on the impeachment thing....don't think Bush needs to be impeached..will ultimately hurt the Democrats.....and I also agree there were alot of people that in their hearts thought he was doing the right thing...but many of us..knew his logic was flawed also knew it was wrong to go into Iraq. I do also think there were lots of soft lies the administration told the American people...and for that they need to be called out so we don't have to go through this BS again.
Well, I can certainly agree with some of your statements - to a point that is
But I think that even though his logic was flawed, and they may have thrown some soft lies, in the end, I believe the man honestly thought he was taking the right steps for the country, and to this American - impeachment is not an option here
I'll keep taking punches
Untill their will grows tired
Well, I can certainly agree with some of your statements - to a point that is
But I think that even though his logic was flawed, and they may have thrown some soft lies, in the end, I believe the man honestly thought he was taking the right steps for the country, and to this American - impeachment is not an option here
but don't be suprised if we don't find out some interesting tidbits as this moment in history unravels. I really want our country to become whole as you and thus also don't want impeachment hearings....again I just hope the American people have learned something from this.
I also hope that the religious right stays out of trying to shape American policies and laws...cause if they do another batch of politicians will latch on for the ride...yet again.
I've been saying the same thing about Socialist leaning Democrats for years. They haven't gone away yet either.
how did I get myself into that one.....whole seperate thread.......but...you can pray till your knees bleed...."Socialist leaning Democrates" couldn't give a rats ass.... (-: I'm smiling as I write this by the way.
how did I get myself into that one.....whole seperate thread.......but...you can pray till your knees bleed...."Socialist leaning Democrates" couldn't give a rats ass.... (-: I'm smiling as I write this by the way.
I've always found it more effective to let them know just how wrong they are at every turn. One of them has to be bright enough to understand logic one of these days.
"We have to change the concept of patriotism to one of “matriotism” — love of humanity that transcends war. A matriarch would never send her own children off to wars that kill other people’s children." Cindy Sheehan --- London, Brixton, 14 July 1993 London, Wembley, 1996 London, Wembley, 18 June 2007 London, O2, 18 August 2009 London, Hammersmith Apollo (Ed solo), 31 July 2012 Milton Keynes Bowl, 11 July 2014
London, Hammersmith Apollo (Ed solo), 06 June 2017
I've always found it more effective to let them know just how wrong they are at every turn. One of them has to be bright enough to understand logic one of these days.
I know this questions seems lame, and always does. But I am truly curious. How old are you?
I'm 35. Why?
Are you suggesting that it's immature to get information from books?
We can't all be so priveleged as to have a yearly subscription to the National inquirer you know?
I'm 35. Why?
Are you suggesting that it's immature to get information from books?
We can't all be so priveleged as to have a yearly subscription to the National inquirer you know?
Easy there, I was just curious. You have very peculiar beliefs to me, and I wanted a better perspective.
Its a whole other story.Bush started a justifyed and nessacasrasy war to protect the freedom's of American's and those around the globe.Some people died.Boo-fuckin'-hoo it's war what do you exept. On the other hand, that dope Clinton LIED to the people and comitted adultry.Dont try and tarnish Bush's name.He's ten time's the prez Clinton ever was.
I’d thank my lucky stars,
to be livin here today.
‘Cause the flag still stands for freedom,
and they can’t take that away.
And I’m proud to be an American,
where at least I know I’m free.
And I wont forget the men who died,
who gave that right to me.
Its a whole other story.Bush started a justifyed and nessacasrasy war to protect the freedom's of American's and those around the globe.Some people died.Boo-fuckin'-hoo it's war what do you exept. On the other hand, that dope Clinton LIED to the people and comitted adultry.Dont try and tarnish Bush's name.He's ten time's the prez Clinton ever was.
RIGHT ON !!!!!!!!
Take me piece by piece..... Till there aint nothing left worth taking away from me.....
Its a whole other story.Bush started a justifyed and nessacasrasy war to protect the freedom's of American's and those around the globe.Some people died.Boo-fuckin'-hoo it's war what do you exept. On the other hand, that dope Clinton LIED to the people and comitted adultry.Dont try and tarnish Bush's name.He's ten time's the prez Clinton ever was.
So on the one hand we have a lie and a blow job ... on the other hand we have half a million (give or take a hundred thousand or so) dead people, and millions more injured.
