In early December, the 9/11 Public Discourse Project—a private group formed by 9/11 Commission members after their official term expired in 2004—chided the government for ignoring the lessons learned from the Commission’s probe of the terrorist attack. But the group’s patrician members failed to answer many questions. For example, how, precisely, did the Twin Towers fall? Why did Seven World Trade… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (891)Having only heard Griffin’s U of W speech, and not yet read his book, I can’t comment on what kind of speculations he makes about governmet involvement in 9/11. His evidence is compelling though, and deserves to be viewed on its merits.
Muwakkil’s argument is a simple an ad hominem attack. Griffin was once an admired and respected theologian, but now “what happened to him?” he’s just a “conspiracy theorist.”
This is a crafty dismissal of compelling evidence without actually addressing the points Griffin makes. Sure Terry Allen came to the same conclusion, but what are the “plausible explanations” she came up with for building seven’s collapse - for the demolition of buildings one and two by a couple of jetliners?
I don’t care how Allen or Muwakkil feel about Griffin’s character. Griffin’s evidence and its counterpoints should be discussed. Muwakkil doesn’t “debunk a conspiracy theory” here, he just claims the author’s gone soft and off the deep end. It’s the oldest trick in the book.
If Griffin makes logical leaps in claiming government foreknowledge and involvement then discuss it specifically. Labeling him a conspiracy theorist and dismissing his findings is rude and illogical. Faint praise for his former work can’t hide an ad hominem argument.
Posted by katiez on Dec 22, 2005 at 2:24 AM Agreed, katiez, in spades.
Indeed, why the dangling teaser just before Muwakkil’s concluding paragraph?
So what specifically are Allen’s “plausible explanations”? Why bother mentioning them without listing them? Are we supposed to take Allen’s word “on faith” just because Allen did some work for Amnesty International and is now an editor at ITT? It makes my BS metre red-line!
And that concluding paragraph! I had to read three times trying to guess what slant Muwakki is actually on. In the end, i was left wondering if Muwakki’s “is” should have actually been an “are” and whether “debunking” was used as a verb or a adjective. Did the Muwakki or his esteemed editor really want to “debunking conspiracy theories are unlikely to change that [the Bush admin’s pathological aversion to openness]”?
In the end, i was left wondering if Muwakki is towing some ITT internal line that he couldn’t quite condone himself. Why did the first two-thirds of the article praise Griffin before it turned on lame generalisations about “the Left” to note two superficial ad-hominem critiques of Griffin’s work?
This kind sophomoric analysis does ITT a disturbing disservice.
If anyone wants to consider viewpoints alternative to the official Admin line, they might want to check out these:
* “Distinguished University of Minnesota Philosophy Professor Joins 9/11 Fight, Saying the Truth Must Be Uncovered”, at ArcticBeacon, http://tinyurl.com/9kz3b
* “The 9/11 WTC Collapses - Index of What Really Happened”, http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_9-11_truth.html, or * Pentagon Strike, http://pentagonstrike.co.ukAD.2005.Dec.22.16:15.ICT (IndoChina Time)
Posted by AD Marshall on Dec 22, 2005 at 10:15 AM Please pardon the slips:
* “And that concluding paragraph! I had to read three times…” should read ” And that concluding paragraph! I had to read it three times…”
* “... really want to “debunking conspiracy theories…” should read “... really want to say “debunking conspiracy theories…”I have to admit i’m pissed (off).
I had actually begun to believe ITT was a publication i could put some trust into—in part because of Vonnegut’s presence here.
But then i was pointed by another discussion here to reading of ITT’s affair with David Lindorff in “R.I.P. In These Times”, by Lindorff at CounterPunch, http://www.counterpunch.com/lindorff11192005.html.
I withheld judgement at that point, thinking the affair might have been an anomoly.
But now, after reading Muwakki’s piece, i tiresomely have to accept that ITT’s content must be read with even more skepticism than i’d usually reserve for USA Today because it seems there may be neo-cons behind the Leftists here.
Posted by AD Marshall on Dec 22, 2005 at 10:37 AM Oops, yet again. My “Muwakki” should read “Muwakkil”.
In fact, i have to chill. And i’ll gratefully accept an extension of this article that addresses the points katiez and i have raised, preferrably looking at more than just Griffin’s alternate views, as Griffin is obviously not alone in terms of respected pundits saying similar things about 9/11 and the Bush Admin.
If that’s done, i’ll openly apologize for the bile i’ve just spewed, but not a nanosecond before.
AD.2005.Dec.22.16:45.35.ICT
Posted by AD Marshall on Dec 22, 2005 at 10:46 AM Your comments are quite insightful, AD. Muwakkil may simply be repeating the official ITT mantra. It does seem strange that he would praise Griffin in the first part of the article and then suddenly switch to labeling and dismissing him. He makes only vague, incomplete arguments to support his change of view. It doesn’t add up.
Perhaps the article once had a different conclusion and an editor at ITT retooled the end, adding quotes from herself in the process. Or maybe Muwakkil is afraid of being labeled a conspiracist himself, and is engaged in cognitive dissonance.
Do not be concerned about seeming emotional about this issue. The article is so transparent! It really pissed me off too, and I had to edit my comments several times. It only underscores your points.
An ad hominem attack is a tool of the right. It switches focus and avoids examining the target’s evidence, which runs the risk of highlighting how plausible it actually is. It’s probably the most common logical fallacy, and it tops Sagan’s list: http://www.nobeliefs.com/fallacies.htm
Thanks for linking to Lindorff’s article about his experience writing about DU for ITT. ITT’s response is shameful! They cowtowed to Pentagon-spun rhetoric and repeatedly tried to discount a well researched and referenced story.
At least the site allows unmoderated comments. I would be surprised if the original article and our responses remain up, however. If they don’t, I’ll publish them on my own blog.
Posted by katiez on Dec 22, 2005 at 2:40 PM In fact, katiez, my ignorance on the subject is only too vast. I’ve clearly been too focused on basic survival over the last decade in Saigon. I had no idea the “911 Truth Movement” (911TM) was so well-established and so much research of depth and breadth has already been published.
I’d only stumbled upon the URLs i referenced above just recently and was then quite surprised these issues hadn’t caught my attention earlier. Yet, if much of what the 911TM is claiming is true, the implications for global geopolitics would be monumental, no?
So what’s the real deal on 9/11 today? I’m just cracking the surface now. I can only resort to the Internet for my information, but merely Googling “9-11 truth” quickly reveals a wealth of information on the subject. (Though, notably in the context of Muwakkil’s piece, nothing relevant by Allen turns up from Googling terry-allen+OR+terry-j-allen+david-griffin+OR+david-ray-griffin.).
Despite my limited resources, it still seems obvious a big part of the 911TM has been focused for a couple years already on simply avoiding the very accusation Muwakkil levels at “the left” in general: Inherently skeptical of official dogma, the left has an [implicitly “irresponsible”] affinity for alternative explanations.
Oh? See, just as one example, “MAD CONSPIRACY THEORIES”, by Gerard Holmgren, 2003.Feb.12, [http://www.world-action.co.uk/conspiracy.html]. Interestingly, the web-page title of Holmgren’s analysis uses almost the exact phrase Muwakkil used in his closing sentence, ie, “Debunking Conspiracy Theorists”.
Oil Empire’s “Bogus 9/11 truth claims” provides a wide range of overviews of dubious 9/11 claims from the 911TM’s perspective [http://www.oilempire.us/bogus.html].
So where’s the news in ITT’s piece?
Only days ago, Dr James H Fetzer released his “Thinking about ‘Conspiracy Theories’” [http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/], with the statement “I stand with Steve Jones, Professor of Physics at Brigham Young, David Ray Griffin, Professor Emeritus of Theology at Claremont, and other students and scholars of 9/11, who believe that extraordinary times require extraordinary measures.”
Of the other sources Googling uncovered, a handful seemed promising for neophytes like myself.
Wikipedia’s 9/11 Truth Movement [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Truth_Movement] for starters.
Global Research Canada’s “9/11 & ‘War on Terrorism’” page [via http://tinyurl.com/8r63h] and it’s “9/11 Truth Movement - Selected Resources for Researchers and Activists” [http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/LEV212A.html] for an in-depth, left-leaning perspective.
Political Research Associates’ “Post 9/11 Conspiracism”, including both “The New Pearl Harbor Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11 by David Ray Griffin - Review by Chip Berlet”, undated [http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/Post911/dubious_claims.html] and “RESPONSE TO CHIP BERLET’S REVIEW OF THE NEW PEARL HARBOR”, David R Griffin, 2004.May.01 [http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/Post911/Griffin1.html].
Griffin’s retort, unmentioned by Muwakkil, partly answers a question Muwakkil throws out but never attempts to answer beyond ad hominem, “What could have transformed this sober, reflective scholar into a conspiracy theorist?”
Why would Muwakkil ignore this retort which even Berlet’s own report links to at its opening?
Fetzer’s “THINKING ABOUT “CONSPIRACY THEORIES”: 9/11 and JFK”, last modified 2005.Dec.09, is reviewed by Greg Szymanski at ArcticBeacon, 2005.Dec.16 [http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/article/1518131/39247.htm]. Fetzer agreed to appear the following Monday, two days ago, on Szymanski’s nationwide radio show, the “Investigative Journal” [http://www.rbnlive.com].
In the end, i can only conclude Muwakkil’s piece is titled only too appropriately as it provides about as much balanced information as one might expect from a 411 operator.
AD.2005.Dec.22.23:05.ICT
Posted by AD Marshall on Dec 22, 2005 at 5:05 PM <b>PLEASE NOTE: Some of the URLs in my previous post have been broken up (extra spaces and full-stops inserted) by ITT’s forum system.
Posted by AD Marshall on Dec 22, 2005 at 5:10 PM Well what have we here? A damned nasty little hit piece. An ignorant Adhominem attack on two eminent and wise, and brave scholars. Despite an obvious longing to throw dirt, the mean spirited author Muwakkil cannot find anything to denigrate about either Jones or Griffin and so resorts to casting aspersions on their characters on the basis of their support of alternative theories, which have the advantage of not having been disproven and which DO actually agree with witness evidence and science. Unlike one long since discredited and fast fading Official Theory I can think of.
Since your obvious intention is only to try and shore up the crumbling facade of the official lie, and this is so transparent as to be laughable, one would expect a Joke except this is about the standard of propaganda this administration of Criminals usually feeds us.
Can anyone say JEFF GANNON? The Gannon Cannon! There is the Junta’s idea of propaganda. Someone who can spoof for them as well as swallow their spoof, literraly.
So Muwakkil, you are another Shoill are you? You have no reason to attack these men, except to say their support for the 911 truth makes them suspect. You have no other axe to grind with either of them, you admitted it. Is Rabbit missing something here? Did you just write a stock standard hit piece for the official 911 lie or did you actually say anything worthwhile?
Well, if your intention was to start a controversy, this isn’t the staff trying to wind us up now is it?, you will surely have one on your hands in short order.
Salim Muwwakkil, Rabbit wondered initially if the 411 was a reference to the date of the other false flag terror attack, in Madrid.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Dec 22, 2005 at 6:02 PM Andi
You didn’t read Rabbit’s words to you about TINYURLs did you? You chose instead to assume, falsely I might add that the rabbit was attacking you.
It is true Rabbit has a rather blunt approach, he tries to wrap his words in soft velvet to take some of the edge off his otherwise VERY Aries tone. The Forum does muck around with anything which touches the edge of the box. You need to pick up a few clues which we have garnered and pass along to all who will be readable. You have so far been wrapped up in a weird thread and there are wacky things going on at ITT now. Rabbit is here and this is a good sign, or a bad one depending on one’s point of view. Rabbit usually manages to be on sites around the time they implode, explode etc. He is like that in life too. Things often go bang or whoosh or glug glug glug around Rabbit.
Not Rabbit’s fault, he is just drawn by Karma to be an observer of disasters, from a barely safe distance.
Take note that he is watching the USA elvove towards it’s date with destiny, from all the way downunder your toes. In Oz. It seems Rabbit’s inimitable Spirit Guides have decided this is the nearest safe distance to watch this one.
This is not a joke…...^^.....
Posted by GhostRabbit on Dec 22, 2005 at 6:12 PM By the way Katiez, your words describing exactly how and why this is a crappy piece of writing, and observations about the methods used, are EXACTLY how the rabbit would like to have said it, but you did it best.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Dec 22, 2005 at 6:15 PM Andi
You might want to stick around if you enjoy fireworks. Something tells the rabbit we could be in for a show.
Gather round friends, I think this is a call to battle.
It is a good collection of references to good information, and the official shill’s best answers to all of it. You will notice she did this by ad-himinem attacks on people, and by smoke and mirrors, wasting lots of space debating small details which are meaningless. All so familiar.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Dec 22, 2005 at 6:37 PM Wow. I’ve got some reading to do. Thanks, GR.
PS: Ya, I see what you’re on about with using TinyURL here. Gad, what a pain though.
Posted by AD Marshall on Dec 22, 2005 at 9:09 PM In a modest defense of ITT’s editorial reticence to take this issue head-on, some speculation that the Leftist press is skitterish in relation to conspiracy stories dating back to the Christic Institute’s incorrect conclusion to the assassination attempt on Eden Pastora back in the ‘80’s.
“The antidote to conspiracism is Power Structure Research based on some form of institutional, systemic or structural analysis that examines race, ethnicity, gender, sexual identity, class and other factors that are used to create inequality and oppression,”
A formula for making broad general arguments to avoid getting burned on the specifics. Very sad. I want to tell them to get some balls, but I’m not under the kind of pressure they must be feeling.
Posted by luminous beauty on Dec 22, 2005 at 10:05 PM A couple more tips ... for those who don’t already know HTML ... and one for those who use tinyURL in hyperlinks.
Using HTML to make a hyperlink to a reference is easy.
Here is an example of a hyperlink HTML command :
words to become link goes here
The line above is an inactive example.
Replace URL goes here between the ” ” with the URL/address.
Replace words to become link goes here between the > </a> with whatever word or phrase that you want to become the hyperlink to click on.
I have found that using tinyURL is not necessary within the HTML command. After a bit of experimentation with HTML hyperlink I stopped using tinyURL because the URL does not get broken within the HTML command.
Hyperlinks, see above example,
bold
italicsblockquote
are the only HTML formatting commands allowed on ITT.
Click on the HTML link above and take a look at the commands.
The first <*> turns the command on and the second </*> with the backslash turns the command off.
Best to experiment on an old thread to learn the ins and outs.
It is easy to learn. I did and I am basically computer illiterate but slowly learning.
Posted by David in Canada on Dec 22, 2005 at 11:06 PM By the way ...
I have asked Natalie to bring the discussion taking place on the Democrats: It’s the War thread to this 9/11 discussion.
I hope she joins the discussion here.
Posted by David in Canada on Dec 22, 2005 at 11:25 PM I think this quote from Griffin’s rebuttal to Berlet is very interesting in light of Muwakkil’s blanket acceptance of Berlet’s and PSR’s advisement of ITT. (Andi—thanx for the link)
However, leaving that problem aside, let me move to what seems to be a major misunderstanding of my perspective. Berlet seems to believe that a conspiratorial perspective is necessarily opposed to a “structural, systemic, or institutional analysis.” Indeed, he says that I provide “a centrist or right-wing populist explanation that if deconstructed suggests that an otherwise acceptable political and economic system has been distorted by a conspiracy of secret elites.” Besides the fact that this characterization of my position would make my friends and students hoot, Berlet perhaps missed note 25 of the Introduction to NPH, in which I directly confront the worry that conspiracy theories are diversionary. In pointing out that this worry often involves valid concerns, I said:
One concern is that a focus on exposing conspiratorial crimes of present office-holders may reflect the naive assumption that if only we can replace those individuals with better ones, things will be fine. Underlying that worry is the concern that a focus on conspirators can divert attention from the more important issue of the structural problems in the national and global order that need to be overcome.
