Terri

There is something despicable and cowardly about attacking the President on a personal level with all the name calling that has gone on here, instead of stating disagreement with his policies and your own ideas for solving problems the nation faces.

The character assassinations against someone who isn't here to defend himself are particularly repugnant, as are the insinuations.

I loath Bill Clinton and most of his policies but you never heard me once insult him, attack his character or call him names while he was President.

I don't particularly give a flip what you or anyone else thinks about the President but I do care about the cowardly personal attacks on his character, his intelligence, his humanity and his mental condition to name a few mentioned on this forum.

So Terri, it's personal because some here make it personal and don't practice the Golden Rule they expect to be exercised in their favor.

You're on the wrong track Terri if you think I find anything that transpires here threatening.

I notice you've put Sabra on your s**t list. Can't you stand any difference of opinion at all, no matter how mild?

jwhop

Thanks Moonflower

I didn't read all the links on the opening page. However if this is the page you were referring to, it indicates a different system is in place since 9/11 with a 24/7 link up with NORAD. It also talks about jets being scrambled when planes fly into restricted airspace around the White House, Camp David and probably other airspace pilots would or should be award of.

It seems apparent that prior to 9/11, air traffic control was responsible for notifying NORAD of suspected hijackings and they didn't react soon enough on 9/11 for the fighters to get into the air and intercept the planes. I doubt they would have shot the planes down over New York City in any event.

This page indicates a different system is in effect since 9/11. Military jets are also scrambled to intercept suspected drug smugglers and some of those 67 scrambles for the period before 9/11 may have been drug related, in FL, Texas etc.

The policy of scrambling jets when planes fly into restricted airspace and to intercept suspected smugglers has been in effect for some time. However I saw nothing to suggest that the present system was operational prior to 9/11, nor do I see anything suggesting a conspiracy in the way air traffic control handled the 9/11 emergency.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/completetimeline/2002/ap081302.html

jwhop

jwhop! I was afraid you weren't still around and kicking.

Thank you very much for referring specifically to the points I raised in opening this thread, it gives us something concrete to focus on. I'll do the same:

In reply to:

---

I went to the site(s) you linked which you say is proof the Government knew we were going to be attacked, knew how we were going to be attacked and stood by and let it happen.

---

Actually I was quite clear that the facts I presented don't prove that. What I said is that they prove 1) there was a massive failure to carry out standard mandatory procedures on 9/11 ... procedures that have been flawlessly carried out many, many times in "straying aircraft" incidents both before and after the 9/11 attack as they are required to be, 2)that those responsible for scrambling interceptor jets immediately upon becoming aware of a straying aircraft that had broken communication COULD NOT have decided on their own to ignore those ordersonly the President and his immediate top military designates have the authority to countermand those standard procedures, 3) that the President, by his own statement and the statements of the Vice President, took control of that decision and ordered jets to be scrambled which in every instance were too late to reach the hijacked planes, even though the warning times were many times longer than needed for successful standard interceptions, and 4) that rather than ordering an immediate investigation into how and why these critical mandatory response measures failed completely on this of all days, the President first adamantly opposed ANY investigation, then under pressure empowered an appointed commission which to this day has failed to uncover any explanation for the failures.

From those FACTS (which I DO assert were proved by the cited regulations, statements and the published attack and response timetables), I said that the only reasonable inference I could see was that the President and his top commanders deliberately chose to let the attack happen. If you have another reasonable inference to draw from those facts I would be very happy to consider it, I just can't think what it might be.

In reply to:

---

You also attempted to prove the government has the means to take control of Boeing 757 and 767 commercial airliners from the manual control of the pilots and fly them by remote control where ever they wish.

---

It was Woody who mentioned the remote control black box idea, and I responded that I had not mentioned that and many other ideas because they are not, to my knowledge) proven or well-supported facts. (In Woody's defense, he didn't say this was a proven idea either, he just offered it as something he had read.)

In reply to:

---

As proof, you offer an interview of David Shippers by Alex Jones. First Greg, conspiracies aren't proven by one person, no matter who that person is.

Second, if anything, Shippers blows the theory all to hell that Iraq isn't involved with terrorist activities aimed at the US. In fact, Shippers claims Iraq was directly involved in the Oklahoma City bombing acting in concert with McVeigh and further states Iraq is again up to something in the same area. He also said 3500 to 5000 Iraqi Republican Guards are in the US and living in the area and that there is communications between them and Iraq.

Is that enough proof for you and the others who say show us the proof Iraq has been involved in terrorist activities against the US or has plans to use terrorists against the US before we go in and disarm Saddam? If not, Shippers also asserts the Iraqi's were involved in the downing of TWA flight 800 and the bombing of the WTC. Is that now enough for you to agree the US should go in and remove Saddam?

---

Again, no "proof" of anything claimed, but Schippers is a highly credible authority, a top level prosecutor thoroughly trained in investigative techniques and long-term professional relationships with many FBI agents, andas a conservative republican and prosecutor in the Clinto impeachment certainly no enemy of the Bush administration (at least until his inquiries on this issue were stonewalled). His statements about high-level obstruction of investigations pointing to the 9/11 attack certainly deserve to be considered substantive evidence, especially when combine with similar reports from other credible sources like Agent Colleen Rowley and others.

As for his statements linking Iraq to terrorism ... huh? I've never said Saddam isn't linked to terrorism, and I don't think I've heard anyone else here say that. Considering what we know of him I think it would be astounding if he weren't linked to terrorism, whther through Al Quaida or otherwise. That still doesn't mean that the only valid response to him is immediate preemptive attack, but that's really a different subject entirely that has nothing to do with Schippers' and others testimony that investigations which could have prevented 9/11 were systematically blocked.

I think Connie did an excellent job of supplying the FAA regulations and other relevant information, thanks Connie.

In reply to:

---

You are trying very hard Greg to get the idea across that President Bush is a conspirator bent on setting up an absolute tyranny in the United States. You mention people high in the US government, but no names. There isn't anyone higher in the Government than the President Greg and no conspiracy of the scope you're alleging could succeed without the President being in on it or leading it. Why don't you stop the insinuations and just say what you mean plainly that George Bush was aware of the pending attack, could have stopped it but wanted it to happen as a prelude to seizing power and turning the United States into a dictatorship? When you do that Greg, I'll tell you what I think.

---

I'm sorry, jwhop, I didn't realize it sounded like I was "insinuating" -- I'll correct that: Yes, I believe that President Bush is a conspirator bent on setting up a tyranny in the U.S. I don't know for sure whether he was aware of the coming attack in all its particulars, but I do definitely believe that he could have stopped at the very least the attacks after the first tower, but chose to let it happen to create a crisis as a prelude to and excuse for siezing power. Was that clear enough?

The only reason I have frequently used phrases like "people high in the government" is to avoid the impression that I think Bush is the mastermind or instigator of this. I think his father and his father's cronies, along with a lot of other powerful figures "high in government" and in the CIA and the corporate/military/industrial complex, are more likely the major decisionmakers, and that GW as president is simply the current clique member best empowered to implement the agenda on an "official" level at this time.

Once again, I emphasize that this is my judgement of the way it is, based on a lot of evidence and reasoning ... and the purpose of this thread is to look at that evidence and reasoning as a group, to see whether it is compelling to others too (or if it can be shot down, if that's the case. )

Love,
Greg

Hi Jwhop,

I read the information from the site you posted and I suspect that you are right about the drug interceptions. You would think there would have been more interceptions than 67 with all the drugs coming into this country.

