U.S. Govt. & Bush admin. complicit in events of 9/11

[Sycophant]

--The hole in the Pentagon was too small to have been made by a 757 passenger plane, as photos show. The impression made was approximately half the size of the airplane.

I'm am sure there are many unanswered questions about the events of that day, and many things we don't really know - but this is one of the stupidest claims. It's like the "we never landed on the moon" sites - it's people without a good understanding of science making claims that seems logical, but are just plain wrong.

 

[far rider]

I just find it to be another conspiracy theory, somewhere up with JFK and the faked moon landing. hey... maybe W. was deepthroat...? or maybe David Icke is right, and Bush is really a 12ft alien lizard...?

Thank you!

These kind of conspiracy theories automatically cause my eyes to glaze over.

Ozwald acted alone and there are no aliens at Roswell.

 

[far rider]

- it's people without a good understanding of science making claims that seems logical, but are just plain wrong.

It's also known as "sophistry", which is an insult to the Sophists.

 

[EricCartman]

And the learning channel did a documenary on building seven and showed how it fell. by the way, there is video tape of the plane hitting the pentagon made by a parkinglot security camera.

 

[Doctrine1st]

I believe this conspiracy theory was examined by skeptic magazine and deflated. but maybe this is a different story. i have a hard time keeping up with all of them. In any case, solidity is determined by the actions of Bush's enemies. If it is so concrete that it could end the bush presidency, then his enemies would no doubt use it like a loaded gun. The fact that they havent fired at him with it convinces me that something is wrong with the story and is nothing more than a blank. People believed that sham of a documentry "F9/11" even though it has been proven that over 95 percent of the movie is either exaggerated or or edited to achieve maximum effect. Pull the trigger my friends and you will have my attention. but if this smoking gun will not be fired by Bush's enemies on the hill who would sell their souls for something solid. i can only assume this smoking gun shoots nothing but blanks.

What you are describing is the corporatizing and dumbing down of the American media running scared in light of viewership, subcribership, and their profits, and the stronghold the Republicans have in those commitees who would be all over this if it were a Dem in office being exposed by these memos. When those in Congress, mind you a branch of government that is suppose to be equal in power as the Executive, asked early for the Bush admin to respond, the response was "it's not worth our time" or something to that effect.

This is not how the founding fathers wished the seperation of powers to work as we are experiencing right now just by this what happens when their is no true seperation.

It was in fact a grassroots efforts of emails and complaints that pushed the Downing street memo to the forefront.

 

[rebel_conservative]

It's also known as "sophistry", which is an insult to the Sophists.

with the possible exception of stoicism, is there a single philosophical term that has not been beaten out of all recognition...?

 

[far rider]

with the possible exception of stoicism, is there a single philosophical term that has not been beaten out of all recognition...?

That's true. "Metaphysics" is hard enough to define without the new age types stretching it all out of shape. I am amazed at the number of people who talk about "logic" without the faintest idea of what it actually is.

Are you a philosopher?

 

[southernmissfan]

I think our government had a pretty good idea of what was coming (though they might not have know specific details), and knew the potential advantages were too great to pass up. After all, some of these guys have been planning elaborate foreign policy schemes since the early 90s, and the new 'mooslem turrorist with his dern al-keeda' and the Brown Scare (I went too far with that one, didn't I?) it would cause would give them the opportunity to implement said plans.

One thing I think is interesting is that Osama, who's supposed to be some kind of all powerful underground leader and hero, has still not been caught. We're the world's most powerful country, and we can't catch one old guy with health problems? On another note, what makes some all powerful terrorist just suddenly put away his terror? Why would these e-vildoers travel to go fight the world's most powerful military head on instead of coming to America to create some real terror by killing unarmed women and children?

You have to wonder if Osama is either A) dead (possible, but I'm not so sure) or B) has made a deal to not attack on American soil (It works out for both parties, we still have our enemy, and he doesn't have to worry about squat.)...

 

[AmariJah]

I'm am sure there are many unanswered questions about the events of that day, and many things we don't really know - but this is one of the stupidest claims. It's like the "we never landed on the moon" sites - it's people without a good understanding of science making claims that seems logical, but are just plain wrong.

(I love it when people cry "stupid" and yet fail to present any evidence or give any real reason for their opinion... makes you wonder?) Of coarse there are many unanswered questions- because someone is refusing to answer them! However there is absolutely nothing stupid about pointing out some of the obvious facts! Recognizing that such a large airplane would never have made such a small hole in the Pentagon building is certainly not comparable to "we never landed on the moon". If you had actually taken even just a few minutes of time to examine the evidence related to the alleged plane crash site at the Pentagon you would begin to understand that there is good solid science involved in the research. And that the far fetched "conspiracy theory" about an alleged plane that supposedly crashed and subsequently vaporized at the Pentagon is neither good scinece nor even a probable hypothesis based upon the physical evidence.

