9/11 Questions hit the mainstream in the UK this week

[CJCRANE]

Daily Mail
"An explosion of disbelief - fresh doubts over 9/11"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=435265&in_page_id=1811

Guardian
"Response: Don't believe the official 'conspiracy' theory
We have to ask who stood to gain the most from the appalling events of 9/11, says Tim Sparke"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2011845,00.html

BBC 2
"The Conspiracy Files
This week the series looks at the many theories surrounding the September 11 terrorist attacks."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctwo/programmes/?id=conspiracy_files

MSN UK
"On Sunday the BBC is showing a documentary on conspiracy theories surrounding the September 11 terror attacks in the US. It looks at whether the US government knew in advance about the attacks and questions why the US was so under-prepared. Could there be any solid foundation for such theories or is it about time that such ideas are put to rest and the attacks accepted as simple acts of terrorism and nothing more."
http://boards.live.com/UKNewsboards/thread.aspx?ThreadID=192841

[Anarcho-Socialist]

1. I don't think so

Apart from the Comment is free piece which is written by someone involved in Loose Change, it's more of a "look at what those wacky Americans believe in."

[CJCRANE]

2. Maybe

but there seems to be a sensible middle-ground forming, somewhere between "they hates us for our freedoms" and "Elvis did it with his UFO laserbeams".

And even if you go along with the gist of the Official Theory there are still unanswered questions such as who paid the hijackers, where did the money originate, who are the financiers connected to politically and personally..?

[mr blur]

3. Elvis did it?!

Damn! Now I'm all shook up.

[LeftishBrit]

4. From the point of view of the Daily Mail and Daily Express...

9-11 was probably caused by a bunch of gay single parent asylum-seekers living on benefits, and they also KILLED DIANA!

[Anarcho-Socialist]

5. and gave middle class children autism in their Travellers' Camps

whilst promoting the Euro.

[The Lone Groover]

7. Middle Ground

Hello - first post here. I've been reading this 9/11 forum for a long time now, its one of the best on the web and has some very interesting points of view.

I'm in the middle ground, in all of the 9/11 info/dis info there is a place where lots of questions need answering.

Like..

1) When the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces gets told "a second plane hit the second tower, America is under attack" (allegedly)... why does he not ask one single goddamn question? His handlers off camera hold up a sign... "don't say anything yet"...

.."say anything" about what? Surely he would want to know at the very least what people were doing about the situation... but no. We get this weird 15 minute scene played out involving a book about a pet goat and the absurd story about not wanting to frighten the children.

It just does not make any sense unless the President knew what was happening already.

2) Four planes roam the USA skies for over an hour and are not intercepted by US fighter planes.

3) The un co-operation of the White House with any investigations into what happened.

Personally I think at the very least they knew it was going to happen and let it happen.

And I think more and more people are coming at least to the same opinion.

Middle ground, forget lasers and "no planes"... there may or may not be merit down that track, but there is certainly enough other less "wacky" issues for people to get their teeth into.

This is potentially an act of treason by the Government against its own people. Its a dangerous game with high stakes.

[Bolo Boffin]

8. Hi, Lone Groover.

Welcome to...oh, you've been here awhile. Welcome to posting!

1. Your questions about Bush border on mind reading. There is plenty I don't understand in that scenario, and I really like Michael Moore's take on Bush in the classroom.

Let's state this in the best possible way for him and the worst possible way and then see if something in the middle is the more probable. (And I'm no more a mind reader than Sylvia Browne, so here goes...)

Best case scenario for Bush: He knew that both towers had now been hit, and thought the attack was over. There was no need to rush out - the Secret Service weren't champing at the bit to get him out, Card had not told him he needed to leave. People were doing what they were supposed to do, and he chose to remain calm, show his concern for regular life and the children at his feet, plus commend the teacher for her work (his wife was a teacher). As soon as the short story was over, he left. Ari's sign told him there was much more to know and so he shouldn't submit to press questions until he had more details.

Worst case scenario for Bush: Hmm. This could go a number of ways. What would be worse for Bush, being a stooge out there suffering a possible coup, or being one of the masterminds of the plot? Ari's sign implies there's things he needs to know, so he's out of the loop. I think a recent suggestion here that Card whispered "Flight 77's delayed - stall for time." -- that might be the worst case scenario. But in a conspiracy plot, the children's photo-op is supposed to be the ideal scene for Bush to "learn of the attacks."

So the Card walkup was planned. But then he's surprised by Card saying "Stall for time." Card is supposed to say, "All systems go, let's get out of here." So he sits and frets and tries to look presidential.

