BBC 9/11: The Conspiracy Files

[Big Les]

I could have sworn I'd heard the X-number of Jews stayed away during X disaster story before 9/11; or am I wrong? It's classic anti-semitism to be sure, but is it just a retread of an older myth? I've got no evidence, just a vague notion that I'd heard something similar before.

 

[gumboot]

I just finished watching the documentary. There is a momment at about the 30 minute mark I think will haunt me the rest of my life.

It is an audio clip, of two unidentified controllers or emergency workers or such

Male voice: We have confirmed flight 93 is down

Excited female voice: What! Its down, its landed?

Male voice: No its (pause) down

Female voice: Oh.......................................

I would love Jones, Avery and this gang of excrement, to get locked in a room with some of the people involved in trying to deal with that day and see how long they last.

It's Tech Sergeant Shelley Watson (USAF) in the NEADS bunker talking to someone from Washington Air Route Traffic Control Centre.

10:15:00
WATSON: United nine three, have you got information on that yet?
WASHINGTON CENTER: Yeah, he’s down.
WATSON: What—he’s down?
WASHINGTON CENTER: Yes.
WATSON: When did he land? Because we have confirmation—
WASHINGTON CENTER: He did—he did—he did not land.

Here, on the tape, you hear the air rush out of Watson’s voice.

WATSON: Oh, he’s down down?
MALE VOICE: Yes. Yeah, somewhere up northeast of Camp David.
WATSON: Northeast of Camp David.
WASHINGTON CENTER: That’s the—that’s the last report. They don’t know exactly where.

-Gumboot

 

[cludgie]

Don't know if anyone posted this already but more Monbiot in the Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2017006,00.html

 

[gumboot]

Gumboot, if you'll allow some constructive criticism, I think you over-argue your points sometimes. There is no particular reason for you to spend a page of the forum defending the BBC's decision not to use the Jersey Girls. They didn't use them. What of it?

Well, I'd say that was an exaggeration. I didn't really spend that long discussing the Jersey Girls, and only did at all because Aphelion continued the discussion.

Responding to each of his claimed "ommissions" was overkill, but sometimes it's nice to demonstrate to fence-sitters that the researchers here really HAVE covered quite literally EVERYTHING.

Truthers should be grateful. Aphelion then brought up the matter of the JGs wanting to question Bush's prioritisation of OBL. Is that a conspiracy theory? Does it give credence to no-planes or laser weapons? No, the President's prioritisation of OBL is an important issue and a valid question. But you and Wildcat questioned whether Bush really said that, and then you cite the White House press release,as if that's going to quote Bush's remarks verbatim.

Well, as it happens it did cite what he said correctly. But never mind. I did not deny that he said it, and I never cited the press release. The only input I had into the discussion was to express amazement at Aphelion's failure to accurately comprehend what Bush was saying (based on the video he himself posted).

Funnily enough, Bush's response demonstrated that the administration were not interesting in hunting down an individual, but in stopping terrorism, and in particular the Al Qaeda network. This flies in the face of criticisms that argue that the administration have "demonised" Osama to achieve their goals.

A classic "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario.

I appreciate your feedback, but please try to distinguish between what different posters say.

-Gumboot

 

[MG1962]

[It's Tech Sergeant Shelley Watson (USAF) in the NEADS bunker talking to someone from Washington Air Route Traffic Control Centre.

Thanks for that Gum. Unfortunately the transcript just doesn't bring the emotion of those few momments out. Watson almost sounded like "Thank God, we finally had a win" and too hear her emotionally collapse when the information sinks in, is quite frankly hard to take

 

[Panoply_Prefect]

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how it's illegal...

Not agreeing the tinies with the person you are replying to, the dispute wether the war on Iraq was legal or not centers around chapter VII of the UN Charter, of which the US is a party. The legality of warfare is dealt with in article 42 and 51:

Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

However the SC didn't authorize these measures, so article 51 applies:

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

I think the US looked upon the alleged presence of WMD as the reason for "self-defence" as per this article, but the UN and several nations didn't agree.

Cheers,
SLOB

 

[stateofgrace]

Don't know if anyone posted this already but more Monbiot in the Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2017006,00.html

Great article and some great comments from the saner people in the UK. I liked one so much I put it in my signature.

 

[eddyk]

Anyone notice now Dylan nonchalantly drank from a mug when he walked the BBC into his room, one hand in his pocket aswell.

I bet the mug was empty and he has nothing in his trousers.

