The Number One Reason Not to Believe the Official 9/11 Story

[spooked911]

Because it comes from the Bush administration, and they are shameless liars. You name it, on whatever political topic there is, they will say whatever they think they can get away with.

If you can't understand this, then maybe you shouldn't be in a place called Democratic Underground.

(Not that I'm motivated strictly by partisan thoughts here. :) In the annals of official lying in the US, it seems as if the Bush administration is setting new records.)

[Bolo Boffin]

1. I remember...

...completely discounting the story of test tube babies because the only place I read about it was in the National Enquirer. Then, suddenly, the first test tube baby was born, and it was in every paper. Was I surprised? You betcha.

spooked911, your argument suffers from the same fallacy. There are plenty of sources from which the "official story" is drawn. They aren't all controlled exclusively by the Bush Administration, far from it.

Furthermore, it's pretty shocking for you to suggest that people who accept most or all of the official story somehow don't understand what shameless liars make up the Bush Administration, and that they therefore don't belong here at DU. I consider most of the "official story" so manifestly evident that members of the Bush Administration could never get away with lying about it: that's why they agree with it. If the Bush Adminstration told you that the earth revolves around the sun, would you instantly denounce Copernicus?

[delver]

3. manifestly deceptive

i think spooked911 is being a tad facetious.

what points of the official story do you find "manifestly evident?"

do your self a favor and read a unofficial source like "The New Pearl Harbor." we have all been bombarded with the details of the mainstream story whether we like it or not. it makes sense to read an alternative viewpoint (no matter how far fetched it sounds) and compare. howard zinn endorses "The New Pearl Harbor":

"David Ray Griffin has done admirable and painstaking research in reviewing the mysteries surrounding the 9-11 attacks. It is the most persuasive argument I have seen for further investigation of the Bush administration's relationship to that historic and troubling event." — Howard Zinn

and about getting away with big lies, what do you think about bush talking about being a "good steward of the land" or promoting freedom or "they hate us because they hate our freedom." or the fact that global warming/peak oil/environment are not a priority for the media???

[spooked911]

4. You can believe whatever you want, obviously, and I'm not saying the

Bush administration is lying about EVERYTHING regarding 9/11.

But it is funny how many liberals/progressives/Democrats are skeptical of everything the Bush administration, EXCEPT when it comes to 9/11. I think that is a mistake.

Of course, Democrats in Washington have given the Bush administration cover for their 9/11 lies, and thus this makes it easier for liberals/progressives/Democrats to believe the official story.

I think this is a mistake all the way around.

I think there are aspects of the 9/11 story that the Bush administration is not lying about but others that they are clearly lying about. That is one thing we try to sort out on this board.

As to your points, I didn't mean to imply "that people who accept most or all of the official story somehow don't understand what shameless liars make up the Bush Administration, and that they therefore don't belong here at DU." I was saying merely that if one didn't think the Bush administration were shameless liars, you probably were in the wrong place at DU. I am not saying that if you disbelieve the official story you don't belong at DU. Sorry if I implied that.

Moreover, if the Bush Adminstration told me that the earth revolves around the sun, I would not instantly denounce Copernicus.

My post by the way, was partly serious, partly facetious.

[Frederik]

5. Exactly

"But it is funny how many liberals/progressives/Democrats are skeptical of everything the Bush administration, EXCEPT when it comes to 9/11. I think that is a mistake."

I think so too. And I think part of the reason is Richard Clarke. He not only has been pushing the "official story" as well as the "war on terror", he lay all the groundwork for the official story before 9/11 happened. He was the one who was pushing the myth of al-Qaeda three years before 9/11, based on what we know to be extremely flimsy evidence (see "The Power of Nightmares", which was well received at the Cannes recently).

Remember, Richard Clarke encouraged Clinton to bomb that medicine factory in Sudan in 1998, having convinced the president that it was an al-Qaeda chemical weapons factory... but it really was only a medicine factory. Clinton relied on the information provided by his counterterrorism czar who has become something of a liberal hero for standing up to the Bush junta. But what kind of criticism does he offer? His claim is that Bush hasn't bombed enough terrorists! We must go after the terrorists and fight the War on Terror! Bomb more medicine factories perhaps? What Richard Clarke has achieved is to set the parameters of the mainstream debate thusly: on one side, the neo-cons who believe Iraq is a part of the war on terror, on the other side the realists, John Kerry and Richard Clarke who see it as a diversion from the war on terror. Calling the "war on terror" itself into question is considered "radical". Clarke's fiery criticism of the Bush admin. for failing to properly pursue "al-Qaeda" has made this the primary point of those who criticize their handling of the terror war.

