dear PM, why is 9/11 conspiracy theory 'obviously' stupid?
catefrances
Posts: 29,003
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/810 ... acy-stupid
Prime Minister Julia Gillard has labelled remarks made by a trade union official who claims the 9/11 terrorist attacks were a conspiracy as "stupid".
Victorian Trades Hall Council president Kevin Bracken made the comments when he rang ABC Melbourne radio and spoke to talk-back host Jon Faine this morning.
"I believe the official story is a conspiracy theory that doesn't stand up to scientific study," Mr Bracken, who is also the Victorian secretary of the Maritime Union of Australia, told Faine.
"In my mind the buildings were imploded."
Faine originally thought the call was a prank, and said Mr Bracken's claim was "nutter theory".
This afternoon the prime minister also weighed in, saying she disagreed with Mr Bracken's theory when queried by an opposition MP during question time this afternoon.
"Obviously I don't agree with the remarks, obviously they are stupid and wrong," Ms Gillard said.
"The Labor Party is a large organisation, people join it as individuals — we don't dictate what people think."
Mr Bracken, who has voiced his views on 9/11 before, said he stuck to "scientific fact".
"Aviation fuel doesn't get hot enough to melt steel and no high rise steel frame building has before or after September 11 has ever collapsed due to fire," he said on ABC radio.
Both the Trades Hall Council has distanced itself from Mr Bracken's comments, while a spokesperson from the MUA told ninemsn Mr Bracken's views were his own and he had expressed so in 2006.
Prime Minister Julia Gillard has labelled remarks made by a trade union official who claims the 9/11 terrorist attacks were a conspiracy as "stupid".
Victorian Trades Hall Council president Kevin Bracken made the comments when he rang ABC Melbourne radio and spoke to talk-back host Jon Faine this morning.
"I believe the official story is a conspiracy theory that doesn't stand up to scientific study," Mr Bracken, who is also the Victorian secretary of the Maritime Union of Australia, told Faine.
"In my mind the buildings were imploded."
Faine originally thought the call was a prank, and said Mr Bracken's claim was "nutter theory".
This afternoon the prime minister also weighed in, saying she disagreed with Mr Bracken's theory when queried by an opposition MP during question time this afternoon.
"Obviously I don't agree with the remarks, obviously they are stupid and wrong," Ms Gillard said.
"The Labor Party is a large organisation, people join it as individuals — we don't dictate what people think."
Mr Bracken, who has voiced his views on 9/11 before, said he stuck to "scientific fact".
"Aviation fuel doesn't get hot enough to melt steel and no high rise steel frame building has before or after September 11 has ever collapsed due to fire," he said on ABC radio.
Both the Trades Hall Council has distanced itself from Mr Bracken's comments, while a spokesperson from the MUA told ninemsn Mr Bracken's views were his own and he had expressed so in 2006.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
excellent debating skills.
As for various truther theories, tha fact that many of them disregard physics altogether, or in other cases run with contradicting theories (also known as "throw everything at once and see if something sticks") that can't all be true because of the aformentioned laws of physics.
The sane position is that if one can't accept the story put together by a panel of investiagtors with all the evidence that could be found in front of them, you sure as hell can't accept the theories supported by a doctored youtube clip or two or a photo from a certain angle. As elsewhere, questioning one position or theory, does not add credibility to alternative positions or theories.
Anywho.
Good to see the australian takes the sane route, and if I were to stoop to CT levels, do you really think she'd say otherwise, talking as the official head of Australia who wants a good relation with the US?
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
i have a book here, the 9/11 commission report. its the US gov't official version of what went down.
i believe the story goes....the beams supporting the structures melted, which caused them to lose integrity. which i found odd, considering jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel.
i'm more in line with the idea that terrorists flew planes into the buildings and destroyed them, but there are some questions unanswered with the official story.
id expect no less. doesnt mean as an australian i agree with her.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Strange logic she has here.
