"Promoting ideological conformity to the government's position"

[johnny karate]

Spilt from another thread so as not to further derail it.

tanabear made the following accusation of Gravy, and by association, all debunkers:
He is interested in promoting ideological conformity to the government's position regarding the events of 9/11.


I see. Apparently it was the government who informed us what happened on 9/11, and it is the government's position that we defend.

I asked for proof of this statement, and the conversation continued from there:
Here (http://www.america.gov/st/pubs-english/2006/August/20060828133846esnamfuaK0.2676355.html), here (http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Sep/16-241966.html) here (http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2006/Jan/20-672210.html) and here (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm).

None of those webpages gave me any indication on what the government's position is on the events of 9/11. Perhaps I overlooked it and you could quote the relevant passages.

Also, they're all dated 2005 and later. Is it your contention that the government had no position on the events of 9/11 before then? If not, then please cite an earlier source. If so, then please explain how anyone besides conspiracy theorists knew what happened on 9/11 prior to 2005.


Then Tippit joined the fray:
http://www.9-11commission.gov/

The 9/11 Commission released their report in 2004. Prior to then, how did anyone who is not a conspiracy theorist know what happened on 9/11?


And of course Homeland Insurgency had to chime in with a usual bit of idiocy:
And the official version was started by...

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, 9/11 Commission Report (an obstructed investigation btw)...


And the latest:
Zdenek Bazant and Yong Zhou had their first paper ready to go on 09/13/2001. Jerome Hauer was on national television that day stating that the jet impacts and the subsequent fires caused the towers to collapse. He also expressed his belief that it had all the fingerprints of someone like bin Laden. Of course, he stated all this with zero evidence.

Zdenek Bazant and Yong Zhou have no affiliation with the U.S. government. They are private sector scholars.

Jerome Hauer was a counter-terrorism expert and national security advisor with the National Institute of Health, but hardly a go-to guy for the government's propaganda machine. He offered two opinions, one regarding the collapse of the towers and one regarding suspicion of Osama bin Laden. Neither we're were particularly insightful.

What he doesn't do is give us a full narrative of the day's events that could be construed as the "government's position". What about the 19 hijackers? What about the Pentagon attacks? What about the crash in Shanksville? What about WTC7?

So again I ask, as a supposed promoter of ideological conformity to the government's position, how did I know what that position was prior to the release of the 9/11 Commission Report in 2004?

[Dubbi]

This won't ever lead anywhere. Truthers need this explanation in order to sleep at night. They want to think that we learned the NIST report from some Fox News broadcast. We listen to "MSM", whereas they go to "independent" sources. That is suppose to describe the whole discrepancy between us and them. Many of us can't stand the current US administration, but that is something that can't register with a truther. They're the open-minded folk who can go that one step further and accept this conspiracy. This sort of psychological superiority is another reason you won't win this argument. In summary, in order to win this argument you will need to convince this truther that he's not more independent or more open minded than you. The ironic thing is that we've also seen all their "independent" sources.

This isn't a scientific discussion. It's just choosing "ideological" teams. That's why we're the bad guys. They chose the rebels. We chose the big bad government. It's not as if we simply examined the evidence and followed it, regardless of which position it would "conform" to. Truthers really believe that this all started with everyone choosing different teams, kind of like school yard sports. I say you simply agree to "promoting idealogical conformity to the government's position", just because you are given the opportunity to be a kid again and so just play along. And in the spirit of this, I officially work for:
the Mossad, the CIA, the top of the Jewish Conspiracy. I'm now a freemason and a reptilian. If something doesn't contain fluoride- then it's not kosher. I'm the chem-trail breathing dragon. Any questions?

[T.A.M.]

This won't ever lead anywhere. Truthers need this explanation in order to sleep at night. They want to think that we learned the NIST report from some Fox News broadcast. We listen to "MSM", whereas they go to "independent" sources. That is suppose to describe the whole discrepancy between us and them. Many of us can't stand the current US administration, but that is something that can't register with a truther. They're the open-minded folk who can go that one step further and accept this conspiracy. This sort of psychological superiority is another reason you won't win this argument. In summary, in order to win this argument you will need to convince this truther that he's not more independent or more open minded than you. The ironic thing is that we've also seen all their "independent" sources.

This isn't a scientific discussion. It's just choosing "ideological" teams. That's why we're the bad guys. They chose the rebels. We chose the big bad government. It's not as if we simply examined the evidence and followed it, regardless of which position it would "conform" to. Truthers really believe that this all started with everyone choosing different teams, kind of like school yard sports. I say you simply agree to "promoting idealogical conformity to the government's position", just because you are given the opportunity to be a kid again and so just play along. And in the spirit of this, I officially work for:
the Mossad, the CIA, the top of the Jewish Conspiracy. I'm now a freemason and a reptilian. If something doesn't contain fluoride- then it's not kosher. I'm the chem-trail breathing dragon. Any questions?

Excellent summarization.

TAM:)

[johnny karate]

Agreed. That was well said, Dubbi.

I didn't post this thread in the honest expectation that tanabear or any other Truther would actually address the issue. However, I do think as rationalists we need to point out every ridiculous, dishonest statement a Truther makes, and expose it for what it really is. This thread may disappear from the front page and die without any Truther response, but at least it will serve as yet another repository for their idiotic lies.

[Homeland Insurgency]

So support your case without government sponsored propaganda. It's simple.

[Reality Believer]

So support your case without government sponsored propaganda. It's simple.
So refute this "fraud" with credulity. It should be simple if all this was faked.

[Homeland Insurgency]

So refute this "fraud" with credulity. It should be simple if all this was faked.

I don't claim to know for a fact what happened on 9/11. How about you?

[ElMondoHummus]

So support your case without government sponsored propaganda. It's simple.