Which did you say was worse?
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
So on the one hand we have a lie and a blow job ... on the other hand we have half a million (give or take a hundred thousand or so) dead people, and millions more injured.
Which did you say was worse?
a blow job from monica is definitely worse....
hehehe...........
Take me piece by piece..... Till there aint nothing left worth taking away from me.....
Its a whole other story.Bush started a justifyed and nessacasrasy war to protect the freedom's of American's and those around the globe.Some people died.Boo-fuckin'-hoo it's war what do you exept. On the other hand, that dope Clinton LIED to the people and comitted adultry.Dont try and tarnish Bush's name.He's ten time's the prez Clinton ever was.
Well basically and to my surprise, he discounts any suggestion that 9/11 was an inside job.
I have never said that 9/11 was an inside job. What i have said is that, according to all the available evidence, the Bush Administration knew of the plans to hijack planes to attack key targets and they allowed the attacks to go ahead.
As stated in the 'Project for a new American century' article in the year 2000, Chapter V, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", which discusses the perceived need for the Department of Defense to "move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts”.[10] The full quote is as follows: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor."
The Bush administration got what they wanted.
Its a whole other story.Bush started a justifyed and nessacasrasy war to protect the freedom's of American's and those around the globe.Some people died.Boo-fuckin'-hoo it's war what do you exept. On the other hand, that dope Clinton LIED to the people and comitted adultry.Dont try and tarnish Bush's name.He's ten time's the prez Clinton ever was.
I swear this dudes an imposter. No one can possibly be this f?>:?()*ed!
I have never said that 9/11 was an inside job. What i have said is that, according to all the available evidence, the Bush Administration knew of the plans to hijack planes to attack key targets and they allowed the attacks to go ahead.
As stated in the 'Project for a new American century' article in the year 2000, Chapter V, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", which discusses the perceived need for the Department of Defense to "move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts”.[10] The full quote is as follows: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor."
The Bush administration got what they wanted.
that quote proves to you that bush and co. knew 9/11 was coming. I mean the exact plan on 9/11?
The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11
David Ray Griffin
Olive Branch Press, 2004
Paper, 214 pp, $15.00
The official story goes something like this:
With no actionable warning from intelligence agencies, four planes were hijacked by terrorists on the morning of September 11, 2001. Two crashed into the Word Trade Center, which then collapsed, and shortly thereafter, the third into the Pentagon. The last plane went down in Pennsylvania after a struggle between passengers and hijackers. Air defense arrived too late to stop the catastrophes. Responding to this attack on the homeland, the president declared a global war on terror which may last for generations until evil is finally eradicated, the security of America firmly established, and the world made safe for freedom and democracy.
In The New Pearl Harbor, David Ray Griffin compiles the evidence that every single assertion in the official story is implausible or impossible, and that something other must explain the inconsistencies and contra-factual assertions.
The implications of the accumulated evidence is that the Bush administration was complicit in the events of September 11th, and not merely a victim of structural problems or incompetence on the part of the intelligence establishment. In a nuanced discussion of "complicity", Griffin distinguishes eight possible levels, from the lying about events to maximize political ends, through intentionally allowing expected attacks, to actual involvement in the planning of them.
Griffin does not make specific accusations, nor does he hypothesize a "true" version of what happened. But he does demand unflinching investigations of all the contradictions, clear reporting of the results, and most difficult, a courageous drawing of conclusions, no matter how "unthinkable" or outrageous they may appear.
In the months since the book was published, we have been swamped with news from the 9/11 Commission concerning both domestic and foreign intelligence which indicated a large and imminent attack on the United States. But the Commission, its members appointed by President Bush, is focussing on the future. According to Vice-Chair Lee Hamilton, "We're not interested in trying to assess blame..." Their goal is to understand what happened so as to restructure intelligence so that such "a breakdown" may not happen again. Given this limited mandate, almost none of the contradictions Griffin raises is likely to be discussed, or its ramifications analyzed before the case is closed.
The first part of The New Pearl Harbor looks in detail at the timeline and events of 9/11 itself. How is it, Griffin asks, that even the first airplane was not intercepted -- given standard procedures, operating normally many times a year, for off-course or otherwise anomalous aircraft? The FAA, NORAD, and the NMCC (National Military Command Center at the Pentagon) have a clear and working set of standard operating procedures which on September 11th, and on that day only, failed to operate. Griffin lays them out, along with the strange, and changing official excuses for their "failure".