Firstly, why is it obvious what she thinks? Secondly, she says the labour party doesn't dictate what people think after stating that it's obvious what she thinks. I thought that one definition of an individual is somebody who thinks for himself? But if it's already obvious what she thinks then doesn't this imply that her thoughts are somehow predictable and prescribed? :think:
Hey Ahnimus, where are you when I need you? :geek:
My view is that the physical circumstances surrounding 9/11 is pretty cleared up without extra explosives needed anywhere. There's bound to be "loose ends" about various pieces of data and debris as this wasn't exactly a lab experiment.
Any scandals would be in who's caught with ties to Al Qaeda, and who failed to do their job preventing them from pulling off something like this. And if anyone in the US government had an idea what was going on, I'm just about positive that they didn't plan on the buildings collapsing entirely.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
" considering jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel."
oxygen will and jet airliners have lots of that in them, that along with the structural damage caused by the initial impact would absolutely cause the buildings structural failure.
both buildings began to collapse at the areas struck by the aircrafts bringing down the top sections onto the lower half's of the buildings.
Godfather.
The same reason I KNEW that those people that were saying Saddam Hussein had underground manufacturing facilities for nuclear weapons were off... was because Saddam Hussein was not an evil mastermind like a Bond villian.
In that same vein... George W. Bush was a dolt.
Hail, Hail!!!
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
c'mon, you know you're not supposed to bring trifling things like science and physics to a "crazy" fight
Wash me in the blood of Rock & Roll
this is the best argument I've heard yet.
it was the inner core that supported the weight of the towers not the perimetere columns.
unfortunately the towers did not contain the massive amounts of masonry typically used in building and so though one compromise on its structural integrity probably wouldnt have seen them collapse, multiple compromise, which is what happened here was too much for the buildings and down they fell.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
What's more interesting about the whole thing to me is how those in the Bush Administration were in possession of detailed prior warning of the attacks and chose to do nothing about them. Not only did they choose to do nothing about the attacks of which they had prior knowledge, but they made sure that America's air defenses (N.O.R.A.D) were going to be absent that day.
twas such an audacious plan that it seemed ludicrous i guess. this despite the scenario being written by tom clancy years before in his book, debt of honour. though to get technical the plane was flown into the capitol, not the WTC.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
well... youd be semi wrong.
as ive stated the inner core supported weight of the buidling. of course the perimeter supported some of the weight... but the design relied on the bulk of the weight being concentrated on the inner core. the construction of the WTC was of an eggshell construction which meant the building was not as heavy as regular buildings.
but yes youre right.. the design of the WTC allowed for more open office space as well as windows of, at least, a metre in width. it implimentated a cantilever system where the outside columns supported what was 'left' of the lateral beams and eggshell construction of the floors. it was a revolutionary design but not one that was inferior. in a building so tall it was required that the building had enough give to allow for the winds. unfortunately no on foresaw such a heinous a action as was perpetrated on 9/11/01. but as was stated before just one compromise on the integrity on the structure wouldnt have been enough to fell the towers. unfortunately more than one occurred.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I hadn't heard this one from a credible source (yes Byrnzie... I consider what you write to be well researched and probably true).
I was under the impression that the CIA knew that there was at least a good probability that Al Qaeda would try to fly some sort of aircraft into some sort of building somewhere in the USA. They had a decent idea that it would be high profile targets (low on that list was the WTC) and that it could happen anytime... but hardly a "detailed prior warning." At least that's what I understood from the credible sources I've heard/read. With that sort of "intelligence" it would be difficult to predict when and where it would happen... but you'd think that airport security would be told to not let a group of Arabs with box cutters on 757s and that air defenses would be on alert.
In January 2001 the top brass of the Bush Administration were all in possession of a document presented to them by Richard Clarke outlining an urgent threat from Al Queda:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/ ... 7356.shtml
"We had a terrorist organization that was going after us! Al Qaeda. That should have been the first item on the agenda. And it was pushed back and back and back for months.
