9/11 Pentagon Video finally released...

Fitz, MeR, MtS, bb et al:

Since this thread has devolved into a tit-for-tat sandox quarrel over whose websites/info is more accurate, perhaps we should start with the fact that many people not only have a problem with the "official story" re all three incidents (WTC, Pentagon, PA), but with the entire attitude, demeanor, action and inaction on the part of the Bush Administration, which only adds "fuel to the fire" of the alternative theories.

In that regard, let's set aside completely the incidents themselves and/or who we believe was responsible for them.  Let's just look at the response to those incidents, on two levels.  First, on the level of "internal" response.  Note that none of the following is debatable, because it is all unarguably factual.

1.  The Bush Administration fought tooth and nail against setting up an official investigation of the events of 9/11, despite the requests - even demands - of the victims' families.  Indeed, the victim's families had to "go public" in a powerful way - and, in some cases, threaten legal action - simply to get the Bush Administration to agree to investigate 9/11.

This sole fact is so suspicious that it is almost enough to support the beginnings of an alternative theory of the events.

2.  After finally capitulating to the victims’ families, the Bush Administration chose Henry Kissinger – a truly divisive figure – to chair the panel.  This cynical choice was roundly rejected not only by the families, but by lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.  Thus, not only did the Bush Administration not give a damn about the families, but when it finally agreed to do something, it chose someone who was all but a slap in the face to them.

3.  Finally, the Bush Administration chose a “blue ribbon panel” to investigate 9/11.  Let’s see who was chosen:

-Thomas Kean: Director, Amerada Hess oil company; close personal friend of the Bush family.

-Lee Hamilton: Chaired the committee investigating Iran/Contra; member of the ultra-conservative Woodrow Wilson Institute.

-Richard Ben-Veniste: partner in law firm which represents United and Boeing, as well as the Westfield Corporation, which was awarded a multi-billion settlement based on the destruction of the WTC.

-Fred Fielding: partner in law firm that represents United Airlines.

-Jamie Gorelick: former Pentagon counsel; partner in the law firm that represented Prince Faisal of Saudi Arabia against lawsuits by victims’ families against Saudi banks and others; on the boards of Schlumberger (oil) and United Technologies (military; a Carlyle Group subsidiary).

-John F. Lehman: Secretary of the Navy under Reagan; close personal friend of the Bush family.

-James Thompson: chairman of law firm which represents American Airlines, Boeing and several tenants of the WTC.

-Slade Gorton: partner in law firm that represents Delta Airlines (not involved in 9/11, but conflict re airlines industry in general); White House counsel during Reagan Administration.

-Timothy Roemer: partner in law firm that represents Boeing and Lockheed Martin.

-Bob Kerrey.

-Daniel Marcus (Commission Counsel): see Jamie Gorelick.  Also represents at least three Arab nationals with ties to financing terrorism.

-Philip Zelikow (Executive Director): on Bush-Cheney transition team; member of the Aspen Energy Group, a conservative think tank that includes Cheney, Rice and Wolfowitz; close personal friend of Condoleezza Rice.

4.  Once the 9/11 Commission began its work, the Bush Administration – and many of its agencies and individual persons, including the Pentagon, NORAD, the Justice Department, the NSA, Condoleezza Rice and others – made every attempt to stymie the investigation by withholding evidence, not permitting witnesses to testify, and even forcing the Committee to sue to obtain numerous documents.  And, of course, President Bush and Vice President Cheney refused to testify on record, and would only speak to the Commission in private, with no transcript.  (One can only wonder what was said…)  Then the Bush Administration set an arbitrary date by which the Commission had to finish its work, and would not extend that date until the families again “went public” to shame the Administration into extending the date – which they did by only three months.  Keep in mind that, originally, this was to be an open-ended investigation which the Commission itself was supposed to close when it felt it had obtained all relevant data and witness testimony.

5.  Finally, to add final insult to injury, the Bush Administration then “classified” almost 30 pages of the Report, removing it from the document just days before it was printed and published.

Thus, everything the Bush Administration did after 9/11 with respect to an investigation of the events was suspect vis-à-vis “truth.”  Even without videos, photographs, computer sims, etc., the actions, and inactions, of the Administration add up to a very suspicious framework, one that bears heavily on the belief in alternative theories of the events.

