truthaction.org

[Scott N]

Truthmove has a great thread on the most oft-cited evasions to 911 truth, found here:

http://www.truthmove.org/forum/topic/780

We encounter these fallacies all the time from the likes of DailyKos, DU, Neocon sites, gatekeepers and pundits. Objections are beautifully summarized by Truthmove members.

I decided to answer each fallacy in turn. Perhaps others can do the same and correct me where I’ve gone wrong.

I’ve had a video project in mind for awhile now: address these tiresome but persistent fallacies with interviews, stock footage, historical documents and just plain common sense. Unfortunately I lack the requisite funding to make said video at this time (the interviews, specifically). Perhaps given a year or two, or perhaps someone else can take up the charge.

At the end of the day I think these evasions are an example of the classic defense mechanism. They are not logical, but they allow the adherent to maintain a (false) sense of security.
--

Truthmod:

"What was their motive?" (i.e. there is no believable motive)

If I was forced to narrow it down to one word I would choose: fear. Fear of losing power in relation to others. Fear of “excess” democracy in the homeland and elsewhere. Fear of the fallout from dwindling resources, especially oil. Fear of a leveling spirit in the wake of Glasnost. Todd Fletcher called it a “desperate provocation by US capitalism”.

Sounds about right. If the object was fear, it was also the primary motive.

From there you can extrapolate. The need for a “widely perceived external threat” to unify the populace. War is health of the state. M.I.C maintenance: “Truman's "cold-war spending" was regarded by the business press as a "magic formula for almost endless good times" (Steel), a way to "maintain a generally upward tone" (Business Week). Petrodollars. Greater Israel. The balkanization of the Middle East. Heroin. Missing trillions. I could go on all day.

One motive that has been underplayed in favor of the oil/geostrategy thesis is the (effective) crushing of the (so-called) anti-globalization movement. 911 was a magic bullet. Dissent is now terrorism, or will be in the very near future.

Probably the best response would be to quote PNAC. Keep it simple.

“They couldn't get away with it”

They didn’t. It’s an open secret. Why would they take the risk? The answer is that there WAS NO (perceived) RISK; better said, the risk was so infinitesimally small that it was deemed irrelevant in light of the massive benefits sure to accrue. Out of the hundreds of documented false flag operations in history no big-whig has EVER been held to account. EVER.

One way to answer this question would be to use the JFK example. The JFK assassination is important because it's accepted by the vast majority of people as a black op. Domestic. Shadow gov. Patsy. The risk of assassinating a sitting president is fairly enormous, yet the CIA did it anyway. Hubris. They knew they would get away with it, and they did.

“They're too incompetent”

This is perhaps the most common complaint and one of the most difficult to answer. The problem is that most people haven’t read books like “The Power Elite” or “Friendly Fascism”; they make the mistake of assuming THEIR goals and values are roughly congruous with those of the elite. It’s an act of projection. No one wants to think that the Texan equivalent of Ted Bundy has his finger on the nuclear trigger. Thus, Katrina was a monumental blunder, a human tragedy, not a juicy mark for corporate vultures and the equivalent of a stubbed toe for Junior. The sectarian violence in Iraq is a sign of myopia and failed strategy, not the successful implementation of Oded Yinon’s Strategy for Israel, ie the balkanization of Iraq (and -- assuming the worst -- the rest of the middle east).

The question is then posed: what about the Democratic Party? Surely Bush wouldn’t risk tanking elections just to fulfill the neocon agenda? It’s an interesting question. More hubris? Diebold? Betting on the attention span of the American public? A higher purpose after all? How much power does Bush really have? Or Cheney? What percentage puppet and what percentage puppet master?

One could mention the fact that Barbara Bush calls Bill Clinton “son”, thus rendering the entire electoral process a sick joke, but people are deeply attached to the idea that their vote for the presidency makes a profound difference. It’s one of the first things taught in school. We cling to the idea like a puppy at its mother’s teet. We're attached to their political parties in the same way that people are attached to their favorite sports team. Did I say we?

To what degree IS the political process a complete and utter charade? Citing clubs where elites from both sides of the (ridiculously narrow) political spectrum hang together might be useful for this question. Bilderberg, Trilateral etc.

An even better analogy is the response of RFK to the murder of his brother.

