Michael Badnarik: Anniversary of a national tragedy

Michael Badnarik at ConstitutionPreservation.org:

I want to extend my sincerest sympathy to all the families that were directly affected by the attack perpetrated on New York City and the American psyche one decade ago. We all remember exactly where we were, and what we were doing when we learned of the attack. Furthermore, the way we live our lives has changed dramatically since that day. We now accept TSA screening at the airports as a given, but I remember a time when anyone could walk right to the gate in order to meet someone as they stepped off the plane. Security forces are so paranoid that I wasn’t allowed to take a photograph of the White House during a short visit to Washington. I spoke to a soldier who had just followed me through airport security at DFW. He told me that on a previous trip to Afghanistan, he was allowed to keep his M-16 and 300 rounds of live ammunition – but TSA agents confiscated his pocket knife. We typically focus on the tragic fatalities that occured early on that September morning, but I hope that we will take some time to reflect on the slow death to our Liberty since that fateful day.

Naturally, television news shows are spending considerable time interviewing survivors of the victims of the attack. The sentence that caught my attention was a woman from Shanksville, Pennsylvania who insisted that the crash site of Flight 93 was sacred ground, and should be respected as a memorial to the 40 people who died in that crash. I mean no disrespect to any of the 9/11 victims, but let’s put these fatalities into perspective. After the Battle of Gettysburg there were 8,900 dead, and 22,000 wounded. After the Civil War there were 212,000 soldiers killed in action, and 625,000 total fatalities. How much more sacred is the ground they died on? Shouldn’t we reflect on their deaths with similar significance? Abraham Lincoln famously said, “But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate, we can not consecrate, we can not hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here.”

It is unnecessary to point out the we cannot bring the dead back to life, but it behooves us to do whatever we can to make sure that the victims of 9/11 did not die in vain. If they could, those who perished might well tell us that Liberty is no longer their problem. Only those of us capable of taking a breath – and thinking clearly – can change the future for ourselves and our children’s children. What exactly might we be expected to do?

I would recommend that we support an independent, in-depth investigation into what REALLY happened ten years ago. The 9-11 truth movement continues to grow as more and more people recognize that the official story repeated ad-naseum by the main stream media is filled with flaws and inconsistencies. We should assiduously follow the evidence until we uncover the cold, unvarnished truth, even if we discover that certain members of our own government were knowlegable, or even complicit in planning the attack. The most important scene from the movie V for Vendetta is when the police chief calls his partner into the office and asks, “If our own government was responsible for the deaths of almost a hundred thousand people… would you really want to know?”

It wouldn’t be the first time that the American government lied to its citizens. They lied about the sinking of the Lusitania to lure us into World War I. FDR orchestrated the attack on Pearl Harbor to trick Americans to support World War II. The government has lied about subjecting soldiers to radiation and other hazarous substances in experiments to determine the effects on the human body. In fact, the federal government has lied about so many things that I personally consider any information from Washington D.C. a lie – unless it can be proved otherwise.

For a list of additional suggestions that you or your Liberty organization can do, simply download a copy of the Articles of Freedom which were created in November of 2009 in St. Charles, Illinois by Continental Congress 2009. I am disappointed that this valiant effort by dedicated patriots from forty-eight of the states has been largely ignored by the general public. Being the eternal optimist, I suggest that it’s not too late to start. Each section contains recommended civic actions by the people. If you want to do more than simply remember the tragedy, I encourage you to join with others to take action against the police state we live in, so that future generations will not be required to remember the next dramatic attack on our cherished way of life.

If not now, then when? If not you, then who?

When I die, Liberty is no longer my problem.

Michael Badnarik

46 thoughts on “Michael Badnarik: Anniversary of a national tragedy

  1. Brian Holtz

    Truthers want to oppose a given war (WWII, War on Terror), but they seem to concede that the war was justified if the pretext for it was authentic.

    If you can’t oppose the “War on Terror” on its merits, you’re a sorry excuse for an antiwar activist.

    MB) FDR orchestrated the attack on Pearl Harbor to trick Americans to support World War II. (MB

    Was Badnarik saying stuff like this during his 2004 campaign, or is this a new development?

  2. paulie Post author

    BH

    Suppose I said that Hitler’s agents set the Reichstag fire.