Conspiracies exist, though I am not suspicious enough to be looking for them all the time. But really that is not so much the issue or concern here. I think the issue is more a concern for how the administration is handling the aftermath of 9/11 to the degree that our civil rights are in jeopardy. And there still remains the question as to why the administration did not listen to the prior warnings from those agents. See we are coming up with the answers here gradually. Now lets all try to figure out why the prior warnings went unheeded. From what the agents said, ignored in fact.

The site you posted does clearly state that in the aftermath of 9/11 the government agencies have improved the system of communication regarding possible hi-jackings of airliners. It also indicates that the old system took too much time with all the channels it had to go through. This had to have been something the terrorists were well aware of to have hi-jacked those airliners close to the targets they wanted to hit. It must have been well thought out and planned for years. I think it was in the planning as revenge for Bush Srs. war with Iraq. That is why I, along with a lot of others, think that the only thing this war in Iraq is going to achieve is more terrorist attacks, and worse attacks. Like germ warfare.

So while you may have given me evidence that makes me reconsider the thought that maybe those planes were ordered not to go up after those hi-jacked planes, you still haven't sold me on this war.

Love, Connie

FYI (everyone)...and for even more shocking news~
Right now, on Coast To Coast, is a segment about "who really started the Gulf War Oil Well Fires."

I believe the guest is on for another hour to answer phone in questions,etc.
www.mojoradio.com (for those who want to listen online..go to "listen live".

..."Joyce Riley
( www.gulfwarvets.com ) has new information on who really started the oil well fires in Kuwait".

for a transcript:
http://www.thepowerhour.com/postings-four/transcript.htm

Hi Peggy! Excellent way to put it!

And El, to think Greg has some kind of control over us when it comes to how we THINK and what we know.. is so disgusting...well its quite laughable.
I thought it was highly brave of him to consider allowing the topic..but obviously he too prefers to ferret out truth,.JUST AS LINDA did.
For anyone to think our governments are generally telling us the truth and dont have secret agendas, ..well I say its time you get your head out of candy cane land.

We aint seen nothing yet, when it comes to uncovering the truth behind many things,..including this upcoming war.

For those who dont care to hear what is being presented, well its simple. Dont click on these types of threads.

Sorry to see you go Joy, although as many do after they say they "wont be back"..they tend to lurch. Feel free to lurch..lol.

...and Terriiiii...

Hmmm, I didn't see your last two posts before my previous response, jwhop.

I have some more information about the FAA regulations that you are throwing a cloud of confusion around, but I may have to wait until morning to post it. Keeping up with this thread thoughtfully is a full time job!

However, I want to say about your earlier post to Terri, once again, that anger and insult to other posters here is NOT ALLOWED, and you don't seem to be getting that message. It is NOT okay to call other members despicable and cowardly, regardless of WHAT you think of their opinions of Bush or anything else.

Aside from the issue of mutual courtesy required on these boards ... calling the President's actions criminal and his intentions tyrannical is anything but cowardly. I would rather say it is quite brave, considering the man's enormous and ever-expanding power and the clearly stated anathema that he and other administration officials have for those who criticize his policies. Remember that as early as a couple of weeks after 9/11 Cheney and Ashford were openly suggesting that anyone who failed to support the President's initiatives were aiding and abetting terrorists ...and as we all know they are seeking the power to STRIP OF THEIR CITIZENSHIP AND ALL CONSTITUTIONAL OR JUSICIAL PROTECTIONS anyone who is "declared" a terrorist sympathizer by the Justice Department! Under these conditions, I would say that openly criticizing the President is FAR from cowardly! And if you really think that those who earnestly believe, from the evidence of their own senses and reasoning, that representatives of the government - including the President - are committing criminal and unconstitutional acts should NOT speak out vocally about them, then you really HAVE strayed impossibly far from any libertarian roots you might have had. Such criticism where seen to be warranted is one of the foundations of this country, and is the civic DUTY of those who perceive such abuses to be happening.

In any event, as much as I like you and value your intelligence and the worth of your counterpoint areguments to make this a useful dialog, I will NOT have you repeatedly insulting and angering at other members. This is my second request in a short period of time to refrain from such postings, and it's not an idle request. Please do NOT do it any more. Thank you.

Love,
Greg

Good morning Greg!

Sorry for being emotional and for not following the rules of this thread.
I was never one of those "followers" type of people. It must be my Leo sun!

I'm not an American citizen and on this thread I feel like a complete outsider, my point, again is that there must be better places for you to address those very heavy subjects?

Why don't you guys write a letter to some of your congressmen or senators, or even why don't you contact some of the famous journalists?? I always remember Watergate, it has all started with those journalists.. and the rest is the history.

Maybe they would help you to discover if there was a real conspiracy by President Bush and his "gang" behind September 11?

Yours are still only theories without any real proof. Your're all searching different internet sites in your search of the truth. That's not enough.

I don't see this thread in any way connected to Linda Goodman ideas, I've read all her books and she is one of the most important writers to me! She was always spreading peace and light, you guys are spreading some foggy ideas around.

Have a nice day!Peace and Light!

El

Good Morning Jwhop

Thanks for answering my post. I can understand the need to defend someone you like and respect, when others are attcking that person behind their back, so to speak. That's a quality I quite respect actually, and if we were all here on a thread saying nasty stuff about another Knowflake who wasn't able to defend themselves, than I would support your position wholeheartedly. But we aren't talking about a personal friend of yours (well I assume so anyway) - we are talking about a public figure. I think people who put themselves in the public eye necessarily take more "shots" than ordinary people leading private lives. Celebrities, for example, are judged ruthlessly by the public, for their actions, their opinions, even their clothes! And those are just people who came into the public eye for a certain talent or attractiveness. Elected officals in democratic nations actually seem to be subject to much less scrutiny than your average Hollywood movie star or pop-singer. That's a comment on our society for sure! Because really, I feel that politicans MUST be scrutinized and should be ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED to be held accountible for their actions. And unfortunatley, the line between accountibility and character assination seems to be a very grey one, and probably has alot to do with where ones feelings about the politican in question lie. In the case of Bush and the threads in this forum, I can agree that there have been many judgements made about his character and his intellegence and mental condition etc., which don't have a specific bearing on his accountibility as President. But geez, do you not watch Bill Mayer, or Saturday Night Live or any satire / comedy shows like those? There's lots of places besides these forums who portray Bush as a buffoon or worse. I think it's worth pointing out that he was elected by the slimmest possible margin, and though he has enjoyed remarkable approval ratings, the fact is (from an outside perspective) even your own nation was deeply divided in electing him. I am sure that handling criticism, and dealing with negative comments about him is part of his daily life, and I even hazzard a guess that were he to read some of the things said here about him, it would be like water off a duck's back.

As for it being a case of the Golden Rule....if I were the leader of a powerful country standing on the brink of war, I would except the same sort of scrutiny about my policies and motivations. As for the personal attacks that would no doubt accompany them, well it might be shabby, but I think I could also have a sense of humor about some of it, and would ignore the rest. It's part of the job. And I don't think it;s the same to criticize an elected offical as it is to criticize a friend or aquaintence. In terms of practicing the Golden Rule with the "real" people in my life, I think I do it about as well as anyone else. Certainly no hero - I have a temper and a bit of a sarcastic streak - but I do my best to curb those aspects in me, and I have consciously worked here on presenting myself in a much more agreeable fashion, and being careful to respect people's different views, or at least the right they have to hold them. If your personal attacks on members here are your version of quid pro quo for things we say about Bush, than I have to say that, for the reasons mentioned above, I don't equate the two.

