BS: 9/11 Pentagon attack not true?

Subject: 9/11 Pentagon attack not true?
From: Steve in Idaho
Date: 19 May 02 - 09:32 AM

I'm a skeptic at times. My Green Beret buddy from Ft. Bragg sent me this and I'm not sure what to make of it? I'm not trying to start a fight nor trolling (don't think so anyway) but this is bothering me.

Steve

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Pentagon attack not true?
From: catspaw49
Date: 19 May 02 - 09:44 AM

Steve, we had another thread about this, but all the same, I think the story is another of those "fake moon landing" things that people love to indulge in. Think seriously about how many people saw that plane prior to hitting the Pentagon. Begin to consider how many would need to be involved in this to fake it. Also think about an aircraft at that speed, fully laden with fuel, hitting a reinforced concrete structure.

No........It happened.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Pentagon attack not true?
From: Giac
Date: 19 May 02 - 09:56 AM

All the same, if you go to links from that site, the outlandish "attack of the alien lizards" is quite amazing. It has taken on a life of its own and somebody has spent way too much time doctoring film footage. ~;oD

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Pentagon attack not true?
From: GUEST
Date: 19 May 02 - 10:53 AM

Well, this story from last week's Boston Globe, on MIT's computer generated video facial animation suggests that computer scientists are getting pretty fucking good at doctoring the pictures to create the impression they want to create.

I think something is VERY fishy about the Pentagon attack pictures, but I don't know what.

Here is the link to the Globe article (and I don't think this falls in the category of deluded conspiracy theorists):

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/135/metro/At_MIT_they_can_put_words_in_our_mouths+.shtml

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Pentagon attack not true?
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 May 02 - 11:33 AM

www.snopes.com has a long segment on this myth.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Pentagon attack not true?
From: GUEST
Date: 19 May 02 - 11:36 AM

Aluminum is 10% magnesium and burns.....Not much left eh?

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Pentagon attack not true?
From: 53
Date: 19 May 02 - 11:41 AM

I believe it happened just like we was on 9/11. I have some friends that were in the back side of the building when it happened. Bob

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Pentagon attack not true?
From: GUEST
Date: 19 May 02 - 11:44 AM

I'm Guest 10:53. I didn't say I didn't think it happened. I said I thought the official pictures may have been doctored before appearing on-line.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Pentagon attack not true?
From: Steve in Idaho
Date: 19 May 02 - 12:31 PM

Well I figured it was not really true, and you know I try not to post too much weird stuff, but I looked at the dang thing for a couple weeks. I must admit I didn't go to all of the links. So next time maybe I should check it out a bit more - I apologize for the inconvenience -

Steve

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Pentagon attack not true?
From: GUEST
Date: 20 May 02 - 10:09 AM

Actually Norton1, I think your instincts about "something being wrong" with the reporting on the attack on the Pentagon are dead on. The problem is, none of us knows why we have those instincts, because of the secret nature of the Pentagon/intelligence culture, and the obsession with secrecy about the 9/11 attacks in the Bush administration.

As the Rabid Rapid Spin Control Response team of the Bush administration proved last week when confronted by a leak from their own people about "what they knew and when they knew it", the Bush administration, for some reason we (meaning the media, Congressional investigations, etc) have yet to suss out, don't want ANY investigations of the worst attack on on US soil in history.

Which presents the immediate response of: Why? What have they got that they want to hide from the American people? Especially since it is widely believed the administration was not to blame for the attacks. What are they so paranoid about?

And of course, the Bush administration cult of secrecy isn't just about 9/11. It is likely this week that one Senate committee investigating Bush administration contacts with Enron excecutives in the run up to the collapse last fall, will subpoena the White House to get the documentation of the meetings, calls, etc of White House senior officials with Enron. They have refused to cooperate with that investigation, as well as the investigations into the development of the Bush administration's energy policy making meetings with Enron and other top energy corporations to which both Bush and Cheney especially have stronger links than probably any administration in history. The administration is already fighting those subpoenas in court.

So I wouldn't worry too much about your scepticism Norton1. I'd say that with this lot of crooks and criminals and spooks in power, your intitution and feeling of things being not quite right, are right on the money (especially when you follow the money trails of this administration).

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Pentagon attack not true?
From: GUEST,puzzled
Date: 20 May 02 - 10:54 AM

There are three big reasons not to think there's been a conspiracy by people powerful positions in the West behind this whole thing.