The story becomes even more bizarre for the second plane to hit the WTC. By that time, it was known that three planes had been hijacked, and were heading back eastward (the fourth plane was 41 minutes late in taking off, so at this point was not part of the story). Still there was no normal scrambling of protective aircraft. By the time of the Pentagon incident, the details become grotesque. It was clear to the entire nation, fixed to the TV, that America was under a coordinated attack, and that a third plane was headed towards Washington. Yet though Cheney and Rice were evacuated to the White House bunker, still, no protection aircraft scrambled, and when it finally did, was sent from a base far from DC, travelling at half-maximum speed or less, arriving too late to prevent the attack.
With official statements compared to a detailed timeline of events, the most likely conclusion is that on that day, the air defense system was ordered to stand down from its normal protective procedures -- even after it was clear to all what was happening. Who could have ordered such a stand down?
Much of the material Griffin cites has been long circulated on the internet. What is less commonly understood are the strange details of the WTC collapse, implausibly explained as "jet-fuel fire melting structural steel." The pattern of destruction and fall is more consistent with the air attacks plus controlled demolitions. Griffin parses the material, with many notes from firefighting and architectural sources. Times, temperatures, visual and seismic evidence simply do not support the melting of steel as the sole cause of the observed failures. Further, what but explosions can account for reports of same from survivors, and for powdered concrete and building parts being ejected horizontally three times the width of the buildings? Steel in both towers was broken at the joints, and molten steel found at sub-basement levels -- inconsistent with melting from top floor fires whose debris crushed the floors below. The WTC wreckage was spirited away as quickly as possible and no forensics permitted.
Even more curious was the collapse of WTC Building 7 -- 355 feet away from the north tower, and further still from the south -- which was never hit by a plane or any significant amount of debris ,and sustained only small fires. It went down at 5:20PM, collapsing from the bottom (as in a typical controlled demolition), with none of the "official" explanations in play. The steel was removed quickly from this site as well, although having been evacuated, there were no survivors to be searched for. Relegated to a footnote is the fact that Marvin P. Bush, the president's younger brother, was a director for a security company involved in three of the four attacks. Securacom covered the WTC, United Airlines, -- whose flights hit the WTC and crashed in Pennsylvania -- and Dulles Airport -- from which the Pentagon flight took off. What are we to make of testimony from WTC personnel that five days before 9/11, heightened security requiring 12-hour days and bomb-sniffing dogs was abruptly called off? What committee will chase that down?
Griffin turns next to the strange story of the flight that struck the Pentagon. The physical evidence is simply inconsistent with the claim that the building was struck by a Boeing 757 travelling at 300+ mph. The hole in the façade is far too small to accommodate the wings and tail -- which were supposed to have disappeared within the hole. The penetration is far too shallow for the mass and momentum involved. Yet there is no scorching of the grass on the lawn outside. There is not the slightest sign of a burnt-out wreck in any photograph, nor were there any fuselage fragments recovered within the building. In the initial story, other then a beacon and the two black boxes -- these "discovered" at four the next morning -- every part of the plane, including the stainless steel engines, were melted, and vaporized. Nevertheless, in one version of the original tale, authorities were able to identify victims from their fingerprints. But six months later the story had changed and enough of the plane had been recovered to make possible "an almost complete reconstitution." The parts are supposedly stocked in a warehouse.
According to experienced pilots, the complex final maneuver of the huge aircraft could not have been accomplished by an amateur. The choice of a difficult low flying attack on a side wall, rather than crashing more easily into the roof -- for maximum damage -- was most curious. The plane's being "lost" from all radar contact for 29 minutes, while flying toward Washington is most improbable, given the network of radar and other resources covering the area. These contradictions, along with the failure to scramble in the most protected area of the world, make the official story of the Pentagon attack profoundly suspicious. And though Cheney and Rice were safely stowed in the White House bunker, and a plane was known to be heading in its direction, the Pentagon was never evacuated.