Here’s an excerpt from Joan Mellon’s book “A Farewell to Justice”:

“After the death of his brother, Robert Kennedy, viewing the CIA as his chief suspect, immediately confronted John McCone. "Did the CIA kill my brother?" he demanded. Then he called Enrique ("Harry") Williams, among the favorite Cubans in his "special project."

"One of your guys did it!" Bobby declared. He asked his aide, Frank Mankiewicz, whether "any of our people were involved," and Mankiewicz thought, did you think there might be? On the chance that the Mafia might have planned the assassination, Bobby sent Justice Department lawyer and his personal operative, Walter Sheri- dan, to Dallas to inquire whether the Mafia had anything to do with the murder of his brother. The answer came back in the negative.

“I am here in New Orleans representing Robert Kennedy,” -
Sheridan said, "and I have been sent down here to stop the probe, no matter what it takes." He needed Gervais to make Perry Russo change his story, a story the Shaw defense obviously believed. When Strate informed Gervais of Sheridan's attempt to bribe him, Pershing suggested they "go see Garrison right away and tell him."

In Chicago, Strate took the stand and testified to Sheridan's at- tempt to bribe him. Represented by Herbert J. Miller Jr., Sheridan lied, denying that he had ever attempted to bribe Strate. Once more he escaped censure.
Jim Garrison had become aware that the FBI knew too much about his investigation. That his telephones were tapped was a con- tinuing irritation. "Joe, I'd be glad to talk to you," he told CBS cor- respondent Joe Wershba, "if only we could get the number one faggot in Washington off my line."

One day the FBI received a call from someone trying to reach Jim Garrison. "Mr. Garrison informed us that if we could not reach him at home," the man said, "he could be reached through the sound room of the FBI."

--

On Sheridan's behalf, Bobby Kennedy went public: "It is not pos- sible that Mr. Sheridan would do anything that would in the slight- est degree compromise the truth in regard to the investigation in New Orleans," Bobby said. As for Sheridan the man, "I have the ut- most confidence in his integrity, both personal and professional." Robert F. Kennedy now had less than a year to live; it was not his finest hour.

Bobby apparently felt he had no choice but to do everything in his power to destroy Jim Garrison's investigation. As will be shown later, in the months preceding the assassination Oswald had be- come well-known to Bobby and his closest colleagues in the anti- Castro movement, among them Angelo Murgado, Manuel Artime, and Manolo Reboso. Were even his awareness of Oswald to emerge, Bobby might seem in the public perception to have been complicit in the death of his brother, and no better than his CIA adversaries.”

End

--

Bobby Kennedy did everything in his power to squelch the investigation of Jim Garrison. Why? Because he was complicit. Because exposing the perps would have exposed his own crimes. No doubt, had he won the presidency he would have taken retribution against those who killed his brother, but it would not have come in the form of a new investigation into the death of JFK.

To this end, Perhaps better to engage in a simple class analysis. People tend to protect their own interests (or what their perceive as their own interests).

The sad thing is that class awareness seems to have plummeted over the last century. Walk into a steel mill a hundred years ago and ask some worker whether his goals and values were remotely similar to Teddy Roosevelt's and he/she would have laughed in your face. Now? It's all about "Islamo-fascism".

There are two easy ways of bypassing the question of competence altogether, if desired. One is to cite the (very probable) theory that the Bush administration (with the notable exception of Cheney, and probably a few other select scoundrels) was COMPLETELY OUT OF THE LOOP. Plausible deniability. According to CIA whistle blower Philip Agee it is the single most sacred tenet of intelligence.

Another easy answer would be to agree with the questioner: they WERE incompetent. How else do you explain the fact that there are literally hundreds (thousands?) of anomalies and contradictions with the OFT?

Nick wrote:

“It would take thousands of people!”

Another tricky question. Probably it could have been pulled off with a couple dozen; accessories after the fact are innumerable, but then we’re trained since birth to behave like sheep. In answer to the question of why a certain journalist or politician hasn’t spoken out, ask the questioner: why haven’t YOU spoken out?

What’s more, the individuals involved needn’t have even known they were part of the operation (!) Ruppert’s got some good stuff on compartmentalization but it’s a difficult concept for many to grasp. Agee compared the agency to a hotel in which no one (except those in the Penthouse) knew what the person in the next room was doing. The question of numbers is a good opportunity to introduce the war games to our skeptic.