Then, after suggesting some reasons why we should “avoid a too strong dichotomy between structural and conspiratorial analysis,” I added another reason:
Finally, and most important, the exposure of a conspiracy may, rather than diverting attention from a society’s problematic structures, turn attention to them. For example, if it became evident that our national political leaders caused or at least allowed the attacks of 9/11 and that they did so partly because they had deeply embodied certain values pervasive of our society, we might finally decide that a society-wide reorientation was in order.
Berlet cannot justly assume, therefore, that if I suspect the attacks of 9/11 were able to succeed only because of official conspiracy, I reject structural analyses of our national and global problems
Can we interrelate a structural analysis of the Security State and how it has possibly enabled a fairly small cohort of conspirators to effectively hi-jack the Government? I don’t see why not.
Another point of note is that this story is way out of date and Jones, whose expertise is not so easy to discount, is only mentioned in passing. It indicates to me that this is a story the ITT staff felt the need to at least mention for the sake of it’s readership, but nobody in house is really willing to stick their neck out on. The fact that political journalists of whatever stripe are notoriously lacking in math and tech knowledge could have some bearing on the matter.
Posted by luminous beauty on Dec 23, 2005 at 2:46 AM Good discussion. If you haven’t read David Ray Griffin’s New Pearl Harbor, do. It’s impeccable.
Karen
Posted by KarenR on Dec 23, 2005 at 2:46 AM Too much light for the Vampire, too many people, she hates crowds you know Dave.
Rabbit also dropped by Democrats to give the Vamp a paddling, and send her over here. Who knows maybe this thread is a set-up, and Natty is about to lead a “Charge of the Shills” Charge of the Dark Brigade?
Posted by GhostRabbit on Dec 23, 2005 at 4:09 AM Another point of note is that this story is way out of date and Jones, whose expertise is not so easy to discount, is only mentioned in passing. It indicates to me that this is a story the ITT staff felt the need to at least mention for the sake of it’s readership, but nobody in house is really willing to stick their neck out on. The fact that political journalists of whatever stripe are notoriously lacking in math and tech knowledge could have some bearing on the matter.
An excellent point.
The whole idea of being an alleged conspiracy theorist reminds me of Sneeches somehow .. (thank you Natalie for reminding us of Sneeches in the not so distant past).
People don’t want to be labelled with a label they don’t like. But not so much racism in this case but something else ... maybe?
Posted by David in Canada on Dec 23, 2005 at 5:46 AM Hello again, Rabbit, David, Lumens, Andi.
Nice to meet you katiez and KarenR.
I’m wiley.
WOW!
At first I was excited about the article. My first thought when I opened it, however, was that the length is appropriate for a letter to grandma, and completely inadequate to the task at hand (unless the task was to dismiss a person who contradicted the official version (although there isn’t really an “official” version (there is no transcript of the hearing)—-there is just an accusation, impressions, and prepackaged hype that defies Newton’s laws and all manners of sensibility.)
Half way through the article my inner ape wanted to fling feces at it. My frontal cortex was not looking forward to the tedium of parsing this Twinkie. I was totally relieved to read the posts that followed.
I’m a ‘forest’ person. Thanks for the ‘trees’.
I gotta read the whole thread again then check out Rabbit’s link to catch up.
Posted by wileywitch on Dec 23, 2005 at 7:10 AM Ahhh, man—-I still gotta wrap some presents and then get to bed, but I can not resist one little post:
O.K. Whatever you think of Micheal Ruppert, I’ve got to tell you that the only question I ever had about 9/11 (aside from how can so many people accept this in your face “trifecta”*) was how did they silence all those FAA air traffic controllers? These people are generally brighter than cows and vigilant, and in the case of something going off course, it’s reasonable to expect them to be hyper-vigilant. Four aircrafts flying through different parts of the country and all those air traffic controllers and crews at NORAD not catching on? No way.
This is the only <a >explanation</a> I have seen.
In brief: At the same time of the so-called hijackings NORAD and the FAA were involved in wargames. Cheney was running the games, and the scenario was….GUESS—-
airplanes being hijacked. Finally! That was driving me nuts. All I could surmise before that was death threats or buy-offs to keep ‘em from singing like canaries.I experienced a false alarm on duty with SAC/NORAD that was caused by someone somewhere in the system inserting a training tape into real-time. (I didn’t find out the actual cause until I had the final flashback, and that was confirmed by research I did on the internet, which I first accessed twenty years after the fact—-the first terms I put in a search engine were “NORAD” and “nuclear missiles” and “false alarm”. Boing.)
I have no doubt that Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Cheney were all aware of this. Their buddy Collin Powell sure as hell was.
ANYWAY, they did the reverse, in a way, the controllers thought that the real aircraft were part of the exercise and so they treated them as such. And the war game tape itself was rigged so that the people who were watching real-time and not playing the game were fooled.
I have not read this link in detail, I read about this event a couple of years ago and just socked it in to a search engine tonight. Don’t take this as gospel.
Andi—-do you have a link for that quote? I wanna read it.
* more on that with links later
Posted by wileywitch on Dec 23, 2005 at 9:17 AM GRRRRRR. I don’t know what I’m doing wrong, but it’s worth a copy and paste.
Posted by wileywitch on Dec 23, 2005 at 9:21 AM Whew, just coming out of a profoundly dreamy codeine coma…
Anyway, Wiley, did you mean the quote ending with “... all of us experienced air traffic controllers—that it was a military plane”? If so, that’s from “Distinguished University of Minnesota Philosophy Professor Joins 9/11 Fight, Saying the Truth Must Be Uncovered”, 2005.Dec.16, at ArcticBeacon, http://tinyurl.com/9kz3b, which is a review of Fetzer’s paper which is available as a WinWord draft, Dec.15, from his site, http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/.
Posted by AD Marshall on Dec 23, 2005 at 10:47 AM The Strange Case Of The 911 Cell Phone Calls
September 2004
Last month, Qualcomm Corporation issued a press release stating that they had developed a new technology that would finally make it possible to make cellular phone calls from commercial airliners. Using a technology called “Pico Cells”, the system will work as a link between the airliner and ground towers. According to the press release, it is currently impossible to connect by cell phone in a plane that is above 4,000 feet.
During the Republican National Convention in New York City last month, Deena Burnett, widow of Flight 93 victim Tom Burnett, spoke of the four telephone calls she received from her husband aboard the doomed airliner on September 11th, all of which were received from his cell phone, one of which lasted 13 minutes.
With the FAA statement that Flight 93 never went below 29,000 feet until its’ sudden fatal plunge, these two stories seem to be mutually exclusive. Either it is possible to make cell phone calls from a commercial jetliner in flight at cruising altitude - or it isn’t.
If it is already possible to use a cell phone on a plane, why is Qualcomm so excited about their Pico chip? If it is not possible to do so, there’s an even bigger problem.
Because there are no survivors of any of the 911 planes, the only “eyewitness” testimony we have is the paraphrased transcripts of phone calls made to family members. This is where we get the descriptions of “Arab looking men” with knives and box cutters, talking about “Allah”. It is from these calls we hear the immortal and heroic “Let’s roll!”.
(for the rest of the story…)
Posted by GhostRabbit on Dec 23, 2005 at 11:03 AM There is much more wrong with the stories of the phone calls, but this is certainly more grill for the mist. Rabbit has read speculation about how the cell phones worked at the altitudes before, and there are a seriees of descrepancies with the information given on these calls.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Dec 23, 2005 at 11:11 AM I’m pleased to see that these editors @ ITT have taken a stand on the side of what I believe to be common sense and simple reality.
I’m disappointed, however, that their article was somewhat short on specifics, and left both believers in bombs and believers in pancakes frustrated. I would hope that they might choose to expand on their conclusions in a future article of longer length and depth. I think it’s important not to allow a false notion like this to take root, especially one that serves to effectively exonerate the true villains of 9/11, and shamefully and without any direct evidence point the finger of blame in the opposite direction.
I guess I can understand the tendency of some to sympathize with and excuse the terrorists, and look for reasons why they felt they had to fly planes into our buildings. But to jump from there to saying things like “the hijackers are still alive”, and “the U.S. government orchestrated the whole event” is taking a huge leap of logic.
My introduction to the 9/11 “truth” movement came as a result of discovering that Doug Rokke and his fellow traveler Lauren Monet of depleted uranium fame both believed that a missile hit the pentagon on 9/11 instead of, or perhaps in addition to, the Boeing aircraft, which of course raised additional questions in my mind about their judgment, credibility and choice of sources of information. Although I was aware that there were a few websites promoting this missile theory, I hadn’t at the time heard about the towers and explosives.
But of course it’s hard to miss once you enter the world of “whatreallyhappened”, and all the dozens of other sites promoting and I’m sure profiting greatly from this hoax.
Unfortunately, there’s been precious little effort expended to counter this landslide, one reason being I suspect is that precious few people are even aware it exists. After all, aside from an appearance on CSPAN by David Griffin, and a short segment featuring Steven E. Jones on “The Situation” with Tucker Carlson on MSNBC, there’s been virtually no mention of bombs in buildings and missiles in pentagons by the old fashioned conventional media.
I think there’s a very simple and good reason for this. No, not a cover-up, not intimidation, not fear. The simple fact is that there’s no real evidence. There’s no conclusive pictures like the ones from Abu Ghraib, there’s no documents, like the Rather memos, and there’s no direct testimony to the plot, like in Watergate, only varying recollections of sounds of bombs.
The above reminds us of the press’s eagerness to jump all over a story that will damage a president, and his efforts in war, even half knowing that documents were fake, in one instance.
What greater story to do such damage than revealing that we in effect manufactured the events of 9/11, and thereby our response?
Well there is one small site that I think does a pretty good job of addressing many of the claims of the “truth” movement one at at time. One section takes on David Griffin:
Amongst all those who suggest some kind of clandestine US Government involvement in the events of 9/11, none have had quite as much attention as David Ray Griffin. This respected professor of Philosophy and Theology isn’t an obvious conspiracy theorist, after all. His second book on this issue, “The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions”, in particular has attracted some glowing reviews:
Posted by Natalie on Dec 23, 2005 at 11:53 AM Dear Natalie,
Your reputation proceeds you—well.
Thanks for pointing out a grave mistake i’d made. In my last long post above i actually chose to omit reference to 9/11 Myth’s page you justly lauded, the Omissions and Distortions (of Griffin’s 2004 year-end book, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions).
I’d passed ITT’s 4,000-character post limit and had to cut something. I chose to cut that one because a skim of it showed it only covers two (classes?) of the O/Ds Griffin discusses in this book and elsewhere:
01. whether the some of the 9/11 executive terrorists claimed dead are still alive or not, and,
02. whether the one who supposed flew a 747 crop-duster style through such a nice little whole in a largely vacant reinforced concrete wing of the Pentagon leaving almost no debris could fly well enough to do that or not.That choice was largely made because the 9/11 Myths O/D page is so brief and later reports by or about Griffin’s 9/11CommRep O/Ds cover several more these that are more persuasive than the two covered by 9/11 Myths. And all these later reports are listed at Global Research Canada’s 9/11 pages.
The most relevant of these, to what you just discussed, seem to be these—only parts of which i’ve finished reading:
01. The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571 Page Lie by Dr David Ray Griffin, September 8, 2005, which lists 115 of O/Ds Griffin charges against the 9/11 Comm Rep;
02. The 9/11 Commission’s Incredible Tales - Flights 11, 175, 77, and 93, by David Ray Griffin, December 13, 2005, a lecture summarizing “the second half of the book, which deals with the Commission’s explanation as to why the US military was unable to intercept any of the hijacked airplanes.”
<continued in next post>
AD.2005.Dec.23.23:13.ICT—who’s crossing his fingers over all the URLs embedded herein.
Posted by AD Marshall on Dec 23, 2005 at 5:16 PM <continued from previous post>
That confessed and clarified, i want to say that, so far, i also have not seen any significant evidence directly implicating the Bush Admin, US security services or anyone else of an “inside job”.
I do, however, find that the evidence i’ve seen so far, along with other acts of the US government over the last several decades, does incite a very strong suspicion in me that it could well have been an inside job and the 9/11 Commission was a cover-up.
Given what little i’ve read so far as an admitted neophyte in this controversy, this is a suspicion, a hypothesis, i firmly believe should be widespread and widely, publicly and thoroughly tested.
But, as you’ve pointed out, “precious few people are even aware it [the 9/11 Truth Movement] exists”, because there’s been “precious little effort” by “the old fashioned conventional media”, because “there’s no real evidence”, “no direct testimony to the plot”.
But the mainstream press should not be waiting for “real evidence” or “direct testimony to the plot” to investigate and air the issues publicly.
Just as the press should not wait for the completion of either government or peer reviews of dangerous medicines or scientific deceptions before reporting concerns, even from anonymous source, about their potential harm, an effective responsible press cannot wait for legally sufficient evidence before reporting reports of dangerous wrongdoings by the current Admin, even if those reports.
So why is it that precious few folks, especially US folks, are not even aware of the 9/11 Truth Movement or its highly visible, widespread reports and the mainstream media continues to provide precious little coverage?
Griffin himself likely does more justice to the question than i could and anyone interested in his views on as much can be read in 9/11 and the Mainstream Press by Dr. David Ray Griffin, 02 August 2005, Address given at the National Press Club, July 22, 2005, at the website of the Interfaith Communities United for Justice and Peace.
AD.2005.Dec.23.23:13.ICT
Posted by AD Marshall on Dec 23, 2005 at 5:17 PM Editing fork-ups as usual:
“Just as the press should not wait for the completion of either government or peer reviews of dangerous medicines or scientific deceptions before reporting concerns, even from anonymous source, about their potential harm, an effective responsible press cannot wait for legally sufficient evidence before reporting reports of dangerous wrongdoings by the current Admin, even if those reports.”
—should read—
Just as the press should not wait for the completion of either government or peer reviews of dangerous medicines or scientific deceptions before reporting concerns (even from anonymous sources) about their potential harm, an effective responsible press cannot wait for legally sufficient evidence before reporting reports of dangerous wrongdoings by the current Admin.
Posted by AD Marshall on Dec 23, 2005 at 5:22 PM Rabbit proudly introduces, our in-house spokesperson for the criminal Junta.
Natalie, the sublime.
Come on Natty, tell them how Griffin is an LSD freak.
Tell them how Prof Astenah cannot be trusted because he’s from Berkely. Oh but of course when you realised Astenah said something you thought you could use, he was reliable again, the rabbit forgot.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Dec 23, 2005 at 6:12 PM Now folks, Rabbit knows Nat the Bat. She has a couple of rules which you should be aware of. These rules form a sort of handicap, and as you get to know Natty you will understand why she needs a handicap start.
First if Natty can find anything, an anonymous report or a government report or something even less credible, it is to be counted as a complete refutation of anything which was said before that. Henceforth anything you wrote previous to that point vanishes forever.
Secondly, any source you use, which is anti the US admin, or anti-Bush, is null and void by that very fact. Natalie will not accept any source, any person as a witness unless they are pro-Bush. Only if they Love and trust Dubya, can anthing they say about anything be trusted. Of course if they support any part of the official story, that is qualification in itself and their political leanings have obviously got no bearing.
Now it’s true that this does seem a trifle weighted in the Bat’s favour, but as you get to know her, this should become understandable. She still struggles, especially in the case of Highly Scientific facts like Gravity, which you can forget about talking about unless you are a Physics Professor. Natty is not an engineer or scientist, and she doesn’t believe you are. It is not for mere mortals to understand such complex business of how things fall down.
Don’t tell Natty that Kerosene cannot soften Steel, you don’t know that THIS kerosene didn’t soften THIS steel do you?
The FISA report said it did, so that is proof anyway, right Nat?
Natty said:
I’m pleased to see that these editors @ ITT have taken a stand on the side of what I believe to be common sense and simple reality.
