I'm amazed

at the focus on "controlled demolitions" in this forum.

Even if we take some of the "official" facts at face value it seems obvious how 9/11 was set up.

I mean we apparently know where the hijackers were from, we know where the funding came from and we know that B*shco have some kind of connection with those people.

We also know that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 but that it benefitted Bushco and his friends.

I think that if these dots were connected in the MSM it would close global economic panic and political turmoil in the US - RWers and freepers would go literally crazy. Is that why this truth can never be spoken?

I agree that the focus on controlled demolition is excessive, because LIHOP and MIHOP can be proved more easily in other, less speculative ways. The connection between the funders of the hijackers and the US military-intelligence establishment, not to mention the Bush-bin Laden connections, are nearly conclusive proof.

But on the other hand, these are complex issues that are not easy to demonstrate to the average person. Who has the time or ability to sift through and really understand exotic institutions like Pakistan's Inter Service Intelligence, Gen. Mahmoud Ahmad and ISI spook Saed Sheikh?

On the other hand, for many people, simply seeing the video of WTC 7 collapse creates a "scales falling from the eyes" experience. That's what really did it for me, even though ultimately, even the video of that collapse is ultimately inconclusive without more data.

I think we focus on controlled demolition because of the visceral effect it can have on people.

My big worry is that we focus on that one issue and that the official conspiracy theorists come up with some convincing explanation of the collapses and that that explanation takes the wind out of the sails of the truth movement.

My advice is that when introducing newcomers to the truth movement, always discuss the controlled demolition in the much bigger context of other LIHOP/MIHOP factors.

that I didn't register the WTC7 collapse on the day and didn't notice about it in the MSM at all.

I only read it about on DU several years later (and watched the video for the first time yesterday).
I think I'll do a straw poll of my friends to see how many of them have seen the video.

(That's the trouble with being a DUer - sometimes you're so informed that you don't realise that friends and family don't know all the facts).

Frequently, threads on the hijackers or the political incongruities sink to the bottom. How many times can one post on the fact that the hijackers are still alive and no one seems to care?Additionally, look what happened with the "bombshell " of the The Downing Street Memo - nothing. We shouldn't have to "prove" anything so that the corporate media will finally report it. They have plenty to report if they wanted to. They have suppressed this and everything else ALMOST from the beginning.
When nothing is done about anything, people go on to another "angle", hoping for conclusive "proof" which never happens, because the evidence has been destroyed, withheld, and a lot of the evidence , also with the hijackers, is fake or planted, "duplicitous", if you will. Controlled demo is the topic now because the Jones paper and the 911 scholars are relatively new.

The only people who post here regularly over time are "debunkers". If you look at the controlled demolition or "physical " evidence threads half of the names are theirs nitpicking over some "fact" or telling someone how stupid they are and how they can't "prove" anything.
Recently , a lot of people have come on here trying to tell everyone else what to think and say, because it has been in the media. When it is not in the media in a few weeks, it will go back to the few posters and the debunkers.

It's not the free thinkers that are focusing on the collapses. It's the neocons shills that do it.

Most of the "real" 911 researchers that have been in it for a couple of years realize that the whole government story is a lie from start to finish!

If you find the other stuff compelling go for it.

Could be why the Charlie Sheen story has been completely disppeared off the media radar.

on edit: added "been"

Hi. I’m new here to DU; and wanted to chime in on this. I am firmly and unfortunately in the MIHOP camp.

I think it's pretty clear that most Americans on some level realize that their government has betrayed them. Your point about the real fear of what a definitive acknowledgement of the truth surrounding 9/11 would mean is right on. It would be an enormous economic, social, and political crisis in this country. Our standing in the world would be immediately destroyed and we would be ostracized from the world community.

This boils down to a moral issue. Does our economic well-being and national stability warrant a continuing denial that results in killing hundreds of thousands and subverting the hope of prosperity for millions of people around the world for generations to come? If, we are going to deny this, we have no choice but full speed ahead to American empire at any and all cost.

What should make the decision for acknowledgement easier is a realization that whether we confront and own up to the truth about 9/11 in this country or not; the rest of the world eventually will. The consequences of foreign disclosure of 9/11 truth will be far greater than if we make the acknowledgement from within. The only way we will be able to neutralize world opinion from a foreign disclosure is to render that opinion harmless. That will mean American empire accomplished by way of our vast nuclear advantage. I would hope that most Americans would agree that maintaining American supremacy is not worth all of that.