Sounds good, yeah? But you know and I know that when things don't go Bush's way, when he's planning on something and something else happens, he gets pissy. Especially when it's a situation that is supposed to show him all presidential and manly (like the aircraft carrier). Bush doesn't get pissy at all. He looks - well, to my eye, he looks like what I call "blinkered." He's deer-in-the-headlights.

He gets that way. Remember when he was asked what mistakes he's made and he couldn't answer? He had an answer, and it was one that was big and glaring, and he would be damned if he said that, but it was so big and glaring that he couldn't think of anything benign to say. The big, glaring mistake (any guesses? how about telling that CIA guy that his ass was covered?) was too big and glaring.

He did it recently on a C-Span interview. The interviewer asked, "Besides the Iraq War decision, what was the hardest decision you've had to make as President?" He gaped and stammered. He blathered on about the Iraq War decision being the hardest one, and then he blanked, stammered some more and forced the guy to move on. It was a master stroke by the interviewer, I thought. That was quintessential Bush - the Iraq War decision was the big, glaring answer. It was all he could see. He was blinkered.

And that's what happened in that classroom. Card came up and said what is reported. And Bush was blinkered. He sat there, not particularly paying attention to the kids at all. He was on camera, and yet he was oddly sheltered from the event. He was in a classroom, with a good strong teacher and kids. It was the last remaining moments of Bush's pre-9/11 world. He took a few minutes, calmed down, gained his composure again. Ari reminded him to keep his mouth shut until he could get into private and get some facts. He congratulated everyone and left the room.

Yeah, he should have gotten up and walked out right then. He might could have apologized to the kids right before he left. But he didn't. For those seven minutes, George W. Bush, the leader of the free world, sat blinkered while terrorists he had idly dismissed only a month before were busy hijacking more planes. And at that point, the milk was spilt. The g*dd*mn planes had crashed into the buildings. What was left to do but mop up? He had people to do that.

[The Lone Groover]

9. Blinkered?

Hello Boloboffin,

I feel I know you so well.. I've read enough of your posts anyway.

Best case scenario for Bush: He knew that both towers had now been hit, and thought the attack was over.

I don't buy this because he would have to know there was only two planes, and he didn't ask a single question... not one!

I don't buy the blinkered, pissy theory either for the same reason... he doesn't have enough information to get blinkered pissy about... he didn't ask one single question.. not one!

Unless he already knew what was going down of course.

The classroom incident stinks like a gun that has smoke coming from it.

Do you think it is possible he already knew what was happening?

[Bolo Boffin]

10. It's something I've coined.

There's probably a word that works better.

The blinkered version is not the pissy version, sorry if that's unclear. The pissy thing he does is why I don't think the worst case scenario works. He would have been pissy about having to stall. He couldn't have helped himself, he's not that good of an actor.

The staggered, startled, "blinded by the headlights" thing is what I see happening. I don't think he knew what was happening until that moment when Card told him about the second attack. I think he figured it out pretty quick, though. The Aug 6 PDB was just barely a month earlier, and three weeks before that, he was informed of a threat by al-Qaeda to fly a plane into the G-8 conference. 9/11 Press for Truth has a shot of the CNN International report that showed anti-aircraft weapons set up while he was there. Did he know about the other planes hijacked at that point, in the classroom? I don't see any way he could have, short of planning the attacks.

And at any rate, Bush's behavior isn't evidence of anything. We can't mind read him and use that as evidence, so any plausible-sounding scenario depends solely on what we believe about other events that day.

[The Lone Groover]

11. Blinded?

Boloboffin,

yeah, I've seen his staggered blinded act... he did it at a press conference when a journalist asked him about accusations that he had foreknowledge of the attacks.

But you know... staggered/blinded for 15 minutes... 15 minutes in which he actually spoke to the children and told them how good they all were... and had a little chat with the teacher at the end.. I don't buy it.

The classroom thing is not right... its just not right... something was going on... and I think most people who have ever seen that clip know its not right. I felt it ever since I first saw it in Michael Moore's film.

Are you satisfied there in nothing to see here and that we should all just move along?

Do you rule out the possibility of foreknowledge?

He was the Commander in Chief for heavens sake! "America is under attack" (allegedly).

"Don't say anything yet"... don't say what?

It's not right.

[Bolo Boffin]

12. You have never heard me say there's nothing there, move along.

That is a second mischaracterization of what I've said, Lone Groover. Let's not make that a habit.