 

[gumboot]

Not agreeing the tinies with the person you are replying to, the dispute wether the war on Iraq was legal or not centers around chapter VII of the UN Charter, of which the US is a party. The legality of warfare is dealt with in article 42 and 51:

However the SC didn't authorize these measures, so article 51 applies:


I think the US looked upon the alleged presence of WMD as the reason for "self-defence" as per this article, but the UN and several nations didn't agree.

Cheers,
SLOB

Of course you could argue that the US violated the UN Charter, and if so, you could argue that therefore they should be kicked out of the UN, however if you applied that logic there would be very few members in the UN at all.

(Incidentally, invoking Article 51 does not require the approval or consent of the UN)

My issue is there's no such thing as an "illegal war". War is regulated by laws, and as such can be waged illegally, however a war itself cannot be illegal.

-Gumboot

 

[JQH]

Question: do you debunkers realize that you are objectively supporting the declining neo-cons?.

My political views have nothing to do with scientific fact. The Truthseekers are quite prepared to bend the laws of physics (when they understand them) to support their thesis. Pointing out these errors does not equate with support for Bush and the neocons.

The Truthseekers are accusing Bush and his Government of one of the worst crimes possible. What they are not doing is presenting any evidence in support of their allegations.

 

[cludgie]

My political views have nothing to do with scientific fact. The Truthseekers are quite prepared to bend the laws of physics (when they understand them) to support their thesis. Pointing out these errors does not equate with support for Bush and the neocons.

The Truthseekers are accusing Bush and his Government of one of the worst crimes possible. What they are not doing is presenting any evidence in support of their allegations.

And the funny thing here is some of the people aligning themselves with the truth movement are so right wing they make Bush look positively socialist.

 

[JAStewart]

The truthers are actually giving Bush 'credit' of sorts!

typical truthseeker

"Bush is a MORON" ... "BUSH ENGINEERED 911!oneone!!"

 

[gumboot]

The truthers are actually giving Bush 'credit' of sorts!

typical truthseeker

"Bush is a MORON" ... "BUSH ENGINEERED 911!oneone!!"

I never undestood this. A collection of battle-hardened educated and wealthy Arab terrorists are incapable of carrying out the relatively simple official version of 9/11, yet Bush, widely criticised for nothing more than an apparant lack of intelligence, manages to pull off a caper so complicated it puts Dr. Evil to shame.

-Gumboot

 

[cludgie]

I never undestood this. A collection of battle-hardened educated and wealthy Arab terrorists are incapable of carrying out the relatively simple official version of 9/11, yet Bush, widely criticised for nothing more than an apparant lack of intelligence, manages to pull off a caper so complicated it puts Dr. Evil to shame.

You could make most terrorist organisations (ETA, IRA, RAF et al) sound like a bunch of amateurs in the same sense yet they've all managed quite remarkable things. After all, the IRA nearly managed to asassinate the entire British Cabinet at Brighton. Or was that a conspiracy too?

 

[PerryLogan]

Iraq War: Probably Illegal

My issue is there's no such thing as an "illegal war". War is regulated by laws, and as such can be waged illegally, however a war itself cannot be illegal.

Shucks, Gumboot, even Richard Perl thinks the war is illegal:

International lawyers and anti-war campaigners reacted with astonishment yesterday after the influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html

Then there's these folks:
"The war in Iraq is an illegal war fought in defiance of international public opinion and the UN."
Marilyn B. Young, New York University
http://www.oah.org/meetings/2003/roundtable/young.html

In an op ed piece in the NYT, Dean Slaughter, President of the American Society of International Law, ("Good Reasons for Going Around the U.N." March 18 2003) acknowledged that the majority view among her organization's members was that the war was illegal.
http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/5490.html

Russell W. McNutt, a veteran of three wars: World War II, Korea, and Vietnam, stated: "Our Citizens' Panel found the Iraq War to be illegal in both national and international law. In our document, we issued a Call to Conscience for Congress to hold hearings on the legality of both the war itself and the ways that the war is being conducted." The panel listened to two days of testimony from Iraq War veterans and experts in international law (such as Daniel Ellsberg, Professor Richard Falk, and former U.N. Assistant Secretary-General Denis Halliday), which is included in the panel's report.
http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2007/02/02_citizens_pressrelease.htm

