Mainstream Media Silently Screams for New 9/11 Investigation
tags:
Stumble ThisCompilation of mainstream media reports:
The first segment focuses on the ignorance of information that was presented to the Bush administration and joint chief of staff by George Tenet.
-Larry King
-Kieth Olbermann
-Lou Dobbs
original comment:
"Too many questions, Too many lies! If you can watch this video and it's response "911 Commission Co-Chair Explains Need for New Investigation" and not demand a new investigation of the events that happened leading up to during and after 9/11/2001 then America is lost.
The first segment focuses on the ignorance of information that was presented to the Bush administration and joint chief of staff by George Tenet.
-Larry King
-Kieth Olbermann
-Lou Dobbs
original comment:
"Too many questions, Too many lies! If you can watch this video and it's response "911 Commission Co-Chair Explains Need for New Investigation" and not demand a new investigation of the events that happened leading up to during and after 9/11/2001 then America is lost.
“Well, this video focuses on the allegations of "missed warnings" and of Pentagon staff apparently lying to cover up their mistakes in dealing with the hijackings. Both of these allegations, of course, are completely incompatible with your claims of bogus plane crashes, thermite and controlled demolitions. So, it seems slightly odd to see you espousing an investigation into them. It appears that even your own fantastical beliefs are internally contradictory.”
To clarify, here are some declarations of what I believe:
Par, I never claimed that planes did not hit the towers. I do believe that those planes hit the towers. I saw the 2nd plane hit on tv that morning like most people. I am just not sure if thermite was used to assist the collapse. I just don't know like many others. I do find it unusual that absolutely none of the tower's core structure survived in-tact based on the public pancake theory one would expect some of the core to be standing. Building 7 seems to be an anomaly that even none of the experts can agree upon.
I do believe that it wasn't a 757 that hit the pentagon but rather a cruise missle hit it since the titanium engines would have been visible at the pentagon site... I'm sorry.. but an entire airliner woudl not vaporize. Especially the engines and they would have left distinct marks.
Also the supposed flight 77 hijacker pilot(Hani Hanjour) was a horrible pilot and couldn't even control a cessna and a seasoned pilot would have had a hard time controlling a 757 above the ground for such a distance. I'm a pilot with about 150hrs and I can easily land a 737 in the simulator but accurate approaches in a 757 are much more difficult and highly unusual that a person with crappy piloting skills (according to the aviation school that Honjour attended) could execute the maneuvers. He couldn't even maintain a Cessna according to them. Most noteable is the corkscrew descent to the pentagon - a very difficult maneuver in a 757 and the subsequent leveling off at 20ft. above the ground, striking the first floor of the bldg, not damaging the lawn and leaving no traces of the engines. Also, the amount of confiscated videos around the pentagon just minutes after the incident and utter refusal to release such videos that should corroborate the official story.
I believe that flight 96 was shot down (based on the scattering of small debris at the crash site).
I believe that our govt definitely knew about the attacks and it was not only not-thwarted but used to their advantage by the creators of the PNAC (Project for a New American Century) that claimed they needed "a new Pearl Harbor" in the PNAC document. Therefore it was in their best interest to have the catalyzing event that would allow them to enact the Patriot Act (which was already written and ready to go in case of such an event) and allowed Bush to call for war with almost unanimous public, senate and house consent.
The investigation was flawed no doubt. Telling us that nobody was responsible for anything or could have prevented anything is garbage when they stripped the nation of air cover for exercises and went ahead with the plan even though that info had been released to the press. If they had remembered the basic principle of what a defense was for in the first place the first plane might have hit but probably not the rest.
It was underfunded, one of the members themselves said it was like they were set up to fail. They were blocked at too many turns for access to information such as not being able to interview high level prisoners or their interrogators but being confined to reports instead. The story we got wasn't their story from their investigation so much as it was the administrations.
You've got so many good issues and reasons to ask for another look, there's just one problem. Alex Jones and the type. Reasonable questions and reasonable doubts get lost in all the wild stories and theories being tossed around as proved in some way till the issue is the punchline for a joke rather than anything people want to get involved with.
From what I've seen the family members, firefighters, and commission members who want answers aren't attaching themselves to Jones and the type. He's just hanging on to them for the ride. If the movement never watched a thing he made or said again and followed the families and firefighters and such instead, then you'd get somewhere. Its biggest enemy right now is itself.
Sorry for the long post, activism is what I do and it frustrates me to see an issue blown like this one has been. The point is to reach people and change minds, if nobody listens it doesn't even matter if you were right, you aren't changing a thing. The wild stories I don't think are right, but even so. You have to work in a way people hear and understand.
