digest.
scary isn't the word. more like terrifying.
i remember reading the accounts of the different children saying that the building wouldn't be there/ww3 begins soon.

another question:
"why hasn't anything happened on US soil since?"

different answers could support either side of this argument.

nixon33 said...

(also i tentatively post here as i don't pretend to be even NEARLY in the same league of knowledge or intelligence on these issues as you folks!)

L-girl said...

another question:

"why hasn't anything happened on US soil since?"


You're right that there are a lot of possible answers to this. Allan and I have speculated about it a lot.

But it's hard enough trying to figure out and absorbing what did happen, without figuring out why something *hasn't* happened.

I am half-expecting "something" to happen before the US elections, giving them an excuse to "temporarily" postpone them. I wonder if people increase and expand their powers by this much, only to give them away to a black man.

I will be very relieved when the elections take place. I will be beyond happy to know I was only paranoid.

(also i tentatively post here as i don't pretend to be even NEARLY in the same league of knowledge or intelligence on these issues as you folks!)

Your thoughts are very welcome here. Anyone who doesn't reflexively dismiss the information and call us kooks is welcome. :)

redsock said...

another question:
"why hasn't anything happened on US soil since?"


There were the anthrax mailings.

It would be tricky to have something happen on their watch (again) when they are supposedly doing so much to "protect".

But they haven' needed anything. The press has been sound asleep and the public has long since moved on -- despite their "never forget" bumperstickers.

And if they ever need to scare people, they just announce some bullshit threat, though they have cried wolf so many times, and the threats have been proven to be laughable, that it's not working like it used to.

Several years ago, someone did some research and found that a huge percentage of the breaking news/threats occurred around the same time as bad news/scandal reports about the Bush/Cheney were released -- which drove the scandal news clean off the front page.

(also i tentatively post here as i don't pretend to be even NEARLY in the same league of knowledge or intelligence on these issues as you folks!)

That is not a prerequisite. And besides, you don't know anything about baseball, but you still post at JoS!

L-girl said...

And besides, you don't know anything about baseball, but you still post at JoS!

Ooooosnap!

impudent strumpet said...

I haven't read everything yet because there are a lot of words and I'm lazy so I might have something more sensible to say later.

But right now, I'm very surprised that an ordinary everyday civilian on September 10, 2001 would report a comment from a fifth grader to the FBI. Trying to google up what movie gave them that idea seems like a more appropriate reaction. If this happened in a book or movie that was set before 9/11, I'd call it an anachronism.

L-girl said...

ImpStrump, I feel that way, too, about many of the reports of civilian warnings. They may be true (and some have been verified, or at least strongly corroborated), or they may be urban legends. IMO, they are a very weak link - which is why they were not presented in the post or the original email conversation.

But they may be real, and Jere asked, so there's the answer.