Maybe this will stir up more interest than the moon-landing-hoax poll... Did nineteen p'd-off Muslims carry out the attacks on 9/11? Or is that just what The Powers That Be want you to think? Are you one of those mouth-breathing Fox News viewers who thinks Saddam Hussein was involved? Or a super-enlightened Pacifica listener who's heard the Truth about 9/11? Vote now, and let me know if I'm leaving off any important suspects.

DEBATE:

Which of the following people do you believe were involved in planning the 9/11/01 terrorist attacks?

My experience on this planet has been that things really are what they seem to be, at least when it comes to human evil. Unlike an Agatha Christie novel, the most obvious suspect is usually the culprit. The 9/11 attacks were exactly what they appeared to be.

While I have to admit that I googled him to find out who he was, what's the deal with including Larry Silverstein?


Khalid Sheik Muhammed (KSM) was the principal planner of 9/11. His cousin, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, was one of the moneymen.

I highly recommend reading Lawrence Wright's The Looming Tower for background on Al Qaeda and the planning of these attacks.

We'll never know. I think many in the government certainly are evil enough to do a thing like that. That doesn't mean I think they did, though. How could I possibly know? I know what I believe. I believe terrorists did it. How certain am I? Not very.

I don't like 911 Conspiracy Theories, such as Controlled Demolition, No Plane Hit the Pentagon, etc. I find that those who believe in them play fast and loose with the facts, and a lot of the people who promote them have agendas that are beyond nasty. Virulent Jew hatred is one of the biggest, all-out White Supremacy and Nazism are rolled in there too.

I know one thing. A lot of people were murdered, and it was tragic.

Yes, that's one thing.

Haven't you heard, carlito? He admitted to detonating the explosions! Said he gave the order to "pull it" right here. Strangely, you won't usually see that link which places the statement in context, but it has been used in a book or two as "proof" of Silverstein's guilt.

Strangely the insurance companies didn't use this information in order to eschew paying him billions for damages.

Exactly. Though it might not have been explosives, but possibly other commonly used demolition materials like thermite or nanothermite or thermate or, I dunno, military grade termites.

Silverstein is a common villain in controlled demolition theories. I might have added Marvin Bush to the list, since Truthers like to claim he was in charge of security at the WTC.

I suddenly realize what I like about this forum.

The pronounced lack of "truthers."

Well, It should its a much more recent hoax debate, one that needs some post, I'll probably have one up on this in a week or two. BTW what is a
A super-enlightened Pacifica listener ??? Lol

Concerning the question at hand, I had a hard time deciding here because I have a strong feeling in my gut that it was none of the above. Hear me out for a second, how do we really know that it wasn't horrible Venus creatures from Mars that downed those buildings with death rays ?? After all if your a Venus creature from Mars your obviously lost and a little P.Oed at the same time, so they would have motive, and because there is a 0.000000000000000000000000000001 % chance at best that this is actually the case I'm just going to have to put all my eggs in that basket just to be safe. Outrageous, I know but I guess that kind of sarcasm comes from listing to those who say because they are not a high ranking official in the U.S. gouvernment that they are not willing to accept what is so painfully obvious here in the fear that their gouvernment has them fooled. That obvious truth being a group of insane men flying American jumbo jets into American buildings to kill thousands in the name of their god.

Its amazing to me so many can dismiss the obvious for what is nothing more than a slim chance reality, so I'm joining the club but gouvernment hoaxes are just so old and boring today with as many as have been presented in recent years, so I'm sticking with the Venus creatures from Mars conspiracy to spice things up a bit, lol.

Seriously though humor aside, Ive looked into this a bit and have come across nothing that has me convinced the obvious isn't the truth, however I have been planing on making a 9/11 hoax debate as soon as I get enough data from both viewpoints to make a lengthy post in a similar way I did with the moon hoax debate because this is a topic that is likely much more controversial and relevant to todays youth, who are most susceptible to being mislead. Who knows maybe I'll find something that convinces me it was really a hoax but at this point I highly doubt it, but I try and go into things with fairness so that I'm presenting facts as well as my opinion. Where as the brainchild's of hoax theories writing books and making videos often do exactly the opposite, present their opinion on what is nothing more than a lack of facts, only to try and pass their opinion as if it were fact.