"There's a lot of blame to go around, and I probably deserve some blame, too. But on January 24th, 2001, I wrote a memo to Condoleezza Rice asking for, urgently -- underlined urgently -- a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with the impending al Qaeda attack. And that urgent memo-- wasn't acted on.
"I blame the entire Bush leadership for continuing to work on Cold War issues when they back in power in 2001. It was as though they were preserved in amber from when they left office eight years earlier. They came back. They wanted to work on the same issues right away: Iraq, Star Wars. Not new issues, the new threats that had developed over the preceding eight years."
..."George Tenet was saying to the White House, saying to the president - because he briefed him every morning - a major al Qaeda attack is going to happen against the United States somewhere in the world in the weeks and months ahead. He said that in June, July, August."
And in August 2001 the Bush Administration were presented with a CIA memo, entitled 'Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US':
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/apr2004/pdb-a12.shtml
CIA briefing memo exposes Bush lies on 9/11
By Barry Grey
12 April 2004
The declassification and release of the president’s daily brief (PDB) for August 6, 2001, coming on the heels of National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice’s appearance before the commission appointed to investigate the events of September 11, has thoroughly exposed the official version of the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington as a tissue of lies.
Whatever shred of credibility remained for the Bush administration’s claims that it had no prior warnings of an attack by Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda network on the US mainland has been shattered by the publication of the CIA memo, entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US.”
The administration’s decision to release the memo, like every other concession it has made to demands for a public investigation of the 9/11 attacks, was taken in a grudging attempt to quell growing skepticism over the official line, and the vocal protests of family members of 9/11 victims, many of whom are outraged over White House stonewalling and sabotage of efforts to uncover the facts surrounding the worst single attack on US civilians in American history.
When the existence of the August 2001 PDB was first revealed in May of 2002, White House officials, first and foremost, Condoleezza Rice, dismissed it as irrelevant. Rice declared at the time that the memo dealt entirely with possible terrorist attacks outside the US. She was, as is now proven, lying then, and, as even a cursory examination of her sworn testimony last week before the 9/11 panel shows, she is lying still.
For nearly two years the White House refused to release the document, given to President Bush more than a month before the hijack-bombings of the World Trade Center and Pentagon. It only agreed to do so in the wake of the controversy sparked by the testimony last month of Bush’s former counter-terrorism chief, Richard Clarke, who told the 9/11 panel that the Bush administration took no serious action in response to multiple warnings of an impending, massive attack within the US by Al Qaeda, and then exploited the death of nearly 3,000 people on September 11, 2001 to implement an agenda for invading and occupying Iraq that had preoccupied Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and company from the outset of the Bush administration.
The content of the August 6, 2001 PDB makes clear why the administration was so reluctant to release the document. It is a clear and stark warning that Al Qaeda is actively preparing an attack within the US, that its previous attacks on US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania show that it has the capability to do so, and that a likely method of attack involves the hijacking of one or more US commercial aircraft.
In her April 8 testimony before the 9/11 panel, Rice, under prodding from one of the commissioners, former Watergate prosecutor Richard Ben-Veniste, gave out the title of the August 6 presidential brief. The official heading of the suppressed document produced an audible gasp from the audience in the hearing room, which included dozens of family members of 9/11 victims.
Yet Rice continued to lie about the contents and implications of the PDB. Her dissembling had three essential components.
* Lie number one: Rice declared numerous times that the PDB was not a “threat warning.” It was merely a “historical” review of past events and old intelligence, and contained no warnings of current threats. Nor did it, she claimed, give any indication as to specific cities or buildings to be targeted.
* Lie number two: Notwithstanding the title of the document, Rice continued to maintain that it contained no warnings of attacks within the US.
* Lie number three: Rice reiterated her previous assertions that the PDB in no way pointed to the possibility of hijacked airplanes being used as missiles.
