Do you support a grand jury or independent criminal investigation of September 11th?

[JackRiddler]

Poll question: Do you support a grand jury or independent criminal investigation of September 11th?

Do you support a probe of September 11th by a grand jury or special prosecutor to explore allegations that government officials, intelligence agents or contractors committed acts of criminal negligence, perjury, obstruction of justice, or actually participated in creating the attacks?

ON EDIT: If you vote, kick, at least until others have had a chance to vote. Thank you.

[JeffR]

1. Was hoping HELL YES would be a choice

settled for YES.

[William769]

4. Agreed.

[JackRiddler]

2. Full disclosure / apology for possible skew.

I support Option 1 and should have therefore placed it somewhere in the middle.

Otherwise I hope these are fair representations of opinions I have encountered here and within progressive circles.

[Prophet 451]

3. Picked "other"

For the simple reason that while I'd support a full, independant investigation, I'm not sure what the difference is between that and a grand jury (I'm fairly familiar with American politics but not with the more precise points).

[JackRiddler]

5. A grand jury is a tribunal of 24 randomly selected citizens...

before whom a prosecutor presents evidence. The prosecutor can call witnesses and subpoena testimony. The jurors decide whether to issue indictments for felonies, in which case a criminal trial would follow. The investigation is limited only by what the prosecutor decides to present, and it can go in any direction once it begins to discover relevant facts.

An independent investigation can take many forms. It can be led by a prosecutor in a relevant jurisdiction (a state or district attorney general or a federal prosecutor) or by a prosecutor appointed especially for this case by Congress or the attorney general (unlikely in this case!).

It can also be an independent panel with the power to issue subpoenas and recommend criminal measures for prosecution. The latter can have practically any structure depending on the mandate calling it to life. In this poll, "independent" would at the least have to mean people without a conceivable conflict of interest or strong partisan background - i.e., from outside the administration, the agencies to be investigated, or party leadership positions.

EDIT: typos

[Prophet 451]

6. Either/or would be fine then n/t

[Madspirit]

7. k&r and YES!...n/t

[juno jones]

8. KICK

We've waited too long for this....

[JackRiddler]

9. Why so few no votes?

At 11 pm Eastern, after a few others, the score is 40 yes, 1 no, 1 other... and this almost certainly means that those who do not agree are not voting. (Not that I don't hope for a majority for yes.)

Come on, skeptics of 9/11 skepticism... please let us know what you think. Are the options unfairly phrased?

[karlrschneider]

12. I voted 'no' mostly for the reason you posed in your own poll.

And it -seems- to me you're looking for vindication of some grand conspiracy theory (from the way you phrased the questions.)

There are plenty of unanswered questions about 9/11 I admit, but other than the obvious fact that Bushco capitalized on the tragedy for political purposes, I have yet to see any rational evidence of complicity let alone causality from our
own government, as corrupt as it is.

If I have misconstrued your point, please feel free to say so.

[JackRiddler]

15. Well in that case I must have phrased it all right...

That's what I was wondering. Whether the options are fair representations of how people who hold certain opinions would put it themselves (if you want to call a couple of them "grand conspiracy theory," that's your definition, not mine).

Vindication for an idea does not come from a poll (except for statements about what a particular group thinks, assuming the poll has validity). Or, as I prefer, "Truth is not measured in mass appeal."

Which means that this poll is an occasion to see what people think, and debate it. I think the issue is paramount and should be forefronted as the originating myth of the Bush regime.

[karlrschneider]

20. Well, it was your poll and you certainly have the right to pose it any way you want,

and of course I absolutely agree that truth isn't vindicated by popular vote...if it were, the earth would still be flat (absent subsequent discoveries and the grudging acceptance by most people)

All of which still leaves in limbo what precisely your poll really implies. Was I wrong in my observation? You didn't really address that with a lot of clarity...

[Taxloss]

135. I voted yes.

Why does this have to be repeated all the time? Supporting a new investigation does not mean that one believes it was an "inside job". Tinfoilers seem to have a very hard time understanding that.

Sadly, a new investigation wil probably never happen, thanks in large part to the "Truth" movement, which made certain that calls for a new investigation can be written off as asshat conspiracy theories forevermore. Nice work, Truthers!

[riverdeep]

10. Voted yes,

but realistically, this is one of those things I'm not sure we'll ever really know. People are still discussing JFK. That Pearl Harbor wasn't such a surprise attack as common history has reported has only relatively recently been challenged.

The only way it would happen, is if people who were in on it got a conscience and came forward. Politically, it's dead in the water.

[LSK]

11. Hell yes n/t

[Change has come]

13. Yes

:kick:

[hang a left]

14. An independent investigation and then put in front of a gj. nt

[Twist_U_Up]

16. without a doubt in my mind

[wildbilln864]

17. Absolutely!

:banghead:

[helderheid]

18. 90% yes - mods, I hope you're listening. The problem about not having the investigations IS

massive conspiracy theories. It's been 5 years since the attacks. We still don't know the truth.

http://myspace.com/helderheidgeloof

[karlrschneider]

21. Why would this matter to the mods? They're just DUers with a couple extra buttons

to click. And the ability to exercise some not always deserved power. (You do know that some freepers have actually attained mod status, right?)

