UN Could Lead New 9/11 Investigation, Says Japanese MP

Maybe he can start a new investigation about Pearl Harbor?

Re: UN Could Lead New 9/11 Investigation, Says Japanese MP


Good to know he approaches the matter with an open mind.

Surprising to me that according to Zogby millions of Americans would support an international investigation. "45% think "Congress or an International Tribunal should re-investigate the attacks". link

Re: UN Could Lead New 9/11 Investigation, Says Japanese MP






Looking at the last paragraph, I'd say that the English language doesn't have a word that is more perfectly apt.

How much cover-up there actually was is exactly what an independent investigation could reveal?

If there were any cover-up at all would be the question which someone with an open mind would wish to canvas in approaching the subject. Whether or not one now alleges that there were a cover-up, it ought to be obvious to all but the most dull-witted that Mr. Fujita has come to a conclusion in advance of conducting an investigation, and could hardly be accused of having had an open mind. If you look for devils under the bed, assuming in advance that you will find them, no one should be surprised if you assert that you have found demons under the bed.

Given that someone with a rudimentary intellect might actually read this thread, allow me to lay out some home truths which people such as the author of this thread either don't think about, or don't want others to bring up.

Using the term "cover-up" is waving a red flag to a bull where it concerns conspiracy loonies. Even had a cover-up taken place, the next logical question would be why there had been a cover-up. For the conspiracy loons, the answer to that question is a foregone conclusion--as far as they are concerned they "know" that the Shrub and his Forty Thieves of Baghdad were criminally complicit in the September 11th attacks, and all they seek are ways to confirm that impression. So, for example, for the author of this thread, it is sufficient that an obscure member of the Japanese Diet thinks there had been a cover-up to leap to the conclusion that Bush and Co. were criminally complicit.

Just Talkin' Trash regales us with claims from a Wikipedia article. Not clear evidence, for example, that "the Pentagon" (what does that mean, the Department of Defense? the Department of the Army? the local of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees?), the Federal Aviation Administration and the North American Defense Command actually did withhold information of a vital character, actually did deceive the members of the September 11th Commission, but rather simply an account of the belief on the part of commissioners that they were deceived.

Now, they may well have been deceived. If that were the case, one immediately comes right back to the question of why they were deceived. If they were deceived, there could be any one of a number of good and sufficient reasons. One might be a matter of genuine national security interests (i have emphasized genuine for a reason to which i will return). In the 1930s, the United States succeeded in "cracking" the code method for Japanese diplomatic messages. That means not only that they broke the code which was then in use, it meant they had determined how the codes were constructed, so that if the code were changed (and such codes frequently and regularly are changed), they had a good shot at decoding the new code within a few weeks (takes some time when you have to do it on paper, and there were no desktop computers then). By mid-1940, the had done the same thing with Japanese Imperial Navy codes. The naval codes were more complex, and included thousands of single code words (i.e., a code word which specifically referred to the name of a place, a person, a ship, etc., and which did not rely upon letter substitution in spelling out a name), and were more frequently changed that was the case with the diplomatic code. Therefore, it might take most of the time interval from an instance of the code being changed until the next instance of a code being changed to decipher that first new code.

It ought to be obvious why the United States government would not want it generally known that they had the ability to break Japanese diplomatic and naval codes. So, when after the Pearl Harbor attack, committees of the Congress investigated that event, the government were not about to hand over intercepted and deciphered Imperial Navy radio dispatches, or messages to and from the Japanese foreign ministry. There were at least three such investigations which i recall before the war ended. One might, at a stretch, allege that that action on the part of the government constituted a "cover-up." It can reasonably be described as protecting a genuine national security interest, and a continuing security interest, as the United States were still at war. By no stretch of the imagination could it (withholding information derived from deciphering those codes) have been described as covering-up a criminal complicity in the attack on Pearl Harbor. That hasn't stopped conspiracy nuts from alleging for more than 60 years that there has been a cover-up, that the cover-up continues, and that it seeks to hide criminal complicity on the part of the then administration, and specifically on the part of FDR (a man the conservative whack-jobs love to hate).

