Obama just announced today "We tortured some folks". Note the "we". So now what everyone knew is official. Do you expect indictments?

The question of whether or not Obama was going to attempt prosecutions of the Bush administration was serious enough that Obama had to address it several times, even addressing it during his first campaign. People wanted to know, is this radical black dude going to overturn the apple cart? His stated philosophy was that he was focused on moving forward, and he compared pursuing justice of Bush crimes to "partisan witch hunts". What we saw over the years was more than just moving forward. We saw a complete whitewashing. People died being tortured in our prisons, and nobody was held accountable.

IRRC you, Fly, while trying to prove you weren't pro Bush ITT, condemned Bush for torture. Will you condemn Obama for not prosecuting the crimes?

We see who Obama is interested in prosecuting, and it isn't Bush administration criminals or CEO's who knowingly brought the financial system to it's knees for their own gain. No, the Obama administration wants to prosecute journalists and whistle blowers while increasing government secrecy.

Deuces- What does any of that **** have to do with my question? Obama isn't covering up Bush-era torture, but isn't prosecuting it, ergo he IS covering up about WTC7?

I attempted to do a logical outline of the discussion between you and Jiggs, including my smaller inputs on the topic of should the redacted portions of the 911 report be made public. My interpretations are italicized. At the bottom I try to explain how what I wrote about Obama can explain his not pursuing the material in the redacted pages other than "he's in on it".

Jiggs: Asks Why is the report secret? What are the possible threats to national security?

Fly: question Jiggs about why he thinks the report is classified, insinuating conspiracy related reasons why Jiggs questions the secrecy.

Fly: personal attacks on Jiggs

Jiggs: repeats question

Fly: (In an apparent reversal of conventional thinking on the subject), asserts the burden of non-secrecy is on the curious

Fly: Says the question of what is in the report is a nonsense question because of the punishment of anyone who knows and would answer the question. (This is an attempt to confuse the question of should the files be made public through proper channels with the question of should someone break the law to reveal the files)

Jiggs: Says that he thinks the secrecy is part of shielding the Saudis and ignoring the money trail.

Fly: accuses Jiggs of (implicitly) accusing Obama of covering up 9/11 since Obama has had access to the files and has not opened them to the public. Asserts that none of the Congressman who have had access to it have attempted to whistle blow. (Several actually have so this isn't true.)

Deuces: points to what a U.S. senator said about the documents in question. He has said in no uncertain terms that it says the Saudi government is complicit in the attacks.

Jiggs: personal attack on Fly

Fly: Says Jiggs is saying it's classified because Dick Cheney did the 9/11. (Jiggs did not say that.)

Jiggs: Accuses Fly of straw manning. By definition Fly is did exactly that since Jiggs explcitly gave his reason for the secrecy only as "Saudi involvement, and U.S. complicity in shielding Saudi and ignoring the money trail."

Fly: (seemingly under the false assumption that the lawmakers who saw the documents didn't think that there is an untraveled evidence trail there) says that Jiggs assumes they were all in on the coverup, despite Jiggs pointing to their revelations as support for his theory.

Jiggs: Personal attack on Fly

Deuces: Answers Fly's charge that there is an implicit charge of complicity against Obama since his administration has had the files, kept them secret, and not pursued prosecution of W (even though neither Jiggs or I have directly implicated W but whatever, just took it as the charge that Obama hasn't pursued the matter being evidence of Obama's complicity of whatever misdeeds might have taken place) by saying that Obama has had a general and explicit philosophy, since before taking office, of not pursuing the crimes of the Bush administration, or many other kinds of crimes, and has a de facto policy of increased government secrecy. The point, if I have to spell it out, is Obama seems to have his own special values behind his prosecutorial prerogative. It doesn't have to be that he is covering up Bush crimes because he thinks they are cool, but because prosecuting them is antithetical to his philosophy and just not on his agenda. Obama has weird values of justice: let the torturers go, let the thieves who crippled the economy go, lock up journalists and whistle blowers. Bush et al benefit from Obama's odd philosophy of justice, and not necessarily because of special dispensation.


My overall summary of this particular point:

Bob Graham is a former senator, a mainstream moderate who enjoyed high esteem from his peers. When he looks at the redacted documents and starts screaming bloody murder about how the Saudis did it, that is the end of the discussion. The documents should be released, we should have public hearings on whether or not a new investigation is warranted.

obv. Ford is complicit on Watergate ...

Ugh, deuces post was so long my phone put a "more" button on it.

Wait wait wait. So now the conspiracy here isn't about put options, passports, missing video, "pull it", Wolfowitz managing a false flag...

it's Saudi financial support? That's it? That's the big coverup?

lol the Saudis, who have supported just about every cause in the middle East (by backing their side) at one point or another. Yes, them.

Can we narrow the focus for a second in the attempt to make some progress toward proving one of us wrong or of abandoning principles?

Do you think that Bob Graham viewing the redacted portions and concluding both that the Saudis were definitely involved in the plot and that we need to reopen the investigation means that we should at least have a public hearing on the matter, with all of the relevant findings opened and included? If not, why not?

