Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Decoding the Secrets of JFK and 9/11

By G. Pascal Zachary, AlterNet. Posted February 3, 2006.


New evidence about JFK's assassination suggests that the real version of the second-most important conspiracy in American history -- the 9/11 attacks -- may not be uncovered for years.
020306_story

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by G. Pascal Zachary

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Conspiracies are a staple of American political discourse. They are like popcorn for movie-goers, "The Da Vinci Code" for mystery freaks. Extraordinary events occur in American life, and the official explanations can seem flimsy, unconvincing, even downright deceitful. In any discussion of recent American history, there is always someone lurking on the margins, ready to explain surface confusions and contradictions by invoking a "secret code" that makes plain an underlying, long-hidden and often breathtaking reality.

Conspiracies also live long lives, and often events viewed with certainty in one era are viewed wholly differently in another.

For evidence of this process look no further than the most vexing conspiracy in American history, the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in November 1963. For decades, there was wide agreement that there was no conspiracy at all. Kennedy had been killed by a lone gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald, in a lonely if incomprehensible act. The death traumatized the U.S. and remains perhaps the most riveting, sad and perplexing moment in our nation's past.

The Warren Commission, charged with investigating Kennedy's murder, pleased few people, and for years conspiracy theories flourished, centered around the idea that only a group could have killed the president in Dallas, and that this group probably was directed by rogue elements in the CIA, the organized crime group known as the Mafia and Cuban exiles disappointed by Kennedy's failure to follow through with a coup against nationalist leader Fidel Castro.

But over time, doubts about Oswald's supreme role were dispelled, and as recently as a decade ago, an acclaimed book entitled "Case Closed" persuasively argued for a lone gunman.

Over the past 10 years, however, new evidence, chiefly in the form of recollections by close associates of President Kennedy and newly released government documents, have caused a sea-change in our understanding of the Kennedy assassination. Much of this evidence is cogently presented in a new book, "Ultimate Sacrifice: John and Robert Kennedy, the Plan for a Coup in Cuba and the Murder of JFK." Written by the dogged Lamar Waldron, one of the premier researchers into Kennedy's death (and with the assistance of writer Thom Hartmann), "Ultimate Sacrifice" demolishes the lone-gunmen theory. Among the book's most startling revelations is the rock-solid account of a planned attempt on JFK's life in Tampa, Fla., only days before his murder in Dallas.

Questions remain about exactly who organized Kennedy's death and why. Waldron presents strong evidence that organized crime figures, angered by an attack on their interests by the Kennedy administration, took revenge on the president. He explains the subsequent government cover-up by saying Kennedy loyalists wished not to disclose the truth about further efforts to depose Fidel Castro. An alternative theory, recently expressed by David Talbot, the founding editor of Salon, who is writing a biography of Robert F. Kennedy, gives a grander role in the assassination to rogue elements of the CIA.

The details are important, but the larger meaning of our new understanding of the Kennedy assassination leads some to wonder if the official version of the second-most important conspiracy in American history -- the conspiracy to launch the 9/11 attacks -- may not be accurately decoded for many years.

The C-word

At Tuesday night's State of the Union address, the speaker of the C-word was none other than the master of ceremonies himself, President George Bush. On the heels of reminding us that "our country must also remain on the offensive against terrorism here at home," Bush uttered the C-word in reference to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

"It is said that, prior to the attacks of Sept. 11, our government failed to connect the dots of the conspiracy," Bush declared. The president offered no evidence for his conspiracy theory because the implication was clear: Everyone knows we have "connected the dots" and know what happened on 9/11.


Digg!

