babble-intro-img
babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.

Discuss 9-11 and JFK from an Elizabeth-May-style 'nuanced' point of view

obscurantist
Offline
Joined: Feb 16 2005
 

Comments

obscurantist
Offline
Joined: Feb 16 2005
Continued from this thread about World Trade Centre 7. We can continue the discussion that was going on at the end of the thread, if people want to.

But I'd be interested in talking about September 11 and other historical episodes like the JFK assassination in the context that I discussed them early on in the thread (as well as in a thread specifically about JFK that was spun off from the WTC 7 thread).

My thoughts were inspired by a question from SavageInTheCity about the official lone-gunman, "magic-bullet" theory. He prefaced his question by saying it was off-topic, but I saw it as relating back to the topic at hand, as it pointed to another possibility in between a giant evil MIC 9-11 conspiracy and the simple fog of muddled and contradictory information: namely, that governments sometimes cover up things that have the potential to embarrass them.

I don't know precisely what elements in the U.S. government might want to hide about 9-11 if it isn't their own involvement in it, but it could be their own incompetence in failing to put together the pieces and figure out about the plot in advance. It could be that there was something in particular about WTC 7, unrelated to the 9-11 plot, that people wanted to hide -- after all, it was an office / storage area for government departments who dealt with highly restricted information.

In the case of the JFK assassination, it's perhaps easier to divine motives for a cover-up. Oswald had connections to anti-Castro Cubans who in turn had connections to the Mob. Both of these groups had their reasons for hating JFK. And both were involved in US government efforts to kill Castro. Perhaps the Mob and / or the anti-Castro Cubans killed Kennedy, maybe using two or more shooters. People in the US government then covered this up out of fear that a full investigation would lead to their anti-Castro plots being exposed, which could've had consequences for them personally, for internal US public opinion of the government in general, and for US-Soviet relations.

The most interesting theory I've heard of JFK's death is that he was killed by the accidental discharge of a Secret Service agent's rifle. You can imagine that some people might want to cover something like THAT up. Although I don't think the theory is supported by the facts.

As I said in SITC's JFK thread, I think the official version of the JFK assassination doesn't hold up, certainly not from the perspective of basic physics or ballistics, and probably not from the perspective of Oswald as the killer, based on both his unclear motives and his apparent lack of marksmanship skills.

I think there's more to the story than that, and I think that various people in positions of power in the States have either known or speculated as much, and have tried to obscure some of the factual record for fear of where a full inquiry might lead. What I'm less decided about is what the real story is, and whether elements of the U.S. government were involved in the assassination itself, or simply in an after-the-fact damage-control effort.

So is this an uncontroversial concept, that a cover-up isn't necessarily for the malign purpose of covering up one's own complicity? I'm willing to bet that at least in the context of these two historical events, the concept is worth debating.


quelar
Offline
Joined: Jun 7 2002
I think you can take this down a notch to simple every day government actions of delaying reports, changing press releases, etc. The number 1 goal of most governments is to be reelected so covering up your mistakes (intentional or unintentional) is paramount.

The JFK issue could very well have been a coverup for their anti-castro actions, or covering up thier oil man ties, or covering up the fact that LBJ had him killed (my favorite though not exactly credible theory) for the sake of defending the country. It could have been a coverup because the secret service F'ed up massively by allowing not one, not two but likely three different riflemen to kill a president AND manage to slip away. All possible theories.

With 9/11 though, Bush was handed more political capital than any previous president. Because this was an attack on a major US city, a major icon, and a civilian assault the American people bound together in a way that was so fierce he could have said just about anything and gotten away with it. The problem I, and most other 9/11 truthers have is the fact that the story has changed multiple times (definitive facts on that day changed to theories a week later, then dropped from any official statements), major inconsistancies in the official story that are still to be patched up, the government itself stonewalling, blacking out, and refusing to testify on record with the investigation, and incredible acts of stupidity, uncommon sense, and gross misconduct all required to make the story happen. Very much like the JFK issue, there are holes to the story, but this is a MUCH bigger story, and has a lot more places to put holes.

If they want us to believe, tell us what they really know. Come clean. The american people will be cool with it (of course, unless it actually implicates the government, which by their refusal makes them seem far more guilty).

Because really, how are we supposed to believe that a fire that incinerated the DNA of everyone on board, and created a fire SO hot that it collapsed a massive metal structure capable of withstanding 3000 degree heat somehow, someway allowed one of the hijackers passports to be found in the debris after the collapse of the tower?


M. Spector
Offline
Joined: Feb 19 2005
Once one is released from the restriction of actually having to have some factual evidence for a theory, one is free to imagine the wildest scenarios and put them forward on an equal footing with the "official" explanation.

