Re: stand down

"jupiter" <jupiter49@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1155056247.687273.253580@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Terry Gowan wrote:
"Davlo" <davlo@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:qc2Cg.15291$PO.3971@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Lyford" <LyfordIII@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:rbSdnRsMqcVJPUXZnZ2dnUVZ_uqdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"jupiter" <jupiter49byebyeSpam@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:wZqdnVGhVc-xlEXZnZ2dnUVZ_u2dnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<stuff deleted>

The fighters never arrive, Flight 77 ploughs into the Pentagon.

What are you talking about? I thought it was a missile that ploughed
into the Pentagon. Don't you keep telling us, and linking to things,
that prove it couldn't have been an airplane? What's going on here?


I think his point is that the fighters never arrive because there was
never a plane to intercept. There was some sort of airborne device,
whether a drone or a missile, but the point being made is that
regardless
of what "it" was, "it" was allowed purposely to hit it's target.

If there had been an actual plane, which was actually hijacked, and
actually tracked by NORAD, then WHY wasn't it taken out prior to
reaching
the Pentagon? No one has an answer for this, despite our trillion
dollar
air defense system. So either this system failed catastrophically
across
the board on that day (4 planes all unaccounted for and 3 of them able
to
reach their target), or the events were planned and allowed to take
place.
Which is scarier, and which is more likely? Either one is bad beyond
belief.

If you believe that flight 77 never hit the pentagon, then you have to
wonder what happened to flight 77 and all the souls who boarded it. Does
someone have a theory on that? Was the plane dropped into the ocean
while
no one was looking, or did they crash it somewhere on land and cover that
up, too?

I'm also wondering about the motive for faking a crash into the pentagon.
Clearly two planes hit the WTC and one crashed in Pennsylvania. Was a
faked
crash (and subsequent cover up of the murder of all the passengers and
crew
aboard flight 77) into the pentagon just done as "insurance" to get the
American people riled up so we could go after Muslim extremists and Iraq?


In the case of Operation Northwoods (Body of Secrets, by James Bamford)
the Joint Chiefs planned a faked hijacking. They were going to "swap"
planes in the air near Cuban airspace, while the real one was forced to
land at Guantanamo for "emergency repairs" or some such thing.

How they would have worked it all out, I don't know (because that level
of detail was not kept in the memos) but they controlled all of the
food chain in charge of air traffic control.


Here's why these conspiracy theories don't fly. No one can keep a
secret.

Yes they can, Terry, by intimidation. I will guarantee you that if
threaten to rape and dismember your daughter you'll shut your mouth
pretty tight.

Aside from that, many of the "secrets" have been found out. If you
actually take the time to read the stuff Dan Hopsicker wrote (from
Venice FL) about the CIA training base for the hijackers, and who ran
the flight school, and who those guys were buddies with, you'll begin
to see reality. http://www.madcowprod.com/

Dan Hopsicker is an actual investigator who has documented the
criminal, sordid story behind Mohammed Atta and the CIA and the
criminal flight school funded by some very well known political figures
in the US.

Atta was a criminal, but he was not hired by Bin Laden. His motives
had nothing to do with "Islamo-fascism".

Bin Laden said he had nothing to do with it. Denying it is no way to
pump up your cause, right? It's no way to cause celebration over your
success and get more recruits for your organization, right? That was
not Bin Laden's project. That is no secret, it's just obfuscated by
the miles of bull*** pouring out of the ass of Washington.

We can choose to accept the carefully scripted story, associate it with
"lunatic muslims" and all that, but it's way, way off base. It's the
same thing they tried to do to sour us on Cuba by trying to fake
hijackings and kill Americans with hired Cuban thugs.

We are talking about a mob mentality.

They even planned to shoot John Glenn out of the sky with stolen Cuban
missles. If they would kill an American hero for a political cause, to
start a war with Cuba, they are capable of doing anything. Anything.

They were going to blow up bridges and buildings in America, using
Cuban thugs as the hit men.

The blueprint was there a long time ago.


Since taking part in this thread, my curiosity has peaked on these
conspiracy theories. This is the best position I've been able to find, that
is to say it's the one I find easiest to believe. It's kinda long, but not
too bad. Let me know what you think.