G. Pascal Zachary is the author of "Endless Frontier: Vannevar Bush, Engineer of the American Century."

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
You gotta be kidding......Right?
Posted by: citizen chump on Feb 3, 2006 12:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
....ya' mean the way the "communists" burned the Reichstag?
---that took a long time to figure out?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: You gotta be kidding......Right? Posted by: Blann-an-daaf
Conspiracy?
Posted by: Colin on Feb 3, 2006 2:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a leftie, I feel I have to be more careful about propogating conspiracy theories than the harder nosed. Thanks to the way the right have manovered themselves, you're already up against a wall with people thinking you're nuts and you only harm you cause by playing into their hands and talking unsubstantiated nonsense.

Having said that, there does seem to be something amiss in the 9/11 thing. Personally, the only document I've seen that makes me wonder was written by Prof. Steven Jones, a Professor of Physics at Brigham Young University. Whereas he draws no conclusions, the evidence he presents to suggest there's more to the attacks than meets the eye is rather compelling. You can find a link to his work here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Conspiracy? Posted by: Orwells_nightmare
» RE: Conspiracy? Posted by: kelly.nickell
» RE: Conspiracy? Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Conspiracy? Posted by: rockpicker
» RE: Conspiracy? Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Conspiracy? Posted by: kelly.nickell
» RE: Conspiracy? Posted by: jag585
» RE: Conspiracy? Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Conspiracy? Posted by: jag585
» RE: Conspiracy? Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Conspiracy? Posted by: jag585
» RE: Conspiracy? Posted by: mountainrider
» RE: Conspiracy? Posted by: Againstthewindwalking
» RE: Conspiracy? Posted by: Doug Roberts
» RE: Conspiracy? Posted by: stopthebushies
» RE: Conspiracy? Posted by: kelly.nickell
» RE: Conspiracy? Posted by: Jesse
» Thank you!!! Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Thank you!!! Posted by: stopthebushies
» RE: Thank you!!! Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Conspiracy? Posted by: jag585
» RE: Conspiracy? Posted by: kelly.nickell
» RE: Conspiracy? Posted by: Lizka
» RE: Conspiracy? Posted by: kelly.nickell
» RE: Conspiracy? Posted by: Welfl
» On the free fall... Posted by: brunowe
» RE: On the free fall... Posted by: Welfl
» RE: On the free fall... Posted by: stopthebushies
» RE: On the free fall... Posted by: brunowe
» RE: On the free fall... Posted by: Welfl
» RE: On the free fall... Posted by: brunowe
» RE: On the free fall... Posted by: Welfl
» RE: On the free fall... Posted by: brunowe
» RE: On the free fall... Posted by: Welfl
» RE: On the free fall... Posted by: brunowe
» RE: On the free fall... Posted by: Welfl
» RE: Conspiracy? Posted by: Lizka
» RE: Conspiracy? Posted by: kelly.nickell
» RE: Conspiracy? Posted by: Jesse
» RE: Conspiracy? Posted by: Knowmad
» RE: Conspiracy? Posted by: Jesse
» RE: Conspiracy? Posted by: brunowe
» Bldg 7? Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Bldg 7? Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Conspiracy? Posted by: stopthebushies
» RE: Conspiracy? Posted by: kelly.nickell
» RE: Conspiracy? Posted by: YogiBear
» Protest too much? Posted by: Knowmad
» RE: Protest too much? Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Your rabid reaction Posted by: Knowmad
» RE: Protest too much? Posted by: mountainrider
» RE: Conspiracy? Posted by: Lizka
» RE: Conspiracy? Posted by: kelly.nickell
» RE: Conspiracy? Posted by: Jesse
» RE: Conspiracy? Posted by: kelly.nickell
» RE: Conspiracy? Posted by: jag585
» RE: Conspiracy? Posted by: Welfl
» RE: Conspiracy? Posted by: brunowe
» Gramps Posted by: gramps
» RE: Conspiracy? Posted by: Lizka
From little acorns
Posted by: hquain on Feb 3, 2006 4:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The appeal of this argument rests on two fallacies. First, that grand effects must arise from grand causes. Second, that the beneficiaries of an event must have been its instigators. Both are natural in the associative world of human thinking, but neither is rational or particularly tenable empirically.

