9/11 - 10 years on

wrote in message
...
Patok wrote:

At any rate, the announcement they make at takeoff
states electronic devices could interfere with the plane's navigation
system and should be shut off *for the duration of the flight*.

No, only at takeoff and landing. After takeoff there's an announcement
that now
you can turn electronic devices on, and everybody switches on laptops,
DVD players
and iPods/pads. Maybe cell phones too, but I've yet to see a cell phone
that works
over the ocean.


I've been on planes that had phones embedded in the back of the seat in
front of you. Haven't seen those in a while, though - are they a thing of
the past? I thought maybe those would use different technology than a
regular cellphone. I'm sure a call on one of those would cost a fortune.

Joyce

Yeah, it costs about $10 to make a call from one of those phones. Frankly
there's no one I want to talk to that much.

Jill

wrote
And by 2001, most of the mainstream media were owned by the
same corporations whose interests our government was serving.

Good point. Take General Electric Corp, for instance. It is one of the
largest "defense" contractors in the country. And it owns NBC!

On 9/15/2011 1:45 PM, Pat wrote:
wrote

Again, I don't know, I have no idea about what it would take to
deliberately do something like this, but it just seems to me that the
amount of people it would take to orchestrate that type of cover-up does
not compute - too many people just can't keep a secret to literally save
their lives.

Consider the Los Alamos project during WWII. Tens of thousands of people
were involved and not one word leaked. No one outside of the project itself
and a few high officials in the US govt. knew anything about it until after
the Trinity test.

First, we were living in a much different world back then. The press
were respectful of our leader to the point of never printing a picture
of President Roosevelt in a wheel chair. We were at war and journalists
were willingly helping our government in that effort (unlike what
started to happen in Viet Nam).


I'm not saying it would take anything like tens of thousands to orchestrate
the 9/11 attacks (if in fact they were orchestrated by some rogue elements
inside the gov't). Due to compartmentalization, and to the fact that
military exercises of similar events at the exact same time as the real ones
were taking place, those in the lower echelons would have merely been
following orders from above and thinking they were engaged in an exercise.

The following short videos give an overview of the military exercises that
were going on the morning of 9/11/01. Bear in mind they are cut-outs from a
longer film and so there the topic of the info at the start is a segue:

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzHyynukJPc

Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIgZA_1htqE

And here is an excerpt from an FAA recording that morning:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAGygtafhlI



Sorry, I'm just not interested in conspiracy theories, I will pass these
along to my husband, though, he finds them fun.

--
Hugs,

CatNipped
See all our masters at: http://www.PossiblePlaces.com/CatNipped

See the RPCA FAQ site, created by "Yowie", maintained by Mark Edwards, at:
http://www.professional-geek.net/rpcablog/

Email: L(dot)T(dot)Crews(at)comcast(dot)net

On 9/15/2011 2:29 PM, wrote:
J J Levin wrote:

To orchestrate such an event would require a cast of thousands and the
cooperation of aviation authorities, law enforcement, the judiciary, the
insurance industry, politicians, government authorities, the military, and
the press. They would need to plan, implement, and then keep it quiet. And
not one leak? Not one person trying to make a buck by leaking it to a
newspaper or TV station? Hard to believe.

OK, assume everything was just as it seemed, and the attack was planned,
funded and orchestrated by a group of Islamic fundamentalists. Did *they*
have the cooperation of US aviation authorities, law enforcement, the
judiciary, the insurance industry, etc., etc? (Rhetorical question, since
the answer is obvious.) If they could do it without involving all these
agencies and organizations (except unwittingly), why couldn't a few well-
placed individuals in our government and/or military do the same?

They didn't need to, they didn't have 25 journalists following every
move they made hoping to find a juicy sex scandal involving a junior
page. All they needed was surprise and complacency.


But I don't buy the argument that the attack was planned and executed by
the American government (or even some sub-group within it). I just think
it was convenient for them. And if the folks at the top of the chain who
were responsible for gathering intelligence were to ignore certain words
of warning from those who worked under them, who was to know? Why is it
so hard to believe that some members of our government are capable of such
corrupt activity? It's not like the US government has never been known to
engage in massive cover-ups before.

You just answered your own question... "has never been known to engage"
- they *have* been known. Watergate made every headline of every
newspaper in the country.


And by 2001, most of the mainstream media were owned by the same
corporations whose interests our government was serving. A reporter
trying to leak a cover-up story to a TV station would never get it
past the chain of authority. And while there are journalists out there
asking questions, and there are newspapers and a few radio stations
that will print/air those questions, they are easily marginalized
as fringe kooks, so hardly anyone's listening. If media coverage of
the two invasions (Afghanistan and Iraq) could be so carefully
controlled the way they were, why couldn't coverage of events
surrounding the Sept. 11 attacks be "managed" equally well?

Joyce


The reports I've seen these past few years on every major news media
makes me believe that is not the case - too many people in government
and big business have been hurt by "breaking news". I don't think every
single junior reports signs a contract saying that they will cover up
certain stories. *SOMEONE* in all these years would have written a book
or gotten on the internet to let the world know about it.

Look, I'm going to bow out of this before tempers become short. I'm not
going to convince anyone to alter their beliefs and nobody is going to
convince me to alter my beliefs. And I just don't have much interest in
these things. I wish Ben would participate in this group, he could,
quite politely, go on for days and days about conspiracy theories. And
he is much, much, much (ad infinitum) smarter than me.

So I'm going to politely bow out of the discussion.


--
Hugs,

CatNipped
See all our masters at: http://www.PossiblePlaces.com/CatNipped

See the RPCA FAQ site, created by "Yowie", maintained by Mark Edwards, at:
http://www.professional-geek.net/rpcablog/

Email: L(dot)T(dot)Crews(at)comcast(dot)net

"CatNipped" wrote

I don't think every single junior reports signs a contract saying that
they will cover up certain stories.

