BS: 9/11 Pentagon attack not true?

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Pentagon attack not true?
From: Bill D
Date: 21 May 02 - 05:09 PM

no...question was asked AND answered during those first few days...where were you when it was beinf explianed?

I'm done with this....use a name and I might debate further. A consistant name.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Pentagon attack not true?
From: GUEST
Date: 21 May 02 - 05:15 PM

Really, the absence of our Air Force--the complete lack of a response by the US military forces, for hours, has been explained by the Bush administration?

When? By whom? What was the explanation? If it was given, I honestly never heard it Bill. Do you know something the rest of us don't? Can you provide links to legitimate news sources that ran articles on it?

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Pentagon attack not true?
From: GUEST
Date: 21 May 02 - 05:32 PM

Timeline For 9/11/2001 The following was assembled from a number of different news accounts and stories. A number of the times did not gibe between the stories and I have a endeavored to rationalize the differences.

0759 American Airlines flight 11 (Boeing 767 with 24,000 gallons of fuel) takes off from Boston's Logan International Airport with 92 people aboard for Los Angeles.

0801 United Airlines flight 93 (Boeing 757 with 11,300 gallons of fuel) pushed back from the gate in Newark International Airport with 45 people aboard bound for San Francisco. They are 1 minute behind schedule but will sit on the ground for 40 minutes before taking off.

0813 Flight 11 gets instructions to turn 20 degrees to the right. Boston Control Center: "AAL11 turn 20 degrees right." Flight 11 responds: "20 right AAL11." [Moments later] Controller: "AAL11 now climb maintain FL350 [35,000 feet]." Controller: "AAL11 climb maintain FL350." Controller: "AAL11 Boston." There is no reply from Flight 11.

0814 United Airlines flight 175 (Boeing 767) takes off from Boston's Logan International Airport with 65 people aboard for Los Angeles.

0820 Flight 11 stops transmitting IFF beacon signal while over the Hudson River.

0820 American Airlines flight 77 (Boeing 757) departs Washington Dulles Airport near Washington with 64 people aboard for Los Angeles.

0824 Flight 11 broadcasts "We have some planes. Just stay quiet and you will be OK. We are returning to the airport. Nobody move." Apparently, one of the hijackers confused the aircraft's radio with its public-address system. Air traffic control responds "Who's trying to call me?" Then from Flight 11, "Everything will be OK. If you try to make any moves, you'll endanger yourself and the airplane. Just stay quiet."

0825 Boston Air Traffic Control notified several air traffic control centers that hijack is in progress.

0827 Flight 11 takes a sudden turn south, veering away from Albany towards New York City.

0827 Betty Ong, a flight attendant on Flight 11, calls American Airlines reservations from the seatback phone. "She said two flight attendants had been stabbed, one was on oxygen," said the the manager on duty. "A passenger had his throat slashed and looked dead and they had gotten into the cockpit." She identifies the seats of the hijackers and confirms that the plane is descending.

0833 Another transmission Flight 11, "Nobody move please. We are going back to the airport. Don't try to make any stupid moves."

0837 Flight 175 receives an unusual call asking them to locate Flight 11. The pilot responds, "Affirmative, we have him, uh, he looks, uh, about 20, yeah, about 29, 28,000 [feet]." Controllers tell 175 to make a right turn to avoid Flight 11.

0838 Boston air traffic center notifies NORAD that Flight 11 has been hijacked.

0841 Flight 175 transmits "We heard a suspicious transmission on our departure from B-O-S. "Sounds like someone keyed the mike and said, `Everyone, stay in your seats.'"

0842 Around this time Flight 175 is hijacked. It veers from it's course over New Jersey briefly continuing south before making a U-turn to the north, for New York City.

0842 Flight 93 finally takes off from Newark International Airport for San Francisco.

0843 FAA notifies NORAD that Flight 175 has been hijacked.

0844 Otis Air National Guard Base in Massachusetts orders two fighters scrambled.

0845 Flight 11 strikes the World Trade Center's north tower at about the 80th floor.

0846 Flight 175 stops transmitting IFF beacon signal.

0847 NORAD informed of the plane striking the World Trade Center.

0850 United systems operations center receives word that a flight attendant from Flight 175 had called and said "Oh my God. The crew has been killed, a flight attendant has been stabbed. We've been hijacked." Then the line went dead.