Second, let’s take a look at the “external” response.  The Administration has now invoked 9/11 – and the “fear” of terrorism – for all of the following: the creation and passage of the Patriot ACT; the neocon strategy of “unprovoked, pre-emptive war”; creation of the Department of Homeland Security; color-coded “terror” warnings; the unprovoked, pre-emptive “regime change” in Iraq – based on lies about WMDs and “direct links” between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda - and the continuing war there; the indefinite incarceration and isolation of “enemy combatants” at Guantanamo (and the president’s unilateral right to determine who is an “enemy combatant”); the tortures at Abu Gharib; the paying for and placement of propaganda articles in Arab newspapers; the paying of American journalists to place administration-friendly and war-supporting articles in U.S. publications; the illegal wiretapping of Americans’ phones; attempting to monitor Internet searches; and the general erosion of the very freedoms and civil liberties that make the U.S. Constitution to greatest political document on Earth – the very freedoms and civil liberties that we are attempting to “export” to Iraq and elsewhere.  And that’s just a short list of those things that popped into my head “in the moment.”  I’m sure I can come up with double that number, or more, if given time.

In addition, by using 9/11 to effect a regime change in Afghanistan – and installing Hamid Karzai, a former Unocal oil executive as president of Afghanistan – U.S. oil and gas companies will begin profiting to the tune of over $3 trillion from the new natural gas pipelines from the Caspian sea, which could not have been built until the Taliban (or any U.S.-unfriendly government) was overthrown and a U.S.-friendly government was installed.  And, of course, by invading Iraq, the U.S. government has now secured the third largest oil reserves in the world – which will also profit U.S. oil and gas companies.  In addition, let’s not forget that the “rebuilding” of Iraq is worth many billions of dollars in reconstruction money – almost all of which went to Halliburton, Bechtel and Raytheon in “no-bid” contracts.  Finally, don’t forget that war – especially an indefinite, ongoing war like that against “terrorism” – enriches the military-industrial complex, and the companies that make and supply war material.

So…

I have completely avoided any “conspiracy theory” mumbo-jumbo, or laid any blame on any person or organization re complicity in the events of 9/11.  Yet all of the above provides an exceptionally huge – HUGE! – reason for questioning the “official story,” and developing alternative theories to match the above evidence.  After all, as so many respected 9/11 truth movement journalists and others have asked: who profited from 9/11?  What happens if we “follow the money?”  Indeed, how, if at all, did 9/11 “profit” Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda, or even radical Islam?  Osama has actually lost prestige since then.  Al Qaeda is a shell of its former self (assuming it was ever what it was purported to be).  Radical Islam has always had its financial backers and people willing to die for the cause.  But 9/11 did not increase the money supporting them, or the number of people willing to die for that cause.

So without even suggesting the illogical, inane and utterly insupportable idea that 19 men with boxcutters foiled the entire military and airlines apparatuses of the U.S., tell me, based solely on the all of the above – what it really happening here?  What do you really believe?  Do you still believe that everything you have been told is true?  Do you still feel that there is no basis on which to believe that alternative theories of the events of 9/11 are warranted?

I think you have some serious soul-searching to do.  Because you are either naïve, willfully blind or are so fearful of the truth that you cannot allow yourself even to consider the possibility that your government perpetrated a horrible, heinous, almost unimaginable crime against its own people in the furtherance of a power/greed/money/oil agenda that serves to further an “American Empire” which continues to enrich those in power.

Peace.

Fitz:

I do not discount your position, your belief or the passion that underlies both.  However, the problem I see is “similar to but different from” the issue that arises when we have had threads re God, faith and religion.  Although this is not the place to have that discussion, what I refer to is that the rationalist empiricists see things from that viewpoint only (i.e., everything must be provable via tangible, factual, scientific evidence), and view believers as relying entirely on faith, which is intangible, and scientifically and empirically unprovable.  While non-believers see believers as having “blind faith” in God, believers see non-believers as having “blind faith” in science.  [N.B.  The truth, of course, is that believers can, and do, accept most rational empirical science, while non-believers do not accept one iota of faith in anything they cannot “prove” via their five senses.]

The discussion re “conspiracy theories” (I prefer “alternate theories,” and will use that phrase) is, of course, different, in that everyone is seeking to find scientific support for many aspects of their positions.  However, it is also similar – at least the way you and some others are approaching it – in that you (and others) are focusing virtually (if not absolutely) exclusively on the “intellectual” aspect of the issue, seeking solely empirical, provable scientific evidence to support your position and the “official story.”  It is this “intellectual exclusivity” which I believe is a serious flaw in – and ultimately fatal to -your position.  By focusing exclusively on “empirical evidence,” and ignoring all other aspects of the issue, you are limiting your ability to provide a truly complete framework for your position.  Rather, you end up “not seeing the forest for the trees” – no matter how much “empirical” evidence you provide, or how accurate or well-supported it is.