For example, I could hypothesize that Jacquie Kennedy actually shot her husband in revenge for his philandering ways, and hired others to cover it up by firing harmless shots from the grassy knoll, the book depository, etc. That's certainly something that some people might want to cover up.

My theory is every bit as interesting and intriguing as the accidental-Secret-Service-gun discharge theory, and has precisely the same amount of factual evidence to back it up. Does that mean that it warrants serious consideration?


M. Spector
Offline
Joined: Feb 19 2005
quote:Originally posted by quelar:
... someway allowed one of the hijackers passports to be found in the debris after the collapse of the tower?
Do you know that the passport that was allegedly found in the debris was actually the passport of somebody who was on that airplane? What was the name on the passport? Did they ever connect that name to the hijackers or anyone else on the plane?

Just because some anonymous person found a passport it doesn't mean it belonged to a hijacker. It could, for example have belonged to someone who jumped to their death from the burning towers. Maybe the name or the picture on the passport looked kinda middle eastern, like one 'o them Ay-rabs.

If you can find another story that says the holder of the passport was definitely on one of the planes, then and only then will I accept that this is a genuine "inconsistency" that needs to be explained. Until then, get a life.


Fidel
Offline
Joined: Apr 29 2004

Geez, another unfinished thread about unfinished business left completely unfinished. Tongue out

quelar wrote:
Because really, how are we supposed to believe that a fire that incinerated the DNA of everyone on board, and created a fire SO hot that it collapsed a massive metal structure capable of withstanding 3000 degree heat somehow, someway allowed one of the hijackers passports to be found in the debris after the collapse of the tower?

Yes, good question. The American FBI apparently want people to believe that a passport was found in the neighborhood of the trade towers. A passport apparently belonging to Satam al-Suqami, one of the alleged hijackers on American Flight 11, was miraculously found by someone after it survived a tremendous amount of destructive force within the collapsed trade tower that pulverized everything concrete into dust. That is, except for some steel columns that were later carted away in a hurry before FEMA or the NIST could examine all of it, and one passport. A passport? Sweet baby Jesus, you say? Me three. It looks odd. Vvvery odd. What are the odds against it happening other than astronomical?

And the feds had their chance to examine DNA of crash victims and alleged hijackers alike in the Pentagon rubble. They had the chance to positively ID at least one of the hijackers by simply excluding the unknowns from DNA of listed passengers. And they blew it! More evidence from a federal crime scene was destroyed. On purpose? It had to be. This investigation was more slip-shod in some ways than the very bungled Warren Commission investigation/Cover-up.


Ken Burch
Offline
Joined: Feb 26 2005

"JFK should not have been shot, even though he made the frivolous choice of riding through Dallas, Texas in an open car and without a bullet-proof helmet".


M. Spector
Offline
Joined: Feb 19 2005

The passport was not "recovered" from the rubble of the WTC:

Quote:
The passport was recovered by NYPD Detective Yuk H. Chin from a male passerby in a business suit, about 30 years old. The passerby left before being identified, while debris was falling from WTC 2. The tower collapsed shortly afterwards. The detective then gave the passport to the FBI on 9/11.


Fidel
Offline
Joined: Apr 29 2004

Quote:
The passerby left before being identified, while debris was falling from WTC 2. The tower collapsed shortly afterwards.

 That sounds like the ol' "mystery passerby left before being identified, while debris was falling from WTC 2" story. We've heard it all before.  I think that's what they call circumstantial evidence discovered under suspicious circumstances. lol And they were equally as creative in devising a phony pretext to march the US army into Poland I mean Afghanistan.


Fidel
Offline
Joined: Apr 29 2004

Ken Burch wrote:

"JFK should not have been shot, even though he made the frivolous choice of riding through Dallas, Texas in an open car and without a bullet-proof helmet".

Apparently it was decided by someone at the last minute that the limo would take a surreptitious route and a 90 degree turn in front of the book the repository and thusly slowing the car down to a near stop. And some people have said that it went against secret service protocol.

Secret service people were reportedly cleaning blood and brains from the car soon after and destroying evidence from a crime scene. A windshield with a bullet hole was replaced three times and car stripped down to bare metal.

It would not be the last time that evidence from a federal crime scene was destroyed. It would not be the last time that eye witnesses would be ignored by invesitgators, cajoled and harassed by agents for federal law enforcement.

The HSCA basically concluded in 1979 that if one does not believe in magic bullet theories that defy physics, then there were probably two or three marksmen firing shots at the president of America that day.

There have been several official investigations of the those murdered during what was a decade of assassinations, but only one slip-shod investigation into the worst building collapses in history to launch another glorious era of warfiteering and mass murder.


Fidel
Offline
Joined: Apr 29 2004

The JFK Assassination and 9/11: the Designated Suspects in Both Cases "significant anomalies"

False information deliberately sent by cables from the CIA to the FBI concerning Lee Harvey Oswald in the '60s and Khalid al-Mihdar in 2000s.