As for my so-called s**t list - doens't exist - I just asked the three people that I have observed to have the most personal feelings, expressed in an angry fashion, about this issue to explain themselves. I have no problem with difference of opinion, and I don't see anywhere in my posts where I have made that statement, or anything close to it. I DO have a problem with trying to converse with people who take logical arguments and twist them into emotional rhetoric. I don't know how to handle it when reasoned debate goe sinto that territory. I think I understand Sabra's anger more than others, as I know he was born in Isreal and served in the US Army (or was it air force? Sorry Sabra, for not remembering exactly) but in anycase, I can see more clearly where he has a personal stake, in all of this 9-11 and NWO type of stuff. And I actually mentioned him specifically in my post, because I really wanted to hear his answer to that question, as he makes very well-reasoned and heartfelt posts on these topics. Of the three people on the "s**t list" I figured that I'd have the best chance of udnerstanding what I am trying to understand, if he explained it to me. That's all there is to that, nothing more, nothing less. Connie and I had a few disagreements on another thread a week or so ago, I think we both grew in understanding of the issue we were discussing and in understanding of each other from those disagreements and the way we handled them. That's what I'd like to see here....

Love,
Terri

Hello ALL,

Back in 1999, I knew the US was heading for a recession. I had been researching the world economy and business for over a year and a half. I knew healthcare was going to crash too. Nobody wanted to think of such a thing. Then when Sept 11 happened I realized the US was spending so much money due to the disaster (money from Social security etc..) that we were heading for a depression. But as time went on the news wasn't saying anything nor our government. Then the Enron scandal. I wanted to get mad at the terrorist but something was not right. When the US should be financialy falling apart- no one was telling this to the public. Maybe they didn't want to scare us. I was begining to think the US government was a little ignorant to our financial plight. So I started more research. Synchronicity brought information to my attention. Then I realized our government is not ignorant. Someone is not telling us the truth. Someone or I should say a group of people are manipulating the media and the facts. So many lay offs, so many bankruptcies, people losing their retirement funds. Health insurance has become so costly that it is costing people more than any other expense. Corporate America is sucking the life out of the US and other contries. Debt is control. Will our government correct this plight. No, and they won't. Is it possible to correct this situation? Yes. Our deficit is growing more under Bush than any other President plus he has ties to Enron and other big business who have abused the system and lied about their finacial records. If you really understand business then you can see how things are truly operated covertly. Eliminate competition. Big business doesn't care about me or the small guy or how it carries out their control. Just profit, control and power. Same a thousand years ago as it is today. Nothing has changed just the time frame. "Same old same old". Same bloodlines who think they are better than peasants as Greg had mentioned.

I have another thought. Did the planes that hit the towers cause the towers to fall because of the fuel in the planes? What caused the towers to collapse? I have read that the heat caused the towers to collapse, but there was so much smoke. Smoke will decrease the temperature because it takes up a lot of oxygen.
So many things that don't make sense when the government tries to tell us about 9-11.

Those born in the 60's including myself have Pluto in Virgo with many having Uranus in Virgo too. We were imprinted by the 60's revolution and the Vietnam war. We are taking up what that generation was trying to do spiritually. Wake people up, shake things up, go against the norm. We know something is not right. About 75% of the population have Neptune sextile Pluto. I want to use some information by Jeff Green who wrote "Pluto- The Evolutionary Journey of the Soul".
He reveals some good info concerning the Neptune-Pluto sextile.
"Collectively, all Souls are tuned into the Universal Inspiration via the signs and houses occupied by Pluto and Neptune... Each individual will respond in his or her own unique way, yet be influenced by the collective generational vibration... Collectively, then, this general vibration will permeate the individual's social enviroment. The collective unconscious (Neptune) of the generation is attuned and receptive to the general evolutionary need for the planet... Collective groups of people are tuned into these evolutionary thoughts or ideas and for better or worse, collective change results.

Woody

Good Morning Eleonora!

I'm not a "follower" type person either, which is exactly why I am speaking out about these issues rather than keeping quiet and meekly deferring to whatever our President and other leaders tell us.

Write to Senators, Congressmen and journalists? Oh yes indeed, I've written dozens of such letters, and I agree with you that such communications are valuable and important. But MOST important where high officials are continuously bombarding ordinary, everyday people with exhortations that are false, misleading, and aimed at securing support for actions and policies that are actually NOT in their constituents' best interest, is communicating directly with those ordinary everyday people so they will have some knowledge and understanding that is independent of the official propaganda on which to base critical judgments and decisions that will affect all our lives for years to come.

Linda spent the major part of her later years researching corporate and government conspiracies and coercive policies. She believed her own daughter to have been a victim of a clandestine CIA plot in reprisal for her own (Linda's) investigative reporting of criminal conspiracies involving the (then) Nixon administation. She wrote widely about these ideas, some of them in her popular books and much, much more in well-researched manuscripts that she was unable to get published despite her fame and popular appeal because publishers were afraid to face the wrath of the powerful vested interests she criticized. Nothing AT ALL "un-Lindalike" about this topic! Linda believed, as do I, that true peace and compassion can only be based on justice and equality, and that peace-lovers SHOULD speak up and take action when they see injustice, inequality, unfairness and deception in the world. Were she with us now, I can assure you that she would be writing and speaking out about these issues, probably much more passionately and vocally than I am!

AND, once again you are using this thread to complain about the fact that folks here are discussing this subject, rather than to participate in the discussion. If you don't think it's a useful, interesting or valid discussion that's perfectly fine, it's very easy to avoid participating in it. But PLEASE don't continue to distract those of us who DO want to actually look closely at these issues and jointly examine them by continuing to make posts that distract from that purpose. If you have evidence or clear thinking to contribute ABOUT THESE ISSUES, pro or con, then PLEASE stay and contribute them. But if you just want to keep repeating in different words your displeasure that we ARE discussing them, then please don't. There are lots and lots of threads here that have nothing to do with these issues, and if this one makes you so uncomfortable I'm sure you'll be much happier posting on different topics ... but please don't keep distracting those of us who DO want to discuss these issues on this thread from doing so! Thanks a lot.

Love,
Greg

Good Morning Everyone

I sat down with my coffee this morning and was reading all your posts. I liked your post, Terri. You said it all very well. First I would like to make it very clear to anyone who thinks I am a "follower" that the only thing I follow is my conscience. Having said that, I agree with what you said in your post about public figures, Terri. Face it, these people give us lots of ammunition. I have a field day with Michael Jackson. I liked Clinton's domestic policy but I had fun with his escapades too. Come on, jwhop a guy who gives us a whole new definition of what constitutes sex and what doesn't ? Didn't that one at least bring a smile to your face?

Terri, what you said about us coming to understand the issues better and each other better through these discussions is very true. All of our tempers have flaired from time to time because when we attack others verbally, it is only a natural human reaction to get defensive and strike back. We are all working on changing and becoming more spiritual people, but none of us are a finished product yet. We will be lucky if we achieve that in our lifetime. Only a few outstanding people ever have. If we try to stick to the issue and get our point across without making it personal we would not have those temper flair ups. I think the reason that jwhop and all of us have gotten emotional at times is because we feel so strongly about our convictions. No one could accuse any of us of apathy for sure.