It hasn’t escaped anybody’s notice that the editors at ITT have crapped themselves. This article is the most woefully inadequate piece of Ad hominem rant ITT has ever printed, maybe. It is sad, it is pathetic and it is desperate. It is a piece of drivel, there are no facts, nothing about the issues which led to the conclusions that Griffin was wrong about anything, which by the way he isn’t , nobody is refuting the facts which are what Griffin presents. The facts alone are enough for anyone of moderate educational background to make their own conclusions, as they are doing in droves.
Common sense is normally marked by being logical and rational. Ad hominen and Innuendo is therefore nether common sense nor reality unless you mean the reality of towing the official line out of fear or ignorance.
Which is it ITT? Are you fearful or ignorant? Or both?
By the way something Natty once said about this site, is nagging at the Rabbit’s memory. He’ll share it privately for now with any who are interested, you know where. But it makes this article rather an interesting issue to press home and find out what is going on at this place. Something is rotten in Rome.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Dec 23, 2005 at 6:36 PM That 911 myths page Nattyy posted is garbage. The issue of the planes’ altitudes is not in doubt Natty. The official reports said very clearly that the flight 93 Never went below 29,000 feet, until it came down. Now Natty you can either accept the FAA report or not. But if you are going to selectively believe the report, then are we not also entitled to doubt the report as we see fit?
Actually Natty, there can be no doubt about the altitudes, there are a number of reasons, not least of which is ground radar and it is recorded, and the Blackboxes, which were recovered. The above article makes it pretty clear that the cell phones could not have worked. There has only ever been claims about cellphones so changing the official facts just to fit the criticicism is rather transaprent don’t you think?
A reading of the 911 myths site sjhows it to be rubbish.
It is actually quite a funny little site. It is begging so many questions and making guesses while saying things like this:
But most importantly, all the planes had their own built-in airphone system, which would have no problems working at altitude (that’s what they’re for). If mobiles wouldn’t work, then doesn’t it make sense that passengers would use the phone by their seat instead? Yes, it does:
“Flight 11 attendant Betty Ong calls Vanessa Minter, an American Airlines reservations agent in North Carolina, using a seatback GTE Airfone from the back of the plane”.
www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&day_ _of_911=aa11This doesn’t satisfy everyone, though. Why? Because some press reports specifically say that a mobile was used. Here’s an example:
“At around the same time, the hijackers on flight 175 had taken control. Five minutes later, Peter Hanson, 32, a software executive travelling with his wife and two-year-old daughter, telephoned his parents in Connecticut on his mobile. Hurriedly he told the elderly couple of the knifings and the hijacking”.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/09/16/watt16.xmlThe problem with relying on a story like this is we don’t know if the reporter verified it. Did he really try to find out whether Hanson used a mobile, or an Airfone? We don’t think so, because it makes no difference to the story he’s telling at all. And a sentence later in the same story confirms this:
The problem with saying this is that it is begging the question, real researchers try to verify facts and not say things like “who knows?” and “Don’t think so” about facts which can be easily looked into. Actually the article tries to assume as questionable certain facts which were in the offiical report. Anyone who wants to see the paucity of the case against the truth movement should compare sites like those apologist sites Natty uses and the real research sites which abound.
This acceptance of whatever suits them while ignoring anything contra, is familiar. Actually it is easy to see why Natty thinks Muwwakkil wrote a good article. It is her idea of a well researched and reasoned argument against the torchbearers of truth.
It is alos easy to see why Natty would love such a site as 911 myths. Unfortunately it doesn’t stand up to any scrutiny. By copying the format of well researched articles about 911, which show the lies, the 911 myth site tries to give the impression of being a serious research site, but an examination of the content will soon show it is as hollow as the hearts of the scumsuckers who were responsible for 911.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Dec 23, 2005 at 6:57 PM Wiley, you forgot the = sign ....
I fixed it for you : 9/11 wargames - no coincidence
Andi, you learned fast. Great posts by the way.
Posted by David in Canada on Dec 23, 2005 at 6:59 PM One thing I noticed about the 9/11 myths page (and Natalie’s arguments) is that well thought out and plausible speculations are countered with over-simplified and merely possible speculations. For example; the still photo of the initial moments of one tower’s collapse showing debris falling below the destruction zone presented as a rebuttal of the free-fall hypothesis based on measuring and comparing multiple videos of the event.
My intuitive reaction is they really don’t have anything or they aren’t really trying. Or maybe they just aren’t that smart.
One physical argument that I haven’t seen except obliquely, is this:
Assuming that the collapse wasn’t caused by controlled explosions;
Given that the force imparted to the falling towers was directed equally to both the upper and lower blocks of the buildings in accordance to the rule of conservation of energy;
Given that the upper stories were built lighter and less rigid than the lower stories;
Would not the upper floors have been demolished and all their mg energy consumed in the process well before the collapse proceeded all the way to ground level?
Posted by luminous beauty on Dec 23, 2005 at 7:15 PM OK, that’s it. David, et al, there’s a big difference between knowing HTML and what bits of HTML can be plugged into ITT’s web-form interface and how.
Take a look at the front page and/or source code of http://h0lug.sourceforge.net. That was all coded from scratch, by hand, via <a >vim</a>, by yours ever so humbly and true. Could that be done by someone who’s not very good at HTML/CSS?
Anyone else here know how to code HTML via vim, hmm?
Nyah… <smirk>
But, really, no big deal. Just got tired of the HTML-howto posts.
Posted by AD Marshall on Dec 23, 2005 at 7:28 PM is that a foot in my mouth? forgot a quotation mark. gad, what a pain…
Posted by AD Marshall on Dec 23, 2005 at 7:31 PM Natty ofetn says ironic things like she knew nothing about 911 until she found out that Rokke apparently supported the missile hit pentagon theory. From that point on she has been a completely committed Shill for the official lie, ad never varied from the script once. She has referred to every one of the (admittedly few) official propaganda sites and she has performed familiar mental contortions to try and make it all hang together.
Fascinating how she goes from a casual contact with a subject for the first time to a complete hell for leather shilling on behalf of the offical line about the subject.
Recognisable of course. You see she had never heard of Doug Rokke before sher came into casual contact with Depleted uranium as an issue. Oh no, Natty knew nothing about this DU stuff, but from her next post on she was shilling at 100 mph, side by side with an outed, proven Pentagon Shill, Lt Col Roger Helbig.
This is designed to show how the evidence for the official story is so strong, that an innocent wide eyed girl like Natty who being previously unknowledgeable about something becomes completely convinced by the inestimable case for the official theories.
Oddly it doesn’t seem to have the same effect on anybody else. In fact even trolls soon pull away from her, she stinks too bad even for them.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Dec 23, 2005 at 7:36 PM Anybody here a Cabinet Secretary of the US Administration, a US Military Officer with a Rank of Brigadier General or a higher, present or a former Director of the FBI, CIA or NSA, or a US Senator or Congressional Leader?
If so, you’re eligible to win US$50,000,000 for any 9/11 Conspiracy Proof you might have!!!
How so?
December 7, 2005
WhatDoesItMean.Com today announces that we are offering a reward of $50,000,000.00 (fifty-million dollars) to any present or former United States Government Public or Military Official having direct knowledge and verifiable proof that the events of September 11, 2001 were not caused by Islamic Terrorists.
Only those sorts of folks listed above are eligible to claim this reward.
Whaddya think folks? Credible? Potentially effective? Baiting suicidable whistleblowers? Or what?
Posted by AD Marshall on Dec 23, 2005 at 7:38 PM LB, one thing Griffin points out: the WTC’s infrastructure included 47 massive steel pylons or towers or something like that. And according to 3rd party “expert” info, those would have been pretty danged hard to take down with anything less than purpose-built blasts at their bases.
Posted by AD Marshall on Dec 23, 2005 at 7:48 PM Natty
I’m disappointed, however, that their article was somewhat short on specifics
Natty, the rabbit is surprised at you, this article is as specific and well researched as anything you’ve ever presented. It’s quite typical of the official response as evidenced by your usual postings. In fact your own posting above is remarkably similar in style and argument as Muwwakkil. You are being ironic aren’t you? You think it’s a great piece of work and you’ve already added it to your favorites. You’ll be quoting it on some other site, as Proof that Griffin and Jones are crazy.
Natty
Unfortunately, there’s been precious little effort expended to counter this landslide, one reason being I suspect is that precious few people are even aware it exists.
Actually the US Junta in power, has spent billions of dollars trying to counter the 911 truth movement, and you are almost certainly being paid out of that expenditure.
There has also been phenomenal pressure put on various media outlets not to run certain stories, and there is the obvious and telling fact that anybody who stands up and speaks out, is villified unmercifully, as we predicted Jones would be when he naievely stood up and told the truth as if he believed America cares. We predicted he would be crucified, and he has been.
Griffin was never questioned as a man of intelligence and principle. Once he stood up and told the truth as he saw it, he was and is being crucified, and this pissy liitle “Hit Piece”, so typical of the mindlessness which dominates Mainstream American Punditry, is living proof that it is happening. here another person writing a headless rant and attacking people as being less than honest or intelligent, merely because they don’t believe a story which cannot stand up to theory or historical examination. Here it is an article which says NOTHING, because there is nothing to say, there are no specifics to go into Natty, just like you avoid the specifics, SPECIFICS are what makes your fairytale mythical conspiracy theory fall apart.
The fact that the 911 truth is relatively unknown is relevant, because almost everybody who is aware of it, knows it is so. Those who believe the offical lie, mostly only do so, because they haven’t heard the alternative views. When they do hear these, most people see the truth very clearly. Only this week Rabbit has introduced another dozen or so people to this truth. A couple of these are so fired up now they are sending rabbit e-mails and becoming quite active. This is good because one of these people is involved with a Christian Democratic political party which is quite influential in our state. He is an activist and well connected in a circle not normally frequented by rabbits. Another of Rabbit’s “scores” this week was a truck driver, who delivers from the depot. This means he is central to many other long haul drivers. He gets time to talk to the other drivers all day long, and guess what is his main area of interest now?
Yes Natty the numbers who know yet are minimal, but the simple fact is that most of those who have not yet heard, will eventually, and it is easy to see that eventually most people are going to know the truth.
Your lies are a spider under a rock, the rock is being lifted, slowly and bit by bit everyone will see the spider.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Dec 23, 2005 at 8:00 PM Just trying to add a little more implausibility to the pancake hypothesis/fantasy.
Posted by luminous beauty on Dec 23, 2005 at 8:08 PM Hi Andi, Rabbit never doubted your ability, that was obvious, and it was equally apparent that it was the site’s posibilities you were still finding out about. He was being facetious when he said “You’re not very good at it are you?”
Rabbit hasn’t found any more than the four main ones., i, b, a and blockquote. I think I got lists and Bullets to work once. Other than that, Rabbit was only pointing out that the comment boxes mangle the urls at line’s end.
Dave is right though it doesn’t if it’s inside the code.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Dec 23, 2005 at 8:09 PM From a NON PROFIT Site:
What if:
The Twin Towers were not hit by commercial airliners?The World Trade Center was brought down in a controlled demolition?
The Pentagon was not hit by a 757?
Flight 93 was shot down?
What if?
2nd EDITION TRAILERS on the site…
Loose Change 2nd Edition, with updated information and evidence:
Three years after September 11th, the American People are left with more questions than answers. This documentary addresses those questions, as well as providing the evidence necessary to begin answering them. From the phony bin Laden tape to the lack of a 757 at the Pentagon, Loose Change wraps everything up into an hour of solid evidence.
Time to wake up:
CLICK HERE
http://www.tvnewslies.org/cart/view_product.php?product=LOOAAY0J8
Posted by skipper7 on Dec 23, 2005 at 8:18 PM The physics involved doesn’t require a degree. All you need to know is Newton’s Third Law: for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Posted by luminous beauty on Dec 23, 2005 at 8:19 PM Andi
The 50,000,000 may be a sly way of discrediting the truth movement?
Since they have no other sort of case, they need imaginative ideas like this to give some sort of impression that the Lie is the only truth. Just an idea, Rabbit is suspicious. It may follow on from that Millionaire dude who was offering a Million dollars to anyone who could prove the buildings collapsed as claimed by the Junta. This certainly had the effect of discrediting the official lie, and rightly so.
This 50 million won’t be claimed and by standing thus it gives an impression that there is nobody with anything.
Obviously the specific limitations put on who can apply is suspect.
Who is to say that a low ranking person may not have the crucial evidence? I’d say that has been worded to only include those people they feel sure they can trust.
yes it does seem like it could be used to flush anyone out.
BTW, Rabbit doesn’t exactly trust WhatDoesitMean, can’t explain why just yet, and it may just be paranoia.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Dec 23, 2005 at 8:24 PM Hi Lume, Natty doesn’t understand Newton’s Laws, she isn’t a lawyer either!
hee hee.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Dec 23, 2005 at 8:30 PM Rabbit is offering $1, 000,000,000 for any one who can prove that George W Bush lied about anything and who is a three legged Eskimo Dwarf, with a Law degree and a park named after him.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Dec 23, 2005 at 8:34 PM Time is up. Nobody claimed One Billion dollars, for proof that Dubya lies. This seems to show there is no proof that GWB lies, so let us hear no more talk of it.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Dec 23, 2005 at 9:17 PM Rabbit is off to the beach for a week. Happy and safe Christmas to all. Hope everyone gets what they want for Christmas.
Especially Natalie. Rabbit hopes Natty gets some DU from Santa
Posted by GhostRabbit on Dec 24, 2005 at 1:15 AM There is really no particularly special knowledge necessary to see through the bull. Like Rabbit said, they didn’t really try to cover up their tracks and they were sloppy. But this talk sends me skipping down memory lane.
In a hotel in the U.S. midwest, in the early eighties, a set of three bridges collapsed, one on top of the other, killing the couple of hundred people who were mingling on the bridges while attending the gala opening of this hotel. Bam, bam, bam. I heard this story from a fellow worker—-we had been swapping when your number is up stories.
Years later it occurred to me to ask my (then) husband who had a master’s in civil engineering if he knew anything about it. He had indeed studied it in a class. In order to save money, the builder ran the bridge cables straight up inside the walls to connect them to the ceiling to save cable instead of weaving the cables back and fourth through every floor until anchoring them into the ceiling.
Is there anyone out there who doesn’t understand why that didn’t work? I was amazed that the bridges held that long. It’s kind of spooky that they did wait for people before collapsing.
Posted by wileywitch on Dec 24, 2005 at 7:17 AM continued from 1:17
That builder went to prison. There should be a lot of civil engineers studying 9/11, but the evidence was removed so that there is nothing to study. How convenient.
Does anyone here want to declare that they don’t get this because they aren’t a physicist, a civil engineer, an architect, or a person who once fell off of a swing set?
Too shy to speak up? Try a thought experiment. Imagine that you are standing straight and tall and that your feet are bolted to the floor. Imagine a robotic arm with a hand full of napalm punching through your chest and then igniting. Can you imagine your body, with it’s skeleton, muscles, organs, and flesh dropping straight down into a pile of consistently fine dust, with none of your body so much as spattering a person three feet away?
The only thing you have to do to believe that those planes caused all three buildings to collapse like that is to be in denial and lie to yourself. The only thing you have to know to know that those planes didn’t cause the buildings to collapse like that is to kick a stack of dominoes.
Posted by wileywitch on Dec 24, 2005 at 7:53 AM preface: Don’t get me wrong—-I think it’s important to examine all evidence (that’s left) and take apart the legend of 9/11 for the sake of truth, history, and prosecution.
I would, however, like to point out that even if you start with the assumption that it was executed by 19 mideastern hijackers with no assistance of any kind (which would include looking the other way, the president—-who trumpets his role as commander-in-chief and tries to pass himself off as a pilot—- was completely derelict in his duty as commander in chief before, during, and after 9/11.
More on that and the trifecta later.
How did it get so late? Have to rest up for celebrating being alive tomorrow with friends.
BTW Lumens, thanks for the egregious-es. It’s still in—-seen it five or six times this week. I’ll throw in my dad’s that was an egregious ham and cheese casserole and tie one on tomorrow.