There is not enough evidence here to rule out anything. I have reasons for an opinion, which I have shared twice, but nobody can read his mind. As I've said, Michael Moore's got a nice take on it, and mine agrees pretty well with his. I think that the Aug 6 PDB, the later briefing he brushed off (as reported in The One Percent Doctrine), and the G-8 conference are things that were running through his head. I think he was hiding from reality for a minute while he got his nerves under control. I don't think that's a particularly flattering picture of him.

[The Lone Groover]

13. Mind reading?

"Are you satisfied there in nothing to see here and that we should all just move along?"... is a question... not a mischaracterisation.

"hiding from reality for a minute"? More like 15. And.. he was told off camera "don't say anything yet" by his handlers. Don't say anything about what? He doesn't know anything apparently other than "America is under attack". He doesn't feel the need to ask one single question about the situation.

I'm glad you're not ruling out foreknowledge.

If foreknowledge is a possibility then we need a proper investigation and not like the last one where The White House did all in its power to obstruct the commission (why?).

Have you seen the staggered/blinded clip of the press conference when he is asked by a journalist about accusations of foreknowledge... he's like your proverbial rabbit in the headlights and does an incredible impression of someone caught out before he finally manages to mutter "its an absurd insinuation.. next question".

This is not right, and I don't think I am alone in thinking that.

[MervinFerd]

20. Mr. Groover, you claim naivete, but you sound like a True Believer. Sorry.

FWIW, this "Bush sat 19 min; therefore, he knew" argument has always hit me as the most idiotic, absurd, and ridiculous of all the early arguments. (We now have Judy Wood and Dustification, so the goal post has shifted.)

Stripped to its logic, the argument reads:
"Bush looked like a complete idiot over his head; therefore, he must have known all about the plot."

I can't make enough sense of that even to refute it.

FWIW2: If Bush -did- know, why did he run to Nebraska and then fumble around like an idiot for 4 days. Suppose Bush had forced a pilot to strip and give up his flight suit, flown back to DC in a fighter jet, patrolled the skies awhile, then made a defiant and well-written speech from the steps of the Capitol?

Isn't that what he would have done, had he actually known in advance?


The rest of the stuff you list in your first post is just of zero probative value. I've never understood how that could convince anyone either.

I don't like Bush, either; that does not mean he planned 911.

[The Lone Groover]

34. Strawman (hey what's new here)

You can put words on my mouth all you like.

But.. the scene in the classroom just doesn't make any sense unless Bush had foreknowledge.

Did he plan it? I don't know - I doubt it, he's a bit thick.

Did Cheney have anything to do with it, well... that's just another question.

Did Cheney let Flight 77 fly all the way into the Pentagon un-impeded? Sounds like he did according to some witnesses.

Anyone who doesn't believe the classroom saga is a bit strange is a few shillings short of a pound in my opinion, or at least defending the indefensible.

[jberryhill]

33. I believe he has learned over time...

...that there is such a thing as a "stupid question".

A number of former Bush admin officials have commented on what they have characterized as a marked incuriousity about the man.

He congenitally cannot admit mistakes. Asking a question is an admission of ignorance which is consistent with his character.

Look at how much play the press has had with his not knowing there were two primary Islamic sects in Iraq.

I believe the man has a long history of asking a question and having other people snicker at him.

On the "he must have known" thing, my question is if he knew about the first plane on the way in, then he knew the "plan" was proceeding and wouldn't need an urgent update. Why would he need to know while he was sitting there?

[T_i_B]

14. Well I won't be watching the BBC2 documentary

as I'm otherwise engaged at that time. I'll leave you lot to report back as to whether or not it's actually questioning MIHOP/LIHOP wackiness or not.

I must admit that the TV that has got people talking this week has been rednecks throwing rocks at Richard Hammond and James May on "Top Gear"!

[Anarcho-Socialist]

25. I've recorded that episode from the midweek repeat

looking forward to it considering what I have seen of it on YouTube.

I will be recording and watching the 9/11 documentary too. The programme aims to "separate fact from fiction" so there is a distinct possibility that Truthiness-seekers will be alleging that the "BBC are in on it!!!" and "BBC = shills of Blair!!!11" by Sunday morning.

[vincent_vega_lives]

29. See post #16

"BBC = shills of Blair"

[vincent_vega_lives]

30. See post #16

"BBC = shills of Blair"

[T_i_B]

41. Hope you enjoyed it!

My favourite bit was Clarkson driving along with a dead cow on the top of his sports car, with the theme to Laurence of Arabia playing in the background.

[vincent_vega_lives]

15. Yep after all we elected Bush

TWICE!