Ultimately I think historical comparisons are the best way to address this complaint. Many truthers cite the Manhattan project but the analogy is strained; it was (theoretically) a “good cause”. Better to cite (a) Northwoods (b) the many, many examples of completely immoral black ops known to us via the FOIA in which hundreds, if not thousands of people did indeed participate without spilling the beans and (c) Gladio.

Gladio is by far the best example for the simple reason that it was essentially a first draft of the “war on terror”. HARD evidence. PARLIAMENTARY investigations. CONFESSIONS. THOUSANDS of participants. THOUSANDS killed. DOZENS of countries. BOMBINGS against innocent civilians. MACHINE GUNNINGS of crowds. Kept SECRET for decades. All in order to create a fake enemy and discredit the target (in this case socialists).

Even more remarkable, most politicians weren’t even aware of the operation until they were long retired.

“A demolition would require gutting the whole building and carting in thousands of tons of explosives and miles of det wire and making noise for months, every receptionist in the building would realize what is going on!!!”

Two answers. One is that the argument is a non sequiter. Laws of physics come before assumptions about technical feasibility.

The other answer involves power-downs, removal of bomb-sniffing dogs, oral testimony, camera malfunctions, “renovations” on specific floors, Asbestos, etc. etc.

“A whistleblower who knew everything would step forward and sing for the immediate positive attention from all the corporate media and the 20-million-dollar book contract, immediately bringing down the government! They would hang! (That's how it works in the movies, right?)”

Again, two answers. One: many whistleblowers HAVE stepped forward. The media has ignored them. This in itself should teach the skeptic a profound lesson. Two: historical parallels.

Here’s a recent example in media manipulation with relevance to black ops: Mark Felt. “Deepthroat” was declared a hero for bringing down Nixon (it’s not clear what Nixon was actually searching for in the Watergate hotel). If that was all he did, I would agree with the assessment. Great guy. But it wasn’t. For one, Mark Felt was a specialist in black bag ops.

He was involved with Bobby and the CIA in trying to discredit Garrison:

“Edwards knew that Felt was interested, not in Gar- rison's prosecutorial foibles as a district attorney, but in destroying his credibility, the better to subvert his challenge to the Warren Commission. Edwards recommends to Felt that the New Orleans field office contact Manning directly so that they might dig into cases where, hopefully, they can "discover" that money was paid to Garrison to have cases against these "sex deviates" disappear. (Mellon)

He was also heavily involved in COINTELPRO.

“Lest there be any misunderstanding, Felt was not a passive observer as FBI agents conducted clandestine and illegal operations against innocent Americans. As The Post stated in Wednesday’s editorial, Felt “was convicted of (and later pardoned for) authorizing illegal acts in pursuit of leftist radicals in the early 1970s.”

http://www.spokesmanreview.com/breaking/story.asp?ID=4113

What I find most interesting about the Felt story is that his role in COINTELPRO (if not the JFK hit) was indeed mentioned by a handful of corporate press organs, but the mention was in passing. It was buried in paragraph 9 and never mentioned again. It was not THE story. The story was of a hero who brought down Nixon. This is similar to the corporate media's treatment of 911. Most of our information comes from the corporate press, but no one from said corporate press has ever dared connect the dots.

It's racist to say Arabs didn't do it. (Arabs are just as bloodthirsty and ruthless as white people! Usually followed by a barely-disguised paean to OBL's struggle against imperialism.)

Suffice it to say that (a) Bin Laden doesn’t have the power to suspend the laws of physics (b) Bin Laden doesn’t have the power to compel the US governement to launch war games or issue stand-downs (c) Bin Laden himself denied involvement in the attacks, blaming it on Israel and the United States before bizarrely changing his tune (presumably via a series doubles, after he passed away) (c) many of the coke-sniffing “Muslims” involved in the attack were clearly no such thing, even less interested in Allah than they were in politics and (d) the “war on terror” itself is a profoundly racist endeavor. Imagine for a moment if this “war” was being conducted against countries like Sweden.

There are legitimate Islamic grass roots resistance movements like Hezbollah. “Al-Qaeda” is just a cut-out courtesy of the CIA, Mossad and related agencies. The war on terror is a hoax.

"Who cares? It doesn't matter! We have more important concerns!" (the Chomsky maneuver)”

911 truth isn’t going away. Any less than the “war on terra”. Strike the root. Dismantle the big lie. Nuff said.