I'm guessing you're in the MIHOP contingent...feel free to correct me if that's a misapprehension. Personally, I don't buy that scenario. I could fit into the lower levels of LIHOP, to a degree because I have serious reservations about the NORAD response and subsequent 'explanations' of it but that's about it. What I will NOT give any credence to is
the insane claims by some concerning 'controlled demolition' at the WTC, 'no airplane hit the Pentagon' and those sorts of mentally defective theories.

[helderheid]

22. Please

go here
http://myspace.com/helderheidgeloof

Spend some time with 9/11 Press For Truth (who our own LaLaRawRaw was a key player in making) and see I am LIHOP. MIHOP isn't too far a stretch though.

Edited to add - just click the YouTube video on the right: http://myspace.com/helderheidgeloof - no conspiracy theories - just ignored news reports

[karlrschneider]

27. I watched about 10 minutes but I HAVE to get some sleep, have a trip tomorrow

I promise to watch it when I'm back. Got it bookmarked. :D

[orleans]

41. thanks for linking to the press for truth video.

i've been watching it for awhile

currently i'm at about 36 minutes left and a couple of the jersey girls just got done saying that if these warnings had been made public maybe not as many people would have been killed--this woman's husband would have gotten out of the tower had he known it was an attack and that warnings were given that the towers were a target.

i just thought: people weren't supposed to get out of the buildings. they weren't supposed to escape. the gop needed them dead--the more horrific, the better to stage this bullshit war on terror.

[helderheid]

24. Mods can move posts to the dungeon.

[rman]

32. Yes, but that the admin's policy

Mods don't make policy.

[helderheid]

48. True. Sorry. ADMINS listen :D

[JuniperLea]

112. When you can state exactly what happened

Without question, then you have the right to say others are mentally defective. Until then, you are just another noise in the night...

[IChing]

19. You bet....I've seen and read too much

and I'm not talking about emotional you-tube stuff,
to say that
"the game is afoot Watson"

[helderheid]

23. post 22

[intheflow]

25. Yes.

I believe it because my gut tells me it's so. And since I've been right on every other gut feeling about fuckup of this administration, from the 2000 election to Iraq to the 2004 election to Katrina, I figure it's a sure bet to be true.

[ContraBass Black]

26. Not if it will take resources currently being used for other investigations.

I would concentrate on investigations more likely to lead to clear results in the near future.

[hang a left]

31. Maybe the pentagon can give us a loan nt

[JackRiddler]

33. for example?

1) Which investigations do you consider more useful?

2) How does it take energy away?

[mhatrw]

36. It was just 3,000 people and we all like the Global War on Terror, anyway.

Why make waves when investigating something like a blue dress could yield such better results?

http://www.justicefor911.org/Appendix4_FSCQuestionRatings_111904.php

[leftofthedial]

28. I won't trust this country until we do

[nadinbrzezinski]

29. These are impresive resulst

[TheUnspeakable]

30. YES !!! K&R!!

[JackRiddler]

[JackRiddler]

34. Just used my own vote for "NO"

Because there's no way it's only 1% who think that way. I'm certain it's a strong majority in favor, but 90%?

If you are against it, please engage...

[mhatrw]

35. So the posters who spend hours a day arguing that every 9/11 question

has been successfully answered are all on vacation this weekend?

[BeFree]

39. They don't get paid to post here?

Nah, that can't be true.

Remember that guy they have in custody who is said to have been the mastermind? Well, when he goes on trial we'll have an investigation, eh?

[JackRiddler]

50. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed - a propaganda construct

Check out this thread, it will be very interesting to you:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x437478

[bobthedrummer]

37. Yep. K&R

[Lars39]

38. From looking at the poll responses,

one would wonder how the discussions wound up in DU's basement.

[wildbilln864]

40. Everyone should also....

go sign this petition. Thank you!
:patriot:

[wildbilln864]

49. So how many here have...

signed it? Please spread it far and wide! Thanks.

[orleans]

42. oh yes. k&r n/t

[mhatrw]

43. kick n/t

[Pastiche423]

44. Yes!!!

[Forkboy]

45. One of the easiest polls ever.

[BlooInBloo]

46. If the conspiracy-theorists PROMISE to shut the fuck up, then I'm down.

[JackRiddler]

51. This isn't about conspiracy theories...

The flimsy construct known as the official story (or "official conspiracy theory") is much more important...

The point of the following (cross-post from September 11 forum) is to show that skepticism is perhaps more productively devoted to the tales told by officials, rather than to the speculations of self-published Internet theorists. I'll be happy to provide references on any topics you're unfamiliar with.

Isn't Cheney's continued linking of the Saddam regime to al-Qaeda and the 9/11 events the most "outrageous conspiracy theory" of all? Did it not have more real-world impact than any other conspiracy theory? Note that he did it again the other day:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/200...

Should 9/11 have been responded to as a crime against humanity, or as an act of war?