I do agree that the 9/11 truth movement should be multi-dimensional. I also believe that most 9/11 truth seekers are overly and overtly politicizing this issue. How can you not look at such post attack issues as the destruction of the ground zero crime scene evidence, the misinformation about air quality, and the inadequacy of the 9/11 Commission Report and not come to the conclusion that congressional Democrats and judicial/law enforcement officials at the state and local levels (i.e. Eliot Spitzer), are certainly criminally complicit in the cover-up and whitewash of 9/11?

Another criticism I have of the 9/11 truth movement is that there are no plans of action being suggested as to how to deal with the ensuing crisis from a mainstream acknowledgement of 9/11 truth. This could largely explain why the vast majority of people have not gone from internal belief to external action. What are we to do? What will become of us? This is even more complicated by the above points raised about the across-the-board untrustworthiness of all the government bodies/people who have a natural jurisdiction over the events and aftermath of 9/11.

I have been thinking a great deal lately about what such a plan would entail. The best I have come up with so far is that the solution would have to be centered on our individual state legislatures.

"dungeon" as we fondly call it!

I think that maybe it's just a matter of time.

Each catastrophe and political miss-step (e.g. Katrina, port sell-off) seems to knock 5% off B*sh's approval rating.
There may come a time when even the MSM can't ignore the overwhelming disapproval
and are able to break ranks and start letting people speak out. (The disappearance of the Charlie Sheen
story shows that we're not there yet).

Each issue seems to reach a critical mass after a while, at the moment it seems to be the anti-Iraq War feeling that has the neocons on the defensive.

The 9/11 truth issue seems to need a little more time to gain traction.
Until then maybe it's just a case of discussing, thinking, learning and spreading the word.

Seems to me we'll throw the bums out of office, send Bush to the Hague,
vote out and impeach the people who helped the cover-up. What do you
foresee? Mobs with torches marching on Halliburton?

Again I am working from the premise that it is more than the Bush administration's neocons that have betrayed us. We have to have a plan to completely replace the people in both the executive and legislative branches. We need to do it in a manner, however, that provides some stability to withstand the internal and external crisis that will ensue. We need an independent investigation of 9/11 and, in my mind, another to shore up the failings of our democracy that allowed this to happen through restructuring of our federal bureaucracies and even constitutional ammendments if necessary.

I.E.:

Bush/Cheney must be forced to resign immediately. You can not leave them in power while you assemble and carry out a comprehensive investigation. Impeachment and conviction would also be lengthy processes that will leave desperate men in power for far too long. Bush/Cheney, however, have already exhibited an arrogant willingness to ignore the will of the people and subvert or place themselves above the laws of this nation. Will they go quietly if asked nicely to do so? I wish I could be sure of that; but I can't.

Assuming they step aside:

Hastert becomes President. Obviously, this is far from ideal given the complicity of Congress but we can not arbitrarily begin straying from the Constitution. I would propose that he be forced to accept a Democratic Party member of Congress as voted on by his/her peers as Vice-President. Both the new Pres and VP must pledge to not seek election in 08 or to ever run for federal office ever again.

Every member of Congress must pledge to not seek re-election when their term ends and to never seek federal office again.

High ranking officials in the Bush administration must be forced out. This includes Secretaries of State and Defense, and the Attorney General. I would suggest that the highest ranking career bureaucrat in each department would replace them until the next newly elected administration in 2008.

I think all the state legislatures and the D.C. city council should convene immediately in emergency session and choose one delegate to represent them in a national steering/oversight committee to meet in Washington, D.C. These delegates would serve no more than 4 years and pledge to never seek federal elected office.

I think all the state legislatures and the D.C. city council should nominate a few (5 or so) private citizens from their state as potential members of a national independent panel to investigate 9/11. The national steering/oversight committee would then choose one nominee from each state to serve on the panel taking care to provide a diverse representation of pertinent areas of expertise. The panel members should all pledge to never run for federal elected office.

