Does the Truth about 9/11 Matter?

I wanted to write something for the 9/11 anniversary but couldn't decide what angle to take. There are so many angles. There's the obvious angle, who really did it? The evidence. The third building, WTC7 that fell like a pancake. The dancing Israeli's. The "New Pearl Harbor" prediction by the neocons who took charge under Bush. Did a plane really hit the Pentagon, or was that a missile? Did Bush and Cheney know? The list goes on and on.

There's the War OF Terror angle. The U.S. went to war immediately after, first with the Global War on Terror starting in Afghanistan and then the Iraq war. This also marks the fifteenth anniversary of war (the argument of whether this country is really at war or not, constitutionally, is another angle). Donald Trump wants to put a wall around the country. The War OF Terror is now institutionalized in this country and on most of the planet. There appears no end in sight after fifteen years.

There's the Nationalism angle front and center in the National Football League's opening Sunday which happens to fall on the 9/11 anniversary. The flags waving, the victim honoring, the military parading, the people standing, the stories, the promises to protect our "freedom", it's all on display. The media saturated with emotional tributes and nationalistic propaganda with nary a thought given to the millions killed and displaced, the countries destroyed, or the children burnt alive under drone bombs in faraway lands. American hypocrisy off the charts.

There's the Conspiracy Theory angle where the government, its oligarchy owned corporate media and their lackeys paint those seeking the real truth about 9/11 as Truthers. What a kick. They're crazy, wacky, you name it because they don't believe the government story. You know, the same story told by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Who wouldn't believe them?

Many angles and everybody's writing and talking. What's the purpose? What good is it going to do for truth,justice and the "American" way? The other iconic event that perhaps rivals 9/11 in its political significance is the assassination of John F. Kennedy, Jr, JFK. It's been over fifty years since that happened and the conspiracy to murder JFK has never been truly settled, even though the current evidence clearly destroys the official story and basically pinpoints who, what and why. Those involved will never be brought to justice. And the political situation it caused, a literal coup in this country, has never been rectified by the truth regarding the JFK murder. We the Serfs are certainly under much tighter rule now than we were fifty years ago.

Don't get me wrong, I'm grateful to those researching, analyzing and exposing the evidence because we do have a fairly clear picture of what happened, who was involved and why they did it.

But I wonder whether that will matter. It doesn't seen to matter with JFK. Massive lies and deceptions are the foundation of this country and our government at the highest levels. Will anything said contradicting the "official story" even matter? Will even proving who really did it matter? It's been fifteen years and the official Bush/Cheney endorsed story is taught in middle schools right after Columbus discovering America.

Wow, what a downer. I started out trying to decide what to write about and came to that.

Hmm, let me see.

I'm sorry people died on 9/11. I'm sorry so many people have died because of 9/11. We're talking millions now. The ripple effect from that event has literally changed the world. The impact it has had is astounding if you think about all the subsequent wars and killing, destruction of lives and countries, assault on liberties and literally our freedom, the incredible advancement of the power of the military industrial complex joined with a security/intelligence industrial complex, the instutionalization of the War OF Terror on the entire planet, the creation of a top down national police state via the Department of "Homeland" Security, the spying and data collection on our lives, etc., etc, etc., there's just never been anything like it.

All because of 9/11. Who knows what would have happened if not 9/11. It's not like the ruling elite wouldn't have engineered something else to advance their insane plans for power. Because they are fucking insane. But 9/11 happened and here we are, in a fucked up world with hope hanging on for dear life.

I think hopeful reasoning might conclude that we've reached the outer limits of human greed and power lust and a course correction is on the horizon. The rise of China and Russia in the last decade coupled with the crumbling facade of the American Empire may force a come to Jesus moment for those still intent on ruling the world. So we might not die from a nuclear holocaust. Like a 21st century MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) situation.

But then again, we might. It was just fifteen years ago that people within our government and the governments/ruling classes of Saudi Arabia and Israel brazenly engineered an event that changed the world. That means they're capable of anything, they and those like them. We've been shown, not only with 9/11, but over the course of the last century what those with the most power on the planet are capable of doing. And we could have Hillary Clinton as the "Commander in Chief" until 2021.

Proving who was really behind 9/11, exposing the real Truth about 9/11, supporting those that do the research and spread the information is very important to those of us who want to topple our rulers. It matters. Those that did the crime need to be brought to justice. The War OF Terror needs to be ended. The laws, practices and institutions created for the War OF Terror need to be abolished. We can't give up on that. They'll keep doing it again and again if we don't stop them, they've proven that since 9/11 with other false flag events to supplement their "New Pearl Harbor". There can be no true People's Revolution without 9/11 Truth and Justice.

The Truth does matter, if not, what does?

Addendum:

Bush knew, Cheney knew, Rice knew, there is no doubt.


"But that’s not all there is to the cover-up: As I mentioned and documented in my July 20th news-report on “9/11: Bush’s Guilt and the ’28 Pages’,” U.S. President George W. Bush was also involved in the 9/11 operation: He had instructed his National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice to block his obtaining from U.S. government sources any specific information about what the attacks would entail, or about the date on which they would occur. (Presumably, he already knew, via his private communications with Prince Bandar or someone else who was in on the event’s planning, all that he had wanted to know about the coming event.)

When CIA Director George Tenet, on 10 July 2001, was practically screaming to Rice to allow him into the Oval Office, to meet privately with the President to inform him of how urgent the situation had become to take action on it, she said: “We’re not quite ready to consider this. We don’t want the clock to start ticking.” Tenet was shocked, and dismayed. That encounter with Rice was intended to urge the President to establish a hit-team to take out bin Laden, so as to avert the operation — whatever it was, or would turn out to be. The way that Chris Whipple put this, in his terrific report in Politico magazine, on 12 November 2015, titled “The Attacks Will Be Spectacular”, was that, “they did not want a paper trail to show that they’d been warned.”

https://off-guardian.org/2016/09/07/the-great-911-coverup/

"Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” The CIA’s famous Presidential Daily Brief, presented to George W. Bush on August 6, 2001, has always been Exhibit A in the case that his administration shrugged off warnings of an Al Qaeda attack. But months earlier, starting in the spring of 2001, the CIA repeatedly and urgently began to warn the White House that an attack was coming."

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/11/cia-directors-documentary...

So they knew. There are the theories of LIHOP and MIHOP, let it happen on purpose and made it happen on purpose. Some think they LIHOP, some think they MIHOP, some think they didn't know, which has been proven false. For me there is no such distinction, if they LIHOP'd they MIHOP'd. I think it's quite naïve to think they knew about it but decided to do nothing about it so they could have their New Pearl Harbor to kick-start their New American Century. That's just too much of a coincidence to believe. No, they knew because they made it happen.