    Does that mean that I would then be conceding that Nazi repressive measures that used the Reichstag fire as a pretext would have been justified if the fire had actually been set by communists?

  3. Brian Holtz

    You go to (political) war with the history books you have, not with the history books you wish you had.

    Truthers aren’t arguing with historians to correct the historical record. They’re pushing a political agenda that shouldn’t be too hard to sell, and they’re making it much harder to sell.

  4. Andy

    Brian Holtz said: “Truthers want to oppose a given war (WWII, War on Terror), but they seem to concede that the war was justified if the pretext for it was authentic.

    If you can’t oppose the ‘War on Terror’ on its merits, you’re a sorry excuse for an antiwar activist.”

    This comment doesn’t make any sense. I’m not opposed to using force to go after terrorists, I just happen to believe that the force has been directed against the wrong people, as in the people of Afganistan and Iraq. The real terrorist problem exists within our own government.

    I also don’t believe that we the American people should have to sacrifice any of our freedoms in the name of fighting a War on Terror.

    If the War on Terror were for real, then why would the government do all kinds of things to make us less safe, such as infringing on our right to keep and bear arms, waging a War on Drugs which escalates crime by creating black market which artificially increases the profitability of selling drugs, and provoking hostilities with people in other nations by engaging in an interventionist foreign policy?

    If the official government story about 9/11 was true, waging conventional military invasions and occupations of Afganistan and Iraq would be a completely irrational way to go about solving the problem.

  5. Brian Holtz

    Andy @7 is exactly right, modulo the throwaway line about terrorists within our own government. If the task is to argue against Bush’s wars and repressions, you don’t need to make an easy job harder by arguing that 9/11 was an inside job, or that the 9/11 insiders also shot JFK, or that the 9/11 insiders also faked the moon landings, etc.

    @3, I say “seem to concede” because they forsake an easier argument in favor of a much harder argument — which isn’t the case in your analogy. Still, said concession isn’t the only possible explanation; for others, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory#Psychological_origins

  6. RedPhillips

    “FDR orchestrated the attack on Pearl Harbor to trick Americans to support World War II.”

    FDR, did not “orchestrate” Pearl Harbor. That is a bad way to put it. Be he did deliberately antagonize the Japanese in order to provoke an attack to get the war he wanted but the public didn’t. This is a disputed but broadly recognized theory. What is heavily disputed is whether or not FDR had specific foreknowledge of an imminent attack.

    Whether certain people like it or not, automatic skepticism toward official explanations and at least an ear (whether fully embraced or not) for alternative explanations is where the center of gravity is among self-identified activist libertarians.

    Any candidate who doesn’t realize this and trumpets the official line on much of anything is tone deaf and doesn’t understand his audience. I’m not even a l(L)ibertarian and I recognize this. So should they.

    I’m not saying he has to fully embrace conspiratorial explanations either. There would be a political price to pay for that as well. But he needs to be skeptical of the official story and open to inquiry.

  7. paulie Post author

    If the task is to argue against Bush’s wars and repressions, you don’t need to make an easy job harder by arguing that 9/11 was an inside job

    I tend to agree, which is why I don’t like to spend a lot of time on that particular argument, even though I have all kinds of problems with the official narrative…I feel my time is better used on other things.

    Regardless of who carried out the attacks, the policy implications for me are the same.

    I do understand those who feel it is easier to reach some people with the argument that their anger is directed at the wrong target, rather than trying to get them to understand that turning to big government to go after the alleged perpetrators in a ham-handed way is counterproductive.

    I do believe we need new and better investigations. A major crime was committed and never fully investigated. Even some of the authors of the 9/11 commission report have said it has major problems and failed to examine many aspects of the attacks. Much of the evidence was quickly destroyed, with no good explanation as to why. The alleged perpetrators were never indited; when Osama was finally found (if we accept that is what happened), he was killed on the spot, not given a trial.

    I don’t think there is anything crazy – even in appearance – in saying we need a new and better investigation.

    Nothing wrong with asking questions.

  8. Jill Pyeatt

    BH @ 4: “Truthers aren’t arguing with historians to correct the historical record. They’re pushing a political agenda that shouldn’t be too hard to sell, and they’re making it much harder to sell.”