The last of the airplanes to go down was UA Flight 93, scene of the now famous passenger revolt: "Let's roll!" Here, the question is no longer "Why were the planes not shot down?" but rather "Why might it be the case that this one was?" CBS reported two F16s tailing the flight. Phone calls made from the plane during its last minutes reported possible success in overcoming the hijackers. One call reported, "I think they're going to do it. They're forcing their way into the cockpit...They're doing it! They're doing it! They're doing it!" Next, screaming in the background, followed by a "whooshing sound, a sound like wind." Then contact lost. The scenario is consistent with a plane being shot down. A half-ton piece of engine was found over a mile from the fuselage -- a likely target for a heat-seeking missile. Burning debris and human body parts were reported eight miles away, and confetti-like debris rained down minutes afterwards. One theory that would explain these departures from the official story is that Flight 93, unexpectedly late for departure, and unexpectedly rescued by its passengers, was destroyed by a competent military, in this case ordered to complete a bungled task. The risk of people left alive to be questioned may have been too great.
Griffin goes on to examine material that has been more generally covered -- at least in the left press and on many websites: the President's odd behavior on 9/11 given the timeline, and the evolving stories from the White House Press Office. He looks at the larger context of the event: the probable knowledge of possible attacks; the obstruction of investigations before and afterwards; the "anti-hunt" for bin Laden and al-Queda; the connections between Bush and the Saudi royal family; the flying of bin Ladens out of the country when no other aircraft was allowed to fly. We are familiar with much of this, though the details and citations are helpful. By now we are familiar, too, with the neo-con plans, pre-9/11, for projecting US power across the middle east and throughout central Asia. Asking the normal forensic question "Who benefits?", we can see that the Project For A New American Century" (2000) was well served by the "new Pearl Harbor" it called for.
After all the suspicious incongruities collected, we are left with two huge problems. Griffin leads us through them in a chapter entitled "Is Complicity by US Officials the Best Explanation for 9/11?":
1.Beyond showing that official explanations are implausible or impossible, how shall we construct a meaningful, alternative narrative which will contain and explain the known facts? For example, if it was not a Boeing 757 which crashed into the Pentagon, but a smaller military missile, where did the 757 go, and what happened to its passengers?
2. Most difficult of all, perhaps, is the question of how the administration -- if indeed it was complicit in 9/11 at some or several levels -- could be so incompetent at scripting a plausible story. Why not punish a few scapegoats in the intelligence community, instead of promoting those responsible for "lapses"? Why the needless, obvious lies, and continuingly changing statements? Why such massiveness to the conspiracy, requiring silence from many individuals in the White House, Justice Department, FBI, CIA, NSA, and the Pentagon, as well as in civilian security operations? Why risk demolition of buildings beyond the flight attacks? Why bring down WTC 7? Why order interceptor planes to stand down, and deny SOP readiness? Why have the president play unconcern for half an hour? So as not to upset second-graders? Why claim that human flesh could withstand temperatures which would vaporize stainless steel? There are better minds than Bush's who have been concocting covert operations for many years. Where were they? Or was it just this confounding of critics that was intended?
My one quibble with Griffin's most valuable compendium of unanswered questions is that the author nowhere examines and brings his judgement to bear on the many stories concerning Israeli and Mossad participation in the 9/11 events. But the book is a work-in-progress, necessarily incomplete.
Griffin can't put the pieces together. In this, he is honest, and calls on us to be the same. All he can do is call for more authentic investigations -- not the cover-ups currently underway -- to confront these crucial issues. And this, too, we must do.
Comments
Well, I can certainly agree with some of your statements - to a point that is
But I think that even though his logic was flawed, and they may have thrown some soft lies, in the end, I believe the man honestly thought he was taking the right steps for the country, and to this American - impeachment is not an option here
Untill their will grows tired
but don't be suprised if we don't find out some interesting tidbits as this moment in history unravels. I really want our country to become whole as you and thus also don't want impeachment hearings....again I just hope the American people have learned something from this.
I also hope that the religious right stays out of trying to shape American policies and laws...cause if they do another batch of politicians will latch on for the ride...yet again.
I've been saying the same thing about Socialist leaning Democrats for years. They haven't gone away yet either.
how did I get myself into that one.....whole seperate thread.......but...you can pray till your knees bleed...."Socialist leaning Democrates" couldn't give a rats ass.... (-: I'm smiling as I write this by the way.