Easy.

http://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/handle/1842/1216
http://www.csemag.com/article/CA6263555.html
http://www.architectureweek.com/2002/0529/news_3-1.html
http://ojps.aip.org/getpdf/servlet/GetPDFServlet?filetype=pdf&id=JENMDT000128000003000369000001&idtype=cvips
http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=PPSCFX000007000003000134000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=Yes
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml
http://www.jod911.com/WTC%20COLLAPSE%20STUDY%20BBlanchard%208-8-06.pdf
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/WTC%20Collapse%20-%20What%20Did%20&%20Did%20Not%20Cause%20It%20-%20Revised%203-31-08.pdf

... and that's just a small sample of what's out there.

None of the opinions listed were from government sources. None of the papers cited were written by the government. All of the above small sample of information that's out there supports the fact that the Twin Towers came down due to fire and impact damage. None of it opens the possibility of bombs, thermite, or "inside job". The fact of the matter is, the only "propoganda" that exists was created by the conspiracy peddlers of the truth movement in order to advance the myth that there's anything suspicious about the collapses. Investigation of the facts demonstrates that there's not. It's long past the time to put to bed the myth that supposed "goverment propoganda" forms even the backbone of the 9/11 narrative, much less comprises the entirety of it.

[Reality Believer]

I don't claim to know for a fact what happened on 9/11. How about you?
I know that the preponderance of evidence shows this:

19 hijackers took control of 4 aircraft.
3 buildings were destroyed or damaged as a direct result.
1 crash was due to passenger intervention.

This is documented by multiple, sources. They have never been refuted as to their conclusions. There are inconsistencies and gaps, granted, but the preponderance of evidence points to the above.

Now you go. 1 or 2 paragraphs of what you believe, forget evidence for the moment. Just go with your hypothesis. Flight by flight or hour by hour. What happened?

[Homeland Insurgency]

Easy.

http://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/handle/1842/1216
http://www.csemag.com/article/CA6263555.html
http://www.architectureweek.com/2002/0529/news_3-1.html
http://ojps.aip.org/getpdf/servlet/GetPDFServlet?filetype=pdf&id=JENMDT000128000003000369000001&idtype=cvips
http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=PPSCFX000007000003000134000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=Yes
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml
http://www.jod911.com/WTC%20COLLAPSE%20STUDY%20BBlanchard%208-8-06.pdf
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/WTC%20Collapse%20-%20What%20Did%20&%20Did%20Not%20Cause%20It%20-%20Revised%203-31-08.pdf

... and that's just a small sample of what's out there.

None of the opinions listed were from government sources. None of the papers cited were written by the government. All of the above small sample of information that's out there supports the fact that the Twin Towers came down due to fire and impact damage. None of it opens the possibility of bombs, thermite, or "inside job". The fact of the matter is, the only "propoganda" that exists was created by the conspiracy peddlers of the truth movement in order to advance the myth that there's anything suspicious about the collapses. Investigation of the facts demonstrates that there's not. It's long past the time to put to bed the myth that supposed "goverment propoganda" forms even the backbone of the 9/11 narrative, much less comprises the entirety of it.

Easier.

Again what government collected evidence did any of them have access to?

[ElMondoHummus]

Easier.

Again what government collected evidence did any of them have access to?

Read the articles and find out for yourself. The point is that I've demonstrated that there are supporting opinions not based on "government propoganda". Your challenge was met.

[johnny karate]

So support your case without government sponsored propaganda. It's simple.

You'll need to first provide a source that establishes "government sponsored propaganda" is the source of "my case".

It's kind of the point of the thread.

Try and keep up.

[Dubbi]

So support your case without government sponsored propaganda. It's simple.

Homeland Insurgency,

Suppose we lived in a more socialist country, where all academic and industrial organizations, such as the ones ElMondoHummus listed for you, would be in one way or another government sponsored. Would there no longer be an organization to cite in order to refute you?

If you wish to avoid the logical fallacy I'm hinting at, please define where you draw the line of something being "government sponsored"? And please justify such a partition.

[Caustic Logic]

"The government" in general has a general official take on 9/11, we all know this. Hint - it's got no place for thermite, for example. "The government" did gather most of the evidence used by others who confirm their findings. There's no way around this - FBI combs crime scenes, not citizen investigation teams. Their findings for the most part make sense and have been verified by multiple points of evidence and the laws of physics, et al.

IE yes they have an official story
it coincides with reality
to counter reality simply to counter the "official story" is stupid.
To imply that "the government" owns and defines reality is painfully stupid and perhaps just what they want.

[T.A.M.]

Homeland's comment is a glowing/glaring example of what I have been saying as of late...it is all about perspective.

Truthers feel that any evidence that in any way has a govt connection, is "propaganda" or faked. Well given the govt, or one of its agencies is almost always tasked with investigating such things, the truthers have an easy out for almost all evidence that contradicts their paranoid world view.

Forget even arguing with him (or others like him/her), as in the end the default "it is propaganda/fabricated" argument will always be evoked.

TAM:)

[ElMondoHummus]

"The government" did gather most of the evidence used by others who confirm their findings.

The problem is, it's even more complicated than that. For example, FEMA used independent contractors as well as their own personnel at Ground Zero to evaluate evidence; that's how Dr. Astaneh-Asl got involved. He was there at the FEMA's request, but he's not part of the government to begin with.

Looking at the FEMA Building Performance Study demonstrates this issue rather well (yes, I know that was an initial report, and is superceded by the NIST work, but it's still handy as an illustration of my point). That report may be credited to "the government", but when you look at the list of people involved, you realize that many individuals not associated with the government were responsible for generating that report. In short, and in a sense, the government was given the information to use by a combination of government employees and non-governmentally-associated individuals.

Now, where did they get their info? That goes back to who originally handled the evidence, which goes back to the fact that it was both independent contractors and government staff. I think my point is made, though, that even the genesis of the evidence is more complex than simply saying it was from "the government".

[bje]

I don't claim to know for a fact what happened on 9/11. How about you?

How PC of you.

[T.A.M.]

I know what happened on 9/11. 19 arab hijackers took control of planes and flew them into buildings, or into the ground. The vast, vast majority of evidence supports this. It has not been proven wrong, not even in doubt (except in the minds of a delusional small group of people).