    I honestly can’t imagine what Mr Holz means by such a broad statement. “Truthers” range from people who simply don’t understand a few things about the Official Conspiracy Theory and ask a few questions, to people with all kinds of unproven ideas, such as no planes hit the WTC, or it was really a nuclear weapon. “Truthers” now number in the hundreads of thousands. What a ridiculous notion that Brian knows what the motives are of all these indiviuals, who come from all over the globe.

    My motive is that I believe we owe it to the victims and their families to find out what really happened. Is that a “political agenda”? I don’t know, and I don’t care. One thing for sure: we’re not going away.

    Thank you, Mr Badnarik, for speaking out.

  9. Brian Holtz

    Readers can judge for themselves whether it’s the case that 9/11 Truthers generally have a political agenda. They can also judge for themselves whether @4 I claimed to “know what the motives are of all these individuals, who come from all over the globe”.

    Paulie, let me know where I can read more on this claim: “Even some of the authors of the 9/11 commission report have said it has major problems and failed to examine many aspects of the attacks.”

    P.S. It’s now 5 years since I posted my http://knowinghumans.net/2006/08/questions-for-911-truth-movement.html

    Still waiting for a serious attempt at answers. I’d add an 11th question: why didn’t the Bush administration plant WMDs in Iraq?

  10. paulie Post author

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission#Work_of_commissioners_after_the_commission_ceased_its_functions

    Work of commissioners after the commission ceased its functions

    Months after the commission had officially issued its report and ceased its functions, Chairman Kean and other commissioners toured the country to draw attention to the recommendations of the commission for reducing the terror risk, claiming that some of their recommendations were being ignored. Co-chairs Kean and Hamilton wrote a book about the constraints they faced as commissioners titled Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission.

    The book was released on August 15, 2006 and chronicles the work of Kean (Commission Chairman) and Hamilton (Commission Vice-Chairman) of the 9/11 Commission. In the book, Kean and Hamilton charge that the 9/11 Commission was “set up to fail,” and write that the commission was so frustrated with repeated misstatements by officials from The Pentagon and the Federal Aviation Administration during the investigation that it considered a separate investigation into possible obstruction of justice by Pentagon and FAA officials.[18]
    [edit] Government deception

    Tenet testified before a public hearing of the Sept. 11 Commission investigating 9/11, that he did not meet with Bush in August 2001, the month before the September 11 attacks. The same evening after the hearings, a CIA spokesman corrected Tenet’s testimony, stating that Tenet did indeed meet with Bush twice in August.[19] Tenet in his memoir writes of his memorable visit to Bush at Bush’s ranch in Crawford, Texas, August 2001.[20]

    John Farmer, Jr., senior counsel to the Commission stated that the Commission “discovered that…what government and military officials had told Congress, the Commission, the media, and the public about who knew what when — was almost entirely, and inexplicably, untrue.” Farmer continues: “At some level of the government, at some point in time … there was a decision not to tell the truth about what happened…The (NORAD) tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public.”[21] Thomas Kean, the head of the 9/11 Commission, concurred: “We to this day don’t know why NORAD told us what they told us, it was just so far from the truth.”[22]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_9/11_Commission#.22Set_up.22_to_fail

    The two co-chairs of the Commission, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, believe that the government established the Commission in a way that ensured that it would fail. In their book Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission describing their experience serving, Hamilton listed a number of reasons for reaching this conclusion, including: the late establishment of the Commission and the very short deadline imposed on its work; the insufficient funds (3 million dollars), initially allocated for conducting such an extensive investigation (later the Commission requested additional funds but received only a fraction of the funds requested and the chairs still felt hamstrung); the many politicians who opposed the establishment of the Commission; the continuing resistance and opposition to the work of the Commission by many politicians, particularly those who did not wish to be blamed for any of what happened; the deception of the Commission by various key government agencies, including the Department of Defense, NORAD and the FAA; and, the denial of access by various agencies to documents and witnesses. “So there were all kinds of reasons we thought we were set up to fail.”[21]

  11. paulie Post author

    I’d add an 11th question: why didn’t the Bush administration plant WMDs in Iraq?

    Tried and failed, at least according to some reports I recall reading around that time.

    I don’t feel like tracking them down again this second, but perhaps someone else here would.

  12. Thomas L. Knapp

    Jill @ 11,

    Under the broad definition of “truther” you present, I’d say the number is more like tens of millions than hundreds of thousands.