1) "They couldn't be that wicked"

2) "They couldn't hope to get away with it"

3) "The suicide hi-jackers couldn't have been in on it."

And there is one big reason that goes in the other arm of the scale. The principle of Cui Bono. In any crime, suspect the people who stand to benefit most from it.

So far as "They couldn't be that wicked" goes, that's very open to question. More civilians have been killed in the attacks on Afghanistan than were killed on 9/11. Nuclear deterrence means an agreement in principle to kill millions of civilians.

So far as "They couldn't hope to get away with it" goes, that doesn't necessarily stand up. The very scale of what happened on 9/11 means that any suggestion of a conspiracy is almost certain to be dismissed as crazy. If there was such a conspiracy against America by people close to the levers of power, and someone ever broke ranks, they would never be believed by anyone, apart from a rabble of conspiracy nuts.

And as for "The suicide hi-jackers couldn't have been in on it", while that is perfectly true, it is not necessarily relevant. It would just mean that intermediaries who thought along those lines had been recruited and guided along to do the actual dirty work. That's been done often enough, on a smaller scale.

That doesn't mean a conspiracy is proved. It just means that it can't be dismissed out of hand. And when all is said and done, we are never going to know.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Pentagon attack not true?
From: GUEST
Date: 20 May 02 - 11:35 AM

But guest puzzled, is a conspiracy what people are out to "prove"? I don't really think that is what we are after. I think the American people want as much of the truth as can safely be provided without compromising our security.

It seems to me that trying to reconstruct what transpired leading up to the event, and making our best effort to determine where the problems lie so we can fix them, is the best case scenario under the circumstances. But to do that, we must hold these most secretive of government organizations up to the light, to see where holes and tears exist in this fabric known as "intelligence". That can't be done without close examination by disinterested parties. I agree with Senators Lieberman and McCain (and I don't usually agree with them about much of anything) that we need to have an independent, bi-partisan commission of people, only some of whom are from the intelligence sector, to examine the foreign policy, intelligence, etc aspects of the events. Just don't put Henry Kissinger on the panel, is all I ask!

The Boston Globe has an interesting story about the history of public Congressional investigations (as opposed to the closed to the public investigation currently being conducted by the House and Senate Committees on Intelligence) here:

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/140/nation/Critic_s_doubt_benefit_of_inquiry_on_Bush+.shtml

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Pentagon attack not true?
From: Fortunato
Date: 20 May 02 - 12:32 PM

Norton1. I had family in the building when it hit. Just down a little and around the corner. She's ok. Don't give a single thought to that 'faking' or doctoring bullshit. regards, Chance

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Pentagon attack not true?
From: Ferrara
Date: 20 May 02 - 02:13 PM

Norton,

I didn't read the whole site, but part of the threme seems to be, that no plane hit the Pentagon? Have I got that right?

Or, is it that there were no hijackers? Or that the Government hired people to set up the hijacking and crash of the plane?

Or all of the above?

Hoo boy. Well I'll give you my thoughts for what they're worth.

First, about it being a plane. I too live near the Pentagon as you know... no doubt exists in my mind that a plane caused the damage. I know at least two eyewitnesses. And I know people who are working with the three local schools that each lost a teacher and a student on that plane, "the best and brightest" in each case. And a woman in the Navy who had to wear decontamination clothing while she helped clear computer equipment out of the target area. She went to the funerals of seven of her friends - "the best and the brightest" was her expression. No doubt in her mind that it was a terrorist plane.

And I've read the local accounts of people who were horribly burned, people who were or were not rescued from that inferno.... Sorry, it's too damn close....

There's enought wreckage to prove it was a plane.... Even the plane that was driven into the ground in Pennsylvania, disintegrated almost completely. The photo of the jet crash in Amsterdam notwithstanding.

Second. Do I think that Dubya set it up, or some right-wing groups in the Govt set it up? Well nastier things have happened in this world but -- cui bono? Yes, the aftermath has greatly helped Dubya's popularity and yes, certain anti-Arab right wingers are really making hay now --- I won't go into my rage at the way the rights of Muslim American citizens have been trampled around here recently.

But I think they're just conscienceless opportunists.... Which is a much lower level of evil.

Now. I almost never sound off in these opinion threads but that web site pulled my chain! I do think that Dubya was callous and self serving and short sighted and shallow and uncaring of people's lives when he decided to ignore the warnings of possible terrorist activity, including hijackings. After all, if he had done anything about the warnings, it might have interfered with the traffic at the airports and thus cost the airlines some money! Can't have that....