I've always found it more effective to let them know just how wrong they are at every turn. One of them has to be bright enough to understand logic one of these days.
yes
---
London, Brixton, 14 July 1993
London, Wembley, 1996
London, Wembley, 18 June 2007
London, O2, 18 August 2009
London, Hammersmith Apollo (Ed solo), 31 July 2012
Milton Keynes Bowl, 11 July 2014
stop stealing my lines.
i just threw up.
Of course, I'm sure there would still be those who would stand behind him no matter what he did though. Kinda like Nixon supporters I guess.
Agreed.
The only thing I could support impeaching this president on would be if he had anything to do with 9/11 and I think that's just plain silly.
Forget impeachment, I'd want him hung -
Untill their will grows tired
You think that's just plain silly. Interesting. Read this book, and then ask yourself if it's silly....
http://www.amazon.co.uk/New-Pearl-Harbor-Disturbing-Administration/dp/1844370364/sr=1-1/qid=1163175364/ref=sr_1_1/026-8449191-6268465?ie=UTF8&s=books
I know this questions seems lame, and always does. But I am truly curious. How old are you?
I'm 35. Why?
Are you suggesting that it's immature to get information from books?
We can't all be so priveleged as to have a yearly subscription to the National inquirer you know?
Easy there, I was just curious. You have very peculiar beliefs to me, and I wanted a better perspective.
Fair enough.
Considering Chomsky is such a role model for you perhaps YOU would be interested in this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoDqDvbgeXM
Untill their will grows tired
I can't access YouTube at work. What's it saying?
to be livin here today.
‘Cause the flag still stands for freedom,
and they can’t take that away.
And I’m proud to be an American,
where at least I know I’m free.
And I wont forget the men who died,
who gave that right to me.
Till there aint nothing left worth taking away from me.....
Truly fascinating.
Which did you say was worse?
a blow job from monica is definitely worse....
hehehe...........
Till there aint nothing left worth taking away from me.....
Well basically and to my surprise, he discounts any suggestion that 9/11 was an inside job.
Untill their will grows tired
They learn you real good in Mobile dont they?
I have never said that 9/11 was an inside job. What i have said is that, according to all the available evidence, the Bush Administration knew of the plans to hijack planes to attack key targets and they allowed the attacks to go ahead.
As stated in the 'Project for a new American century' article in the year 2000, Chapter V, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", which discusses the perceived need for the Department of Defense to "move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts”.[10] The full quote is as follows: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor."
The Bush administration got what they wanted.
George Walker Bush*
Bush not only should be impeached but also more importantly removed from office along with Dick Cheney. Let the investigations begin...
I swear this dudes an imposter. No one can possibly be this f?>:?()*ed!
that quote proves to you that bush and co. knew 9/11 was coming. I mean the exact plan on 9/11?
No. There's more to it than that. A lot more.
http://www.counterpunch.org/estrin05252004.html
A Review of "The New Pearl Harbor"
By MARC ESTRIN
The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11
David Ray Griffin
Olive Branch Press, 2004
Paper, 214 pp, $15.00
The official story goes something like this:
With no actionable warning from intelligence agencies, four planes were hijacked by terrorists on the morning of September 11, 2001. Two crashed into the Word Trade Center, which then collapsed, and shortly thereafter, the third into the Pentagon. The last plane went down in Pennsylvania after a struggle between passengers and hijackers. Air defense arrived too late to stop the catastrophes. Responding to this attack on the homeland, the president declared a global war on terror which may last for generations until evil is finally eradicated, the security of America firmly established, and the world made safe for freedom and democracy.
In The New Pearl Harbor, David Ray Griffin compiles the evidence that every single assertion in the official story is implausible or impossible, and that something other must explain the inconsistencies and contra-factual assertions.
The implications of the accumulated evidence is that the Bush administration was complicit in the events of September 11th, and not merely a victim of structural problems or incompetence on the part of the intelligence establishment. In a nuanced discussion of "complicity", Griffin distinguishes eight possible levels, from the lying about events to maximize political ends, through intentionally allowing expected attacks, to actual involvement in the planning of them.
Griffin does not make specific accusations, nor does he hypothesize a "true" version of what happened. But he does demand unflinching investigations of all the contradictions, clear reporting of the results, and most difficult, a courageous drawing of conclusions, no matter how "unthinkable" or outrageous they may appear.