Maybe if we think about what we all have in common and try to keep in mind that we all want what is best for our country and the world, we all want peace, and we all care about people and their suffering, then we can work from that. The only differences here is in our opinions about how to achieve that goal. I think it all comes down to tolerance. Because we all have things that just grate on our nerves.

Jwhop flairs up now and then but I think that is because he feels so strongly in his convictions. He just has to realize that so does Greg, and so do we all. The thing is that when he isn't yelling at me and telling me I am wrong, he does a far better job of convincing me and getting me to see his angle on the matter. We have to try and remember that when we read what someone has posted here our perception of what they are saying may be wrong, and when we disagree on something it is not saying the other person is wrong, it is just saying we have a different opinion about it. Listening is the most important part of communication so we shouldn't just jump to conclusions because our perception of what the other person is saying may be wrong. We need to really listen to each other.

If we lose people like Sabra, and jwhop, Elanor and Joyce we are losing a lot because we lose the different viewpoints we need to help us come to an understanding of the issue. I think they feel outnumbered here and that feeling tends to put us on the defensive too. Though they aren't really outnumbered because basically we all want the same thing when it comes down to the bottom line. We just have different thoughts on how to get from A to B.

Jwhop, you said to me once that when I express myself with what you thought were "fighting words" it was only because I felt strongly about what I was talking about at the time. You know how you reacted to that, you reamed me for it. So when you express yourself with "fighting words" and get personal and question our character, we get the same feelings you got from me at that time, and we react. Put that aspect aside and you make a whole lot of sense. You give me a lot of food for thought. As I am sure you do everyone else here. You express yourself very well.

I hope this makes sense. I have my grand daughters here and you know how that is.

Woody reading your post just now, you reflect my husband's thoughts about it all.

Love, Connie

Okay here's the deal about the confusion with the FAA regulations. The regulations concerning the determination and reporting of "straying aircraft with broken communications" have NOT changed from before the 9/11 tragedy to the present day. Then, as now, FAA controllers were REQUIRED to immediately notify military authorities to scramble interceptor jets immediately upon determining that such a situation exists. What has changed (which was referred to in the article that you linked to, jwhop) is not any regulations, but rather the establishment of a permanent direct link between the FAA and NORAD (the military command responsible for actually scrambling the jets). Prior to this improvement, FAA controllers had to pick up the telephone and call NORAD to request interception, whereas the direct link now enables NORAD to be notified instantaneously. That's certainly a good improvement, but to imply that it means that the regulations requiring the immediate scrambling of interceptor jets in such situations were not in effect on 9/11 is erroneous. Those regulations WERE in effect on 9/11, and in fact there was significant media coverage AT THE TIME questioning why these automatic mandatory procedures were not followed on 9/11 when they were routinely followed both before and after that date. In subsequent days that coverage died down somewhat as the press and the administration went through an odd little dance to explain the failure:

• On September 13th, Acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Richard B. Myers stated to the Senate Armed Service Committee, "When it became clear what the threat was, we did scramble fighter aircraft, AWACS, radar aircraft and tanker aircraft to begin to establish orbits in case other aircraft showed up in the FAA system that were Hijacked." Myer was then asked "Was that order you just described given before or after the Pentagon [the last of the three targets] was struck? Do you know?" Admitting that he did know, Myers replied "That order, to the best of my knowledge, was after the Pentagon was struck." [Source: Report of the Senate Armed Services Committee, 13 September 2001.]
  
• NORAD spokesman Maj. Mike Snyder corroborated Myers' testimony. Reporting on an interview with Snyder on September 15th, the Boston Globe reported that "The command did not immediately scramble any fighters even though it was alerted to a hijacking 10 minutes before the first plane... slammed into the first World Trade Center tower... The spokesman said that the fighters remained on the ground until after the Pentagon was hit. The failure to act was particularly surprising since Snyder had also admitted that 'fighters routinely intercept aircraft.'"
  
• Vice-President Dick Cheney confirmed the same statement on September 16th to NBC News correspondent Tim Russert, reporting that "The first hijacking was confirmed at 8:20, the Pentagon was struck at 9:40, and yet it seems we were not able to scramble fighter jets in time to protect the Pentagon..." Cheney further suggested to Russert that it was the President who made the decision to allow planes to scramble after the Pentagon crash. [Source: NBC "Meet the Press," 16 September, 2001.]
  
• Shortly thereafter, however, the official story changed, and it was claimed that fighter jets had in fact been scrambled from Otis Air Force Base in Cape Cod around the time the first tower was struck. According to the New York Press, December 12, 2001 "Within days the story changed and it turned out that two F-15 fighters had in fact been scrambled from Otis Air National Guard Base in Cape Cod, MA. Whether this took place before or after the first tower was struck is not clear. In any case it was too late to make a difference."
  
• Even if the "revised official story" is true, it could not explain why the fighters were "too late" to intercept the second flight that attacked the WTC 18 minutes later. The already-airborne F-15's, flying at their rated speed of 1,850 MPH would have taken at most 12 minutes to reach New York from Otis, yet according to CNN News 16 September 2001 "When the second tower was hit the fighters were still 70 miles from Manhattan." Guess they stopped for coffee on the way And of course it doesn't even BEGIN to explain why no jets were scrambled in time to intercept the third plane headed directly toward the center of the US Government in Washington DC, with nearly an hour's advance warning AFTER the hijacked craft were KNOWN to be on suicide missions to crash into major American facilities!

What all of this illustrates is that regardless of which version of the story is true, none of them explain the failure of both routine procedure and command-initiated procedure to protect US targets from this attack, nor do they explain the willful failure of the administration to conduct a meaningful investigation into this failure and provide believable answes to the American people.

And that there should even BE different versions told by folks as knowledgeable as the Vice-President and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, whose positions at the top of the command chain deprive them of the ability to argue that they were "misinformed" about whether and when interceptor jets were scrambled, argues convincingly that deliberate disinformation (that's a polite term for LIES) was disseminated by our leaders in the wake of the crisis. If we didn't want a liar in top office with the Clinton/Lewinski affair, then how can we POSSIBLY justify lies and coverups about our national security? Especially from leaders who are pushing relentlessly for near-total secrecy and freedom from judicial or congressional accountability with regard to their "anti-terrorist" programs and activities?

Love,
Greg

Well, sorry to distract you once again, guys!

This is the last time, I promise.

I've certainly got the message clear "SHUT UP EL AND GO HOME..." That's what I'm going to do in a few minutes. I do have more valuable ways to spend my time and energy anyway.

To me the most insulting thing on this thread is to compare today's America to Nazi Germany in 1933.

First of all, all Germany was by the process of nazification transformed in a police state. Is Bush administration doing that? Don't think so.

Hitler was violating the 1919 Treaty of Versailles by rearming it's military, on the other side he was publicly expressing his desire for peace using his famous diplomatic skills. America is not violating any International treaty or law by being the super power, military speaking.

And I do believe that America wants peace, but sometimes war is necessary to reach that goal. Especially in case of Saddam.

The idea of giving German people "more living space" began in 1938, I think that it was called Lebensraum.
Is American goverment looking for more living space for it's citizens? I honestly doubt it.