I think all the state legislatures and the D.C. city council should nominate another few private citizens from their state as potential members of a national body to review the foundational structure of our democratic bureaucracy and government. They should make recommendations to Congress that may include Constitutional Ammendments in order to protect our government from future unchecked infiltrations of influence that subvert or oppose the values and ideals of our chosen way of government and the will of the people. The national steering/oversight committee would again choose one nominee from each state and D.C., taking care to provide a diverse representation of pertinent areas of expertise. These body members should also pledge to never run for federal elected office.

Some places to start, for this latter body, would be universal federal election laws for federal elections that do not insulate incumbency and enable a duopoly of parties to entrench themselves in unaccountable power and removing the cap on the number of representatives in the House of Representatives. If we are going to have a representative democracy we need representative to constituency ratios that are more inclined to empower the constituency, not the representatives.

First of all, I entirely agree that unfortunately, this is a bipartisan scandal. I have posted a few posts about non-controlled demolition evidence of complicity, and the one I focus on a lot is that the paymaster of the 9/11 hijackers was the head of Pakistan's intelligence service, Lt. Gen. Mahmoud Ahmad (or sometimes Ahmed for Google purposes). It is well documented by the Wall St. Journal, the India Times and Paul Thompson's timeline, that he ordered that $100,000 be sent to Mohammed Atta, which was used for expenses such as flight school training. Gen. Ahmad flew to DC around 9/6/01 and met with the highest levels of the Defense and Intelligence establishment, including the Pentagon, CIA, and National Security Council. On the morning of 9/11, literally as the planes were hitting the WTC, Gen. Ahmad was having breakfast with the chairmen of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, Republican Porter Goss and Democrat Bob Graham, both of Florida. So it's hard not to conclude that there was some bipartisan knowledge.

As for the results, and one correction, Hastert would probably not become president. The Constitution provides that in case of a vacancy of the vice president's office, the president appoints a successor with the consent of Congress; so the rigid chain of succession probably would not need to be followed. As during Watergate, it is inconceivable that the corrupt vice president (Agnew then, Cheney now) would be allowed to assume office, so he would be removed first. Bush would be forced to appoint someone acceptable to Congress, and that would presumably be someone "clean" and outside the administration. Last time it was Gerry Ford; I predict that given the need for stability and great credentials, the probability that Bush would be allowed to appoint a Republican and the need for someone with at least a little distance from the scandal, that Bush would appoint either Colin Powell (who has furiously leaked how in disagreement with the neocons he is) or John McCain.

When Bush is removed, then the new president gets to appoint a new vice president. That's how Ford appointed Rockefeller.

At this point, I do think that Democrats should insist on a European style "government of national unity" and require the VP be a Democrat -- probably either Gore or Kerry.

Whoever is appointed or who wins in 2008 will have staggering legitimacy, popular support and power to clean house in DC. I think he would have the authority to force through an FDR style 100 days reform which must include:

*drastic reduction in the military-intelligence budget, because at that point it will have been proven that the biggest threat to the security of Americans is in fact the security apparatus;

*repeal of parts of the Telecommunications Act passed under Clinton, and a massive anti-trust style break up of the newspaper, broadcast and cable oligopolies, because media complicity by corporate domination will be revealed as the reason the truth took so long to come out;

*public financing of elections, to take the money, lobbying and media control out of elections;

*drastic limitations on lobbying (Abramoff et all) and campaign contributions;

*all broadcast licenses would have reservations of political campaign air time, ie again to emphasize free electoral coverage of debates;

*restoration of the fairness doctrine in broadcast and cable news;


*abolition of the Electoral College and direct election of president; and

*massive redistricting to put all congressional districts in play for most elections.

If you truly believe in LIHOP and/or MIHOP, and you also believe that it can and will be proven, then we desparately need to start planning now for what we want to happen and what the demands of the people will be.

If the democratic forces don't plan now, we will be reacting to events, and we are likely to be outmaneuvered by the forces who want to remove a "few bad apples" and keep the system operating the same as before.

I agree with most of your post.

As far as the line of succession goes; I see your point. I, however, don't think we should permit Bush to name his successor. This is where a groundswell of public demonstration (non-violent) and pressure should be put on Bush and Cheney to go immediately and simultaneously. However, it is critical that any such groundswell be supported by a detailed plan to reclaim our government, renew our principles and ideals; but still remain true to our Constitution. Any such groundswell should be the means to an end; not an end itself.

