Sir Arthur C. B. E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A. wrote:
> Aw, Hagar, you are just a goof-ball. The majority of Americans now
> accept the reality of extraterrestrials. Also, the majority of
> Americans do not accept the Govt. conspiracy-theory, something about
> box-cutters, a cave, and able to attack the most secure building in the
> world.
> Nobody, except a few mental-cases, takes the Govt. conspiracy theory
> seriously. Your just playing a goof!!
Now, I don't think name calling helps the discussion much. Besides,
this may be more of an indication of the type of people you associate
with, than a valid sample of the whole population.
>
> We want truthful answers to questions such as:
I'll take a stab, even though I'm no expert. Mind you, I do not state
conclusively that I present proof that there was no conspiracy, however
I do think that all of these questions do have likely explanations that
do not require conspiracy.
>
> 1. Why were standard operating procedures for dealing with hijacked
> airliners not followed that day?
Which procedures? I'm only superficially aware of what procedures were
in place.
Although certain procedures not being followed could be explained by how
rare hijackings occur in US airspace and therefore how rarely those
procedures are put into practice. However, I would need to know which
procedures you believe weren't followed before I could comment in more
detail.
> 2. Why were the extensive missile batteries and air defenses
> re****tedly deployed around the Pentagon not activated during the
> attack?
There can be a number of explanations for them not being used. First, I
have some knowledge of air defense weapons, and can say that they are
not all equally effective against all types of threats. A low flying
jumbo jet is not an ideal target for a Patriot battery, for example.
Though, more im****tantly, I think that it would be more an issue of
policies. I sincerely doubt that the Rules of Engagement allowed for
the firing on a civilian jet, and as such a change of the ROE would
require more time than would be necessary to effectively engage the
target.
The notion that the Pentagon is protected by a soldier holding his
finger over a firing button waiting for a blip to appear on his screen,
is patently absurd. Military defenses do not operate at full alert
24/7, but take time to move to different levels of alertness.
Besides, it doesn't take a conspiracy to explain how civilian planes
could have been landed on both the White House lawn and the Kremlin's
Red Square. The lesson here is that, unfortunately, surprise attacks
are frighteningly effective.
> 3. Why did the Secret Service allow Bush to complete his elementary
> school visit, apparently unconcerned about his safety or that of the
> schoolchildren?
First, he didn't finish his visit, he was to be there longer. Second,
they were apparently unconcerned because they *were* unconcerned. It
sounds cold hearted, but the Secret Service has only one job, to protect
the President. The local police force, who are always on hand for
visits, have responsibility for the school children. The Secret Service
would be derelict in their duty if they were to move the President
simply out of concern for the school.
> 4. Why hasn't a single person been fired, penalized, or reprimanded
> for the gross incompetence we witnessed that day?
Croneyism? I would think that "rolling some heads" would be part of a
conspiracy cover up, to lend it some legitimacy.
> 5. Why haven't authorities in the U.S. and abroad published the
> results of multiple investigations into trading that strongly suggested
> foreknowledge of specific details of the 9/11 attacks, resulting in
> tens of millions of dollars of traceable gains?
Which re****ts are being held secret? I would guess that there are many
investigations in many areas that are not being released as this is
really an ongoing investigation.
> 6. Why has Sibel Edmonds, a former FBI translator who claims to have
> knowledge of advance warnings, been publicly silenced with a gag order
> requested by Attorney General Ashcroft and granted by a Bush-appointed
> judge?
She was hired as a translator after 9/11, so none of her information
could have been first hand. That being said, however, her situation
sounds as much like a government trying to cover up incompetence as it
is one covering up a conspiracy. Additionally, not all who claim to be
whistle blowers are valid, and the gag order could truly be a real
national security issue.
> 7. How could Flight 77, which re****tedly hit the Pentagon, have
> flown back towards Wa****ngton D.C. for 40 minutes without being
> detected by the FAA's radar or the even superior radar possessed by the
> US military?
It didn't, it was on various radars the whole way.
> 8. How were the FBI and CIA able to release the names and photos of
> the alleged hijackers within hours, as well as to visit houses,
> restaurants, and flight schools they were known to frequent?
How many hours? Photos were not released until Sept 27, I'm not sure
about the rest, but it shouldn't be too hard to find out.
> 9. What happened to the over 20 do***ented warnings given our
> government by 14 foreign intelligence agencies or heads of state?
Sounds like they weren't taken seriously. Exactly how detailed were
these re****ts, have you read them?
> 10. Why did the Bush administration cover up the fact that the head
> of the Pakistani intelligence agency was in Wa****ngton the week of 9/11
> and re****tedly had $100,000 wired to Mohamed Atta, considered the
> ringleader of the hijackers?
They didn't do a very good job of covering it up. The information that
the money was derived from the ISI comes only from Indian intelligence,
and they don't have an ax to grind. Actually, it's very likely that
there are those in Pakistani intelligence who had a hand in 9/11,
possibly even the top. But many of them hate us as much as Bin Laden
and certainly wouldn't work with us.
> 11. Why did the 911 Commission fail to address most of the questions
> posed by the families of the victims, in addition to almost all of the
> questions posed here?
Because they didn't to a perfect job? Many of the questions here and
from the families (not all families are asking questions, BTW) didn't
really require an answer, either because they were based on inaccurate
information or were not part of the commission's scope (such as
questions 3 and 4 above, respectively).
> 12. Why was Philip Zelikow chosen to be the Executive Director of the
> ostensibly independent 911 Commission although he had co-authored a
> book with Condoleezza Rice?
Croneyism? It's something that the Bush administration is good at.
>
> Those who are demanding deeper inquiry now number in the hundreds of
> thousands, including a former member of the first Bush administration,
> a retired Air Force colonel, a European parliamentarian, families of
> the victims, highly respected authors, investigative journalists, peace
> and justice leaders, former Pentagon staff, and the National Green
> Party.
>
>
>
Finally, and I think most im****tantly, there has not been anyone
credibly claim to be involved in the conspiracy. Conspiracy theories
typically remain theories because proof (not evidence, proof is
different) is never found. If we look at history at known times when
the government has tried to truly cover something up (such as military
projects) they rarely succeed. Even the Manhattan project was known to
the Soviets, and of course there's Watergate. They fail because someone
on the "inside" lets the cat out of the bag. The more people involved
in a conspiracy, the less likely that it will be maintained. As large a
conspiracy this would have to be, makes it so unlikely that it's truly a
conspiracy as to strain credibility. It's certainly not impossible, but
after 5 years we still haven't heard from any of the thousands who were
supposedly involved.
Adam Ruth
|