Is it untrue that 9/11 was employed as the justification for military actions and domestic policies that would have otherwise been politically difficult or infeasible? Is it untrue that each of these actions and policies was explicitly desired and planned in advance by the main players of the Bush administration?

Do you justify the appointment of Philip Zelikow as the executive director of the 9/11 Commission? Does not this appointment on its face indicate a cover-up?

What did you think of the original appointment of Henry Kissinger to be the chairman of the 9/11 Commission?

Did Condoleezza Rice commit perjury with regard to the Aug. 6th PDB in her testimony before the Commission? Should this not be a priority for prosecution?

Do you agree with the 9/11 Commission conclusion that the question of who financed the alleged hijackers is "of little practical significance"?

Should the Pakistani money connection have been pursued? Should this not be a high priority?

Should Sibel Edmonds be allowed to speak openly on all that she knows? Should this not be a high priority for opponents of the Bush regime?

Should an investigation be pursued to determine which agencies and officials consciously and repeatedly upheld false accounts of the air-defense response timeline? (Suspects to include FAA, NORAD and Gen. Myers, who produced and repeated mutually contradictory accounts in the 2001-2003 period?)

Shouldn't the whereabouts of Gen. Myers (in light of his contradictions with Clarke's account) and of Donald Rumsfeld during the attacks be known?

Should Christie Todd Whitman be indicted for her false statements to the public concerning the dangers of Ground Zero emissions? Shouldn't it be a high priority to investigate which White House officials suppressed the initial EPA report? Wouldn't consciously downplaying this risk and ultimately raising the fatality rate constitute a high crime?

Were the questions posed by the Family Steering Committee the right roadmap for the 9/11 Commission, as Jamey Gorelick and others acknowledged? Is it untrue, as two members of the FSC have detailed, that 70 percent of these questions were fully omitted from consideration the 9/11 CR?

Would you support a new investigation that uses these questions as its basis?

Do you agree there is probable cause for a criminal investigation or grand jury into as-yet unsolved crimes relating to the events of September 11th and their aftermath?
(See http://justicefor911.org - Have you read the actual 2004 complaint to Spitzer up at that site?)

Do you agree with the Commission's deal with the White House on WH documents including PDBs?

What do you think of Cleland's resignation, and his statements that the 9/11 Commission was a whitewash and White House treatment of the investigation was a scam?

Should we know who the sources were for the alleged discovery of the "Brooklyn Cell" including Mohamed Atta by Able Danger in 1999-2000? Was Able Danger of minor historical significance, as the 9/11 Commission claimed?

Wouldn't a serious investigation of September 11th pursue all stories of foreknowledge and forewarnings, especially those from foreign intelligence agencies, with the goal of finding out the sources of such information? (I.e., avoiding any assumptions about their significance until the sources are known?)

Are you aware that claims of put options and suspect financial deals suggesting foreknowledge range far, far beyond the well-known sets of put options placed on United and American stock on the CBOE?

Do you believe that United 93 crashed at 10:03 am without causing a measurable seismic event, and that a natural seismic event of the size usually associated with a plane crash followed in the same area at 10:06 am by coincidence?

Why do you think the anthrax mailings were sent to Daschle and Leahy? (Reports of any other anthrax targets in the government have since been discounted as hoaxes and mistakes.)

What do you think of the FBI's investigations of leaks from the intelligence committee senators and their staff during the Joint Intelligence Committee Investigation of 9/11? Might the FBI actions have been intended as intimidation?

Sibel Edmonds and Anthony Shaffer were disciplined. The FAA tapes of accounts by air traffic controllers who handled the two flights that hit the Towers, taken on the afternoon of September 11th, were destroyed. Myers, Eberhard, Frasca, Maltbie and Bowman all received promotions after 9/11. George Tenet got a medal. Would this combination have an effect on potential whistleblowers contemplating coming forward with whatever bits they know?

Do you believe all hijacker identities have been resolved beyond doubt?

Where was Mohamed Atta in the period from April to June, 2000?

When if ever do you think the al-Qaeda networks that grew out of the "Afghan Arab" movement during the 1980s anti-Soviet jihad stopped having links to US intelligence networks?

Was Osama Bin Ladin allowed to get away from Tora Bora? Was there an airlift of Pakistani ISI and al-Qaeda operatives out of Kunduz, Afghanistan via an air corridor cleared by US forces in November 2001, as Seymour Hersh reported?

Do US intel/military agencies or related networks amongst their contractors have a significant history of engineering false-flag terrorism? Should this enter at all into considerations of 9/11?

What is the significance of Ali Mohamed? Was his story worthy of inclusion in the official 9/11 investigations?

Do these questions, most of which relate to official statements and actions of geopolitical consequence, not indicate higher priorities for skeptics to pursue than the debunking of errors and distortions by amateur researchers as seen in "Loose Change 2," Alex Jones's works, dustification theories, "no planes" theories and the like?

Have you read Michael Ruppert? The 9/11 Timeline edited by Paul Thompson? Nafeez Ahmed? Michel Chossudovsky? Daniel Hopsicker? Were these not the most prominent 9/11 skeptic-researchers by far until 2005?