Pacifica Radio is a listener-supported progressive/left-leaning radio network. Their best-known show is Democracy Now with Amy Goodman. She's an excellent journalist, but some of her colleagues... Well, check out Guns and Butter, on my local KPFA -- chock full o' 9/11 conspiracy theories. The host, Bonnie Faulkner, says there's "overwhelming evidence" that "9/11 was an inside job."

So the "super-enlightened Pacifica listener" bit (contrasted with the "mouth-breathing Fox News viewers") was an attempt at humor, a little ribbing for progressives who think they comprise the reality-based community.

Are you a "super-enlightened Pacifica listener" ? Or what you consider a "mouth-breathing Fox News viewer" ?

Not much of either, really. I'll flip over to Pacifica when the local NPR affiliate is doing pledge drives, and I've been known to watch Red Eye on Fox when The Daily Show & Colbert are in reruns. Pacifica does some real journalism, plays some interesting music, and pads out the schedule with amateurish activism. Fox News is mostly talking heads who insult my intelligence.

Funny I think the same of Colbert and John Stewart as far as insulting ones intelligence, it would be different if they spread their jokes more on both the left and right but they don't, and Ive seen enough of both shows to know that. Every now and then they make a crack on a democrat, like joking about Nancy Pelocies vagina like they have, lol, but the one sidedness is obvious on both shows. Fox gets a bad rep with some on the left I think because they have one too many willing to look at things in fairness. They don't single out this administration like Keith Olbermann, or John Steward. However its one of the fairest news networks in exsistance, and I believe that. Otherwise they would have shows called Hannity and Hannity, and they would boot out Colmes to MSNBC.

At least we agree on Red Eye, I like that alright. Its funny when Greg gets his half senile mom on the phone for a chat.

The contrast between Fox News and the Daily Show is perhaps the most telling binary to be drawn in all of political television.

Fox is bold, strident, self-assured: O'Reilly hammers his opinion at you while key words flash on the screen beside him -- this is an educational technique designed to increase one's memory of an issue (key words + speech + visuals -- very powerful). They may crack a joke, but only at an opponent's expense. They are dead serious.

John Stewart comes out of a long tradition of self-effacing Manhattan Jews, a celebrated history which goes back through Woody Allen and Rodney Dangerfield to the beginnings of American Stand-up comedy. He's not comfortable in his skin enough to be truly brutal-- clever, but not snarky. Underneath his humor their may be an obvious slant: but unlike O'Reilly -- whose humor goes out of its way to reinforce a political point -- Stewart's politics are subservient to the humor. Watch the show carefully, i really don't believe the writing team comes in there everyday and says, 'how can we bash the president?' That would be called Air America or Lil Bush, and nobody would watch or listen to it.

This is because conservativism represents a more compelling world vision than Liberalism, which is more detail-oriented and less absolute. I blame/credit the distinction first to Ronald Reagan -- who framed convertavism as a grand battle between freedom and tyranny -- and secondly to Bill Clinton, the policywonk who dwelt on the pain and suffering of individuals and the logistical details that brought about that pain.

So, getting back to the subject, whose political perspective is better represented by these two shows? 7 minutes of Stewart's is dedicated to interviewing actors half the time -- who have absolutely nothing to say about politics -- which O'Reilly doesn't even give his interviews a full sentence's time to speak.

I'm not knocking fox news (not here, anyway), just saying that's a bad comparison.




Now, having said that, every time someone suggests that Dick Cheney planned 9/11 I am fairly convinced that somewhere a militaristic republican receives 10 votes. These theories reflect an incredible, deep-seated suspicion of the government which ventures beyond politics into an existential dread-- and I understand it.