"I wouldn't put it past them" (i.e., I'm not going to give it any consideration).”

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
- Burke

“silence is complicity”
- MLK

“Yeah, like the Jews and UFOs and tinfoil hats and conspiracy looooons and woo woo moonbat idiotarians ha ha and fuuuuuck yoooou! Fuuuuuuuuuuck yooooooou!!! (Often coming from people who describe themselves as strict rationalists.)”

Thanks Webster for the straw men!

"Well if they're that powerful/smart/devious wouldn't they have just been able to produce some WMDs in Iraq or come through with Bin Laden's head on a platter."

Bin Laden – or the idea/image of Bin Laden – is an asset. You don’t throw away your trump card unless absolutely necessary.

WMD? You mean the ones the US sold to Iraq? Didn’t they already try that?

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/IRA308A.html

Did certain unnamed factions punk the neocons to tighten their leash?

Does the average American even care whether there were WMD’s?

“If evidence was being planted and they wanted to go to Iraq why didn't they arrange for the patsies to be Iraqis instead of Saudis?”

This is my personal favorite. I hear it all the time. Best to quote our old pal Ziggy B, whose book served as a paper weight on many a desk in the Pentagon leading up to 911:

"In that context, how America 'manages' Eurasia is critical. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world's central continent. About 75 per cent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for about three-fourths of the world's known energy


Nick, in response to the question, answered:

“One answer is that an anonymous network that is everywhere is good for more than just one war. You don't want it wrapped up with a three-week offensive to topple Saddam, you want an enemy that's good for all purposes for many years.”

And there it is. Couldn’t agree more. This isn’t just about Iraq. It’s about an omnipresent enemy hiding in every café, every movie theatre, every closet. Your worst nightmare. Forget about health care. We’re at war. Best not to venture outside without a police presence nearby. To serve and protect. Pay extra special attention to the man in the darth Vator outfit. He’s there to protect you from the evil ones. Freedom isn’t free.

[johndoraemi]

I keep coming up against Larry Silverstein's "pull it," by people who outright refuse to examine their own claims. I cringed when I saw Martin Sheen repeat this out of context false accusation. This "evidence" needs to be dropped, period, as it is easily challenged in half a dozen ways.

Tales of 9/11 Truthiness
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/2007/02/tales-of-911-truthiness.html

The "truth" movement often deviates from the implied purpose. When you tell many of these people that speculative reinterpretations of comments aren't exactly the "truth," they do get all irrational and start attacking.

I'm sure the same thing happens all the time when you challenge them on a "missile" hitting the pentagon, and that there is "no wreckage" in Shanksville PA.

One of the most abrasive issues is that of the alleged hijackers. Did they get on the planes? Did they not get on the planes? Are those even the planes?

I don't know.

Neither do they.

They claim they know. But they don't.

"One who claims to know what he does not know is sick in mind." -Zen proverb
_________________
The Crimes of the State Blog
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/

[casseia]

Well, I think it's quite reasonable to ask, regarding the Silverstein "pull it", what the hell he meant. My opinion is that he did in fact mean that they agreed to demolish the building, and that this was part of an "aborted Plan B" (which may come back to haunt us) where it was admitted that they "had to" blow up the building. This is speculation, but going astray into the realm of "oh no, he meant pull the firefighters" is silly mental acrobatics. Obviously, it was no decision that was made there on the spot and I doubt that some crucial phone call between Larry and whoever actually took place. So why did he say that?

Therefore, this is not something I bring up except with other truthers, who want to know WTF he meant. I guess with a member of the general public, I might say something like, gee, if you said that about your own house, do you think your insurance company might investigate you? Even if you were talking out your ass? Even if you meant "pull the firefighters"?

[Hocus Locus]

Saw the thread on truthmove.org also -- excellent and timely subject, approach. In fact, I'm still in my self imposed 'foot in mouth period' where I muse the subject and don't post, only draft.

Danse and others are starting to cite issues some of which are rabbit holes (not meant as a disparaging term, 9/11 itself is a rabbit hole). Magnets of discussion -- even 'troll bait' ;-) So it is important I feel that any bringing light or link to the specific topics cited concentrate on the why and especially the how one presents them to the 'mainstream news-steeped public' also try to keep to this excellent topic.