Cheers
Posted by wileywitch on Dec 24, 2005 at 8:25 AM Encouraging, if not convincing:
Do you believe President Bush’s actions justify impeachment? * 142201 responses
Yes, between the secret spying, the deceptions leading to war and more, there is plenty to justify putting him on trial.
85%
No, like any president, he has made a few missteps, but nothing approaching “high crimes and misdemeanors.”
5%
No, the man has done absolutely nothing wrong. Impeachment would just be a political lynching.
8%
I don’t know.
2%Not a scientifically valid survey
Posted by AD Marshall on Dec 24, 2005 at 1:55 PM Oops. Here’s the link: MSN Live Vote: Should Bush be Impeached?
Posted by AD Marshall on Dec 24, 2005 at 2:02 PM Interestingly, 361 votes were added between my first post on this survey and this one—excluding my second vote. <smirk> That’s about 36 votes per minute.
Posted by AD Marshall on Dec 24, 2005 at 2:06 PM Other interesting aspects of the MSN poll:
* it’s MSNBC, not CounterPunch, VillageVoice, etc; it’s mainstream
* it’s not easy to find from either the MSNBC front page or the Politics section under which appears
* 545 votes in 45 minutes or 12 votes a minute at AD.2005.Dec.24.20:40.ICTHope this makes for a Merrier Xmas for y’all—it does for me.
Posted by AD Marshall on Dec 24, 2005 at 2:43 PM 911TrueStory.com has the references.
THANK YOU SALIM for your excellent article. FINALLY someone is bringing the spotlight to bear on these critical questions.
I found a web site that contains a video of David Griffin discussing his latest book, and also his paper that focuses on Building 7. The paper is titled “The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True”. The web site also contains the latest scientific analysis of BYU physics professor Dr. Steven Jones, and several excellent videos on this topic.
To see these, go to 911TrueStory.com
Posted by martymartin on Dec 24, 2005 at 3:03 PM Thanks Marty. That’s one reference i couldn’t get to because their hosting service is blocked by Vietnam’s firewalls. (I had to go to an overseas BSD shell account to download it.)
There are also several other references, some more recent from Griffin in this extended discussion, above.
Also, just wondering: did you notice Muwakkil concludes his article arguing against Griffin’s credibility
Posted by AD Marshall on Dec 24, 2005 at 3:39 PM I’ve given a mis-reference on 9/11 and the mainstream media that i’d like to correct.
I concluded a post above (AD Marshall on Dec 23, 2005 at 11:17 AM) with the question “So why is it that precious few folks, especially US folks, are not even aware of the 9/11 Truth Movement or its highly visible, widespread reports and the mainstream media continues to provide precious little coverage?”
I referred to a lecture by Dr DR Griffin on the issue, 9/11 and the Mainstream Press, as a potential source for answers.
But that lecture actually does little more than list instances of major 9/11 issues the mainstream media has ignored instead of trying to answer the hows or whys of the issue.
A recent report “Daou Report” at Salon, however, does what i think is an excellent job of answering the hows and whys: The Dynamic of a Bush Scandal: How the Spying Story Will Unfold (and Fade), AD.2005.Dec.20.
Daou proposes an elegantly tongue-in-cheek 10-stage lifecycle of time-tested Bush Admin media management tactics. Well worth a read.
No. 6: “Left-leaning bloggers and online activists go ballistic, expressing their all-too-familiar combination of outrage at Bush and frustration that nothing ever seems to happen with these scandals. Several newspaper editorials echo these sentiments but quickly move on to other issues.”
Almost makes you want to move in to a pagoda, no?
AD.2005.Dec.25.01:01.ICT - Santa’s SubVersElf
Season’s Greetings Guy’s & Gals from SaiGon!
Posted by AD Marshall on Dec 24, 2005 at 7:05 PM My Xmas gift to ITT and y’all:
AD.2005.Dec.25.01:01.ICT - Of 144,682 votes at MSN, 85% (still) want Bush impeached (an average 7.8 votes per minute since 19:55.ICT).
Nitol(tm)
Posted by AD Marshall on Dec 24, 2005 at 7:14 PM Then again, Google’s 2005 Year-end Zeitgeist probably also goes a long way to explaining how the mass media and masses could be so uninformative and ill-informed:
Google.com - Top Gainers of 2005
1. Myspace
2. Ares
3. Baidu
4. wikipedia
5. orkut
6. iTunes
7. Sky News
8. World of Warcraft
9. Green Day
10. Leonardo da Vinci
Google News - Top Searches in 2005
1. Janet Jackson
2. Hurricane Katrina
3. tsunami
4. xbox 360
5. Brad Pitt
6. Michael Jackson
7. American Idol
8. Britney Spears
9. Angelina Jolie
10. Harry Potter
Posted by AD Marshall on Dec 24, 2005 at 7:27 PM Hey, hey, hey! There’s the ticket, folks!
9/11 TYPHOON TSUNAMI TRUTH D.C.
An anti-conspiratorial musical spectacular starring Brad Pitt and Angela Jolie in a Potteresque portrayal of God’s mercurial surfers as they ride the pipelines of a typhoon-powered tsunami to deliver the Truth of 9/11 onto Capital Hill, boogy-woogyin’ all the way to the beat of Janet and Jacko, feat Britney Spears!!!
Shooka-shooka do-wop dee-wop… Miss it at your peril.
An <a >Infinitum Nihil</a> AD.2006 Production
Get the XBox Gamer Edition, too!
Posted by AD Marshall on Dec 24, 2005 at 7:46 PM something busyin you folks? mighty quiet here.
<smirk>watch the stress, ladies and gent’s. it’s only xmas after all….
Posted by AD Marshall on Dec 24, 2005 at 7:51 PM Hi Ad,
It usually gets quiet on weekends. Christmas Eve and all, I would expect it will be very quiet here for a couple days.
No stress here :) I just got back from visiting my parents for breakfast and taking the dog for a walk. Settling in for a quiet afternoon now, expecting a couple friends to visit.
Merry Christmas everyone.
Posted by David in Canada on Dec 24, 2005 at 9:04 PM Merry Christmas, Andi! I’m waiting for my friends to wake up and gear up for celebrating. Missed a celebration yesterday because another friend was coughing madly-badly. We’re hoping for a not-raining Christmas.
To show the poll questions:
Yes, between the secret spying, the deceptions leading to war and more, there is plenty to justify putting him on trial.
85%No, like any president, he has made a few missteps, but nothing approaching “high crimes and misdemeanors.”
5%No, the man has done absolutely nothing wrong. Impeachment would just be a political lynching.
8%I don’t know.
2%I will have to chew on the phrasing here for a while. At first glance it I’d say that it is slyly attitudinal, and would be more representative if it had simply asked for ‘yea’ and ‘nay’ and ‘I don’t know’. Still I like the 85%.
As far as the top searches goes, remember that it’s Google and that children and teens use the web, though there are certainly a lot of celebrity worshipping semi-literate adults in U.S. culture. Maybe they’re mostly looking at the pictures.
Take heart, news sites on the web are getting more customers and television news crowds are dropping like flies.
Posted by wileywitch on Dec 24, 2005 at 9:08 PM I use AlltheWeb.com. It has a couple of paid sites listed at the top, and the rest are ranked according to hits.
Posted by wileywitch on Dec 24, 2005 at 9:10 PM I did what was probably the wise thing and went to bed.
Thanks for the notes, David, Wiley. Sounds healthy and nice. Here, the Xmas celebrations peak on the Eve with hoards of young folks crusing the streets on motorbikes. (VietNam is 80% under 40 years of age.)
Wiley, the only number that’s changed on the MSN poll since my first post has been the total votes. It may well be the MSN polling system is busted.
But you’re probably right, David, about it being justly vacant here for a couples days. And it may well make sense to pack this thread in, if only as a sign of goodwill to the christian crew.
Being homebound, i’ll probably check in here, but i’m not expecting much.
All the very best to you and yours, folks, for the holiday season and all the rest of the days of each year.
Posted by AD Marshall on Dec 24, 2005 at 11:35 PM Hmm, just checked out alltheweb.com on “9-11 wtc”. It did indeed provide a good set of alternate initial hits compared to Google. I’ll have to try both for while. Thx, Wiley.
Posted by AD Marshall on Dec 24, 2005 at 11:50 PM Barron’s: Congress Should Consider Impeacment…, THOMAS G. DONLAN | December 24, 2005 at 11:33 AM.
Is the ground swelling?
Posted by AD Marshall on Dec 25, 2005 at 12:50 AM Does the official version of the World Trade Center collapse make sense? Was it due to a controlled demolition?
The official version of events, and alternatives are available at
911TrueStory.com
From The Destruction of the World Trade Center:Why the Official Account Cannot Be True
By David Ray Griffin -No Prior Collapse Induced by Fire.
The official theory is rendered implausible by two major problems. The first is the simple fact that fire has never—-prior to or after 9/11—-caused steel-frame high-rise buildings to collapse. Defenders of the official story seldom if ever mention this simple fact. Indeed, the supposedly definitive report put out by NIST—-the National Institute for Standards and Technology (2005)—-even implies that fire-induced collapses of large steel-frame buildings are normal events (Hoffman, 2005). [4] Far from being normal, however, such collapses have never occurred, except for the alleged cases of 9/11.
Defenders of the official theory, of course, say that the collapses were caused not simply by the fire but the fire combined with the damage caused by the airliners. The towers, however, were designed to withstand the impact of airliners about the same size as Boeing 767s. [5] Hyman Brown, the construction manager of the Twin Towers, said: “They were over-designed to withstand almost anything, including hurricanes, . . . bombings and an airplane hitting [them]” (Bollyn, 2001). And even Thomas Eagar, an MIT professor of materials engineering who supports the official theory, says that the impact of the airplanes would not have been significant, because “the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure” (Eagar and Musso, 2001, pp. 8-11). Likewise, the NIST Report, in discussing how the impact of the planes contributed to the collapse, focuses primarily on the claim that the planes dislodged a lot of the fire-proofing from the steel. [6]
The official theory of the collapse, therefore, is essentially a fire theory, so it cannot be emphasized too much that fire has never caused large steel-frame buildings to collapse—-never, whether before 9/11, or after 9/11, or anywhere in the world on 9/11 except allegedly New York City—-never.
One might say, of course, that there is a first time for everything, and that a truly extraordinary fire might induce a collapse. Let us examine this idea. What would count as an extraordinary fire? Given the properties of steel, a fire would need to be very hot, very big, and very long-lasting. But the fires in the towers did not have even one of these characteristics, let alone all three.
For more, and to see the videos, go to
Posted by martymartin on Dec 25, 2005 at 5:40 AM Ashamed to admit that I’m starting to doubt the official 9/11 explanations if indeed the government has this kind of ability and obviously it wasn’t utilized that day. Why not? And why no mention of it in the commission report, or the NIST report for that matter?
It all starts with the NORAD radar system called the North Warning System. This powerful radar system has 47 installations strung across…...
Posted by Natalie on Dec 25, 2005 at 10:03 AM Welcome back Natalie. Glad you didn’t let one animal’s excesses put you off. It’s also awfully big of you to make such a post.
Though have to admit i’ve yet to clearly understand the details of NORAD’s role in the affair, i do remember reading somewhere something to the effect that the US (if not North Am’) radar and air-traffic systems were distracted on 9/11 by a pre-planned war game and that Cheney (or Rumsfield, always mix them up) was presiding over the games.
The games were actually said to be simulating planes being hijacked and used to hit buildings. And though he (Cheney or Rumsfield) claimed to have arrived too late to do anything, other witnesses said he was there and in command well before the WTC and Pentagon hits took place.
I’ll try look up specific sources, later.
Cheers,
Andi
Posted by AD Marshall on Dec 25, 2005 at 10:39 AM Boxing Day Rhubarb?
David in Canadada, et al, what do you think? Are Canux like Zwicker OTT or still in the pale?
rhubarb, def’n 3, argument; OTT, over the top; pale, def’n 1.3+, range of acceptable acts.
In America: The Fourth Reich, Global Outlook, Issue No. 6, Winter 2004, Barry Zwicker compares the Hitler and Bush Admins against the Collins English Dictionary’s 6 attributes defining fascism, plus 2. The comparison, as you might expect, is not flattering.
Full yarn: http://www.newsgateway.ca/America_The_Fourth_Reich.htm
AD.2005.Dec.25.20:33:45.ICT
Posted by AD Marshall on Dec 25, 2005 at 2:36 PM PS: This Canuk goes for “still in the pale” and ringing eerily true.
Posted by AD Marshall on Dec 25, 2005 at 2:41 PM “Not a scientifically valid survey”—not even an intuitively valid one.
The voting shares haven’t changed, even once, since my first post on this survey.
From http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904:
Do you believe President Bush’s actions justify impeachment? * 150110 responses
Yes, between the secret spying, the deceptions leading to war and more, there is plenty to justify putting him on trial.
85%No, like any president, he has made a few missteps, but nothing approaching “high crimes and misdemeanors.”
5%No, the man has done absolutely nothing wrong. Impeachment would just be a political lynching.
8%I don’t know.
2%AD.2005.Dec.25.20:48:45.ICT
Posted by AD Marshall on Dec 25, 2005 at 2:49 PM Nat, I had forgotten about NORAD’s Santa tracking capability. The Russians were surely behind on that one.
I believe it started in the late fifties. It was a public relations manuever, primarily aimed (doesn’t matter whether or not the pun was intended) at people in proximity to Cheyenne Mountain. ‘We track Santa is warm and fuzzy. ‘we are a primary target for multiple nuclear strikes’ is not.
Posted by wileywitch on Dec 25, 2005 at 8:47 PM Just FYI, Nat, NORAD beefed up to infrared satellites in the seventies. The radar system was saved as a back up. Don’t know if the phased array radar system is still in place.
Don’t care.
But Santa tracking requires radar. Rudolph’s nose is not bright enough to register with an infrared satellite, and there is no plume of fire behind Santa’s sleigh like there is behind rockets being launched or heat in the wake of any explosion.
Isn’t that funny? Really, what’s more funny than utter failure to protect the homeland? Those people jumping from the WTC? Your little joke was a real knee slapper, Nat. I just can’t stop laughing. Your joke was sooooooo funny, I forgot to laugh.
Later I’ll post one of our president’s jokes that’s almost as funny as you are.
Posted by wileywitch on Dec 25, 2005 at 11:49 PM No, i’ll leave y’all with a final reference i just discovered.
The Five Unanswered Questions About 9/11
James Ridgeway, 2005.Sep, Seven Stories PressDescription (from link above):
The 9/11 Commission Report is widely declared to be the definitive account of the most devastating attack ever to take place on American soil, but in truth the most vital questions about 9/11 have not been asked:
*Why wasn’t a decade of warnings and hundreds of previous deaths enough to improve airline security? Whose interests does the FAA really protect?
*Why was Dick Cheney running the country from a secret bunker on 9/11? Where was Donald Rumsfeld? And how did the Bush administration plot to use the attacks to advance their policy goals?
*With al-Qaeda firmly on the radar for years, why were the FBI and CIA, the world’s premier intelligence services, unable to see this coming?
What did ISI, the Pakistani intelligence organization, know, when did they know it, and whom did they tell? How did U.S. allies in the region help pave the way for these attacks?
*Why didn’t this “independent” commission find anyone accountable for more than 2,700 civilian deaths? Why are so many of their findings still classified?Which questions did they ask-and which did they ignore?
An ever-growing number of facts casts clouds of suspicion over the actions and motivations of many key government officials and agencies. The 5 Unanswered Questions cuts through the official accounts and political “spin” to the questions that lie at the heart of this American tragedy.
Currently the Washington correspondent for the Village Voice, James Ridgeway has authored over fifteen books and co-directed the films Blood in the Face and Feed. He has also written for Harper’s, The Economist, New York Times Magazine, The Nation, The New Republic, Parade, Ramparts, and The Wall Street Journal.