Your last post is extremely disheartening for three prominent reasons:
1. It betrays even further your complete ignorance of even the most fundamental issues surrounding 9/11.
2. It demonstrates that you've been lied to by conspiracy theorists and have simply accepted those lies without question; with even a limited quantity of your own research, you would have disembogued yourself of some of these falsehoods.
3. It shows that you're willing to simply ignore evidence that refutes your theories.
I suspect the reason you find it unusual that none of the World Trade Center towers' cores survived is that you're not a structural engineer. To appeal to one's own personal and laymen's incredulity hardly makes for a compelling argument. Further, I'm not sure what basis you have for your claim that "none of the experts" can agree about the collapse of World Trade Center 7. The official report is still being drawn up, so we don't know whether there's a consensus.
Please realize that the official account of the fate of Flight 77 simply does not claim that the entire plane vaporized. I know that the conspiracy theorists have led you to believe that is does, but they have lied to you. There is overwhelming evidence that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. This includes (but isn't limited to) dozens of pieces of eyewitness testimony, numberless pieces of recovered debris (including engine wreckage), recovered and functional flight data recorders and the DNA identification of all but one of the passengers. This is the third time that I've referred you to this evidence. You must be straightforwardly and intentionally ignoring it. The engines did leave a rather distinct mark -- they were instrumental in creating the seventy-five foot wide hole in the building. There is absolutely no evidence of a cruise missile. If an amateur pilot with little experience can recreate Hanjour's Pentagon strike in a professional simulator with a consistency level of three successes in three attempts, it's fairly clear that the manoeuvre was nothing like the complex array of aerobatics you've been to led believe it was. Hanjour was a commercially licensed and instrument rated pilot. The chief flight instructor at Hanjour's flight school doesn't seem to foster any of your doubts:
There's no reason to think that the scattering of light debris is incompatible with Flight 93 having been intentionally crashed. If you were to dump a pile of papers and other light materials in the middle of a field, it might not come as an enormous surprise if sometime later they had been scattered -- especially if you'd dumped them there at over five-hundred miles per hour in what basically amounts to a relatively fragile pressurised tube. As I've already pointed out, the flight data recorders and the cockpit voice recorders were recovered. None of the resultant data supports the claim that the plane was shot down. It all supports the conclusion that the plane was intentionally crashed by the hijackers due to a passenger revolt.
Lastly, you seem to be equally ignorant as the nature of the Project for a New American Century Report. It says nothing about "wanting" a new Pearl Harbor. It has nothing to do with pretexts for war, the Patriot Act or, for that, with any civil matters. It pushes for increased military technology spending -- missile defence systems, etc. -- in order to preserve American military prominence.
first, i'll leave alone all the various theories about what happened on 9/11 because nobody is really being swayed one way or the other with the incessant chatter about the subject. plus, this video doesn't really concern any of those items anyway.
second, stating that this video is somehow contradictory of those positions and therefore should be included with them in its uselessness is very strange. it's like telling a judge who declares a mistrial because the prosecution withheld evidence that his position is invalid because he clearly believes the defendant is innocent. in reality, another trial/investigation is the perfect prescription.
finally, regarding PNAC: the document you are referring to is "Renewing America's Defenses" and it's premise is laughable. how could a nation that spends more money on defense than countries #2-6 combined need to increase spending unless it was a pretext for something else? and, even without my mere speculation, you are flat out wrong:
in other words, the easiest way for them to convince the american people that such spending for hegemonic military dominance, and in so doing, achieve their goals quickly, was to scare the s*** out of them with another pearl harbor.
I'm not entirely certain what you're trying to communicate with your second point, but I was merely pointing out that the original poster seemingly held two mutually contradictory conspiratorial beliefs simultaneously. (Those being "The government ignored the warnings!" and "The government destroyed the buildings themselves!")
I have no real interest in critiquing the actual content of the Project for a New American Century Report itself. It could well be utterly ludicrous (and given who wrote it, that would hardly come as a surprise). What I was saying, however, is that one contributor had completely the wrong impression of its nature. Also, you seem to be claiming that the sentence "[T]he process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event--like a new Pearl Harbor" means "[T]he process of transformation... is likely to be far too long a one, therefore we need to engineer a catastrophic and catalyzing event--like a new Pearl Harbor." Clearly though, there's no reason to think that it means any such thing. Further, given that the kinds of satellites, missile defense systems etc. in question are practically useless for fighting a non-lateral "war on terror", 9/11 could hardly be considered an effective tool in securing them.
Quite how your theory is realistically compatible with your belief that Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon would make for an interesting discussion, I'm sure. Well, either way, if you ever come across anything remotely resembling compelling evidence for your claims, be sure to let me know.