If one has detail to post on individual issues that is more than a simple 'cite' -- post in a related (or new) thread here or elsewhere, then wrap the link to that in on-topic this-thread discussion: what are the fallacies and what are the best ways (and sequence and brevity can be important too, especially at a street-corner!) to communicate them to others.

JFK is an interesting topic here (though mechanics and personnae, worthy of separate thread) because it represents the closest doppelgänger-topic to 9/11 in the generations that preceeded this. And it was a 'complete' 9/11 to be sure -- world-changing, shock and awe, suspicious in nature and in its official investigation, and most on-topic, a major source of political schism such as that we are trying to crack with 9/11.

'JFK', and the facts surrounding the case can also also be a way to communicate with the elder members of ones own family about 9/11 -- in my case, I've grown up knowing that my own parents, along with many others never 'swallowed' the official lone gunman explanation. It was quite the same as 9/11, an 'open secret' if you will. And I concur, but the sparks did not begin to fly until I asked my Dad directly, "So... why then, did you not pursue justice and balance on 'your watch'??" with -- but of course, parallels with my interest in the Towers' demise, Iraqi WMD and the whole lot. I won't discuss the details of that here and now but let me just say, it opened doors of communicatiion and discussion that were not better left unopened, and (eventually) has become a closeness, even a greater level of mutual respect than had been there before.

Hocus backdraft: I cover Joan Mellon's (excellent!) book briefly BFN 20-Nov-2006, and extensively with full-text of an excellent and thought provoking lecture BFN 11-Nov-2006 'Failure', a parable about animals that might just resemble the post-9/11 world in BFN 25-Nov-2006 'The King, the Mice and the Cheese'... and front an important reason I feel why henious, world-changing crimes must be really investigated (even avenged) within the generation in which they occur ('our watch') in my essay on BFN 05-Oct-2006 'Information Land Mines'.

___
Count to a hundred and think again, before one joins a lynch mob. Good advice in 1964, good advice today. Maybe there was complicity in 9/11 in a place you did not expect. But do not stop digging until you run out of possible angles, or time, or both. It's not always just one more layer deep, you know?
~Hocus Locus, BFN 05-Oct-2006 'Information Land Mines'

___
I tend to oversimply things. But to really oversimplify things -- you tell stories about animals.
~Hocus Locus, BFN 25-Nov-2006 'Cheese'

[Diane]

[chrisc]

[Real Truther]

The man is alive and well. He could clarify if he wanted to--why doesn't he? Oh, wait--he did, through a spokesperson (Dara McQuillan) said that pull it referred to the firefighters. OK then, that is consistent with him collecting insurance, which obviously would be an issue if he had decided to suggest the building be demolished. No need to worry about what it SOUNDED like he meant--we know the building was demolished. We know he claims that it was not. What's the issue here? In fact I had a would be bedunker come up to me and say "It was demolished because it was so heavily damaged" apparently unaware that this was no longer the standard bedunker claim. After all, we know that the vast majority who see the clip from America Rebuilds interpret it that way. The company that made America Rebuilds is called Great Projects... check out their website and see what you think! Maybe someone could ask them to release the statement in full context--why not? What have they got to hide, right? http://greatprojects.com/

here's the scoop on 7 from the state department's debunking site:

The Collapse of World Trade Center 7

Allegation: 9/11 Revealed suggests that the 47-story World Trade Center 7 building, which collapsed at 5:20 pm on September 11, was intentionally demolished. The primary piece of evidence for this is a comment that Mr. Larry Silverstein, who owned the World Trade Center complex, made on the September 2002 television documentary American Rebuilds. Mr. Silverstein said:

I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire. I said, you know, “We've had such terrible loss of life that the smartest thing to do is just pull it.” And they made that decision to pull it and we watched the [World Trade Center 7] building collapse.

9/11 Revealed and other conspiracy theorists put forward the notion that Mr. Silverstein’s suggestion to “pull it” is slang for intentionally demolishing the WTC 7 building.

Facts: On September 9, 2005, Mr. Dara McQuillan, a spokesman for Silverstein Properties, issued the following statement on this issue:

Seven World Trade Center collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001, after burning for seven hours. There were no casualties, thanks to the heroism of the Fire Department and the work of Silverstein Properties employees who evacuated tenants from the building.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) conducted a thorough investigation of the collapse of all the World Trade Center buildings. The FEMA report concluded that the collapse of Seven World Trade Center was a direct result of fires triggered by debris from the collapse of WTC Tower 1.