AD.2005.Dec.26.09:17.ICT
Posted by AD Marshall on Dec 26, 2005 at 3:17 AM Andi wrote:
The games were actually said to be simulating planes being hijacked and used to hit buildings. And though he (Cheney or Rumsfield) claimed to have arrived too late to do anything, other witnesses said he was there and in command well before the WTC and Pentagon hits took place. I’ll try look up specific sources, later.
I don’t think this is accurate, Andi. From reading two rather detailed accounts of the events on 9/11 at two NORAD facilities, it doesn’t appear that anything nefarious is going on within our ranks, but it is apparent that NORAD, and the country for that matter, was not on a footing that anticipated air-related attacks coming from within our borders.
I think the confusion about the games involving hijackers hitting buildings comes from the fact that NORAD had in the past conducted exercises involving a similar scenario involving aircraft entering from outside the country—not necessarily because it was something they thought likely to happen, but as a device to test their responses and communications between agencies under an unusual situation.
No, wiley, I don’t find it funny that people were murdered on 9/11. I do find it a little funny that people seem to think that our defensive agencies can magically pick out an aircraft with its transponder off amidst a busy matrix of early morning east coast traffic, and in the case of Flt. 11, that they’d instantly and intuitively know it was destined to become a weapon of war. It seems not far removed from believing in the ability of reindeer to fly.
Posted by Natalie on Dec 26, 2005 at 4:52 AM Thanks Natalie. If time permits, i’ll check out those links.
For now, i’m putting ITT discussions on the back-burner, largely because of the feuding apparently inherited from earlier threads.
That said, i’ll still watch out for constructive stories and posts.
Posted by AD Marshall on Dec 26, 2005 at 5:15 AM http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=norad&eve ents=on&entities=on&articles=on&topics=on&timelines=on&proje ects=on&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on&search;=+Go+
Yes, Nat. Been looking this up. Wasn’t aware that NORAD does have an active air traffic control/ radar set up in the Northeast. That makes them even more responsible, IMO.
Cut the “nobody imagined” crap. It doesn’t matter what they thought. All that mattered is what they did or did not do.
If handling traffic was too much for them then they didn’t make a very good career choice. Air traffic control has always been intense.
And nobody had to magically pick out an aircraft—-a blip without information from a transponder should stick out like a sore thumb.
Can you follow this, Nat:
There were aircraft in the air.
There were air traffic controllers who are always responsible for tracking aircraft that radar bounces off, leaving a “blip” or “paint” on radar screens.
Air traffic controllers are responsible for all the blips.
Always have been.
Always will be.
Nothing has to be conceived as a “weapon of war”, it only needs to show up on the screen with or without identification.
The aircraft did not have a cloaking device. An aircraft without the transponder on is a big, fat clue.
Do you think a Russian MIG would fly into our airspace with a transponder for easy identification?
The only thing complicated about this, is the excuses people are making. Last I heard, cluelessnes does not absolve any organization from responsibility for operational failure that results in death. If they can’t tell the difference between real-time and a scenario, then their sorry asses should have been sacked and someone somewhere in the chain of command (preferably high up) should have been charged with criminal negligence. A lack of imagination and vigilance is no defense. Literally.
And why do you think it’s funny, Nat. What do you know about air traffic control?
Posted by wileywitch on Dec 26, 2005 at 5:22 AM Perhaps I’ve been unclear, wiley. I didn’t necessarily mean to say that NORAD or the ATCers are beyond criticism and couldn’t have acted faster even operating under the mindset of that time. There were some agonizingly long delays in calling NORAD, for reasons unclear to me.
However, I believe it’s unreasonable to expect anyone, even the good folks at NORAD and the fine ATCers to perform flawlessly in the face of an unprecedented attack by unknown forces, both in terms of what they aimed specifically to do with the aircraft, and the extent to which the attack might involve other aircraft as yet not hijacked or known to have been hijacked. NORAD was also smack dab in the middle of a war game, which obviously blurred their ability to distinguish fantasy from reality that morning. It certainly seems possible to me that al Qaeda had knowledge of these games and might have purposely planned the attacks based on the cover it could provide. On the other hand, they might have thought NORAD would be on high alert that day, and it wouldn’t be to their advantage, so perhaps they had no idea. Hard to say what goes on in the mind of someone who thinks that 70 virgins await them in heaven, post-Jihad.
No, obviously I’m not an expert in Air Traffic Control, other than what I read. Are you? What I have been able to get a feel for after reading several accounts of that terrifying and confusing morning, and seeing people in the field interviewed subsequent to 9/11, is that there were a lot of sincere professional people doing their level best to deal with an incredibly terrifying and unanticipated event. I don’t think necessarily that herds of heads should be rolling down the halls given these factors. There may have been some disciplinary action taken against certain people that may have been grossly negligent. I doubt it’s mandatory to announce every firing of every Govt. employee to the press, but I could be wrong.
As to the specifics of aircraft location, from the record it doesn’t appear to be quite as cut and dried as you portray. For instance, it took ten long minutes to relocate flight 77 on back-up radar after they turned off the transponder. Does every aircraft carry a transponder? If not, how easy is it to discern exactly which no-transponder blip is the suspicious blip, and how much information can one get from a no-transponder blip regarding an actionable position? Even if controllers could easily pick out the suspicious plane and instantly relay constantly updated exact x, y and z coordinates to a scrambled jet, scrambling that jet was not their first course of action in the case of a hijacking. (Talking about the initial hijacking, not after the intent of the operation was clear)
Jets were scrambled after it was known the planes would be used as missiles, but due to cutbacks in domestic air defense after the demise of the Soviet threat, they couldn’t be scrambled from bases close enough to reach the hijackers in time. In hindsight, a bad place to cut. Perhaps if Jimmy Carter had been reelected, our defenses would have all still been in place. He and his campaign staff should be held accountable for this tragedy.
You seem to have some pretty harsh words for a lot of well-intentioned folks who did a pretty darn good job of directing many thousands of airborne people to the ground in a very short time. You seem to be unwilling to take extraordinary circumstances into account, and would have people acting like robots, even after seeing an airliner that was under their charge slam into the north tower of the WTC, killing all aboard and untold thousands within the building.
Do you have any criticism whatsoever for the 19 Muslim murderers who slit people’s throats, hijacked the planes, intentionally turned off the transponders and proceeded to transform their newly acquired mass of aluminum, kerosene and human flesh and bone into a guided missile?
Posted by Natalie on Dec 27, 2005 at 1:46 AM It was most disappointing to read Salim Muwakkil’s piece.
At the outset it was heartening to see mention of
personal appreciation of David Ray Griffin’s
scholarly work. But I was taken aback by the ridiculous &
surely uninformed tone by the piece’s end. Griffin’s
full rebuttal of Berlet was obviously, irresponsibly, not
consulted. Promptly after Sept. 11
serious opinion had been expressed about just what might be
behind the disaster, but I myself was only moved to take serious notice after
noticing Griffin’s name in association with this work.
For decades I have been much informed & inspired by
process philosophy, and David Ray Griffin is
prominent in this field. I have read & benefitted from his
work in this field. Given the at times drastic anti-intellectualism
of Americans, intellectuals’ leadership is
unfortunately insufficient. Thus is it worrisome that this publication give
further evidence of irresponsible treatment of intellectual
presentation of good calibre. ‘Faith’ & credulity are not issues
in consideration of what Griffin has analytically & logically assembled for us
to pursue.
Posted by D. Vernon on Dec 27, 2005 at 4:02 PM My friend Clouds has just discovered that he can’t sign in because we have the same IP address, so I’m posting this for him.
Perhaps I’ve been unclear
Unclear how? It seems pretty clear that you turned a catastrophic failure of our homeland defense into a perverted joke about tracking Santa and his reindeer. To further compound this, you likened any belief in our national defense protocol into believing that reindeer can fly. Seems pretty cut and dry to anyone who has the semblance of understanding that failure to protect our citizens is not funny.
...even the good folks at NORAD and the fine ATCers to perform flawlessly in the face of an unprecedented attack by unknown forces
Unknown forces? Consider this:
FACT: Rice herself confirmed that “the title [of the PDB] was, “Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.” [Source: Condoleezza Rice, 4/8/04]
FACT: Rice admits that she was told that “an attack was coming.” She said, “Let me read you some of the actual chatter that was picked up in that spring and summer: Unbelievable news coming in weeks, said one. Big event—there will be a very, very, very, very big uproar. There will be attacks in the near future.” [Source: Condoleezza Rice, 4/8/04]
FACT: Page 204 of the Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 noted that “In May 2001, the intelligence community obtained a report that Bin Laden supporters were planning to infiltrate the United States” to “carry out a terrorist operation using high explosives.” The report “was included in an intelligence report for senior government officials in August [2001].” In the same month, the Pentagon “acquired and shared with other elements of the Intelligence Community information suggesting that seven persons associated with Bin Laden had departed various locations for Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States.” [Source: Joint Congressional Report, 12/02]
Nat, you keep referring to this attack as <quote>unprecedented</quote>. Why is that? Do you think that nobody ever thought of using a plane as a missile? Need I brush you up on your history and remind you of the divine wind or kamikaze pilots of WWII?
How about this little gem from CBS about the U.S. Intelligence report that warned how al-Qaida terrorists could attack major U.S. targets using our own planes? Since when have they needed a time and date?
Hard to say what goes on in the mind of someone who thinks that 70 virgins await them in heaven, post-Jihad…
Yep, those silly Taliban folks don’t even know what to do when one of their own planes is hijacked. I wonder where they learned to hijack planes.
Analysis: Who are the hijackers?
And for God’s sake, why on earth would a man like Osama decide to attack our transportation infrastructure and commerce system using planes?
Posted by wileywitch on Dec 28, 2005 at 6:28 AM Seriously, it wasn’t like Osama has been blamed for attacking anything else involving America as in an Embassy in Africa, right?
Perhaps if Jimmy Carter had been reelected, our defenses would have all still been in place. He and his campaign staff should be held accountable for this tragedy
.
No, the executive blame rests solely on the men who made the decision not to protect the homeland. Why do you keep trying to divert blame on those who set the standard rather than those who broke it? Oh, I get it. You’re making one of your world class knee slapping jokes again! Consider this, Giggles:
FACT: Internal government documents show that while the Clinton Administration officially prioritized counterterrorism as a “Tier One” priority, when the Bush Administration took office, top officials downgraded counterterrorism. As the Washington Post reported, these documents show that before Sept. 11 the Bush Administration “did not give terrorism top billing.” Rice admitted that “we decided to take a different track” than the Clinton Administration in protecting America. [Source: Internal government documents, 1998-2001; Washington Post, 3/22/04; Rice testimony,
4/8/04]FACT: Before 9/11, Attorney General John Ashcroft de-emphasized counterterrorism at the FBI, in favor of more traditional law enforcement. And according to the Washington Post, “in the early days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Bush White House cut by nearly two-thirds an emergency request for counterterrorism funds by the FBI, an internal administration budget document shows.” And according to a new report by the Congressional Research Service, “numerous confidential law enforcement and intelligence sources who challenge the FBI’s claim that it has successfully retooled itself to gather critical intelligence on terrorists as well as fight crime.” [Source: <a href= “http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A13541-2004Mar21?language=printe er”>Washington Post, 3/22/04</a>; Congressional Quarterly, 4/6/04]
didn’t necessarily mean to say that NORAD or the ATCers are beyond criticism and couldn’t have acted faster even operating under the mindset of that time
OR
lot of well-intentioned folks who did a pretty darn good job of directing I think some nine thousand airborne people to the ground in a very short time
Pick one for God’s sake!
Posted by wileywitch on Dec 28, 2005 at 6:29 AM Wiley’s response to Nat:
Where does “flawless” fit in with four hijacked aircraft being unreported? No one said anything about “flawlessness”. You think it’s unreasonable to expect them to do their jobs? Are they not adults? Did they not know that their jobs entailed grave responsibilities?
Enough with this useless emoting and misdirection—-any air traffic controller who cannot handle him/herself in a crisis is either not cut out for the work or inadequately trained.
“Unprecedented” doesn’t count either. It doesn’t matter what the “hijackers” planned on doing with the planes. All the controllers had to know was that there was a blip on their screen in airspace that they were responsible for and that the identity of the blip was unknown. Since there are corridors and flight plans in the world of aerospace, deviations are conspicuous. It would surprise me if their computers didn’t automatically flag the unidentified aircraft for them.
Hard to say what goes on in the mind of someone who thinks that 70 virgins await them in heaven, post-Jihad.
You don’t really need to know what goes on in their heads, if you’re an ATC. All you need to know is the following:
There is always a possibility that a plane will fly off course.
There is always a threat of hijacking.
There is always the possibility of planes crashing mid-air.
There is always the possibility of planes screaming toward
the ground and crashing.
There is always the possibility that planes flying over or into
a populated area could crash into the populated area.All these are harrowing in their own right.
Also:
Planes are, by their very nature, projectiles.
Planes run on large amounts of combustible fuel, which may ignite in a number of circumstances.BTW, what about women suicide bombers? What do you think their story is?
Posted by wileywitch on Dec 28, 2005 at 7:31 AM Wiley’s further response to Nat’s last post:
I wouldn’t say that I’m an expert. Most controllers would not say that, is my guess. But I was an Aerospace Control and Warning Systems operator in the military. I worked under NORAD, and also in a conventional radar unit.
It certainly seems possible to me that al Qaeda had knowledge of these games and might have purposely planned the attacks based on the cover it could provide.
Are you suggesting that they had inside information? How could al Queda have known that NORAD and the FAA would be playing a war game that mirrored their plan? Or, how could they have had such advance notice of the exercise and such details about the scenario that they could plot out the feat of 9/11 so that it would be conflated with the exercise, without having garnered inside information?
Why would they expect us to be so stupid?
On the other hand, they might have thought NORAD would be on high alert that day, and it wouldn’t be to their advantage, so perhaps they had no idea.
Are you suggesting that they double crossed themselves and came out on top?
NORAD was also smack dab in the middle of a war game, which obviously blurred their ability to distinguish fantasy from reality that morning.
So you’re saying that NORAD knowingly and obviously blurred the distinction between reality and a war game, and that makes sense to you? A blurred ability to distinguish fantasy from reality, is ordinarily referred to as insanity and is not generally associated with acting responsibly.
Posted by wileywitch on Dec 28, 2005 at 8:20 AM There is a precedent for this blurring. There was an incident in which a training tape—- a war scenario—- had inadvertently been inserted into real-time in the missile warning system. Going to DefCon 2, sending our bombers into a holding pattern (that the Soviets would recognize), and having the men in the silos get ready for launch was the kind of over-the-top threatening situation that resulted in changes for the purpose of preventing such a thing from happening again.
When I and my partner saw nuclear missiles that fit the profile of Soviet Submarine Launched missiles being launched from the symbols of known Soviet submarine sites in the North Atlantic, we didn’t panic, or fall apart, we did our job, and remained vigilant. So did our Captain. I hear there was pandemonium in Cheyenne Mountain, but someone had the sense to check the raw satellite data before ordering a counter offensive. They were also faced with a far more grievous prospect than planes crashing into the WTC. Had they launched and not been subsequently carbonized, or blown their brains out, they would have probably had to face some facsimile of a firing squad.
NORAD should have learned from that error. And the FAA should have known better. Most days, there are no missile launches. There are, however, airborne aircraft everyday. The very idea that that line would be blurred with ATC while there was air traffic all around is reprehensible. What the hell were they thinking? Who allowed real-time air traffic control to be conflated with an exercise?
To think that killing terrorists is more important than straightening out our air defense system and finding out why we failed is to deny our responsibility to defend ourselves.
We will never rid the world of threats and/or threatening people. I focus on our responsibility to defend our airspace because it’s our responsibility and it is something we <b>do</i> have control of, and that we can improve upon.
The flip side of 9/11 is our failure to defend our airspace. A strong defense, is a strong defense. That’s not a difficult concept. Anybody who doesn’t get it, doesn’t want to.