This is why I worry that much of the 9/11 truth movement is based in anarchy or partisan sport. I also think even the more "grounded" of the truth movement are vastly underestimating or ignoring completely the crisis they are working to force, however just the cause. Coherent and well-thought out solutions must be brought to the table.

I don't share your optimism that someone elevated from within the current corrupt power structure can be counted on or trusted to embark on this great revolutionary agenda. In the name of national stability, we will have to tolerate their temporary and conditional hold on power; but it will take people outside of the current power structure to effect such revolutionary change.

As far as the change itself you suggest, I only question the electoral college issue. I know on the surface that my reluctance to scrap the electoral college flies in the face of my call for a more real representative democracy. However, there are real concerns about how the direct election of the President will, in essence, disenfranchise large portions of the country.

Though I personally find much of the rural agenda and mindset to be backward and offensive, they have as much a claim to autonomy as anyone does. Direct election of the President I believe would quickly lead us to secessionist movements. I think we already have enough on our plate right now as it is.

Some, like Cynthia McKinney, Barbara Lee, Jan Schakowsky, Bobbie Rush, and John Conyers have done no
wrong.

There is a group organizing around forcing Bush to resign:

http://www.worldcantwait.net/

I agree that there were some members of the the Congressional Black Caucus that made some grumblings about the 9/11 Commission Report. However, once you start presuming who can stay and who has to go; you reduce the whole movement for change to the ridiculous Republican vs. Democrat partisan bickering that has paralyzed the progress of this country for so long and now brought it to this dangerous precipice.

I'm afraid they all must go when their terms expire.

I'm assuming that people would have to be brought up on charges to be disqualified from holding office.
Or are you assuming am extra-terrestrial with god-like powers simply making a proclamation and everyone
obeying?

I agree that the people who failed us need to be removed, but there are Constitutional procedures for this process.

It's certainly your prerogative to have the opinion that only the people that have their fingerprints directly on 9/11 pay any kind of price. My opinion is that everyone in Congress and others are tacitly complicit in 9/11 and the aftermath and have betrayed our trust.

I did not say that these people should be barred from running again; just that the groundswell of pressure to force Bush and Cheney out should include demands for a pledge from every member of Congress to pledge they will accept responsibility for their failure. If they choose not to, you are right, we will have to hope the American people's attention span will increase enough to enable them to employ the constitutional means of eradicating them from public office.

I'm afraid that you are naive to believe that everything will be just fine if we can get a Democrat in the White House in 08 or even shuffle enough seats in Congress this year to gain Democratic control. My opinion is that attacking this as a partisan, precludes the possibility of building any mainstream groundswell to bring about the meaningful change in the direction of this country that is absolutely essential and is the morally proper thing to do.

My opinion is that sitting back and waiting for Bush's term to end or hoping for impeachment to garner enough support in Congress will be extremely dangerous and perhaps even too late.

As far as succession, I think there are four possible outcomes:

First and second both involve using the line of succession. If Bush and Cheney had to resign simultaneously, you are correct that the next in line is the Speaker of the House. If this occurs before the 2008 Congressional elections, or if it occurs after the 2008 elections and the Republicans have retained control of the house, then the Speaker is likely to be Dennis Hastert. This guy is up to his ears in 9/11 dirt, according to hints by Sibel Edmonds. He is also not a person most of us want to see in the White House and would not be easy for popular forces to control.

If the Democrats control Congress after 2008, then it is likely that Nancy Pelosi would be Speaker and after simultaneous resignations, she would become president. I have no problem with that -- I think she's great -- but that would run the risk of generating a backlash from the core republican reactionaries, because it would mean change of party in the middle of a presidential term.

Third, if the Nixon/Agnew/Ford/Rockefeller scenario played out -- that is the VP is removed first, with enough time for the president to name a VP -- then it is really Congress, not Bush, who controls succession. That's because Congress has the power of approval, and any awful person would not be approved. This process gives maximum leverage to Congress, which is peculiarly susceptible to popular pressure and peaceful demonstrations and other forms of political pressure. Congress for example dictated to Nixon that the popular, bipartisan, nice guy, clean as a whistle, Gerry Ford was appointed VP, with the assumption that Nixon was going down and Ford would eventually be president. I suspect that this is the most likely outcome if Bush is impeached and removed.

