Did Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld gang "do" 9/11?

[willib]

Edelweiss Fan I was in a state of cognitive dissonance, pertaining to Bush. However, now based on your research links, I am starting to view 9/11 in a different light.

[Quinn]

Quinn, 911Research site is an advocacy site that summarizes research of others.

9/11 Timeline is a full fledged research site, and every statement is documented with a link to a mainstream on line source. I don't see how you can look at that site and say it is not research.

As for the NSA scandal, that actually proves the viability of "conspiracies" because the illegal, unconstitutional activity has been going on for five years, with many people involved, and only now one whistle blower has finally come forward.

BTW, 9/11 complicity would take very few people. We already know that Bush and Cheney were receiving extremely alarmed warnings from George Tenet and Richard Clarke about imminent attacks. All he had to do is what he did: nothing.

You can add more conspiratorial activity in the Pentagon with just a few people -- namely, disorienting the military with planned "drills" that were similar to the actual attacks.

At some point everyone has to ask himself or herself: do I reject the possibility of Bush administration complicity because I have looked at all the research, carefully weighed the evidence and concluded the administration is innocent?

Or have I dismissed the idea that Bush & co could have done this before hand. This is called cognitive dissonance in psychology. "Of course, no president could be that evil, so I won't even contemplate the possibility, and therefore dismiss any fact that is inconsistent (dissonant) with my pre-decided reality."

Have you actually read this kind of research or just dismissed it because "it couldn't possibly be true"?

After the Iraq war -- 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians, 2200 dead US military, for the purpose of getting oil for Bush's buddies and contracts for Cheney -- hurricane Katrina, where Bush & co allowed 1000s of New Orleanians to die of drowning, lack of medical care, starvation and thirst simply because they didn't want to cut short their vacation -- is it really inconceivable that they could allow 2000 citizens to be killed for political purposes?

They have practically told you to your face they could. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al wrote a think tank report, Project for New American Century, back in Sept. 2000, saying that the US needed a massive military build up to control all the world's resources and to attack Iraq. But that that wouldn't be likely to happen unless the US experienced a "new Pearl Harbor":

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."

A year later they got what they wanted. Have you read the PNAC report?

The official story is also a conspiracy theory -- that a kidney patient in a cave in the most primitive country on earth directed 19 magic Arabs to overcome our trillion dollar defenses to fly planes into buildings, including the Pentagon, the most heavily defended building on earth.

BTW, did you notice the Pentagon's missile defense system didn't operate that day. And that the hijackers managed to fly almost a 360 downward spiral into the Pentagon to hit the side opposite from which they came, in order to hit the only part of the building that was mostly empty.

Or maybe there are just so many coincidences and just one damned thing after another w/ 9/11:

http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.co...de-to-911.html

Fan,

I only have about twenty minutes before I leave for a dental appointment in mid-town, so I'll keep my response brief.

The NSA is unquestionably the most secretive government agency to serve this or any other government on the planet. Once again, the NSA as a lone agency can't keep a secret, but a group of U.S. and foreign agencies can? For me, the math doesn't add up.

Since I don't have the time necessary to address all of the erroneous "facts" put forth in your referenced websites, I shall address a few specific statements as examples of how little or no “research” was conducted.

On the 911research website, it states the following: "The Twin Towers exploded into dust and shattered steel, a behavior inconsistent with the known behavior of steel structures outside of explosive demolition. " This is completely inaccurate because the Twin Towers used a previously unique method of construction which placed nearly all the structural load upon an outer skeletal frame. Understanding this type of architecture immediately disproves statements like:

1) Both towers fell straight down, through themselves, following the path of maximum resistance, a behavior never before observed in spontaneous collapses of any type of vertical structure. If one does any research concerning how the Twin Towers were constructed, they will realize that - once the skeletal frame was damaged - falling through themselves was the path of least resistance.