In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.

Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.


As noted above, when Mr. Silverstein was recounting these events for a television documentary he stated, “I said, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it.” Mr. McQuillan has stated that by “it,” Mr. Silverstein meant the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology has stated unequivocally, “NIST has seen so evidence that the collapse of WTC 7 was caused by bombs, missiles, or controlled demolition,” in its Collapse of WTC 7 report (p. 6). NIST’s working hypothesis for the collapse of WTC 7 is that it was caused by the collapse of a critical column due to “fire and/or debris induced structural damage.” There was substantial damage to WTC 7 when the nearby WTC 1 tower collapsed and fires began shortly afterwards. Also, WTC 7 was a very unusual building because it was built over an existing Con-Edison power generation substation, which contained two large 6,000 gallon fuel tanks for the emergency generation of power. The fuel from these tanks could have contributed to the intense heat that apparently weakened the supporting columns in WTC 7.
http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Sep/16-241966.html

[Real Truther]

http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/490

FT gives Silverstein a big wet one, see above--anyone up for fact checking?

[Nicholas]

worth a kick for the OP especially!

[Nicholas]

year later

[Stefan]

“A whistleblower who knew everything would step forward and sing for the immediate positive attention from all the corporate media and the 20-million-dollar book contract, immediately bringing down the government! They would hang! (That's how it works in the movies, right?)”

An answer I've always found successful is this:

"Yes, but if there was someone, who knew everything - they would hang too, or more likely get the electric chair or lethal injection. The only people who would know the entire plot would be those complicit or even at the helm of it. They are the guilty. Gulity of an unprecedented massacre against US citizens - why do you think they'd want to come forward?

It's like saying - if this man with a bullet in his head WAS murdered - why hasn't the murdered stepped forward? Nonsensical.

The trick is compartmentalisation - it is perfectly possible, even likely, that except for those who were explicitly behind the attacks, no one involved would have known more than they needed to and would have been given a very small task with no knowledge of the whole it was a part of.

There may be many people who suspect they were involved in a fragment of the operation - and indeed some people have spoken up and been generally ignored - but by the very planning of the operation no one person would be able to prove what they were a part of - so why come forward with a suspicion they could not prove, would not "blow the case wide open" and would only make life very difficult for them?

Anyone who actually knew what they were doing would be volunteering for the death sentence by coming forward, anyone who didn't might still not know, or might suspect and be able to prove nothing.

[JohnA]

The ‘competency’ question contains interestingly circular logic. (i.e. 'they are to incompetent to have pulled off 9/11)

‘Incompetence’ has consistently been this administration’s fallback position.

- Our intelligence agencies were wrong about the WMDs in Iraq.

- No one could have ever imagined the levees breakings in New Orleans.

- “America is under attack” – but I will just sit here and read a children’s book in front of the press.

- The Air Force was confused on 9/11 and therefore failed to scramble jets over Washington DC.

- No one could have ever imagined that trillions in credit swap derivatives, collateralized by sub-prime adjustable rate mortgages, would implode the economy. No one saw THAT coming!

It appears that ‘incompetence’ is a useful limited hangout – and figureheads like Bush serve as useful idiots for the public to focus their angst against. The bumbling fool did it again! Throw a shoe at the figurehead!

As if there are NOT thousands upon thousands of professional analysts sitting behind the executive office - monitoring our defenses and economy and environment, and every other conceivable thing.

How could so many people have been incompetent at virtually every level of government? Sure – you can try to hang your hat on the simpleton President theory. But how could a handful of terrorists defeat the combined efforts of the CIA, DIA, NSA, Immigration, FBI, DEA, local law enforcement, airport security, NORAD, and on and on and on?

Where are the whistleblowers on THAT side of the equation? Where are the brave anonymous deep throats of NORAD and the FBI – coming forward to expose the gross incompetence and breach of standard protocols that resulted in 3,000 people dead?

Where are the whistleblowers pointing fingers at Able Danger and demanding to know why SOCOM blocked the arrest of the Florida ring? oh that's right - Lt Col. Anthony Shaffer did blow the whistle - and his career was ruined.

