[Peace-discuss] Final 9/11 comment

Sat Feb 24 16:50:24 CST 2007

For what its worth, I think that the motive forces behind 9/11 (and  
the Kennedy assassination) will continue to remain obscure, even if  
they could be rendered less  so were there honest and intensive  
investigations---which there were not. Even if no government  
conspiracy existed, and there was only a complete "screw-up", it was  
not in the interests of the power structure to reveal its degree of  
ineptness and perhaps inert complicity. We can't escape how  
convenient 9/11 has been for that power structure, so that even if  
not overtly complicit, it was not something it regretted --on the  
contrary.

So, I am glad for this discussion. Unlike some, I think it useful and  
healthy to continue to challenge the accepted scenarios. I'm  
surprised at the lame criticisms of Chomsky, Cockburn, et al., more  
so of the latter who too frequently, for all his useful and bold  
criticisms, goes racing off track.  Moles galore :-). One needn't be  
single (simple) minded about all this, as the former suppose; it  
needn't detract from other critiques and behaviors, and my guess is  
that most who want better explanations for 9/11 are staunch critiques  
of our wars and denials of justice.

9/11 is a signature event of our times, and so merits continual  
scrutiny, just as the war in Yugoslavia…

Thanks to all for illuminating comments.

On Feb 23, 2007, at 12:25 PM, Chuck Minne wrote:

> I would like to make a few final comments regarding 9/11 and then I  
> will let it drop unless someone wants to continue.
>
> First, to be an out-of-the-closet conspiracy nut is almost a sure  
> way to hurt yourself professionally. In a university setting,  
> almost all scientific research is funded by government or  
> institutions that definitely don’t want to see this particular boat  
> rocked. (It’s sort of what it would have been like to have a great  
> job in the UI Athletic Department in the past while being rabidly  
> anti-Chief. You better keep that a secret if you want to get  
> anyplace. Actually, I suspect that Guenther and the coaches would  
> have loved to be rid of him long ago, but never uttered a word of  
> that. I digress.) Republicans largely run businesses, and you know  
> where they stand. I am retired, if I were still employed, my mouth  
> would be shut tight.
>
> Along these lines, I am convinced that Tim Johnson and virtually  
> everyone who is anyone in Washington knows that an airliner did not  
> hit the Pentagon and that the three WTC buildings were brought down  
> with controlled demolition. Ditto anyone who has done any  
> significant demolition work. Ditto any scientist or engineer who  
> has actually given the problem serious study. (Well, not the Purdue  
> team that explained that there was no wing wreckage at or wing  
> damage to the Pentagon because the wings must have “liquefied;”  
> another first. Jesus, can you believe that?) In other words, I  
> think a huge number of people know that it was a hoax, but that  
> they know that it would be political, financial, business, and  
> perhaps personal death to utter a sound about it, so they, like  
> Guenther, smile and back the party line. I think that very few of  
> these people know how it was done; they just know it was done. (I  
> personally think we had the Arabs fly the planes and missile (if it  
> was a missile,) but I don’t know who planted the explosives.)
>
> I say this because I don’t think that anyone with freshman  
> chemistry and physics who hears the various architects, engineers,  
> and scientists explain how explosives are the only way it could  
> have happen the way it did, can say they are wrong. For example,  
> how many of you knew that the twin towers were designed to take  
> many hits from the largest airliners being built at the time? The  
> architect describes their construction with regard to airliner hits  
> as being like a screen being hit by a bullet; and the evidence is  
> clear that the impact shock had nothing to do with the eventual  
> collapse.
>
> But of course you won’t find these interviews being replayed on the  
> media (almost all of the early media comments were “disappeared”  
> and not ever repeated.) But they are on DVDs, of which there are  
> many. However, those DVDs are not acceptable citations because they  
> are “propaganda.” So what are in many cases replays of earlier  
> newscasts becomes propaganda and not worth viewing.
>
> Second, it is well understood by people on both sides of the  
> controversy that there never would have been an investigation into  
> the events of 9/11 had it not been for the persistence of a handful  
> of family members, mostly the widows, of the actual victims. And  
> these family members would not have really been successful in  
> getting an investigation had it not been for a web site by Paul  
> Thompson, so you might say that Paul Thompson is the father of the  
> very loose-knit 9/11 truth movement.
>
> I have given links to three hours of DVDs that are excellent. Here  
> is a link to one that must be bought to view:
>
> http://www.911pressfortruth.com/timeline
>
>
> I have not given it before because I think the ones with the  
> engineering and physics details are harder to deny – I mean you  
> can’t deny virtual free-fall speeds, the physical evidence, when  
> investigated is compelling – and this one relies very little on  
> science. This DVD tells the story of the family members and Paul  
> Thompson and deals with the forming of the commission and what they  
> ignored as far as the NORAD response, and our actions in the Middle  
> East which allowed bin Laden to continually escape. It also gives  
> evidence that the money to support the hijackers in the US was  
> funneled by the general who was head of Pakistani intelligence (who  
> was in Washington DC on 9/11.) It also shows how Bush appointed  
> Kissenger to head the commission and the widows got him removed  
> after he refused to tell them if he had clients named bin Laden,  
> but how he was then replaced by Zelikow whom they later determined  
> was a crony of Rice but refused to step down when they requested  
> it. Former senator and commissioner Max Cleland is shown raging  
> that the commission cannot see White House data. He resigned.
>
> Here are links to the two previous DVDs I have linked:
>
> 9/11 Revisited  http://video.google.com/videoplay? 
> docid=1951610169657809939
>
> 9/11 Intellectuals Speak Out http://video.google.com/videoplay? 
> docid=3195658770053494633
>
> These three videos are about five hours of viewing. Considering the  
> importance of 9/11 I don’t think that five hours is an inordinate  
> amount of time for an unbiased examination of what people who are  
> obviously not nuts have to say. If you are willing to spend that  
> five hours and still think I am nuts or a liar, feel free to tell  
> me so.
>
> However, if you just dismiss it as silly crazy propaganda not worth  
> watching, then you are simply the biased juror who only listens to  
> one side and then renders his verdict. In this position, of course,  
> you have no shortage of company, you are the typical American boob  
> who hasn’t a clue of what happened on 9/11 other than vague  
> memories of telecasts, and who has not spent even five serious  
> minutes listening to what those who oppose the mainstream have to  
> say. Rather you blindly accept the media and your personal icons’  
> comments that it just could not have happened that way and you  
> would have to be nuts to think so – they are naturally as  
> uninformed as you because they are just biased and closed to  
> considering the alternative. So if you are that juror who has only  
> listened to one side, with no other investigation on your part, you  
> really aren’t qualified to call me nuts.
>
> Again, I repeat, you can only hurt your “business” status by  
> becoming a nut – but it does wonders for your conscience.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> NOTICE: George W. Bush has issued Executive Orders allowing the  
> National Security Agency to read this message and all other e-mail  
> you receive or send---without warning, warrant or notice. Bush has  
> ordered this to be done without any legislative or judicial  
> oversight. You have no recourse nor protection save to call for the  
> impeachment of President Bush and other government officials who  
> are involved in this illegal and unconstitutional activity. from:  
> Information Clearing House
>
>
>
>
> Be a PS3 game guru.
> Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at  
> Yahoo! Games.
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/private/peace-discuss/attachments/20070224/093693be/attachment.html