2)Both towers exploded outward and where shredded and pulverized -- a pattern of destruction much more destructive than normal controlled demolitions, yet this result was supposedly produced without the added energy of explosives. Once again, the author knows nothing about how the Twin Towers were actually built.

3) The South Tower's core structure was largely undamaged by the off-centered jet impact, unlike the North Tower, yet it collapsed sooner. The core carries almost none of the structural load, so this is irrelevant.

This is just one set of “facts” that were not researched. I can go on, but lack the time. Still, you see where I am coming from. I’ll be happy to debate more when I come back from getting my teeth cleaned. Until then, take it easy.

-Quinn

[willib]

A friend of mind emailed the tv show "mythbusters" and asked them to conduct an experiment on the collaspse of the world trade center on 9/11. That was a year ago and he received no feedback on the request.

[seaman]

can anyone explain how they had cell phone conversations at the altitude that would make it impossible to use cell phones on the plane that crashed out in the field in PA.?

cell phones work fine at altitude. the only reason we can't use them on planes is due to FAA restictions and concerns from carriers.

[EdelweissFan]

Quinn, I was referring to the 9/11 Timeline as the authoritative research site. There are people who believe that some sort of demolition "assisted" in the destruction of the towers, like the WTC7 site. But that is not the main thrust of the idea that Bush was complicit. You seem to be avoiding the Timeline site and its well documented facts.

It is easy to tar all 9/11 skeptics with the seemingly even more out-there idea of assisted demolition.

If you want a typical mind blowing entry from the 9/11 Timeline, did you know that bin Laden, already the world's most wanted man before 9/11, was treated at the American Hospital in Dubai and visited by two CIA agents? Here is a typical well documented 9/11 Timeline entry for July 2001, with links to mainstream media reporting:

July 4-14, 2001: Bin Laden Reportedly Receives Lifesaving Treatment in Dubai, Said to Meet with CIA While There

The American Hospital in Dubai.

Bin Laden, America's most wanted criminal with a $5 million bounty on his head, supposedly receives lifesaving treatment for renal failure from American specialist Dr. Terry Callaway at the American hospital in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. He is possibly accompanied by Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri (who is said to be bin Laden's personal physician, al-Qaeda's second-in-command, and leader of Egypt's Islamic Jihad), plus several bodyguards. Callaway supposedly treated bin Laden in 1996 and 1998, also in Dubai. Callaway later refuses to answer any questions on this matter. [Le Figaro, 10/31/01; Times of London, 11/01/01; Agence France-Presse, 11/1/01] During his stay, bin Laden is visited by “several members of his family and Saudi personalities,” including Prince Turki al Faisal, then head of Saudi intelligence. [Guardian, 11/1/01] On July 12, bin Laden reportedly meets with CIA agent Larry Mitchell in the hospital. Mitchell apparently lives in Dubai as an Arab specialist under the cover of being a consular agent. The CIA, the Dubai hospital, and even bin Laden deny the story. The two news organizations that broke the story, Le Figaro and Radio France International, stand by their reporting. [Le Figaro, 10/31/01; Radio France International, 11/1/01] The explosive story is widely reported in Europe, but there are only two, small wire service stories on it in the US. [Reuters, 11/10/01; UPI, 11/1/01] The Guardian claims that the story originated from French intelligence, “which is keen to reveal the ambiguous role of the CIA, and to restrain Washington from extending the war to Iraq and elsewhere.” The Guardian adds that during his stay bin Laden is also visited by a second CIA officer. [Guardian, 11/1/01] In 2003, reporter Richard Labeviere will provide additional details of what he claims happened in a book entitled “The Corridors of Terror.” He claims he learned about the meeting from a contact in the Dubai hospital. He claims the event was confirmed in detail by a Gulf prince who presented himself as an adviser to the Emir of Bahrain. This prince claimed the meeting was arrange by Prince Turki al-Faisal, Saudi Arabia's intelligence director. The prince said, “By organizing this meeting...Turki thought he could start direct negotiations between [bin Laden] and the CIA on one fundamental point: that bin Laden and his supporters end their hostilities against American interests.” In exchange, the CIA and Saudis would allow bin Laden to return to Saudi Arabia and live freely there. The meeting is said to be a failure. [Reuters, 11/14/03] On July 15, Larry Mitchell reportedly returns to CIA headquarters to report on his meeting with bin Laden. [Radio France International, 11/1/01] French terrorism expert Antoine Sfeir says the story of this meeting has been verified and is not surprising: It “is nothing extraordinary. Bin Laden maintained contacts with the CIA up to 1998. These contacts have not ceased since bin Laden settled in Afghanistan. Up to the last moment, CIA agents hoped that bin Laden would return to the fold of the US, as was the case before 1989.” [Le Figaro, 11/1/01] A CIA spokesman calls the entire account of bin Laden's stay at Dubai “sheer fantasy.” [Reuters, 11/14/03]