[Laurier]

57. Yes, it is about conspiracy theories, no matter how many times you spam the

same thing in different threads.

[JackRiddler]

61. It's funny, the contrast between the number of people who object...

whose e-personas I have come to know so well, and what (at least) this poll suggests about how people here really think.

But I see your strategy. When you have no answer, resort to blanket characterization.

"Spam" is in the eye of the recipient, and most recipients here don't seem to agree with you. If you don't like the 9/11 threads, why don't you just AVOID clicking on them? Your problem is solved. But if you do enter: be decent enough to do so with fact and argument. I will not object to your addressing these issues seriously and without pre-emptive contempt.

Alternatively: Why don't you put up a poll asking if posts that question the official story of 9/11 should be viewed as spam?

[Laurier]

64. Because, unlike you, I respect the DU rules

I don't spam and I don't try to circumvent the rules when they are plain and obvious and part of my membership agreement. And I don't post disingenous crap like your last post, either. The question isn't whether "posts that question the official story of 9/11 should be viewed as spam" but rather, whether posting the same nonsense in multiple threads on multiple sub-forums here at DU is spam. The answer is obvious.

It appears that you get a giggle out of fooling the moderators by posting this nonsense in GD, and good on you for getting one past them.

(edited to fix a typo)

[JackRiddler]

65. You make no case that this is nonsense...

- Your calling it so doesn't make it so.

- Please show me the rule you think this or any other post by me violates.

- I don't "get a giggle" and I would not be so brash to try "to fool the moderators." Why do you introduce this unfounded idea? I'm posting something I'm serious about, in the hope of communicating with others. If you disagree with the substance of it, state your disagreement, without resorting to insulting imputations of motive. Thanks.

[Laurier]

117. When did the mods lift their ban on links to your site?

I'm just curious because your signature used to say that DU didn't allow links to your site or to the other links that you're now sporting.

As for your post, the case is made every day in the dungeon about the conspiracy fantasist nonsense. I'm not going to give you the audience you seek here by repeating it. DUers are pretty smart. They can find the 9/11 dungeon if they are so inclined.

[wildbilln864]

68. What you believe Laurier, IS a conspiracy theory!

Whether you admit it or not! Deal with it! You believe the Bush/PNAC cabal's CT if you want to but I and many others know better than to just take their word for anything! Fire never has caused a steel framed highrise building to fall until on 911 we're supposed to believe that three, three fell because of kerosene fires! No! Hell no!
Every policy of this administration has been based on 911. If we are to stop them, we must find out what really happened on 911 and who really did it! :banghead:
And we had no investigation to prove either way, so I say it's time we have one!

[Laurier]

116. Oh, take your nonsense to the dungeon where it belongs.

I don't take the * government's word for anything, and your attempts to claim otherwise are false. Fire does in fact cause buildings to collapse, and has done so since time immemmorial. This isn't about the * government, it's about rational, critical thinking and assessing the evidence instead of running around like Chicken Little as you are doing.

The * administration is horrible, that goes without saying. But tying that to "OMG OMG OMG * did 9/11" is just silly.

If you are unhappy with the investigation that has been done, then it is equally silly to call upon the same frigging government to conduct another one, isn't it? Maybe you can rally the conspiracy fantasists together and fund a new investigation that way - many of them claim that some 80% of the population supports them and I would think that at $1 apiece, that should fund it quite nicely. What are you waiting for?

[BeFree]

52. If the believers of the bushco theory...

...would shut the fuck up, we might get to the bottom of this matter. We'd have a real investigation if they'd quit running their mouths about something they know so very little about.

Face it, there are way too many unanswered questions for ANYONE to be able to tell anyone what really happened. And the country needs, and deserves to know, what really happened.

[BlooInBloo]

53. I just want their promise to shut the fuck up after the investigation NO MATTER WHAT THE RESULT...

... and I'm good with it.

Without that promise, there's no point in going along with it, since they'll bitch anyway.

Give me a guarantee of shutting-the-fuck-up, and I'll ok investigating anything you like.

[BeFree]

54. Who are YOU?

To demand such a promise?

We went along with the 9/11 commission and what did that get us?

Until the truth is known none of us are going to shut up, and if you don't like that, well, that's just too damn bad. Obviously, we don't need you. Except to get the hell out of the way.

[BlooInBloo]

55. Just an average joe willing to trade an investigation for zip-it!

But as you make clear, it's not an *investigation* you want, it's a *finding* - a *specific* finding. Until THAT comes to pass, you all will continue to bitch. It's a pre-judged-kangaroo investigation you want.

[BeFree]

59. Trade?

You want to trade something? Sorry, no trading going on here.

What we now have is a pre-judged-kangaroo investigation... we all agree to that, eh?

What we need to do is move away from that and find the truth. And you are correct, we will continue to bitch until that comes to pass.

[BlooInBloo]

60. You're only after truth, better: "truth", that you've already pre-judged...

Or am I mistaken - COULD you conceivably call it quits if an investigation - any investigation - yielded a no-malicious-American-conspiracy finding?

