OT: Professional Pilots and Aviators Question 9/11

[smutek]

who shot jfk?...they told us at school that they would release the documents by now...

Well they did release some of them...about 3% are still under lock & key until the relevant parties have died. Take a look at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1848157.stm

Of course if they were to release the rest then there'd be a very good chance that, amongst others, George H.W. Bush would be in the dock for treason, conspiracy, gunrunning, organising terrorist action against another state and sedition inside of it. The very fact that long time Bush family friend and terrorist extraordinaire Allen Dulles was on the Warren Commission is a measure of just how uninterested they were in seeing justice done - that guy, along with Kissinger, makes Osama Bin Laden look like a fucking teddy bear. However people will unfortunately quite quickly wander off into nazis, aliens and Skull & Bones nonsense but just try and remember the unassailables:

a) Prescott Bush funded Nixon's political career against the Kennedy's.

b) Dulles & Poppy Bush were using the CIA as their own private terrorist army before Kennedy fired Dulles for the Bay of Pigs debacle. Poppy was mysteriously appointed Director with no apparent experience back in '75 - yet the interview conducted with him the day after the JFK shooting refers to him specifically as "Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency".

c) Jack Ruby, or Rubenstein, worked privately for Nixon before wasting Oswald (and later said the conspiracy went all the way to the top) whilst The Dallas Schoolbook Depository was owned by one of Prescott Bush's oldest friends.

d) Some of the same men who were in Dallas on that day later turned up as Nixon's burglars during Watergate and were then employed again by Poppy Bush. Namely E.Howard Hunt who lost a court case against a magazine that asserted he was in Dallas and was one of the shooters.

e) When Kennedy's body left Dallas in a bronze casket wrapped in sheets with the remaining brain left in his skull all of the doctors had indicated a upper frontal entrance wound, massive exit wound to the rear and the lower entrance 'throat' wound.....

When it arrived in Bethesda in a body bag and cheap grey box they used to ship the grunts back from 'Nam in the remaining brain had been removed and the frontal entrance wounds mutilated to appear as exit wounds...

Nice post, well written and excellent point about the "unassailables".

As a side note if you want to leanr about the one "contribution" made by Bush Sr. during his one year tenure as director at CIA google "team B experiment" - you might also check "The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists" website for an archival edition of an excellent article they ran on this back in the early 90's. Excellent example of manipulation of intelligence for political gain.

In short, at the time CIA analysis on the russian threat was that there was pretty much no threat. Russia was disintegrating from within, economically, politically and militarily. The economy was falling apart, they could not afford to fix their tanks and their missiles, if they even made it out of their silos, could not hit a bulls eye if it were 100 miles across.

I exaggerate, but Russia was in a bad state and we were leaps and bounds ahead of them. This was the consensus coming out of CIA at the time. Bush Sr., as director under President Ford, initiated the team B experiment which called for an outside panel of analysts, all from (important point) the defense industry mind you, to come across the and pour over the data.

You can guess what their conclusions were.

Suddenly the reds were back in force and to hell with the CIA. Instead of scaling back, which we could have done, we saw a huge military build up which has continued unabated until today.

A lot of people got rich(er) that's for sure.

Anyway, google it. You'll find it an interesting read.

Bottom line is that the people who are running this country are an elite group who really don't care about any of us that live here. And I don't care if we are talking about Clinton, Bush, whoever - that's the way it's been since at-least WWII and that's the way it is now.

[fortycoats]

Personally I'm not one to believe it was an inside job, as in planned and executed by elements of the US Government. It's not that I think they (they being Cheney and friends) are above doing such a thing, but more because it would simply be impossible. A concerted effort by the US Government to mount such an operation would require an enormous amount of human resources and the bottom line is that someone would have talked.

Even if we were to assume absolutely air tight compartmentalization (i.e.. each participant knows only enough to accomplish their given task, but not enough to see the entire picture) one still has to consider the fact that each operational element must have a manager, and each level of management will have more pieces to put together.

Lets say Cheney is running the show, he gives orders to John Bolton, Donald Rumsfeld and Scooter Libby, who all have the entire picture. This constitutes senior management. Each of those pass on orders to their respective managers, still a small group, at State, INS, Justice, DOD, NSC, FCC, FAA, NORAD, (etc. etc. etc. until you have a list of all of the departments that would be necessary to utilize) a small group of say 30 people which constitute middle management for the project. These 30 people do not have the entire picture, but they have enough to know that something is not right. Next you have either another tier of management or you have the actual people who are shutting down their computer screens at the right time, relieving guards from duty at the right time, relaxing immigration restrictions at the right time, calling off an ongoing investigation.... etc. etc. etc. etc.

