Just as in the case of the JFK assassination, there are many unanswered questions left hanging about the 911 tragedy.

Let's start with a quote:

"The right wing benefited so much from September 11 that, if I were still a conspiratorialist, I would believe they'd done it." -- Norman Mailer

Out of the many unanswered questions (like what did President Bush know and when did he know it?) let's briefly touch on the first and perhaps the biggest. To understand this mystery, we have to look at the timetable of events on Sept 11.

7:45 AM First hijkacking
8:42 AM First tower was hit
9:00 AM Second tower was hit
9:24 AM President Bush declares terrorist attack
9:43 AM The Pentagon was hit
10:29 AM The fourth hijacked plane crashes

We are talking about a time span of 2 hours and 44 minutes.

According to existing and strictly enforced FAA regulation: "For large scheduled aircraft, tracked throughout on radar, to depart extravagantly from their flight paths, would trigger numerous calls to the military, especially after two have hit the World Trade Centre and now one is speeding toward Washington, D.C."

Question: Where was the US Air Force?

"Andrews Air Force Base is home base for two combat-ready squadrons of jet interceptors mandated to ensure the safety of the U.S. capital. Andrews is only 12 miles from the White House."

There are many other unanswered questions well described in two documents:

- "The Great Deception - The War on terrorism. An alternative view" a six part TV documentary (see transcript at http://www.visiontv.ca/Archive/Archive.html) hosted by Barrie Zwicker.

- "911 - The Truth Is Out There ...Right?" By Ian Mulgrew, Vancouver Sun, February 23rd, 2002 (see at http://tinyurl.com/83bw )

What are the options?

a./ Gross negligence
b./ Incredible coincidences
c./ Suppressed information
d./ Conspiracy

Are the third and fourth alternatives proven? Of course, not. Are they theoretically possible? Of course, they are. Have all the options been thoroughly investigated? The answer is: No, they have not.

However, in view of the almost continuous lies, obfuscations, evasions, fabrications put forward by the US government, it is not surprising that many citizens feel they have a "reasonable doubt" and they want to keep an open mind.

PS.

Conspiracy theories

Deception engineered by rulers to influence public opinion is not unknown in History.

The interesting reaction of most people to speculation about deception and conspiracy is automatic dismissal: "Conspiracy Theories" are treated as symptoms of a disturbed mind, paranoia, sensationalism.

Even though the "unthinkable" happened many times in human history, usually well documented, it appears people don't want to think the unthinkable. Probably because it is too scary. However, coping with reality requires that we don't shut our minds to what has been proven possible so many times in the past. The least we should do is demand answers to unanswered questions.

Historical Recap

"Body of Secrets" by James Bamford is a shocking revelation of some unknown US history (Bamford until recently was Washington Investigative Producer for ABC's World News tonight with Peter Jennings).

Here's a story from the book (quoted from document #1 linked to below).

It's 1962. John F. Kennedy is U.S. president. Robert McNamara is Secretary of Defence. And Admiral Lyman Lemnitzer heads the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff. The CIA has failed in its illegal Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba.

JFK decides, Bamford writes, to back away from military solutions to the Cuban problem. But Lemnitzer, the CIA and others at the top remain obsessed with Cuba. Writes Bamford: "As the Kennedy brothers appeared to suddenly 'go soft' on Cuba, Lemnitzer could see his opportunity to invade ... quickly slipping away. ...attempts to provoke the Cuban public to revolt seemed dead..."

Continues Bamford: "Lemnitzer and the other chiefs knew there was only one option left that would ensure their war. They would have to trick the American public and world opinion..."

Lemnitzer comes up with 'Operation Northwoods'.

"On February 20th, 1962 (John) Glenn was to lift off from Cape Canaveral...on his historic journey. Lemnitzer "proposed ... that should the rocket explode and kill Glenn, 'the objective is to provide irrevocable proof that...the fault lies with (Cuba)..." "by manufacturing various pieces of evidence which would prove electronic interference on the part of the Cubans."