"Manipulative mindset" maneuvering America into immoral and wildly expensive wars in both eras.

CIA and FBI, the Military etc operating on a "need to know" basis for a long time. And they are a few people and embedded bureaucrats who've decided that the American people simply don't need to know what they've done or what they intend to do.

Were Dubya and cosmetic government members clueless as to what the shadow government was up to or deliberately not doing? Probably.


mmphosis
Offline
Joined: Apr 28 2009

I appreciate you posting this thread Fidel.

I remember watching the video The Truth And Lies Of 911 by Michael Ruppert.  I watched this video and started questioning the events of 9/11.  In the opening of the video there is a very graphic clip of the JFK assassination.  The first thing that Michael Ruppert states is that this clip proves nothing. I continue to keep this in mind when questioning the events of 9/11.  Like you, I think that we've been lied to, but proving anything with certainty can be very difficult -- as you mentioned the evidence at the crime scene in New York was carted away very quickly.  And also remember that no criminal investigation of 9/11 has ever been done.  Motive?  Follow the money.

There are a few tidbits uncovered as time goes by (remember the tidbits, like the JFK clip, prove nothing.)  Recently I read that someone who was in an investment firm with ties to the CIA may have prompted investors to invest in those "put options" for the airlines before 9/11 occurred.  It is the only time that this type of investment happened before a plane disaster, as it was described that these type of investments would normally occur after the event.

George W. Bush has recently revealed that he described Dick Cheney as the "Darth Vader" of the administration, whatever that means, probably to sell more books.

More and more people are calling for an independent investigation.


KenS
Online
Joined: Aug 6 2001

How did Elizabeth May get in the title?

I dont know why I feel I need to know the logic?


al-Qa'bong
Offline
Joined: Feb 27 2003

You should expect logic?


mmphosis
Offline
Joined: Apr 28 2009

Google: Elizabeth May nuanced -- Nuanced seems to be her word.

An Elizabeth-May-style 'nuanced' point of view meaning don't hold back.  I think.

I guess that this is a little dig at Elizabeth May for not being very subtle.  And maybe she deserves a little dig, seeing as she wants to be the first and only Green MP to be elected in Canada.  But, back to the discussion of 9/11 and JFK...  in that Elizabeth-May-style 'nuanced' point of view...


Prince_or_Orange
Offline
Joined: Jan 15 2011

I am a recent 'truther convert' after intially buying the official bogus stories without knowing the facts or being suspicious of the US lamestream/corporate media as I suspect many of us well-meaning people are.  I now believe the 9/11 event and the 'big event'  (as L. Fletcher Prouty - CIA insider and "good guy" pointed out the JFK assisination was called by a rogue group of CIA-linked assassins) are linked and it is good to see you link them here.  I think it all comes down to the power elite (operating behind the scenes in the US, and also Canada?) actively creating fear so that the general population can be controlled and easily manipulated.  "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. " -George Orwell.   Keep up the good work and keep on opening people's eyes. Anyone seeing the facts will come to the same conclusions: we have been sold montrous lies,  for profit, for power.   Listen to Jesse Ventura, Oliver Stone, Alex Jones, Richard Gage, Peter Joseph, Ron Paul, Fletcher Prouty, etc etc etc -  all good old American Patriots who are also trying to open people's eyes and in the process dispel fear and powerlessness. 


Fidel
Offline
Joined: Apr 29 2004

I think it boils down to the fact that some people have a difficult time believing that America is anything but a bungling empire run by incompetent bunglers. And their own conspiracy theory says something along the lines that America does evil abroad as evil doers often do, and 9/11 was simply radical Muslims putting their foot down. They are giving it to the US Military in Central Asia today just as they gave the Soviets the what for in the 1980s. And this is easily debunked, too. Yes, Afghans have been invaded before by the Sovs and British before them. But Afghans themselves have never retaliated or struck back at any empire in the would-be vicious empire's home country. Not before and not on 9/11, and they probably never will.

No, I think it's looking more like that other conspiracy theory, the one that says the CIA and US Military have, and once again, "tricked" the cosmetic government in Warshington into marching the US Military into yet another costly war in another country on the other side of the world. And they were easily tricked as treacherous tricksters are often able to trick them. They want to be tricked, and the CIA and Pentagon love to play the role of tricksters. And US taxpayers are there footing the bills again for these "mistakes". As Naomi Klein said, it's time to consider that the mistakes are not really mistakes at all.

 


Prince_or_Orange
Offline
Joined: Jan 15 2011

What most surprises me is that all related facts are not vigorously researched and debated by what I used to think was a respectable and free US media.  I am not a journalist, but with some time on my hands and an inquisitive and open mind, all information was here for me to find and see.  Maybe you are right Fidel: perhaps the US public wants to be tricked because they cannot handle being really free and brave?  


