Crooks are to be found even among liberals who swallowed Bush's kool-aid. Following Bill Maher's absurd attack on those favoring an investigation of one of the worst crimes in history, I found the following comment in response to my blog entry: Bill Maher Aligns With Neocons, Tries to Assault TruthseekerApparently, in bizarro world, a truth seeker is someone who believes that the stupidest, most incompetent, most utterly unintelligent buffoon, with an administration that is equally mind-numbingly stupid and unable to do one thing right, are also, on one magical day, the most ingenious terrorists in US history, capable of not only a spectacularly flawless attack on the United States, but able to silence ALL the people necessary to be in on such a grand master plan.I might not have signed my name either. But I would not have written to begin with. The writer has fallen into a common trap, having swallowed Bushco's fallacious label: "conspiracy theorist". This obvious fallacy, a mainstay of propagandists, was expertly practiced by Goebbels. The only comprehensive "theory" of 911 is the "official" one and it's full of holes. It goes like this:
--Anonymous
Bin Laden, head of al Qaeda, planned and coordinated the attacks from his cave in Afghanistan. A gang of Saudi pilots got a quick crash course at a Florida flight school. Like seasoned, veteran pilots they manage to get on board American flights, subduing passengers and crew with box cutters. With incredible precision, they crashed two skyscrapers and the Pentagon. A fourth plane crashed and disappeared into a tiny little ditch in Pennsylvania.Now that is a conspiracy theory if there ever was one. It's insane on it's face. Some obvious holes among thousands:
- Even if it were true, it hardly takes the onus off the Bush regime. Bin Laden was and, perhaps, remains a CIA asset who was visited by the CIA as he received dialysis in Dubai.
- Al Qaeda was created by the CIA. When did they stop working for the CIA? The official theory does not address that thorny point.
- The pilots simply could not have executed the maneuvers for which they are given credit. Hani Hanjour, specifically, is said to have had problems in a simulator. Yet we are expected to believe that he piloted, expertly, a 757 through an incredible spiral into the Pentagon without so much as scorching a blade of grass on a pristine, putting green lawn.
- Many of the Arab "pilots" either survived the crashes which killed everyone else or they were never on the planes to begin with. Some even gave interviews afterwards though they were officially dead.
- No wreckage was ever produced or examined at either the Pentagon or Pennsylvania. Now, I've covered plane crashes as a reporter. That includes fighter jets, airliners, and small private planes. In every instance, there was scorched but identifiable wreckage. In every instance there were scorched bodies and I've seen more of those than I care to remember. In every intances ---at any speed and circumstance --there was evidence that might have been collected and studied. But NOT on 911. And the gullible American people have swallowed this bullshit! The Bush administration has lied to you and is still lying to you.
- The fires were neither hot enough or long enough to have melted steel. If molten steel was found, its source was not airliners nor kerosene. It was said"An inferno commenced with 50,000 liters of fuel can melt anything" That is simply not true. Most large fires are relatively "cool" as evidenced by the billowing black smoke indicative of a "cool" fire.
- The fire, said to have been big enough and hot enough to have melted steel in New York, did not even inflame papers lying on a desk at the Pentagon. The official theory does not explain why similar alleged "causes" would have such disparate results.l
- If the "official version" of events had been true, there would not have been the "punch out" hole in the Pentagon's inner ring.
- Where is the wreckage of an airliner at the Pentagon? Show me the wreckage! A single scrap would do. Investigators in Scotland pieced together the flight that exploded over Lockerbie. Why does a lesser, flawed and fallacious standard apply to the events of 911?
Under fire for having lied about everything else, Bushco tars his critics with the label "conspiracy theorist" when, in fact, the work of David Lee Griffen and numerous others deal with the holes in Bush's theory. The burden of proof is on Bush. Those who assert must prove. Bush must prove or at least support his ridiculous scenario --for which there is not one one shred of admissible evidence!
The anonymous comment falls victim to the strawman fallacy attributing positions to so called "conspiracy theorists" that most have not taken. Popular Science magazine is the most prominent offender. PS invented positions and falsely attributed them to "theorists". Knocking down the strawman is easy.