• "Iraq Invasion Violated UN Charter" (news.com.au, August 7, 2003) ("With unusual candour, the former chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix today denounced the US-led war on Iraq as a violation of international law, and questioned Washington's motives for the invasion.")
• Law Professors for the Rule of Law
• "War on Iraq Was Illegal, Say Top Lawyers" (Severin Carrell and Robert Verkaik, The Independent, May 25, 2003)
• "International Legal Experts Regard Iraq War as Illegal" (Peter Schwarz, World Socialist Web Site, March 26, 2003)
• "Tearing up the Rules: The Illegality of Invading Iraq," Center for Economic and Social Rights, March 2003 Superb
• "Canadian Law Professors Declare US-Led War Illegal" (Henry Michaels, World Socialist Web Site, 22 March 2003)
• Robin Miller, "This War Is Illegal," March 21, 2003
• "Chirac: Iraq War Breaches International Law" (Middle East Online, March 21, 2003)
• "Is the War on Iraq illegal?" (Irwin Cotler, The Globe and Mail, March 21, 2003)
• Jim Lobe, "Law Groups Say U.S. Invasion Illegal," OneWorld.net, March 21, 2003 (an open letter signed by 31 Canadian international law professors calls a U.S. attack against Iraq "a fundamental breach of international law [that] would seriously threaten the integrity of the international legal order that has been in place since the end of the Second World War.")
• Joan Russow, "U.S. Enagaged in an Illegal Act," March 20, 2003
• International Appeal by Lawyers and Jurists against the "Preventive" Use of Force
• Michael C. Dorf, "Is the War on Iraq Lawful?" Findlaw, March 19, 2003
• Emma Thomasson, "Iraq War Illegal but Trial Unlikely, Lawyers Say," Reuters, March 19, 2003 ("President Bush and his allies are unlikely to face trial for war crimes although many nations and legal experts say a strike on Iraq without an explicit U.N. mandate breaches international law.")
• Hilary Charlesworth and Andrew Byrnes, "No, This War Is Illegal, The Age [Melbourne, Australia], March 19, 2003
• Matthew Happold, "A Talented Lawyer Arguing a Weak Case," The Guardian, March 17, 2003 ("The [British] attorney-general's assertion that the use of force against Iraq is legal without a second UN resolution does not stand scrutiny")
• Keir Starmer, "Sorry, Mr Blair, But 1441 Does Not Authorise Force," The Guardian, March 17, 2003
• "Analysis of the US Legal Position on the Use of Force Against Iraq" (Greenpeace, March 16, 2003)
• Richard Norton-Taylor, "Law Unto Themselves, The Guardian, March 14, 2003 ("A large majority of international lawyers reject the government's claim that UN resolution 1441 gives legal authority for an attack on Iraq.")
• Robert Verkaik, "'Illegal War' Could Mean Soldiers Face Prosecution," The Independent, March 12, 2003
• Anthony Howard, "War Against Iraq--The Legal Dilemma, The Times [London], March 11, 2003
• Mark Littman, "A Supreme International Crime," The Guardian, March 10, 2003 ("Any member of a government backing an aggressive war will be open to prosecution.")
• "The UN Must Take Mr Blix's Report Seriously--by Voting Against Military Action," The Independent (editorial), March 8, 2003
• "War Would Be Illegal," The Guardian, March 7, 2003 ("The doctrine of pre-emptive self-defence against an attack that might arise at some hypothetical future time has no basis in international law. Neither security council resolution 1441 nor any prior resolution authorises the proposed use of force in the present circumstances.").
• Michael White and Patrick Wintour, "No Case for Iraq Attack Say Lawyers," The Guardian, March 7, 2003 (commenting on letter, just above, by 16 professors of international law).
• "War With Iraq 'Could Be Illegal,'" BBC, March 6, 2003 (British Professor Nicholas Grief says that Bush and Blair could face prosecution for war crimes, specifically waging an illegal war).
• Alan Elsner, "US War Without UN Approval Would Be Seen as Illegal," Reuters, March 6, 2003 ("Anne-Marie Slaughter, dean of Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, said eight out of 10 international lawyers would consider a U.S. attack without a new resolution as a violation of international law.").
• "Australian Legal Experts Declare an Invasion of Iraq a War Crime" (James Conachy, World Socialist Web Site, February 27, 2003)
• Bill Bowring, "Bush and Blair Must See Law Has a Life of Its Own," AlertNet, February 21, 2003.
• Julie Mertus, "The Law(?) of Regime Change," JURIST, February 20, 2003.
• Thalif Deen, "Of Man and God and Law," Asia Times, February 14, 2003.
• Nathaniel Hurd, "UN SCR 1141 and Potential Use of Force Against Iraq," December 6, 2002.
• "IN THE MATTER OF THE POTENTIAL USE OF ARMED FORCE BY THE UK AGAINST IRAQ AND IN THE MATTER OF RELIANCE FOR THAT USE OF FORCE ON UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 1441," Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, November 2002.
• "Lawyers Statement on UN Resolution 1441 on Iraq," November 27, 2002.
• Mary Ellen O'Connell, "UN Resolution 1441: Compelling Saddam, Restraining Bush," JURIST, November 21, 2002.
• Marjorie Cohn, "UN Resolution 1441: Blackmailing the Security Council," JURIST, November 21, 2002.
• George P. Fletcher, "Did the UN Security Council Violate Its Own Rules in Passing the Iraq Resolution?," CounterPunch, November 16, 2002.
• "Legality of Use of Force against Iraq" (Public Interest Lawyers on behalf of Peacerights, September 10, 2002)
• Mary Ellen O'Connell, The Myth of Preemptive Self-Defense," August 2002.