[BeFree]

62. Of course

You are TOTALLY mistaken. I haven't pre-judged ever since I first judged that it happened just as the news told me it happened. What came about was reading investigations that came out independent of the news and bushco. Some of the stuff I read was pure crap and some of it made me crap, and cry.

I am prepared to see it through and make no demands on anyone who holds no position of responsibility in getting to the bottom of the matter. So, you see, I am demanding the government do the best it can do, and if it ever does do the best it can do, then I will submit.

But you are not going to get me to submit - you have no responsibility but to lead, follow or get out of the way.

[BlooInBloo]

67. So be it. You're off on one thing though - I'm not in your way.

[BeFree]

69. Good

Lets keep it that way.

[BlooInBloo]

72. ROFLMAO! Oooh - big-man-so-scary

[BeFree]

73. No reason to be scairt, relax

Just realize that your demand that anyone STFU is non-operative.

[treestar]

97. Why the obsession with people shutting up?

Any other subjects on which you think people should STFU?

If the investigation turns up evidence of government incompetence, laxness, or LIHOP or even MIHOP will you STFU? Or maybe be more polite about people questioning things you don't want questioned?

It makes me a little suspicious of motivations when you are bothered by the mere mention of something you don't agree with.

[BlooInBloo]

109. You're making shit up. I have no stance on it, nor have I once said otherwise.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

63. What a ridiculous statement.

Talk about pre-conceived opinions... "since they'll bitch anyway". Who is projecting here? :eyes:

[Lilith Velkor]

66. They still haven't STFU about the Maine or Jack the Ripper

9/11 conspiracy theories and tall tales will probably last two to three centuries. That's a long wait so pour a tall one.

[BeFree]

70. Neither

JFK, or Iran-Contra, or WMD in Iraq, nor NCLB, or Clear Skies, or Healthy Forests, nor the false impeachment of Bill Clinton. I could go on but you may already be bored, eh?

[Lilith Velkor]

71. Nor rain, nor snow, nor dark of night

I'm not bored at all, but an elaboration might be interesting. By all means, do go on.

[JackRiddler]

83. self-delete

[JackRiddler]

74. Who is "they"?

You are positing a construct - I'll guess that you refer to it as "conspiracy theorists" - and lumping in all manner of unrelated topics as "their" interest. Meanwhile, you ignore that the official story of 9/11 is a conspiracy theory that has not received adequate scrutiny by the official investigation for anyone reasonable to accept it as conclusive.

My interest in Jack the Ripper is zero. As for the Maine, it was the US Navy that concluded in 1975 that the ship was not blown up by the Spanish, thus repudiating the conspiracy theory that served as the justification for the Spanish-American War.

[wildbilln864]

80. Maybe this will help.

:shrug:
Link

[Lilith Velkor]

93. Excellent example, thank you

The person who wrote this is not a conspiracy theorist, but a conspiracy dogmatist. Such people will never shut the fuck up no matter how many investigations are done, no matter who conducts them.

[Lilith Velkor]

87. Your guess was incorrect

"They" are ordinary folks who sit in bars and breakrooms and bus stops and talk. Just passing the time, shootin the breeze. Out of these conversations come folklore. The more recent the event, the more touchy the subject, hence the use of "conspiracy theory" as a pejorative and other such nonsense. But it's just modern day campfire talk, and expecting people not to share stories is kinda like expecting them to stop exhaling carbon dioxide - it just ain't gonna happen.

As for 9/11, if we accept as a given that the official story was a load of bollocks (and IMO, it was), then what would be the point in another investigation by the same government under the same administration? So they can say, "Whoops, our bad, it was really the Iranians all along!"?

Uh, no. These clowns need to be reined in before we can get to the bottom of anything.

[JackRiddler]

88. I certainly wouldn't support another investigation by the same administration...

It's a risk who ends up doing it, of course. I sure wouldn't want to see the Fitz doing it, based on his three-year effort so far and his own obstruction with regard to Ali Mohamed and other 9/11-related matters.

There are such things as independent counsels, state attorney generals, district attorneys, and as we have learned in the last couple of weeks, federal prosecutors. Also, Congressional subcommittee investigations (supposedly non-Republican ones became possible recently). One hopes that one or more of these might make for the right combination...

[Lilith Velkor]

99. It's all we can do

The motherfuckers belong in jail, and frankly, at this point I don't care whether it's for fraud, treason, or jaywalking, just get the hook and pull them down, and we'll sort out whatever we can.

One thing the 9/11 truth community should consider in this is that one will not go far in an investigation if one goes into accusatory hysterics upon learning that one is talking to someone from DC or NYC.

Unless it's a witch hunt you really want, in which case, nevermind.

[JackRiddler]

102. I'm not really sure what you mean by this:

"One thing the 9/11 truth community should consider in this is that one will not go far in an investigation if one goes into accusatory hysterics upon learning that one is talking to someone from DC or NYC."

I'm from NYC and I prefer a sober approach.