    I happen to agree with that definition.

    My guess is that when Holtz asserts a “political agenda” on the part of “truthers,” he’s referring to the tiny portion of that broader group who continue to push the “inside job” story.

    When a group continues to promote an inflammatory claim for which precisely zero credible evidence has emerged despite a decade of looking for (and sometimes just plain manufacturing from whole cloth) such evidence, it’s a good bet that one or both of two reasons are involved. Those two reasons are to make money from, or to politically influence, the gullible.

  13. Jill Pyeatt

    Here are a couple more links re: the people involved with writing the 9/11 Commission Report.

    http://www.oldthinkernews.com/?p=340
    http://www.salem-news.com/articles/september112009/911_truth_9-11-09.php

    Also, I looked at Brian’s list of ten questions, and I notice they’re 5 years old. Many of those questions have been answered in readily available reports, from many sources. If Mr. Holtz wants answers to his questions, I’d be happy to provide some links, but I always suggest starting with http://www.ae911truth.org (Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth).
    I think he’s missing a big point, however, about the Truth movement. We don’t know what happened that day–that’s why we’re asking questions. Most Truthers don’t come out and say we know exactly what happened, because we don’t know. All we know is that many things about the Original Conspiracy Theory don’t add up, and defy some basic rules of physics.

    Here’s an article I found yesterday written by a man who was part of Ronald Reagan’s administration, Dr. Paul Craig Roberts.

    http://www.infowars.com/does-911-truth-have-a-chance/

    Then there’s this:.
    http://lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts324.html

  14. Good luck and lessons from history ----- on the current corrupt system .... Lake

    Statements by high-ranking officialsOne perspective is given by Vice Admiral Frank E. Beatty, who at the time of the Pearl Harbor attack was an aide to the Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox and was very close to President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s inner circle, with perspicuous remarks as:

    “Prior to December 7, it was evident even to me… that we were pushing Japan into a corner.

    I believed that it was the desire of President Roosevelt, and Prime Minister Churchill * that we get into the war, as they felt the Allies could not win without us and all our efforts to cause the Germans to declare war on us failed; the conditions we imposed upon Japan—to get out of China, for example—were so severe that we knew that nation could not accept them.

    We were forcing her so severely that we could have known that she would react toward the United States.

    All her preparations in a military way—and we knew their over-all import—pointed that way.”[60]

    Another “eye witness viewpoint” akin to Beatty’s is provided by Roosevelt’s administrative assistant at the time of Pearl Harbor, Jonathan Daniels; it is the telling comment about FDR’s reaction to the attack –

    “The blow was heavier than he had hoped it would necessarily be. … But the risks paid off; even the loss was worth the price. …”[61]

    “Ten days before the attack on Pearl Harbor”, Henry L. Stimson, United States Secretary of War at the time “entered in his diary the famous and much-argued statement – that he had met with President Roosevelt to discuss the evidence of impending hostilities with Japan, and the question was ‘how we should maneuver them [the Japanese] into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves.'”[62]

    However Stimson, in reviewing his diary after the war, recalled that the commanders at Pearl Harbor had been warned of the possibility of attack, and that the poor state of readiness that the attack had revealed was a surprise to him:

    [Yet] General Short had been told the two essential facts: 1) a war with Japan is threatening, 2) hostile action by Japan is possible at any moment.

    Given these two facts, both of which were stated without equivocation in the message of Nov. 27, the outpost commander should be on the alert to make his fight. . . .

    To cluster his airplanes in such groups and positions that in an emergency they could not take the air for several hours, and to keep his antiaircraft ammunition so stored that it could not be promptly and immediately available, and to use his best reconnaissance system, the radar, only for a very small fraction of the day and night, in my opinion betrayed a misconception of his real duty which was almost beyond belief. . . .[63]”

    ……… http://www.wikipedia.com

    * cohorts in their respective navies in WWI, bff over decades ……….

  15. Brian Holtz

    I don’t see anything @13 that indicates either 1) material facts that the 9/11 report got wrong or 2) aspects of the attacks that the report failed to examine.

    Jill, I doubt you can cite a serious answer to any of my questions, let alone all 10+1.