That incident in Reichstag, Greg you're right, many historians believe that Nazi set the fire but nobody knows for sure until today.
After that fire new laws were issued for protection of people and state to deal with emergency situations... is this what you're talking about, that Septemeber 11 was necessary for your goverment to create some new laws? In Germany it meant the beginning of police state, but I don't see that development in your country.

Concentration camps were created in Nazi Germany for communists, socialist, Jews, gipsy people, labor leaders... are there any concentration camps being open in America lately, maybe you know something that I'm not aware of.

There were special courts created in Germany to punish political opponents. Any such a court created in United States after September 11?

There were new laws in Nazi Germany against Jews forbidding them to hold position in legal, medical, teaching, civil servant sector. Are there any new laws created by Bush administration similar to those? Don't think so.

Nazi propaganda encouraged people to boycott Jews businesses and shops, I've noticed that in Bush's America there is no such a propaganda persecuting any religion or nation, on the contrary.

There were famous book burnings in Hitler's Germany... is anybody publicly burning any book in America?? Well, again, NO!

And President Bush has still not declared himself a Fuhrer.. as Hitler did.

Nobody is losing their civil rights in America today as Jews did in Nazi Germany. Nobody is being separated from Americans legally, politically , socially so far, nobody is called "a separate race" and there is no law for the protection of "pure American blood" whatever that would mean.
Being Jewish was determined by ancestry (race) and not by religious beliefs.

Nobody is forbidding marriages between 2 different races in America today, like they did in 1935, Jews were not allowed to have sex or to marry Germans.

More than 120 laws and decreas were enacted in that time in Germany.How many new laws Bush administration created so far?

Is America trying to anex any foreign country, like Germany did with Austria in 1938, or year later with the part of Czechoslovakia?

Many synagogus were destroyed, Jewish homes and business looted.... is your goverment destroying anybody's private properties or business? Don't think so.

Is anybody in America expelling pupils from public schools because of their religious beliefs? NO, again and again, NO.

This could go much further, I think that I made myself clear.

It's an insult to your country to compare it to Hitler's Germany, it's a shame.

I've already learned that in your minds guys, your ideas are the only one acceptable on this thread, you become very upset if someone else aims the same behavior at you.

Actually it's useless to argue on this thread.

I'm glad that Greg has finally answered my question about writing letters to journalists, senators, etc.
Don't give up Greg, what's dozen letters if you're fighting for a cause you really belive in it. Go and speak on radio and TV shows, spread your ideas.

You're giving order to jwhop to shut up, on the other side Aries is allowed to be rude to people and that's perfectly all right with you, well double standards!

That's all for me, once again sorry for distracting you guys, have a nice weekend!

Peace and Light
El

Hey El -

I for one, think distraction is a good thing - providing we can keep ourselves from veering off into insults and personal attacks. But certainly, dissenting view points are good - for example, your last post gave me alot to think about and prompted me to do some reading and some serious thinking. I enjoy that! So it would be a real shame for you to not come back.

I do think Greg already mentioned that the analogy between the Bush administration and the Nazi's was not meant by him to be 100% - just that the process of creating a crises in order to justify a power-grab is one that MANY governments have been guilty of throughout history, and that this is something the burning of the Reichstag and 9-11 have in common. At least that was my understanding of what Greg was saying, I don't want to put words in his mouth.

In my own opinion however, there are more things the two governments hold in common, and your list touches on many of them. I hope you don't mind, but I've used a number of the points you make against the case of the Bush administration being like the Nazi's to show why I think there are some parallels. I know in another post you criticize the use of internet sources to back up research - but because these are unfolding, current events, it's near to impossible to find books etc., to support my arguments. I will do my best to use only "main stream" news sources to back me up though, although I may in some places use some more "alternative" sources, to flesh things out. If you don't like the sources, or question their authenticity, that's ok - but at least allow them to serve as reminders that there are many people who share these viewpoints about the Bush administration specifically, and high level government officials in many countries, over long periods of time, in general.

POLICE STATE?

Elenora said: "First of all, all Germany was by the process of nazification transformed in a police state. Is Bush administration doing that? Don't think so."

I do think so! The much-talked about Homeland Security Bill is one measure by which I believe the current administration seeks to use transform America into a "police state". Now we haven't ever sat down and hammered out a working definition of what a "police state" is, but in my opinion, a state in which the authorities are permitted the rights of search and seizure without a warrant, which allows the use of "spy software" such as Carnivore to track citizens web activities and emails, which allows for infinite detention of people merely "suspected" or terrorist ties, and without access to family or lawyers while in detentions (more on this point later) and which advocates the creation of an Orwellian computer database that gathers and sifts through mountains of personal information, including travel receipts, phone bills, credit card purchases and gun ownership - and is the mastermind of a man CONVICTED OF FALSIFYING INFORMATION AND LYING IN COURT - John Poindexter, one of the main figures involved in the Iran / Contra affair. This project is called the "Total Information Awareness Office" and you can do a search here in the World Community forum, or on the web to read all about it. Frankly, I find it to be the most compelling proof that the current administration IS making a grab for police powers, and stepping on the corpses of the people killed on 9-11 to get there! Counting on the very real fears of honest and decent Americans, and their generally proud and patriotic nature, the propaganda machines of the current administration have massaged the fear of another domestic terrorist attack until many Americans are willingly giving up the freedoms that they fought so hard to have in the first place.

The truly frightening thing here is that this whole crises / solution scenario is one well-known to the powerful and elite - read this quote by Henry Kissinger from 1991:

"Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will pledge with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the "Unknown". When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government."

Henry Kissinger
Evians, France - 1991
Bilderberg Conference

(Henry Kissinger, by the way, was the man Bush appointed to lead the investigation into the 9-11 security failures. Fortunately, Kissinger did not accept the appointment - the public outcry at the time was very loud....I remember even non-conspiracy believers freaking out over that one!)


Source 1: CBC article on the creation of the Homeland Security Dept.

Source 2: www.policestate 21.com

INTERNATIONAL TREATIES AND LAW

Elenora said "America is not violating any International treaty or law by being the super power, military speaking."

As far as I know, America HAS violated at least one important international treaty in the aftermath of 9-11 - namely the Geneva convention, as it relates to the treatment of POWs. I am referring to the "detainees" being held at Guantanemo Bay, who I realize, by a semantic technicality aren't actually POWs. Still in the eyes of many concerned citizens from around the world and watch dog groups like Amnesty International, the USA is in a serious violation of international law by holding these men for such a long period time, with no rights whatsoever. In fact, it would be more tolerable if the USA did declare the men POWs as they would have more rights if given that status at least. This is not the type of action that the world's leading democracy should be engaged in. Specific allegations made by Amnesty include:

"...the USA has denied or threatens to deny the internationally recognized rights of people taken into its custody in Afghanistan and elsewhere, some 300 of whom have been transferred to Camp X-Ray in Guantánamo Bay. Among other things, Amnesty International is concerned that the US Government has:

-transferred and held people in conditions that may amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and that violate other minimum standards relating to detention;

-refused to grant people in its custody access to legal counsel, despite ongoing interrogations which may lead to prosecutions

-refused to grant people in its custody access to the courts to challenge the lawfulness of their detention;

-refused to disclose full information about the circumstances of many of the arrests, including whether they occurred in Afghanistan, Pakistan, or elsewhere;

-undermined human rights protections in cases of people taken into custody outside Afghanistan and transferred to Guantánamo Bay. For example, six Algerian nationals were seized in Bosnia-Herzegovina and transferred to Camp X-Ray, in apparent violation of Bosnian and international law;

-undermined the presumption of innocence through a pattern of public commentary on the presumed guilt of the Guantánamo detainees;

-threatened to apply a second-class justice system by selecting foreign nationals for trial before military commissions - executive bodies lacking clear independence from the executive and with the power to hand down death sentences, and without the right of appeal to an independent and impartial court;

-raised the prospect of indefinite detention without charge or trial, or continued detention after acquittal by military commission, or repatriation that may threaten the principle of non-refoulement

-failed to show that it conducted an impartial and thorough investigation into allegations of human rights violations against Afghan villagers detained by US soldiers in Afghanistan."