Thus, Bamford notes, "as NASA prepared to send the first American into space, the Joint Chiefs of Staff were preparing to use John Glenn's possible death as a pretext to launch a war."

And, to refresh memories, here are two other examples (well documented and understood) from history:

1./ On February 22 1933 a deranged communist, Marinus van der Lubbe, 24, from Holland attempted to strike a blow against capitalism by burning down the German Reichstag. German Chancellor Adolph Hitler's SA agents knew about his plan but instead of preventing him they were concerned that the fire he set wouldn't be effective. So while Marinus was upstairs setting his fire SA Storm Troopers under Karl Ernst, entered the Reichstag basement through a tunnel connected to Herman Goering's residence and distributed enough gasoline and incendiaries around to ensure a good blaze.

2./ Very few people know how the attack on Poland, triggering WW2, actually started. It was a well-documented (by the Germans) operation code-named "canned goods". Concentration-camp inmates in Germany were drugged, carried to the Polish border, dressed in Polish uniforms, spread out on the ground around a German radio station and shot dead. After which an SS officer made an inflaming speech on the German radio station, pretending to be the officer of a polish unit that just attacked Germany. Hitler used it next day to justify his attack against Poland. See "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" by William Shirer.

Edited by bringing second half to the front of the essay, to focus on 'unanswered questions'

[ 14 April 2003: Message edited by: Francis Mont ]

- It was the American "shadow Government"
- It was the Freemasons
- It was the Bilderbergs
- It was the CIA "BlackOps"
- It was the Mossad

Have you ever noticed that Conspiracy theories:

- only ever bring up "unanswered questions", but they never provide answers to them?

- ignore other "unanswered questions" that cast doubt on the theory?

- totally ignore Occam's razor?

- start with a conclusion, then work backwards for the "proof"?

- bring up past conspiracies as though that makes present conspiracies more likely (it doesn't; they're unrelated)?

When such a caper is carried out successfully we must consider the possibility that many more such underhanded plays for power will be attempted .... and they have been.

quote:

---

If you ever heard the story The Creature from Jekyll Island you would look at these conspiracy theories with less of a critical eye. 7 men that owned 25% of the worlds wealth conspired for 9 days in secret in order to provide a 'service' that would ultimately determine the fate of the world economy. The federal Reserve is nothing more than a a cartel developed by these men in 1910 to increase their own immense wealth and effectively create the fiat currency system that relies on nothing more than faith in that system. As a result, the money you have in the bank is imaginary, as is the interest you gain on that money, as is the money that the government loans out.

---

Small problem.

North America didn't effectively go to a fiat currency until the 1950s, and by some definitions not until the 1970s.

Hussien is evil, let's get the evidence to back that up.

9/11 is another burning of the Riechstag, lets get the evidence to back that up.

It's ass backwards. You let the evidence lead you to your conclusion, not the other way around.

The lack of U.S.A.F. reaction to the events of 9/11 leave some very serious questions that need answering.

But, they could be covering up incompetence. Or maybe they don't want the American taxpayers to question why they were so vulnerable after decades of huge military spending.

5. Conspiracies do occur, but people prefer to wait until actual evidence suggests this. Starting from paranoia or cynicism and then attempting to "prove" this paranoia or cynicism to be the truth is not scientific.

6. Like the boy who cried wolf, so-called conspiracy theories seem to crawl out of the woodwork with each newsworthy event. While conspiracies have taken place throughout history, their numbers are dwarved by the number of conspiracy theories. While the theorists themselves love to point to the same few conspiracies throughout history as some "gambler's fallacy" style proof of their theories, these few events, scattered across history, cannot simultaneously be held as proof for the hundreds of unproven conspiracy theories of the present.

David Frum has identified Malta as the leading member of the "axis of sponge toffee."

[ 14 April 2003: Message edited by: TommyPaineatWork ]

quote:

---

Nonesuch: you forgot a possible reason or two. Actually, probably lots of them. But here are numbers 5, 6 and 7.