[Generarth]

17. Sucking up to the empire I see

Is that a good look for a socialist?


edit - couldn't possibly leave socialist? in normal font.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

23. erm... ? n/t

[Generarth]

18. On and I had a look at the prosemite board yesterday

And I don't know if you noticed but they're just a teensy, weensy little bit right wing over there.

Just a tad mind, so no need to get your anarcho-socialist knickers in a twist.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

24. I'm sure they would disagree with you

All except one poster over there supports Democratic candidates and are socially-liberal. In past posts you have exclaimed the denial of existence of Anarcho-Socialism as a concept and when I have provided you with fairly neutral material on the subject you decided to not read it. If you wish to debate the concept of Anarcho-Socialism with me I'd be more than happy to oblige. However you seem to have just resorted to frivolous personal attacks to get some sort of reaction. I find such practices to be sub-sophomoric.

[Generarth]

38. You called it

However you seem to have just resorted to frivolous personal attacks to get some sort of reaction.

Well I disagree, but anyway;

I find such practices to be sub-sophomoric.

What's that? Is it;

However you seem to have just resorted to frivolous personal attacks to get some sort of reaction.?

[vincent_vega_lives]

27. "over there" being the UK?

Right wing, are you joking? The UK is more progressive than the US in many ways.

[Generarth]

37. No not the UK, over there is the prosemite board n/t

[Contrite]

6. Wow! The Guardian and BBC!

Good show!

[sweetheart]

16. The BBC has a pre-ordained conclusion

because BBC stands for 'Blair's Bullshit Corporation', and he is behind the reichstag fire
for obvious warmongering profiteering on behalf of british oil and alliance interests.

The BBC will try to create a perfect simulacrum, a perfect referential to displace
honest individual inquiry, to belittle inquiry and reassert the power of experts,
militarism, hate and warmongering, everything the BBC is expert at propagandising.

It will be a new borges fable, a new map, a referential without atmosphwere except its operational existance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTWugaRasJA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGnT8JQavqw

[Contrite]

21. Wow!

How do you feel about the Guardian?

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

26. You can't link to PIgotville on DU

It's an anti-Semitic website.

[sweetheart]

31. is it?

Its an anti war, anti-colonialism website, anti-apartheid.

To me, the difference is this:

PI - foundation is the declaration of independence.

DU - foundation os the declaration/constitution/acceptance winner take all politics and the war party status quo.
That is not to say the membership of DU is not vigorously anti-war, but rather by tying on to support and vote
for the democratic party, and the partisan system, the structures of failed constitution, the plinth upon
what our free editorial conversation happens holds this as its plinth, an implied corporate nationalism and
unfortunately some lucid writers who if they are antisemitic, i'd be very suprised, nobody gives a fuck about
religion in marxist land, to have a religious-based hatred is an absurd postuation... "its the war machine, stupid."

The ability to engage and deconstruct is principal on PI, and a civil demeanor that is quite pleasant,
i'm wishing DU could have such a sense of goodwill and trust between its members... being anti-'big war',
brings people together in a way that the democratic party has not, unfortunately.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

32. I hear what you say

The pro-war elements of the Democratic Party make me very uncomfortable but a fracturing of the liberal/progressive tent didn't help us in 2000 (though neither did the cheating shenanigans of the GOP). Leaving the Democratic Party to the neoliberals would not do the US or the world any good either.

The website in mention however does have some particular axe to grind against Israel, and is willing to back anti-Semitic organisations to achieve this end, and also members do not actively critique the Protocols-rehash that gets posted over there. One can oppose Israeli foreign policy without resorting to anti-Semitism, but the website in question doesn't manage to avoid that pitfall.

[Henny Penny]

35. Now that's a hit job!

You're not a documentary maker in real life are you?

[The Lone Groover]

36. "One can oppose Israeli foreign policy without resorting to anti-Semitism"

...but can you oppose Israeli policy without being labelled anti-semitic?

The website in mention however does have some particular axe to grind against Israel,

and that's a problem? I've not seen the website, but I don't see why having an axe to grind against Israel is an issue. Are we not allowed? We all have axes to grind.

Edit: Check my avatar to understand what I'm saying.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[vincent_vega_lives]

28. Are you kidding?

The BBC is a much more responsible and objective news organization than ANY in the US.

[T_i_B]

40. Have any of the people who are attacking this documentary...

Actually bothered to watch it? There's a lot of people here slagging of a TV programme that BBC2 have not even shown as yet (1300 GMT on Sunday 18th February).

[Taxloss]

19. I'm looking forward to the documentary. n/t