Another common fallacy is that of over-generalizing. There are many points of contention among Bush critics, but almost all have this much in common: they demand a real, fair and complete investigation of all the facts and evidence. The 911 Commission was most certainly not such an investigation. Of late, even co-chairs Kean and Hamilton charge that they were obstructed by Bush. If the work of the 911 Commission was intended to be the imprimatur of legitimacy so desperately sought by Bush, it failed even the standards of its own co-chairs.
There is, therefore, no official conspiracy to defend. That being the case, where does Bill Maher get off presuming to kick anyone's ass? Has Maher issued a challenge? If so, I get choice of weapons: a real debate under university rules. Maher can be Bush's proxy and put forward Bush's official theory. In debate terminology, he gets the affirmative. As the negative, a debunker of his official theory, I get to kick both his and Bush's asses! At the outset, I will demand a single shred of verifiable evidence that might be admissible in court. Debate over! Maher can consider his ass kicked! Hey Bill, bring it on! Dare to give me equal time!
I don't think anyone believes Bush himself capable of conceiving and orchestrating the details of 911. The question, rather, is one of complicity, of having authorized with a wink, nod, or midnite powwow. Bushco would have had Pentagon literature to fall back on. I referenced the Northwoods Project in the last entry. Secondly, there is the Project for the New American Century --proof that just such a "project" was not only conceivable but wished for. PNAC describes --wistfully --a cataclysmic event comparable to Pearl Harbor. The authors of PNAC are, in a word, sick.
Bush's evil genie, Dick Cheney, was in fact commanding exercises that day --exercises that gamed the PNAC dream of world domination at the end of a terrorist attack on the people of America. It was the very scenario that Condo Rice would later say could not have been foreseen. But, everyone, in fact, did foresee it! But that would not be Condo's first, or last, lie.
Dick Cheney's "exercises" prove that the scenario had been foreseen in considerable detail, despite Condo's disingenuous protestations to the contrary. What happened on 911 IS that very scenario. What ARE the odds? What is more credible --that as Cheney was conducting the exercise, terrorists suddenly decided to enact it? Or --was Cheney's exercise the attack itself?
I am expected to believe unquestioningly the absurd position that it was only coincidental that Cheney's very exercise became real even as he was coordinating it. The number of coincidences surrounding this administration is astronomical.
Bush is neck and neck with Nixon and Carter for the very worst poll numbers in US history. Yet the American consciousness is not raised inversely to Bush's plunge into poll oblivion.
The numerous damning critiques of the official conspiracy theory are not, in themselves theories, at all. They are, rather, probable cause that 911 should have been investigated but inexplicably was not. Since when are crimes NOT investigated? Since when is evidence hauled off and disposed of --God knows where!
Forget about 911 --the disposal or destruction of evidence is itself a crime, a felony, as egregious as the crime it covers up. It should be a simple matter to determine who ordered the 911 debris dump. That person is guilty of obstruction of justice and should be prosecuted.
Each of the judicial acts by federal judges blocking the reporting of criminal activities under the federal crime reporting statute were felonies under the obstruction of justice statutes. Being in a position of trust, the offense of obstruction of justice is far worse than when done by someone not in government. The crime reporting statute requires that a federal judge receive evidence of the criminal activities as part of his administrative and not judicial duties. It is a mandatory responsibility. Making matters even worse, documentary evidence reveals that Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court also blocked the reporting of the criminal activities, and aided and abetted the obstruction of justice by lower court judges over whom they have supervisory responsibilities. These are very serious matters, and an indication of even worst judicial misconduct. Title 18 U.S.C. §Whoever ordered that destruction should be brought to trial, convicted and sentenced for having orchestrated the cover up of one of the most heinous crimes in human history.
2. Principals. (a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal. (b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal.Note: The legislative intent to punish as a principal not only one who directly commits an offense and one who "aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures" another to commit an offense, but also anyone who causes the doing of an act which if done by him directly would render him guilty of an offense against the United States. Case law decisions: Rothenburg v. United States, 1918, 38 S.Ct. 18, 245 U.S. 480, 62 L.Ed. 414, and United States v. Giles, 1937, 57 S.Ct. 340,Title 18 U.S.C. §
300 U.S. 41, 81 L.Ed. 493.3. Accessory after the fact. Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States had been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact. Title 18 U.S.C. § 4 Misprision of felony. Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined not more than $500 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. The books listed in this and related websites show many other people guilty of these crimes, including lawyers with the U.S. Department of Justice, members of Congress, and many people in the media.