---

The reasons you suggest are reasons for discounting conspiracy theories.
My question was: why do people call every doubt regarding the sincerity of world leaders 'a conspiracy theory'.
I can think of one more reason to answer the question as asked: Calling the original poster's
doubt by a debased name moves the discussion into a different category and immediately derails it, so that the substantive points don't ever need to be addressed.

*sigh* I wish words had their own individual meanings!

[ 14 April 2003: Message edited by: nonesuch ]

The truth is you don't need intrigue to create this flawed world.

Accept that people actually believe in what Bush or Saddam are doing. Accept that most Israelis are in favour of the Occupation: even though they are a democratic state.

Reality is far more complex and interesting (frightening) than conspiracy theories.

How does it go?: "For evil to triumph, good men must only do nothing."

[ 14 April 2003: Message edited by: wei-chi ]

quote:

---

My question was: why do people call every doubt regarding the sincerity of world leaders 'a conspiracy theory'.

---

Perhaps because the word "doubt" suggests someone on the fence, an agnostic of a sort, who genuinely doesn't know, and could go either way depending on the evidence.

quote:

---

Are the third and fourth alternatives proven? Of course, not. Are they theoretically possible? Of course, they are. Have all the options been thoroughly investigated? The answer is: No, they have not.

---

quote:

---

It might seem obvious what should have been done now, but at the time, there was just no reason to scramble fighters when the hijacked jets began to go off-course.

---

As for doubting the veracity of world leaders, there is some precedent. Some of them have lied, and been proven to have lied. I, on the other hand, have not been proven to have lied. But you can always choose whom to believe, with or without evidence.
In the present case, two unprovoked wars on two oil-related countries in two years does begin to form a pattern.

[ 14 April 2003: Message edited by: nonesuch ]

"Well, let me deal with the “incompetence theory” by first taking you back to October 26th, 1999. That is the day the chartered Learjet carrying golfer Payne Stewart crashes, killing all on board. This from the official National Transportation Safety Board crash report:

9:19 a.m.: the flight departs

9:24: The Learjet’s pilot responds to an instruction from air traffic control

9:33: The controller radios another instruction. No response from the pilot. For 4 ½ minutes the controller tries to establish contact.

9:38: Having failed, the controller calls in the military. Note that he did not seek, nor did he require, the approval of the President of the United States, or indeed anyone. It’s standard procedure, followed routinely, to call in the Air Force when radio contact with a commercial passenger jet is lost, or the plane departs from its flight path, or anything along those lines occurs.

9:54 – 16 minutes later -- the F-16 reaches the Learjet at 46,000 feet and conducts a visual inspection.

Total elapsed time: 21 minutes.

quote:

---

So what does this prove?

---

That procedure wasn't followed. it's what the kooks think that "proves" that forms the bone of contention.

So Bush didn't immediately put the book down? Interesting, but it doesn't prove anything.

So the passenger jets weren't immediately shot down? Fascinating, but it doesn't prove anything.

Lots of little curiousities like this suggesting a "pattern" to you? Great. But again it's not proof of anything.

Repeat from first post:

7:45 AM First hijkacking
8:42 AM First tower was hit
9:00 AM Second tower was hit
9:24 AM President Bush declares terrorist attack
9:43 AM The Pentagon was hit
10:29 AM The fourth hijacked plane crashes

We are talking about a time span of 2 hours and 44 minutes.

According to existing and strictly enforced FAA regulation: "For large scheduled aircraft, tracked throughout on radar, to depart extravagantly from their flight paths, would trigger numerous calls to the military, especially AFTER two have hit the World Trade Centre and now one is speeding toward Washington, D.C."

Question: Where was the US Air Force?

Another quote from the same document:

"Whatever the explanation for the huge failure, there have been no reports, to my knowledge, of reprimands. This further weakens the “Incompetence Theory.” Incompetence usually earns reprimands."

So where are the heads that rolled?

[ 14 April 2003: Message edited by: Francis Mont ]