    When in my 2006 congressional campaign I ran against a prominent Truther, I invested way more time than I should have into researching 9/11. See http://knowinghumans.net/2006/09/fact-checking-911-truth-movement.html for a taste. When I last dug into this, the leading 9/11 conspiracy-debunking sites were far more impressive than the leading 9/11 conspiracy sites. I doubt that has changed, given e.g. Mr. Pyeatt’s recent recycling here of the tired PNAC “pearl harbor” quote, without bothering to tell readers that the context is ballistic missile defense. The same old Truther misinformation keeps getting recycled, and it’s just gotten way too boring for me.

  16. Jill Pyeatt

    BH @ 19: “Jill, I doubt you can cite a serious answer to any of my questions, let alone all 10+1. ”

    Whatever, Brian.

    Those who know me know that I’m much too busy to waste time on someone who isn’t interested in genuine discussion about this topic. So much actual physical evidence has come out in the last 5 years that debunking sites don’t even try to keep up any more. You go right ahead and keep your head in the sand–it doesn’t bother me at all.

  17. Jill Pyeatt

    BH @ 19: Actually, I’m so horrified that you are defending the PNAC that it seems we’re speaking a completely different language. I’m sure many readers here have read the document and might not see it as a document worth defending. As I said earlier, “Whatever”.

  18. Brian Holtz

    I didn’t “defend PNAC”. I diagnosed blatant Truther disinformation in the use of the PNAC’s “pearl harbor” quote. My diagnosis stands unrebutted, and my 10+1 questions stand unanswered.

  19. Jill Pyeatt

    Well, Brian I took the time to post some links above in # 16 in answer to some of your questions, and it’s obvious you haven’t read them. So, why would I bother to keep giving you info? I know you didn’t read those articles, because if you did, you’d be discussing that instead of trying to bait me. Seriously–I don’t have time for games, and to have you waste my time. Spend an hour or two doing honest research yourself, to educate yourself as to what’s happened in the last 5 years, then I’ll gladly talk. For hours, if you’d like.

    Spend some time on Facebook. You’ll be amazed at the information posted there, from many different credible sources.

  20. Brian Holtz

    Jill, your two links @16 provide absolutely nothing that specifically indicates either 1) material facts that the 9/11 report got wrong or 2) aspects of the attacks that the report failed to examine. They’re pure hand-waving.

    “If Mr. Holtz wants answers to his questions, I’d be happy to provide some links”

    I’d be happy with an answer to even one of my questions. But when I see that Truthers are still spreading clumsy disinformation like the PNAC “pearl harbor” quote, I’m confident that the “Truth” movement still can’t grapple with the basic critical thinking underlying my questions.

  21. paulie Post author

    I don’t see anything @13 that indicates either 1) material facts that the 9/11 report got wrong or 2) aspects of the attacks that the report failed to examine.

    As I already said earlier, I personally don’t find the subject to be worth spending a lot of my time on. @13 answered the specific question you asked me.

  22. Jill Pyeatt

    Brian @ 24: “Even some of the authors of the 9/11 commission report have said it has major problems and failed to examine many aspects of the attacks.”

    Apparently I misunderstand your question. I provided information about the writers of the 9/11denouncing their work. The book Paulie mentioned, “Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission” not only describes why the authors of the 9/11 Commission don’t believe their own work, but also does provide information on parts of the report which weren’t true.

  23. Brian Holtz

    @26 You provided information about 9/11 report authors denouncing the process and constraints under which they wrote their work.

    I still would be very interested in hearing about either 1) material facts that the 9/11 report authors say it got wrong or 2) aspects of the attacks that the report’s authors say it failed to examine. I don’t think either exists, and I’m not going to do your homework to show that they do. It’s not my claim. You guys either have some inkling of the specifics behind it, or you don’t.

  24. paulie Post author

    You provided information about 9/11 report authors denouncing the process and constraints under which they wrote their work.

    Yep. I think it provides a good case for a new investigation all in itself, everything else aside.

    I still would be very interested in hearing about either 1) material facts that the 9/11 report authors say it got wrong or 2) aspects of the attacks that the report’s authors say it failed to examine.

    That exceeds the extent of my original claim that you were responding to.

    I demonstrated what I said.

    If you think I said more than I actually did, that’s unfortunate, but I am not interested in being assigned extra homework based on your misinterpretation of my statements.

    Readers can read the wikipedia entries referenced, follow the links they provide if so inclined, and draw their own conclusions.