TAM:)

[tanabear]

So again I ask, as a supposed promoter of ideological conformity to the government's position, how did I know what that position was prior to the release of the 9/11 Commission Report in 2004?

The comments were specifically addressed to Mark Roberts who began looking into 9/11 in 2006. This was after the 9/11 Commission Report and the NIST report had been released.

Most people do not read official reports, so they will believe what they hear on television or read in the papers. The media and our leaders clearly implicated bin Laden, even on that day, so it isn't surprising that people would have that impression. So you are saying that you were uncertain as to whether or not the leaders of our country implicated bin Laden until 2004?

In the Bob Woodward's book, Bush at War, after George Tenet learns of the first crash he states, “This has bin Laden all over it.”

Trent Lott in his book, Herding Cats, reports that Cheney “told us what he knew: that it was a terrorist attack; that it was carried out by al-Qaeda and directed by Osama bin Laden; that thousands were dead in New York, and hundreds more at the Pentagon."

President George Bush apparently wrote in his diary that night, "The Pearl Harbor of the 21st century took place today...We think it's Osama bin Laden."

As well, the British Government released their document, Responsibility for the terrorist atrocities in the United States, 11 September 2001 (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/official-document-responsibility-for-the-terrorist-atrocities-in-the-united-states-11-september-2001-748317.html), on October 4, 2001. Even though they admitted, "This document does not purport to provide a prosecutable case against Osama bin Laden in a court of law."

Let me give another example. On August 26, 2002 Cheney spoke to the Veterans of Foreign Wars in which he made the following claim,

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us. And there is no doubt that his aggressive regional ambitions will lead him into future confrontations with his neighbors -- confrontations that will involve both the weapons he has today, and the ones he will continue to develop with his oil wealth."

What evidence was there for these claims? None. General Anthony Zinni who was in attendance later stated, "In my time at Centcom, I watched the intelligence, and never -- not once -- did it say, 'He has WMD.'"

George Tenet wrote that Cheney's speech, "went well beyond what our analysis could support..."

However, later an "official document" would be released to support Cheney's lies, the National Intelligence Estimate(NIE) of 2002. Normally a NIE can take up to 10 months. The NIE of 2002 was produced in 19 days. The Robb Silberman report states, “The time pressures of the October 2002 NIE also may have hampered the normal thorough review before dissemination.” This "time pressure" was political pressure to prevent the false claims from being properly vetted. The NIE of 2002 was a political document used to support the neo-cons drive for war in Iraq. It helped to create a consensus of belief when there was no evidence to support any of the administration's claims.

The official reports regarding 9/11 are the same. They are used to codify the official 9/11 fairy tale.

[beachnut]

In the Bob Woodward's book, Bush at War, after George Tenet learns of the first crash he states, “This has bin Laden all over it.”

Trent Lott in his book, Herding Cats, reports that Cheney “told us what he knew: that it was a terrorist attack; that it was carried out by al-Qaeda and directed by Osama bin Laden; that thousands were dead in New York, and hundreds more at the Pentagon."

President George Bush apparently wrote in his diary that night, "The Pearl Harbor of the 21st century took place today...We think it's Osama bin Laden."

bush got something right. Why are you showing something he got right?

Why is 9/11 truth unable to figure out who did 9/11 after 7 years? Time enough to get a PhD, and you got pure stupid conclusion based on faulty logic. Not PhD material.

Maybe kids in high school would not suspect UBL. I suspected UBL at second plane impact. UBL told us he would kill us. Not sure why you don't have clue, or the rest of the false information terrorist apologist truth movement shares your affliction for fiction.

u r posting pro bush stuff ; it's the end of the world as we know it, and I...

[johnny karate]

The comments were specifically addressed to Mark Roberts who began looking into 9/11 in 2006. This was after the 9/11 Commission Report and the NIST report had been released.

Most people do not read official reports, so they will believe what they hear on television or read in the papers. The media and our leaders clearly implicated bin Laden, even on that day, so it isn't surprising that people would have that impression. So you are saying that you were uncertain as to whether or not the leaders of our country implicated bin Laden until 2004?

In the Bob Woodward's book, Bush at War, after George Tenet learns of the first crash he states, “This has bin Laden all over it.”

Trent Lott in his book, Herding Cats, reports that Cheney “told us what he knew: that it was a terrorist attack; that it was carried out by al-Qaeda and directed by Osama bin Laden; that thousands were dead in New York, and hundreds more at the Pentagon."

President George Bush apparently wrote in his diary that night, "The Pearl Harbor of the 21st century took place today...We think it's Osama bin Laden."

As well, the British Government released their document, Responsibility for the terrorist atrocities in the United States, 11 September 2001 (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/official-document-responsibility-for-the-terrorist-atrocities-in-the-united-states-11-september-2001-748317.html), on October 4, 2001. Even though they admitted, "This document does not purport to provide a prosecutable case against Osama bin Laden in a court of law."

Let me give another example. On August 26, 2002 Cheney spoke to the Veterans of Foreign Wars in which he made the following claim,

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us. And there is no doubt that his aggressive regional ambitions will lead him into future confrontations with his neighbors -- confrontations that will involve both the weapons he has today, and the ones he will continue to develop with his oil wealth."

What evidence was there for these claims? None. General Anthony Zinni who was in attendance later stated, "In my time at Centcom, I watched the intelligence, and never -- not once -- did it say, 'He has WMD.'"

George Tenet wrote that Cheney's speech, "went well beyond what our analysis could support..."

However, later an "official document" would be released to support Cheney's lies, the National Intelligence Estimate(NIE) of 2002. Normally a NIE can take up to 10 months. The NIE of 2002 was produced in 19 days. The Robb Silberman report states, “The time pressures of the October 2002 NIE also may have hampered the normal thorough review before dissemination.” This "time pressure" was political pressure to prevent the false claims from being properly vetted. The NIE of 2002 was a political document used to support the neo-cons drive for war in Iraq. It helped to create a consensus of belief when there was no evidence to support any of the administration's claims.