 

[AmariJah]

Thank you!

These kind of conspiracy theories automatically cause my eyes to glaze over.

Ozwald acted alone and there are no aliens at Roswell.

I have come to believe that those who simply cry "wolf" or in this case "conspiracy theory", simply don't care enough to examine any of the evidence presented so the only way to try and debate the topic is to give a non-response by trying to make fun off the thread and compare it to the most rediculous unrelated subjects. (Plus, you are merely stating that you prefer the half-baked conspiracy theory of the Federal Government to the conspiracy theories of independant researchers. IT IS NONETHELESS A CONSPIRACY THEORY!) If you cannnot present any evidence, facts or even your own personal opinion as to why the research about 9/11 is inaccurate or false, then why bother visiting this thread at all? Obviously 3000+ 1700 American dead and untold thousands of Iraq's dead does not pull your heart strings enough to demand a complete and thorough independant investigation into the most heinous and horrific enemy attack on American soil since Pearl Harbour!

 

[AmariJah]

And the learning channel did a documenary on building seven and showed how it fell. by the way, there is video tape of the plane hitting the pentagon made by a parkinglot security camera.

Larry Silverstein who was the new leasholder on the Wrold Trade Center buildings is on record as having ordered the destruction of WTC #7. There are links in the first post... But of coarse you are not interested in the truth about 9/11 anyway. Sooo much easier to write it all of as looney "conspiracy theories" as oppoesed to actually looking at the available facts and comparing them to the half baked "official story". That way it doesn't require much thought or heart for that matter... That way 1700 Americans and thousands of Iraq's dead seem like a worthwhile sacrifice even though Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with the attacks on the WTC. It all works so well for those who accept the role of the blind sheep who choose to follow the wrong shepherd!

 

[rebel_conservative]

....even though Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with the attacks on the WTC.

I don't recall anyone seriously suggesting that it did. what was suggested was that Saddam had WMD, which was accepted unanimously by the UN Security Council, and that Saddam could potentially link up with terrorists in the future, giving them access to his WMD, to do damage to the United States when it was in their mutual interests. and this is not particularly far-fetched (certainly compared to the OP) as Saddam had known links with arab terrorists in Israel.

 

[AmariJah]

I don't recall anyone seriously suggesting that it did. what was suggested was that Saddam had WMD, (I could comment on this outright lie as well but it would take us too far off topic! let's just say; The Bush administration knew that Saddam posed no real threat to the U.S. and leave it at that for now... Unless we start another thread?) which was accepted unanimously by the UN Security Council, and that Saddam could potentially link up with terrorists in the future, giving them access to his WMD, to do damage to the United States when it was in their mutual interests. and this is not particularly far-fetched (certainly compared to the OP) as Saddam had known links with arab terrorists in Israel.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4752.htm
CAMPAIGN OF NUANCE?

At no time did he or another senior official flatly accuse Saddam of complicity in the 9/11 attacks, though some Republicans who serve the administration in an advisory role — including Richard Perle and former CIA Director James Woolsey — say they support the idea.

Critics charge that administration statements over the past two years, coupled with speeches and interviews given by advisors like Perle and Woolsey, have contributed to the 9/11 misconception. In fact, the administration has consistently linked the attacks to the U.S.-led push to oust Saddam, at least rhetorically, by juxtaposing al-Qaida’s deeds with the potential threat posed by Iraq.

Here are some of those statements:

“With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaida. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.”
— President Bush, State of the Union Speech, Jan. 28, 2003.


But what I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the al-Qaida terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder. Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi an associate and collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida lieutenants. … But Baghdad has an agent in the most senior levels of the radical organization Ansar al-Islam that controls this corner of Iraq. In 2000, this agent offered al-Qaida safe haven in the region. We know members of both organizations met repeatedly and have met at least eight times at very senior levels since the early 1990s. In 1996, a foreign security service tells us that bin Laden met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official in Khartoum and later met the director of the Iraqi intelligence service. Saddam became more interested as he saw al-Qaida’s appalling attacks. A detained al-Qaida member tells us that Saddam was more willing to assist al-Qaida after the 1998 bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Saddam was also impressed by al-Qaida’s attacks on the USS Cole in Yemen in October 2000.”
— Secretary of State Colin Powell, Statement to the U.N. Security Council, Feb. 5, 2003.


“After the attacks of September the 11th, 2001, we will not allow grave threats to go unopposed. We are now working to locate and destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. This is a historic moment. Just over a month ago, not all that long ago, a cruel dictator ruled a country, ruled Iraq by torture and fear. His regime was allied with terrorists, and the regime was armed with weapons of mass destruction. Today, that regime is no more.”
— President Bush, Speech to workers at Abrams tank plant in Lima, Ohio, April 24, 2003.