If we are to believe that these four airplanes were hijacked and that—-for whatever reason—-they were not intercepted, then we must accept that we failed (if we’re going to be responsible adults and protect ourselves in the future.)
Posted by wileywitch on Dec 28, 2005 at 8:37 AM Do you have any criticism whatsoever for the 19 Muslim murderers who slit people’s throats, hijacked the planes, intentionally turned off the transponders and proceeded to transform their newly acquired mass of aluminum, kerosene and human flesh and bone into a guided missile?
Hmmmmm…......non whatsoever.
I think your anger is somewhat misplaced, wiley. I too would like to think that things could have been different on 9/11. However, I really don’t think my wishes are compatible with the real world capabilities and “rules of engagement” of our government. Perhaps in a less-free, dictatorial country where they don’t rely largely on trusting average people to do the right thing, those planes would have been instantly removed from the sky.
The sad fact is, (whether they should have been or not) that our air defense and air traffic control authorities were not operating under the mindset that such an event was expected or even considered. Not to say that somebody somewhere didn’t consider it, but it simply wasn’t the general mindset.
I’m not sure exactly what you’re expecting here. Surely you don’t expect that the moment Flt.11 veered off course jets should have been dispatched to shoot it down. Flt. 175 hit the second tower a mere 17 minutes later. It was not possible to scramble jets from a location close enough to reach the planes in any event, so I understand. Maybe I’m uninformed, but was it the policy at the time to immediately shoot down airliners if they veered off course, or even if they were determined to have been hijacked? Seems to me that the Russians were roundly criticized for doing such a thing back in the early 80’s.
Ya know, there was that one piece of intelligence that mentioned something about flying planes into buildings, I think we better shoot it down, just to be safe.
I must presume you’re mainly focused on the last two planes. There I suppose reasonable people can disagree on the amount of culpability that should be placed on our officials. It’s possible I suppose that they could have been intercepted if people had had acted quicker and smarter. I simply tend to put the lion’s share of blame on the terrorists for the whole event. I think most people do.
But let’s imagine for a moment if we had behaved like robots that day. We instantly saw the whole plot before us like we were Bones reinstalling Spock’s brain. We zapped every jet from the sky well before they could hit their targets, killing ~ 300 people in the air and let’s say a hundred more on the ground. What would have been the reaction? The evidence of intent would have been destroyed before it could have been revealed.
We will never rid the world of threats and/or threatening people. I focus on our responsibility to defend our airspace because it’s our responsibility and it is something we do have control of, and that we can improve upon.
I largely agree, and I’m sure our SOP’s have changed considerably since 9/11. However, you can’t project current attitudes back to the time before 9/11. Nobody, Clinton or Bush or the American people took terrorism seriously enough.
At least it kinda sorta seems like you actually believe there were terrorists and they actually hijacked the planes. I can’t say the same thing for a lot of other folks in the 9/11 “truth” movement.
Posted by Natalie on Dec 29, 2005 at 9:54 AM I am more concerned about protecting the homeland than bombing nations into the Stone Age in order to spend more money and create more ire to make us broker, and terrorists stronger.
Ya know, there was that one piece of intelligence that mentioned something about flying planes into buildings, I think we better shoot it down, just to be safe.
I never said this. Sneaky aren’t you?
Your little song and dance about heartlessness and spockishness is childish and stupid. The nation should be glad that our safety isn’t completely reliant on emotional boobs.
There are teams of professionals who spend their whole days doing nothing but evaluating possible threats. And if they can’t envision a hijacked plane—-which is a projectile loaded with fuel (which is combustable)—- being used as a weapon, then the whole lot of them ought to be sacked.
For instance, one of team researched possible ways to hack into our fleet of nuclear submarines and give them all orders to launch. It turned out to be perfectly possible, and changes were made to get another step ahead of hackers.
You apparently want a lot of titty babies who were weaned too early in positions that entail the lives of others. Boo hoo, boo hoo, boo hoo.
I have to wonder if you even believe what you’re saying.
Stick around—-Felonious grammar has a new game, called What’s that smell?
Posted by wileywitch on Dec 30, 2005 at 2:47 AM CLUES:
It’s the opposite of name calling
it uses slippery or vague words and phrases
it uses language to stir emotions
target audiences accept impressions* without thinking critically about what is being touted
That smell is (a drum roll, please)—- glittering generalizations!
*I think instead of having to get answers correct on math tests, that students should be able to give impressions. Can’t we all be brothers?—-Jack Handy
Posted by wileywitch on Dec 30, 2005 at 2:57 AM Securing the National Homeland… the combination of unconventional weapons proliferation with the persistence of
international terrorism will end the relative invulnerability of the U.S. homeland to catastrophic attack. A direct attack against American citizens on American soil is likely over the
next quarter century. The risk is not only death and destruction but also a demoralization that could undermine U.S. global leadership. In the face of this threat, our nation has no coherent or integrated governmental structures.
We therefore recommend the creation of an independent National Homeland Security Agency (NHSA) with responsibility for planning, coordinating, and integrating various U.S. government activities involved in homeland security. NHSA would be built upon the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, with the three organizations currently on the front line of
border security—the Coast Guard, the Customs Service, and the Border Patrol—transferred to it.
NHSA would not only protect American lives, but also assume responsibility for overseeing the protection of the nation’s critical infrastructure, including information technology…..Maybe all this no one could have imagined cluelessness is a product of willfull ignorance and illiteracy.
(Save the Clinton crap for the morons.)
Too bad George didn’t have a “gut feeling” on 9/11, and that at the moment that it was most critical for him to be Commander-in-Chief, he couldn’t break away from a bunch of children. They must have contributed a lot to his campaign to get quality time while our nation was under attack.
Posted by wileywitch on Dec 30, 2005 at 8:51 AM One more point. People who are too squeemish to shoot down an airliner that is not responding to an intercept by military fighter aircraft, should not be in a position that requires exactly that call to be made in exactly that circumstance. Protocol goes with the job. If you can’t do it, don’t take the job. (Note to Brownie.)
Anyone that squeemish should also not be carpet bombing cities.
You still insist that you know how ATCers feel or how they are supposed to feel. How much energy did it take you to blow off and distort what I said?
Posted by wileywitch on Dec 30, 2005 at 9:04 AM Funny that you’d accuse me of generalizing, wiley, when in reality, that’s what your argument has been all about. You argue without specifics that apparently our agencies should have been able to prevent the planes on 9/11 from reaching their targets. You come off like an angry old boss that just fires everyone if they don’t perform up to his fantasy world expectations.
You refuse to address my inquiries regarding “exactly what are you expecting?” I don’t see any specifics on how we could have logically or even physically prevented the attacks on the towers.
You claim to be knowledgeable about air traffic control, yet you don’t address my questions about it.
You apparently try to use the prescient but quite general Hart Ruddman report as proof that we should have instantly known what the plot was on 9/11 the moment an airliner veers off course or doesn’t respond. (you do realize that it also recommends continuing to develop missile defense technology, don’t you?)
Did you really think I was trying to quote you with the paragraph about “we better just shoot it down”? Man o man.
too squeemish to shoot down an airliner that is not responding to an intercept by military fighter aircraft
Umm…..fighters were never physically able to get close to the airliners. How could they “not respond” to them?
I think there’s a tie-in here between you and David Griffin. You’re both anti-war; by your references to carpet bombing I assume you’re even against the action in Afghanistan. You both are trying to justify your anti-war stance by warping reality—by inventing things that never happened (bombs in buildings) or imagining unrealistically that the attack could have been stopped. It was our fault, you see.
You seem to think that we can defend a million different facilities and a million different scenerios here at home, negating the need to take any preemptive action abroad.
Posted by Natalie on Dec 30, 2005 at 6:07 PM Would Natalie demonstrate just where Prof. Griffin is “inventing
things that never happened”? If “bombs in buildings” are
to be the reference, one would do well to bypass Prof. Griffin
& immediately consider the work of another Prof. mentioned in the article, Jones. There would be little question of
competence there, one presumes. Again, it must be reiterated
that Griffin is not extra-logically theorizing, he’s acting as the
accomplished philosopher that he is. Muwakkil’s stated appreciation for his work must not have been qua philosopher,
for his lack of ‘credibility’ charge is quite misplaced.
Posted by D. Vernon on Dec 30, 2005 at 7:43 PM Natalie, are you capable of saying anything with fewer than 300 words? If you weren’t quoting me, then who were you quoting with italics? Just stacking up the weasel words, aren’t you? Stacking up the cards?
You might be able to pass this post off as reasonable to someone who doesn’t know anything about air traffic control and military protocols and only wants to have their pro-Bush views repeated for the thousandth time, but I know better.
Fighters were supposed to get close to the aircraft to intercept and escort the aircraft to land, just like they had done 90 times before in 2001. It’s protocol. No matter how many times you misdirect and trivialize this it remains a simple concept—-It’s routine. If you want a copy of their checklists, try a search engine.
You’re making excuses for failure. Why?
If we can’t defend “a million different facilities” and “a million different scenarios here at home” then we need to pack up our nuclear warheads before the terrorists get them, don’t we? We are too sensitive. We read anger in everything (we want to). And everyone is out to get us. Maybe we should preempt all possible threats, blow up the planet, and get it over with, huh? Screw the rules, we’re scared.
Posted by wileywitch on Dec 30, 2005 at 9:14 PM All I would ask, D., is that in addition to considering the views of Griffin and Jones, you don’t bypass the opinions of hundreds of structural engineers, civil engineers, I’m sure the overwhelming majority of even physicists, metallurgists, materials experts and even fire engineers.
The nearly unanimous consensus among these pertinent professionals is that the collapse of the towers was well within the bounds of expectations, given the extraordinary design of the towers, the extraordinary event of having jets deliberately flown into them at top speed fully fueled, and the extraordinary amount of heat (not necessarily temperature) generated from the fires that resulted.
Whose opinion should you trust…..That of people who would have no idea how to design and build quarter-mile high skyscrapers, or that of people who do?
How is it that people who would not be able to provide you with the specifications necessary to build the towers could be better able to determine how the buildings failed than people who would be able to provide you with those specifications?
Posted by Natalie on Jan 1, 2006 at 2:37 AM Two thoughts…
One, please take a moment to visit 911RESEARCH.COM, a superb site that explores the many holes in the official conspiracy theory (you know, that 19 people with box cutters evaded the most powerful military on earth.) My favorite is how the debris ejected from the falling towers fell at the same rate as the towers themselves. How could the towers fall at the same rate as objects falling through air unless they encountered no resistance?
And second, ever since the last election where the results didn’t match the exit samples, I realized that any publication that put forward the idea that “exit samples (often mistakenly called polls) don’t work anymore” is part of a SEAMLESS PROPAGANDA SYSTEM, whereby publications from right to left offer a cornucopia of news and viewpoints, most of which are trustworthy. We take our pick of who we trust, and then, when needed, they use their earned credibility to insert disinformation in service of the man. The first source I heard say that “exit polls don’t work” was PBS on the day after the election. This article smells like one of those disinfo insertions.
Peace
Posted by huiler on Jan 1, 2006 at 2:54 AM We read anger in everything (we want to). And everyone is out to get us. Maybe we should preempt all possible threats, blow up the planet, and get it over with, huh? Screw the rules, we’re scared.
There you go generalizing again, wiley. And there you go getting things exactly backward. We are not the ones who initiated the blowing up of things. That would be the Islamic radicals of the world.
We are not the ones who “failed” on 9/11. We are the ones who were the victims of 19 cold-blooded killers who found easy hunting within a trusting nation.
Posted by Natalie on Jan 1, 2006 at 3:00 AM You, Natalie, read anger that wasn’t there in my responses.
Are you whining about our victimhood? Yes, there was an attack. Why? Well there were the people who carried out the attack, and then there were the people who failed to follow protocol and failed to prevent the attack.
You only tell half the story. Many people are evidently comfortable with the idea that our defense system is manned by unimaginative, deadbeats that make us easy hunting within a trusting nation, I have higher standards.
You make excuses.
Which are we Natalie? The most powerful nation in the world or a bunch of irresponsible children who fold in the face of threats and are excused for a lack of imagination (as if their jobs actually required imagination)?
Posted by wileywitch on Jan 1, 2006 at 3:15 AM Natalie,
Did you already provide some examples of “the opinions of hundreds of structural engineers, civil engineers, I’m sure the overwhelming majority of even physicists, metallurgists, materials experts and even fire engineers” independent of the 9/11 Commission Report?
The conclusions of the report are in question, largely because it is suspected to be a cover-up.
The 9/11 Truth/Research/etc people provide independent studies opposed to the Commission Report’s findings.
You’re saying there is lots of presumably independent evidence in support of the Report. Could you at least provide a few good examples? If you have already, please just say where.
Posted by AD Marshall on Jan 1, 2006 at 3:41 AM Oh, and Natalie, could you please provide backing reference(s) demonstrating the “consensus” you claim exists in this statement—otherwise it’s just your opinion, realistic or not, and the opinion of the government study which has been thrown into question.
You wrote, “The nearly unanimous consensus among these pertinent professionals is that the collapse of the towers was well within the bounds of expectations, given the extraordinary design of the towers, the extraordinary event of having jets deliberately flown into them at top speed fully fueled, and the extraordinary amount of heat (not necessarily temperature) generated from the fires that resulted.”
Also please explain how you differentiate “heat” and “temperature” above.
And why would anyone “expect” such a tall structure hit so hard near it’s top to do a free fall straight down in minutes?
Again, please provide references because your claim intuitively seems to contadict both itself and common sense.
Posted by AD Marshall on Jan 1, 2006 at 3:50 AM One bit of misinformation or misunderstanding or red herring is that ATCs lost sight of planes because their transponders were turned off. This is ridiculously false. If transponders were necessary to get a blip, then any air fleet could go undetected and attack us by not having transponders, and anyone could hijack a plane and sneak away under the cover of transponder off mode. The blip is created by radar signals bouncing off the aircraft, or clouds.
You’ve all heard about doppler radar from the weatherman, yes? Do clouds have transponders?
Of course not.
Posted by wileywitch on Jan 1, 2006 at 7:42 AM A few quotes from these links:
Experts said no building like it [WTC7], a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire. (Glanz, 2001; emphasis added.)
That’s correct – no such steel-beam building had ever before (or since) completely collapsed due to fires! However, such complete, symmetrical collapses in steel-frame buildings have indeed occurred many times before—all of them due to pre-positioned explosives in a procedure called “implosion” or controlled demolition. What a surprise, then, for such an occurrence in downtown Manhattan— three skyscrapers completely collapsed on the same day, September 11, 2001.
This feat requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies in the world will attempt it. (Harris, 2000; emphasis added.)
Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the “official investigation” blessed by FEMA… is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members- described by one close source as a “tourist trip”-no one’s checking the evidence for anything.
This is a question I cannot ignore:
Consider: Why would terrorists undertake straight-down collapses of WTC7 and the Towers, when “toppling-over” falls would require much less work and would do much more damage in downtown Manhattan? And where would they obtain the necessary skills and access to the buildings for a symmetrical implosion anyway? These questions suggest the need for further investigation.
It just doesn’t make sense for them to do such a neat job of it , does it? The very specificity of the targeting suggests something fishy to me. Wouldn’t it be scarier if they made a total mess of the place and did more “collateral damage”?
How many people work in “symbolic targets”? And when did the WTC become a “symbol” of the U.S.? For whom?
Posted by wileywitch on Jan 1, 2006 at 9:23 AM Hey AD, I thought I’d see ya back. Hope you aren’t holed up with another injury.
Just checked out your link to Global Research Canada’s 9/11 pages. It’s a bit overwhelming, but at first glance I’d say that it certainly asks a lot of questions. Will go back there later.
The arguments over whether or not a plane actually hit the Pentagon is interesting. Could be a lot of well poisoning, so that everything can be dismissed by dismissing one aspect of the attack.
One question I would like to have answered is “Does Osama bin Laden speak English, and if not, why didn’t he have a good translator relay his messages to the U.S. public instead of leaving the translation up to the C.I.A., whom he knew well enough?”