[Lilith Velkor]

108. That's good

Upon sober reflection, one can be aware that just because a person is from the DC area and is in a position to know that the Pentagon Missile Story is a crock of shit, it doesn't necessarily mean that they believe the 9/11 Commission Story, which is also a crock of shit.

That was my point.

[JackRiddler]

123. I have always thought the Pentagon missile story...

is a crock of shit. Admittedly, I had moments when I thought it was possible, so I examined it accordingly. I "put nothing past them." But then I determined it was a crock of shit. In a diplomatic effort to unite 9/11 truth people around the ideas of sobriety and use of best evidence to get real investigations, I did write this (first part deals with totally exotic shit, second part deals with Pentagon missile):
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20040810075752147

Please note:

1) Pentagon missile theory is in no way necessary or central either to a) 9/11 skepticism, meaning the rejection of the official stories as so-far presented; or b) inside-job theory, which at its simplest requires no more than that someone over here contracted someone over there to make sure 9/11 happens, and provided due protection and facilitation of the operation. That would qualify as both treason and orchestration, just as much as if the whole thing were done under the aegis of a US military unit.

2) By the time of "Hunt the Boeing" and arrival of the Pentagon missile idea in English (mid-November 2001), 9/11 skepticism and inside job theory had already developed around the evidence for foreknowledge, the defense response "failure," Bush in the school, the timing and pre-history of the attacks, the original links of al Qaeda to CIA etc. ("blowback" if not "hidden alliance"), the exploitation of 9/11 for "a war that will not end in our lifetimes," the anomalies about the hijacker stories, etc. UA 93 shootdown was reported as fact for two days in Europe before it was replaced by the now-common narrative. Demolition theory (a subject about which I am agnostic) was also immediately in the air, on the Web. But Pentagon shootdown was a dubious latecomer, from one Thierry Meyssan in France. Another early champion of it in print was one Eric Hufschmid. I am proud to say I vetoed Meyssan's invitation as a speaker to the first large 9/11 skeptics' gathering, in Berlin (Sept. 2003). One of the first to perhaps inadvertantly promote the idea was Rumsfeld, who famously "misspoke" that "the missile" hit "this building" in an interview with Parade magazine at around the same time as Meyssan first came out with his claims in French.

3) The most fanatic elements seem to gravitate to the idea, and turned it into a heresy test. There weren't many of them, but if as a 9/11 skeptic you didn't accept their particular Pentagon theory, in fact if you didn't promote it, if you in anyway failed to mention and repeat it constantly, you were an infiltrator and would be attacked as one.

4) The first, best, and most thorough treatments to debunk Pentagon missile theory were by 9/11 skeptics, respectively: John Judge (not coincidentally someone from Washington DC), Jim Hoffman and Mark Robinowitz.

5) Corporate media and official sources nevertheless adopted this as their pet conspiracy theory to beat upon. A typical phrasing would be "the people who have adopted the French conspiracy theory that a missile hit the Pentagon." This would be presented as though it were the main or sole claim of 9/11 skepticism.

6) Later the fanatics, whatever their motivation, discovered far more exotic stuff than a mere missile at the Pentagon. They went from "the pod" (a non-existent pixel entity on the undercarriage of UA175) to hologram planes to no planes at all, and continued the pattern of mainly attacking 9/11 skeptics as traitors for failure to champion their ideas, whatever these ideas are at any given time. Many view them as a COINTELPRO operation designed to discredit the 9/11 truth movement, and though I am inclined to agree in some cases, I understand that stupidity alone is a powerful force.

7) Meyssan (and Hufschmid) later announced the Nazi holocaust happened, among other things, on a trip to Austria no less in 2005. At this point, one Jimmy Walter, a rich guy, had stormed in to the movement, spending millions to promote specifically "the pod" and the other exotic theories. He included Meyssan and Hufschmid on his grand tour of Europe in 2005, which was, thankfully, a flop.

From my article, linked above:

The official story of the flight itself, said to have disappeared over Ohio and only tracked again as it entered Washington airspace, is very suspicious. Why wasn't it intercepted on entering what is supposedly the world's best-protected airspace, more than an hour and 10 minutes after the attacks began and 45 minutes after it was diverted? Why weren't interceptors scrambled from Andrews Air Force Base, ten miles from the Pentagon? We know fighters of the 113th Air National Guard wing were stationed at Andrews and charged with defending DC airspace (as the website of 113th ANG wing claimed until Sept. 12, when it was suddenly changed). The fighters at Andrews were deployed over Washington airspace on Sept. 11, but only after the Pentagon was hit.

How did AA77 hit a target known to be defended by anti-aircraft missile batteries? The flight executed a maneuver pilots have characterized as extremely difficult, descending from several thousand feet while making a 330∞ turn, banking at the last second and flying level with the ground for several hundred feet to strike the first floor. The alleged hijacker flying the plane (Hani Hanjour) flunked out of flight school. The side of the Pentagon hit, opposite from the command center, had just been renovated to reinforce it against terrorist attack. The offices there were mostly empty; initial expectations of 850 dead were quickly revised to 130.