Fourth is a non-constitutional transfer of power. It is hard to even imagine what would happen, but it would require departing from the constitutional script. The only time the US came close to something like this was when, after the Civil War, the north required the south to approve of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments in order to be readmitted to the union, when there was no legal precedent for such a move.

One of the biggest political resources we have as a nation is that we have an unbroken chain of constitutional and legal government going back 200+ years. Even under these circumstances, I would not want to see that resource lost.

I agree with your assessment of what our options are in terms of succession. They are all far from ideal. I still will choose the 1st or 2nd, dependent on timing. I believe that removing the Bush administration has to be the first priority, the sooner the better. I'm not exactly enamored with Hastert either and if there is compelling evidence of his direct involvement than it should be brought forward.

There is great risk in holding back the groundswell until and in presumption of Democrats winning control in the midterms. It reduces the groundswell to partisanship and thus weakens it's force and limits it's effectiveness. These are moral issues and we should fight back our political urges to muddy the water.

To me, we must keep the larger picture in mind. It is the duopoly of political power that Democrats and Republicans alike have conspired through archaic election laws and legislative policies like gerrymandering to create and defend. Entrenched power provides insulation from accountability. It is in this environment where the powerful are emboldened to act immorally and illegally on such an enormous scale.

It is for this reason that I do not support the 3rd outcome. Any person who could garner bipartisan support from the current Congress to be installed as President would have to offer both sides of the aisle the protection of their entrenched power. In fact, I would say that such a person, installed at such a time of crisis, and billed as our knight on the white horse of unity would only strengthen and further the duopoly consolidation of power. We would likely never address the root causes of how and why this breach of trust was possible.

I agree that the fourth possibility should be employed as a last resort.

So by default, I believe it is the first or second (with my caveat of warning about intentionally delaying so 2 would happen instead of 1) outcome that is the most clear cut and objective solution that as closely honors the traditions of our constitutional and government history as possible.

Having said that, these are unprecedented times that call for unprecedented measures. We should not be bound to employ only remedies specifically called for in our Constitution or attributable to precedence. It is in that vane that I suggest the state legislatures involvement. I am certainly open to other alternatives and hope that people better qualified than I will suggest better remedies.

Your scenarios play out pretty well with that edit. Also though, impeachments versus resignations could also offer some different variants. Those that are impeached can't be pardoned like those that resign, so scenarios where they resign will show potentially different results in terms of whether those leaving office will actually be looking at incarceration or be pardoned (like Nixon was from Ford).

Germans believed US govt had something to do with 9-11. This really stunned my college German language students.

(It may have been more.)

Those who think WTC-7 is red herring should ask themselves what happened to all the physical evidence such that not a SINGLE SCRAP of WTC-7 metal was recovered by NIST? Why hasn't any study come up with a reason for its collapse? Why isn't any government/debunker site devoted to debunking anything about its collapse other than the "pull it" quote?

But yes, the actions of Bush, Rummy and Gen Myers on 9/11, all the foreknowledge, the hijackers' visas, helpers and funding, the air defense stand-down, and all the CIA/ISI/hijacker/FBI/FAA connections, misdirections and cover ups are IMHO even more compelling evidence.

they can't find their way to the FEMA Appendix C report in which scraps of WTC 7 very much DO exist.

The steel was "evaporated". A metallurgist, a fire engineer, and a materials scientist, PhDs all,
can't explain it.

betya if they ask a controlled demolitions expert, he could give us a good explanation of what happened.

His opinion the first day was that the collapse of the towers looked just like a controlled
demolition, and he said a few charges in key points could do the job. He also opined that the jets
could not have brought the buildings down. Later he recanted about the jets, but he never recanted
the opinions about CD.

http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/retractions/romero.html

Two years after 9/11 he was named as one of the six top lobbyists in the country, having brought $56
million to his institution, New Mexico Tech.


"Stephen Traver, a legislative aide for U.S. Senator Pete Domenici (R-N.M.), credits Romero’s success in
Washington with his having adopted a lobbying approach where “he starts with a problem that the federal
government has as a priority, and then looks for solutions to that problem.”"

http://infohost.nmt.edu/mainpage/news/2003/18dec01.html

Oh, you mean Demolition.:hi:

the hijackers didn't hijack
the WTC were demolished
Penagon blown from bomb