Consider this sharp, tendentious glint of exaggeration: "[The Kennedy assassination] remains perhaps the most riveting, sad and perplexing moment in our nation's past." Of huge events, the assassination of Lincoln was far more devastating. Of petty mis-steps, the choice of butterfly ballots by a single election commissioner, a tiny nonconspiratorial stupidity, has apparently all but put an end to the Republic. The beneficiaries of the ballot decision had nothing to do with it; they were merely quick to take advantage. This last reminds us that if we wish to change the world, or keep it, we must try to pay attention to it, as it is.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: From little acorns Posted by: rockpicker
» RE: From little acorns Posted by: jag585
» RE: From little acorns Posted by: eringhorm
» RE: From little acorns Posted by: Blann-an-daaf
» RE: From little acorns Posted by: Dennmark
» RE: From little acorns Posted by: stopthebushies
» butterfly ballots? Posted by: Iconoclast421
Conspiracy II .
Posted by: douglashoyt on Feb 3, 2006 5:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here are some interesting links to information which could be usefull in understanding the events of 9/11.

On the colapse of the buildings: I now believe there is evidence to suggest that they were demolished by controlled demolitions.

http://www.st911.org/

http://www.implosionworld.com/cinema.htm

http://wtc7.net/

http://911research.wtc7.net/
wtc/evidence/videos/wtc1_close_frames.html

Of course, draw your own conclusions, but the colapse of the WTC 7 building looks very similar to the implosion world pictures. The article raise 17 questions which have not been adequately answered.

If this attak was a inside jobe, who did it and why?

Check it out.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I can't help but note that
Posted by: esactun on Feb 3, 2006 6:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
this article presents not one shred of evidence in favor of the conspiracy theories. It's legitimate to present a case for more digging into the events that led to 9/11--I support that wholeheartedly--but better if there are some facts included.

One could easily point out that the extent and formulation of any conspiracy to kill Kennedy proves precisely nothing about 9/11. Add in the "juicy" tone of this piece and the fact that most theories about 9/11 are simply off the hinges ("controlled demolition", fallacious and erroneous comparisions between *vastly* different buildings, etc.), and the proper call for more investigation teeters in danger of seeming nuts-by-association. We can't let the necessary call to figure out what got screwed up on such a massive scale get lumped in with "look out for the black helicopters!"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yes, McCarthy WAS insane!
Posted by: Lizmv on Feb 3, 2006 6:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So was Nixon. And I am convinced Bush is insane. Every time I watch Bush give a speech, I become more convinced he is insane. There is a total disconnect between what he is saying and his facial expression and body language.
Psychopaths can be incredibly charismatic, which allows them the opportunity to become leaders. History is littered with the wreakage of insane leaders.
But nobody TALKS about it! Collectively, we need to pretend that they are good men (and women).
The emperor has no clothes!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Yes, McCarthy WAS insane! Posted by: kelly.nickell
» RE: Yes, McCarthy WAS insane! Posted by: feduphoosier
» RE: Yes, McCarthy WAS insane! Posted by: mountainrider
I am shocked!!!!!
Posted by: Newtopia on Feb 3, 2006 7:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Alternet finally acknowledges that the "official" 9/11 story is completely absurd?

Won't Don Hazen's Democrat buddies come down on him like the Furies? Lots of "truthseekers" have accused him of being a gatekeeper, of refusing to address the issue. This article shocks me, even though it still pegs it as a "conspiracy theory" and has a generally pejorative tone.

Anyway, you don't need to know exactly what happened to know that we have not been told even a shred of the true, full story.

Sadly, we will never know the truth.

And even if we did, no one would listen. You could have the literal smoking gun, and run around shoving it in everyone's face and they would still give you that blank, vapid look. Americans simply don't want to know. It would shatter, once and for all, the delusional bubble they live in... The real obstacle is not the "truth", but base human psychology.