Unfortunately for Rice and the rest of the Bush administration, the plain language of the document, and the actual context in which it appeared, flatly contradict all three contentions.
The claim that the memo was purely of a “historical” character and contained no warnings of current or specific threats is belied by the following information in the document:
Al Qaeda, it said, had active cells in the US that were planning attacks. It mentioned the existence of such cells in California and New York. It said the FBI had collected information since 1998 indicating “patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.” (Our emphasis).
The document also referred to the World Trade Center bombing of 1993 in connection with a statement by bin Laden that he wanted to follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and “bring the fighting to America.” It further said that the foiled Al Qaeda plot to bomb the airport in Los Angeles during the millennium celebrations of December-January 2000 “may have been part of bin Laden’s first serious attempt to implement a terrorist strike in the US.” It cited statements from convicted plotter Ahmed Ressam to the FBI that bin Laden was aware of the plot and that a top bin Laden lieutenant helped facilitate it. (This history, it should be noted, was anything but remote, since the aborted attack on Los Angeles occurred only twenty months prior to the August 6, 2001 briefing).
The document went on to say that the FBI was conducting 70 full-field investigations throughout the US into bin Laden threats, and that the FBI and CIA were investigating a tip that bin Laden supporters in the US were planning attacks with explosives. (Why would the FBI and CIA be conducting such probes if there were no current threats? Rice did not explain this conundrum).
Finally—and in a sense most damaging to Rice’s characterization of the memo as merely of “historical” interest—the CIA briefers wrote that bin Laden was “patient,” that he began planning for attacks years in advance, and was not deterred by setbacks. This comment could have only one meaning: it was a specific caution against any tendency to belittle the looming threat on the grounds that most of the hard information at hand dealt with past events and previously gathered intelligence.
Rice’s second lie—that the PDB did not contain threat warnings of attacks within the US—is contradicted by virtually everything in the document, beginning with the title. Among the specific potential targets named in the memo are: California, New York and Washington DC. The memo, moreover, suggests that federal buildings in New York and the World Trade Center are prime objectives.
Rice’s third lie—that no one could reasonably be expected to infer from the PDB that bin Laden might seek to use hijacked planes as bombs—is perhaps the most cynical of all. The August 6 PDB occurred in the midst of growing alarms from local FBI offices over a suspicious pattern of Arab and Muslim immigrants taking training courses in the piloting of commercial jets at US flight schools. On July 10, less than a month before Bush received the CIA briefing while vacationing at his Texas ranch, an FBI agent in the Phoenix, Arizona office sent a memo to FBI headquarters in Washington urging that it undertake a national survey of American flight schools to see if there was evidence of an Islamist terrorist plot to hijack commercial aircraft.
Ten days later, Italian authorities, in collaboration with the US, shut down air space around Genoa, the site of the Group of 8 summit, and declared the area a no-fly zone. War ships were stationed in the area as well. These precautions were taken specifically out of concern that Al Qaeda terrorists might hijack airplanes and use them to bomb the summit, which was attended by the leaders of the major powers, including George W. Bush.
In his testimony before the 9/11 commission, Richard Clarke said he briefed Rice, to whom he reported, on the warnings that terrorists might use aircraft to attack the G-8 summit. Rice herself testified that she knew at the time that Italian and American authorities were acting to guard the summit from air attacks.
Finally, one week after Bush received the August 6 PDB, immigration authorities in Minneapolis, Minnesota arrested Zaccarias Moussaoui, an Islamic fundamentalist extremist who had sought training in flying a Boeing 747 at a Minneapolis-area flight school. The US government has since charged Moussaoui with being a co-conspirator in the September 11 attacks.
At the time of Moussaoui’s detention, FBI officials in Minneapolis sent a series of urgent requests to FBI headquarters in Washington for authorization to pursue an investigation into the man’s suspected links to Al Qaeda. The agents explicitly cited fears that Moussaoui was training to fly commercial jets in order to pilot one into a skyscraper, and named the World Trade Center as a likely target. Top FBI officials denied their requests and refused to authorize a search of Moussaoui’s computer hard drive.