And lastly - how could such a massive systemic breakdown in national security have been so completely ignored and censored by the Press? Surely – with so many mistakes made – someone somewhere was negligent and should be held accountable. The Press looooves a scapegoat. How could such a massive ‘conspiracy of silence’ be kept secret?

How could a conspiracy like 9/11 be kept secret?

I don’t know. But show me where the accountability lies – and I might be willing to consider your question.

[Jon Gold]

Incompetent my ass.

They wanted to go to war, they did. They wanted to make billions for their corporate friends, they did. They wanted to expand Executive Power, they did. They wanted to take control of Iraq's oil fields, they did. They stole two elections. They have committed crime after crime after crime with absolutely no accountability whatsoever (teflon coated).

They are anything but incompetent.

[noise]

The motives of high ranking officials are not up for review. If a detective took such an approach (declaring suspect X off limits) before conducting an investigation, his peers would call him an idiot. Yet with enough propaganda, the political/media establishment is able to convince the public that failing to adopt such a view (high ranking officials ALWAYS act in good faith) is unpatriotic conspiracy nuttery.

Specific rebuttal to incompetence: Rossini and Miller told Bamford they were ordered to withhold the alHazmi/alMidhar intel. Thus, we can rule out the absurd notions put forth by Tenet when he blamed the sharing failures on improper watchlist/cable traffic procedures.

[Rancho Truth]

bump. Here's another:

'We were attacked on 9/11 by Al Qaeda (so even if others were involved, if it was made or allowed to happen, or if negligence/incompetence contributed- we still went after the right people)'

Bush may have believed this- it may be all he knew was there was going to be an attack, and given the larger stakes- peak oil, liberal dove policies, anti-American/imperialist sentiments- it was necessary for him to do nothing to prevent it, and even let his handlers assist it, while he took care to insulate himself behind a layer of plausible deniability. Perhaps Cheney believed it- perhaps he gave Bush a copy of 'Day of Deceit' and told him something like, 'look- FDR let it happen, went to war and is remembered as great President'. Perhaps there's enough documentation to hang Bush, if he ever was even inclined to "spill the beans"

Clinton, Obama and many Establishment pols and pundits may subscribe to some version of this as well. Whatever truth there is to the involvement in 9/11 and other attacks by 'Al Qaeda', and whatever threat is posed to U.S. national security/interests by disaffected radical fundamentalist Muslims resorting to terrorist tactics for religious/political purposes, it should be acknowledged and documented. But so should all threats, not simply that one. Acknowledging it, even hyping it, while denying the threat posed by those who exploit the perception of it for their own purposes- and refusing to investigate evidence pointing to roles in 9/11 played by others- obviously exposes the U.S. and the world to the danger of being "hit again."

No Establishment pundit would openly argue for this logical fallacy- they simply proclaim, 'We were attacked on 9/11'. Many Americans may believe the spoken and unspoken parts, but might not admit it to themselves. A poster at 911blogger recently argued that cuz people are thinking this, 'truthers' should not promote any evidence that points to an 'Al Qaeda' role, and insisted there's none. Trading one logical fallacy for another wouldn't do much for the Truth Movement's credibility, though. However, overcoming the 1st logical fallacy is a hurdle for some:

http://911conspiracy.blogspot.com/2005/08/mass-rorschach-test.html
At the roundwalk on the edge of "Camp Casey," the leaflet stirs a sinuous blond man with Ashton Kutscher hair to a reproof. "Oh, there is a lot about September 11th that we were not told, but I can't believe there was any malevolent intent on the part of the US government," he says. "The government keeps secrets. That is their job. Americans are not prepared to deal with the truth."

What is the truth and who is empowered to judge when Americans should hear it? "That is their job," the young man insists simply, meaning the government. "I've read all about this, and they are hiding a lot about the real story, but you can't say they intended for the attacks to happen."
------
"Dude, Kim Jong-Il is clinically insane," the new twin announces. "He's on fourteen types of medication!" In alternating sentences, they reject as naive the author's belief in the potentials for world peace. "We have to be protected, we can't let Iran get nukes, that's why I am a conservative," the one with the long hair says. "There have always been empires, from the Romans until now," adds the buzz-cut. "China will be the world empire in 125 years. What makes you think all that history will ever change?"
_________________
http://911reports.com/
http://www.historycommons.org