Or, in the words of my friend and colleague Michael Rivero:

"“Most people prefer to believe that their leaders are just and fair, even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which he lives is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one’s self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all.”

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I am shocked!!!!! Posted by: brunowe
» About Facts Posted by: sln70
» RE: About Facts Posted by: brunowe
» RE: About Facts Posted by: sln70
» Some of the links I've used Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Some of the links I've used Posted by: kelly.nickell
» RE: I am shocked!!!!! Posted by: Freedom84
» RE: I am shocked!!!!! Posted by: brunowe
» RE: I am shocked!!!!! Posted by: stopthebushies
» RE: I am shocked!!!!! Posted by: Newtopia
» RE: I am shocked!!!!! Posted by: brunowe
» RE: I am shocked!!!!! Posted by: sln70
» RE: I am shocked!!!!! Posted by: jag585
» BRUNOWE = KNUCKLEDRAGGER Posted by: Newtopia
» RE: BRUNOWE = KNUCKLEDRAGGER Posted by: Prophit
» Ignorance pile on ignorance Posted by: brunowe
» RE: I am shocked!!!!! Posted by: mwildfire
Call me a conspiracy theorist
Posted by: ghostman on Feb 3, 2006 7:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What about the governnment official (I forget who) who in the early 90s said something to the effect of "What we need is another Pearl Harbor." His reasoning was that an attack of this sort on America would allow the government to mobilize public sympathy and support for any foreign policy, regardless of how extreme it might be. You'll recall that the Pearl Harbor attacks (which credible evidence suggests were known about by US government officials in advance) eventually led to the dropping of atomic bombs -- about as extreme as you can get.

Add this revealing statement to the various testimonies of firefighters and witnesses who claim that the buildings were laced with explosives, to the suspicious circumstances surrounding the insurance policies that were taken out on the buildings, to the fact that FEMA (yes, that FEMA) was called in on September 10, to the initially-reported (but since doggedly ignored) 9/11 arrests of four non-arabs caught planting bombs on the George Washington Bridge, to the many ignored (and highly credible and specific) intelligence warnings, to the nonsensical actions of the government both before and after "learning" that planes had been hijacked and used as weapons, to Bush sitting stupidly in the classroom, to the Bush statement that he (impossibly) learned about the first attack by witnessing it live on television, to the testimonies of various scientists and architectural experts who have concluded the buildings only collapsed because they were "pulled", to the safe extradition of Saudis from the country in the days following the attacks, to the fact that bin Laden used to be on the CIA payroll, to the carrying out of the exact kind of foreign policy that "another Pearl Harbor" would allow, to the refocus of the "war on terror" from the capture of bin Laden to the war on Iraq, to the governnment refusal to release footage from nearby hotel and gas station security cameras that captured the Pentagon attack... have I missed anything?

Call me a conspiracy theorist, but the official story does not add up. I don't know if the government helped plan the attacks, if they knew they were going to happen and just looked the other way, or if there is some other explanation, but it is very clear to me that the government is hiding something, and not for purposes of national security, because there are none.

But the main question that remains for me is if I even want the truth on this matter to be told. Considering our moral and intellectual cowardice since 9/11, I struggle to believe that we, as a nation, could handle such a truth. On the other hand, it might be exactly what we need.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: cyclone696.blogspot.com Posted by: Againstthewindwalking
» RE: cyclone696.blogspot.com Posted by: Againstthewindwalking
» RE: Call me a conspiracy theorist Posted by: gonzoskismet
Several areas of interest
Posted by: kenhymes on Feb 3, 2006 8:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is a lot of corroboratory evidence to strongly suggest that the official version of what happened on 9/11/01 is inadequate.