Neither the Bush administration, nor congressional investigators, nor any other official body has ever explained this extraordinary decision on the part of FBI headquarters. One thing can be said for certain, however: had the Bush White House been seriously interested in pursuing the warnings contained in the PDB it received one week prior to Moussaoui’s detention and two weeks after the Genoa summit, the alarms raised by the Minneapolis FBI would not have gone unheeded and steps would have been taken that would have likely unraveled the plot that was, within a few weeks, to destroy the World Trade Center and the lives of some 3,000 civilians.
Instead, Bush remained on vacation at his Crawford, Texas ranch for another three weeks, fishing and clearing brush. And, as Rice has acknowledged, the first and only cabinet meeting prior to 9/11 dedicated to a discussion of the threat of Al Qaeda terrorist attacks occurred on September 4, 2001—one week before the hijack-bombings.
Even as Rice insisted to the 9/11 commission that the August 6, 2001 PDB did not contain warnings of an imminent attack in the US, she maintained that the Bush administration vigorously acted to protect the American people, issuing orders, alerts and instructions to all relevant intelligence and police agencies, as well as to the air transport industry. She repeatedly spoke of “tasking” the FBI to conduct intensive “full-field” investigations into reports of Al Qaeda activity in the US.
But the remarks of two commissioners, which went uncontested, utterly exposed these claims as fraudulent. Jamie Gorelick, deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration, said:
“Secretary [Norman] Mineta, the secretary of transportation, had no idea of a threat. The administration of the FAA [Federal Aviation Administration], responsible for security on our airlines, had no idea. Yes, the attorney general was briefed, but there was no evidence of any activity by him about this.
“You indicate in your statement that the FBI tasked its field offices to find out what was going on out there. We have no record of that. The Washington field office international terrorism people say they never heard about the warnings, they were not asked to come to the table and shake those trees. SACs, special agents in charge, around the country—Miami in particular—had no knowledge of this.”
Another commissioner, former Democratic congressman Timothy Roemer, said:
“We have done thousands of interviews here at the 9/11 commission. We’ve gone through literally millions of pieces of paper. To date, we have found nobody—nobody at the FBI who knows anything about a tasking of field offices.
“We have talked to the director at the time of the FBI during this threat period, Mr. Pickard. He said he did not tell the field offices to do this. And we have talked to the special agents in charge. They don’t have any recollections of receiving a notice of threat.”
Finally, there was the following exchange between commissioner Ben-Veniste and Rice:
Ben-Veniste: “Did the president meet with the director of the FBI between August 6 and September 11?”
Rice: “I will have to get back to you on that. I am not certain.”
The facts cited here constitute only a small part of a veritable mountain of evidence demonstrating that the Bush administration, the CIA and the FBI played a crucial role in one of the greatest crimes in US history. In its aftermath, every branch of government, both political parties, and the media have been engaged in a non-stop effort to conceal this role from the American people. The 9/11 commission itself is part and parcel of the official coverup. It proceeds entirely from the premise that the ability of 19 foreign terrorists, a number of whom were known to US authorities, to commandeer four commercial jets and fly three of them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, without the slightest interference from the government or air industry officials, was simply a “failure of intelligence.”
But this “failure” does not admit of any innocent explanation. Suffice it to note that even the most elementary and obvious measures taken in response to a welter of threat warnings in the summer of 2001 would have, at the very least, saved hundreds of lives. Had airport and airline officials been properly alerted, and the identities of known Al Qaeda operatives living in the US been revealed to them, it is highly unlikely that all, or even any, of the hijackers would have been able to board the targeted planes.
Had the World Trade Center, a likely target of attack, been alerted of the threats, and New York City officials been “tasked” with drawing up emergency response plans, orders would have gone out to vacate all buildings in the vicinity within seconds of the actual terrorist strike. Many lives would have been spared, even had the hijackers succeeded in hitting the first of the twin towers at the World Trade Center.