 

[Larry Lovage]

Well, as it happens it did cite what he said correctly. But never mind. I did not deny that he said it, and I never cited the press release. The only input I had into the discussion was to express amazement at Aphelion's failure to accurately comprehend what Bush was saying (based on the video he himself posted).

Funnily enough, Bush's response demonstrated that the administration were not interesting in hunting down an individual, but in stopping terrorism, and in particular the Al Qaeda network. This flies in the face of criticisms that argue that the administration have "demonised" Osama to achieve their goals.

Appreciate your reply. However, I can't quite understand why you're here downplaying the amount that the USG has demonised Osama Bin Laden in order to achieve their goals. Underneath Aphelion's mention is the implication that OBL is innocent and that the USG know that. That, of course, is nonsense. But one press release early on in the War on Terror about specifics of the battle against Al Q'aeda does not alter the overall impression that the USG is engaged in propaganda in which Osama Bin Laden is boogie-man no. 1.

A classic "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario.

Well, quite. But lets not avoid damning them just because they didn't make 9/11 happen!

I appreciate your feedback, but please try to distinguish between what different posters say.

-Gumboot

Quite right, point taken on board.

 

[gumboot]

Appreciate your reply. However, I can't quite understand why you're here downplaying the amount that the USG has demonised Osama Bin Laden in order to achieve their goals.

I don't know that I'm downplaying that. I just find it funny that they criticise the administration for saying one thing, and then criticise them when they say the opposite.

Kinda like when CTers claim the official account of 9/11 is too complex for Al Qaeda to pull off, but their own massive convoluted version is easily pulled off by the Bush admin. And yet at the same time they want us to believe the Bush admin are morons.

Well, quite. But lets not avoid damning them just because they didn't make 9/11 happen!

Frankly I try to keep out of US politics. The polarisation is insane. The main issue at the moment seems to be the Iraq War, and I've yet to find anyone who shares my viewpoint on the issue. I tend to get attacked by both sides. In that regard I know how Perry Logan feels.

-Gumboot

 

[Big Les]

Great article and some great comments from the saner people in the UK. I liked one so much I put it in my signature.

It is a good one. The original quote is "idiot" rather than moron, but I can't find a reliable attribution for it. Wikipedia gives "Bob Smith, c. 1962"; not sure who he may have been though.

 

[MG1962]

Frankly I try to keep out of US politics. The polarisation is insane. The main issue at the moment seems to be the Iraq War, and I've yet to find anyone who shares my viewpoint on the issue. I tend to get attacked by both sides. In that regard I know how Perry Logan feels.

I was over there for the mid term elections. Seemed the whole campagine was basically playing the man not the ball. And having said that it is easy to see why so many Americans have become disenchanted over the whole process

 

[WildCat]

No, the President's prioritisation of OBL is an important issue and a valid question. But you and Wildcat questioned whether Bush really said that, and then you cite the White House press release,as if that's going to quote Bush's remarks verbatim.

The White House site did quote Bush's remarks verbatim, as the video showed. The first quote he posted was in fact bogus, as the transcript and video showed. It also showed that Bush didn't give up the hunt for OBL, just refused to give him the dignity he craves. He was marginalizing OBL, not giving up on finding him. Troofers have used this gambit before, I knew exactly where he was going.

And it's pretty common knowledge that if OBL is alive he's likely in the tribal regions of Pakistan, out of reach of NATO forces, and the Pakistan gov't basically surrendered to them last summer.