Or you can believe this guy:

"Nobody in our government at least, and I don't think the prior government could envision flying airplanes into buildings."

[video:https://youtu.be/Su3tYyjaFDQ]

Share
up
0 users have voted.

Comments

Big Al's picture

9/11 on this blog as "impossible". Is that what you want? Seems to me that three people came into this blog with an agenda of trying to discredit anyone who doesn't believe in the government story, instead of discussing the entire situation from the perspective of the majority of people here.
No, you're not going to shut down discussion of 9/11 here.

up
0 users have voted.

Not trying to discredit anyone, or shut down discussion. I think anyone ought to be able to say anything online, whether they expect others to support their beliefs or not.

I agree that the "official story" of the Bush administration makes no sense. However the 9/11 Commission report is not the "official story." It is an independent, bipartisan report which lays out the broad outlines (and many details) of the real-world, provable al-Qaeda conspiracy behind the 9/11 attacks.

I note again that in 15 years the "truthers" or whatever else you want to call them (what is the PC term?) have yet to accomplish what the 9/11 Commission did in a year and a half. Where is the timeline? Where is the who-what-where-when and how?

up
0 users have voted.

"We've done the impossible, and that makes us mighty."

Big Al's picture

And that's what it is, bullshit. Why should there be a term for people that don't believe the government story? Polls clearly show a majority of people don't believe it, nearly half believe there was an inside job conspiracy. In Germany, 90% don't buy the government story, etc.

As stated by lotilizard and as I said in my essay, the term "Truther" is a derogatory term meant to ridicule those that don't believe the government story. It's meant to paint people in a negative light as a conspiracy theorist. Those doing this like to lump 9/11 truth with other conspiracy theories like Holocaust denial, I saw that on this blog earlier. Or they'll combine it with the moon landing or some other wacky notion to make it seem like the people who don't believe the government story are also holocaust deniers, moon landing deniers, and whatever else that makes them sound off in the head.

Only those who have an agenda seem to need a term like Truther, or any term for that matter, to describe the majority of people on the planet.

And yes, there is ample evidence that points to who was really behind 9/11 and why. One needs to understand the historical patterns, (the context), previous actions, the collaboration between factions of the U.S., Israel, and Saudi Arabia, how the CIA has worked (like with Bin Laden), who benefited from all this, etc. I don't get into how the buildings fell specifically, I look at the big picture, all the pieces of the puzzle, and that tells me clearly they not only knew, they made it happen. Getting into that here would take days and I have other things to do.

up
0 users have voted.

When you make assertions, such as citing polls or claiming that "truther" is a derogatory term rather than a descriptive one, some links would help. You used the word "truth" in the headline for this post.

Don't tell me to go and Google the polls you cited. That's your job.

You don't have to spend days - just cite some sources. If the evidence for LIHOP/MIHOP is as abundant as you say, there would be books you could name.

up
0 users have voted.

"We've done the impossible, and that makes us mighty."

lotlizard's picture

up
0 users have voted.

who, 30 years after obtaining that degree, earns his living as a "Research Associate" in Biology -- a job title that rarely requires even a Master's, though I haven't checked to see what it represents at Arizona -- suggesting that he wasn't particularly adept at Physics, and hasn't been a particularly successful scientist since.

Regardless, the primary objection to JM's testimony is simply that, contrary to his assertion, the towers did not collapse in free-fall timescales. (I should note that if they had, neither controlled demolition nor anything other than the detonation of a VERY large device on the TOP of the building would explain it.)

Meanwhile, elsewhere you get this kind of reasoning:

The roofline of WTC1 (The North Tower) begins dropping with sudden onset and accelerates uniformly downward at about 64% of the acceleration of gravity (g) until it disappears into the dust. This means it is meeting resistance equal to about 36% of its weight. The implication of this, however, is that the force it is exerting on the lower section of the building is also only 36% of the weight of the falling section. This is much less than the force it would exert if it were at rest. The acceleration data thus prove that the falling top section of the building cannot be responsible for the destruction of the lower section of the building.

Without getting into the physics/mathematics of exactly why this guy is wrong, I will simply note that by this reasoning no building could ever be collapsed by a falling cascade, because no building could ever collapse with acceleration faster than g -- and as long as its acceleration is less than g, this person's "analysis" will reveal that the force exerted by the falling floors is less than it was when they were just a-settin' there in place.

up
0 users have voted.

The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.

of blogs filled with already-debunked bunk about this stuff?

his statement is factually wrong. i feel no urge whatsoever to go tell him so and get into a pointless dance in which he tries to somehow transform that wrongness into evidence of my own epistemological intransigence.

up
0 users have voted.

The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.

lotlizard's picture

with many facets, whether you agree with him or not.

up
0 users have voted.

I can vouch for how little physics we know compared to a physics professor at a major university.

up
0 users have voted.

Beware the bullshit factories.

But I still think that physics professor I quoted could.

up
0 users have voted.

Beware the bullshit factories.

lotlizard's picture

After doing math and physics, Josh went into biology because he was interested in things like life extension.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=josh+mitteldorf+metametazoa&t=ffsb&ia=web
http://mathforum.org/~josh/

Josh is an interesting guy with an intellect whose focus meanders across all kinds of human exploration, endeavor, and experience, as his “Daily Inspiration” blog demonstrates.
http://daily-inspiration.org/

Of course, upholding the government narrative requires that y’all denigrate him knowing nothing about him — but by now everyone knows that’s just part of the game.

up
0 users have voted.

I knew at least two pertinent things about him before I denigrated him:

A. He misstated (at least, as quoted in the link you provided) the facts about the rate at which the towers fell (i.e., he is untrustworty in this matter);

and

B. He incorrectly supposed that had the towers fallen at a "free fall" rate, it would be evidence for any other kind of demolition than that which was readily in evidence (i.e., whatever his formal training in physics, he is either not as knowledgeable as his credentials suggest, OR he is failing to successfully apply his knowledge, due presumably to an emotional need to "demonstrate", regardless of the evidence, that the towers must have been destroyed by something other than the airplanes).

Maybe he's a swell guy, I don't know and I don't really care, because the germane point here is that he's just bloody wrong.

up
0 users have voted.

The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.

up
0 users have voted.
lotlizard's picture

[Organ of regime, friends of regime, or outfit dependent on regime] confirms correctness of [regime’s talk or action].

up
0 users have voted.

Ye cannie break the laws of physics.

[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfZ12UGiisM]

Even the Clintons can't break the laws of physics.

up
0 users have voted.

Beware the bullshit factories.

E=mc^2
It's not just a good idea.
It's the law.

up
0 users have voted.

The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.