Was the Pentagon indeed hit by Flight 77, hijacked by terrorists? Then the government by suppressing available evidence has effectively encouraged suspicions that the attack object was in fact something else: a small plane, a missile or a bomb. As long as the government suppresses evidence, people will speculate about what really happened to the flight and its passengers. The government could move to release the evidence, though at this late stage many people will no longer believe anything it produces.

[JackRiddler]

124. Very late night correction...

7) Meyssan (and Hufschmid) later announced the Nazi holocaust *never* happened... (to Austrian journalists)

[Lilith Velkor]

126. interesting, thanks. n/t

[JackRiddler]

84. By the way: Emma Goldman, conspiracy theorist.

"The history of the American kings of capital and authority is the history of repeated crimes, injustice, oppression, outrage, and abuse, all aiming at the suppression of individual liberties and the exploitation of the people. A vast country, rich enough to supply all her children with all possible comforts, and insure well-being to all, is in the hands of a few, while the nameless millions are at the mercy of ruthless wealth gatherers, unscrupulous lawmakers, and corrupt politicians. Sturdy sons of America are forced to tramp the country in a fruitless search for bread, and many of her daughters are driven into the street, while thousands of tender children are daily sacrificed on the altar of Mammon. The reign of these kings is holding mankind in slavery, perpetuating poverty and disease, maintaining crime and corruption; it is fettering the spirit of liberty, throttling the voice of justice, and degrading and oppressing humanity. It is engaged in continual war and slaughter, devastating the country and destroying the best and finest qualities of man; it nurtures superstition and ignorance, sows prejudice and strife, and turns the human family into a camp of Ishmaelites."

Who are these "kings"? What are these "hands of a few"? What is her hypothesis? Where is her evidence? Talk about paranoid!

[Lilith Velkor]

89. You seem upset.

If you expect an anarchist to buy into the notion of any government - let alone this current one! - discovering anything true or meaningful by investigating itself, then I suggest you read an anarchism FAQ or two whilst you are gathering Emma Goldman quotes. They tend to reside on the same websites.

[JackRiddler]

92. Feeling great, actually, thanks...

I agree with you on the danger, see post 88. I'm not starry-eyed about government investigations, just stuck with what seem to be the available options. They have the documents and the evidence, so you're not going to get it by ESP.

And the fact that I recognize the person in your avatar and am so handy with quotes from her might suggest that I've done more than read anarchism "FAQ's."

In fact, I seem to remember writing a couple of them... ;)

[mhatrw]

105. Nor the Gulf of Tonkin incident, MK Ultra, Operation Paperclip or Operation Northwoods.

What exactly is your point?

[Lilith Velkor]

110. My point is that conspiracy theorists will never STFU

...and given human nature, it's unrealistic to expect such a thing.

As the examples in your subject line show, the US govt does get up to no good on a fairly regular basis, so suspicion is a rational thing to have.

[mhatrw]

111. OK, but should people who talk about proven historical events

be called conspiracy theorists?

The whole meme that "conspiracy theorists won't shut up" is, I think, highly helpful to the status quo and highly destructive to progressive change. Basically, any suspected but as of yet unproven malfeasance on the part of any powerful governmental or corporate interests is initially dismissed as nothing more than the idle speculation of "the tinfoil hat crowd." But whenever these "crazy" theories are proven true, they somehow magically disappear from the land of tinfoil and materialize in the land of "of course, sometimes suspicions are justified."

It's a neat rhetorical trick that puts even George Orwell to shame.

[Lilith Velkor]

120. It's just semantics.

Given that conspiracy facts tend to come out of conspiracy theories, of course conspiracy theorists won't shut up, nor should they.

I know internet polls don't mean much, but look at the results of this one. DUers who still give a damn and haven't tuned out the whole 9/11 thing due to internet howlers catapulting the bullshit know that the government is hiding something, and they want to know what it is. Maybe (just maybe) we'll find out.

Then what happens? Have you thought of that? Who's gonna go bell that cat?

[ends_dont_justify]

47. Selected "Other"

I would prefer as many investigations as physically possible, from numerous sources including independant and grand jury, if applicable. I think it needs as much exposure as possible -- not to cover up the news like it had in the past though. Just to make sure as much details and pidgeonholing of the higher-ups stories as possible can be done. With multiple investigations, lies can and will be detected.

Just a dream though I suspect.

[Initech]

56. I still don't buy the government's account of 9/11. Not in a million years.

[Bobbie Jo]

58. Kick n/t

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

75. Rosie O'Donnell has become a questioner of the official story. From her blog

http://www.rosie.com/blog/2007/03/15/wtc-7/

[Rex]

76. Hmmm...166 yeas and a pathetically small amount of nays.

I guess the 166 are just crazy CT! Right, pathetically small amount of naysayers? Where are all the people I argued with non-stop in 2002? You all leave? Hello? I this thing on?