I find it interesting that Clarke's job in the Reagan state dept. was to devise psychological warfare strategies. I suspect that the real Richard Clarke is someone else than the liberal hero he has been made out to be. It's also interesting that he was fired from the State dept. in 1992 for "turning a blind eye" on Israel's sale of US-made weapons to China. Hmmm...

He wasn't unemployed for long, he was immediately hired by Brent Scowcroft in the National Security Council. I guess his services were in high demand. Brent Scowcroft, btw, has been deeply involved in the "black gold rush" into Central Asia which has been dependent on the "war on terror" mythology for its implementation. He is chairman of the American Turkish Council and member of the board of the US Azerbaijan Chamber of Commerce - both organizations have been suspected of being among Sibel Edmonds' "semi-legit organizations" connected to 9/11, drug trafficking and illegal nuclear proliferation. What's particularly interesting in this context is that Brent Scowcroft was also a vocal opponent of the war on Iraq, just like Richard Clarke was. These oil/drugs/weapons interests would be very interested in a never-ending war on terrorism in central Asia and elswhere - Africa, Philippines, Venezuela, who knows - but perhaps not in a protracted war in Iraq and a break-up of the US-led anti-terror coalition? I don't know, I'm just speculating. But it's worth noting that every revolution is followed by a fragmentation into different factions which end up fighting each other (bolsheviks and mensheviks etc.)

According to narratives published in mainstream sources, it was Richard Clarke and George "Slam Dunk" Tenet who told Bush that "al-Qaeda did it" while Bush was at Offut. How did they know, so soon? After all, no one had imagined the scenario of planes flying into buildings, right?

[spooked911]

6. Yes-- good points about Richard Clarke. I am very suspicious of him even

though he is seen as somewhat of a liberal hero for taking on the Bush administration over 9/11. I am sure he has deeper motives than simply that the Bush administraiton didn't heed his warnings about 9/11.

In this regard, I am actually on the same side of the Bush administration and Republicans!

In this regard, it is interesting how malleable the Bush administration found 9/11 that they were able to use it to inspire war against Iraq.

I don't believe the Bush administration is stupid and if they really were convinced Al Qaeda was the big threat and were clearly behind 9/11, they would have concentrated all their energies on going after Al Qaeda and wouldn't have spent so much energy going after Iraq and pissing off the world. On the other hand, the Bushies knew that Al Qaeda was mostly a sham, and this is why they could basically let Osama get away.

This may also be why the Bushies have gone to war against the CIA, because they don't trust them in regards to terrorism.

Certainly there are all sorts of games being played regarding terrorism.

The question is-- why have there been no new big attacks since 9/11 and anthrax? Has the Bush administration really been so successful at wiping out Al Qaeda, or have they clamped down on the government insiders who manipulate the Al Qaeda patsies such as Tenet and Clarke? Perhaps the Bush administration was willing to let these guys give them one big attack but they know another one would be much too risky on many levels. Obviously I am speculating too, but there are probably layers and layers of what is the truth about Al Qaeda in Washington.

I think the Democratic position on Al Qaeda has been basically constricting and allows them to get outflanked by the Bush administration on terrorism. IMO, the only thing the Democrats could really do to change the dynamic is to call the Bush administration's bluff on 9/11 and really quesiton what happened that day.

But I know they won't. They will just subsume the Bush position on terrorism and try to win on domestic issues. Which may work, but will leave our foreign policy a hopeless mess.

[dbeach]

9. Clark is part of the problem...

most of em are in on the info..How many are directly involved.?.

Mrs. Clinton held up the NY Post which said:'"Bush knew"
cuz he did know and it was her way of saying bush....don't mess with the Clintons..She also said "there is a vast rt wing conspiracy" cuz there is...

Poppy..dickie and wolfie and the villains told chimpy to act stupid {boy does he do that good..very natural} so jr acted his role..but jr had to have known that at least something big was happening to help legitimize his presidency which was 40% ratings before 9/11 and 90% after 9/11.

POPPY always BAILS OUT HIS BOY WONDER

Blue blood is thicker than the US water {citizenry}

[Frederik]

10. I agree Junior must have known

but Poppy probably knew more. He's "Mr CIA" after all. He still receives intelligence briefings, which is unusual for ex-presidents. There have been reports about Poppy and Junior falling out over Iraq, but it may just be spin. It could be that Poppy was aligned with the CIA here against the neo-cons though. Hard to know what's going on. And where's Naval Intelligence? They're the oldest and most professional of all the intel agencies and the CIA used to be afraid of them. They tend to have their own agenda. Bob Woodward (who wrote Bush at War) is "former" Naval Intel. That book was important for the mythology of how the "war on terror" started but not always friendly to the Bush people. He seems to be on Richard Clarke's side.

[dbeach]

11. CIA building is named after Poppy..so

whad up wit dat?