These are strong allegations to be made against a country that claims to be fighting to uphold democracy around the world. It would be bad behaviour for ANY coutnry to be engaged in, but for the US to not adhere to standards it had a real hand in making is downright hyprocrtical! So one important international law violated - and an even more serious violation in the making. International figures, the Prime Minister of Canada among them, have suggested that pursuing a war with Iraq without the approval of the United Nations would put the US in serious violation of international law, and possibly jeopardize the very existence of the United Nations. The United States has so far been willing to work within the framework of the UN, but Powell, Rumsfeld, Rice and even Bush have repeatedly stated that they do not consider UN approval as necessary before declaring war. In his recent address to the influential Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, Cretien makes a strong case for the importance of international consensus building through organizations like the UN and NATO. Here's an exerpt from his speech:

"War must always be the last resort, not only because of the human suffering it produces but also because of the inevitable unforeseen consequences. But if it must come to war, I argue that the world should respond through the United Nations. This is the best way to give legitimacy to the use of force in these circumstances.
We must all be concerned about the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. And we all fully understand why action is required before it is too late. I argue, however, that the long-term interests of the United States will be better served by acting through the United Nations than by acting alone. Indeed it was the United States which was the prime mover in the creation of the United Nations. And it did so for its own security.
The price of being the world's only superpower is that its motives are sometimes questioned by others. Great strength is not always perceived by others as benign. Not everyone around the world is prepared to take the word of the United States on faith.
Canada firmly supports the objectives of the United States. We have been close friends and allies for a long, long time. It is essential that the United States can count on support from around the world.
Therefore it is imperative to avoid the perception of a "clash of civilizations". Maximum use of the United Nations will minimize that risk.
And so how the United States acts in the days ahead will have profound consequences for the future. I am convinced that working through the United Nations, if at all possible, as difficult and as frustrating as it sometimes can be, will not only immeasurably strengthen the hand of the United States but also of those around the world who want to support it.
Canada welcomed President Bush's leadership in going to the UN General Assembly. We welcomed the determination shown by the United States in pressing the Security Council to adopt Resolution 1441. We strongly supported a measure that imposed obligations on Iraq where non-compliance would be accompanied by serious consequences.
The world learned a terrible lesson when the League of Nations failed to act against aggression in the 1930's. But we must also remember that the League of Nations was mortally wounded because the United States was not a member.
This is a testing time for the United Nations. A United Nations where the United States is a key player. Where the United States can be very persuasive. I am convinced that, given a proper chance, the United Nations will fulfill its obligations to the world community. That it will back up its principles with resolve. But it must be given this proper chance. Today's United Nations needs a committed United States. And I would strongly argue the world needs an effective United Nations."

Source 1: The Office of the Prime Minister of Canada - text of the Chicago speech


Source 2: www.amnesty.org

----------------------------------------

You raised more points that I'd like to answer, but I have some more research to do. By a cool synchronicity, an aquaintence of my husbands, this very politically savvy ex-hippie type of fellow, paid him a visit at work today, and they were talking about this topic. Once again, I feel the need to say that the thoughts expressed on this thread, while not entirely mainstream, are becoming more "acceptable" as people seek answers to these very important questions.

I'll leave off tonight with a quote from the Declaration of Independence, which I believe not only justifies the need for this line of questioning, but demands it of concerned citizens and freedom lovers everywhere.:

"... We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Love,
Terri

Oh, noooo Eleonora!

The message isn't "SHUT UP EL AND GO HOME..." not at all! The message is "please work WITH the others on this thread, toward mutual understanding, instead of in competition, thinking that the point is for either you or others on the thread to "win" and prove the others wrong. It's just to join with ther rest of the folks in discussing these issues seriously (if you want to) rather than pulling the thread away from that discussion.

"Join with us in discussing" does NOT mean agreeing with anyone else by any means. It just means allowing the discussion to continue examining the issues it was started to examine. Your contribution can be COMPLETE disagreement with what anyone else has said, as long as you respond to what they actually said, and use facts and logic to present your reasons for disagreeing. In those conditions, we can have a productive discussion even among folks who RADICALLY disagree with one another. But if, instead of responding to the subjects being discussed with your own viewpoints and evidence, you respond by saying "this is not a fit topic for discussion on a spiritual website," or "it's disloyal and unpatriotic to express those ideas," or "you've already made up your mind so there's no point arguing with you," or "only a coward would say something like that," or ... well, you get the idea ... then the discussion really CAN'T continue. At that point, the folks who wanted to talk about this subject have to either completely ignore you (which is pretty rude, and most of us won't do that) or take our minds OFF of the issues we were discussing and respond to your statements ... and that's very frustrating.

As it happens, your last post actually DID address some of the issues of the discussion, and that's great! As a result. Terri had something to respond to ... and you may very well have responses to what SHE says ... and then we have a good discussion. If we all do that with goodwill and respect for each other, it is VERY likely that we will ALL modify our beliefs and understandings to at least some tiny degree, because NONE of us are infallible and omniscient and have all the answers. I know I certainly don't! My ideas are evolving all the time, and I am VERY willing for my thoughts to be influenced by ideas and evidence that you bring up ... or that anyone else brings up. To be sure, I think it is unlikely that I will experience a complete about-face in my whole philosophy and orientation toward these issues (although who knows for sure?) ... and it's probably unlikely that YOUR whole frame of reference is going to flip-flop either. But that's okay, we don't HAVE to try to convert each other to "true believers" but if we can all come away from the discussion with just the tiniest smidgen of better understanding and appreciation for each others' viewpoints and the reasons for holding them, then that is a big success for all!

Of course it's also possible that a given topic is truly so completely outside your belief system that you have no interest in discussing it, and in that case it's perfectly fine to just ignore it (that happens to me all the time! ) ... but that's no reason to try to stop others from discussing a subject that they find worthwhile to discuss by jumping in and saying how wrong-minded the whole discussion is! That would be like if you were participating with others in a discussion about square and trines in astrological career guidance, and somebody jumped in and instead of contributing to the discussion (pro or con to the ideas already being discussed), started saying that astrology is just superstition and there is no scientific basis to it, and no intelligent person should lower themselves to believe in such hocus-pocus ... well that would be pretty frustrating, wouldn't it? That doesn't mean that the person doesn't have a right to hold those beliefs, or even that he might have some useful and valid points to make. But you'd probably ask him to go start a thread about "Is astrology valid?" and discuss that question with others who were interested in discussing it, rather than pulling you away from your discussion to "defend" astrology!