But there can also be other reasons for a cover-up which have nothing to do with national security, or with criminal complicity. In those cases, someone might disingenuously allege a national security interest. The most common type of such a "cover-up" will be ass covering. One withholds information which would otherwise tend to suggest that one had failed to do one's job, or had failed to act on pertinent intelligence, because one seeks to cover one's ass.

In 1940, the Royal Navy was definitely at a disadvantage in the Mediterranean Sea. The Italians had a large, modern and efficient fleet, and grossly outnumbered Royal Navy assets in that theater. Admiral Cunningham took a bold move which was to change the nature of naval warfare forever. On night of November 11-12, 1940, Swordfish biplane torpedo bombers of the Royal Navy Air Service attacked the Italian fleet in their home base at Taranto, in the "instep" of the Italian "boot." Only 21 RNAS Swordfish participated, in two waves of 12 and then nine aircraft. Nevertheless, they severely damaged three of five battleships, and put at least temporarily out of commission half of all other capital ship classes moored in the harbor at Taranto. They suffered the loss of only two aircraft, despite what participants in the raid described as "terrific" anti-aircraft fire.

This was not lost on naval planners around the world. Admiral Yamamoto Isoroku (for the yobs in the crowd, Yamamoto is the family name, and Isoroku is the given name) was impressed, and began planning in December, 1940 for what would become the Pearl Harbor attack. Yamamoto was assassinated by the United States Army Air Force in April, 1943, so we have no war memoirs of his to confirm the fact, but there is much other evidence that Yamamoto conceived of his attack on Pearl Harbor as a result of the success of the attack on Taranto. The RNAS sent in 21 aircraft--Nagumo's First Air Fleet sent in more than 400. Genda and Fuchida, responsible respectively for operational planning and air crew training, both survived the war and both asserted that Yamamoto was inspired to plan the attack based on the RNAS success at Taranto.

In the Spring of 1941 (March i believe, but i don't have the source immediately in front of me), the two officers in Hawaii responsible for air operations by the Fleet and the United States Army Air Force prepared a report which is now known as the Martin-Bellinger Report. It described just what was likely to happen if an air attack were launched against Hawaii given the state of preparation at that time. The report was given little attention, and what few changes Martin and Bellinger were able to effect in air defense were more than negated by the paranoia of Lt. General Walter Short, the Army commander in Hawaii. Specifically, the Martin-Bellinger Report warned that a Japanese fleet could approach Hawaii without being detected, and that a dawn air attack might be delivered before being detected. By December, 1941, there was a single, mobile radar unit operating on Oahu, which only operated during the hours from sunset to sunrise, and which was scheduled to shut down just as the Japanese attack was approaching. They reported detecting approaching aircraft from the north, and were told not to worry about it, because B17s were expected from Los Angeles that day. These planes arrived that day, but Los Angeles is east of Hawaii, not north.

Naval intelligence was busy decoding messages of the Imperial Navy throughout late 1941, but it took time to discover the new code when it was changed. The codes were changed at the beginning of December, 1941, as they were routinely each three months. But then the codes were changed again at the beginning of November. Additionally, naval intelligence had been unable to pinpoint the location of the five largest Japanese carriers for six months, and were unaware that Zuikaku, the sixth carrier in the First Air Fleet (of the existence of which they were also ignorant), had been launched and commissioned.

There was also an agent of Imperial Navy intelligence operating from the Japanese mission in Honolulu. He was rushing around every day, taking photographs and making plans of the dispersement of ships in the basin at Pearl Harbor. He routinely sent reports out by telegram. The FBI had already run down to the Western Union office in Honolulu and put the screws to the manager there, even before this joker arrived in Hawaii, and was given complete transcripts of all messages sent and received by the Japanese mission. These they passed along to the Department of War. Nobody told the FBI boys about "Purple," the decoding of the Japanese diplomatic code, but that would not have mattered much, because everyone in military intelligence was busily ignoring or underestimating the significance of the messages this inept spy was sending out, including the infamous "bomb plot" message in which he specifically listed every American capital ship and where it berthed in the Pearl Harbor basin.