Rather than having a bunch of amateurs (myself included) debating the finer points of the arguments, the best prescription would be to have a second commission/investigation look into the matter (preferably after the current president leaves office). Clearly, many questions were left unanswered and need to be resolved and the best way to appease both parties would be to have another, less flawed, investigation.
And finally, regarding PNAC, I was saying nothing of the sort. There would be no need to engineer such an event. Rather you could simply let things that seemed to be unfolding on their own occur and then cynically use them to further your own agenda. You don't have to engineer the actual event, you merely have to engineer and control the aftermath.
My personal opinion is that negligence is clear at the least with the air cover being stripped and the plan continued in spite of people knowing it. Cover up for that negligence is likely and was probably illegal in itself. It's possible that they knew about an attack and allowed it though I don't see proof so much as reason to wonder, more than that I get doubtful about. I'll grant some slim chance of more, but I've seen no "proof" so much as questions people assumed was proof. I've done some welding and torch work though I've never worked with explosives and some of those look like oxy/acetylene cuts to me. What do I know though, maybe that's what an explosive cut looks like too.
We can convince people we've got questions and need a look, but the more Alex Jones we get on them the more of them we lose. Do we want an investigation, or to push our pet theories? The movement needs to settle that among themselves best they can. I don't think it's a hard issue to move people on if you stick to the core details that can be shown. There are questions, just not the proof some claim. Not yet at least.
I have but one last question to you all.. do you think it's right that the government confiscate all video footage via sweeps of agents just minutes after the event and refuse to release but a few frames of ambiguous shots of video footage?
Firstly, yes, I think it's perfectly reasonable for the FBI to have gathered as much evidence as possible in the immediate aftermath of the event (and I suspect the conspiracy theorists would be amongst the first to cry foul had they done anything else). Secondly, as far as I'm aware, there were only three security tapes capturing anything of the impact sequestered at that time. A few frames from the Pentagon tape were released immediately, but the rest of the footage remained confidential as it might have been needed during the Moussaoui trial. Since his conviction though, all three have been released.
What does that say.
Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 11:46:59 AM PDT
The Central Intelligence Agency has closed a unit that for a decade had the mission of hunting Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants, intelligence officials confirmed Monday.
The unit, known as Alec Station, was disbanded late last year and its analysts reassigned within the C.I.A. Counterterrorist Center, the officials said.
The decision is a milestone for the agency, which formed the unit before Osama bin Laden became a household name and bolstered its ranks after the Sept. 11 attacks, when President Bush pledged to bring Mr. bin Laden to justice "dead or alive."
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/7/5/144659/0244
You are basically saying that we are fighting a 'conventional' non-intelligence based war in two failed states while ignoring the intelligence war of going after a terrorist organization which everyone knows is based within the unruly parts of Warizstan.
Not to mention the psychological and political coup of capturing Osama Bin Laden the person responsible for the 9/11 attacks, who in his elusiveness fuels anti-American aggression, resistance and sentiment.
Let's imagine this was Iraq back in 2003 and suddenly the US army decided NOT to go after Saddam Hussein because it is better to deal with regional insurgents then going after the leader of the Baath party.
How Kafkaesque.
Al Qaeda is being consecrated into becoming the un-capturable, unstoppable, multi-lateral, international terrorist bogeyman. Have you read 1984?
Secondly, you now seem to be suggesting one should arbitrarily disbelieve the parts of the article that contradict said claim whilst continuing to believe those parts that, when orphaned, seem to support it.
Thirdly, you're committing the begging the question fallacy by presupposing the truth of (and also my acceptance of) said claim. In actuality, the question of whether or not the CIA has simply given up on such activities is precisely the point at issue.
Fourthly, regardless, none of this seems to constitute compelling evidence that 9/11 was a conspiracy.
Fifthly, yes, thank you, I have.
There is a wider question to this issue then whether or not 9.11 was a conspiracy and that is Why have we given up everything that makes America great in this stupid paranoid fear laden conflict.
Al Qaeda is nothing compared to the nemesis of the USSR during the Cold War. Yet watch the news and you'd think it's the end of the bloody world as we know it.
Terrorism and the war on terror are being used for self interested parties to play out their insane ideas using the lives of our voulantary army.
This not a conventional war. Yet we are fighting it in that way. The intelligence part? Well where is that? For all the ideals we have thrown away running Gitmo and violating Human Rights charters all we did is come off as hypocrites talking about bringing democracy and freedom to the world.
Check out - http://www.videosift.com/video/Why-we-have-terrorism
And this is not a contest by the way. We might have differing views but I can see no way where we can say that this war was conducted properly post 9/11.
And you have already discussed politics, although implicitly.