“The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 — and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men — the shock troops of a hateful ideology — gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the ‘beginning of the end of America.’ By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation’s resolve, and force our retreat from the world. They have failed.”
— President Bush, aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, May 1, 2003.


“The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that still goes on. al-Qaida is wounded, not destroyed. The scattered cells of the terrorist networks still operate in many nations. And we know from daily intelligence that they continue to plot against free people. The proliferation of deadly weapons remains a serious danger. The enemies of freedom are not idle, and neither are we. Our government has taken unprecedented measures to defend our homeland and, more importantly, we will continue to hunt the enemy down before he can strike. No act of terrorists will change our purpose or weaken our resolve or alter their fate. Their cause is lost. Free nations will press on to victory.”
—President Bush, Weekly radio address, May 3, 2003.


http://www.veteransforpeace.org/Key_officials_071603.htm

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Published on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 by the lnter Press Service [/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Key Officials Used 9/11 As Pretext for Iraq War [/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]by Jim Lobe [/font]​

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]WASHINGTON - With demands for a full-scale investigation of the manipulation of intelligence by the administration of Pres. George W. Bush mounting steadily, it appears increasingly clear that key officials and their allies outside the administration intended to use the Sep. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks as a pretext for going to war against Iraq within hours of the attacks themselves. Within the administration, the principals appear to have included Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Vice Pres. Dick Cheney, and his national security adviser, I. Lewis Libby, among others in key posts in the National Security Council and the State Department.

[/font]

And so we see that there was a deliberate campaign to connect Saddam and Iraq with the attacks on 9/11. How many more lies and manipulation of the truth are we going to accept from these spin-masters before we will collectively say ENOUGH?

 

[lucid42day]

exactly, if there was any concrete evidence... or even somewhat-less-than-concrete evidence

I believe one of the problems with the concrete evidence is that it was destroyed by FEMA, from what I've read. Steel evidence, also.

Just what I've read.

 

[rebel_conservative]

And so we see that there was a deliberate campaign to connect Saddam and Iraq with the attacks on 9/11. How many more lies and manipulation of the truth are we going to accept from these spin-masters before we will collectively say ENOUGH?

I do not deny that. it is a fact that some people are too stupid to understand what the President was saying and doing. I will readily accept that members of the US executive, and pro-war members of the legislature mentioned Iraq in the context of 9/11 and that it could be argued that he was alluding to a connection. however, you have to accept that no-one came out and said, "Saddam was behind 9/11" or even suggested Saddam was behind 9/11. what I said stands, no-one said Saddam was behind 9/11.

 

[lucid42day]

well, i say pull the trigger already. if its untrue, it will prove them fools. if it is true then those involved must be brought to justice. i simply dare them to try it.

I never paid any real attention to any of the 9/11 events, to be honest. I just watched four or five of the videos I found linked. I'd be lying if I said I wasn't at least a little creeped out.

 

[lucid42day]

And the learning channel did a documenary on building seven and showed how it fell. by the way, there is video tape of the plane hitting the pentagon made by a parkinglot security camera.

Requisite link when discussing this:
http://www.snopes2.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

 

[AmariJah]

I do not deny that. it is a fact that some people are too stupid to understand what the President was saying and doing. I will readily accept that members of the US executive, and pro-war members of the legislature mentioned Iraq in the context of 9/11 and that it could be argued that he was alluding to a connection. however, you have to accept that no-one came out and said, "Saddam was behind 9/11" or even suggested Saddam was behind 9/11. what I said stands, no-one said Saddam was behind 9/11.

Sadly, the majority of people are nothing more than sheep! Whether or not the Bush administration came right out and stated a connection is beside the point. The PR people who advise the Bush admin. know full well the general mentality of the majority of the public. There words and speeches were very carefully prepared to make that connection so that a majority of Americans would support a war on Iraq. This type of subtle deception seems to be one of the M.O.'s of the Bush Admin.
The point here is that many many of the facts and ciscumstances of Sept. 11 have both been manipulated and covered up in order to support the Bush Admins own foolish "conspiracy theory". Most people who think for themselves and who examine even a fraction of the available evidence can see that there is clearly a lot more to this story than our government is willing to share with us!

 

[tulc]

Now lucid, don't muddy the waters with facts!
tulc(going to find some coffee...now!)

 

[rebel_conservative]

Whether or not the Bush administration came right out and stated a connection is beside the point.

I am sorry, but that is exactly the point. they did not say Saddam was responsible for 9/11.

This type of subtle deception seems to be one of the M.O.'s of the Bush Admin.

that is the m.o. of politicians...

The point here is that many many of the facts and ciscumstances of Sept. 11 have both been manipulated and covered up in order to support the Bush Admins own foolish "conspiracy theory". Most people who think for themselves and who examine even a fraction of the available evidence can see that there is clearly a lot more to this story than our government is willing to share with us!

if there was any conclusive evidence to support your accusations, the media or the Democrats would be shouting it from the roof-tops.