The official reports regarding 9/11 are the same. They are used to codify the official 9/11 fairy tale.

Gee, that's swell.

I'm wondering why you didn't try and dazzle me with all this sophistry one of the first few times I asked you the same question. Instead, you settled for actually trying, and failing, to prove that the government was indeed the source for the "official" version of events. It's almost as if you're just throwing a bunch of crap at the wall and seeing what sticks...

And you still haven't answered my question.

If by defending the "official" version of events we are defending the government's position, then that implies that at some point the government informed us of this position.

Yet no narrative was supplied by the government before the release of the 9/11 Commission Report in 2004.

So the question to you is, if the government is the source for the "official" version, as your statement suggests, then how was anyone not a conspiracy theorist able to form an opinion about what happened on 9/11 prior to 2004?

[eromitlab]

Truthists want people to think that Daddy Duhbya and Evil Grandpa sat everyone down in front of the television to tell them The Official 9/11 Story™... but they are so smart and attuned to the truth that they saw through it about as fast as I saw through Loose Change. They want to give everyone who doesn't convert to truthism exactly zero credit for being able to see events unfold in front of them and come to the logical conclusion that most people have come to... that 19 terrorists with boxcutters essentially pulled our pants down by exploiting holes in our defenses to pull off the attack they had been planning and rehearsing for a long time, rather than some byzantine conspiracy that involves nearly every government agency and thousands of civilians and has been kept totally secret except for hints left in online videos and unclassified documents. They need to marginalize that vast majority of disagreement in order to prop up their own delusions of superior intelligence and convince themselves that they're not entirely insane, even though that's what many people tell them they are.

[Corsair 115]

We listen to "MSM", whereas they go to "independent" sources.And then there's the question of why the international media is cooperating with this nefarious conspiracy. I mean, I want to know, for example, why CTV, CBC, Global, Citytv, The Toronto Star, The Globe and Mail, and Maclean's, just to name a few Canadian media outlets, are all cooperating with this evil American government conspiracy.

[funk de fino]

The problem is, it's even more complicated than that. For example, FEMA used independent contractors as well as their own personnel at Ground Zero to evaluate evidence; that's how Dr. Astaneh-Asl got involved. He was there at the FEMA's request, but he's not part of the government to begin with.

Looking at the FEMA Building Performance Study demonstrates this issue rather well (yes, I know that was an initial report, and is superceded by the NIST work, but it's still handy as an illustration of my point). That report may be credited to "the government", but when you look at the list of people involved, you realize that many individuals not associated with the government were responsible for generating that report. In short, and in a sense, the government was given the information to use by a combination of government employees and non-governmentally-associated individuals.

Now, where did they get their info? That goes back to who originally handled the evidence, which goes back to the fact that it was both independent contractors and government staff. I think my point is made, though, that even the genesis of the evidence is more complex than simply saying it was from "the government".

NIST also sent material to outside contractors for confirmation of their work. Something the TM do not like you mentioning.

[Brainache]

And then there's the question of why the international media is cooperating with this nefarious conspiracy. I mean, I want to know, for example, why CTV, CBC, Global, Citytv, The Toronto Star, The Globe and Mail, and Maclean's, just to name a few Canadian media outlets, are all cooperating with this evil American government conspiracy.

Same here in Australia. In fact throughout the entire world. With the possible exception of a few radical rags in third world countries no one in the world's media is siding with Truthers.

Why not? Did every investigative journalist in the world just give up?

[T.A.M.]

It's all a conspiracy man. All the MSM, worldwide, is controlled by the NWO. The banks man, the rich, they are all behind it man. Did I mention the Zionists man. Like they are so behind it too.

It's all a Matrix man...a MATRIX!!!

TAM;)

[twinstead]

Hand waving away compelling evidence because it is just probably government propaganda is the grandest woo woo circuit breaker of all time

[dudalb]

Please explain again why proving that the Bush Administration was wrong about the WMD's in Iraq proves that 9/11 Was An Inside Job.

[T.A.M.]

because you know if they lied about one thing, then THEY MUST be lying about EVERYTHING ELSE.

TAM;)

[tanabear]

And you still haven't answered my question.

If by defending the "official" version of events we are defending the government's position, then that implies that at some point the government informed us of this position.

Yet no narrative was supplied by the government before the release of the 9/11 Commission Report in 2004.

So the question to you is, if the government is the source for the "official" version, as your statement suggests, then how was anyone not a conspiracy theorist able to form an opinion about what happened on 9/11 prior to 2004?

I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to ask, but I'll try to answer the question anyway. The official version/narrative of events to most people is very simple, Al-Qaeda did it. The details of what happened that day are known by very few. I believed the official story for a good two years, maybe a little longer. I never read any official reports or checked into any the events of the day. Everyone seemed to think/say that bin Laden and Al-Qaeda did it, so I went along with the crowd. The 9/11 Commission Report did not give us that much new information. It organized the official narrative, but it didn't add to much to the existing stock of knowledge concerning the events surrounding 9/11.

Bush on September 20, 2001, gave an address to Congress and the American people. He made the following statements:

"Al Qaeda is to terror what the mafia is to crime. But its goal is not making money; its goal is remaking the world -- and imposing its radical beliefs on people everywhere."

"This group and its leader -- a person named Osama bin Laden -- are linked to many other organizations in different countries, including the Egyptian Islamic Jihad and the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan."

"The leadership of al Qaeda has great influence in Afghanistan and supports the Taliban regime in controlling most of that country. In Afghanistan, we see al Qaeda's vision for the world."

"...the United States of America makes the following demands on the Taliban: Deliver to United States authorities all the leaders of al Qaeda who hide in your land...They will hand over the terrorists, or they will share in their fate."

"Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated."

George Bush, being a member of the US government, informed millions of Americans that night who he believed was behind the attacks.