This approach may be appropriate in the God/faith/religion debate, since that it is a very “clear cut” debate: either there is or is not a God, and thus there either is or is not a basis for faith.  However, in the present discussion, that approach is not always helpful, since all of us agree that the events occurred, and we all agree on what we thought we saw “in the moment.”  As well, we are all working with (mostly) the same “evidence” that exists re 9/11, we simply have different beliefs about that evidence re its accuracy and what it actually shows or does not show.  Thus, unlike the God/faith/religion debate, we are all coming from the same basic place: we simply believe different things about that place.

I repeat my belief that facts are important things.  By all means, load yourself up on them. Of course, it will almost certainly drive you crazy, since there are highly respected scientists and others on both sides of this debate, all of whom can provide “empirical scientific” support for their positions, despite the fact that those positions may be polar opposites.  And there are eyewitnesses whose testimony is often completely contradictory, yet all will swear to their beliefs and feelings.

This is why it is critical in this particular discussion to include other aspects of the issue: because almost all of the scientific, “empirical” evidence is disputable or up for debate, depending on which scientist(s) or witness(es) you offer for support.  That is why all your “facts” (which may or may not be such) do you only partial good.

An alternate theory does not simply presuppose that the evidence shows a certain thing, whether it is a videotape, a photograph, a report, a witnesses testimony, or a scientists’ findings.  It also looks at all of that in a larger context – especially since those who take alternative positions know that the “evidence” is likely to be disputed.

What occurred on 9/11 was not solely the “factual,” scientifically empirically-supported “evidence” of the attacks or their aftermath.  It was the totality of the events – the “factual,” scientifically empirically-supported evidence, plus what led up to the attacks, the context in which the attacks occurred, the relationship between various parties involved or allegedly involved in the attacks, the response (or lack thereof) and actions (or inactions) of the government vis-à-vis both finding out why and how the attacks occurred and how the government “used” the attacks (e.g., even assuming the “official story” is true, “using” the attacks to go into Afghanistan to engage Al Qaeda and find bin Laden would have been supportable, while the regime change in Iraq would not be), and, yes, looking at “who profited” and how.  Because all of these things – not solely the “factual” evidence – bear on the “truth” (or lack thereof) of the “official story,” and add legitimate “fuel to the fire” of alternate theories.  The fact that the “evidence” of the attacks is so questionable certainly adds to alternate theories.  But that is not the sole and exclusive reason why alternate theories abound.

Thus, Fitz, feel free to continue your search for “facts” and “scientific evidence” to support your position.  However, for every “fact” or “scientific” report you find to support your position, I (and others) can find an equally scientific report to support our position.  Thus, unless and until you are willing to factor in other things, your position will remain limited.

Finally, to respond to all the flip comments about Arabs cheering and suicide bombers and radical Islam, etc.  No one is claiming that radical Islam has not always been rife with terrorists and suicide bombers.  No one is claiming that many Arabs did not cheer when the towers fell.  No one is claiming that Arab terrorism is not, and has not been, a problem to be dealt with.  (Nor is anyone claiming that every Arab that “danced in the street” was part of (or even knew of) the 9/11 attacks.)  However, all of those things have been true for decades.  And at no time during those decades did Arab terrorism reach U.S. soil (the 1993 bombing of the WTC notwithstanding, since that was FBI-controlled.  See http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6612404919108240876; http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/OK/wtcbomb.html, http://www.fas.org/irp/world/iraq/956-tni.htm, http://www.boogieonline.com/revolution/multi/terrorism/wtc.html, http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur46.htm, http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0408c.asp.)

Thus, comments about Arab hatred of America are not only unhelpful, but actually divisive.  Most Arabs are good people.  Yes, there are some who follow a sadly narrow view of Islam, and are willing not only to engage in violence, but in many cases to sacrifice themselves for their “cause.”  But to generalize and broad-brush this on all, or even most, Arabs is shameful and insulting.

Finally, re MtS’s comment that: “Have you ever stopped to think that maybe publicizing everything WE know about what happened on 9-11 might just aid the very enemy that did this?  With all the information running around in cyberspace, do you really think it's a good idea to let them in on what were doing here?  You've stated before that restricting our freedoms under the Patriot Act is exactly what the enemy wants, right?  Well, don't you think this paranoia of our own leaders falls under the same banner?  So it looks like you too are playing in their own hands as well.”