  25. Brian Holtz

    Paulie, you said “some of the authors of the 9/11 commission report have said it has major problems and failed to examine many aspects of the attacks.”

    You’ve identified no such “aspect”.

    And instead of identifying any “major problems” IN the report, you’ve just cited difficulties and turf wars that occurred while the report was being written.

    Yawn.

    So the only interesting thing I’ve learned here is that when Truthers make noises suggesting that some 9/11 report authors have disavowed its truthfulness or comprehensiveness, I should take such noises with a big brick of salt.

    It reminds me of how Truthers repeat the PNAC “pearl harbor” quote, when they (should) know that PNAC was talking about ballistic missiles.

    Again: the more I investigate 9/11 “Truth”, the less I trust the information coming from “Truthers”.

  26. paulie Post author

    Brian, you can characterize what I have posted above any way you want. It remains there for anyone else who wants to follow the trail of evidence.

    Enough other people have raised enough other questions about that report that I believe a new one would be warranted even if its authors stood by it 100%.

    And I believe the authors of the prior commission have in fact identified substantial problems with their report since then, regardless of how you characterize it.

    I’ve already spent much more time on this than I care to any time soon.

    Yes, I could spend a lot of time and go back and forth with you on this, but I have better things to do (and I already explained why).

  27. Brian Holtz

    The people asking for a new report usually haven’t read the ones we already have:

    • FEMA World Trade Center Building Performance Study
    • Congressional Joint Inquiry Into 9/11 Intelligence
    • 9/11 Commission Report
    • NIST Pentagon report
    • NIST WTC 1/2 report
    • NIST WTC 7 report
    • Popular Mechanics Debunking 9/11 Special Report
    • Purdue University’s report on WTC collapse

    Again: if any of the authors of the above reports now disagree with any of the important facts or conclusions therein, I remain eager to hear about which facts or conclusions they question — especially if the issue isn’t already addressed at http://www.debunking911.com.

  28. Brian Holtz

    Michael, that video fails in the very first paragraph of its transcript: “the most heavily-defended airspace in the world, overpowering the passengers and the military combat-trained pilots on 4 commercial aircraft before flying those planes wildly off course for over an hour without being molested by a single fighter interceptor.”

    The complaint about “overpowering” is of course silly.

    “Off course for over an hour” can only be a flat-out lie. From hijacking to crash for each of the four flights was 32 min for AA11, 21min for UA175, 46min for AA77, and 35min for UA93.

    The complaints about air defense are willfully ignorant. Page 34 of the 9/11 Commission Report summarizes the actual facts. NEADS was not in the business of shooting down hijacked airliners that morning until after the second tower was hit, but for only the first crash did NEADS have any advance notice (9 minutes) from the FAA.

    Debunking the rest of the video’s disinformation is left as an exercise for the reader.

  29. Michael H. Wilson

    Brian I never said I agree with it. I’ve read one book on the whole issue and am much like Paulie. Too many unanswered questions and better things to spend my time on, but it is a fun video.

  30. LP voter

    I’d add an 11th question: why didn’t the Bush administration plant WMDs in Iraq?

    Tried and failed, at least according to some reports I recall reading around that time.

    Valerie Plame’s team helped thwart the effort by the neocons to do so.

  31. LP voter

    continues to promote an inflammatory claim for which precisely zero credible evidence has emerged despite a decade of looking

    Why are you promoting the inflammatory statist conspiracy theory for which precisely zero credible evidence has emerged?

    Is it because you want genocide against muslims?

    Or just because you advocate a repressive police state for America?

  32. Brian Holtz

    Sigh. Valeria Plame did no such thing. A rumor about Plame stopping a Mossad WMD-planting plot is sourced without corroboration to one Thomas Heneghan, a self-described “international intelligence expert”. He publishes stuff like the following on his web site:

    The foreign mercenaries have been given high-level laser and satellite technology, that are transmitted from satellite signals, which can be used against American Citizens for the purpose of destabilizing them, physically and mentally.

    Homosexual gays and lesbians who are “IN-THE-CLOSET” are a MAJOR THREAT TO NATIONAL SECURITY being vulnerable to blackmail and extortion by self-serving, hostile entities against the safety, security, sovereignty and best interests of the American People.