Please explain again why proving that the Bush Administration was wrong about the WMD's in Iraq proves that 9/11 Was An Inside Job.

I didn't say that it proved 9/11 was an inside job. The point was to show that a powerful public official(i.e. Cheney) can make a speech full of lies and these lies will be supported by official documents. In this circumstance, it was the NIE of 2002. This shows that a consensus can be created very easily by political pressure, propaganda, force of will etc. Why did so many people think that Saddam was producing WMD in 2002, 2003? Because they heard people talk about it all the time, and our leaders repeated these lies over and over again. What evidence was there to support this consensus? None whatsoever.

As former Republican Congressman, Dick Armey stated, "Had I known or believed then what I believe now, I would have publicly opposed [the war] resolution right to the bitter end, and I believe I might have stopped it from happening...I deserved better than to be bullsh***d by the vice president..."

[dtugg]

tanabear, the difference between 9/11 and Iraq is that shortly after the war, the Bush Administration was shown to be wrong about Iraq. Nothing significant about the "official" positions on 9/11 (say the 9/11 Commission Report, and the NIST reports, for example) had been demonstrated to be wrong. You would think that seven years later, with all the "investigating" truthers have done, that they would have found some evidence to show that the government was wrong or lying about 9/11 if that was indeed the case. But all truthers have is speculation, misrepresentation of evidence, and outright lies. I wonder why this is.

[pomeroo]

The comments were specifically addressed to Mark Roberts who began looking into 9/11 in 2006. This was after the 9/11 Commission Report and the NIST report had been released.

Most people do not read official reports, so they will believe what they hear on television or read in the papers. The media and our leaders clearly implicated bin Laden, even on that day, so it isn't surprising that people would have that impression. So you are saying that you were uncertain as to whether or not the leaders of our country implicated bin Laden until 2004?

In the Bob Woodward's book, Bush at War, after George Tenet learns of the first crash he states, “This has bin Laden all over it.”

Trent Lott in his book, Herding Cats, reports that Cheney “told us what he knew: that it was a terrorist attack; that it was carried out by al-Qaeda and directed by Osama bin Laden; that thousands were dead in New York, and hundreds more at the Pentagon."

President George Bush apparently wrote in his diary that night, "The Pearl Harbor of the 21st century took place today...We think it's Osama bin Laden."

As well, the British Government released their document, Responsibility for the terrorist atrocities in the United States, 11 September 2001 (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/official-document-responsibility-for-the-terrorist-atrocities-in-the-united-states-11-september-2001-748317.html), on October 4, 2001. Even though they admitted, "This document does not purport to provide a prosecutable case against Osama bin Laden in a court of law."

Let me give another example. On August 26, 2002 Cheney spoke to the Veterans of Foreign Wars in which he made the following claim,

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us. And there is no doubt that his aggressive regional ambitions will lead him into future confrontations with his neighbors -- confrontations that will involve both the weapons he has today, and the ones he will continue to develop with his oil wealth."

What evidence was there for these claims? None. General Anthony Zinni who was in attendance later stated, "In my time at Centcom, I watched the intelligence, and never -- not once -- did it say, 'He has WMD.'"

George Tenet wrote that Cheney's speech, "went well beyond what our analysis could support..."

However, later an "official document" would be released to support Cheney's lies, the National Intelligence Estimate(NIE) of 2002. Normally a NIE can take up to 10 months. The NIE of 2002 was produced in 19 days. The Robb Silberman report states, “The time pressures of the October 2002 NIE also may have hampered the normal thorough review before dissemination.” This "time pressure" was political pressure to prevent the false claims from being properly vetted. The NIE of 2002 was a political document used to support the neo-cons drive for war in Iraq. It helped to create a consensus of belief when there was no evidence to support any of the administration's claims.

The official reports regarding 9/11 are the same. They are used to codify the official 9/11 fairy tale.


Your world is very different from this one. Here on Earth, the Robb-Silberman Report concluded, as you know, that the Bush adminstration did not manipulate intelligence to support its agenda.

[pomeroo]

I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to ask, but I'll try to answer the question anyway. The official version/narrative of events to most people is very simple, Al-Qaeda did it. The details of what happened that day are known by very few. I believed the official story for a good two years, maybe a little longer. I never read any official reports or checked into any the events of the day. Everyone seemed to think/say that bin Laden and Al-Qaeda did it, so I went along with the crowd. The 9/11 Commission Report did not give us that much new information. It organized the official narrative, but it didn't add to much to the existing stock of knowledge concerning the events surrounding 9/11.

Bush on September 20, 2001, gave an address to Congress and the American people. He made the following statements:

"Al Qaeda is to terror what the mafia is to crime. But its goal is not making money; its goal is remaking the world -- and imposing its radical beliefs on people everywhere."

"This group and its leader -- a person named Osama bin Laden -- are linked to many other organizations in different countries, including the Egyptian Islamic Jihad and the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan."

"The leadership of al Qaeda has great influence in Afghanistan and supports the Taliban regime in controlling most of that country. In Afghanistan, we see al Qaeda's vision for the world."

"...the United States of America makes the following demands on the Taliban: Deliver to United States authorities all the leaders of al Qaeda who hide in your land...They will hand over the terrorists, or they will share in their fate."

"Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated."

George Bush, being a member of the US government, informed millions of Americans that night who he believed was behind the attacks.



I didn't say that it proved 9/11 was an inside job. The point was to show that a powerful public official(i.e. Cheney) can make a speech full of lies and these lies will be supported by official documents. In this circumstance, it was the NIE of 2002. This shows that a consensus can be created very easily by political pressure, propaganda, force of will etc. Why did so many people think that Saddam was producing WMD in 2002, 2003? Because they heard people talk about it all the time, and our leaders repeated these lies over and over again. What evidence was there to support this consensus? None whatsoever.

As former Republican Congressman, Dick Armey stated, "Had I known or believed then what I believe now, I would have publicly opposed [the war] resolution right to the bitter end, and I believe I might have stopped it from happening...I deserved better than to be bullsh***d by the vice president..."