Walter Short's response to the situation was to develop a deep paranoia about potential fifth columnists in the Japanese-American population on Oahu. He looked upon the Fleet to help him protect Hawaii, even though his explicit mission was to protect the fleet (remember, it was the United States Army Air Force, and Short controlled the major air assets which were to have protected the Fleet). He decided that to protect his fighters from the wily and evil Japanese in Hawaii, he should huddle them together in the middle of the air fields, and he locked up the anti-aircraft ammunition so it could be used to blow up his planes. Fuchida and company could not believe their luck when they flew over Hickam Field as saw the fighters crowded together in the middle of the runways, and not a round of anti-aircraft fire coming up at them. When the B17s from Los Angeles arrived in the middle of the melee, they were unarmed, and couldn't see any place safe to land even if they had wanted to.

Husband Kimmel did little to prepare for the attack, and his justification might be that Short was there to protect his fleet, although it is a lame excuse. Fortunately, the American carriers were all away from Pearl at the time of the attack. A measure of the difference in attitudes can be seen however, in the actions of Admiral Halsey. He was steaming toward Wake Island with a carrier task force, aboard his flag ship, USS Enterprise. The Department of War had sent war warning messages to both Kimmel and Short on November 27 (might have been the 26th, i disremember), the very day Nagumo's fleet put to sea to steam to Hawaii. Short simply ramped up his paranoia, and Kimmel was, apparently, not too impressed. Halsey, however, put his task force on full war alert, and ordered all commanders to implement war time operational procedures as his task force steamed west.

*****************************************

By now, your eyes are glazing over, if you're still reading at all. But, the point is this. The Department of War, the Department of the Army, the Department of the Navy, the State Department, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and both intelligence services of the armed forces had more than ample reason to suspect that something was up, and none of them, absolutely none of them, displayed any special concern. If anything, it is a credit to FDR's intelligence that he decided a war warning message should be sent to Hawaii. Short increased the guards on the fences at his air fields, and Kimmel passed the message along to his task force commanders at sea, but otherwise did nothing. To top this all off, after the RNAS attacked Taranto more than a year before the Imperial Navy attacked Pearl Harbor, no naval officer of high rank any where in the world has any excuse to overlook the danger of such an attack.

So, even without the good excuse of not revealing that we had broken the Japanese codes, all of the those agencies and people had the bad excuse of covering the asses when the Congress started to investigate the Pearl Harbor debacle. That they may have indulged in a briefly lived cover-up is not evidence that FDR and his administration were criminally complicit in the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Even if you could demonstrate that there has been a cover-up in the matter of September 11th, that fact does not mean that the Shrub and his cronies are criminally culpable, which is what nut jobs like Sunshine here are so eager to allege.

Once again, the conspiracy loons are obsessive at attempting to equate the concept of cover-up with a claim that Shrub and his boys were guiltily complicit.

For fak sake!

Build a bridge will ya.

I was attempting to edit my post, when DP came along with his bullshit. One significant error i made was with regard to the Imperial Navy codes. The Japanese routinely changed it at the beginning of October[/i], 1941, and then changed it again at the beginning of November. That ought to have been a clue--apparently, it wasn't.

I haven't the slightest idea what DP's remark is supposed to mean.

Maybe just suggesting that a summary overview would be better than the long drawn out post. :wink:

Summary overviews don't work with people who construct elaborate conspiracy theories.

All this babble doesn't preclude the fact that there are things that were covered up. It's just that simple, Set. Where there is one lie there may well be others. There is a great need for an INDEPENDENT commission.

Where is your unassailable evidence that anything has been covered-up? So far, all you've provided is innuendo. Which is why the first question of any genuinely unbiased investigation would be to determine if there had been a cover up. At such time as that, you are still faced with the questions of what was covered-up, and why it was covered-up.

I realize that these things are hard to comprehend for those who see the Shrub as the fount of all evil. Frankly, i don't consider the boy bright enough to have participated in a conspiracy.