No such measures were taken. There are only two plausible explanations for this. One is a level of incompetence and indifference to the public’s safety on the part of the Bush administration and the responsible federal authorities—beginning with the president himself and the power behind the throne, Vice President Dick Cheney—that rises to the level of criminal negligence. Here the emphasis must be placed on “criminal,” especially in light of the cynical manner in which the tragedy of 9/11 was used to implement the most sweeping and reactionary foreign and domestic policies, including the barbaric invasion and occupation of Iraq and an unprecedented assault on democratic rights within the US.
The alternate explanation is a deliberate and calculated decision to “stand down” the intelligence and security apparatus, in order to allow a terrorist attack within the US to occur. Certainly the role of top FBI officials in running interference for Al Qaeda operatives and blocking an investigation of their flight training activities points in this direction.
It is not necessary to assume that those involved in such a conspiracy would have known of or anticipated the enormous scale of the attacks. They may have expected a “traditional” hijacking, for example. But it would not be the first time that a regime in crisis resorted to such methods to extricate itself from intractable problems and create conditions for stampeding the country behind policies that otherwise would be politically impossible to implement.
It is no secret that the “war on terror” that Bush announced within hours of the 9/11 attacks corresponds to the program of military aggression, domestic repression and global hegemony that was drawn up prior to the theft of the 2000 election by those who were to become leading figures in the present administration.
As Rice told the 9/11 commission, referring to the “opportunity” provided by the September 11 disaster:
“Bold and comprehensive changes are sometimes only possible in the wake of catastrophic events—events which create a new consensus that allows us to transcend old ways of thinking and acting.”
'Clarke says that as early as the day after the attacks, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was pushing for retaliatory strikes on Iraq, even though al Qaeda was based in Afghanistan.
Clarke suggests the idea took him so aback, he initally thought Rumsfeld was joking...
After the president returned to the White House on Sept. 11, he and his top advisers, including Clarke, began holding meetings about how to respond and retaliate. As Clarke writes in his book, he expected the administration to focus its military response on Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. He says he was surprised that the talk quickly turned to Iraq.
"Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq," Clarke said to Stahl. "And we all said ... no, no. Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan. And Rumsfeld said there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq. I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it.
"Initially, I thought when he said, 'There aren't enough targets in-- in Afghanistan,' I thought he was joking.
"I think they wanted to believe that there was a connection, but the CIA was sitting there, the FBI was sitting there, I was sitting there saying we've looked at this issue for years. For years we've looked and there's just no connection."
Clarke says he and CIA Director George Tenet told that to Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and Attorney General John Ashcroft.
Clarke then tells Stahl of being pressured by Mr. Bush.
"The president dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door, and said, 'I want you to find whether Iraq did this.' Now he never said, 'Make it up.' But the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said Iraq did this.
"I said, 'Mr. President. We've done this before. We have been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind. There's no connection.'
"He came back at me and said, "Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection.' And in a very intimidating way. I mean that we should come back with that answer. We wrote a report."
Clarke continued, "It was a serious look. We got together all the FBI experts, all the CIA experts. We wrote the report. We sent the report out to CIA and found FBI and said, 'Will you sign this report?' They all cleared the report. And we sent it up to the president and it got bounced by the National Security Advisor or Deputy. It got bounced and sent back saying, 'Wrong answer. ... Do it again.'
"I have no idea, to this day, if the president saw it, because after we did it again, it came to the same conclusion. And frankly, I don't think the people around the president show him memos like that. I don't think he sees memos that he doesn't-- wouldn't like the answer."
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
What you reference here is frankly merely the exposure of spin, and diverting of a crisis down a road the adminstration wanted. There's no doubt or surprise anymore that the Bush adm deliberately used this as an unfounded justification for the Iraq war they wanted regardless.