Some people still obsess over the assassination of President Kennedy. Let's say, just for the sake of discussion, that Poppy Bush or LBJ arranged a hit. And? Nothing is going to happen to either one of them, either in life or posthumously. No one is going to disband the CIA, either.

No one who has a strong belief in either a high level hit or the truth of the Warren Commission is going to change his or her mind. So far, all I see that has come of it is some people incredibly giving every President he or she likes a pass on a lot of Presidential crap, on the theory that the CIA shows them the Zapruder film on Inauguration Day.

We need to be laser-focused on the future. JMO.

up
0 users have voted.

Assuming Mother Nature doesn't wipe us out, the historians will discover the truth. Then it's a question of how honest they feel they can be with the rest of us.

up
0 users have voted.

Vowing To Oppose Everything Trump Attempts.

I never said the past does not matter or that truth does not matter. I asked what actually comes of it.

On your other point, I am not at all certain that historians will sort out Kennedy's assassination any more than it has already been sorted out, which is that the official, establishment word will be that of the Warren Report while others will never accept the Warren Report as the truth, with neither side being able to put the matter to rest definitively. Hell, there's still some controversy about Lincoln's assassination, and therein lies the rub.

I don't think people are out there looking for new clues or heretofore undiscovered facts. If they are, they are highly unlikely to find any authentic ones at this date. It's one camp trying to convince another, based on the same facts that are known to everyone and few, if any, are going to budge. That's not a search for truth. It's just debate that will go on and on with no one "winning" until everyone involved passes away or tires of it, as with Lincoln's assassination. This thread is another example.

up
0 users have voted.
TheOtherMaven's picture

John Wilkes Booth was not a "lone gunman" - he sent a knife man to slash up Secretary of State William H. Seward as well (Seward survived), and another conspirator was supposed to shoot Vice-President Johnson but chickened out.

Exactly who else was in on the conspiracy is uncertain. How much Booth's landlady knew and when she knew it remains unclear, but she was found guilty anyway and hanged alongside several surviving conspirators.

up
0 users have voted.

There is no justice. There can be no peace.

there's still some controversy over it. People do still debate the surrounding circumstances and some facts are still not cleared up, as your post itself states. I never said anything, one way or another, about whether or not a conspiracy existed in Lincoln's assassination or in Kennedy's or in 911. In fact, this is the only post on this thread so far in which I've used the word "conspiracy."

up
0 users have voted.

Stephen Colbert brilliantly came up with the term "truthiness" to describe the thought process of many Americans (mostly, but not exclusively, on the right). His point was that too many of us have discarded actual facts and logic in favor of a priori reasoning.

up
0 users have voted.

"We've done the impossible, and that makes us mighty."

events that might affect our actions the next day. He was not obsessing--or speculating--daily or weekly or monthly about something that happened over fifty* years ago, re-tilling the same quarter inch of topsoil over and over without reaching any definitive or universally accepted conclusion. Also...http://caucus99percent.com/comment/171916#comment-171916

*Or over fifteen years ago, in the case of 911, or over 150 years ago, in the case of Lincoln's assassination.

up
0 users have voted.
Big Al's picture

a global war of terror, etc., etc., as I said above, all based on lies. The Patriot Act, NDAA, NSA, etc. all because of what they say happened on 9/11. That's happening now. The truth is very relevant.

up
0 users have voted.

Despite 15 years of debate over 911, the NSA and all the other things you mentioned exist and will not go away because of another 15 years of debate about 911. Maybe they will never go away, but simply debating 911 for another 35 years for sure is not going to disappear them. So, how does their existence contradict any of my replies on this thread?

Also, I did not say truth is irrelevant, nor would I. I asked what the debate has accomplished.

up
0 users have voted.
Big Al's picture

up
0 users have voted.

I asked what has come of obsessing or debating the same set of facts for decades. I don't see those as the same questions. If I thought "the truth" might emerge from more recitation and argument over the same set of facts, or even from more mockery of those who debate, I might well encourage it.

up
0 users have voted.

if we are to know what it is we are dealing with.

I suspect some of the people objecting to some of the theories/evidence that 9/11 was deliberate really don't want to think of our government or TPTB as callous and murderous as they must have had to be, to allow it to happen.

Those of us more inclined to find nefariousness in 9/11 have found plenty of nefarious deeds in the past, many executed in other nations, that are clearly linked to the US government. The 1% and their stooges have pretty much, by their actions, determined that "No Lives Matter", except their own.

up
0 users have voted.
Alligator Ed's picture

In the search for meaning:

When the truth no longer matters to a people, the people have lost their souls.
up
0 users have voted.
ggersh's picture

"The further society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it"

We are definitely at that time.

up
0 users have voted.

I never knew that the term "Never Again" only pertained to
those born Jewish

"Antisemite used to be someone who didn't like Jews
now it's someone who Jews don't like"

Heard from Margaret Kimberley

Raggedy Ann's picture

I've always suspected they knew and brought it up on TOP a few years back and they HR'd me into oblivion. They want sheeplesheeple. Comply, comply, comply is their mantra. We must seek the truth at all costs.

up
0 users have voted.

"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11

snoopydawg's picture

question what happened on 9/11. I feel it's the same as his no anti Hillary screed.
"I have made up my mind and that's that. My decision is the only one that counts and is right"

up
0 users have voted.

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

TheOtherMaven's picture

Any discussion of 9/11 or any other major conspiracy theory is a high-voltage line and tends to provoke extreme partisanship, namecalling, and other manifestations of "Me right, you stupid" - so he simply banned them all.

If we want to have free and open discussion of these difficult and fraught subjects, we must listen to each other with a mixture of open-mindedness and rational skepticism - a very difficult balance to maintain.

up
0 users have voted.

There is no justice. There can be no peace.

lunachickie's picture

Not buying that and not accepting it.

it was to avoid flame wars

I'm not going to elaborate on that, other than to say it's wrong to try. You cannot control other peoples' reactions to anything. If we must do anything, we must stop trying to control other peoples' reactions and let the damned chips fall where they may, when the discussion is presented realistically and with respect to whatever audience it's trying to reach. If nothing else, you find out who really cares about open dialogue and who doesn't.

up
0 users have voted.
TheOtherMaven's picture

("who really cares about open dialogue and who doesn't").

There are closed minds on both sides.

up
0 users have voted.

There is no justice. There can be no peace.

DKos was wrong to censor the "truthers." That just encourages them. I want them to make their best case. After 15 years, either you can prove the 9/11 attacks were a false flag operation or you can't. They can't. It wasn't.

We can discuss reality, e.g. actual U.S. national security policy and foreign policy, or we can veer into fantasy and talk about stuff that never happened - such as Dick Cheney blowing up the World Trade Center. I'm not afraid to go point by point.

up
0 users have voted.