1. Official NYPD interviews with emergency personnel, withheld until recently, and now available (after the official version is fully entrenched?), contain dozens of eyewitness accounts which support the idea of a controlled demolition. Many, many police and fire and EMT personnel report hearing "pop, pop, pop" sounds identical to those of planned demolitions they had been on hand for. Those who were in the buildings report that there were large explosions well after the initial impacts, which are not explainable by any materials normally present in the structure.

2. The WTC7 building was not hit by a plane, but collapsed in precisely the same fashion we all saw in the collapse of the other buildings on video... it folded down like an accordion. No fire could have produced this.

3. The BBC has reported several times, until pressured to drop it by the Blair team, that five of the alleged hijackers were seen and left money trails in Europe well after 9/11. So how were their names linked to the planes? If the FBI's account is faulty in this regard, then given their track record, how can the rest of their report be trusted?

4. There is anecdotal evidence to suggest that Bush knew something was coming. Some right-wing Christian prayer-breakfast attenders have recounted that Bush suggested he had foreknowledge, which they attribute to a close connection with God. His demeanor at the school when the news was given to him has been derided as unfocused and ineffective. My impression (obviously not evidence) is that he was not surprised that something had happened, he was surprised at the specifics.

5. Why were no Air Force jets sent to engage the planes, well after the hijackings were known of?

6. Why were the PDB memos suggesting an imminent attack so lightly brushed aside, by a White House who were so eager to make use of the attack once it happened? How does the posture of aggressive pursuit post-attack, and relentless use of wiretapping and spying technology well before 9/11, square with the complete lack of use of actual information thus gleaned?

Enough to prove one theory or another? Of course not. (I'm inclined to believe it was a double-blind scheme involving actual militants who were used as pawns) Enough to make anyone with an open mind think twice? You bet. Ask yourself this... if it were Clinton or Gore, how would this be handled by the press and the Congress?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Several areas of interest Posted by: greggzachary
» Destruction of Evidence Posted by: nuggets
What do you mean "won't be uncovered for years"?
Posted by: Prophit on Feb 3, 2006 8:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Its already been uncovered, its just being ignored by the powers that allowed it to happen including the mainstream press. Don't forget, Roger Ailes who is the CEO of Fox was the Campaign manager for Bush SR when he ran for President.

Give me a break. Many of us have the evidence on CD's for preservation, books have been written about it and committees formed to study it. I am thinking specifically of the academics who have recently formed such a committee to investigate and report the results of their investigation.

We don't need Congress or the President to pass around the truth, we just need to preserve that which we know and when time comes impeach, try, convict and sentence the criminals for their 'crimes against humanity" in what they did on 9-11. It will come to the fore much sooner than Kennedy. Its already here.

Once those academicians are done with their study, the credibility level will rise to the level it should be at and embarrass them into doing something about it. I intend to wait and then hold community meetins about it and expose all to the general public. If the press ignores it, the people we educate will see the truth of it by the actions of the press. It will be extremelly revealing. P

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Got a problem here...
Posted by: southerndem on Feb 3, 2006 8:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The conspiracy theorists ask, in part, why the hijackers were allowed such easy access to our country and why they were allowed to move so freely. At the time much of this was going on, Clinton was in office and the 2000 election results were far from certain. I have seen substanial evidence that the threat was not taken seriously by the Bush administration, and no reasonable person would argue that Bush has not milked this tragedy for all it's worth (and then some), but to suggest Bush or his cabal had ANY role in orchestrating or arranging the attacks is beyond ludicrous and damaging to the progressive arguments. This would actually support some conservative claims that Clinton was more responsible for 9/11 than Bush, and could easily lead to the determination that it was the Democrats who orchestrated the attack.