Here's the link so you can follow the links the author provides.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0427-29.htm



Published on Thursday, April 27, 2006 by The Crisis Papers
The 9/11 Conspiracy: A Skeptic's View
by Ernest Partridge

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle unless the
testimony be of such a kind that its falsehood would be more miraculous than
the fact which it endeavors to establish...
-David Hume, On Miracles
This essay is certain to make many readers very angry with me. But ya
gotta do what ya gotta do.

Last month I was a guest on a progressive radio talk show. About
half-way through the hour-long program, the conversation was going well,
until I expressed some doubts about the "controlled demolition" hypotheses
of the collapse of the World Trade Center. That comment sealed the fate of
the remainder of the hour, as it prompted an unvarying succession of angry
rebuttals and a deluge of alleged "facts" supporting the view that the WTC
towers were brought down by pre-set demolition charges, and that the
Pentagon was not struck by a Boeing 747. And so I felt obliged to take a
closer look at the theories and evidence regarding the 9/11 attacks on the
World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

After many hours watching videos this weekend of long presentations by
David Ray Griffin, Steven Jones and James Fetzer, several other videos both
affirming and rejecting "the official version" (OV), and reading numerous
articles, it appears to me that the OV of the destruction of the World Trade
Center is not credible. Too many anomalies are not explained. A closer look
at the conspiracy theories (CTs) indicates that these too can not be true.
Too many improbable assumptions. Thus one must conclude that the 9/11 attack
on the WTC never took place.

No wait, that's absurd. Of course it took place! So what we are left
with is an abundance of contrary claims, unconfirmable "evidence" leading to
utter confusion and no firm conclusions -- none, that is, regarding the
World Trade Center attack. The Pentagon attack, however, should present
little doubt: American Airlines Flight 77 struck the building.

The Evidence Problem

All accounts of the attacks, whether the official version or any of
the numerous conspiracy theories, rest upon weak evidence - "weak," that is,
to all those who did not examine the evidence at the scene, or did not have
access to evidence with a secure "chain of custody." For all others,
including myself and presumably all who read this, the evidence is 2nd, 3rd,
and Nth-hand hearsay. The best evidence available to us, when relevant, are
photographic and video images, and even these are subject to various
interpretations.

Until recently, the public could rely on published evidence from
government scientists and government-supported scientific research, as well
as reputable media. But no more. We now know that the Bush Administration
alters or withholds scientific reports to conform to policy, dogma, and
pre-conceptions. The Bushites also lie outright in defense of their
policies. As for the media, even that most reliable and respected "newspaper
of record," The New York Times, has become a font of misinformation,
including the Clinton Whitewater non-scandal, false and misleading reports
of the Florida 2000 vote count, and Judith Miller's notorious reports of
Saddam's alleged WMDs.

Even so, the critical reader should be capable of identifying and
dismissing bizarre assertions, such as Morgan Reynold's claim that no
aircraft struck the twin towers on 9/11 - this in spite of thousands of
eye-witnesses and a vast number of photo and video images.

The same critical reader can identify and set aside pronouncements
that are devoid of supporting evidence, such as this narrative by James
Fetzer of the fate of American Airlines Flight 77 which, if it didn't hit
the Pentagon, as Fetzer contends, must be somehow accounted for:

Flight 77 went off the radar screen in the vicinity of the
Kentucky/Ohio border. This whole dotted path [on a map displayed by Fetzer]
is a hypothetical or an imaginary path that the plane may have taken, but it
was not recorded on radar. And my belief is in fact the plane actually went
down in the Kentucky Ohio vicinity... Then a plane, probably a n A-13 Sky
Warrior was substituted here very close to Washington DC.
Fetzer gives us no citation of the alleged disappearance from the
radar screen. (I have heard nothing about this "radar disappearance." Have
you?) Then it gets much worse: "hypothetical or imaginary path," "may have
taken," "my belief." Not a shred of evidence is offered in support of this
fantasy.