Deuces are you ever going to answer what you think actually caused the towers to fall if it wasn't the planes?

Is Saudi funding/involvement even controversial? That's mainstream knowledge since forever.

Let's get back to the crazy conspiracy stuff - airplane holograms, thermite-based implosions, tens of thousands of fake NY witnesses, the US government, Israel, the pope, the build-a-burgers, new world order, Cheney/Bush, etc.

What about building 7? What if there was no building 7, but just a hologram? THAT COULD CHANGE EVERYTHING! Why is nobody talking about that??

So, because most people know it to be a given, it's somehow not controversial. Solid logic you work with there.

This is a little like saying "yeah, we know the mob launders money... nothing new there... why do anything about it?"

LOL ... at least you're plain about a tactic all coincitards engage in.

Uh yeah, that's kind of how it works with "conspiracies". Eating a box of Oreos will make you both fat and sick. Most people know that. Not a conspiracy.

And I think the whole "we went from towers being detonated to this?" question is pretty valid. How is one to take someone seriously if the leap was "someone blew up the towers" to "a rich Arab country funded a group of terrorists, like they always do"

Can you see why some of us are shrugging our shoulders? It's like you've uncovered the mystery of McDonalds nuggets not really being chicken. Nobody here is surprised, and barely anyone cares. And you'll see the same reaction in the media as this "story" plays out.

Btw where is buddy who had to review my "ghosting" explanation on the fake moon landings? He just never came back eh? Convenient.

You are missing the part of his thesis where Dick Cheney let it happen because of peak oil.

oh I saw that. I told him he better have most of his portfolio in oil futures (and drilling companies etc...).

He has his portfolio in transition towns and preparing for a world made by hand.

Deuces- No, we can't narrow the focus. You're the guy who brought up the government planting a passport. You're the guy who thinks there is secret video footage of something hitting the Pentagon. You're the guy who thinks WTC "fell funny". LOL, even in your pleading to narrow the focus you kinda hint that a real investigation would find something beyond just the widely known conventional wisdom of Saudi financial support.

Something makes me think next week we'll be back on the put options or the war games or whatever else you watched a Youtube about this week.

Notice, Jiggs, Deuces, nobody is reacting to this BOMBSHELL Saudi financial support theory by denying it and calling you stupid. What the **** were the first 2,000 posts about, though?

Don't forget Jewish people involved in the plot with a plan to flee to apartheid state Israel if exposed.

This is the first post you made in this thread, Deuces.

I don't believe I've ever clicked in this thread. Wanted to see if it was really still about 9/11. Clicked to last page. Surprised to see people are still actually discussing it.

Ok so you are obviously not interested in having a debate. You won't focus one subtopic in the interest of establishing anything and you won't answer simple questions. Usually these are the hallmarks of someone trying to hold together and untenable conspiracy theory (which is exactly what you are doing).


I am pretty sure I commented on the passport after someone else brought it up. If your quote of mine is actually my first post ITT, then I obviously did not introduce the passport.

Think McFly!

Now the Saudis backing is "widely known conventional wisdom" lolololol. I bet you can't site one opinion poll supporting that. In our poll here, the Saudis being responsible choice registers 3. If people thought the Saudis financed it, then they would think the Saudis would be responsible and should be held accountable. Do you think most people are like you, that they don't care who did 911?

Don't you know that people died that day?

And? Do you have an argument?

Those are some thoughts regarding the limits of knowledge on this issue. I expressed similar thoughts in the first 911 thread. They apply to your conspiracy theory and others as well. 911 was an extraordinarily complex event after which no investigation took place. The resulting void has been filled with all sorts of self serving opinions constructed largely disconnected factoids. I don't think it will ever be completely explained. Even my condemnation of Wolfowitz and the DOD neocons (regarding the sabotage of our defense) rests largely on the reporting of one Kurt Eichenwald and no one else.

But what if a murderer is caught and his crimes are made public. Does this public knowledge now erase the murder too, or does it only work with conspiracies?

It'd be really great for murder victims, so I'm hoping that you're right.

People are still discussing 911 but not in this thread. See my logical outline a few pages back which shows the typical pattern of the thread.

This thread has turned into efforts, of the opposing sides, to pit reason against conformity. Or maybe what's going on here, in the macro view, is better described as pitting justice or other principles against social stability, conformity or some variant of in-crowd appeal is simply the chosen vehicle of those wanting to maintain order.

The branding of people as conspiracy theorists has become quite an effective bludgeon. Just the fear of the label can silence discussion of crimes. Take voting for example. There are many credentialed experts with solid data showing that elections are being rigged in this country in favor of republicans. But no one on the left who wants to be taken seriously (including politicians) can even discuss the issue. Why? because the conspiracy theorist billy club will be taken out. But why that? My own theory is that the prosecution of certain crimes threaten social stability and so their very discussion has to be suppressed.

ITT you have a few people trying to have a debate and everyone else trying to use the conspiracy theory billy club on them. Ironically, in this case, those very people trying to wield the club are unwittingly trying to defend a conspiracy theory of their own.