See where I am going? Something would have leaked. Is it possible it could have happened without leaking, yes, just not probable in my opinion. For me that, along with the consequences of exposure (at any stage) rules out many of the theories I've read about.

All they really had to do was get the explosives in place and run the war games excercises at the right time.
As for the lack of whistleblowers, look at what happened to John O'Neill and Daniel Pearl

[sweetjesus]

maybe someone can chime in with more details.

The Adam Curtis documentary "The Power of Nightmares" is a good start if anyone cares to take the time to watch it.

Available at arcvive.org but probably on youtube as well.

http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares

Also, "The Great War for Civilization", by Robert Fisk is an excellent read if you want to get really pissed off about the recent history of the region.

Personally I'm not one to believe it was an inside job, as in planned and executed by elements of the US Government. It's not that I think they (they being Cheney and friends) are above doing such a thing, but more because it would simply be impossible. A concerted effort by the US Government to mount such an operation would require an enormous amount of human resources and the bottom line is that someone would have talked.

Even if we were to assume absolutely air tight compartmentalization (i.e.. each participant knows only enough to accomplish their given task, but not enough to see the entire picture) one still has to consider the fact that each operational element must have a manager, and each level of management will have more pieces to put together.

Lets say Cheney is running the show, he gives orders to John Bolton, Donald Rumsfeld and Scooter Libby, who all have the entire picture. This constitutes senior management. Each of those pass on orders to their respective managers, still a small group, at State, INS, Justice, DOD, NSC, FCC, FAA, NORAD, (etc. etc. etc. until you have a list of all of the departments that would be necessary to utilize) a small group of say 30 people which constitute middle management for the project. These 30 people do not have the entire picture, but they have enough to know that something is not right. Next you have either another tier of management or you have the actual people who are shutting down their computer screens at the right time, relieving guards from duty at the right time, relaxing immigration restrictions at the right time, calling off an ongoing investigation.... etc. etc. etc. etc.

See where I am going? Something would have leaked. Is it possible it could have happened without leaking, yes, just not probable in my opinion. For me that, along with the consequences of exposure (at any stage) rules out many of the theories I've read about.

What it does not rule out is the simple fact that something was not right, we are not being told the entire story, some things are being covered up, and everything about that is just not right.

So, I agree that something is wrong about what we've been told and not been told about 9/11 - but maybe it isn't what most of us think it is. Maybe all of this "conspiracy" stuff (I use quotes because I am not mocking) is a smoke screen of sorts.

One thing we do know about for sure is Iraq. What is the death toll there now? Over 3,000 now if you just want to count Americans to compare against 9/11. 3/4's of a million or so if we count total deaths?

Now there's the crime we should be focusing on. We know for sure we were lied to. Look up the death toll figures then read this again : Lied to. Lied to about many things. We know for sure it was/is about oil. We know the war is criminal and illegal. We know that hundreds of thousands of people are dead as a result.

Now, I am not saying to sweep 9/11 under the rug, but Iraq is happening everyday, and they really don't plan on leaving any time soon. Now, there are a lot of criminal things that take place on both sides of the aisle, but without a shadow of a doubt, Iraq is the one thing that most of us know for certain and agree that a hell of a lot of people in Washington (starting with Cheney and Bush) should be spending the rest of their lives in prison for.

i see it as a lot more simpler than your theory.

they had intelligence dossiers saying an attack is imminent, they probably even knew the date and chose to ignore it will happen, meanwhile getting NORAD and the whole air defense system to think they are doing drills that day and confusing the real terror incident with a drill is the ingeneous part that would have been able to achieve most of what you said without the need to get so many people thinking theyre actively doing something wrong.

[dango]

so you are saying that maybe if something fishy did happen that day that those responsible should be let off the hook because 6 years has passes by? that is crazy talk.

no im saying that something fishy did happen and that they will get off the hook whatever happens. Who would you name? They'll have some fall guy for it if it comes to it, even if that person is actually guilty the majority of people will get off.

you may be willing to submit and conform to their agenda but i am not. i will keep talking about it and talking about it until the day comes when they pass a law that talking about it will get you locked up. then in jail i will be talking about it. oh wait, bush just passed that law on the 17th. oh well, carry on.