The World Trade Center

Much of the "evidence" presented by the WTC conspiracy theorists is
demonstrably false, fallacious, or irrelevant. For example:

"The temperatures were not hot enough to melt steel." True but
irrelevant. This is a persistent criticism by the CT. However, the OV does
not claim that the steel melted at the impact points (melting temperature,
2700°F), only that it was weakened. The temperature sufficient to weaken
steel by fifty-percent (1170°F) was well within the range of the burning jet
fuel and office supplies.
"The debris was quickly collected without inspection and shipped off
to Asia for recycling." False. It was relocated to a collection site at
Staten Island, where it was examined by forensic engineers, and where
personal effects were identified. (Here, here, and here are three of the
54,000 Google hits from a search for "World Trade Center" and "Staten
Island" and "Debris")

No steel frame building has ever collapsed because of a fire."
Another "fact" repeatedly asserted by CT-s. Irrelevant, even if true. The
WTC towers were brought down by a combination of fire and structural damage
caused by the impact from the planes. (The collapse of WTC Building #7 was
not caused by either fire or impact from planes -- a problem for the CV
which we will discuss later).

Now look very carefully at these images of the collapse of the WTC
towers, here (north tower, 35:20. 36:40), here (south tower, 5:37), and
here. (The numbers in parenthesis indicate the time locations in the
videos). Notice that the collapse begins at the points of impact. Below the
points of impact, the towers remain in place as the disintegration proceeds
from the top down.

Next look at these video images of controlled demolitions (131:40) and
also the collapse of WTC #7 (1:05). In all these cases, the collapse
begins at the base, where the charges were set.

Assume now what your eyes plainly tell you: that (a) the collapse of
each tower begins at the point of impact, and (b) that the collapse proceeds
from that point downward. Next, try to weave these assumptions into the
standard CT hypothesis that the towers were brought down by pre-located
explosive charges. What results is this highly improbable scenario:

Charges had to be set beforehand at the points of impact, the 94th to
the 98th floors of the north tower, and the 78th to the 84th floors of the
south tower. Both aircraft, in stunning feats of piloting skill, succeeded
in striking precisely at those pre-arranged locations. However, all charges
placed below those points of impact were either duds or were insufficient to
precipitate collapses. The towers stood firm as the demolition moved
downward from the impact points.

In rebuttal, one might point out that the towers were supported by
both the outer walls and an inner core. Might not the charges at the base
have caused the collapse of the inner core, while the outer walls remained
intact? This would account for the downward vertical plunge of the north
tower.

Nice try, but it won't wash. If the core collapsed within, the
accumulating debris from above would have demolished the outer walls below.
This did not happen.

However, the official version is not without problems, and the
conspiracy theory is not yet out of the contest. There remain some troubling
anomalies for the OV:

Foremost among these is the collapse of WTC Building No. 7. Five hours
after the towers came down, this forty story structure collapsed. And this
time, as you can see here (1:05), the collapse followed the exact pattern of
a controlled demolition: beginning at the base and falling uniformly on its
own "footprint." The best that the OV can offer as explanation is that the
foundation was weakened by fire, by seismic shock of the collapsing towers,
and by the overload of debris from the towers. It is not a compelling
explanation, to say the least. Perhaps this explains why an account of the
collapse of WTC #7 is missing from the 9/11 Commission report.

Prof. Steven Jones, to my mind the most credible of the 9/11 critics,
claims that melted and congealed steel was found in the rubble, and that it
originated at the base of the standing buildings. The only plausible cause
of melting with these properties, Jones claims, would be a high temperature
explosive such as thermite. Jones is well-qualified to make this assessment.
He is a professor of physics at Brigham Young University, with a specialty
in metal-catalyzed fusion.

And this is just the beginning of a long list of anomalies that
undercut the official version. Among them:

There were numerous reports of explosions below the impact points at
the time the towers were hit. Others report that there were explosions
before the planes hit.

Tapes of interviews with air traffic controllers were destroyed.

When news of the attack reached the Florida school where Bush was
visiting, the Secret Service failed to remove the president from that
previously publicized location.

There was a flood of "put options" (anticipations of loss) on
American Airlines and United Airlines stock, within the week before 9/11.

The website, 911research.wtc7.net lists numerous additional
anomalies; no doubt many of these are bogus, but there are others that are
troubling.

The governments, New York City and State, and the Feds still have a
lot of 'splainin to do.

The Attack on the Pentagon.

Unlike the WTC attacks, the Pentagon is rather simple and
cut-and-dried. The official version is correct: The west side of the
building was struck by American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757. The
evidence is clear, unequivocal, and overwhelming. The alternative conspiracy
theories (impact by a fighter plane or cruise missile) are plainly false,
and at times simply pathetic.