In the months since the book was published, we have been swamped with news from the 9/11 Commission concerning both domestic and foreign intelligence which indicated a large and imminent attack on the United States. But the Commission, its members appointed by President Bush, is focussing on the future. According to Vice-Chair Lee Hamilton, "We're not interested in trying to assess blame..." Their goal is to understand what happened so as to restructure intelligence so that such "a breakdown" may not happen again. Given this limited mandate, almost none of the contradictions Griffin raises is likely to be discussed, or its ramifications analyzed before the case is closed.
The first part of The New Pearl Harbor looks in detail at the timeline and events of 9/11 itself. How is it, Griffin asks, that even the first airplane was not intercepted -- given standard procedures, operating normally many times a year, for off-course or otherwise anomalous aircraft? The FAA, NORAD, and the NMCC (National Military Command Center at the Pentagon) have a clear and working set of standard operating procedures which on September 11th, and on that day only, failed to operate. Griffin lays them out, along with the strange, and changing official excuses for their "failure".
The story becomes even more bizarre for the second plane to hit the WTC. By that time, it was known that three planes had been hijacked, and were heading back eastward (the fourth plane was 41 minutes late in taking off, so at this point was not part of the story). Still there was no normal scrambling of protective aircraft. By the time of the Pentagon incident, the details become grotesque. It was clear to the entire nation, fixed to the TV, that America was under a coordinated attack, and that a third plane was headed towards Washington. Yet though Cheney and Rice were evacuated to the White House bunker, still, no protection aircraft scrambled, and when it finally did, was sent from a base far from DC, travelling at half-maximum speed or less, arriving too late to prevent the attack.
With official statements compared to a detailed timeline of events, the most likely conclusion is that on that day, the air defense system was ordered to stand down from its normal protective procedures -- even after it was clear to all what was happening. Who could have ordered such a stand down?
Much of the material Griffin cites has been long circulated on the internet. What is less commonly understood are the strange details of the WTC collapse, implausibly explained as "jet-fuel fire melting structural steel." The pattern of destruction and fall is more consistent with the air attacks plus controlled demolitions. Griffin parses the material, with many notes from firefighting and architectural sources. Times, temperatures, visual and seismic evidence simply do not support the melting of steel as the sole cause of the observed failures. Further, what but explosions can account for reports of same from survivors, and for powdered concrete and building parts being ejected horizontally three times the width of the buildings? Steel in both towers was broken at the joints, and molten steel found at sub-basement levels -- inconsistent with melting from top floor fires whose debris crushed the floors below. The WTC wreckage was spirited away as quickly as possible and no forensics permitted.
Even more curious was the collapse of WTC Building 7 -- 355 feet away from the north tower, and further still from the south -- which was never hit by a plane or any significant amount of debris ,and sustained only small fires. It went down at 5:20PM, collapsing from the bottom (as in a typical controlled demolition), with none of the "official" explanations in play. The steel was removed quickly from this site as well, although having been evacuated, there were no survivors to be searched for. Relegated to a footnote is the fact that Marvin P. Bush, the president's younger brother, was a director for a security company involved in three of the four attacks. Securacom covered the WTC, United Airlines, -- whose flights hit the WTC and crashed in Pennsylvania -- and Dulles Airport -- from which the Pentagon flight took off. What are we to make of testimony from WTC personnel that five days before 9/11, heightened security requiring 12-hour days and bomb-sniffing dogs was abruptly called off? What committee will chase that down?
Griffin turns next to the strange story of the flight that struck the Pentagon. The physical evidence is simply inconsistent with the claim that the building was struck by a Boeing 757 travelling at 300+ mph. The hole in the façade is far too small to accommodate the wings and tail -- which were supposed to have disappeared within the hole. The penetration is far too shallow for the mass and momentum involved. Yet there is no scorching of the grass on the lawn outside. There is not the slightest sign of a burnt-out wreck in any photograph, nor were there any fuselage fragments recovered within the building. In the initial story, other then a beacon and the two black boxes -- these "discovered" at four the next morning -- every part of the plane, including the stainless steel engines, were melted, and vaporized. Nevertheless, in one version of the original tale, authorities were able to identify victims from their fingerprints. But six months later the story had changed and enough of the plane had been recovered to make possible "an almost complete reconstitution." The parts are supposedly stocked in a warehouse.