That's not necessary. They find out in other ways what's OK to talk about
and what's not. Have you never heard the term "talking points"?

*SOMEONE* in all these years would have written a book or gotten on the
internet to let the world know about it.

But they have!! You may not have seen it, but it goes on constantly. Just
one small example is the film "Outfoxed" which came out about 6-7 years ago:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...97743434902428

Pat wrote:

"CatNipped" wrote

I don't think every single junior reports signs a contract saying that
they will cover up certain stories.

That's not necessary. They find out in other ways what's OK to talk about
and what's not. Have you never heard the term "talking points"?

*SOMEONE* in all these years would have written a book or gotten on the
internet to let the world know about it.

But they have!! You may not have seen it, but it goes on constantly. Just
one small example is the film "Outfoxed" which came out about 6-7 years ago:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...97743434902428

Exactly. But when someone does write or talk about it, they're seen as
a conspiracy nut.

Joyce

--
Hi, this is the Sylvia stress reduction hotline. At the sound of
the beep, repeat after me: "This week, let someone else strive for
excellence." -- Nicole Hollander

To orchestrate such an event would require a cast of thousands and the
cooperation of aviation authorities, law enforcement, the judiciary, the
insurance industry, politicians, government authorities, the military,
and the press. They would need to plan, implement, and then keep it
quiet. And not one leak? Not one person trying to make a buck by leaking
it to a newspaper or TV station? Hard to believe.

A wise man once said: Three people can keep a secret if two of them are
dead.

Jay

That all depends on the degree of involvement. All that would have been
required would have been for a small handful of officials in our
intelligence and law enforcement agencies to turn a blind eye to
intelligence submitted to them.

Let's not forget that Morgan Stanley's security director at the World
Trade Center, Rick Rescorla, was aware of the dangers posed by terrorists
using a truck bomb against the basement pillars, a year before the 1993
truck bomb attack against those pillars. He then predicted that
terrorists crashing a plane into the towers would be the next plausible
threat, so he developed an evacuation and response plan for that
eventuality. He also attempted to speak to FBI officials about the
danger, but couldn't find anyone willing to listen to him.

WTC's own head of security, John O'Neill, was a former FBI SAIC who had
resigned from the FBI after becoming frustrated with their inattention to
and mishandling of terrorism threat information. He had identified Osama
bin Laden as the leader of major terrorism efforts directed against the
US, but was unable to get anyone in authority to take his reports
seriously or take action on them.

These are just two minor accounts, but they show that the FBI was either
incapable of or unwilling to take actions upon terrorist threats. It can
be assumed that the same problems existed in other and law enforcement
agencies (CIA incompetence in Bush's Iraqi MWD fiasco would support that
assumption).

I don't necessarily believe that the attacks were orchestrated by people
within the US government (though I don't find the idea completely
incredible either). But I do believe that plenty of forewarning was
given, enough evidence existed that we should have been aware of the
threat, and responsibility for those thousands of deaths has to be shared
between the agencies that mishandled the warnings given, and the insane,
psychopathic individuals that perpetrated the attacks.

Our government has shown repeatedly that it is willing to subvert the
letter and the spirit of the Constitution when restricting our rights and
freedoms appeals to special interests within or supported by the
government. To suppose that high-level officials would be capable of
derailing investigations and responses to outside threats doesn't require
any stretch of the imagination.

I really do love our country, but I despise those who would weaken us and
deprive us of our freedoms in the name of financial gain, personal power,
or whatever other temptation leads them astray.

Dan

On 15 Sep 2011 19:29:01 GMT, wrote:

J J Levin wrote:

To orchestrate such an event would require a cast of thousands and the
cooperation of aviation authorities, law enforcement, the judiciary, the
insurance industry, politicians, government authorities, the military, and
the press. They would need to plan, implement, and then keep it quiet. And
not one leak? Not one person trying to make a buck by leaking it to a
newspaper or TV station? Hard to believe.

OK, assume everything was just as it seemed, and the attack was planned,
funded and orchestrated by a group of Islamic fundamentalists. Did *they*
have the cooperation of US aviation authorities, law enforcement, the
judiciary, the insurance industry, etc., etc? (Rhetorical question, since
the answer is obvious.) If they could do it without involving all these
agencies and organizations (except unwittingly), why couldn't a few well-
placed individuals in our government and/or military do the same?

But I don't buy the argument that the attack was planned and executed by
the American government (or even some sub-group within it). I just think
it was convenient for them. And if the folks at the top of the chain who
were responsible for gathering intelligence were to ignore certain words
of warning from those who worked under them, who was to know? Why is it
so hard to believe that some members of our government are capable of such
corrupt activity? It's not like the US government has never been known to
engage in massive cover-ups before.

And by 2001, most of the mainstream media were owned by the same
corporations whose interests our government was serving. A reporter
trying to leak a cover-up story to a TV station would never get it
past the chain of authority. And while there are journalists out there
asking questions, and there are newspapers and a few radio stations
that will print/air those questions, they are easily marginalized
as fringe kooks, so hardly anyone's listening. If media coverage of
the two invasions (Afghanistan and Iraq) could be so carefully
controlled the way they were, why couldn't coverage of events
surrounding the Sept. 11 attacks be "managed" equally well?

Joyce


The head of the anti-terroism office in the government complained
bitterly that he could never see the President or anyone of importance
in the Bush administration. A new book just came out that explains
that there were plans to "turn" some of the terrorists, and that they
were to be left alone. There is all sorts of information suggesting
that there were definite blocks to pursuing these guys prior to 9/11.