Fidel
Offline
Joined: Apr 29 2004

I think many Americans do have an inkling. And I think it's also been a very divided country since at least the end of the civil war era. They all want to make money and don't care how they do it. War is the most profitable capitalist enterprise in a country where the economy is largely based on war, and the imperialist mind set is a given. There are even remnants of the imperialist mind set there alive and well in Britain. Margaret Thatcher was not renowned in England for her work on the economy. Her own political fortunes were given a needed boost when she ordered the British Navy to attack the Falkland Islands. And a few British football hooligans still find their way into Europe and raise hell with the attitude that England is everyone else's superiors. The mentality is still there in England, and it will be there in America for many years after the empire collapses.

ETA: But back to that question again, why war? It's all down to this. US and other western world capitalists decided by the mid to late 70s that the writing was on the wall for oil and all its derivative products, anything tied to oil at the time. The entire economy was based on fossil fuels ie dead plant residues as a driver of the fabulous fail-safe economy. How stupid they were was the suddent realization. And there was no backup plan. Profit margins would begin to fall below the magic number of 12% with industrial capitalism based on fossil fuels. War solves everything. Warfiteering profits of anywhere from 300 to 1000%? There was the new backup plan. With profit margins like that, there will be more war at any cost to US credibility. As Gore Vidal said, they dream of war. 9/11 dates back 30 years according to one US Congress person today. And since the financial collapse of 2008, what we're witnessing today is the capitalist class feeding off the corpse of an empire. It's finished.


Prince_or_Orange
Offline
Joined: Jan 15 2011

It will be finished when people stop financing this horrendous derailment of the American dream.  I agree this moment is very close;  once that point arrives we may see a serious shake-up and reset of economic and political reality.  At a slow pace - a speed that can still be denied or ignored by the mainstream politicians and corporate media - this crisis has been clearly unfolding since 2008  with its roots firmly planted in 1963 (JFK), 1971 (Nixon), 2001 (9/11).  Being an eternal optimist, my hope is that all good Americans will rise and take charge when this reality becomes abundantly clear;  sooner or later one would expect they will wake up, stand up for what is right, and take their country back from their bungling Federal Reserve banksters and related ruling class: Wall Street Casino bosses, political puppets and the mass murdering goons.  

Sure, perhaps we are all capable or being mass murdering tribal warriors when it comes down to it and our survival is at stake, yet by now it should be pretty clear to most American dreamers that a) it is their own ruling class who keeps on concocting these conditions for the "for profit" war machine b) total war has never advanced the pursuit of happiness for the majority of citizens of any nation (ask Hitler's Germany).   Perhaps warfaring remains acceptable for selfish morrally challengted people when the shooting and bombing is a "far from my bed show on TV" and buckets of money flow in that validate  false trickle down economic arguments.  However, when the system cannibalistically starts feeding on itself,  what then?   If I was a good American and I would be concious of these realities, I would help turn the tables on the ruling class, and clean things up.  


Fidel
Offline
Joined: Apr 29 2004

I think that the world has to get off the US petro dollar system if they want to stop financing US military buildups all around them that lead to wars of aggression. And I think it's beginning to happen. There seems to be a crack opening up in the armor of US dollar imperialism. A number of countries have indicated that they will now stop using so many dollars to even up things at the end of the year with respect to balance of trade payments between them. They need to extend this idea when it comes to paying for oil. With the US waging monetary warfare against them now and US protectionism making mock of Anglo-American free trade, they see no reason to continue financing the US Military's expansion all around them.


Fidel
Offline
Joined: Apr 29 2004

The Doomsday Project, Deep Events, and the Shrinking of American Democracy

Peter Dale Scott wrote:
As author Michael Lind has observed, there have for a long time been two prevailing and different political cultures in America, underlying political differences in the American public, and even dividing different sectors of the American government. One culture is predominantly egalitarian and democratic, working for the legal consolidation of human rights both at home and abroad. The other, less recognized but with deep historical roots, prioritizes and teaches the use of repressive violence against both domestic and Third World populations to maintain "order."

To some extent these two mindsets are found in all societies. They correspond to two opposing modes of power and governance that were defined by Hannah Arendt as “persuasion through arguments” versus “coercion by force.” Arendt, following Thucydides, traced these to the common Greek way of handling domestic affairs, which was persuasion (πείθειν) as well as the common way of handling foreign affairs, which was force and violence (βία)."

Secrecy, "continuity of government" planning, and deep events have helped the military dictatorship cast a shadow over public institutions in the post-war America.

Note: Michael Lind is author of the 1990s book, Up from Conservatism: Why the Right is Wrong for America, a very good read and gives real political insight into the way American conservatives think. Lind at one time was a William F. Buckley protege for the right.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or register to post comments