haha what makes you think i want to "submit & conform"? Seems to me that its people who concentrate on this that are submitting and conforming, there is a reason it was made so spectacular...people like you are actually falling hook line and sinker in to submission, you think it was the first thing that whoever was responsible ever did or have done since? while you're busy campaigning this they have forgotten the whole thing and probably done hundred of horrendous things since because everyone's so busy trying to see through the smoke & mirrors that they've forgotten that the people responsible are still at large, still very rich, are learning from their mistakes and carrying on under the shield of 911. Im not saying it should be forgotten, just put it in to perspective and open your eyes a bit wider, there's a lot worse things going on right now

meef, i agree with you and am not arguing. you are right, there are alot worse things going on. a lot are happening though because of that day. Americans who are concerned about it need to stay concerned, and focus on all the other shit to. it is all just different pieces of slimy turd in the same toilet bowl. I mean look, now 6 years later there is a list of pilots and military officials finally publicly coming out about this. risking their careers. i don't know if you read one of the cops testimonies on that site but he was right by saying, that if something fishy is going on, and there was a proper investigation, heads would roll and people would get nailed. not off the hook but nailed to the cross for this one.

[dango]

wtf happened to my post

[smutek]

...they probably even knew the date and chose to ignore it will happen....

Yes, this is something I believe could be likely. This could also be possible with a small group of people.

"We have a lead on such and such"

"You'll have to back off, orders on high, interfering with another operation, yada yada yada"

"Who's orders? Who's operation?"

"Your not cleared for that..."

After the events classify everything and use media spin to discredit nay-sayers and whistle blowers. (which definitely happened)

Believe me, I know something is not right about 9/11 - but my first post was geared more towards the more "grandiose" theories - remote controlled planes, covert landings and passenger removal, cruise missle strike, etc.

[sweetjesus]

After the events classify everything and use media spin to discredit nay-sayers and whistle blowers. (which definitely happened)

no need to do that, they launched the anthrax attacks to divert attention.

[smutek]

..{if} there was a proper investigation, heads would roll and people would get nailed. not off the hook but nailed to the cross for this one.

Nailed to the cross. Wouldn't that be a fitting end for them with their neo=conservative pseudo-christian agendas?

Crucifixion.

Seriously though, even in a case like this I am not one to support capital punishment. I think it would be much more fitting for them to spend the rest of their lives in the Federal Prison system. Not out at the Marion Super Max either, under 24/7 isolation like Noriega, but somewhere like Lewisburg, in general population.

[Nod]

Nice post, well written and excellent point about the "unassailables". As a side note if you want to leanr about the one "contribution" made by Bush Sr. during his one year tenure as director at CIA google "team B experiment" - you might also check "The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists" website for an archival edition of an excellent article they ran on this back in the early 90's. Excellent example of manipulation of intelligence for political gain. In short, at the time CIA analysis on the russian threat was that there was pretty much no threat. Russia was disintegrating from within, economically, politically and militarily. The economy was falling apart, they could not afford to fix their tanks and their missiles, if they even made it out of their silos, could not hit a bulls eye if it were 100 miles across.

Ta for the props - you mean these guys Smutek? Excerpt from Adam Curtis' excellent 'Power Of Nightmares' that you linked earlier and which I was enthralled by upon it's release. Interesting point to note is that, iirc, it's broadcast is prohibited in the US or, rephrasing it, no major US network has broadcast it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-L0beA4Pw8

Rarely has a public official managed to spend a career shovelling such unmigitated shyte down the throats of the public. But, hey, this is the same Dumsfeld who was trampling, and exploiting, the 9/11 dead within 8 hours of the attacks by launching the Neocon dream - planetwide hegemony over the next century morally fronted by a 'war for good' in the ME against Iraq. Of course it also dovetails nicely with 'energy needs', read corrupt plutocracy literally running out of gas:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/ ... 0830.shtml

I exaggerate, but Russia was in a bad state and we were leaps and bounds ahead of them. This was the consensus coming out of CIA at the time. Bush Sr., as director under President Ford, initiated the team B experiment which called for an outside panel of analysts, all from (important point) the defense industry mind you, to come across the and pour over the data. You can guess what their conclusions were.

Their conclusions I would imagine would have included that the Sov's would be unable to keep up the arms race without a) going capitalist or b) invading 'power' sources. The Sov's initially decided to avoid Europe & plump for b) - intentionally drawn in by the CIA in Afghanistan, ironically enough for the same reasons the Coalition is currently there, except no-one's funding the Afghan resistance this time, simplistically characterised in the Western press as stone age Islamofascist loons, but yet they're still winning. Was it all that 'training' we gave them back in the '80's that actually launched the AQ we know today?