"We've done the impossible, and that makes us mighty."

lunachickie's picture

and they weren't alone doing it. But has it stopped the speculation?

No. It hasn't.

up
0 users have voted.
Big Al's picture

Everyone who doesn't believe Condi Rice's official story as you say, or those who believe they LIHOP or MIHOP? Just to know where you're coming from.

up
0 users have voted.

If anyone can prove LIHOP or MIHOP, I will cease and desist using the term "truther." To me, it designates the people who go around saying they don't believe the 9/11 Commission's conclusions - but then fail to present a cogent alternative theory, instead darkly hinting at fanciful and mutually exclusive scenarios for which there is no solid evidence.

I certainly don't buy the Condi Rice assertion, made eight months after the 9/11 attacks.

"I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon; that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile."

Not only was it predicted, it was part of popular culture. Did nobody in the Bush administration ever see "Escape from New York" (1981)?

up
0 users have voted.

"We've done the impossible, and that makes us mighty."

Big Al's picture

showing Rice knew full well, combined with her blatant lies, and the attempt at covering their tracks regarding prior knowledge, indicates they LIHOP? You think the neocon/Zionist PNAC's call for a New Pearl Harbor was just a wild coincidence that came true so they could implement their New American Century?
People have many questions about many aspects of the situation and you're trying to paint anyone with questions about what happened and why as factless, fanciful conspiracy theorists. You've tried very hard at that in this comment section, like you were prepared. Some classic signs involved. There you go, another conspiracy theory for ya.

up
0 users have voted.

I fail to see how ignorance and incompetence on the part of then National Security Advisor Rice (who after all was a Soviet Union specialist, not an al-Qaeda expert) equates to supposedly detailed foreknowledge with the level of certainty needed to control the outcome of the 9/11 attacks. There is no evidence whatsoever for LIHOP, only supposition that is contradicted by what we know.

PNAC never said what you think they said. You have to look at the context, which was a discussion of the process of introducing more information technologies into the military . Not in any way agreeing with the neocon agenda, I just want to establish the truth as much as possible.

What looks like "preparation" on my part comes from prior experience debating with 9/11 "truthers" on other sites (obviously not DKos, where these kinds of discussions have long been verboten). I count several "truthers" as friends, even though they exhibit an astounding blind spot regarding the 9/11 Commission's report. You could also say I am informed on the subject.

up
0 users have voted.

"We've done the impossible, and that makes us mighty."

Big Al's picture

"absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event like Pearl Harbor, they'd have a hard time implementing their insanity. These are the same fuckers who ended up controlling the Bush admin, starting their war of terror, Afghan war, Iraq war, their plan for their New American Century. I'm not buying for one minute these evil motherfuckers just got lucky. Even Netanyahoo marveled at his luck, knowing full well luck had nothing to do with it.

up
0 users have voted.
TheOtherMaven's picture

We're in Rashomon territory here, where the same sequence of events is interpreted differently by every observer.

(Wikipedia lists a number of other film references, but somehow completely overlooks the delightful and ironic musical, Les Girls.)

up
0 users have voted.

There is no justice. There can be no peace.

Please pay attention to the context. PNAC had no more knowledge or intent regarding the 9/11 attacks than Condi Rice did, which is to say hardly any. Did you check out my link? BTW where did you get your belief that the "new Pearl Harbor" quote means what you claim it does?

I think the neocons have been horribly wrong about everything, at mind-boggling cost in lives, money, and the loss of our national reputation. The USA is now widely regarded as the greatest threat to world peace. But that does not mean you can take part of one sentence from a 90-page report and assign a meaning never intended by the authors.

up
0 users have voted.

"We've done the impossible, and that makes us mighty."

Big Al's picture

I've written articles about it. I've researched all the issuances that came out of PNAC and the other neocon think tanks. You're not serious, I'm not wasting my time.

up
0 users have voted.

The "new Pearl Harbor" myth is just one of many that the "truthers" cling to. But it's been debunked over and over. Derp is the term for repeating misinformation already proven false.

up
0 users have voted.

"We've done the impossible, and that makes us mighty."

Big Al's picture

Whoever you are.

up
0 users have voted.
k9disc's picture

Or did you just read some "debunking" articles?

I read that whole fucking paper. It's gross and prophetic -- as Prophetic as a perpetual war plan can be.

up
0 users have voted.

“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu

using derp as an insult certainly does nothing to strengthen your case.

up
0 users have voted.
k9disc's picture

up
0 users have voted.

“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu

How else to describe repeated use of a debunked myth? I am providing facts and links, others have responded with a lot of hand-waving.

up
0 users have voted.

"We've done the impossible, and that makes us mighty."

Big Al's picture

the Commission's report and Condi Rice's testimony. Other than that you're just saying, "not true, not true, debunked, debunked, debunked, truther, truther, myth, myth" all thru this thread. You're giving off the classic signs of a 9/11 troll.
I'm not buying your act and I think very few are.

up
0 users have voted.

"Just asking questions" can't cut it after 15 years. If you don't believe the 9/11 Commission's report, then let's have an alternative timeline and who-what-where-when and how. All that independent "research" ought to have turned up something by now.

up
0 users have voted.

"We've done the impossible, and that makes us mighty."

k9disc's picture

It certainly was a catastrophic and catalyzing event that allowed the neocons wet dreams of military transformation and perpetual war come true.

The only question is did they make it happen, let it happen, or did it happen on it's own.

up
0 users have voted.

“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu

Long ago. Asked and answered.

There is still no timeline, no coherent theory to support the "false flag" hypothesis for the 9/11 attacks. After 15 years, surely someone who was in on the alleged conspiracy would have talked. Thousands of government employees must have known about this, if it happened according to the CT.

up
0 users have voted.

"We've done the impossible, and that makes us mighty."

k9disc's picture

And please follow along with me and address each question, as it's not facts it's a thought exercise.

So you have the magic bullet theory for JFK, right?

Totally possible, according to physics. Correct?

I remember in JFK, the film, that Physics could make an elephant hang from a daisy or something like that, and I have no doubt that weird things totally happen.

Now, can physics explain 2 magic bullets, doing exactly the same thing, at the same time, with different entry points?

How about 2 elephants and a rhino hanging from 3 daisies?

Because we didn't just have one tower fall in demolition fashion. There were 3.

All three of these buildings went down upon themselves, in demolition fashion, due to jet fuel.

What are the odds of fuel burning and dropping 3 distinct buildings in exactly the same manner on the same day with dissimilar impact points and no impact point at all?

And one more question:
Has anyone dropped a building using jet fuel? You know, an actual scientific test of the hypothesis?