Let's maintain our focus: Bush and his team failed to heed multiple warnings, and have used the tragedy to pursue a horrendous foreign policy that has destroyed our standing and credibility in the world, our local economy and domestic programs, and hundreds of thousands of lives. No conspiracy necessary.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Got a problem here... Posted by: sln70
» RE: Got a problem here... Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Got a problem here... Posted by: sln70
» RE: Got a problem here... Posted by: Prophit
» RE: Got a problem here... Posted by: Prophit
Additional resources
Posted by: futurefarm on Feb 3, 2006 8:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I dissagree that this topic is unknowable. In fact is is already largely deciphered. I recommend the DVD called Loose Change 2 available for free download at http://www.question911.com/links.php and from the producer Dylan Avery at http://www.loosechange911.com/ or from Ebay for about $6

Aso available for free download and on Ebay is the DVD called Confronting the Evidence:A Call To Reopen the 9/11 Investigation by Jimmy Walters. This DVD includes Eric Hufschmid's DVD on 9/11, Painful Deceptions. These provide quite alot of information to consider.

Last but certainly not least, I recommend the work of Ralph Schoenman and Mya Shone. They broadcast on WBAI from NYC and have audio archived their shows on their website at http://takingaim.info/shows/audio.html I hope those who feel that the events of our time our beyond our comprehension will give these two people some attention.

Personally the, uncontested, fact that the steel panned and carpet covered concrete floors were pulverized top to bottom and spread out over the city should be evidence enough for anyone of a controlled demolition.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thanks For The Perspective
Posted by: Wacre on Feb 3, 2006 8:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks for the story Decoding the Secrets of JFK and 9/11 because--unfortunately--what the government often tells us about such matters is generally a small bit of truth buried amongst mountains of nonsense.

For example, the "Single-Bullet Theory", in reference to the Kennedy Assassination, is probably the biggest piece of nonsense that I have ever heard. Just the idea that a bullet could do so much damage, ricocheting off of bone, yet remain almost pristine just boggles the mind.

When you include that the very same bullet does some aerial manuevers that almost defy the the laws of physics then there is no way that a thinking person can believe the Warren Commission's account that says that only a single assassin was involved.

And in reference to 9/11, while I would like to think that the Bush Administration would not do something as horrible as orchestrating the fall of the Twin Towers in Manhattan, it would hardly be the most terrible thing we, as humans, have done to each other (and often for much, much less benefit).

The only thing that doesn't work in favor of such a conspiracy theory is that it would probably have to have a monstrous amount of infrastructure involved; quite possibly hundreds of people, and when you involve so many individuals you exponentially increase the odds of someone running off at the mouth.

The Bush Administration is renown for secrecy, but I doubt that even they would be able to keep the lid on such a story for long (as the leak of President Bush's covert spying program illustrates).

After all, loose lips are aren't only good for sinking ships; they can also bring down a government.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Thanks For The Perspective Posted by: futurefarm
sickofsleaze
Posted by: ladybug1@carrollsweb.com on Feb 3, 2006 9:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
MY 9-11 theory is that Bush was so power drunk over his and Vincente Fox's election victories and his coup of the tax cut that he couldn't be bothered to listen to a warning. Remember how he couldn't wait to go to Mexico to gloat? How many are aware that Foxy is Jeb's brother-in-law? Fox's sister is Jeb's wife Columba. As some have posited, maybe he saw it as a way to grab Iraq's oil. As to why the Air Force was not activated till too late, it was late pm before Bush emerged from beneath the bed on Air Force 1 to "take charge." As for AF1's communications being out of order, that is the kind of BS found in large amounts on the Crawford ranch behind the cows. Does anyone seriously believe the plane carrying the most powerful man in the world would be out of touch for long? He landed in Louisana, Colorado and NORAD hq in Omaha, were their communications also down? When Rove finally thougt of an excuse Bush emerged blathering of Axes Of Evil naming North Korea and Iran. Also part of the agenda was a 3 pronged Bush bonanza. First to distract attenion from Bush's failure, two to lead up to an invasion of Iran, gainng control of its oil and last but far from least the North Korea gambit allowed Bush to revive Reagan's failed Star Wars which when tested failed just as miserably.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: sickofsleaze Posted by: sln70
9/11 a terrorist act? by whom?!
Posted by: monkeywrench on Feb 3, 2006 9:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From the author:
". . .the possibility that the attacks of 9/11 were encouraged by elements of the U.S. government, or that the government looked the other way, permitting al Qaida to carry out its attack on "the homeland." The most persuasive reason to consider a counterconspiracy comes after tallying the beneficiaries of the attacks."