Well I won't belabor the point any further, but I truly hope you understand and will stay to continue discussing with us. (And I have a few of your points to respond to that Terri didn't address too!) Please don't feel unwanted or run off, because you absolutely AREN'T. There is much to be learned by ALL of us from rationally and respectfully discussing even those ideas that we totally disagree with ... and I personally believe that learning to develop that skill of workig to discuss WITH others rather than AGAINST them, even when the gulf between our thoughts and theirs seems impossibly wide ... is the one skill that we as the human species most urgently need to learn in order to "consciously evolve" in a direction that has a chance of supporting a peaceful, compassionate and harmonious civilization on planet earth.

Love,
Greg

Very well said, Terri. When you ended your post with those words from the Constitution I got choked up and had tears in my eyes. I am not just saying that either. I think that a lot of Americans have forgotten the powerful words of the Constitution. Maybe we should read them more often.

I really liked the things that Prime Minister Cretien said in his speech. Especially when he said: "I argue, however, that the long-term interests of the United States will be better served by acting through the United Nations than by acting alone. Indeed it was the United States which was the prime mover in the creation of the United Nations. And it did so for its own security.
The price of being the worlds only superpower is that its motives are sometimes questioned by others. Great strength is not always perceived by others as benign. Not everyone around the world is prepared to take the word of the United States on faith." Nor, should we, as U.S. citizens take the word of our government on faith. Seems that both Prime Minister Cretien and the Constitution are in agreement on that one.

The quote by Henry Kissinger is very frightening though. To know that a man who has as much influence and power as he does actually thinks that way should scare anyone.

Love, Connie

Another "sign" of a dictator, is his or her refusal to listen to pleas from the masses of the dictators country.
----------

Not swayed by protests, Bush sticks to his guns

United Nations must act to disarm Iraq or U.S. will go it alone, President says

By BARRIE McKENNA
Wednesday, February 19, 2003 - Page A23

WASHINGTON -- Unmoved by mounting global opposition to war and wavering support from key allies, a defiant George W. Bush vowed again to disarm Iraq, with or without the United Nations' blessing.

The U.S. President warned yesterday that the UN risks becoming irrelevant unless it moves quickly to enforce previous resolutions ordering Iraq to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction.

"Unless the United Nations shows some backbone and courage, . . . it could render the Security Council irrelevant," Mr. Bush told reporters at the White House, where he spoke publicly for the first time since antiwar protests on the weekend drew millions of people around the world.

Mr. Bush said his administration is working with allies on a toughened UN Security Council resolution that could be tabled as early as today. The United States also stands ready to forcibly dismantle Iraq's weapons arsenal if this last-ditch diplomacy fails, he said.

"If the United Nations can't enforce its own resolutions -- a resolution which, by the way, has been around for 12 years -- it says something about its utility as we head into the future," he said.

The tough talk comes amid signs of flagging support from key U.S. allies, including Britain and Turkey, and the hardening of opposition elsewhere to unilateral action, including in Ottawa.

"If they [the U.S.] want to go there all alone, they can go there all alone. But we say they must go with the authorization of the United Nations," Prime Minister Jean Chrétien said yesterday. "If they don't, the international system of peace and security will probably be more destabilized than it need be."

The Turkish government announced yesterday it would not allow U.S. troops to use its territory or bases to attack Iraq unless military action is sanctioned by the UN Security Council. British Prime Minister Tony Blair was also cautious after returning from a deeply divided European Union summit in Brussels, saying "there's no rush to war."

Mr. Bush dismissed international opposition to war, insisting that while war is the "last choice," doing nothing isn't an option for the United States.

"[Iraqi President] Saddam Hussein is a threat to America and we will deal with him," Mr. Bush said. "I owe it to the American people to secure this country; I will do so."

Mr. Bush said he wasn't impressed by the recent antiwar rallies, saying such protests won't shape U.S. decision-making.

"[Basing decisions by] size of protest, it's like deciding, 'Well, I'm going to decide policy based upon a focus group,' " he said. "The role of a leader is to decide policy based upon the security, in this case, security of the people."

U.S. officials refused to say whether any new UN Security Council resolution would have to include a strict timetable, setting out what Iraq would have to do to avoid military action. The President insisted the United States reserves the right to act alone against Mr. Hussein.

"We don't need a second resolution," Mr. Bush said. "It's clear this guy [Mr. Hussein] could even care less about the first resolution."

Most Western nations, along with key Arab states, have said they would support military action in Iraq only if the Security Council authorized the use of force.

U.S. officials have signalled privately that the Bush administration is ready to give diplomacy at least another two weeks before a final decision is made on war. The administration is working with Britain on a possible new resolution, which would need the support of at least nine of the 15 UN Security Council members to pass.

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said a Security Council vote could come this week or next. He also took a shot at French and German leaders who have threatened to block any new resolution.

"With a few exceptions, Germany and France most notably, Europe stands united" with the United States against Iraq, he said.

The United States has been amassing troops and equipment in the Middle East since late last year, as it has ratcheted up pressure on Iraq to get rid of all of its weapons of mass destruction. It now has an estimated 182,000 troops in the region, and more are on their way.

Mr. Fleischer noted that the United States and its allies went to war in Kosovo in the 1990s without the blessing of the UN Security Council.

"The history of the UN in Kosovo is not a good one," Mr. Fleischer said. "I hope that won't be the case in Iraq."

Thanks for posting this, Aries. Though it really ticks me off. The following is an editorial comment by me.

Here is the President of the U.S. in so many words calling the UN a bunch of cowards ( I don't know what other conclusion anyone could draw from the statement: "Unless the United Nations shows some backbone and courage, . .) and thumbing his nose at the rest of the world.

What really got me though was his statement concerning the war protests: "[Basing decisions by] size of protest, it's like deciding, 'Well, I'm going to decide policy based upon a focus group,' " he said. "The role of a leader is to decide policy based upon the security, in this case, security of the people."

Is it just me or does this sound a bit hypocritical? This coming from a man who bases all his policies and decisions upon a focus group, mainly the special interest groups and lobbyist. Not to mention the large corporations who paid for his election. If he really wants the people of this country to have security he might try doing something about the rising unemployment instead of dumping all that money into a war.

Another thing in the news here this week was that ex-presidents, Clinton and Jimmy Carter both spoke out against this war with Iraq. Jimmy Carter spent his administration trying to bring peace in the Middle East and still works for that purpose so I can see why he does not think this war is a wise move. I think this war is a conflict of interest on GW's part. Hussein tried to have his dad assassinated a few years ago in Kuwait.

Love, Connie

Hi Everyone

I have been reading as many things as I can find regarding the issue we are discussing here. I want to let you all know that I was also looking for articles that disclaimed these things and I could not find anything that the government is saying to deny these things or explain them. If any of you can find things to give the viewpoint of the government agencies disclaiming or explaining these questions please post them. I am going to just post this article. There was something in this article, and we all know it to be true, concerning those four planes that has been a nagging thought in my mind.

http://www.freeworldalliance.com/newsflash/2002/02newsflash1597.htm


Military Smokescreen: Who Commanded our Air Force to 'Stand Down' on 9-11?
by Victor Thorn

Of all the peculiarities, unanswered questions, and things that simply don't add up about the 9-11 terrorist attacks, the one aspect that keeps nagging at me revolves around our military's incredible lack of response to the hijacking of four airliners. Anyone who investigates this matter will soon find that the United States Air Force and the FAA both have established procedures that have been in place for at least 25 years regarding planes that veer abnormally off course. Specifically, federal law MANDATES that the Air Force must dispatch a plane to investigate why a certain craft has strayed from its predestined route. These interceptors are only allowed to shoot an airliner from the sky under orders from the President, but that doesn't negate that they are still required to investigate the situation in a timely manner. Yet, on 9-11, NO ONE FOLLOWED ORDERS! Why? Who gave these orders? Plus, Washington, D.C. has the most restricted air space in the country, yet from 9:03 a.m., when the second tower was hit, to 9:47 a.m. when the Pentagon came under attack ; when the Air Force KNEW that a jet was headed toward the Capitol, no planes were dispatched to intercept it. Who gave the orders for these planes to ;stand down,; and, God forbid, were some even called back after they had taken off?