    Patriotic, God-loving, peaceful Jewish People are NOT the same as the war mongering ZIONIST KHAZARIAN Jews.

    NOTICE: Occasionally the Bush-Clinton Crime Family Syndicate controlled NSA and FBI Division 5 and/or Israeli Mossad, invade this intelligence blog changing or removing images, pictures and phraseology and even disconnect the link from the internet for the purpose of trying to keep you, the American People, ill-informed.

  33. paulie Post author

    Is it because you want genocide against muslims?

    Or just because you advocate a repressive police state for America?

    Knapp certainly does not. For that matter, neither does Holtz. I disagree with them about the “zero evidence” contention, but as I said I do not want to spend my time on detailing that evidence.

    I did invite some other people who may have more of an interest in doing so to post here, but so far they haven’t and I don’t know if any will.

    If I am not mistaken, Knapp agrees with me that there should be new investigation(s) into 9/11. Holtz does not.

    I disagree with the motives that Holtz ascribes to all 9/11 truthers and the motives “LP voter” ascribes to all those that subscribe to those who believe the US government’s officially approved conspiracy theory of 9/11. While those motives they mention on either side are the case for some portion of the people on either side, I don’t believe they are the motives of most of the people on either the “inside job” or “19 Arabs with boxcutters” conspiracy theory sides.

    They are certainly not the motives of the “no particular theory” folks who just want new investigation(s).

  34. paulie Post author

    By the way, I liked Bob Barr’s answer when I asked him about this in person in a non-formal setting with a few people around. I don’t remember the exact words he used but I will paraphrase them as closely as I can:

    Some of my friends believe that it was carried out by people in the US government, and some of my friends believe it was carried out by Muslim terrorists. I believe my friends are correct.

  35. Thomas L. Knapp

    LPV@36,

    Why are you promoting the inflammatory statist conspiracy theory for which precisely zero credible evidence has emerged?

    Which inflammatory statist conspiracy theory would that be? If you’re talking about the “official account,” I have never promoted that and have questioned significant elements of it.

    Is it because you want genocide against muslims?

    Or just because you advocate a repressive police state for America?

    I want/advocate neither of those things.

    And even if I did, and even if the “official account” of 9/11 was flawless in every respect, and even if I endorsed that account, that account would justify neither of those things.

    Next strawman?

  36. Robert Capozzi

    39 P: Some of my friends believe that it was carried out by people in the US government, and some of my friends believe it was carried out by Muslim terrorists. I believe my friends are correct.

    me: Barr said that? Cool! There’s a story about Buddha that goes something like that. One of Buddha’s followers made an insistent point. Buddha said: “you’re right.” Another Buddha follower made the opposite point, equally insistently, and Buddha said, “You’re right.” A third Buddha follower said, “Buddha, they’ve made exactly opposite points, they can’t both be right.” Buddha said, “You’re right.” 😉

  37. Brian Holtz

    @38

    I wouldn’t say “zero evidence”. I’d say there’s insufficient evidence to make an inside job even remotely plausible. I’d rate the likelihood of top government foreknowledge of the 9/11 plan at 0.1%, and of controlled demolition at 0.001%.

    I’m against new taxpayer-funded investigations of 9/11, but I welcome private investigations into conspiracies — like Popular Mechanics on 9/11, or Gerald Posner on 11/22.

    I never said “all truthers”. I said “9/11 Truthers generally have a political agenda”.

    I believe al Qaeda’s conspiracy theory, not Bush’s. I don’t believe the theories of Bush/Cheney that

    • Cheney’s first shoot-down orders came from Bush
    • “The terrorists hate us for our freedoms”
    • “”America was targeted for attack because we’re the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world”
    • “there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida that involved training on BW and CW”
    • etc.
  38. Thomas L. Knapp

    BH @ 42,

    You write:

    “I wouldn’t say ‘zero evidence’. I’d say there’s insufficient evidence to make an inside job even remotely plausible.”

    Are you aware of any evidence which:

    1) Is credible as a claim of fact; and

    2) For which the most reasonable explanation is that 9/11 was an “inside job?”

    If so, I’d be interested in looking at that evidence. Contra Andy, et. al, my mind is not closed on the subject.

    Personally I’d rate the likelihood of top (US) government foreknowledge of the 9/11 plan much more highly than you do, but the follow-up question is “what degree of detail did that foreknowledge include?”