I think he was as usual money-centered and morally bankrupt. (You may have gathered that I'm not a Republican....) But I don't think he or anyone else in the right wings of the government actually, ACTIVELY abetted the Pentagon incident or the WTC incident.

Whoa. Sorry... One reason I almost never read the BS threads.... Hard to stop once I start!

Take care, Rita

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Pentagon attack not true?
From: DougR
Date: 20 May 02 - 04:52 PM

Yes, Rita, I suspected that you are not a Republican.

Steve: you might write Ted Olson, Solicitor General of the U. S. at the Department of Justice and ask him if he thinks a plane crashed into the Pentagon. His wife Barbara was on it.

Probably you could address the letter to him at the DOJ, Office of the Solicitor General, Washington, D. C. and he would probably get it.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Pentagon attack not true?
From: GUEST,Just Amy
Date: 20 May 02 - 05:06 PM

As Eubbie wrote in the fifth entry check some of the urban legend sites like www.snopes2.com/ or www. truthorfiction.com. The original site mentioned is truly BS.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Pentagon attack not true?
From: GUEST,puzzled
Date: 20 May 02 - 05:36 PM

But then if you were trying to make sure no one took rumors about funny business seriously the one thing you'd be sure to do would be to seed the internet with genuinely crazy rumors about green lizards from outer space and claims that things that can be shown to have happened never happened. That way, even if there were real discrepancies, and leaks about things happening that shouldn't have happened, there'd be a good chance they'd be buried.

There are two things we can be sure of. One is that there will continue to be rumors about conspiracies, and the other thing is that we will never be able to be sure of what the truth is.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Pentagon attack not true?
From: BanjoRay
Date: 20 May 02 - 06:21 PM

The truth is a funny thing - if it doesn't suit us, then we won't believe it even if it can be proved.

Cheers
Ray

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Pentagon attack not true?
From: Ferrara
Date: 20 May 02 - 08:23 PM

Yuh. Sorry I was so darned loud in my earlier post. I should have waited an hour before I hit the "submit" button.

I should have said, too, that I can't think of any president in recent decades, of either party, that would have definitely taken action to prevent hijackings on the basis of the warnings that were given.... because it would have interfered too much with commerce, it would have been risky and unpopular, they would have looked bad if nothing happened, etc.

Rita

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Pentagon attack not true?
From: GUEST
Date: 20 May 02 - 08:55 PM

I agree Rita. What isn't being taken into account is that the inquiries need to examine how this administration balanced those things, and chose not to issue meaningful warnings to the American airlines, the flying public, and the general public. Especially during the height of the summer travel season.

I really do believe what the truth may likely turn out to be is that we had a president who simply wasn't interested that much in these sorts of matters. If we look back to what was happening last summer, it was all about the Bush energy agenda, the Bush tax cut, the Bush education plan--he has never had much interest in foreign policy. The administration has lost all ground it gained last year with Latin America, especially Mexico, and now the "let's play to the Florida Cuban vote" strategy with the anti-Castro speech today, which keeps the US as the isolated one, not the other way around. They haven't solved a thing in the Middle East and seem to hope they can simply muddle their way through until the November elections on the same old rhetoric. How the trip to Russia goes this week will be telling.

I think Bush, in his heart, is truly an isolationist. Cheney, on the other hand, just wants to open up the world to make it our oyster using the US military to do the dirty work, so US capitalists won't have so much at risk when they begin exploiting resources in places like the Caspian Sea oil region. If the energy conglomerates can go in under the protection of the US military to take the oil out, I'll bet they will be very, very happy.

As happy as the energy conglomerates who fixed the market last year on the West Coast were when they caused the "California energy crisis".

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Pentagon attack not true?
From: GUEST,Chicken Charlie
Date: 20 May 02 - 08:56 PM

"Aluminum is 10% magnesium" ?? If that's all it takes to play this game, I'm outta here. Actually, the Plymouth Rock landing was faked, and none of us are really here.

CC

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Pentagon attack not true?
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 20 May 02 - 09:02 PM

As I recall, the earlier thread pointed to sites that were more disconcerting than the one given here.

Fortunato, I don't see how the paradox is affected by your wife or whoever being close to the outrage. The fact is that the available film footage and stills of the damaged building are not wholly consistent with what many catastrophe analysts would have expected in such an incident - not least that much of the Pentagon damage was confined to two floors of the building.

Rita, to be a Republican I guess you would have to favour free trade, but also favour punitive sanctions against Cuba and protection of a domestic steel industry that has its feet set in clay. On top of which hypocrisy, you would have to flatter a Royal family in Saudi Arabia which is (truly) more repressive than Saddam's, and befriend military dictatorships like Pakistan's, (which not only has weapons of mass destruction but has openly flaunted, tested and proved the), and yet still want to bomb Saddam away at the first chance. Oh, and it would help if you could keep your mind on the golf, if you happen to get intelligence about possible attacks on the Pentagon.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Pentagon attack not true?
From: Phil Cooper
Date: 20 May 02 - 11:26 PM

My brother was in the pentagon when it was hit. He described to us what it sounded like. He pointed out years ago, that when the department of intelligence releases photos (satellite,etc), they never release the good ones.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Pentagon attack not true?
From: Gary T
Date: 20 May 02 - 11:45 PM

Not meaning to pick on Fionn, but this sort of statement: The fact is that the available film footage and stills of the damaged building are not wholly consistent with what many catastrophe analysts would have expected in such an incident - not least that much of the Pentagon damage was confined to two floors of the building. is addressed at the Snopes site, and presumably at the other site Amy mentioned.

It's easy to make accusations that defy being proven false. But when the facts are examined, all that's really left of any substance is the apparent desire of some to allege that they "know" something the rest of the world doesn't. All the so-called inconsistencies are based on the ignorance of those alleging them, and are pretty readily dismissed when one has accurate information.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Pentagon attack not true?
From: M.Ted
Date: 21 May 02 - 01:09 AM

Actually, the landing on Plymouth Rock was a fake--

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Pentagon attack not true?
From: GUEST
Date: 21 May 02 - 01:21 AM

Fer fucks sake some people are stupid.... 2024-T4 and 6061-T6 are two of the most common alloys used in kit aircraft today, and are readily available in many forms at affordable prices. The more modern 6061-T6 alloy is a very versatile alloy for aircraft construction, providing superior corrosion resistance, good formability (easy to work with), and flexibility and strength.

Composition of Aluminum Alloys Alloy 6061-T6 2024-T4 Copper 0.25 4.50 Silicon 0.60 Manganese 0.60 Magnesium 1.00 1.50 Chromium 0.25 Above indicates percentage of alloying elements in addition to pure aluminum. Temper (-T) Designations -T6: Solution heat treated and artificially aged -T4: Solution heat treated

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Pentagon attack not true?
From: GUEST
Date: 21 May 02 - 07:30 AM

The photos matter little in the bigger scheme. There is no denying that the attacks of 9/11 saved the Bush presidency. To hear them cry "politics! partisans! aiding and abetting the enemy!" now that the Democrats spines are slowly reappearing just shows how paranoid this administration is, and how shaky their beliefs are that what they did and are doing is.

This is the most evil and corrupt administration the US has had in decades, IMO. And no, I don't believe the attacks are Bush's fault. Or Clinton's. The attacks are the result of intolerable foreign policy choices and smug, contemptuous, arrogant American attitudes towards the rest of the world going back decades.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Pentagon attack not true?
From: GUEST
Date: 21 May 02 - 07:48 AM

Sorry. Above last sentence of 1st paragraph should read:

"...how shaky their beliefs are that what they did and are doing is right."

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Pentagon attack not true?
From: SharonA
Date: 21 May 02 - 09:10 AM

Fionn sez, "The fact is that the available film footage and stills of the damaged building are not wholly consistent with what many catastrophe analysts would have expected in such an incident – not least that much of the Pentagon damage was confined to two floors of the building."

For a description of the actual damage, and of the structure of and renovations to the Pentagon (which caused the damage to differ from what one would expect of a conventional building), see this page on the Snopes site: http://www.snopes2.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Pentagon attack not true?
From: GUEST
Date: 21 May 02 - 09:29 AM

Thanks Sharon, we got that link from Ebbie at the top of this thread 3 days ago. Read the fucking thread before you post.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Pentagon attack not true?
From: SharonA
Date: 21 May 02 - 10:03 AM

No, GUEST, Ebbie typed (not "linked") the name of the home page of the site, www.snopes.com and not the URL of the Pentagon-rumor page itself. I just thought it would be handy to have a link directly to that page, since others have expressed doubts about the extent of damage to the Pentagon even after Ebbie's post, which I did read and which they may have missed.

I do wish you'd give people the benefit of the doubt instead of jumping down their throats. But I'm so glad to see that you think enough of me to single me out for your attentions.

Kisses,
Sharon

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Pentagon attack not true?
From: GUEST
Date: 21 May 02 - 10:08 AM

The snopes site is about urban legends SharonA. What is being discussed here goes far beyond crazy conspiracy theories and urban legends propagated on the internet. It is what is at the heart of the questioning going on in the US and around the world about the Bush administrations global overreach.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Pentagon attack not true?
From: SharonA
Date: 21 May 02 - 10:11 AM

Well, duh!

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Pentagon attack not true?
From: GUEST
Date: 21 May 02 - 10:13 AM

So your reason again for bringing it into the conversation after it was already cited was...?

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Pentagon attack not true?
From: SharonA
Date: 21 May 02 - 10:18 AM

...which is to say, if you're not familiar with the expression "well, duh", that I already know that. No kidding.

Just because the thread has crept from the original subject (which is the urban legend about the Pentagon) into the subject of the ongoing questions and complaints about the Bush administration, does not mean that a poster is not allowed to address another poster's statement having to do with the original subject!

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Pentagon attack not true?
From: MMario
Date: 21 May 02 - 10:20 AM

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Pentagon attack not true?
From: GUEST
Date: 21 May 02 - 11:43 AM

I've finally found the article I went looking for when I saw this thread. It is from the UK paper the Guardian, is titled "Uncle Sam's Lucky Finds" and is by Anne Karpf. It can be found here:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/wtc/analysis/2002/0322san.htm

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Pentagon attack not true?
From: Bill D
Date: 21 May 02 - 11:54 AM

the "film footage" was a simple security camera that snaps a frame every second or two, NOT some 24 frame per second movie camera!....Of course it didn't get detailed images...a plane at 500MPH doesn't wait till the camera is 'ready'

sheeesh!

(and I don't care for Bush, but the idea that ANYONE in his position would have any hand in this is stupid!)

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Pentagon attack not true?
From: GUEST
Date: 21 May 02 - 12:32 PM

But not everyone agrees with you, BillD.

No matter what your party affiliation or opinion on Bush, no one can deny the great boon the 9/11 attacks were to his popularity. That popularity has translated into an unchallenged ability to forge ahead with secret administration plans which benefit the global war profiteers and energy conglomerates. Doesn't matter who is responsible for the attacks actually. What matters is what the administration is doing with the ill-gained political good will, and blinkered belief of too many American people that the Bush/Cheney cronies aren't benefitting hugely from 9/11.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Pentagon attack not true?
From: SharonA
Date: 21 May 02 - 12:38 PM

I'd be surprised to find any American people who believe that "the Bush/Cheney cronies aren't benefitting hugely from 9/11". There's no question – and ample evidence – of their abuse of the global outcry against terrorism. That doesn't mean that it doesn't matter who is responsible for the attacks, and it doesn't mean that there shouldn't be a global outcry against terrorism.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Pentagon attack not true?
From: Bill D
Date: 21 May 02 - 01:05 PM

almost ANY politician would seek to put his own spin on events, whether it be attacks, changes in the interest rate, or alien landings! Some are more callous and blatant than others.....it's the off-the-wall conspiracy blather that bemuses me.

There is a fine art to wrapping up half-truths, rumors, inuendo and random irrelevancies in a clever package, using fallacious logic and presenting it in such a way that it 'seems' to prove something.

and lets face it, some folks are just wired to WANT to believe outrageous balderdash...otherwise, how would the supermarket tabloids stay in business?

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Pentagon attack not true?
From: GUEST
Date: 21 May 02 - 01:15 PM

BillD, you said:

"There is a fine art to wrapping up half-truths, rumors, inuendo and random irrelevancies in a clever package, using fallacious logic and presenting it in such a way that it 'seems' to prove something."

Yes, and some of us would say that the proof Al Qaida was responsible for 9/11 has yet to be presented by this administration. Talk about conspiracy theories with fallacious logic, presented in such a way as to "prove" guilt!

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Pentagon attack not true?
From: Bill D
Date: 21 May 02 - 02:03 PM

Proof???...you mean videotaped recordings of the planning sessions? People who are going to do these things don't go out of their way to claim responsiblity or give warnings.

There has been plenty of circumstantial evidence quite strong enough to stand up in court! We even have tapes of bin Laden referring to his prior knowlege of the events and delight at how much better it worked out than what he expected....we have guys with AlQaida ties enrolling in flight schools..(one even tried to learn to 'steer' a plane, without wanting to land it..wonder why?)

ahhh...why do I bother? People will believe what they wish. I don't claim our government gets everything right or that they make all the 'right' decisions based on the evidence....but there is little doubt what general batch of fanatics pulled off this attack..

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Pentagon attack not true?
From: GUEST
Date: 21 May 02 - 02:19 PM

Actually BillD, internationally there is a lot of doubt about the "fanatics" who pulled off this attack. It is the American public who looks deluded to the rest of the world. Except Tony Blair, of course.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Pentagon attack not true?
From: DonD
Date: 21 May 02 - 02:50 PM

GUEST, GUEST, GUEST! You ubiquitous GUEST you!

I just chesked my little paper back dictionary under 'guest' thinking I might have been ignorant of some definition; it says "a person to whom hospitality is extended; a patron of a hotel or restaurant; a person not a regular member of a cast." Nowhere does it say, "ballbuster'!

Perhaps you have an unabridged tome at hand that includes that definition.

Please refer me to a post anywhere in which you haven't delight in busting chops. I'd ask fo a PM, bot -- ooh -- you're a GUEST!

On the other hand, my hair colorist's neighbor's boy friend's cousin (once removed) has a friend who heard from a very reliable source (she thinks it was a late night talk show on ABC) that the White House is infiltrated with Arab spies! Isn't Condaleeza some kind of Islamic name?

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Pentagon attack not true?
From: Bill D
Date: 21 May 02 - 02:52 PM

two general claims do not prove YOUR point either...

and maybe Tony Blair make up his own mind...I don't know him personally

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Pentagon attack not true?
From: GUEST
Date: 21 May 02 - 03:04 PM

BillD and DonD, did either of you read the Guardian article I cited above by Anne Karpf? The Guardian is a British paper, as I said.

I think some British posters might agree that there is a great deal of scepticism among the British public that the Bush administration has provided incontrovertible proof, or even circumstantial proof, which connects the 9/11 attack to Al Qaida, or the Taliban. And they are on our side, with their military fighting alongside ours! It doesn't mean the majority of the population of the world believes the Bush administration version of events!

Barely anyone in the Arab world believes ANY Arabs were responsible for the 9/11 attack--rather it is widely believed the US staged the attacks themselves to justify a war on Islam by calling it a war on terrorism.

Maybe the rest of the world's scepticism is something we should at least be conscious of and take on board, rather than disparaging and dismission as lunatic conspiracy theories. While our government keeps running around screaming "the sky is falling" and crying wolf.

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Pentagon attack not true?
From: SharonA
Date: 21 May 02 - 03:33 PM

Well, now, "crying wolf" would be an accurate assessment if there weren't any wolf, but obviously somebody is in the sheepfold.

If "the Arab world" really supposes that the "wolf" is the US government – that the US government would shut itself down for any length of time, and would purposely do so much to hinder its own capitalist economy, for the single purpose of "justify[ing] a war on Islam by calling it a war on terrorism" – then "the Arab world" is allowing itself to be deluded by anti-American propaganda. And to think that people call us "insular".

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Pentagon attack not true?
From: Bill D
Date: 21 May 02 - 04:17 PM

"Barely anyone in the Arab world believes ANY Arabs were responsible for the 9/11 attack-"

...and no mother believes that HER son would kick dogs, beat old ladies and molest goats, either...but as SharonA says.."there's somebody in the sheepfold"

if "some British posters " or even "the majority" can be made to believe that elves flew those planes, should we "be conscious of and take on board" our stubbornly held beliefs toward little people who live under mushrooms?

I have read and listened to ALL ideas since 9/11, and have sorted out as best I can what seems to make sense...the evidence cited by the news media and the government has the best of it in my opinion...if anyone wishes to seriously counter this, they need to provide better evidence, not cobbled together speculation that "X" might have happened. If I were on a jury today, the best evidence would have to be that radical Muslims..mostly Arab, did these acts.

"The burden of proof is on the assertor"

Subject: RE: BS: 9/11 Pentagon attack not true?
From: GUEST
Date: 21 May 02 - 04:38 PM

Really BillD--think long and hard--where was the Air Force on Sept 11th for two hours from the first hijacking, which occured before the first attack, until several hours later when the third hijacked plane finally crashed? Why didn't they ever respond? Aren't you even the least bit curious about why our Air Force never responded?

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.