"Adam Ruth" <owski@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:anmWg.44060$rP1.5421@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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
Well said - just like the Fat Guy with the Red Stapler.
|