0852 Two F-15 Eagles take off from Otis in effort to intercept hijacked plane(s) after first plane has struck the World Trade Center.

0856 Flight 77's transponder is shut off which reduced the ground's ability to track the aircraft's position. Air traffic control repeatedly calls "American 77 indy radio check, how do you read?"

0900 Around this time, United Airlines systems operations transmits a systemwide message, warning its pilots of a potential "cockpit intrusion". Flight 93, flying over western PA and into northern OH, replies "Confirmed".

0900 Last radar reading on Flight 175 is observed at an altitude of 18,000 feet, descending, with a ground speed of 480 knots.

0900 Flight 77 is seen making a 180 turn and heading back to Washington.

0902 Flight 175 strikes the World Trade Center's south tower at about the 60th floor. F-15 fighter jets from Otis are still 70 miles away.

0910 Around this time, experts believe Flight 93 was hijacked.

0916 FAA informs NORAD that Flight 93 may have been hijacked.

0921 New York City Port Authority orders all bridges and tunnels in the New York City area closed.

0924 FAA notifies NORAD that Flight 77 may have been hijacked a full 28 minutes after its transponder was turned off. Controllers observe it moving toward Washington.

0924 NORAD orders jets scrambled from Langley Air Force Base in Virginia to head to intercept Flight 77.

0925 Air traffic controllers inform the US Secret Service as the Flight 77 makes a 360 degree turn just south of the Pentagon.

0928 A keyed microphone aboard Flight 93 reveals someone in the cockpit saying, "Get out of here!"

0929 Jeremy Glick, a passenger on Flight 93, calls his wife and describes the hijackers and is informed about the attacks in New York.

0930 Three F-16 Fighting Falcons take off from Langley headed toward Washington area.

0935 Flight 93, near Cleveland, makes a 180 turn toward Washington.

0936 National Airport instructs a military C130 aircraft that had just departed Andrews Air Force base to intercept and identify Flight 77. The C130 reports it is a B767, moving low and very fast.

0937 Flight 77 is lost from radar screens.

0938 NORAD is informed that Flight 77 has struct the Pentagon. Other reports have it striking at 0943 or 0945. Fighters were still 105 miles and 12 minutes away.

0940 Transponder signal from Flight 93 ceases and radar contact is lost.

0942 Mark Bingham, a passenger on Flight 93, calls his mother. "Mom, this is Mark Bingham," he said, nervously. "I want to let you know that I love you. I'm calling from the plane. We've been taken over. There are three men that say they have a bomb."

0945 Todd Beamer, a passenger on Flight 93, trying to call his family gets patched through to a Verizon supervisor. He said that the pilot and copilot were apparently dead, 2 hijackers were in the cockpit, 1 was guarding 1st class and another was guarding 27 passengers at the rear of the plane. He says that they have voted to storm the hijackers and the supervisor hears before he hangs up "Are you guys ready? Let's roll."

0948 The Capitol and west wing of the White House are evacuated.

0949 F-16 fighter jets arrive over Washington, D.C. to perform Combat Air Patrol (CAP) over city. The fighters broke the sound barrier and traveled supersonic at 720 knots to Washington, making the approximately 130 miles in 14 minutes.

0949 The Federal Aviation Administration halts all flight operations at U.S. airports -- the first time in U.S. history.

0949 Pittsburgh International Airport flight tower is evacuated.

0950 South tower of the World Trade Center collapses.

0958 Confrontation with the hijackers and the passengers begins aboard Flight 93. Emergency dispatcher in Pennsylvania receives a call from a passenger on Flight 93. The passenger says: "We are being hijacked!"

1003 Unconfirmed report of State Department fire in Washington. Later confirmed not true.

1006 Flight 93 crashes into a field near Shanksville, PA. It had, experts believe, flipped over on its back and speared into the ground at about 575 mph. Other reports have this happening at 1010.

1008 Secret Service agents armed with automatic rifles are deployed into and clear Lafayette Park across from the White House.