Simply looked the other way? Then who rigged WTC 1 and 2, the twin towers, and especially the barely-damaged WTC 7, with explosives so that ALL THREE of them would fall neatly into their own footprints, exactly like a planned demolition? Considering how difficult this is for professionals to pull off, the odds that this could be coincidence are astronomical! Also keep in mind that before or since, no steel-framed skyscraper has EVER failed due to fire, and that the impact damage to all three WTC buildings was asymetrical, which should have resulted in an asymetrical failure, i.e., toppling over, NOT neatly dropping straight down.

Oh, yeah, and that 1,800 mile-per-hour F-15's, which can cover the distance from Washington to New York in LESS THAN EIGHT MINUTES, and can be scrambled from the ground in less than five (the Washington-NYC nexus is one of the most heavily air-defended regions in the nation), couldn't intercept far slower airliners that were at one time hundreds of miles from their targets? Oh, pu-leeese!

Let's take a look at who benefitted (partial list):
––Bush and the neocons, who got the reason, the "New Pearl Harbor" they wished for in their "Project for a New American Century" (interesting reading, that) in order to accelerate world economic and financial domination (their idea, not mine).
––The military-industrial complex, by the morphing of the war on terror into a war in Iraq, which kept all those factories making guns and tanks and planes a-hummin'.
––The new owner of the World Trade Center, who bought an asbestos-abatement nightmare which would cost millions. He got a DOUBLE-PAYOUT on his insurance (two planes, two separate claims, two payouts. . .yep, that's the ticket!), resulting in a nice profit totalling billions.
––Companies being investigated for corporate fraud: The Securities and Exchange Commission's corporate fraud offices were in WTC 7.

This is only the tip of the iceberg, but enough to show that the official explanation stinks to high hell.

So, I'm not shaking in my boots and peeing my pants or running around with my hair on fire over a possible future attack: I may be nuts, but I do not believe it will happen unless it is deemed necessary by the fascist neocons running our country into the ground. Now, don't get me wrong; I don't think they originated the attack – but I am becoming convinced they took advantage of it, and possibly, POSSIBLY, influenced its design to accomplish maximum social damage (and their political gain) with minimal actual casualties. If we want to find the source of our terror, we need to investigate closer to home.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: 9/11 a terrorist act? by whom?! Posted by: greggzachary
Redhead5050
Posted by: Redhead5050 on Feb 3, 2006 9:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are a couple of interesting DVD's out that might be of interest here. The DVD "Loose Change" and the second edition of "Loose Change" bring up some very interesting questions and responses. Check out these documentaries just to consider another prospective....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» i JUST WATCHED LOOSE CHANGE Posted by: Newtopia
Between "controlled demolition" and "homeopathy for bird flu"
Posted by: esactun on Feb 3, 2006 9:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
we start to sound like the far-right paranoid wingnuts we love to make fun of. This is a very bad time for the left to be losing touch with reality like the GOP leadership has. (And look where that got us.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Want Facts? Try these on for size!
Posted by: Againstthewindwalking on Feb 3, 2006 9:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Robert M. Bowman, James H. Felter, Wany Madsen, John McMurty, Morgan Reynolds, and Andreas von Buelow, Represent the best and brightest in their fields. They conclude Unanimously that the 9/11 comission was dead wrong in their findings!