Yawn. Why did the intelligence services of China, Russia, Germany, France, Turkey, Italy, Jordan, Egypt, Israel, Great Britain, among others, conclude that Saddam retained at least a portion of the stockpiles catalogued by the U.N.? You liars must get tired of being slapped around by this question.

Hey, I've got an idea: Bush manipulated the intelligence of all these countries. Admittedly, it's a very stupid, utterly absurd hypothesis, but it's better than most of what you shovel.

[johnny karate]

I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to ask, but I'll try to answer the question anyway. The official version/narrative of events to most people is very simple, Al-Qaeda did it.

And how did "most people" learn this, and other details of the attacks? Your "ideological conformity to the government's position" statement seems to suggest "most people" learned it from the government. And yet the earliest source for a narrative supplied by the government is the 9/11 Commission Report released in 2004.

Since you're suggesting believers of the official version of events are merely promoting the government's position, what was the government source "most people" used between the time of the attacks and almost three years later when the 9/11 Commission Report was released to form an opinion on what happened?

If there was no government source during this time, then how can you possibly claim anyone who believes the official version is promoting the government's position if they formed this belief independent of the government, and long before the government even provided us with said position?

[DC]

Yawn. Why did the intelligence services of China, Russia, Germany, France, Turkey, Italy, Jordan, Egypt, Israel, Great Britain, among others, conclude that Saddam retained at least a portion of the stockpiles catalogued by the U.N.? You liars must get tired of being slapped around by this question.

Hey, I've got an idea: Bush manipulated the intelligence of all these countries. Admittedly, it's a very stupid, utterly absurd hypothesis, but it's better than most of what you shovel.

Can you pls show me those documents from all those countrys you claim have had intel in favor of the Cheney fantasy about WMD's?

you keep pointing out Germany, Germany for example was hearsay from a source that was even doubted from the German BND, and they warned about it. they just provided everything they had, and that was only hearsay.

I asked you already, can you show us that intel ?

[dtugg]

As for WMDs in Iraq, the President was told by the director of the CIA, George Tenet (a Clinton appointee), that there was a "slam dunk case" for WMDs in Iraq according to Bob Woodward (the guy that broke Watergate) in his book Plan of Attack.

I am not sure about the documents that pomperoo is talking about as I have never read them. But I am confident that the Bush Administration did not lie about the WMDs. There is a difference between lying and being wrong.

[DC]

As for WMDs in Iraq, the President was told by the director of the CIA, George Tenet (a Clinton appointee), that there was a "slam dunk case" for WMDs in Iraq according to Bob Woodward (the guy that broke Watergate) in his book Plan of Attack.

I am not sure about the documents that pomperoo is talking about as I have never read them. But I am confident that the Bush Administration did not lie about the WMDs. There is a difference between lying and being wrong.

So you think Tenet lied? was he held responsible?
was actually anybody held accountable or did those that used false information and maybe even lies to start a war, come away with it?
Do US people care when theyr government starts war based on false information and or lies?
I guess watching Amercian Idol is alot more important.......

ETA: Happy Birthday

[funk de fino]

So you think Tenet lied? was he held responsible?
was actually anybody held accountable or did those that used false information and maybe even lies to start a war, come away with it?
Do US people care when theyr government starts war based on false information and or lies?
I guess watching Amercian Idol is alot more important.......
ETA: Happy Birthday

Are you generalising about the American people?

Hypocrite.

[dtugg]

So you think Tenet lied? was he held responsible?
was actually anybody held accountable or did those that used false information and maybe even lies to start a war, come away with it?
Do US people care when theyr government starts war based on false information and or lies?
I guess watching Amercian Idol is alot more important.......

ETA: Happy Birthday

No I don't think that Tenet lied. He was just wrong.

Being held responsible depends what you mean. Did anybody lose their jobs over it? Maybe, I am not sure. Was anybody found criminally responsible? No because I don't think that using incorrect information is a crime in any way. But the Bush Administration and the Republicans by association have paid dearly for their mistake. Bush may very well go down as one of the worst Presidents in history and the Republicans lost the majority in both houses of Congress.

[DC]

No I don't think that Tenet lied. He was just wrong.

Being held responsible depends what you mean. Did anybody lose their jobs over it? Maybe, I am not sure. Was anybody found criminally responsible? No because I don't think that using incorrect information is a crime in any way. But the Bush Administration and the Republicans by association have paid dearly for their mistake. Bush may very well go down as one of the worst Presidents in history and the Republicans lost the majority in both houses of Congress.

have you an idea how many cvilans died do to that "misstake" ?
i am just amazed how easy some people see those "misstakes" ,not amazed, shocked and extremly dissapointed.

[funk de fino]

have you an idea how many cvilans died do to that "misstake" ?
i am just amazed how easy some people see those "misstakes" ,not amazed, shocked and extremly dissapointed.

Those civilians would have died anyway. There is only one person to blame for that. Saddam.

The Iraq war was coming anyway. Bushco had it planned and saddam kept poking him in the eye. His ego was to blame.

The 911 guff just speeded it up timewise. As an veteran of desert storm I disagree with the present iraq war and how it was pushed by the UK and the US. It still would have happened at some point though.

[dtugg]

have you an idea how many cvilans died do to that "misstake" ?
i am just amazed how easy some people see those "misstakes" ,not amazed, shocked and extremly dissapointed.

I am disappointed. It would have been better for the country if the war never happened.

But I also don't think that the Bush Administration acted in a criminal manner and thus cannot be held accountable in that way.

[DC]

Those civilians would have died anyway. There is only one person to blame for that. Saddam.

The Iraq war was coming anyway. Bushco had it planned and saddam kept poking him in the eye. His ego was to blame.

The 911 guff just speeded it up timewise. As an veteran of desert storm I disagree with the present iraq war and how it was pushed by the UK and the US. It still would have happened at some point though.