Hindsight is 20/20, which is important when considering when the unexpected happens. Some sort of attack may have been expected, and the intelligence people was onto it. However, they failed at finding out exactly what and where. This is embarassing, looks really bad in hindsight, and poses more than sufficient justification for administration cover-up/spin/diversion/lies. However, nothing referenced in the texts you quoted explicitly says anything about what actually happened. It says Bin Laden was up to something, and the use of airplanes was something floating around.
The scandal is the spin of the Bush admin and the use of this for justifying invading Iraq. But the scenario looks a lot more like spinning a disastrous event to their advantage in doing something else, than it looks premeditated.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
If they had nothing to hide then why did they lie repeatedly and also block any independent inquiry?
They had something to hide. The fact that the intel system fucked up (or at least doesnt work as well as TV shows would have you believe), and a bit further down the line, that they were spinning this dizzy trying to get the green light for invading Iraq.
It's not about having/not having something to hide. The question is what are they hiding. I find what I just outlined a lot more likely than their active participation in the event. Negligence, perhaps. Criminal negligence, not unlikely. (Negligence arguably also brought us the current financial crisis, so not that unlikely really of people believing themselves to be in control when they really aren't).
So I'd say that the likely elements here are:
1. Negligence - Which has to some degree been confirmed in retrospect, in that the intel community doesn't exactly cooperate that well.
2. Spin - They spun like hell to get the Iraq war. It is pretty clear now that they lied like hell to get it.
3. General panic at the time - They really needed to not look responsible for this. And they needed to ensure the public that they were in control.
Active participation is a completely different cup of tea, and not something that can be inferred by the usual blame avoidance/spin politics.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
I didn't say active partipation.
What the evidence points to is a conscious decision by those in power at the time to do nothing. Why did they choose to do nothing? I think it's prettty obvious why. They needed an excuse to implement their already stated aims and ambitions, and they were gonna make sure they got that excuse.
It's not negligence when you deliberately ignore information presented to you. They made a conscious decision to ignore the information and the warnings given to them.
And when questioned about their decisions at the 9/11 commission they lied through their teeth about it.
An important aside to this is "how many warnings do the US get daily/weekly/monthly that someone is plotting something against them?". Easy to see and say in hindsight "You got a warning", when in reality they got tons of warnings about different stuff all the time, among which this was one of them. I'll bet you they dont do anything about a lot of those warnings, some they poke abit into, and some they go into full force. It's about priority on a daily basis, and you could definitely say that they misprioritized this one. But that's easy in hindsight to say, and not so easy to see in the everyday.
Most of what happens afterwards is just usual politics and spin, although the Bush admin took it some steps further with invading Iraq on pretty clear lies. Taking advantage after the fact is what is always done. By active participation, I include "knowingly choosing not to act". They didn't not act knowing the twin towers would be hit and demolished. They may have chosen not to act on what wasn't deemed as sufficient intel to do so. (As I imagine they must do on a daily basis) That's not premeditated, that's mainly a fuckup and a reminder that one rarely has as much control as one imagines. (Which in politics can be worth covering up in itself)
As I said, the scandal is what they chose to do afterwards concerning Iraq. They did lie a lot to get that. But I find the "knowingly allowing the attack to happen" to be very unlikely. They did lie their pants off, but not to conceal their fiendish plot (at least not that one), but rather to gain the momentum to go for Iraq. If they wanted to use a false flag, they could have gotten it a lot cheaper and better. Faking an attack on US ships in the persian gulf for instance...
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Really? Do you have anything to support this theory?
What are these 'tons of warnings' you're referring to?
one would imagine it would be dependent upon where the intelligence came from as to whether it was acted upon or not. we have reason to believe an unknown number of terrorists are planning to hijack planes and fly them into buildings thatd be enough to get me tightening security and looking a little closer at people. there really was no duty of care.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
We're not talking about a mere hunch either. We're talking about an intelligence assessment of an imminent threat of attack based on evidence accumulated over a period of at least 10 months.