1010 FAA orders all planes to land at nearest airports. FBI headquarters evacuated. "E Section" of Pentagon collapses.

1013 The United Nations building evacuates.

1024 The FAA reports that all inbound transatlantic aircraft flying into the United States are being diverted to Canada.

1029 North tower of the World Trade Center collapses.

1108 Canada shuts down all airports.

1204 Los Angeles International Airport, the destination of Flights 11 and 175, is evacuated.

1215 San Francisco International Airport, the destination of Flight 93 is evacuated and shut down.

1344 The Pentagon says five warships and two aircraft carriers (USS George Washington and USS John F. Kennedy) will leave Norfolk, Virginia to protect the East Coast from further attack and to reduce the number of ships in port.

1725 The 47-story Building 7 of the World Trade Center collapses after burning for a number of hours. Other nearby buildings in the area remain ablaze.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Pentagon attack not true?
From: SharonA
Date: 21 May 02 - 08:56 PM

Nice try, GUEST 5:32 PM, but GUEST 04:38 PM will not be so easily deterred by facts when he or she is so determined to rewrite history to serve his or her own purposes, or to "prove" his or her own arguments.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Pentagon attack not true?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 22 May 02 - 04:15 AM

Fantasies are more fun than facts.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Pentagon attack not true?
From: GUEST
Date: 22 May 02 - 08:46 AM

You know Wolfgang and SharonA, when you have no facts to refute something, and instead turn to disparaging the person who is the source of the facts, it doesn't do much to bolster your own point of view in the discussion.

The point I raised was that there is a pretty big gap in time between the first hi-jacking and the last plane crash. About two hours. F16 fighter jets can fly many miles in a matter of minutes, and the attacks all happened within a couple hundred miles of one another. Now, I know it was a sleepy sort of a Monday morning, but c'mon. An F16 at top speed can fly from NY to DC in under a half hour. So where was the US Air Force?

Or is someone suggesting that our intelligence agencies and the US military is NOT monitoring air traffic controllers on the East Coast of the US? At all?

Wouldn't that be something worth investigating if it wasn't being done prior to 9/11? Wouldn't it be worth investigating to find out why no military jet aircraft capable of shooting down an airliner was able to get to the scene? Aren't those just the sorts of questions the American public should be asking of it's government now, instead of rolling over, and sending more money and materials into Afghanistan without question? When other countries (Canada) have announced they are pulling out of the war effort, but giving no reason for it?

Or was the 9/11 attack just the sort of opportunity the Bush administration, in their zeal to "reclaim the executive powers of the presidency", was seeking to undermine and overthrow our democratic institutions without anyone being able to challenge them, due to the president's wartime popularity?

There has been an extraordinary amount of censorship and silencing of critics in the US, which we have not witnessed since the McCarthy era. The price of democracy is daily citizenship. And I emphasize daily. While most Americans don't believe it necessary (much less tolerable) to fight against some of their leaders strong tendencies toward totalitarianism, other citizens at least know that there is no country or state in history that hasn't been confronted with just these sorts of conflicts with the leaders. The old cliche about absolute power corrupting absolutely certainly applies to the current circumstances the US finds itself in.

Very few US citizens believe that THEIR civil liberties will be suspended in the name of national security. I say, let's investigate the 9/11 attacks openly and forthrightly, as we should. Let us open up the process of examining the current administration's policies to the same scrutiny we have historically used for other administrations to get to the bottom of 9/11, and what may well have been a corporate conspiracy to fix the energy markets. Then we'll see how many civil liberties we have when Dick Cheney's boys fight back to keep the veil of secrecy over what they are doing. Or not doing in the case of 9/11.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Pentagon attack not true?
From: catspaw49
Date: 22 May 02 - 08:49 AM

Send your script to Oliver Stone.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Pentagon attack not true?
From: SharonA
Date: 22 May 02 - 09:46 AM

GUEST, it was a Tuesday morning. Please get your facts straight. As for the facts to refute what you'd said yesterday, of course I "had" them, as Wolfgang did, as everyone does, but they were already listed by GUEST 5:32 PM yesterday. I saw no reason to repeat and re-post those facts. If I had, you would have jumped down my throat again for "bringing it into the conversation after it was already cited". Let's not forget that you were the one who first spoke disparagingly to me in this thread. You have set the unpleasant tone of the conversation you've had with me. If you wish to have a more civil discussion, then by all means begin to do so by apologizing for your profane post to me yesterday.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Pentagon attack not true?
From: GUEST
Date: 22 May 02 - 09:46 AM

Same remarks apply to you as Wolfgang & SharonA, Spaw.