Nope, that's just a bitter irony of US terrorist funding, unfortunately no one seems to have taken a close look at the history of Afghanistan - over the past 250 years it's been occupied by practically every superpower going but it has yet to be conquered. The Sov's meanwhile have finally figured out the game and have started exercising their 'new power' with a different set of rules - the latest farcical US missle defence plans being a case in point.

Suddenly the reds were back in force and to hell with the CIA. Instead of scaling back, which we could have done, we saw a huge military build up which has continued unabated until today. A lot of people got rich(er) that's for sure. Anyway, google it. You'll find it an interesting read. Bottom line is that the people who are running this country are an elite group who really don't care about any of us that live here. And I don't care if we are talking about Clinton, Bush, whoever - that's the way it's been since at-least WWII and that's the way it is now.

'Democracy' - a majority preferring an idealised dream rather than the objective reality?

[sweetjesus]

Nice post, well written and excellent point about the "unassailables". As a side note if you want to leanr about the one "contribution" made by Bush Sr. during his one year tenure as director at CIA google "team B experiment" - you might also check "The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists" website for an archival edition of an excellent article they ran on this back in the early 90's. Excellent example of manipulation of intelligence for political gain. In short, at the time CIA analysis on the russian threat was that there was pretty much no threat. Russia was disintegrating from within, economically, politically and militarily. The economy was falling apart, they could not afford to fix their tanks and their missiles, if they even made it out of their silos, could not hit a bulls eye if it were 100 miles across.

Ta for the props - you mean these guys Smutek? Excerpt from Adam Curtis' excellent 'Power Of Nightmares' that you linked earlier and which I was enthralled by upon it's release. Interesting point to note is that, iirc, it's broadcast is prohibited in the US or, rephrasing it, no major US network has broadcast it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-L0beA4Pw8

Rarely has a public official managed to spend a career shovelling such unmigitated shyte down the throats of the public. But, hey, this is the same Dumsfeld who was trampling, and exploiting, the 9/11 dead within 8 hours of the attacks by launching the Neocon dream - planetwide hegemony over the next century morally fronted by a 'war for good' in the ME against Iraq. Of course it also dovetails nicely with 'energy needs', read corrupt plutocracy literally running out of gas:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/ ... 0830.shtml

I exaggerate, but Russia was in a bad state and we were leaps and bounds ahead of them. This was the consensus coming out of CIA at the time. Bush Sr., as director under President Ford, initiated the team B experiment which called for an outside panel of analysts, all from (important point) the defense industry mind you, to come across the and pour over the data. You can guess what their conclusions were.

Their conclusions I would imagine would have included that the Sov's would be unable to keep up the arms race without a) going capitalist or b) invading 'power' sources. The Sov's initially decided to avoid Europe & plump for b) - intentionally drawn in by the CIA in Afghanistan, ironically enough for the same reasons the Coalition is currently there, except no-one's funding the Afghan resistance this time, simplistically characterised in the Western press as stone age Islamofascist loons, but yet they're still winning. Was it all that 'training' we gave them back in the '80's that actually launched the AQ we know today?

Nope, that's just a bitter irony of US terrorist funding, unfortunately no one seems to have taken a close look at the history of Afghanistan - over the past 250 years it's been occupied by practically every superpower going but it has yet to be conquered. The Sov's meanwhile have finally figured out the game and have started exercising their 'new power' with a different set of rules - the latest farcical US missle defence plans being a case in point.

Suddenly the reds were back in force and to hell with the CIA. Instead of scaling back, which we could have done, we saw a huge military build up which has continued unabated until today. A lot of people got rich(er) that's for sure. Anyway, google it. You'll find it an interesting read. Bottom line is that the people who are running this country are an elite group who really don't care about any of us that live here. And I don't care if we are talking about Clinton, Bush, whoever - that's the way it's been since at-least WWII and that's the way it is now.

'Democracy' - a majority preferring an idealised dream rather than the objective reality?

nod interesting stuff and the 250 years of intervention isnt for afghanistan alone. iran has beencopping it too.

actually Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan all have one thing in common. .. over the last 60 years, they have all had their soverieng governments interfered by the USA and some cases the UK.

[hambone1]

It obviously wouldn't apply to all conspiracists. But generalizations are just that... generalizations.