Those civilians would have died anyway.

you lost me there for ever, bye bye have funn on my ignore list.......

[DC]

I am disappointed. It would have been better for the country if the war never happened.

But I also don't think that the Bush Administration acted in a criminal manner and thus cannot be held accountable in that way.

Well im not sure if it was criminal or not. But i think some people that had responsability should pay a much higher price for they misstake or criminal lies than some bad poll results and loosing majority in senate or whatever.

1000's of Civilians and Soldiers have payed the highest price there is for those misstakes or worse.

[dtugg]

Well im not sure if it was criminal or not. But i think some people that had responsability should pay a much higher price for they misstake or criminal lies than some bad poll results and loosing majority in senate or whatever.

1000's of Civilians and Soldiers have payed the highest price there is for those misstakes or worse.

Assume that they didn't act in a criminal manner. What price should they have to pay if that is the case?

[funk de fino]

Those civilians would have died anyway.

you lost me there for ever, bye bye have funn on my ignore list.......


You failed to read the rest of post then? The war would have happened anyway. I am not saying this is good. I have said i disagreed with it.

You deliberately cherrypicked my post.

It seems I am on ignore now because i have taken you to task and proved you wrong and backed you into a corner in recent posts and you had to resort to namecalling.

People will probably see the real reason you have put me on ignore.

[T.A.M.]

There is a huge difference between falsifying and creating fictional evidence to go to war, and relying on weak intelligence, without any degree of real vetting, because war was possibly a desired outcome.

TAM:)

[DC]

Assume that they didn't act in a criminal manner. What price should they have to pay if that is the case?

i dont know, first we would need to investigate very closely what on earth went wrong.

and a fair trial.

PS: I am generaly against death penalty.

[DC]

There is a huge difference between falsifying and creating fictional evidence to go to war, and relying on weak intelligence, without any degree of real vetting, because war was possibly a desired outcome.

TAM:)

sure there are bigg difrences, cherrypicking stuff or totaly make up stuff or just sexy up some things are diffrent things.
and i dont know what really happaned.
but it seems also totaly made up stuff was used to fearmonger. Yellowcake documents from Niger was faked according to the IAEO. I think we have to find out if that is true and when yes, who did it and who ordered to do that etc.

dont get me wrong, im not the kind of guy that runns around and jells hang them hang them.

[dtugg]

i dont know, first we would need to investigate very closely what on earth went wrong.

and a fair trial.

PS: I am generaly against death penalty.

Well, I did say that you should assume they didn't do anything illegal for the sake of argument which would mean they probably wouldn't be a trial. What then?

[DC]

Well, I did say that you should assume they didn't do anything illegal for the sake of argument which would mean they probably wouldn't be a trial. What then?

I think those misstakes was of a magnitude that deserves a trial in any case.

I got a trial recently for violating a security rule, no body died, one person broke his arm several times. I was actually not involved in the accident, but I was the plant manager, so i was responsible and spoken guilty.
i did not decide to take away the security machanism of the machine,nor did i know about it, i would have not allowed it, but the court decided, I had to know it, so I was guilty.

I know it is not realy comparable, but in some ways it is.
i hope you understand my point.

[funk de fino]

I think those misstakes was of a magnitude that deserves a trial in any case.

I got a trial recently for violating a security rule, no body died, one person broke his arm several times. I was actually not involved in the accident, but I was the plant manager, so i was responsible and spoken guilty.
i did not decide to take away the security machanism of the machine, i would have not allowed it, but the court decided, I had to know it, so I was guilty.

I know it is not realy comparable, but in some ways it is.
i hope you understand my point.

I'm afraid those are european health and safety laws. The plant manager is held ultimatel to be responsible for the safe operation of his plant.

Irrelevant to this thread.

[dtugg]

I think those misstakes was of a magnitude that deserves a trial in any case.

I got a trial recently for violating a security rule, no body died, one person broke his arm several times. I was actually not involved in the accident, but I was the plant manager, so i was responsible and spoken guilty.
i did not decide to take away the security machanism of the machine,nor did i know about it, i would have not allowed it, but the court decided, I had to know it, so I was guilty.

I know it is not realy comparable, but in some ways it is.
i hope you understand my point.

I don't know how it is in Europe, but in the United States, there has to be good evidence that a crime was committed for there to be a trial (at least for a criminal one).

[DC]

I don't know how it is in Europe, but in the United States, there has to be good evidence that a crime was committed for there to be a trial (at least for a criminal one).

thats why i said,an investigation would be good, to find out what really happened.

but like i see it at the moment, the world is like, oh **** happens, the evidence was no evidence, who cares.

[dtugg]

thats why i said,an investigation would be good, to find out what really happened.

but like i see it at the moment, the world is like, oh **** happens, the evidence was no evidence, who cares.

There was an investigation, and from what I can tell they found no evidence that the Bush Administration acted in a criminal manner in any way.

[DC]

There was an investigation, and from what I can tell they found no evidence that the Bush Administration acted in a criminal manner in any way.

Where can i read more details about the US investigation about the WMD?

it must have been atleast an act of negligence

[dtugg]

Where can i read more details about the US investigation about the WMD?

it must have been atleast an act of negligence

http://www.wmd.gov/report/index.html

To be honest, I haven't read it myself but because of this discussion, I probably will when I have the time.

[DC]

http://www.wmd.gov/report/index.html

To be honest, I haven't read it myself but because of this discussion, I probably will when I have the time.

i will do the same :)

[tanabear]

i will do the same :)

The goal of the Robb-Silberman Commission was not to investigate whether any public official manipulated intelligence for pre-conceived reasons. Its mission was to compare the claims made before the war to what was later discovered by the Iraqi Survey Group. The executive order establishing the Commission stated in part,

"The Commission shall specifically examine the Intelligence Community's intelligence prior to the initiation of Operation Iraqi Freedom and compare it with the findings of the Iraq Survey Group and other relevant agencies or organizations concerning the capabilities, intentions, and activities of Iraq relating to the design, development, manufacture, acquisition, possession, proliferation, transfer, testing, potential or threatened use, or use of Weapons of Mass Destruction and related means of delivery."