This conclusion is compelling when we apply "the David Hume test" to
the conspiracy theory: namely, the improbability of CT being true, despite
the evidence for OV. Specifically, for CT to be true, we must also assume
that:

Hundreds of eyewitnesses on the George Washington Parkway at
morning rush-hour were either (a) victims of mass-hallucination, or (b)
taken aside and threatened or bribed to testify falsely that they saw a
commercial aircraft.

Immediately after the impact, squads of conspirators rushed to the
scene (including the inside of the burning Pentagon) to plant body parts,
personal effects, and bogus aircraft parts (some, like the engines and
landing gear weighing several hundred pounds). Others dumped aviation fuel,
to "falsely" suggest involvement of an airplane.

Alternatively, eyewitness testimony of those claiming to find these
parts were also coerced, and published photographic evidence faked. All
press reports were also concocted to give credence to the official version.

Finally, some explanation must be presented as to the fate of Flight
77 and its passengers, which somehow disappeared without any further trace
at the precise time the alleged military aircraft or cruise missile
approached and struck the Pentagon.

Sorry, but its just too much for me to swallow.

What Does it all Mean?

How then are we to explain the Bush Administration inaction before
9/11, and its willingness to take full advantage of this "new Pearl Harbor?"
I don't know, but that doesn't keep me from speculating. So here's my
hunch - and it's only a hunch which I am willing to revise or abandon if and
when more evidence appears. The Busheviks were forewarned ("Bin Laden
determined to strike in the US"), but they expected attacks on the scale of
the USS Cole and the African embassies: perhaps a few dozen casualties --
"acceptable." They did not take countermeasures because they saw a strategic
advantage in such a "mini-Pearl Harbor." For such a purpose, the attack on
The Pentagon would suffice. They did not expect the destruction of the World
Trade Center. However, after 9/11 the die was cast, and so they eagerly
launched their "war on terror," along with the policy outrages that were to
follow: the USA PATRIOT ACT, Abu Ghraib, Gitmo. The Iraq War, we now know
from Richard Clarke and the Downing Street memos, was on the drawing boards
long before 9/11, awaiting just such an event to set it in motion.

All that is little more than a guess. But we can arrive at some more
substantial conclusions from our unresolved examination of the 9/11 attacks.

First of all, it is clear that the 9/11 Commission is a travesty. Too
many phenomena are unexplained. The evidence must be revisited and
validated, and the critics' anomalies explained. And this must be done
fearlessly and independently of any political biases or agendas.

Second, the critics of the official version should, as much as
possible, get their facts straight, whereupon they must then cease
presenting falsehoods as evidence; e.g., that the debris was shipped
immediately, uninspected, to Asia; that the OV assumes and claims that steel
melted; that no physical evidence of the plane was found at the Pentagon,
etc.

Third: there is no shame in suspending belief -- i.e., in being
skeptical. Conversely, it is shameful to jump to a conclusion and a
conviction on insufficient and conflicting evidence. Acceptance of the
official version, or conversely of the conspiracy theory, are not our only
alternatives. Both views are vulnerable and leave many crucial questions
unanswered. Far better that we admit to ourselves and tell the world that we
simply do not know. Suspension of belief is not a conspicuously American
trait. But it is a stock-in-trade of honest scholars and scientists. And it
is spur to further investigation, which is most assuredly called for in this
case.

Finally, partisan passions should not get in the way of a rational
assessment of the evidence. Personally, my web publications testify that I
yield to no one in my contempt for Bush and his crime syndicate. I would
like as much as anyone to see these crimes pinned on Bush, Inc. But the
evidence (however weak) is what it is.

What happened on 9/11? Who is responsible? The questions remain open
even as they remain urgent. The American people deserve answers, and more
immediately, competent and sustained investigation leading to these answers.

Dr. Ernest Partridge is a consultant, writer and lecturer in the field
of Environmental Ethics and Public Policy. He has taught Philosophy at the
University of California, and in Utah, Colorado and Wisconsin. He publishes
the website, "The Online Gadfly" and co-edits the progressive website, "The
Crisis Papers." His book in progress, "Conscience of a Progressive," can be
seen at www.igc.org/gadfly/progressive/^toc.htm. E-mail to:
crisispapers@xxxxxxxxxxxx

© 2006 Ernest Partridge






Terry Gowan


.