[me b zola]

77. yes

[Individualist]

78. Absolutely

Multiple warnings were ignored.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

79. Let's look it this way. The rejection by so many Americans of the recently promoted

confession by Khalil Sheikh Mohammed shows you that America is waking up. Do you think, that if they heard the Official (Conspiracy) Story of 9/11 as if it was new, would America buy it this time? I think not.

[wildbilln864]

81. I so hope yo're right Ommm!

But I wouldn't count on it! :shrug:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

82. LIHOP/MIHOP - the creationism of the left.

NT

[JackRiddler]

85. Slap a label, run away - the guerilla tactics of the self-appointed "debunkers"

NT

[Ezlivin]

90. For that poster, "NT" must mean "Not Thinking"

OCTers are so busy that they can't even spend a minute to construct a thoughtful rebuttal.

So very typical of those who are training to be good little sheep.

[ends_dont_justify]

91. Funny you should think that way -- or at all for that matter

I've come to realize the only way anyone could possibly not believe someone, even just one tiny operative in the government, at this point had anything to do with it...simply doesn't care.

Naysayers of MIHOP/LIHOP: the republicans of the left.

[porphyrian]

86. Why not? It won't waste any more money than we know these criminals have for lies.

And because we KNOW they're full of shit and willing to do whatever they want for their own profit, we can't trust anything they've done to be legit.

[scarletwoman]

94. Another "yes" vote & a kick (nt)

[cgrindley]

95. Please won't everyone get a life?

The commission did a fine job.

Perhaps people who have a difficult time understanding it should just buy the comic book version.

[scarletwoman]

96. The commission report IS the "comic book version". (nt)

[gollygee]

100. The people who lost loved ones on 9/11 don't feel that way

They want a more thorough and more independent investigation. I'll side with them.

[cgrindley]

113. Oh well

If an argumentum ad misericordiam is the best you can muster, I'll take that post as the sound of you losing conclusively.

[Rex]

101. Really? I have it and read it and thought it was bunk.

Care to tell us why you think they did such a fine job? I'll wait...

[cgrindley]

115. Did you actually read it?

I find it hard to believe that you did.

[Rex]

118. LOL.

Yeah I did, but thanks for proving something I was wondering about you. :hi:

[mhatrw]

106. Tell that to the victims' families. They don't seem to agree.

http://911truth.org/images/resources/Family%20Steering%20Cmte%20review%20of%20Report.pdf

[cgrindley]

114. Again

An argumentum ad misericordiam is irrational. What the families of 9/11 dead feel is immaterial to the argument. To claim that their emotional condition somehow should decide the veracity of the matter is ludicrous.

[mhatrw]

122. Read the document. They simply want a number of completely

legitimate questions answered.

Why would you deny them their answers?

[HamdenRice]

98. grand jury, impeachment, removal, trial, conviction & the Hague

followed by life sentences with time split between US and Iraqi prisons for the main traitors.

[Balbus]

103. And DUers wonder why DU isn't taken seriously by anyone outside of DU.

Fucking embarrassing threads like this...

[Lars39]

104. Sez the person with dancing cartoon characters in his sig line.

:D

[Forkboy]

121. *SNARF*

:D

[mhatrw]

107. Exactly. If you want to taken seriously, then STFU and believe

whatever BushCo says about 9/11.

[ends_dont_justify]

127. ...if to be believed, we should give up our free will and common sense...

Why should we want to be believed? Sure, it's a bonus when the braindead finally get it, but...I'm content just trying to get other DUers to see my points. Far as I'm concerned, it's better than trying to convince your average every day person of things, wbich can be as rewarding as discussing religion with a brick wall.

[frogcycle]

119. even though I am way skeptical of most of the conspiracy claims

they don't go away. Another investigation could (1) put the wackiest ones to rest (not likely, but one can hope) and (2) address the incompetence before, during, and after, regardless of whether there was actual involvement

There is NO question that a lot of shit got swept under the rug, as to who ordered what planes to scramble when, what the controllers did or did not know/think, etc.

[IChing]

125. Cheney and Rumfeld's time lines where never really explored.

and don't forget where they came from and who they really represent now.

It is all the timelines that don't add up in this "story"

[SeattleGirl]

128. Criminal investigation, most definitely.

These fuckers need the eyes of the law on them, not some simpy, ass-kissing internal investigation.

[JackRiddler]

129. Exactly - the distinction between the judicial branch

which we can hope is the real thing, as opposed to the "independent" investigation of an executive appointee (or foul compromise between Congress and White House, as in the case of the 9/11 Commission).

[JackRiddler]

130. kickers

[JackRiddler]

131. More on likely KSM fraud...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=150885&mesg_id=150885

[JackRiddler]

132. The numbers as of Wed 21 Mar 7:15pm EDT

YES : 220 --- 88%

The three NO options : 19 --- 7%

The two YES BUT options : 8 --- 3%

OTHER: 2 --- 1%

[JackRiddler]

133. The last kick

[JackRiddler]

134. Almost last?

x

[Bridget Burke]

136. I'd like to see Bush & Cheney questioned about 9/11.

Separately. Live, in person. Under oath.

Their refusal to give real testimony was one of the major failings of the earlier investigation.