[Felicia Katt]

Do I beleive Bush and his administration were rdirectly esponsible for 9-11? NO

Do I believe they capitalized on it as an opportunity to advance their own agendas and enrich their supporters? yes.

The first is just a conspiracy that can be argued endlessly, but never proven.

The latter is something very real that should be the focus of discussions, if not indictiment and impeachment, but which is obscurred by all the smoke, mirrors, and waving red flags of the 9-11 conspiracy buffs.

Do I think this is intentional? I'm not sure. but it makes for a nice conspiracy theory.

FK

[TrueBeauty TS]

Now all you have to do is prove it and when you do, no, I will love him no more. Good luck!

Your admission of love for our current president is very telling. I don't know of ANY politician that I LOVE. At best, I might think they are doing a good or decent job, but never enough where I absolutely love them.

Love is blind. When you have that much blind love for a politician, it's impossible for you to see any of their faults or admit when they have done something wrong.

Therefore, meaningful debate is useless.

[yourdaddy]

You conspiracy people really and truly are hopeless. Your heads are buried so far up your liberal asses, that you wouldn't know the truth if it backed up into you. Get Real !!!

[Andrew Johnson]

Sorry folks, but there is no way I can believe any American, holding any office, would let something so awful happen to innocent people.

I don't care what kind of coincidences you can dig up, or what sort of circumstantial evidence you may contrive. I just won't buy it.

I've heard whacked out conspiracy theories about the Government knowing the Japenese were going to attack Pearl Harbor and allowing it to happen to gain sentiment for joining the war effort. I think that's a lot easier to swallow being that it was a military installation and all. I think even that's a strectch though.

One could dig deeply and find similar things, I'm sure, pointing to the "Clinton Regime" in regards to the Oklahoma City bombing. Surely they could have used the support of the people when it came to passing all their oppressive gun laws. There is a fine line between legitimate gun activists and fringe anti-government groups, as far as the general public is concerned. It would have been a perfect set up. Would any of you buy this?


THIS IS COMPLETE........absurdity, babble, balderdash, baloney, bananas, blather, bombast, BS, bull, bunk, claptrap, craziness, drivel, fatuity, flightiness, folly, foolishness, fun, gab, gas, gibberish, giddiness, gobbledygook, hogwash, hooey, hot air, imprudence, inanity, irrationality, jazz, jest, jive, joke, ludicrousness, madness, mumbo jumbo, palaver, poppycock, prattle, pretense, ranting, rashness, rot, rubbish, scrawl, scribble, senselessness, silliness, soft soap, stupidity, thoughtlessness, trash, tripe, twaddle

[Quinn]

Do I beleive Bush and his administration were rdirectly esponsible for 9-11? NO

Do I believe they capitalized on it as an opportunity to advance their own agendas and enrich their supporters? yes.

This is essentially how I see it.

Arianna,

I'm checking out your link now. Given that there are many related feeds on that page, is there a specific feed I should check out first?

EdelweissFan,

Now that I have some time, I'm checking out the 911Timeline website more thoroughly before responding to it specifically.

-Quinn