abc wrote:
> "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.
>
>
You lost me, I'm guessing it's a reference to Office Space, but I'm not
sure what you mean by it.
|