--Obstruction of Justice
Those who cover up crimes are most often the ones who commit them. The possibility of getting away with murder, perhaps escaping a death penalty, is strong enough motivation to cover up a capital crime. Whoever ordered the destruction of evidence from New York acted upon that motive. Whoever ordered the investigation shut down is up to his/her neck in mass murder.
Those in Bush's administration who knew what was afoot and did nothing are complicit. What, I wonder, did Condoleeza Rice know when she warned the Mayor of San Francisco not to fly over a period of several days leading up to 911? Has anyone ever bothered to ask her that question" What are the chances we might get to ask her that question while she is under oath? Those who cover up are almost always guilty or complicit. Whoever ordered the Congress not to do its job, is most certainly the same person who received reports from Dick Cheney the very day they "gamed" the plan!
The reason 911 was not investigated, the reasons 911 was ordered covered up, are themselves probable cause to resume a real investigation and, in this case, George W. Bush himself is the target. I want and, as a citizen, have a right to know: did George W. Bush sign off on orders to destroy evidence material to the investigation of the crime we now call 911? DESTROYING EVIDENCE AS THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION DID AFTER 911 IS A CRIME.
The term truth seeker, in this context, means supporting the full and complete investigation of obvious crimes. No one need be a "conspiracy theorist" in order to demand an investigation of what may be the worst single crime since Hitler's holocaust. I am weary and impatient with idiots who will not understand that simple concept. It's basic to Anglo/American jurisprudence. I am sick and tired of trying to explain basic concepts that should have been mastered by 7th grade.
I am increasingly intolerant of idiots who have swallowed Bush's kool aid. I am fed up with being lied to by people who live off tax moneys I pay. I am fed with with elected "servants" thinking themselves dictators. I am fed up with Bush megalomania. I am fed up with his faggy ass, Village People macho. I am fed up with his smirks, his psychotic sense of humor, the obvious pleasure he derived when he boasted of those whose deaths he himself ordered. I am fed up with the Crawford Caligula. I am fed with with a simpering, effeminate coward and chicken hawk who presumes to rule a nation. I am fed up with those who don't know and don't want to know. Bertolt Brecht summed it up well:
A man who does not know the truth is just an idiot but a man who knows the truth and calls it a lie is a crook!My simple message to Americans: wake the fuck up or spend the rest of your life in slavery. You have no choice but to insist upon a real investigation of 911. You have no choice but to bring the gang of crooks and usurpers to trial and justice.--Bertolt Brecht
Alas, even so called "liberals" seem not to have gotten it. It is tragic to watch a free people descend into slavery and totalitarianism because they simply refuse or was never taught the most basic principles of our criminal law system and jurisprudence. It is said that a people get the kind of government they deserve. I also believe in the validity of a single imperative that one ought to behave in such a way that what is true can be verified to be true. By covering up the truth, by destroying evidence, Bush has violated that inviolate morality!
Americans are confronted with an existentialist choice whether they want one or not. Americans may simply bury their heads in the sand and be slaves or they may dare to speak truth to power and risk the ridicule of ...of what? The likes of a Bill Maher, a paid clown? If the people of the US will not speak up, they will have no one to blame but themselves when a Messiah fails to deliver them from bondage, bullshit, and the eventual collapse of the MIC ponzi scheme.
Bertolt Brecht might very well have had the GOP mentality in mind when he said:
A man who does not know the truth is just an idiot but a man who knows the truth and calls it a lie is a crook!But it was Molly Ivins who most certainly saved the following barb for American liberals who should know better.
“What you need is sustained outrage…there’s far too much unthinking respect given to authority.The 911 Truth Movement has demanded the truth and, typically, are ridiculed for their efforts. A pox on Bill Maher! A pox on Bush! A pox on those who know the truth and call it a lie!
--Molly Ivins (1944-2007)
The Holes in Bush's Theory
We are expected to believe that Muslims changed the laws of physics!