If you run into anything about that let me know, please.
Posted by wileywitch on Jan 1, 2006 at 11:49 PM Here’s an example of something you’ll see time and time again when reading material put forth by the “truth” movement.
That’s correct - no such steel-beam building had ever before (or since) completely collapsed due to fires!
But, as we all know or should know, the WTC towers were of an extremely unique design not comparable to conventional steel-beam structures. There are in fact examples of several steel structures failing due to the distortion effect on steel by heat. Maybe not “completely” and dramatically collapsed, but the evidence is there to make it clear that steel that is unprotected from enough heat does succomb to fire. It’s no big mystery or secret among the fire fighting community.
So, to make such a statement and not qualify it by explaining that the WTC towers were of a unique design begs the question of whether or not the author of such a statement is really interested in the “truth”, or if perhaps he is more interested in something else entirely.
Another common practice most recently employed by Prof. Jones, is to leave out the portion of a person’s writing that would otherwise make it clear that he had no suspicion that there were bombs planted in the buildings. Otherwise, one might reasonably infer that he did.
Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the “official investigation” blessed by FEMA…. is a half-baked farce…..
Be sure to read the full editorial by fire engineer Bill Manning. To be sure, he is angry that more effort wasn’t being expended to preserve more evidence that might make one surer of the mechanisms of collapse and thereby help to safeguard more lives in the future. I think his voice may have helped result in there ultimately being quite a lot of steel preserved for study. But his theory on collapse doesn’t involve explosives.
Hoping beyond hope, I have called experts to ask if the towers were the only high-rise buildings in America of lightweight, center-core construction. No such luck. I made other calls asking if these were the only buildings in America with light-density, sprayed-on fireproofing. Again, no luck-they were two of thousands that fit the description…..
......However, respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers. Rather, theory has it, the subsequent contents fires attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses in an alarmingly short time. Of course, in light of there being no real evidence thus far produced, this could remain just unexplored theory.
Posted by Natalie on Jan 2, 2006 at 1:29 AM Natalie, unfortunately, given the extraordinary irregularities surrounding the events
regarding sources of evidence & composition of inquiry, “the opinions of hundreds of structural engineers, civil engineers, I’m sure the overwhelming majority of even physicists, metallurgists, materials experts and even fire engineers” effectively collapse into virtually a single opinion,
against which must be equally weighted dissenting presentations. Frankly, one must assume
that perpetrators were banking on the sheer enormity of things to foster expected acquiescence
in what would seem from other perspectives to be a rather incompetent shielding from justly inquisitive gazes.
Posted by D. Vernon on Jan 2, 2006 at 1:47 AM Wiley, re “Does Osama bin Laden speak English, and if not, why didn’t he have a good translator relay his messages to the U.S. public instead of leaving the translation up to the C.I.A., whom he knew well enough?”
Same reason bilingual Quebecois speak French even when the majority of folks around them only speak English? PR?
But one infamous propogandist showed a lot of scenes of the Bush family happily chatting it up with the bin Ladens before 9/11.
And Osama’s sons apparently speak English. See Al-Jazeera airs report showing Osama bin Laden’s sons, November 7, 2001 Posted: 12:03 PM EST (1703 GMT)
And Osama speaks English in the cartoons i’ve seen him in.
Posted by AD Marshall on Jan 2, 2006 at 1:56 AM Natalie, the Manning editorial merely adds to the evidence that the official Commission report was viciously flawed and that those controlling it and other follow-up on the WTC collapse are trying to hide something. It does almost nothing to support or deny a hypothesis of controlled demolitions.
Manning simply describes one “resonating theory” of “subsequent contents fires attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses in an alarmingly short time.”
But Manning immediately adds, “Of course, in light of there being no real evidence thus far produced, this could remain just unexplored theory.”
And in Manning’s words—which you also parsed somewhat suspiciously—“Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the “official investigation” blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure.
As they say, “Is that all ya got?”
That’s like feeding the case of the majority here apparently favour the 9/11 Truth/Research/etc camps. Even Muwakkil might not thank you for that kind of help.
What else ya got?
Posted by AD Marshall on Jan 2, 2006 at 2:22 AM ... remembering that you’ve got “the opinions of hundreds of structural engineers, civil engineers…, [and] the overwhelming majority of even physicists, metallurgists, materials experts and even fire engineers” to draw upon..
... and that Manning is also said (in 2002, btw) the American Society of Civil Engineers (representing how many?) were contributors to an official farce.
Posted by AD Marshall on Jan 2, 2006 at 2:27 AM Thanx for the link, huiler.
You know, I have to suspect that the attack was so sloppy so that we in the reality-based community can go around and around with GOP shills while the administration and its shadow carry out yet more heinous crimes.
To think beyond ‘the blast that supposedly set everything so hottly ablaze that it melted/softened (whatever) steel left a hijackers passport intact on a sidewalk ’ is taking the bait.
What bullshit.
Nevertheless, I’ll return. Ignoring it is just as unseemly. The kings of antimony rule (for now). This is the kind of double bind that makes thinking/questioning people feel crazy.
Well, I know I’m not crazy. I know that all the people involved in air traffic could not have missed those planes and failed to contact NORAD without “help”.
Posted by wileywitch on Jan 2, 2006 at 5:06 AM I know that all the people involved in air traffic could not have missed those planes and failed to contact NORAD without “help”.
Now it looks like wiley suddenly seems to think that the controllers he previously accused of being “unimaginative, deadbeat children” were manipulated by nefarious and ominous forces from high above their pay-grade.
Logic dictates that he owes them an apology…...does it not?
“Pssssst…..Debra…..Your husband is alive. He’s trying to make it back to you. Tell Ted.”
Correction: I previously portrayed NORAD as having difficulty distinguishing fantasy from reality due to the fact that exercises were being run during the time the hijackings occured. It is apparent from futher review that any confusion was very brief, and was certainly very understandable and normal.
Posted by Natalie on Jan 3, 2006 at 8:34 AM No, Natalie. I was taking your excuses to their logical conclusions. You’re the one who keeps insisting that “no one could have imagined”....blah, blah, blah. You are the one who keeps insisting that it was somehow understandable for ATC to miss all the planes and that no one could have imagined, etc. That would be ‘unimaginative, deadbeat, childish, and irresponsible, but
I’m not worried about jets crashing into my neighborhood because I trust that air traffic controllers are not that lame. They don’t have to imagine planes being hijacked—-they are trained to deal with that—-with tapes, that should not be confused with real time traffic. Traffic meaning, real planes, in real airspace, in real time. Got it?That’s your invention—-the nobody could have imagined....so silly.
If you remember, I said that the only thing I could not understand about the whole attack was how all those air traffic controllers could have missed those hijacked planes. The exercise made sense. Because other than that, there is no earthly reason for them to have missed all four planes.
I previously portrayed NORAD as having difficulty distinguishing fantasy from reality due to the fact that exercises were being run during the time the hijackings occured. It is apparent from futher review that any confusion was very brief, and was certainly very understandable and normal.
Oh, but yes.
Of course.
Sure.
Right.
Actually, what you said was probably, absolutely correct.
My point was that mistakes were made in NORAD
before. Real-time and an exercise were confused so that we went to DEFCON 2 and were on the verge of nuclear war because of this mistake. Changes were made. Doesn’t matter that a real-time event was confused with a tape instead of vice versa. There should not have been any confusion.Period.
I really did work in NORAD, in missile warning. And in a mobile radar unit with NATO forces—-our goal was to direct our aircraft to enemy targets. We did many wargames in both. We tracked real-time in both. You’re just going to have to bullshit someone else about this NAT.
I’m going to follow you all over this thread. Sounds like fun, huh.
We’ll be so close.
You’ll learn to love me.
Posted by wileywitch on Jan 3, 2006 at 9:03 AM AD,
I find it a wee bit disingenuous that the one little sentence that makes it clear that Bill Manning is thinking about mechanisms of collapse having nothing to do with deliberate implosion is religiously left out by the “truth” movement.
I’m fully aware, as I stated, that Manning is upset with the investigation. However, I don’t think he would be considered an asset to the prosecution in the case of “truth v Bush” after he responded to this question by the defense:
Mr. Manning, do you have any reason to believe that the WTC towers were ultimately brought down deliberately by explosives planted by agents of the U.S. government?
Manning, after being told by the judge to please try to control his laughter: No, counsel…..none whatsoever. (continues laughter, unable to stop. Charged with failure to stop laughing in court)
Keep in mind that his editorial was written in Jan. 02, only a few months after the attack. He’s referring to the initial Building Performance Study by FEMA and the ASCE, not the later more comprehensive investigation led by NIST. What he’s calling a “farce” is not the final product of FEMA or NIST. Only a snapshot of that particular time period. I would be curious to know what his current thoughts are….perhaps I’ll get stung.
However, if he did see signs early on that people weren’t going to pay the proper amount of attention to collecting evidence and examining the specifics of the collapse, which of course wouldn’t bode well for the safety of firefighters and the public in the future, it’s good that he spoke out.
I just want to make it clear that at least as far as I can tell, he has no suspicion whatsoever that bombs were placed in the buildings. That is not clear from the selective quoting that has been done.
Posted by Natalie on Jan 3, 2006 at 9:41 AM wiley wrote:
Fighters were supposed to get close to the aircraft to intercept and escort the aircraft to land, just like they had done 90 times before in 2001. It’s protocol. No matter how many times you misdirect and trivialize this it remains a simple concept—-It’s routine. If you want a copy of their checklists, try a search engine.
wiley, you’re the expert, please outline and link to the protocol that was in effect the morning of 9/11, apparently not followed, that would have so easily facilitated the shoot-down of flight 11, and subsequently the shoot-down of flight 175, which hit the second tower only 15 minutes later. You portray interception of aircraft as routine, but I’m fairly certain from memory that the shoot-down of civilian airliners is not. How much time did it take to determine if indeed it was flight 11 that actually crashed into the N. tower and realize we were indeed under attack?
The other two planes possibly could have been stopped, although I doubt it. But I need a definitive answer to these questions:
Was it reasonable to expect that the first hit could have been stopped? Was there sufficient time to get the necessary approval to down a civilian airliner in the case of flt. 175? How certain were we of its position at that moment and would fighters have enough information in order to identify the target with certainty?
Was it…...
Incompetence or manipulation?
It would seem to me that if one believes in bombs in buildings, the planes would obviously have to be part of the plan, barring an incredible coincidence. This would make it almost mandatory, according to your assertion that our air defenses were well capable of stopping the planes, that there was manipulation.
Therefore an apology is also mandatory, is it not?
Posted by Natalie on Jan 3, 2006 at 10:24 AM No. An apology is not mandatory.
I did not say that I was an “expert”. You’re putting words in my mouth. Why? Perhaps because you wish you hadn’t said a few things, and because the position that “no one could have imagined” is indefensible.
It was either incompetence or manipulation. You have clearly sided with incompetence and have made excuses for it. Does it make you feel safer to believe that “incompetence” is the answer? It apparently comforts you.
Or you are throwing out red herrings rather than discussing the probablity of 9/11 occurring with in-house help.
If reports had been made, and fighters had scrambled in a timely manner, then there would have been time to make choices. Do you think that shooting down a hijacked airliner is worse than letting it fly into New York city and Washington after all those warnings about Bin Laden being ready to strike?
Do you think that fighter pilots stationed near New York and D.C. have never seriously considered this possibility?
Like I said, real-time and war games should not be mixed.
And while all this was happening was Mr. so-happy-to-play
commander-in-chief biting his knuckles over the choices that needed to be made? Was he concerned about the passengers? About the air traffic controllers? About the pilots? About the people on the ground?No. He (supposedly) didn’t want to upset the children. I wonder what goes through the minds of those children. Why did the president think that reading “My Pet Goat”, was more important than all those people who died on 9/11?
An apology is mandatory, is it not?
Posted by wileywitch on Jan 3, 2006 at 10:51 PM please outline and link to the protocol that was in effect the morning of 9/11, apparently not followed, that would have so easily facilitated the shoot-down of flight 11, and subsequently the shoot-down of flight 175, which hit the second tower only 15 minutes later.
No links necessary. If jets had been scrambled within ten or twenty minutes of a non-responding plane, then the pilot would have at least seen the first jet crash into a tower, and there would be no doubt that the next jet should be shot down before it entered into NY airspace.
Why didn’t that happen?
It’s simple logic. No matter how many layers of words you fill up the box with your sonorous rhythm, Nat, it is obvious that our air defense failed. We were attacked.
Why is it so hard for you to acknowledge that the world’s most expensive and expansive military failed to protect us?
It’s not about blame, it’s about responsibility. Do you know the difference between blame and responsibility? Do you think we are more safe now, because we don’t deal with our responsibilities?
Posted by wileywitch on Jan 4, 2006 at 12:21 AM A bit more fat for the fire. There’s a huge new analysis of the 9/11 Pentagon attack at Signs of the Times: <a >“Evidence That a Frozen Fish Didn’t Impact the Pentagon on 9/11—and Neither Did a Boeing 757”, by Joe Quinn</a>
I’ve not even read a third of it yet and make no claim as to its authority or veracity.
Posted by AD Marshall on Jan 4, 2006 at 1:00 AM Ahhh. It’s easy to leave out the quotation marks, hey. (Do you Canadians put a question mark behind the hey, or write it independently, like, Hey?>?)
There’s a lot of argument about whether the Pentagon was struck by a missile or plane, and whether or not that is a red herring, or poisoning the well, or a erious question. I dunno.
Where are the films from the cameras? Is it just one more happy coincidence that that part of the Pentagon was being remodeled?
And why should we believe that the “terrorists” (no one has claimed responsibility, no criminal investigation has been done for the crime of mass murder.) have been identified without an investigation that included other intelligence agencies and interpol, etc.? Why is the word “murder” not being used? And “mass murder”? Are we supposed to believe that 9/11 was more egregious than “mass murder” because it was carried out by “terrorists”? Why is 9/11 marketed as the greatest tragedy in human history, and al Queda the most dangerous terrorist group of all time?
What’s amazing is that so many people are denying that there was a “conspiracy”. Of course, there was a conspiracy! Things like this are rarely spontaneous. Why is it so impossible that whoever masterminded and carried out this attack had inside help? Wouldn’t that be more likely than not? Why in the world, is there automatic denial that any U.S. citizen could have played any part?
9/11 brings up more questions than answers, because answers have merely been given, and not sought with open and objective questioning. Why wouldn’t Bush and Cheney testify under oath and allow transcripts of the 9/11 hearing?
Posted by wileywitch on Jan 4, 2006 at 1:41 AM
Posted by David in Canada on Jan 4, 2006 at 4:06 AM Interesting that you mention red herring, Wiley. I have not read it in depth yet but I found this just today :
Evidence That a Frozen Fish Didn’t Impact the Pentagon on 9/11
I have always wondered if eventually evidence, i.e. all of the tapes they won’t release, will eventually be released and the evidence will clearly show a Boeing 757 crashing into the Pentagon and then ...
and then ...
we can all rest easy, all snuggled up tight in our beds at night, knowing we were only crazy.
But we got better ... Cured !! Eh ?!
Posted by David in Canada on Jan 4, 2006 at 4:20 AM Eh?
Davipedia, these articles be interesting some, but mostly tiresome, eh?
Knowing I’m not crazy and knowing buildings don’t fall into a heap of dust like that when you crash into the side of one with a jet are mutually intertwined.
The shills bring out all these little details, and bury them in mounds of emotional-esque marketing language, in an effort to make those who are not accustomed to reflection comfortable with the bag of deep-fried doo-doo* that’s being peddled.
I’m confident that revealations of governmental and other wrongdoings will not make me wilt. I’m also confident that our airspace is and has been competently monitored by air traffic controllers and most military personnel. To belief that the security lapses of 9/11 are understandable is to stretch the imagination too thin for it’s own good.