Here is a summary of the main findings of the Robb-Silberman Commission:

Nuclear Weapons:

"Based on its post-war investigations, the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) concluded--contrary to the Intelligence Community's pre-war assessments--that Iraq had not tried to reconstitute a capability to produce nuclear weapons after 1991."

"The Iraq Survey Group concluded that Iraq had not tried to reconstitute a capability to produce nuclear weapons after 1991. It concluded that Iraq's efforts to develop gas centrifuges for uranium enrichment ended in 1991, as did Iraq's work on other uranium enrichment programs, which Iraq had explored prior to the Gulf War. The ISG also found no evidence that Iraq had taken steps to advance its pre-1991 work in nuclear weapons design and development."

Biological Weapons:

"Contrary to the Intelligence Community's pre-war assessments, the ISG's post-war investigations concluded that Iraq had unilaterally destroyed its biological weapons stocks and probably destroyed its remaining holdings of bulk BW agent in 1991 and 1992. Moreover, the ISG concluded that Iraq had conducted no research on BW agents since that time, although Iraq had retained some dual-use equipment and intellectual capital. The ISG found no evidence of a mobile BW program."

"The Iraq Survey Group found that the Intelligence Community's pre-war assessments about Iraq's BW program were almost entirely wrong. The ISG concluded that "Iraq appears to have destroyed its undeclared stocks of BW weapons and probably destroyed remaining holdings of bulk BW agent" shortly after the Gulf War."

Chemical Weapons:

"After the war, the ISG concluded--contrary to the Intelligence Community's pre-war assessments--that Iraq had unilaterally destroyed its undeclared CW stockpile in 1991 and that there were no credible indications that Baghdad had resumed production of CW thereafter."

"The ISG concluded--contrary to the Intelligence Community's pre-war assessments--that Iraq had actually unilaterally destroyed its undeclared CW stockpile in 1991 and that there were no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of CW thereafter. Iraq had not regained its pre-1991 CW technical sophistication or production capabilities prior to the war."

Delivery Systems:

"The Iraq Survey Group concluded that, although Iraq had pursued UAVs as BW delivery systems in the past, Iraq's pre-Operation Iraqi Freedom program to develop small, autonomous-flight UAVs had actually been intended to fulfill reconnaissance and airborne electronic warfare missions. The ISG found no evidence suggesting that Iraq had, at the time of the war, any intent to use UAVs as BW or CW delivery systems."

[beachnut]

9/11? not one thing 9/11.

[tanabear]

Yawn. Why did the intelligence services of China, Russia, Germany, France, Turkey, Italy, Jordan, Egypt, Israel, Great Britain, among others, conclude that Saddam retained at least a portion of the stockpiles catalogued by the U.N.? You liars must get tired of being slapped around by this question.

Hey, I've got an idea: Bush manipulated the intelligence of all these countries. Admittedly, it's a very stupid, utterly absurd hypothesis, but it's better than most of what you shovel.

This is a topic that Bush Cultists frequently try to obscure. When it comes to Saddam, Iraq and WMD, there are two separate claims. Did Saddam produce WMD during the 1980's? Yes. Was there a small amount that had not been accounted for by the UN during the 1990's? Yes. The Bush Administration was claiming something different. They claimed that Saddam renewed WMD production and was actively stockpiling and producing WMD before we invaded, circa 2002, 2003. This was the reason we needed to invade, not that fact that Saddam might have some left over junk from the Iran-Iraq War. It was this claim, which was entirely fabricated, that separated the Bush Administration from the UN and the rest of the world regarding Saddam's WMD.

As former weapons inspector Scott Ritter stated in a 2002 interview,

"...since 1998 Iraq has been fundamentally disarmed: 90-95% of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capability has been verifiably eliminated. This includes all of the factories used to produce chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, and long-range ballistic missiles..."

"I believe the primary problem at this point is one of accounting. Iraq has destroyed 90-95% of its WMD. Okay. We have to remember that this missing 5-10% doesn't necessarily constitute a threat. It doesn't even constitute a weapons program. It constitutes bits and pieces of a weapons program which in totality doesn't amount to much...just because we can't account for it doesn't mean that Iraq retains it. There is no evidence Iraq retains these materials."

As well, chemical and biological weapons degrade over time, so even if they weren't destroyed, they would no longer be a serious threat.

Cheney told Dick Armey that Iraq had close ties to Al-Qaeda, that they were making substantial progress towards developing a mini-nuke, and a delivery system through their relationship with Al-Qaeda.

Senator Bill Nelson also stated, "I, along with nearly every Senator in this Chamber, in that secure room of this Capitol complex, was not only told there were weapons of mass destruction--specifically chemical and biological--but I was looked at straight in the face and told that Saddam Hussein had the means of delivering those biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction by unmanned drones, called UAVs, unmanned aerial vehicles. Further, I was looked at straight in the face and told that UAVs could be launched from ships off the Atlantic coast to attack eastern seaboard cities of the United States."

So the Administration was claiming that Saddam had active programs before we invaded. As George Bush stated, "The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."

The other claim was that the UN was not able to account for maybe 5-10% of his pre-Gulf War WMD, but there was not an active WMD program. It was the former claim that was used by the Administration to convince people why war was urgent. This was all a fantastic lie. But it was amazingly successful propaganda.

On March 17, 2003 Bush stated,

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

A United Nations Document states, "Up until they were withdrawn from Iraq on 18 March –- the day before armed action began -- United Nations inspectors had found no evidence of the continuation or resumption of programmes of weapons of mass destruction, Hans Blix told the Security Council this morning, as he briefed them for a final time before stepping down at the end of June as head of the inspection team."

The UN, at the time, had the only large contingency of human intelligence on the ground in Iraq. So where was Bush getting his intel from? Nowhere. It was all propaganda used to start a war.

[DC]

thank you tanabear for your good input.