A positive correlation wouldn't necessarily imply causation, either. It could be that the same type of people who choose to use recreational drugs are the same type of people who question authority.

true, and there's the feeling that every thought is so f-ing grandiose while you're sitting there glued to the couch watching animal planet. I've known a few stoners that had great ideas for businesses and patents and gigs but never got of their asses and did any of it.


cue the scene from 'Dazed And Confused'

Slater: George Washington was in a cult, and the cult was into aliens, man... Didja ever look at a dollar bill, man? There's some spooky shit goin' on there. And it's green too.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/skynews/200707 ... dbed5.html

[Tone Deft]

It obviously wouldn't apply to all conspiracists. But generalizations are just that... generalizations.

A positive correlation wouldn't necessarily imply causation, either. It could be that the same type of people who choose to use recreational drugs are the same type of people who question authority.

true, and there's the feeling that every thought is so f-ing grandiose while you're sitting there glued to the couch watching animal planet. I've known a few stoners that had great ideas for businesses and patents and gigs but never got of their asses and did any of it.


cue the scene from 'Dazed And Confused'

Slater: George Washington was in a cult, and the cult was into aliens, man... Didja ever look at a dollar bill, man? There's some spooky shit goin' on there. And it's green too.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/skynews/200707 ... dbed5.html

this one's even better, it links pot to murder. I found this yesterday through a google news link, on their front page.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/a ... ge_id=1770

I guess it's nice to see the news maybe getting back to normal "Hey Earl!! it's been a slow news week, run those old pot stories."

Three heavy drug users and their horrific killings:
William Jaggs

Prolific cannabis user and killer: William Jaggs
William Jaggs, a 23-year-old Oxford University student and prolific cannabis user, stabbed fashion designer Lucy Braham 66 times at her home near Harrow, the public school in North-West London.

The paranoid schizophrenic was found covered in blood beside Lucy's body, having plunged the knife into his own chest last September.

The former Harrow pupil, whose father is a teacher at the school, started using drugs when he was 14, moving on from cannabis to cocaine.

He was sent to Broadmoor secure hospital this month for an unlimited period after admitting manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility.

Richard Cazaly

Drug-crazed killer: Richard Cazaly

Drug-crazed drifter Richard Cazaly is believed to have stabbed pregnant Abigail Witchalls in Surrey, in April 2005.

Cazaly, 23, who killed himself five days after the stabbing, had a history of heavy drug use dating back at least four years.

His girlfriend, Vanessa MacKenzie, told police both she and Cazaly were regular cannabis users, smoking 'a couple of joints a day'.

Surrey police said Cazaly became psychotic and violent as a result of long-term abuse of drugs and the alcohol he had consumed on the day of the random stabbing.

Miraculously, Mrs Witchalls and her unborn baby survived the attack. Her young son - who she was pushing in a pram when she was set upon by Cazaly - was unhurt.

Thomas Palmer

Mind warped by smoking skunk: Thomas Palmer

Son of a nurse at Broadmoor Thomas Palmer butchered two of his friends during a woodland walk after his mind was warped by smoking skunk - a particularly potent form of cannabis.

Then aged 18, he virtually beheaded 16-year-old Steven Bayliss and repeatedly stabbed Nuttawut Nadauld, 14, near their homes in Wokingham, Berkshire in September 2005.

Palmer had started using the drug at 14. He told doctors he had not been smoking on the day of the killings but admitted to using skunk regularly in the weeks before the brutal attack.

In March this year, he was given a minimum 20 years in prison for the double murder.

[dys4ik]

a little robert anton wilson for you:

My own opinion is that belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence. The more certitude one assumes, the less there is left to think about, and a person sure of everything would never have any need to think about anything and might be considered clinically dead under current medical standards, where absence of brain activity is taken to mean that life has ended.

My attitude is identical to that of Dr. Gribbin and the majority of physicists today, and is known in physics as "the Copenhagen Interpretation," because it was formulated in Copenhagen by Dr. Niels Bohr and his co-workers c. 1926-28. The Copenhagen Interpretation is sometimes called "model agnosticism" and holds that any grid we use to organize our experience of the world is a model of the world and should not be confused with the world itself. Alfred Korzybski, the semanticist, tried to popularize this outside physics with the slogan, "The map is not the territory." Alan Watts, a talented exegete of Oriental philosophy, restated it more vividly as "The menu is not the meal."

Belief in the traditional sense, or certitude, or dogma, amounts to the grandiose delusion, "My current model" -- or grid, or map, or reality-tunnel -- "contains the whole universe and will never need to be revised." In terms of the history of science and knowledge in general, this appears absurd and arrogant to me, and I am perpetually astonished that so many people still manage to live with such a medieval attitude.

that's for folks on both sides....

.lm.

I like it.

All I can add is something from Aristotle.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."