August 16, 2002

1:52 PM

Is there really a $7 billion lawsuit against the Bush administration -- filed on behalf of 14 of the victims' families -- charging that he let 9-11 happen on purpose? Seems like kind of a weird thing for a few web sites to fabricate, but a google search doesn't reveal many mainstream news sources. And what do folks think of the "Let It Happen On Purpose" theory... or more importantly, the evidence that the theorists cite?
posted by queequeg (17 comments total)

I thought X-Files wasn't on the air anymore.
posted by mathis23 at 1:54 PM on August 16, 2002

Does this equation make any more sense? $100,000,000,000,000 / 600 = damn that's a lot of zeroes.
posted by WolfDaddy at 2:13 PM on August 16, 2002

I wonder if any of these families are involved in the other lawsuit? or if this is fake?
posted by amberglow at 2:13 PM on August 16, 2002

I believe this lawsuit is true, but truthout is playing fast and loose with the facts. Most of those "warnings" have not been established - I've personally tried to verify them, and the sources (when cited) aren't even "sources" - they're "reports," with no sources indicated, not even anonymous ones. (Some are real, of course, but some - the alleged Russian warning in particular - were completely without factual basis as far as I could tell.)
posted by Banky_Edwards at 2:28 PM on August 16, 2002

I don't know about the other lawsuit but the government doesn't seem to happy about this one. Considering the funny stuff they've been trying to pull.
posted by bas67 at 2:29 PM on August 16, 2002

Thanks, bas--if the government did this in july, wouldn't the lawyers for the other lawsuit (the gazillion dollar one) have to have known about it before they filed? hmmmm.......
posted by amberglow at 2:53 PM on August 16, 2002

This USENET post includes citation of a SFExam article from June 11, 2002 written by a David Kiefer called "S.F. attorney: Bush allowed 9/11."

Caveat emptor.

It says Hilton filed the lawsuit June 3 alleging Bush let the attacks happen for his own political gain. Hilton says he has proof OBL died years ago of kidney failure.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 3:36 PM on August 16, 2002

Well if it's charities and third world governments or the Bush administration, I'd go for Bush in a heartbeat. Personally I think they should attack those who benefitted economically the most, i.e. the oil companies interested in the Afghanistan pipeline, the weapons manufacturers, etc. It just so happens that Bush and Cheney are closely associated to Oil and Weapons respectively. That buzz-line from the "other lawsuit's" plaintiff is pretty appropriate:

It's up to us to bankrupt the terrorists and those who finance them so they will never again have the resources to commit such atrocities against the American people as we experienced on September 11."

Just replace "American People" with "all of the oil-producing middle eastern countries" and "on September 11" with "for the past ten years, the present, and indefinitely from here on out
posted by zekinskia at 3:40 PM on August 16, 2002

Mr. Hilton, by filing his lawsuit, has joined the ranks of an ever-increasing body of Americans who subscribe to what they call the LIHOP Theory.

Who, The Montana Militia?

Boy, Bush would have had to acted fast, in order to organize something like that in 7 months. Oh wait, the election was rigged too, so he must have had a couple years to work all the details out.

I love how these crack head will bash GW in one breath on how stupid he is, yet turn around and act like he is an evil mastermind.

Get real.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 5:35 PM on August 16, 2002

Right, like there was no reason to be mad at the Taliban before 9/11. Nah, absolutely no reason at all to be concerned about what they'd done with the place.
posted by dhartung at 6:03 PM on August 16, 2002

Given the fact that the American government pretty much let the Taliban do what it wanted in its little sandpit pre 9/11 (at least until they refused to allow the trans-Afghan oil pipeline from Turkmenistan), it would seem that whether or not there was reason to 'be concerned', it was business as usual for the greedy scumbags running your nation.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:42 PM on August 16, 2002

Also, via Fark, this would appear to be a pdf of the actual lawsuit in question.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:09 PM on August 16, 2002

(at least until they refused to allow the trans-Afghan oil pipeline from Turkmenistan)

Regarding Brisard's and Dasquie's book, this Salon article pokes some big holes in their pipeline theory.
posted by homunculus at 9:59 PM on August 16, 2002

Oops, that's a Premium article. Here's an American Prospect article debunking the pipeline theory that is well worth reading.
posted by homunculus at 10:18 PM on August 16, 2002

Yet another stupid lawsuit. That said, does this blizzard of legal paper mean that the Sept. 11th attacks should be counted as a tort? Rather different from an 'act of war'?
posted by riviera at 2:16 AM on August 17, 2002

What I am surprised about is that it took this long for the conspiracy theorists to come out of the woodwork and start making up reasons why President Bush would supposedly allow this to happen. I told a friend at work the day after 9/11 that I would not be surprised that some people started thinking that Bush knew about the attack and did not stop it so he could go after Islamic terrorists.
posted by jasonbondshow at 5:53 AM on August 17, 2002

I had a hell of a time finding it. SF Examiner: S.F. attorney: Bush allowed 9/11

The story was carried on a number of independent media sites, the most reputable being Drudge. Quite interesting that I couldn't find it at CNN or MSNBC.
posted by fleener at 7:42 AM on August 17, 2002