[Peace-discuss] How the story was 'planted' minutes after it happened.

[Ricky Baldwin]

OK, this was not easy for me to watch because of my
extremely slow dialup, but from what I can see here
there is little or no significant difference between
this and other similar accusations that the disaster
of 9-11-01 was somehow and “inside job”.

Suspicion is not evidence.  There are coincidences,
some pretty odd, some not so unusual at all, and much
speculation of the kind that actor-cops on TV make
when they “know” they have the right guy even tho the
evidence isn’t there.  I understand this is also a
main reason that real-life cops plant evidence or
otherwise tamper, so strong is their faith in their
hunches.  (Ironically, of course, this is the same
kind of “knowledge” that George Bush Jr claimed on TV
to have about Osama bin Laden when the Taliban gov’t
asked for evidence for the extradition request:  “We
don’t need to prove it, we already know he’s guilty,”
or words to that effect.  We should not have accepted
that from him, and we should not accept it from
others, either, even if they happen to be “on our
side” politically.)  So skepticism like Zwicker’s is
warranted, but skepticism should never lead to jumping
to conclusions.

Zwicker again tells us that it would have been
“impossible” for the kind of impact we all saw to
cause the collapse we saw, for example.  Oh, sure. 
And it’s impossible for a bee to fly, for ancient
Egyptians to build a pyramid, etc.  It’s weird, all
right.  If you’ve ever seen the aftermath of a tornado
or an ice storm you might have seen some pretty weird
stuff, too.  A lot of things are weird.  My sister’s
house was wiped from the face of the earth in
Hurricane Katrina – cars were stacked like cord wood,
brick structures crushed, concrete pulverized – but an
unopened champagne bottle survived intact precisely at
the site.  I have it in my dining room now.  I can
show it to you.  Panes of glass also survived intact. 
I have photographs.  Weird?  Yeah.  But does it prove
there was really no hurricane, or that it didn’t hit
my sister’s house, that my sister’s house was maybe
removed under cover of darkness by a gov’t truck
painted black while everyone was evacuated– or by ET? 
Of course not.  It proves nothing except that weird
things can happen in extreme situations.

He talks a lot about appearances, too.  A guy on the
street interviewed doesn’t seem sad.  He “talks like
an infomercial”.  Etc.  But appearances prove little,
either.  I was just watching a very low-tech interview
with two kids about the new Dr. Who exhibit in
Brighton, England, and they both talked like they had
been on TV their whole lives, just off the cuff,
whereas I’ve been interviewed quite a few times and I
always sound like it’s my first time speaking to
anyone outside my home.  It happens.  It’s easy to
become convinced of what seems true, or “obvious,”
even tho you can’t come up with real evidence, even
among very smart people, even very politically or
otherwise savvy and insightful people.  We have a
standing debate in AWARE with an erudite member who
claims abortion is wrong because a fetus “looks” like
a person, or he can’t imagine a cute little baby being
much less human a few weeks before birth, or words to
that effect.  Meaningful to him, perhaps, but as an
argument he might as well say, “Because I said so.”  

Zwicker even makes fun of his “man on the street” for
using the word “obvious” – perhaps with some
justification, because what seems obvious may in fact
have no basis in fact at all (the world was once
obviously flat), which is my point – but then Zwicker
expects us to believe him when he tells us what’s
obvious and what’s not.  “You can see for yourself,”
he tells us, but I for one didn’t see at all what he
was supposedly showing us (e.g. that the collapse
wasn’t a “perfect pancake,” whatever that means.  I’ve
seen a number of buildings demolished – my kids and I
used to watch clips of ‘em for fun – but they each
seem pretty different to me.  Of course, I’ve never
seen one as big as the Twin Towers being demolished
(nor has anyone in fact as far as I know), and I’m
certainly no expert: all I’m saying is, what Zwicker
claims is as plain as the nose on your face is not at
all plain, and in fact is most likely untrue.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,
and from what I can see this stuff doesn’t even
measure up to the usual standards.

Similarly, Zwicker’s “planting” of info also proves
virtually nothing.  It’s not even that unusual.  That
it happened so fast just shows the disingenuity of the
Bush Admin’s accusations.  But we already know all
that.  They wanted to find an excuse to attack Iraq,
to go after bin Laden, to topple the Taliban, etc.,
for many years – we know this – and when the attacks
of 9-11-01 occurred, it seems perfectly reasonable
that it would take them literally seconds to see the
opportunity there.  People have been waiting for
Katrina for decades, too, as a number of people have
pointed out – and now urban planners are taking the
opportunity to redraw New Orleans and the whole area
that was hit along much less humane lines.  It’s cruel
and cynical opportunism, and yes it’s the fault of
those in power for their racist and classist neglect
and inhumane prioritizing not to mention the way they
have played god (and not a very nice god) with
people’s lives for many years, but it doesn’t mean
Katrina was an “inside job.”

The fact that the lapdog press normally takes its lead
from the White House in such matters is not surprising
or new, either.  I don’t follow their day-to-day
machinations closely enuf to know exactly how they
send out word when they want something reported, but a
good fax machine would do it, let alone a computer
(presumably with a  faster connection that mine) and a
good list of media contacts.  It’s just not that hard
to see it happening, so arguments that it obviously
couldn’t have happened that way just fall flat.  There
are a lot of mouthpieces in journalism.  We know that.
 It says nothing about what happened on 9-11-01.

Certainly the gov’t isn’t trustworthy.  None of us
thinks they are.  And they do lie.  And they kill
innocent people.  But these types of suspicions always
seem to pop up around any really big disaster.  That
doesn’t make the accusations false, of course, so I
occasionally do still look thru what folks are saying
about it.  But extraordinary claims require
extraordinary evidence, and it’s just not there unless
I’ve missed something pretty big.

Sorry, I know a lot of anti-war people believe in
this, but I feel compelled by honesty to speak up
here.
Ricky

--- n.dahlheim at mchsi.com wrote:

> If you watch the falling debris from the twin
> towers, how did fire cause that?
> 
> Also, if the pancake theory explains the collapse;
> what happened to the central core of the towers that
> 
> should stand out like the spindle on a old-fashioned
> record player?
> 
> Also, WTC 7 is the real smoking gun.  How come a
> building not struck by a plane falls in 6 seconds? 
> Why 
> did it fall at 5:20?  Why did its owner say on PBS
> that 'they' pulled it?  
> 
> The Bush Administration has a record of lying to the
> public about absolutely everything.  Why aren't they
> 
> lying about this?  Their secrecy and mendacity
> should be extended to the realm of 911....
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
> 



 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection. 
Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta.
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/features_spam.html