You know, there has been an hysterical effort to silence one particular House member--Cynthia McKinney (D GA)--by Republicans. She has been calling for an investigation of 9/11 for over a month, daring to ask, as the Washington Post put it on April 12th:

"...whether President Bush and other government officials had advance notice of terrorist attacks on Sept. 11 but did nothing to prevent them. She added that "persons close to this administration are poised to make huge profits off America's new war."

The Bush/Cheney silencers have since engaged in personal character assassination of this woman, in an attempt to demonize her by making her look alternately like an hysterical female, a conspiracy theorist, a political partisan (something apparently only Democrats are capable of, if you believe the Republican propaganda), and a person suffering from mental illness.

I see certain Mudcat posters have adopted those same Republican strategies of demonizing their critics in order to silence them, and stifle reasoned and reasonable discussion of events, and debate over the nation's future course.

Good job there, Wolfgang, Spaw and SharonA.

BTW, here are a few comments from people I suppose you would also demonize as conspiracy nuts--Amesty International:

"Drive by smearings on the road to Baghdad

by Stephen Gowans

It's a long standing ploy to suggest that anyone who disagrees with how to deal with a common enemy must be secretly working with, or, at best, has naively identified with the enemy. Stalin was well acquainted with this method of silencing critics, as have been thousands of tyrants, dictators, and elected presidents and prime ministers since, to say nothing of authors and senior fellows of think-tanks."

The LA Times:

"UN Fears Abuses of Terror Mandate By William Orme Los Angeles Times January 2, 2002

Rights Monitors See Some Governments Using New Requirements to Justify Repression

Demands by the Security Council that U.N. members act against global terrorism are being used by some regimes to justify repression of domestic dissent, U.N. officials and independent human rights advocates say.

The anti-terrorism campaign has been used by authoritarian governments to justify moves to clamp down on moderate opponents, outlaw criticism of rulers and expand the use of capital punishment.

Compliance with the Security Council requirements "could lead to unwarranted infringement on civil liberties," Bacre Waly Ndiaye, the chief human rights officer at the U.N. Secretariat, told the council's new counterterrorism committee. "There is evidence that some countries are now introducing measures that may erode core human rights safeguards." In an unexpectedly swift response to the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the Security Council called on U.N. members on Sept. 28 to provide information within 90 days about their legal restrictions on fund-raising, financial transfers, arms acquisition and immigration.

But there is no agreement on what constitutes terrorist activity, U.N. experts say, and some governments are presenting what critics contend are police-state measures as part of the U.N.-endorsed campaign."

And yes, even the organization which dares to call itself the "Families of September 11":

"Wednesday February 27, 7:12 am Eastern Time Press Release SOURCE: Families of September 11 Families of September 11 Calls for Congressional Investigation of FAA Group Concerned about Allegations That Agency Covered Up Aviation Security Lapses WASHINGTON, Feb. 27 /PRNewswire/ -- Families of September 11, a non-profit organization that represents victims and their families, today called on the U.S. Congress to launch an investigation of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and its handling of aviation security. This decision was prompted in part by charges made public Monday by current and former FAA employees that FAA supervisors suppressed and manipulated information about airline security problems and failed to correct the problems. Families of September 11 wants the investigation also to examine evidence that terrorists used pepper spray and perhaps a gun to hijack planes on Sept. 11.

``These matters are too important to be left to an internal Department of Transportation investigation,'' said Families of September 11 President Carie Lemack, whose mother, Judy Larocque, died on American Airlines Flight 11. ``The problems with aviation security must be fully disclosed and corrected or they may be replicated in the new Transportation Security Administration.''

Congress passed the Aviation and Transportation Security Act last November to correct security problems brought to public attention by the Sept. 11 attacks. In part the act created a new agency, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), to develop and provide improved security programs for aviation and other forms of transportation. Many of the supervisors and employees that administered the FAA's aviation security program are being transferred to the TSA.

On Monday, USA Today reported charges made by Bogdan Dzakovic (JOCK-o-vich), a member of the FAA's Red Team, a unit of undercover agents who test the effectiveness of aviation security by attempting to carry simulated weapons onto planes. Dzakovic says that over a period of years ``FAA supervisors suppressed information about airport security'' problems, ``manipulated Red Team testing data in order to protect the airline industry,'' and failed to take action to remedy security problems identified in Red Team tests. The newspaper reported that the FAA had no response to the allegations."

Be sure and let the families know you think they are just conspiracy nuts too, won't you Spaw?

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Pentagon attack not true?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 22 May 02 - 10:37 AM

Michael Shermer on Baloney detection and Baloney detection Part II

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Pentagon attack not true?
From: GUEST,Gary T
Date: 22 May 02 - 11:00 AM

>i>The point I raised was that there is a pretty big gap in time between the first hi-jacking and the last plane crash. About two hours.

I think you'll find it's not routine to just shoot down any plane that's been hijacked. Something about dozens of innocent lives on board.

After the first crash, it was reasonable to start thinking about forcible intervention. The time between the first crash and the last one was less than one hour.

Either you have remarkable and superlative insight and understanding about the situation while the rest of us are just a bunch of slow-witted dummies who are incapable of grasping what simply must be the truth, or....well, let's just say that sometimes, when everybody else says you're wrong, you are wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Pentagon attack not true?
From: GUEST,Gary T
Date: 22 May 02 - 11:03 AM

Arrgh. Goofed up the html.

The point I raised was that there is a pretty big gap in time between the first hi-jacking and the last plane crash. About two hours.

I think you'll find it's not routine to just shoot down any plane that's been hijacked. Something about dozens of innocent lives on board.

After the first crash, it was reasonable to start thinking about forcible intervention. The time between the first crash and the last one was less than one hour.

Either you have remarkable and superlative insight and understanding about the situation while the rest of us are just a bunch of slow-witted dummies who are incapable of grasping what simply must be the truth, or....well, let's just say that sometimes, when everybody else says you're wrong, you are wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Pentagon attack not true?
From: GUEST
Date: 22 May 02 - 12:35 PM

So GaryT, I guess you would also think the families are wrong to ask the same questions I am, then?

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Pentagon attack not true?
From: Bill D
Date: 22 May 02 - 03:33 PM

I see the art of recrimination and insinuation by continuous rhetorical questions is alive & well......

...Is it possible that anonymous 'guests' are all products of one disturbed individual in Racine, Wisconsin?...no one has properly screened all the ISPs from there, and I, for one, would like it explained how everytime it gets dark in Racine, multiple posts begin appearing in Mudcat!....a plot?...a diversion?....until a proper investigation is done I will not rest easy!

...and don't even get me STARTED on the influence of CIA interference on beer additives!

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Pentagon attack not true?
From: DonD
Date: 22 May 02 - 04:58 PM

Racine? Is William Shatner in Racine? I thought everyone knew that GUEST is William Shatner taking his revenge on Mudcat and particularly on Spaw (the little known Vulcan pronunciation of Spock)!

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Pentagon attack not true?
From: Ferrara
Date: 22 May 02 - 06:51 PM

Well, maybe I can stay sane and calm, and still comment on this thread. Let's find out....

First, I think I said this before, there's a big difference between failing to act on the CIA's warnings of a potential hijacking, and deliberately allowing the events of Sept 11. I can easily believe the first. Can't swallow the second.

Second,about where was the air force? The U.S. has never adopted a hard line towards hijackings that would allow us to shoot down a local plane full of passengers -- not up until Sept 11. There may just have been too much indecisiveness, and too much referring of decisions up to the chain of command, for any effective action to take place. U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan watched Al Qaeda prisoners escape and took no action because they had to have permission FROM OVER HERE before shooting. Maybe the AF decision process was equally slow and cumbersome. This seems much more likely than deliberate inaction on anyone's part.

Third, about what the Arab world believes. Muslims in Pakistan told an American reporter that Israel attacked the WTC in order to stir up hatred against Arabs. The local Pakistani newspapers said so. They said they could prove this, because after all, 1500 Jews failed to show up for work at the WTC on Sept. 11. That was in their newspapers also. These accusations are implausible to us because, for one thing, it couldn't be hidden in the U.S. if such a thing had happened. But they seem perfectly plausible to many Arabs.

Being in the news -- here or abroad -- or being said in a book doesn't make it so.

When I was in college (1964!), a friend was explaining to me about government wrongdoing, and government cover-ups. He said, "You're fooling yourself if you think you're getting the straight poop from the news reports!" I agree. But I trust American news investigations and reports infinitely more than certain overseas sources.