Poppy has huge influence and this cartel seems quite secure.

"Hard to know what's going on. And where's Naval Intelligence? "

so sad .. but so true...we are some good analyzers and guessers here..
BUT most of it is speculation.

Reading the "American Dynasty" book by Kevin Phillips really opened my eyes to see that the bush crime cartel is ALWAYS near the crime
but NEVER the criminal..

Woodward as USN intell..I Agrre and have seen heard about that on line.

SPIN on my part..Poppy was'"deep throat"...Who else was powerful enough to take down the Trickster who was about to tell all about JFK and deeply distrusted Poppy.

The media has floated this romantic concept that 2 young reporters Woodie and the other How is it possible in DC whre most is controlled from shadows?

[spooked911]

14. All good points! Too bad all of this is a shadow world--

it's so hard to get a fix on anything.

[spooked911]

13. Wow-- hadn't heard about Woodward being former Naval Intel.

VERY interesting, makes sense.

[demodewd]

2. Tarpley

I find affinity with Webster Tarpley's government within a government proposition. Was Bush involved in the blueprinting of 911? I doubt it. Maybe Chaney,maybe not.More like,hey Dick somethings coming down so just sit back while we pull it off. But there are some shadow figures within the heirarchy of the DOD and military who are part of a shadow government. Maybe just a handful of Bush administrators,a sector of the CIA,FBI. A small knit group pulling it all together. Better to leave Bush out of the group,then he won't have to fake anything but I'm sure he was probably told something big was coming down and there wasn't anything he could do about it or would do about in retrospect.

[spooked911]

7. Yes-- I doubt very much Bush was involved at all in 9/11, he's a puppet

and he needed to have deniability. Bush's real crime was after 9/11-- not going after the people in the government who were behind 9/11, and then being subservient to the agenda of the national security state..

[Project_Willow]

12. your speculation makes

sense of his reaction in the classroom that day. He knew something was coming, but there did seem to be some shock on his face and a bit of emotion.

[dbeach]

8. liar liar your politics on fire..

"Because it comes from the Bush administration, and they are shameless liars. You name it, on whatever political topic there is, they will say whatever they think they can get away with."

EXACTEMUNDO..

Keep it alive!


bush and the villians are serial liars and if Dems could accept that and quit accepting that this is a legitimate admin then theri power deteriorates...

IIts obvious to me that 9/11 was an inside job...

[philb]

15. Summary of reasons not to believe the official 9/11 story

http://www.flcv.com/anomolie.html

If someone knows contradiction to one of the reasons, tell me about it.

[ROH]

16. "DON'T SAY ANYTHING YET"

http://www.complete911timeline.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&startpos=850#a907petgoat

------------------------------------------------
(9:06-9:16 a.m.)
Bush, having just been told of the second WTC crash (see (9:06 a.m.)), does not leave the Sarasota, Florida, classroom he entered around 9:03. Rather, he stays and listens as 16 Booker Elementary School second-graders take turns reading a story called , from the book "Reading Mastery 2, Storybook 1." It's a simple story about a girl's pet goat. (AFP, 9/7/02, Editor and Publisher, 7/2/04)

They are just about to begin reading when Bush is warned of the attack. One account says that the classroom is then silent for about 30 seconds, maybe more. Bush then picks up the book and reads with the children "for eight or nine minutes." (Tampa Tribune, 9/1/02)

At one point he says, "Really good readers, whew! … These must be sixth-graders!" (Time, 9/12/01) In the back of the room, Press Secretary Ari Fleischer catches Bush's eye and holds up a pad of paper for him to read, with "DON'T SAY ANYTHING YET" written on it in big block letters. (Washington Times 10/7/02)
------------------------------------------------

Has anyone here any comments on the "DON'T SAY ANYTHING YET" message? Why is Bush being told to keep quiet?

Doesn't it seem strange that a press secretary is telling the US President how to behave in these circumstances?

[spooked911]

17. Thta's a good question. Most people think it was just a way the Bush

administration was trying to control the message about 9/11, but it also makes you wonder a lot.

More pressingly is why they let Bush wait around int hat classroom for so long when hijacked planes were on the loose and he could have issued shootdown orders.

All in all, it was a stunning abstention of leadership by Bush and the lack of interest in Bush's security makes foreknowledge of the attacks by the secret service almost a certainty.

[dbeach]

18. hi spooked Do ya ever rest?

"stunning abstention of leadership.."

By abstention I assume you mean chemperor bushfraud was absent as in Absent With Out Leave as in AWOL..
so from awol to deserter to fake pres...

day in a life of a bush..

The AWOL President...leadin us into destruction.. smirkin and robbin your wallet every step of the way

"as long as I am dictator.."