According to experienced pilots, the complex final maneuver of the huge aircraft could not have been accomplished by an amateur. The choice of a difficult low flying attack on a side wall, rather than crashing more easily into the roof -- for maximum damage -- was most curious. The plane's being "lost" from all radar contact for 29 minutes, while flying toward Washington is most improbable, given the network of radar and other resources covering the area. These contradictions, along with the failure to scramble in the most protected area of the world, make the official story of the Pentagon attack profoundly suspicious. And though Cheney and Rice were safely stowed in the White House bunker, and a plane was known to be heading in its direction, the Pentagon was never evacuated.
The last of the airplanes to go down was UA Flight 93, scene of the now famous passenger revolt: "Let's roll!" Here, the question is no longer "Why were the planes not shot down?" but rather "Why might it be the case that this one was?" CBS reported two F16s tailing the flight. Phone calls made from the plane during its last minutes reported possible success in overcoming the hijackers. One call reported, "I think they're going to do it. They're forcing their way into the cockpit...They're doing it! They're doing it! They're doing it!" Next, screaming in the background, followed by a "whooshing sound, a sound like wind." Then contact lost. The scenario is consistent with a plane being shot down. A half-ton piece of engine was found over a mile from the fuselage -- a likely target for a heat-seeking missile. Burning debris and human body parts were reported eight miles away, and confetti-like debris rained down minutes afterwards. One theory that would explain these departures from the official story is that Flight 93, unexpectedly late for departure, and unexpectedly rescued by its passengers, was destroyed by a competent military, in this case ordered to complete a bungled task. The risk of people left alive to be questioned may have been too great.
Griffin goes on to examine material that has been more generally covered -- at least in the left press and on many websites: the President's odd behavior on 9/11 given the timeline, and the evolving stories from the White House Press Office. He looks at the larger context of the event: the probable knowledge of possible attacks; the obstruction of investigations before and afterwards; the "anti-hunt" for bin Laden and al-Queda; the connections between Bush and the Saudi royal family; the flying of bin Ladens out of the country when no other aircraft was allowed to fly. We are familiar with much of this, though the details and citations are helpful. By now we are familiar, too, with the neo-con plans, pre-9/11, for projecting US power across the middle east and throughout central Asia. Asking the normal forensic question "Who benefits?", we can see that the Project For A New American Century" (2000) was well served by the "new Pearl Harbor" it called for.
After all the suspicious incongruities collected, we are left with two huge problems. Griffin leads us through them in a chapter entitled "Is Complicity by US Officials the Best Explanation for 9/11?":
1.Beyond showing that official explanations are implausible or impossible, how shall we construct a meaningful, alternative narrative which will contain and explain the known facts? For example, if it was not a Boeing 757 which crashed into the Pentagon, but a smaller military missile, where did the 757 go, and what happened to its passengers?
2. Most difficult of all, perhaps, is the question of how the administration -- if indeed it was complicit in 9/11 at some or several levels -- could be so incompetent at scripting a plausible story. Why not punish a few scapegoats in the intelligence community, instead of promoting those responsible for "lapses"? Why the needless, obvious lies, and continuingly changing statements? Why such massiveness to the conspiracy, requiring silence from many individuals in the White House, Justice Department, FBI, CIA, NSA, and the Pentagon, as well as in civilian security operations? Why risk demolition of buildings beyond the flight attacks? Why bring down WTC 7? Why order interceptor planes to stand down, and deny SOP readiness? Why have the president play unconcern for half an hour? So as not to upset second-graders? Why claim that human flesh could withstand temperatures which would vaporize stainless steel? There are better minds than Bush's who have been concocting covert operations for many years. Where were they? Or was it just this confounding of critics that was intended?
My one quibble with Griffin's most valuable compendium of unanswered questions is that the author nowhere examines and brings his judgement to bear on the many stories concerning Israeli and Mossad participation in the 9/11 events. But the book is a work-in-progress, necessarily incomplete.
Griffin can't put the pieces together. In this, he is honest, and calls on us to be the same. All he can do is call for more authentic investigations -- not the cover-ups currently underway -- to confront these crucial issues. And this, too, we must do.