Mark, please.  First, you can find plans on how to build all sorts of bombs, including dirty bombs, on the Web.  Do you really think that anything we say here is going to “aid and abet” the enemy?  As for “paranoia of our own leaders…playing in[to] their…hands”: are you telling me that restricting free speech – and particularly the right to criticize our own government, and even accuse it of malfeasance, negligence, treason or even murder – would be more correct?  For goodness sake, Americans have been speaking out against the U.S. government since it formed in 1778.  It is a time-honored tradition, one that is not only protected by the Constitution, but is specifically called for in the Declaration of Independence: “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.  Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”  (Emphasis mine)

Peace.

Mark:

You say, "Come on maani! You're trying to rationalize and it's not working. Everytime Al Queda looks at blogs like this, they just rub their hands together with glee and say "Oh goody! Look at these fools fighting amongst each other over what we did. They sure don't have a sense of right and wrong like they did in 1941. What a bunch of confused idiots! Let's take advantage of that! Your idea of an open, honest government is pubicizing weaponary, troop movements and communications that could very well endanger lives."

Where is this coming from?  I said nothing about publicizing weaponry, troop movements and communications.  I would not be in favor of that.  But that was not what you asked.  You asked about whether the things we say here - on this site, on this thread, on this issue - might "aid and abet the enemy."  And I suggested that there is nothing we could possibly say here that would have one iota of effect on "the enemy."  What could we possibly say that they could "take advantage of?"  Indeed, what is that we are saying, or suggesting, that is not being discussed all over the world, on Internet sites, in the media, in the public square?  And you talk about me being paranoid!

I am not "rationalizing" anything.  Indeed, if 9/11 was not a staged event – especially given how it was deliberately and cynically "used" (Iraq, the Patriot Act, etc.) - it would be an anomaly in history, from the Trojan Horse to the Reichstag fire, from Pearl Harbor to the Gulf of Tonkin incident.  History shows repeatedly that "staged events" are used regularly in order to provide a rationale (one that also seeks to increase public support) for entering into a military conflict - which, in modern times, we know financially benefits the military-industrial complex.  That there were other "strategic" (a cynical euphemism for "financial") goals to be gained - the world's third largest oil reserves, a pipeline from the Caspian Sea, billions of dollars in "reconstruction" contracts that just happened to go to friends and cronies of Bush and Cheney - only adds to the belief that 9/11 was just another "staged event" in a history of "staged events."

You (and others here) simply can’t – outright refuse to - wrap your mind around even the possibility that our government murdered its own citizens in order to achieve selfish political and financial goals.  I readily admit it is an incredibly difficult thing even to consider, much less to accept.  And I fully understand and appreciate this.  In fact, it is incumbent upon those who cannot believe this - even as a possibility - to fight tooth and nail to support the “official story” of the events of 9/11, and even to simply dismiss out of hand any attempt to discredit the “official story,” and provide evidence (of any kind) for an alternate theory.  And the fact that some here simply dismiss out of hand any and all websites, reports, etc. that support alternate theories shows the lengths that some will go to support the “official story,” and give no credence whatsoever to alternate theories - even when experts who are just as credentialed, knowledgeable and respected as those who support the “official story” are represented on those websites.

This is, of course, to be expected under such extraordinary circumstances.  Although, as Fitz points out, my passion is also clearly evident (LOL), it is not really my goal to make you outright “converts” to any particular alternate theory.  My goal is simply to get you to “think outside the box” – a box into which many of you have willingly and happily locked yourselves - to at least consider what those of us who question the “official story” are saying, and to “do the research” not only to support your own belief, but to see how and why those of us who do not share that belief believe as we do.

The difference here – especially re those of you who simply dismiss out of hand any attempt to support an alternate theory – is that many of us who support alternate theories are fully aware of the “official story,” and have read The 9/11 Commission Report, as well as many other articles, websites, etc. that support the “official story.”  It is because the “official story” – especially as represented by The 9/11 Commission Report – is so full of holes, or at least raises as many questions as it answers, that we cannot, in the best of faith, accept it at face value.  On the other hand, many of you who support the “official story” with loaded guns in your hands (LOL) do not make any attempt to step outside your box and learn anything at all about the alternate theories.  It is one thing, for example, to dismiss the idea that a missile hit the Pentagon; it is quite another to dismiss every single piece of evidence or support for every single aspect of every single alternate theory.

Unless and until the most severe skeptics – those who believe in “my country, right or wrong,” and would just assume shoot me for holding the views that I do re 9/11 – are at least willing to open their eyes enough to truly do some serious research re “the other side,” their blanket dismissals of everything that does not fit their pre-conceived (or even partly supported) beliefs about 9/11 seem little more than an ignorance of history, and a serious state of denial.

Peace.