In modern life the US government -- and all the echelons of power that tentacle off from it -- have become like the coming millennium: so unimaginably vast that its very size evokes a confusion that can only yield fear, mistrust, dread and the false prophets who battle it. Look at these loose change guys: http://www.loosechange911.com/lc2e.htm

In dark, dreary tones they present themselves more as messianic martyrs than proactive skeptics.

And why not? 9/11 was scary yeah, but what's arguably more haunting is the massive weight of these collective historical memories, the way our whole lives (and minds) get wrapped around these events, over and over again by the media, the government, and in daily conversation: As events, flashbulb memories like 9/11, the Kennedy assassination or the moon landing organize our lives. I'm sure its enough to drive a man wild.

The idea that it could all have been faked -- and therefore, inconsequential -- would be a huge relief. To me, at least.

Ive seen probably a dozen shows of John Stewart if not more in the last 3 years, and I'll even admit he can be funny, he is good at what he does but the more I have watched him over the years the more I noticed that somewhere in the neighborhood of 80% of his political jokes are targeted directly at conservatives or the Bush administration. The best show I think he did that I saw was one where he got General George Sada of Iraq on to talk about Saddam Hussein having WOMD abilities after desert storm, Ive done a couple post on other sites about Sada who was Hussein's military adviser. John Steward was skeptical of something like this, that gets the bush administration of the hook by suggesting there were WOMD in Iraq we didn't find because they were shipped to Syria before we got to them, but at least he had him on the show for an interview, I know this forum isn't about that but here is a clip of John Steward and General Sada from that episode............. http://www.johnnyproctor.com/sqsp2/sada-tds.wmv

Other than a few little things like this, what turns me away from him is the partisanship, and severe Bias in the show that occurs on a normal basis.

The fact that Osama bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed have admitted very publicly that they did it should be a clue here.

Last I heard Dick Cheney has not fessed up to it and neither has Bush - I am surprised his name is not here since he is blamed for everything else!

Ted,

I have never thought Bush and/or Cheney were involve in the planning, although Bush, particularly, has benefited from creating fear around 9/11.

I don't, however, understand your point. If they had been involved, would they feel such overwhelming guilt that they would just "fess up"?

IMO 9/11 was a tragedy for this nation, carried out by Al Qaeda. Bush may have “benefited” by his handling of the crisis but it’s a relative term. The follow on imo lead to a decision to force Iraq to comply with the UN resolutions they had been ignoring since 1998 – and we know whet a disaster that has been for the country and Bush.


To talk about Bush or any American in the administration being involved in 9/11 directly is not worth the words. I am disappointed that the 9/11 Commission, set up by Congress, did all of us a major disservice by not investigating and reporting the failures that lead to 9/11.

They claim they did not want to “point fingers” which is exactly what they should have done. Of course many of the fingers would point right at THEM so I understand the position.

That's fine Ted, but you still haven't answered my question. If by chance, Bush and Cheney were involved, what makes you think thery would "fess up"? I don't think they were involved - I never have - but if, by chance they were that's spelled t-r-e-a-s-o-n. Why would they confess to something like that and face the penalties involved?

The "fess up" statement is meaningless, but one you have to dance around in an attempt at damage control. Thinking before you hit the post button would be of great benefit.

The correct answer was B and D: Dick Cheney and Saddam Hussein planned the whole thing. Cheney then had to invade Iraq in order to make sure Saddam would never talk.

Just kidding. Somebody might have answered that way, though. Saddam has one vote, and Cheney has five, out of the current total of 39 votes.


Indeed. Larry Silverstein hasn't received a single vote. Bin Laden leads with 27 out of 39, but only 16 out of 39 people think Mohammed Atta and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed were involved. How's that work? Eleven people think bin Laden was involved in the planning, but the lead pilot wasn't?

I'll second carlito's recommendation of Lawrence Wright's The Looming Tower. I haven't finished it yet, but it includes the most detailed and thoroughly sourced account of Osama bin Laden's life that I've seen. The list of interviews that Wright conducted is staggering. He's got people who fought with bin Laden in Afghanistan, worked with him in Sudan, fled with him back to Afghanistan... Highly recommended.