You're the one that has taken this far too far. I never mentioned a thing about any conspiracy. Certain things were covered up. Why? That's something for a truly independent commission to sort out.

Why is the evidence for every "criminal" event carefully preserved for study and in this case, it was quickly and actively destroyed? There is much that gives thinking people pause. Why shouldn't these things be the subject of study? You don't have to jump to the conclusion that there was a conspiracy, but it's clear that there were things covered up.

The conspiracists are beleiving, going in, that a cover-up was in place. No supportive evidence (of a credible nature) of any of the 9/11 "for truth" folks has ever been provided. In fact, wherever the "(/11 truth" squad has presented any "evidence", its always been debunked.

Like

The "missile into the Pentagon. (A series of security cameras caught the planes picture)

The "seismic coupling data" (Columbia University debunked this in the AGU publication. It was a matter of stretching and filtering seismic signals"

Cutter Charges (All this has been disproven by explosives and environmnetal experts)

Girders cant be softened by JP fires( A demonstration to NAS was made on just this subject in 2006 and that story was debunked)

There was excessive trading leading up to 9/11(It was approaching the end of Q3 in a down year, unloading was going on all over)

The devil of deception, Steve Jones should be horse whipped for perjury, fraud, and deceipt. Its amazing how much time has been wasted and how many false directions the 9/11 truthers have taken this.

I agree with Set, whenever the 9/11 db's start printing their hokum, they post lines of redundant URLs mostly based upon the same source or two. The internet can be a tool for mass deception so sometimes it takes time and space to just argue against the obvious crap that the 911 folks are dishing out.

Farmerman was to quick for me, so i didn't have time to edit my post.

Nothing works. Kooks are kooks, plain and simple.

I could not agree more.

Mukasey hints US had attack warning before 9/11 by David Edwards and Muriel Kane
Published: Tuesday April 1, 2008

When Attorney General Mukasey delivered a speech last week demanding that Congress grant the president warrantless eavesdropping powers and telecom immunity, the question and answer session afterwards included one extraordinary but little-noticed claim.

Mukasey argued that officials "shouldn't need a warrant when somebody with a phone in Iraq picks up a phone and calls somebody in the United States because that's the call that we may really want to know about. And before 9/11, that's the call that we didn't know about. We knew that there has been a call from someplace that was known to be a safe house in Afghanistan and we knew that it came to the United States. We didn't know precisely where it went."

Blogger Glenn Greenwald picked up on Mukasey's statement, suggesting, "If what Muskasey said this week is true -- and that's a big 'if' -- his revelation about this Afghan call that the administration knew about but didn't intercept really amounts to one of the most potent indictments yet about the Bush administration's failure to detect the plot in action. Contrary to his false claims, FISA -- for multiple reasons -- did not prevent eavesdropping on that call."

Keith Olbermann has now featured the story on MSNBC's Countdown. "What?" Olbermann asked incredulously after quoting Mukasey. "The government knew about some phone call from a safe house in Afghanistan into the U.S. about 9/11? Before 9/11? ... You didn't do anything about it?"

"Either the attorney general just admitted that the government for which he works is guilty of malfeasant complicity in the 9/11 attacks," Olbermann commented, "or he's lying."

"I'm betting on lying," concluded Olbermann. "If not, somebody in Congress better put that man under oath right quick."

After September 11, 2001, it was revealed that the CIA and FBI had intercepted a variety of messages including phrases such as "There is a big thing coming," "They're going to pay the price" and "We're ready to go." None of these messages gave specific details and none reached intelligence analysts until after the destruction of the World Trade Center.

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, "Mukasey did not specify the call to which he referred. He also did not explain why the government, if it knew of telephone calls from suspected foreign terrorists, hadn't sought a wiretapping warrant from a court established by Congress to authorize terrorist surveillance, or hadn't monitored all such calls without a warrant for 72 hours as allowed by law. The Justice Department did not respond to a request for more information."

This video is from MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann, broadcast March 31, 2008.
link