To begin understanding how appalling this situation is, we first need to know that there are at least twelve or more National Guard and Air Force installations in close proximity to the World Trade Center and Pentagon. Plus, Andrews Air Force Base is only ten miles from the heart of Washington , D.C. Why wasn't something done to avert this catastrophe, and why isn't the mainstream media asking some very hard questions regarding this deliberately ordered crime?

Yes, I said crime, and once you get a load of the following timeline, you'll concur with this strong terminology. Between 7:59 a.m. - 8:10 a.m. , the airliners that would ultimately crash into the WTC and Pentagon were hijacked. By 8:15 a.m. , air traffic controllers knew that these planes were in trouble. At this point, the Air Force should have dispatched, per standard operating procedures, fighters that would determine why these jets veered from their normal route. By 8:15 a.m. !

At 8:45 a.m., a half-hour later American Airlines flight 11 struck the WTC's North Tower . (This flight took off at exactly 7:59 a.m. , thus controllers knew it was in trouble for at least 35 minutes, if not more.)

At 9:03 a.m. , United Airlines flight 175 crashed into the South Tower . (It took off at exactly 8:10 a.m. )

At 9:05 a.m. (supposedly), Andrew Card told President Bush of the unfolding catastrophe. At the same time, American Airlines Flight 77 veered off course near Chicago and headed toward D.C. for an impending attack.

At 9:06 a.m. , the New York Daily News reported that on the morning of the attack, the NYPD dispatched a message declaring, This was a terrorist attack notify the Pentagon.

Still, NO Air Force jets had yet been scrambled! None! Why?

At 9:35 a.m. , American Airlines flight 77, which had been tracked by radar all the way from Chicago , circled the Pentagon, yet this military installation was not evacuated! Plus, the Air Force had still not sent out any jets! How completely incredible is this scenario?

A few minutes later, with the utmost precision, American Airlines flight 77 drops 7,000 feet in 2 ½ minutes. Do you realize what a truly difficult maneuver this is? It is flying so low at this point that the plane is taking out utility poles and clipping trees en route to its target. The jumbo jet finally zeroes in EXACTLY on the Pentagon while traveling at 460 knots (approx 529 mph). Are we really to believe that this precision Top Gun style flying was executed by a group of desert-trained Afghani's who had only flown Cessna and Piper prop-planes at a flight school in Florida for six months, many of them reportedly unable to even take off or land them adequately? Come on! This is the most inept cock-n-bull story since the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor .

Finally, at 9:40 a.m. , a full hour and 31 minutes after the FAA knew that the first airliner had been hijacked guess what happened. The Air Force dispatched their jets!

The Pentagon was aware of these hijackings since at least 8:45 a.m. when the first tower was struck (and more likely before then), yet it took them 55 minutes to take action. 55 minutes! By 8:15 a.m. , when the FAA learned of the hijackings, federal law required that the military dispatch planes to either divert the plane's course, or determine the need to shoot them down. This is normal procedure! But the Pentagon waited until 9:40 a.m. after all the damage was already done.

Who commanded the Air Force to stand down, and why is the media still feeding us the incompetence line? The Wright Brothers at Kitty Hawk could have had a plane up in the air in that much time!

Barry Zwicker, a Canadian media analyst, wrote on January 21, 2002 : That morning no interceptors responded in a timely fashion to the highest alert situation. That includes the Andrews squadron which are 12 miles from the White House. 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. This causes me to ask whether there were stand down orders.

To add more weight to the peculiarity of this situation, consider the flight capacity of the four hijacked airliners. These routes were extremely popular ones, most of them filled to 100% capacity during weekdays. In fact, oftentimes, fliers were asked if they wanted to give up their seats to another traveler. Yet on 9-11, the four flights in question were uncharacteristically empty.

American Airlines 11 - filled to only 39% of capacity American Airlines 77 - filled to only 27% of capacity United Airlines 175 - filled to only 26% of capacity United Airlines 93 - filled to only 16% of capacity
In an industry that takes extremely close notice of such matters, why didn't anyone see the red flags that were being waved? Did someone tell them to neglect these glaring inconsistencies to lessen the collateral damage (or the insurance payouts)?

Since I mentioned United Airlines flight 93, consider this odd bit of information. The Reuters news agency reported on 9-13-2001 in an article entitled, Troubling Questions in Troubling Times: Pennsylvania State Police officials said on Thursday debris from the plane had been found up to EIGHT MILES AWAY from the crash site. Do you realize how immense an eight-mile stretch of land is? Do you also realize that when a plane drops from the sky, the impact does not cause the wreckage to scatter for eight miles? Think about it. Eight miles is the length of 140 football fields laid end-to-end! Obviously, something else happened to bring Flight 93 out of the sky. Strong evidence points to the Air Force shooting it down, then the plane disintegrated during its eight-mile descent into a rural Pennsylvania field. Yet the powers-that-be lied once again to the American people. Now do you know why President Bush personally asked Tom Daschle to limit their Congressional inquiry?

Another aspect of this case that makes me scratch my head is this: why won't the FAA release the entire records of the pilot conversations with their air-traffic controllers?

Another pertinent question revolves around the pilot's curious reactions during these hijackings. Once they got the first inkling that they were being overtaken, why didn't they simply perform a rollover to incapacitate or disable the hijackers? The barrel roll is an easily-performed procedure for veteran pilots, especially when one considers the backgrounds of the four men who manned these flights. As Colonel Donn de Grand Pre reports:

John Ogonowski ; Vietnam Air Force fighter pilot
Leroy Homer ; Former Air Force pilot
Victor Saracini ; Former fighter pilot
Chic Burlingame ; Naval Academy graduate who flew F-4's in Vietnam

All of these pilots were described as being strong, agile, healthy, in excellent physical condition, and certainly capable of performing a simple rollover. Now I'm not blaming these men by any means ,it just seems like, if given the opportunity, these pilots would have disoriented the hijackers enough to gain control of the situation and avert disaster. Rather, we're being led to believe that these three jumbo jets were flown into buildings by Middle Eastern hijackers brandishing nothing more than box cutters, and all of them had only six months flying experience. I don't know about you, but if everything were on the up-and-up, I'd put my faith in these pilots being able to nullify the hijackers any day of the week. But again, we're not being given the entire story because something doesn't add up.

I could continue with dozens of other inconsistencies, but instead I'll close on this note.

1) Who in the mainstream media is asking these, and other, pertinent questions? No one!
2) Who in the Pentagon is answering these questions? No one!
3) Finally, who in the Pentagon has been made accountable for the Air Force stand-down? Again, no one!

Do you think it's time that we FORCE our government and the media to start addressing these issues? I do.

What I bolded here is what has been nagging in my mind. What do you think the odds are that all four of those planes were not filled to capacity as normal?

Love, Connie