To believe that we are, at all times, beset with dangers of attack by a patient yet histrionic group of terrorists that hate and envy us for our freedoms is to be a dumb-bell or to be in some way rewarded for such thoughtlessness.
I am not a dumb-bell. I am not a shill. I am not buying these silly little arguments when what happened is so painfully, horribly, obvious.
* Your very presence makes me a little less crass, David.
Posted by wileywitch on Jan 4, 2006 at 5:10 AM .. oops .. now I see that Ad had posted the same Fish link a little further back up the page. Sorry Ad. Didn’t mean to steal any thunder or lightning ;)
I am in the (bad?) habit of reading from the bottom of the thread, the latest posts, then reading the earlier posts. Playing catch up after being out of the loop over the holidays.
Wiley, I am trying to be less crass too but not always succeeding.
Our greatest glory is not in never falling, but in rising every time we fall.
Confucius
Posted by David in Canada on Jan 4, 2006 at 6:13 AM Not looking just wacking as it seems appropriate,
Nat.
For instance, it took ten long minutes to relocate flight 77 on back-up radar after they turned off the transponder. Does every aircraft carry a transponder? If not, how easy is it to discern exactly which no-transponder blip is the suspicious blip, and how much information can one get from a no-transponder blip regarding an actionable position?
This was because of the exercises involving very similar , almost identical scenarios which placed up to 11 other blips on the radar screens at any time. Since thses were mostly meant to be ignored as part of an exercise, how about YOU TELL US why the Radar operators had a problem?
Does everyone like the Rabbit’s special Shill? He doesn’t make her up, she is the real deal, enjoy the antics.
Posted by Rabbit on Jan 4, 2006 at 12:30 PM Ad Marshall. The feuding as you describe it is something different when involving Shills. Are you really living in a society where stooging and shilling, informing and propaganda isn’t a fact of life? Well, this is the internet in 2006. Sometimes, you seem to have come out of a time warp, like Austin Powers or something.
Most importantly, the ONLY evidence of previous contact between posters, was by Rabbit a few days ago, and it has gone unanswered.
Me thinks the gentleman does protest too much?
Just a returning Rabbitty thing.
HAPPY New YEAR, to all, except rightwingnuts and fundys, hope it sucks for you toadies!
Posted by Rabbit on Jan 4, 2006 at 12:48 PM Do you have any criticism whatsoever for the 19 Muslim murderers who slit people’s throats, hijacked the planes, intentionally turned off the transponders and proceeded to transform their newly acquired mass of aluminum, kerosene and human flesh and bone into a guided missile?
NO Nat, until I see enough information to clearly identify the so-callled suicide murderers, short of a completely transparent fabrication which popped up, without precedent within 24 hours of something which we all saw with differing degrees of experience and awareness, but which atrracted the suspicion of about half the world, overnight. NO Nat, I have no particular criticism of nineteen random names, nine of whom at least are to all appearances alive and well.
Instead….., despite your reluctance and that of you paymasters, Rabbitin company with a lot more than half the world, is now trying to get to the bottom of what actually happened on that day. But making up disagreeable references to nineteen men, who may or may not have had anything to do with 911, while ignoring the mountain of evidence which points squarely at the forces behind George W Bush, the puppetmasters of the current Us criminal Junta, is not a part of that, and it isn’t really up to a government shill, to be lecturing we the people, about such things. Just get on with the shilling and rop the pretence at being a person with independant views, maybe you got re-directed deary, and you thought you were being sent to a NineMSN chat site or something, but around here you have a distinct odour.
We are just not that dumb, But heh, we enjoy the entertainment. Dance on.. MY sinewy eel.
Flap Black Bat.
Suck long and deep on that “Art-er-y”, the blood you drink from an open wound, is delivered straight and a bit too salty.
Swallow and spit but beware the insultery.
Posted by Rabbit on Jan 4, 2006 at 1:11 PM BY THE WAY Natty the eminently predictable Vampire Shill of ITT, meet WileyWitch.
This Witch has answers to some of the sorts of questions you have tried to pose as inanswerable, before, to Rabbit. She gives the reamining pieces of information and others supply their bits, to fully, cream you official spiel, AND YOU KNOW IT!
So even though there is doubtless sport ahead, and we shall communicate in other ways before this thread is dead, let Rabbit just give you a big Rabbitty lick, and say see, I was right all along. Here comes the choir, wasn’t that what you called us? Call in the re-inforcements nat. Let us battle in style, give us your best, no more of the little drummer girl, let us see the face of the beast, come forth and spew your own lies, beast.
Posted by Rabbit on Jan 4, 2006 at 1:23 PM Hey Rabbi’, no worries. No offence intended.
I’d just like to offer up a quote from Baba Vonnegut that might be apropos: Perhaps the only precept taught me by Grandfather Wills that I have honored all my adult life is that profanity and obscenity entitle people who don’t want unpleasant information to close their ears and eyes to you.—Hocus Pocus, 1999.
Posted by AD Marshall on Jan 4, 2006 at 6:57 PM Ha! My last post put this article’s extended discussion into ITT’s top-10 list by popularity—kinda sad, no? ;)
Posted by AD Marshall on Jan 4, 2006 at 7:02 PM Rabbit, good to see you up and hopping. You gave up the ghost, eh?
I must find out where she gets that monotonous rhythm. She reminds me of an economics teacher I had in high school. He read out of the economic text book the whole class—-that’s all he did. He had one note in his voice. First time I ever fell asleep in school. Woke myself up snoring, saw that most of the rest of the class was sleeping, and went back to sleep. Only time in my life I ever napped regularly.
Staccato rotto.
Must dash to work soon.
Hasta luego.
Posted by wileywitch on Jan 4, 2006 at 8:42 PM Wiley, the Ghost went by itself. This is Rabbit’s jury rigged set of old circuit boards assembled to access the web at least while his computer is being re-built. We had a BAD power surge a couple days ago which KILLED the Rabbit’s computer. Smoke sparks and crackling.
The thing logged rabbit automatically as Rabbit, not ghost and it seems to be working again.
You just can’t keep a Good Rabbit down.
AD, of course it is true that kindness and respect go far in maintaining the efficacy of the message. What needs to be remembered here is that in the case of Natalie, we have not got an ordinary person. She is not here to learn, he has no concern with the truth, she is a Shill, and it is no unfounded accusation, it is what she is. A shill cannot be reasoned with, they are automatons, relying on dissembly, smoke and mirror rants and ad hoc as well as ad hominem arguments.
Nat is furthermore a very unsavoury character, famous for her heartless and cowardly views, her sensibilities are purely for show and Rabbit and she have been many times around the Blackberry Bush and in many positions too. Most of what she is saying is repeated from earlier where she was repeatedly wacked into the ground. You can prove here wrong today and she will be spinning the same line the next day as if nothing ever happened. Now AD please don’t judge Rabbit harshly on the strength of what are very late acts in this great play.
Lastly, as the rabbit has said before. The issues involved are of life and death, they concern the murder and coverup of a crime which is massive even without the illegal war it helped to spawn. The feelings of a few stupid Morons, or of a dirty government disinformation agent, are of absolutely NO concern to Rabbit.
If the Liars, and morons are offended by Rabbit’s words…...................GOOD!
It should be noted that of course it is easy for a Shill top maintain their cool. They are playing a game where they have no vested interest in anything except diffusing or confusing the truth. Rabbit seeks instead to make them feel some emotion even if it is anger or humiliation.
Why would I be worried about the feelings of a scumbag who is prepared to go to such lengths to stop Truth being found? That is not saying that any particular theory is correct, just that the truth is being withheld, by the government, as we all know.
Natty has no theory which works, the government has no theory which works, but they are not going to let any theory which does work get a hearing. That is why they withhold so much of the evidence and covered up so much by destruction of the crime scene and records pertaining to it. (WTC-7)
Posted by Rabbit on Jan 5, 2006 at 12:37 AM Rabbit had a Maths lecturer at University who was like that Wiley. She yabbered on in a monotone, she looked like Nana Mouskouri and was the wife of the maths department head which is why she had a job. A brilliant mathematician by all accounts but SO BORING that she could put a whole lecture hall to sleep. After a couple of lectures most of us gave up and found something else to do. Unfortunately most of us failed that course and it cost Rabbit dearly as he never did learn calculus. Was behind due to wrong Maths choice in school and trying to catch up during first year at UNI.
Posted by Rabbit on Jan 5, 2006 at 12:42 AM AD Marshall, if I didn’t live in the U.S.A. , it would be very difficult for me to understand what happened to it. I do live in the U.S.A. so it is merely difficult.
This country has gone completely bat-shit. There is no kinder way to say it. Let me give you a few examples of the trash being talked by people who thinks of themselves as “conservative” and/or Republican:
Torture is just like fraternity hazing—-it’s no big deal; but we need to do it in order to get information.
Liberals should be taken out and shot.
France is an enemy of the U.S. therefore we won’t by French’s mustard.
We should assassinate Hugo Chavez because he’s a communist.
We need to develop tactical nukes.
We need to start testing nukes again.
The wealthiest 1% of U.S. citizenry need a tax break.
It wasn’t the government’s responsibility to save people in New Orleans, they should have saved themselves.
Terrorism is the greatest threat in the world.
Being the president is “hard work”.
And so on. People say stuff like this with a straight face.
Posted by wileywitch on Jan 5, 2006 at 4:21 AM Thank God we don’t have to show our faces as we read such nonsense, Rabbit’s is not straight. Especially when he reads some of the insanity. Even from down here in Oz the American “Values and Beliefs” expressed by Wiley are quite obvious. We have a much paler version of it, but the difference is that if you challenge an Aussie dittohead, with facts contradictory to his parroted lines, he looks blank and shocked, listens and at least is no longer prepared to spout the drivel anymore. He might still have doubts about much of what is being said, but he does see the flawed reasoning in his views once the facts are sorted out for him. The utter denial, the Hubris is specifically American, and it is AWESOME to behold.
Like a strange spell, or something, it makes the whole thing so surreal for those watching with rational minds. It brings to mind Alice in Wonderland, and it is no wonder to see Lewis’ Narnia being revived. These things are more contemporary than ever before.
Except it is all so real, it is like being in the looking glass and not just reading about it..
It is the inspirational source of Rabbit’s handle Rabbit of OZ.
Posted by Rabbit on Jan 5, 2006 at 4:50 AM Anyway…........ come on Nat the New Year’s Bat….........We are all gathering in the ring, awaiting your presence and the joy it doth bring. The parrotted propaganda from the princess of slander.
You have yet to call Griffin a Drug Fiend, or Jones a Religious Nut, or everyone a Bush hater and thus untrustworthy, ....On THIS thread! Get to miss character assassin. Spray them with your poison again, because all these people are mentioning these names again, you know them all Natty, Reynolds too, and isn’t it time you dredged up the hit piece from that magazine, Popular Mechanics? again? Time for a strawman Nat. Wouldn’t you like to prop up a strawman and show them all how good you can kick and punch and rip it? She is really good at demolishing Strawmen, guys, Natty makes mince of them, her wit is wasted on us, it is against Strawmen her tongue is most sharp.Oh and by the way, Natty must have forgotten that we talkied about the structure of the WTC, and how it was not Unique, the differences in it’s structure which have been incorporated in other buildings since, did not weaken it, they strengthened the building. Kind of a Red Herring that Unique design thing. Especially when there is still some deliberate misrepresentations about part of that structure which formed the basis of the incomplete even then, analysis by the commission.
The more important issue, because it eliminates this idea as a contender. WTC-7 was not Unique. It was built differently, and it becomes even more incredible that it copllapsed perfectly into it’s footprint also, since not only was there no plane or fire on the scale of the other two towers, but because it followed exactly the same incredible sequence of collapse, but in reverse, like a traditional demolition. It was most unequivocably a demolition job, many other apologists in the engineering world, for the Official Lies about the North and South Tower, accept without doubt that WTC-7 was demolished. Despite belated efforts by Shills such as Natty to try and spin Silverstein’s words when he admitted this, too mnay others including firefighters and rescue workers have confirmed it was demoklished with explosives.
It was really a botched job, many of us are realising now that the second tower was brought down too fast, but this was probably due to the Navy Helicopter being out of fuel, it is seen racing away back to it’s ship, the Baltimore was it? (I’ll check), just as the second tower strated to go down.
The WTC-7 appears also to have been botched, the appearance is that the silly buggers were having a hell of a time getting the fires to burn big enough and spread enough to look impressive in WTC-7 before they pushed the button.
The buildings were unique in their strength, ability to withstand such an attack, since it was envisioned at the design stage that it might have to withstand the impact of two such jets and the designers claimed it could probably stand after three such jet strikes.
Posted by Rabbit on Jan 5, 2006 at 5:13 AM Ah, yesssss. Extraordinarily extraordinary extraordinariness.
Ssssssssssoooooooo, sssssssssspecial, sssspecial, special.
Keep in mind. Squawk. Keep in mind. Squawk. Keep in mind.
Squawk.
(You’re getting sleeeeeepy. Sleeeepy. Sleeepy.)
Posted by wileywitch on Jan 5, 2006 at 6:17 AM My dear friend Felonious Grammar recommends a game of Astronomical Odds. All players welcome. Just copy and paste some of those wild, crazy, and totally unlikely events surrounding 9/11/2001. I’ll start:
Agency planned drill for plane crash last Sept. 11
Associated Press
August 22, 2002WASHINGTON—In what the government describes as a bizarre coincidence, one U.S. intelligence agency was planning an exercise last Sept. 11 in which an errant aircraft crashed into one of its buildings. But the cause wasn’t terrorism—it was to be a simulated accident.
Officials at the Chantilly, Va.-based National Reconnaissance Office had scheduled an exercise that morning in which a small corporate jet crashed into one of the four towers at the agency’s headquarters building after experiencing a mechanical failure.
The agency is about four miles from the runways of Washington Dulles International Airport.
Agency chiefs came up with the scenario to test employees’ ability to respond to a disaster, said spokesman Art Haubold. To simulate the damage from the plane, some stairwells and exits were to be closed off, forcing employees to find other ways to evacuate the building.
“It was just an incredible coincidence that this happened to involve an aircraft crashing into our facility,” Haubold said. “As soon as the real world events began, we canceled the exercise.”
Terrorism was to play no role in the exercise, which had been planned for several months, he said.
Adding to the coincidence, American Airlines Flight 77—the Boeing 767 that was hijacked and crashed into the Pentagon—took off from Dulles at 8:10 a.m. on Sept. 11, 50 minutes before the exercise was to begin. It struck the Pentagon around 9:40 a.m., killing 64 aboard the plane and 125 on the ground.
The National Reconnaissance Office operates many of the nation’s spy satellites. It draws its personnel from the military and the CIA.
After the Sept. 11 attacks, most of the 3,000 people who work at agency headquarters were sent home, save for some essential personnel, Haubold said.
An announcement for an upcoming homeland security conference in Chicago first noted the exercise.
In a promotion for speaker John Fulton, a CIA officer assigned as chief of NRO’s strategic gaming division, the announcement says, “On the morning of September 11th 2001, Mr. Fulton and his team ... were running a pre-planned simulation to explore the emergency response issues that would be created if a plane were to strike a building. Little did they know that the scenario would come true in a dramatic way that day.”
The conference is being run by the National Law Enforcement and Security Institute.
What are the odds? ASTRONOMICAL!!!
Posted by wileywitch on Jan 5, 2006 at 8:08 AM Hmmm…..looks like you’re leaning pretty heavily in the direction of manipulation.
Let us know when you’ve reached your final decision!
Posted by Natalie on Jan 5, 2006 at 12:19 PM -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Salim Muwakkil
- The ‘Post-Racial’ President
Barack Obama navigates a world where color still matters. - Government-Assisted Terrorists
- The Irony of Obama’s Boycott
America's first black president refused to attend a U.N. conference on racism. - African-Americans Back Burris
- Will Holder Hold Cops Accountable?
- Justice for Jon Burge’s Victims?
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1979 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
427 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2005 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