    My suspicion is that the foreknowledge that existed would look, in hindsight, like enough to have stopped the attacks (as a matter of fact, given the Moussaoui arrest, that seems like a slam-dunk), and that part of the resistance to deeper investigations had to do with not wanting to look bad for not having put the pieces together in time.

    As far as foreknowledge due to high-level complicity in, or even ultimately being behind, the attacks is concerned, like I said, I’m willing to look at the evidence for that if anyone ever presents any that meets the two tests listed above. But after ten years of waiting for such evidence and asking for such evidence, I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for someone to come up with it.

  39. Brian Holtz

    The simplest and thus least implausible inside-job theory would be that insiders saw the plot developing and compromised the immigration and intelligence obstacles that might have disrupted the plot. For example, the CIA knew the names of two of the hijackers as al Qaeda operatives, who entered the country under their own names. For one of them, the CIA even broke into his Dubai hotel room in Jan 2000 and photocopied his passport — including his visa for entry into the U.S. Roughly half of the hijackers either had fraudulent visas or violated their visa conditions after arriving in America, but it might have been very difficult to centrally and surreptitiously orchestrate the the mishandling of these cases.

    At some point, enough absence of dot-connecting becomes evidence of a plan not to connect dots. So far, the disconnects have tragically but plausibly innocent explanations. However, it can take decades for us to learn the full story behind intelligence operations, especially if they involve morally questionable trade-offs: Ultra, VENONA, Mongoose, Northwoods, COINTELPRO.

    It would be cool if Intrade could create a tradeable prediction on 9/11 — e.g. whether the New York Times will report by 2021 that an inside job is now the consensus view among historians/journalists/academics. Of course, many Truthers would just claim that both the NYT and Intrade are in on the caper…

  40. FAN of Dr. STAN

    “For a long time I felt that FDR had developed many thoughts and ideas that were his own to benefit this country, the United States. But, he didn’t. Most of his thoughts, his political ammunition, as it were, were carefully manufactured for him in advance by the Council on Foreign Relations – One World Money group. Brilliantly, with great gusto, like a fine piece of artillery, he exploded that prepared “ammunition” in the middle of an unsuspecting target, the American people, and thus paid off and returned his internationalist political support.” – Curtis Dall, FDR’s son-in-law as quoted in his book, My Exploited Father-in-Law

    I don’t dwell on 9-11. There are some hard case NUT-jobs from around the “globe” who do everyday of their lives. The problem I have and raises concern with me is the bi-partisan leaders of the commission are CFR members ! (The FIX (cover up) was in from the get go!?)

    I ask a sincere question on a forum a few years back and a guy would have physically assaulted me if he could have reached me. I guess because I could question his belief. Maybe someone on here would care to answer my question. It was in regard to some claims. It was pointed out that the PA crash “wasn’t” a true crash (debris field and depth of hole, etc.). Also the Pentagon hole looked more like a missile attack than an aircraft with wings. It was stated that the air crafts supposedly could just have their numbers changed and still be in service, as missiles were used in some cases. I could understand that deception, but my question was and is , if some of the theories are true that the aircraft weren’t used in PA and DC but missiles then WHERE ARE THE PASSENGERS?!

    I don’t know for certain, but would think from things I’ve heard that there is some evidence that the hijackers were being “handled” by elements of the U.S. Gov’t. I’m not of the opinion that our Gov’t was firing missiles at the Pentagon, etc. But I can certainly believe elements were overseeing the actions of the perpetrators.

    “It is impossible to research history and the illuminati without becoming a solid believer” – John Todd

    “Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance.” – Albert Einstein.

    “The Council on Foreign Relations is the American branch of a society which originated in England … [and] … believes national boundaries should be obliterated and one-world rule established.” – Carroll Quigley

    “I am delighted to be here in these new [Council on Foreign Relations] headquarters. I have been often to, I guess, the mother ship in New York City, but it’s good to have an outpost of the Council right here down the street from the State Department. We get a lot of advice from the Council, so this will mean I won’t have as far to go to be told what we should be doing and how we should think about the future.” – Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State, 7/15/2009

  41. paulie Post author

    FoDS,

    When providing quotes, please let us know the source of where you got the quote to make it easier to determine whether the person you are alleging said X Y and Z actually said it or not.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *