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?