All of the dropping building stuff is a thought exercise for me. I don't know what to believe, the facts from the Bush administration, the scientists, or my lying eyes.

up
0 users have voted.

“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu

You want me to take you seriously, but you cited Oliver Stone's entertaining but fictional film "JFK" (1991) as a source. Some of us were here in 1963, and we remember all the questions in Stone's movie being conclusively answered long ago! Here's the debunk of the "magic bullet" myth:

The Warren Commission’s analysts concluded that JFK was shot sometime between Frames 210 and 225 (a street billboard blocked Zapruder’s view at the crucial moment), while Connally was hit no later than Frame 240. In other words, the two men were hit no more than 30 frames apart. However, FBI tests revealed that Oswald’s rifle could be fired no faster than once every 2.25 seconds—which, on Zapruder’s camera, translated, to 40 or 41 frames. In short, there wasn’t enough time for Oswald to fire one bullet at Kennedy, then another at Connally.

The inference was inescapable. Either there were at least two gunmen—or Kennedy and Connally were hit by the same bullet. The Warren Report argued the latter. The “single-bullet theory,” as it was called, set off a controversy even among the commissioners. Three of them didn’t buy it. Under political pressure to issue a unanimous report (preferably one reassuring the American public that there was only one gunman and he was dead), the skeptics stifled their dissent, at least publicly; in exchange, the report’s authors toned down their assessment of the single-bullet theory from “compelling” (the first draft’s term) to merely “persuasive.”

That section of the Warren Report drew the most biting attacks. Critics drew diagrams tracing the absurd path that a bullet would have had to travel—a midair turn to the right, followed by a squiggly one to the left—in order to rip through Kennedy’s neck, then into Connally’s ribs and wrist.

For many years, long after I’d rejected most of the conspiracy buffs’ claims, the “magic bullet”—as critics called it—remained the one piece of the Dealey Plaza puzzle that I couldn’t fit into the picture; it was the one dissonant chord that, in certain moods, made me think there might have been two gunmen after all.

Then, in November 2003, on the murder’s 40th anniversary, I watched an ABC News documentary called The Kennedy Assassination: Beyond Conspiracy. In one segment, the producers showed the actual car in which the president and the others had been riding that day. One feature of the car, which I’d never heard or read about before, made my jaw literally drop. The back seat, where JFK rode, was three inches higher than the front seat, where Connally rode. Once that adjustment was made, the line from Oswald’s rifle to Kennedy’s upper back to Connally’s ribcage and wrist appeared absolutely straight. There was no need for a magic bullet.

Back to the 9/11 attacks. What are the odds? What are the odds of four commercial airliners being deliberately crashed on the same day? It's a singular event, or at least we hope it is.

I refer you to the NIST report. Uncontrolled fires were the problem. Automatic sprinkler systems are designed to keep building fires from raging out of control, but they failed to function due to damage.

WTC 1 & 2 received damage from the plane crashes, and the water mains to WTC 7 were taken out by the collapse of WTC 1 & 2. From the NIST Q&A:

Why did WTC 7 collapse, while no other known building in history has collapsed due to fires alone?

The collapse of WTC 7 is the first known instance of a tall building brought down primarily by uncontrolled fires. The fires in WTC 7 were similar to those that have occurred in several tall buildings where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present. These other buildings, including Philadelphia's One Meridian Plaza, a 38-story skyscraper that burned for 18 hours in 1991, did not collapse due to differences in the design of the structural system.

Factors contributing to WTC 7's collapse included: the thermal expansion of building elements such as floor beams and girders, which occurred at temperatures hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire-resistance ratings; significant magnification of thermal expansion effects due to the long-span floors in the building; connections between structural elements that were designed to resist the vertical forces of gravity, not the thermally induced horizontal or lateral loads; and an overall structural system not designed to prevent fire-induced progressive collapse.

If you want to argue the WTC building demolition theory, then you are going to have to explain the who-what-when-where and how. While you are at it, maybe you can consider how nobody working in these buildings noticed anybody planting explosives. Remember there was already a bomb attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, so security was pretty tight.

up
0 users have voted.

"We've done the impossible, and that makes us mighty."

k9disc's picture

I'm using the elephant and daisy, IIRC, as some color analysis of physics defying reality from a pop culture movie that touches on CT and physics.

I think your cite of the Warren Commission's fudging of their facts for comity and public acceptance speaks poorly to your thesis. It says that political interests clouded and defied the science.

The Magic Bullet theory was the explanation for 40 years.

I'll be happy to buy the Establishment line, completely, as soon as a tall building is dropped upon itself using a jet. You know, an experiment that proves the hypothesis.

As far as your "4 planes" odds? They're not much different from 1 plane being hijacked. Just more people with a plan. No physics or spooky action required.

up
0 users have voted.

“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu

This is why I am curious why people believe such impossible things.

up
0 users have voted.

"We've done the impossible, and that makes us mighty."

k9disc's picture

All the non-CT people were supposed to believe that. Only the nutters didn't believe it.

up
0 users have voted.

“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu

lotlizard's picture

The theory, generally credited to Warren Commission staffer Arlen Specter[1] (later a United States Senator from Pennsylvania), posits that a single bullet, known as "Warren Commission Exhibit 399" (also known as "CE 399"), caused all the wounds to the governor and the non-fatal wounds to the president (seven entry/exit wounds in total).[2]

Wikipedia

up
0 users have voted.

They claimed it could not have gone in a straight line, but it did. Oliver Stone got it wrong.

up
0 users have voted.

"We've done the impossible, and that makes us mighty."

k9disc's picture

transformation to the American People would require some kind of Pearl Harbor type event in order to make it happen in their lifetimes.

Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor. (Rebuilding America's Defenses - PDF)

This long hard sell was going to keep us from acting to secure the American Peace, and they were all already old dudes back in the 90s.

I'd love to hear what you have to say about the PNAC.

I'm quite well versed in their work. Between Rebuilding American Defenses and Thomas P. Barnett's "The Pentagon's New Map" you have a pretty clear line of neocon and Establishment reasoning that runs surprisingly parallel to 21st century politics.

I don't buy the official story I'm somewhere in LIHOPland. Although, I have to say, given the dark dystopian civilization that we've been turning into over the last 15 years -- militarized police, hot war across the Arc of Instability, election fraud, neocons in Ukraine in Democratic Admin -- I'm finding it hard to stay there.

I'm with Vidal. It's just a "coincidence". Wink

up
0 users have voted.

“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu

Like I said above, this is a part of one sentence taken out of context from a 90-page report. The "process of transformation" is a reference to the improved use of information technology by the military.

Look, PNAC's goal (similar to the goal of some neocons today) was to re-start the Cold War and keep the defense contractors in business. It's not a worthy goal, but they were totally blindsided by the 9/11 attacks just as the Bush administration was.

up
0 users have voted.

"We've done the impossible, and that makes us mighty."

k9disc's picture

It is certainly outside of the context you want it to, or believe it to be in.

That context that says,"We're going to create a Pearl Harbor type event."

That, clearly, is not in the text. But the context certainly is that a Pearl Harbor type event would make for a pliant and receptive population.

Then 3 or 4 years later they come into power, and lo and behold, a Pearl Harbor type event happens, and the transformation happens. That transformation continues, to this day, unimpeded. Today, we reap the American Peace.

The PNAC's goals were not to reignite the Cold War. Have you read any of their stuff? Or just the debunking?

"...this is a part of one sentence taken out of context from a 90-page report."

Seems a bit minimal. And you suggesting that it was about a Cold War mentality and Defense Contractors suggests to me that you read some articles on the internet and didn't read the document.

Did you read the document?

up
0 users have voted.

“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu

Bob In Portland's picture

Questions:

The US government hid the 28 pages in the 9/11 Commission’s report that detailed Saudi aid to the hijackers. A number of Saudis were allowed to fly out of the US by the Bush Administration in the days after the attack when all other American air flights were cancelled. Why?
The US attacked Afghanistan in retaliation for the attack because Osama bin Laden was living there. He escaped into our ally Pakistan’s territory before the end of 2001. The US has remained in Afghanistan for 15 years, even after bin Laden’s death in Pakistan. Was bin Laden’s presence in Afghanistan the real reason why we invaded Afghanistan? Why are we still there? Did the invasion have anything to do with the TAPI gas pipeline agreement that the Taliban backed out of in the months prior to 9/11?
Mohammed Atta was allegedly a very devout Muslim whose motivation for the terrorist attack was because he was offended that there were American troops in Saudi Arabia. While training at Hoffman Aviation in Florida he and another hijacker were seen snorting cocaine. His girlfriend was a stripper. A week before the 9/11 attacks he was seen on a Sun Cruz ship. Sun Cruz runs a fleet of gambling cruise ships in the Gulf of Mexico. Did Mohammed Atta, who allegedly masterminded the 9/11 attacks because of his devout beliefs, nevertheless have a stripper as a girlfriend, snort cocaine and take a ride on a gambling ship prior to 9/11?
Mohammed Atta, in the years before 9/11, travelled in “intelligence circles” around Europe. At one point Atta was employed by a front corporation identified as a German BND operation. Was Atta working with western intelligence?
Hoffman Aviation, where Atta allegedly learned how to fly airliners, was both a training facility and a small airline. Hoffman Airlines NEVER had a scheduled flight but had been used by Florida’s Secretary of State for a private flight. Another of Huffman’s flights was discovered to have imported 43 pounds of heroin into the Orlando International Airport while Atta was matriculating in Venice, Florida. No one, not the pilot, not the owner of the airline, no one in Huffman Aviation was ever charged with importing those 43 pounds of heroin. Who would have the pull within the US government to prevent an investigation of Huffman, regarding the heroin importation? 43 pounds of heroin is known as “heavy weight” in the drug business, and is worth millions. Who would be excused from prosecution for smuggling 43 pounds of heroin into the US?

up
0 users have voted.
Slightkc's picture

I hadn't heard about the TAPI gas line agreement. Somehow, I missed that one. However, I have read in several different places that Afghanistan has a good repository of rare earth minerals... the type of ore we need for our sophisticated electronics, and of which the U.S. has none (or so the report read). However, this valuable ore is in the mountain regions, so I don't see how they're going to mine it until there's a somewhat calmer environment. IMO, thanks to Bush, that day may never come for those poor people.

BTW... I also read in the same articles that the only other country to have these rare earth ores in abundance is China.

up
0 users have voted.
TheOtherMaven's picture

Edit: reply to Bob in Portland

The story, or at least the timing, of the "Saudis allowed to fly out of the US when all other planes were grounded" has been questioned, and the point has not often been made that they weren't ordinary schmoes - they were Big-Money men and their families, with high level connections. Money buys privilege, always has, always will.

Cowboy Bush was hellbent on forcing the Taliban into war, refusing all offers of compromise - and there were several, including turning bin Laden over to a neutral third-party nation (not specified) to stand trial. Not good enough, screamed Cowboy Bush, and ordered the bombs to start falling before the end of his own ultimatum.

As for Mohammed Atta, assuming all the reports refer to the same man (which given the extreme popularity of the name "Mohammed" is not an absolute certainty), he would appear to be just another "Do as I say, not as I do" religious hypocrite. (It was Osama bin Laden who started that beeswax about US troops "profaning" the "sacred soil" of Saudi Arabia, and it appears to have been contagious - or he was very persuasive, both of which may have been true.)

up
0 users have voted.

There is no justice. There can be no peace.

lunachickie's picture

You seem so certain about all of this. I would never profess to have any idea at this point, there's been so much poison flung on discussion among realistic grownups on the subject. YMMV, I guess.

up
0 users have voted.
TheOtherMaven's picture

all too well, including his intransigence and double-dealing.

I'm not at all sure about who did or didn't let a bunch of Saudis fly out of the US when no one else was allowed to, but they were all Very Very Rich and Very Well Connected - that much is not in dispute.

As for Mohammed Atta...hypocrites exist in all religions at all times. YMMV.

up
0 users have voted.

There is no justice. There can be no peace.

In addition to the 9/11 attack leader Mohamed Atta (who was Egyptian), there were at least two others of the same name - a Pakistani and a Jordanian. Not all the same guy.

It was Ayman al-Zawahiri who suggested that Osama bin Laden make himself a public enemy of America.

"This is not for the purpose of killing Americans," al-Zawahiri told him. "This is for the purpose of driving them crazy. They are cowboys and will react without thinking."

Well, it worked beyond what al-Zawahiri predicted. I'll bet they never expected an illegal invasion of Iraq, and most of what has happened since.

up
0 users have voted.

"We've done the impossible, and that makes us mighty."

MarilynW's picture

Osama bin Laden is on record for his motives behind 9/11. He predicted a US invasion of Afghanistan would follow the attacks on the USA on 9/11. He wanted the US to become mired in Afghanistan because he believed history would repeat itself. He thought that what happened to the Soviet Union after its 10 year occupation of that country would happen to the USA. The Soviet Union broke up after the occupation and it was bin Laden's dream that the USA would also break up after occupying Afghanistan. I do think that Zawahiri and bin Laden did not expect an invasion of Iraq.

Lawrence Wright "The Looming Tower"

up
0 users have voted.

To thine own self be true.

including Krakauer on Pat Tillman. And funny, we're doing now just what the Soviets were doing before they finally left Afghanistan - doubling down militarily no matter how much we keep on losing. Will we too break our Treasury once and for all with our wars? If our plutocrats have anything to say about it we sure as hell will.

up
0 users have voted.

Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur

MarilynW's picture

it does not have to walk into it." And yet, knowingly that's what's happening. Mired down in Afghanistan for longer than the Russians and achieved exactly what? The initial bombing campaign killed many al Qaeda and many innocents too. But the occupation?

up
0 users have voted.

To thine own self be true.

Bob In Portland's picture

The story, or at least the timing, of the "Saudis allowed to fly out of the US when all other planes were grounded" has been questioned, and the point has not often been made that they weren't ordinary schmoes - they were Big-Money men and their families, with high level connections.

I'm not sure of your point. The Saudis who were giving money to the eventual hijackers weren't military. Do you have to be military to give money to terrorists? Was Osama bin Laden a civilian or military? Adnan Khoshoggi? Bandar Bush?

I don't question that Bush was motivated to invade Afghanistan.

As for Mohammed Atta, assuming all the reports refer to the same man (which given the extreme popularity of the name "Mohammed" is not an absolute certainty), he would appear to be just another "Do as I say, not as I do" religious hypocrite.

No, Mo Atta was IDed in my above examples. He was not confused with another Mo. Of course, he was a religious hypocrite, which means that the soiling Saudi Arabia was a lie, a lie that was repeated by our government.

You still manage to miss Atta's intelligence connections in Germany. You do not even mention the 43 pounds of heroin that Huffman Aviation was caught smuggling. Who trains terrorists and moves heroin? If you've been paying attention the last seventy years you may be able to answer that question yourself.

Why do you think that the US attempted to coverup Saudi money trails to the hijackers? National Security?

No, 9/11 was the Reichstag Fire. As with the Reichstag Fire, most of the common folk bought it without question.

In fact, most people buy it without question because the alternative is too scary to contemplate.

There are still documents regarding the JFK assassination that are kept secret for over fifty years. You know what that means? That means that the people who murdered JFK got away with it. For fifty years. What does that say about our political system? What have the conspirators done since then?

In some ways Democracy as a reality has always been constrained by the rich and powerful. Only white landed men begat white men who could get down to the courthouse on election day. People who weren't white or men eventually got to vote (but not universally yet) but by then the choices were more greatly controlled by our rich and powerful. As an example, if H. Clinton dropped dead today, do you think that the Democratic Party would put up the guy who came in second place? Of course not.

Our system has always been controlled by the rich and powerful. It's pretty obvious now, but most people don't have the intellectual courage to admit it.

up
0 users have voted.
Bob In Portland's picture

What profession uses doubles?

up
0 users have voted.
lotlizard's picture

Walk the path and spread the truth with full sincerity, regardless of others’ acceptance or rejection.

Nothing good can be accomplished on the foundation of a lie.

Any given individual may strive toward the light or persist in denial; in any case, as a whole a curse and a shadow will lie upon America’s future as long as she continues to build on the foundation of a monstrous lie.

up
0 users have voted.
TheOtherMaven's picture

or where or when it began.

up
0 users have voted.

There is no justice. There can be no peace.

lotlizard's picture

In fact, if truth be told (heh), personally I find the use of the term “truther” offensive, up there with the N,B,C words.

N,B,C poisons discussion emotionally, but “truther” is used to poison discussion both emotionally and intellectually.

If certain words and expressions are to be banned, then for sure I would nominate “truther.” Along with that other contentless slur, “conspiracy theorist.”

up
0 users have voted.
Big Al's picture

Got a good taste of it here didn't we.

up
0 users have voted.

Start throwing around the word "truth" and repeating 9/11 stuff that was debunked years ago, and somebody might infer you are a "truther." If there is a more PC term, I'll happily use a substitute - perhaps "factually challenged"?

up
0 users have voted.

"We've done the impossible, and that makes us mighty."

I mean, I know I should not even stick my nose in here but I just don't get the open hostility here to what's really a discussion about our lying government? And we KNOW they lie, there's very little honest controversy on that little matter anymore. On any other topic I would bet there would not be the need to use "truther" slurs, so why here?

I think we'll never know what really happened any more than we will with JFK. As pointed out, there are still "classified" documents on JFK that we won't see in our lifetimes. Hell, even that ugly SCOTUS case that "elected" GWB in 2000 will be SEALED for a good long while. Why on earth would you think 9/11 would be any different? And yes, OF COURSE the Saudi's who flew out were wealthy ones, I mean, duh - like the rest of us out here are dumb enough to think ordinary Saudi's too were whisked out of the country? We all know better than that.

I just think there is more to the whole thing than they just couldn't have "foreseen" it. And I know I read in some book about a female terrorist specialist being interviewed by someone in government BEFORE 9/11 on flying planes into buildings as a terrorist act and had anyone ever done that before? If they didn't make it happen, they let it happen. And really, while we like to think they'd never allow American citizens to be killed for their "agenda" all we need do there is look at our wars and our dead GI's and stop and think for about 5 seconds on that sentiment. Those wars are NOT fought for freedumb or any other such lovely sentiment, they're fought for profit, period.

up
0 users have voted.

Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur

No one is saying that the government never lies, or that politicians never lie. No one I know, anyway.

Bush v. Gore is not "sealed." Where do you get that?

There is no evidence to support the theory of "If they didn't make it happen, they let it happen." Plenty of evidence, including in the 9/11 Commission report, of Bush administration incompetence.

up
0 users have voted.

"We've done the impossible, and that makes us mighty."

k9disc's picture

http://caucus99percent.com/comment/172482#comment-172482

Just depends on what the actual goal is. He sucked for American Citizens. He rocked for his sponsors and ideological brethren.

up
0 users have voted.

“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu

... And really, while we like to think they'd never allow American citizens to be killed for their "agenda" all we need do there is look at our wars and our dead GI's and stop and think for about 5 seconds on that sentiment. Those wars are NOT fought for freedumb or any other such lovely sentiment, they're fought for profit, period.

Polluting and other industry has also long been permitted by government officials to knowingly poison, sicken and murder workers, consumers and the general public to increase their profit - and listen to an example of bills and arguments within Congress intended to help protect the profits of some of the greatest and longest-running villains against class-action lawsuits brought by some few of their victims. What they don't know may kill them - and how many know even when some recompense may be supplied them or their survivors by a class-action suit? How many does a newspaper advisement of such actually reach?

https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2016/01/08/house-section/a...

FAIRNESS IN CLASS ACTION LITIGATION ACT OF 2015
(House of Representatives - January 08, 2016)

... Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I rise today in support of a bill that combines two important
reforms, the Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act and the Furthering
Asbestos Claim Transparency Act, or the FACT Act. Let me first explain
why my colleagues should vote in favor of the Fairness in Class Action
Litigation Act.
Last year an independent research firm surveyed companies in 26
countries and found that 80 percent of those that were subject to a
class action lawsuit were U.S. companies, putting those U.S. companies
at a distinct economic disadvantage when competing with companies
worldwide.
The problem of overbroad class actions doesn't just affect U.S.
companies. It affects consumers in the United States who are forced
into lawsuits they don't want to be in. How do we know that? We know
that because the median rate at which consumer class action members
take the compensation offered in a settlement is an incredibly low
0.023 percent. That is right.
Only the tiniest fraction of 1 percent of consumer class action
members--less than 1 quarter of 1 percent--even bothers to claim the
compensation awarded them. That is clear proof that vastly large
numbers of class members are satisfied with the products they purchase,
don't want compensation, and don't want to be lumped into a gigantic
class action lawsuit. ...

My interjection: so many US companies seem to feel that polluting and destroying human and environmental health to 'cut costs' offloaded onto victims and society and drain further profit has become a right because they have been allowed/supported/protected in such behaviours by public officials for so very long and - at the expense of others - have become so wealthy and powerful as a result that they can now purchase entire political parties.

And if very few of the members of such class action suits likely even know about the suit, how can they be claimed to be somehow adversely affected by being within the category of the suit, when they may not even realize that the product it's claimed above that they're therefore 'clearly proven' to be 'satisfied with' might be in the often slow process of killing them?

But some facts brought up are pointed out below:

... Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
Members of the House, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1927, the
so-called Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act and Furthering
Asbestos Claim Transparency Act.
I oppose the legislation because it cleverly shields corporate
wrongdoers by making it more difficult for those who have been harmed
by their actions from obtaining justice and it allows these wrongdoers
to further victimize their victims.
Among H.R. 1927's many flaws is the fact that this legislation will
have the effect of denying individuals access to justice and
threatening victims of corporate wrongdoing, all in the name of
protecting the powerful. Section 2 of H.R. 1927 will make it virtually
impossible for victims of corporate wrongdoing to obtain relief through
class actions in cases seeking monetary relief by requiring a party
seeking class certification to show that every potential class member
suffered the same type and scope of injury at the certification stage.
Now, you know that is going to be difficult.

We come to the realization that, as it is, class actions are very
difficult to pursue. Under current procedure, the courts strictly limit
the grounds on which a large group of plaintiffs may be certified as a
class, including the requirements that their claims raise common and
factual legal questions and that the class representative's claims are
typical of those of the other class members.
Rather than improving upon this class certification process, however,
H.R. 1927 imposes requirements that are almost impossible to meet,
effectively undermining the use of class actions.
Finally, section 3 of H.R. 1927 gives asbestos defendants--the very
entities whose products injured millions of Americans--new weapons with
which to harm their victims.

Section 3 requires a bankruptcy asbestos trust to report on the
court's public case docket, which is then made available on the
Internet, the name and exposure history of each asbestos victim who
receives payment from such trust as well as the basis of any payment
made to the victim.
As a result, the confidential personal information of asbestos
claimants, including their names and exposure histories, would be
irretrievably released into the public domain. Just imagine what
identity thieves and others, such as insurers, potential employers,
lenders, and data collectors, could do with this sensitive information.
Essentially, this bill revictimizes asbestos victims by exposing
their private information to the public, information that has
absolutely nothing to do with compensation for asbestos exposure. This
explains why asbestos victims vigorously oppose this legislation, as it
is an assault against their privacy interests.

{time} 0930

So, in sum, H.R. 1927 is a seriously flawed bill that only benefits
those who cause harm to others. ...

Yet some apparently believe, in the face of the evidence, that the long routine large-scale murder of citizens to serve pathological self-interests would not be conducted or permitted by whoever happens to be in their government at any time? We non-billionaires are all expendables to Those Who Matter...

up
0 users have voted.

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

Let's come up with another term for people who believe far-fetched 9/11 theories that contradict the facts, and can never own up to what exactly they think happened.

up
0 users have voted.

"We've done the impossible, and that makes us mighty."

I think they let it happen. I think they knew what the "chatter" was and I think they willfully ignored it. I think they got a lot of what they wanted out of it too - the security state is never going away, the wars are never going away, and our Treasury will eventually be depleted as a result of it. They'll use that to further cut any social safety nets, infrastructure spending or anything benefitting ordinary people, and the American people will buy into it because of the fear generated out of not only 9/11 but all the other blowback from our fucking wars.

As for Bush's incompetence, that kinda goes without saying doesn't it? I mean we all saw the idiotic things he said and did, but we should pass it ALL off to incompetence? What about Cheney, Rummy and the rest, mere incompetents? And really, just when do we stop and think that these people are NOT that damned dumb? It's like thinking the Tea Party founders really believe if we cut government spending the economy will recover - after 35 years of all "evidence" to the contrary? When do we stop giving that kind of pass to these people for creating the destruction they have? I'm sorry, but for it all to be because GWB was a dumb shit just seems a bit too simplistic to me. They know what they're doing, if they didn't they wouldn't be as adept at it as they are.

I am not normally given to CT, and I don't think they "made it happen" as an inside mass conspiracy, so in the interest of purity I should have left that remark out. But I will not believe any more what our government tells me to believe, not after all we've seen this last year or so, not after the endless damned wars and the rampant stupidity of cutting spending in a fucking recession. No, their narrative of the whole damned thing is as suspect as those damned emails and pay to play out of Shillary Clinton. We can't "prove" her quid pro quo either, does that mean it didn't happen? Most of us out here KNOW it happened, but we cant "prove" that. And if she has her way, we'll never be able to prove it. That is the very nature of her type of corruption, so you'll just have to pardon me if I'm not ready to swallow the idea that something didn't happen just because it can't be definitively proved or because the "proof" of that came from a government source.

So now, you go on and call me any name in the book you need to, and call me out for not "owning up" to what I really think. But personally, I don't know why you bother - you quite obviously are not interested in what anyone else who disagrees with you in the slightest has to say.

up
0 users have voted.

Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur

First of all, thanks for not hiding behind the "just asking questions" dodge or dropping dark hints without explicitly saying anything.

I recognize that people have strong feelings, but we're 15 years after the fact. If LIHOP was the truth, we would know by now. Somebody on the inside would have pointed a finger, don't you think? After all, it's treason we are talking about - literally treason.

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(2)(J), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)

You are entitled to your opinion. My opinion is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

We already know quite a lot about Hillary and Bill Clinton's corruption, some of it pretty recent. An order of magnitude smaller, too.

up
0 users have voted.

"We've done the impossible, and that makes us mighty."

Pages