Structural steel used in ALL buildings in New York city must be listed by Underwriter's Labratory to withstand 2000 degrees for 6 hours. Jet fuel burns at 1800 degrees at optimum conditions. Yet the first tower fell 57 minutes after the frirst plane hit! DON'T BUY IT!!!!!!!

WTC7 was hit by no airplanes and had only minumum fire damage yet it collapsed just 7 hours after the attack! DON'T BUY IT!!!!!

In the entire history of structural engineering, not one steel frame building has been brought down by fire either before or after 9/11! Yet we are to believe that three were brought down in one day? DON'T BUY IT!!!!!

Frank DeMartiini. a project manager for the WTC said the buildings were designed to redistibute loads in the event of an airliner strike, whose effects would be like "pucturing mosquito netting with a pencil". Yet they all completely collapsed in a nice neat pile! DON"T BUY IT!!!!!

Our government was DIRECTLY responsible for those deaths at WTC and are covering it up to aid George Bush in his faccist agenda! BELIEVE IT!!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thank You!!!!!
Posted by: preemptivelove on Feb 3, 2006 10:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
After meeting Don Hazen at a fundraiser and sitting across from him at lunch while my husband went off about the lack of truth we've heard about 9/11, I am relieved to see that AlterNet isn't shrinking from this story! We thought maybe he thought we were nuts.

Thank you AlterNet for injecting even the IDEA of alternative truths. This country needs to have this discussion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Thank You!!!!! Posted by: greggzachary
Ironically…
Posted by: DDZimm on Feb 3, 2006 10:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The right half of the country thinks the left half’s reasoning for the Iraqi occupation is a conspiracy theory, and should the GOP consolidate their coup, in twenty years the textbooks will say “The Iraqi war halted the tyrannical world domination of the most dangerous leader since Adolph Hiter, Saddam Hussein.” Those who win write the history books.

In any case, I was wondering if anyone hard evidence of the installation of Demo-charges in the Two Towers? If anyone has watched Discovery Channel, it’s not exactly easy to get to the load bearing members of a building, and it’s not exactly something you do overnight. Were the towers undergoing fairly large-scale renovation? I haven’t read anything that indicates that.

The other thing I see is why bother? Which would have been more dramatic? The towers imploding or the towers falling over? After all, if you were willing to kill three thousand, another couple thousand would make no difference.

The reason I am skeptical about a 9/11 conspiracy is that if you are willing to go that far, why didn’t the US NOT find WMDs in Iraq? We had military supremacy in the area, we know when other power’s satellites fly overhead, why not drop some Semi-truck rolling laboratories out in the desert and burry them? Send and imbedded news crew in for video, flight them back to the US, have the CIA recruit scientist who will validate they were of Iraqi manufacture, stonewall any request by the UN for independent conformation (after all, who cares what the rest of the world thinks). The Sheeple would fall right into line.

From my perspective, what is more plausible is that the West Ideology has been trampling over Islamic Ideology for so long that we provided the polarization for the Islamic Extremist to consider what was in reality a very soft target, the US, and the GOP jumped on it.

The Kennedy assassination is no less a mystery. After nearly causing WWIII, I think the Kennedy’s were trying to work at reducing US-USSR tensions and that pissed off the Military Industrial Complex, who killed him.

The really, really sad part is that the GOP seems no more capable of being dictatorship than it was in participating in a democracy. However, as someone once said, War is good for Business.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Planting charges Posted by: crz53
» RE: Planting charges Posted by: DDZimm
» Speaking out Posted by: crz53
» RE: Ironically… Posted by: feduphoosier
» RE: Ironically… Posted by: dmb8762
Oh, please....
Posted by: Dadster3 on Feb 3, 2006 10:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is nonsense. I'm no friend of Bush & Co., but as amoral, opportunistic and power hungry as they are, I don't think even the neo-cons would deliberately rig 9/11.

I have heard that the Israelis were across the harbor filming the whole thing. What I don't know is whether they were there before the fact. Does anyone know?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]