You just have to look at probabilities since the straight poop never will be available.

To me it's a sure thing that the Bush administrtion is capitalizing on the attacks.

It's likely they failed to act on information received before the attack, because acting would be costly and unpopular, and because of a certain mindset of "it can't happen here."

But before-the-fact action seems awfully implausible.

There. I avoided all the vitriol and still said my piece.

Rita

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Pentagon attack not true?
From: GUEST
Date: 22 May 02 - 06:57 PM

I agree with a number of your points Rita. I too have a hard time swallowing any sort of deliberate inaction on the part of the administration.

However, when it comes to the absence of a security response by the Air Force or the Air National Guard, or any US military, I am deeply disturbed.

It is my understanding, which may or may not be accurate, that while the shooting down of a civilian airliner is wholly understandable, not trying to force one to land isn't. In other words, there was a security procedure in place pre-9/11 to deal with airplane hijackings, and airplane mishaps (that scenario of the dead pilot someone mentioned above, for instance). I continue to mind-boggled that in the span of two hours, on the east coast of the US where our nation's capital is located, there was simply no military response.

That really bothers me.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Pentagon attack not true?
From: Ferrara
Date: 22 May 02 - 07:08 PM

Guest et al,

I have just looked up an article from the Washington Post Style section that was printed on Oct 28. (They want to charge me $2.95 to get the text though, so I'll just recap it for you.)

I wanted to use it to make a point about bureaucratic inaction. The article is titled "A Tower of Courage: On September 11, Rick Rescorla Died as He Lived: Like a Hero"

Rescorla, a native of Cornwall and a Vietnam vet, was vice president for corporate security at Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co. in the south tower. He hated bureaucratic inaction.

Several years earlier, he analysed the WTC in terms of security risks, and told them the basement was not properly secured. He was furious when no action was taken, and eventually there was a truck bomb detonated down there. After that, the bureaucrats implemented his security recommendations.

No conspiracy. Just a lack of guts and foresight.

So, when the north tower was hit, and the bureaucrats at the Port Authority said everybody should stay put, Rescorla said a few obscenities and started getting his people out. He got 2700 of his own people, and heaven only knows how many others, out of that building before it collapsed. He had a clear evacuation plan and had drilled the entire company in how to evacuate their offices.

The point is, there are people who are too shortsighted and too timid to make contingency plans or take action. Lots of them. People who can't recognize a clear and present danger.

The contrast between Rescorla's actions and those of the bureaucrats in charge just helps make my point.

I think that's got a lot to do with why this-or-that action was not taken on and before Sept 11.

Rita

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Pentagon attack not true?
From: Gary T
Date: 22 May 02 - 10:07 PM

GUEST: "The point I raised was that there is a pretty big gap in time between the first hi-jacking and the last plane crash. About two hours."

I: "After the first crash, it was reasonable to start thinking about forcible intervention. The time between the first crash and the last one was less than one hour." Followed with sarcasm and statement to the effect that GUEST is wrong.

GUEST: "So GaryT, I guess you would also think the families are wrong to ask the same questions I am, then?"

Then later: "I continue to mind-boggled that in the span of two hours, on the east coast of the US where our nation's capital is located, there was simply no military response."

Hmmm. First military planes were launched 20 minutes after hijacking was made known. That's somewhat short of two hours--AGAIN.

You see GUEST, it's not so much the asking of the questions, it's the ignoring of reasonable answers that brands you as an idiot, not to be taken at all seriously.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Pentagon attack not true?
From: GUEST
Date: 23 May 02 - 08:45 AM

GaryT, calling people idiots doesn't do much for your credibility.

Rita's point is well taken--that we should resist attributing to conspiracy what can just as easily be attributed to indifference, incompetence and/or cowardice. But just because that is so, doesn't mean that if there was bureaucratic indifference, incompetence and/or cowardice at play, it shouldn't be investigated and changes made where appropriate and necessary. I have never suggested anything more or less was called for regarding 9/11.

I also believe any investigation DOES need to include war profiteering. I also believe Congress needs to hold hearings on the administration's prosecution of the so-called "war on terrorism" so an open, democratic debate can take place that allows for citizens and citizen interest groups to have input. This administration's governing by secrecy undermines the most basic tenet of the US' democratic principles--that the government serves at the pleasure of the people, not the other way round.